We continue following the order of the pesukim in the first chapter. After the first feast that Achashverosh made for his officers and servants, the Megillah tells us of another feast. Here several questions arise that the Malbim addresses, through which Achashverosh's entire political strategy is revealed.
וּבִמְלוֹאת הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ לְכָל הָעָם הַנִּמְצְאִים בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה לְמִגָּדוֹל וְעַד קָטָן מִשְׁתֶּה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בַּחֲצַר גִּנַּת בִּיתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - "And when these days were completed, the king made for all the people present in Shushan the capital, both great and small, a seven-day feast in the courtyard garden of the king's palace."
Let us begin with the questions. First, why was another feast necessary? Had they not drunk enough at the first feast? Second, "for all the people present [hanimtza'im] in Shushan the capital" - it would have been enough to say "for all the people who were in Shushan the capital"; what does the word "present" add? Third, something most of us do not even notice: the usual biblical expression is "from small to great" [mikaton ve'ad gadol], yet here the order is reversed - "both great and small" [lemigadol ve'ad katan]. Is this mere coincidence? And fourth, why is it important for us to know that the feast took place "in the courtyard garden of the king's palace"? On the surface, this seems like a completely marginal detail.
בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלוֹשׁ לְמָלְכוֹ עָשָׂה מִשְׁתֶּה לְכָל שָׂרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו חֵיל פָּרַס וּמָדַי הַפַּרְתְּמִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת לְפָנָיו׃ - "In the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his officials and servants; the army of Persia and Media, the nobles, and the ministers of the provinces were before him."
The Malbim explains: Achashverosh is acting systematically here to bring his designs from potential into actuality. His message is: Gentlemen, I am not a constitutional monarch with limited power; my monarchy is absolute, you are all subjects to me like slaves, I am the boss here, and I answer to no one. Therefore, the verse does not say "in the third year of his kingdom" [lemalchuto], but rather "of his reign" [lemolcho] - indicating that kingship emanates from himself, from his own force, from the stage when he assumed rule by power. In the third year of that stage he made a feast, so that through it he could translate his plans into reality.
And already in the seating order of the invited guests he hints at his intentions. First, "his officials and servants, the army of Persia and Media" - those whom he personally appointed, people who were nobodies whom he elevated, and the army of Persia and Media from where his rule began. Only after them come "the nobles and the ministers of the provinces before him" - those who had been nobles and provincial governors even before he seized the throne. Had he seated the latter group at the head, he would have signaled that he was subordinate to them, that he ruled by their mandate. Therefore, he puts his own officials and servants first, placing the provincial ministers even behind his servants: in the past you were rulers, but today you decide nothing, and in standing you rank below even my servants.
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 for many days, one hundred and eighty days."
A king who rules over a limited monarchy does not own the royal treasures and storehouses. They belong to the state, to the realm, and he cannot simply decide to take out all the money; consequently, he has no basis for boasting about them, since they do not belong to him. But Achashverosh wanted to assert absolute dominion, and so he brought out all the treasures of the realm to show everyone: there is a master here. I rule by force, and one who rules by force possesses unlimited power, and the treasures are his as well. "The riches of his glorious kingdom" - as if the wealth belonged not to the state, but to him alone.
And if you might suggest that every king possesses wealth in his own right, the text adds "and the precious splendor of his greatness" - this was not ordinary wealth, but wealth commensurate with the vastness of his realm. A mighty king who governs such an immense empire, spanning one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, possesses treasures proportionate to his stature. Do not tell me that every king is wealthy; I am showing you wealth befitting one who rules with boundless authority.
Furthermore, it was not one day or two days, but "many days" - up to one hundred and eighty days, and each and every day he showed them new treasures. Where did all these treasures come from? These were treasures stored away by the kings before him. And when I show them to you day after day for one hundred and eighty days, you will understand that I am the master here, and that these treasures now belong to me.
