In this part of the chapter, we continue to trace Achashverosh's grand strategy: to establish and clarify that Vashti has no share in the monarchy, and that his reign exists solely by right of conquest - that is, an absolute and unlimited sovereignty. How does he cleverly accomplish this? He commands that Vashti be brought before him, to show everyone: I did not marry her for her royal lineage, but solely because of her external beauty. From the moment I conquered the realm, lineage is no longer relevant, and I have no need for it. By what power do I reign? By the power of conquest. And a reign based on conquest is absolute rule. The Malbim demonstrates how Achashverosh acts here through five distinct moves to prove this point: I am an independent king, completely independent of her.
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, Biztha, Charbona, Bigtha, and Avagtha, Zeithar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains who attended King Achashverosh.
The first step: sending the chamberlains. Had Vashti been regarded as ruling in her own right, would mere chamberlains have escorted her? That is like sending a low-ranking officer to fetch her. The ministers should have gone out to greet her - after all, she is a queen. Before a monarch, all the ministers rise, and when someone wishes to address royalty, it is the ministers who do so. If she were a true queen, the ministers would have approached her and said: Your Majesty, the king requests to see you. But no; he sends a few attendants: go and bring this woman. This is a deliberate form of disgrace.
Furthermore, even if you wish to bring her through servants, bring her through her own servants - that would be the dignified way. But as part of the campaign to demean her and demonstrate that he does not depend on her, he specifically sends "the seven chamberlains who attended King Achashverosh." This is the emphasis: not her own chamberlains, but attendants who serve before me. Her attendants are treated as nothing, I do not take them into account; my own servants will go fetch her. This is a grave humiliation, as though he considers her merely one of his concubines - not the queen through whom he attained kingship, but like one of the maidservants. Therefore, the verse even lists their individual names: look at these chamberlains who serve before me - he sent them to bring her, and this was done to magnify her disgrace.
לְהָבִיא אֶת־וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בְּכֶתֶר מַלְכוּת לְהַרְאוֹת הָעַמִּים וְהַשָּׂרִים אֶת־יׇפְיָהּ כִּי־טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה הִיא׃ - To bring Queen Vashti before the king with the royal crown, to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was fair to look upon.
First, it says "to bring" (lehavi). That is how one sends for a dog; for a human being, one sends an invitation to summon them. Why summon them? Because a human is an intelligent being capable of deciding whether to come. One summons someone and asks them to come. But here, he does not request that she come: go and bring her, just as one drags an animal. This is part of the humiliation, treating her like one of his maidservants.
Second, it does not simply say "to bring her," but specifies again: "Vashti the queen" (et Vashti haMalkah). He requests that they bring her in such a way that everyone recognizes she is "Vashti the queen" and not "Queen Vashti": that when she enters, everyone will know she is being brought as one who possesses no royal status in her own right. Vashti married me and became a queen, but she is not royal of her own essence - and therefore her title of royalty does not precede her name.
Third, "before the king with the royal crown." Seemingly, it should have been phrased in reverse: "Queen Vashti with the royal crown before the king"; furthermore, "before the king" appears superfluous. Rather, a profound calculation lies here: Achashverosh commands that they not bring her wearing the crown. Let her leave her feast without a crown, and only when she stands before the king will they place the crown upon her. What message does this send to all? Until she stands before the king - she is nothing. The moment she stands before the king, they place the crown on her: by whose power does she rule? By my power. I am not dependent on her in the slightest. And that is the meaning of "before the king with the royal crown" - she will not wear the crown until she comes before the king.
Incidentally, Chazal deduced that he commanded her to appear immodestly, and from where do we know this? From the fact that it says "with the royal crown" and not "in royal attire" - implying that his request was for her to wear the royal crown alone, in order to display her beauty. This aligns even further with the Malbim's explanation that he treated her like a lowly concubine: I took her only for her beauty, and apart from that she has nothing. She has no royal lineage - for if you marry a woman on account of lineage, what does beauty matter? Beauty is something superficial and external, unrelated to pedigree. Royal lineage is what constitutes royalty. Does it matter if a king is unattractive? And what good is a handsome man if he is impoverished, destitute, and wretched? Royalty is determined by lineage. Rather, Achashverosh was telling them: Know this, she has no connection to royalty at all; I took her simply because I, as king, sought a beautiful vessel.
