Talmudic Interpretations of the Book of Esther: Esther 1:3-9 (Megillah 12a)

Part of a series on the extended aggadic sugya in Tractate Megillah 10b-17a. See the previous installments here, here, and here.

The Talmud’s commentary on the Book of Esther transforms the biblical narrative from a political drama into a theological and moral discourse. In Megillah 12a, the Sages dissect the opening chapters of Esther, drawing connections between Ahasuerus' court, Jewish exile, and divine justice.

This aggadic sugya interprets key details—such as Persia and Media’s power-sharing agreement, Ahasuerus’s wearing of the High Priest’s vestments, and Vashti’s motivations—through a lens that merges historical context with rabbinic exegesis. The Sages debate Ahasuerus' political acumen, the Jews' culpability in their near-destruction, and even the significance of banquet decorations.

These interpretations not only illuminate the biblical text but also reflect broader themes in rabbinic thought: the tension between divine providence and human agency, the consequences of assimilation, and the enduring struggle over Jewish identity in exile.

Outline

1. The Alternating Order of Persia and Media (Esther 1:3, 10:2): Persia and Media's Power-Sharing Agreement

2. Ahasuerus and the Priestly Vestments (Esther 1:4, Exodus 28:2)

3. Ahasuerus: Wise or Foolish? (Esther 1:5): wise - first appeasing distant subjects, knowing he could later satisfy locals; foolish - not securing local loyalty first, in case of rebellion

4. The Reason for the Threat of Annihilation in the Time of Purim: for participating in Ahasuerus’ feast, or because they bowed to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol (Lamentations 3:33)

5. Interpretations of the Verse "In the Court of the Garden of the King’s Palace" (Esther 1:5)

6. Interpretation of Materials in Esther 1:6: Meanings of Ḥur and Karpas

7. The Gold and Silver Couches at Ahasuerus' Feast (Esther 1:6)

8. Precious Stones and Symbolism (Esther 1:6): Definitions of Bahat, Dar and Soḥaret (Zechariah 9:16)

9. Interpretation of "Shonim" in Esther 1:7: Divine Rebuke for Misuse of Temple Vessels

10. Each guest was served wine older than himself (Esther 1:7)

11. Interpretations of Drinking at Ahasuerus’ Feast (Esther 1:8): Drinking According to Torah Law; Non-Compulsory Drinking; Mordecai and Haman served as butlers (Esther 2:5, 7:6)

12. Vashti’s Feast and Sinful Intentions (Esther 1:9): Location of the Feast: both Ahasuerus and Vashti had immoral intentions

The Passage

Megillah.12a.6-12b.1

The Alternating Order of Persia and Media (Esther 1:3, 10:2): Persia and Media's Power-Sharing Agreement

The Talmud examines why Persia is mentioned before Media at the beginning of the book, while at the end, Media is mentioned first.

Rava explains that the Persians and Medes had an agreement: if one nation provided the king, the other would supply the ministers.¹

״חיל פרס ומדי הפרתמים״,

וכתיב: ״למלכי מדי ופרס״.

אמר רבא:

אתנויי אתנו בהדדי,

אי מינן מלכי — מינייכו איפרכי

ואי מינייכו מלכי — מינן איפרכי.

The Gemara returns to its interpretations of verses in the Megilla. The Megilla mentions that among those invited to the king’s feast were: “The army of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces” (Esther 1:3),

and it is written near the conclusion of the Megilla: “In the book of chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia” (Esther 10:2). Why is Persia mentioned first at the beginning of the Megilla, while later in the Megilla, Media is mentioned first?

Rava said in response:

These two peoples, the Persians and the Medes, stipulated with each other, saying:

If the kings will come from us, the ministers will come from you;

and if the kings will come from you, the ministers will come from us.

Therefore, in reference to kings, Media is mentioned first, whereas in connection with nobles and princes, Persia is given priority.

Ahasuerus and the Priestly Vestments (Esther 1:4, Exodus 28:2)

The verse in Esther 1:4 describes Ahasuerus displaying "the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honor of his majestic greatness."

R' Yosei bar Ḥanina asserts that Ahasuerus wore the priestly vestments. The same term—“tiferet”²—appear in the description of the priestly garments in Exodus 28:2, suggesting a parallel.

״בהראותו את עושר כבוד מלכותו״,

אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא:

מלמד שלבש בגדי כהונה.