Achashverosh also acted cunningly: at the end of the days of feasting for the ministers, he made a general feast for all the people living in Shushan. Why? To show that in his eyes, small and great are equal. For a king who rules by the will of the people has ministers; they appoint him, they are the council, he must consult them, and he is subordinate to them and to his advisors. But an absolute monarch who consults no one and conquers by force - what difference is there to him between a minister and a commoner? You are all nothing before me; whatever I decide is what will be, and tomorrow I could decide to execute all the ministers. A minister has no superiority and no say over a commoner; if I want advice, I will ask whomever I wish.
From here we find a wonderful nuance in the wording: Scripture usually writes "from small to great," meaning that the small is elevated to the level of the great. Here, however, the order is reversed - "from great to small": to me, the great is just like the small. Do not think that because you are a minister you dictate anything to me; I am the king here, my rule is absolute, and to me the masses and the ministers are one and the same - both are as nothing. This is why the verse emphasizes "in the court of the garden of the king's pavilion": specifically to this distinguished place he invites all the people present, both the common folk and the simple citizens, to show that social rank does not matter to him.
Moreover, through this he demonstrates something else: the residents of Shushan, where his royal throne sits, deserve the honor of ministers. If I were subservient to previous kings, Babylon would be the primary imperial city, and who are the people of Shushan? But if I am the one who decides, then the people of Shushan are of elevated status, for it is here that I placed my palace. You, the people of Shushan, enter into the court of the garden of the king's pavilion, for your distinction stems from my power; whereas the ministers of the other provinces are as nothing in my eyes.
חוּר כַּרְפַּס וּתְכֵלֶת אָחוּז בְּחַבְלֵי בוּץ וְאַרְגָּמָן עַל גְּלִילֵי כֶסֶף וְעַמּוּדֵי שֵׁשׁ מִטּוֹת זָהָב וָכֶסֶף עַל רִצְפַת בַּהַט וָשֵׁשׁ וְדַר וְסֹחָרֶת׃ - Hangings of white, fine cotton, and blue, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rods and marble pillars; couches of gold and silver on a pavement of alabaster, marble, mother-of-pearl, and precious stones.
Now Scripture describes the wealth, splendor, and grandeur of the feast. Since the banquet was held in the court of the garden of the king's pavilion, which was an open space - in winter one cannot sit there due to rain, in summer the sun beats down, and it is also unpleasant to sit exposed to all - Achashverosh enclosed the courtyard on all sides with hangings, like a giant tent, so the area would be enclosed and more private, much like putting up a large marquee today for special events.
And that pavilion was exceptionally luxurious: not like modern tarpaulins, but "white, fine cotton, and blue" - the most precious fabrics. The cords that secured the tapestries were also of "fine linen and purple," and the pillars to which they were tied were marble columns resting on silver rods. The couches upon which they reclined were made of gold and silver, and the pavement was of alabaster and marble, the most precious stones. This is the description of the setting.
וְהַשְׁקוֹת בִּכְלֵי זָהָב וְכֵלִים מִכֵּלִים שׁוֹנִים וְיֵין מַלְכוּת רָב כְּיַד הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - Drinks were served in golden vessels, and the vessels were diverse from one another, and royal wine was in abundance, according to the king's bounty.
The vessels they drank from were golden vessels. What king allows the entire populace of Shushan to drink from vessels of gold? A cup could inadvertently slip into a pocket, and a person could walk away with a fortune! But Achashverosh did not calculate the cost, so long as everyone knew: I am the king here.
"And vessels diverse from vessels" - the Abarbanel explains, cited by the Malbim, that within each vessel other vessels were set: a golden pitcher with all the golden goblets hanging around it. That is to say, everyone had all the drinking vessels right before them; one did not need to wait for a cup to be brought, nor for a pitcher to pour from, nor to take from his fellow. All of this demonstrates the sheer abundance of vessels.
And should you say that the vessels were sufficient only because there was not enough wine - for when wine is lacking, it seems there are too many cups, whereas when wine flows abundantly, one suddenly discovers there are not enough cups - to this the verse states, "and royal wine in abundance." First, it was not simple, common wine, but royal wine. And second, in terms of quantity: "according to the bounty of the king." A wealthy man hosting a celebration provides generously, and a king all the more so. An ordinary person scrimps: do not open this table yet, let us wait and see if more guests arrive, and at a table for six he seats nine - and rightly so, for he must economize. But a king provides lavishly, and an abundance "according to the bounty of the king" is boundlessly plentiful. Furthermore, wine might sometimes be plentiful but mediocre in taste; therefore it says "royal wine" - the finest vintage, which due to its exquisite taste and sweetness was consumed in vast quantities, and yet there was neither a shortage of wine nor a shortage of vessels.
וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה כַדָּת אֵין אֹנֵס כִּי כֵן יִסַּד הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל כָּל רַב בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת כִּרְצוֹן אִישׁ וָאִישׁ׃ - And the drinking was according to law, without compulsion; for so the king had ordained upon every officer of his house, that they should do according to every man's pleasure.
The Malbim explains: when vessels are scarce, people are hurried - "Sir, please finish drinking, others are waiting for the cup." But here there was such an immense supply of cups that there was no need to pressure anyone to rush their drinking so that another could use their cup. This is the meaning of "and the drinking was according to law, without compulsion."
There is another dimension: the Persian custom was to honor the most prominent individual in drinking. The Gemara notes, "These Persians are more knowledgeable than us in the order of reclining" - the entire protocol of reclining at the banquet, and the honors accorded from the first to the last, was a comprehensive ceremony, and the Persians were far more expert in it than we were. Everywhere, the customary protocol dictated that the greatest drank first, and only after him did the others follow. But here, there was "no compulsion": everyone drank as they pleased, whenever they wished, without deferring to the honor of the most distinguished, and they were served as many cups as they desired.
And lest this be considered an insult - after all, you are sitting alongside a dignitary and pouring yourself a third cup while he is still in the middle of his first, or pouring for yourself before he is served - the verse informs us, "for so the king had ordained upon every officer of his house." Even the dignitaries of his household were commanded to act this way, to forgo their honor, and to say to each guest: "Please, drink first." Consequently, taking precedence was no longer an affront, for the king himself had commanded every officer of his house "that they should do according to every man's pleasure."
גַּם וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה עָשְׂתָה מִשְׁתֵּה נָשִׁים בֵּית הַמַּלְכוּת אֲשֶׁר לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ׃ - Also Vashti the queen made a banquet for the women in the royal house which belonged to King Ahasuerus.
בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי כְּטוֹב לֵב הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּיִן אָמַר לִמְהוּמָן בִּזְּתָא חַרְבוֹנָא בִּגְתָא וַאֲבַגְתָא זֵתַר וְכַרְכַּס שִׁבְעַת הַסָּרִיסִים הַמְשָׁרְתִים אֶת פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ׃ - On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Bizzetha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus,
לְהָבִיא אֶת וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בְּכֶתֶר מַלְכוּת לְהַרְאוֹת הָעַמִּים וְהַשָּׂרִים אֶת יָפְיָהּ כִּי טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה הִיא׃ - To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, to show the peoples and the princes her beauty; for she was fair to look on.
וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי לָבוֹא בִּדְבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר בְּיַד הַסָּרִיסִים וַיִּקְצֹף הַמֶּלֶךְ מְאֹד וַחֲמָתוֹ בָּעֲרָה בוֹ׃ - But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by the chamberlains; therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned within him.
Let us first present the questions of the Malbim. Why did Vashti hold a separate banquet for women rather than a joint feast with the king? And why inform us about her independent banquet at all, which seemingly has no bearing on the story? It would have been enough to relate that the king asked to bring her in the royal crown and she did not come. Furthermore, why is it significant where the banquet took place - "the royal palace"? And why add "which belonged to King Achashverosh" - is there another royal palace?
Another variation noted by the Malbim - and noted by other commentators, with the Vilna Gaon having previously offered a similar insight: At first it says, "Also Vashti the queen" - Vashti, and then the queen; and similarly in verse 11, "to bring Vashti the queen." Yet in verse 12, the order is reversed: "And the queen Vashti refused." And later, when the king seeks to administer judgment, he too says, "What shall be done according to law to the queen Vashti" - mirroring her phrasing. What accounts for this shift?
