Any discussion of the historical setting that opens the narrative must mention the well-known debate as to the identity of King Achashverosh. Clearly, he was one of the Persian kings of the Achaemenid dynasty (539-330 B.C.E.). This dynasty, comprising ten generations of kings, began with Cyrus, who defeated the Babylonians (539 B.C.E.) and ended with the death of Darius III (330 B.C.E.), approximately three years after the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great), ushering in the Hellenistic period.
But which of the Achaemenid kings was Achasheverosh? Among contemporary scholars, opinions are divided into two main schools of thought:
A. Giving the narrative a later date tends to identify Achashverosh with Artaxerxes II (404-359 B.C.E.). This view is supported by the Septuagint (where the king's name appears as "Artaxerxes") and by Josephus Flavius.
B. An earlier – and more widely accepted – date identifies Achashverosh as Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.E.)
. . . וּמֵהֵיכָן קוֹרֵא אָדָם אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה וְיוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ,
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כֻּלָּהּ.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מֵאִישׁ יְהוּדִי (אסתר ב).
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, מֵאַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה (אסתר ג):
. . . . From when is it necessary to have commenced the reading of the Megillah, so as to have duly fulfilled the obligation?
R. Meir says, "It is obligatory to read the whole thing."
Rabbi Yehudah says, "It suffices if he commenced from the verse Ish Yehudi (Esther 2:5)."
Rabbi Yose says, "[Even if] from the verse Achar Hedevarim Haeleh (Esther 3)."
What is the significance of choosing to begin the narrative with Achashverosh's feast and the banishing of Vashti? Why is the feast presented as the beginning of the story?
To answer this question we must clarify which stages and developments the author gains by starting at this point. In other words – what would the reader be missing if the story began in the twelfth year, from Haman's rise to power (chapter 3)? Two images would disappear: first, Achashverosh's feast and the manner in which Vashti was banished (chapter 1); and second, the manner in which Esther was chosen as the new queen (chapter 2).
The inclusion of the story of Vashti's removal and the selection of Esther within the narrative serves to expose some of its fundamental principles. The first of these is what the Babylonian Talmud refers to as "Preceding the affliction with its cure": "'After these things' – Rabba taught: [This means,] after the Holy One, blessed be He, had created the cure for the affliction. As Reish Lakish taught: The Holy One does not strike at Israel without first creating their healing" (Megilla 13b).
The innocent reader (unaware of the continuation of the story) who finishes chapter 2 never imagines the possibility that Esther's arrival in the royal palace holds the seed of salvation for all of the Jews. Not only the innocent reader, but also the characters themselves would never dream of such a scenario. The "neutral" event of Esther's selection assumes its proper significance only years later (more accurately, five years later), when it becomes clear how Esther's position plays a decisive role in the development of the plot and in saving her entire nation. When the story develops in this way, the reader enters a reading experience in which s/he relinquishes in advance his/her full understanding of the significance of every episode, as examined individually. Against his/her will, the reader finds himself in perpetual tension with the images that he has not yet encountered, illuminating anew those with which he is already familiar, and imbuing them with new meaning.
Beyond the molding of the narrative in such a way that the seeds sown in the beginning will ripen later on and assume an important role in the development of the plot, it seems that attention should also be paid to the concealed reading that lies behind the description of the feast. It is at this feast that Achashverosh ascends the literary stage, with the feast revealing something of his values and culture. In other words, aside from the actual development of the plot (the removal of Vashti and her replacement with Esther), these images serve to form the image of the king in the narrative.
