My student and I were learning today and we came across several interesting things that I am going to share below.
1) All of us have heard the interpretation that Memuchan is Haman, and they are the same character. My student and I were learning the peshat of the Megillah, not the derash, but she herself came up with the connection. Here's why:
Memuchan's reasoning is that if Vashti is permitted to get away with not listening to the king's command, all the other women will decide to flout their husbands' authority. This will be terrible, so the king needs to make an example out of Vashti by either banishing or beheading her (the plain text makes it seem like he banishes her; the derash says he beheads her).
Haman's reasoning is exactly the same when he sees Mordechai. He sees Mordechai does not follow the king's command and refuses to bow. The servants inform him the reason behind Mordechai not bowing is that he is a Jew. When Haman talks to the king and persuades him to authorize the killing of the Jews, he notes, " וְאֶת-דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" which at first, seems odd. Just because Mordechai isn't keeping the king's law doesn't mean all the Jews aren't keeping the king's law. But if you look deeper, the reason Mordechai gave for why he is refusing to bow is because he is a Jew. Therefore, it follows that all the Jews would refuse to bow, and thus all the Jews would be guilty of not keeping the king's law. An example needs to be made out of this nation so that no other nation will think they can get away with not keeping the king's law.
This way of thinking is so unique that our sages conclude (or at least, my student did) that Memuchan and Haman are the same people.
2) I really like seeing where Chazal come up with their readings of the Tanakh, and today we saw a great example of this. Mordechai refuses to bow, which means that he is flouting the king's command. The king's servants inquire, " מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה עוֹבֵר, אֵת מִצְוַת הַמֶּלֶךְ?" Mordechai does not listen to them. At first we might think this means that he does not listen to their question, but it soon becomes apparent that what it really means is that he does not listen to them in terms of bowing; he refuses to listen to their advice to bow. The king's servants tell Haman that Mordechai is a Jew because "כִּי-הִגִּיד לָהֶם, אֲשֶׁר-הוּא יְהוּדִי." The question is, why would Mordechai have told the servants that he was a Jew? The answer is that somehow, that answers their question! So the conversation looks like:
Mordechai: *Is not bowing*
King's Servanats: Why are you transgressing the commandment of the king?
Mordechai: I am a Jew.
King's Servants: You should still bow!
Mordechai: *does not heed them*
The question then becomes, how does Mordechai's nationality answer the question? How does answering "I am a Jew" explain why Mordechai is not bowing? This is where the famous answer that Haman was wearing an idol on his clothing/ person comes in. Haman is wearing an idol on his person and Mordechai is a Jew and therefore cannot bow down, which would be worshipping idols.
(Incidentally, I have the niggling idea in my mind that this scene is meant to connect with the scene in Jonah- there, he declares himself a Hebrew and we also have the casting of lots- but I need to think more about what exactly the connection is.)
3) I've been watching a lot of "Game of Thrones" on HBO, and I've also read the series. It occurs to me that Mordechai is a kind of Viserys the Spymaster. Here's why: First, we see him overhear the plot to assassinate the king that occurs with Bigsan and Seresh. But then, he's privy to a different piece of information that he has no reason to know:
וַיַּגֶּד-לוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר קָרָהוּ; וְאֵת פָּרָשַׁת הַכֶּסֶף, אֲשֶׁר אָמַר הָמָן לִשְׁקוֹל עַל-גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ ביהודיים (בַּיְּהוּדִים)--לְאַבְּדָם.
How does Mordechai know the sum of money that Haman promised to give the king? On the one hand, it's possible that Haman was walking around bragging, saying "I offered the king 10,000 pieces of silver to kill the Jews, and he said kill them, and gave the money back to me!" But let's assume Haman wasn't bragging. How then does Mordechai know a private conversation that took place solely between the King and Haman?
Well, either he's a prophet and so God told him, or he's a spymaster who makes it his business to know what is going on in the court. The second interpretation fits the peshat better.
4) As an aside, I would just like to say that to me, the coolest part of this story in terms of Esther's heroism and women's agency in general is that she has to use her mind. The Queen in an Oriental country has absolutely no power. She cannot go to the King uninvited. He must summon her or extend the golden scepter. She is not even informed of the important court decisions that he is making. She has no idea her people are in danger; it is Mordechai, who is outside of the palace, who must come to her to tell her of the proclamation and show her a copy of the decree. She is literally a prisoner inside of her beautiful palace. Therefore, the only weapon that Esther has is her mind. Using her cunning and her wisdom, she must come up with the exact way to persuade the king to save her people's life. She must figure out what will stimulate the king to reconsider, and must use those weapons.
5) This leads us to Esther's plan. Esther invites the king to a feast, a mishteh. Now, there are a lot of parties that are happening in this book. The first party is for 180 days and it is to celebrate the king's coronation. Then there is another party for 7 days, where the king and the queen are celebrating separately. Note that the king's party takes place in the גִּנַּת בִּיתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ while Vashti's party takes place in the בֵּית, הַמַּלְכוּת. There is something rather troubling about the power balance here. Vashti is inside of the royal house, possibly in the position of more power, while the king is outside of it, in the garden.
The king makes one more party. This happens when he crowns Esther.
וַיַּעַשׂ הַמֶּלֶךְ מִשְׁתֶּה גָדוֹל, לְכָל-שָׂרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו--אֵת, מִשְׁתֵּה אֶסְתֵּר; וַהֲנָחָה לַמְּדִינוֹת עָשָׂה, וַיִּתֵּן מַשְׂאֵת כְּיַד הַמֶּלֶךְ.
So why then does Esther invite the king to parties?
She is doing it deliberately. She wants to jog his memory. It was at a party that your former wife- Vashti- humiliated you. But it was also at a party that you celebrating choosing me, appointing me in her stead. Here we are at yet another party. Remember my loyalty to you? Remember her disloyalty?
At the second party, Esther reveals that Haman has tried to kill her and her people. The king, filled with rage, goes outside to the גִּנַּת, הַבִּיתָן. This implies that Esther has deliberately held her party in a location that is adjacent to the palace garden. Why? Because she wants to set off the king's wrath. The last time I was in this palace garden, he is thinking, my trusted wife Vashti refused to obey my command. When the king goes for a walk in the garden, this memory comes back to him (consciously or subconsciously) full force. So when he enters the room to see Haman fallen upon the queen, the rage of that betrayal feeds into his anger at Haman, and leads him to feel betrayed by a close person yet again- and he orders him hanged.
6) If we go according to the Rav's interpretation, where the king suffers from insecurity in his realm and fears revolt, his reasons for killing Haman become even more clear (I'm reading the ending a little differently from the Rav). When the king is sleeping fitfully one night, he awakes and reads of the service Mordechai has done for him. Then comes a non sequitur.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ, מִי בֶחָצֵר
Why does the king suddenly ask "Who is in the court?" It seems like he heard a noise, or something else disturbed him about the presence of someone in the court, because otherwise Haman would have been announced and would have entered. Instead, the king is disturbed by someone's presence in the dead of night in the courtyard, and learns that it is Haman's. Later on, he discovers Haman has hatched a plot to kill the queen and her people. Finally, he enters the room and sees Haman fallen upon the queen- in his mind, possibly to kill her! Charvonah then speaks up and says "Haman erected a gallows to kill Mordechai- the one who saved your life!" The king's suspicious mind is turning. He thinks, "Haman wants to kill Mordechai- the man who saved me. Perhaps, then, Haman is really against me! Perhaps he was even part of that plot with Bigsan and Seresh! If he wants to kill Mordechai, who saved me, then perhaps that means he wants to kill me! After all, why was he in my courtyard in the dead of night? Let's get rid of this treasonous man- let's kill him!"
7) If we go with the idea that the king is paranoid, it also explains why he would be willing to allow Haman's sons to be hanged upon the gallows. Esther requests that, and the king permits it. Here's why it could work- in the scene where Haman gets advice as to what to do to Mordechai, he has summoned " זֶרֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ וְכָל-אֹהֲבָיו". The JPS translation translates "ohavav" as "his friends," but what if it was literally all that he loved, meaning his sons? If his sons and his wife are the ones who advised him to hang Mordechai on the gallows, Mordechai the man who had saved the king's life, then it makes sense that Esther wants to kill those treasonous sons. By trying to hang the man who had saved the king's life, they put themselves under suspicion of not wanting the king to be saved in the first place! The only difficulty with this approach is, if so, why is Zeresh not punished at all? In fact, what happens to Zeresh? We aren't told.
