39 Ahasuerus's Feasts: Generous King Or Arrogant King? (1:2–8)

The Feast of Ahasuerus and the Feast of Vashti 39

however, it is diffcult to imagine that a tradition existed that numbered exactly 127 provinces. The provinces mentioned in the book of Daniel are also close to this number; however, here in Esther we encounter the number 127 instead of an even, more-harmonic number such as 120 (Dan 6:2). Why did the narrator feel it ftting to adopt a number that seems so anoma- lous against a background of the standard biblical writing style—127? This question has been discussed by many, and there are those who even consider it to be unsolvable: “Despite scholarly speculations, no satisfac- tory explanation exists for the particular number of provinces given here.” 3 Adele Berlin and Jon D. Levenson both note that the number 127 appears only one other time in the Bible—in the story of Sarah’s death and burial in the Cave of the Patriarchs: “Sarah’s lifetime—the span of Sarah’s life—came to one hundred and twenty-seven years” (Gen 23:1). 4 If we accept this connection as reasonable, it may help to explain the narrator’s choice of the specifc number 127. 5 Just as in the story of the purchase of the Cave of the Patriarchs Abraham faces a fnal farewell to his wife, so in the frst scene of Esther, which opens with a picture of glory and splendor, the king is about to separate from his wife. Thus the narrator seems to position the burial cave alongside the magnifcent castle; a husband weeping over his lost wife is placed beside a drunken king distributing wine to all who desire it. This duality in the presentation of Ahasuerus’s kingdom is even more pronounced in the description of the feasts that he arranges.

Ahasuerus’s Feasts: Generous King or Arrogant King? (1:2–8) A plain reading of the description of Ahasuerus’s feast suggests that the author of the story is giving honor to the king. The motif of kingship

3. C. A. Moore, Esther (AB 7B; New York: Doubleday, 1971) 4. Some scholars have suggested that the number 127 symbolizes perfection (12 x 10 + 7). For more on this claim, see: W. Dommershausen, Die Estherrolle: Stil und Ziel einer alttestamentlicher Schriﬂ (SBM 6; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968) 18; A. Meinhold, Das Buch Esther (ZBK; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1983) 23. 4. J. D. Levenson, Esther (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 43; A. Ber- lin, Esther: Introduction and Commentary (Mikra Leyisraʾel; Tel Aviv: Am-Oved / Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001) 60. Rabbi Akiba noted this connection in the following midrash: “Rabbi Akiba was sitting and expounding, and his audience was falling asleep. Seeking to rouse them, he said: For what reason did Esther rule over 127 provinces? It was appropriate that Esther, a descendant of Sarah—who lived 127 years—would rule over 127 provinces” (Gen. Rab. 58:3). It is not clear whether Rabbi Akiba was serious about this connection or whether it was merely a device to awaken his sleepy audience. Either way, he interprets this literary connection as shedding a complimentary light on Esther and granting some validity to her reign, representing as it does a continuation of the blessings of the patriarchs and matriarchs from Genesis. 5. This is also suggested by E. Nissim, “The Secret of the Leading Words and Phrases in the Scroll of Esther,” Bi-Sedeh Hemed 33/5–6 (1990) 49–62. Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/23/2017 11:29 PM via EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV AN: 444167 ; Grossman, Jonathan.; Esther : The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading Account: s8356098 40 Chapter 2

pervades the frst part of the narrative (“that Ahasuerus who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia. . . . King Ahasuerus occupied the royal throne . . . in the third year of his reign . . . the vast riches of his kingdom . . . the king gave . . . in the court of the king’s palace garden. . . . Royal wine was served in abundance, as befts a king. . . . For the king had given orders”), 6 instill- ing in the reader a sense of wonder at this wealthy and generous kingdom where the king arranges a feast “for all the people who lived in the fortress Shushan, high and low alike” 7 and distributes wine in great abundance. At this feast, the reader frst hears of a law established by the king. Com- fortingly, the law turns out to concern the drinking of wine: “And the rule for the drinking was, ‘No restrictions!’ For the king had given orders to every palace steward to comply with each man’s wishes” (1:8). Could we imagine a more magnanimous king than one who actually legislates that no one should compel any citizen to drink and that the personnel in charge of his household should “comply with each man’s wishes”? Indeed, several scholars draw this conclusion and view the king at this feast as an exceptionally tolerant fgure: The description of the second banquet in Esther pictures a liberal king lavishly entertaining his citizenry. . . . His resources are not only a “feast for the eyes” to be viewed but also a feast for the stomach to be shared. 8 However, a careful reading keeps us from becoming enamored of this impression; the description of the king’s feast in chap. 1 hides elements of scorn for the king and his generosity: 1. The transition from the frst feast held by the king (for the princes, lasting 180 days) and the second (for the inhabitants of Shushan, lasting a week) is effected in the text by means of the expression “At the end of this period” (1:5). It seems that the additional week of feasting took place not after the conclusion of the frst feast but parallel with it, during the fnal week of the frst feast. This we deduce from the fact that, further on, Ahasuerus seeks to invite Vashti to the feast, “to display her beauty to the peoples and and (הָעַמִּ ים) ’the offcials” (1:11). Since the verse mentions both ‘the peoples it indicates that on the seventh day of the second ,(וְ הַשָּׂרִ ים) ’the offcials‘ feast, the princes who had attended the frst one were still in attendance.