A further major question, in the words of the Malbim: Where could there be greater folly than this, that such a mighty ruler would command that his own cherished wife be brought out to be displayed before a multitude of nations and peoples because she was fair to look upon - and according to the tradition of Chazal, he even commanded to bring her naked! This is astonishing. Even if you say he drank a great deal of wine and became intoxicated, a confused person still remains within the bounds of sanity. But to order his wife brought out in such a disgraceful and humiliating manner defies all sense and reason, and it cannot be understood at face value.
It is also puzzling: notice the phrase "by the chamberlains." The Malbim explains that he sends his own servants - go and bring her. That is how one hauls away a vile criminal; that is how one drags a prisoner to detention. It is not how one brings a queen. A queen is escorted with dignity, accompanied by her own maidens and chamberlains, not by a strike force of the king's eunuchs.
And why are the names of the chamberlains enumerated at all? What interest do we have in their names - next they will give their ID numbers and shoe sizes! Faced with this difficulty, Chazal offered homiletical interpretations explaining each name midrashically; but the Malbim, in his typical manner, seeks to understand the plain meaning of the text.
Furthermore: "to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown" - it should have said, "to bring Vashti the queen with the royal crown before the king," for she would surely arrive wearing her crown from her own banquet of women. The phrasing of the verse implies that she was to put on the royal crown only once she appeared before the king. What is the idea behind this?
Additionally: "And the queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command by the chamberlains" - this implies that this was the very reason for her refusal; otherwise, it would have sufficed to say that she refused to obey him. And finally, what is the distinction between "and the king was very wroth" and "and his anger burned within him"?
The answer lies in what we have already explained: Achashverosh had a strategic plan - to prove to everyone that he was an absolute monarch wielding unlimited power. To this end, he staged the banquet and displayed all the wealth as entirely his own, like someone exercising sole dominion over his private property. And part of that very plan was the humiliation of Vashti.
For at the start of his reign, he needed Vashti. In his mind: I am a commoner; wealthy, to be sure, but still a commoner, ruling merely by brute force. How can I establish royal stature? By marrying the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar. The marriage confers legitimacy - it links me to the royal lineage.
We find a similar dynamic with Herod, who specifically sought to marry Miriam, a descendant of the Hasmoneans. Did he lack wives? He was a king! Rather, his calculation was: If I am married to a daughter of the Hasmonean kings, my reign has legitimacy; if not, they will constantly remind me, "You are a slave - what business do you have with royalty?" And she went up to the roof, jumped, and ended her life, declaring: Know that whoever claims, "I come from the house of the Hasmoneans," is a slave - Herod is a slave!
Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, orchestrated events for David to establish his kingdom, ensuring that Shaul would give him his daughter in marriage: I am not an unknown figure; I am married to the daughter of King Shaul. This was also the argument of Achimelech son of Achituv from Nov, the city of Kohanim, when he was questioned why he betrayed the king and aided David, the king's enemy - he answered: Is he not the king's son-in-law, an integral part of the royal house? Achashverosh, too, initially wanted to show: I am the king's son-in-law; I am married to Vashti.
Yet through this action, explains the Malbim, he was effectively shooting himself in the foot. For if I am merely continuing the royal line and accepted as a conventional king rather than an absolute ruler who seized power by force - my kingship is limited; I am subordinate to the people and the ministers, the wealth is not truly mine, and I cannot alter the laws. This ran completely counter to Achashverosh's plans and expectations. Suddenly, he realized that the extra stepping stone he had used to establish his rule at the outset had now become a stumbling block: the very fact that I am married to Vashti signifies that my kingship is limited and derives from the authority of another dynasty. What does one do? One removes the stumbling block, clearing the way for a powerful rule by force - an unlimited, absolute monarchy.
Therefore, this was the message he sought to convey: Vashti is not a royal scion whose hand I took in marriage and from whose prestige my power derives; I conquered this kingdom, and by conquering it, I captured her as well, as a captive of war. Do not think that she possesses any intrinsic stature or that my rule relies on her pedigree. Do I need her lineage? Do I need Nebuchadnezzar? I am a monarch ruling with immense power because I took power by force, and all of you are my subjects. And why did I marry her? Simply because she is beautiful, and few women are as fair as she. That is why he refers to her as "Vashti the Queen" (וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה): she is Vashti in her own right, and only by virtue of marrying me did she become a queen.