Now we come to some questions I have.
8) Mordechai gives Esther advice not to reveal her identity. And yet, he told the servants, when they questioned him as to why he wasn't bowing down, that he was a Jew. This information gets back to Haman, who uses it to decide to kill all the Jews. The question I have is: Why didn't Mordechai take his own advice? Why did he not divulge his identity? Moreover, later on he says "Who is to say that this is not the reason that you arose to royalty?" to Esther re: her role in saving the Jews. But the fact is, there would have been no need to save the Jews if Mordechai had a) bowed or b) not divulged that he was a Jew, because then Haman could just have killed him, not his whole nation.
9) Mordechai refuses to don the clothing Esther sends him in order to enter the inner courtyard of the king and speak with her directly. Rather, he communicates with her via Hasach. I imagine that we can take some sort of meaning from this, such as that one is not allowed to put off mourning for even one moment when a terrible decree is clustered overhead, but it does seem odd. Why does Mordechai prefer to talk to Esther via a third party rather than just changing into the nice clothing for a few moments in order to chat with her, and then change back into the sackcloth?
10) It says at the end of Chapter 3 that Shushan was bewildered. What were they bewildered by? Haman and Achashveirosh sitting down to drink? The decree against the Jews? What bewildered them and why?
Showing posts with label Purim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Purim. Show all posts
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
The Paranoid King: Insights Into Achashveirosh
Over Shabbat, my husband pointed me to Shiurei Ha-Rav, specifically the section on Purim. There, I read a fascinating write-up of a lecture on Purim delivered by the Rav in 1973. Tonight, I found Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's 'Insights into M'gillat Esther' reprinted in this Tebah.org Purim Reader, and figured I would reprint the excerpt focusing on Achashveirosh that helps shed some light on this king's character.
~
The king had a paranoid fear of an insurrection against the throne. The Talmud relates that he was not the legitimate heir to the kingdom, rather the son of the steward of the royal stables. His only connection with royalty was through his wife Vashti, daughter of Belshazzar. She obviously despised him as a social climber who lacked any royal grace and dignity. There was an underground movement to overthrow the government and restore the old order, as evidenced by the assassination attempt by Bigtan and Teresh. Ahashverosh tried to “buy” the country’s loyalty by making those lavish parties and inviting everyone to eat and drink and view his wealth and women. But this is all clearly the workings of a mind that feels very insecure and fears revolt. The absurd law (4:11) proclaiming death to anyone who entered the throne room without an appointment seems also to be an outgrowth of his paranoid fear of revolt or assassination. When Vashti publicly insults him, he was worried that if he should kill her, this would inspire a revolution. M’mukhan (1:16-20) gave him the following brilliant analysis: “True, if you kill Vashti you may trigger off a revolt, but if you allow her to survive after publicly insulting the king, then she will serve as a model for all the women of royal blood to insult their husbands.” It was the custom in antiquity for the victor to marry the widow or daughter of the vanquished power. Thus, many of Ahashverosh’s officers had married women of the old order. “If they saw that the queen was not punished for her insolence, they too would start fighting their husbands and join the underground movement to restore the old order. The way to nip that in the bud is to execute Vashti.” Thus M’mukhan, whom the Talmud tells us was Haman, gained the confidence of the paranoiac king, appearing as one who loyally defended the throne. Immediately following the assassination attempt by Bigtan and Teresh, we find that Haman was appointed Prime Minister. The king was really frightened, and in his paranoia he turned to the person who had proven his loyalty M’mukhan (Haman)—and placed his faith in him.
Feeling slighted by Mordekhai, Haman decides to destroy the Jews. He plays on the king’s paranoia by casting suspicion on the loyalty of the Jews. He tells the king (3:8) that the Jews are a unified nation, widely dispersed in the kingdom, with queer laws and customs. Being a strange nation, no one can guess whether they are planning a revolt. Should they decide to join the underground, their unity as well as their dispersion geographically could make the insurrection very successful.
The king fell for this ploy and agreed to kill the Jews. When a paranoid lives in fear of an imaginary monster, all moral controls are abandoned. He has only one irresistible urge—to destroy. Esther understood all this very well and therefore could not agree to Mordekhai’s plan of immediate action. Once Haman had succeeded in arousing in the king fear of Jewish revolt, no human power or pleading could dissuade him from destroying his imaginary enemies. In grappling with the realities of the situation it was a woman’s mind, not a man’s ideas, that was needed. Esther decided that the only way out would be to turn the tables on Haman and accuse him of plotting against the king. She procrastinated day after day, waiting to find a possible opening, a possible way to shatter the king’s faith in his trusted Prime Minister. It seemed that only a miracle could weaken his trust and indeed a miracle happened: Balaila ha-hu nad’da sh’nat ha-melekh (6:1). This is the turning point in the whole story, the prime miracle. The most significant aspect of that night was not so much the king’s new respect for Mordekhai, but his loss of confidence in Haman. You feel the king’s malicious joy in taunting Haman while ordering him to honor “Mordekhai the Jew” (6:10). Whether it was Haman’s mention of the royal crown (6:8) that made the king suspect his loyalty, or his failure to reward the king’s benefactor Mordekhai, or the shifting perception of the universe in the mind of this paranoiac king, it was time for Esther to plant the seeds of distrust in his mind. This is the kind of subtle hester panim miracle, a change of mood in the mind of a deranged king, for which we give thanks to God on Purim. The next day, when Esther charges Haman with treason, the king willingly accepts the accusation. She explains to the king that had Haman really felt concern for the better interest of the king, he would have placed the Jews in forced labor camps, thereby keeping them under surveillance in a profitable set up. “But the villain is not concerned about the threat to the king” (7:4). By proposing to arm the countryside with weapons to kill the Jews, he was really making it much easier for the revolutionary elements of the population to organize their revolution. Esther made the king believe that Haman was plotting against the throne. The king’s paranoia took over where Esther’s words ceased. Upon returning from the garden to find Haman on the couch where Esther was lying he screams, “Do you even plan to seduce the queen while I am in the house?” (7:8). He was so convinced of Haman’s treachery that everything he did was viewed through the lenses of his paranoia. He “saw” Haman not only planning the revolt but even trying to steal the queen! This was the ultimate sign of revolt. Haman’s fate was sealed. The very strategy and the fate planned for the Jews now backfired on Haman and his associates.
~
The king had a paranoid fear of an insurrection against the throne. The Talmud relates that he was not the legitimate heir to the kingdom, rather the son of the steward of the royal stables. His only connection with royalty was through his wife Vashti, daughter of Belshazzar. She obviously despised him as a social climber who lacked any royal grace and dignity. There was an underground movement to overthrow the government and restore the old order, as evidenced by the assassination attempt by Bigtan and Teresh. Ahashverosh tried to “buy” the country’s loyalty by making those lavish parties and inviting everyone to eat and drink and view his wealth and women. But this is all clearly the workings of a mind that feels very insecure and fears revolt. The absurd law (4:11) proclaiming death to anyone who entered the throne room without an appointment seems also to be an outgrowth of his paranoid fear of revolt or assassination. When Vashti publicly insults him, he was worried that if he should kill her, this would inspire a revolution. M’mukhan (1:16-20) gave him the following brilliant analysis: “True, if you kill Vashti you may trigger off a revolt, but if you allow her to survive after publicly insulting the king, then she will serve as a model for all the women of royal blood to insult their husbands.” It was the custom in antiquity for the victor to marry the widow or daughter of the vanquished power. Thus, many of Ahashverosh’s officers had married women of the old order. “If they saw that the queen was not punished for her insolence, they too would start fighting their husbands and join the underground movement to restore the old order. The way to nip that in the bud is to execute Vashti.” Thus M’mukhan, whom the Talmud tells us was Haman, gained the confidence of the paranoiac king, appearing as one who loyally defended the throne. Immediately following the assassination attempt by Bigtan and Teresh, we find that Haman was appointed Prime Minister. The king was really frightened, and in his paranoia he turned to the person who had proven his loyalty M’mukhan (Haman)—and placed his faith in him.