that appear in מלך The italic words correspond to derivatives of the Hebrew root .6 1:1–8. 7. C. A. Moore translates: “For both the important and the unimportant alike” (Esther [AB 7B; New York: Doubleday, 1971] 1). This interpretation is certainly credible, especially in light of the mention of the “offcers of the provinces” who attend the previous feast. At the same time, in other places in the Bible the expression “from great to small” hints more literally at a range of ages, and there is no reason not to adopt that interpretation in this case, too (as indeed various translators do: “From the greatest to the least”). 8. T. S. Laniak, Shame and Honor in the Book of Esther (SBLDS 165; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 45. Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

The very fact that the text describes two successive feasts invites a comparison between them—especially if they are held simultaneously. This comparison deserves extensive discussion in its own right, but, for the purposes of the present discussion, we must note one striking fact: at both feasts, the king seeks to “show” something to his many guests. Re- garding the frst feast, we read: “he displayed the vast riches of his kingdom and the splendid glory of his majesty” (v. 4). At the second feast, as the seven days come to an end, the king wants to “show” his wife: “to display her beauty to the peoples and the offcials; for she was a beautiful woman” (v. 11). For Ahasuerus, the queen represents yet another item in his collection of “riches” and “majesty,” which he exhibits to the “peoples and the offcials.” 9 It comes as no surprise that there is no direct dialogue between Ahasuerus and Vashti throughout this exchange: the king’s request, Vashti’s refusal, and her removal from the royal palace all take place through the agency of royal messengers. The narrator takes pains to name each of the “seven eunuchs” (v. 10) and each of the king’s “sages learned in procedure” (v. 13); this highlights their intensive involvement in this scene which, as pointed out, replaces any direct dialogue between the king and queen. The king speaks with the princes of the provinces and with his servants, but not with his wife. Jones notes, in this regard, that the queen’s and‘ והשׁתייה) name, Vashti, is phonetically similar to the word vehašetîyâ the drinking’) in v. 8. This play on sounds is highly ironic for, in the case of the drinking there were “no restrictions,” but Vashti was compelled to do as she was told. Thus, the author hints to us that the desires of his drinking guests concern Ahasuerus more than what Vashti wants. 10 2. As Fox notes, the formulation of the law permitting the drinking of wine is itself strange and also contains a hint of scorn toward the king. 11 From the wording of the verse, we understand that “And the rule for the drinking was, ‘No restrictions!’ For the king had given orders to every palace steward to comply with each man’s wishes” (v. 8). Why the need to legislate that people should not be forced to drink? A kingdom that does not wish to coerce its subjects to do something should simply ignore the activity in its law books; thus, every person will do as s/he pleases. A sensi- tive reader will understand that, in Ahasuerus’s kingdom, abstainers are rare, and there is a need for a special law allowing them not to drink. 12

9. “The king is a vain man, delighted to be able to show off ‘the riches of his royal glory and the splendor and pomp of his majesty for many days (1:4), but taken aback when his queen will not submit to being shown off in the same way as another piece of his property” (D. J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story [JSOTSup 30; Sheffeld: JSOT Press, 1984] 32). 10. B. W. Jones, “Two Misconceptions about the Book of Esther,” CBQ 39 (1977) 174; S. B. Berg, The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure (SBLDS 44; Missoula, MT: Schol- ars Press, 1979) 35–36). 11. Fox, Character, 17. 12. Fox himself adopts a different approach (ibid., 17). Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

3. The author subtly jabs at the king’s exhibitionism by raising the as- sociation with King Solomon. 13 Ahasuerus holds his frst feast for “all the offcials and courtiers” in the third year of his reign. King Solomon likewise held a feast for his servants in the third year of his reign. At the end of 1 Kings 2 (v. 46) we read that, following Shimei’s death and the removal of the last threat to Solomon’s throne, “the kingdom was secured in Solo- mon’s hands.” This happens “three years later” (1 Kgs 2:39) in Solomon’s reign. Immediately thereafter, the narrator describes the dream in Gibeon, in which God promises Solomon “a wise and discerning mind” (1 Kgs 3:12) as well as other worthy blessings. Following this dream, Solomon went to Jerusalem and “sacrifced burnt offerings and presented offerings of well- being; and he made a banquet for all his courtiers” (1 Kgs 3:15). If the connection between the feasts that Ahasuerus and Solomon held for their respective servants consisted solely of common timing (both refer to the third year of the king’s reign) and the identical expression “made a feast for all his [princes and] servants,” it would be diffcult to argue for any deliberate literary connection or any especially signifcant connection riches and‘) עושר וכבוד at all. However, both stories also use the word pair glory’) as a central motif. Ahasuerus, it must be remembered, holds his feast with a view to showing all of the princes “the vast riches of his kingdom” (1:4), whereas Solomon foregoes this very thing when God asks him what he will request. Solomon prefers “an understanding mind” (1 Kgs 3:9) so that he can judge the people. Ultimately, God’s abundant blessing to Solomon includes riches as well: “I also grant you what you did not ask for—both riches and glory all your life—the like of which no king has ever had” (3:13). 14 Thus, the servants of these two kings were invited to two altogether different feasts: the invitation that Ahasuerus sent to all of his princes and servants asked them to come and celebrate “the riches of his glorious kingdom,” while Solomon’s invitation was a result of the “discerning heart” with which the king had been blessed by God. The hint at an alternative reign lurking in the background of the description of Ahasuerus’s feast may hint at what the protagonist of the chapter, the Persian king, lacks: a “discerning heart.” This literary connection may have motivated the following midrashic comment: “Rabbi Cohen taught in the name of Rabbi Azaria: ‘Upon his is written without the waw! 15 [This implies that] he מלכותו—’royal throne

13. Compare with Y. Shapira, A Postmodernist Reading of the Biblical Book of Esther: From Cultural Disintegration to Carnivalesque Text (Ph.D. diss., State University of New York, 1996) 190–91. 14. Compare with E. L. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. J. Neusner, B. A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 230. 15. The midrash bases this teaching on the word malkūtô, written defectively, without the waw; the Masoretic Text, however, spells the word in plene form. It is interesting to Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

