Yeshiva University - A To-Go Series - Adar 5772

1
Yeshiva University A To-Go Series Adar 5772
Dear Friends, It is my sincere hope that the Torah found in this virtual sefer may serve to enhance your Purim and your limud (study). We have designed this project not only for the individual, studying alone, but perhaps even more for a chavruta (a pair studying together) that wish to work through the study matter together, or a group engaged in facilitated study. With this material, we invite you to join our beit midrash, wherever you may be, l'hagdil Torah ul'ha'adirah (to enjoy the splendor of Torah) and to engage in discussing issues that touch on contemporary matters, and are rooted in the timeless arguments of our great sages from throughout the generations. Happy Purim, Rabbi Kenneth Brander
The David Mitzner Dean, Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future
Richard M. Joel, President, Yeshiva University Rabbi Kenneth Brander, The David Mitzner Dean, Center for the Jewish Future Rabbi Joshua Flug, General Editor Rabbi Michael Dubitsky, Editor Copyright 2012 All rights reserved by Yeshiva University Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future 500 West 185th Street, Suite 419, New York, NY 10033 office@yutorah.org 212.960.5263 This publication contains words of Torah. Please treat it with appropriate respect. For sponsorship opportunities, please contact Genene Kaye at 212.960.5852 or gkaye@yu.edu.
2
Table of Contents
Purim 2012/5772 Remembering Purim During the Messianic Age
Rabbi Yosef Blau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4
The Relationship between Mishlo'ach Manot and Matanot La'Evyonim

Rabbi Joshua Flug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6
Purim and the "Randomness" of Life

Rabbi Ozer Glickman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12
Whose Battle? Whose Victory?

Dr. Shalom E. Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 22
Purim Fulfilling Jewish Destiny

Mrs. Shoshana Schechter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 25
The Joy of Giving

Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30
Collected Insights from members of the Masters of Arts in Biblical and Talmudic Interpretation program at Stern College for Women
Meira Rubin, Miryam Spiegel, Sarah Steinberg, Derora Tropp, Ora Ziring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 34
3
Remembering Purim During the Messianic Age

Rabbi Yosef Blau
Senior Mashgiach Ruchani, Yeshiva University The Rambam in the last halakha in Hilkhot Megilla 2.18 writes: All the books of the prophets and all the writings will no longer be valid in the days of the Messiah except for Megillat Esther which will remain together with the five books of the Torah and the laws of the Oral Torah that will never lose their validity. Even though all memory of troubles will be dropped as Yeshayahu (65) writes All the earlier troubles will be forgotten, they will be hidden from my eyes, the days of Purim will remain, as it is written in Esther (9) These days of Purim will not pass from the Jews and their memory will never disappear from their descendants. The Ravad objects: These are the words of a non-scholar: no biblical text will be removed from the cannon; every work has something to teach. What was said was that even if other writings would no longer be read publicly, Megillat Esther will continue to be read in public. , " ) "( , ) '( . " . " , ,
The source of the Rambam is the TalmudYerushalmi in Megilla: Rav Yohanan and Reish Lakish: Rav Yohanan said the books of the prophets and the writings will become invalid in the future but the five biblical books will remain forever as it is written (Devarim 5.19) A large sound that does not end. Reish Lakish added that Megillat Esther and the laws will also remain. It is written here A large sound that does not end and there (in Esther 9.28) it is written their memory (the days of Purim) will never end (be forgotten) by their descendants. Yerushalmi Megilla Chap. 1 ' " ' ] [ " ] [ )(
What differs between the Rambam and the earlier source is Rambam's second part about earlier troubles. Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik suggests that the addition teaches us that not only
4
will the celebration of Purim continue, but the fast of Esther will as well.1 The Rav (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik) similarly understands that the fast of Esther differs from the other fasts, which commemorate tragedy and will no longer be observed in the Messianic era, because it is an integral part of Purim.2 The joy of Purim can only be appreciated if one contrasts it with the threat that the Jews faced and the recognition of how vulnerable they were in the kingdom of Achashveirosh. The question about the source of the expansion of the Yerushalmi by the Rambam remains. If we examine the description of the Messianic era by the Rambam the extension becomes clear. One should not think that during the Days of Mashiach, the natural order will be change, or that there will be any innovation in the original creation of the world. Rather, the world will continue to follow its ways. Although Yeshayahu [Yeshayahu 11:6] states, "The wolf will with the sheep, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat," these [words] are an allegory and a riddle. They mean that the Jewish people will live securely among the evildoers of the world who are likened to wolves and leopards, as in the verse [Yirmeyahu 5:6], "A wolf of the deserts despoils them, a leopard watches over their cities." [In this era, all nations] will return to the true faith and no longer plunder or destroy. Instead, at peace with Israel, they will eat that which is permitted, as it is written [Yeshayahu 11:7], "The lion shall eat straw like the ox." Similarly, other prophecies of this nature concerning Mashiach are analogies. In the Era of the King Mashiach, everyone will realize what was implied by these metaphors and allusions. Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 12.1 , , , , " , , , , , , , , . " :
According to the Rambam, the natural world will not change after the coming of the Mashiach. The laws of nature will continue with the only change being in the condition of the Jews. The Jewish king will rule the world and it will be an era of world peace and knowledge of Hashem. Free of worries and threats, study will flourish and wisdom will increase. What is missing in such a glorious time is that which can be gained from overcoming adversity. Purims survival is precisely because it is the holiday that was created in exile when Jewish existence was threatened and Hashems overt presence not felt. The actions of Esther and Mordechai and the remarkable reversal could not have happened during Messianic times. That memory adds a dimension to Jewish religious life. The Rambam understood that the source was not merely derived from the language used but reflects a part of Torah that can only be fully appreciated through the story of Purim.
1 2
Cited in Harerei Kedem, Vol. I no. 188. Ibid. 5

The Relationship between Mishlo'ach Manot and Matanot La'Evyonim

3
Rabbi Joshua Flug

Director of Torah Research, Yeshiva Universitys Center for the Jewish Future There are four mitzvot relating to the celebration of Purim. The first is the reading of Megillat Esther. Additionally, the verse lists three more mitzvot: To make these days of feasts and joy, of sending tributes one to another and gifts to the poor. Esther 9:22 , , ., :
In this article, we will explore the relationship between mishlo'ach manot (sending tributes) and matanot la'evyonim (gifts to the poor). There are a number of questions to ask regarding these two mitzvot. Are they basically the same mitzvah with different recipients? Do these two mitzvot relate to the third mitzvah mentioned in the verse, namely, the mitzvah of eating a festive meal? What role do they play in the broader celebration of Purim? Before exploring the characteristics of each mitzvah, it is important to note an important difference between the requirements of mishlo'ach manot and matanot la'evyonim: R. Yosef taught: "sending tributes one to another," two items to one person. "And gifts to the poor," two gifts to two people. Megillah 7a . .
I previously wrote two articles, "The Mitzvah of Mishlo'ach Manot," and "The Mitvah of Matanot La'Evyonim," available on YUTorah. This article attempts to highlight the relationship between the two mitzvot. 6
Why does mishlo'ach manot require giving two items to one person, whereas matanot la'evyonim requires two gifts to two separate people? On the one hand, this difference seems to indicate that these are two distinct mitzvot. On the other hand, this difference may simply be a reflection of the overall goal of these mitzvot.
The Nature of Mishlo'ach Manot

R. Moshe Sofer (1762-1839), Teshuvot Chatam Sofer, Orach Chaim no.196, notes that there are two reasons presented in earlier sources regarding the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot. R. Yisrael Isserlin (1390-1460), Terumat HaDeshen no. 111, writes: Question: Do those who send to their friends sheets, clothing and other similar things on Purim fulfill the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot or not? Answer: It seems that they do not fulfill the mitzvah because the reason for mishlo'ach manot seems to be so that everyone will have enough [food] to make a proper meal. Terumat HaDeshen no. 111 : ", . : . '
The purpose of the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot is to provide food items for the Purim meal. Therefore, one cannot fulfill the mitzvah by sending non-food items. R. Shlomo Alkabetz (c. 1500-1580), Manot HaLevi 9:19, suggests a different reason for the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot: "Sending tributes one to another," just like their [broader] purpose to gather as one unit with friends, the opposite of the evil oppressor (Haman) who slandered [the Jews] as a nation that is scattered. Manot HaLevi 9:19 . :
R. Sofer deduces from these comments that the purpose of the mitzvah is to generate unity and friendship among the people of Israel, and sending gifts to one another generates this unity and friendship. In fact, R. Alkabetz, in the introduction to Manot HaLevi, writes that he sent a copy of the book as mishlo'ach manot to his father in-law. Ostensibly, R. Alkabetz disagrees with R. Isserlin and maintains that one can fulfill the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot by sending non-food items. The comments of R. Alkabetz in his introduction may be what led Chatam Sofer to conclude that R. Alkabetz's novel reason for the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot actually has halachic ramifications. R. Moshe Isserles (Rama, 1520-1572) in his glosses to Orach Chaim 695:4, writes that if one sends mishlo'ach manot to a friend and the receiver does not accept it, the sender nevertheless fulfills the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot. This ruling puzzles many authorities. After all, there is no other mitzvah that requires one person to give an item to another person in which the giver can fulfill the mitzvah through the receiver's refusal. R. Sofer explains that Rama is following the opinion of R. Alkabetz that the purpose of mishlo'ach manot is to generate friendship. Therefore, it does not matter whether the receiver actually accepts the gift or not. Since both parties were
7
unified through the sender's attempt to send a gift to the receiver, the mitzvah is fulfilled. Perhaps what motivated R. Sofer to assume that Rama also follows the approach of R. Alkabetz is a comment in Rama's commentary on Megillat Esther entitled Mechir Yayin. At the end of the commentary he writes that he sent a copy to his father as mishlo'ach manot. There are a number of practical differences between the two approaches to understanding mishlo'ach manot. R. Avraham Gombiner (c. 1633-1683), Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 695:11, quotes R. Ya'akov Moelin (Maharil, c. 1365-1427), Minhagim, Hilchot Purim, who rules that one should send foods that are already cooked and not raw items. Ostensibly, Maharil is following the opinion of R. Isserlin that the purpose of mishlo'ach manot is to provide food for the Purim meal. Therefore, one can argue that the food for the Purim meal must be ready to serve at the time it was sent. However, according to the opinion of R. Alkabetz, it should make no difference whether the items are cooked or raw, but rather, as long as one generates friendship by sending the package, one can fulfill the mitzvah even if there is no food item. R. Yaakov Chagiz (1620-1674), Teshuvot Halachot Ketanot 2:163, writes that one can fulfill the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot by giving someone enough money to buy items for the Purim meal. Apparently he is of the opinion that the purpose of mishlo'ach manot is to provide food for the Purim meal. Nevertheless, he disagrees with Maharil and does not require that the items be ready to serve. R. Ovadia Yosef (b. 1920), Yechaveh Da'at 6:45, suggests that the ability to fulfill the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot by sending money is contingent on the two reasons behind the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot. If one assumes that the purpose is to provide food for the Purim meal, one can entertain the possibility of fulfilling the mitzvah by sending money. However, if the purpose is to generate friendship, money is not the type of gift one would give for this purpose. There are a number of other practical differences between the two approaches that are beyond the scope of this presentation.
The Nature of Matanot La'Evyonim

