Daf Ditty Megillah 16: Benjamin’s Preferential Treatment

BENJAMIN AND JOSEPH. Benjamin is presented to Joseph who then

entertains him and his brethren

French manuscript illumination, c1250.

1
The verse states:

‫ֵהִכין‬-‫ ֲאֶשׁר‬,‫ָהֵﬠץ‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ָהָמן‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ י ַו ִיְּתלוּ‬10 So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had
{‫ }ס‬.‫ ָשָׁכָכה‬,J‫ְלָמ ְרֳדָּכי; ַוֲחַמת ַהֶמֶּל‬ prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath
assuaged. {S}
Esther 7:10

“Then the king’s wrath was assuaged [shakhakha]” The Gemara asks: Why are there two
assuagings here? The term shakhakha is used rather than shaka and indicates doubled wrath.
There was one assuaging of the wrath of the King of the universe, and one of the wrath of
Ahasuerus. And some say: Ahasuerus’s wrath burned within him for two reasons; one due to

2
Haman’s involvement with Esther, and one due to his involvement with Vashti, and now they
were both assuaged.

Before continuing its midrashic interpretation of the rest of the book of Esther, the Gemara
expounds a verse concerning Joseph that relates to the Megilla:

;‫ת‬q‫ ֲחִלפוֹת ְשָׂמ‬,‫ כב ְלֻכָלּם ָנַתן ָלִאישׁ‬22 To all of them he gave each man changes of raiment; but
‫ ְוָחֵמשׁ‬,‫שׁ ֵמאוֹת ֶכֶּסף‬q‫ וְּלִב ְנָיִמן ָנַתן ְשׁ‬to Benjamin he gave three hundred shekels of silver, and five
.‫ת‬q‫ֲחִלֹפת ְשָׂמ‬ changes of raiment.
Gen 45:22

“To all of them he gave each man changes of clothing, but to Benjamin he gave three hundred
pieces of silver, and five changes of clothing” The Gemara asks: Is it possible that in the very
thing from which that righteous man Joseph had suffered, as his father’s show of favoritism
toward him aroused the enmity of his brothers,

he himself should stumble by showing favoritism to Benjamin? As Rava bar Meḥaseyya said
that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: Due to the weight of two sela of fine wool that
Jacob gave to Joseph, which he added to what he gave Joseph beyond what he gave the rest of
his brothers, as he made him his special coat, the story progressed and our forefathers went
down to Egypt. How then could Joseph have displayed similar favoritism toward Benjamin?
Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said: He was not showing favoritism. Rather, he intimated to him
that a descendant was destined to issue from him who would go out from the presence of the
king wearing five royal garments, as it is stated:

3
 ‫ ִבְּלבוּשׁ‬,m‫טו וָּמ ְרֳדַּכי ָיָצא ִמִלְּפֵני ַהֶמֶּל‬
,‫ ַוֲﬠֶט ֶרת ָזָהב ְגּדוָֹלה‬,‫ַמְלכוּת ְתֵּכֶלת ָוחוּר‬
,‫ בּוּץ ְוַא ְרָגָּמן; ְוָהִﬠיר שׁוָּשׁן‬m‫ְוַתְכ ִרי‬
.‫ָצֲהָלה ְוָשֵׂמָחה‬
15 And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the
king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great
crown of gold, and with a robe of fine linen and purple;
and the city of Shushan shouted and was glad.
Esther 8:15

“And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel of sky blue and white,
and with a great crown of gold, and with a wrap of fine linen and purple”

The Gemara elaborates on certain elements in the story of Joseph and his brothers. The verse states
with regard to Joseph:

;‫ ַוֵיְּבְךּ‬,‫ָאִחיו‬-‫ַצ ְוּאֵרי ִב ְנָיִמן‬-‫יד ַו ִיֹּפּל ַﬠל‬ 14 And he fell upon his brother Benjamin's neck, and wept;
.‫ַצָוּאָריו‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ָבָּכה‬--‫וִּב ְנָיִמן‬ and Benjamin wept upon his neck.
Gen 45:14

“And he fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck [tzavarei] and wept” The wording of the verse
gives rise to a question, as the word tzavarei is plural, meaning necks: How many necks did
Benjamin have, such that the verse should use the plural tzavarei rather than the singular tzavar?
Rabbi Elazar said: This intimates that Joseph cried over the two Temples that were destined
to be in the tribal territory of Benjamin and were destined to be destroyed. The same verse
continues: “And Benjamin wept on his neck” he cried over the tabernacle of Shiloh that was
destined to be in the tribal territory of Joseph and was destined to be destroyed.

The verse states:

4
 ‫ ְוֵﬠיֵני ָאִחי‬,‫יב ְוִהֵנּה ֵﬠיֵניֶכם ֹראוֹת‬ 12 And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother
.‫ ַהְמַדֵבּר ֲאֵליֶכם‬,‫ִפי‬-‫ ִכּי‬:‫ִב ְנָיִמין‬ Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you.
Gen 45:2

“And behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin” Rabbi Elazar said: Joseph
said to his brothers as follows: Just as I certainly harbor no resentment in my heart toward my
brother Benjamin, for he was not even present when I was sold, so too, I harbor no resentment
toward you. The verse continues:

“That it is my mouth [ki fi] that speaks to you” , i.e., As my mouth [kefi] is, so is my heart.

The verse states:

,‫שׂ ָרה ֲחֹמ ִרים‬ָ ‫ ֲﬠ‬,‫שַׁלח ְכּז ֹאת‬ ָ ‫כג וְּלָאִביו‬ 23 And to his father he sent in like manner ten asses
‫ ִמטּוּב ִמְצ ָר ִים; ְוֶﬠֶשׂר ֲאֹתֹנת‬,‫ֹנְשִׂאים‬ laden with the good things of Egypt, and ten she-asses
.m‫ַלָדּ ֶר‬--‫ ְלָאִביו‬,‫ֹנְשֹׂאת ָבּר ָוֶלֶחם וָּמזוֹן‬ laden with corn and bread and victual for his father by
the way.
Gen 45:23

“And to his father he sent after this manner ten donkeys laden with the good things of Egypt”
The Gemara asks: What are “the good things of Egypt” that are mentioned but not specified
here? Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said: He sent him aged wine, which
the elderly finds pleasing.

Following Jacob’s death, it states concerning Joseph:

;‫ ְלָפָניו‬,‫ ַו ִיְּפּלוּ‬,‫ֶאָחיו‬-‫ ַגּם‬,‫יח ַוֵיְּלכוּ‬ 18 And his brethren also went and fell down before his face;
.‫ ִהֶנּנּוּ ְל„ ַלֲﬠָבִדים‬,‫ַויּ ֹאְמרוּ‬ and they said: 'Behold, we are thy bondmen.'
Gen 50:18

5
 “And his brothers even went and fell down before him” Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that
Rabbi Elazar said: This explains the folk saying that people say: When the fox is in its hour,
bow down to it, i.e., if a fox is appointed king, one must bow down before and submit oneself to
it.

The Gemara expresses astonishment at the use of this parable: Are you calling Joseph a fox?
What, was he inferior to his brothers such that in relation to them you call him a fox? Rather,
if such a statement was stated, it was stated as follows, not in connection with this verse, but
rather in connection with a different verse. The verse states:

‫ לוֹ; ַו ִיְּשַׁתּחוּ‬,‫ַו ִיָּשַּׁבע‬--‫ ִהָשְּׁבָﬠה ִלי‬,‫לא ַויּ ֹאֶמר‬ 31 And he said: 'Swear unto me.' And he swore unto
{‫ }פ‬.‫ר ֹאשׁ ַהִמָּטּה‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ִיְשָׂרֵאל‬ him. And Israel bowed down upon the bed's head.
Gen 47:31

“And Israel bowed himself upon the head of the bed” With regard to this, Rabbi Binyamin bar
Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said: When the fox is in its hour, bow down to it, as Jacob had to
bow down before his son Joseph, who had reached greatness.

It says with regard to Joseph’s remarks to his brothers:

‫ֲאַכְלֵכּל‬ ‫ָא ֹנִכי‬--‫ִתּיָראוּ‬-‫ַאל‬ ,‫ כא ְוַﬠָתּה‬21 Now therefore fear ye not; I will sustain you, and your
‫ ַו ְיַדֵבּר‬,‫ַטְפֶּכם; ַו ְיַנֵחם אוָֹתם‬-‫ ְוֶאת‬,‫ ֶאְתֶכם‬little ones.' And he comforted them, and spoke kindly unto
.‫ִלָבּם‬-‫ַﬠל‬ them.
Gen 50:21

“And he comforted them and spoke to their hearts” Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi
Elazar said: This teaches that he spoke to them words that are acceptable to the heart and

6
alleviated their fears. This is what he said: If ten lights could not put out one light, as all of you
were unable to do me harm, how can one light put out ten lights?

Summary

Introduction1

Our daf is an extended telling of the episode where Haman is forced to lead Mordecai around
garbed in royal clothing riding on a horse.

Haman finds Mordecai, portrayed as a rabbinic sage, teaching the laws of the handful of fine flour
taken from a meal-offering and put on the altar. The rabbis tell Haman that they have been studying
these laws, for which he mocks them. How could your little handful of flour supersede my 10,000
talents of silver!

But Haman according to legend had already sold himself to Mordecai as a slave (we learned this
on page 15b). So any money that Haman owned really belongs to Mordecai himself.

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Daf_Shevui_to_Megillah.16a.4-16b.7?lang=bi

7
The tale continues. Haman was once a barber. This seems to have been considered a rather lowly
profession, thereby adding to the tale of Haman’s humiliation.

Adding more layers of humiliation to Haman, Mordecai makes him bend over so he can get up on
the horse and then kicks him while he mounts. I’d say I feel bad for Haman, but remember, this is
a man who has plotted to kill thousands of innocent people. I can imagine that the rabbis who
composed this midrash enjoyed taking out all of their misery on this wicked man.

Again, this account adds to Haman’s humiliation. Haman’s daughter unwittingly dumps the
chamber pot onto his head, thinking it was Mordecai. When she realizes what she has done, she
commits suicide. This is why Haman goes back to his house mourning.

The longer account in interrupted with R. Sheshet’s midrash—that Mordecai returned to his
sackcloth and fasting. He didn’t let this temporary victory deter him from his larger task.

Haman goes home and tells Zeresh and all of his friends how he was humiliated by Mordecai. R.
Yohanan notes that no matter a person’s ethnicity, nationality, or religion, if he says something
wise, he is called wise. Haman’s friends indeed do give him some sage advice—stay away from
Mordecai. You can’t beat him.

Haman’s friends say that if Mordecai is a Jew then Haman will not be able to prevail. The word
“Jew” could also mean “from the tribe of Judah.” The midrash then notes that there are three tribes
that have special military powers over the nations of the world—Judah, Ephraim, Benjamin and
Manesseh. If Mordecai is from one of these, then Haman will not be able to defeat him.

Judah b. Ilai picks up on the repetition of the word “fall” (this is normal biblical syntax but
susceptible to midrash). The people of Israel are likened to dust and stars (see Genesis 13:16 and
15:5). When they fall, they fall hard, all the way to the dust of the earth. But when they rise, they
soar to the stars. Since Israel had already begun rising when Haman was humiliated by Mordecai,
Haman should be able to count on them continuing to rise.

In Esther the word “va-yavhilu” means hastened. But in rabbinic Hebrew it can mean with great
confusion. Commentators explain that the haste led to him still being dirty from the chamber pot
dumped on his head.

Esther warns Ahashverosh that Haman doesn’t care how much damage he does to Ahashverosh.
This is evidenced by the fact that he already got Vashti killed due to his jealousy.

Abahu picks up on the strange repetition of the word “said.” He interprets that at first, Ahashverosh
refused to speak directly to Esther, for he did not know her lineage. When she told him that she
was of royal lineage, from the house of Saul, he spoke to her, addressing her as Queen Esther.

Elazar picks up on how strange it is that she first says, “adversary, and an enemy.” Why shouldn’t
she just say, “this wicked Haman”?

8
The answer is that at first she wanted to accuse Ahashverosh of being the wicked one. Perhaps she
just had so much pent-up anger at him that she could not hold back. After all, it was his fault for
agreeing to Haman’s wicked plot. Of course, had she accused Ahashverosh he would have killed
her, and she would not have been able to save the Jews.

This expansion of the story seems to be primarily based on the word “also” that Ahashverosh utters
when he sees that Haman had fallen on the couch with Esther. What else made Ahashverosh angry
before he seen on the couch with the queen? The midrash is also based on a parallel in the verse—
the king leaves the palace in anger, and his return is also in anger. These two textual hints lead to
the conclusion that Ahashverosh saw something in the garden that angered him as well. What he
saw was angels uprooting trees. I suppose that Haman wanted to use the trees to hang the Jews (or
impale them, the word for impale and hang is the same in Hebrew). But there may be other
interpretations to the need to uproot these trees.

Harbonah seems to be a good guy in Esther—he suggests to the king that Haman be hanged on the
very tree that was prepared for Mordecai. The interpretive problem that seems to lie at the basis of
R. Elazar’s accusation that Harbonah was part of Haman’s plot, is how Harbonah could have
known that Haman had planned to hang Mordecai on that tree? He must have been part of the plot
to kill Mordecai. But when Haman failed, Harbonah jumped ship and abandoned the plot. This is
alluded to in the verse, where God does not pity the wicked, and his comrades flee from him when
he fails.

The word for “assuaged” is ‫ שככה‬with a double kaf. The Talmud reads the double kaf as alluding
to two “assuagings.” In the spirit of a double reading, there are two interpretations of what these
assuagings were. The first is that God was assuaged, as well as Ahashverosh. The second is that
Ahashverosh was assuaged over what Haman had tried to do to Esther and over the fact that Haman
had advised Ahashverosh to kill Vashti.

Midrashim on the Joseph story.

The first of these is connected to Esther, and it is for that reason that the collection is placed here.

When Joseph gives Benjamin more gifts than he gives to the other brothers, he seems to be falling
into the same trap as did his father. Jacob gave a greater gift than that which he gave to the brothers,
the “tunic of ‘many colors'” (whatever the word “pasim” means). By doing so he set in motion the
process that would eventually lead to the Israelite descent into slavery in Egypt. Joseph should
know this—yet he falls into the pattern of the same destructive behavior as his father (don’t we
all).

Benjamin b. Japhet (is it a coincidence that Benjamin explains Benjamin?) explains that Joseph
was giving Benjamin a hint that eventually he would have a descendant who would wear five royal
garments—Mordecai.

9
Joseph cries on Benjamin’s “necks” for the two Temples that were to be built in Jerusalem, which
according to some was in the tribe of Benjamin. And Benjamin cried on Joseph’s neck for the
destruction of the tabernacle in Shiloh, the center of worship before the building of the First
Temple in Jerusalem.

This section is about Joseph’s revelation of his identity to his brothers. R. Elazar reads into the
verse some emphasis that Joseph holds no malice against them for having sold him into slavery.

How nice of Benjamin to send his father wine from Egypt. I’ll be happy if my boy sends me wine
when I’m old. Right now it’s still mostly whine.

The first verse quoted here is from Genesis 50, after Jacob has died. The brothers come in front of
Joseph, bowing down out of fear. R. Elazar applies a folk saying to this—”A fox in its hour—bow
down to it.” The implication of the saying is that one should bow down even to a lowly fox, when
it is “having its hour.” The problem is that Joseph is no fox, inferior to his brothers. The saying
should be invoked only when superiors are bowing to an inferior, which is not the case here.
Therefore, the saying is reapplied to a case where Jacob bows down to Joseph. Since Jacob is the
father, Joseph should bow down to him. But Joseph was “having his hour” and therefore it is
appropriate for Jacob to bow down to him.

Joseph reassured his brothers that he did not intend on taking revenge against them.

Expounding and Exaggerating

Today the rabbis complete their retelling of the Megilla.2 They digress to discuss Benjamin and
his brothers, and they end with a discussion of the importance of Torah study.

Our Sages go to great effort to create back-stories to flesh out the Megilla. One example follows
Haman's humiliating walk through the streets. As we know that march was intended for
Mordechai by Haman. Our rabbis elaborate in order to explain why Haman ended his march
with his head covered, in mourning. Apparently his daughter was watching from a top story,
watching for Mordechai. Thinking that she was seeing that Jewish enemy of her father, she
threw feces on his head. When she realized that this was her father, this daughter threw herself
from the upper balcony to her death. Thus Haman was forced to cover his head and was in
mourning due to his loss.

These are impressive stories! Why the rabbis felt it necessary to create such elaborate stories is
beyond my understanding. And why certain narratives, like the Megilla, is expounded upon in
such depth while other stories (whether Biblical, Tamudic, or otherwise significant) are left is a
mystery to me.

At the very end of today's daf, the rabbis offer reasons that Torah study is more important than

2 http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/07/

10
other pursuits. In particular, Torah study is more important than saving lives, building the
Temple, and honouring one's father and mother. I find this absolutely compelling. How could
our Sages advocate Torah study ahead of saving a life? Clearly their agenda - to promote their
own profession - is at the heart of such statements.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

It is written in the Megillah [6:1]: On that night, the sleep of the king was disturbed. Rabbi
Tanchum said: This is referring to Hashem (to act against His enemies). The Rabbis said: This is
referring to the angels and Achashverosh (the angels were pestering him to reward Mordechai for
saving him). Rava said: It is referring to Achashverosh’s sleep. He began to think: Why was Haman
invited by Esther to the feast? Is there a plot to assassinate me? Why wouldn’t a friend inform me?
Perhaps I have not paid back someone who deserves being rewarded? Immediately, he instructed
his servants to bring him the chronicles of the kingdom. The Gemora states that the record book
was read by itself. Shimshai, the king’s scribe was erasing the incident of Mordechai saving the
king’s life and the angel Gavriel rewrote it.

Rabbi Assi said: Rabbi Sheila, a man from the village of Temarta, drew a lesson from this, saying:
If a record on earth, which is for the benefit of Israel, cannot be erased, how much more so
regarding a record in Heaven (that it will not become erased)! It is written: Nothing has been done
for him. Rava said: They answered him like that (that some small token of reward was necessary)
not because they loved Mordechai, but rather, because they hated Haman (and they knew it would
infuriate him). It is written: He had prepared for him.

A Tanna stated: This means that he (Haman) had prepared (the gallows) for himself. It is written:
And do so to Mordechai etc. Haman said to him: Who is Mordechai? Achashverosh said to him:
The Jew. He said: There are many Mordechais among the Jews. He replied: The one who sits at
the king's gate. Haman said to him: For him (the reward) of one village or one river (from which
taxes can be collected) is sufficient! Achashverosh replied: Give him that as well; let nothing be
omitted from that which you have spoken.

The Gemora relates that Achashverosh ordered Haman to get Mordechai, dress him in the royal
garments and lead him through the city on the king’s horse proclaiming, “Thus shall be done for
the man whom the king wishes to honor.” Haman located Mordechai teaching his students the laws
of kemitzah (scooping the flour for the minchah offering). Mordechai observed Haman arriving
and he told his students to leave the area for Haman is coming to kill him. Mordechai wrapped
himself and began to pray.

Haman sat before the students and waited for Mordechai to finish praying. Haman asked them:
What were you studying? They replied: When the Beis Hamikdosh was in existence, one can offer
a fistful of flour and receive atonement through it. Haman responded: Your fistful of flour came
and has overridden my ten thousand silver coins. When Mordechai heard this, he said to Haman:

3 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Megillah_16.pdf

11
Wicked person that you are; if a slave acquires property, to whom does the property belong? (Since
Haman was Mordechai’s servant, the money was rightfully Mordechai’s.)

Haman said to Mordechai: Get up, don these clothes, and ride this horse. Mordechai said: I must
first go the bathhouse and get a haircut since it would not be proper to wear the king’s clothes
otherwise. Haman was forced to bath Mordechai himself and cut his hair because Esther had issued
an order that all bathhouses and barbers must close for the day. Haman was groaning while he was
cutting Mordechai’s hair. He said: Is it proper for a person with such prominence (referring to
himself) to become an attendant for a bathhouse and a barber. Mordechai reminded him that he
(Haman) was the barber in Kartzum for twenty-two years. When Haman finished cutting
Mordechai’s hair, he dressed him and told him to climb onto the horse. Mordechai responded: I
am too weak on the account of the days of fasting.

