The chapter before us is a chapter of war, but not a war fought with the sword; rather, a war fought with the pen. The adversaries of Yehudah and Binyamin, after being rejected from participating in the construction, turned to another path: letters of slander to the king of Persia. In the passage before us, we will examine how this letter was constructed, discovering an extraordinarily sophisticated legal and diplomatic scheme in which every word was weighed to achieve its objective while shielding its senders from all liability. The Malbim unfolds this deceit before us, layer by layer.
רְח֣וּם בְּעֵל־טְעֵ֗ם וְשִׁמְשַׁי֙ סָֽפְרָ֔א כְּתַ֛בוּ אִגְּרָ֥ה חֲדָ֖ה עַל־יְרוּשְׁלֶ֑ם לְאַרְתַּחְשַׁ֥שְׂתְּא מַלְכָּ֖א כְּנֵֽמָא׃ - Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter concerning Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes, as follows:
Rehum the commander ("ba'al te'em") and Shimshai the scribe were the king's trusted transcribers, the officials charged with ensuring that no forgery occurred in the transcription and translation. Yet they themselves engaged in injustice and deception in the letters they forwarded to the king. The word "kenema" means "as stated below," for "nema" in Aramaic means "said" - that is, as will be explained further on.
And what was the scheme? Let us understand: the only genuine complaint they could have raised was regarding the construction of the Temple. But the complaint that would genuinely incite the king's wrath was that the people were building a city wall. If the people are building a wall, it can mean only one thing: rebellion against the king, fortifying themselves so that he cannot reconquer them. Did Cyrus permit a wall? No. Cyrus permitted only the building of the Temple. If the king were informed that they were building a wall, he would declare, "I never permitted this" - and he could halt it.
Yet the question arises: how could they dare fabricate something that the king could easily verify within a short time? Here lies the sheer depth of their cunning. In the initial complaint drafted by the adversaries of Yehudah and Binyamin, it was written that the Jews were building the Temple. But when transcribing the complaint into the Persian script, they wrote "a letter concerning Jerusalem" - not about the Temple in Jerusalem, but about Jerusalem as a whole. The change is slight, yet exceedingly significant: if I am building the Temple, I am merely doing what the king permitted; if I am rebuilding Jerusalem, my intention is to rebel against the king.
What did they hope to gain by this? That neither the senders of the letter nor the scribes could be held liable. The senders could argue, "My lord, I wrote 'Temple.'" And the scribes could argue, "We referred to Jerusalem, as their complaint pertained to the Temple in Jerusalem." Each party could shift the blame to the other.
Royal law dictated that whoever translated a letter - and because there were many translators working across numerous languages - was required to write his name at the head of the document. This was so that the authorities would know who produced the translation, and if any falsehood was discovered, they would know whom to hold accountable. Therefore, they would first record the name of the scribe and translator, and only afterward the names of the petitioners, the people on whose behalf the letter was dispatched.
And here they did something further: instead of citing the names of the original authors - Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their companions - they wrote that the letter originated from all the nations of the region beyond the river. Why? So that the king would treat the letter with far greater gravity. If individual citizens send you a letter, you might simply file it away in the archives. But if they write that all the surrounding nations have gathered and jointly sent you a missive, the king treats the matter with vastly greater urgency.
אֱדַ֜יִן רְח֣וּם בְּעֵל־טְעֵ֗ם וְשִׁמְשַׁי֙ סָֽפְרָ֔א וּשְׁאָ֖ר כְּנָוָתְה֑וֹן דִּ֠ינָיֵ֠א וַאֲפַרְסַתְכָיֵ֞א טַרְפְּלָיֵ֣א אֲפָֽרְסָיֵ֗א אַרְכֳּוָיֵ֤א בָבְלָיֵא֙ שֽׁוּשַׁנְכָיֵ֔א דֶּהָיֵ֖א עֵלְמָיֵֽא׃ - Then Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their colleagues: the judges, the emissaries, the officials, the Persians, the people of Erech, the Babylonians, the people of Shushan, the Dehaites, and the Elamites:
All these names are, as it were, the nations sending the letter, the nations in whose name it is sent - those whom Sancheriv settled in the cities of Shomron. "Shushanchaye" - the people of Shushan; "Elmaye" - the people of Eilam.
