We begin our study of Megillat Esther according to the magnificent commentary of the Malbim. Many commentaries, elucidations, and expositions have been written on Megillat Esther, and all are beautiful, lucid, and pleasant - yet there is one truly unique commentary, and that is the commentary of the Malbim. Anyone who has followed along with us in studying the Malbim's commentary needs no introduction: the Malbim explains every letter, crown, and nuance, casting everything in a new light. Suddenly, one sees how clear and luminous the text becomes, how interconnected every element is, and how each word finds its exact place and significance. This is among the most wondrous and extraordinary works the Malbim produced on Tanach.
It is worth prefacing: there are many other commentaries and interpretations, but our study will focus exclusively on the commentary of the Malbim. The reason is simple: according to the Malbim's methodology, the narrative attains its true completeness only when viewed in its entirety. The Malbim does not merely offer localized interpretations - what a specific word means here or what an expression signifies there - but builds a cohesive, comprehensive structure. It is therefore crucial to view the entire picture through his commentary, without blending in other interpretations, so as not to disrupt the internal progression of his thought.
Our approach will be to read one, two, or three pesukim, examine the questions and difficulties within them, and then see how the Malbim's commentary resolves the problems, making the crooked straight. May we find success in our study.
וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד־כּוּשׁ שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה מְדִינָה׃ - "And it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh - he is the Achashverosh who reigned from Hodu to Cush, one hundred and twenty-seven provinces."
בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם כְּשֶׁבֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ עַל כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ אֲשֶׁר בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה׃ - "In those days, when King Achashverosh sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the capital."
All of us have read these verses dozens, perhaps hundreds of times in our lives, yet rarely do we notice a simple observation in the plain meaning of the text. The Malbim asks: when Scripture says, "And it came to pass in the days of...", as in "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged," the intention is to anchor something unfamiliar to something familiar. Are you familiar with the era of the Judges? In that era, there was a man named Elimelech. One can say: in the days of so-and-so's rule, such-and-such an event took place. But it makes no sense to say, "In the days of Elimelech, there was a man named Elimelech." Scripture always anchors the obscure to the known. If so, how can it say, "And it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh - he is the Achashverosh"? "In the days when the judges judged, there was a famine" - that makes sense. But "In the days of Achashverosh, there was Achashverosh" - that makes no sense at all.
A second question: "He is Achashverosh." What does "he is" mean? He and not who? Whenever Scripture says "he is," it comes to exclude someone else. Were there, then, multiple kings named Achashverosh?
A third question: "And it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh" - without any title. Throughout the entire Megillah he is referred to as "King Achashverosh," "and the king said," the king, the king, the king, to the extent that it is customary to begin every column of the Megillah scroll with the word "The King." Yet here, suddenly, it simply says "Achashverosh." Where is the crown? Where is the title? Where is the honor? It reads as if referring to an ordinary man from the marketplace.
A fourth question: "Who reigned [literally: who reigns / hamolech] from Hodu to Cush." If the verse comes to relate what took place back then, it should have written, "who reigned [asher malach] from Hodu to Cush." Why use the present participle "hamolech," as though describing the beginning of his reign?
A fifth question: "In those days." The text already stated, "And it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh" - those are the very days being discussed, so why the repetition? Furthermore, "when King Achashverosh sat" - it would have been enough to write, "when he sat on the throne of his kingdom," since we are still speaking of the very same Achashverosh. And above all: what new insight does the detail that Achashverosh sat upon his royal throne in Shushan the capital actually provide? Has anyone ever seen a king who stands? Every king sits, and what does he sit upon? The royal throne. So the king sat on his royal throne - why is this significant? The text should simply have said, "And it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh, in the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his officials." This is a question raised by all the commentators, each answering according to his approach, and we will examine how the Malbim addresses it.
The Malbim opens with an introductory premise that sheds light on all of Achashverosh's moves in the coming verses. Know, the Malbim explains, that the coronation of a king in ancient times - among the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Persians, and Medes - occurred in one of two ways. One way was that the people chose the individual they wanted to reign over them. The second way was that the king consulted no one; he came and conquered the land, set himself at their head, and began to rule over them against their will, as is said of Nimrod, who arose, rebelled, and ruled.
From this, two types of monarchy emerged. One type is a limited monarchy: the king's authority has boundaries. When the people elect him, they stipulate conditions - what he is entitled to demand of them, what he has no legitimacy to demand, what belongs to him, and what does not. "We are appointing you, and we have conditions regarding how you will rule." Typically, this king also takes an oath upon his coronation to uphold all the laws, statutes, and everything inherent to the kingdom's governance, for he is not independent - he received the kingship from someone else; there is an authority above him. By contrast, when the monarchy is absolute, meaning that the king set out to seize power on his own, he does as he pleases and whatever seems right in his eyes. He need not consult anyone. If he wishes, he will confer with counselors to act wisely, and if he does not wish to, he asks no one. Furthermore, not only is he not subject to the law, but he is the legislator himself: tomorrow he enacts a law, and that is that. There is no parliament, no congress, no ministers. "Whatever I decree is final." For this is an absolute rule; he governs by raw force, and everything lies at his feet.
