No, Achashverosh Never Served a Stable-Boy
No, Achashverosh Never Served a Stable-Boy
Yaakov Jaffe
Writings about Purim from virtually every stripe make reference to a well-known myth that Achashverosh, King of Persia, rose to power from being a former stable-boy. A simple google search yields dozens of online results for this myth, some in passing and others expanded,[1] some academic[2] and others some more traditional;[3] some on blogs and others in books.[4] Yet, it seems that these references to Achashverosh the stable-boy are all rooted in a common mistranslation of the Talmud in Megilah.
This essay will investigate the myth that Achashverosh was a stable-boy from a bibliographical, traditional, and textual perspective, and not from a Biblical, historical, or archeological perspective. Our goal is not to prove – based on historical or archeological evidenced – that a king of Persia did or did not rise to power from the stables; it is to analyze whether Jewish tradition has such a view about one specific king of Persia.
Before looking at the key texts, we should note two important factors in this midrash about Achashverosh and reasons to be skeptical about it:
-
Most Midrashim are grounded in some Biblical textual evidence. Haman comes from Amaleik as he is “Agagi” the name of the prior king of Amaleik; the king’s party recalls the exile from Jerusalem as Mordechai’s exile from Jerusalem and the subsequent dispersal of all Jews is a leitmotif across the megillah. But there is no textual evidence anywhere in Tanach connecting Achashverosh with stables or horses.
-
Many of the Midrashim related to Megilat Esther, find numerous echoes across the many Midrashic texts about Esther – the Midrashim in the Talmud (Megilah 11-17), Esther Rabba, and the two Targumim to Esther. Indeed, the idea that Haman came from Amaleik or that the king’s party and garments related to the temple appear numerous times across the many Midrashim. Yet, outside of the gloss of one line in the Megilah found in Talmud Megilah, the other extended Midrashic tradition never develops the idea of the king who was once a stable boy.
We should already therefore be skeptical whether the Jewish Midrashic tradition treats Achashverosh as a former stable-boy or stable-mater. Closer inspection of the Talmud reveals that the Talmud, itself, seems also to not consider him a former stable master, either.
Megilah 12b
The Talmud reads as follows (Megilah 12b):
“ויקצף המלך מאד” אמאי דלקה ביה כולי האי? אמר רבא, שלחה ליה “בר אהורייריה דאבא אבא ‘לקבל אלפא חמרא שתי‘ ולא רוי; וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה.” מיד “וחמתו בערה בו“
This Talmudic quote begins and end with the same verse in Megilat Esther (1:12), that the king became very angry, and his anger burned hot within him. In between the quotes from the Megillah, the Talmud wonders why the king became so angry, and answers that it was because his first wife Vashsti had sent a particularly egregious insult in his direction. The thrust of the insult is that Achashverosh had gotten drunk, intoxicated after a little bit of wine, but that a greater figure from Vashti’s own family had the capacity to drink wine in the presence of 1000 other people[5] and not become drunk. Essentially, the king’s virility is insulted through his inability to consume large quantities of alcohol. The queen has successfully insulted her husband the king, but without invoking stables or horses.
But is there a second insult here as well? The insult includes an unusual Talmudic word “בר[6] אהורייריה” that appears to be part of the criticism. The word is used in only one other occasion in the Talmud (Bava Metziah 85a and its verbatim parallel in Shabbat 113b), and its meaning is not clear in that context either. The traditional translation of the word is that the אהורייריה runs the stables of a king or another wealthy individual, and so explain Rashi (to Megilah,[7] Bava Metziah, and Shabbat[8]) and Aruch (אהורייר).[9]
As a result, Soncino and most Talmudic translations take the reference to stables to be a second insult:
She sent him back answer: Thou son of my father’s steward![10] My father drank wine in the presence of a thousand, and did not get drunk, and that man [=Achashverosh] has become senseless with his wine. Straightway, his wrath burnt within him.