Haman bent down so Mordechai could step on his back and ascend the horse. As Mordechai was
climbing up, he kicked Haman. Haman asked him: Doesn’t it say in your Torah that one should
not rejoice when his enemy falls? Mordechai responded: That is only by a Jewish enemy. As
Haman was leading Mordechai through the streets, they passed by Haman’s house. Haman’s
daughter witnessed the scene and thought that Mordechai was leading her father. She took the
bowl from the bathroom and threw it on her father’s head. When she realized that it was her father,
she fell off the roof and died. Mordechai returned to his sackcloth and to his fasting and Haman
rushed to his house, mourning for his daughter and with his head covered from the garbage that
was thrown upon his head.

It is written in the Megillah [6:13]: Haman told his wife Zeresh and all his friends about all that
had happened to him. And his wise men and his wife Zeresh told him, “If this Mordechai, before
whom you have begun to fall, is of Jewish descent, you will not prevail over him, for you will
certainly fall before him.”

The Gemora asks: They are initially called ‘his friends' and then they are referred to as ‘his wise
men.' Rabbi Yochanan said: Whoever says a wise thing, even a gentile, is called wise. They said
to Haman: If Mordechai comes from the other tribes, you can prevail over him, but if he is from
the tribe of Yehudah, Binyamin, Ephraim or Menasheh, you will not prevail over him. The Gemora
cites Scriptural proofs for this. (16a) It is written: But you shall surely fall before him. Rabbi
Yehudah bar Ila'i expounded: Why are two fallings mentioned here? Haman's friends said to him:
This people are likened to the dust, and it is likened to the stars. When they go down, they go down
to the dust, and when they rise they rise to the stars. It is written: And the king's chamberlains came
and hastened [va-yavhilu] to bring Haman. The use of this word [va-yavhilu] tells us that they
brought him while he was in a state of confusion [behalah]. It is written: For we have been sold, I
and my people etc . . . for the adversary does not care that the king will be damaged. She said to
him: This adversary does not care for the damage of the king. He was jealous with Vashti and had
her killed, and he is jealous with me and wants to kill me.

It is written: Then the king Ahasuerus said, and he said to Esther the queen. Why ‘said’ and again
‘said’? Rabbi Avahu replied: He first spoke to her through an intermediary. When she told him
that she came from the house of Shaul, immediately, ‘he said to Esther the queen.’ It is written in
the Megillah [7:6]: "A man who is a persecutor and an enemy: this evil Haman!" Esther replied.

12
Rabbi Elozar said: This teaches us that she was actually pointing to Achashverosh (derived from
the extra words ‘a persecutor and an enemy’) and an angel came and pushed her hand so as to point
to Haman. (16a) The Megillah writes further [7:7-9]: The king arose in wrath and left the wine
feast and went to the palace garden, while Haman stood up to beg Queen Esther for his life, for he
realized that the king's hostility towards him was irrevocable. And the king returned from the
palace garden to the wine-feast chamber, and Haman had fallen upon the divan upon which Esther
was reclining. The king said, "Does he even intend to seduce the queen while I am in the palace!"
As soon as these words left the king's mouth the face of Haman was covered. Then Charvonah,
one of the chamberlains that attended the king, said, "In addition, there is the gallows that Haman
erected for Mordechai, who spoke for the King's good, standing at Haman's house, fifty cubits
high!" "Hang him upon it!" said the king

The Gemora expounds: Achashverosh’s returning is compared to his arising. Just as the arising
was in wrath, so too, the returning was in wrath. Achashverosh went to the garden and found
ministering angels in the form of men who were uprooting trees from the garden. He said to them:
What are you doing? They replied: Haman has ordered us to do this. He came into the house and
witnessed Haman falling upon the couch. Rabbi Elozarsaid: (Since it is written ‘falling’ and not
‘fallen’) This teaches us that an angel came and forced him to fall on it and he couldn’t get up.
Achashverosh then exclaimed: Woe on the inside, and woe on the outside! Will you assault the
queen before me in the house? Rabbi Elozar said: Charvonah also was a wicked man and
implicated in the plot to destroy the Jewish people. When he saw that his plan was not succeeding,
he at once fled, and so it is written [Iyuv 27:22]: And he cast upon him and did not pity, from his
hand he surely flees.

The Megillah continues [7:10]: And they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for
Mordechai and the king's wrath abated. The Gemora asks: Why are there two abatements
mentioned (an extra letter written)? The Gemora answers: One referring to Hashem and the other
to Achasverosh. Others answer: One is on account of Esther and the other on account of Vashti.
(16a) It is written in the Torah [45:22]: He [Yosef] gave them all changes of clothes, and to
Binyamin he gave three hundred [pieces of] silver and five changes of clothes.

The Gemora asks: Is it possible that Yosef would stumble on the precise action that caused him to
suffer? Yaakov had given Yosef a nice woolen garment which caused the brothers to become
jealous and prompted them to sell him to Mitzrayim. Should Yosef now favor Binyamin over the
other brothers? Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefes answers: Yosef was hinting that a descendant of his
will goes in front of a king dressed in five royal garments (referring to Mordechai). The Gemora
proceeds to expound on other Scriptural verses dealing with Yosef and his brothers in Mitzrayim.

It is written: And he fell upon his brother Binyamin's neck. How many necks did Binyamin have?
Rabbi Elozar said: He wept for the two Temples which were destined to be in the territory of
Binyamin and would eventually be destroyed. And Binyamin wept upon his neck: he wept for the
tabernacle of Shiloh which was destined to be in the territory of Yosef and would eventually be
destroyed. And behold your eyes see and the eyes of my brother Binyamin.

Rabbi Elozar said: He said to them: Just as I bear no resentment against my brother Binyamin who
had no part in my selling, so too I have no resentment against you. That it is my mouth that speaksto

13
you. As my mouth is, so is my heart. And to his father he sent the following: ten donkeys laden
with the good things of Egypt. What are ‘the good things of Egypt’? Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefes
said in the name of Rabbi Elozar: He sent him aged wine which old men find very comforting.
And his brethren also went and fell down before him.

Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefes said in the name of Rabbi Elozar: This bears out the popular saying: A
fox in its hour — bow down to it. The Gemora asks: You compare Yosef to a fox! Where was his
inferiority to his brothers? Rather, if this was said by Rabbi Elozar, it was stated as follows: And
Israel prostrated himself upon the bed's head.

Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefes said in the name of Rabbi Elozar: A fox in its hour — bow down to it.
And he (Yosef) comforted them (the brothers) and spoke kindly to them. Rabbi Binyamin bar
Yefes said in the name of Rabbi Elozar: This tells us that he spoke to them words which greatly
reassured them, saying: If ten lights were not able to put out one, how can one light put out ten?

It is written in the Megillah [8:16]: The Jews had light and gladness and joy and honor. Rav
Yehudah said: Light is referring to Torah; Gladness is referring to the festivals; Joy is referring to
circumcision; Glory is referring to tefillin.
Rabbi Adda of Yaffo rules: When one is reading the Megillah, he must recite the names of the ten
sons of Haman in one breath. This is because they all died at precisely the same moment. Rabbi
Yochanan said: The ‘vav’ of the name Veyezasa (the last son of Haman mentioned in the Megillah)
must be elongated like a pole, for they all were hanged on one pole. Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa rules
in the name of Rabbi Sheila, a man from the village of Temarta: The ten sons of Haman and the
songs of praise regarding the thirty-one kings of Canaan who were defeated by Yehoshua are
written in the form of a half-brick on top of a half-brick (referring to the written words) and a full-
brick on top of a full-brick (referring to the empty spaces). (This is in contrast to other songs that
are written in the form of a half-brick on top of a fullbrick.)

The Gemora offers a reason for this: It is to indicate that our enemies shall never recover from
their downfall. It is written: And the king said to the queen, “In Shushan the capital the Jews have
slain, etc.” The mode of expression informs us that an angel came and slapped him on his mouth
(in order that he shouldn’t complete his tirade against the Jews). But when she came before the
king, he said with a letter ‘He said’? It should be, ‘she said’!? Rabbi Yochanan rules: The Megillah
should be recited by what is written in the scroll (it should not be read by heart).

It is written Words of peace and truth. Rabbi Tanchum said, or, according to some, Rabbi Assi:
This shows that the Megillah requires to be written on etched lines, like an actual Torah scroll. It
is written: And Esther’s words confirmed. The Gemora asks: Only Esther’s words (contributed to
the miracle), and not the matters of the fasts? Rabbi Yochanan said: We must read as follows: The
matters of the fasts … and Esther’s words confirmed these regulations of Purim. It is written: For
Mordechai the Jew was viceroy to king Achashverosh, and great among the Jews and popular with
the majority of his brethren.

The Gemora asks: Of the majority of his brethren but not of all his brethren? This informs us that
some members of the Sanhedrin separated from him.

14
Three Hundred Pieces of Silver

The Gemora states: It is written [Breishis: 45:22]: He [Yosef] gave them all changes of clothes,
and to Binyamin he gave three hundred [pieces of] silver and five changes of clothes. The Gemora
asks: Is it possible that Yosef would stumble on the precise action that caused him to suffer?
Yaakov had given Yosef a nice woolen garment which caused the brothers to become jealous and
prompted them to sell him to Mitzrayim. Should Yosef now favor Binyamin over the other
brothers?

Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefes answers: Yosef was hinting that a descendant of his will goes in front
of a king dressed in five royal garments (referring to Mordechai). The commentators ask: Why
didn’t it bother the Gemora that Yosef gave to Binyamin three hundred pieces of silver, and none
to the other brothers? Wouldn’t that have caused jealousy as well?

The Chasam Sofer answers based upon the Gemora in Gittin (44a), which states: Rabbi Yehoshua
ben Levi said: One who sells his slave to an idolater; we penalize him and force him to buy him
back for up to ten times the value of the slave. An ordinary slave is worth thirty silver coins, as we
know from the halachah in the Torah that if an ox gores and kills a slave, the owner must pay the
master thirty silver coins. Accordingly, the brothers who sold Yosef should have been obligated
to pay the penalty of ten times Yosef’s value in order to redeem him. Since they did not redeem
him, they therefore owed to Yosef three hundred silver coins (30 ∙ 10 = 300). This is why Yosef
did not give them the three hundred silver coins that he gave to Binyamin. Binyamin, who was not
involved in the selling at all, rightfully deserved this amount, and therefore, Yosef was not
concerned that this would be a cause for jealousy.

HAMAN AND THE OMER

The Gemora relates that Achashverosh ordered Haman to get Mordechai, dress him in the royal
garments and lead him through the city on the king’s horse proclaiming, “Thus shall be done for
the man whom the king wishes to honor.” Haman located Mordechai teaching his students the laws
of kemitzah (scooping the flour for the mincha offering). Rashi states that this occurred on the
sixteenth of Nissan, the day the korban omer is offered in the Beis Hamikdosh. The Maharal
explains the connection between the omer offering and the story of Purim. The Omer offering
reveals the miracles that are hidden inside of nature. By bringing the first grain to the Beis
Hamikdosh, we are demonstrating that even the nature of the world is governed by Hashem. This
was the method used to overcome Haman.

The miracles were concealed from the human eye. The means to conquer Haman and Amalek is
by exposing the concealed miracles, thus confirming that all which appears natural is controlled
by Hashem. The idea that Amalek can only be defeated through natural means was mentioned
before and it bears repeating. The Mishna states that whenever Moshe held up his hand, Israel
prevailed [against Amalek]…'.

The Mishna asks, do Moshe's hands make or break the battle? Rather, this teaches you that so long
as Israel were looking upwards and subjugating their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were
victorious; if not, they would fall.

15
The Netziv in Merumei Sadeh asks on the Mishna's question. What was so strange about Moshe's
hands making the battle? Didn't Moshe's hands split the sea and perform other miracles as well
through his hand? He answers that the fight against Amalek had to be won in a natural way and
not through a miracle. Perhaps we can add that fighting Amalek is in essence the fight that we have
daily with our evil inclination. This fight could not be left to miracles. This is what is bothering
the Mishna. Could the battle have been won through Moshe's hands like the other miracles?

The Mishna's answer is no, it could not have been since this battle required a victory through
natural means. Let us examine the answer of the Mishna. Rather, this teaches you that so long as
Israel were looking upwards and subjugating their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were
victorious; if not, they would fall. Isn't the Mishna stating that they relied on a miracle from Above.
They looked upwards and they were victorious. How can this be explained?

The Gemora in Kiddushin (29b) relates an incident with Abaye and Rav Acha bar Yaakov. There
was a certain demon that haunted Abaye's Beis Medrash, so that when two people entered, even
by day, they were injured. Abaye instructed the community not to provide Rav Acha shelter when
he would arrive in the city, thus forcing the father to spend the night at the Beis Medrash; perhaps
a miracle will happen [in his merit]. Rav Acha entered the city and spent the night in that Beis
Medrash, during which the demon appeared to him in the guise of a seven-headed dragon. Every
time Rav Acha fell on his knees in prayer one head fell off. The next day he reproached them:
‘Had not a miracle occurred, you would have endangered my life.'

The Maharsha in his commentary to Kiddushin asks that how Abaye had permission to place Rav
Acha in such a precarious position. One is forbidden to rely on a miracle. He answers that Abaye
understood the potency of Rav Acha's prayer. Abaye was certain that Rav Acha's prayers to the
Almighty would be answered and that this is not a miracle. Hashem has instilled in this world the
power of prayer and incorporated it into the natural order of the world. This is what our Mishna is
answering. Amalek has to be defeated through natural means and that is what Klal Yisroel did at
that time. They cried out to Hashem and subjugated their hearts towards Him and were answered.

THE ROLE OF CHILDREN ON PURIM

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Gemara relates that when Haman came to take Mordechai to dress him in the royal garments
and lead him on the royal horse, he found Mordechai sitting in front of the Chachamim, teaching
them the laws of Kemitzah (the handful of flour offered for the Korban Minchah). The same
incident is recorded in the Midrash (Esther Rabah 10:4).

The Midrash relates further that the Chachamim who learned before Mordechai were children.
According to the Midrash, this was Haman's second visit to Mordechai. He had come looking for
Mordechai on the previous night, after he had built the gallows upon which he intended to hang

4 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-016.htm

16
Mordechai. On the previous night he found Mordechai seated with 22,000 children before him,
dressed in sackcloth and studying Torah. The children had been fasting for three days. Haman
ordered them shackled in iron chains and appointed guards to watch them. He declared,
"Tomorrow I will kill these children first and then hang Mordechai!" All of the children burst out
in tears and their cries rose to the heavens. Two hours into the night, Hash-m hearkened unto their
cries, and "at that moment, Hash-m took the decrees [that He had written to punish the Jews] and
tore them up" (Esther Rabah 9:4).

Another Midrash (Esther Rabah 7:13) relates that it was a group of children who first encouraged
Mordechai with an omen from above that his prayers would be answered.

The Midrash is clearly making a point that it was the children who predicted, and brought about,
Haman's downfall. This is reflected in the verse that says, "Through the mouths of children and
babes You have shown Your power to the oppressors, bringing an end to a vengeful enemy"
(Tehilim 8:3).

Why did children play such a significant role in the miracle of Purim?

Children have a special power to protect the entire Jewish people from Haman in particular and
from Amalek in general. The Gemara in Bechoros (5b; see Rashi there) teaches that Amalek first
attacked the Jews only because "they weakened their hands from [studying] the words of the
Torah." Only when the Jewish people corrected this weakness were they able to conquer Amalek.
Similarly, Haman succeeded in passing his evil decree only because the Jews "were lazy in the
study of Torah" (Megilah 11a), and it was only in the merit of the children's pure Torah learning
that the Jewish people were saved.

Jewish children ensure the continuity of the study of Torah. According to the Midrash (Shocher
Tov 8; Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 1:4:1, see also Shabbos 33b), our children are our "guarantors" that
we will study the Torah. Children learn Torah in the purest manner possible, since "the breath
(speech) of one who has not sinned cannot be compared to that of one who has sinned" (Shabbos
119b).

At the time of Purim, the children -- who had not yet accomplished their task of perpetuating the
Torah for future generations -- were threatened along with the rest of the nation by Haman's evil
plot. When the children, led by their bold mentor, Mordechai, strengthened themselves in the study
of Torah, the entire Jewish people merited to be saved from the hands of the enemy. The redeemed
nation was now prepared to accept the Torah anew (Shabbos 88a, "Kiyemu v'Kiblu").

This explanation for the central role of children in the miracle of Purim lends clarity to the words
of TOSFOS later in Megilah. The Mishnah later (19b) quotes Rebbi Yehudah who states that a
minor may read the Megilah for an adult on Purim.

Why may a minor read the Megilah for an adult? In the case of all other Mitzvos, a minor cannot
exempt an adult from his obligation to perform the Mitzvah because the minor's obligation to
perform the Mitzvah is merely educational (Chinuch) and is secondary to the adult's obligation.
Why is the Mitzvah of reading Megilas Esther different from all other Mitzvos?

17
TOSFOS (24a, DH Aval) addresses this question. Tosfos explains that when the Chachamim
instituted the Mitzvah of reading the Megilah, they obligated minors along with adults because
"children, too, were included in the miracle" of Purim, the same reason for which women are
obligated to read the Megilah (4a). Since a minor's obligation in the case of the Mitzvah of Megilah
is not merely a secondary obligation due to Chinuch but rather the identical obligation that applies
to an adult, a minor may read the Megilah for an adult according to Rebbi Yehudah.

The Rishonim give two explanations for the Gemara's intention when it says that women are
obligated to read the Megilah "because they were also included in the miracle." According to one
explanation, Haman's decree to annihilate the Jewish people included both men and women (Esther
3:13). Since the miracle of Purim saved the lives of the women just as it saved the lives of the men,
it is appropriate that women proclaim their appreciation for the salvation by reading the Megilah
every year. This logic clearly applies to children as well.

According to the second explanation, "they were also included in the miracle" means that on Purim
a woman was the primary agent for the Jews' salvation. Esther risked her life and persuaded the
king to intervene on the Jews' behalf, and she inspired the nation to fast and repent. In recognition
of her role in bringing about the miracle of Purim, the Chachamim included all women in the
obligation to read the Megilah on Purim.

How does this explanation for "they were also included in the miracle" apply to children? In what
way were children instrumental in bringing about the rescue from Haman's decree?

According to the Midrashim mentioned above, children indeed played a pivotal role in bringing
about the salvation of Purim, and thus they have the same obligation to read the Megilah as adults.

This also explains the widespread custom cited by the REMA (OC 690) in the name of
the AVUDRAHAM and ORCHOS CHAYIM. The Rema writes, "It was once customary
for children to draw a picture of Haman or to write the name 'Haman' on sticks and stones and
to clap them together so as to erase his name, in the spirit of the verse, 'You shall erase every
trace of Amalek...' (Devarim 25:19).

This eventually evolved into the children's present custom of banging [at the mention of] Haman
when the Megilah is read publicly." Perhaps it was the practice of children to demonstrate the
eradication of Haman by erasing his name from stones and by protesting the mention of his name,
because it was they who brought about his downfall!

THE TIMING OF THE THREE-DAY FAST

The Gemara relates that Haman's downfall was due to the merit of the fasting and repentance of
the Jewish people. The Gemara says that after Mordechai was given royal honor by Haman at the
orders of the king, Mordechai returned to his fasting and sackcloth. Later that day, Haman was
killed.

18
(a) RASHI proves that the three-day fast decreed by Esther was observed on the fourteenth,
fifteenth, and sixteenth of Nisan, because Mordechai was still fasting after he was led by Haman
on the royal horse. The Gemara here relates that on the day that Haman came to take Mordechai
to dress him in the royal garments and lead him on the royal horse, he found Mordechai teaching
the laws of the Korban ha'Omer to the Chachamim. That day must have been the sixteenth of
Nisan, the day on which the Korban ha'Omer was offered in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Later that day,
Haman was hanged on his own gallows.