כתיב הכא: ״יקר תפארת גדולתו״,

וכתיב התם: ״לכבוד ולתפארת״.

The verse states: “When he showed the riches of his glorious [kevod] kingdom and the honor of his majestic [tiferet] greatness” (Esther 1:4).

R' Yosei bar Ḥanina said:

This teaches that Ahasuerus wore the priestly vestments.

Proof for this assertion may be adduced from the fact that the same terms are written with regard to the priestly vestments, as it is written here: “The riches of his glorious [kevod] kingdom and the honor of his majestic [tiferet] greatness.”

And it is written there, with regard to the priestly garments: “For glory [kavod] and for majesty [tiferet]” (Exodus 28:2).

Ahasuerus: Wise or Foolish? (Esther 1:5): wise - first appeasing distant subjects, knowing he could later satisfy locals; foolish - not securing local loyalty first, in case of rebellion

Rav and Shmuel dispute whether Ahasuerus' decision to hold a feast for Shushan's residents after hosting foreign dignitaries was wise (פיקח) or foolish (טיפש):

One opinion holds that Ahasuerus acted wisely by first honoring distant subjects, as he could always appease (מפייס) the locals later.

The opposing view argues that prioritizing foreign guests was unwise, as he should have secured loyalty from his own city first in case of rebellion.

״ובמלאות הימים האלה וגו׳״.

רב ושמואל,

חד אמר: מלך פיקח היה,

וחד אמר: מלך טיפש היה.

מאן דאמר מלך פיקח היה —

שפיר עבד דקריב רחיקא ברישא,

דבני מאתיה, כל אימת דבעי, מפייס להו.

ומאן דאמר טיפש היה —

דאיבעי ליה לקרובי בני מאתיה ברישא,

דאי מרדו ביה הנך,

הני הוו קיימי בהדיה.

The verse states: “And when these days were fulfilled, the king made a feast for all the people that were present in Shushan the capital” (Esther 1:5).

Rav and Shmuel disagreed as to whether this was a wise decision.

One said: Ahasuerus arranged a feast for the residents of Shushan, the capital, after the feast for foreign dignitaries that preceded it, as mentioned in the earlier verses, indicating that he was a clever king.

And the other one said: It is precisely this that indicates that he was a foolish king.

The one who said that this proves that he was a clever king maintains that

he acted well when he first brought close those more distant subjects by inviting them to the earlier celebration,

as he could appease the residents of his own city whenever he wished.

And the one who said that he was foolish maintains that

he should have invited the residents of his city first,

so that if those faraway subjects rebelled against him,

these who lived close by would have stood with him.

The Reason for the Threat of Annihilation in the Time of Purim: for participating in Ahasuerus’ feast, or because they bowed to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol (Lamentations 3:33)

The students of R' Shimon bar Yoḥai asked why the Jewish people of that generation deserved annihilation (כליה). Instead of answering, R' Shimon asked them to give their own explanation.

They suggested that the Jews were punished because they had attended Ahasuerus' feast and eaten forbidden foods. However, R' Shimon challenged this reasoning, arguing that only those in Shushan, who participated in the feast, should have been affected, not the entire Jewish population.

R' Shimon proposed that the true reason was their prostration before Nebuchadnezzar’s idol.³

The students then asked: If the Jews were guilty of idolatry, why did God save them? Was there favoritism (משוא פנים) at play?

R' Shimon explained that their idolatry was not sincere; they bowed only outwardly (לפנים) to comply with the king’s order. Similarly, God’s decree of destruction was only a pretense. (I.e. He merely appeared to be angry, issuing a threat that was ultimately annulled.)

This aligns with the verse: “For He does not afflict from His heart willingly” (Lamentations 3:33; indicating that the punishment was never truly intended).

שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחאי:

מפני מה נתחייבו שונאיהן של ישראל שבאותו הדור כליה?

אמר להם: אמרו אתם.

אמרו לו: מפני שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע.

אם כן שבשושן יהרגו, שבכל העולם כולו אל יהרגו!

אמרו לו: אמור אתה!

אמר להם: מפני שהשתחוו לצלם.

אמרו לו: וכי משוא פנים יש בדבר?

אמר להם:

הם לא עשו אלא לפנים,

אף הקדוש ברוך הוא לא עשה עמהן אלא לפנים.

