English translation — פורים א

Sicha 1<pg>161</pg>

A.

At the beginning of the Megillah<sup>1</sup>

it is told that on the seventh day of the feast that Achashverosh made "for all the people present in Shushan the capital"<sup>2</sup>,

he commanded "to bring Vashti the queen before the king etc. And the queen Vashti refused to come etc. And the king became very angry etc. And the king said to the wise men, knowers of the times etc. 'According to law, what is to be done with the queen Vashti, because she did not perform the command of the king etc.'".

And the reason that Achashverosh presented the matter before his wise men is "for so the king spoke before all who know law and judgment"<sup>3</sup>

(for so is the custom of the king in every judgment to place the matter before all who know law and judgment.

Rashi),

And it is implied from this,

that he was in doubt about the judgment of Vashti.

And at first glance it is perplexing: the conduct of Vashti

(that "she did not do the word of the king"<sup>4</sup>)

was surely a rebellion against the monarchy — and what is the doubt about her judgment<sup>5</sup>?

And behold, one who does not fulfill a command of a king,

in the laws of Israel according to the Torah of kindness, it is permitted for the king to kill him

(by the law of rebellion against the monarchy)<sup>6</sup>

— and it is understood that so it is with the kings of the nations,

that one who rebels against the monarchy "his law is one, to put to death"<sup>7</sup>.

And even more perplexing is the answer of Memuchan — one of the "wise men who know the times" — "Not<sup>8</sup>

against the king alone has Vashti the queen done wrong, but against all the princes and against all the peoples etc. for the word of the queen will go out to all women to despise their husbands in their eyes etc." — that is: the rationale for this that she is liable to death

["A royal decree went out

(a royal decree of vengeance that commanded to kill her.

Rashi)

etc. that Vashti shall not come

(and therefore she was killed.

Rashi)

before the king etc."<sup>9</sup>]

is not because of the sin of her rebellion against King Achashverosh,

but because she did wrong to "all the princes..

all the peoples..

to despise their husbands in their eyes"<sup>10</sup>

!

In several commentaries<sup>11</sup>

they stood on this,

and answered in several ways.

And one must consider that this is a tremendous difficulty in the simple meaning of the verses,

and it did not come nor was it even hinted at in Rashi on the Megillah!

2.

And one may explain this by prefacing what was said above<sup>12</sup>

(regarding this feast)

"And the drinking was according to the law, there was no compulsion, for so the king had appointed for every great man of his house to do according to each man's will",

which at first glance the language of the verse "for so the king had appointed" is not understood; and especially that it is not language that fits the continuation of the verse "

(the king had appointed)

over every great<pg>162</pg>

His house".

And although Rashi explained "language of foundation,

that is, thus he established and commanded" — it is puzzling what reason [he] says "established"

[which requires in Rashi a "that is",

a particular precision^*12

— "that is, thus he established and commanded"],

and did not use the usual phrase "for thus the king commanded"

(and like the language of the megillah itself

(below¹³)

"for thus the king commanded him")?

Also the difficulty in Rashi on the words "over every chief of his house",

that he explains "over all the officers of the feast, the chief of the bakers and the chief of the butchers and the chief of the cupbearers" — behold the verse comes to give a reason for "the drinking according to the law etc." — "because so etc.",

and if so, "the chief of the bakers and the chief of the butchers" what are they doing here?

And even from the language of the verse "over every chief of his house" it implies that he commanded thus to more than one officer — behold

[In addition to this,

that even if you say that the command was also to the chief of the bakers and the chief of the butchers,

it would have been fitting for Rashi to begin with "the chief of the cupbearers" with whom we are dealing,

behold]

this does not compel that the intention of the verse is to include also the chief of the bakers and especially the chief of the butchers who according to the plain meaning is not present at the feast

(unlike the chief of the bakers and the cupbearers who bring the bread and the drink)

— because it is reasonable to explain simply that the intention is to all the servants and supervisors at the feast¹⁴

(that the drinking should be in a manner of "no coercion" but "according to each man's will"),

but "the chief of the bakers and the chief of the butchers" who mentioned them?

!

3.

And one can say,

that Rashi's intention is to explain the verbosity of the verse's language,

"For thus the king had appointed for every chief of his house to do according to each man's will",

and it was not said concisely "And the drinking was according to the law, there was no compulsion, for thus the king had commanded"?

Also it is not understood — why did the Megillah elaborate in all these details,

even though the practical difference is that there is no compulsion in drinking — which is also among the praises of the arrangement of the feast.

And from this Rashi learned,

that this that the drinking was in the manner of "

(according to the law)

there is no coercion" there was no specific command from the king regarding the drinking,

but rather a result of this that the king "established" and fixed the generalities of this feast in a special manner — that is,

that all the stewards of the feast were commanded by the king "to do according to the will of each and every man".