וּשְׁאָ֣ר אֻמַּיָּ֗א דִּ֤י הַגְלִי֙ אׇסְנַפַּר֙ רַבָּ֣א וְיַקִּירָ֔א וְהוֹתֵ֣ב הִמּ֔וֹ בְּקִרְיָ֖ה דִּ֣י שָׁמְרָ֑יִן וּשְׁאָ֥ר עֲבַֽר־נַהֲרָ֖ה וּכְעֶֽנֶת׃ - And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapar exiled and settled in the city of Shomron, and the rest of the region Beyond the River, and Cheenet.
And all the rest of the nations exiled by "the great and noble Asnapar" - this is Sancheriv, the great and honored king - whom he settled in the city of Shomron, along with the rest of the nations Beyond the River and the people of Cheenet, which is the name of a nation. Up to this point, the letter enumerates who the petitioners are. For at the heading of the letter, the scribes were listed, followed by the names of the senders. That is, Bishlam and Mithredath were the ones who sent the letter on behalf of everyone, presenting themselves as authorized by all these nations to dispatch this petition.
דְּנָה֙ פַּרְשֶׁ֣גֶן אִגַּרְתָּ֔א דִּ֚י שְׁלַ֣חוּ עֲל֔וֹהִי עַל־אַרְתַּחְשַׁ֖שְׂתְּא מַלְכָּ֑א עַבְדָ֛ךְ אֱנָ֥שׁ עֲבַֽר־נַהֲרָ֖ה וּכְעֶֽנֶת׃ - This is the copy of the letter that they sent to him, to King Artachshasta: Your servants, the men Beyond the River, and Cheenet.
"Parshegen igarta" means the text of the letter, the wording or explanation of the letter - this is the text of the letter they sent to King Artachshasta. And they begin: "Your servants, the men Beyond the River, and Cheenet" - we are your servants, the men of the region Beyond the River and Cheenet.
This raises a question: Cheenet was the last in the list, so where are Dinaaye, Afarsatkaye, Tarpelaye, and all the rest? Why does he not mention them? The Malbim explains: It was their custom, when they wanted to mention the same names again, not to write them all out from scratch in order to avoid being overly lengthy. This was not a document where one could simply "copy and paste"; every time, each name had to be written out again by hand. Therefore, they would write the first name and the last name, and this stood for the entire list. Alternatively, they had another method: writing something like "etc." or "and so forth", meaning you can understand the rest on your own - and as we will see, they used this option later on as well.
This is just like the standard practice in legal documents where the same name must be repeated often: a designation is assigned - "the aforementioned," or "so-and-so, hereinafter referred to as 'the Lessee'," or "hereinafter 'the Secretary'" - so that one does not need to repeat the full name along with the address and ID number in every clause. So too here: to abbreviate, they wrote "your servants" and concluded with "the men Beyond the River and Cheenet," meaning everyone up to the last of them, which was Cheenet.
יְדִ֙יעַ֙ לֶהֱוֵ֣א לְמַלְכָּ֔א דִּ֣י יְהוּדָיֵ֗א דִּ֤י סְלִ֙קוּ֙ מִן־לְוָתָ֔ךְ עֲלֶ֥ינָא אֲת֖וֹ לִירוּשְׁלֶ֑ם קִרְיְתָ֨א מָֽרָדְתָּ֤א וּבִֽאישְׁתָּא֙ בָּנַ֔יִן וְשׁוּרַיָּ֣א שַׁכְלִ֔ילוּ וְאֻשַּׁיָּ֖א יַחִֽיטוּ׃ - Be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from you have arrived among us in Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city, completing the walls, and repairing the foundations.
This is juicy lashon hara (slander). The meaning is: Let it be known to my master the king that the Jews who came up from you to us have come to Jerusalem, the rebellious and evil city - "be'ishta" is related to foul-smelling, evil - and they are building, completing the walls, and tying together the foundations. "Yachitu" is related to a thread or cord, as in "from a thread to a shoelace": they are excavating and joining the foundations to one another to reinforce them, and they have already tied them together.