והיינו דכתיב: ״כי לא ענה מלבו״.

The students of R' Shimon bar Yoḥai asked him:

For what reason were the enemies of Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves when exhibiting behavior that is not in their best interests, in that generation deserving of annihilation?

He, R' Shimon, said to them: Say the answer to your question yourselves.

They said to him: It is because they partook of the feast of that wicked one, Ahasuerus, and they partook there of forbidden foods.

R' Shimon responded: If so, those in Shushan should have been killed as punishment, but those in the rest of the world, who did not participate in the feast, should not have been killed.

They said to him: Then you say your response to our question.

He said to them: It is because they prostrated before the idol that Nebuchadnezzar had made, as is recorded that the entire world bowed down before it, except for Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.

They said to him: But if it is true that they worshipped idols and therefore deserved to be destroyed, why was a miracle performed on their behalf? Is there favoritism expressed by God here?

He said to them:

They did not really worship the idol, but pretended to do so only for appearance, acting as if they were carrying out the king’s command to bow before the idol.

So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not destroy them but did act angry with them only for appearance. He too merely pretended to desire to destroy them, as all He did was issue a threat, but in the end the decree was annulled.

And this is as it is written: “For He does not afflict from His heart willingly” (Lamentations 3:33), but only for appearances’ sake.

Interpretations of the Verse "In the Court of the Garden of the King’s Palace" (Esther 1:5)

Rav and Shmuel debated the meaning of the locations mentioned in the verse:

One held that guests were assigned different locations based on their status—some in the courtyard, others in the garden (גינה), and the most distinguished in the palace (ביתן).

The other suggested that all guests were first seated in the courtyard, but due to overcrowding, they were progressively moved to the garden and then to the palace.

A baraita presents a different view, stating that all guests were seated in the courtyard, which had entrances leading to both the garden and the palace, allowing access to all three spaces.

״בחצר גנת ביתן המלך״.

רב ושמואל,

חד אמר:

1. הראוי לחצר — לחצר,

2. הראוי לגינה — לגינה,

3. הראוי לביתן — לביתן.

וחד אמר:

1. הושיבן בחצר — ולא החזיקתן,

2. בגינה — ולא החזיקתן,

3. עד שהכניסן לביתן — והחזיקתן.

במתניתא תנא:

הושיבן בחצר

ופתח להם שני פתחים —

אחד לגינה ואחד לביתן.

The verse states: “In the court of the garden of the king’s palace” (Esther 1:5).

Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to how to understand the relationship between these three places: Court, garden, and palace:

One said: The guests were received in different places.

1. One who, according to his stature, was fit for the courtyard was brought to the courtyard;

2. one who was fit for the garden was brought to the garden;

3. and one who was fit for the palace was brought to the palace.

And the other one said:

1. He first sat them in the courtyard, but it did not hold them, as they were too numerous.

2. He then sat them in the garden, but it did not hold them either,

3. until he brought them into the palace and it held them.

A third understanding was taught in a baraita:

He sat them in the courtyard

and opened two entranceways for them,

one to the garden and one to the palace.

Interpretation of Materials in Esther 1:6: Meanings of Ḥur and Karpas

The Talmud asks about the meaning of the word ḥur (חור) in the verse. Rav interprets it as a fabric with many holes (חרי - i.e. lace). Shmuel, on the other hand, understands it as white wool.⁴

Regarding karpas (כרפס), R' Yosei bar Ḥanina explains that it refers to cushions (כרים - karim) made of velvet (פסים - pasim).

״חור כרפס ותכלת״.

מאי חור?

רב אמר: חרי חרי,

ושמואל אמר: מילת לבנה הציע להם.

״כרפס״,

אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא: כרים של פסים.

The verse states: “There were hangings of ḥur, karpas, and sky blue” (Esther 1:6).

The Gemara asks: What is ḥur?

Rav said: A fabric fashioned with many holes [ḥarei ḥarei], similar to lace.

And Shmuel said: He spread out for them carpets of white wool, as the word ḥavar means white.

And what is karpas?

R' Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Cushions [karim] of velvet [pasim].

The Gold and Silver Couches at Ahasuerus' Feast (Esther 1:6)

R' Yehuda interprets that the couches (מטות) at the feast were assigned based on the guest’s status—those suited (ראוי) for silver sat on silver couches, while those suited for gold sat on gold couches.

