(2–3) Why did they not accept the Samaritans, who wished to worship Hashem? And what is meant by the answer, “We alone shall build, as Cyrus commanded us”? Did Cyrus command them not to allow the nations to assist in the construction?

“Let us build with you, for like you we seek your God”—The Samaritans worshiped God together with other deities, as it is written, “They feared Hashem, while worshiping their own gods.” They thought that Israel also worshiped in this manner. Therefore, they said, “Like you, we seek your God,” for they called Him “the God of gods.” Accordingly, they added, “And to Him we have been sacrificing,” meaning that they regarded Him as the supreme God, exalted above all other gods.

“Then the people of the land”—As a result, the people of the land—the Samaritans—became their adversaries and devised schemes to halt the construction. At times, they weakened their hands, meaning that they induced lethargy among them so that they would make no effort toward the construction. At other times, they frightened them away from building by casting fear upon them. Still other times, they hired counselors against them to frustrate the construction. This continued throughout all the days of Cyrus, during whose reign construction was halted, until the reign of Darius, when they resumed building. Scripture now explains:

“And in the reign of Ahasuerus, they wrote an accusation”—At that time, they weakened their hands and frightened them by means of the accusation they had written against them.

(7–11) At first Scripture says that the writers were Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel; afterward, it says that they were Rehum the counselor and Shimshai; and then it says that they also included the Dinaites, Apharsathchites, and others. Finally, it again says, “This is a copy of the letter,” etc., “Your servants, the people beyond the River.” Who, then, actually wrote the letter? And why does Scripture repeat that the letter was written in Aramaic, after already stating, “The text of the document was written in Aramaic”?

“And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam wrote”—At that time, they hired counselors against them to frustrate the construction, as we shall explain. Although there are various opinions concerning the Persian kings and their names, this Artaxerxes must have been Cyrus, as Rashi explains, since construction was halted during Cyrus’s reign. We must therefore say that “Artaxerxes” was an honorific title used for the Persian kings. According to the opinion that Artaxerxes was the name of a different king, we must say that construction was not halted until after Cyrus’s death, and that this Artaxerxes was a king who reigned after Cyrus. In any event, we must say that construction was suspended for fourteen years—the two weeks mentioned in Daniel [9:25], according to my interpretation. Before explaining the following passage, I shall present an introduction, for several matters are extremely perplexing. First, Cyrus himself had issued the decree authorizing the Temple’s construction and had said that Hashem had charged him to build Him a House. How, then, could he have reversed his decree and halted the construction only a short time later? We know that under the laws of Persia and Media, any document written in the king’s name could not be revoked by the king under any circumstances. This is evident from the account of Daniel [Daniel 6] and from that of Ahasuerus, who could not revoke the written decree even though it had been issued in error, as we explained in our commentary on the Book of Esther. Second, they wrote that the Jews were building and fortifying the walls of Jerusalem. This was entirely false, for the Jews were building only the Temple. The wall was not built until the days of Artaxerxes, who granted special permission for it. Moreover, how could the construction of the Temple enable a rebellion when they had no fortified city in which to take refuge? The Temple was being built from wood and stone and could easily have been burned if they rebelled against the king’s command, as will be explained in chapter 6. How, then, did the king heed these lies, and how did they dare to speak falsely? These questions illuminate the meaning of the verses. In truth, an elaborate deception was carried out. Through monetary bribes, the adversaries of Judah hired counselors, and their deceit succeeded. They knew that it was impossible to revoke the decree authorizing the Temple’s construction, because under the laws of Persia and Media, a document written in the king’s name could not be rescinded. They also knew that they could not accuse the Jews of rebellion merely for building the House of God, since Jerusalem’s wall remained breached. Yet they were afraid to write falsely to the king that the Jews had violated his command and, instead of building the Temple, were rebuilding the city wall, lest the king discover their falsehood and hold them liable with their lives. They therefore devised the following plan. Because the Persian Empire was vast and extensive, and the various peoples under its rule each spoke their own language, the law permitted anyone wishing to write to the king to write in his own language and script, as it is written, “that every man should rule in his own house and speak the language of his own people.” In each province, two royal officials were appointed to receive letters written in the language of that province, translate them into the Persian language and script, and send them to the king. Likewise, the king’s reply would arrive in Persian language and script to these two translators. They would translate it into the language of the province and deliver the translated response to the original writers. The officials appointed over the province of Syria were Rehum the counselor, who translated from one language into another, and Shimshai the scribe, who converted the writing into Persian script. The language and script used in Syria were Aramaic. Therefore, the three men who composed the accusation—Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their associates, meaning their companions and assistants—wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia. The text of the document—that is, the document that had to be translated, with the translation made to correspond precisely to the original—was written in Aramaic and translated in Aramaic; that is, it was in Aramaic script and the Aramaic language. They delivered this letter, prepared for the king, to Rehum the counselor and Shimshai the scribe so that they could translate it into the Persian language and script.