(b) The Midrashim, however, teach that the fast was observed on the thirteenth, fourteenth, and
fifteenth of Nisan (Esther Rabah 8:7, Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer #50). The fast ended on the fifteenth
of Nisan, and on that night (the eve of the sixteenth) "the slumber of the king was disturbed" and
the prayers of the Jews were answered. Both the Midrash and the Gemara agree that the salvation
occurred on the day on which the Omer was offered (Midrash Esther Rabah 10:4; see CHESHEK
SHLOMO here).

The RASHASH (15a), in fact, sheds doubt on Rashi's interpretation of the Gemara and suggests
that the Gemara here also means that the public fast ended on the fifteenth and not on the sixteenth.
The reason why Mordechai was still fasting after he was led around on the horse was because it is
the practice of the righteous to continue the fast past its limit until their prayers are answered, as
the Midrash (Esther Rabah 10:6) explicitly says.

(c) The TARGUM apparently follows a third approach. According to the Targum (Esther 6:1),
the night during which the king's slumber was disturbed was the eve of the fifteenth of Nisan, the
same night on which Hash-m killed the firstborn of the Egyptians many centuries earlier. (This
may be the intention of the author of "va'Yehi ba'Chatzi ha'Lailah," a Piyut recited after the Seder
on Pesach night, who writes, "You began [Haman's] defeat by disturbing [the king's] sleep -- at
night," a reference to the night on which Hash-m killed the firstborn of Egypt.) The Targum
apparently disagrees with the Gemara's statement that the merit of the Korban ha'Omer brought
about the salvation (and thus the salvation did not occur on the sixteenth, but on the fifteenth).
However, the Targum's opinion seems to be inconsistent with the verses in the Megilah which
relate that Esther went "on the third day" to invite the king to her first banquet. The earliest day to
which "the third day" may refer is the third day from Haman's decree, or the afternoon of the
fifteenth of Nisan. The king's sleep was disturbed on the following evening, and thus it could not
have been disturbed before the eve of the sixteenth of Nisan! (The MAHARSHA (15a, DH
va'Ya'avor) is bothered by this question and offers a forced solution.)

Perhaps the intention of the Targum is as follows. The Jews who lived outside of Eretz Yisrael
never knew for certain which day the Beis Din in Eretz Yisrael had declared as Rosh Chodesh, the
first day of the new month. For this reason, they observed two days of Yom Tov. Mordechai
thought that Adar of that year had only 29 days, as it has in most years, and thus he wrote that
Haman's decree was enacted on the thirteenth of Nisan. He taught his students the laws of the
Korban ha'Omer (and the king's slumber was disturbed) on the night which he thought was the
sixteenth of Nisan, which was the day on which Haman was hanged. The Targum, however,
maintains that Mordechai's reckoning of the chronology was inaccurate; Adar actually had 30 days
that year, and the night on which he taught the laws of the Korban ha'Omer (and the king's slumber
was disturbed) was actually the fifteenth of Nisan! The dates recorded in the Megilah are based on

19
what Mordechai thought they were and not on the actual dates according to the declaration of the
Beis Din in Eretz Yisrael. In fact, Mordechai may never have found out what day the month was
declared to be in Eretz Yisrael that year. Accordingly, the Targum may agree with the Gemara and
the Midrash.

TWO HOURS INTO THE NIGHT

The Midrash relates that Haman came to Mordechai on the night on which he built the gallows
intended for Mordechai. He found Mordechai seated with 22,000 children before him, dressed in
sackcloth and studying Torah. The children had been fasting for three days. Haman ordered them
shackled in iron chains and appointed guards to watch them. He declared, "Tomorrow I will kill
these children first and then hang Mordechai!" All of the children burst out in tears. The Midrash
says that even though their parents brought them food with which to break their three-day fast,
they refused to eat and continued to fast for another night. Two hours into the night, Hash-m
hearkened unto their cries, and "at that moment, Hash-m took the decrees [that He had written to
punish the Jews] and tore them up" (Esther Rabah 9:4).
The Midrash says that Hash-m decided to save the Jewish people two hours into the night. What
is the significance of these two hours? Why did the salvation of the Jewish people occur two hours
into the night?

RAV MOSHE SHAPIRO shlit'a answers this question based on a statement made in the name of
the VILNA GA'ON (as cited in YEINAH SHEL TORAH). When Esther told Mordechai to have
everyone fast for three days, she said, "Also I and my maidens shall fast as such" -- "Gam Ani
v'Na'arosai Atzum Ken." She added, "With that (uv'*Chen*)" -- with the merit of the fast -- "I will
come to the king" (Esther 4:16).

The Gematriya of "v'Chen" is 72. Esther meant that in the merit of the three-day (72-hour) fast,
she would come to the king. (The Midrash (Esther Rabah 9:2) explains that Hash-m never ignores
the pleas of the Jews when they are afflicted for three days.) However, when she said that she, too,
would fast, she said, "Gam Ani... Atzum Ken" -- "Also I... will fast as such." The Gematriya of
"Ken" is 70. Esther meant that she would fast for only 70 hours, or two full days and most, but not
all, of the third day.

The reason why Esther did not intend to complete her fast on the third day was because she
intended to go to the king and invite him to her banquet as part of her efforts to save the Jewish
people. Her audience with the king would occur before nightfall on the third day, but she could
not stand before the king after having fasted for three full days, weak, disheveled, and with
malodorous breath. Therefore, she needed to break her fast two hours early in order to prepare to
stand before the king. (The Targum Sheni 6:1, in contrast, writes that part of the miracle was that
she was disheveled as a result of her fast when she entered the king's chambers.)

The two hours that were missing from Esther's fast were compensated for by the two extra hours
that the children fasted into the night. Their prayers were answered exactly two hours into the
night, because at that moment Esther's three-day fast was completed!

20
(This explanation is consistent with the view of the Midrash which says that Esther appeared before
the king to invite him to her banquet on the last day of the three-day fast; see previous Insight.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The vast majority of the Tanach is prose, written in a straightforward manner, with the words
written together in close proximity, and paragraph and chapter breaks added within the text as
necessary. On occasion we find poetry and songs in the Tanach, which are distinguished by the
manner in which they are written.

Rabbi Chanina bar Papa quotes Rabbi Sheila ish Kefar Temarta who points out that the main
method of presentation for songs and poetry in the TaNaKH is ari’ah al gabei leveinah – like
brickwork, with alternating long and short lines set up like a building. A classic example of
the ari’ach al gabei leveinah system is Shirat ha-Yam – the Song of the Sea that is sung by the
Children of Israel upon escaping from Egypt and from Pharaoh’s army. As is evident from looking
at the Biblical text as it appears in the written Torah (Shemot 15) the song leaves large spaces
between words and is clearly different from your standard page of prose.

Rabbi Sheila ish Kefar Temarta does note that we find another method of writing songs in the
Torah, ari’ah al gabei ari’ah – when the “bricks” are piled up with one directly above the other.
Such a system is found in Megillat Esther, in chapter 9 when Haman’s sons are hanged and
in Sefer Yehoshua (chapter 10) where we find a celebratory list of the Canaanite kings who had
been conquered by Yehoshu’a and the Children of Israel.

As Rabbi Sheila ish Kefar Temarta explains, the difference between these songs is that unlike
the ari’ach al gabei leveinah, the ari’avh al gabei ari’ach is not a sturdy structure. Since these songs
celebrate the downfall of the enemies of the Jewish people (as opposed to Shirat ha-Yam whose
focus is on the miracles wrought by God on behalf of His people), they are set up in a way that
testifies to the permanent downfall of these evil people, who should never recover from their
defeat.

Rabbi Jeremy Rosen writes:6

If the Gemara was at all ambivalent in the way it handled Vashti, or equivocal about Esther, its
agenda with Haman is clear: Much of today's page is concerned with humiliating this villain and
exaggerating his fall from power which, in a way, contradicts Proverbs 24:17, which
states: “When your enemy falls, do not rejoice.”

Is there an exception for genocidal maniacs? Perhaps. Haman receives little appreciation today,
but the Talmud finds a way of mitigating this gleeful attack by finding positive things to say about
Haman’s entourage. We start with this verse:

5 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_megillah1622/
6
Myjewishlearning.com

21
And Haman recounted to Zeresh his wife and to all the people he loved everything that had
befallen him. Then his wise men and Zeresh his wife said to him: “If Mordechai, before whom
you have begun to fall, is descended from the Judeans, then you will not prevail over him, but
you shall surely fall before him.” (Esther 6:13)

The rabbis, always close readers of text, note that at first Zeresh, Haman’s wife, is mentioned
before his other “loved ones.” But then the text reverses the order, mentioning the “wise ones”
first and Zeresh second. One way of understanding this is to suggest that Zeresh might have been
beloved, but she was not wise. However, the Gemara has a different view of Haman’s advisors:

It calls them “his loved ones,” and in the continuation of the verse it calls them “his wise
men.” Rabbi Yohanan said: From this we learn that whoever says something wise, even if he is
from the nations of the world, is called a wise man.

Wisdom, it turns out, can exist among even the wicked nations. (Haman is thought to descend from
the unforgivable Amalekite clan.) But, as the Book of Proverbs reminds us, wisdom is a path to
righteousness. So can these wise advisees really be so wicked? Perhaps not. The Talmud reminds
us that it was Zeresh who suggested that Haman build a scaffold to hang Mordechai on — not the
wise advisors. The Talmud hereby acknowledges that there is indeed wisdom beyond the confines
of the Jewish world — and perhaps even among the righteously reviled Amalekites.

Moreover, the non-Jewish advisors are shown to be knowledgeable about Jewish history. Recall
that they refer to Mordechai as a Judean, not a Jew. The word Judeans can be used to refer to Jews,
but it can also refer specifically to people descended from the tribe of Judah. As the rabbis explain,
Haman’s wise men reasoned:

If Mordechai were descended from the other tribes, you could still prevail over him, but since
he is from the tribe of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim or Manasseh, you cannot prevail over him.

How do the wise advisors know this? Because they can quote scripture:

Concerning Judah, the proof of this is as it is written: “Your hand shall be on the neck of your
enemies.” (Genesis 49:8)

This quotation is part of Jacob’s dying blessing to Judah at the end of Genesis, and it indicates that
he will emerge victorious over his enemies. Therefore, Haman never stood a chance against a
Judean. And the proof that Haman cannot prevail over the other three tribes mentioned?

As it is written about them: “Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh, stir up God’s
anger might.” (Psalms 80:3)

As we can see, these advisors are not only wise and righteous, they are versed in Bible! Indeed,
even their words are carefully chosen to reveal hidden meanings. As they say to Haman, going
back to the verse where we started:

22
“But you shall surely fall (nafol tippol) before him.” (Esther 6:13)

Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai interpreted this verse homiletically: Why the repetition of the word to
fall? The wise men said to Haman: This Jewish nation is compared to the dust of the earth, and
it is also compared to the stars in heaven. This teaches you that when they descend, they descend
to the dust, and when they rise, they rise to the stars.

Haman’s wise advisors — in addition to being oriented toward greater good than we might expect
and being able to quote the Bible — use the kind of rich language that conveys many layers of
meaning. They double the word for falling (in the plainest sense of the verse, this is a grammatical
device used purely for emphasis) to indicate just how far the Jews are capable of falling, as well
as how high they can reach. If they err, they can descend to the dust. But if they choose what is
right, the stars are quite literally the limit.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

In recent weeks I’ve been listening to the podcast ‘A Slight Change of Plans’, and when I studied
a particular section of our daf (Megillah 16a) relating to Charvona, it reminded me of a fascinating
episode titled ‘The Science of Quitting’8 where the host, Maya Shankar, interviews Annie Duke
who has recently written a book on the topic of quitting and why we should be prepared to cut our
losses and walk away from situations much more than we do.

Duke’s main argument is that we celebrate those who persevere (as evident from the fact that a
synonym from grittiness is ‘heroism’) but oftentimes dismiss those who quit when they reach a
point that is not good for them (as evident from the fact that a synonym for quitting is ‘cowardice’).
As Duke explains, ‘the heroes are the ones who persevere beyond the point of physical or
emotional or mental wellbeing in order to push past that... But the problem of course, is that, a
lot of times, those people have put themselves in danger [and] in a situation where you really
ought to have turned around. And what I think is really interesting…is that…we'd prefer
somebody to push past the point of sensibility and persevere and actually perish to somebody
who rightly quits early.’

As evidence of this claim, Duke makes reference to Rob Hall who perished in 1996 while leading
a group up Mount Everest (as told in the book ‘Thin Air’ and in the movie ‘Everest’). However,
this need not have happened. Hall had remained near the peak of the mountain after a time when
it was safe for him to do so and in order to assist Doug Hansen who was determined to get to the
top no matter what. Contrasting this, three members of his team – Hutchinson, Taske, and
Kasischke - knowing the danger, turned around and returned to camp. As Duke explains, ‘these
three people turned around at the right time and made these great decisions. [Yet] aren't the heroes
of our narratives. And that's part of the problem. Like, how do you get people like that to be the
hero of your narrative?

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
8
see https://bit.ly/317iOai

23
Interestingly, this topic of quitting – although not referred to with this word - is a major theme in
Rav Soloveitchik’s essay ‘Catharsis’ who distinguishes between the concept of ‫( כח‬koach) -
namely the physical strength to achieve a particular outcome, and ‫( גבורה‬heroism) – namely the
inner strength to retreat from pursuing that particular outcome for a longer-term goal. As he
explains, ‘at times the combatant who is defeated on the field of battle is the one who emerges
as the gibbor, victor in a higher historical sense; and not the apparent winner. Gevurah is
sometimes inversely related to koach.’ In fact, he then proceeds to explain that, ‘halacha teaches
that at every level of our total existential experience… one must engage in the dialectical
movement by alternately advancing and retreating.’

In terms of our daf, Rabbi Elazar states that we can deduce from Esther 7:9 that Charvona was
originally among those who advised Haman to hang Mordechai but, upon realizing that this would
not occur, he separated himself from Haman and sided with Mordechai. From this depiction,
Charvona quit and ‘switched sides’ midway through the story, while other rabbinic teachings speak
more positively about Charvona who, according to the Yerushalmi (Megillah 3:7) and the popular
song sung by many after the reading of Megillat Esther, should be remembered for good. Overall,
there are many ways to understand the activities of Charvona in the Purim story.9 However, one
reading – as implied in our daf – is that Charvona, perhaps similar to the sons of Korach as well
as On ben Pelet, teaches us about the importance of quitting and stepping away from a bad
situation.

At times this means stepping away from an inherently bad situation. While at other times, it means
stepping away from a situation which – though it may have started off as being a justifiable one –
has since become untenable. Still, the point made by Rav Soloveitchik, and more recently by Annie
Duke, is that there are moments in our life that the right and heroic thing to do is to step away from
an immoral, toxic or dangerous situation. And according to Rabbi Elazar, this is what Charvona
chose to do.

9
as discussed by Professor Yonatan Grossman – see https://bit.ly/3ExTGac

24
 Joseph Receives His Father and Brothers in Egypt by Salomon de Bray

Mordechai and Haman

Mark Kerzner writes:10

King Ahashverosh asked Haman, "What should be done for a man whom the king wants to honor?"
Haman, thinking of himself, said, "That man should be made to ride on king's horse, in king's
garments." The king said, "Do this for Mordechai."

10 https://talmudilluminated.com/megillah/megillah16.html

25
Haman tried to argue, "Why do you need to do all of this? If you want to thank Mordechai, just
give him a village or a river, to collect taxes." Ahashverosh answered, "This, too, do for him." That
is why the Megillah states, "Do not leave out any word of what you have said."

Haman went to Mordechai, to put him on king's horse. However, Mordechai said that he was weak
from the fast, and could not mount the horse by himself. Haman had to bow down and allow
Mordechai to step on him. As he was mounting the horse, Mordechai also kicked Haman. Haman
asked him, "How can you do this? Your own king Solomon tells you, 'When your enemy falls, do
not rejoice.'?" Mordechai answered, "That is said about a Jewish enemy. But about you it says,
'You shall tread upon their high places.'"

The Talmud then turns to the story of Benjamin, from whom Mordechai descended. When Joseph
received his brothers in Egypt, he gave to Benjamin five portions of food and five garments, thus
showing preferential treatment. How could he do this, seeing that Jacob's preferential treatment of
him earlier led to brothers hating and selling him? The answer is that Joseph was thus influencing
the future for Mordechai, who would wear five royal garments.

Rashi to Bereishis 45:14 points out that the first time the word “neck” is written, it is written in the
plural - “‫“ צוארו‬.11

Yosef cried a double cry as he saw that the two Batei Mikdash that would be built in the territory
of Binyamin would later be destroyed. Binyamin cried on the neck of Yosef since he foresaw that
the Mishkan which would stand for 369 years in Yosef's territory at Shilo would eventually be
destroyed. It would seem that the two brothers had more immediate things about which to cry.

Yosef had not seen his family for twenty-two years, and many troubles had occurred both to him
and to his brothers. Why does the Gemara assume that they were crying over the future rather than
over the past and the present? Yosef cried immediately upon revealing himself to his brothers,
expressing the overflowing feelings that he had held back while testing them.

After speaking with them and arranging for the transfer of his father Yaakov and their families to
Egypt, suddenly he and Binyamin broke out weeping. Obviously this was not connected to his
discussion with his brothers but to something else. Once the plans were made for Yaakov and his
family to go into exile into Egypt, both Yosef and Binyamin saw through divine spirit – ruach
hakodesh - that this exile would be a portent of future exiles brought about by the internal enemies
who would destroy the Mishkan and external enemies who would destroy both Temples.

11 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Megilla%20016.pdf

26
In Yosef's case, the verse says that “he fell on the neck of Binyamin, and he wept.” The two verbs
(fell, wept) signify two destructions. The word “falling” denotes a temporary destruction. This
symbolizes the destruction of the First Temple which was rebuilt after seventy years. “Weeping”
refers to a destruction that appears to have no end, which is the second destruction, which has yet
to be rebuilt after close to two thousand years.

Binyamin cried on Yosef’s neck for the Tabernacle which would never be rebuilt. Furthermore,
the neck symbolizes the Temple, as the sages explain in Brachos 30a based on the verse in Shir
HaShirim (4:4), “Your neck is like the tower of David.” The tower of David is the site of the
“building built to which all mouths turn.”

The Gemara explains that the “building built to which all mouths turn” is the Temple, to which
everyone falls in prayer. The word used for “building” here is the same word used for the neck,
indicating that just as the neck rises up above the body, so too the Temple stands out in its place
both spiritually and physically.

The generations of the forefathers clearly saw that their task was to set the tone for all future
generations. Even though the Temples had not yet been built and destroyed, and even though they
never would actually see them, they taught us to constantly keep their loss before our eyes and to
look forward to the time when the Temple will be rebuilt.

Rav Ada from Yafo said: [The names of] Haman’s ten sons and [the word] ‫ עשרת‬must be read
in one breath.

The Chayei Adam (1) writes that the custom for the congregation to read the names of the ten sons
of Haman is not an established custom and should not be practiced. Sefer Zeh Hashulchan (2)
writes, in defense of the practice, that the custom developed because many times it is difficult for
the congregation to hear the reader recite each word clearly since it is read so quickly, due the
requirement to read it in one breath. Furthermore, often times the words are not enunciated clearly,
therefore, in response to these two concerns the custom developed for each person to read this
section on his own.

The Rogachover Gaon (3) explained the custom in a different manner. The principle that allows
the congregation to listen to the reader and nevertheless, discharge their obligation is the principle
of listening is like reading. There is, however, a limitation to this principle. The
principle only considers it as if the listener read the words but if there is an obligation to read the
words in a particular fashion, is ineffective for that requirement. When this
framework is applied to the reading the names of Haman we come upon a dilemma. Although
listening to the reader discharges one’s obligation to read the words, it is ineffective towards the
obligation to read the names in one breath. That obligation can only be fulfilled by each individual,

27
thus the custom developed for each person to read the names of Haman’s sons in one breath. The
Beis HaLevi4 makes a similar comment regarding Birkas Kohanim. In addition to the requirement
of the kohanim to recite the words of the blessing, there is a requirement that the blessing should
be recited ‫—רם בקול‬in a loud voice. Thus, although it would be possible to have one kohen read
the words of the blessing and have the other kohanim discharge their obligation of reading the
words, the principle of is ineffective for the obligation to read the words in a loud
voice. Therefore, each kohen must say each word.