R' Neḥemya rejects this view, arguing that such an arrangement would provoke jealousy among the guests. Instead, he proposes that all the couches were silver, with gold used only for the legs.

״על גלילי כסף ועמודי שש מטות זהב וכסף״,

תניא,

רבי יהודה אומר:

הראוי לכסף — לכסף,

הראוי לזהב — לזהב.

אמר לו רבי נחמיה:

אם כן, אתה מטיל קנאה בסעודה.

אלא: הם של כסף, ורגליהן של זהב.

The verse states: “On silver rods and pillars of marble; the couches were of gold and silver” (Esther 1:6).

It is taught in a baraita:

R' Yehuda says:

Some couches were of gold and others of silver.

One who, according to his stature, was fit for silver sat on a couch of silver,

and one who was fit for gold sat on one of gold.

R' Neḥemya said to him:

This was not done. If so, you would cast jealousy into the feast, for the guests would be envious of each other.

Rather, the couches themselves were made of silver, and their feet were made of gold.

Precious Stones and Symbolism (Esther 1:6): Definitions of Bahat, Dar and Soḥaret (Zechariah 9:16)

R' Asi interprets “bahat” (בהט) as precious stones that captivate their owners due to their high value. He parallels this with Zechariah 9:16, which compares the Jewish people to precious stones adorning the land.

Rav explains “dar” (דר) as meaning multiple rows (“darei darei”), indicating that the flooring was arranged in concentric rows. He interprets “soḥaret” (סוחרת) as a term derived from “seḥor seḥor” (דרי דרי - “around and around”), further emphasizing the elaborate arrangement of the stones.

Shmuel suggests that dar refers to a luminous gemstone found in seaports, which Ahasuerus placed at the center of the feast to provide light, likening it to the midday (צהרים) sun.⁵

A scholar from the school of R' Yishmael presents a different reading, interpreting dar as deror (דרור - “freedom”) and soḥaret as soḥer (merchant). He suggests that Ahasuerus proclaimed a tax exemption for merchants, making the verse refer to economic policy rather than physical decor.

״בהט ושש״.

אמר רבי אסי:

אבנים שמתחוטטות על בעליהן.

וכן הוא אומר: ״אבני נזר מתנוססות על אדמתו״.

״ודר וסוחרת״,

רב אמר: דרי דרי.

ושמואל אמר:

אבן טובה יש בכרכי הים,

ו״דרה״ שמה,

הושיבה באמצע סעודה

ומאירה להם כצהרים.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא:

שקרא דרור לכל בעלי סחורה.

The verse continues: “Upon a pavement of bahat and marble” (Esther 1:6).

R' Asi said

with regard to the definition of bahat: These are stones that ingratiate themselves with their owners, as they are precious stones that people are willing to spend large amounts of money to acquire.

And similarly, it states elsewhere that the Jewish people will be likened to precious stones: “And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the flock of His people; for they shall be as “the stones of a crown, glittering over His land” (Zechariah 9:16).

The verse concludes: “And dar and soḥaret” (Esther 1:6).

Rav said: Dar means many rows [darei darei] around. Similarly, soḥaret is derived from seḥor seḥor, around and around, meaning that the floor was surrounded with numerous rows of bahat and marble stones.

And Shmuel said:

There is a precious stone in the seaports,

and its name is dara,

and Ahasuerus placed it in the center of the feast,

and it illuminated the festivities for them as the sun illuminates the world at midday.

He explains that the word soḥaret is derived from tzohar, a light.

A scholar from the school of R' Yishmael taught a baraita:

This means that he proclaimed a remission for all the merchants, absolving them from paying their taxes, understanding that the word dar derives from deror, freedom, and soḥaret from soḥer, merchant.

Interpretation of "Shonim" in Esther 1:7: Divine Rebuke for Misuse of Temple Vessels

The Talmud questions the use of the term shonim (שונים - “different, various”) in Esther 1:7, suggesting that “meshunim” (משונים) would have been a more precise word.

Rava explains that a bat kol (Divine Voice) issued a rebuke, referencing the fate of Belshazzar, who was punished with destruction (כלו) for using the Temple vessels.⁶ The term shonim is interpreted as a criticism: despite knowing the consequences, they repeated the same mistake.

״והשקות בכלי זהב וכלים מכלים שונים״.

״משונים״ מיבעי ליה!