Clearly, this translation is the basis of the view that Achashverosh served as a stable-master prior to becoming king. Yet, the translation should give us pause for grammatical reasons. At the start of Vashti’s answer, Achashverosh is addressed directly “Thou son of my father’s steward!” But at the end, he is referenced coldly in the third person as “that man.” The shift from the second to the third person renders the sentence clunky and difficult to read. We have already been skeptical of this view to begin with, and the feel of the translation seems to be lacking somehow.
Comparatives and Stable-Masters
The wider context of the Talmud in Bava Metzia is a conversation about the great wealth of Rebbi Yehudah Ha-Nasi. His wealth is demonstrated using a comparative sentence, contrasting Rebbe’s great wealth, with the wealth of the Persian King Shapur. The comparative sentence follows the structure that the stable masters of Rebbi were wealthier than King Shapur. The stable master is not an actual person who exists in the story, the stable master provides an even more extreme basis of comparison: not only was Rebbi great, even his stable-masters were great! We can diagram as follows:
|
“a” |
Were more “Y” |
Than “b” |
|
אהורייריה דבי רבי |
הוה עתיר |
משבור מלכא |
|
The stable master of Rebbe |
were wealthier |
than King Shapur |
This suggests that referring to a wealthy individuals stable masters is a turn of phrase to indicate how great the wealthy person’s attendants were, and not an actual fact or reference about his stables, horses, or mules. Indeed, a similar quip appears also in Hebrew regarding the comparison between the mules of Yitzchak and king Avimelech (Bereishis Rabba 64:7 cited by Rashi 26:13), “the dung of the mules of Yitzchak, and not the gold and silver of Avimelech (see Ritva Bava Metziah).
Having deduced this special אהורייריה sentence form, which is a special comparative for a very wealthier or powerful individual, suggests a different punctuation of the Gemara in Megillah, consisting of one insult not two:
|
“a” |
Were more “Y” |
Than “b” |
|
אהורייריה דאבא אבא |
חמרא שתי ולא רוי לקבל אלפא |
וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה |
|
The stable master of grandfather |
Drank more and did not become intoxicated |
Compared to that man who has become intoxicated |
Punctuated not בר אהורייריה דאבא! אבא ‘לקבל אלפא חמרא שתי‘ ולא רוי, וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה
But בר אהורייריה דאבא אבא ‘לקבל אלפא חמרא שתי‘ ולא רוי, וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה
In this view, the only insult was that the stable master of Vahsti’s grandfather could hold his alcohol better than Achashverosh could. The virility of her grandfather’s lowly stablemaster demonstrates how greater her grandfather was. This translates fits the grammar of the sentence in Megilah better, and has the added benefit of not inventing a new Midrash that Achashverosh served as a stable master. Indeed, one version of the Talmud in megillah reads: בר אהורייריה דאבא ‘לקבל אלפא חמרא שתי‘ ולא רוי וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה, and in this version the deletion of the second word “aba” necessitates our reading as well: my parents stable master drunk before 1000..
Which ancestor of Vashti’s was worthy of a boast?
Our reading of the Talmud confers yet another benefit, besides its consistency with the rest of Midrashic literature and its conformity to the grammar and sentence structure of the Talmud. It shifts the queen’s boast from her father Belshatzar, to her grandfather Nevuchadnetzar. The Talmud and Midrash often present Vashti as the granddaughter of Nevuchadnetzar; see Megilah 10b where as part of two separate drashot, one from Isaiah 14 and one from Isaiah 55, she is called the granddaughter of Nevuchadnetzar. Targum Esther 1:11 also refers to “Nevuchadnetzar Avuy de-aba,” her grandfather.[11] Associating her more with her grandfather than her father is sensible, because Nevuchadnetzar is a heroic, conquering figure throughout Tanach – expanding territory, exiling the Jews, “even the beasts of the field I have given to him” (Jeremiah 28:14). Nevuchadnetzar’s sons were not heroic figures, and Belshatzar the second son (see Daniel 5:2, 11, 13, 18, 22[12]) was stricken by fear and then defeated by the Persians in the famous story of the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5). Thus, when boasting of Vashti’s lineage, it would make more sense that she would boast of the virility of her grandfather more than of her father. Our reading correctly connects her with the great Nevuchadnetzar, and not with his less impressive sons.