However, as I have indicated above, Mordecai demanded immediate action because he feared the possibility-or shall I say the probability-that our enemies, bloodthirsty and vindictive, would not wait for the fixed date, the thirteenth of Adar, but would execute the order immediately. The opportunity had been given to the fiend to slay, to destroy, and to uproot. The Jews were declared outside the protection of the law, defenseless and helpless. Why should the enemies procrastinate and delay? Hence, Esther's premise that the pogroms would occur in compliance with the edict was questionable. They could start right away in Shushan. We read that "the city of Shushan was perplexed" (3:15) and capable of staging a riot. However, no one dared harm the Jewish inhabitants. Why had they lacked the courage to render Ahasuerus' order a fait accompli? Neither
Mordecai nor Esther could have changed the king's orders. What, indeed, prevented our foes from murder and destruction? Certainly not their desire to kill in conformity to the law. Apparently, they were afraid of something; a certain doubt bothered their minds, and this fear dampened their malicious,
fiendish enthusiasm. The previous letters sent out by the king amply demonstrated that the king lacked judgment, that he is simply stupid. They all asked themselves, How could ou emperor, who rules such a vast area, whose word is law, who determines the destiny of millions of people, act like a fool and issue edicts pertaining to the intimate relationship between husband and wife? The conclusion is that the emperor is irre-
sponsible and unreliable. If so, who can guarantee that this edict was planned properly, and that the emperor and his prime minister are sane and know what they are doing? Perhaps the whole story is a hoax and we will later be punished for murder. Hence, all the hate-mongers, bigots, and killers decided not to act immediately but to wait and see, to test the validity and genuineness of the orders. If there will be no change in the order
by Adar the thirteenth, then the pogroms will start.
The question arises, What does it mean that the king remembered Vashti? How could he forget what had just happened? The verse states that Ahasuerus remembered Vashti when his wrath subsided. But even if one is angry, he is aware of what happens. The words are enigmatic. There is one answer. When the Megillah writes, "He remembered Vashti," it uses the Hebrew word zakhar. Usually, the word zakhar means "favorably remembered." This point is made in the Talmud to explain why the verses on the theme of remembrance are called zikhronot, based on the term zakhar. The verses are not called pikdonot, based on the term pakad, which also means "remembered," because pakad many times is used in a negative sense (Rosh ha-Shanah. 32b). In contrast, zakhar is mostly, although not always, used in favor of the person whom one remembers. So the phrase "He remembered Vashti" should be qualified by an adverbial designation, "He remembered Vashti favorably." After the ire of the king subsided, he began to think well of her. He suddenly began to brood and doubt whether or not he should have punished her with so much cruelty: "There were mitigating circumstances that I should have taken into consideration while I sat in judgment. It was wrong, unjust, and malicious on my part." But the king cannot be guilty. He is always just. If he did something wrong, then someone else is responsible, someone misled him; someone must be liable for the mistake. Ahasuerus began to "inquire" who suggested to him to execute Vashti.
Commenting on this verse, our Sages said:
After these things, when the wrath of king Ahasuerus subsided, he sent and called to all of his chamberlain and said to them, "I am not angry at Vashti; rather, I am angry at you on account of the following: If I said some-thing, it was because of wine. But why did you incite me to kill Queen Vashti? Now I have caused her name to be erased from the kingdom. So will I kill you also and cause your names to be erased from the kingdom"(Targum Esther 2:1).
Why did Ahasuerus blame the royal advisors for Vashti's death? Somehow Memucan, foxy and shrewd, succeeded in convincing Ahasuerus that the royal council had advised him to kill the queen. Only Memucan had voted in favor of clemency. No questions were asked; all denials on the part of the royal advisors were futile. The six members of the highest council were executed. Only Memucan survived.
After these things did King Ahasuerus promote Haman ... and advanced him (3:1).
Why does the Megillah tell us that Haman was elevated "after these events occurred"? Because he persuaded Ahasuerus that he alone had defended Vashti and begged the king not to kill her. For this he was rewarded, and the rest of the council was executed. This story was known to all officialdom of the empire. Hence, they were afraid to act immediately. They did not rush to execute the royal orders. They recalled that Ahasuerus himself had changed his mind about Vashti, and that whoever was involved in the execution of Vashti was himself executed. this is the reason why our enemies were slow in acting. Meanwhile Esther and Mordechai had the opportunity to intercede and save the people.
בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי כְּטוֹב לֵב־הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּיִן אָמַר לִמְהוּמָן בִּזְּתָא חַרְבוֹנָא בִּגְתָא וַאֲבַגְתָא זֵתַר וְכַרְכַּס שִׁבְעַת הַסָּרִיסִים הַמְשָׁרְתִים אֶת־פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ׃ לְהָבִיא אֶת־וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בְּכֶתֶר מַלְכוּת לְהַרְאוֹת הָעַמִּים וְהַשָּׂרִים אֶת־יָפְיָהּ כִּי־טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה הִיא׃
(א) השאלות:
- איה סכלות גדול מזה, שמושל אדיר כזה יצוה להביא אשת חיקו, להראותה לפני המון גוים והמון לאומים כי יפת מראה היא ובשגם לקבלת חז''ל שצוה להביאה ערומה?
- וביותר יפלא איכות הבאתה אשר נראה שצוה תיכף להביאה בע''כ ביד הסריסים, כמביאים אחת הנבלות, עד שנבחר לה מות מחיי הבוז והקלון?
- גם למה האריך בספור זה בשמות הסריסים, ובאר המשרתים את פני המלך, מה צורך לנו בהודעה זאת?
ביום השביעי, ולמען יניח זאת ליסוד מוסד ואבן הראשה שושתי אין לה חלק במלכות, ומלכותו היא מצד הכבוש לבד שעי''ז ישיג מגמתו להיות מולך ממלכה בלתי מוגבלת, התחכם במה שצוה להביא ושתי לפניו, להראות שלא מצד יחוסה לקחה, רק מצד שיפת מראה היא, לא זולת זה, כי יחוס מלכותה נפסק בעת הכבוש והערים להוציא זה לאור בחמשה ענינים : א. שצוה למהומן וכו'
שבעת הסריסים שאם היתה נחשבת כמולכת בפני עצמה, איך יובילוה ע''י הסריסים הלא ראוי שיצאו לקראתה כל שרי המלוכה : ב. שגם לא בחר שתבא ע''י הסריסים המשרתים אותה, רק ע''י הסריסים
המשרתים את פני המלך אחשורוש, שזה שפלות גדול לפניה, שמחשיבה אחת מפילגשיו, אשר סריסיו יביאוה לפניו :
להביא, ג. שצוה להם להביא שהל' מראה שיביאוה בעל כרחה כאחת שפחותיו, ד. שצוה שיביאוה באופן שידעו הכל כי מביאים
את ושתי המלכה לא המלכה ושתי, שמן בואה לפני המלך ידעו כל העמים שאין מלכותה עצמי לה, והוא ע''י שיביאוה
לפני המלך בכתר מלכות, ר''ל שלא תלבש הכתר עד אשר תבוא לפני המלך, ור''ל לפני המלך עת שתהיה לפניו אז תהיה בכתר מלכות לא קודם לכן, ובזה יכירו הכל שאין ראוי לה ללבוש הכתר בהיותה לבדה כי הדיוטית היא, ה. תכלית מטרת חפצו
להראות העמים והשרים שלא לקחה בעבור יחוסה רק בעבור
יפיה כי טובת מראה היא שאם היה לוקחה בעבור יחוסה ובעבור שע''י זכה למלכות לא יתכן שיראה את יפיה, כי הלא בין יפה בין כעורה היה לוקחה אחר שעמה לקח חבל המלוכה, והלא זה בזיון אל המדינות אם מראה יפיה, כאלו היופי חשוב יותר מן המלכות שהשיג על ידה, אבל בזה גלה כי אין מחשיב אותה למלכה מצד עצמה, וזכה בהמלכות מצד עצמו בכחו וגבורתו, ובזה רצה להגיע לחפצו למלוך מלוכה בלתי מוגבלת :
2. What does כְּטוֹב לֵב mean?
For the Jew, when the feasting reaches its apex, he finds himself in the presence of God. The seventh (or the eighth) day on which the celebration attains the finale is called "atzeret," a day of restraint, of complete dedication to God. "On the seventh shall be an atzeret to the Lord your God" (Deut. 16:8). The great ideal of standing before God is achieved on the seventh day.
Emotional life is, of course, stimulated by imbibing alcoholic beverages. However, the stimulation may drag man down into the gutter. It may also-if the drinking is moderate-raise man emotionally. Wine sometimes arouses noble emotions in man by making him more sensitive and responsive. The Torah taught the Jew how to feast with responsibility.