אמר רבא:

יצתה בת קול ואמרה להם:

ראשונים כלו מפני כלי, ואתם שונים בהם!

The verse states: “And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, the vessels being diverse [shonim] from one another” (Esther 1:7).

The Gemara asks: Why does the verse use the term shonim to express that they are different? It should have said the more proper term meshunim.

Rava said:

A Divine Voice issued forth and said to them:

The early ones, referring to Belshazzar and his people, were destroyed because they used these vessels, the vessels of the Temple, and yet you use them again [shonim]?

Each guest was served wine older than himself (Esther 1:7)

Rav expounds on the phrase "rav", stating that each guest was served wine older than himself, emphasizing the extravagance of the feast.

״ויין מלכות רב״,

אמר רב: מלמד שכל אחד ואחד השקהו יין שגדול הימנו בשנים.

The verse continues: “And royal wine in abundance [rav]” (Esther 1:7).

Rav said: This teaches that each and every guest at the feast was poured well-aged wine that was older [rav] than himself in years.

Interpretations of Drinking at Ahasuerus’ Feast (Esther 1:8): Drinking According to Torah Law; Non-Compulsory Drinking; Mordecai and Haman served as butlers (Esther 2:5, 7:6)

The Talmud questions the phrase "according to the law" in Esther 1:8. R' Ḥanan, citing R' Meir, interprets it as following the Torah’s principles. Just as the Torah prescribes that sacrificial food is greater in quantity than the accompanying wine libations, so too at Ahasuerus’ feast, the food exceeded the drink in quantity.

R' Elazar explains the phrase "none did compel" to mean that each guest was served wine from his own country.⁷

Rava interprets the phrase "that they should do according to every man’s pleasure" as referring to two specific men: Mordecai and Haman.⁸ The verse uses the term "ish va’ish" ("a man and a man"), which Rava links to Mordecai, called "a Jewish man" (Esther 2:5), and Haman, called "a man who is an adversary" (Esther 7:6).

״והשתיה כדת (אין אונס)״,

מאי ״כדת״?

אמר רבי חנן, משום רבי מאיר:

כדת של תורה,

מה דת של תורה אכילה מרובה משתיה,

אף סעודתו של אותו רשע אכילה מרובה משתיה.

״אין אונס״,

אמר רבי אלעזר: מלמד שכל אחד ואחד השקהו מיין מדינתו.

״לעשות כרצון איש ואיש״,

אמר רבא:

לעשות כרצון מרדכי והמן.

מרדכי — דכתיב: ״איש יהודי״,

המן — ״איש צר ואויב״.

The verse states: “And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel” (Esther 1:8).

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “according to the law”?

R' Ḥanan said in the name of R' Meir:

The drinking was according to the law of the Torah.

Just as, according to the law of the Torah, with regard to offerings, the food sacrificed on the altar is greater in quantity than the drink, for the wine libation is quantitatively much smaller than the sacrificial offerings it accompanies,

so too, at the feast of that wicked man, the food was greater in quantity than the drink.

The verse states: “None did compel” (Esther 1:8).

R' Elazar said: This teaches that each and every guest at the feast was poured a drink from wine of his own country, so that he would feel entirely free, as if he were in his home country.

The verse continues: “That they should do according to every man’s pleasure” (Esther 1:8).

Rava commented on the literal meaning of the verse, which is referring to two men, a man and a man [ish va’ish], and said:

The man and man whom they should follow indicates that they should do according to the wishes of Mordecai and Haman.

The two of them served as butlers at the feast, and they were in charge of distributing the wine.

Why is the verse interpreted in this way?

Mordecai is called “man,” as it is written: “There was a certain Jewish man [ish] in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair” (Esther 2:5).

And Haman is also called man, as it states: “A man [ish] who is an adversary and an enemy, this evil Haman” (Esther 7:6).

Vashti’s Feast and Sinful Intentions (Esther 1:9): Location of the Feast: both Ahasuerus and Vashti had immoral intentions

The Talmud questions why Vashti hosted her feast in the royal house (בית המלכות), a space meant for men, rather than in the women’s quarters (בית הנשים).

Rava states that both Ahasuerus and Vashti had immoral (דבר עבירה) intentions—Ahasuerus sought to engage with the women, while Vashti sought to engage with the men.

The Talmud supports this with a folk proverb: "He with pumpkins (קרי) and his wife with zucchinis”.⁹

״גם ושתי המלכה עשתה משתה נשים בית המלכות״.