The Minchas Elazar, zt”l, would often visit Rav Shlomo Alfandri, zt”l, on Shabbos afternoon.

One time, the Rebbe took along a bottle of aged wine of excellent quality so that he could make a
l’chayim with Rav Shlomo. A large number of his Chassidim joined him as he made his way over
to the other Rav’s home. When they arrived, the two great Rabbonim wished one another a warm
and heartfelt ‘gut Shabbos,’ and the Rebbe offered Rav Shlomo some of the wine that he had
brought.

Rav Shlomo said, “Usually I refrain from wine, since it is not good for my health. I am sure,
however, that the Munkatcher Rebbe’s wine will not damage me!” Rav Shlomo drank deeply, and
then asked that wine and fruit be set out for the visiting group of chassidim. Everyone there partook
of the food and drink that soon appeared on the table.

Rav Shlomo said, “We find in Megillah 16b that Yosef HaTzaddik sent wine that ‘enhances the
mind of the wise’ to his father, Yaakov Avinu. This phrase teaches that the mind of the wise is like
aged wine. The more they age, the deeper their understanding. The deeper their understanding, the
more strength of character they have.”

The Rebbe interjected, “Actually, Rav Shmelke of Nikolsburg, zt”l, said a similar thing on the
Gemara in Shabbos 152a. There we see that food helps those younger than forty, and drink helps
those over forty. Rav Shmelke said that one who is younger than forty must learn a lesson from
food, for it spoils with age.

So too, one who is younger than forty must understand that is it only by taking full advantage of
every moment of his youth that he will be able to achieve what he needs to in this world. After
forty, one should learn a lesson from wine, for it improves with age. So too, the older person must
be heartened by the idea that even if he hasn’t attained all that he might have wished spiritually,
his chances are far better now because his mind has developed, and he has a deeper understanding

28
than he did when he was younger. If he will only apply himself from now on, he will surely achieve
his spiritual goals!”

Banquet of Esther and Ahasuerus

VICTORS, Jan
(b. 1619, Amsterdam, d. 1676, East Indies)

Rav Yitzchak Blau writes:12

12 https://haretzion.linnovate.co.il/en/talmud/studies-gemara/midrash-and-aggada/accusing-achashverosh-and-nature-purim-
salvation

29
And Esther said: "The adversary and the enemy is this wicked Haman (Esther 7:6)." R. Elazar
said: "This teaches us that she was pointing toward Achashverosh and an angel came and
moved her hand towards Haman." (Megilla 16a)

Two questions emerge from R. Elazar's statement. On what textual grounds does he argue that
Esther first pointed to Achashverosh? Furthermore, why would Esther do such a thing when her
clear target is the wicked Haman? R. Baruch Esptein offers two answers to the first question in
his Torah Temima. The original Hebrew reads "ish tzar ve-oyev Haman ha-ra ha-zeh." According
to Rav Epstein, the pronoun "ha-zeh" renders the mention of Haman's name superfluous as Esther
clearly points to the culprit. He also argues that the proper noun, "Haman" should not appear in
the middle of a series of negative adjectives describing Haman. Apparently, Esther began talking
about someone else and only switched to Haman in the middle.

Assuming we have textual grounds for this homily, what idea lies implicit within? R. Epstein
argues that Esther was furious with Achashverosh for the capriciousness and hatred he exhibited
when consenting to the decrees of Haman. She truly wanted to verbalize her disgust with her beast
of a husband. However, the angel reminded her that even though Achashverosh deserved censure,
it was currently far more important to deal with Haman and find a way to overcome the decree
against the Jews.

The Vilna Ga'on takes Esther's accusation in a different direction in his commentary on Megillat
Esther. He points out that the images running through our mind often impacts on the words that
escape from our mouths. At times, we want to call Shimon and call Reuven because we were
thinking about Reuven. Apparently, people before Freud understood the phenomenon of the
"Freudian slip." Esther was beseeching God to deal with Achashverosh. That thought lurking in
the back of her mind led her finger to initially point at the king until the angel straightened the
matter out.
The Torah Temima understands that Esther consciously wanted to accuse the king while the Gaon
thinks that her subconscious pushed her in that direction. Both agree that she harbored justified
resentment toward the Persian monarch. This highlights the heroism of Esther and helps us
appreciate another gemara about the holiday of Purim. Esther bravely enters a contest that leads
her to marry a man capable of terrible things. Even when the Jews emerge victorious, she must go
on living with him. The story ends on a high note for the Jewish people, but the heroism of Esther
does not come to an end.

The gemara (Megilla 14a) questions the absence of Hallel on Purim and provides three
explanations. Perhaps we do not say Hallel on a miracle that occurred in the diaspora. Perhaps the
recital of the Megilla functions as the Hallel. Finally, the joy of the story remains incomplete as
the Jews still find themselves "servants of Achashverosh." The Pesach story reflects total
salvation, but the Purim story represents a reprieve of great significance that does not yet permit a
sense of complete redemption. Esther's desire to point a finger at the Persian monarch gives us a
sense of the ongoing problem at the story's end.

As a final point, let us note that the absence of Hallel does not mean an absence of celebration. We
do make Purim a holiday and a quite joyous one at that. R. Tzadok Hakohen of Lublin (Divrei
Soferim 32) sees Pesach and Purim as two important paradigms. As mentioned, Pesach represents

30
leaving the darkness. Purim, on the other hand, serves a model for finding the ability to cope with
remaining in the darkness. Even if both do not merit Hallel, both are worthy of celebration. It
behooves us to remember this, as instances of complete salvation are few and far between. We
must take joy in and show gratitude for the ability to make it through difficult times, even when
our problems do not depart entirely.

The Accidental Iniquity of Amalek

Gavriel Lakser writes:13

Amongst the many nations in the Hebrew Bible that wage war against Israel, there is one that
invites God’s wrath unlike any other. Following Amalek’s ruthless assault on the Israelites upon
Israel’s departure from Egypt (see Deuteronomy 25:17-19), God commands Moses and Israel to
“utterly erase Amalek’s memory from under the heavens” (Exodus 17:14).[1] Furthermore, the
Torah declares, “YHWH will be at war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Ibid, 17:16).
There is simply no other nation amongst the enemies of Israel that earns God’s enmity as does
Amalek.

So too, in the rabbinic tradition, Amalek is presented as the arch-rival of the Jewish people, actively
and ceaselessly pursuing God’s chosen nation. Ramban, for example, states that while all the other
nations feared Israel following the Israelites’ miraculous redemption from Egyptian slavery,
Amalek traveled from afar with the specific intention to wage war with God and Israel (Exodus

13 https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/the-accidental-iniquity-of-amalek/

31
17:16). The Midrash describes Amalek’s attack as aimed at bringing down the Israelites from their
spiritual loftiness achieved through their defeat of Egypt, even at the cost of destroying itself in
the process.[2] Netziv argues that Amalek’s war against Israel is motivated by a desire to remove
God’s divine authority on earth (Ha-emek Davar on Exodus 17:16), and Malbim presents
Amalek’s assault on the Israelites as the latest chapter in the battle between Esau and Jacob (Ha-
Torah v-HaMitzvah, Exodus 17:8). While the commentators offer variations on the particulars,
they all agree that Amalek’s attack on the Israelites is deliberate and ruthless.

However, when considering the Torah’s own recounting of the Amalekite attack on the Israelites
in the book of Deuteronomy, we find that one of the defining characteristics of Amalek’s
wickedness is, curiously, the very happenstance nature of its encounter with Israel:

Remember that which Amalek did to you on the way when you departed Egypt; that
it happened upon you (asher korkha) on the way… (Deuteronomy 25:17-18)[3]

Why does the Torah include the detail of chance in its indictment of Amalek?[4] How can Amalek
be held accountable for matters beyond its control?

Haman’s Incidental Confrontation with Persian Jewry

In fact, the episode in Refidim is not the only place in the Hebrew Bible where we find a
circumstantial confrontation between Amalek and Israel. Some 800 years after the episode with
Amalek at Refidim, the Jews of Persia face the threat of annihilation at the hands of another
Amalekite, on this occasion, the wicked Haman.[5] And once again, the enemy has no intention at
the outset to harm the Jews:

And all the king’s servants that were at the gate of the king would bow and prostrate themselves
to Haman for so had the king commanded. But Mordecai would not bow or prostrate… And when
Haman saw that Mordecai would not bow or prostrate before him, Haman became filled with
anger. And it was scornful in his eyes to lay hands on Mordecai alone [for they had told him the
nation of Mordecai]. And Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were in the entire kingdom of
Ahasuerus, the nation of Mordecai. (Esther 3:2, 5-6)

In this particular case, Amalek is brought into confrontation with the Jews due to Mordecai’s
stubborn refusal to give honor to Haman.

Israel as Provocateur of Amalek

In fact, in turning our attention to the details of the actual battle between Amalek and Israel as
presented in the book of Exodus, we find that, here too, the Jews incite Amalek’s fury. For directly
preceding the battle, the Torah relates the following episode:

32
And the entire Israelite assembly journeyed from the Sin desert by the word of mouth of
YHWH, and they encamped in Refidim. And the nation quarreled with Moses. And they said,
“Give us water and we will drink.” And Moses said, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you
test YHWH?” And there the nation thirsted for water, and the nation complained against Moses,
and it said, “Why have you taken us up from Egypt to kill me, my children, and my livestock from
thirst…” And he called the name of the place, Masah u-Merivah (literally, “testing and strife”),
because of the quarrel of the Israelites and because of their testing of YHWH, saying, “Is God in
our midst or not?” (Exodus 17:1-3, 7)

And then:

And Amalek came, and it warred with Israel. (17:8)

Rashi takes note of the juxtaposition of Israel’s questioning of God’s presence with Amalek’s
attack, offering up the following parable:

A man carries his son on his shoulders and departs on his journey. The son sees an object and says,
“Father, pick up that object and give it to me.” And he gives it to him. It happens a second and a
third time. They encounter a man on the way. The son asks the man, “Have you seen my father?”
His father says to him, “You don’t know where I am?” He takes the son off his shoulders and the
dog comes to bite him. (Pesikta Rabbati 13:6, as cited in Rashi Exodus 17:8)

The lesson in the parable is clear. Despite having experienced God’s protection throughout their
travails in the wilderness, the Israelites are unconvinced of God’s presence amongst them. The
very moment they face a challenge from an inhospitable surrounding natural environment, they
yearn for the “security” of slavery that they recall back in Egypt. In anger, God releases the dog
(i.e., Amalek) to come and bite them.

And so, no less than Mordecai, the Israelites are responsible for Amalek’s attack in the wilderness.

There is, of course, a seemingly obvious distinction between Mordecai’s incitement of Amalek
and that of the Israelites in the desert. As Rashi and other commentators state, Mordecai’s refusal
to bow before Haman is an act of virtue in defiance of a wicked man who had proclaimed himself
a deity.[6] For the Israelites in the wilderness, however, the onus is clearly on them for their
confrontation with Amalek.

Reconsidering Mordecai’s Defiance of Haman

While not disputing the fact of Haman’s wickedness, not all the rabbinic commentators view
Mordecai’s defiance of Haman in such a straightforward manner. Malbim (Esther 3:4) points out
that any concerns of idolatry in bowing to Haman would be pertinent should Haman pass Mordecai
from a distance, in which case Mordecai’s act of insubordination would not be visible to Haman.
However, should Mordecai be within the line of sight of Haman, Malbim asserts that bowing
before the vizier would merely reflect a sign of respect for a dignitary of the king and that refusing

33
to do so would, in fact, be a deliberate expression of personal hostility towards Haman and an act
of rebellion against the king.

But for what reason would Mordecai harbor such feelings of animosity towards Haman or
Ahasuerus? Certainly, with regard to Haman, there is no indication from the text of any history
between them prior to this pivotal moment in the story.

In order to make sense of Mordecai’s actions, we need to return to the beginning of the megillah,
through which we can get a clearer understanding of Mordecai’s motivations.

Persia: The Embodiment of a Naturalistic Weltanschauung

The story opens with an elaborate description of two festive banquets hosted by Persian king
Ahasuerus, who heads a vast empire that incorporates 127 provinces extending from “Hodu to
Cush” (Esther 1:1). The first of these gala events is reserved for the king’s ministers and servants
in the palace and continues for an interminable 180 days, the intent behind which is to “display the
wealth and honor of his kingdom and the splendor of his greatness” (1:4).

Upon the conclusion of this half-year long feast, the king hosts a second party, this time a ‘modest’
seven-day affair for all of the king’s subjects across the land, an event no less ostentatious than the
first one.

Then, on the last day of the festivities, while in a state of drunken frivolity, Ahasuerus calls for his
most prized possession- Queen Vashti- to be brought before all the guests to display her stunning
physical beauty before his subjects. But the Queen refuses to appear and be degraded by her
husband in public and, as a result of her insubordination, is stripped of her crown. An edict soon
follows which calls for all men across the kingdom to reinforce their dominance in their
households, lest their wives become emboldened through the queen’s example and rise up to
challenge the authority of their husbands (1:22).

The tone established from the very outset is of a Godless society in which the acquisition of wealth,
honor, and political power is the mark of success in life. There is little indication of a higher ethical
code or of a recognition of a Divine Overseer who assigns moral accountability to man for his
actions.

What about the Jewish community? Has it come to adopt the culture and worldview of its host
country?

A Spiritual Exile

There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital named Mordecai the son of Ya’ir, the son of Shim’i,
the son of Kish, a Benjaminite; who was exiled from Jerusalem with the exile that was exiled with
Yekhoniah the king of Judah that Nebuchadnezzar the king of Bavel had exiled. (Esther 2:5-6)

34
With the first mention of a Jewish presence in Persia we find a distinct emphasis placed on the fact
that Mordecai and his people are an exiled nation. One gets the sense that the text is not merely
describing the geographical displacement of the Jewish people.

From what we know about how the Babylonians and Persians typically treated their subjects, it is
fair to assume that life was, overall, quite comfortable for the Jews while living in exile. In the
case of Persia, comfort translates into spiritual apathy. This is evident from Persian Jewry’s lack
of response to King Cyrus’ edict granting the Jews the right to return to Jerusalem and to rebuild
the Temple, where but a fraction of the Jewish population takes up the invitation.[7]

And as the narrative proceeds, we find a number of indications that suggest the Jews have very
much assimilated into Persian culture. One such hint comes with the text’s introduction of Esther
and the Hebrew name she does not go by (2:7).

Then, after Esther is whisked away to the palace to participate in the pageantry for queen, the text
reports- on two occasions- that Mordecai instructs Esther to keep her Jewish identity concealed
from the palace officials and the king (2:10). Why is it so important to Mordecai that Esther’s
identity be kept a secret from the palace?

According to Ralbag (Esther 2:10), Mordecai’s concern is that the king is unlikely to select Esther
should he become aware of her inferior national pedigree.[8] Maharal (R. Judah Loeb b. Bezalel, Or
Hadash, Warsaw, 1874, pp. 54) argues that Mordecai’s fears stem from the possibility of Esther
being accused, once in power, of pushing for policies that favor the Jews over all the other subjects
in the kingdom, thus leading the Gentiles to incite the king against her. In either case, the
implications are that Mordecai assumes that the king and the broad Persian populace have a very
low opinion of the Jews. Yet, the fact that the Jews enjoy a peaceful and prosperous existence in
their host country suggests that they are not as despised as Mordecai might think, and that
Mordecai’s suspicions perhaps reveal more about his own feelings towards his faith.

Soon after Esther is crowned queen, Mordecai uncovers a plot by two palace officials to assassinate
the king. He immediately reports this information to Esther to warn the king. Yet the rabbis are
troubled by Mordecai’s actions. Why would Mordecai, a Jew, have any interest in protecting the
brutish Persian king?

Let us recall Maharal’s comments, above, that Mordecai’s instructions to Esther to conceal her
faith from the king are rooted in his fears that Esther be accused of being partial towards the Jewish
subjects in the kingdom. In truth, accusations of nepotism being leveled against Esther would not
be unfounded. For, according to Maharal, Mordecai is in fact thinking of his own promotion to a
position of power and influence in the palace as he instructs Esther to keep her identity hidden
from the king (Or Hadash, ibid). And with his discovery of the assassination plot, the conditions
are ripe for that promotion.

35
Nevertheless, Mordecai’s political maneuvering bears no fruit. Although his act of fealty is
recorded in the king’s chronicles, no reward or recognition comes his way. Immediately following
this episode, the king instead elevates Haman above all the other ministers in the palace (3:1).

One can imagine the sense of betrayal Mordecai feels upon learning of the king’s promotion of
this political nonentity,[9] specifically at the very moment that Mordecai is anticipating his own
political advancement. Then, to add insult to injury, the king commands that all the servants in the
palace are to prostrate themselves before the newly appointed vizier. For his part, Mordecai has
no intention of following through on these orders. With this, Malbim’s contention that Mordecai’s
defiance of Haman is of a personal nature appears to stand on firm ground. [10]

Each of these examples suggest that similar to their ancestors in the wilderness, the Jews of Persia
are caught up in what we might call a naturalistic worldview. For the recently freed Israelites, this
had been instilled in them as a result of 200 years of bitter slavery, where day-to-day life consisted
of a constant, predictable, and unmovable pattern enforced by the will of other men. They saw the
perpetual reinforcement of the message that man is sovereign in this world and lived a Darwinian
existence where the strong endured while the weak were trampled upon. For Persian Jewry, the
worldview is a result of the destruction of the Temple and the loss of political independence that
accompanies their spiritual decline.

Mordecai and Esther are a product of a spiritual environment in which one’s faith is beholden to
political maneuvering and kings of flesh and blood, and where the measure of success is one’s
achievement of power and influence. Thus, it is due to Mordecai’s own political ambitions, rooted
in his naturalistic worldview, that he feels such anger and disdain towards the king and Haman.
And just as with his Israelite forbearers, it is his adoption of a naturalistic weltanschauung that
incites Amalek’s assault.

Some Background: Israel’s Place Amongst the Nations

While Mordecai arouses Haman’s wrath, Haman’s response, oddly, is not directed merely at his
instigator. Rather, he determines to do away with all of Persian Jewry. Why such an extreme
reaction?

To make sense of Haman’s overexuberance, we need to first understand the nation of Israel’s
function in the world. Israel’s origins go back to its patriarch, Abraham, whom God selects to
become the progenitor of a nation that would bring blessing to “all the families of the
earth” (Genesis 12:3) due to his steadfast faith in God and his keeping of the ways of God, of
righteousness and justice (see Genesis 18:19). In other words, Abraham and his progeny would
become God’s representatives on earth through whom all nations would come to recognize God’s
presence in the world. As such, the Jewish people serve as a sort of spiritual barometer for the
nations. When Israel fulfills its role responsibly, it brings light to all of humanity. However, when
it fails in this regard, it causes a spiritual darkness to descend upon the world.[11]

36
For most, a world devoid of God’s presence is a thoroughly depressing thought. It suggests that
all of human existence is but an accident of physics without greater meaning or purpose. It means
that there is nowhere for one to turn for security in a world were, at any moment, his property,
family, or very life could be taken from him.

However, for some, a world of randomness and disorder is the ideal. For those who lust to murder,
steal, and rape, a Godless world gives license to their savagery. Without a higher moral authority,
those ‘crimes of humanity’ they perpetuate become tolerable as but the natural way of the world
in which man is nothing more than a sophisticated animal. And just as the lion is not culpable in
its killing of the antelope, so too, war and bloodshed between nations is merely the acting out of
human instinct.

Amalek is the essence of such a worldview. As such, it is the polar opposite of that represented by
Israel. It is, thus, only natural that Amalek should happen upon God’s Chosen People just as
Israel’s spiritual apathy reaches its nadir.