By displaying her beauty, he was actually humiliating all the ministers and all those seated before him, as if telling them: I am king here by power; I do not depend on you, and I do not depend on her. For if I depend on you, it means I depend on her; if I received the monarchy from someone who preceded me, then I have terms and conditions, and I have limitations. But no - I have no conditions and no limitations whatsoever. I conquered by force, and as someone who seizes by force, everything is under my hand. All this was done so that he could rule an unlimited monarchy.
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 word conveyed by the chamberlains; therefore the king was very wroth, and his anger burned within him.
All the plans were marvelous - until Vashti came along and completely scrambled his deck. Notice the wording: "Queen Vashti refused." Here, the title precedes the name, because in her mind she was "Queen Vashti." What is this simple "Vashti" that he speaks of? I am royalty, the daughter of kings, and he has forgotten his history - he is king only because of me. First and foremost I am queen, and only then Vashti.
And why does she refuse? Two reasons are embedded in the verse. First: "To come at the king's word" - he issues an imperial command to me, demanding that I wear the royal crown solely before him; I am not willing to endure this humiliation. Second: "Conveyed by the chamberlains" - does he send chamberlains to round me up like some common carcass? Dispatching his guards with an order: "Go and bring this woman"? Thus, in doing so, she shattered his entire scheme and foiled his whole counsel. He sought to assert royal power in his own right, yet she proclaimed to everyone - mistake! The entire monarchy exists solely by my virtue.
Anyone with magnificent plans that ultimately collapse becomes furious. "Therefore the king was very wroth [va-yiktzof], and his wrath [chamato] burned within him." The Malbim asks: What is the difference between ketzef (rage) and cheimah (wrath)? Ketzef is open and revealed - like foam (ketzef) upon the surface of the water, it bursts outward; likewise, a person in a fit of rage foams at the mouth. It is an anger that can be seen, open and external. By contrast, "his wrath burned within him" refers to an inward fury that consumes a person from inside. Why, then, does the verse emphasize that there was both external rage and internal wrath?
Based on our explanation, this is marvelous. The external rage: I commanded someone to come, and before everyone's eyes, she brazenly ignores me! What a public humiliation - of course he boiled over. Yet there was also an inward fire: the entire feast was designed to demonstrate that he was a supreme ruler; the display of silver and gold was to show he was a supreme ruler; treating the lowly the same as the prominent was to show he was a supreme ruler; and the plan to parade Vashti in a demeaning and humiliating fashion was to prove, "I am an absolute ruler, I govern with unlimited authority." Suddenly, everything was shattered, and the whole scenario he labored over went to waste, for now she was telling the entire empire that he ruled over nothing, and that the kingdom existed only by her power.
And Achashverosh could not reveal this. He could not expose the hidden secrets of his heart and announce: I orchestrated all of this to show that I am the sole ruler. Therefore, it remained internal, eating away at him from within - "and his wrath burned within him." And what did everyone see? That he commanded the queen to appear, and she failed to show up, which is indeed exasperating - that was the external rage. They saw one thing, while he concealed a thousand others: all that was churning inside, knowing that his entire grand strategy had been demolished by Vashti's defiance.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לַחֲכָמִים יֹדְעֵי הָעִתִּים כִּי־כֵן דְּבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ לִפְנֵי כׇּל־יֹדְעֵי דָּת וָדִין׃ - Then the king said to the wise men who knew the times, for so was the king's manner toward all who knew law and judgment.
וְהַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו כַּרְשְׁנָא שֵׁתָר אַדְמָתָא תַרְשִׁישׁ מֶרֶס מַרְסְנָא מְמוּכָן שִׁבְעַת שָׂרֵי פָּרַס וּמָדַי רֹאֵי פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ הַיֹּשְׁבִים רִאשֹׁנָה בַּמַּלְכוּת׃ - And the closest to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memuchan, the seven princes of Persia and Media who saw the king's face and sat first in the kingdom.
