The **Gemara** in **Megilla** discusses the miscalculation made by both **Belshazzar** and **Ahasuerus** regarding the seventy years of the Babylonian exile. They both mistakenly believed that the seventy years had concluded, and since the Jewish people had not yet been redeemed, they concluded that God had forsaken them. **Belshazzar** acted on his miscalculation by hosting a lavish party that night, using the garments of the High Priest and the Temple's service vessels. He died that very night, a consequence of his error. **Ahasuerus** also made a similar miscalculation, and the **Gemara** proceeds to explore the nature of his mistake.
The **Gemara** explains that **Ahasuerus** erred because he should have counted the seventy years not from the exile of **Yehoyakim**, but from the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred eleven years later during the exile of **Tzidkiyahu**. Consequently, he was short by eleven years in his calculation. However, the **Gemara** questions this: **Ahasuerus** ruled for fourteen years. If he made his celebratory feast in his third regnal year, the seventy years would have been complete by his fourteenth year, at which point the Temple should have been rebuilt. Yet, not only was the Temple not rebuilt, but its construction was actually halted, as a verse states. This suggests a deeper issue than a mere eleven-year miscalculation.
**Rava** resolves this by explaining that the years were "cut" or overlapping. This means that certain years were counted twice, once for one king and once for another, effectively shortening the actual duration. **Rashi** clarifies this concept of "cut years," explaining that when calculating the reigns of kings like **Darius** the Mede and **Cyrus**, what appears as five combined years in the count actually amounts to only four, due to overlapping periods. Similarly, an additional year was "swallowed up" in the reigns of **Nevuchadnezzar** and **Evil Merodach**, leading to a deficit of two years. Thus, the actual completion of the seventy years, and the subsequent rebuilding, occurred two years later, during the time of **Darius**.
A supporting text, a **braita**, further corroborates this, stating that one additional year for Babylon was needed, and **Darius** completed it. **Rashi** explains that this refers to an overlapping year in the reigns of **Nevuchadnezzar** and **Evil Merodach**. The **Maharsha** notes that **Rashi** here begins the seventy-year count from the second year of **Nevuchadnezzar**'s reign, when he subjugated **Yehoyakim**, rather than his first regnal year. This adjustment accounts for the missing year, making the total sixty-nine years from the conquest of **Yehoyakim** when **Belshazzar** died. The "cut years" principle means that despite the numerical sum, the full seventy years had not truly elapsed.
**Rava** further states that even **Daniel** made a mistake in this calculation. A verse in the Book of **Daniel** indicates that **Daniel** himself was calculating the years, implying a potential for error in his understanding of the exact timing of the seventy-year prophecy.
The **Gemara** then addresses an apparent contradiction in the verses: one verse implies the seventy years are counted from Babylon's rise to power, while another in the Book of **Daniel** refers to the seventy years from the destruction of Jerusalem. The **Gemara** reconciles this by explaining that the seventy years from Babylon's rise marked a "remembrance" or turning point, a time when **Cyrus** allowed the Jewish people to return to the land of Israel, even if the Temple itself was not yet rebuilt. This permission to return was a divine remembrance, a "visitation" by God, as **Cyrus** himself acknowledged, stating that God had commissioned him to build a house in Jerusalem.
**Rabbi Nachman bar Rav Chisda** expounded on a verse, "Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to **Cyrus**, whose right hand I have grasped." The **Gemara** questions if **Cyrus** was the Messiah. It clarifies that God was expressing a complaint to the Messiah regarding **Cyrus**. God had intended for **Cyrus** to actively build the Temple and gather the exiles. Instead, **Cyrus** merely issued a proclamation: "Whoever among you of all His people, may his God be with him, and let him go up." He fell short of his full responsibility. **Rashi** notes that this interpretation is derived from the cantillation marks in the verse, which separate "His anointed" from "to **Cyrus**," indicating that God spoke to the Messiah *about* **Cyrus**, rather than identifying **Cyrus** as the Messiah.