The common mistranslation of the Talmud, in contrast, connects the boast to her father, ostensibly Belshatzar.[13] Was Belshatzar known for holding his alcohol? Daniel 5:1 does indicate that Belshatzar was able to drink large quantities of wine, but the balance of the chapter suggests the exact opposite of Vashti’s boast – that he was indeed affected by his drinking, weakened by it, and not that he was strong and able to overcome it. As the last Babylonian king, defeated by the Persians, Belshatzar would be a curious choice to be included in any boast about the strength of the Babylonians.[14]
Vashti’s boast speaks about having the capacity to drink in the presence of 1000 men, a turn of phrase which recalls the party of Belshatzar in Daniel 5. But does the Talmud intend to quote and reference the party and drinking of Belshatzar directly? Or does it just use the turn of phrase that appears in that context? The Torah Ohr Commentary of Yehoshua Boaz to the standard Vilna Shas does not source the quote – implying the Talmud uses the language of the phrase but does not intend to reference Belshatzar’s party. In contrast, Rashi does explicitly connect the words to Daniel 5, implying Vashti boasted of her father Belshatzar’s own virility, and not of the fortitude of the stable-masters of her grandfather Nevuchadnetzar.[15]
Was Achashverosh born into royalty?
One final topic related to the stable-boy myth is the question whether Achashverosh was born into royalty or not. Clearly, had the Talmud referenced humble, stable boy origins, then we would see him as a warlord or ruthless strongman who rose to power from outside. Yet, the Midrashim give no account of him exterminating the previous royal family or rebelling and usurping power from the previous king.
In contrast, Targum Sheni argues that Achashverosh was the son of Darius the Mede;[16] thus even if Beltshatzar was Vashti’s father, Achashverosh would still not be considered a stable master. Midrash Aba Gurion shares this view as well. Yalkut Esther (1049) is also of the view that Achashverosh was born into royalty, and was not her father’s stablemaster – but yet still quotes the boast of the king being unable to hold his alcohol compared to the stablemasters of Nevuchadnetzar. The primary boast stands, whether or not Achashverosh was a stable master.
The story of the stable-boy who rose to become king is an imaginative one that grips the mind and inspires the imagination. Yet, it seems to be a particularly late addition to Rabbinic literature, and one based in its core on a mistranslation of the Talmud.
[1] See https://www.ou.org/holidays/a-literary-analysis-of-the-book-of-esther-based-on-midrashic-comments-and-psychological-profiling/
[2] See Geoffrey Herman “Ahasuerus, the former Stable-Master of Belshazzar, and the Wicked Alexander of Macedon: Two Parallels between the Babylonian Talmud and Persian Sources” AJS Review 29(02):283 – 297 (November 2005), or https://www.thetorah.com/article/ahasuerus-the-son-of-a-stable-master
[3] See Yosef Deutsch, Let My Nation Live (Artscroll, 2002), 23. See also multiple times in the 16th century Bible commentary to Esther of Alshich, the early 19th century commentary on the Talmud “Iyey Hayam” commentary to Megilah 11a, the mid 18th century commentary Rosh Yosef to Megilah 12b, and Vilna Gaon to Esther 1:12-18.
[4] J.T. Waldman, Megillat Esther (Jewish Publication Society, 2010), 16.
[5] It remains unclear both within the Talmud and in the verses in Daniel (5:1) why drinking in the presence of others is a greater feat than drinking in private. Perhaps one drinking in public requires greater fortitude not to be carried away by full intoxication than one drinking in private. Tosafot Ha-Rosh to Megilah explain that the verse means he was the best drinker found among 1000 individuals, not that he drunk wine before 1000.
