#verseoftheday
Psalm 42
My tears have been my bread day and night as my enemies taunt me all day long, asking "where is your G-d?" This I remember and pour out my soul within me, how I would go to Jeruselam with the throngs for the festival's, how I would walk in procession to the house of G-d with shouts of joy and thanks to G-d adjust the festival crowd.

#verseoftheday
Psalm 42:6-9
Why are you downcast O my soul? Why do you groan within me? Have hope in G-d! There will come a time when I will give thanks for the salvation which will come from His radiant presence. My G-d, my soul is downcast in this exile as I remember Your miracles in the land of Jordan where the river Jordan became dry land at the peaks of Mount Hermon where you past over our wrong doings, and at the lowly mountain, Sinai, where you forgave us the sin of the golden calf. Yet in our present exile, deep cries out to deep, one sorrow cries after another, with the cry from the channels through which You send your punishment, which are poured out like water. All Your breakers and waves have swept over me. With the light of day let G-d command His kindness to be revealed. Even in the night of exile, may his presence rest with me. This is my prayer to the G-d of my life.

#esther
1:11-20
to bring Queen Vashti before the king [adorned] with the royal crown, to show off to the people and the officials her beauty. for she was beautiful of appearance. But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command [conveyed] by the hand of the chamberlains; the king therefore became very enraged and his wrath burned in him. Then the king spoke to the wise men, those who knew the times (for such was the king's procedure [to turn] to all who knew law and judgement), those closest to him - Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena and Memucan, the seven officers of Persia and Media who had access to the king, who sat first in the kingdom: "By the law, what should be done to Queen Vashti for not having obeyed the bidding of the King Ahasuerus [conveyed] by the hand of the chamberlains?"
Memucan declared before the King and the officials, "Not only against the King has Queen Vashti done wrong, but against all the officials and all the people in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the Queen's deeds will go forth to all women, making their husbands contemptible in their eyes, when they will say, 'King Ahasuerus said to bring Queen Vashti before him, but she did not come!" And this day the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen's deed will speak of it to all the king's officials and there will be much contempt and rage. If it pleases the king, let there go forth a royal edict from him, and let it be written into the laws of Persia and Media, that it not be revoked, that Vashti never appear before King Ahasuerus; and let the king confer her royal estate upon another who is better than she.

---------------------------------------------------
BUT QUEEN VASHTI REFUSED.
Not because of modesty. Megillah 12b
When Ahasuerus sent for her, "Vashti, the Queen" implying that her title was of secondary importance. He was suggesting that she was simply, "a vashti," a commoner, who had been elevated to the throne because it pleased him to do so. She, on the other hand, referred to herself as "Queen Vashti" to make it plain that she was of royal blood even before her marriage, and that her dignity was not to be trifled with. Further on when he wished to spare her, Ahasuerus referred to her a Queen Vashti reminding his advisers that she was a queen - the daughter of a great ruler, a royal personage in her own right. Vilna Gaon

TO THE WISE MEN
The Talmud (Megillah 12b) understands this to be the Rabbis.

WHO KNEW THE TIMES
That is, who knew how to calculate the timing of leap years and fix new moons. Megillah 12b

Ibn Ezra, however, interprets this as referring to astrologers or those familiar with the historical precedents of earlier monarchs.
Ahasuerus, seeking impartial and trusted counsel, turned first to the Jewish sages and asked them to pass sentence on his queen. The sages thought to themselves: "If we condemn the queen to death we shall suffer for it as soon as Ahasuerus becomes sober and hears that it was upon our advice that she was executed. If we advise clemency and advise him to pardon her, he will accuse us of not paying due reverence to the majesty of the king." They therefore resolved to take a position of neutrality.
They said to him, "From the day the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled from our land, we lost the powers to give judgment in capital cases. Better seek counsel with the wise men of Ammon and Moab who have dwelt at ease in their land." Thereupon he sought advice from his seven officials, as we read "those closes to him - Carshena, etc." Megillah 12b