כְּדָת מַה־לַּעֲשׂוֹת בַּמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָשְׂתָה אֶת־מַאֲמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ בְּיַד הַסָּרִיסִים׃ - According to the law, what should be done to Queen Vashti, because she did not carry out the order of King Achashverosh through the chamberlains?
Let us first raise the questions: Who are "the wise men," and who are "those who know the times"? And if we already had wise men who know the times, why do newcomers enter here - "those who know law and judgment"? What is the difference between them? What is meant by "and the next unto him," and to whom is this contrasted? Why does Scripture multiply three titles - "the princes of Persia and Media," "who see the king's face," and "who sit first in the kingdom" - is one not sufficient? And why is it emphasized "by the chamberlains"? Surely it would be enough that she did not obey the king's bidding; why must the text emphasize the manner through which the message was delivered to her?
The Malbim explains: From the king's words, one can clearly see that despite all his fierce, immense rage, the king was seeking an escape route, a ladder to climb down from the tall tree he had climbed - a way not to execute her in the end. And why? Because love covers all offenses. She was apparently exceptionally beautiful, as he himself said, and his heart was bound to her. Although he wanted to humiliate her to show everyone that he was the supreme ruler, he had no intention of taking it to the very end, neither to destroy her nor to kill her. Therefore, throughout the subsequent verses we see how the king constructs a plan through which Vashti will ultimately emerge unscathed from the episode. Even though his wrath burned within him and justice had to be done, he had no intention of going that far, and he broadcast to his men: Gentlemen, handle this gently; do not smash the vessels.
There is a difference between a case adjudicated between the king and one of his servants, and a case between two commoners. For the king's legal cases, specific judges were designated, and they were called "those who know the times." Why? Because beyond expertise in state law and jurisprudence, they also needed to understand the times and circumstances. An offense against the king when he is seated upon his royal throne is unlike an offense against the king while he is touring one of his provinces - it is not the same degree of severity. Nor is insulting the king while his ministers sit before him comparable to insulting him when he is alone in private; insulting him in the presence of his assembly causes far greater disgrace. Therefore, "those who know the times" were needed, who knew how to judge according to the specific occasion and circumstance.
However, disputes between ordinary people are judged before "all who know law and judgment": anyone with basic knowledge of the laws is qualified to judge them. There, judges do not delve into all the nuances - when did he insult him, when did he rob him - but examine a single matter: what does the law state? One who humiliates his fellow receives such a punishment, and one who damages his fellow receives such a judgment. For this, those who know law and judgment are sufficient, and there is no need for those who know the times.
The king realized: If I order this case to be judged by the wise men who know the times, it turns out that I am treating her as a commoner who offended the king, rather than as two equals. Two equals - whether they are both commoners or both monarchs - are judged before those who know law and judgment. But if I bring this before those who know the times, it means I am trying her as a commoner who offends and insults the king, and then her punishment would be exceedingly severe with no chance of pardon - she would face execution. And Achashverosh had no intention of executing her.
Therefore, the Malbim explains the verse in an innovative way: "And the king said to the wise men who knew the times" - the king told them that this trial was not suitable to come before them. Who, then, should judge? "For so was the king's manner toward all who knew law and judgment" - what occurred here must be tried before those who know law and judgment, not by those who know the times. This is not a commoner rebelling against a king, but a queen defying a king; and just as a commoner against a commoner requires only those who know law and judgment, so too a king against a queen. Since she was royal in her own right by lineage, and they were king and queen, those who know law and judgment could adjudicate this like any other dispute between husband and wife. Already here, a different tune is heard, born of his fear lest they sentence her to death.
And why does the text say "those who know law (dat) and judgment (din)," and not simply "those who know judgment"? The Malbim explains: When dat and din appear together, din refers to civil jurisprudence between fellow human beings - disputes and legal claims; whereas dat pertains to moral conduct or divine precepts, what we refer to today as religion. When one is said to have transgressed dat, it means a violation of religious law or divine and moral etiquette; and when one is said to have transgressed din, it means an offense between person and person.
