5784/2024

We noted in the chapter “The Ambiguous Achashverosh” that Achashverosh’s puzzling character reflects the dangerous phenomenon of enemies we cannot accurately diagnose. I believe it also sheds light on the curious characterization of Megillat Esther as “divrei shalom v’emet,” words of peace and truth (Esther 9:30). The Vilna Gaon and Malbim offer peshat explanations of this interesting phrase, and we suggest a new approach. 

Focus on Locals or Those Distant? 

The Gemara (Megillah 12a) addresses one matter regarding Achashverosh’s debatable character — his decision to make an empire-wide party and then one for Shushan residents. One opinion sees it as intelligent to first address those who live further away, since they are not naturally close to him and require more attention. The other view thinks it is foolish since the basic political strategy is first to bolster one’s natural support base and only then to expand it.

The debate about this choice is one example of how we can interpret many, if not all, of Achashverosh’s decisions. We identify eight pivotal moments in Megillat Esther with strong support for either option.

Case #1: Terminating Vashti

It would seem the height of folly for Achashverosh to rid himself of Vashti, especially since she was a descendant of royalty, unlike him (Megillah 12b). On the other hand, he may have been exasperated by the arrogant Vashti. Achashverosh arguably found a perfect pretext to eliminate Vashti. 

Case #2: Selecting Esther as Queen

On the one hand, one may presume Achashverosh selecting Esther as a queen without knowing her national origin is the height of imprudence. On the other hand, Achashverosh correctly assessed Esther to be extraordinary. He may have felt it was worth risking taking her as queen, even if he does not know her ancestry. Ultimately, Achashverosh chose a woman who furthered his self-interest. 

Case #3: The Extermination Plan 

In Esther 3:8, Haman does not mention the nation he wishes to exterminate. On the one hand, Achashverosh may be seen as a fool who consented to a genocidal plan without knowing to which nation Haman referred. On the other hand, Achashverosh might be shrewdly avoiding mention of the nation to create a guise of “plausible deniability” in case the plan went awry.

Achashverosh waiving the fee Haman was willing to pay for permission to eliminate us seems strong evidence of the king being Haman’s willing accomplice. On the other hand, the waiver might only have been a reward Achashverosh extends to his (at that time) friend Haman for eliminating a nation that Haman told him is a threat to his rule. 

In addition, it is unclear if Achashverosh grasped the plan's scope. Haman asked permission “l’abeid,” to eliminate the unnamed nation. Achashverosh, especially if he was a fool, might have understood that Haman only intended to exile or devastate these people financially. Haman did not explicitly tell Achashverosh his intention to murder the Jewish women and children. Only in the orders he sent to all the provinces in Achashverosh’s name does he unambiguously clarify that he intends “l’hashmid, la’harog u’l’abeid,” to murder all Jews, including women and children, in one day. Either Haman duped Achashverosh, or Achashverosh relished the deliberate ambiguity to create a façade of innocence to protect himself in case the plan backfired.

Case # 4: Up to Half of the Kingdom

Rashi presents two explanations of Achashverosh telling Esther that he will extend her up to “half of the kingdom” (Esther 5:3). Rashi notes that the peshat (straightforward) meaning is that he is even willing to grant Esther half of the kingdom, which is a foolish exaggeration and reckless rhetoric. 

However, Rashi quotes a Midrash stating that half of the kingdom alludes to the Beit Hamikdash, located mid-way in Achashverosh’s realm. In other words, Achashverosh implied he would not rescind his halt to the Beit Hamikdash construction (as recorded in Ezra perek 4). This interpretation presents Achashverosh wisely limiting the favors he will extend Esther. 

Case #5: Mi Hu Zeh? 

In perek 7, when Esther confronts Achashverosh about the planned extermination, Achashverosh responds, “Mi hu zeh v’eizeh hu” — who is the one who plans to do this? Perhaps he is a fool unaware of the plan to erase Esther’s people. Alternatively, Achashverosh might be feigning innocence and cleverly distancing himself from Haman. 

Case #6: How Should Achashverosh Show Honor?

Esther perek 6 records the king asking Haman, “What should I do for the man I wish to honor?” We may understand this as a simpleton’s question that Achashverosh posed to Haman. But, on the other hand, Achashverosh might be understood as shrewdly testing whether Haman coveted the throne.

Case #7: Stepping Outside

In perek 7, we find Achashverosh stepping outside, presumably to gather his thoughts, upon Esther’s revelation of herself as Jewish and Haman as a villain. On the one hand, the king, for once, thinks before he acts. But, on the other hand, he leaves Esther and Haman alone inside, creating potential for sordid behavior. Still, perhaps Achashverosh intends to test Haman and Esther to see how they behave by themselves. 

Case #8: Delayed Protection

After Haman’s execution, Achashverosh leaves the Jewish extermination day edict still in full effect. Esther must risk her life again and enter the king’s chamber without permission to beg Achashverosh to neutralize the evil decree. Why did the king not defang Haman’s terrible sentence immediately after killing Haman?

Assuming the king is a fool, we can attribute this lapse to Achashverosh’s poor judgment. On the other hand, if Achashverosh is wise, this delay betrays his Jew hatred. He executes Haman because he views him as threatening his rule and life. However, although Esther’s Jewish identity is revealed and Mordechai is appointed second to the king, the king does not feel compelled to save the rest of the Jewish People. He does so only after Esther drives him to do so. 

Divrei Shalom V’emet 

Now let us return to explain the term “divrei shalom v’emet” that describes the Megillah (Esther 9:30). TABC talmid Jonah Miller suggests that Megillat Esther is deliberately ambiguous about Achashverosh to diplomatically present the truth without offending Achashverosh. 

Both options, of either a foolish or shrewd king, reflect poorly on Achashverosh. Either he is a fool or he is a savvy and willing accomplice to Haman. 

The solution is to present Achashverosh ambiguously. In that way, a casual read of Megillat Esther leaves the impression that Achashverosh is a neutral figure. The Megillah’s author presents the story in a way that does not offend the all-powerful and highly reactive Achashverosh (1). Thus, one element of Megillat Esther’s description as divrei shalom v’emet is its being a work of peaceful and truthful words. It is peaceful since it is not outright hostile and offensive to Achashverosh. However, it is written so the intelligent audience can discover the truth about the Persian emperor. 

Conclusion — Shalom and Emet

Harmonizing shalom and emet is a delicate but essential task, as taught by Zechariah 8:19 — “V’ha’emet v’hashalom ehavu,” love the truth and peace.” The Mishnah (Avot 1:18) adds that “the world stands” on the ability to strike this tricky balance. Megillat Esther brilliantly exemplifies achieving this challenging goal in presenting a non-offensive but truthful presentation of Achashverosh. Although not resolved as to whether he is a fool or a clever and evil man, the Megillah teaches us the challenge of dealing with a personality we do not fully comprehend. 

(1) TABC talmid Shamai Bernstein worries that such a presentation is false. I responded that it is true because a thoughtful reader discerns the truth.