Let us define them briefly: A limited monarchy is one where the people crowned the king and placed restrictions and boundaries upon him. An absolute monarchy is one where a king seized power by force and does whatever enters his mind. Between these two types, the Malbim enumerates five fundamental differences.
Following these five distinctions, the Malbim explains the historical situation. Chazal teach that Achashverosh was originally a commoner and only later became king. How so? Achashverosh possessed vast wealth, and through the power of his riches, he came to rule over Media and Persia and conquered all 127 provinces by force. But where did it all begin? From his great wealth. He was an ordinary man; his father was not a king, nor did he inherit a kingdom from anyone. And to whom did all those 127 provinces originally belong? To Babylon. Until then, the seat of the monarchy stood in Babylon, which was the royal capital, as Daniel states: "בְּהֵיכַל מַלְכוּתִי דִּי בְבָבֶל" - "in my royal palace that is in Babylon," as Nevuchadnezzar wrote. In Shushan, however, there had never been a royal throne at all, as it says in Daniel: "הָיִיתִי בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵילָם הַמְּדִינָה" - "I was in Shushan the capital, which is in the province of Elam" - a province, not an imperial seat. Shushan was merely a city in Elam.
When Achashverosh conquered all the kingdoms, the question arose as to how his reign would be established, for he was a commoner. What did he do? He took Vashti as his wife, who was of the lineage of Nevuchadnezzar, an heir to the throne - and through her, as it were, he too had a share in the monarchy. Behold my wife, the granddaughter of Nevuchadnezzar; thus, I am a legitimate successor. His kingship was then firmly established, but it stood on two distinct foundations: on the one hand, I conquered all 127 provinces by force, and on the other hand, I am also akin to an heir, for my wife is the descendant of Nevuchadnezzar. The difference between these two is immense: from the first perspective, I rule an unlimited monarchy, but from the perspective of inheritance, I am like the king of a limited monarchy who received his crown from others - and then all five differences we learned apply.
Achashverosh was interested in presenting himself as a king who conquered by force, not as one whose kingship came to him through his wife, the daughter of Nevuchadnezzar. Initially, he needed this to establish his rule, but he had no desire to remain in that status, for if I remain in this position, I am a limited monarch. Achashverosh wanted to establish his reign as an absolute monarchy, as an unlimited conqueror through force who could do whatever he pleased.
The Malbim explains: The primary opening move of his scheme was placing his throne in Shushan. Could a limited king simply set up his throne in Shushan? The seat of the kingdom was in Bavel, so how could you relocate it? Sir, you are subordinate to us! To this he replied: No, gentlemen, I answer to none of you; I conquered, I rule an unlimited monarchy, and the throne will be in Shushan because that is what I determined. Chazal expound additional reasons why the throne could not be moved, as he wanted a throne like the throne of Shlomo, but according to the Malbim's straightforward reading: he wanted to demonstrate that he was the master, and if he decided it would be in Shushan, in Shushan it would be. Not only that: he made a feast, and he commanded that Vashti be brought before him. How all of these actions reinforced his standing as an unlimited monarch, the Malbim will explain to us further on.
Now let us see how the Megillah recounts this. "And it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh, he is Achashverosh who reigns" - the verse informs you that Achashverosh was not of royal descent, nor did he rise to power gradually; rather, all at once he became ruler over 127 provinces. Sometimes a king begins to rule gradually, and only once he succeeds in conquering everything is he spoken of as king. Here, however, Achashverosh was a commoner, and from a commoner he suddenly became king over 127 provinces. Did the people truly consider him a king? No, they still remembered him as a commoner. Had twenty years passed, we would have grown accustomed to his being king. But if he went from commoner to king in two weeks, we have not yet processed that he is a king at all, and in our minds he is still an ordinary man. And "commoner" (hedyot) does not mean a fool - a hedyot is a simple citizen. To the public, he was still an ordinary person, still known merely as one of the kingdom's wealthy men.
This is what the verse means: "And it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh" - in those very days when Achashverosh was still an ordinary commoner, an obscure figure and no king, in those selfsame days "he is Achashverosh who reigns from Hodu to Kush." That very commoner Achashverosh is the one who became ruler over 127 provinces. Therefore, it does not say "he is King Achashverosh," for people had not yet grasped that this man was king; suddenly, they saw this commoner ruling over 127 provinces. For this reason, too, it does not say "who ruled" (asher malach), but rather "who reigns" (hamolech): "who ruled" describes past history, whereas the verse does not come to relate past history, but what is unfolding in the present - that this man, while still Achashverosh the commoner, is right now ruling from Hodu to Kush.
"In those days, when King Achashverosh sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the capital" - here the verse tells us how, right at the start of his reign, he possessed the audacity to enact sweeping changes, solely so that his plan would be realized. And what was his plan? That I rule here with unlimited dominion. Therefore, the first thing he decides is to make Shushan the capital. In doing so, he first demonstrated his strength: I have decided; I answer to no one, neither to conventions nor to laws; I am an unyielding monarch of an unlimited empire.