“Rehum”—Rehum the counselor and Shimshai the scribe, who were the translators and were trusted by the king not to falsify their work, now acted deceitfully in preparing their translation. Although the original writers had composed their complaint about the building of the Temple, these officials transformed the document into an accusation concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This is the meaning of “they wrote a letter concerning Jerusalem”: they wrote that the Jews were rebuilding and fortifying Jerusalem. Nevertheless, they formulated it so that even if the king learned that the claim was false—that the Jews had built only the Temple and not Jerusalem’s wall—he would be unable to punish either the original writers or the translators, as will be explained in verse 12. “They wrote to King Artaxerxes as follows.” It was one of the king’s regulations that the two officials appointed to translate a letter place their names at its beginning, since the king would hold them accountable if the translation contained any falsification or deception. They would then record the names of the letter’s authors and petitioners, who would be held accountable if the letter itself contained any falsehood; this would also inform the king of the petitioners’ identities. These names were written upon the letter, just as people today sign their names beneath a letter. However, instead of identifying the writers as Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their associates, the translators wrote that the letter came from all the peoples of the province Beyond the River. The king would therefore take the matter seriously, recognizing that it was not an insignificant complaint but something affecting all the peoples within his realm. Concerning this, they wrote:

“And the rest of the nations whom the great and mighty King Sennacherib exiled and settled in the city of Samaria, and the other nations Beyond the River, and the people of Ke‘eneth”—Up to this point, they wrote upon the letter to identify the petitioners, showing that they represented many peoples. It may also be that Bishlam and Mithredath gathered signatures from several cities authorizing them to submit this request in their names.

“This”—From this point begins the actual content of the letter: “This is the interpretation of the letter”—that is, this is its translation—“which they sent to King Artaxerxes: Your servants, the people Beyond the River, and Ke‘eneth.” In quoting the letter, Scripture abbreviated and did not list all of them. It records only the beginning—“Your servants,” etc.—and the end—“Beyond the River, and Ke‘eneth.” Their practice was not to repeat all the names each time, but to record the beginning and the end and write between them the word shelem or gemir, just as we write “etc.,” as you will see in verse 17 and in chapter 7, verse 17. Here, the word shelem or gemir was omitted from the transcription for the sake of brevity.

(12) How could they say that the Jews were rebuilding Jerusalem when this was an obvious falsehood, since they were building only the Temple, in accordance with the king’s authorization?

“Let it be known to the king”—Here begins the body of the petition. “The Jews who came up from you”—whom you released and sent away. [This proves that construction was halted during the reign of Cyrus. If this occurred after his reign, one must interpret the phrase as meaning “from your province.”] “Have come to Jerusalem, the rebellious and wicked city; they are building, and they have completed the walls”—Here lay the translators’ deception and falsification, for this wording admits two interpretations. It may be understood as attaching “the rebellious and wicked city” to what precedes: they came to Jerusalem, which is a rebellious and sinful city. The word “building” would then begin a separate statement, meaning that they were constructing a building there—namely, the Temple—and had laid the foundations of the Temple’s walls. That is, they were preparing to build its walls, for “they had already joined together its foundations.” According to this reading, they wrote nothing false: they truly were building the House of Hashem there in accordance with Cyrus’s command. Alternatively, the word “building” may be joined to “the rebellious and wicked city,” meaning that they came to Jerusalem and were rebuilding the rebellious and wicked city. The translators rendered it in this second sense, as though the Jews were rebuilding the city itself. If the king later discovered that this was false, they could not be punished, because the letter’s wording also permitted the first interpretation, which is how we understand it in truth. Nor could the original writers be punished, for they could defend themselves by claiming that they had intended the first interpretation—that the Jews were building the Temple there.

(13–16) Why does Scripture repeat, “Let it be known to the king,” and “We make known to the king”?

“Now, let it be known to the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are completed,” they will no longer pay the various kinds of taxes known as tribute, excise, and toll [because they will rebel against the king], and the royal revenue will suffer damage [or this means the king’s treasury].