[Ahasuerus] came to sit upon Solomon’s throne, but was not permitted to. They told him: Any king who is not ruler over the whole world does not sit upon it [that throne]. So he decided to make himself a throne of his own, in its image” (Esth. Rab. 1). 16 From this perspective, Ahasuerus tries to “imitate” the kingship of Solomon by emphasizing the riches and glory that he has attained, like Solomon. However, he succeeds in imitating only the most superfcial aspect of Solomon’s kingdom, while remaining devoid of its inner value, the “understanding heart.” 4. Another place where the author appears to hint at the lack of propor- tion between the façade of the feast and what is actually going on inside is in the description of the location of the feast—in the “court of the king’s palace garden for all the people who lived in the fortress Shushan, high and low alike. White cotton and blue wool, caught up by cords of fne linen and purple wool to silver rods and alabaster columns; and there were couches of gold and silver on a pavement of marble, alabaster, mother-of- pearl, and mosaics” (vv. 5–6). As Laniak points out, this description appears with no predicate to the sentence. The text does not read, “In the court of the garden of the king’s palace there were hangings of white . . .” or “The king showed all the people hangings of white . . .” or any similar formulation. 17 The reader is meant to understand that the opulence depicted here describes the garden of the palace at the time of the feast, but this understanding rests on the context rather than the syntactical presentation. As Driver puts it, “These words hang in the air.” 18 I believe that this clumsy style is deliberate. As some commentators have pointed out, it contributes to the sense of wonder and astonishment, as though the description ends with an exclamation point. 19 At the same time, more than it conveys the admiration of the guests, the verse refects the cynicism of the author. The way in which it is written hints to the reader that the opulence of the various materials decorating the garden of the palace is, in fact, the whole point: the king’s self-worth is the entire purpose of the feast. The guests stand open-mouthed in wonder at the display of wealth; the author needs to do nothing more than list, in great detail, the materials that adorned the pillars and from which the couches were

note that, specifcally with regard to Solomon, the narrator recounts: “Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom [malkūtô—spelled defectively] was established frmly” (1 Kgs 2:12). 16. See also Esth. Rab. 2:8. Aside from this, the description of the drinking vessels at the feast, which were made of gold (1:7), may also allude to Solomon’s kingdom, described in similar language (1 Kgs 10:21; see Esth. Rab. 2:11; b. Meg. 11b). 17. Laniak, Shame, 47. The JPS 1985 version, like most others, inserts the missing predicate. 18. G. R. Driver, “Problems and Solutions,” VT 4 (1954) 235. 19. H. Striedl,”Untersuchung zur Syntax und Stilistik des hebräischen Buches Esther,” ZAW 55 (1937) 86; W. Dommershausen, Die Estherrolle: Stil und Ziel einer alttestamentlicher Schriﬂ (SBM 6; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968) 22. Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

fashioned. There is no need for any further explanation. This is Ahasuerus’s exhibitionism at its best. 5. We may also cautiously wonder whether the texture of the words chosen to describe the feast hints at another narrative that the reader is asked to recall as background to this scene. I refer specifcally to the order in which the narrator presents the age range of the invitees: “both great and small.” The Bible usually formulates this phrase in the reverse order, “both small and great.” 20 Another place where “great” precedes “small” is in the description of Nineveh’s repentance in Jonah: The people of Nineveh believed God. They proclaimed a fast, and great and small alike put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his robe, put on sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he had the word cried through Nineveh: “By decree of the king and his nobles: No man or beast—of fock or herd—shall taste anything! They shall not graze, and they shall not drink water! (Jonah 3:5–7) At frst glance, the two narratives share a commonality, if not directly in intentional literary style, at least in the general behavior of the two kings: in both cases, the king is directly involved, and the narrator describes his position vis-à-vis his subjects and his special instructions to them. 21 How- ever, a vast difference separates the instructions of the Persian king from the orders given by the king of Nineveh: the king of Nineveh “rose from his throne, took off his robe,” and asked his subjects to hold a fast, even that “they not drink water.” Ahasuerus, in contrast, “sat upon his royal throne” (v. 2) 22 and held an enormous banquet: “And the drinking was by law, none compelled” (v. 8). Both narratives contain a “dialogue” with the world of fabric and clothing but in striking contrast to one another: the king of Nineveh foregoes his royal garments, while the Persian king prides himself on his garb and the materials that adorn the court of the garden of his royal palace.

20. Out of 16 appearances of this expression, “small” precedes “great” in 12: Gen 19:11; 1 Sam 5:9; 30:2, 19; 2 Kgs 25:26; Jer 6:13; 8:10; 31:33; 42:1, 8; 44:12; 2 Chr 15:13. One of the places where the order is reversed is at the end of our chapter (“all wives will treat their husbands with respect, high and low alike” [Esth 1:20]). As to the other three instances, see below. The JPS 1985 version variously translates ‘great and small’ or ‘high and low’. See also P. Haupt, “Critical Notes on Esther,” AJSL 24 (1907–8) 104. Avi Hurvitz argues that the inversion of the order in this expression testifes to a later writing (“Diachronic Chiasm in Biblical Hebrew,” in The Bible and the History of Israel (ed. B. Oppenheimer; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1972) 251–53. 21. Berg argues for a thematic connection between the two narratives: “the fact that the Book of Jonah concerns a Jew in a foreign land again suggests a variation of a common type of post-exilic tale” (Berg, Esther, 148). 22. The JPS 1985 version (also the NAB) renders ‘occupied’ the royal throne. The Hebrew literally describes the act of sitting (as in the KJV and JPS 1917: “when the king כשבת verb Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom”). Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