[6] In some versions of the text in Megilah, this word “son of” is absent. Its presence or absence is largely immaterial for the discussion that follows.
[7] See Rashash and Ein Yaakov. Rashi should read שומר סוסים and not שומרי סוסים in the plural. This is also the text of Rashi in the 1714 Amsterdam printing.
[8] Adding horses or mules.
[9] As a proof, he cites Targum to Yeshayahu 1:3.
[10] Whether we refer to a steward or stable-master, the position is similar. Jastrow’s dictionary also reads “thou, son of my father’s steward.” Jastrow believes the word derives from horrearius (a storehouse), and not from horse. Yet, the proof from Targum Yeshyahau suggests that the position involves care of animals and not just general storage.
[11] Targum Esther believes her father was Nevuchadnetzar’s first son Avel-Merodach, who also appears at the end of the book of Melachim.
[13] The sheer number of times he is called Nevuchadnetzar’s son suggest that he was actually his son, and not his grandson, and this is the view of Megilah 10b. Some versions of Seder Olam (28) say Belshatzar was Avel Merodach’s son. There is considerable confusion on this point. Contrast for example Rashi to Daniel 5:1 and Yeshayahu 14:22 with Rashi Yirmiyahu 27:7 and Chabakuk 2:5. For our purposes, we recall that we are less interested in factually determining the relationships based on the historical record, than we are in establishing how the Talmud would have understood the Belshatzar-Vashti-Nevuchadnetzar relationship.
[13] Many midrashim consider her the daughter of Belshatzar, and this is the sense one gets from Megilah 10b, but not from Targum 1:1 (who says she is the daughter of Avel-Merodach). Targum Sheini also appears to connect her to Avel Merodach and not Nevuchadnetzar.
[14] Targum Sheini does connect the boast to Belshatzar, however. Yet, see previous note.
[15] One cannot tell definitively how Rashi read the Gemara. A number of earlier Midrashim, both seemingly working off of the Gemara and glossing it offer the translation later associated with Soncino (Midrash Aba Gurion [see also] and Midrash Lekach Tov). The exact date and provenance of those Midrashim is not fully known, but they appear to be post-Talmudic.
[16] There is much controversy about the identity of Darius the Mede, who is featured in Daniel 6:1, and my be a different person entirely form the more famous Darius the Persian who gave the final permission to rebuild the second temple (Chagai 1:1, Zecharyah 1:1, Daniel 9:1, Ezra 6:1). See Megilah 11b and D. J. Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,” D. J. Wiseman, ed., Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: The Tyndale Press, 1965. pp. 9-18. Who Darius the Mede was, and whether he actually existed isn’t the focal point, however; our interest is in demonstrating that for the Midrashic tradition, he was born inro royalty.
35 thoughts on “No, Achashverosh Never Served a Stable-Boy”
Nice pshat.
But what hubris in the way you refer to anyone (which may have been everyone) in the past 1000 years who didn’t understand the gemara like you.
Really interesting! As you were introducing your explanation, I realized it would flow much better without the second “Abba”, and was getting ready to check the dikdukei sofrim 🙂
(Just a note, I am not the JS who commented previously.)
I too was about to comment” nice pshat” until I saw the GRA listed amongst those who learn the traditional way.
Thank you Yaakov, here are some cursory thoughts:
The reason the accepted reading is the accepted reading is precisely because it is the reading that has suggested itself to the myriad of readers throughout the generations. This is clear from the version presented in a 16th century Yemenite manuscript, Columbia 294-295: הכי שלחא ליה בר אהוריאריה דאבא את אבא לקביל אלפא…
Even if this manuscript does not represent an authoritative Talmudic variant (an issue that is itself the subject of a yet unresolved academic dispute), it nevertheless demonstrates how this passage has been understood by at least the copyist of this manuscript.