The Tosefta, Megillah 1:5, states two rules regarding the funds collected for matanot la'evyonim. First, the funds may only be used for Purim related expenses. Second, there should not be great scrutiny regarding these funds. The Talmud Yerushalmi, Megillah 1:4, comments on the second rule that the practical application is that one should not question the recipients of the funds as to whether they are poor or not. Anyone who asks for a portion of the funds should receive something. Ritva (1250-1330), Megillah 7a, explains: The Talmud Yerushalmi explained that we give to anyone who extends a hand to receive. This is to say that we give all people and we are not particular if they are poor because this gift is not only a form of charity, it is a function of [the requirement to] rejoice, which is evidenced by the fact that one even sends tributes to those of means. Chidushei HaRitva, Megillah 7a , , . . ",
8
According to Ritva, the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim is not a function of the mitzvah of tzedakah but rather a function of the obligation of simcha (happiness) on Purim. Ritva then quotes an alternative explanation of the second rule of the Tosefta: one should not scrutinize the exact needs of the poor, but rather give a little more than they need. This alternative explanation may view the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim as a requirement to give extra charity on Purim and not a function of simcha. Regarding the first rule of the Tosefta, Tosafot, Erchin 6a, s.v. MiShebat, note that ordinarily, if tzedakah funds were collected for a specific purpose and the people of the city decide to divert the funds to a different cause, they are entitled to do so. Tosafot then question the rule of the Tosefta that funds collected for Purim can only be used for Purim expenses. Tosafot conclude that the rule of the Tosefta only applies to the gabbai (administrator of the funds). However, if the people of the city agree to use the funds for something else, the funds may be diverted. Tosafot, Baba Metzia 78b, s.v. Magevet, present a different answer to the question. They claim that Purim funds are different than ordinary funds collected for tzedakah and one cannot divert the funds to a different cause, even with permission of the people of the city. R. Avraham Yitzchak Sorotzkin, Gevurat Yitzchak, Purim no. 16, explains that the two opinions among the Ba'alei HaTosafot seem to be disputing the point made by Ritva. If one assumes that the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim is an obligatory form of tzedakah, it should be bound by the regular rules of tzedakah and one may divert the funds with permission of the people of the city. However, if the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim is a unique rule that one must give something to the poor on Purim in order to provide them with simcha, it is arguable that those funds cannot be diverted to another cause, even with the permission of the people of the city. There are a number of discussions relating to matanot la'evyonim that connect to the question of whether the mitzvah is a function of the mitzvah of tzedakah or a unique obligation relating to Purim. First, R. Yoel Sirkes (1561-1640), Bach, Orach Chaim no. 694, rules that a poor person must give matanot la'evyonim to other poor people just as he is obligated to fulfill all of the other mitzvot of Purim. He notes that this is different from ordinary tzedakah where a poor person is technically not obligated to give to others. R. Chizkiah de Silva (1659-1698), P'ri Chadash, Orach Chaim 694:1, writes that a poor person is exempt from matanot la'evyonim. It is possible that P'ri Chadash disagrees with Bach regarding the nature of the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim. R. Sirkes clearly states that the mitzvah is a function of the celebration of Purim and therefore, it is no different than the other mitzvot of Purim. P'ri Chadash may be of the opinion that the mitzvah is an obligatory form of tzedakah on Purim and therefore, one who is exempt from tzedakah the rest of the year, is exempt on Purim as well. Second, Maharil, in his responsa (no. 56) discusses whether one can use money that was designated for ma'aser kesafim (giving one tenth of one's earnings to tzedakah) for the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim. Maharil notes that since there is a specific obligation to fulfill the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim, one may not use ma'aser funds to pay for it. R. Avraham S.B. Sofer (18151872), Ketav Sofer, Yoreh De'ah no. 112, notes that Maharil seems to view the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim as an obligation to give additional tzedakah. Therefore, one cannot pay two "debts" with the same funds. However, if one views the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim as a mitzvah to
9
provide happiness to the poor, there is no reason why one cannot accomplish that by disbursing ma'aser funds on Purim. Third, R. Avraham Gombiner, Magen Avraham 692:1, writes that when the beracha of Shehechiyanu is recited on the Megillah reading, one should have in mind that the beracha also includes the mitzvah of eating the festive Purim meal and the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot. He does not include the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim. R. Yosef Teomim (1727-1793), P'ri Megadim, E.A. 692:1, adds that one should also have in mind the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim. A number of Acharonim (see for example Teshuvot V'Hanhagot 1:404) allude to the fact that the question of whether one should try to have the Shehechiyanu cover matanot la'evyonim depends on the nature of the mitzvah. If matanot la'evyonim is an obligation to give tzedakah, there is no reason to recite Shehechiyanu, just as one does not recite a Shehechiyanu when giving tzedakah the rest of the year. If however, matanot la'evyonim is a special mitzvah related to Purim, its relevance to Shehechiyanu is similar to the festive Purim meal and mishlo'ach manot.
Must the Gifts be used for Purim Related Activities?

The Tosefta, op. cit., quotes the opinion of R. Meir that the poor person who receives matanot la'evyonim may not use the funds to purchase shoelaces. The Gemara, Baba Metzia 78b, notes that R. Meir is consistent with his opinion that one may stipulate the conditions of use in a sale or a gift. Since it is assumed that the one giving the gift wants the gift to be used for Purim, the poor person may not violate those implied conditions. R. Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and maintains that the money can be used by the poor person at his own discretion. Rabbeinu Asher (c. 1250-1327), Baba Metzia 6:9, and Rama, Orach Chaim 694:2, codify the opinion of R. Shimon ben Gamliel. The ability of the poor person to spend the money at his discretion does not necessarily indicate the intended purpose of matanot la'evyonim. However, the implication is that both R. Meir and R. Shimon ben Gamliel agree that the giver intends for the gift to be used on Purim. Perhaps a better indicator of the purpose of matanot la'evyonim is the type of gift that is acceptable. Rambam, Hilchot Megillah 2:16, describes the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim as giving money or food to the poor. R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926), Ohr Samei'ach ad loc., understands that Rambam's opinion is that one can only fulfill the mitzvah with food or money. P'ri Megadim, M.Z. 694:1, writes that although one should ideally give money or food, if one gave other items, he fulfills the mitzvah. The question of what is appropriate to give may be contingent on the nature of the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim. If the mitzvah is a function of simcha, it is understandable why one would insist on food that can be used at the festive meal or money that can be used for Purim related expenses. If the mitzvah is a function of increased tzedakah, anything that would improve the poor person's predicament would be acceptable.
How do the Two Mitzvot Relate?

If the purpose of matanot la'evyonim is to provide the poor with simcha on Purim, then it seems to have a close relationship with the mitzvah of mishlo'ach manot. According to the approach of
10
R. Isserlin, that the purpose of mishlo'ach manot is to provide others with needs for the Purim meal, matanot la'evyonim can be viewed in a similar manner. While we cannot dictate what the poor person does with the gift, R. Meir and R. Shimon ben Gamliel seem to agree that the gift is intended to be used on Purim. According to the approach of R. Alkabetz that the purpose of mishlo'ach manot is to generate friendship, it is possible that its ultimate purpose is simcha. This is evidenced by the aforementioned comment of Ritva that we don't have to be particular about who receives matanot la'evyonim because both matanot la'evyonim and mishlo'ach manot are a function of simcha. While he doesn't necessarily adopt the position of R. Alkabetz, he does indicate that giving money to someone who is not poor is a fulfillment of mishlo'ach manot and use of money for mishlo'ach manot is more compatible with R. Alkebetz's approach. R. Yoel Sirkes, Bach, Orach Chaim no. 695 s.v. V'Im Hichlif, does combine the concepts of simcha and friendship in writing that the purpose of mishlo'ach manot is to rejoice with one's friends and generate unity and love among friends. Adopting the approach that matanot la'evyonim is a form of tzedakah doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have a relationship with the other mitzvot of Purim. Rambam makes the following observation about how to allocate one's Purim expenses: It is preferable to give additional gifts to the poor rather than additional tributes to friends because there is no greater joy than to gladden the hearts of the poor, the orphans, the widows and the converts, for one who gladdens the hearts of these distressed people is comparable to the Divine presence as it states [in the verse (Yeshaya 57:15), "God] lifts the spirits of the humble and revives the hearts of the distressed." Rambam, Hilchot Megillah 2:17 . . . " ' :
According to Rambam, providing for the poor on Purim provides simcha to the giver and the recipient. Rambam expresses a similar idea in Hilchot Yom Tov 6:18, in writing that one cannot completely fulfill the mitzvah of simchat Yom Tov (rejoicing on the festivals) if one does not include those who are less fortunate in one's celebration. As such, even if one assumes that matanot la'evyonim is a form of tzedakah, its intended purpose may have been to bring joy both to the giver and to the receiver.4 The mitzvah may not be as closely related to mishlo'ach manot in the technical sense, but both mitzvot are part of the simcha on Purim.
This idea is further developed by R. Mordechai Torczyner in his article on pages 30-33 of this issue. 11
Purim and the "Randomness" of Life

Rabbi Ozer Glickman
Rosh Yeshiva, RIETS Chance and happenstance are everywhere in Megillat Esther. The salvation of the Jews begins with a sudden case of royal insomnia leading to the reading of a random selection from the royal chronicles (Esther 6:1). On the morrow, when the king seeks suggestions for honoring Mordechai, who should be standing in the anteroom waiting for a royal audience but Haman, coming to seek permission to hang Mordechai instead. Most tellingly, when the people take upon themselves the annual observance of these days of Adar as a holiday for eternity, they call it after the instrument of chance Haman played to determine the most fortuitous day for attacking them (Esther 9:26). It is the holiday of lots, a celebration of the random draw that was turned from disaster to salvation. But chance and happenstance go much deeper. Rabbinic tradition ties the Torahs description of the original encounter between Israel and Hamans ancestors to the observance of Purim by mandating the reading of Parashat Zachor on the preceding Shabbat. The parashah describes Amalek as chancing upon Israel: How he happened upon you by the way, and struck the weak stragglers in the rear, when you were faint and weary, and he feared not God. Devarim 25:18 . :
The verb ,the root of the noun ,suggests an accidental, unplanned encounter. Amalek's murderous attack is all the more shocking because it was random, accidental, and unplanned. The enemy chanced upon the weak and murdered them. And so when Haman reports the events of the day, note how he describes the events: And Haman recounted to his wife Zeresh and to all his supporters everything that had befallen him... Esther 6:13 ... :
Again, the word .Everything associated with the struggle against Haman is identified as chance and happenstance. Lest we be misled by contemporary Hebrew usage in which may convey only that
12
something happened, we find explicit reference in rabbinic literature to the connotation of coincidence and accidental occurrence. Consider, for example, Rashi's commentary on the first verse of Parashat Vayikra: Every instance of divine command and speech is preceded by an act of summoning ( .)This is an expression of affection, language that the ministering angels use, as it says, "one calls to the other." The prophets of other peoples, however, experience revelation with an expression of happenstance, an expression of impurity, as it says "The Lord happened upon Bilaam." Rashi, Vayikra 1:1 , , , , , . " :
Rashi's objective is to explain why the Mesorah mandates that the last letter of the word be written with a smaller aleph. The reason: to emphasize that Scripture uses the word rather than to describe Moshe's prophetic encounter. Moshe Rabbenu's prophetic moments were honorable and purposeful. Bilaam's interactions with the Divine were transitory and haphazard. describes a tentative encounter, unplanned and unsatisfying. It is the verb used to describe an unplanned, accidental emission. Rabbinic tradition locates this notion in the word ,the same verb used to describe the interactions of Haman and Mordechai and the attack by Amalek at Refidim.
Purim and the Clash of Civilizations