The Malbim explains: Here begins the body of the letter, and here precisely lies the element of deceit, the crafty scheme. This sentence admits two possible interpretations. Thus, if they were ever held to account and challenged, "How could you write such a thing?", they would always be able to say: We intended the other meaning - and thereby escape the king's wrath.
How did they do this? One way to understand it is: "They came to Jerusalem, the rebellious and evil city" - comma - "they are building a structure" (banayin). That is, in the rebellious, wicked city they are erecting a building, the Beit HaMikdash, establishing the walls of the House, and repairing its foundations. And this is the absolute truth. If understood this way, they did not say anything slanderous about Jerusalem itself, only that within this rebellious and wicked city, these people are putting up a building.
However, there is another possibility: that the word banayin ("they are building") connects to "the rebellious and evil city." Then the meaning becomes: they are building the rebellious and evil city - that is, they are rebuilding Jerusalem itself! The entire question hinges on where to place the comma. They intended for the king to understand that they were rebuilding the city, Jerusalem. Yet if the king were to challenge them, "You are lying, they did not rebuild Jerusalem, only the Temple," they could answer: "Where did we say they were building Jerusalem? We merely said they came to Jerusalem, the rebellious and evil city, and that they are building a structure." Thus, if ever called to account for misleading the king, they could evade blame and claim, "That was not our intent; the king read something into our words that we never meant."
Notice the nature of lashon hara (slander): it always highlights the flaws. This city had indeed rebelled against earlier monarchs; it rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, and against whoever was set over it as ruler, they ultimately rebelled. That is why they branded them as rebels.
כְּעַ֗ן יְדִ֙יעַ֙ לֶהֱוֵ֣א לְמַלְכָּ֔א דִּ֠י הֵ֣ן קִרְיְתָ֥א דָךְ֙ תִּתְבְּנֵ֔א וְשׁוּרַיָּ֖ה יִֽשְׁתַּכְלְל֑וּן מִנְדָּֽה־בְל֤וֹ וַהֲלָךְ֙ לָ֣א יִנְתְּנ֔וּן וְאַפְּתֹ֥ם מַלְכִ֖ים תְּהַנְזִֽק׃ - Now let it be known to the king, that if this city is built and the walls completed, they will not pay tax, tribute, or toll, and the king's treasury will suffer harm.
Now let it be known to my lord the king that if this city is built and its walls are completed and established - "they will not pay minda, belo, and halach" - they will not pay taxes. Indeed, from here we learn of several types of taxes they had: minda, belo, and halach. Kings have always been very creative with taxes, in every generation.
Anyone who remembers forty years ago might recall seeing a type of revenue stamp affixed to goods that read, "The belo has been paid." One might never have understood what this belo was, until studying Sefer Ezra and seeing that belo is a type of tax. As the Metzudat Tzion explains: "tax" (minda) is a general levy imposed on everyone collectively, whereas belo is a poll tax collected per head. And halach was the tribute brought to the king when he approached them, where they would go (holechim) out to greet him with an offering - which is perhaps why it was called halach.
And they said to him: Know that if the city is rebuilt and its walls completed, none of these taxes will reach your hands; they will rebel against you. "And the king's treasury will suffer harm" - the king's revenue will be impaired. And that is what pains us, they claim: that the royal treasury should suffer a loss.
כְּעַ֗ן כׇּל־קֳבֵל֙ דִּֽי־מְלַ֤ח הֵֽיכְלָא֙ מְלַ֔חְנָא וְעַרְוַ֣ת מַלְכָּ֔א לָ֥א אֲֽרִֽיךְ־לַ֖נָא לְמֶֽחֱזֵ֑א עַ֨ל־דְּנָ֔ה שְׁלַ֖חְנָא וְהוֹדַ֥עְנָא לְמַלְכָּֽא׃ - Now, because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not proper for us to see the king's dishonor, therefore we have sent and informed the king.