As the nation that is assigned responsibility for the spiritual welfare of all of humanity hopelessly
abandons its mission, the people whose purpose is to negate God’s presence on earth enters the
scene to assert its dominance. With Amalek’s incidental confrontation with Israel at Refidim, the
very event through which God’s supremacy on earth was most reflected is reduced to the mundane:

What was there to fear? That a people had gone forth from the land of Egypt? But had no other
people’s gone forth from the midst of other nations? Who could prove that they had gone out by
God? Had these not gone forth by their own power? Now they were wandering in the wilderness,
weary and struggling. Why should they not be spoiled and smitten? This was the way of the world.
In this manner the moment of awe at the mighty hand of God passed away and the atmosphere of
astonishment at His miracles evaporated. The world returned to its former rut, to its idols of gold
and silver, its faith in mortal power and brute force. (Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in
Devarim, World Zionist Organization, 1980, 256)

Responding to the cadence of humanity’s spiritual trendsetter, Amalek chances upon a physically
spent and vulnerable Israelite camp and wages war as any nation would under such opportune
circumstances. And on this occasion, as Israel has just laid waste to an entire Egyptian army
without as much as raising a sword, Amalek’s engagement with them in a physical battle that
features the typical ebbs and flows of war, makes us rethink the quality of Israel’s victory over
Egypt. It is downsized from the miraculous to a natural, albeit impressive, military achievement
attributed to greater desperation on behalf of the Israelites or, perhaps, overconfidence on the part
of the Egyptians.

However, from the perspective of Amalek, this chance encounter offers it a rare opportunity. For
if it can succeed in obliterating the nation upon whom humankind depends to bring meaning,
purpose, and hope to the world, then Amalek’s mission to permanently establish a godless realm
on earth will be realized. And so, taking full advantage of the fortuitous circumstances, Amalek
launches a brutal and merciless assault at the rear of Israelite camp where the women and children
tarry, aiming to utterly annihilate the Israelites.

37
Haman’s chance encounter with Mordecai presents the Amalekites with that very same
opportunity. Upon learning that Mordecai is a Jew and sensing Mordecai and his people’s
spiritually vulnerable state, Haman embarks on a mission to completely eradicate Persian Jewry-
to “destroy, kill, and to be rid of all the Jews, from young to old, children and women.”

Thus, while Israel is responsible for Amalek’s accidental encounter with it, Amalek earns God’s
scorn for its brutal assault on Israel following that initial confrontation. But it is not only the
attention of God that Amalek captures through its vicious assault; it also attracts the unwanted
attention of the nations. This is not the way nations typically wage war; with its unrestrained force,
Amalek advertises this battle as something much more than the impersonal rising up of nation
against nation.[12] It suggests a war of spiritual proportions in which good is pitted against evil, and
light versus darkness.

For Moses’ father-in-law, a Midianite priest and worshiper of every form of idolatry under the sun,
the evident spiritual tenor to the battle is enough to inspire him to abandon his idolatrous ways and
to accept YHWH as the one true God.[13]

So too, Haman’s exaggerated response to Mordecai’s disobedience earns the attention of

Shushan’s Gentile population- “And the city of Shushan was perplexed” (3:15).

The Wake-up Call

While the Gentile population in Shushan is puzzled at the intensity of Amalek’s offensive, for
Mordecai the Jew, the impact is overwhelming. The anguish he feels is not merely the grief that
comes in response to the horrible fate that awaits his people. It is the shock that comes with the
realization that his entire perspective of reality has been delusional. It suddenly dawns on Mordecai
that by placing his faith in politics and in kings of flesh and blood, he has contributed to the
naturalistic worldview that has infiltrated Persian society.[14] He has forgotten the special task that
he, as a Jew, has been assigned: to lead the nations towards recognition of God’s sovereignty on
earth. And now, it has become clear to him that this secular worldview that he and his people have
adopted is, in fact, the source of their troubles.

Overcome with emotion and a profound sense of guilt, Mordecai tears his clothes, covers himself
in sackcloth and ash, and makes his way through the main thoroughfare of the capital city crying
a bitter cry in a spontaneous expression of religious mourning and repentance (Esther 4:1-2).

While Mordecai is experiencing a spiritual transformation, Esther, tucked away in the palace, is
oblivious to the recent developments that have transpired back in civilian life. When the news of
Mordecai’s public spectacle reaches her, she is extremely disconcerted. This is not the way he had

38
raised her to behave; religion was always to remain in the privacy of the home. Immediately, she
arranges for a change of clothes to be sent to Mordecai.

But Mordecai will not waver.

Now, recognizing that something truly horrible must have happened, Esther sends a palace official
to Mordecai to learn the details of what has transpired. Mordecai updates Esther and proceeds to
demand that she go to the king at once to plead on behalf of her people and, by implication, to
abandon his earlier instructions for her to conceal her identity from the king (ibid. 5-8).

Yet Esther is not so quick to discard the only weltanschauung she has ever known. She responds
back to Mordecai, pointing out what a foolish political move it would be to seek an audience with
the king at this juncture in time. She has not been summoned by the king for thirty days, and to
approach the throne without being requisitioned is punishable by death (ibid. 10-11).

Mordecai’s chilling counter-response back to Esther is a direct challenge to the naturalistic

worldview that he, Esther, and the rest of Persian Jewry have become hypnotized by:

Don’t imagine that you will escape the fate of all the Jews in the palace of the king. For if you
remain silent at this time, deliverance will come for the Jews from elsewhere and you and the
house of your father will perish. And who knows if it was for this specific moment that you arose
to the kingdom. (4:13-14)

Does Esther really believe that her rise to power is the product of her own charm and political
maneuvering? Does she think that her position in the palace shields her from the fate of her people?
On the contrary, Mordecai asserts, it may be that the entire purpose behind her elevation to the
throne is in order for her to deliver her people at this very moment. And if she shirks that
responsibility, she will be the one to pay the price while salvation for the Jews will arise from
elsewhere. Despite the grave risk to her own life, Esther rises to the challenge and agrees to go to
the king in a clear demonstration of choosing faith over nature.

The Persistence of Nature

In reflecting, again, on the progression of events that culminate with Haman’s plot to annihilate
the Jews, it is remarkable that, despite the clear correlation between the Jews’ adoption of a
naturalistic worldview and the hostile conditions for them that follow, all the developments
transpire in a completely organic way based on logical and independent choices made by the
players in the story.

For example, Ahasuerus’ inattention to Mordecai’s heroism following his foiling of the
assassination plot is entirely reasonable when taking into consideration the character of the king.
As we noted earlier, the king’s display of his wealth and his attempt to humiliate Vashti are
intended as a demonstration of his power and influence. But as is often the case with bullies and
braggarts, those tactics of intimidation reveal deeper feelings of insecurity and weakness.

39
The king’s feelings of self-doubt are reflected, for one, in the fact that he maintains such a large
contingent of personal advisors to whom he turns. In fact, it is precisely those feelings of insecurity
that leads him to try to humiliate the queen in the first place. By degrading her, he hopes to gain a
measure of respect and legitimacy in his own eyes and the eyes of his subjects.[15]

Considering Ahasuerus’ vulnerable state, it is not difficult to imagine the stress and anxiety he
feels upon receiving word of the attempt against his life. The last thing on his mind at that moment
is a reward for the man responsible for thwarting the plot. His sole concern at that juncture in time
is the prevention of any future such attempts.

According to Yoram Hazony (God and Politics in Esther, Cambridge University Press, 2015), one
of the king’s first considerations is a reshuffling of his staff. For, as Hazony points out, it suddenly
dawns on the king that his inner circle of confidantes may be much too broad. All it takes is one
ambitious advisor who is privy to the most classified information in the palace to turn on the king
and plan for his disposal. And so, the king is determined to reduce that inner circle. By
consolidating power into the hands of one individual, Ahasuerus limits his concerns to the potential
schemes of one man as opposed to those of a much larger contingent.

And to ensure that this man remains isolated from all his other advisors, Ahasuerus specifically
selects a political outsider whom he elevates to a position high above all the other officials in the
palace (ibid, 33-34). Finally, by ordering all of his servants to bow before the new vizier, he sends
a clear message that this official is inaccessible to all other ministers in the palace; he cannot be
manipulated or influenced.

Thus, at second glance, the king’s lack of acknowledgement of Mordecai’s bravery appears
completely understandable, as does his promotion of Haman to the position that Mordecai happens
to have his eyes set on.

While the natural progression of events brings suffering and anguish to the Jews while they uphold
a naturalistic worldview, we discover the reverse effect upon their reaffirmation of a
theistic weltanschauung. For Esther, this begins the moment she makes the difficult decision to
approach the king and plead on her people’s behalf despite the enormous risks. And once again,
upon closer investigation, we find that Ahasuerus’ receiving of Esther is, in fact, entirely
reasonable.

For Esther, who is unaware of the political intrigue in the palace over the last month, the fact that
she has not been called upon by the king in the last thirty days is a clear sign of his lack of interest
in her. And this is a reasonable assumption on her behalf. She knows all about the king’s
relationship (or lack-there-of) with the previous queen, how Vashti served as the king’s trophy-
wife through whom he could gain legitimacy to the throne. And Esther is smart enough to know
that her best bet at longevity on the throne is to stay out of the king’s way and to show her face
only when summoned.[16]

40
But the truth is that the king’s inattention to her is solely due to all the drama surrounding the
assassination attempt and restructuring of his administration which have been occupying his mind.
Now that things have settled down and an extremely capable minister is in place to ensure the
stability of the kingdom and the safety of the king, a visit from his beloved wife could not come at
a better time.[17]

Nevertheless, gaining an audience with the king is but the first of a number of challenges Esther
must overcome. Next, she must try to arrange for a private gathering with the king and Haman
where she will reveal her lowly Jewish status to Ahasuerus while proceeding to accuse the king’s
unsuspecting vizier of planning the annihilation of her people. This, all in the hope that the king
will side with her over the man in whom he has essentially entrusted his entire kingdom.

However, once again, Esther has misjudged the king’s sentiments. First, she hasn’t considered the
notion that, perhaps, the Jews are not as looked down upon by the king as she assumes. The fact
that Haman neglects to explicitly name the people he plans to do away with when sharing his plan
to exterminate the Jews may reflect his awareness that Ahasuerus would not take too kindly to the
idea of annihilating his Jewish subjects. What is certain, however, is that Ahasuerus loves his wife,
and if it happens to be that the nation identified for destruction is that of her own people and it
would hurt her to see harm done to them, he will do what he can to help. As such, her revelation
to the king of her Jewish faith will not be of as much consequence as she fears.

The second point brings us back to our discussion of the king’s feelings of insecurity and
vulnerability. While it is certainly true that Ahasuerus feels more secure having the extremely
capable Haman as his lone advisor, he is also fully aware of how ruthless a man the new vizier is.
Perhaps, it is precisely this quality in Haman that leads the king to select him for the position in
the first place. Nevertheless, the king certainly has an eye on Haman, knowing that Haman’s ability
makes him equally dangerous as he is valuable. And so, while Esther is in a position where she
will ultimately be forced to try to turn the king against his right-hand man, she does not realize
that Ahasuerus is already somewhat wary of his vizier.

By inviting the king and Haman to a private banquet, Esther succeeds in keeping Haman
unsuspecting of anything shady in the works. For Haman, his requested attendance at a private
dinner with the king and queen is only another boost to his already bursting ego.

Ahasuerus, on the other hand, is quite troubled by Esther’s invitation to Haman to join them. He
now begins to wonder if there is something going on between the ambitious vizier and the queen
(see Rashi 6:1).

At dinner the next evening, Esther recoils under the pressure of the moment and is forced into the
awkward position of asking the king and Haman to reconvene once more the following evening
(see Bi’ur Ha-Gra on Esther 5:8). At this point, Ahasuerus is starting to develop a familiar sense
of horror as he begins to realize that something is definitely amiss. Could it be that the very two
individuals he has hand-selected and in whom he has found such much needed respite and comfort
are, in fact, conspiring to depose him?

41
And so, Ahasuerus departs dinner that night in a state of panic. Unable to settle down to sleep, he
calls for one of his servants to read to him from his Book of Chronicles to help ease his mind. It is
then that the bravery of Mordecai is recalled and that the king realizes that the man responsible for
saving his life has never received his proper due. Superstitiously, he wonders if this latest bit of
bad fortune has come as a result of neglecting to reward his protector. And so, he is determined to
correct this injustice as soon as possible, before the next dinner date with Esther and Haman.

Meanwhile, Haman departs dinner that night in the highest of spirits. However, his mood quickly
sours as he passes Mordecai sitting at the gate of the palace. Upon arriving home, he laments to
his family how the mere sight of Mordecai renders worthless all the honor and wealth he has
accrued. His wife comes up with a quick solution to put Haman at ease and enable him to fully
enjoy his meal the following evening; go to the king immediately and request permission to
execute Mordecai at dawn.

Note that as the Amalekite becomes more and more fixated on his mission to destroy Israel, those
mundane pursuits that motivate all men in a godless world begin to fall by the wayside. Now,
entirely obsessed with Mordecai, those achievements of material wealth and honor become
worthless to Haman. Mordecai, for his part, appears almost oblivious to Haman’s presence (5:11-
13).[18]

Now, fully engaged in this spiritual battle, Haman no longer has the wherewithal to wait until
lottery day- the date selected by chance – for the annihilation of Mordecai and his people. And yet,
fate has it that Haman’s trip to the palace to request Mordecai’s immediate execution happens to
come just at the moment that Ahasuerus is contemplating Mordecai’s remuneration.

Informed of Haman’s presence in the courtyard, the king sees an opportunity. He calls for Haman
to be brought before him and slyly requests Haman’s sage advice on “what should be done for a
man whom the king would like to honor” (6:6), suspecting the egocentric vizier will assume that
it is he whom the king has in mind. And if Ahasuerus’ suspicions are accurate, Haman is certain
to recommend a most grand tribute. As a result, the king will succeed in finding an appropriate
reward for Mordecai while, simultaneously, gaining the pleasure of putting his ego-driven vizier
in his place (see Hazony, pp. 109-110).

As Haman’s anticipated moment of triumph is turned on its head with his assignment to parade
Mordecai through the streets of the capital city, the writing on the wall is clear even to Haman’s
closest allies:

And his advisors and Zeresh his wife said, “If Mordecai is of Jewish seed, before whom you have
begun to fall, you will not overcome him, but you will surely fall before him.” (6:13)

And yet, when Esther levels her accusations against Haman at dinner the next evening, the outcome
is not quite yet sealed. For, while leery of his vizier, Ahasuerus remains highly dependent on him.
And now the king is in a position where he is being forced to choose between the woman he loves

42
and his closest confidante. Without anybody to turn to for guidance, he steps outside to gather his
thoughts.

Haman, meanwhile, is in no less a state of shock, as he has just learned that the queen is a member
of the very nation he has arranged to destroy. He is certain the king will side with his wife, and so,
in an act of desperation, he falls before the reclined queen in a last gasp plea for mercy. Moments
later, the king returns only to find Haman in a compromised position with Esther. Alas, his initial
suspicions of Haman were right all along! He even has the hutzpah to attempt to conquer the queen
with the king in the house!

A Synthesis of Divine Providence and Nature

This distinctly naturalistic tone to the storyline is recognized by the rabbis who point out the fact
that God’s name is conspicuously absent from the narrative. And yet, despite the fact that each
twist and turn in the story evolves based on independent choices made by each of the players, it is
evident that the trajectory of events from start to finish is being guided from above.[19]

We pointed out above that the Jews ultimately dictate the spiritual tenor of their environment.
However, in doing so they merely determine how, not if, the divine hand is manifested in the
world. By adopting a naturalistic worldview, Israel mandates a natural setting through which God
acts. God, in turn, manufactures the natural flow of events so that the Jews are faced with the
prospect of destruction at the hands of an Amalekite enemy. This, in turn, stirs in the Jews a
spiritual awakening that directs them to victory over Amalek within that very natural setting they
created.

At Refidim, as well, the Israelites’ naturalistic worldview brings Amalek into the vicinity of the
Israelite camp through natural circumstances. Then, jolted from its spiritual slumber by Amalek’s
brutal assault, Israel overcomes Amalek in a physical battle guided by their faith in God (note in
the description of the battle in Exodus 17:11-13 that Israel’s “faith” directs them to victory over
Amalek by the “sword”).

This is not to say, however, that victory is inevitable for the Jews. Once again, each of the players
possess perfect freedom in the decisions they exercise. For Esther, this means she genuinely could
have chosen not to heed Mordecai’s instructions to approach the king and plead on behalf of her
people. Had she refrained, things would not have turned out so well for Persian Jewry. The only
certainties are the survival of God’s chosen nation and that there would be future opportunities for
the Jews to step up and reclaim their responsibility to humankind. However, the amount of Jewish
blood that would have been spilled in the process is uncertain.

With this in mind, one cannot underestimate Esther’s courage in choosing faith over the worldview
instilled in her from her youth. After all, logic would seem to indicate that, contrary to Mordecai’s
prediction, she would have likely been spared from Haman’s edict due to her position in the palace.
But by choosing to approach the throne, she faces the prospect of certain death while the fate of
her people still remains unsealed. Indeed, Esther appears perfectly aware of the odds she faces as

43
she prepares herself for the task, instructing Mordecai to have the Jews fast on her behalf, and
concluding with a solemn, “and if I die, I die” (4:16).[20]

Just as Haman’s family members recognize that Haman cannot defeat Mordecai and the Jews in a
spiritually heightened atmosphere, so too, for the rest of the Persian population, the anticipation of
victory for the Jews over their enemies is apparent. Only for them, this renewed spiritual awareness
is met with relief and joy – “And the city of Shushan rejoiced and was happy” (8:15).

As for the Jews, they experience an even more emphatic “light and happiness, and joy, and
honor.”[21]

Similarly, Israel’s weakening of Amalek at Refidim is celebrated by Jethro, who “rejoiced for all
the good that YHWH did for Israel…” (Exodus 18:9). And it is specifically as a result of his
newfound awareness of the existence of a higher being and a higher purpose to life that Jethro
exults – “Now I know that YHWH is greater than all the Gods…” (ibid, 11).[22]

For the Jews of Shushan, their restored spiritual focus is equally evident in the aftermath of the
battle where, once again, countering the message that wars are waged as part of man’s natural
instincts for power and wealth, the victorious Jews leave the spoils from the battle
untouched (Esther 9:10). And make no mistake, this self-imposed restriction is no accident. For
we also find, with God’s injunction to King Saul in the Book of Samuel to destroy Amalek, His
firm instructions that the Israelites refrain from partaking of the spoils (I Samuel 15:3). And when
Saul fails to heed God’s command, thus, diminishing the conflict with Amalek into a mundane
battle for wealth and territory, the punishment is severe (ibid, 15:26).

Conclusion

The Book of Esther, unlike any other in the Hebrew Bible, illustrates the synchronic relationship
between freedom of choice and divine sovereignty, and at the most important juncture in human
history. For the Book of Esther marks the closing of the biblical canon and, as such, provides the
perfect segue from a world of miracles and prophecy to the post-biblical, organic world of today.

Indeed, the same challenges faced by Persian Jewry, of trying to find God in a world so entirely
beholden to the dictates of natural law, are what impede the faith of so many in the world today.
And yet the megillah offers a striking response to this dilemma; that God and nature are never in
conflict but, rather, work in perfect harmony, that man acts in perfect freedom and yet the outcome
of those independent decisions ultimately reveals the presence of higher being that orchestrates the
unfolding of events from above.

[1]
Special thanks goes to R. Rafi Eis, Szilvia Finta, Joseph Gindsburg o.b.m., and Moshe Lakser for their feedback on earlier
drafts of this essay. Translations are taken from New JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh with some modifications.

44
[2]
Midrash Tankhuma (9) offers the analogy of an individual jumping into a tub of boiling water that burns him yet, nevertheless,
cools the temperature of the water. In other words, Amalek tempered Israel’s spiritual fire by launching an attack, despite
suffering a decisive defeat in the process (cited in Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:18).

[3]
See Rashi, Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 25:18, who all interpret “korkha” as an incidental or chance occurrence.
Abarbanel gleans from the disjointed language in describing Amalek’s attack on Israel, “va-yavo Amalek…va-yilahem im
yisrael” (Exodus 17:8), instead of the more fluid “Vayavo Amalek l’ilahem im yisrael,” that Amalek did not, in fact, set out with
the intention to attack the Israelites. Rather, it was on a journey to another destination when it chanced upon the floundering
Israelite camp (Perush Abarbanel, Exodus 17:8-16). Also, in describing Balaam’s prophecy, the Torah states “vayikor Elohim el
Bilam.” (Numbers 23:4) Rashi, Ramban, and Ibn Ezra each glean from the language “vayikor” that Balaam’s prophecy was
a chance occurrence.

