The Gemara continues its exploration of the miscalculations surrounding the seventy-year exile predicted by Jeremiah. Belshazzar and his eventual successor, Nebuchadnezzar, both erred in their calculations. As we learned yesterday, Belshazzar, convinced the seventy years had passed, threw a lavish party, wore the vestments of the High Priest, and used the sacred vessels from the Temple. He was mistaken. Ahasuerus, in the third year of his reign, also believed he had the correct calculation, but he too was incorrect.
The Gemara then states that even Daniel the prophet miscalculated. As a verse says, "In the first year of the reign of the king, Daniel contemplated the calculation." The word "contemplated" implies that he did not possess the precise calculation. What was Daniel's miscalculation? Originally, Daniel calculated the seventy years from when Nebuchadnezzar subjugated King Jehoiakim, which occurred in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. However, the seventy years were actually meant to be calculated from the exile of Zedekiah, which happened eighteen years later. Thus, Daniel's calculation was eighteen years short, or early. When he saw nothing happening after his seventy years had passed, not even signs of the exile ending, he began to pray. After he finished praying, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and clarified the calculation, informing him that the end was still eighteen years away.
Gabriel then addresses a seeming contradiction in Jeremiah's prophecies. Jeremiah used two different phrases that appear to contradict each other. One phrase implies that the seventy years would be "from Babylon," suggesting the count begins when Babylon asserted its reign over the Jewish people, specifically in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom when he captured King Jehoiakim. Yet, another phrase states "for the desolations of Jerusalem," indicating the count begins from the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred eighteen years later during the exile of Zedekiah. Jeremiah himself seemed vague in his prediction of the exile's end: was it "from Babylon" or "from the desolations of Jerusalem"?
Gabriel clarifies: when Jeremiah says "from Babylon," it means that seventy years from that point, the "matter of remembrance" (פקודה) would occur. What does "remembrance" signify? A verse states that "Cyrus king of Persia... commanded me to build him a house in Jerusalem." Cyrus was a later king in the succession: Nebuchadnezzar, then Evil-Merodach, then Belshazzar, then Darius, and finally Cyrus. In Cyrus's time, seventy years after Nebuchadnezzar captured Jehoiakim, Cyrus allowed the Jewish people to return to the Land of Israel and granted them permission to begin reconstructing the Temple. However, the exile was not yet over. Therefore, "from Babylon" refers to this initial "remembrance"—the beginning of the process. The actual building of the Temple did not fully commence until seventy years after Zedekiah went into exile, which brings us to the time of Darius, as we learned yesterday, after Ahasuerus's fourteen-year reign. This reconciles the two verses: "from Babylon" marks the beginning of the remembrance, while "from the desolations of Jerusalem" marks the actual end of the exile and the full rebuilding.
The Gemara notes that Cyrus did not fully accomplish his mission. God intended for Cyrus to actively construct the Temple. Instead, Cyrus merely declared, "Whoever wants to go up to Jerusalem and build it, you have my blessings, I'm not going to stop you." The Gemara now presents God's claims against Cyrus for not taking a more aggressive approach. A verse refers to Cyrus as God's "anointed one" (משיח). The Gemara asks, "Was Cyrus the Messiah?" How could the verse refer to Cyrus as "his anointed one"? The Gemara explains that God was speaking to the true Messiah, the descendant of David, expressing a complaint about Cyrus. God said, "I told him through the prophet that he is the one who will build My Temple and bring the Jews out of exile." Yet, all Cyrus did was say, "Whoever wants to go up, go up." He should have taken a more aggressive stance. This is God's claim against Cyrus for not fulfilling his mission. Some texts suggest that if Cyrus had built the Temple, based on the original prophecy, it would never have been destroyed. Therefore, God had to tell the Messiah, "Now we are ready to change the whole center of the world."
Rashi offers a linguistic proof from the cantillation marks (טעמים) in the verse that calls Cyrus the Messiah. The cantillation marks demonstrate that Cyrus was not the Messiah. Rashi explains that normally, a "zareka" cantillation mark is followed by a "segolta," connecting two words. However, in this verse, the word "anointed one" has a "zareka," but the word "Cyrus" has a "marich," a different mark, indicating a separation. This separation proves the Gemara's interpretation that the verse refers to two distinct individuals: the Messiah and Cyrus. The Sages derived their understanding from these cantillation marks.