Now, regarding his command to bring Vashti and display her beauty before many peoples: from the perspective of din (civil law), she certainly had to be condemned. In their times - and in the Malbim's words, just as in the lands of the East to this day - a wife was subject to her husband and required to submit to his will, and if she transgressed, she was strictly punished. By refusing to comply with his wish, her legal judgment was death. If I bring this before judges of civil law alone, the verdict is execution.
However, Achashverosh tells them, there is another dimension here - an aspect of dat, a moral and religious matter. After all, the Mishnah and the Gemara teach regarding Persian and Median women: "Arab women go out veiled, and Median women with their cloaks fastened" - they maintained standards of modesty (tzeniut) and were dressed strictly according to modest custom. Here Achashverosh comes along and demands that she breach her modesty, which violates dat. Therefore, he hints to the judges: I want those who know law (dat) and judgment (din) to judge her. For if she is judged solely by those who know civil law - woe to her, her sentence will be severe; but bring those who also know religious and moral law, because according to them there is justification to pardon her: How could one demand of a modest, reserved woman like Vashti to present herself in such a manner?
Therefore, he emphasizes: "According to the law, what should be done to Queen Vashti" - look closely at the religious and moral aspect, and you will see that my request was illegitimate, that I asked her to transgress religion and modesty, and therefore her resistance was legitimate. All this was aimed at keeping Vashti alive.
After prefacing that he was not asking to judge a royal offense of treason, but rather a personal dispute between a husband and his wife, Achashverosh brings the case before the seven ministers. And why specifically them? There are four reasons for this.
First: "Those closest to him." These men sit close to me. If I bring this before another court, there will be headlines in the newspapers, publicity, and public disgrace. Absolutely not - it must be behind closed doors. Those closest to him are the ones who have already witnessed the humiliation and all the embarrassment I suffered in this matter, so there is no point in giving it further publicity. Let us keep the matter confidential, and you will judge it.
Second: "The seven ministers of Persia and Media" - they are distinguished ministers, and it is fitting that they preside over this trial according to their stature.
Third: "Who see the king's face." There is a wonderful explanation here: they are constantly in the presence of the king, and when someone spends all his time with another person, he can perceive his thoughts through facial expressions, subtle glances, and the movement of his lips - he reads his body language. Therefore, I want specifically those who see the king's face: they have already discerned my desire to acquit her, and they will understand. Another court, however, would not pick up on these subtle hints and might sentence her to death; on the contrary, they might say: An offense against the king? And anyone wishing to curry favor with the king would sentence her to death, and with tortures at that! That is why I bring this before men who see the king's face and know how to read me and comprehend my hints that I wish to exonerate her.
Fourth: "Who sat first in the kingdom" - they have occupied these seats for a very long time; they have weathered the passage of eras and times, being senior elders and seasoned experts in the law. This is not some judge appointed yesterday who lacks mastery of the laws.
Notice the shift in language: previously he had said "Vashti the queen" - meaning, I am the king, and she is queen only by virtue of my position. But now he says: "According to the law, what should be done to Queen Vashti" - she is of equal rank to me, a queen in her own right, and therefore her trial belongs before those who know law and judgment. Do not forget, this is Queen Vashti; she was royalty before me, and her status is equal to my own.
And at the conclusion: "Because she has not performed the command of King Achashverosh by the chamberlains." First, it was a ma'amar (a gentle request) rather than a forceful command (dibbur); second, it came "by the chamberlains" - which was truly undignified. Her refusal is understandable; one can empathize with her offense and understand why she did not come, and you should therefore judge her with leniency and compassion.
וַיֹּאמֶר מְמוּכָן לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַשָּׂרִים לֹא עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ לְבַדּוֹ עָוְתָה וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה כִּי עַל־כׇּל־הַשָּׂרִים וְעַל־כׇּל־הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר בְּכׇל־מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ׃ - And Memuchan spoke before the king and the ministers: "Not against the king alone has Queen Vashti wronged, but against all the ministers and all the nations that are in all the provinces of King Achashverosh."