Feeling slighted by Mordekhai, Haman decides to destroy the Jews. He plays on the king’s paranoia by casting suspicion on the loyalty of the Jews. He tells the king (3:8) that the Jews are a unified nation, widely dispersed in the kingdom, with queer laws and customs. Being a strange nation, no one can guess whether they are planning a revolt. Should they decide to join the underground, their unity as well as their dispersion geographically could make the insurrection very successful.
The king fell for this ploy and agreed to kill the Jews. When a paranoid lives in fear of an imaginary monster, all moral controls are abandoned. He has only one irresistible urge—to destroy. Esther understood all this very well and therefore could not agree to Mordekhai’s plan of immediate action. Once Haman had succeeded in arousing in the king fear of Jewish revolt, no human power or pleading could dissuade him from destroying his imaginary enemies. In grappling with the realities of the situation it was a woman’s mind, not a man’s ideas, that was needed. Esther decided that the only way out would be to turn the tables on Haman and accuse him of plotting against the king. She procrastinated day after day, waiting to find a possible opening, a possible way to shatter the king’s faith in his trusted Prime Minister. It seemed that only a miracle could weaken his trust and indeed a miracle happened: Balaila ha-hu nad’da sh’nat ha-melekh (6:1). This is the turning point in the whole story, the prime miracle. The most significant aspect of that night was not so much the king’s new respect for Mordekhai, but his loss of confidence in Haman. You feel the king’s malicious joy in taunting Haman while ordering him to honor “Mordekhai the Jew” (6:10). Whether it was Haman’s mention of the royal crown (6:8) that made the king suspect his loyalty, or his failure to reward the king’s benefactor Mordekhai, or the shifting perception of the universe in the mind of this paranoiac king, it was time for Esther to plant the seeds of distrust in his mind. This is the kind of subtle hester panim miracle, a change of mood in the mind of a deranged king, for which we give thanks to God on Purim. The next day, when Esther charges Haman with treason, the king willingly accepts the accusation. She explains to the king that had Haman really felt concern for the better interest of the king, he would have placed the Jews in forced labor camps, thereby keeping them under surveillance in a profitable set up. “But the villain is not concerned about the threat to the king” (7:4). By proposing to arm the countryside with weapons to kill the Jews, he was really making it much easier for the revolutionary elements of the population to organize their revolution. Esther made the king believe that Haman was plotting against the throne. The king’s paranoia took over where Esther’s words ceased. Upon returning from the garden to find Haman on the couch where Esther was lying he screams, “Do you even plan to seduce the queen while I am in the house?” (7:8). He was so convinced of Haman’s treachery that everything he did was viewed through the lenses of his paranoia. He “saw” Haman not only planning the revolt but even trying to steal the queen! This was the ultimate sign of revolt. Haman’s fate was sealed. The very strategy and the fate planned for the Jews now backfired on Haman and his associates.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Slaves and the Megillah
I was learning alongside a student of mine, who for purposes of this post will be called Yankel, when I realized the following thing.
It had always bothered me that Esther made the following statement:
The answer to this question occurred to me due to my student reminding me of the following tale regarding Mordechai and Haman based on Megillah 15a: "There was a tradition that Mordecai once went with a deputation to the king of Persia to ask permission for the Jews to rebuild the Temple, v. Jast. [Rashi: One (Mordecai) came as a rich man, the other (Haman) as a debtor. Haman according to the legend had sold himself during one of the wars as a slave to Mordecai for a loaf of bread.]"
Per the more elaborate rendering of this legend in Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg, Mordechai used to show his shoe and/or his kneecap, where the contract had been written regarding Haman selling himself as a slave to Mordechai, which provoked him.
What is clear to me now is that Esther is saying the following: "I understand that Haman was incensed by Mordechai's constantly reminding him that he once sold himself as a slave to Mordechai. Therefore, it would have been understandable if Haman in return decided to enslave Mordechai and all the Jews. However, Haman has gone even farther than that and has decided to exterminate the Jews. At this point, I must step in."
It had always bothered me that Esther made the following statement:
- ג וַתַּעַן אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה, וַתֹּאמַר--אִם-מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְאִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב: תִּנָּתֶן-לִי נַפְשִׁי בִּשְׁאֵלָתִי, וְעַמִּי בְּבַקָּשָׁתִי. 3 Then Esther the queen answered and said: 'If I have found favour in thy sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request;
ד כִּי נִמְכַּרְנוּ אֲנִי וְעַמִּי, לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרוֹג וּלְאַבֵּד; וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ, הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי--כִּי אֵין הַצָּר שֹׁוֶה, בְּנֵזֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ. {ס} 4 for we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my peace, for the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged.' (Esther 7:3-4)
The answer to this question occurred to me due to my student reminding me of the following tale regarding Mordechai and Haman based on Megillah 15a: "There was a tradition that Mordecai once went with a deputation to the king of Persia to ask permission for the Jews to rebuild the Temple, v. Jast. [Rashi: One (Mordecai) came as a rich man, the other (Haman) as a debtor. Haman according to the legend had sold himself during one of the wars as a slave to Mordecai for a loaf of bread.]"
Per the more elaborate rendering of this legend in Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg, Mordechai used to show his shoe and/or his kneecap, where the contract had been written regarding Haman selling himself as a slave to Mordechai, which provoked him.
What is clear to me now is that Esther is saying the following: "I understand that Haman was incensed by Mordechai's constantly reminding him that he once sold himself as a slave to Mordechai. Therefore, it would have been understandable if Haman in return decided to enslave Mordechai and all the Jews. However, Haman has gone even farther than that and has decided to exterminate the Jews. At this point, I must step in."
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Megillah Observations
In Heshy's honor, because he asked me to post about this before Purim was out.
~
In Esther 6:13 we read יג וַיְסַפֵּר הָמָן לְזֶרֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּלְכָל-אֹהֲבָיו, אֵת, כָּל-אֲשֶׁר קָרָהוּ; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ חֲכָמָיו וְזֶרֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ, אִם מִזֶּרַע הַיְּהוּדִים מָרְדֳּכַי אֲשֶׁר הַחִלּוֹתָ לִנְפֹּל לְפָנָיו לֹא-תוּכַל לוֹ--כִּי-נָפוֹל תִּפּוֹל, לְפָנָיו.
13 And Haman recounted unto Zeresh his wife and all his friends every thing that had befallen him. Then said his wise men and Zeresh his wife unto him: 'If Mordecai, before whom thou hast begun to fall, be of the seed of the Jews, thou shalt not prevail against him, but shalt surely fall before him.
Note how Haman's downfall actually occurs. In Esther 7:8 we read
ח וְהַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁב מִגִּנַּת הַבִּיתָן אֶל-בֵּית מִשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן, וְהָמָן נֹפֵל עַל-הַמִּטָּה אֲשֶׁר אֶסְתֵּר עָלֶיהָ, וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ, הֲגַם לִכְבּוֹשׁ אֶת-הַמַּלְכָּה עִמִּי בַּבָּיִת; הַדָּבָר, יָצָא מִפִּי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וּפְנֵי הָמָן, חָפוּ. 8
Then the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of wine; and Haman was fallen upon the couch whereon Esther was. Then said the king: 'Will he even force the queen before me in the house?' As the word went out of the king's mouth, they covered Haman's face.
When Haman falls upon the couch to beg for his life, the king misinterprets this as an attempt to conquer/ rape/ seduce the queen. Therefore, he angrily determines Haman must be punished, sealing Haman's fate of falling before Mordechai.
As a second observation, every time Haman talks to Zeresh he also talks to all his "loved ones." Only at the last does the verse say he speaks to Zeresh and his "wise ones." This would suggest either there are two different groups of people or somehow the loved ones transformed into wise ones. Anyone familiar with commentaries on this?