The collective force of these observations is to cast Megillat Esther, and the holiday it promotes, as a clash of civilizations rather than the tale of the downfall of a single enemy of the Jews. Haman and his Amalekite forbears adhere to a philosophy of life that denies meaning and purpose, historical memory and accountability. Events are random, transitory. An individual should grab what life offers at every opportunity for there is no meaning other than self-gratification. With apologies to my friend and former colleague, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Haman is "fooled into randomness." He does not recognize any destiny other than the roll of the dice. The history of Amalek and Israel has no meaning for him. Everything that has befallen him is happenstance and random. Other details in the Megillah reinforce this assessment of Purim's overarching theme of destiny throughout history. A broad hint may be found in the reaction of Haman's spouse and supporters to news of his first failure in competition with Mordechai. As we noted above, Haman has described what happened to him by chance ( .) Their response is profoundly important: And his advisers and Zeresh his wife said to him: If Mordechai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of Jewish extraction, you will not prevail but rather fall completely before him. Esther 6:13 . :
13
Haman's entourage has finally grasped the pattern. This is not a struggle between an egomaniacal politician with murderous intent and his intended victim, but the ongoing clash between perfidy and honor, evil and good, Amalek and Israel. This is the beginning of Haman's education which will end abruptly on the gallows. There are greater forces at work than Haman has realized, forces much more powerful than the roll of the dice. Consider how the Megillah translates into Hebrew the word : In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, a pur, that is, the lot ( ,)was cast before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, which is the month Adar. Esther 3:7 . :
The word for lot is which means, by extension, fate and destiny. Haman has not understood his real destiny ( )while ironically placing his faith in the lottery ( )that brings his ultimate defeat. Haman has struggled against his destiny and lost. The principal audience for the Megillah's lessons about fate and destiny is Am Yisrael to whom it is addressed by Mordechai and his Beit Din (rabbinical court). In this context, one of the more puzzling features of the Megillah may be understood. The text makes only oblique references to Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu. Some are only homiletical, e.g., the allusion to the King of Kings in the insomnia episode discussed previously. The most direct is, of course, in the instruction given to Esther by Mordechai in IV, 14: For if you completely hold your peace at this time, then relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, and you and your father's house will perish. Who knows whether you reached your royal office only for such a time as this? .
Esther is not to leave the fate of her people to chance even with Divine Providence in her favor. In the ongoing struggle with Amalek, her people will be delivered. For her own destiny, however, she needs to carry out the plan set forth by Mordechai. In an age when the Divine countenance is hidden from humanity, Amalek has been fooled into randomness, denying the force of Jewish history until events unfold that make it glaringly obvious to those around him. Mordechai, as the keeper of Jewish tradition, needs no such lesson. He has been aware of the dynamics of the relationship between the two contending peoples from the outset. He mobilizes Esther to wield the weapons at her disposal: prayer and repentance combined with statecraft.
The Lottery among Hebrews and Pagans

There are broader lessons to be learned, some enormously relevant to contemporary debate, in the use of chance and happenstance in the Megillah. They require us to focus on the nature
14
of chance and randomness in Jewish tradition and the civilizations with which it continues to contend. Among the Hebrews, the lottery was used not to determine Divine Will but merely to ensure a fair division. See Mishlei XVIII, 18: The lot causes disputes to cease and separates the contending powers.
If the game of chance is fair, then settling a dispute by a random throw gives each party the same opportunity. Priestly duties were therefore allocated in the Beit ha-Mikdash by lot, called payyis ( .) See Mishnah Yoma II, 2: It once happened that there were two kohanim who were tied as they ran up the ramp. One of them pushed the other, who fell and broke his leg. Seeing that there was such a danger, they instituted that the ashes not be removed from the altar except by lot. There were in all, four lots. , , ; , . .
After an unfortunate accident, it was deemed safer and fairer for the kohanim to vie for the precious honors in a lottery. R. Shlomo Adeni in his commentary Melechet Shlomo, derives the word from the Hebrew root ,to make peace between contending parties, an etymology consistent with the verse in Mishlei cited above. If the Hebrew tradition was to view the stochastic process of the lottery as an instrument of fairness, the pagan world approached it in its own characteristic fashion. The fall of the dice, the outcome of chance, was seen to be driven by unknown miraculous forces. This is why the process is known as divination, signifying determining the will of the Divine. The Torah in Vayikra XIX, 26 specifically forbids this practice: Do not eat on blood, do not act on omens and or on the basis of lucky times.
The first clause has been interpreted by the Ramban and others to refer to unnamed occult practices in order to interpret the verse coherently. The second clause has been interpreted by Biblical commentators as a form of divination but we should be much more interested in Chazal's approach in Gemara, Sanhedrin (65b). Their comment comes on a second verse in Devarim 18, 10: There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire, practices divination, seeks lucky times, divines with omens, or practices witchcraft. Our rabbis taught: divines with omens- This is he who says his bread fell from his mouth or his staff fell from his hand, or his son is calling him from behind, a raven is calling him, a deer
15
: : - . , . ,
crossed his path, he found himself with a snake on his right or a fox on his left; don't start your tax collection with me or it is morning or it is the first of the month, or it is the beginning of the week.
, ;. , .
In the Baraisa's interpretation, the prohibition of nichush lies in basing one's decisions in everyday life upon the outcome of random events. Rashi gives the examples of paying taxes or repaying a loan. Basing one's mercantile behavior on random factors not related to the facts of the transaction is a violation of the Torah's prohibition. The Torah outlaws the pagan practice of reliance upon the stochastic outcome of an event, be it the outcome of a game or a chance event in life. The pagan mind, seeing that the outcome is not attributable to perceptible forces, assigns an unseen cause which is then projected to be divine. The religious roots of this approach to life may perhaps be found in the notion of Divine Omnipotence. If God is all powerful, it is certainly within His capabilities to promulgate His Will in any way He deems appropriate. It is not outside the realm of the logical that the Omnipotent God could cause foxes to appear or, for that matter, reward young women with appropriate matches for the communal baking of Challah. Because God could conceivably do something does not, however, argue that He does. I am alternately amused and saddened by the efforts spent to perform magical acts whose efficacy is doubtful and which may violate explicit halakhic strictures. Furthermore, there is a theological danger in the reliance on stochastic outcomes to determine God's Will. There is a marked tendency to ascribe to the instruments of chance and magic a power of their own that ultimately threatens faith in God's Omnipotence. Flirting with idolatrous practices in the name of chesed is self-defeating and foolish.
The New Atheism Fooled by Randomness

Just as Haman fooled himself into randomness, we find contemporary evidence of a related phenomenon in the pseudo-scientific attack on religion sometimes called the New Atheism. The leading proponents of this approach, including Richard Dawkins, abuse the notions of probability and randomness in ways obvious to anyone who has taken a good course in statistics. Although I intend to address these arguments in greater detail in another context, let us examine a few of the most central arguments advanced using probability to eliminate the role of the Creator. We must first understand that the most enduring and intuitively attractive argument for the existence of God is the teleological argument, or argument from design. Patterns in nature and the complexity of its design suggest that there must have been a Designer. This does not necessarily entail that the Designer have all the characteristics that we associate with HaKadosh Baruch Hu but it is an important first step for those who deny the existence of God with all His Attributes to deny Him any role in the creation of the universe. Missing the majesty in the design of the universe is akin to Hamans insensitivity to historical
16
context and significance. In fact, Dawkins himself, when explaining natural phenomenon, is a remarkably evocative writer. It is when he adopts the role of theologian and philosopher, disciplines for which he obviously lacks training or temperament, that his work fails. Dawkins makes an argument from improbability in his book The God Delusion that he considers to be a conclusive strike at theism. He calls it "the ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit." He claims that he has never heard a theologian give a convincing answer. For my part, I wish all challenges to theism were so easily dispatched. The argument is based on a remark attributed to the British astronomer Fred Hoyle who, although a life-long atheist and Darwinist, was shaken by the improbability of life as we know it emerging randomly on its own. He described it as probable as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a 747 from scrap. On another occasion, he compared the probability of a single protein cell emerging on its own from amino acids to that of a solar system of blind men each simultaneously solving a Rubik's cube. For many advocates of Intelligent Design, Hoyle's statements seem a concession to the calculus of probability. Not for Richard Dawkins, though. He turns Hoyle's argument on its head. If a tornado is not equal to the task of creating life, then, Dawkins maintains, neither is God. A tornado cannot explain an improbable event like the generation of life; according to Dawkins, God fails as an explanation for the same reason. If the reader is having trouble understanding why Dawkins thought this argument the masterstroke that comes close to proving that God does not exist, he or she is not alone. Many philosophers and theologians, unlike confirmed atheists, have the same problem. What Dawkins is saying is simple: if the universe is improbable, then God could not have created it. The other side of the argument is just as coherent: if God did create the universe, then it isn't improbable. As the mathematician David Berlinski observes in The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, the most that Dawkins can say is that God made a universe that would be improbable had it been produced by chance. Dawkins offers a model to explain the creation of the universe. All of life evolved with small random mutations. Each step in the process was slightly improbable. Taken together, the entire chain may seem highly improbable but not when broken down to an immense sequence of single steps. I wonder what happened to the notion of compound probability, especially in a path-dependent process. Since Dawkins understands that Hoyle opened the door to an argument for Intelligent Design, the first step toward theism, he needs to make life much more probable. He accomplishes this, or believes he does, by introducing unspecified but binding laws of physics that force the mutations to happen the way that they did. To avoid the necessity to posit a Designer, Dawkins attempts to make the design not only probable but inevitable. Some very important scientists, however sympathetic to atheism, dispute the probabilities as Dawkins describes them. The late Harvard biologist Stephen J. Gould writes in Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History that if we could replay evolution again, the result would be very different. The entire process is so highly dependent on chance that the result
17
might be no complex life-forms at all or life-forms very much unlike the human beings who walk the earth today. For Dawkins, evolution must be inevitable. It is an understatement to assert that this is more than a little controversial among evolutionary biologists today. Inevitable evolution ironically sounds a lot like theism. If there are basic laws of physics or nature that perforce determine the creation of life, whether to introduce a conscious intelligence that put them in place is merely a matter of preference. There is no suggestion here that Dawkins' denial of the improbability of the evolutionary process is the moral or even philosophical equivalent of Haman's denial of historical destiny. Rather, the objective is to demonstrate aspects of contemporary debate that revolve around improbability and randomness and what may be at stake. In the next two sections, we will explore why these two notions figure so prominently in intellectual discourse.
Bad Statistics
In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins further develops the notion that the world evolved from self-perpetuating forces with no external influence. He borrows an argument from the nineteenth-century English biologist, T.H. Huxley, Darwin's most rabid proponent (he once described himself as Darwin's bulldog). Huxley famously coined the term agnostic and played a major role in framing the early debate around Darwinism. In his legendary discussion of Darwinism with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and others in 1860 at Oxford, known forever as the Huxley-Wilberforce Debate, Huxley is reputed to have argued that a troop of monkeys typing endlessly would eventually type one of Shakespeare's plays or poems. The implication, of course, is that even the most complex designs may be generated by random processes. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel (in his book Mortal Questions) and others have observed, the New Atheists have made a religion of their philosophy. It matters little whether their (anti) theological prepossessions accord with the facts. Dawkins is a true believer untroubled by doubt. Let's examine the probability to which Dawkins refers. Russell Grigg, decidedly a believer, opted to give the monkeys the benefit of the doubt and chose a much smaller literary work. In his article "Could Monkeys Type the 23rd Psalm?", he posits that a monkey can type one random letter per second. Assuming no coffee breaks and no slackers with efficient shift changes, the expected time to produce the entire psalm with its 603 characters including verse numbers and spaces in years is one with over a thousand zeroes after it. The current estimate of the age of the universe according to scientists is about one with twelve zeroes after it. The expected time it would take a monkey to type a single psalm is much longer than scientists believe the world has been around. A single Psalm could not have been produced randomly let alone an entire Shakespearean play. Similarly, life could not have been formed spontaneously from lifeless matter on the basis of the same calculus. What makes the typewriter example so seductive is that there is a fixed number of keys on a QWERTY keyboard. If we assume a monkey has no preference for position on the keyboard and hits a key randomly at a fixed interval, something which can easily be simulated on a computer with a random number generator incidentally, then we can calculate the expected value of the time it would take to type a particular complex sequence to appear.
18
The intuitive appeal of the monkey example is that it gives the illusion of objectivity. A typewriter is an instrument that used to be familiar to every student and academic (my, how times have changed). Because we understand the random process that generates the letters on the page, we think we have a pretty good idea of the probability of a particular outcome. The problem with the monkey example is, though, what usually gets in the way of a Dawkins example: the hard facts. The numbers just don't add up. Even if they did, this would be a strange basis for religion. Mathematical models of probability are just that. They do not in fact work in the real world since a perfectly fair coin is hard to come by and perfectly formed dice exist only in the imagination. Computers use techniques to simulate random numbers but these are actually pseudo-generators since there is no formula for generating a number sequence completely randomly. We cannot generate true randomness. Probability, indeed mathematics itself, is an abstract reduction that exists by virtue of the human mind.
The Old Materialism by Another Name

