va-y'hi bi-mei ahashveirosh (And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus) (Esther 1:1)

It is written in the Gemara Megilah (10b)

R.Levi, or some say R. Jonathan said: The following remark is a tradition handed down to us from the Men of the Great Assembly: wherever in the Scripture we find the term "va-y'hi" [and it was, and it came to pass], it indicates [the approach of] trouble.

But the Gemara concludes:

R. Ashi replied: The fact is that "va-y'hi" sometimes has this signification and sometimes not, but the expression "va-y'hi bi-mei" [and it came to pass in the days of] always indicates trouble. Five times we find the expression "and it came to pass in the days of"; viz., "And it came to pass in the days when the Judges judged" (Ruth 1:1), "and it came to pass in the days of Amrafel" (Genesis 11:2), "and it came to pass in the days of Ahaz" (Isaiah 7:1), "and it came to pass in the days of Jehoiakim" (Jeremiah 1:3). [The fifth is "and it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus."]

It appears to our master that the Talmud at first wished to infer that the word "va-y'hi" is an expression of distress by reading it "vai y'hi" (there shall be woe). But the Talmud abandoned this assumption, because although there are many places where "va-y'hi" is an indication of trouble, there are also many places where it is not. However, whenever it is written "va-y'hi bi-mei," the Talmud continues to read it as "vay y'hi." For if one who is discussing historical events of the past, relating what had occurred in olden days, and wished to indicate when a particular event occurred, it is proper to say that the event occurred in the year such and such of king so and so or in the year such and such of some other individual who is known to us. However, if one is discussing and relating events about some king or some individual, then it would be redundant to say that in his own days he did thus and so, since it would be obvious that that king or that famous person did what he did in his own days. And if someone who is unknown is being discussed, what would be added by saying that in his days he did thus and so? What sense would there be in relating what is being taught to something that is unknown?

Now if we examine the five instances where it is written "va-y'hi bi-mei," we shall find that in each one the events of the story revolve around the individual whom Scripture uses to identify the time when the events to be recounted occurred. "And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus," he made a feast. "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, a certain man went to sojourn in the field of Moab, and the name of the man was Elimelekh." And the Sages say that Elimelekh was a judge, as was Boaz. If the main story concerned these judges, what do the words "and it came to pass in the days when the judges judged" add? Similarly "and it came to pass in the days of Amraphel." He started a war. And the same is true for "and it came to pass in the days of Ahaz" as well as for "and it came to pass in the days of Jehoakim." So it is obvious that it none of these cases can any sense be made of the words "and it came to pass in the days of." This is what forced the Sages to interpret the words "va-y'hi bi-mei" as "there shall be woe" in the days of Ahasuerus as well as in the other cases. And this is a complete introduction to the story, because there was woe in the days of Ahasuerus which the Scripture then explains in detail.

Gemara Megilah 12a:

R. Simon b. Yohai was asked by his disciples, Why were the enemies of Israel [a euphemistic reference to Israel] in that generation deserving of extermination? He said to them, Do say you. They said: Because they partook of the feast of that wicked one [Ahasuerus]. [He said to them]: If so, those in Susa should have been killed, not those in other parts. They then said, Give your answer. He said to them: It was because they bowed down to that image [set up by Nebuchadnezzar]. They said to him: Did G-d then show favoritism [by delivering them even though they were worthy of extermination]? He replied: They only pretended to worship, and He only pretended to exterminate them; and so it is written (Lamentations 3:33): "for he afflicted not from his heart" (ki lo inah mi-libo).

This passage is difficult through and through. First, if a student asks his teacher a question, how is it that the teacher answers: "what do you say?" Would the student have asked the question if he had known the answer? And, if the disciples did indeed have an answer (i.e., that the Jews partook of the feast of Ahasuersus), then it is indeed amazing that they would have asked their teacher the question. Were they simply trying to test him? Second, if the reason that the Jews deserved to be exterminated was because they partook of forbidden foods at Ahasuerus's feast, would they have been deserving of extermination just for eating forbidden foods? But this is not capital offense, just an ordinary prohibition for which there is no death penalty. Third, when the disciples ask whether G-d showed favoritism, why did R. Simon not retort that according to their own opinion the Jews also deserved extermination for partaking in the feast of Ahasuerus, in which case did not G-d also show favoritism? Fourth, how did the disciples conclude that the Jews did indeed deserve extermination? In truth, nothing happened to them except that a decree of extermination was pronounced upon them. Perhaps the heavenly decree was only that they be subjected to the fear and dread of death, but nothing more.