~
In Esther 6:13 we read יג וַיְסַפֵּר הָמָן לְזֶרֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּלְכָל-אֹהֲבָיו, אֵת, כָּל-אֲשֶׁר קָרָהוּ; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ חֲכָמָיו וְזֶרֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ, אִם מִזֶּרַע הַיְּהוּדִים מָרְדֳּכַי אֲשֶׁר הַחִלּוֹתָ לִנְפֹּל לְפָנָיו לֹא-תוּכַל לוֹ--כִּי-נָפוֹל תִּפּוֹל, לְפָנָיו.
13 And Haman recounted unto Zeresh his wife and all his friends every thing that had befallen him. Then said his wise men and Zeresh his wife unto him: 'If Mordecai, before whom thou hast begun to fall, be of the seed of the Jews, thou shalt not prevail against him, but shalt surely fall before him.
Note how Haman's downfall actually occurs. In Esther 7:8 we read
ח וְהַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁב מִגִּנַּת הַבִּיתָן אֶל-בֵּית מִשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן, וְהָמָן נֹפֵל עַל-הַמִּטָּה אֲשֶׁר אֶסְתֵּר עָלֶיהָ, וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ, הֲגַם לִכְבּוֹשׁ אֶת-הַמַּלְכָּה עִמִּי בַּבָּיִת; הַדָּבָר, יָצָא מִפִּי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וּפְנֵי הָמָן, חָפוּ. 8
Then the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of wine; and Haman was fallen upon the couch whereon Esther was. Then said the king: 'Will he even force the queen before me in the house?' As the word went out of the king's mouth, they covered Haman's face.
When Haman falls upon the couch to beg for his life, the king misinterprets this as an attempt to conquer/ rape/ seduce the queen. Therefore, he angrily determines Haman must be punished, sealing Haman's fate of falling before Mordechai.
As a second observation, every time Haman talks to Zeresh he also talks to all his "loved ones." Only at the last does the verse say he speaks to Zeresh and his "wise ones." This would suggest either there are two different groups of people or somehow the loved ones transformed into wise ones. Anyone familiar with commentaries on this?
Friday, March 18, 2011
Book Review: The Queen You Thought You Knew
Disclaimer: I work for the Orthodox Union and this book was published by OU Press. I received a review copy which I did not have to pay for. While I do not think this affects my judgment, you should keep it in mind when you read this post.
~
Rabbi David Fohrman's book The Queen You Thought You Knew: Unmasking Esther's Hidden Story is an easy-to-read, engaging, compelling and thoughtful work. However, I think some of his points are not shored up as much as they could be or require a stretch of the imagination to accept. My favorite part of the book (it was divided into three sections) was 'Deja Vu All Over Again' which focused on the connections between Esther, Judah and Benjamin. Honestly, the book is worth buying for that last section alone.
So which parts did I think needed work? Well, here's one.
The problems with this approach are multi-faceted. Here are a few:
1. After dismissing Vashti from the post of Queen, the King sent out certain letters declaring that "every man should bear rule in his own house, and speak according to the language of his people." If Achashveirosh really has plans of having all the nations come together under a Mother Persia motif, it makes no sense for him to order that all his subjects ought to speak the language of their particular people. Rather, they all ought to speak the language Achashveirosh speaks, whatever that might be. Clearly, the provinces and locales having their own individual identities is not something that Achashveirosh sees as a threat.
2. Esther tells the King in Mordechai's name about the plot to murder him. Hence the King is aware that Esther has some sort of association with Mordechai, who is a clear Jew. True, it could be simply that of a Queen and a subject. But Esther's servants realize that is not so. This is obvious from Esther 4:4. Though Esther may not have explicitly told anyone that she is a Jew, her maidens and chamberlains see Mordechai the Jew in sackcloth and immediately come to tell her. Thus it is clear that they may have had some inkling that she cares for the Jews. You see she is not hiding it when she sends Hathach, a chamberlain the king appointed and thus someone who might report to the king, to speak with Mordechai.
3. The Lady Liberty analogy is not apt and in fact hurts R' Fohrman's point. The idea of a melting pot of cultures which all come together and share with one another under one 'American' label is a uniquely modern one. To try to apply a concept from the future to the past seems to speak to an innacurate understanding of history. While it's certain that people were subsumed into their host cultures in the past, this very much varied depending on who the conqueror was and how strong their presence was throughout the empire. It seems clear from the Megillah Achashveirosh is not this sort of king; he doesn't favor his provinces all becoming alike or emulating his culture alone. He doesn't see diversity as a threat so long as his subjects are all still loyal to him as King, something which is not necessarily connected with viewing the queen as 'Mother Persia.'
It falls to R' Fohrman to address these questions to the reader's satisfaction in order to support his hypothesis. He does not do so; thus I remain unconvinced. The subsequent portion of the book that tried to persuade me that Esther was in grave danger when she seemed to be giving up her Mother Persia identity did not speak to me because of this.
The second point R' Fohrman makes addresses the language Mordechai uses when speaking to Esther and where we have seen it before. He connects statements and concepts like "na'arah," a married woman, guidance concerning relationship with a spouse, the "na'arah" being in her father's house, silence and a short window of time to a passage in Tanakh. I will not tell you which one because that would ruin a fun 'Eureka!' moment for you. His drush on the passage is interesting but weak because it requires removing a very important mapik hei in order for it to work. This removal changes the entire word to mean something different. As any Dr. Steiner Biblical Hebrew survivor will tell you, removing mapik heis to make up Torah is nice, but midrashic and doesn't seem to be the most solid way to give over a point.
So where does R' Fohrman outdo himself? In the last portion of the book. Here is where R' Fohrman comes into his own, connecting the story of Purim to a long-forgotten tale that took place in Egypt. In this tale, Benjamin was allowed to venture into the lion's den by his father, Jacob, who stated, "And if he is lost, he is lost." Curiously parallel words to those of Esther, who also states, "And if I am lost, I am lost." However, Judah comes to the rescue, defending Benjamin and offering to become a slave in his place. Ever wonder about the constant emphasis on Mordechai Ha-Yehudi in The Megillah? R' Fohrman explains that Yehudi in this context actually refers to the exiles of the Southern Kingdom, the Kingdom of Judah. This is a story of redemption and rectification. Esther, who hails from the tribe of Benjamin, is going to save her brethren, the Yehudim, in thanks to Judah who saved Benjamin all those many years ago. This last, poignant, breathtaking point, presented with many word and sentence parallels and offering a resounding and meaningful new way of looking at the text is what made the book powerful.
So read this book. Learn something new as you sit at your Seudah, sharing Divrei Torah. Take a look at The Megillah with fresh eyes. And enjoy the journey.
~
Rabbi David Fohrman's book The Queen You Thought You Knew: Unmasking Esther's Hidden Story is an easy-to-read, engaging, compelling and thoughtful work. However, I think some of his points are not shored up as much as they could be or require a stretch of the imagination to accept. My favorite part of the book (it was divided into three sections) was 'Deja Vu All Over Again' which focused on the connections between Esther, Judah and Benjamin. Honestly, the book is worth buying for that last section alone.
So which parts did I think needed work? Well, here's one.
- The queen, as object of beauty, is almost like a statue- a statue of the new Persia. We have a statue like that in modern times, too, right here in the United States, a female statue that embodies the aspirations, values, nobility and beauty of our people; a statue that boldly and elegantly invites poor, huddled masses to find shelter beneath her outstretched arm. That statue strikes a resonant chord for most Americans. It means something to them. Americans do not think it strange to harbor a visceral, emotional attachment to Lady Liberty (37).
[...]
Here's a theory: Maybe it was Esther's refusal to talk about where she came from that helped endear her to the king. In the wake of the Vashti debacle, the king sought a girl who would succeed where his last wife failed, a girl who would be everything Vashti was unable or unwilling to be. The king was looking for a woman who would effortlessly and unreservedly slip into the role of Mother Persia, who would happily and convincingly become the feminine symbol of his new empire. As such, Esther's recalcitrance might well have been alluring. Every time Esther changed the subject when the king asked here where she was from, she would have played into the king's dream-like vision of the perfect queen: an utterly stateless girl, a woman who completely transcended whatever local or provincial identity that fate had bequeathed her. Every time she smiled and said: "Why do you ask me so much about my past? Let's talk about the future" - she would have seemed more and more like precisely the woman he was looking for. Esther could be from anywhere- or everywhere. Esther brimmed with possibility. She could be anything he wanted her to be (39).