[They did not mention the salt tax, because salt was supplied to them free of charge.] The royal salt allowance provided for the needs of the king’s palace. This is the meaning of “we eat the king’s salt”: because we are his servants and depend upon his support. Therefore, “the king’s dishonor”—that is, it would be improper for us to witness the king’s disgrace. For this reason, we have sent this letter and informed the king. They explained that what motivated them to report the matter was neither their own benefit nor fear of suffering harm, but solely that they were the king’s faithful servants and did not wish to witness any misfortune befall him.

“That a search be made”—That is, they drew his attention to the fact that he need not believe them solely on the basis of their report, but should search the book of records of his fathers. You will find in the book of records and learn that this city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces, and that they have made efforts within it [to rebel] from ancient times. [The word ve’eshtaddur means the same as ve’eshtaddal, as in Daniel 6:15.] It was for this reason that the city was destroyed.

“We make known”—At first they said, “Let it be known to the king,” meaning that the king would recognize and understand on his own that if the city were rebuilt, he would lose its tax revenues, since its inhabitants had always been accustomed to rebel and throw off the yoke of royal authority. Beyond this, however, “we make known to the king” something he could not know on his own: that if this city is rebuilt, you will have no portion anywhere Beyond the River. For just as this city would cast off the royal yoke, so would all the inhabitants Beyond the River; they would imitate its actions and break free of their restraints.

(17) The words “Peace, and now” appear to have no explanation.

“The reply”—In view of how they presented their claims, it never occurred to the king to investigate whether the allegation itself was true—whether the Jews had violated his command and were rebuilding the city wall without his permission. He assumed that his officials, together with the many peoples who joined them in writing, would not send him such an obvious falsehood. He therefore needed to investigate only whether it was true that the people of Jerusalem had a history of rebelling against kings. He answered accordingly. At the beginning of the letter it was written: “The king sent a message to Rehum the counselor, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their associates who dwelt in Samaria and elsewhere Beyond the River, [etc., through] Ke‘eneth.” As explained above, the letter would otherwise have had to repeat the names of all the signatories—the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, and the others listed above in verses 9 and 10. To abbreviate, their practice was to write only the beginning—“Rehum the counselor and Shimshai”—followed by shelem, meaning: complete and finish the remaining names through “Ke‘eneth.” It functioned like “etc.” in the texts we write. Similarly, below [7:12] it says, gemir u-kheneth. Here, the word shelem is used instead of gemir, meaning “complete and finish.” I subsequently saw that one scholar had explained it in this manner as well.

“The text”—that is, the translation [which corresponds precisely to the letter from which it was translated] that you sent us was read clearly before me.

“And by me”—that is, the command was issued by me, and they searched and found that this city had risen up against kings from ancient times, and that rebellion and incitement [of others to rebel] had taken place within it.

“And mighty kings”—Furthermore, there had been mighty kings there who ruled over the entire region Beyond the River, and tribute was paid to them [by the nations]. This also confirmed what they had reported to him: that if the city were rebuilt, he would lose his royal dominion throughout the entire region Beyond the River.

(21) How could he halt the construction when he himself had granted permission to build, and under Persian law a decree written in the king’s name could not be revoked?

“Now”—Issue an order to stop these men, and let this city not be rebuilt until a command is issued by me. Take care not to act negligently in this matter [or inadvertently]. Why should the damage increase, to the detriment of the kings?

“Then, as soon as the interpretation of the copy,” etc.—The king’s decree did not mention halting the construction of the Temple, but only the rebuilding of the city. However, his words, “Stop these men, and let this city not be rebuilt,” could be interpreted as stating two separate commands: first, “Stop these men” from building the Temple—for since they were not actually rebuilding the city, there was no occasion to stop them from doing so—and second, “Let this city not be rebuilt,” an additional command forbidding the city’s reconstruction. This interpretation would have been correct had the letter sent to the king been an accusation concerning the building of the Temple, for the king’s reply would then have meant that they were to stop the Jews from building the Temple. In truth, however, the translators had transformed the accusation into one concerning the rebuilding of the city. Accordingly, the king’s words, “Stop these men,” meant to stop them from rebuilding the city, and “Let this city not be rebuilt” explained what they were to stop them from doing. Construction of the Temple remained permitted under the king’s original decree, which could not be revoked. But because Rehum and Shimshai the scribe were the translators, they now claimed that the accusation had concerned the building of the Temple. They interpreted “the interpretation of the copy”—that is, their rendering of the translated copy of the king’s letter, which had likewise arrived in Persian and which they translated and interpreted—as meaning that the king intended to halt construction of the Temple. Since the interpretation of the letter was in their hands, they hurried to Jerusalem, to the Jews, and stopped them by force and military power.