Far more relevant to our discussion, then, is this marked tendency among the New Atheists toward scientism, i.e., that the empirical, physical sciences constitute the only true approach to truth. For many Jews today, the most powerful force compelling their allegiance and inspiring their identification is Jewish history that derives from other sources of truth. Jewish philosophy has largely been described as the confrontation of reason and revelation. The same can be said of all medieval religious thinkers and, for that matter, most medieval Western philosophers. The Enlightenment is largely cast as the result of the same confrontation. The New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) use the same vocabulary. For them, it is science versus religion. Since they identify science and empiricism as the rational, they describe religion as revelation and therefore anti-rational. Better, of course, would be nonrational but their error is much more fundamental. The Rav has something important to contribute here in his sometimes neglected Halakhic Mind. The schism is not between reason and revelation in our time but between scientism and philosophism. Better, the schism is between the regional and the universal. The empiricist (meaning the scientist who attempts to describe our experience of the world) focuses on the regional, the specific, the microscopic. He (Im going to use the male pronoun unabashedly to mean any gender) attempts to break down the physical world into its simplest parts in order to explain physical phenomena. This is what the Rav means by the regional. The empirical scientist focuses on specific phenomena looking for basic elements. The philosopher, who stands in apposition to the scientist, goes in the other direction. He is not concerned with the micro but the macro. His analysis is horizontal, not vertical. He seeks the universal rather than the regional. This is a powerful introduction to the Ravs description of the relationship of Jewish tradition to modern thought. The religious personality attempts to construct a notion of ultimate,
19
universal experience. He seeks boundless ontological totality. Totality here is an interesting word. It indicates ultimate, absolute reality. Ontological means relating to being or existence. Boundless ontological totality means to grasp the essence of everything. This is what the Rav means by the universal. Philosophers, in the sense that they stand in apposition to empiricists here, seek to abstract from the regional, the micro. The real conflict is not between science and revelation but between the material and the abstract. Without reading too much in the Megillah, we can characterize Hamans error in the same fashion. He focused on what had befallen him insensitive to the broader context in which he and Mordechai operated. My major objection to Dawkins (and Hawking, for that matter) is that they assign reality to material phenomena only. In a real sense, the New Atheism is nothing new; it is the Old Materialism by another name. Consider the Rav's words: Philosophy is well aware of the fact that it is impossible to derive scientific data from any a priori process of cognition. Nor is the issue between philosophy and science the problem of whether the scientist has the right to interpret phenomena in accord with his vantage point and method. The problem is, rather, whether the scientists interpretation is to be exclusive, thus eliminating any other cognitive approach to reality. This is really the heart of the matter. Compare Hawkings words in The Grand Design: Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. In conversation with atheists, our principal strategy must be to establish claims for nonempirical approaches to reality, to borrow some of the Ravs language above. We must break the exclusive hold on truth by empiricist materialism. Focus on mathematics, music, poetry, and human memory. Without wood and strings, there is no violin but the music of a violin concerto can be discussed and understood independent of the materials used to play it. Mathematical truths would seem to have been true before apes evolved to the point that they could count. There may have been no Dickens without the physical mind of Dickens but Great Expectations is not a set of brain waves any more than it is the physical paper upon which it is printed. If non-material ideas and emotions truly exist for us, and I would submit that these are the most important and cherished parts of life, then we need more than physics to explain our universe. Again, in the Rav's words: This priority of scientific knowledge to philosophical interpretation can be discerned twice in the history of philosophy. First, in the Aristotelian natural sciences and metaphysics second, in the Galilean-Newtonian mathematical physics Both adopted a scientifically purified world the subject matter of their studies.
20
Traditionally, philosophy began where science ended. There was no metaphysics without physics. Physics was logically prior to metaphysics. Priority, however, does not mean primacy. Abstraction was not a flight from reality but an embrace of what is truly real. What we perceive is what is apparent to us; it, however, is ephemeral and therefore unworthy of the efforts of the philosopher who seeks ultimate reality. Philosophy may have moved on from this Platonic conception of the world but it still fires the popular philosophic mind. What is important in the context of the Ravs work is that there is no argument about physics between the scientist and the philosopher in Platos cave. The philosopher merely begins where the scientist ends. The Jews reaction to nature and history must remain a sense of wonder and delight. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky displays His craftsmanship; The passage of days speaks eloquently, and the passage of nights reveals knowledge. Tehillim 19:2-3 . : :-
We gaze in awe at the heavens and marvel at the wonders of Jewish history. We perceive the improbable in the design of nature and the miraculous in the Jewish experience, moved to give thanks, to sing praise and extol His Great Name.
21
Whose Battle? Whose Victory?

Dr. Shalom E. Holtz
Assistant Professor of Bible, Yeshiva University The story of the battle against Amalek (Exodus 17:8-16) is a story about human initiative aided by God. As one modern commentator has observed, this brief biblical passage presents Moshe's "exercise of power as a sign of the direct intervention of God Himself."5 Rabbinic interpreters sense this trend in the story and carry it further, almost at the expense of the human agents. When the Tannaim read the story, they assign God a commanding, central role in the battle and an even more decisive claim to the victory. At the same time, however, by reaffirming Israel's special position as God's people, they retain the balance between Israel and the Divine. The Torah's description begins with a group of verses that involves only human actors (8-13). In response to Amalek's attack (8), Moshe commands Yehoshua to choose men and fight (9). Moshe, Aharon and Hur oversee the battle from their vantage point on the hilltop, with Moshe's arms holding God's rod (9) and directly influencing Israel's victory (10-11). When Moshe raises his arms, Israel prevails; when Moshe lowers them, Amalek prevails (11). To allow Moshe to keep his arms up throughout the day of battle, Aharon and Hur support them while Moshe sits on a rock (12). With help of Moshe's arms, Yehoshua overwhelms the Amalekites (13). In contrast with the human-focused verses that begin the story, the concluding verses, in the wake of Israel's victory, highlight God's role (14-16). For the first and only time in the narrative, God speaks, commanding Moshe to record, in writing and through oral proclamation, that God will "completely erase the memory of Amalek" (14). Moshe explicitly acknowledges the divine power behind his own arms by building an altar and naming it " ,' God is my banner" (15). Moshe declares that it is God's war against Amalek that is to continue "throughout the generations" (16). In sum, it is God who has won this battle at Rephidim, and it is God who will continue to pursue the enemy. When read together, the story's two parts reflect a "division of labor" between Israel as a fighting force and God as the source of their victory. Israel fights the battle, and God helps them win. Overall, then, the Torah describes the battle against Amalek at Rephidim as an action to which both Israel and God contribute. At the end of the story, God's speech to Moshe confirms that Moshe has acted properly in taking the initiative to defend Israel against Amalek. Yehoshua's victory over Amalek marks a victory for God.
B.S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia, 1974), 315. 22