Second, he displayed to them his grandeur and pride. For when a commoner rises to greatness, wherein lies his honor? In sitting upon the royal throne and dwelling in the royal palace. For in myself I am a nobody who rose to power, and I need all the external trappings to signify that I am a king: look, the throne upon which the former king sat, I too sit upon it. But one who considers himself great in his own right says: Take the king's throne and set it aside; it does not interest me at all. I will build myself another city, Shushan the capital, and there I will build myself a throne. When I need the backing and endorsement of previous kings, I go and sit on their throne, for that is what reflects royalty in the eyes of the people: look, I too am a king. But if I disregard the people and the previous kings, and view myself as so great that I need no endorsement from the previous king's throne, I build myself another throne elsewhere without the slightest hesitation. This is the way of pride and tyranny, to show that I need no one and that I rule an unlimited monarchy. He had the brazen audacity to elevate himself so high, to establish a new royal throne for himself, and even to change the capital city - as if to say: it was not you who appointed me, not by your power did I become king, nor do I reign by the power of the former king, but by my own power; with my own arm I subdued you, with my own strength I conquered you, and I rule an unlimited monarchy.
This also resolves the question of what is meant by "in those days." The verse comes to tell you that he did not do this after a long period of reign, but while he was still regarded as a commoner, he immediately went and demonstrated to all: Gentlemen, I am the king here; know that there is a master over this house. This also explains the repetition of his name: we asked why Scripture repeats his name, to which the answer is that immediately, in those very days, he conducted himself and acted as though he were already "King Achashverosh" - not Achashverosh the commoner, but a man who had already been in power for many years and could afford to disregard everyone. In reality, how much time had passed? A year, two years; you just arrived! Yet he acted as though he had ruled from time immemorial, as though the royal throne belonged to him by right, and as though he had no need of the kings who preceded him, being a king entirely in his own right.
בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלוֹשׁ לְמׇלְכוֹ עָשָׂה מִשְׁתֶּה לְכׇל שָׂרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו, חֵיל פָּרַס וּמָדַי הַפַּרְתְּמִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת לְפָנָיו׃ - In the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his princes and his servants; the army of Persia and Media, the nobles and the princes of the provinces were before him.
בְּהַרְאֹתוֹ אֶת עֹשֶׁר כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ וְאֶת יְקָר תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ, יָמִים רַבִּים שְׁמוֹנִים וּמְאַת יוֹם׃ - When he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the precious splendor of his greatness, many days, one hundred and eighty days.
וּבִמְלוֹאת הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ לְכׇל הָעָם הַנִּמְצְאִים בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה לְמִגָּדוֹל וְעַד קָטָן מִשְׁתֶּה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, בַּחֲצַר גִּנַּת בִּיתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - "And when these days were fulfilled, the king made for all the people present in Shushan the capital, both great and small, a seven-day banquet in the court of the garden of the king's pavilion."
Let us begin with the questions. First, "he made a banquet" - for what purpose? What need or goal did this banquet serve? We do not read here of any military victory, nor of any national holiday. What occurred on that day that prompted Ahasuerus to rise up and make a banquet?
Second, why elaborate and detail all the particulars of the feast? First, who the guests were, then how many days it lasted, and then "hangings of white cotton and blue wool, caught up with cords of fine linen and purple upon silver rods," "and giving drink in vessels of gold," "and the drinking was according to law, none did compel." Why does any of this concern us? After all, this is not the story of the Megillah! The story of the Megillah is that the king executed Vashti and brought Esther in her stead, that there was an evil decree and we were saved. What have we to do with all the revelrous banquets of Ahasuerus at the beginning of his reign?
Third, take note of the hierarchy: "for all his officials and servants, the army of Persia and Media, the nobles and the governors of the provinces before him." The governors of the provinces appear at the end, while the servants appear at the beginning! How can this be? It should have said: he made a feast for all his officials and for the governors of the provinces, for the army of Persia and Media, the nobles, and his servants - that would be the proper order. Yet here the governors of the provinces are at the end.
Fourth, the word "before him" (lefanav) seems superfluous: "he made a banquet for all his officials and servants, the army of Persia and Media, the nobles, and the governors of the provinces" - and what is the meaning of "before him"?
Fifth, it is written here, "in the third year of his reign" (le-malkho), whereas concerning Esther it is said, "Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus... in the seventh year of his reign" (le-malkhuto). Are le-malkho and le-malkhuto synonymous? The Malbim addresses this as well.
Sixth, why did he need to display his wealth before all the nations - "when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom"? And what is the redundancy of "and the honor of his majestic greatness"? And finally: "many days, a hundred and eighty days" - once it says a hundred and eighty days, let me judge for myself whether they are many! It would have been sufficient to write "a hundred and eighty days," and we would already know that they are many.