The problems with this approach are multi-faceted. Here are a few:
1. After dismissing Vashti from the post of Queen, the King sent out certain letters declaring that "every man should bear rule in his own house, and speak according to the language of his people." If Achashveirosh really has plans of having all the nations come together under a Mother Persia motif, it makes no sense for him to order that all his subjects ought to speak the language of their particular people. Rather, they all ought to speak the language Achashveirosh speaks, whatever that might be. Clearly, the provinces and locales having their own individual identities is not something that Achashveirosh sees as a threat.
2. Esther tells the King in Mordechai's name about the plot to murder him. Hence the King is aware that Esther has some sort of association with Mordechai, who is a clear Jew. True, it could be simply that of a Queen and a subject. But Esther's servants realize that is not so. This is obvious from Esther 4:4. Though Esther may not have explicitly told anyone that she is a Jew, her maidens and chamberlains see Mordechai the Jew in sackcloth and immediately come to tell her. Thus it is clear that they may have had some inkling that she cares for the Jews. You see she is not hiding it when she sends Hathach, a chamberlain the king appointed and thus someone who might report to the king, to speak with Mordechai.
3. The Lady Liberty analogy is not apt and in fact hurts R' Fohrman's point. The idea of a melting pot of cultures which all come together and share with one another under one 'American' label is a uniquely modern one. To try to apply a concept from the future to the past seems to speak to an innacurate understanding of history. While it's certain that people were subsumed into their host cultures in the past, this very much varied depending on who the conqueror was and how strong their presence was throughout the empire. It seems clear from the Megillah Achashveirosh is not this sort of king; he doesn't favor his provinces all becoming alike or emulating his culture alone. He doesn't see diversity as a threat so long as his subjects are all still loyal to him as King, something which is not necessarily connected with viewing the queen as 'Mother Persia.'
It falls to R' Fohrman to address these questions to the reader's satisfaction in order to support his hypothesis. He does not do so; thus I remain unconvinced. The subsequent portion of the book that tried to persuade me that Esther was in grave danger when she seemed to be giving up her Mother Persia identity did not speak to me because of this.
The second point R' Fohrman makes addresses the language Mordechai uses when speaking to Esther and where we have seen it before. He connects statements and concepts like "na'arah," a married woman, guidance concerning relationship with a spouse, the "na'arah" being in her father's house, silence and a short window of time to a passage in Tanakh. I will not tell you which one because that would ruin a fun 'Eureka!' moment for you. His drush on the passage is interesting but weak because it requires removing a very important mapik hei in order for it to work. This removal changes the entire word to mean something different. As any Dr. Steiner Biblical Hebrew survivor will tell you, removing mapik heis to make up Torah is nice, but midrashic and doesn't seem to be the most solid way to give over a point.
So where does R' Fohrman outdo himself? In the last portion of the book. Here is where R' Fohrman comes into his own, connecting the story of Purim to a long-forgotten tale that took place in Egypt. In this tale, Benjamin was allowed to venture into the lion's den by his father, Jacob, who stated, "And if he is lost, he is lost." Curiously parallel words to those of Esther, who also states, "And if I am lost, I am lost." However, Judah comes to the rescue, defending Benjamin and offering to become a slave in his place. Ever wonder about the constant emphasis on Mordechai Ha-Yehudi in The Megillah? R' Fohrman explains that Yehudi in this context actually refers to the exiles of the Southern Kingdom, the Kingdom of Judah. This is a story of redemption and rectification. Esther, who hails from the tribe of Benjamin, is going to save her brethren, the Yehudim, in thanks to Judah who saved Benjamin all those many years ago. This last, poignant, breathtaking point, presented with many word and sentence parallels and offering a resounding and meaningful new way of looking at the text is what made the book powerful.
So read this book. Learn something new as you sit at your Seudah, sharing Divrei Torah. Take a look at The Megillah with fresh eyes. And enjoy the journey.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thoughts on the Megillah
I had the exquisite pleasure of learning with my brothers tonight, who are creative thinkers and afforded me many insights and ideas into the Megillah. Thank you so much for learning with me!
1. What decree did Vashti defy?
I noticed something very interesting tonight. Note the precise formation of the sentences.
יב וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי, לָבוֹא בִּדְבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר, בְּיַד הַסָּרִיסִים; וַיִּקְצֹף הַמֶּלֶךְ מְאֹד, וַחֲמָתוֹ בָּעֲרָה בוֹ. {ס}
12 But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by the chamberlains; therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him. (Esther 1:12)
טו כְּדָת, מַה-לַּעֲשׂוֹת, בַּמַּלְכָּה, וַשְׁתִּי--עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָשְׂתָה, אֶת-מַאֲמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, בְּיַד, הַסָּרִיסִים. {ס}
15 'What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, forasmuch as she hath not done the bidding of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?' {S} (Esther 1:15)
Why the need to state that Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by the chamberlains? This would be understood from context!
For this I turn to the following idea brought down in The Midrash Says on parshas Balak.
טו וַיֹּסֶף עוֹד, בָּלָק, שְׁלֹחַ שָׂרִים, רַבִּים וְנִכְבָּדִים מֵאֵלֶּה.
15 And Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honourable than they.
What then, was Vashti saying? She was not truly planning on defying the King's order. Rather, she was going to defy his order so long as it was his chamberlains that he had sent to escort her. Were he to come in person and escort her to the meal, she would certainly have come. Similarly to Bilam, or the way in which Bilam presented himself, Vashti only wanted a more distinguished and honorable escort.
2. Vashti did not die.
If you look at the pesukim, there is absolutely no support for the idea that Vashti was killed. Look at the advice of Memuchan:
יט אִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, יֵצֵא דְבַר-מַלְכוּת מִלְּפָנָיו, וְיִכָּתֵב בְּדָתֵי פָרַס-וּמָדַי, וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר: אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תָבוֹא וַשְׁתִּי, לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה.
19 If it please the king, let there go forth a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, that Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus, and that the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.
And then we see later on:
א אַחַר, הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, כְּשֹׁךְ, חֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ--זָכַר אֶת-וַשְׁתִּי וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂתָה, וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר-נִגְזַר עָלֶיהָ.
1 After these things, when the wrath of king Ahasuerus was assuaged, he remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what was decreed against her.
What happened to Vashti? She was forbidden to appear before the King. Quite probably she was placed in the keeping of Shashgaz, Keeper of the Concubines. The King made an unalterable decree about this, and he is therefore forbidden to revoke it, in the same way that we later see that letters stamped with the royal seal cannot be revoked or repealed. The fact that we have letters issued to the entire country here as well demonstrates the unrepealable status of the decree. Vashti is alive and the King misses her, but he has absolutely no power or ability to bring her back; he made an unalterable decree and must live with the consequences.
Incidentally, my brother Urchin has always understood it this way. Good for him!
Look also at Memuchan's advice. Note the peculiar term utilized.
יט אִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, יֵצֵא דְבַר-מַלְכוּת מִלְּפָנָיו, וְיִכָּתֵב בְּדָתֵי פָרַס-וּמָדַי, וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר: אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תָבוֹא וַשְׁתִּי, לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה.
19 If it please the king, let there go forth a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, that Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus, and that the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.
The King is to give Vashti's malchus to another who is better than she. JPS translates this word as "royal estate." That translation makes no sense, because when Haman's estate is mentioned in context of its being given to Esther, it is clearly called "beit Haman." If we were talking about a physical estate, it ought to be consistent and say "beit Vashti" or the like. Rather, the King is giving Vashti's power, her Queenship, her very malchus to another. This may be symbolized by the passing on of physical items, such as certain jewels, gowns or attire that only the Queen may wear.