The difficulties you raise with this reading are not insurmountable, and in no way do they militate conclusively against the accepted reading. The impetus for the detailing of the Persian king’s humble beginning is not historical, but psychological. You may be of the opinion that the drinking insult would be enough to explain the severe rage engendered by the insult, but an equally justifiable argument can be made for understanding that Vashti’s insult must have also contained a contemptuous reference to her perceived higher royal standing.
It should be noted that from the context of the story it is clear that it was not simply Vashti’s model of insubordination that was deemed problematic, but even more so, her serving as an example for women in the Kingdom to hold themselves as social equals or superiors to their husbands (hence the obsession with להיות כל איש שורר בביתו ומדבר כלשון עמו). Indeed, this observation may well have served as the inspiration for theאהורייריה insult.
Furthermore, even if we were to concede that no Midrashic parallels can be found for this reading, and this is a difficult claim to prove (especially when you consider the paucity of surviving midrashic texts), it might just as easily be due to the fact that Midrashic authors did not view Vashti’s insult as having any real historical implications, and may just have been an exaggerated way of her asserting her superiority to her husband who had he been born to her noble line would only be fit to serve as a stable boy.
As for your question regarding the switch from first person address to the third person observation, this is not uncommon in the Talmud (oftentimes maledictions are couched by Talmud in the third person for reasons I described in my article on ‘The Avoidance of Damaging Speech in the Talmud’). An unsavory expression before a monarch would also naturally be couched in the third person. For this reason Yehuda tells Yoseph וחטאתי לאבי כל הימים and not וחטאתי לך כל הימים even though he is recounting what he told directly to his father.
Actually, the accepted reading is in fact the only viable reading according to the majority of textual witnesses which read along with the standard text אהורייריה דאבא אבא. As should be evident to anyone with any familiarity with Talmudic Aramaic, if the two אבאs are to be read together as grandfather, it would have to say אבא דאבא. While you may prefer the עין יעקב version that only has one אבא (as does Ms. Munich 95), the rule of Lectio difficilior potior supports the reading of the majority of textual witnesses that have two אבאs, as it much easier to imagine an unlettered scribe removing what he deems to be a superfluous אבא than a scribe adding one in for no apparent reason.
Interesting thoughts. My comments:
“This is clear from the version presented in a 16th century Yemenite manuscript, Columbia 294-295: הכי שלחא ליה בר אהוריאריה דאבא את אבא לקביל אלפא…”
I actually think this girsa is more ambiguous. Telling him “you are my father’s stable boy” is more likely to be read as a metaphoric insult, comparable to “You loser!” Not that she was saying that he was literally the stable boy.
Thinking about it further though, when considered together with the other usage in BM, I think it’s possible to read even our girsa in this way, that the stable boy is not to be meant literally but just a way of saying “Loser!”
” a scribe adding one in for no apparent reason.”
I was thinking about this as well. I would suggest that according to Rabbi Jaffe’s reading, the reason that a scribe may have added the second abba is precisely because the scribe (incorrectly according to R Jaffe) understood the first phrase as referring to Achashverosh, which would necessitate adding in another “abba” in order that the second part of the statement would have a subject.
As for the metaphorical insult – agreed, I was trying to make that point myself.
As for the second point – absent the second אבא, I don’t see why anyone would understood that there are two phrases altogether, let alone that the first phrase is referring to Achashverosh.
Note also the Hebrew rendition of the Talmudic account in the 15th century מדרש הביאור (R. Kafih edition vol. 1 p. 550), also from Yemen:
אמרה להם אמרו
לו דע שאני בת בלשאצר, אבל הוא בר אהריריה
דאבא, אבא לקביל אלפא שתי חמרא ולא משתכר,
וזה נשתטה.