We now return to the interpretations of the Book of Esther. The Gemara discusses the guests at Ahasuerus's party, specifically the "army of Persia and Media, their nobles." The word "nobles" (פרתמים) is next to "Media," implying that the noblemen came from Media. However, another verse states, "the kings of Media," implying the kings came from Media. So, were the noblemen from Media, or were the kings from Media?
Rava explains that Persia and Media shared the kingdom and made an agreement: if kings were appointed from one nation, then governors and noblemen would be appointed from the other. Conversely, if kings were from the second nation, governors would be from the first. Therefore, at different times, Media was associated with either the noblemen or the kings, depending on who held the kingship. This explains why sometimes they were called "kings of Media" and sometimes "Media, the noblemen."
The verse states that Ahasuerus made the party "in order to flaunt the wealth and riches of his kingdom, and the honor and the glory of his kingdom." Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Hanina deduce from this that Ahasuerus wore the garments of the High Priest at the party. How do they know this? The word "glory" (תפארת) is used in this verse, and the same word is used in reference to the garments of Aaron, the High Priest. Therefore, Ahasuerus must have worn the High Priest's garments, just as Belshazzar, his predecessor, did. This was to demonstrate that the Jewish people would not be redeemed and the Temple would not be rebuilt, based on his miscalculation of the seventy years. Some texts suggest that this is one of the sources for the custom of wearing costumes on Purim: Ahasuerus dressed up like a High Priest, and God punished him for it, initiating the miracle that led to his killing his wife, Vashti.
After his 180-day party, Ahasuerus held a seven-day party for the people of Shushan, the capital city. Rav and Samuel dispute Ahasuerus's intelligence. Was he a clever king or a foolish king? The opinion that he was clever argues that he did well by first bringing the distant people close. The people of his city were already subjugated and feared the king; any rebellion could be easily quelled. He was more concerned about the distant provinces, so he wisely appeased them first with a party. The other opinion, that he was foolish, argues he should have first appeased the people closest to him, those in Shushan. If a rebellion were to occur, the people of Shushan would be the first to reach the palace. Therefore, he should have made the Shushan party first to secure his immediate surroundings. This dispute, some explain, depends on an earlier disagreement about whether Ahasuerus deserved the kingship or merely bought his way to power. If he deserved it, he had no fear of rebellion and could prioritize the distant provinces. If he bought it, he was vulnerable to rebellion from those closest to him, making his choice foolish.
The students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai asked him: "Why were the Jewish people at risk of extermination in Haman's time? What sin did they commit?" They suggested, "Because they enjoyed the party of that wicked man." Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai replied, "If so, then only the Jews of Shushan, who attended the party, should have been killed. Why should all the Jews in the world be held accountable?" The students then asked, "Rabbi, you tell us the reason." He responded, "Because they bowed to an idol." This was an old debt from Nebuchadnezzar's time when the Jewish people bowed to his idol, making them guilty of idolatry, and thus they deserved their fate.
The students then questioned, "Does God show favoritism? If they truly bowed to idolatry, how were they saved? Did God change His decree?" Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai explained that they did not worship the idol in their hearts; they only bowed externally out of fear. Since their sin was external, God's punishment was also external. God never truly intended to destroy the Jewish people; the decree was merely a means to motivate them to repentance. The verse "He does not afflict from His heart" means that just as their sin was not from their heart, God's punishment would not be from His heart; it would be external, giving them a chance to repent. The pleasure they took at Ahasuerus's party was a significant crime, as they enjoyed themselves while witnessing the desecration of the Temple vessels and the High Priest's garments. This pleasure at the destruction of the Temple was a grave offense, leading God to declare that they did not deserve the Temple to be rebuilt.
This is also the second source for the custom of wearing masks and costumes on Purim. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai's answer was that the Jewish people's bowing to the idol was "external" (לפנים). Outwardly, they appeared to worship, but inwardly, they did not. A mask symbolizes this: outwardly, one appears as one person, but inwardly, one is truly another. The entire miracle of Purim was a charade; it looked like Haman would destroy them, but it was not truly so. Therefore, to commemorate this "external" aspect of the miracle, they wear masks.
The party took place in the "courtyard, garden, and palace." Rav and Samuel dispute whether these were three different rooms for different classes of people, or if it was a progression. Rav suggests that Ahasuerus started the party in the courtyard, moved to the garden when it became too crowded, and finally to the palace. A third opinion states that everyone was in the courtyard, and two doors were opened, one leading to the garden and one to the palace, allowing guests to view both.
