A calculated political plot takes shape against the Jewish people returning to Zion, aiming to halt their rebuilding efforts in Jerusalem through slander and delay. Two senior officials draft an official letter of hostility to the Persian king, Artaxerxes, specifically designed to provoke his anger against the city.
The narrative introduces the two central figures behind this letter and their division of labor. Rehum was the individual responsible for the content. The primary approach among commentators is that he served as a secretary or rhetorician, skillfully formulating and organizing the arguments [רש"י, מצודות]. Alternatively, his title might indicate he was a counselor, advisor, or commander [אבן עזרא, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Alongside him worked Shimshai, the scribe who executed the actual physical writing [מצודת דוד]. According to one tradition, Shimshai was the son of Haman [רש"י]. Presenting them together reflects a familiar biblical practice of pairing the drafter and the scribe. Their roles were entirely interdependent, with one dictating and organizing the claims while the other recorded them [רש"י].
The letter itself—described by a term rooted in the idea of gathering or collecting many matters together [מצודת ציון]—concealed a sophisticated web of deceit. The original instigators of the complaint only intended to protest the rebuilding of the Temple [רש"י]. However, Rehum and Shimshai, acting in their capacity as the king's official copyists, committed political forgery. Instead of faithfully transcribing the grievance, they altered the text to falsely claim that the Jews were fortifying the walls of the entire city in an act of rebellion.
To magnify this threat and give it the appearance of a regional crisis, the two officials erased the names of the original complainants. They made the document appear as though it was sent on behalf of all the surrounding nations. This calculated move was also designed to protect them from punishment in case their fraud was ever discovered [מלבי"ם]. The account then transitions directly into the contents of the letter. Most commentators agree the concluding word means "as stated" or "as will be said below," serving as an introduction to the claims that follow [רש"י, רס"ג, מצודות, רלב"ג, ביאור שטיינזלץ], while a minority viewpoint interprets it simply as "now" [אבן עזרא].