INSIGHT 5770 - #20 DERECH HATEVAH
There
is a climactic verse in Megillat Esther
that I have always found perplexing. Mordechai stands outside the king’s
courtyard dressed in sackcloth in an obvious state of distress. Esther is informed
of this and so begins a dialogue, through intermediaries, upon which the fate
of the Jewish People would seem to depend. And then, when Mordechai delivers
his final plea and request, his words seem to be the exact opposite of what is
expected. One would assume that he is about to declare to Esther that she is
the last hope, that for the sake of the nation she must undertake this perilous
mission -- that there is no other option. But, what does he say in Esther 4:14: essentially that we don’t
really need you. Mordechai effectively tells Esther that God will save the
Jewish People really no matter what she does – revach v’hatzalah ya’amod l’yehudim mimakom achier, relief and
deliverance will come to the Jews from somewhere else. So why then should she go,
especially at such great peril? What is even stranger is the fact that this
line actually seems to be part of the very charge to Esther – almost go because
the nation will be saved in any event. This is, bluntly, bewildering. Of course, the verse itself does
continue with Mordechai presenting a subsequent reason for why Esther should
still go to the king: v’at u’beit avich
to’veidu, you and your father’s house will be lost, if you do not take this
action and, therefore, allow and cause the Jewish nation to be saved in another
manner.1 Still,
is this a reason for why Esther should accept this life threatening risk? Furthermore,
as explained in T.B. Megilla 15a,
this course of action is filled with halachic
difficulties. Until this time, every meeting between Achashveirosh and Esther
was instigated by the king, with Esther acting solely under duress; in this
case, it is would be her who is initiating contact. Perhaps, we could
understand this desperate necessity if undertaken to save the entire Jewish
nation, but is Mordechai actually telling Esther to go to Achashveirosh simply
to rectify Shaul’s misconduct with Agog (for, after all, the Jewish nation will
be saved in any event)? Furthermore, is it not strange that Esther is being
directed to undertake an action of sin, notwithstanding the fact that she may not
be culpable, solely to rectify the misdeed of Shaul?2 Given
what Esther had to do, perhaps it really would have been better for deliverance
to have occurred in another manner.3 Yet,
everything points to the fact that Esther and Mordechai’s decision was the
correct one. I am left simply trying to understand why. One more item also concerns me. This
assumed shift in focus would also seem to change our understanding of the
heroism of Esther. Pursuant to the simple rendition of the story, Esther is a
woman, motivated by the dire state of her nation, who, at great personal risk
and with great personal loss,4 acted to save her nation
from destruction. Pursuant to this fuller, textual understanding, Esther would
seem to be a person motivated by family honour or, even, with the hope to save
herself. The further strange thing, though, is that the text still also
presents her as a leader and heroine of her nation. We seem to have two visions
of Mordechai and Esther. One is as individuals acting to save their nation,
whose sole heroic concern is their nation. It is within this context that
Esther directs Mordechai to instruct the Jews of Shushan to fast on her behalf
and then she will undertake the task that is before her. Yet, we also have this
other perspective of Mordechai and Esther; two individuals who know deliverance
will come anyway to the Jewish People but undertake this mission for personal
reasons. It just seems that within one perspective we are to look at Esther’s
actions as the necessary, risky undertaking of a heroine whose sole intent is
to save her people and who recognize her as the only hope. And, paradoxically,
at the same time, we are to recognize, as also did Esther and Mordechai, that
deliverance would still come about in any event, and that this undertaking is really
not ultimately necessary except in its personal and spiritual effect on the one
who must meet this challenge and her lineage. Rabbi Benjamin Hecht e-mail Footnotes 1 There are different views
within the commentaries as to what this means i.e. what is the specific concern
to which Mordechai is alluding? Within the context of the Insight, I will be
referring to a view presented by Alshich,
built upon T.B. Megilla 13a,b which
informs us that Haman was descended from Agag, the Amaleki king who Shaul Hamelech kept alive and that Esther’s
and Mordechai were descended from Shaul. Esther and Mordechai’s actions to
defeat Haman are seen, within this context, as intended to rectifiy Shaul’s
misdeed. 2 In the
broader context, Alshich contends that, to rectify the sin, since Shaul, by
leaving Agag alive, enabled a woman to have relations with this unholy king of
Amalek, a female descendent of Shaul, a proper Jewish woman such as Esther, had
to atone for this sin by having relations with another unholy person, such as
Achashveirosh. He, unfortunately, though, does not explain why this was so. 3 It was once
related to me that there is a commentator who explains Esther 10:3 in a manner
that would reflect this very issue. The verse states that Mordechai was looked
upon favourably by most of his brethren, and the question is why not all. This
specific commentator responded with reference to the fact that Mordechai called
upon Esther to act in the manner that she did – and that some, albeit a
minority, felt this was inappropriate. I have not, though, been able to find
this commentator. 4 According
to the view that Esther was Mordechai’s wife, her action in initiating contact
with Achashveirosh would, sadly, forever bar her from reuniting with Mordechai.
See Rashi,
Esther 4:16. © Nishma 2010
Return to top |
© 2006 NISHMA