The way in which the Torah tells this story, however, somewhat undercuts the depiction of Israel and God working in concert. In the first section (8-13), which describes the actual fighting, God's involvement remains largely implicit, rather than explicit. God is not named as an actor, and so remains in the background. The use of God's rod and the miraculous correlation between the positions of Moshe's arms and the battle's outcome imply, of course, that God does participate here, too. But the very implicitness of God's involvement places humans at the center of the action. As much as Moshe appears in the familiar role of the Man of Godwielding the rod to work a miracle-Moshe also appears as a general who initiates the military response to Amalek by devising a clear plan for battle and issuing orders. And the text clearly states that it is Yehoshua who "overwhelms Amalek" (13). Conversely, God's claim to victory, while implicit in the story's beginning, becomes explicit only once the fighting is over, in the latter part of the story (14-16). By emphasizing that the war and the victory are God's, the story ends with almost no acknowledgement of Israel's role. The Tannaim, in their interpretation of the story of the battle against Amalek, are particularly concerned with God's minimal role in the first part of the narrative. Thus, when they encounter the effects of Moshe's arms, they comment:6 Could Moshe's arms make Israel victorious or weaken Amalek? Rather, as long as Moshe raised his hands toward heaven, the Israelites would look at him and believe in Him who commanded Moses to do so; then God would perform miracles and mighty deeds for them. Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael, Amalek, 1 ? . ", ,
The Mekhilta's question about the power of Moshe's arms expresses concern with God's apparent absence from the description of the miracle. The answer brings God (and Israel) back, as it were, to the story. According to the midrash, neither Moshe nor his arms caused the victory. Rather, the actual cause was God, who is moved to action by Israel's faith as they gazed towards Heaven. In addition to interpreting Moshe's arms as guides towards Heaven, this passage also redefines God's role in the entire episode. It refers to God as " , Him who commanded Moshe to do so." The midrash imagines that God has commanded Moshe to stand on the hilltop and raise his arms, even though, in the Torah, God speaks only after Moshe has acted. Elsewhere in the same section, the Mekhilta quotes the position of R. Eleazar of Modiin who declares " , We can learn that this war was (conducted) only by the Almighty's order." In fact, according to the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, Moshe's very order to Yehoshua (17:9) is actually God's order to Moshe.7 All of these
All quotations follow M. I. Kahana, The Two Mekhiltot on the Amalek Portion (Jerusalem, 1999). Translations are my own, made in consultation with the one published in J.Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia, 1933). A parallel version of this particular passage occurs in Mishna, Rosh Hashana 3:8. For discussion, see Kahana, Mekhiltot, 256-258 (Hebrew). 7 Kahana, Mekhiltot, 163. For discussion, see Kahana, Mekhiltot, 245-246. 23
readings demote Moshe, as it were, from his status as the general who conducts the battle. According to the midrashim, the real orders come from God, and Moshe fulfills them loyally. This diminution of Moshe's role makes sense as a response to the first part of the Torah's account, where the verses seem to minimize God's role. The latter part of the story, where God claims victory and Moshe ascribes victory to God, seems to require the opposite corrective, namely a reassertion of Israel's own place in the story. Thus, the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai records the following dispute regarding the naming of the altar in 17:15:8 "Moshe built an altar and named it Hashem-Nissi" (17:15)R. ' .' Yehoshua says: Moshe named it Nissi ("my miracle"), saying to them, 'As for this miracle that God performed for you, he . performed it on my behalf." ' ' R. Eleazar of Modiin says: God called it Nissi ("My miracle"). For whenever Israel experiences a miracle, it is as if there is a miracle . for Him. When they experience suffering, it is as if there is suffering . for Him. When they experience joy, there is joy before Him . . . . . Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, Amalek, 2 ", , When one compares the two positions' relationships to the straightforward reading of the verse, R. Yehoshua's position hews closer.9 R. Eleazar of Modiin's position, in which God, rather than Moshe, names the altar, runs counter to the plain sense and is harder to justify. R. Yehoshua's interpretation, however, is more than an elaboration of the straightforward reading of the verse. Rather, he emphasizes the possessive suffix on the word ,my miracle, as an indicator of Moshe's own pride at being the agent of the miracle that God has worked on behalf of Israel. In doing so, he reclaims a place for Moshe in the story. At first glance, R. Eleazar of Modiin's position seems to extend his assertion of God's role. By suggesting that God names the altar, he further minimizes the part that Moshe plays. Moshe is "read out" of the story even here, where his personal involvement extends no further than acknowledging that he is, in the end, God's subject. But that is only part of R. Eleazar's position. His concluding statement establishes situational and emotional reciprocity between God and Israel. Even when God claims victory, Israel remains central. Moshe might not name the altar, and he might have no personal claim to the miracle, but God can only claim victory when Israel is victorious. When Israel suffers, God suffers, until Israel is happy. In a sense, then, the Tannaim continue the story of the battle against Amalek where the Torah began. The Torah tells a story of how God comes to Israel's aid at a time of war and how human warfare requires Divine assistance. For the Tannaim, the story exemplifies a partnership between God and Israel. By finding room for each partner where the other dominates the narrative, the midrashim allow each a fair share.
Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael records a similar dispute, but there Moshe comes out humbler. For discussion, see Kahana, Mekhiltot, 316-318. 9 In this regard, the dispute here exemplifies the broader general relationship between the two rabbis' different methods of interpretation. For comprehensive discussion, with additional examples, see Kahana, Mekhiltot, 288-320. I am grateful to my colleague, Dr. Aaron Koller, and to my wife, Leebie Mallin, for reviewing an earlier draft of this article. 24
Yeshiva University A To-Go Series Adar 5772 8
Purim Fulfilling Jewish Destiny

Mrs. Shoshana Schechter
Instructor in Bible and Director of Mechina, Stern College for Women Jewish tradition is rich with both volumes of wisdom and celebrations commemorating our history. While sifrei Nach (books of the Prophets and Scriptures) and other holidays, however, will become nullified when Moshiach comes, Purim and Megillat Esther are everlasting according to the Rambam: All the books of the Prophets and all the Scriptures will be nullified in the days of the Messiah except for Megillat Esther which will remain like the Five Books of the Torah and the laws of the Oral Torah that will never be nullified The days of Purim will never be nullified. Rambam, Hilchot Megilla 2:18 . ... ", :
Why? What is it about Purim that the Rambam believes is so fundamental and that unlike other holidays it will continue to be observed forever? Clearly, Purim must represent certain fundamental values essential for Jewish existence that guarantees its lasting legacy. To understand the characteristics essential to Jewish tradition, one must study the actions of Avraham, father of the Jewish people. When G-d chooses Avraham in Parshat Lech Lecha, He promises that Avraham will be a source of blessing to the world.10 Avraham then proceeds to demonstrate through his actions how to fulfill that promise, starting with his own personal sacrifice when he picks up and leaves his birthplace to travel to the land that G-d has promised him. Avrahams sacrifice continues throughout the stories of Bereishit, culminating in the greatest personal sacrifice possible, giving up his long-awaited beloved child as a gift to G-d. In addition to personal sacrifice, Avraham also demonstrates recognition and knowledge of G-d. He recognizes that his lifes mission is to fulfill ratzon Hashem, the will of G-d. G-d iterates this characteristic when He says about Avraham, ( now I know that you fear the Lord) at the conclusion of the Akeida story.11
10 11
Bereishit 12:3. Bereishit 22:12. 25

Righteousness is another fundamental characteristic ingrained in Avraham. He is an honest person who genuinely cares about the wellbeing of others. 12 In the text itself Avraham is referred to as an ivri, and as the midrash explains, he was on one side of the world while everyone else was on the other side. 13 Interestingly, the only time he is referred to with this epithet is in the context of the war between the four and five kings. After Sodom has been captured with all its inhabitants, a refugee from the war (a palit) comes to relay the news to Avraham HaIvri. Perhaps Avrahams uniqueness stems from his character traits as well as from his unique ideology. The refugee runs to Avraham because Avraham cares, and therefore is more likely to take action, which he does. Avrahams deep concern for others is further demonstrated through his reaction to G-ds announcement about the destruction of Sodom, when he argues with G-d in an attempt to save its people.14 The transmission of this trait of righteousness is essential to Jewish destiny, as G-d, while contemplating sharing with Avraham the news of Sodoms imminent destruction, states endearingly:15 For I have known him because he commands his sons and his household after him, that they should keep the way of the Lord to perform righteousness and justice. Bereishit 18:19 (Judaica Press Translation) ' . :
This model of sacrifice, recognition of G-d, righteousness and transmission emerge in Moshe Rabbeinus character as well. Moshes personal sacrifices are clearly evident through his lifes work of leading the Jewish people. His own family life falls to the wayside as he assumes that role.16 Even from the start, he, like Avraham, must leave the comforts of his environment to embrace his G-d- given mission. Moshes ultimate sacrifice is demonstrated at Har Sinai after cheit ha'egel (the sin of the golden calf) when he puts his own self and legacy on the line for the sake of Bnei Yisrael. When G-d states that he will destroy the Jews and appoint Moshe to a greater position with a different nation, Moshe responds with a strong defense for the Jews, and ends by stating: And now, if You forgive their sin. But if not, erase me now from Your book, which You have written. Shemot 32:32 (Judaica Press Translation) . :
Moshes recognition of G-d is indisputable as demonstrated through his intimate relationship with G-d and ability to speak with G-d "panim el panim" (face to face).
See the introduction of the Netziv to Sefer Bereishit where he explains that the sefer (book) is referred to as Sefer HaYashar (the Book of the Just) due to the demonstrations of yashrut (justness) of the avot (patriarchs) with a particular emphasis on Avraham. 13 Bereishit14:13. 14 Bereishit 18:23. 15 Rashi comments in18:17 that ( for I have known him) is said in an endearing way lashon chibah -demonstrating G-ds approval of Avrahams behavior. 16 See Shemot 4:24-26 and Bamidbar 12:1. 26
As far as righteousness goes, Moshes character fits the mold. From his early days, his concern for people and lack of tolerance for injustice is quite clear. "" and Moshe grew up and went out to his brethren to see in their suffering. "B'sivlotam", Rashi explains means that he looked deeply into their plight, empathized and was distressed over it.17 In fact, the only incidents we see Moshe involved in before he is chosen by G-d, are incidents involving injustice.18 Not only is he a champion of justice for random individuals, he becomes a champion of justice par excellence for Bnei Yisrael as well. Finally, Moshe Rabbeinu, our teacher, the transmitter of Torah, fulfills his greatest role as the source of the Torah tradition and manifests the transmission piece of Jewish destiny as well, as we know, "" (Moshe commanded us regarding the Torah).19 A close study of the story of Purim reveals that Mordechai and Esther, too, embody the four characteristics prevalent in their ancestors that include sacrifice, recognition of G-d, righteousness and transmission. They are clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of the Jewish people, as Mordechai urges Esther to go to the king on behalf of the Jews and warns her, " " do not imagine that you will be able to escape. Esther responds by agreeing to go and says, " -" if I perish then I will perish.20 During this conversation between Mordechai and Esther, the turning point in the Megilla, recognition of G-d is evident in the way the story unfolds. When Mordechai tells Esther, " "( how do you know if you attained the kingdom for a moment like this?), he is essentially stating that there are greater forces at play here beneath the surface. The entire theme of Purim is the recognition of G-ds role in the world, even when hidden. Mordechai and Esther, like Avraham and Moshe, also stand up against injustice. Mordechai, called "ish yehudi" (a Jewish person) embodies the same Jewish trait of defending mishpat (justice) that the original "Yehudi" (Yehuda) did when he stood up to Yosef to defend Binyamin.21 Mordechai not only saves the Jews from Hamans injustice against them, he also saves Achashverosh from those plotting against him. Righteousness also plays a large role in this story. The Megilla ends with Mordechai using his newly appointed political position to reach out and connect with others, " - " he sought the good of his people and was concerned with the welfare of his posterity.22 In fact, half of the mitzvot that one is obligated to perform on Purim relate to the betterment of our fellow Jews. The mitzvah of mishloach manot is performed for the purpose of connecting people, and matanot la'evyonim is commanded to help others as well. As portrayed in the previous models of leadership, transmission is the final and lasting piece of the Purim story. Even after the drama ends, the Megilla is not complete until its transmission is assured both for the contemporary Jews at that
Shemot 2:11 and Rashi ad loc. Shemot 2:11-13, 2:17. 19 Devarim 33:4. 20 Esther 4:14-16. 21 Bereishit 44:18. Note the similarity between this approach and that of Avraham when he approached G-d to defend the people of Sodom in Bereishit18:23. 22 Esther 10:3.
18 17
27
time and for future generations. " -" the Jews confirmed and undertook this upon themselves and their descendants, followed by " " and these days of Purim shall never cease among the Jews nor shall their remembrance perish from their descendants.23 The entire story is still known and celebrated today as a result of Mordechais and Esthers transmission, as the Megilla records, " " Esthers ordinance validated these regulations for Purim, and it was recorded in the book.24 While Mordechai and Esther demonstrate the characteristics that create Jewish leadership, Amalek, represented here by Haman, demonstrates the antithesis of those values. Amalek, too, is willing to make personal sacrifices, however, it does so, not for the wellbeing of others, but for destructive purposes. When Amalek attacked the newly freed Jews in the desert soon after their exodus from Egypt, the Torah states, " " that he happened upon you on the way. Rashi points out one way to understand this idea is that Amalek cooled off the red-hot Jews who had decimated the Egyptian empire, as if they jumped into a burning hot bath to cool it off, even though they got burned in the process. They were willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of making the Jews vulnerable and open to attack from others. Amalek also represents the antithesis of recognition of G-d. " " also means, according to Rashi, "" happenstance.25 They believed events are circumstantial, with no Divine providence, thereby allowing them to attack the Jews and, unlike the other nations, disregard the Divine events that transpired in Egypt. The Torah clearly states, " " they did not fear G-d. Not only is Amalek the antithesis of yirat Elokim, fear of G-d, it is also the antithesis of righteousness and concern for others. While the models of Jewish tradition demonstrate care and concern for others, Amalek demonstrates promoting harm. The nation attacked the Jews when they were most vulnerable, " " when you were faint and exhausted. Interestingly, the verses immediately preceding the attack of Amalek are all about mishpat, the Jewish obligation to promote justice and the repulsiveness in the eyes of G-d to a lack of justice.26 The Torah seems to be contrasting the Jewish value of mishpat with the diametrically opposing values of Amalek. Finally, while transmission is a key part of Jewish destiny, Amalek, once again, represents its antithesis. While Jewish tradition and Torah are passed down from generation to generation, Amalek must be forgotten. The Torah exhorts that " - " you should wipe out the memory of Amalek from under the heaven.27 Furthermore, the battle between the Jewish nation and the nation of Amalek becomes part of our transmission through generations, as the Torah states in Shemot when Amalek first attacked: The Lord said to Moses, Inscribe this [as] a memorial in the book, and recite it into Joshua's ears, that I will surely obliterate
23 24
'
Esther 9:27-29. Esther 9:32. 25 Devarim 25:17-18. 26 Devarim 25:15-17. 27 Devarim 25:19. 28
the remembrance of Amalek from beneath the heavens.