It is possible, of course, that the contrast refects differences in the respective plots: the king of Nineveh reacts to Jonah’s prophecy of the im- minent destruction of the city, while Ahasuerus receives no such message. However, it is precisely for this reason that the reader wonders why the author chose to evoke the image of Nineveh’s repentance in this scene of joy and feasting. It forces us to wonder whether the alluded contrast is meant to criticize Ahasuerus’s feasting and excessive exhibitionism, as though the author whispers quietly that Ahasuerus would do well to hearken to the same prophecy that reached the ears of the king of Nineveh: “Another forty days and Shushan shall be overturned.” Beneath the surface, then, there is scorn for this magnanimous king who invites all the inhabitants of Shushan in order to show off his opulence, in contrast to King Solomon with his “discerning heart” and in contrast to the king of Nineveh, who proclaims a fast for all of his subjects so that they will mend their ways.

“In Addition, Queen Vashti Gave a Banquet for Women” (1:9–12) The second part of the description of the feast focuses on Vashti, and this, in fact, is the dominant element of the overall plot: the process by which Vashti is removed from the palace, paving the way for Esther. 23 Why does Vashti hold a separate feast for the women? We might suggest that in Ahasuerus’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 specifcally because of the presence of the many concubines who were regularly invited to the king’s feasts that Ahasuerus decided to invite his male guests to revel in the rampant sexual immorality and to join this event without 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 de- duced from a work by the Greek historian Plutarch (ca. 100 B.C.E.), “Advice to Bride and Groom.” Among other things, 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. 24

23. Moore’s title for this entire chapter is “Queen Vashti Is Deposed” (Moore, Esther, 1). 24. Moralia 140 B 16, quoted by A. Berlin, Esther (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2001) 11. This interpretation is hinted at in the Babylonian Talmud. The statement, “Both had sinful intentions” is immediately followed by a popu- lar idiom indicating the lust-driven agreement between husbands and wives at that feast: “People said: He with large gourds, and she with small ones” (b. Meg. 12a–b). Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

This information is of great importance for understanding Vashti’s refusal to present herself. The king sends his seven chamberlains to call for Vashti “on the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine” (v. 10). Since the feast lasted only seven days, Ahasuerus summoned her on the fnal 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 “coinci- dentally,” at the very last minute, Vashti is removed, and the way is paved for Esther. Interestingly, the king sends for his wife through the agency of his seven chamberlains, suggesting the sort of offcial atmosphere appropriate to state procedure. 25 The tension between the presentation of Aha- suerus and Vashti as 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 advisers. 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 logi- cal to assume that this king will not take kindly to his wife’s refusal. In his drunken state, he will certainly not demonstrate patience when his wife’s refusal is made public—in the presence of “all the offcials and courtiers,” and “for all the people who lived in the fortress Shushan, high and low alike”! Why, then, does Vashti refuse? 26 This question clearly perplexed the ancient rabbis, who explained Vashti’s behavior by positing that she suddenly broke out in leprosy or sprouted a tail. 27 In fact, the simplest understanding of Vashti’s refusal relates to what we noted above concerning the licentiousness that characterized feasts of this sort. Ahasuerus wanted to bring Vashti before the drunken men at the feast (“when the king was merry with wine!”—1:10) 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. The rabbinic teaching, mentioned in ancient translations of Esther, that Ahasuerus wanted Vashti to be brought naked touches profoundly on the atmosphere that pervaded these feasts. 28

25. Fox, Character, 20. 26. Ruth Walfsh raises an interesting suggestion: “Vashti understood that such an order could only be issued in a drunken state; perhaps she believed that after the king sobered up he would understand the tastelessness of his command, or forget about it altogether” (R. Walfsh, “The Role of the Secondary Characters in the Book of Esther,” in Hadassa Hi Esther [ed. A. Bazak; Alon-Shvut: Tevunot, 1997] 141 [Heb.]). 27. B. Meg. 12b. A different view describes Vashti’s refusal as arising from the personal honor that she sought to maintain. For instance, “She sent to him [saying]: O foolish one, you have lost your mind in your drunkenness. Know that I am the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar, before whom kings and rulers bowed down” (Midr. Abba Gurion, 1). 28. C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary: The Book of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (trans. S. Taylor; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873); E. Bertheau, Die Bücher Ezra, Nechemia und Ester (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 17; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1887); in Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

Table 2.1. Comparison of Vashti and Joseph

Vashti Joseph “for she was a beautiful woman” “Joseph was well built and handsome” (Esth 1:11) (Gen 39:6) and therefore the king sought to and therefore Potiphar’s wife sought present her. to seduce him. (Gen 39:8) ”(וַיְמָאֵן) But he refused“ ”(וַתְּמָאֵן) Queen Vashti refused“ (Esth 1:12) and therefore, he was banished from and therefore, she was banished from Potiphar’s house. the palace.