The verse mentions "white, green, and blue" tapestries. The Gemara asks, what does "white" (חור) mean? Rav explains it refers to "holes" (חורים), indicating fine needlepoint with holes for thread. Rashi explains these were cushions made with fine needlework. Samuel, however, says "white" refers to white wool that Ahasuerus provided for cushions, deriving this from the word "חור" which contains the letters for "white" (חיור). The next word, "green" (כרפס), is an abbreviation for "cushions of fine wool" (כרים ופסים). He provided them with cushions of fine wool to sit on. The description continues: "on rods of silver and pillars of marble, with couches of gold and silver." The Gemara asks, were they gold or silver? One interpretation is that people worthy of gold sat on gold, and less distinguished people sat on silver. Rabbi Hama bar Hanina questions this, arguing that such class distinctions would cause envy at the party. Instead, he suggests the benches themselves were made of silver, and the legs were made of gold. The commentators explain that Ahasuerus wanted to display his wealth. Since one sits on the bench and cannot see its material, he made the visible legs out of gold to show off. Tosafot addresses the apparent contradiction: if distinctions cause envy, why would Ahasuerus make different levels of seating? Tosafot offers a psychological insight: envy arises from what one sees. If guests are in different rooms (courtyard vs. palace), they don't see each other, so there's no envy. But if one sits on a silver bench next to someone on a gold bench, that direct comparison causes uncontrollable envy.
The verse mentions "stones of alabaster, marble, mother-of-pearl, and dark marble." Rabbi Asi explains that "alabaster" (בהט) refers to "sought-after stones" (אבני שחט), stones not easily acquired, requiring great effort. A verse in Isaiah refers to the Jewish people being held in high esteem by the nations, like "stones that are sought after." So "בהט" refers to stones that are rare and valuable. "Mother-of-pearl" (דר) refers to a precious stone found on islands, so bright it illuminated the room like midday. "Dark marble" (סוחרת) refers to a round, circular rose of inlaid stones on the ground. Another interpretation for "דר" is that Ahasuerus "freed" (דר) all the merchants from taxes, meaning he removed sales tax or merchant taxes for the day.
Some commentators explain Ahasuerus's intent in providing these various cushions and colors. The **Maharsha** suggests that Ahasuerus intended to cause the Jewish people to sin. He provided cushions made of "butz" and "argaman"—mixtures of wool and linen, which are forbidden as *shaatnez*. He also provided tapestries with immodest images to entice them to sin. Thus, he specifically provided *shaatnez* to cause them to stumble.
The guests "drank from golden goblets, and vessels of various kinds." Normally, this means different-sized glasses for different drinks. However, the Gemara gives a deeper meaning to "various kinds" (שונים). A heavenly voice (בת קול) proclaimed that the predecessors were destroyed because they used the Temple vessels for their party, and Ahasuerus was repeating the same sin. Thus, the double mention of "vessels" (כלים מכלים) implies "your destruction came because of vessels, and you repeated the sin."
The verse mentions "royal wine in abundance" (יין מלכות רב). While "רב" can mean "a lot," Rav interprets it as "old." He teaches that everyone at the party drank wine older than themselves. How would Ahasuerus know their age? The Gemara explains a physiological rule: before age forty, a person eats more than they drink; after forty, their metabolism changes, and they drink more than they eat. The waiters were instructed to observe this. If someone ate more, they were given wine at least forty years old. If someone drank more, they were given wine at least eighty years old. This was a form of pleasure for the older guests, as wine, unlike people, improves with age, offering them a consolation.
The drinking was "according to the law" (כדת). Just as in the Temple, the altar consumes more food than drink (e.g., for the New Moon offering, there is a bull and a ram, but only half a hin of wine), so too at Ahasuerus's party, there was more eating than drinking. This was part of Ahasuerus's mockery of the Temple, as he wore the High Priest's garments and displayed the sacred vessels.
The Gemara then clarifies that "there was no compulsion" (אין אונס) in the drinking. Everyone received wine from their own province, which they were accustomed to and would not get drunk from. They were not forced to drink wine they were unaccustomed to. This allowed them to drink "according to the will of each man" (לעשות כרצון איש ואיש). Rabbi Abba explains this means "to fulfill the will of Mordecai and Haman." Mordecai and Haman were the butlers at the party. Haman served non-kosher wine to those who wished, but Mordecai ensured kosher wine was available for the Jews. Ahasuerus permitted this, allowing each person to drink according to their preference.