The meaning is: since we salt our food with the salt of the royal palace. It was customary then - as it is today - that mineral resources belong to the crown. If a person digs under his house and strikes oil or gold, he cannot say, "This was on my property, so it belongs to me." Natural resources belong to the state; an individual may receive a concession to extract them and pay royalties to the state, but they do not become his private property. In those days, the same applied to salt: salt was considered a royal natural resource, and only the king had the authority to mine and sell it. And in those times, salt was a precious commodity.
See how precious it was: what is salt called in English? "Salt." And what is a wage? "Salary." At times, wages were paid in salt - a person would receive a block of salt as his compensation. Everything back then operated on barter. Two or three hundred years ago, a person would get on a bus and pay with an egg. The story is told of someone who paid once with an egg, and again with an egg, and one day showed up with a hen. The driver asked him, "What is this?" He replied, "That's a monthly pass!"
And hence the explanation of the matter: "We eat the salt of the palace" - we season our food with the king's salt, meaning we are subject to your authority and rule; we are your servants who eat your salt, that is, your loyal subjects.
There is also an additional meaning, as Rashi explains the significance of salt here: they are telling him that they wish to destroy this sanctuary, so that it becomes like a salty land that cannot be inhabited. For what would conquerors do after destroying a place? They would sow salt upon the earth so that it would not produce - "it shall not be sown, nor shall it sprout... brimstone and salt, burning its entire land." According to Rashi, they are saying to him: we wish to salt the place so it will not flourish, for we see that this place is bound to produce rotten fruit, and from here will emerge people who rebel against the king.
"And it is not fitting for us to see the king's dishonor" - it is unbefitting for us to witness the king's disgrace, which is the meaning of "nakedness" (ervah), disgrace. "Therefore we have sent and informed the king" - and this is what prompts us to send this to you. Let it not enter your mind, Heaven forbid, that we have some self-interest or personal agenda; our sole concern is the king's honor. After all, we dine at your table, we eat the king's salt, we are your loyal subjects, and seeing the king's dishonor is unbefitting for us and grieves us - therefore, we resolved: let us send this letter.
דִּ֡י יְבַקַּר֩ בִּֽסְפַר־דׇּכְרָ֨נַיָּ֜א דִּ֣י אֲבָהָתָ֗ךְ וּ֠תְהַשְׁכַּ֠ח בִּסְפַ֣ר דׇּכְרָנַיָּא֮ וְתִנְדַּע֒ דִּי֩ קִרְיְתָ֨א דָ֜ךְ קִרְיָ֣א מָֽרָדָ֗א וּֽמְהַנְזְקַ֤ת מַלְכִין֙ וּמְדִנָ֔ן וְאֶשְׁתַּדּוּר֙ עָבְדִ֣ין בְּגַוַּ֔הּ מִן־יוֹמָ֖ת עָלְמָ֑א עַ֨ל־דְּנָ֔ה קִרְיְתָ֥א דָ֖ךְ הׇֽחָרְבַֽת׃ - That a search be made in the book of records of your fathers, and you will find in the book of records and know that this city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces, and that sedition was practiced within it from days of old; on account of this, this city was destroyed.
Here we see that the advisers they hired were worth every penny: they truly knew how to employ demagoguery and how to frame the issue. They say to the king: if you are unsure whether to believe us - do not take our word for it! Go and search the records; get a bit of history on the people you are about to help. Search the books of remembrance of your forefathers, and you will discover and know that this city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces. "And that sedition was practiced within it" - they foment rebellion, always endeavoring to revolt - "from days of old," since antiquity, ever since it was established.
"On account of this, this city was destroyed" - and because of this, this city was laid waste. Do you think it lay in ruins for so many years for no reason? Rather, it is because they have always rebelled against kings. Why, then, would you stick a healthy head into a sickbed, into a vipers' nest? It has a history of rebellions; this is an untrustworthy nation.
מְהוֹדְעִ֤ין אֲנַ֙חְנָה֙ לְמַלְכָּ֔א דִּ֠י הֵ֣ן קִרְיְתָ֥א דָךְ֙ תִּתְבְּנֵ֔א וְשׁוּרַיָּ֖ה יִֽשְׁתַּכְלְל֑וּן לׇקֳבֵ֣ל דְּנָ֔ה חֲלָק֙ בַּעֲבַ֣ר נַהֲרָ֔א לָ֥א אִיתַ֖י לָֽךְ׃ - We inform the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls completed, as a result of this, you will have no portion in the region beyond the river.