What does Memuchan mean when he says she acted wrongly "against all the princes and all the peoples"? If the offense is that wives will despise their husbands, what difference does it make whether the wives of the princes despise their husbands or the wives of the common people - it is one and the same! Why the repetition? Just say "against all the peoples", and that would already include everyone.
כִּי־יֵצֵא דְבַר־הַמַּלְכָּה עַל־כׇּל־הַנָּשִׁים לְהַבְזוֹת בַּעְלֵיהֶן בְּעֵינֵיהֶן בְּאׇמְרָם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ אָמַר לְהָבִיא אֶת־וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה לְפָנָיו וְלֹא־בָאָה׃ - "For the queen's conduct will spread to all the women, making their husbands contemptible in their eyes, when they say, 'King Achashverosh ordered Queen Vashti to be brought before him, but she did not come.'"
וְהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה תֹּאמַרְנָה שָׂרוֹת פָּרַס־וּמָדַי אֲשֶׁר שָׁמְעוּ אֶת־דְּבַר הַמַּלְכָּה לְכֹל שָׂרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וּכְדַי בִּזָּיוֹן וָקָצֶף׃ - "And this very day, the noblewomen of Persia and Media who heard of the queen's conduct will say [the same] to all the king's ministers, and there will be abundant contempt and wrath."
Furthermore, there are additional questions: What is meant by "For the queen's conduct will spread" - what is the meaning of this phrasing? What is "And this very day" - why the emphasis on this specific day? What does it matter whether they say it today or tomorrow? Moreover, the verse does not even state what the noblewomen of Persia and Media will say: "will say... to all the king's ministers" - but what will they say? And what is meant by "and there will be abundant contempt and wrath", which appears to be a redundant repetition?
אִם־עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יֵצֵא דְבַר־מַלְכוּת מִלְּפָנָיו וְיִכָּתֵב בְּדָתֵי פָרַס־וּמָדַי וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תָבוֹא וַשְׁתִּי לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה׃ - "If it pleases the king, let a royal decree go forth from him, and let it be written into the laws of Persia and Media, and not pass away: that Vashti shall not come before King Achashverosh, and the king shall give her royal state to another who is better than she."
וְנִשְׁמַע פִּתְגָם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה בְּכׇל־מַלְכוּתוֹ כִּי רַבָּה הִיא וְכׇל־הַנָּשִׁים יִתְּנוּ יְקָר לְבַעְלֵיהֶן לְמִגָּדוֹל וְעַד־קָטָן׃ - "And the king's edict which he shall make will be heard throughout his entire kingdom, for it is vast; and all women will give honor to their husbands, from great to small."
Here the questions are numerous, and every reader struggles with them. What is "let a royal decree go forth from him"? Furthermore, "and let it be written into the laws of Persia and Media" - the laws of Persia and Media are the royal law book, but what kind of a law is this to write into a law book: "that Vashti shall not come before King Achashverosh, and the king shall give her royal state to another who is better than she"? This is an account of a single incident: once upon a time Vashti did not come, and the king executed her - is that a law? And what is "and not pass away" - that the law cannot be altered? And what is "And the king's edict which he shall make will be heard... for it is vast" - what is so grand about a man executing his wife? After all, if you are king, you have the power to do whatever you wish; what is remarkable here? Furthermore, "and all women will give honor to their husbands" - this implies that this was the entire objective: that he execute her so that all women learn to respect their husbands. Does a person go and kill his wife just to teach all women to respect their husbands? Is that a valid justification? Finally, "from great to small" - the standard phrasing is "from small to great"; why was the order reversed here?
The Malbim explains: Here Memuchan begins to explain his reasoning and demonstrate that the offense Vashti committed against the king was not a private matter, but one that affected the entire empire and all peoples. This was not merely a domestic dispute between a husband and his wife, but a fatal blow to the king's authority.