And it appears to our master that the disciples of R. Simon b. Yohai argued persuasively for their opinion that Israel had indeed been deserving of actual extermination, not merely of being subjected to dread and apprehension. For the king's command and decree that the Jews be exterminated did not reach most of the places in which Jews were living, because within three days the king called back the letters containing his decree. The fear and dread of death could not therefore have fallen upon most of the Jews. This is as the commentators have written that the letters were sealed with the king's seal, and he had commanded that they not be opened until the designated day. The only writing on the outside of the letters was the instruction that the letters should not be opened until the designated day, but no one understood why not or what the purpose of the letters was. For the scheming Haman, in his villainy, ordered this, having cast the lot that fell on the month of Adar, which pleased him greatly, since he knew that Adar had been designated as a time for the destruction of Israel. Haman therefore did not want, under any circumstances, to attack the Jews earlier, so he kept the decree a secret by ordering that the letters remain sealed, fearing that if the nations learned of the decree against the Jews they would not wait for the designated day to begin attacking them. Only Mordecai, through the Divine Spirit, knew all that had happened. Later, when the King reversed his evil decree and ordered the letters to be returned, many of the people of Israel never knew anything about the awful decree (See the commentary Lekah Yoseiph and the Malbim). And although when the first letters were sent out it is written only that the posts went out in haste to make their way by foot without horses, when the second letters were sent out it is written (Esther 8:10) that the letters were "sent by couriers on horseback, riding on the swift horses used in the royal service," because the king was very insistent that they pursue the first posts to take the first letters from their hands. [Actually the Megilah says that the king sent out new letters on the twenty-third day of Sivan, about 40 days after the first letters were sent, so it is not clear to what reference is being made here. Moreover, the Megilah seems to say that the letters were not called back, but only supplemented by the second letters. Trans.] From all this it is clear that the Heavenly decree was that they should be exterminated, not just frightened, and that the decree was subsequently annulled.

The disciples of R. Simon therefore were precise in asking why the Jews were deserving of extermination, instead of asking why a decree of extermination was pronounced upon them. And because they asked why the Jews were deserving of extermination instead of why a decree of extermination was pronounced upon them, R. Simon b. Yohai understood that the disciples had an explanation for why the Jews would have been deserving of being subjected to the fear and dread of death (i.e., for having partaken from the feast of Ahasuerus), but that they had found no offense for which the Jews would have deserved to be exterminated. That is why R. Simon b. Yohai said to them, "do you answer," by which he meant, according to your assumption that the Jews were deserving of being subjected to the fear and dread of death but were not deserving of being exterminated, what is the offense for which they deserved to be subjected to the fear and dread of death? And to this question they correctly answered that they partook from the feast of that wicked one, because it was fitting that for eating neveilot and treifot and the broth of abominations that they would be subjected to the fear of death and destruction. To this R. Simon b. Yohai retorted that if so, only the Jews in Shushan should have been punished, but not the Jews in the rest of the world, because only the Jews of Shushan partook of the king's feast, not the Jews elsewhere. But in fact Jews elsewhere in the empire who had not been invited to the king's table were also seized by the fear of one in childbirth, as it is written (Esther 4:3): "And in every province, wherever the king's command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews," because Mordecai rent his garments and cried a loud and bitter cry and revealed the matter to all those whether nearby or far away to the extent that he was able. In that case, why were the Jews outside Shushan, who had not partaken from Ahauerus's feast, also subjected to the fear of death? R. Simon b. Yohai therefore said to his disciples, that they really were correct, because the Jews did not deserve to be exterminated, only to be subjected to the fear of death. But the reason that they deserved to be punished was that they had all bowed down to the idol. The disciples then asked in reply, was not bowing down to an idol a capital offense, so the question would be reversed, does G-d show favoritism? In other words, if all the Jews bowed down to an idol, then why, indeed, were they spared? To this question R. Simon b. Yohai replied that the Jew had only pretended to worship the idol, but they did not mean in their hearts to worship it. Similarly, the Holy One Blessed Be He only pretended to bring about their extermination, as it is written "for he afflicted them not from his heart."

Exodus Rabbah:

A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches (nivhar sheim tov mei-osher rav) (Proverbs 22:1): The good name of Mordecai is rather to be chosen than the riches of Haman. (Midrash Rabbah (Exodus 33:5))

This is a wonder. And our master says that in the Talmud the Sages deduce from the verse (Esther 10:3) "and accepted of the multitude of his brethren" (v'ratzui l'rov ehav) that he was accepted by most of his brethren, but (by inference) not by all his brethren. This teaches us that some members of the Sanhedrin separated from him, for when Mordecai was a poor and humble man, and cast his own life aside in order to try to save Israel from the aliens who wished to devour them wantonly, he was accepted by all his brethren. However, after Esther elevated him to seat him upon a throne among kings and she appointed him to be in charge of Haman's house and he acquired all Haman's wealth and property, some members of the Sanhedrin disapproved of his actions which were not proper in their eyes. And this is the meaning of the Midrash. Mordecai's name was better when he worked and toiled only for the sake of his own name, which itself demonstrates an abundance of humility [i.e. Mordecai can be read as "mari d'khiah," the master of lowliness], than great wealth, i.e., the wealth of Haman. For afterwards he was acceptable only to most of his brethren, but it was better for him before when he was accepted by them all.