You can add Ben Yehoyada to those who learn the “wrong,” pshat. Of course, someone who casually dismisses the Alshich and Gaon will be unimpressed by the Ben Ish Chai. (By the way, it can still very well be a “nice pshat” [and even the correct one!] but the arrogance of unequivocally rejecting the other tzad is not something you are zocheh to see every day.)
Note that the Ben Yehoyada emplys the traditional reading, but not in the literal sense that he was an actual stable boy, but that it was a metaphoric insult, similar to calling him a loser, as I suggested above.
Of course. And I have no quarrel with the suggestion (btw he presents this as if it is the consensus). As I indicated above, the categorical rejection of alternatives is what I find objectionable.
Well stated.
Thank you for an interesting read. I would echo the hesitancy of the above commenters to accept your outright rejection of what is clearly the consensus reading of this Talmudic passage over the last thousand years.
However, I also take issue with a number of your claims, most importantly, this suggestion that the traditional Midrashic notion was never developed in other early Midrashic sources. That is simply untrue, and not even hidden away in obscure sources.
Esther Rabbah 3:14 expands on this passage as follows:
שָׁלְחָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ קוֹמִיס אִיסְטַבְּלָאטִי שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא הָיִיתָ וְהָיִיתָ לָמוּד לִהְיוֹת מַכְנִיס לְפָנֶיךָ נָשִׁים זוֹנוֹת עֲרֻמּוֹת, וְעַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנִּכְנַסְתָּ לַמַּלְכוּת לֹא חָזַרְתָּ מִקִּלְקוּלְךָ
The Talmud itself (Megillah 11a) also writes that Achashverosh was not from any royal lineage, and Rashi and others cite our passage as being in agreement with that statement. That suggestion is derived from Esther 1:1.
I would also be interested in seeing parallel passages in the Talmud that refer to a grandfather as אבא אבא.
Professor Eliezer Segal, in his wonderful (and open access) The Babylonian Esther Midrash: A Critical Commentary has also gathered many other fascinating and relevant sources. I would refer any readers there for further discussion, much of which is in favour of the traditional reading of this passage.
https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/2608037/pdf (pages 264-268)
Interesting post.
Are you able to cite any instances where the phrase אבא אבא (or אבא דאבא for that matter) is used to refer to “grandfather”? This seems to me to be the weak point of the thesis.
Also, FWIW the Arukh (in his citation of this sugya), mentions בר אהורייריה דאבא; he too seems to have understood it as “my father’s stable-master”, not “my grandfather’s”.
You find אבוה דאבא in בבא בתרא קנט. though many of the commentators substitute that with אבא דאבא.
I don’t think it is mere pedantry to point out that Soncino’s rendition of בר אהורייריה דאבא as ‘Thou son of my father’s steward’ is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Aramaic בר. In this context it does not mean the son of but refers to the subject himself (a la בר מצוה).
THE INSULT OF VASHTI CALLING HIM MY FATHERS STABLE BOY GOES TO THE HEART OF THE MALBIMS FASCINATING TRACKING OF HOW HE CALLS HER VASHTI HAMALKA QUEEN SINCE SHE IS MARRIED TO HIM WHILE SHE IS REFERRED TO AS HAMALKA VASHTI QUEEN IN HER OWN RIGHT WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON HE BECAME KING
THUS THE INSULT IS NOT MERELY A SWIPE ART HIS VIRILITY
I SUGGEST THE AUTHOR GET DRUNK ENOUGH ON PURIM AD DLO YADAH BEIN HASUS ASHER RACHAV ALAV HAMELECH AND THE SUS IN THE STABLE BOYS STABLE
IN OTHER WORDS STOP BEATING THE DEAD HORSE
Interesting suggestion. I suggest you correct the following distracting typos:
“stable master of **Vahsti’s** grandfather”
“This **translates** fits the grammar of the sentence in Megilah better”
“who is featured in Daniel 6:1, and **my** be a different person entirely”
Speaking of corrections, the title “NO, ACHASHVEROSH NEVER SERVED A STABLE-BOY” should be “as a stable boy”
I think the Medrash Rabbah quoted by Ezer Diena above is the dagger in this pshat:
“Esther Rabbah 3:14 expands on this passage as follows:
שָׁלְחָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ קוֹמִיס אִיסְטַבְּלָאטִי שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא הָיִיתָ וְהָיִיתָ לָמוּד לִהְיוֹת מַכְנִיס לְפָנֶיךָ נָשִׁים זוֹנוֹת עֲרֻמּוֹת, וְעַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנִּכְנַסְתָּ לַמַּלְכוּת לֹא חָזַרְתָּ מִקִּלְקוּלְךָ”
We can at least reject it with the same conclusiveness as you did the accepted pshat.