The verse mentions that Vashti also made a party for the women in the "royal palace." The Gemara finds this puzzling. Why would she hold a women's party in the men's palace? This implies she intended to seduce Ahasuerus and the men. The Gemara states that just as Ahasuerus was involved in his lewd party, so too Vashti was involved in hers. She made the women's party visible to the men's party, desiring to be exposed before the king. This is likened to the saying, "The man is involved with the pumpkins, and she is involved with the squash"—both are from the same family, implying both Ahasuerus and Vashti were equally immoral.
On the seventh day of the party, "when the king's heart was merry with wine," Ahasuerus commanded Vashti to appear. The Gemara notes that after 180 days of partying plus another seven, Ahasuerus was finally "satiated with wine." When Jewish people drink on Shabbat, they sing songs of praise. But when these people drank, they engaged in illicit and promiscuous talk, discussing the beauty of their women. Ahasuerus ordered Vashti to appear "with the royal crown," implying she was to be naked. The Gemara explains that "with the measure a person measures, so is it measured for him." Vashti had forced Jewish girls to work naked on Shabbat. Therefore, on that very Shabbat, she was commanded to appear naked as punishment. The verse "after these words, when the king's anger subsided, he remembered Vashti and what she had done" refers to this. Just as she forced Jewish girls to walk naked on Shabbat, the same happened to her on Shabbat.
The **Maharsha** explains that the party should have been held in a private place. The seventh day was Shabbat. The commentators, like the **Ya'arot Devash**, explain that most non-Jews become depressed on Shabbat, as the planetary influence of Saturn (שבתאי), associated with Shabbat, causes melancholy. They had to drink excessively to drown out this weekly depression. **Tosafot Rosh** offers a profound interpretation of Vashti's sin. "Naked" (ערומות) does not literally mean unclothed. Rather, she made Jewish women remove their jewelry and special garments worn "in honor of Shabbat" (לכבוד שבת). Thus, a person who does not dress specially for Shabbat is considered "naked" (ערום). Vashti's punishment was to be embarrassed and punished by being commanded to appear without her royal adornments, just as she stripped Jewish women of their Shabbat honor.
The Midrash states that Ahasuerus declared, "There is nothing more beautiful than my wife." He didn't want people to think her beauty was due to royal garments and makeup. Therefore, he commanded her to appear naked. This fulfills the principle that "with the measure a person measures, so is it measured for him." The verse also mentions that Ahasuerus wanted to "show the peoples and the officials" (העמים והשרים) her beauty. The officials (שרים) were in the inner chamber, while the peoples (עמים) were in the courtyard. Vashti would have to pass through the courtyard first to reach the inner chamber, thus being paraded before everyone.
The Gemara then asks: If Vashti was so promiscuous and wanted to be exposed, why did she refuse to come? Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Hanina explain that she broke out with leprosy (צרעת). Tosafot supports this by connecting the word "decreed" (נגזר) in the verse about Vashti to a verse in Deuteronomy that uses "נגזר" in reference to a leper. The Gaon of Vilna adds that the leprosy was "white like wool," and Vashti had forced Jewish women to wear *shaatnez* (wool and linen mix) uniforms that were white. Thus, the white leprosy was a direct punishment for her sin of making them wear *shaatnez*.
Another interpretation is that the angel Gabriel caused a tail (זנב) to grow on her. Some say it was a tail, others a horn from her head, or simply an extenuating organ, which would naturally cause her embarrassment and prevent her from appearing. The Gemara then asks why Ahasuerus became so angry. "His wrath burned within him" (חמתו בערה בו). The **Maharsha** explains that his anger was personal. Vashti sent a message back to him, insulting him: "You are nothing but my father's stable boy! My father could drink like a thousand people and not get drunk, but you drink a little and get drunk and do all these things!" This double insult—calling him a stable boy and claiming he couldn't hold his liquor—infuriated Ahasuerus personally.
"Then the king said to the wise men, those who knew the times." Who were these "wise men"? The Gemara explains they were the Jewish scholars (רבנן), "those who knew the times" because they knew how to establish leap years and new months. Why would Ahasuerus consult scholars knowledgeable in time? One commentator suggests these scholars were sensitive to the nuances of time and circumstance. Ahasuerus sought their judgment on Vashti, hoping they might consider the context of drunkenness, which could mitigate her actions. However, the rabbis were in a dilemma. If they ordered Vashti killed, Ahasuerus might regret it when sober and blame them. If they let her off, they would be disrespecting the king. So, they diplomatically replied, "From the day the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled, our counsel has been taken away from us. Our wisdom comes from the Temple and the Sanhedrin. Now that we are exiled, we lack clarity for such capital cases. Go to Ammon and Moab; they were never exiled. They are settled like good wine on its lees, and their reasoning is stable." The Gemara affirms they were correct, as exile causes people to lose their ability to give sound counsel.