In light of this discussion, it seems 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.” 29 Indeed, comparing Vashti’s refusal to Joseph’s refusal of Potiphar’s wife’s proposition hints at the author’s approval of Vashti’s judgment (see table 2.1). Since the story of Esther makes several allusions to the story of Joseph in Egypt, it makes sense to posit that here also the narrator is deploying a single reference to help shape our moral judgment of the characters. 30 Just as the reader clearly understands that Potiphar’s wife’s proposition was sexual, so also Ahasuerus’s command implies lascivious connotations. Similarly, just as the reader clearly considers Joseph’s refusal to have been a worthy decision (even though it resulted in his imprison- ment), so also, hints the author, we should view Vashti’s refusal in a posi- tive light, even though she suffers the consequences. 31 Thus, even as the narrator follows the king’s reaction and perspective, identifying, as it were, with the terrible affront to the king when Vashti refuses to fulfll her husband’s wishes, he actually hints to the reader that

contrast to L. B. Paton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908) 150. Compare the story recounted by Plutarch (Artaxerxes 26.2) concerning a concubine named Aspasia who refused to take part in the king’s wan- ton recreation (ibid.); E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible (New York: Schocken, 1967) 185ff.; Berlin, Esther, 12. 29. S. D. Goitein, Studies in the Bible (Tel Aviv: Yavne, 1957) 61. Elias Bickerman wrote: “By coming to the king’s party, Vashti would lose face, she would degrade herself to the position of a concubine” (Four Strange Books of the Bible, 186). 30. See M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985) 445–75. 31. R. Aḥituv points to a difference between the two narratives: “Joseph was rewarded with kingship by virtue of his refusal, while Vashti lost her status as a result of the same act” (“The Book of Vashti,” Beit Mikra 44 [1999] 254). However, Joseph, practically speaking, also lost his status in Potiphar’s household because of his “refusal,” just as Vashti did. It was only later that he emerged from jail and reached his elevated position. Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

here Vashti earns his respect and not the protagonist of the narrative, the king. 32

The King’s Judgment: Responsible or Ridiculous Rule? (1:13–22)

Ahasuerus’s rage at the refusal of his wife, the queen, to appear when commanded to is understandable. Less apparent is why the king invited the ministers of the kingdom to advise him about responding to Queen Vashti. Presumably, domestic tensions ought to be sorted out privately. Even if an individual wishes to share his predicament with his close friends, he does not summon an urgent meeting of government ministers! Furthermore, this group of legislators close to the king double as astrologers: “Then the king consulted the sages learned in procedure–for it was the royal practice to turn to all who were versed in law and precedent” (1:13). 33 The modern reader is liable to experience some confusion. Did the king gather the “wise men who knew the times” (i.e., astrologers), as the frst part of the verse suggests, or did he assemble “all that knew law and judgment” (i.e., legislators and legal experts), as the latter part implies? In the Persian kingdom, the law was intricately linked to astrology and magic; 34 thus, there is no tension between these roles. I shall return to this theme in my discussion of the lot (pur) cast by Haman, which gives the Festival of Purim its name. At this point, we may conclude that the group summoned by the king is accustomed to participating in state discussions, and it is reasonable to pre- sume that the king would consult the group before waging war or imposing a new tax—in order to ratify the new law. 35 However, on this occasion the king gathers them in anger: “The king was greatly incensed, and his fury burned within him” (1:12). This is most surprising: What exactly does the king expect of his ministers? How are they meant to solve the marital problems between the king and his wife? 36

32. Compare Stanton: “Vashti had exercised heroic courage in asserting womanly dig- nity and the inherent human right never recognized by kingship, to choose whether to please and to obey the king” (E. C. Stanton and L. B. Chandler, “The Book of Esther,” in The Woman’s Bible (ed. E. C. Stanton; Seattle: Coalition Task Force on Women and Reli- gion / Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1975) 92. 33. Fox maintains a different view: “Those who know the ‘time’ are probably all- around experts rather than astrologers” (Fox, Character, 21); compare with A. Hakham, Esther (Daʿat Mikra; Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1974) 8. 34. Compare: H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther (KAT; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963) 287; D. J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (JSOTSup 30; Sheffeld: JSOT Press, 1984) 280; G. Gerleman, Esther (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973) 64; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 350 (“The context prohibits taking the phrase to mean the court astrologers”). 35. See A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948) 200–201; 447–48. 36. “The response to Vashti’s refusal . . . is presented as at once both dead serious and comically overblown” (T. K. Beal, Esther [Brit Olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999] 11). Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

The irony is especially striking in light of the attention paid to the names of the ministers and to their offcial positions—all of which seems unneces- sarily detailed. The entire passage highlights the pomp and circumstance of this consultation. First, there is a prelude to direct speech: “Then the king consulted the sages learned in procedure”—at which point, the reader expects to hear what the king said. Instead, there follows a lengthy description of the status of these wise men, along with their names: “His closest advisers were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven ministers of Persia and Media who had access to the royal presence and occupied the frst place in the kingdom” (v. 14). The reader can almost imagine the trumpets blaring as these ministers enter: “The listing of the names of the seven princes and their respected titles expresses the great importance that the king and his ministers attached to this matter.” 37 However, the reader once again asks himself (as the ministers probably did as well) why the king urgently summoned them? With obvious cynicism, the narrative formulates the point of the gathering in the following way: “What shall be done, according to law, to Queen Vashti for failing to obey the command of King Ahasuerus conveyed by the eunuchs?” (1:15). The addendum, “by the eunuchs” at the end of the sentence appears to be meant as a mockery of the king, who urgently gathers all of his ministers but who has not spoken to his wife; he invites all the legislators of the kingdom for a consultation but fails to ask his wife to explain her refusal. 38 The ministers fnd themselves in a most diffcult quandary. On one hand, they cannot do what they probably want most to do in this situation: to gently bring the king to his senses, encourage him to “drink some coffee,” and wait for him to become more lucid. Any minister daring to offer such a proposal will obviously be regarded as showing contempt for the crown. On the other hand, it is diffcult to think of any law that may be legislated to solve the king’s problem with his wife. Law, by nature, must pertain to the general sphere of the entire kingdom, whereas the issue at hand relates exclusively to the royal couple. Moreover, the ministers must bear in mind that the king will eventually sober up, and then they will need to account for the special law that they passed! Memucan, as soon becomes apparent, is the most brilliant of the ministers; his response demonstrates how he resolved the ministers’ quandary: Thereupon Memucan declared in the presence of the king and the ministers: “Queen Vashti has committed an offense not only against Your Majesty but also against all the offcials and against all the peoples in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the queen’s behavior will make all