This is what may be termed an escalation in rhetoric. Up to this point, they wrote "let it be known to the king," meaning: this you would understand on your own, for it is their way to rebel against anyone who rules over them, and that is something the king knows of his own accord. But here they add, "we inform the king" - this is something you would not know on your own, and we must bring it to your attention.
And what is that? That if this city is built and its walls are completed, you will have no portion in the entire region beyond the river. For just as this city casts off your yoke, all the inhabitants beyond the river will follow suit, seeing that these people succeeded and concluding: we can succeed as well. Understand, my lord king: you are not merely at risk of losing some small town, such that you might say, "Jerusalem? How big is it, five kilometers by five? Good for them, let them build." No, sir! Know that if they rebel against you, it will spread like a cancer; all the region beyond the river will follow in their wake, and everyone will rebel against you. Therefore, precisely here it says "we inform," so that you do not think, "It is insignificant, let us concede to them" - there is a threat here to the very foundation of your kingdom.
פִּתְגָמָ֞א שְׁלַ֣ח מַלְכָּ֗א עַל־רְח֤וּם בְּעֵל־טְעֵם֙ וְשִׁמְשַׁ֣י סָֽפְרָ֔א וּשְׁאָר֙ כְּנָוָ֣תְה֔וֹן דִּ֥י יָתְבִ֖ין בְּשָֽׁמְרָ֑יִן וּשְׁאָ֧ר עֲבַֽר־נַהֲרָ֛ה שְׁלָ֖ם וּכְעֶֽת׃ - The king sent an answer to Rechum the chancellor, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions who dwell in Shomron, and the rest beyond the river: "Peace, and now..."
After reading these words and seeing the evidence, it was clear to the king that they could not possibly be lying. It was inconceivable that they would write an untruth that was bound to be exposed immediately; would all of these nations lie? What interest did they have, why would they care, and why would they do such a thing? All that remained for him to investigate was the historical angle: was it truly their way to rebel against kings?
So he writes to them: to Rechum the chancellor, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their associates dwelling in Shomron, "and the rest beyond the river: peace, and now." And what does "shelem" mean here? The Malbim explains: just as we write "etc." (vechu'), they would write "shelem". The Hebrew expression "vegomer" means to complete - complete the verse, as in "ve'idach zil gmor" ("and the rest, go and learn/complete"), fill in the rest on your own. Likewise, "veshelem" means: complete the continuation on your own, so that I do not need to enumerate so-and-so and so-and-so. In other words: all those who are together with them, the entire complete group of senders of the letter.
נִשְׁתְּוָנָ֕א דִּ֥י שְׁלַחְתּ֖וּן עֲלֶ֑ינָא מְפָרַ֥שׁ קֱרִ֖י קׇדָמָֽי׃ - The letter that you sent to us has been clearly read before me.
The nishtevan, as we explained, is an exact copy matching the original text. The king tells them: the letter you sent to me was clearly and distinctly read before me.
וּמִנִּי֮ שִׂ֣ים טְעֵם֒ וּבַקַּ֣רוּ וְהַשְׁכַּ֔חוּ דִּ֚י קִרְיְתָ֣א דָ֔ךְ מִן־יוֹמָת֙ עָֽלְמָ֔א עַל־מַלְכִ֖ין מִֽתְנַשְּׂאָ֑ה וּמְרַ֥ד וְאֶשְׁתַּדּ֖וּר מִתְעֲבֶד־בַּֽהּ׃ - And an order was issued by me, and they searched and found that this city from days of old has risen up against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made within it.
An order went forth from me, and they indeed searched and found that it is just as you said. Notice: he did not verify the physical facts on the ground. He did not send anyone to check what was actually being built, because it was far more convenient for him to check the archives in his own palace than to dispatch an emissary from Persia to the Land of Israel. There were no flights in those days; getting there meant a long journey and weeks of travel. Therefore, it seemed simpler to him to consult the chronicles to see whether the city truly had a history of rebellion - and indeed, that is what he found. The men he commanded to investigate "hashkachu", they found, that from days of old this city had risen against kings, rebelled against them, and constantly sought to incite others to rebel, and such had always been done within it.
