A public refusal from a queen creates a complex legal and political crisis for the throne. Despite his intense rage, the king restrains himself from issuing a hasty punishment, choosing instead to delegate the decision to an expert advisory forum. This measured response may stem from a commendable leadership trait of refusing to act without proper consultation [תורה תמימה]. Alternatively, the king recognized his own conflict of interest; by stepping back during a moment of anger, he avoided the appearance of tyranny and the perversion of justice [ישע אלהים, אור חדש]. Political survival likely played a role as well. Because the queen possessed royal lineage and was beloved by the people, the king feared that harming her might spark a rebellion, prompting him to shift the responsibility onto the legal system [יוסף אבן יחיא]. Furthermore, driven by his lingering affection for her, he may have actively sought a legal loophole, hoping his advisors would find a way to spare her life [מלבי״ם, מנות הלוי, ראשון לציון].
The identity of these expert advisors is a matter of diverse interpretation. They may have been astrologers, consulted to determine if the queen's defiance was the result of a cosmic decree. If the stars dictated her actions, she could be absolved of personal guilt, and the king could also ensure that executing her would not bring him bad fortune [רלב״ג, אבן עזרא, יוסף אבן יחיא, שלום אסתר, מנות הלוי, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Others view these advisors as historians and political scientists who drew upon the precedents of past monarchs to navigate the crisis [אבן עזרא, עמנואל הרומי, אור חדש, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. A third perspective identifies them as specialized judges who handled crimes against the crown. Rather than applying dry law, these judges weighed the specific time, place, and circumstances of an offense, recognizing that publicly humiliating a monarch is significantly more severe than a private indiscretion [מלבי״ם, מגילת סתרים, מנות הלוי].
Another tradition identifies these experts as the Sages of Israel, renowned for their mastery in calculating the calendar and leap years. The king approached them either to secure objective judges free from the political biases of his own ministers [תורה תמימה], or because he knew of their inherent mercy and hoped they would manufacture a defense for the queen [ראשון לציון]. However, the Sages immediately recognized the perilous trap before them. If they condemned her to death, the king might later regret the execution once his anger cooled and blame them for her demise. Conversely, if they acquitted her, he might view their ruling as an endorsement of the insult to his honor. To navigate this danger, they diplomatically deflected the request, advising the king to consult experts from neighboring nations instead [תורה תמימה, ישע אלהים, אור חדש].
The king's decision to consult these advisors was not a display of weakness but a strict adherence to established royal protocol, which mandated that all conflicts be brought before expert jurists [רש״י, עמנואל הרומי, אור חדש]. The matter was ultimately presented to authorities versed in two distinct legal realms: state etiquette, which encompasses societal norms and moral customs, and absolute justice, which deals with rational, objective law between individuals [עמנואל הרומי, אור חדש]. By deliberately routing the case to civil judges rather than a tribunal for treason, the king attempted to downgrade the crisis from a capital rebellion to a standard domestic dispute. He hoped the judges would factor in the local moral etiquette—which demanded female modesty and seclusion—and conclude that the queen acted entirely appropriately by refusing to parade herself before a crowd [מלבי״ם].