[4]
The phrase “asher korkha ba-derekh” cannot be included as part of the introductory sentence, as if to say, Remember what
Amalek did to you when it encountered you on the way, for, the opening verse already serves that function- “Remember that
which Amalek did to you on the way, upon your departure from Egypt.” Rather, it qualifies the previous verse, as do the list of
indictments that follow. In other words, What was it that Amalek did to you after your departure from Egypt that is to be
remembered? That it happened upon you on the way, and that it attacked from the rear etc…

[5]
Haman is introduced as a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king in the days of the prophet Samuel (Esther 3:1).

[6]
See Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Bi’ur ha-Gra on Esther 3:2

[7]
Only 42,360 people return with Ezra (Ezra 2:64).

[8]
The very fact that Mordecai and Esther are invested in having her become queen brings to question the importance Judaism
plays in their lives. For one can only assume that Esther will be required to forfeit whatever semblance of a Jewish life she had
once she enters the palace. In fact, Rashi and Bi’ur Ha-Gra (Esther 2:10) contend that Mordecai’s intentions in concealing her
identity from the king are specifically to get her disqualified from contention for the crown.

[9]
The Talmud states that Haman had been previously employed as a barber (Megillah 16a).

[10]
The notion that Mordecai acts out of spite helps explain the genuine confusion on behalf of the other servants with regard to
his stubbornness. As Malbim states, they take no joy in reporting Mordecai’s behavior to Haman (see Malbim on 3:4). Day after
day, they ask Mordecai why he continues to defy the king’s orders and, yet he is unable to come up with a reasonable response. It
is only after they have exhausted their efforts that, with reluctance, they proceed to notify Haman of Mordecai’s insubordination
(see 3:3-4).

[11]
With their election as God’s chosen people, the Jews are not necessarily favored. As Moses reminds the Israelites in preparing
for entry into the land of Canaan, God’s selection of Israel is not a reflection of their righteousness but is, rather, the carrying
through of a commitment He made to their ancestors due to their own piety (Deuteronomy 9:5).

[12]
In discussing the ways in which Amalek’s antics strayed from those of typical nations in battle, Malbim includes the fact that
(i) Amalek was not looking to conquer new territory, (ii) it was not defending its own territory, (iii) it was not involved in a
dispute with Israel, and (iv) it did not launch its attack with the purpose of demonstrating its strength to the nations (see
Malbim, Ha-Torah ve-HaMitzvah, Exodus 17:8).

[13]
See Talmud Zevahim 116a, where R. Yehoshua argues, based on the juxtaposition of the two episodes, that Jethro is inspired
by Israel’s victory over Amalek.

[14]
Rashi (4:1) cites the Midrash which attributes Mordecai’s realization to the Jews’ attendance at the king’s banquet and their
bowing before the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar.

45
[15]
Malbim attributes Ahasuerus’ insecurities to his recognition that Vashti is of true royal ancestry (as a granddaughter of the
Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar) while he is but a usurper of the throne (see Malbim on Esther 1:1, 9).

[16]
Esther tells Mordecai that all the “servants” of the king and “any man or woman” that appears before the king uninvited does
so on pain of death (4:11). Clearly, she puts herself in the category of “servant” or “man or woman” and as such, assumes no
privilege in her position as queen.

[17]
Malbim states that the king never had considered Esther to be included in the decree forbidding any of his servants from
entering the inner courtyard without being summoned (5:2). In fact, the text states explicitly that Ahasuerus loved Esther (2:17).
Also, the fact that he hosts a feast in her name (2:18) further demonstrates his adoration of his new wife.

[18]
See Bi’ur Ha-Gra on 5:9. Contrast Mordecai’s behavior here with his deliberate refusal to bow before Haman back in the
3rd chapter, where it is Haman who is initially oblivious to Mordecai’s open defiance.

[19]
As stated in Avot (3:15), “All is foreseen (by God), yet freedom of choice is given.”

[20]
Here, we get a vivid picture of the struggle involved in being a person of faith while living in a world bound by natural law.

[21]
I would suggest that the “light” experienced by the Jews reflects their restored function as a spiritual light for the nations.
The simhah, according to Bi’ur Ha-Gra (9:16), is the exultation that is felt in anticipation of victory in battle, while sason is the
joy experienced upon successfully acquiring that which is sought after (ibid). In other words, the Jews not only anticipated
victory, but experienced the unbounded joy that comes with actually having achieved victory. Finally, viykar is the value that
comes with performing according to one’s intended function. In this case, that function is to demonstrate to the nations God’s
presence in this world.

[22]
See Rashi on 18:1 where he states that Jethro is inspired both by Israel’s miraculous defeat of the Egyptians and by Israel’s
victory in battle against Amalek.

46
 Decorated Esther scroll, on vellum, scrolled on a silver handle. Baghdad, Iraq, mid-19th
century- Sassoon Family. The scroll opens with three introductory columns. First column
contains the blessings said before and after the reading of the scroll and: “Cursed be
Haman, Blessed be Mordecai…”. Second column is the inscription “Scroll of Esther the
Queen and Mordecai the Jew”. Third column, is the inscription “There was a Jew in Susa
the capital whose name was Mordecai”, and, in the middle of the column – “Son of Jair,
son of Shimei, son of Kish”

Esther’s Royal Purim Payback

Barry Yaffe writes:14

At first blush, Megilas Esther reads deceptively simply, but on further scrutiny many of
the pesukim are actually quite hard to translate in a way that ‘makes sense’ in English, without
being repetitive and cumbersome. In fact, much of the Megilah—in line with the theme of the
entire yom tov –is loaded with hidden irony.

For instance, when Memuchan (AKA Haman) suggests to Achashveirosh that he ‘terminate’
Vashti’s reign after her insulting behavior to His Highness, Haman pontificates the following
pompous-sounding but fateful line:

m‫ָתבוֹא ַוְשִׁתּי ִלְפֵני ַהֶמֶּל‬-‫שׁר ל ֹא‬

ֶ ‫וָּמַדי ְול ֹא ַיֲﬠבוֹר ֲא‬-‫ַמְלכוּת ִמְלָּפָניו ְו ִיָכֵּתב ְבָּדֵתי ָפ ַרס‬-‫ טוֹב ֵיֵצא ְדַבר‬m‫ַהֶמֶּל‬-‫ַﬠל‬-‫יט ִאם‬
‫ ִל ְרעוָּתהּ ַהטּוָֹבה ִמֶמָּנּה‬y‫ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ וַּמְלכוָּתהּ ִיֵתּן ַהֶמֶּל‬: 1:19))

“If it be seemly to the King, let the word of the Kingship go forth from before him, and let there be
written into the laws of Persia and Media not to be transgressed, on account of the matter that
Vashti did not come before the King Achasveirosh [at his ‘request’], that therefore the King
should give her dominion to her neighbor who is better than her!”

14
https://www.ou.org/holidays/esthers-royal-purim-payback/

47
The end of that line just might sound hauntingly familiar—in fact, we have all heard it less than a
scant seven days before (or in the case of this year, 5780, only three days before) —on Shabbos
Zachor. Since the mitzvah of zechiras Amalek is a Torah commandment, almost every God-
fearing Jew should have been in shul that Shabbos to hear the Maftir Torah reading—and odds are
he hung around to hear the Haftorah, taken from Sefer Shmuel. Not surprisingly, the Navi recounts
the story of a ‘missed’ opportunity in our national history when we came agonizingly close to
totally eradicating Amalek. As king and representative of the entire Nation, the responsibility for
that task fell to Shaul. Sadly, he was remiss in carrying it out with alacrity; he delayed by a single
day the execution of Agag, the king and last remaining member of the Amaleki nation. Per
the Midrash, that one extra night of life was enough to allow Agag to begin repopulation of his
decimated nation. Hence Haman is known throughout the Megilah as Haman Ha’Agagi, rather
than Haman Ha’Amaleki; indeed, he owed his very life to Shaul’s fateful error.

That grievous mistake was the last straw in a deficient pattern of Shaul’s behavior as king, and
God kavyochol reconsidered his royal appointment. As Shmuel carries out Hashem’s orders to
strip Shaul of his kingship and turns to leave, the stricken leader grabs at the prophet’s cloak in
desperation, ripping it. Shmuel turns back and utters portentously:

‫ כ”ח( ַו ֤יּ ֹאֶמר ֵאָלי ֙ו ְשׁמוֵּ֔אל ָק ַ֨רע ְיהָ֜וה ֶ ֽאת־ַמְמְל֧כוּת ִיְשׂ ָרֵ֛אל ֵמָﬠ ֶ֖לי« ַה ֑יּוֹם וּ ְנָתָ֕נהּ ְל ֵרֲﬠ֖… ַה֥טּוֹב ִמ ֶ ֽמָּךּ׃‬:‫)שמואל א ט”ו‬

“And Sh’muel said to him [just as you have ripped my cloak], today HaShem has ripped
the dominion of Israel from upon you and given it to your neighbor who is better than you [thus
removing the kingship from the tribe of Binyamin and transferring it to Yehudah,
establishing Malchus Beis Dovid]”

Clearly, Haman’s own words in deposing Vashti are ‘borrowed’ from this episode regarding his
several-generation ancestor, taken nearly verbatim from an episode in which Shaul was similarly
deposed.

What connection between the two parshios are Chazal (or Hashem) hinting at?

48
Very simply, it’s just another manifestation of “v’nahapoch hu” (9: 1)! Haman’s own words will
ironically become the vehicle of his own undoing since they set the stage for Esther to ascend to
the Queenship four years later!

But that is only the very tip of the ironical iceberg…

The Gemara in Megilah 16a informs us that Esther herself came from a royal lineage—Beis Shaul.
Shaul had the responsibility of kingship, of Malchus Yisrael, but lost it by not faithfully carrying
out the war against Amalek—a commandment that Rambam implies specifically devolves upon
him as king (Hilchos M’lachim 1:2). He lost the malchus when he wrongfully spared Agag’s life.
Therefore it remained for Esther—Shaul’s offspring—to perform a ‘tikun’ for him, when SHE was
elevated to the malchus in Vashti’s place [and in Shaul’s place!], by rightfully executing Agag’s
offspring, and doing her utmost to wipe them completely out—not just Haman, but also his ten
sons, as well as the 300 Agagite sympathizers still at large in Shushan, Haman’s headquarters,
after the fighting of Adar 13! In fact, it may have been the very public and humiliating display of
hanging Haman’s dead offspring that flushed the rest of Haman’s sympathizers in Shushan out of
hiding. Perhaps that explains why the names of the ten sons of Haman writ SO LARGE in the
scroll of the Megilah are, when they are mentioned no-where else and seem almost peripheral to
the main story. Esther understood the critical importance of her relentless pursuit of all
remaining Agagi, in order to correct her forebear’s tragic error.

Likewise Mordechai was well aware of her potential to perform this ‘tikun’ for Sha’ul when he
warned her: “if you will be silent at this time…you and your father’s house [i.e. Beis Shaul!] will
be lost, and who knows if you attained sovereignty for just such a time as this” (4:14) (See Alshich
on this posuk, cited in the Shoshanas Ha’Amakim-Megilas S’tarim[1]!

Thus by successfully accomplishing what Shaul failed, Esther set the stage for the last mitzvah in
the Rambam’s set of three commandments to K’lal Yisrael as communal, national mitzvos: (1)
Appoint a king (uhhh—queen!); (2) Cut off the seed of Amalek; and (3) Build a Beis Hamikdash as
a dwelling place for Hashem (in fact, authorized by Daryaveish, her son. One imagines that she
also worked very diligently but subtly to bring up the young Prince appropriately, when he quite
easily could have turned out to be just a chip off the old Achashveirosh)!

49
Bimheirah B’yameinu!

[1]

(‫ י”ד‬:‫ואת ובית אביך תאבדו )ד‬- ‫ והוצרח שתהיה הצלה על ידי‬.‫והטעם היות כי המן נצמח על ידי חטא של שאול באגג אשר הניחו חי ומזה יצא המן‬

‫אסתר שהיא מזרע שאול ולזה אמר מרדכי שבאם ההצלה יעמוד ליהודים ממקום אחר ממילה היא ובית אביה יאבדו בחטא שאול שלא יתכפר לו‬

‫))אלשיך‬:

Purim’s Non-Heroes

Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld writes:15

The marked inactivity of the Purim story’s main characters holds the key to the story.

There is something very curious about the Purim story. The story is very gripping and suspenseful.
The main events occur with exquisite timing. God’s guiding Hand is clearly revealed. And as with
any good tale, salvation arrives at the proverbial nick of time.

But something is missing. If we look closely, we will notice that the heroes of the story
actually do almost nothing. In fact, most of the events of the story happen to them rather than being

15
https://www.aish.com/h/purim/t/dt/Purims-Non-Heroes.html

50
precipitated by them. Esther is taken to the palace against her will. She does nothing to enhance
her appearance but is appointed queen, nonetheless. She refrains from telling King Achashveirosh
her Jewish ancestry. She later reports the plot against the king – not in her own name but in the
name of Mordechai. And finally, at the climax of the story, she reluctantly approaches King
Achashveirosh – only after the second time Mordechai prods her – to ask for the deliverance of
her people.

Purim seems more a story of “being in the right place at the right time” than one of proactive
motion. It is almost as if some great story is unfolding around the main characters rather than their
having anything to do with it.

But therein lies the key to the story. Let us look closer.

I would like to jump ahead to what I feel is the crux of the Purim story – and what I also feel are
some of the most difficult verses in the entire Torah.

Haman’s wicked decree is looming. The wholesale destruction of the entire Jewish people has
been decreed. Mordechai sends Esther a message, instructing her to approach the King
immediately, to at last reveal her ancestry and beg that the King spare her people.

Esther responds as follows (4:11, paraphrased):

“Everyone knows that no man or woman is permitted to come before the King, to his inner
courtyard, without being summoned. This is punishable by death – unless the King extends his
golden scepter in clemency. I have further not been called to the King for 30 days.”

In other words, it is much smarter to wait until I am called. That hasn’t happened for quite some
time; it’s likely to occur any day now. If I approach unsummoned, at worst I’ll be killed. At best I
will already owe my life to the King. It would be a very inauspicious time to ask for another great
favor.

A reasonable suggestion. After all, Haman’s decree was not going to take effect for almost a year.
So how does Mordechai respond (vv. 13-14, also paraphrased)?

“Do not imagine you will escape the fate of the Jews because you are in the King’s house. For if
you remain silent, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from somewhere else, and you and
your father’s house will perish.”

Huh?! Did I miss something? What triggered such a harsh response? Did Esther’s relative safety
in the palace ever enter the conversation?!

Mordechai’s response would be understandable if Esther would have initially answered like this:
“You know, Mordechai, I really sympathize with you and the rest of the Jews. But personally, I
am safe in the palace. This isn’t my problem; it’s yours. And since I don’t feel this is so pressing,
I think I’ll wait to approach the King until it’s a little more convenient.”

51
Had Esther said something like that, Mordechai’s sharp retort would have been in line. “You’re
not safe either! You must act like this issue is as pressing for you as it is for the rest of us!” But
that is not what Esther said – in any way, shape, or form. She presumably had the interests of the
nation as her top priority. All she did was suggest that they find a better time! Did
Mordechai misunderstand her? They seem to be talking past each other, rather than actually
communicating.

But they were. And in that lies the key to the entire Purim story.

Esther thought that they were going to save Israel. They needed to maneuver, to pull the right
strings, to time things just right. She thought that it depended on her. She had to plan this out
carefully – to approach the King at just the right moment.

Mordechai was different. He saw through the smoke. It wasn’t they who were going to save Israel.
It was entirely God’s doing. The villains in the story were a bunch of nobodies, despite all their
pomp and formidability. Haman for most of his career was a barber (Talmud Megillah 16a).
Achashveirosh was a commoner – in fact a stable boy – who never deserved to be king (ibid. 11a,
12b). They were mere pawns propped up by God to goad Israel to repent. And if we would repent,
then in spite of all their alleged power and fearsomeness they would collapse in the breeze like a
house of cards.

In fact, Mordechai never wanted to approach Esther to begin with (4:4). Esther sent him royal
clothes to replace his sackcloth, to enable him to enter the palace. He refused to take them. He
wanted to do one thing only – repent to God. If that would occur, the decrees of our enemies would
make no difference whatsoever.

“You’re not going to save Israel. God will. But you can choose to be a part of it.”

Finally, Esther sent a messenger to Mordechai asking what was happening and what she could do.
And then Mordechai responded: Go to the King. “You’re not going to save Israel. God will. But
if you really want to get involved, to make yourself into a cog in God’s Master Plan, you are
welcome. You will not save Israel, but you will volunteer to make yourself into the tool God will
use to bring about the salvation.”

Esther saw the external world and took it seriously. She thought it was Haman who was threatening
the Jews. She thought it was Achashveirosh who could save them – if they could only get in his
good graces. And she likewise thought that she would be the one to do that if she would only use
her position and influence – her being “in the King’s house” – and time things just right.

Mordechai responded that all such events are merely God acting through the natural world and
mankind. We need to see through that if we are to overcome the challenge of the physical world.
“Don’t think that you are safe in the palace or that you are queen for any other reason. God will
save us anyway – so long as we are worthy. I never asked you to save us – to make some elaborate
plans how to best influence the King. I only asked that you allow yourself to be moved by the
divinely-orchestrated events – to passively allow God to work through you.”

52
In fact, Mordechai told her further: “Go to the King at what on the surface is the worst possible
moment – when he will be angered at your very trespassing his abode. For the people have
repented. The time is now. They are ready for Divine intervention. On earth this is the worst
possible time to approach the King. In heaven it is the ideal time. And the salvation of Purim will
occur when we recognize that heaven is all that truly matters.

God’s name is never mentioned in the Scroll of Esther. There are no open miracles. We do not see
Him on the surface. But the key to the Purim story is seeing Him just behind the scenes. Only
when we recognize that even the most “natural,” mundane events of this world are truly God
speaking to us, will we have truly learned the message of Purim, and will we be able to overcome
the Hamans which threaten us both on the outside and within.

53
 Saul and David by Rembrandt (Mauritshuis) between 1651 and 1658
King Saul is depicted on the left, with a curtain in his left hand and a spear in
his right hand

Megillat Esther: Reversing the Legacy of King Saul

One of the main themes in Megillat Esther is the death of Haman, the descendent of Agag,

last king of Amalek, at the hands of Mordecai and Esther, Benjaminites from the family of

King Saul. Is this just a coincidence?

Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler writes:16

The Nature of Megillat Esther

The Hebrew scroll of Esther[1] is full of political intrigue set in the Persian court—attempted
assassinations, private and public parties, bribes to further particular interests, and, of course,
conflicts between major “players” with their own agenda—most especially Mordecai and Haman.
But politics of a different sort plays a significant role in the broad narrative of the megillah (scroll).

It is impossible to pinpoint the date of the scroll’s composition, though in terms of Persian kings
that it mentions, and Persian tongue-twister words that it uses (my favorite is achashdarpanim in
8:9; 9:3), it is certain that it was written in the Persian period or later, in the (early) Hellenistic
period.[2] I do not believe that we can determine exactly which Persian king the scroll is alluding
to,[3] since I believe, with most scholars, that the book as a whole, though it might embed some
historical elements,[4] is a creative work and not a historical account.

16
https://www.thetorah.com/article/megillat-esther-reversing-the-legacy-of-king-saul

54
The scroll contains too many inaccuracies and improbabilities to read it as straightforward history;
the suggestion that the new queen might be chosen through a Miss Persia beauty pageant[5] is
generally reflective of the “enormous amount of exaggeration and inaccuracy” found in it.[6] It is
noteworthy that contrary to the depiction of the megillah, the ancient Persians, like most ancient
peoples, were typically remarkably tolerant religiously.