Immediately, "the closest to him were Carshena, Shetar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, Memuchan." The verse should have said "those close to him" (וקרובים אליו) in the plural. Rabbi Levi interprets this entire verse as referring to the Temple offerings. The angels stood before God and complained about Ahasuerus. "Carshena" (כרשנא) refers to the lambs (כרים) brought as offerings. "Shetar" (שתר) refers to the two birds (שתי תורים). "Admatha" (אדמתא) refers to the altar of earth (מזבח אדמה). "Tarshish" (תרשיש) refers to the precious stones on the High Priest's breastplate. "Meres" (מרס) refers to mixing the blood so it wouldn't congeal. "Marsena" (מרסנא) refers to mixing the meal offerings (מנחות). "Memuchan" (ממוכן) refers to setting the showbread (לחם הפנים) on the table. The angels argued: "This wicked Ahasuerus dresses like a High Priest and flaunts the Temple vessels, but did he ever bring any of these offerings? He defiles them!" At that moment, divine mercy was aroused for the Jews, as some angels sought to change the decree based on the significance of the offerings. The Gemara states that "Memuchan" is Haman. He was called "Memuchan" because he "prepared himself for destruction" (מוכן לפורענות). He prepared the gallows for Mordecai, but ultimately, it was for himself. From this, Rabbi Akiva concludes that a fool always jumps to the forefront. Haman was the seventh of the seven advisors, yet he was the first to advise the king to kill Vashti, despite six wiser men being present.
Ahasuerus then sent letters to all 127 provinces, decreeing "that every man should rule in his own house." Rabbi Abba states that if not for these "first letters" (איגרות ראשונות), there would have been no remnant left for the Jewish people. This is because people did not take Ahasuerus seriously. They thought he was a foolish king. They reasoned, "What kind of royal decree is this? It's obvious that every man rules his house, even a lowly weaver has authority in his home!" Therefore, when Haman later sent out the second letters decreeing the extermination of the Jews, people did not take them seriously either, because Ahasuerus had lost credibility with his first foolish decree. This delay allowed the Jews time to prepare and be saved.
The verse then describes Ahasuerus appointing "officers" (פקודים) to gather all the beautiful virgins to the palace. Rav states, "Every wise man acts with knowledge, but a fool spreads folly." David, a wise man, when he was old and needed a virgin, asked for only one. Everyone with a daughter was thrilled, hoping their daughter would be chosen. However, Ahasuerus, a fool, demanded "all the virgins." When parents knew he wanted to "try them all out," they hid their daughters to prevent them from being violated. Rashi explains that David's request for one meant everyone had a chance, and they were happy. Ahasuerus's demand for all caused parents to hide their daughters.
The verse introduces Mordecai: "A Jewish man was in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordecai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjaminite." The Gemara notes that the verse first calls him "a Jew" (איש יהודי) and then "a Benjaminite" (איש ימיני), and only lists three ancestors, not his full lineage back to Benjamin. The Gemara explains that "son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish" are not just his ancestors but also epithets given to Mordecai for his qualities. "Son of Jair" means he "illuminated the eyes of Israel" with his prayers during darkness. "Son of Shimei" means God "heard his prayer." "Son of Kish" means he "knocked on the doors of mercy." These names refer to Mordecai's own attributes and actions. The Torah calls him "a Jew" even though he was a Benjaminite because he was "crowned with pleasant names" (מוכתר בשמות נעימים). Since he was a royal person, he was given dignified names, and "Jew" refers to the royal tribe of Judah. Another answer is that he came from both tribes: his father was from Benjamin, and his mother was from Judah. The final answer is that the families of Benjamin and Judah competed for credit. The family of Judah claimed credit because when David (from Judah) was fleeing Absalom, Shimei (from Benjamin) cursed him. David spared Shimei because he foresaw that Mordecai would descend from him. Benjamin's family, however, asserted that Mordecai ultimately came from them. This explains why one verse calls him "a Jew" and another "a Benjaminite"—each family claimed him.