Returning to the descriptions of **Ahasuerus**'s feast, the verse mentions "the army of Persia and Media, the nobles," and elsewhere, "to the kings of Media and Persia." The **Maharsha** notes the question of whether "nobles" or "kings" are associated with Media, and the differing order of "Persia and Media" versus "Media and Persia." The **Gemara** explains that Persia and Media had an agreement: if the king came from one nation, the officers or princes would come from the other, and vice-versa. This alternating arrangement explains the varied descriptions.
Regarding the verse "when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the splendor of his great majesty," **Rabbi Yose bar Hanina** teaches that **Ahasuerus** wore the priestly garments. This is derived from the shared term "splendor" (תפארת) used in this verse and in the description of the High Priest's garments. **Rashi** points out that while "glory" (כבוד) also appears in both, "splendor" is considered the extra term, forming the basis for this verbal analogy.
The **Gemara** then discusses the two parts of **Ahasuerus**'s feast: one for those far from **Shushan** (180 days) and another for the residents of **Shushan** (seven days). **Rav** and **Shmuel** offer differing views on **Ahasuerus**'s wisdom. One opinion holds that he was a wise king for hosting the distant people first. His reasoning was that local rebellions could always be appeased, but those far away needed to be secured first. The other opinion considers him foolish, arguing that he should have hosted the local residents of **Shushan** first, as a rebellion typically starts from the capital, and their loyalty was crucial.
The students of **Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai** (Rashbi) asked him why the Jewish people of that generation were condemned to potential extermination. They suggested it was because they enjoyed the feast of that wicked king. **Rashbi** countered that if so, only the Jews of **Shushan** should have been punished, not all Jews throughout the kingdom. When asked for his own explanation, **Rashbi** stated it was because they had bowed down to the idol of **Nevuchadnezzar**. The students then questioned if God shows favoritism, implying that if they committed idolatry, they should have been punished. **Rashbi** explained that they bowed down "only outwardly," meaning they lacked the sincere intention for idolatry, acting out of fear. Therefore, God also decreed the extermination "only outwardly," as a divine measure for measure. The **Maharsha** clarifies that this refers to **Nevuchadnezzar**'s idol, as **Haman** did not establish himself as an object of idolatry. Some interpret this concept of "outwardly" as a hint to the custom of wearing masks on **Purim**.
The description of the feast mentions "in the courtyard of the garden of the king's palace." **Rav** and **Shmuel** again offer different interpretations. One view suggests that seating was segregated by status: those worthy of the courtyard were seated there, those worthy of the garden in the garden, and the most important in the palace. The other view suggests that the initial space, the courtyard, could not accommodate everyone, so they moved to the garden, and finally to the palace, which held them all. A third interpretation states that **Ahasuerus** seated them in the courtyard but opened two entrances, one to the garden and one to the palace. **Tosafot** addresses the concern that segregated seating might cause jealousy. The answer given is that if they could not see each other, jealousy would not arise.
The **Gemara** then elaborates on the tapestries and furnishings. "Fine white cotton" (חור) is interpreted by **Rav** as intricate needlework with fine holes, and by **Shmuel** as a type of white fabric. "Green hangings" (כרפס) are explained by **Rabbi Yose bar Hanina** as striped cushions. These were placed "on silver rods and marble pillars." The "beds of gold and silver" are also interpreted in two ways: either different guests were assigned to silver or gold beds based on their status, or the beds themselves were made of silver with gold legs. **Rabbi Nechemia** again raises the issue of jealousy with segregated seating. The explanation is that the chairs themselves were silver, but their legs, which were visible, were gold, showcasing the opulence without causing direct comparison of seating surfaces.