MEMUCAN DECLARED
A Tanna taught: "Memucan is Haman. Why was he called Memucan? Because he was destine for destruction. Rav Kahana said: 'From here we see that an ignoramus always thrust himself to the forefront'" [Memucan is mentioned last in verse 14, yet he speaks first] Megillah 12b; Midrash
Everywhere else he is referred to as mem*mem*vav*Kuf*nun but here he is called mem*vav*mem*Kuf*nun a combination of the two words kuf*nun and Mem*vav*mem, meaning "a blemish is here." The blemish is his discourtesy in speaking out of turn. The Torah is not tolerant of boorishness. Mesoras HaBris

From a member:

A little late, but wanted to share this anyway.

Rabbeinu Bahya on Exodus 21:24...

עין תחת עין, “an eye for an eye.” Mechilta Nezikin section 8 understands these words as “the value of an eye for an eye,” and not that the guilty party is being deprived of his own physical eye. Proof that this interpretation is correct can be deduced from verse 19 where the Torah had legislated financial compensation for injuries caused to a fellow human being. If we would inflict upon a person who had struck and caused injury to another person a similar injury to the one he had inflicted, what would there be left for him to pay? He himself would then be in need of medical attention and he himself would then suffer loss of income while laid up?
Furthermore, if we were to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally, this would often not be justice at all. If a man ruins the only eye of a one-eyed individual and he had an eye of his removed as a penalty, the former would remain blind whereas the guilty party would still have a good eye to see with. What kind of justice would this be? Moreover, a weak individual might not survive having his eye gouged out so that he would pay with his life for having ruined a strong person’s eye. Surely this would not be justice! The only way a semblance of justice could be arrived at in the situations described in verses 24-27 is to make financial compensation for the damage caused.
Furthermore, the Torah writes in Leviticus 24,19-20: “and if a man inflicts a wound on his fellow, as he did so shall be done to him; fracture for fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; just as he will have inflicted a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted upon him!” It is quite impossible to carry out the instructions in this verse except by accepting the ruling of our sages that what is meant is financial compensation.
You may well ask how it is possible to fulfill an instruction such as “as he has done so shall be done to him,” unless we inflict the same kind of injury that the guilty party has inflicted? Surely giving someone money in compensation for experiencing pain and suffering is not what the Torah had in mind when writing: ”as he has done so shall be done to him?”
We need to answer that the meaning of the words: “as he has done so shall be done to him” is: “as he did something evil, so something evil shall be done to him.” The proof that this is what the Torah had in mind can be appreciated through the words of Shimshon who said: “as they have done to me so I have done to them” (Judges 15,11). When you read up you will find that the Philistines had stolen Shimshon’s wife and he had paid them back by burning their crops! There was no comparison at all between what the Philistines had done to Shimshon to the type of revenge he took upon them. The meaning of his words is obviously: “just as they have caused me personal harm and grief, so I have caused them plenty of harm.” We find something similar when the prophet Ovadiah (Ovadiah 1,15-16) prophesied about Esau “As you did, so shall be done to you (Esau). Your conduct shall be requited. That same cup you drank on My Holy Mount, etc.” You have now had a variety of ancient sources all proving that our sages never interpreted this verse of “an eye for an eye” to be understood literally. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.
The verse mentions injury of seven different kinds: 1) eye; 2) tooth; 3) hand; 4) foot; 5) burn wounds; 6) פצע, an “injury.” 7) חבורה, “a bruise.” Each of this injuries contains at least one element not contained in all the other six, thus making it impossible to omit any of these seven examples. An eye is something we have from birth; teeth we are not borne with; their loss might be considered as less serious. Teeth are also not included in the 248 organs which make up man as a healthy specimen. All the 248 organs are covered with tissue and flesh whereas the teeth appear in our mouth completely exposed. The function of the teeth is not to help man survive as a viable human being, but they are merely a tool to break down the food we eat. Just as we could not have assumed that the legislation contained in our verse applies to teeth unless the Torah had made a point of writing it, so the loss of none of the seven examples cited by the Torah would have been presumed to be a cause for the freeing of a slave forthwith.