And therefore Rashi explains "over every chief of his house" — "over all the stewards of the feast,

the chief of the bakers and the chief of the cooks and the chief of the cupbearers",

that the king's enactment was regarding all the details of the feast

(that it should be "according to the will of each and every man"),

including all kinds of food and drink; and from this,

that "every chief of his house" here includes "all the stewards of the feast"¹⁵,

who are "the chief of the bakers and the chief of the cooks and the chief of the cupbearers".

And since the feast in general is called "bread"¹⁶,

its main part is eating and the drinking is secondary to it,

therefore Rashi lists "the chief of the bakers and the chief of the cooks" before "the chief of the cupbearers".

And based on this the language of the verse is precise "to do according to the will of each man and each man",

which implies not

(only)

the negation of coercion,

but also the doing

(obligation)

— because the main enactment and command of the king

(also regarding the drinking of wine)

was not

(only)

a matter of negation

("there is no coercion"),

but a positive matter

("to do according to the will of each man and each man"),

that the stewards of the feast arranged it in a way that each one of the participants ate and drank according to his will.

And this is the lengthiness of the language of the verse,

that this that "the drinking was according to the law, there is no coercion" is "for so the king had established etc. to do according to the will<pg>163</pg>

each man and each man",

which is a result of a general matter that the king established and enacted in this feast.

4.

And still it is puzzling: since the main innovation in this feast was that "the king established for every chief of his house to do according to the will of each man and each woman" — why was this stated as a reason for that which "the drinking was according to law, there was no coercion",

and not as a matter in itself?

And further: what does the verse teach us in this that it precedes "And the drinking..

there was no coercion" — something that is understood automatically from that which it immediately continues "for so the king established..

to do according to the will of each man and each woman"?

If "over every chief of his house" to fulfill the will of each and every one in all that pertains to this feast,

it is obvious that there is no coercion in it,

there is no forcing and compelling to drink!

And also the precision of the language of the verse "so the king established" is still not entirely settled — for although this relates to the entirety of the feast,

nevertheless it would have been sufficient,

apparently,

to say "for so the king commanded to every chief of his house

("to all the officers of the feast")

to do according to each man's desire."

And it may be said,

that in this that the matter of "so the king established etc. to do according to each man's desire" comes as a giving of reason for "the drinking was according to the law, there was no compulsion",

the novelty in this feast is emphasized more,

that it was "according to each man's desire".

5.

Explanation of the matter:

"And the drinking was according to the law, there was no compulsion" Rashi explains: "According to the law — because there are feasts where they compel the guests to drink a large vessel, and there is one who cannot drink it except with difficulty,

but here there is no compulsion."

And the necessity of Rashi

(in the plain sense of the verse<sup>17</sup>)

to explain thus,

is understood simply — both from the content of the verse,

for at first glance,

why would it enter one's mind that they would force [them] to drink until there had to be a special command

(and from the king himself — "thus the king established")

that "the drinking..

is not by force"?

And it is from the language of the verse,

the word "according to the law" what is its explanation,

and it should have said<sup>18</sup>

"and the drinking is not by force"?

And to this Rashi [explains] "because there are feasts that compel the guests to drink a large vessel" — and since there are feasts whose "law"

(their custom)

obligates compelling regarding drinking,

it would be reasonable to say,

that in the king's feast,

in our case,

which was entirely "according to the hand of the king"

(in all its details<sup>19</sup>,

and especially regarding wine,

about which it is explicitly stated<sup>20</sup>

"and royal wine abundant according to the hand of the king"),

surely this "law" would prevail in it; therefore the verse teaches us that here it was in a manner of "there is no compulsion for thus the king established",

that the king himself commanded not to compel,

contrary to the law<sup>21</sup>.

But one must examine this,

for the reason for the custom of such a "law"

(to compel to drink from a large vessel)

is,

to show the greatness of the host of the feast,

that his feast is with abundance,

and therefore they drink specifically a large cup.

And if so, in our case where it is discussed regarding a feast of a king,

how can they forgo this "law",

and such conduct

(to change the "law" and not compel to drink from a large cup),

is the opposite of the honor of the kingdom<sup>22</sup>?

<pg>164</pg>

And this question is resolved precisely by the wording of the verse "for so the king had established etc. to do according to the will of each man and each man" — that this feast is different,

that its entire foundation and essence from its beginning he established that it should be specifically according to the will of the people.