The Torah is setting out to teach man how to act. There are two alternatives: either to act like Ahasuerus or to act the way one would in the presence of God. When one drinks wine in the latter case, the nervous system is stimulated, the sensitivity enhanced, emotions aroused but disciplined. There is a longing for something beautiful and fascinating. Man is under emotional pressure; he wants to release tension. He sings a song to the Almighty: "We do not sanctify [the Sabbath] except over wine" (Pesahim 107a). What does a Jew do on Passover night when he fills his fourth cup? Does he engage in idle, coarse talk? No. He recites the Hallel.
On the seventh day, Ahasuerus, the man of pleasure, is engrossed in sinful thoughts and unclean talk and begins to act like the beast in the forest. He gets intoxicated with hedonic experiences, while the Jew rises to higher levels. The Torah has never told the Jew not to enjoy, not to derive pleasure from some experiences. However, Judaism resented two aspects of hedonic man: the orgiastic-seeking pleasure without an end-and the hypnotic-the compulsive drive to take pleasure. Ahasuerus did not know when to stop, nor did he know how to control his desires. The entire society was saturated with carnal desire. Only in such an environment could a madman such as Haman rise to political heights and threaten the very existence of a people. Pleasure Man is volatile and cowardly.
At this juncture, we are reminded of the Jewish concept of the meal: the se'udah: It is a very strange institution. The se'udah. combines two contradictory elements: on the one hand, eating, drinking, gratifying an animal, instinctual drive, a profane, primitive function; and on the other hand, the offering of a sacrifice, for the table is the altar and taking a meal is a sac-erdotal act, a service. These conflicting aspects are highlighted in the ostensibly self contradictory verse: "And you shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God" (Deut. 14:26). On the one hand, you feast, you eat, and you drink wine; on the other hand, you feel your proximity to God. How is it possible to combine these two mutually exclusive states of mind into one experience?
In fact, this combination is typically Jewish. Our Sages taught: "If three have eaten at one table and spoken over it no words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten of sacrifices to the dead" (Auot 3:3). The meal in Judaism is not merely an occasion for eating. The meal is transformed into a symposium; it precipitates Torah debate. Moreover, the meal in Judaism has another purpose. Unlike the animal, a person almost never eats alone. He invites others. The Jew invites the poor man: "the stranger and the fatherless, and the widow who are within your gates" (Dout, 14:29). The meal is transformed into an act of chesed. Hence, Judaism elevates the meal and turns it into a Torah experience and a chesed opportunity.
(א) ביום השביעי כטוב וגו'. אטו עד השתא לא הטיב לבו בחמרא, אמר רבא אותו יום השביעי שבת היה צזדריש השביעי – השביעי המיוחד וידוע, דהוא יום השבת. שבמדה שאדם מודד מודדין לו, מלמד שהיתה ושתי הרשעה מביאה בנות ישראל ומפשיטן ערומות ועושה בהן מלאכה בשבת, לפיכך צוה להביא אותה ערומה צחאמנם לא נתבאר איפה מרומז ענין זה בפסוק, אף כי אמנם הלשון בסמוך בדבר המלך אשר ביד הסריסים מורה שהיתה בידם איזה פקודה ולא נתפרשה מפני הכבוד, ואולי סמכו זה על הלשון שאמר להביא את ושתי, כי הלשון להביא הוא לשון גם לפי ערך כבוד המלכה, והוא מורה להביאה בדרך פחיתות ונבול, אלא הול"ל שתבא, ולכן דרשו שצוה להביאה ערומה ואז בודאי לא תאבה ללכת מרצונה ולכן צוה להביאה [וכהאי גונא דרשו במגילה ט"ז א' ויבהילו להביא את המן מלמד שהביאוהו בבהלה, וי"ל דמדייק ג"כ מה דלא כתיב ויבהילו להמן לבא אלא הוא מפני שהביאוהו שלא לרצונו דלבו לא הלך אז אחר משתה, אחרי המאורע שלו עם מרדכי ואחר מיתת בתו ואחר נבואת אשתו ואוהביו כי נפל תפל וכו' כמבואר שם]. ועיקר טעם הדבר שצוה להביאה כן י"ל משום שכפי הנראה מפסוק זה להראות העמים והשרים את יפיה היה מתפאר ביפיה הרבה, והיה חושש שאם תבא מלובשת כנהוג יאמרו שהבגדי מלכות מיפים אותה או כי בכלל אין ראיה מתואר הפנים שאפשר לייפותו ע"י כחל ושרק [וכמ"ש בכתובות י"ז א' לא כחל ולא שרק ויעלת חן משמע דבכחל ושרק אפשר להתיפות ולמצוא חן] ולכן צוה להביאה ערומה, ואת כל הגוף אין נוהגין לכחול ולשרוק וידונו מיופי הגוף על יופי הפנים כי יופי טבעי הוא. ובפדר"א פמ"ט איתא שכך היה מנהגן של מלכי מדי בסעודה שהיו נשותיהם משחקות ומרקדות לפניהם וכו'.(מגילה י"א ב')