Thank you for your interesting proposal. Since the key to understanding the statement in b. Megila 12b is with the textual witnesses it is important to note that the textual version is rather stable and not in favour of your proposal. You note that one Talmud version omits the second אבא, seemingly this supports your argument. It is MS Munich 95 and Rabbinowitz, in his דקדוקי סופרים mentions that the first printed edition of the Ein Yaakov also has this. However he explains in a note that “the scribes took it as duplication and superfluous and so deleted it [i.e. the second אבא]. I think he is right. The other Talmud manuscripts, however, are rather consistent in having the same version as the Vilna shas, with respect to the issue at hand.
The version in the Yemenite ms kept in the Columbia University library, that you mention;בר אהוריאריה דאבא את אבא לקבל לאפא חמר …. undoubtedly confirms the accepted way of reading this sentence that you seek to revise. Further, and importantly, דאבא אבא would be a highly bizarre way to refer to a grandfather in Babylonian Jewish Aramaic. One would expect אבוה דאבא, or (better) אבוה דאב as in b. Bava batra 159a and in the story of Honi in b. Ta’anit 23a (according to the version in the manuscripts).
Thank you for all of your helpful comments and contributions to this fascinating discussion. I apologize to those who felt my argument was too forceful; that was not my intention. My goal is just to raise some questions about this important Gemara.
The comments to the post raise three broad issues:
(#1) what is the meaning of the phrase “De’Aba Aba” in Talmudic Aramaic? I agree it is hard to say, as the phrase almost never appears. See, however, Bechoros 52b towards the top:
לאיתויי נכסי דאבי אבא
Where the prefix “ד” comes before the phrase אבי אבא without the ד in between אבי דאבא, admittedly this is still not דאבא אבא.
(#2): What to make of the various textual variants to the passage.
My thanks to the many posters who point to the Yeminite manuscript, which supports the traditional reading. I had argued that Munich 95 supports my suggestion. Yet, I agree with the group that our standard Talmudic text is likely the most accurate. Unlike the other two versions, it can be read in accordance with either of the two readings.
(#3) Understanding the Midrashic traditions of Achashverosh’s origins more generally. Thank you for the reference to Eliezer Segal, who also notes the paucity of other sources: “There is however no source, other than the present one and its Palestinian parallels, that would furnish a basis for Ahasuerus’ apprenticing as a stable-keeper for the Babylonian monarchs.” I also agree with the posters that Megillah 11a notes that he was not from the royal family – although there is still a jump from saying he was not from the royal family, to say he was a lowly stable-master.
Thank you for your contributions and a happy Purim to all.
Thank you for the reference to Eliezer Segal, who also notes the paucity of other sources: “There is however no source, other than the present one and its Palestinian parallels, that would furnish a basis for Ahasuerus’ apprenticing as a stable-keeper for the Babylonian monarchs.”
This seems like a dishonest dodge. The post claims that “The story of the stable-boy who rose to become king…seems to be a particularly late addition to Rabbinic literature, and one based in its core on a mistranslation of the Talmud.” However, if it is found in the classic midrashim on Esther, it is not late and the title of this post is fundamentally incorrect: “No, Achashverosh never served as a stable boy.” It seems to me that the premise of this post is just wrong.