That is: there are feasts whose purpose is to increase the honor of the one making the feast,

like the first feast that Achashverosh made "for all his princes and servants etc. when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honor of his majestic greatness"<sup>23</sup>

— and in such a feast the honor of the kingdom requires to act according to the "law",

"to drink specifically a large vessel"; but the feast that Achashverosh made afterwards "for all the people present in Shushan the capital" was for a different purpose — not to show the greatness of the king and to increase his honor,

but that it should be "according to the will of each man and each man",

specifically according to the will of the people

(as Rashi's wording "to do..

for each and every one<sup>24</sup>

his will"<sup>25</sup>).

And since "so the king had established" this feast from the outset,

it is understood that this feast is not included among those feasts

(as the precise wording of Rashi "because there are feasts where they compel etc.",

that this is not in every feast)

where they compel to drink specifically a large cup,

for this is the opposite of the purpose of this feast.

And this is also the reason that the verse is precise to tell about "And the drinking was according to the law, there was no coercion,"

that in this it is emphasized how much this feast was "to do according to the will of each and every man"

(the will and pleasure of the people specifically),

so much so that from this they were able to nullify the "drinking according to the law"

(the opposite of the honor of the kingdom),

since the purpose of this feast was "to do according to the will of each and every man" as above.

6.

According to the above, the aforementioned difficulty is simply resolved

(section 1)

regarding "and drinking"

(so much so that Rashi does not need to explain it in his commentary)

;

Since this entire feast was to do according to the will of each and every one,

and it is obvious that "there is no coercion" in everything related to this feast

(since thus the king established and this is his honor)

— then there is room to say that Vashti is not obligated to come "before the king etc. to show the peoples and the princes her beauty"²⁶

under coercion

(and her refusal is not rebellion against the monarchy,

but rather on the contrary in accordance with the king's will,

"to do according to the will of each and every man"²⁷).

<pg>165</pg>

But it is understood that there is room to say also the opposite

[and for several reasons: 1)

It can be said that bringing Vashti before the princes is not a detail and part of the feast and the command "to do according to the will of each and every man" does not apply to this.

2)

The command "to do according to the will of each and every man" is general,

but here there is an explicit command of the king.

3)

"To do according to the will of each and every man" was regarding "the people who were present in Shushan the capital",

that Achashverosh wanted to give them pleasure etc.,

and the queen is not included²⁸]

— therefore Achashverosh consulted with "the wise men who know the times",

and they resorted to the additional reason "not upon the king alone etc."

7.

It is known from our Rabbis, of blessed memory²⁹

that every "king" mentioned in the Megillah alludes to the Holy One, blessed be He,

from this it is also understood in our verse,

"for so the king had established etc. to do according to the will of each man" — in this verse is hinted the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, in relation to His people Israel.

And it can be said,

that in this verse is hinted the elevation and innovation that was effected through the self-sacrifice of Israel in the days of Purim.

For our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said³⁰

that at the time of the Giving of the Torah "the Holy One, blessed be He, coerced them with the mountain like a tub etc. from here there is a great protest against the Torah

(that if He summons them to judgment why did you not fulfill what you accepted upon yourselves they have an answer that they accepted it under duress.

Rashi)

etc. they accepted it again in the days of Achashverosh, as it is written³¹

the Jews established and accepted,

they established what they had already accepted"³².

And this is also the hint in our verse — regarding the feast that the king made "for all the people found in Shushan

the capital",

which refers to Israel who are a people close to Him

(and are found in the capital of the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He)

— that the Holy One, blessed be He, invites them to a feast,

namely the study of Torah and the fulfillment of the commandments,

which is the feast and enjoyment of a Jewish person; and the Holy One, blessed be He, gives free choice,

"there is no coercion",

and on the contrary,

"to do according to the will of each and every person".

And this was the superiority of the days of Purim, that then "they fulfilled what they had already accepted",

not under coercion but specifically out of their free choice.

And therefore the joy of Purim is great beyond all measure and limit&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

until "a person is obligated to become intoxicated on Purim until he does not know etc."&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;,

and as Rashi explains "to become intoxicated — with wine"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

that one must say,

that this is the matter of "and it was turned around"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;,

that in place of the "wine" that Achashverosh gave in his feast,

&lt;pg&gt;166&lt;/pg&gt;

in a manner of "and the royal wine was abundant according to the king's hand",

not for the better,

became "wine..

abundant" of holiness,

the joy of Purim that is beyond measure and limit,

until also when all the festivals are nullified&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

(that the joy of festivals will not be in importance relative to the joy that will be in the joy of the redemption&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;),

there will be joy beyond measure and limit,

and until "everlasting joy&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

upon their head"&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

— the joy of Purim will not be nullified,

"and these days of Purim will not pass from among the Jews and their memory will not cease from their seed"&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;.

(From a Purim talk, 5727)