It is in context of this that a different pasuk makes sense. There is a very peculiar pasuk that appears before Esther ventures before the King.
א וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, וַתִּלְבַּשׁ אֶסְתֵּר מַלְכוּת, וַתַּעֲמֹד בַּחֲצַר בֵּית-הַמֶּלֶךְ הַפְּנִימִית, נֹכַח בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ; וְהַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹשֵׁב עַל-כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ, בְּבֵית הַמַּלְכוּת, נֹכַח, פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת.
1 Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house; and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the entrance of the house. (Esther 5: 1)
The JPS translation adds in the word "apparel," but strikingly, there is no such word included in the pasuk. This is different from the verse in 15: 8, which clearly states that Mordechai had donned levush malchus, royal apparel. Esther actually dons malchus, the attribute of malchus.
Why does Esther do this?
It is because it is precisely this malchus which was given to her by the King, taken from Vashti and given to her due to her being "better than she [that is, Vashti.]" It is possible that this was symbolized by certain garments or jewels that only a Queen might wear, and indeed, perhaps they were even Vashti's garments. When Esther appeared before the King, she was making a strong statement. "I am Esther, wearing malchus. These are the clothes that you gave to me that were once Vashti's; I am Esther, whom you chose over Vashti, and upon whom you bestowed her malchus. I am coming to you wearing these clothes, while Vashti refused to come before you at her request; I come even without your request"! Esther's donning malchus is her deliberate reminder to the King of who she is, why he chose her (i.e. she is better than Vashti), what was given her (malchus), and an active demonstration of how she differs from Vashti- while Vashti did not love the King enough to honor his request, Esther loves him enough to risk her life to see him.
3. Why were the virgins rounded up a second time?
This is my brother Taran's idea.
יט וּבְהִקָּבֵץ בְּתוּלוֹת, שֵׁנִית; וּמָרְדֳּכַי, יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר-הַמֶּלֶךְ.
19 And when the virgins were gathered together the second time, and Mordecai sat in the king's gate--
Why were the virgins gathered together the second time? The Midrashic explanation, which my father offered, is that the King wished to make Esther jealous, and therefore pretended that she too was replaceable and that he desired to find another wife. Despite this, Esther kept her secret and did not divulge her identity, nor that of her nation.
Taran has a far simpler approach. Why were the virgins rounded up a second time? Why, because the King had chosen his bride! The women who had slept with the King were confined to the keeping of Shashgaz, Keeper of the Concubines. But what happened to the women who had not yet had their one night with the king, who were still virgins? Well, the King had chosen his Queen, that is, Esther, and the next verses go in order. First he makes her Queen, then he throws her a lavish party and gives gifts to the promises, and then all the remaining virgins are gathered up in order to go home. After all, what use could they possibly serve? The beauty pageant is no longer running.
And that is why the verse mentions the fact that Mordechai was sitting in the sha'ar hamelech- quite possibly this group of virgins, those who were gathered for the second time (as in, they were gathered once to meet the King, and then gathered so that they might return to their homes) passed him on their way out!
I love how that's beautifully simple. Thanks, Taran.
1. What decree did Vashti defy?
I noticed something very interesting tonight. Note the precise formation of the sentences.
יב וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי, לָבוֹא בִּדְבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר, בְּיַד הַסָּרִיסִים; וַיִּקְצֹף הַמֶּלֶךְ מְאֹד, וַחֲמָתוֹ בָּעֲרָה בוֹ. {ס}
12 But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by the chamberlains; therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him. (Esther 1:12)
טו כְּדָת, מַה-לַּעֲשׂוֹת, בַּמַּלְכָּה, וַשְׁתִּי--עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָשְׂתָה, אֶת-מַאֲמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, בְּיַד, הַסָּרִיסִים. {ס}
15 'What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, forasmuch as she hath not done the bidding of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?' {S} (Esther 1:15)
Why the need to state that Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by the chamberlains? This would be understood from context!
For this I turn to the following idea brought down in The Midrash Says on parshas Balak.
- When Bilam rose the next morning, he relayed the Almighty's message only in part. Instead of admitting that God had forbidden him to leave, the arrogant Bilam explained, "God does not let me go with you." He emphasized "you," leading the delegates to infer that God did not permit him to travel in their company because they were of inferior rank.
They returned to King Balak with the reply, "Bilam does not consider us sufficiently distinguished to invite him!"
~Bamidbar Rabbah 20:10, The Midrash Says, page 307
טו וַיֹּסֶף עוֹד, בָּלָק, שְׁלֹחַ שָׂרִים, רַבִּים וְנִכְבָּדִים מֵאֵלֶּה.
15 And Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honourable than they.
What then, was Vashti saying? She was not truly planning on defying the King's order. Rather, she was going to defy his order so long as it was his chamberlains that he had sent to escort her. Were he to come in person and escort her to the meal, she would certainly have come. Similarly to Bilam, or the way in which Bilam presented himself, Vashti only wanted a more distinguished and honorable escort.
2. Vashti did not die.
If you look at the pesukim, there is absolutely no support for the idea that Vashti was killed. Look at the advice of Memuchan:
יט אִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, יֵצֵא דְבַר-מַלְכוּת מִלְּפָנָיו, וְיִכָּתֵב בְּדָתֵי פָרַס-וּמָדַי, וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר: אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תָבוֹא וַשְׁתִּי, לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה.
19 If it please the king, let there go forth a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, that Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus, and that the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.
And then we see later on:
א אַחַר, הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, כְּשֹׁךְ, חֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ--זָכַר אֶת-וַשְׁתִּי וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂתָה, וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר-נִגְזַר עָלֶיהָ.
1 After these things, when the wrath of king Ahasuerus was assuaged, he remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what was decreed against her.
What happened to Vashti? She was forbidden to appear before the King. Quite probably she was placed in the keeping of Shashgaz, Keeper of the Concubines. The King made an unalterable decree about this, and he is therefore forbidden to revoke it, in the same way that we later see that letters stamped with the royal seal cannot be revoked or repealed. The fact that we have letters issued to the entire country here as well demonstrates the unrepealable status of the decree. Vashti is alive and the King misses her, but he has absolutely no power or ability to bring her back; he made an unalterable decree and must live with the consequences.
Incidentally, my brother Urchin has always understood it this way. Good for him!
Look also at Memuchan's advice. Note the peculiar term utilized.
יט אִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, יֵצֵא דְבַר-מַלְכוּת מִלְּפָנָיו, וְיִכָּתֵב בְּדָתֵי פָרַס-וּמָדַי, וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר: אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תָבוֹא וַשְׁתִּי, לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה.
19 If it please the king, let there go forth a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, that Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus, and that the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.
The King is to give Vashti's malchus to another who is better than she. JPS translates this word as "royal estate." That translation makes no sense, because when Haman's estate is mentioned in context of its being given to Esther, it is clearly called "beit Haman." If we were talking about a physical estate, it ought to be consistent and say "beit Vashti" or the like. Rather, the King is giving Vashti's power, her Queenship, her very malchus to another. This may be symbolized by the passing on of physical items, such as certain jewels, gowns or attire that only the Queen may wear.
It is in context of this that a different pasuk makes sense. There is a very peculiar pasuk that appears before Esther ventures before the King.
א וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, וַתִּלְבַּשׁ אֶסְתֵּר מַלְכוּת, וַתַּעֲמֹד בַּחֲצַר בֵּית-הַמֶּלֶךְ הַפְּנִימִית, נֹכַח בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ; וְהַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹשֵׁב עַל-כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ, בְּבֵית הַמַּלְכוּת, נֹכַח, פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת.
1 Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house; and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the entrance of the house. (Esther 5: 1)
The JPS translation adds in the word "apparel," but strikingly, there is no such word included in the pasuk. This is different from the verse in 15: 8, which clearly states that Mordechai had donned levush malchus, royal apparel. Esther actually dons malchus, the attribute of malchus.
Why does Esther do this?