Shemot 17:14 (Judaica Press Translation)
. :
The perek ends with the demand that, " " ' that G-d maintains a war with Amalek from generation to generation.28 Both the Megilla and the story of Amalek are recorded for posterity, but while the former is for the sake of remembering something positive enabling its memory to last forever, the latter is for the sake of wiping out the memory of something negative. Purim is all about Jewish destiny. The story clearly demonstrates the most fundamental Jewish values. For generations, we Jews celebrate Purim as a model of our legacy and a model of the antithesis of that legacy. The transmission of the story ensures that the moral lessons gleaned will never be forgotten. Perhaps that is the reason that the Rambam believes that " ",The days of Purim will never be nullified. Purim, capturing the models of Avraham, Moshe, Mordechai and Esther, embodies perhaps the greatest example of the fulfillment of Jewish destiny.
28
Shemot 17:14-16. 29
The Joy of Giving

Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner
Rosh Beit Midrash, Yeshiva University Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto
What may a pauper do with his matanot la'evyonim?

As a rule, mitzvot of chesed bind the benefactor, not the recipient. We honor our parents by offering them food, but they choose whether to eat. We unload a burdened animal, but the owner decides what to do next.29 We arrange jobs for the indigent, but this does not generate a special responsibility for them to rise on time in the morning and go to work. One possible exception, though, is the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim, giving money to the needy on Purim. According to Rabbi Meir, this mitzvah incorporates an unusual rule: The recipient is obligated to spend his gift for a Purim feast and nothing else. Rabbi Meir's point is cited in a discussion regarding proper use of a rented animal: Rabbi Meir said that a renter who diverges from the owner's intent is called a thief. Where did Rabbi Meir say this? ... Rabbi Meir said this regarding Purim collections, as we have learned, "Purim collections must be used for Purim. A city's collection must be used for that city. One may not evaluate [the need of recipients]; rather, we purchase calves, slaughter and eat them, and the remainder falls to the purse of tzedakah. Rabbi Eliezer said: The Purim collection must be used for Purim, and a pauper may not use it to purchase a shoelace unless this condition was stated before the city council; this was the view of Rabbi Yaakov, citing Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was lenient." However, Rabbi Meir's view in this matter may not be open to extrapolation to other laws. Perhaps Purim is unique, for the donor gave it only for Purim use; he did not intend it for any other use. Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia 78a-b . ?... : . -
According to Rabbi Meir, a recipient may spend matanot la'evyonim only for a Purim feast. We do not follow Rabbi Meir's position in practice,30 but how do we explain Rabbi Meir's dictum? What sort of chesed can so encumber its beneficiary? The authors of the Tosafot were also struck by the unusual character of this chesed:31
29 30
Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia 32a. See Tur, Orach Chaim 694 and Beit Yosef there, and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 694:2. See also Shvut Yaakov 1:77. 30
You might challenge [these limitations on use of matanot la'evyonim] based on Arachin 6b, "One may divert tzedakah money for any purpose, even after the funds have come to the collector. Even if the donor said, 'This candelabra should be for the synagogue,' one may divert it for another mitzvah." Perhaps our law of not diverting funds, and of keeping a city's collection in that city, is unique to Purim.
" )' :( " " .
Neither the Talmud nor Tosafot explains Rabbi Meir's rationale, though. Why should we treat Purim differently?32
Giving a meal gladdens the donor

Perhaps the respective foci of chesed and matanot la'evyonim are different. The purpose of chesed is to benefit the recipient, and our goals are determined by the recipient's needs and desires.33 On the other hand, the goal of matanot la'evyonim is also to generate joy for the donor. The Rambam testifies to this, in describing the importance of matanot la'evyonim: It would be better for a person to increase his gifts to the needy than for him to increase his feast or the portions he sends to his friends, for there is no greater, more splendid joy than to gladden the heart of the needy, orphans, widows and foreigners, for one who gladdens the heart of the forlorn resembles the Shechinah, per Yeshayah 57:15, "To resuscitate the spirit of the lowly and to resuscitate the heart of the depressed." Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Megilah v'Chanukah 2:17 , , . :
The Rambam here describes the benefactor's "splendid joy" in providing the cost of a person's meal. Admittedly, one could challenge this understanding and read these words as describing a disembodied, universal joy, or perhaps Divine nachat ruach generated by this generosity, but the Rambam's words in describing Yom Tov feasts betray his true intent: Men eat meat and drink wine, for joy exists only in meat and joy exists only in wine. Also, when he eats and drinks he must feed the foreigner, the orphan and the widow, along with all of the other forlorn paupers. One who locks the doors of his yard ,
Tosafot Megilah 78b Magevet; and see, too, Talmud Yerushalmi Megilah 1:4 From an unabashedly homiletic perspective, one could note that the story of Purim revolves around cases of thwarted intent. From Vashti's defiance, to Bigtan and Teresh's plot, to Haman's donation and decree, to the gallows intended for Mordechai, to Haman's advice to Achashverosh regarding appropriate honors and rewards, every action perpetrated in Megilat Esther leads to an opposite reaction, and the only intent which is fulfilled is the intent of our Creator and Protector. As a lesson of the megilah, then, the pauper must recognize that matanot la'evyonim are presented to him with Divine intent, and are not to be diverted. 33 See Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Matnot Aniyyim 7.
32 31
31
and eats and drinks with his children and wife, and who does not give food and drink to the needy and those of bitter spirit, does not experience joy of a mitzvah but joy of his belly. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yom Tov 6:18
, . :
The joy experienced when providing a celebratory meal for others is categorically different from the joy generated by eating meat and wine with one's family; giving food to others alters the benefactor's own experience, introducing a unique brand of joy, the joy of a mitzvah. So, too, the "splendid joy" praised by the Rambam for Purim is the joy of the donor who has underwritten a Purim feast for a needy individual. This is the joy which a donor is meant to experience, and wishes to experience, with matanot la'evyonim. We generally assume that a donor is comfortable with other uses of his donations,34 but regarding matanot la'evyonim the Gemara asserts,35 "He gave it for Purim; he did not intend it for any other use." Therefore, the recipient is bound to spend his gift for the feast of Purim and for no other benefit, however worthy.
On Purim, the donor's joy is the mitzvah

Taking this one step further, the Aruch haShulchan sees the donor's joy as inherent in the structure of the Purim mitzvot themselves, such that the benefactor does not fulfill the mitzvot of Purim unless he rejoices in his beneficence. The Aruch haShulchan alludes to this in discussing Rabbi Meir's perspective on matanot la'evyonim: Even though one may divert tzedakah in certain situations, here they enacted that it should not be diverted at all. The collectors should purchase meat with all of these funds, have the indigent eat as much as they wish, and let whatever remains fall to tzedakah. Aruch haShulchan Orach Chaim 694:5 " " " ' " " . " :
This requirement of satisfying donor intent is built into the actual rabbinic enactment of matanot la'evyonim, and is not simply an added frill. The Aruch haShulchan makes the connection to joy still more explicit regarding another mitzvah of Purim, though: It is unclear whether one fulfills mishloach manot by sending portions to a distant friend before Purim, such that they arrive on Purim. Some say one does fulfill his obligation, but to me it seems that he does not fulfill his obligation. We require that portions be sent on Purim itself. Further, the
34 35
]" " "[
Talmud Bavli, Arachin 6b. Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia 78b, cited above in footnote 2. 32
essence of sending portions is to generate joy, and what joy does he experience now, if he sent the portions beforehand? Aruch haShulchan Orach Chaim 695:17
. " :
According to the Aruch haShulchan, the mitzvah of sending mishloach manot is designed specifically to generate joy for the sender, as he applied a sender-centric philosophy to matanot la'evyonim. This is why the recipient must spend his donation in a certain way; the mitzvot of Purim are about creating joy for the benefactor.36
Why do we care about the donor's joy?