For in Vashti's presence were only the noblewomen of Persia and Media, and they were aware of the actual crux of the dispute between Achashverosh and Vashti. They knew she refused to appear before him to avoid having her royal dignity degraded: to appear without a crown, to appear in a humiliating manner, to be escorted by eunuchs. They knew the reasons behind her refusal, and therefore there was no concern that they would despise their own husbands; they understood that Achashverosh's demand was improper, and consequently her refusal was justified. This would not cause a noblewoman to start despising her husband.
What, then, was the concern regarding these noblewomen? That they would go and tell their husbands: "Do you know what an embarrassment happened today? Do you know what Achashverosh demanded, and what Vashti answered him?" And what would the result be? Not that they would despise their husbands, but that everyone would now know that Achashverosh's rule is limited! The proof: his own wife, the queen, defied him. He said to her, "Come," and she replied, "I do not care about you." In other words, he is not an absolute sovereign. He sent eunuchs to bring her, and she said, "I refuse; I am royalty." If so, your reign is limited, and you are only king because of Vashti - and through this, the honor of the monarchy would be ruined.
But the women of the common people were not there. What will they hear? That Achashverosh summoned Vashti and she did not come. How he summoned her, whether it involved a humiliation for her, and whether she could not compromise her dignity - none of this is known to the women of the common people or the public. For them, the takeaway from the story is singular: Achashverosh summoned Vashti, and Vashti did not show up. If Vashti allows herself to defy Achashverosh, her husband, they too will draw an a fortiori conclusion (kal vachomer) from her.
And this is the meaning of "For the word of the queen will spread to all the women": this deed will spread and become public knowledge, passed from mouth to mouth, and those who hear it will not know the full story. It will not be publicized immediately - it will take a few days - but the matter will gain resonance, and gradually "the word of the queen will spread to all the women, causing their husbands to be despised in their eyes." When a husband commands his wife: Prepare this for me, do this for me, clean that - she will insolently defy him and say: "King Achashverosh commanded Vashti the queen to be brought before him, and she did not come!" Notice: "Vashti the queen," not "Queen Vashti" - she was queen only by virtue of him, and he degraded her before him. Furthermore: "before him" alone - merely to appear before him, a minor request; he did not demand labor or immense effort from her - and even so, she refused to come. How much more so you, who are not a king, while I am not a queen through you and received no status on your account; and how much more so given that you are not merely asking me to appear before you, but to scrub and wash and clean and do laundry and cook - arduous labors. All the more so do I not have to obey you!
Through this, women will cease to obey their husbands, and the story of the king will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples. If so, my lord the king, is this merely a personal insult to the king, or an affront to the entire standing of royalty across all kingdoms? Everyone will deduce that this king can be treated with contempt. For the common folk will not know the inner details of what transpired here; they will only hear that the king summoned his wife and she refused to come - and thus, this strikes a blow against the honor of the entire monarchy.
We have seen how Achashverosh's entire strategy - specifically sending the eunuchs, the phrasing "to bring," the order "Vashti the queen," and the instruction that the crown be placed upon her only "before the king" - was designed to prove that his kingship was self-derived and absolute, and that Vashti was merely a woman of fair appearance whom he had married. Vashti's refusal, convinced as she was that she was "Queen Vashti," shattered the entire plan, which explains the double expression: "and [the king] grew exceedingly angry... and his wrath burned within him": external rage over the open rebellion, and internal wrath over the plan that had collapsed. Yet the king, whose heart remained bound to her, sought a way out: he removed the deliberation from the "knowers of the times" and entrusted it to those "who knew law and judgment" as a legal dispute between two equals, hinted with the word "according to the law" that the moral aspect ought to be weighed - that his request had been illegitimate - and deliberately selected the seven closest, most prominent ministers, those who saw the king's face and sat first in the kingdom, who would know how to read his desire to acquit her. Memuchan, by contrast, turned the entire discussion upside down: this is no private grievance, but an assault on the entire realm, for the word of the queen will spread to all the women, who will not know the intricate details of the incident, and from them a kal vachomer will be deduced to despise their husbands and degrade the honor of royalty.