2. What exactly did the king remember?
3. What did Vashti do?
זכר את ושתי, מספר שאחר ששך חמת המלך ועלה בדעתו לקחת אשה אחרת למלכה, פחד בלבבו מפני שלשה דברים,
א. שזכר את ושתי, את יפיה ויחוסה ומעלותיה וחשב כי קשה שימצא אשה כמוה,
ב. זכר את אשר עשתה, וירא לקחת אשה פן גם ימצא מיוחסת ויפ''ת כושתי תעשה גם היא כמעשה ושתי, ולא יכון במשפט כסאו שיהרוג גם זאת שיאמרו שהוא הורג את נשיו,
ג. זכר את אשר נגזר עליה, וירא שגם תמצא אשה ראויה אליו לא תרצה להנשא לו כי תתירא שלא יהרוג גם אותה
(ג) אשר עשתה וגו'. ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה – כשם שעשתה כך נגזר עליה, [היא עשתה מלאכה בבנות ישראל ערומות לפיכך נגזר עליה שתבא ערומה – ונהרגה] געיין מה ששייך לדרשה זו לעיל בפרשה הקודמת בפסוק (י') ביום השביעי כטוב לב המלך. ויתכן דמדייק המלים אשר עשתה, ולא פירש מה עשתה, כי הלא מֵאוּנָהּ לבא לפני המלך היה רק בשב ואל תעשה, ולכן מפרש על המלאכה אשר עשתה בבנות ישראל ערומות ואשר ננזר עליה מדה כנגד מדה, ואולי בזה שככה חמת המלך כי ראה שמאת ההשגחה היתה זאת, והוא היה רק שלוחה, לענשה כמדתה, ובזה נבין מה שמביא כאן את זכירת ושתי וענשה, שלכאורה אין להם ענין כאן למאמר משרתי המלך, אבל לפי דברינו אתי שפיר, כי זכר כאן את הדברים האלה, יען כי המה היו הסבה לשכיכת חמתו, ובמ"ר כאן הדרשה באופן אחר. (מגילה י"ב ב')
(ב) אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה כְּשֹׁךְ חֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ (אסתר ב, א),
אָמַר רַבִּי אַיְּבוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִמְרָא כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַחַר סָמוּךְ, אַחֲרֵי מוּפְלָג.
וְרַבָּנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִמְרָא כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַחֲרֵי סָמוּךְ, אַחַר מוּפְלָג.
כְּשׁךְ חֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, בְּשֹׁךְ אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא כְּשֹׁךְ, שְׁכִיכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׁכִיכָה.
זָכַר אֶת וַשְׁתִּי, גְּזֵרָה זֹאת שֶׁגָּזַר עָלֶיהָ שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לְפָנָיו עֲרֻמָּה וְלֹא נִכְנְסָה וְקָצַף עָלֶיהָ וַהֲרָגָהּ, מִן דְּקָטְלָה שָׁרֵי תָּהֵי בֵיהּ [חוזר בו], לָמָּה, שֶׁעָשְׂתָה כְּהֹגֶן.
וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר נִגְזַר עָלֶיהָ, שֶׁלא כְּהֹגֶן.