One question remains, though: Why did our ancestors create Purim mitzvot which emphasize gladdening a donor? Some37 note that Purim's social mitzvot respond to Haman's condemnation of the Jews as "scattered and lacking unity", but couldn't the architects of the holiday have met that need with recipient-centered philanthropy? Perhaps we may suggest a second benefit of these joyous mitzvah institutions. We are taught38 that Achashverosh created his feast to celebrate the apparent death of Jewish hopes for our return to Israel. Calculating that seventy years of Jewish exile had elapsed without any Divine redemption, the Persian king concluded that Daniel's prophesied redemption had failed, and we were doomed to be absorbed into his empire. The events of Purim hardly changed that gloomy forecast; despite our miraculous survival, we were still servants of Achashverosh, lacking permission to build the second Beit haMikdash and to escape our interregnum. To combat this narrative, the Jews of the time39 enacted a celebration which would catalyze redemption. The prophets of the end of the First Temple period had repeatedly warned that selfishness and greed would lead to exile, and Yeshayah had promised that generosity would be the key to our return, saying,40 "Zion will be redeemed with justice, and her returnees with tzedakah." Thus, our ancestors celebrated Purim with deeds of generosity - and they emphasized the joy of the donor in order to promote this generosity among their neighbors and children. Performing righteousness is insufficient; we must also promote it, so that it will spread. This explanation has an evident lesson for our own day: To end our exile, we need to do more than adopt the prescription of our prophets; we must implement our mission in a manner that is attractive for our neighbors and children. Mitzvot must not be accompanied by a sigh; rather, we are charged with finding a way to bring joy and satisfaction to observance. When we come to practice and publicize a Judaism which is not only goal-oriented but also contagiously Purimesque and joyoriented, then we, too, will see the end of a Diaspora, and the return of the Beit haMikdash.
For a related approach to the mitzvot of matanot la'evyonim and mishloach manot and the roles of donor and recipient, see Az Nidbiru 6:80. 37 Manot haLevi, cited by Chatam Sofer, Orach Chaim 196, among others. 38 Talmud Bavli, Megilah 11b. 39 Esther 9:18-19 indicates that these mitzvot were practiced spontaneously by the Jews before they were enshrined in law in 9:20-23. 40 Yeshayah 1:27. 33
Collected Insights from members of the Masters of Arts in Biblical and Talmudic Interpretation program at Stern College for Women
Accepting the Torah through
Meira Rubin
At the end of the Megillah, Mordechai sends books to all Jews, instituting Purim as an annual holiday. The Megillah tells us that they established and received this.41 The Gemara interprets this as an allusion to the acceptance of the Torah: And they stood under the mount [Sinai]: R. Abdimi b. Hama b. Hasa said: This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, overturned the mountain upon them like an [inverted] cask, and said to them, 'If ye accept the Torah, 'tis well; if not, there shall be your burial.' R. Aha b. Jacob observed: This furnishes a strong protest against the Torah. Said Raba, Yet even so, they re-accepted it in the days of Ahasuerus, for it is written, [the Jews] confirmed, and took upon them [etc.]: [i.e.,] they confirmed what they had accepted long before. B. Shabbat 88a, Soncino trans. e-daf.com ) ( , : , : - , - : . : . , . ) ( . , .
Why, after forcibly receiving the Torah at Har Sinai, did we need to re-accept it on Purim? The Ritva, on that passage in the Gemara, explains that the Torah wasnt accepted at Har Sinai because ; if you are forced to receive something, it doesnt count as receiving. Commentators suggest that the revelatory experience of Har Sinai was so profound that accepting the Torah then couldnt be considered accepting it freely. The Purim story, in which Gods involvement was hidden, stands in direct contrast to this experience. Mordechai and Esther had non-Jewish names and Jews attended the indecorous party at the kings palace. Assimilation was rampant; choosing to accept mitzvot was an active decision. Rashi on that passage in the Gemara explains that on Purim the Jews accepted the Torah
41
Esther 9:27. 34
,due to love of the miracle. They didnt feel the fear they felt at Sinai and this acceptance through was stronger.42 The Maharsha on that passage in the Gemara and the Torah Temima in his commentary to Esther (9:27), point out that the language of preserves the order and paradox of , we will do and then hear: How could we agree to do or establish something, before having heard or received it? According to the Gemaras explanation of accepting the Torah on Purim, this is exactly what happened. Only once we had done the mitzvot, did we receive the Torah. The Maharal writes that the Torah cannot be properly understood without the performance of mitzvot.43 Sometimes one has to experience the mitzvot in order to truly hear the Torah. Full acceptance of the Torah was more possible on Purim, when we had already experienced the observance of mitzvot. We knew what was in the Torah and had the opportunity to reject it, thus our acceptance was really an acceptance. The same opportunity presents itself today. HaShems hidden presence and our experience of mitzvot enables us to accept the Torah with ahavah (love).
True Goodness
Miryam Spiegel
The word tov (good) is featured prominently in the Megillah in a variety of contexts. Interestingly, there is a striking contrast between the usage of this word with regard to the members of society in Shushan as compared with its use in reference to Mordechai. This language of tov is featured prominently in requests made of Achashverosh. Seven times, the Megillah records such requests, each time including the unique formulation of , if it please the king, or literally, if it is good for the king. One such example may be found in the context of Hamans request to annihilate the Jewish people from the kingdom: If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those that have the charge of the king's business, to bring it into the king's treasuries. Esther 3:9 : :
It may be assumed that this phraseology is meant to place responsibility on the king in making good decisions. However, as is demonstrated throughout the Megillah, the decisions made by Achashverosh, such as the execution of Vashti following her refusal to attend the mishteh hamelech, the kings feast, or the decision to allow Haman to wage war against the Jewish people, embody a value set that seems to be a far cry from the tov meant to guide the decisions of the king. In a similar vein, the responses given by Achashverosh to requests made of him by his
42 43
This idea is based on lectures I heard at Midreshet Lindenbaum from R. Shmuel Klitsner and Dr. Tamar Ross. Derush al HaMitzvot in Derashot Maharal. 35
ministers, Haman, and Esther and Mordechai each feature the phraseology of , the good in your eyes. And the king said to Haman: 'The silver is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you. : Esther 3:11 Rather than using his throne to assert a responsible leadership, the formulation of the verses suggests a decision-making process based on personal good and individual judgment. Moreover, as demonstrated in the cases of both Vashti and Ester, the evaluation of women is centered on their good looks. To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, to show the peoples and the princes her beauty; for she was good to look at. Esther 1:11 :
Achashveroshs wish to display Vashtis beauty is highlighted during the mishteh hamelech. Upon her refusal of the kings request, and her subsequent removal from the throne, Achashverosh is advised to seek out young women who are " ", young virgins who are good to look at (Esther 2:2). A critical reading of the Megillah suggests a counterintuitive understanding of the meaning of good. It is interesting to note that in each of the aforementioned cases, the implication of tov comes to reference good that is evaluated for, or in the eyes of, an individual. Whereas the abundant usage of the word tov involved with the evaluations and decision-making, aligned with the king, may at first glance have an expectation of universally beneficial decisions, the irony is found in the far-reaching negative consequences of such actions. The error of Achashveroshs ways becomes far more evident in consideration of the Biblical command to engage with ' , what is right and good in the eyes of G-d (Devarim 6:18). Unlike the trend exhibited by Achashverosh, whose actions and decisions seem to be personally motivated, the Ramban explains on that verse that the Jewish people are mandated to take wider moral principles into account while engaging with the letter of the Law. In contrast with the tov of Shushan, tov takes on an entirely different meaning when used in reference to Mordechai. At the end of the Megillah, Mordechai is described as ,who spoke good for the king (Esther 7:9). As opposed to the inward focus of the personally motivated tov which is displayed by the leadership of Shushan, the tov that defines Mordechai references his having stood up for the king against a corrupt society. Such an example of tov is one of clear and careful evaluation of moral principles with the ultimate goal of creating a better society. The concluding verse of the Megillah, which defines Mordechai as , seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his offspring (Esther 10:3), takes this one step further as the Megillah underscores Mordechais distinct personality, which serves as a foil to the societal standards of Shushan. Whereas the tov that was valued in
36
Shushan served individual needs, Mordechai himself was defined as a seeker of good- a good that was motivated toward bringing peace to all members of his nation. The mitzvot observed on Purim may be enhanced through this distinction and understanding of the good that we strive to build in our families and communities. The community gathering for the reading of the Megillah is one in which each individual, hearing each word, is significant. By gathering with family and friends at the Purim seudah (meal), community ties have the opportunity to be strengthened. In sharing mishloach manot and matanot laevyonim, the Jewish community renews its commitment to giving to others. Through consciously involving a community-building perspective, and in taking the higher goal of ' into account, the community at large has the opportunity to reflect and build upon the past, and in doing so, each individual has the ability to take the initiative in turning good actions into great ones.
They, Too, Were Part of the Miracle

Sarah Steinberg
Although women are generally exempt from time-bound positive commandments, the mitzvah to read or hear Megillat Esther on Purim is a noted exception. Along with the mitzvot of Chanukah candles and the four cups of wine drunk at the Pesach seder, the reason given is , that women, also, were part of the miracle.44 Rashbam45 explains that women were instrumental in all three of the miracles that precipitated these commemorative mitzvot. The Gemara elsewhere46 states that because of the righteous women were we redeemed from Egypt, and includes a list of the virtuous acts done by the women at that time. A large part of the Chanukah victory is attributed to Judith, who killed the Greek general Holifernes.47 Finally, the role of Esther in the Purim story is obvious. Rashbam says that because these miracles were so dependent on the acts of women, women have an unusual connection to these mitzvot and are obligated in them, though one might think they are exempt. Tosfot48 quotes Rashbam on this matter and rejects his explanation. In Rashbam's view, we have these mitzvot because the miracles were precipitated by the acts of women. However, the language of they, too, were part of the miracle implies that the miracles would have happened anyway, but since women were included too, they also take part in the commemoration. Tosfot suggests that a better understanding of this idea is that since, in all of these stories, the women were being persecuted along with the men, the miracles saved their lives just as much as those of the male population. Therefore, women are obligated to take part in these mitzvot that are tributes of praise and thanks to Hashem. Although much has been written about this topic, I would like to focus on these two approaches. Why would Rashbam, who is tremendously attuned to linguistic nuances in his Biblical
44 45 46 47 48
Megilla 4a, Pesachim108a-b. Pesachim108b. Sotah11b. Shabbos 23a and Rashi "." Megilla 4a, . 37
commentary, offer an explanation that is counter to the implication of the words of the Gemara? Is there some reason he didnt offer the same explanation as Tosfot, which seems to be more obvious? Although I cant guess what Rashbam was actually thinking, it does occur to me that there is a fundamental difference between these two possible approaches. The way Tosfot explain it, these three mitzvot commemorate miraculous acts of Hashem that brought salvation for the entire Jewish nation. Rashbams view, however, takes into account the human effort involved. Hashem performs miracles for all of us every day, whether we see them or not. How often, though, does the entire Jewish nation rise as one and leave exile or fight for our very existence? By pointing out the unusual contributions of women to these causes, Rashbam draws our attention to everyones contributions. Hashem did not simply smite the Persian mobs given free reign to kill all the Jews. The Jews themselves had to fight back, and they did. As their neighbors turned against them, they fought, suffered casualties, and surely witnessed some of the worst aspects of human nature. They survived, however, and succeeded in defending their identity. Obviously, as Tosfot points out, we owe our continued existence as a nation to Hashem. Nevertheless, sometimes Hashem requires effort and action from us. If we indeed put forth that effort, dont we deserve to be proud? Shouldnt we also celebrate the effect these experiences had on our sense of national unity and identity? Is it wrong to look back at our history and use our past victories as a source of confidence and strength in facing modern adversaries? Again, there is much more to be said about the idea of , and no one can say exactly what caused Tosfot and Rashbam to write what they did. However, perhaps the thoughts Ive laid out here still have some merit. I fervently hope that such calamities never befall us again, but if they do, we know that we have survived in the past, and we can survive it again in the future.
Why did Mordechai refuse to bow down?