״בית הנשים״ מיבעי ליה!

אמר רבא:

שניהן לדבר עבירה נתכוונו,

היינו דאמרי אינשי: איהו בקרי, ואתתיה בבוציני.

The verse states: “Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women, in the royal house, which belonged to King Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:9).

The Gemara questions why she held the feast in the royal house, a place of men, rather than in the women’s house, where it should have been.

Rava said in response:

The two of them had sinful intentions. Ahasuerus wished to fornicate with the women, and Vashti wished to fornicate with the men.

This explains the folk saying that people say: He with pumpkins and his wife with zucchinis, indicating that often a man and his wife engage in similar actions.

1. איפרכי - from Greek eparchos. As a result, when discussing rulers, Media is mentioned first, while for nobles and princes, Persia takes precedence.

2. תפארת - “majesty”. This term would later take on great importance in medieval Kabbalah. See Wikipedia, “Tiferet“.

3. As recorded in previous biblical history, with the exception of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.

4. מילת - possibly connecting ḥur to the word ḥavar - “white”.

5. Presumably, he connects soḥaret to tzohar - “light”. The tzohar (צהר) in Noah's Ark (Genesis 6:16) is understood by some (Midrash Rabbah, Rashi) as a glowing gem providing light in the Flood.

The idea of a luminous material is a common rabbinic trope. Compare my piece here, section “Jehoiakim’s Insolence Against God“: where Jehoiakim boasts that they have no need for God’s light, as they posses parvayim (פרויים) gold that shines brightly.

6. כלי.

As stated earlier in the sugya, see Megillah.11b.10-11, that Belshazzar calculated that the 70 years (prophesied by Jeremiah as the length of the Babylonian exile after the destruction of the First Temple) had passed without the Jews' redemption and therefore assumed they never would be, so he desecrated the Temple’s vessels (מאני דבי מקדשא). Daniel rebuked him for his arrogance (התרוממת), citing his defiance of God. That same night, Belshazzar was killed, and Darius the Mede (דריוש מדאה) took the throne:

הא שבעין.

אמר:

השתא ודאי תו לא מיפרקי,

אפיק מאני דבי מקדשא ואשתמש בהו.

היינו דקאמר ליה דניאל:

״ועל מרי שמיא התרוממת

ולמאניא די בייתיה היתיו קדמך״,

וכתיב: ״ביה בליליא קטיל בלשאצר מלכא [כשדאה]״.

וכתיב: ״ודריוש מדאה קבל מלכותא כבר שנין שתין ותרתין״.

this brings the count of the years of exile to seventy.

At that point Belshazzar said to himself:

Now for sure they will not be redeemed.

Therefore, I will take out the vessels of the Holy Temple and use them.

This is that which Daniel said to him with regard to his impending punishment for using the Temple’s vessels:

“But you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven;

and they have brought the vessels of His House before you” (Daniel 5:23).

And it is written further in the chapter: “In that night Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, was slain” (Daniel 5:30). This was the description of Belshazzar’s mistaken calculation.

And it states after the fall of Belshazzar: “And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old” (Daniel 6:1).

The same exact thing then happened with Ahasuerus, according to the next section of the sugya, Megillah.11b.12: Ahasuerus calculated that the 70 years had passed without the Jews' redemption and assumed they never would be. He then used the Temple vessels. As punishment, Satan disrupted (ריקד ביניהן - “danced among them“) his celebration, causing confusion that led to Vashti's death:

כיון דחזי דמלו שבעין ולא איפרוק

אמר: השתא ודאי תו לא מיפרקי,

אפיק מאני דבי מקדשא, ואשתמש בהו.

בא שטן וריקד ביניהן, והרג את ושתי.

Once he saw that 70 years had been completed, and the Jewish people were still not redeemed,

he said: Now for sure they will not be redeemed.

Therefore, I will take out the vessels of the Temple and use them.

What happened to him? As a punishment for what he did, Satan came and danced among them, and brought confusion to his celebration until he killed Vashti.

7. This ensured that every attendee felt comfortable and at home, reinforcing the idea of free will in drinking.

8. Both of whom aren’t mentioned explicitly in the story until later. According to this interpretation, both served as butlers at the feast, distributing the wine.

9. בוציני - meaning that spouses often engage in similar behaviors.