Vashti, however, refused to accept this characterization: "And Queen Vashti refused" (וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי) - you are mistaken; I am the queen because my father was king, not on account of you. "Lowest of men, stable boy" - so she sent back to him; you drank a little, the wine went to your head, but I am a king's daughter. He projected: she is nothing, she is merely Vashti, and only through marriage to me did she become queen. But she replied: Not at all! First and foremost I am queen, only then am I Vashti, and only after that am I your wife.
See how marvelous this is: the Vilna Gaon explains that this entire dynamic is hinted at in the cantillation notes (te'amim). The first time, "Queen Vashti also made a feast for the women" (גַּם וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה עָשְׂתָה מִשְׁתֵּה נָשִׁים) - the words are cantillated with a zakef katon, reflecting Achashverosh's claim: I raised you up (zekafticha) when you were small (ketanah); who are you anyway? You are Vashti first, and queen only second.
Later, "to bring Vashti the Queen" (לְהָבִיא אֶת וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה) - the notes are darga tevir: this entire move was designed to break (tevir) her stature (darga). You think you are a queen? Your rank is broken.
Yet the queen did not yield easily, and in the following verse, "And Queen Vashti refused" (וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי) - the notes are munach revi'i: I am the fourth (revi'i) generation from King Nebuchadnezzar; yet on the other hand, it hints that she is soon to be removed from the throne and laid to rest (munach).
And when Achashverosh seeks counsel from the ministers - "According to the law, what should be done to Queen Vashti" (כְּדָת מַה לַּעֲשׂוֹת בַּמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי), where he already backtracks and calls her "Queen Vashti" - the notes are tifcha etnachta: as though he is pleading with them for a pause (etnachta), do not rush, do not immediately decide to execute her, for I still need her.
Memuchan, however, does not relent: "Not upon the king alone has Vashti the Queen done wrong" (לֹא עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ לְבַדּוֹ עָוְתָה וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה) - there the notes are munach etnachta: I advise that you lay aside (munach) the pause (etnachta); no pauses! You initiated a move - see it through to the end. This woman has acted wrongly, and her sentence must be sealed.
And finally, "that Vashti come no more before King Achashverosh, and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she" (אֲשֶׁר לֹא תָבוֹא וַשְׁתִּי לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה) - the notes are kadma ve'azla revi'i: let her proceed ahead (kadma) and depart (azla) from here; and who? The fourth (revi'i) - she who is fourth in line to Nebuchadnezzar must make haste and be removed.
Now we can understand the very first sign demonstrating the hierarchy and social order to all - the feast. Had Vashti been regarded as the rightful heir to the throne, and had he ruled by her authority, it would have been fitting for her as well to host a feast for the ministers, since she would be just as important as he and the very foundation of the monarchy. Furthermore, the feast should have been held in her royal quarters, for the queen also had her own royal palace - just as King Solomon built a palace for the daughter of Pharaoh. Yet here, that was not the case.
Therefore it says: "גַּם וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה" ("Also Vashti the queen") - for he determined that she was first Vashti and only afterwards queen - "עָשְׂתָה מִשְׁתֵּה נָשִׁים" ("made a feast for the women"): Madam, you do not make a feast for ministers; you have no contact with the ministers at all. Who are you to have any connection with the ministers? You shall make a feast for women. The ministers, the nobles, and the governors of the provinces - they stand before me, they are bound to me. Who are you anyway? I took you in from the street because of your beauty, and I have no need for your royal lineage at all.
And hence also the added detail: "בֵּית הַמַּלְכוּת אֲשֶׁר לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ" ("in the royal house that belonged to King Achashverosh"): you held your feast in my royal house, not in your own royal house. You have no independent standing, you have no authority, you are not an heir to the throne, and you possess no royal palace in your own right - for I am the master here, I govern with great and mighty dominion, and sovereignty is fitting for him alone.