Derora Tropp
When Mordechai refuses to bow, Hamans response seems completely inordinate to the crime. Within the span of a few seconds, Haman becomes scathingly mad and decides to murder an entire nation. Difficulty with anger-management or just plain old anti-Semitism seem insufficient explanations for the wildness of Hamans reaction. Furthermore, why does Mordechai refuse? On a pshat (simple) level there is no issue of idol worship whatsoever. There is no doubt that one prominent theme played out through the Megilla is the conflict with Amalek. The nation of Amalek represents an antithesis to everything for which the Jewish people stand. They are characterized by the phrase asher korcha baderech - they happened upon you (Devarim 25:18). Things just chance to happen with no higher divine plan. They are the type of people who might be prone to casting lots. As the Jewish people stand for the belief in Divine providence, they are commanded to completely and utterly destroy Amalek. King Shaul does not succeed in destroying them and leaves their king Agag alive. Agag just so happens to be
38
an ancestor of Haman. Where Shaul failed, another member of the family of Kish, from the tribe of Binyamin, namely, Mordechai, is more successful. However, in order to more fully understand the story of the Megilla we must look to an even earlier conflict. Amalek is a descendant of the house of Eisav. Upon closer inspection, the story of Yaakov stealing the blessing from Eisav is full of linguistic and thematic parallels to the story of the Megilla. Consider the following: Perhaps the most striking example is the almost verbatim repetition of an entire phrase. The description of Eisav crying bitterly over losing the blessing- vayizak zeaka gedola umara ad meod, and he cried an exceedingly great and bitter cry (Bereishit 27:34) is incredibly similar to the description of Mordechais reaction when hearing Hamans decree (vayitzak tzeaka gedola umara and he cried a great and bitter cry. (Esther 4:1). The word vayivez- and he disdained appears as a description of both Eisavs attitude toward his birthright and of Hamans attitude toward only killing Mordechai. (See Bereishit 25:34 and Esther 3:6) Both Eisav and Haman are filled with burning anger against their adversaries. Rivka tells Yaakov to run away until his brothers anger subsides- ad asher tashuv chamat achicha (Bereishit 27:44) . Similarly the text states explicitly that Haman was filled with anger against Mordechai- vayimalei Haman al Mordechai cheima (Esther 3:5). Finally, both Eisav and Haman concoct secret plans. vayomer Eisav bilibo, Eisav said to himself (Bereishit 27:41) and vayomer Haman bilibo, Haman said to himself (Esther 6:6). These parallels are not direct. No one character lines up exactly with a corresponding character in the other story yet the Megilla is quite clearly referencing the story of the stolen blessing. We are meant to read these two stories together. Let us focus on one theme that occurs in both stories: bowing.49 As discussed, Mordechais refusal to bow and Hamans inordinate response are obviously key events in the Megillas plot. The theme plays a less obvious though similarly important role in the earlier narrative. The blessing that Yaakov steals is that other people will bow down to him: Nations shall serve you and kingdoms shall bow down to you; you shall be a master over your brothers, and your mother's sons shall bow down to you Bereishit 27:29 :
Even though Eisav is the elder, Yaakov gains the upper hand. It is this loss of power that causes Eisav to cry so bitterly. He secretly plots to murder Yaakov and get back his power causing Yaakov to run away to his uncle Lavans house. He marries and has children there, all the while unable to return to his parents house for fear of his brothers wrath.
49
Food for thought: in both stories characters are commanded by their loved ones ( )to hide their identities. Both narratives also develop the themes of the importance of clothing and have people waiting outside in order to be recognized, in order that they are able to make a fancy meal for other people. 39
When Yaakov finally does return, he does an extraordinary amount of bowing to Eisav. He begins their first meeting by bowing seven times. Then each of his wives and all of his children bow. He seems to be saying no hard feelings about that whole you have to bow down to me thing, okay? He gives up his right to be the one being bowed to. The Midrash picks up on the fact that there was one member of the family not present at their ceremony of prostration: Binyamin had not yet been born. It depicts a scene in which Haman and Mordechai discuss Mordechais refusal to bow. What did Mordechai say to them, to those who said why are you going against the kings law? ... And they told it to Haman etc. Haman said to them say to him did his ancestors not bow down to mine? As it says and the concubines come forward etc. and afterward Yosef and Rachel came forward and bowed. He answered Binyamin had not been born yet. And they told him. That is what it means when it says and they told Haman Esther Rabbah 7:8 ... ' , , " ,' , " :
Both parties see the meeting of Yaakov and Eisav as a precedent for the encounter between the two of them. Haman claims that Mordechai must bow because his ancestors did. Mordechai refuses on the basis that his ancestor Binyamin did not bow. Mordechai is not refusing to bow because of his own personal pride. His refusal represents an unwillingness to perpetuate the trend in which sons of Yaakov bow to sons of Eisav. No wonder this is a thorn in Hamans side! Ever-present in the collective consciousness of the Amalekite people is the notion that they lost the upper hand and will be made to bow down to Yisraels children. Mordechai is attempting to return to the power structure dictated by the blessing. When Mordechai hears that his refusal to bow has led to such a terrible edict, he cries a bitter cry (vayizak zeaka gedola umara). Like Eisav, he feels that he has now lost his ability not to bow. Haman, is at first characterized by the root word ..meaning large or great. Like the elder brother Eisav who is also characterized by this word, he thinks that others should bow to him. The Megilla tells us of Hamans promotion through the ranks: gidal hamelech Achashveirosh et Haman (Esther 3:1). Haman even describes his own greatness using this root. He tells his friends about et kol asher gidlo hamelech how great the king had made him (Esther 5:11). He thinks that his status as the entitles him to power. The blessing tells us that the younger brother becomes the greater of the two. Perhaps not so ironically, the last scene in which we find Haman alive, he is prostrating himself before Esther. When the tables begin to turn in the story, the root . ..begins to occur in conjunction with
40
Mordechai (see 9:4 and perhaps even 6:3)50 In fact, in the final chapter of the Megilla, which consists of only 3 verses, this root describes Mordechai no less than three times! Mordechais lasting legacy is that of being a great man. He reinstates Yaakovs blessing and takes his rightful position as the one to whom others bow. Where Yaakov and Shaul fail, Mordechai succeeds. The story of the Megilla is not one of a localized power struggle between two people but is about a long-standing feud between brothers and the nations they father. It is the story of a Benjaminite hero who does not follow the course set out for him by history. He takes matters into his own hands and resuscitates a national blessing that has lain dormant almost since its inception.
Why Dont You Send Me Food Every Day? A New Perspective on Mishloah Manot
Ora Ziring
One of the central obligations on Purim is the mitsvah of mishloah manot. Given that most mitsvot require a berakhah prior to their performance (Pesahim 7b, Megilah 21b, etc.) it is striking that no berakhah is recited on the performance of this mitsvah. Many reasons have been suggested to explain why this is the case. Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg (Seridei Esh 1:61) proposes two unique answers that shed a new light on the nature of this obligation, as well as provide perspective on interpersonal obligations in general. He first suggests an answer that relates to the intent one must have when fulfilling the mitsvah of mishloah manot. He claims that a person should give the gift because they genuinely want to express their love for the person they are giving it to. Giving a gift out of obligation misses the point. Saying a berakhah implies that one is only doing the mitsvah because God has commanded it, or with regard to rabbinic obligations, He has commanded people to listen to the halakhic authorities who have in turn created the obligation (Shabbat 23a). While it is true that mishloah manot is a formal obligation, the core of the mitsvah is the establishment of good will among peers. Friendship is not something that should exist only because it is commanded. He then suggests an answer based on Rabbi Yitshak b. Mosheh of Vienna in his Or Zarua (1:140). The Or Zarua explains that a berakhah is not required for mitsvot that are not limited to a specific time frame. If a mitsvah can be done at any time, it does not require a berakhah. With this, R. Weinberg suggests that the obligation of mishloah manot applies year-round. Seemingly, he means that the obligation to maintain good will is constant. Thus, the principle behind the mitsvah is constant, though the particular expression is only required once a year. He compares it to the obligation to hear Parashat Zakhor once a year. Even though the specific obligation of hearing the parashah applies only once a year, the purpose of that obligation is to ensure that a person will remember the message the rest of the year. Similarly, Hazal only
50
It is interesting to note that when Shaul fails to destroy Amalek he is blamed for thinking of himself as being too small- , , And Samuel said, "Even if you are small in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel?" (Samuel 1 15:17) 41
enacted the obligation of mishloah manot on Purim, but the purpose of that obligation is to remind us that we should actively promote camaraderie constantly. Thus, he explains, there is no obligation to recite a berakhah. The two answers of Rabbi Weinberg present a novel understanding of the purpose of mishloah manot. One day a year there is an obligation to give gifts wholeheartedly in order to create positive relationships with our friends, family, and community. The purpose of this yearly obligation is to remind and inspire us to work on our relationships throughout the rest of the year. Mishloah manot should create a genuine feeling of good will that lasts. To objectify and formalize this mitsvah with a berakhah, making it something we do only because of obligation would minimize its importance and defeat its purpose.
42
43
o o r tsga uts f u let rd a a e ae rf s nl r poe i ay so l e p yd iga ut m l e , rd a o n e sh oo b t. co lr oh
9% 4
R m ral8 p r n o m d ash oapcns n 9 p r n o l sh o e akb ,8 ec t f e i lco lp latad 5 ec t f w co l y e c i e a apcnsrmYsi U i rtw r acpe t a rd a sh oo te co e p latf i o eh a n esy ee ce td o gaut co lfh i h i . v v i e r c E ul rm ralih wafrala Ue uao cn e qaye akb s o f db Y d ctn a b . l e o e i T d u m r,o t t u s d n ac oe t 1 . 0 2 7o afr@y. u o n o t oecna o rt e t nne fc a 22 6 . 7 r f d u d . c u 9 5 o e

Yeshiva University - A To-Go Series - Adar 5772

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yeshiva University - A To-Go Series - Adar 5772

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Yeshiva University A To-Go Series Adar 5772

The Relationship between Mishlo'ach Manot and Matanot La'Evyonim

Purim and the "Randomness" of Life

Whose Battle? Whose Victory?

Purim Fulfilling Jewish Destiny

The Joy of Giving

Remembering Purim During the Messianic Age

Cited in Harerei Kedem, Vol. I no. 188. Ibid. 5

The Relationship between Mishlo'ach Manot and Matanot La'Evyonim

Rabbi Joshua Flug

The Nature of Mishlo'ach Manot

The Nature of Matanot La'Evyonim

Must the Gifts be used for Purim Related Activities?

How do the Two Mitzvot Relate?

Purim and the "Randomness" of Life

Purim and the Clash of Civilizations

The Lottery among Hebrews and Pagans

The New Atheism Fooled by Randomness

The Old Materialism by Another Name

Whose Battle? Whose Victory?

B.S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia, 1974), 315. 22

Purim Fulfilling Jewish Destiny

Bereishit 12:3. Bereishit 22:12. 25

the remembrance of Amalek from beneath the heavens.

The Joy of Giving

What may a pauper do with his matanot la'evyonim?

" )' :( " " .

Giving a meal gladdens the donor

On Purim, the donor's joy is the mitzvah

]" " "[

Why do we care about the donor's joy?

They, Too, Were Part of the Miracle

Why did Mordechai refuse to bow down?

o o r tsga uts f u let rd a a e ae rf s nl r poe i ay so l e p yd iga ut m l e , rd a o n e sh oo b t. co lr oh

You might also like