With all due respect, the example of אבי אבא proves less than nothing about אבא אבא, because אבי is the נסמך form of אב/אבא (as in אבי אבות הטומאה or חם אבי כנען) and thus equivalent to אבא דאבא.
I think the biggest problem with this pshat is that Vashti is clearly referencing Balshatzer’s ability to drink. The words “לקבל אלפא חמרא שתה” are a direct quote from Daniel 5:1 which is referring to (her father) Blashatzar. To suggest that Vashti was merely “turning a phrase which recalls the party of Balshatzer”, seems to be quite a stretch.
Excellent point, and one that appears to have been overlooked by many commenters. A novel suggestion (which is essentially a modification of Rabbi Jaffe’s suggested read to avoid this issue) is made by Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein in his Torah Temimah (Esther 1, note 103):
בר אהוריירא הוא שומר הסוסים, וכונה לבלשאצר שמפורש בו (דניאל ה’) ששתה יין מול אלף שריו כמו כולם יחד, וכנתה אותו בשם אהוריירא לפי ערך משרתו אצל נבוכדנצר זקנה
There’s a lot more to discuss about this, including other sources that have made this suggestion in the past and how Rabbi Epstein deals with the other issues raised by commenters here (for example, he cited the Talmud using the words דאבי אבא to avoid the language issue), but now is not the time.
Worth noting in this context that R’ MM Kasher claimed that RBBE had a marked tendency to subtly misquote his sources in a manner which supported his interpretations. Possibly unintentional, but in any event, I don’t think you can put much stock in his versions of the text especially when they support his interpretation.
Agreed; there is zero text-critical value in Torah Temimah’s quote. That’s why I wrote “cited the Talmud using the words”, as opposed to “had a version of the Talmud that had those words”.
The details of insults by an angry wife are not a major part of the story. If childrens’ instructors think this casual possible reference to Achashverosh having a lowly status, that is fine… no-one suggested that it is a significant part of the story. Just as some people I know fixate on the question of whether Vashti was summoned wearing nothing but her crown, so others fixate on whether he was a stable boy. Not really part of the story. (Targum shaini is quite detailed about the question of her lack of attire, and attributes it as a just punishment for her making her Jewish maidservants perform their duties with similar humiliation.)
A lot of minor details become part of the petty classroom telling of great biblical stories, but they are minor and irrelevant.
And there are plenty of rulers who came from humble backgrounds and rose from being lackeys to assistants, to taking over, doesn’t always take a revolution or invasion.
Perhaps the insult of the stable boy was never meant to refer to an actual stable boy at all. It could instead be a form of dramatic argument, along the lines of saying “my teacher is so smart even his worst student is smarter than you” – in which the hypothetical “worst student” is a red herring, only meant to dramatically reflect back how wise the teacher is. The wealth of rebbe’s stable masters is not the issue; it’s that Rebbe himself was so wealthy. Similarly, her insult might not mean in any way that Achashverosh was actually a stable boy, only that in comparison to her own lineage, he is a nothing; not even as manly as her father/grandfather’s stable boy…
This is wrong. Rashi states clearly that he was a stable hand. You give the impression that Rashi is merely translating the word אהורייריה and he might have said differently had there been a different girsa in his gemara. Rashi however is never merely translating the written text – but transmitting ideas he knows to be true.
On second thought, the Rashi can be read the way you propose. The Vilna Gaon is quite clear however, and indeed is מדייק this from the פסוק.
Yet on the other hand, as the next Rashi attests to Daniel 5 stating clearly that it was Balshetzar himself and not a stablehnad who could drink the amount of one hundred men, your own interpretation would be quite a stretch in Rashi.
The poster himself says that the Gra learns not like him
Rashi absolutely does sometimes/often simply translate the text. Where did you get the idea that he doesn’t?
Yes, you are correct. I retract the word ‘never’.