The scroll was written for many reasons; as Jon Levenson opens his commentary by noting “The
book of Esther is many things, so many, in fact, that it would be a capital mistake to view it from
only one angle.”[7] It is surely, in part, an etiology for celebrating the festival of
Purim.[8] The megillah is inventive and funny,[9] and expresses, among other things, Jewish
anxiety about living in the diaspora, as well as the possibility of overcoming these fears.[10]

Why a Benjaminite Protagonist?

Scholars ask different questions of creative, (largely) fictional accounts and of non-fiction. For
example, a scholar examining a history of an American president cannot ask: “Why is this story
set in Washington D.C.?” However, it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to ask the author of
a fictional work set in that city why he or she opted to set it there. A historian may not create a
President Charles Lindbergh, though a novelist might.[11] In other words, authors of fiction have a
wider latitude of choice than authors of non-fiction, and a reader or critic might examine these
decisions to understand the motivations.

With this is mind, it is important to ask: Why did the author of the megillah opt to cast Mordecai,
the Benjaminite, as its protagonist? And he is not just any ole’ Benjaminite (Esth. 2:5), but from a
very important family:

55
This is one of the instances in the Bible in which ‫ ְיהוִּדי‬, yehudi, means “Jew” rather than “Judean,”
namely someone from the tribe of Judah.[12] After all, he is a Benjaminite, so he cannot be from
the tribe of Judah.

The Inscription of the Baghdad Megillah continues to list Mordechai’s

lineage: “…Son of Jonathan son of King Saul…”

From the Family of King Saul

Also, as is often the case in genealogies, “son” here likely means “descendent,”[13] and it appears
that the Kish mentioned here is intended to refer to the very same Kish who is the father of the
Benjaminite King Saul (1 Sam 9:1-2).

56
Targum Sheni, an expansive midrashic translation of the megillah (ca. 8th cent.) makes this
explicit by charting Mordecai’s lineage directly to Saul in its translation of 2:5:

Top Inscription continues to list Mordechai’s lineage: “…Son of Shemida, son

of Ba’ana, son of Ella, son of Micah, son of Mephiboshet..” Bottom Inscription
listing Haman’s lineage: Son of Parmashata, son of Vaizatha, son of Agag, son
of Amalek, son of Eliphaz, son of Esau”

Descendent of Shimei ben Gerah

57
It is similarly likely that the Shimei mentioned here is meant to recall the same Benjaminite
character mentioned in 2 Samuel 16:5-8, who cursed David when he fled Jerusalem during
Absalom’s rebellion:

Thus, the very first mention of Mordecai calls to mind the conflict between Saul the Benjaminite
and David the Judean as expressed by Shimei:

Again, Targum Sheni (2:5) makes this connection explicit:

It answers:

58
Esther’s Connection to Saul

The rabbis also connected Esther and Saul (Gen. Rab. 71:5) by noting the similarity between these
two verses:

The Babylonian Talmud makes the connection explicit (b. Megillah 13b):

In short, unlike Samuel, in the megillah, it is the descendent of Saul who is the hero. In other
words, Esther should be read, in part, as a hidden polemic[16] that rehabilitates Saul.

Reversing Saul’s Failures and Dismissal

As a result of his failure to precisely fulfill God’s command in the battle against Amalek, the
kingship is taken away from Saul and given to David; in the words of 1 Sam 15:23, reflecting
God’s measure for measure punishment:

59
The story of Mordechai and his cousin Esther—both Benjaminites—thus represents Saul’s
successful second chance or comeback. As such, it contains many references to the stories
concerning Saul and his family found in Samuel. For example, the dismissal of Vashti uses the
same unusual language found for the dismissal of Saul:

Additional elements in the megillah bolster this reading.

Killing Haman – Descendent of Agag

In the megillah the evil protagonist is Haman, who five times is called “the Agagite,” namely the
descendent of Agag (e.g. 3:1; 9:24).[17] This term, used only here in the entire Bible, refers back to
Agag, the Amalekite king, whom King Saul, the Benjaminite spared rather than proscribing or
killing as he was commanded (1 Sam 15:8-9).[18]

In the Megillah, however, Saul’s descendant leads to the death of the vile descendant of Agag,
king of Amalek. And Mordecai, unlike Saul, does not even need a divine command to facilitate
the death of this Amalekite—he knows to do so by himself. And while Saul had nothing to fear,
Mordecai had much to fear he endangers himself and Esther[19] by pressuring her to speak with
Ahasuerus.

60
Not Taking from the Booty

Saul is roundly condemned in Samuel for taking some of the Amalekite booty instead of
proscribing it all as God had commanded.

Samuel specifically notes Saul’s failure in this regard (v. 14). Saul deflects the blame on the people,
but Samuel was having none of it. In the megillah, even though the people are not told to avoid
taking booty, they intuit not to do so, as the megillah repeats three separate times (Esth. 9:10, 15,
16):

Again, the generation of Mordecai and Esther, under their leadership, undo the failure of their
ancestor King Saul, and conduct the war properly.

“Deciding the Evil” (‫ )כלתה הרעה‬in the Right Direction

Although Saul is supposed to be aiming his wrath against Israel’s Philistine enemies, he spends
much of his time trying to kill his (perceived) competitor, David. In one scene, David asks his
friend, the crown-prince, Jonathan, to find out whether his father has “decided evil” against him
(1 Sam. 20:7) and Jonathan agrees to find out whether “evil has been decided” against David by
his father and warns him (1 Sam 20:9).

In the megillah, Saul’s descendants are up against Israel’s real enemy, Haman the Agagite, and
after Esther springs her trap, Haman realizes that “evil has been decided” against him by the king

61
(Esth. 7:7).[20] The phrase ‫ כלתה הרעה‬is extremely rare in the Bible, and its use in Esther is likely
an intentional allusion to the David-Saul story.

A Kingly Mordecai

The megillah even seems to be playing with the image of Mordecai as king. For instance, when
Ahasuerus asks Haman what should be done for a person whom the king wishes to honor, Haman
suggests dressing such a person up in royal garments and driving him on the royal chariot (Esth
6:8-9), and this is what is then done for Mordecai (Esth 6:10-11). Towards the end of the megillah,
after Haman is defeated, Mordecai appears as the new vizier, dressed in royalty, almost as if he
becomes a king himself, like his royal ancestor, Saul:

Reading Esther as a rehabilitation of Saul is not novel. It builds on some hints already found in
rabbinic literature and is accepted by many scholars over the last half century.[21] In fact, this
reading is likely behind the choice of 1 Sam 15 as the haftarah for Shabbat Zachor, the Shabbat
before Purim. Not only does the story of Saul’s destruction of the Amalekites go well with
the maftir reading from Deut (25:17-19) commanding their destruction, but Saul’s failure to kill
Agag and his sin of taking from the booty sets the stage for Mordechai and Esther’s “tikkun”
(rehabilitation) for these sins in the megillah.

62
The Position of Benjamin in the Second Temple Period

But why would a story trying to rehabilitate Saul be written in the Second Temple period? This
may be best explained in connection with the newer historical and archeological discoveries
relating to the geographical area of Benjamin.

A careful reading of the biblical texts concerning the exiles of Judah by the Babylonians,
culminating with the exile and destruction of the First Temple in 586, suggests that Benjamin was
spared much of the devastation that befell Jerusalem and Judah. This explains why Jeremiah flees
Jerusalem to Benjamin during a lull in the siege of Jerusalem:

It also explains why after the conquest, Gedaliah served as the appointed high official of the
Babylonians in Mizpah, in Benjamin (2 Kings 25:23), and why Jeremiah himself settled in that
town (Jer 40:6). As noted by the Tel Aviv University Archeologist Oded Lipshits, the
archeological record confirms that the territory of Benjamin fared much better, and was more
extensively settled, than that of Judah at the time of the exile, in the exilic period, through the early
post-exilic period.[22]

A careful reading of early post-exilic and later biblical texts also shows the importance of
Benjaminite identity in this period—they were not swallowed up by Judean identity. For example,
they are noted separately in Ezra-Nehemiah: [23]

63
Thus, Benjaminites were thriving in the post-exilic period.

The Hopeful Genealogy of Saul in Chronicles

It is likely that the Benjaminites had alternative traditions that did not make it into the book of
Samuel about their great king Saul—traditions that were much more positive than those that found
their way into the canonical text.[24] The book of Chronicles, likely a fourth century work, contains
a long genealogy of the descendants of Saul;[25] such a list would have only been preserved by
people who viewed Saul positively, and were even possibly waiting for a time when his line could
be reestablished.[26]

A Prominent Benjaminite in the New Testament

A pro-Benjaminite camp existed through the end of the Second Temple period and beyond. This
is reflected, e.g., in the following two epistles in the New Testament:

Positive Depictions of Saul in Rabbinic Literature

It is even possible that various other late Second Temple authors and rabbinic texts that depict Saul
positively reflect traditions kept alive among the Benjaminites.[28] The rewriting of the image in b.
Yoma 22b offers one such example of the rabbinic reevaluation of King Saul:

64
The Revenge of King Saul’s Descendants

I do not want to reduce the entire scroll of Esther to a pro-Benjaminte polemic—as noted above,
it is a very rich text, conveying a set of complex ideas. But I do want to join together the biblical
scholars who have observed the pro-Benjaminite stance of the megillah with those who have
studied Benjamin in the post-exilic period, noting that their observations are mutually reinforcing.

I might not go as far as the British biblical scholar Philip Davies in declaring that “Benjamin holds
the key to the basic questions of how and why the biblical historiographical enterprise was
initiated.”[30] I would, however, suggest that understanding the broader historical context in which
the megillah was written does enrich our understanding of it in a significant fashion. Stated
differently, the book of Esther is about reversals of all types.[31] A final reversal that deserves
serious consideration for understanding the book is the reversal of the fate of the house of Saul,
who’s descendent saves the Jews—a reversal fostered by the new power Benjamin attained after
586.

Footnotes

1. On the Greek version, see Aaron Koller, “A More Religious Megillat Esther,” TheTorah.com (2014) and more

recently, Jean-Daniel Macchi, Le Livre D’Esther (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2016), 14-123.

2. For a defense of the latter view, see Macchi, 51-81; I am not persuaded.

65
3. The name Achashverosh is most similar to that of Xerxes. See discussion in Mitchell First, “If Achashverosh is Xerxes

Is Esther his Wife Amestris?” TheTorah.com, 2016.

4. For one proposed historical core, see Stephanie Dalley, Esther’s Revenge at Susa: From Sennnacherib to Ahaseurus

(Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).

5. I am indebted to André LaCoque, The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures In Israel’s Tradition

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990; repr., Eugene, OR: 2005 Wipf and Stock), 51 for this phrase.

6. Jon D. Levenson, Esther, (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 26.

7. Ibid., 1. In addition to the commentaries, an excellent introduction to the various interpretations of Esther is Sidnie

White Crawford and Leonard J. Greenspoon, eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research, (JSOTSup 380; London: T

& T Clark, 2003).

8. So, e.g., Adele Berlin, Esther, JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2001), xlv.

9. For a discussion of the Megillah’s literary characteristics, see Lawrence Wills, “Rejoicing on Purim with a Jewish

Novel,” TheTorah.com (2015).

10. This is emphasized in Orit Avnery, Belonging and Otherness in the Books of Ruth and Esther (Jerusalem: Hartman

Institute, 2015) [Hebrew].

11. I am referring to Phillip Roth’s 2004 novel, The Plot Against America.

12. This usage is attested, according to HALOT 2 ‫יהוּדי‬, thirty-nine times.

13. See BDB ‫ בּן‬j.

14. The premise of the question contradicts the lineage from the previous comment. Most likely, the two midrashim found

in the Targum derive from different sources with different outlooks on whether this Shimei was Shimei ben Gerah or

not.

15. The text continues:

16. On hidden polemics in the Bible, and why they are used, see Yairah Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative, trans.

Jonathan Chipman (Leiden: Brill, 2005), esp. 97-98.

66
17. On this term as a “literary emblem” in Esther, see Anne-Mareike Wetter, “On Her Account”: Reconfiguring Israel in

Ruth, Esther, and Judith (HBT/OTS 623; London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 123.

18. In the end, Samuel has to kill Agag himself (1 Sam. 15:32-33).

19. See B. Barry Levy, “What Was Esther’s Relationship to Mordechai?” TheTorah.com (2016).

20. There may also be another play at work here, since the same phrase is used by Abigail (1 Sam. 25:17) when she realizes

that her husband’s cursing of David may get them all killed. In fact, Yitzhak Berger has recently argued that the author

of the Megillah is consciously paralleling Esther and Abigail. He shows these parallels in the following chart:

21. See, W. McKane, “A Note on Esther IX and 1 Samuel XV,” JTS 12 (1961), 260-261, and more recently, among others,

Shlomo Bahar, “Expressions of Sympathy to the Clan of King Saul in the Scroll of Esther,” Beit Mikra 172 (October-

December 2002), 42-53 (Hebrew; English summary 92-93), Amnon Shapira, “Mirror Image: The Scroll of Esther as a

Correction to the Chapter of Amalek,” Mo’ed 14 (2004), 36-48 [Hebrew], David Silber with Ben Zion Ovadia, For

Such a Time as This: Biblical Reflections in the Book of Esther (Jerusalem: Maggid, 2016), 93-126 [Hebrew], and

citing the same evidence but understanding it as an anti-monarchical rather than an anti-Davidic polemic, Aaron Koller,

Esther in Ancient Jewish Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014), 45-53, esp. p. 50 n. 30. For a broader

discussion of Esther’s many intertexts, see Jonathan Grossman, Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Meaning,

Siphrut 6 (Winona Lake, Indian: Eisenbrauns, 2011).

67
22. Oded Lipschits, “The History of the Babylonian Region under Babylonian Rule,” Tel-Aviv 26 (1999), 155-190; see

more recently Diana Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of

Jerusalem (London: Equinox, 2005), 281-331. For more on the archaeological evidence concerning settlement of

Yehud in post-exilic period see: Louis Jonker, “Of Jebus, Jerusalem, and Benjamin: The Chronicler’s Sondergut in 1

Chronicles 21 against the Background of the Late Persian Era in Yehud,” in Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of

Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography (ed. P. S. Evans and T. Y. Williams; Winona Lake, Indiana:

Eisenbrauns, 2013), 83-85; James M. Bos, Reconsidering the Date and Provenance of the Book of Hosea: The Case for

Persian Period Yehud (LHB/OTS 580; NY: Bloomsbury, 2013), 70-76.

23. Also worth noting is that the Second Temple work, Chronicles, adds a distinction between Benjamin and Judah in a

David story that is not found in its source in 2 Sam 21.

.‫ו ְוֵל ִוי וִּב ְנָיִמן ל ֹא ָפַקד ְבּתוָֹכם ִכּי ִנְתַﬠב ְדַּבר ַהֶמֶּל’ ֶאת יוָֹאב‬:‫דברי הימים א כא‬

1 Chron. 21:6 He did not record among them Levi and Benjamin, because the king’s command had become repugnant

to Joab.

24. Yairah Amit, “The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul and Its Place in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Saul in

Story and Tradition, FAT 47, ed. Carol S. Ehrlich and Marsha C. White (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 71-79,

suggests that the traditions found in Samuel, if sifted through carefully, do contain pro-Saul elements; see more

recently Benjamin D. Giffone, “Sit at my Right Hand” The Chronicler’s Portrait of the Tribe of Benjamin in the Social

Context of Yehud (LHB/OTS 628; London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 111-119.

25.

68
26. The depiction of Benjamin in Chronicles is complex; see Louis C. Jonker, “Revisiting the Saul Narrative in Chronicles:

Interacting with the Persian Imperial Circle?” OTE 23/2 (2010), 283, n. 1; idem, “Of Jebus, Jerusalem, and Benjamin:

The Chronicler’s Sondergut in 1 Chronicles 21 against the Background of the Late Persian Era in Yehud,” in

Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography (ed. P. S. Evans and T.

Y. Williams; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 81-102; and most recently, idem, Defining All-Israel: Multi-

leveled Identity Negotiation in Late Persian-Period Yehud, FAT 106 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). Additional

biblical texts may also suggest that the Benjaminite-Davidic rivalry resurfaced in the exilic period; see Diana Edelman,

“Did Saulide-Davidic Rivalry Resurface in Early Persian Yehud?” in The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the

History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, JSOTSup 343; ed. J. A. Dearman

and M. P. Miller (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 69-91.

27. The NT translations follow the NRSV translation.

28. See esp. the following two studies: Hanna Liss, “The Innocent King: Saul in Rabbinic Exegesis,” in Saul in Story and

Tradition, FAT 47, ed. Carol S. Ehrlich and Marsha C. White (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 245-260; Louis

Feldman, “Josephus’ View of Saul,” in Saul in Story and Tradition, FAT 47, ed. Carol S. Ehrlich and Marsha C. White

(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 214-244. This pro-Saul bias stands in contrast to the anti-Saul bias we find in

Pseudo-Philo. See Joiachim Vette, “Samuel’s Farewell Speech: Theme and Variation in 1 Samuel 12, Josephus and

Pseudo-Philo,” in Literary Construction of Identity in the Ancient World (eds. Hanna Liss and Manfred Oeming;

Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 325-340; also Abram Spiro, “Pseudo-Philo’s Saul and the Rabbis’ Messiah Ben

Ephraim,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 21 (1952): 119-137.

29.

‫ה ַוָיּב ֹא ָשׁאוּל ַﬠד־ִﬠיר ֲﬠָמֵלק ַוָיֶּרב ַבָּנַּחל‬:‫שמואל א טו‬

1: Sam. 15:5 Then Saul advanced as far as the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the wadi/valley.

69
 30. Phillip R. Davies, “The Trouble With Benjamin,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in

Honour of A. Graeme Auld, VTS 113, ed. R. Rezetko et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 93-94. Davies is reworking Martin

Noth’s theory of a Deuteronomic History written in Benjaminite Mitzpah after the destruction of Judah. See, ch. 7 of

Philip Davies, The Origins of Biblical Israel (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 485; New York: T&T

Clark, 2007), 105-115.

31. Sabine van den Eynde, “If Esther Had Not Been That Beautiful: Dealing with a Hidden God in the (Hebrew) Book of

Esther,” BTB 31/4 (2001), p. 145-150.

Rembrandt, Joseph Telling His Dreams, 1638

Rabbi Meir Soloveitchik writes:17

17
https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/history-ideas/2017/12/the-ultimate-portrayal-of-the-ultimate-example-of-the-
unhappy-family/

70
Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Tolstoy’s line, one
of the most famous in world literature, is at least partially untrue: happy families are certainly not
all alike. But yes, every family in turmoil is definitely unhappy in its own way—an adage worth
keeping in mind when contemplating a 1638 etching by Rembrandt van Rijn. The etching depicts
what, for Jews, may be the ultimate example of the unhappy family: that of Jacob and his twelve
sons.

Rembrandt gives us here the opening scene of Vayeshev, this week’s Torah reading. In it, Joseph
is relating another of his dreams to his (radically unhappy) father and brothers:

In the Torah’s rendition, the people “onstage” are clearly named: “and he told it to his fathers and
his brothers.” For an artist, like Rembrandt, following the Protestant rule of sola
scriptura (scripture only), the figures depicted should thus be Jacob, Joseph, and ten of his
brothers—the youngest, Benjamin, being presumably still a baby. But one of the ten seems to be
missing. We see Jacob, we see Joseph, and counting carefully, only nine brothers crowding in.
Scrutinizing the image more closely, however, we may notice that the brother to Joseph’s left
seems to be eyeing someone even farther to the left, of whose person we can see nothing but a few
fingers resting palm down on the table. So a tenth brother is (barely) present after all.
But that brings us immediately to a more surprising aspect of the image, which is not who might
be missing from it but those whom Rembrandt, already pressed for space, has nevertheless added.
There are two of them.

One is the woman in bed on the upper left. This, of course, is Leah, Jacob’s first wife and the
mother of most of the men onstage—but not the mother of Joseph, born to her beautiful younger
sister Rachel: the woman who was Jacob’s first and only love, whom Jacob would marry and bring
into his household after seven additional years of labor for her, and who has since died in giving
birth to Benjamin.