It is because it is precisely this malchus which was given to her by the King, taken from Vashti and given to her due to her being "better than she [that is, Vashti.]" It is possible that this was symbolized by certain garments or jewels that only a Queen might wear, and indeed, perhaps they were even Vashti's garments. When Esther appeared before the King, she was making a strong statement. "I am Esther, wearing malchus. These are the clothes that you gave to me that were once Vashti's; I am Esther, whom you chose over Vashti, and upon whom you bestowed her malchus. I am coming to you wearing these clothes, while Vashti refused to come before you at her request; I come even without your request"! Esther's donning malchus is her deliberate reminder to the King of who she is, why he chose her (i.e. she is better than Vashti), what was given her (malchus), and an active demonstration of how she differs from Vashti- while Vashti did not love the King enough to honor his request, Esther loves him enough to risk her life to see him.
3. Why were the virgins rounded up a second time?
This is my brother Taran's idea.
יט וּבְהִקָּבֵץ בְּתוּלוֹת, שֵׁנִית; וּמָרְדֳּכַי, יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר-הַמֶּלֶךְ.
19 And when the virgins were gathered together the second time, and Mordecai sat in the king's gate--
Why were the virgins gathered together the second time? The Midrashic explanation, which my father offered, is that the King wished to make Esther jealous, and therefore pretended that she too was replaceable and that he desired to find another wife. Despite this, Esther kept her secret and did not divulge her identity, nor that of her nation.
Taran has a far simpler approach. Why were the virgins rounded up a second time? Why, because the King had chosen his bride! The women who had slept with the King were confined to the keeping of Shashgaz, Keeper of the Concubines. But what happened to the women who had not yet had their one night with the king, who were still virgins? Well, the King had chosen his Queen, that is, Esther, and the next verses go in order. First he makes her Queen, then he throws her a lavish party and gives gifts to the promises, and then all the remaining virgins are gathered up in order to go home. After all, what use could they possibly serve? The beauty pageant is no longer running.
And that is why the verse mentions the fact that Mordechai was sitting in the sha'ar hamelech- quite possibly this group of virgins, those who were gathered for the second time (as in, they were gathered once to meet the King, and then gathered so that they might return to their homes) passed him on their way out!
I love how that's beautifully simple. Thanks, Taran.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Unsummoned
First, despite the fact that this rendition is not necessarily supported by the text, it is what made me understand how much Esther risked when she went unsummoned before the King.
I read over the Megillah tonight and came across something I had never noticed before. Is it possible that Esther came unsummoned before the King twice?! Here is why I am asking.
Note the first time where Esther appears unsummoned:
So what was it that Esther did yet again? Why the word vatosef?
If you're going to tell me it means that she spoke yet again, wouldn't it make more sense to have this verse come after a verse in which we see her speaking? It doesn't make sense for it to appear after the statement, "And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman." It would, however, make sense for the statement that Esther yet again came before the King unsummoned to follow a statement which shows Esther appointing Mordechai to a position of power, for the reader is thus reminded of Esther's relationship with Mordechai, and how it was he who bid her appear before the king unsummoned in the first place.
This understanding is further supported by the fact that the King extends his golden sceptre to Esther yet again. Why must he do this? Why only then does she rise from the floor? The last time we saw the King extend his golden sceptre was when she appeared unsummoned; it seems likely that this symbol would be used to denote the same circumstance.
I read over the Megillah tonight and came across something I had never noticed before. Is it possible that Esther came unsummoned before the King twice?! Here is why I am asking.
Note the first time where Esther appears unsummoned:
- א וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, וַתִּלְבַּשׁ אֶסְתֵּר מַלְכוּת, וַתַּעֲמֹד בַּחֲצַר בֵּית-הַמֶּלֶךְ הַפְּנִימִית, נֹכַח בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ; וְהַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹשֵׁב עַל-כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ, בְּבֵית הַמַּלְכוּת, נֹכַח, פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת.
1 Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house; and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the entrance of the house.
ב וַיְהִי כִרְאוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת-אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה, עֹמֶדֶת בֶּחָצֵר--נָשְׂאָה חֵן, בְּעֵינָיו; וַיּוֹשֶׁט הַמֶּלֶךְ לְאֶסְתֵּר, אֶת-שַׁרְבִיט הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדוֹ, וַתִּקְרַב אֶסְתֵּר, וַתִּגַּע בְּרֹאשׁ הַשַּׁרְבִיט.
2 And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre.
~Esther 5: 1-2
- ג וַתּוֹסֶף אֶסְתֵּר, וַתְּדַבֵּר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וַתִּפֹּל, לִפְנֵי רַגְלָיו; וַתֵּבְךְּ וַתִּתְחַנֶּן-לוֹ, לְהַעֲבִיר אֶת-רָעַת הָמָן הָאֲגָגִי, וְאֵת מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר חָשַׁב עַל-הַיְּהוּדִים.
3 And Esther spoke yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews.
ד וַיּוֹשֶׁט הַמֶּלֶךְ לְאֶסְתֵּר, אֵת שַׁרְבִט הַזָּהָב; וַתָּקָם אֶסְתֵּר, וַתַּעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.
4 Then the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre. So Esther arose, and stood before the king.
So what was it that Esther did yet again? Why the word vatosef?
If you're going to tell me it means that she spoke yet again, wouldn't it make more sense to have this verse come after a verse in which we see her speaking? It doesn't make sense for it to appear after the statement, "And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman." It would, however, make sense for the statement that Esther yet again came before the King unsummoned to follow a statement which shows Esther appointing Mordechai to a position of power, for the reader is thus reminded of Esther's relationship with Mordechai, and how it was he who bid her appear before the king unsummoned in the first place.
This understanding is further supported by the fact that the King extends his golden sceptre to Esther yet again. Why must he do this? Why only then does she rise from the floor? The last time we saw the King extend his golden sceptre was when she appeared unsummoned; it seems likely that this symbol would be used to denote the same circumstance.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
In The King's House: Esther & Moses
I recently watched a compelling movie entitled "One Night With The King." It was a particularly beautiful rendition of the story of Esther, although it certainly took liberties with the original text and incorporated some apocryphal references. I enjoy watching movies with biblical themes as they generally allow me to approach Tanakh from a new angle; an interesting idea occurred to me after watching it, namely, to compare the situations of Esther and Moses.
Esther and Moses are both children of (or in Esther's case, related to) the leaders of their generation, Mordechai and Amram respectively. They both have their true names, Hadassah and Tuvia, and secondary names (although perhaps more important), Esther and Moses. They are both taken from their houses and brought to the royal palace, where they are chosen against all odds to represent their people. Moses is raised as a son to Bithia and by extension Pharoah, perhaps becoming a Prince of Egypt, while Esther becomes Ahaseurus' Queen. Both of them seem to hide their identities, Esther, because she is charged to do so, and Moses, because he dresses in Egyptian fashion and carries himself in that way. In perhaps the high point of their careers, they both put their lives in danger when they walk toward the King, Moses because he is returning from exile when he was to have been put to death for his crime, and Esther because it is death to come before the King unsummoned. And in both scenarios, they are the ones who must save their people.
Tangential to these points, there is also the fact that evil advisors and good advisors are significant players in both stories (although by Pharoah, Bilam, Jethro and Job are only mentioned in a Midrash, while in the Megillah, Haman, Memuchan and Charbonah are written about in the very text.)
The great distinction between Esther and Moses lies in the techniques they utilize when attempting to help their people. Esther was originally charged by Mordechai not to reveal her Jewish origin or birth (Esther 2: 10). She refrains from doing so for as long as possible, but when Mordechai informs her it is her duty- and it seems that she needs persuading, for he warns her that if she does not fulfill her destiny, "relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place, but thou and thy father's house will perish" (Esther 4: 14), she dons royalty and appears before the King in the inner court. He extends his golden scepter to her and bids her approach; when she does so she creates the setting for a clever game, a deadly tea party. Esther has clearly mastered the art of diplomacy; she will create a situation that is conducive to her petition, and it is only then that she will ask it, in words that are meant to gain the King's pity and compassion.