"Pavement of alabaster, and mother-of-pearl, and marble, and precious stones" (בהט ושש ודר וסוחרת). **Rav Assi** explains "alabaster and marble" (בהט ושש) as precious stones that owners exert great effort to acquire. "Mother-of-pearl and dark marble" (דר וסוחרת) is interpreted by **Rav** as rows upon rows of precious stones, like a mosaic inlay. **Shmuel**, however, states that "dark marble" (דר) refers to a specific precious stone found in the islands, which **Ahasuerus** placed in the center of the feast, illuminating the area like midday. The school of **Rabbi Yishmael** offers a different interpretation of "dark marble and mother-of-pearl" (דר וסוחרת): it means that **Ahasuerus** proclaimed freedom for all merchants, granting them tax breaks for that year.
Regarding "the drinks were served in golden goblets, and vessels of different kinds," the word "different" (שונים) can also mean "repeated." **Rava** explains that a divine voice emerged, proclaiming that **Belshazzar** was destroyed because he used the Temple vessels, and now **Ahasuerus** was "repeating" the same crime. This implies a warning about the misuse of sacred items.
The phrase "and royal wine in abundance" is explained by **Rav** to mean that each guest was served wine older than himself, signifying the high quality and extravagance of the feast. "And the drinking was according to the law" (כדת) is interpreted by **Rav Chanan** in the name of **Rabbi Meir** as following the law of the **Torah**. Just as in Temple offerings, there is more food than wine, so too at **Ahasuerus**'s feast, there was more food than drink. **Tosafot** notes that while excessive eating over drinking can weaken bones, this applies only to gluttony, not to a balanced meal where food predominates.
"No one was compelled" to drink. **Rabbi Elazar** teaches that this means each person was served wine from their own region, ensuring they were not forced to drink unfamiliar beverages. "To do according to every man's pleasure" is interpreted by **Rava** as fulfilling the will of both **Mordechai** and **Haman**, as both are referred to as "man" in the verses. **Rashi** explains that they were the stewards of the drinks at the feast. This presents a conceptual difficulty: how could **Mordechai**, a member of the **Sanhedrin** who advised against attending the party, serve as a butler there?
The verse "Also **Vashti** the queen made a feast for the women in the royal palace" is examined. The **Gemara** questions why it specifies "royal palace" when she hosted it in the women's quarters. **Rav Ashi** explains that both **Ahasuerus** and **Vashti** intended to commit immoral acts. She hosted her party adjacent to his, anticipating that it would lead to mingling and impropriety. This is likened to a proverb: "He is with the pumpkins, and she is with the small pumpkins," meaning they share the same base intentions, though perhaps on different scales. Both were adulterers at heart.
On "the seventh day, when the king's heart was merry with wine," the **Gemara** asks why it took until the seventh day for the king to become merry. **Rava** explains that the seventh day was Shabbat. On Shabbat, the Jewish people eat and drink, and their conversations turn to words of **Torah** and praise. In contrast, when gentiles eat and drink, their conversations immediately turn to immorality. On that Shabbat, God, the King, compared the two forms of revelry. This comparison, highlighting the Jewish people's spiritual approach to enjoyment, triggered the miracle of their salvation.
The **Gemara** then describes the conversation among the revelers: some praised Medean women, others Persian. **Ahasuerus** interjected, saying his "vessel" (referring to **Vashti**) was neither Medean nor Persian, but Babylonian. He offered to show her, and they agreed, provided she was naked. The **Maharsha** notes that they wanted to see her intrinsic beauty, not merely her adorned appearance. **Vashti** was summoned naked as a divine measure for measure: she, the wicked **Vashti**, used to bring Jewish girls, strip them naked, and force them to perform arduous labor on Shabbat. The **Maharsha** adds that this labor, involving flax, was particularly painful to the naked body. This explains the verse "After these things, when the wrath of King **Ahasuerus** subsided, he remembered **Vashti** and what she had done and what had been decreed against her," implying a direct connection between her actions and her punishment.
The **Gemara** asks why **Vashti** refused to appear naked, given that she also harbored immoral intentions. **Rabbi Yose bar Hanina** explains that she suddenly broke out with leprosy. **Tosafot** and **Rashi** cite a Jerusalem Talmud that derives this from the verbal analogy between the word "decreed" (נגזר) used for **Vashti** and for **Uzziyah** when he became a leper. Another tradition states that the angel **Gabriel** caused her to grow a tail or some other embarrassing physical growth, which she would be ashamed to display.