37. Hakham, Esther, 9. 38. “To hide his inadequacy to handle this situation, the king invokes standard court procedure” (Bush, Esther, 355). Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

wives despise their husbands, as they refect that King Ahasuerus himself ordered Queen Vashti to be brought before him, but she would not come. This very day the ladies of Persia and Media, who have heard of the queen’s behavior, will cite it to all Your Majesty’s offcials, and there will be no end of scorn and provocation! If it please Your Majesty, let a royal edict be issued by you, and let it be written into the laws of Persia and Media, so that it cannot be abrogated, that Vashti shall never enter the presence of King Ahasuerus. And let Your Majesty bestow her royal state upon another who is more worthy than she. Then will the judgment executed by Your Majesty resound throughout your realm, vast though it is; and all wives will treat their husbands with respect, high and low alike.” (1:16–20) Memucan begins with the central idea that he will develop in the course of his monologue: “Queen Vashti has committed an offense not only against Your Majesty.” This idea is emphasized through the use of the word ‘all’ which is repeated over and over, a total of seven times, in his speech ,(כל) (making it the Leitwort). This word sums up the point that Memucan is making: the problem is not the king’s personal problem but, rather, an issue that affects ALL of the kingdom and ALL of the couples living within it. 39 We can almost hear Memucan telling the king (if only through hints): How fortunate that Your Majesty the king has invited your important ministers. Indeed, a general problem confronts us, and it must be ad- dressed by means of a general, well-thought-out law. The issue at stake is not, as some people might think, a private problem between the king and his wife. No! The entire kingdom faces a problem; every couple now confronts inestimable strife. The sophisticated reader imagines Memucan winking at the other ministers as he holds forth. This is hinted at in the introduction to his words: “Memucan answered before the king and the princes.” They also breath- lessly await the solution to this dilemma that has been foisted on them. Memucan supplies the goods by pretending to side with the king but exag- gerating his attitude even more. 40 The king is happy with Memucan’s suggestion, as are the other ministers: “The proposal was approved by the king and the ministers, and the king did as Memucan proposed” (1:21—we may assume that the king was happy with the “good advice” that he had received, while the ministers were glad that Memucan’s quick thinking had saved them from their predicament). Immediately, the king puts the advice into practice: “Dispatches were sent to all the provinces of the king, to every province in its own script and to every nation in its own language, that every man should wield

39. As noted by Dommershausen, Estherrolle. 40. As Amos Hakham concludes: “For this reason Memucan compounds and amplifes Vashti’s crime in the king’s eyes, turning the insignifcant matter of a dispute at a drunken feast into a matter concerning all the citizens of the kingdom” (Hakham, Esther, 11). Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

authority in his home and speak the language of his own people” (1:22). We can imagine the reaction of the Persians as they gathered in the town squares to hear the new law that had just been promulgated, and their surprise at hearing that, from this point on, if a husband asked his wife for a cup of coffee it was forbidden for her to refuse. 41 In Gaster’s words: The diplomatic phraseology is here reproduced with delightful humor, and one can readily imagine that when our story was told and retold in the harems of Persia, this little detail must have roused a particularly uproarious laugh. 42 The concluding phrase of the new law resists attempts to decipher it. The disdain that the narrative conveys toward the king is hinted at by the fre- The special signifcance .(דבר מלכות) ’quent use of the term ‘the king’s word that the narrator of Esther assigned to this word stands out in light of the ever-changing context in which it appears and in light of the fact that “the word”—that is, the command—is issued from varying sources throughout the text. In the beginning, of course, it is the king from whose lips comes however, even at the frst appearance of ;(דבר המלך) ’the ‘royal command this expression, the reader hears of the violation of the king’s own command. “But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command conveyed by the eunuchs” (1:12). To his dismay, the king gathers his advisers, and Then the king consulted“ :דבר המלך here again the narrator uses the term to (דבר המלך) the sages learned in procedure—for it was the royal practice turn to all who were versed in law and precedent” (1:13). The representative of the wise men who responded to the king’s frustra- tion was Memucan, and now we are surprised to discover that Memucan’s response to the king incorporates “the king’s word” as well; however, it seems that here he uses the term to draw attention to a new factor in the (דבר המלכה) lawmaking process of the kingdom: “For the queen’s behavior will make all wives despise their husbands” (1:17). After ‘the king’s word’ is mentioned twice, the reader encounters ‘the queen’s word’. When the queen refused to do the king’s bidding, it was as We could translate .דבר המלכה :though she was issuing her own command

41. The rabbis hint at this in the following midrash: “‘He sent letters to all of the king’s provinces’—Rav Huna taught: Ahasuerus had a corrupt mind. According to the way of the world, if a man wants to eat lentils but his wife wants to eat peas, can he force her? No! She does what she wants. Rav Pinchas taught: As a result of this, he became the object of scorn” (Esth. Rab. 4:12). Attention should be paid to the fact that there is no mention whatsoever of Vashti in the text of the law; this is hinted at in Memucan’s original advice: “Then will the judgment executed by Your Majesty resound THROUGHOUT your realm. . . . ALL the wives will treat their husbands with respect, high and low alike”(1:20). The banishing of Vashti is “written into the laws of Persia and Media,” but “the judgment executed by Your Majesty” publicly speaks of all wives and their husbands. 42. T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament (New York: Harper and Row, 1969) 836. Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