וּמַלְכִ֣ין תַּקִּיפִ֗ין הֲווֹ֙ עַל־יְר֣וּשְׁלֶ֔ם וְשַׁ֨לִּיטִ֔ין בְּכֹ֖ל עֲבַ֣ר נַהֲרָ֑ה וּמִדָּ֥ה בְל֛וֹ וַהֲלָ֖ךְ מִתְיְהֵ֥ב לְהֽוֹן׃ - There have also been mighty kings over Jerusalem who ruled over all the region beyond the river, and tribute, poll-tax, and toll were paid to them.
There were powerful kings in Jerusalem who ruled over the entire region beyond the river, and the nations paid them taxes. In other words, this city was once a seat of empire - during the reign of Shlomo, they ruled over all of Ever-HaNahar (the region beyond the Euphrates). And a place that once held imperial power always aspires to regain that former glory. Whom did Saddam Hussein, may his name be cursed, compare himself to? To Nebuchadnezzar. "There was a time when we were great, when we ruled the world" - whoever once tasted empire aspires to recreate that success. Thus the king says: It has become clear to me that there were people here who ruled over the entire region beyond the river and everyone paid them tribute, poll-tax, and toll. This leads me to believe that these people aspire to recreate that same great success, and will not continue paying taxes to me; rather, they will want to rule and collect the taxes from across the river themselves.
כְּעַן֙ שִׂ֣ימוּ טְּעֵ֔ם לְבַטָּלָ֖א גֻּבְרַיָּ֣א אִלֵּ֑ךְ וְקִרְיְתָ֥א דָךְ֙ לָ֣א תִתְבְּנֵ֔א עַד־מִנִּ֖י טַעְמָ֥א יִתְּשָֽׂם׃ - Now issue a decree to stop these men, and this city must not be rebuilt until an order is issued by me.
He tells them: issue an official decree to halt these men from building, and this city shall not be built "until an order is issued by me" - until an edict goes forth from me granting permission to build it, until an instruction is given by me and authorization is granted with my consent to resume construction. In the meantime, this city must not continue to be built.
וּזְהִירִ֥ין הֱו֛וֹ שָׁל֖וּ לְמֶעְבַּ֣ד עַל־דְּנָ֑ה לְמָה֙ יִשְׂגֵּ֣א חֲבָלָ֔א לְהַנְזָקַ֖ת מַלְכִֽין׃ - And take heed that you not be negligent in acting upon this; why should the damage increase to the detriment of the kings?
I command that you be careful - that is, take heed not to forget what I have commanded you, nor to err and fail to carry out my command swiftly. "Shalu" means an error or negligence: take care that no negligence comes about through you. And why? "Why should the damage increase to the detriment of the kings" - why should the harm grow to inflict loss upon the royal realm?
The Malbim makes a profound observation: the king's decree made no mention whatsoever of halting the building of the Temple, but only of the city - "and that city shall not be rebuilt." "Kiryeta" means the city. For as we explained: they wrote to the king that the city was being built, and while their wording could have subtly implied that the Temple was being built, they made sure he understood that it was the city being rebuilt. This indeed infuriated him, and therefore he dispatched orders to stop the construction of the city.
Yet if we look closely, there are two clauses here: "to stop these men" and "that city shall not be rebuilt." What does this actually mean? In truth, since they drafted the letter of accusation regarding the city rather than the Temple, the king's directive "to stop these men" meant to stop them from building the city. What was your complaint about? The city. Therefore, I command that they be stopped from building the city. But the building of the Temple - the king in fact allowed to continue.
However, this is where the deception comes in: Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe came and announced to the people, "We wrote an accusation against the Temple, not the city. Therefore, let us now read what the king wrote: 'Issue a decree to stop these men' - to stop these people from their work. And since our accusation was concerning the Temple, and the king says to stop the men from their work, he is commanding that the building of the Temple be halted!"
