json/Tanakh/Acharonim on Tanakh/Malbim/Writings/Malbim on Esther/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Malbim on Esther",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "מלבי\"ם על אסתר",
    "categories": [
        "Tanakh",
        "Acharonim on Tanakh",
        "Malbim",
        "Writings"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            [
                "QUESTIONS:<br>In general, the phrase ויהי בימי “and it came to pass in the days” is used to recount an occurrence that took place in the life of the person or during the period mentioned and is a method of dating that occurrence [just as ‘and it came to pass in the days of the judges’]. Here, though, the usage is self-referential, using the lifetime of Achashverosh to tell us about Achashverosh himself. The phrase “he was the Achashverosh who ruled from India to Ethiopia” seems superfluous. We do not know of any other Achashverosh that this could be coming to exclude. THROUGHOUT the entire Megillah, the name “King Achashverosh” is used. This verse is the only one to use the name Achashverosh without the appellation “King.” This indicates that we are talking about a time that he still wasn’t a king. If the absence of “King” is to tell us that he was not yet the monarch, then why are we told that he “ruled from India to Ethiopia”? THE phrase “who ruled” is written as המולך – in the present tense, rather than the past tense, אשר מלך as we would expect. Why?",
                "An understanding of this story needs that I make a brief introduction into how monarchies functioned when Egyptians, Medes, and Persians controlled the world stage. There were two types of monarchies: The first was a monarchy in which the king was elected by the people. The second type of monarchy was rule by force, in which the king conquered the country and became its ruler against the wishes of the people. This is what is told about Nimrod, and from these two appear two different types of governing:A. The powers of the king in the first type of monarchy were limited. The limitations to his actions are known. The limits of his powers were legislated already at the time of his election. Upon taking office, the king swore to follow the laws and practices of the country. B. In the second type of monarchy, however, the powers of the king were unlimited. He does what he desires. Though he might seek the advice of ministers, he did what he wanted, changing the laws of the country and its practices as he saw fit. He is the king and the law maker, all in one. There were five major differences between these two types of monarchies: 1. In the limited monarchy, the king was [seen as] taking care of the country, the head of state who legislated and was responsible for leading the country in its wars and in all of its issues. The people, in turn, pledged their allegiance (were subservient), accepting their duties to the king and agreeing to do things for mutual welfare, such as to pay and so on. In the unlimited monarchy, such as Sancherib and Nevuchednetzar, however, the country was totally subservient to the king, and its people were thought of as his slaves, and he can do whatever it is he wants with them, just as a master does with a slave he has bought for money. 2. The national treasuries in the limited monarchy belonged to the state. In the unlimited monarchy, they belonged to the king himself, like Pharaoh and Nevuchednetzar. 3. The king that ruled in a limited monarchy was not free to make major policy decisions without the approval of the country’s ministers. The unlimited monarch had no such restrictions, he would destroy and fix everything himself, without giving a thought to asking for advice or receiving permission at all. 4.\tThe limited monarch was bound by the laws of the country and its [religious] dictates. The unlimited monarch could change the laws as he wished. 5.\tThe capital city could not be changed in a limited monarchy; the king had to rule from the same city as his forebears. The unlimited monarch could change his capital city as and when he wanted. With this introduction we can proceed to the Purim story. Achashverosh, as received by our sages, was originally a commoner who, through his wealth, gained control over Media and Persia and strengthened his rule until he eventually conquered one hundred and twenty-seven countries through force. These had all originally been provinces of the Babylonian empire which had Babylon as its capital city, as explained in the Book of Daniel “upon the royal palace of Babylon” (4:26), and not Shushan, as it is written there (8:2) “I was in Shushan the castle, which is in the province of Elam”, and there is no mention of it being the [capital] city of the kingdom. And after he conquered all these countries, in order to consolidate his power, he married Vashti, a descendant of Nevuchadnetzar, [the former emperor of the Babylonian empire], and heiress to the throne. So from her side the throne was also his by inheritance. According to this his kingship was doubly assured. His wife was successor to the throne and he, himself, had conquered the empire. If his claim to power rested on his conquest, his dominion would be unlimited; if, however, it was based on his wife’s claim to the throne, the monarch’s power would be limited. Originally, the provinces of the empire had accepted Achashverosh’s dominion in the belief that his claim to power rested on his wife’s inheritance of the throne. The beginning of his monarchy was one of limited power. Achashverosh, though, wanted limitless power, and this was his prime motive in moving the capital city to Shushan, in hosting his huge banquet, and in commanding Vashti to appear before him. As we shall see, all these were deeply cunning strategies to achieve this goal of certainly prevail over all as it will be explained. This is why the writer opens with “Now it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh - he was the Achashverosh who reigned etc” comes to tell us that Achashverosh was not of royal stock, and he also did not come into power slowly, as a king of a small kingdom until it was forgotten that he was a commoner, and that after that he would grow slowly, in fact, <b>it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh</b>, when he was still a commoner. In those same days he became <b>the Achashverosh who ruled from India to Ethiopia</b> – his conquest happened so quickly that nobody remembered on which province exactly he had been king first, they only remembered that he was a commoner that reigned over all from Hodu to Cush. Also, in those days <b>he reigned on one hundred and twenty seven provinces</b>, and there wasn’t much time between him being a commoner and a king. That explains why the present tense is used – people could not recollect what he used to control. It all happened so quickly that people could only remember that Achashverosh the commoner now ruled over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces."
