Thread by @AkivaMCohen

And on this note, just going to share an idea on the societal/institutional treatment of women that we can see from the megillah, if we pay attention to the text. Particularly, around Ahashverosh, Vashti, and Esther... and Mordechai.

Basically, don't be Ahashverosh (good advice)

https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1364941667925655561

So here's the question: What was it that Vashti did that triggered what looks like an inexplicable overreaction from Ahashverosh, and completely wild advice about societal breakdown from his advisor (Memuchan/Haman, same guy btw)?

I mean, sure, she said no to the King, and that's not really a thing you get to do in a monarchical state. But why in the world does Memuchan suggest that if the king lets this go, it'll have trickle-down effects on every subordinate government official? How does that make sense?

After all, can't the lower officials say to their wives "look, whatever the king wants to do with HIS wife is between the two of them. But this, right here? It's ..."

If you pay careful attention to the Hebrew text of the megillah (you'll never pick this up from the English, sorry), you can find the answer - and it's one that actually does have an internal logic.

If you read the English, you'll see references to "King Ahashverosh" and "Queen Vashti" and "Queen Esther" - those all look the same, just a gendered title, right? And that's good colloquial translation. But it's missing a nuance that a literal translation would have picked up

Ahashverosh is always - ALWAYS - referred to as "Ha-melech [the King] Ahashverosh".

With one exception, Vashti is always - ALWAYS - referred to as "Vashti ha-malkah [the Queen]"

Same for Esther. It's always (with a significant exception) "Esther ha-malkah" - Esther, the Queen

What's the difference? Ahashverosh is always "The King, Ahashverosh"; his primary definition is "The King", and he happens to be named Ahashverosh. Esther and Vashti, in contrast, are "Esther and Vashti, who happen to be the Queen"

In other words, Ahashverosh was the power, and "Queen" wasn't an equal role, or a co-monarch; it was "the woman he happened to be married to"

What's the one exception, the time when the megillah refers to "Ha-malka Vashti"? When she refuses Ahashverosh's summons. "Va'tima'en ha-malka Vashti," it says.

In other words, her refusal wasn't just interpersonal. It wasn't just "disobeying her husband". It was an assertion of co-equal power: "you can't order me around - yes, you're the King, but I'm the Queen and that means we're equals, so I can say no to you."

Which explains both Memuchan's projection of the societal impact that "letting it go" would have, and his solution: If Ahashverosh accepted that, it would set a precedent that wives of government officials have co-equal power with their husbands. Because if that's true even for

the king, certainly it must be true for a provincial governor or minor lord.

And the solution? Strip her of her queenship and give it to someone else you like better - as clear a demonstration as possible that the role has NO inherent power, only what the King allows it to have

OK, what about Esther? When is she referred to as just "Hamalka" - the Queen, full stop - instead of "Esther [who happens to be] hamalka"?

At the denouement of her banquets for Haman, after she denounces him, when the megillah tells us how Haman reacted

Here's the Hebrew: וְהָמָן נִבְעַת, מִלִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַמַּלְכָּה.

"And Haman was terrified, before Hamelech v'Hamalka [the King and the Queen]" -

Why? Because at that moment, Haman could see what Ahashverosh couldn't: that no matter what Ahashverosh intended, Esther had actually *become* his co-equal ruler, a Queen in her own right.

Haman had basically ignored Esther, secure in his relationship with Ahashverosh as the source of his power in the empire. At that moment, he realized what a mistake that was - because Esther had, in her own way, seized control of the moment and events, without Ahashverosh's

formal transfer of power. Whatever Ahashverosh thought, Esther was now a power to be reckoned with in her own right.

And that brings us to Mordechai, who provides us the opposite model from Ahashverosh and Haman's dealings with women.

Yes, he was a community leader. Not only that, he was Esther's foster father, he had raised her. But when she steps up to lead and starts giving orders ...

He takes them and follows them to the letter. Because she was the right person in the right place to lead. No hesitation based on her gender. No hesitation for his own power. Just partnership and - where and when appropriate - willing subordination

We all know who the heroes of the megillah are, and Ahashverosh isn't one of them.

That should tell us all something about willingness to accept the existence of and enthusiastically follow female leaders.

Be Mordechai. Not Ahashverosh.

Anyway, this is all my own drash from a close read of the text, so if I'm missing something or you see a way to expand on this, please speak up! And now, I'm off to work