in this verse as ‘what happened with the queen’ rather דבר המלכה the term than as a command; however, Memucan immediately returns to this phrase, and there is a sense that this royal edict is gaining power. “This very day the ladies of Persia and Media, who have heard of the queen’s behavior will cite it to all Your Majesty’s offcials, and there will be no ,(דבר המלכה) end of scorn and provocation!” (1:18) 43 Memucan returns to the phrase ‘the queen’s word’, and the grammati- cal format of the sentence gives the impression that the queen’s word is directed at all the king’s ministers (even though the literal understanding of the verse is that the ladies-in-waiting should pass on the queen’s message to the ministers). 44 In any case, the repetition of the same term in rela- tion to Vashti implies that Vashti is issuing some sort of command to all women that they should not heed their husbands’ word. Memucan closes his remarks with an additional use of the key word (Lietwort) and begs to restore the king his due honor as the lawmaker, though he chooses his be (דבר מלכות) words delicately. “If it please Your Majesty, let a royal edict issued by you” (1:19). Memucan does not return to the full expression “the king’s word”; how- He must .יצא דבר מלכות ever, in essence he is hinting at it in the expression restore the esteem, so to speak, of “the king’s word,” and so the king must that will reinstate the proper deference due to his position דבר מלכות issue a and the position of all the men in the kingdom. If our examination of the Lietwort were to conclude here, its central purpose would be rhetorical: how Memucan managed to convince the king that Vashti’s refusal would kindle great danger at his doorstep, in violation of his “king’s word.” However, with biting sarcasm, this word is once again integrated into the concluding verse of the scene: “The proposal was approved by the king and the ministers, and the king did as Memucan pro- Without the king’s realizing it, a new lawmaker .(1:21 ,כדבר ממוכן) ”posed has been introduced to the kingdom: the adviser has become the lawmaker! Let us return to the letters that were dispatched. What does “speaking the language of his people” (v. 22) have to do with the law in question? 45 Some scholars have proposed that this expression repeats the description of the letters’ dispatch, reemphasizing that each household was notifed of the new law in its native language. 46 Others explain that the law man-

43. The syntax of this verse is diffcult because the object of the verb ‘they will say’ ap- תאמרנה they will rebel’ instead of‘ תמרינה pears to be missing. Some have suggested reading ‘they will say’ (for example, Paton, Esther, 159), which is the translation that the NAB uses. See also Moore, Esther, ad loc. 44. See also R. Gordis’s suggestion that the verse intends to say that the “queen’s word” was spoken in the presence of all the ministers (“Studies in the Esther Narrative,” JBL 95 [1976] 46). 45. Indeed, the LXX omits this phrase, and Haupt adopts this version (Haupt, “Critical Notes,” 113. 46. Thus, for example: Berlin, Esther, 20–21. Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

dated that, if the husband and wife did not speak the same language, the husband was entitled (perhaps even obligated) to force his wife to speak his language. 47 Regardless, the motif of language comes to the fore in the very frst chapter; this motif will achieve its full signifcance later (8:9), when we shall use the occasion to discuss it. We cannot put aside the image of the king’s ministers gathered around him without noting that the scene is repeated in identical form in two other places in the narrative: the plan to select a new queen and the demise of Haman. Let us compare the three situations: Banishment of Vashti (1:12–21) I. “The king was greatly incensed, and his fury burned within him” II. “Memucan declared in the presence of the king . . .” III. “The proposal was approved by the king and the ministers, and the king did as Memucan proposed” Plan to Select a New Queen (2:1–4) I. “When the anger of King Ahasuerus subsided . . .” II. “The king’s servants who attended him said . . .” III. “The proposal pleased the king, and he acted upon it” Demise of Haman (7:7–10) I. “The king, in his fury, left the wine feast” II. “Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said . . .” III. “‘Hang him on it!’ the king ordered, . . . and the king’s fury abated” The most interesting aspect of this parallel is, of course, the second element in each situation: the “adviser du jour” who steps forward and offers suggestions to the infuriated king. Note that in each situation the adviser bursts on the scene almost out of nowhere and then immediately returns to obscurity. Memucan henceforth disappears and is not mentioned again; the “king’s servants that ministered unto him” are altogether marginal fgures who, quite unexpectedly, are invited to advance the plot; and Harbonah, while having appeared at the beginning of the story (as one of the chamberlains who went to summon Vashti), is otherwise insignifcant. 48 Yet, to our surprise, at these major junctures in the narrative (the banishing of the queen from the palace, the selection of a new queen, and the hanging of the most senior adviser in the kingdom), these unknown personalities infuence the decisions of the king who, we are told, falls prey to his “fury” and seeks some calm.

47. Rashi (on Esth 1:22) offers this explanation. See also, for example: Gordis, “Stud- ies,” 53; Fox, Character, 23. 48. I shall look at Harbonah in more detail later on, when I analyze the hanging of Haman (chap. 7). Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