            ],
            [
                "QUESTIONS:<br>THE phrase “in those days” is superfluous. The previous verse already stated that it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh.” Why is the phrase used here? ALSO, “King Achashverosh” is unnecessary, for he was mentioned in the previous verse. Would it not have been better to say, “When he sat on the throne of his reign”? ALSO, to state that most of the story happens while he sat on the throne of his reign, and that it happens in Shushan – there is no need to repeat [these two ideas, so why do we have them repeated here?] ",
                "THE phrase <b>in those days</b> comes to tell how, at the outset of his rule, his power became so strong he decided to move the royal residence from Babylon to Shushan, and made Shushan the palace and the capital of the kingdom. And with this he had two objectives: First, it would show his power, that he intended to rule with unlimited power to the point that he was not afraid of a public rebellion at the change of location. Second, it would demonstrate his greatness and arrogance. Generally, when a commoner accedes to the throne, it is an honor for him to be able to sit on the same throne as his royal predecessors. He would not make a new one for himself because doing so would diminish his honor. Achashverosh, however, was so arrogant that he ignored all his predecessors, constructing a new throne and moving the capital city to Shushan. This demonstrated that he did not come to power and dominion over the kingdom of Bavel through public consent, but through his bow and sword. And through this, all surrendered and went down to Shushan in Persia. This did not take place after many years in power but immediately in those days it already seemed that <b>King Achashverosh sat on the throne of his kingdom</b> as one of royal pedigree, sitting on the throne of his kingdom, without recourse to the honor of his predecessors."
            ],
            [
                "QUESTIONS:<br>WHY did Achashverosh host this huge banquet? The precise reason is not stated.WHAT need saw the writers of the Megillah to state all the details of the banquet?THE order of those called over [invited] is puzzling. First the “princes and servants” then the army, and then the text goes back to nobles and then to princes of the provinces. Why are “officials” mentioned twice and why are the “governors and officials” mentioned after the “servants” who are, presumably, of lower status? And one understands that princes of the provinces are included in the general princes.WHAT is the need to say “before him”?WHY does it say “in the third year of his reign,” whereas when Esther becomes queen, the phrase “in the seventh year of his kingdom” is used?",
                "In order to achieve his ambition of unlimited power <b>in the third year of his reign</b> (this is the kingdom that he thought of reigning with a strong hand for many years) <b>he made a banquet</b> as a cunning stratagem towards this end. The order of those present at the banquet teaches us Achashverosh’s the purpose of his intentions: he sat first (i.e. giving more honor) <b>all his officials and servants, the army of Paras and Madai</b>, and only after them <b>the governors and officials who were before him</b>, that is who had preceded him, holding office before Achashverosh conquered their countries. This clearly demonstrated his conviction that his rule was not dependent on their agreement and appointment because, if so, wouldn’t the officials of the major states come before those of the small country he originally controlled and wouldn’t they definitely precede the servants and soldiers of the army? By placing his own servants and the army of conquest first, he showed that he regarded the governors and officials as merely vestiges of the era before him and before his conquest occurred – and now they are placed below him as lower and despised servants."
            ],
            [
                "QUESTIONS:<br>WHY did Achashverosh feel the need to display his wealth to the assembled nations?WHAT is the point of the repetitive “honor of his great splendor”?WHY are we told that this display lasted for “many days”?",
                "<b>WHEN he showed</b> - we have already explained that in a monarchy of limited power, the national wealth and treasuries belong to the nation, not to the king. He is not free to make himself great by displaying them as his own. In order to rule with absolute power, Achashverosh appropriated them and exhibited them before the assembled nation like a man who flaunts his own personal wealth. Therefore, he displayed the wealth of his glorious kingdom in front of many nations as it belonged to him, available for his own personal honor through his accession to the throne. Every king requires wealth, but a ruler over an empire of one hundred and twenty-seven nations obviously needs commensurate riches and prestige. <b>So he showed them the honor of his great splendor</b>, and not only for one or two days but for <b>many days, a hundred and eight days.</b> This was a clear indication to all that he had burglarized and taken the treasuries as his own possession and acquisition."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [],
            [],
            [],
            [],
            [
                "",
                "a. The King sent out that people from the Kingdom would be coming around and if they will be collecting women to take to the King. Out of the girls who come, the King will pick his new wife. When the servants and messengers came to Mordecai’s house and said that Esther needed to come, Mordecai and Esther resisted. If Mordecai was in a different city, he would have an excuse to say he didn’t hear the law and then it would have been less dangerous. However, Mordecai lived in Shushan, the city so he could not say that he didn’t hear the law! It shows Mordecai had no excuse to say he didn’t know and still when they came he tried to resist them. b. If Mordecai was a low and unimportant person, he would have an excuse and it would be more acceptable not to give over Esther because it is not so dangerous not to hand her in but since Mordecai was very important, so it is harder for him and more dangerous to not hand in Esther and resist handing her in.\n"
            ],
            [
                "",
                "c. It makes Mordecai’s sin even worse to resist handing Esther in because he is a captive and that means he needs to obey the law. It is a chessed of the King that he is letting Mordecai live a normal life so how dare should Mordecai talk back and obey the law. "
            ]
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Verse",
        "Comment"
    ]
}