Parshat Tetzaveh Rabbi Chaim Brovender

Kingship finds expression repeatedly surrounding the person of Ahashverosh, his palace, his court and his celebration:
"He made a feast for all his ministers and servants...
The nobles and the princes of the provinces... (Megillat Esther, 1: 3,4)."

By means of this display, Ahashverosh accomplishes something:
"He showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and yakar tiferet gedulato—his excellent majesty— many days (1: 5)."

The Hebrew tiferet is difficult to translate: "majesty", "his princely way", "his kingship," all faithfully reproduce its meaning here. Still, what happened at the party that showed the King's majesty? Why should a large feast with an impressive guest list reveal "majesty" more than conducting court and the affairs of state? The Persian Empire no doubt had an impressive ballroom, but was that what demonstrated the might and dignity of Ahashverosh?

The Gemara (megilla 12a) has taken notice of the phrase tiferet gedulato: 
"R. Yosi the son of Hanina said: 'this teaches us that he wore priestly garments' [the clothes worn by the High Priest]." There the use of the word tiferet in the verse [from Megillat Esther] is seen as an allusion to "priestly garments." In Parashat Tezave, the priestly garments are said to be fashioned "lechavot u'letiferet."

The opinions expressed by Chazal that Ahashverosh destroyed the Temple or that Ahashversosh used sacred objects from the Temple as serving vessels at his party, both fit with the above view that he dressed himself in the High Priest's garments. 

Why interpret "tiferet" as an allusion to priestly garments? Apparently, kings can aspire to no beauty more splendid or honor more elevated than that given to the High Priest in his service of God. 

The Ramban, in his commentary to Parashat Tezave, makes this comparison in the opposite direction. He asks how one goes about making garments that will satisfy the imperative grandeur of lechavod uletiferet? He answers that we copy the sartorial style of kings, especially the kings of Persia, to produce dress of the highest dignity. 

The Torah states quite clearly that there must be a high priest; however, the appointing of a king seems to be optional. "Kingship" over Israel can be given to the High Priest who will wield the combined authorities of the "king" and the "servant of Hashem". Only Moshe succeeded in combing the roles. He was called eved Hashem, and passed on to the priestly families their roles in religious service. 

The Ramban in his commentary to our parasha points out that the Torah is not clear about how to achieve the status of lechavod ulitiferet in making the special garments for the priests. He suggests that we might look at the clothes worn by the kings in the world. This remains curious. On the one hand, the Persian kings serve as a model for the garments of the priests; on the other hand, a king of Persia took the clothing of the High Priest as a special honor for himself.

Ahashverosh must have noticed that the external form of the garments had copied to some extent the style of Persia rulers. However, clothing designed and used by the High Priest and the other priests, comes to represent a unique kind of political and religious leader. This double-leadership Ahashverosh (and many other a worldly king) coveted. For that further glory, he insisted on wearing the priestly garments.

In the State of Israel we have achieved a kind of malchut (kingship). That leadership exercises authority in the political realm but does not inspire devotion in the religious domain of priests and the Temple. This is perhaps the enterprise of the next generation.

Shabbat shalom,
Chaim Brovender

Return to Yeshivat Hamivtar - Orot Lev