וְלָמָּה עָלְתָה לָהּ כָּךְ, לְפִי שֶׁלֹא הָיְתָה מַנַּחַת לַאֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ לִתֵּן רְשׁוּת לִבְנוֹת בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאוֹמֶרֶת לוֹ, מַה שֶּׁהֶחֱרִיבוּ אֲבוֹתַי אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ לִבְנוֹת, וַיֹּאמְרוּ נַעֲרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ מְשָׁרְתָיו וגו'.
(א) זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה. יתבאר מהנמשך מזה שהוא זכר את ושתי ויפיה והיה דואג על שנהרגה כי אשר עשתה לא היה באופן שיהיה ראוי לגזור עליה מה שנגזר כי עשתה זה לצניעות
ולפי שנערי המלך משרתיו הרגישו שהמלך היה דואג עליה ליפיה נתנו לו עצה לקבוץ כל נערה בתולה טובת מראה אל שושן הבירה אל בית הנשים ויבחר מהן אחת [אשר] תיטב בעיניו והיא תמלוך תחת ושתי:
The second part of the description of the feast focuses on Vashti, and this, in fact, is the dominant element of the plot: the process by which Vashti is removed from the palace, paving the way for Esther. Why does Vashti hold a separate feast for the women? We might suggest that in Achashverosh’s kingdom special care is taken in matters of modesty, but a simpler explanation for this phenomenon lies in the licentiousness that characterized Persian banquets. It was specifically because of the many concubines who were regularly invited to the king’s feasts that Achashverosh decided to give his male guests a “break” and separate them from their wives. This would allow for an uninhibited orgy, free of the critical eye of the spouses. The background to this separation between men and women at Persian parties may be deduced from a work by the Greek historian Plutarch (c. 100 B.C.E.), “Advice to a Bride and Groom”. Inter alia, he writes:
“The lawful wives of the kings of Persia sit by their side at the meal and eat with them. But when the kings want to make merry and to become drunk, they send their wives outside and invite the dancing girls and the concubines. They act properly in this regard, since they do not allow their lawful wives to take any part in their licentiousness and debauchery.”
This interpretation is hinted at in the Babylonian Talmud. The statement, “Both had sinful intentions,” is immediately followed by a popular idiom indicating the lust-driven agreement between husbands and wives at that feast: “People said: He [entertains himself] with gourds, and she – with cucumbers” (Babylonian Talmud, Megilla 12a-b).
This information is of great importance for our understanding of Vashti’s refusal to present herself. The king sends his seven chamberlains to call for Vashti “on the seventh day,” when his heart is merry with wine. Since the feast lasts only seven days, Achashverosh is calling upon her on the last day. The fact that this important event, which leads to the next stage of the plot, takes place at the last minute, serves to create the sense that “coincidentally,” at the very last minute, Vashti is removed and the way is paved for Esther. It is interesting that the king sends for his wife through the agency of his seven chamberlains, suggesting the sort of official atmosphere appropriate to state procedure (Fox, 20). The tension between the presentation of Achashverosh and Vashti as a romantic couple and the presentation of the dialogue between them as an impersonal state matter reaches its climax in the next scene, where the king consults with his advisors, and we shall discuss this further in that context.
To the reader’s surprise, Vashti refuses to appear at the men’s feast to show off her beauty. It is especially surprising since, considering the way in which the king is presented at the beginning of the narrative it is logical to assume that this king will not take kindly to being refused by his wife. In his drunken state he will certainly not demonstrate patience when his wife’s refusal is made public - in the presence of “all of his princes and servants," and “all of the people who were in Shushan, from the greatest to the least”! How is it, then, that Vashti refuses? What is her reason?
This question is so perplexing that the Midrash resorts to explaining Vashti’s behavior by proposing either a bout of leprosy - “Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina taught that she broke out in leprosy” - or the sudden growth of a tail – “[The angel] Gavriel came and made her a tail.” In fact, the simplest understanding of Vashti’s refusal relates to what we noted above, concerning the licentiousness that characterized such feasts. Achashverosh wanted to bring Vashti before the drunken men at the feast, to show them all her beauty. It is reasonable to assume that Vashti was well aware that “showing her beauty” would not be the end of the matter. Chazal's teaching, mentioned in ancient translations of the Megilla, that Achashverosh wanted Vashti to be brought naked, touches profoundly on the atmosphere that pervaded such feasts.