This template exposes Ahasuerus’s kingdom in all of its fckleness. Who makes the important decisions? Who imposes order in the kingdom? The reader who experiences the king’s momentary caprices and the resulting changes in the imperial hierarchy becomes aware of one of the narrator’s most important plot-advancing devices; he also cannot help but sense the narrator’s biting regard for the norms and procedures of Ahasuerus’s rule and (as I shall propose later on) for the institution of royalty altogether. Here also we discern the disparity between the revealed and concealed levels. On the revealed level, the king is described as someone who consults his ministers before legislating a new law. Even for the purpose of deciding “what shall be done to Queen Vashti” he appeals to the appropriate hierarchy, and the law passes through the accepted channels. At the same time, on the concealed level, the reader senses the cynicism that pervades this scene. Contrary to the impression that the literal text conveys, if a full legal process is required for the king to decide what to do with his wife, then the entire legal system and the legislative procedure are being presented with a healthy dose of derision. 49 Clines summarizes the point well: The tone of Ch. 1 is satirical—of that there can be no doubt. The point at which it ends, with royal letters being sent to all the royal provinces . . . giving command that every man should be master in his own house, is the point of unmistakable glee at the Persian foolishness to which the whole chapter has been moving.” 50 To conclude this discussion of Memucan’s advice, I must mention two other biblical sources that maintain a literary connection with this unit and deepen the hidden reading of this scene. One source is from further on in the book of Esther; the other is from Samuel. The language used to describe the dispatch of the king’s letters is repeated later on, in the description of the dispatch of letters by Haman: Letters sent in the wake of Memucan’s advice (1:22) Dispatches were sent to all the provinces of the king, to every province in its own script and to every nation in its own language, that every man should wield authority in his home

Haman’s letters (3:12–13) [W]ritten instructions were dispatched by couriers to all the king’s provinces

49. Similarly: T. H. Gaster, “Esther 1:22,” JBL 69 (1950) 381. 50. Clines, Esther Scroll, 31–32. See also Fox (Character, 24), who notes that every man in the kingdom is being asked to do that which the king himself is not capable of: to rule in his own house! (Similar: S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies in Esther,” JSOT 47 [1990] 16–17.) Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

(to every province in its own script and to every people in its own language) to destroy, massacre, and exterminate all the Jews It may be that the parallel is not intended but instead refects a formal style of writing expressing the establishment of a new law and its dissemination throughout the Persian kingdom. However, the possibility certainly exists that the narrator wants the reader to place the two dispatches side by side so that the scorn that he feels after reading the king’s decree that every man should rule his own home will be projected onto Haman’s decree, in which all of the Gentiles are given license to prevail over all of the Jews. 51 This connection hints at a deep connection being made by the narrative, in which there are two population groups that may be referred to as “other” or “foreign”: women and Jews. In keeping with the style of this narrative, in which the plain text is simply a covering for the hidden reading, these letters betray a concealed reality. At the beginning of the story, it seems that in Ahasuerus’s kingdom, husbands control their wives and wives must “give their husbands honor”—just as at the beginning, it seems that the enemies of the Jews control the Jews. However, just as at the end, “the opposite happened, and the Jews got their enemies in their power” (9:1), so also it turns out that women (or at least Esther, the wife of the king) set the tone of this narrative and are the major driving force behind the plot and the salvation of the Jews. 52 Timothy Beal devotes his study to the connection between these two population groups. As he writes in the introduction to his book: There are many convergences between projections of the other woman and the other Jew, as well as between the two subjects who project these two others and mark them for oblivion as such. 53 In this sense, the issue of the status of the women is raised and treated as one of the themes of the narrative. It must be emphasized that one does not need to adopt a feminist reading in order to raise this issue in the book of Esther. The king’s frst set of letters accomplish this, forcing the reader to note the matter of the relationship between a woman and her husband as a theme. One fact that also contributes to the irony of this episode is that at least one man does not obey this law: the king himself, who is led by his

51. Esth 8:9–10, which also contains all of these elements, has literary value in the linkage it provides between the different decrees. See below, pp. 183–184. 52. Further on (pp. 91–92), we shall note a deeper structure that is shared between Vashti (who disobeys the king’s order and refuses to present herself) and Mordecai (who disobeys the king’s order and refuses to prostrate himself before Haman). This also serves to reinforce the position of the “women” in Esther as being parallel to the position of the “Jews.” The representatives of both of these sectors do not accept the royal laws’ application to themselves and are depicted as “other” in the Persian kingdom. 53. T. K. Beal, The Book of Hiding: Gender, Ethnicity, Annihilation and Esther (London: Routledge, 1997) 13. In connection with the satirical tone of Esther 1, see pp. 49–54. Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.

wife, Queen Esther, to where she wants him to be—even if she does so in the guise of a wife “giving honor” to her husband. The second biblical source to which the narrative points us is the trans- fer of the kingdom from Saul to David. When the reader considers Memu- can’s suggestion, “let Your Majesty bestow her royal state upon another who is more worthy than she” (1:19), Samuel’s words to Saul, following the latter’s sin in the war against Amalek, are evoked: “The LORD has this day torn the kingship over Israel away from you and has given it to another who is worthier than you” (1 Sam 15:28). 54 What is the signifcance of the parallel between stripping Vashti of her royal position and stripping Saul of his kingdom? It seems that by means of this allusion the reader may discern a way in which Saul’s sin will be recti- fed. He lost his kingdom because he did not wage war against Amalek and Agag in the proper manner. In our story, Esther regains Saul’s lost royalty in order to complete his victory; she will bring down “Haman, the Agagite.” While the plain reading mires the reader in the personal fghts between the Persian king and his wife within the palace at Shushan, the “hidden reading” carries him back through ancient Israelite history, hinting to him that the Esther narrative should also be interpreted as a broad historical reaction to the failures of the frst Israelite king.

54. Compare with Hakham, Esther, 10; W. McKane, “A Note on Esther IX and I Samuel XV,” JTS 12 (1961) 260–61; Berg, Esther, 67 (and p. 86 n. 37). This allusion is unmistakable, and the midrash makes note of it: “With the same language used to strip her ancestor of his kingship—as Samuel said to him, ‘And has given it to your fellow who is better than you’—with that same language the kingship was restored to him. As it is written, ‘[The king] shall give her royal estate to another, who is better than her’” (Esth. Rab. 4:9). Copyright © 2011. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or Copyright © applicable copyright law.