The verse states, "And the king was very angry, and his wrath burned in him." The **Maharsha** notes that "in him" suggests a personal attack. **Rava** explains that **Vashti** sent **Ahasuerus** a message: "You were my father's stable boy! My father, **Belshazzar**, could drink a thousand cups of wine and not get drunk, but you, a mere man, get drunk on your wine and act foolishly!" This personal insult, particularly regarding his inability to hold his drink, infuriated **Ahasuerus**.
The king then consulted "the wise men." The **Gemara** clarifies that these "wise men" were the rabbis, "knowers of the times," who understood how to intercalate years and establish months. The **Malbim** suggests **Ahasuerus** sought their expertise to find a timing-based excuse to exonerate **Vashti**. However, the rabbis, fearing retribution regardless of their judgment, gracefully recused themselves. They stated that since the Temple's destruction and their exile, wisdom and the ability to judge capital cases had been taken from them. They advised him to consult Ammon and Moab, who remained settled in their lands, like wine sediment, and thus their reasoning remained sound. The **Gemara** clarifies that this specifically refers to **Moab**, as the verse mentions only "Moab is at ease from his youth." **Tosafot** further explains that **Ammon** was also displaced by **Sancheriv**, making **Moab** the sole example of a settled nation whose wisdom remained intact. This distinction was crucial in allowing converts from **Ammon** into the community, as their lineage was considered mixed.
The verse "And those who were close to him" is analyzed. The **Maharsha** points out that the singular "close" (הקרוב) rather than the plural "close ones" (הקרובים) suggests a deeper meaning. **Levi** teaches that this entire verse refers to the Temple offerings. The ministering angels, who are "close" to God, came forward to advocate for the Jewish people. They asked God, "Master of the Universe, did the nations ever offer You rams as the Jewish people did?" (referring to the daily burnt offerings). "Did they offer You two turtle-doves?" (the poor person's offering). "Did they have an earth altar before You?" "Did they serve You in priestly garments?" (referring to the precious stones on the High Priest's breastplate). "Did they mix blood before You?" "Did they mix meal offerings with oil before You?" "Did they prepare a table before You?" All these questions highlighted the unique and dedicated service of the Jewish people, serving as a merit for them.
The verse then mentions **Memuchan**, one of the seven advisors, who offered advice. The **braita** identifies **Memuchan** as **Haman**. He was called **Memuchan** because he was "prepared for calamity," either his own hanging or the calamity he planned for the Jewish people. **Rav Kahana** states that **Memuchan**'s eagerness to speak first, despite being listed last among the advisors, shows that "a fool always jumps to the front."
The decree made by the king's advisors was "that every man should be master in his own house." **Rava** comments on the absurdity of this decree. He explains that if not for these initial, ridiculous letters, which everyone knew to be self-evident (even a humble weaver is master in his home), the later decrees against the Jewish people would have been taken seriously. Because the first edict was so foolish, people did not take the king's subsequent decrees, including those to destroy the Jewish people, with the utmost seriousness, thereby mitigating their impact.
**Tosafot** cites a Midrash that identifies **Memuchan** as **Daniel**. According to this Midrash, **Daniel** was married to an older princess who refused to speak his language. Therefore, he advised this decree, "that every man should be master in his own house and speak the language of his people," to resolve his domestic issue.
Finally, the verse "And the king appointed officers" to gather virgins for him. **Rav** expounds on the verse, "A clever man acts with knowledge, but a fool spreads folly." **David Hamelech** exemplified the clever man: when he needed a virgin, his servants sought *one* maiden, and people willingly offered their daughters, hoping theirs would be chosen. **Ahasuerus**, however, was the fool. He commanded his officers to gather *all* virgins. Everyone knew he would only choose one, but would likely defile the others. Consequently, people hid their daughters, unwilling to subject them to such abuse.