This is the depth of the deceit: to the king they sent an accusation about the city, and the king sent back a letter ordering a halt to the city's construction - yet they came and told the Jewish people that the letter had been about the Temple, and so the king's response was to halt the Temple's construction. They had complete control over both what was delivered to the king and what was received from him. And if anyone were to counter, "Does it not also mention the construction of the city?", they would answer, "The king does not want the Temple built lest the city be built." Moreover, one could argue that the king referred to the Temple complex under the general term "city," and that by commanding the men to cease building the city, his intention was that they not continue with the Temple. In this way, the decree was manipulated.
אֱדַ֗יִן מִן־דִּ֞י פַּרְשֶׁ֤גֶן נִשְׁתְּוָנָא֙ דִּ֚י אַרְתַּחְשַׁ֣שְׂתְּא מַלְכָּ֔א קֱרִ֧י קֳדָם־רְח֛וּם וְשִׁמְשַׁ֥י סָפְרָ֖א וּכְנָוָתְה֑וֹן אֲזַ֨לוּ בִבְהִיל֤וּ לִירֽוּשְׁלֶם֙ עַל־יְה֣וּדָיֵ֔א וּבַטִּ֥לוּ הִמּ֖וֹ בְּאֶדְרָ֥ע וְחָֽיִל׃ - Then, as soon as the copy of King Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum, Shimshai the scribe, and their associates, they hurried to Jerusalem, to the Jews, and stopped them by force and might.
And when the translated copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read before Rehum, Shimshai the scribe, and "their associates" - their counselors and aides - "they hurried to Jerusalem"; they rushed with this letter, descended upon the Jews, and halted their work by force and arms.
בֵּאדַ֗יִן בְּטֵלַת֙ עֲבִידַ֣ת בֵּית־אֱלָהָ֔א דִּ֖י בִּירוּשְׁלֶ֑ם וַהֲוָת֙ בָּֽטְלָ֔א עַ֚ד שְׁנַ֣ת תַּרְתֵּ֔ין לְמַלְכ֖וּת דָּרְיָ֥וֶשׁ מֶֽלֶךְ־פָּרָֽס׃ - Then ceased the work of the House of God which is in Jerusalem, and it remained suspended until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
"Be'edayin" - in the wake of these events, the work of building the House of God in Jerusalem ceased, and it remained halted until the second year of Darius, king of Persia. For after Cyrus came Ahasuerus, who married Esther, and from Ahasuerus and Esther was born Darius - the son of Esther - and in his second year, he renewed the building of the Temple.
And for how long did work on the Temple cease? Eighteen years. And this is precisely the same span of eighteen years that was lacking to complete seventy years from the desolation of Jerusalem. For as we explained, the beginning of the construction was calculated from the exile of Yehoyachin - and that was exactly seventy years, since the exile of Yehoyachin took place eighteen years before the exile of Jerusalem. Indeed, seventy years after the exile of Yehoyachin, they began building the Temple. But eighteen years later, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were also exiled with the destruction of Jerusalem; and if we count seventy years from that point, we arrive at the period of Darius, who was the one who granted permission to build, eighteen years later.
Thus both verses were fulfilled: both the verse speaking of seventy years from the time of the exile of Yehoyachin - when they indeed began the construction, and the verse speaking of seventy years from the desolation of Jerusalem - which refers to the time when the work of construction was completed. Both of these verses are true.
We have studied a chapter in the tactics of hatred: the king's two scribes, whose role was to ensure the accuracy of the translation, distorted the meaning of the grievance, turning a complaint about "the Temple" into a complaint about "Jerusalem," using ambiguous phrasing through which each party could evade responsibility. They cloaked the slander in the names of all the nations across the River, in declarations of loyalty ("we eat the salt of the palace"), in feigned concern for the king's honor and treasury, and in a reference to the books of chronicles so that the king would verify the history without investigating the facts on the ground. The king indeed checked - only the archives - and commanded to halt the construction of the city; and those same scribes presented the decree to the people as an order to halt the construction of the Temple. Thus the work ceased for eighteen years, until the second year of Darius - and in those very eighteen years, both verses of the seventy years were fulfilled: seventy from the exile of Yehoyachin to the beginning of construction, and seventy from the desolation of Jerusalem to the time of permission and completion.