In light of the above it would seem that Vashti acted wisely. As Goitein puts it: “We all feel that Vashti is right in not prostituting herself before the drunks on the seventh day of the feast, when the wine has aroused them powerfully.” Indeed, Vashti’s good judgment is hinted at in the analogy created in the text between her refusal to come before the king and Yosef’s refusal to the proposition of Potifar’s wife:
Vashti:
“For she was of handsome appearance” (and therefore the king seeks to bring her)
“But Queen Vashti refused” (and therefore she is banished from the palace).
Yosef:
“Yosef was of handsome form and beautiful appearance” (and therefore Potifar’s wife seeks to seduce him)
"But he refused" - and therefore he is banished from Potifar’s house.
Since the story of Esther makes several allusions to the story of Yosef in Egypt, it is reasonable to posit that this, too, is a deliberate allusion, contributing to the moral judgment of the characters. Just as it is clear to the reader that the proposal of Potifar’s wife is uttered in a sexual context, so this association should inform our understanding of Achashverosh’s invitation – even if it is not stated explicitly. And just as it is clear to the reader that Yosef’s refusal of the proposal by Potifar’s wife is a worthy decision (even though it resulted in his imprisonment), so, hints the author, we should view Vashti’s refusal in a positive light, even though later she would suffer the consequences.
Thus, even though the narrator follows the king’s reaction, from his perspective, and identifies, as it were, with the terrible affront to the king when Vashti refuses to fulfill her husband’s wishes, he is actually hinting to the reader that it is Vashti who earns his respect here and not the protagonist of the narrative, the king.
http://etzion.org.il/en/shiur-03-feast-achashverosh-and-feast-vashti-chapter-1#_ftn16
In contrast to Esther's passivity, she achieves instant, dizzying success. The description of her success, too, assumes special significance in light of the structure, and here we emphasize two developments. Firstly, Esther starts off by finding favor in the eyes of Hegai (verse 8), later – in the corresponding section of the second part of the story – this situation progresses to one in which she finds favor in the eyes of "all who beheld her" (verse 15). Secondly, there is an interesting development in the framework of the narrative. Initially, the attendants propose that "the maiden who will be pleasing in the king's eyes shall reign instead of Vashti" (4). It is no coincidence that the selection is formulated in such a way as to make the decision rest upon "the king's eyes"; after all, as we shall see from the continuation of the story, the physical beauty of the woman is indeed the decisive factor in the king's decision. However, the literary conclusion of the scene introduces a new verb, unusual in the Shushan context: "The king loved Esther more than all the women" (17).
http://etzion.org.il/en/shiur-05-esther-taken-king-treatment-women
Why do we start the Megilla from the story about the party?
Mishna - according to some opinions it’s ok to start later in the story
PYG - early part of the story impacts later developments
The salvation was prepared before the problem
the reader enters a reading experience in which s/he relinquishes in
advance his/her full understanding of the significance of every episode
RJS - It explains why the enemies didn't attack immediately
Vashi story
the king is unreliable - he makes edicts about intimate relationships
he may renege on the original orders like he did with his advisors
Why did Achashverosh ask Vashti to appear?
Malbim - the entire purpose was to discredit any claim Vashti had to being Queen. She was only Queen because of her beauty not because of her lineage.
What caused the king's anger to subside?
What exactly did the king remember?
What did Vashti do?
- Torah Temima - he remembered that Vashti made the Jewish girls work naked on Shabbat. His anger was quelled b/c he realized she was punished according to her misdeeds.
- Rashi - He remembered her beauty and was upset. Time seems to be the reason for his anger subsiding.
- Malbim - he remembered why he killed Vashti and was worried the same could happen with his next wife. This happened after his anger went away and he had time to reflect.
- Midrash - He never really got over killing her. He felt guilty since Vashti was correct in not acquiescing to the king's request.
- Ralbag - he remembered her beauty which led to feelings of guilt b/c she was correct in not appearing naked.
- PYG - Vashi knew this appearance would lead to “misconduct”
- PYG - Vashi knew this appearance would lead to “misconduct”
PYG - He loved her. Nothing to do with beauty. There was something likeable about her.