Moses is quite different. Rather than engaging in any diplomatic sort of meeting with either Bithia his adoptive mother or Pharoah, his grandfather, he goes out unto his brethren and mingles with them, sharing their burdens and their pain. He does not enjoy the sly games and clever exchanges of diplomats; this easy exchange of words does not come naturally for one such as him. After all, is he not "slow of speech, and of a slow tongue?" (Exodus 4: 10) Moses is hotheaded, his actions impulsive; he acts without considering the full ramifications of his actions.
It is peculiar that the Midrash ascribes Moses a role in the proceedings that was diplomatic, and that did not involve his actually visiting his brethren in efforts to help him. Here, Moses takes on a more legislative role:
Esther, on the other hand, is not a particularly passionate, reckless, active creature. Indeed, she is far more measured; she deals in practicalities and realities as opposed to rash anger. When she is informed of a plot to kill the king, she tells it over "in Mordecai's name" (Esther 2: 22), perhaps thinking of how this will aid him, perhaps simply acting the dutiful daughter. Later, although she is deeply pained by the appearance of Mordechai at the gate, her first response is not to inquire as to why he is there, or what his message may be, but to send "raiment to clothe Mordecai; and to take his sackcloth from off him; but he accepted it not" (Esther 4: 4). She does not wish to act; indeed, she does not even ask in order to determine how she should act, and whether he desires clothes- she simply sends them, for no daughter should see a father thus disgraced. The text never suggests that she exerted any effort in an attempt to seduce Ahaseurus; rather, she "obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the virgins" (Esther 2: 17). Esther is a more passive creature; she does what she is told. She appears before the King, and passively wins his regard. She refrains from telling the King about her birth and people because Mordechai has told her not to do so, and she obeys. When Mordechai informs her that she must go before the King unsummoned, although she is afraid for her life, she reverts to what she has always done, which is to obey Mordechai, and obeys him here as well. It is possible, then, that her diplomacy could be seen as a weakness; she uses words as weapons because she does not dare to truly act. On the other hand, it could simply reflect on her status as a woman, and thus someone who truly has no other ability to make her will known.
It's interesting to compare the respective walks of Moses and Esther. Both of them go before Kings who have every reason to kill them. Both of them must be coerced into doing so (God literally forces Moses to act as a leader, and sends Aaron along for moral support, while Mordechai informs Esther that she must act now if she does not wish to be utterly destroyed.) There is a famous Midrash about Moses' walk to Pharoah:
Esther and Moses are both children of (or in Esther's case, related to) the leaders of their generation, Mordechai and Amram respectively. They both have their true names, Hadassah and Tuvia, and secondary names (although perhaps more important), Esther and Moses. They are both taken from their houses and brought to the royal palace, where they are chosen against all odds to represent their people. Moses is raised as a son to Bithia and by extension Pharoah, perhaps becoming a Prince of Egypt, while Esther becomes Ahaseurus' Queen. Both of them seem to hide their identities, Esther, because she is charged to do so, and Moses, because he dresses in Egyptian fashion and carries himself in that way. In perhaps the high point of their careers, they both put their lives in danger when they walk toward the King, Moses because he is returning from exile when he was to have been put to death for his crime, and Esther because it is death to come before the King unsummoned. And in both scenarios, they are the ones who must save their people.
Tangential to these points, there is also the fact that evil advisors and good advisors are significant players in both stories (although by Pharoah, Bilam, Jethro and Job are only mentioned in a Midrash, while in the Megillah, Haman, Memuchan and Charbonah are written about in the very text.)
The great distinction between Esther and Moses lies in the techniques they utilize when attempting to help their people. Esther was originally charged by Mordechai not to reveal her Jewish origin or birth (Esther 2: 10). She refrains from doing so for as long as possible, but when Mordechai informs her it is her duty- and it seems that she needs persuading, for he warns her that if she does not fulfill her destiny, "relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place, but thou and thy father's house will perish" (Esther 4: 14), she dons royalty and appears before the King in the inner court. He extends his golden scepter to her and bids her approach; when she does so she creates the setting for a clever game, a deadly tea party. Esther has clearly mastered the art of diplomacy; she will create a situation that is conducive to her petition, and it is only then that she will ask it, in words that are meant to gain the King's pity and compassion.
Moses is quite different. Rather than engaging in any diplomatic sort of meeting with either Bithia his adoptive mother or Pharoah, his grandfather, he goes out unto his brethren and mingles with them, sharing their burdens and their pain. He does not enjoy the sly games and clever exchanges of diplomats; this easy exchange of words does not come naturally for one such as him. After all, is he not "slow of speech, and of a slow tongue?" (Exodus 4: 10) Moses is hotheaded, his actions impulsive; he acts without considering the full ramifications of his actions.
- 11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren. 12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he smote the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
It is peculiar that the Midrash ascribes Moses a role in the proceedings that was diplomatic, and that did not involve his actually visiting his brethren in efforts to help him. Here, Moses takes on a more legislative role:
- The royal favor, which the king accorded him in ever- increasing measure, he made use of to lighten the burden laid upon the children of Israel. One day he came into the presence of Pharaoh, and said: "O my lord, I have a request to make of thee, and my hope is that thou wilt not deny it." "Speak," replied the king. "It is an admitted fact," said Moses, "that if a slave is not afforded rest at least one day in the week, he will die of overexertion. Thy Hebrew slaves will surely perish, unless thou accordest them a day of cessation from work." Pharaoh fulfilled the petition preferred by Moses, and the king's edict was published in the whole of Egypt and in Goshen, as follows: "To the sons of Israel! Thus saith the king: Do your work and perform your service for six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; on it ye shall do no labor. Thus shall ye do unto all times, according to the command of the king and the command of Moses the son of Bithiah." And the day appointed by Moses as the day of rest was Saturday, later given by God to the Israelites as the Sabbath day. [ footnote72, which is Shemos Rabbah 1: 28, Yashar Shemot, 133a, Shibbole Haleket 55-56]
Esther, on the other hand, is not a particularly passionate, reckless, active creature. Indeed, she is far more measured; she deals in practicalities and realities as opposed to rash anger. When she is informed of a plot to kill the king, she tells it over "in Mordecai's name" (Esther 2: 22), perhaps thinking of how this will aid him, perhaps simply acting the dutiful daughter. Later, although she is deeply pained by the appearance of Mordechai at the gate, her first response is not to inquire as to why he is there, or what his message may be, but to send "raiment to clothe Mordecai; and to take his sackcloth from off him; but he accepted it not" (Esther 4: 4). She does not wish to act; indeed, she does not even ask in order to determine how she should act, and whether he desires clothes- she simply sends them, for no daughter should see a father thus disgraced. The text never suggests that she exerted any effort in an attempt to seduce Ahaseurus; rather, she "obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the virgins" (Esther 2: 17). Esther is a more passive creature; she does what she is told. She appears before the King, and passively wins his regard. She refrains from telling the King about her birth and people because Mordechai has told her not to do so, and she obeys. When Mordechai informs her that she must go before the King unsummoned, although she is afraid for her life, she reverts to what she has always done, which is to obey Mordechai, and obeys him here as well. It is possible, then, that her diplomacy could be seen as a weakness; she uses words as weapons because she does not dare to truly act. On the other hand, it could simply reflect on her status as a woman, and thus someone who truly has no other ability to make her will known.
It's interesting to compare the respective walks of Moses and Esther. Both of them go before Kings who have every reason to kill them. Both of them must be coerced into doing so (God literally forces Moses to act as a leader, and sends Aaron along for moral support, while Mordechai informs Esther that she must act now if she does not wish to be utterly destroyed.) There is a famous Midrash about Moses' walk to Pharoah:
- Thereupon Moses invited the elders to go to Pharaoh with him, but they lacked the courage to appear before the king. Though they started out with Moses, they dropped off stealthily on the way, one by one, and when Moses and Aaron stood in the presence of the king, they found themselves alone, deserted by all the others. The elders did not go out free. Their punishment was that God did not permit them to ascend the holy mountain with Moses. They durst accompany him on the way to God only as far as they had accompanied him on the way to Pharaoh, and then they had to tarry until he came again.[ footnote 153, Shemos Rabbah 5: 13-14]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)