What, then, does Leah have to do with the story of Joseph? Nothing—but, as Rembrandt
understood, everything. Leah, we learn earlier in Genesis, was desperate for her husband’s love,
but to no avail: she was snuah, disdained, and she certainly felt it. In setting aside precious space
in this etching to place her in her bed, Rembrandt reminds us of how desperately Leah had to
bargain with her sister Rachel to get Jacob, for whom she had borne so many children, back into
that bed:

71
Even after Rachel’s death, when Jacob might logically have transferred his affections to the wife
who gave him most of his children, his love centers instead on Rachel’s elder child Joseph—to the
bitter resentment of Jacob’s other sons:

Leah is thus in Rembrandt’s etching because, at every moment in the story of Joseph and his
brothers, she is always in the picture. It is her hurt, her rejection, that drives her sons’ all-
consuming hatred of Joseph.

As for the second added figure—the young girl sitting on a low stool at Jacob’s feet—she must be
Dinah, his and Leah’s only daughter. Dinah’s story appears in the Torah right after the death of
Rachel:

Note that Dinah here is identified as the daughter of Leah, not of Jacob, and that the text will soon
identify her primarily with her brothers rather than, again, her father. After raping her, Sh’khem
has sued for peace with the family, and Jacob is inclined to agree. But the brothers display a
dramatically different response to the outrage committed by Sh’khem on their family honor:

Moreover, when their father Jacob berates them for this rash action, the brothers are wholly
unapologetic:

“Our sister.” Their fury with Jacob is acute, as if to say: why did you not act on behalf of our sister,
daughter of our mother, your wife who still lives? Why are you acting as if our sister were not your
daughter?

72
Dinah’s story, too, is thus profoundly connected to that of Joseph. She is another symbol of the
emotional pain provoked by Jacob’s preferential love for Rachel, and a marker of the near-
homicidal rage that will ultimately burn against Joseph. In this scene of apparent domesticity,
Rembrandt has given us an emotional tinderbox about to combust.

There is still more. Studying this etching, we can’t really put names to the individual brothers—
with, as art historians have pointed out, two exceptions. The most prominent son, standing next to
Leah’s bed, is presumably the eldest, Reuben, who loyally served his mother and, as we’ve seen,
found the flowers that ultimately brought Jacob to her bed. As for the other significantly placed
brother, he is standing at center right, holding a staff. This must be Judah, who in fact plays a role
in the Joseph story second only to Joseph himself.

There are two striking references in Genesis to the staff of Judah. The first occurs in the seemingly
accidental encounter of the widowered Judah with his widowed daughter-in-law Tamar, who is
disguised as a prostitute:

This is Judah at his most imperfect, his moral nadir. But as the narrative unfolds, this same Judah
is about to assume heroic stature in the dramatic encounter between the brothers and another family
member in disguise—namely, Joseph, at this point the resplendently garbed vizier of Egypt and,
as such, unrecognized by the vengeful brothers who once sold him into slavery. Having seen to it
that they have been plentifully furnished with food to take back to famine-stricken Canaan, he now
holds them in his thrall, seizing one as hostage until they return with their youngest brother
Benjamin.

Upon the brothers’ arrival home, their aged patriarch Jacob refuses to relinquish the only remaining
son of his beloved Rachel: “for his brother is dead, and [Benjamin] is left alone: if mischief befall
him by the way in the which ye go, then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the
grave.” But now the same Judah, who earlier played the key part in persuading the brothers to sell
Joseph into slavery, executes a moral turnabout by pledging his own life as surety for Benjamin’s
and thereby winning their father’s acquiescence.

Even more dramatically, when the brothers reappear in Egypt and Joseph, still disguised, stages a
fake theft of his golden goblet and fingers Benjamin as the culprit, Judah stands up once again,
volunteering himself into slavery if only Joseph will let the boy return to his father. This utter
transformation so stuns Joseph that he ceases his charade, reveals himself to the brothers, and
proceeds to heal the family’s fractured relations.

And here is the second, now-redemptive meaning of the staff that Rembrandt places in Judah’s
hand. Although this entire episode in Genesis is often referred to as the story of “Joseph and his

73
Brothers,” Joseph is not the person who undergoes the most arresting character development over
the course of it. That person is Judah, the flawed human being who is at once the most interesting,
and the most heroic, character in the book of Genesis.

In the encounter with Joseph, Judah emerges as the leader of the family, and the child of Leah
finally gets his due; by the end of Genesis, in Jacob’s blessing of his sons, it becomes clear that it
is to the descendants of Judah, and not of Joseph, that the children of Israel will bow:

So the second identifiable brother in the etching is Judah. But is it also, simultaneously, someone
else?

Just before creating this etching, Rembrandt painted a portrait of himself and his wife Saskia that
is known today as The Prodigal Son in the Brothel. As I’m not the first to note, Rembrandt’s self-
image in that painting bears a strong resemblance to the image of the man holding the staff in our

74
etching. Moreover, Rembrandt in this self-portrait depicts himself magisterially holding, or rather
wearing, a staff of his own: a painter’s stick in the form of an épée.

Of course, the Dutch master inserted himself all over his paintings, always to tell us something
about himself and also something about us as fellow human creatures. Rembrandt is thus Judah
because Judah—and not Joseph—is all of us. True, it is impossible not to admire Joseph, who
succeeds at everything, who can make lemonade out of every lemon he encounters, who defies
temptation at every turn and forgives his brothers’ monstrous act. But Joseph is too perfect to
inspire. Judah, by contrast, inspires precisely because he is imperfect, a man who betrays but then
redeems, who is cowardly but then courageous, who falters and fails but does penitence and
overcomes.

Maimonides puts it this way:

That is Judah, and that is why, as Rembrandt is aware, the story of Joseph and his brothers could
properly be called “Judah and his Brothers.” It is also why Jews have much to learn from what
Rembrandt saw and, in his art, illuminated.

For historical reasons, the faith founded by Abraham and legislated by Moses ended up being
named for Judah. But there is more to it than history. For Judaism really is “Judah-ism,” the faith
that asks its followers, as Rembrandt does, to place themselves in Judah’s place. Judaism
proclaims, idealistically but realistically, that most human beings cannot be Moses, but all can be
Judah. It asserts, critically but optimistically, that mankind is not inherently good but is capable of
goodness. It is a faith whose imperfect namesake is an inspiration to all.

75
 Tears of Joy (And Joseph Wept)
Rabbi Naftali Reich writes:18

It was a moment of the purest joy. After so many years of estrangement and separation, Joseph
and his brothers were finally being reunited. Most poignant of all was the reunion between Joseph
and Benjamin, the only sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel. The Torah describes this emotional reunion,
how Joseph hugged his beloved younger brother and burst into tears.

Why did Joseph weep on this occasion? The Talmud (Megillah 17) tells us that Joseph knew
prophetically that the First and the Second Temples would be built in the portion of Benjamin, and
he foresaw their eventual destruction. And as he embraced his brother Benjamin, he wept for the
terrible tragedy which would one day befall the Jewish people.

Why does the Talmud find it necessary to give an explanation for Joseph’s tears? Isn’t it only
natural to shed tears of joy on occasions of transcendent happiness? Furthermore, why was Joseph

18
https://torah.org/torah-portion/legacy-5768-vayigash/

76
moved on this particular occasion to weep for the destruction of the Temple, a tragedy that would
take place a thousand years later?

Let us reflect for a moment. Why indeed do people cry at the weddings of their children and other
times of supreme joy? Why do tears course down their cheeks when their faces should be wreathed
in beaming smiles?

It is the realization of the transience of life that injects undertones of sadness into these moments
of joy. A person who experiences moderate joy still aspires to greater joy, and he is not inclined
to reflect on its impermanence. But once he reaches a pinnacle of transcendent joy, when his heart
is full to bursting with gladness, he is struck by the knowledge that this ecstasy cannot continue
forever, that nothing in life is permanent and this too will also come to an end. This sobering
thought, whether conscious or subconscious, is what causes people to “cry for joy.”

We live in a material world, a world of temporal joys and satisfactions, and all of life is but a
fleeting shadow, a dream that flashes by. Only joys and satisfactions of the divine soul have
permanence because they are experienced in the spiritual dimension, which is timeless and
unlimited.

When Joseph embraced Benjamin, his joy knew no bounds.

Reunited at long last, his thoughts were thoroughly absorbed with his beloved younger brother and
everything he represented. Benjamin was more than the man of flesh and blood standing before
him. He stood for a unique set of qualities, concepts and principles that characterized his part of
the future Jewish people. Benjamin’s greatness had earned him the honor of privilege of having
the Temple situated on his land. Clearly, he was a man with a role and a destiny, and all these
Joseph perceived at this wonderful moment of reunion. This was the precious gift that had been
returned to him after all these years of separation.

As Joseph’s heart filled with an overwhelming love and appreciation for this outstanding young
man who was his brother, he realized that after all is said and done we live in a material world,
that even someone as outstanding and pure as Benjamin would suffer tragedy and pain, that even
the Holy Temple, the most spiritual point in the world, also had its material side and would
someday be destroyed. And Joseph wept.

Two climbers exuberantly scaled a high mountain. As they sat down to rest, one of them became
sad and dejected.

“You should be thrilled by what we’ve accomplished,” remarked his companion. “Why are you so
sad?”
“Because tonight I will sleep in a bed like an ordinary person.”
“But didn’t you know that an hour ago?”
“An hour ago, my next step was up. Now, my next step is down.”

In our own lives, we all have moments of superlative joy, precious times we yearn to capture and
preserve forever. But all the snapshots and film footage in the world cannot trap a fleeting moment

77
of joy. All they preserve are fading memories, the bittersweet echoes of happy days gone by. There
is no permanence in the material dimension, not people not things, not experiences. We can only
preserve a precious moment by infusing it with spirituality, by linking it to a continuous process
of spiritual growth, of enriching our immortal souls, of drawing closer to our Creator. Then, even
when the material aspects of that precious moments fade away, its glowing spiritual core will
endure forever.

The Neck

Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe19

19
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/3222/jewish/The-Neck.htm

78
The story of Joseph and his brothers, to which the Torah devotes more than a dozen detailed
chapters (Genesis 37-50), is no mere family drama. The twelve sons of Jacob are the founders of
the twelve tribes of Israel, and their deeds and experiences, their conflicts and reconciliations, their
separations, and reunions, sketch many a defining line in the blueprint of Jewish history.

One such event is the tearful reunion between Joseph and Benjamin described in Genesis 45:14:

(Each tribe received a portion in the Land of Israel. Although a significant part of
the Temple Mount and the Temple courtyard [azarah], as well as the rest of the city of Jerusalem,
was in the territory of Judah, the main part of the Holy Temple — the heichal, the Holy of
Holies and the Altar — lay in the adjoining territory of Benjamin. Both the First Temple, erected
by King Solomon in the year 2928 from Creation [832 BCE] and destroyed by
the Babylonians 410 years later, and the Second Temple, built on the same site in 3408 [352 BCE]
and destroyed by the Romans in 3829 [69 CE], were thus situated. Preceding the two Temples,
however, was the Mishkan, the portable Sanctuary which served the People of Israel in their
journeys in the desert; following the People of Israel's entry into the Holy Land in the days
of Joshua, the Mishkan was erected in Shiloh in Joseph's territory, its wooden wall-sections
replaced with walls of stone. The Shiloh Sanctuary served as the spiritual epicenter of the Jewish
people for 369 years, until its destruction by the Philistines in approximately 2872 [888 BCE].)

Adapted by Yanki Tauber.

79
Therein lies the significance of the fact that Joseph and Benjamin wept on each other's necks: in
the Torah, the neck is a common metaphor for the Holy Temple.

"G-d hovers about him all day, and dwells between his shoulders," says Moses of Benjamin,
referring to the Holy Temple in his province (Deuteronomy 33:12).

And King Solomon in Song of Songs, singing the praises of the "maiden of Israel" and her
relationship with the Almighty, proclaims: "Your neck is as the Tower of David." (Song of Songs,
4:4. The "Tower of David" in this verse is the Holy Temple; the fortress at the Jaffa Gate
in Jerusalem known by that name today is a Herodian structure, built some eight centuries after
King Solomon wrote Song of Songs.)

The Sanctuaries are links between heaven and earth, points of contact between the Creator and His
creation. "The heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You," proclaimed King
Solomon upon the dedication of the Beit HaMikdash. "How, then, can this house that I have built
You?!" (I Kings 8:27). Yet G-d had commanded, "They shall make for Me a Sanctuary, and I
shall dwell within them" (Exodus 25:8). G-d, who transcends the finite, transcends the infinite as
well, and He chose to designate a physical site and structure as the seat of His manifest presence
in the world and the focal point of man's service of his Creator. "This is the house of G-d,"
proclaimed Jacob after a night at the site of the future Temples, "and this is the gate of heaven"
through which man's prayers ascend on high (Genesis 28:17; Rashi, ibid. See I Kings 8:29-53).
Three times a year, all of Israel came to "see and be seen" by the "face of the L-rd" at the
Sanctuary in Jerusalem (Exodus 23:17, as per Talmud, Sanhedrin 4b).

The Sanctuary, then, is the "neck" of the world, the juncture that connects its body to its head. A
person's head contains his highest and most vital faculties — the mind and the sensing organs, as
well as the inlets for food, water, and oxygen — but it is the neck that joins the head to the body
and channels the flow of consciousness and vitality from the one to the other: the head heads the
body via the neck. By the same token, the Holy Temple is what connects the world to its supernal

80
Vitalizer and source. It is the channel through which G-d relates to His creation and imbues it with
spiritual perception and material sustenance.

Precarious Joint

"As the soul fills the body," say our Sages, "so G-d fills the world." Just as there is a "neck" that
joins the world to its divine soul, so, too, there is need for a personal "Holy
Temple," Beit HaMikdash, in the life of each and every individual, a "neck" to join his spiritual
head (his soul) to his material body.

The human soul is a pure and perfect spark of its Creator, the source of all that is good and G-dly
in man. But in order that it head his life, man must construct a "neck" to join his soul to his material
self. He must sanctify his mind, heart, and behavior, so that they form a conduit through which his
G-dly essence may control, vitalize, and permeate his entire being.

The Sanctuary's destruction, whether on the cosmic or the individual level, is the breakdown of
the juncture between head and body — between Creator and creation, between soul and physical
self. Indeed, the two are intertwined. When the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem and openly served
as the spiritual nerve center of the universe, this obviously enhanced the bond between body and
soul in every individual. And when man repairs his personal "Holy Temple," bridging the gap
between matter and essence in his own life, he contributes toward the reconstruction of the
universal Holy Temple and the renewal of the open and uninhibited bond between G-d and
creation.

This explains why Joseph and Benjamin wept on each other's necks: the state of the "head" is never
a cause for distress, for the quintessential soul can never be compromised or corrupted; but they
foresaw times when the "neck" between spirit and matter would be damaged, alienating earth from
heaven and body from soul.

Self and Fellow

81
But why did Joseph and Benjamin weep on each other's necks, Joseph crying over Benjamin's two
destroyed Sanctuaries, and Benjamin over Joseph's? Were they not distressed by the future
breakdown of their own "necks"?

The same question arises further on in the Torah's account, when Joseph's reunion with his father,
Jacob, is described. The Torah relates that "Joseph readied his chariot, and went up to meet Israel,
his father ... he fell upon his neck, and he wept more on his neck" (Genesis 46:29). Here, too, our
sages explain Joseph's weeping on Jacob's neck as an expression of distress over the destruction
of the Holy Temple. But what about Jacob? Why didn't he weep? Our sages tell us that he was
reciting the Shema. But if it was time to recite the Shema, why was Joseph weeping? Indeed, is
distress over the negative state of the connection between G-d and His creation inconsistent with
the recitation of the Shema?

We see a pattern emerging: Joseph weeps over the destruction of the Sanctuaries which lay in
Benjamin's province, but not over the Sanctuary which lay in his own. Benjamin weeps over the
destruction of Joseph's Sanctuary, but not of his own. And Jacob weeps over neither, since, as the
father of all the tribes of Israel, his province includes all Sanctuaries of Israel. The question
remains: why should one weep over another's spiritual deficiencies but not over one's own?

To address this question, we must first examine the nature of weeping in general. What do tears
actually achieve? Tears give vent to the feelings of distress and frustration that accompany the
knowledge that something is not as it should be. After a "good cry," a person is somewhat relieved
of these feelings, although the situation that prompted his tears remains unchanged. Is this a
positive phenomenon? At first glance, it would seem not. Distress and frustration are what drive a
person to rectify the negative reality that gave rise to them. To lessen them by other means would
seem to counteract their purpose and utility.

But what if one has done all there is to be done? In such a case, where weeping cannot be faulted
for reducing the impetus for action, one can point to its constructive uses. It may serve to

82
communicate one's empathy with a fellow's troubles. And it may serve to alert others to the gravity
of the situation — others who are in a position to do something about it.

Citing the verse (Isaiah 52:2), "Shake yourself from the dust ... O Jerusalem,"
the Midrash expounds, "As a rooster who shakes off the dust from his wings." Our sages explain:
when a rooster has wallowed in the dust, a thousand people with a thousand combs cannot clean
it; but with a single vigorous shake, the rooster can free himself of every last speck of dust. One
can educate, inspire, drive, and otherwise assist another to develop and improve himself;
ultimately, however, the only one who can affect any real and lasting change is the person himself.

Thus, Joseph and Benjamin allowed themselves to weep over the destruction of each other's
Sanctuaries. Ultimately, only Joseph can repair the destroyed Sanctuary at Shiloh, the "Joseph"
dimension of Israel's relationship with the Almighty; Benjamin can only encourage and assist.
After contributing all he could to Joseph's efforts, Benjamin wept his agony and concern on his
brother's neck. The same applies to Joseph's weeping over the Sanctuaries in Benjamin's domain.

However, concerning one's own spiritual ills, there is no such thing as "having done all there is to
do." G-d has granted free choice to man and has provided him with the resources and abilities to
overcome his every moral and spiritual challenge. Hence the tearless approach of Jacob, Joseph,
and Benjamin to the destruction of their own Sanctuaries. To weep over one's own "neck," over
the negative state of the relationship between one's own body and soul (and its cosmic
repercussions in the relationship between G-d and creation) is counterproductive, as it relieves and
diminishes the internal forces that compel one to repair the relationship.

Instead of weeping over the destruction of the Holy Temple and the resultant galut ("exile"), Jacob
recited the Shema — the Jew's proclamation of the unity of G-d and the imperative to translate his
comprehension and awareness of G-d's unity into thoughts in his mind, feelings in his heart, words
in his mouth and concrete actions in his physical life. Instead of giving vent to his pain, Jacob
directed his inner turmoil toward the endeavor of rebuilding the damaged necks of Israel.

83
Our daf reviews the weeping of our patriarchs and that of Joseph and Benjamin. Below I discuss
in depth a way of looking through the tears of our patriarchs, their transgenerational anxieties
through the yes of deep readers such as Rav Lichtenstein and Aviva Zornberg.

In the following two podcasts I review the dramatic scene of

Benjamin and Joseph:20

We complete the series on the tears of the Patriarchs with Joseph’s final meeting with Benjamin.

We investigate the “vale of tears” (in hac lacrimarum to borrow from our neighbor religion) that extends from
the biblical narrative through the rabbinic imaginative

midrash to Song of Songs (the temple as the neck of Israel) and subsequent Hurban,

down to the Piacetzna’s larimosal final parting words before deportation from the Warsaw Ghetto.

for further reading on Benjamin see: my daf ditty Yoma 12: Benjamin’s Anxiety

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5047de16e4b026a4c324cd81/t/60834eaa36c10f0a0e3475dc/1619218094
126/DD340_Yo012.pdf

20
https://www.jyungar.com/podcast

84
and compare and contrast In our third in a series of "Tears of the Patriarchs" where we examine the

seven scenes where Joseph weeps in the last few chapters of Genesis.

We use the literary chiastic analysis to reveal the moment of deep awareness of his wound and its catharsis.

We compare the analysis of Harav Aharon Lichtenstein (z’l) with scholar Aviva Zornberg in exposing a
spiritual roadmap we too can participate in in our healing.21

21
https://www.jyungar.com/podcast

85