Ramaz Illusions

z a am

R

s n sio ‫הזי‬

u l l I

Volume 2

Purim 5776, March 2016

ALL NEW INSIDE! 

‫ות‬

Book review of Yoram Hazony’s “God and Politics in Esther” (Cambridge University Press) - recently published this past February! By: Talia Davidovsky ‘16



Minor Characters as Plot Devices: A thoughtful thematic suggestion for understanding the role of the king’s chamberlains in the ‫מגילה‬. By: Tess Solomon ‘16



Thoughts from an Alumnus: A fascinating take on the rules of Law and Lawlessness as presented in the ‫מגילה‬ narrative. By: Tzvi MerczynskiHait, Class of 2015

… And many more thought-provoking pieces of Purim Torah from the students of the Ramaz Upper School!

From the Editor Elianna Schwartz ‘17 Purim is a story of masks, of hidden meanings and of underlying messages. In each of the articles in this edition of Illusions, our authors take a closer look at the story of Megillat Esther and reveal layers of secret meaning in the story. Not only does each character have hidden traits, abilities, and challenges, but also God himself is hidden, with no mention of His name in the megillah and only subliminal references through the text. The messages of Purim are concealed even through Esther’s name; she herself concealed her identity and struggled throughout this story in uncovering her true essence and ability. Esther started off as a follower; she was obedient and passive. But as the story progresses, we see an incredible transformation of character and personality. As the story unfolds and Haman becomes more committed to his destruction tactics and the anxiety among the Jewish people increases, we see a very different Esther.

(Continued on back cover)

Student Editors: Sarah Ascherman ‘16 and Elianna Schwartz ‘17 Artwork by: Dynnor Shebshaievitz ‘16 Faculty Advisor: Ms. Miriam Krupka

Where is God? Jared Feingold ‘16

What is a religious text? The myriad answers to this question highlight the overarching nature of religion in our lives. We have religious texts of law, philosophy, agriculture, social structure, morality, love poetry, rebuke, and storytelling. While our various canonized texts can be very different, almost all share one key characteristic. They interpret life through the lens of a godly existence and He is the focus of every aspect of humanity. This is what makes Megillat Esther so strange. Unlike twenty -two of the twenty-four of the books in our canon, Megillat Esther doesn’t mention the name of God (Shir Hashirim also doesn’t mention God’s name but for very different reasons) .

The absence of God in Megillat Esther can be interpreted in at least two ways. If you think about the ideal life for a Jew in the land of Israel, life in Persia would be the exact opposite. In Megillat Esther’s Persia, Jewish characters have Persian names and are very assimilated into Persian society. They live at court and are not identifiable as Jews. King Achashverosh did not even recognize Esther as a Jew until she told him that she was one! One might think it is possible to believe that Megillat Esther was written by Judean Jews who were critical of those who had not returned from the Diaspora. According to this theory, by not mentioning God, the authors are asserting their belief that

God is not active in Jewish life in an assimilated society like the one in Persia.

According to this interpretation, the Jews’ triumph in Megillat Esther is solely based on luck and a sequence of unlikely coincidences. This megillah then cautions that while life can seemingly work well for the Jews in the Diaspora, in reality, it is lacking because God is not involved.

Diaspora history is controlled by coincidence and not by the clear and reliable will of God. However, a different explanation as to why God is not present in the story of Purim is stated in the Talmud. “From where does the Torah bring the name Esther? From the verse ‘But I [God] will surely conceal my face [“haster astir panai”] on that day for all of the ill that they have done–for they turned to other gods.’ ” (Deuteronomy 31:18) (qtd in Hullin 139b). This Talmudic opinion is not saying that the writers left God out in order to make a point, but rather that He concealed Himself (haster panim) because the Jews had assimilated.

A less critical interpretation of God’s anonymity in Megillat Esther comes from the Rambam and his classic view of miracles. The Rambam does not believe that God performs obvious miracles. He does not believe in divine lightning strikes or a blatantly divine splitting of the Red Sea. Instead, the Rambam believes that God wove His

PAGE 2

(Continued on page 27)

The Rule of Law Tzvi Merczynski-Hait, Class of 2015 (currently studying in Yeshivat Gush Etzion)

‫( דת‬dat),translated in modern Hebrew as “religion,” is a pervasive word and theme in Megillat Esther. This essay will attempt to find a precise definition for dat and use that definition to gain a better understanding of Megillat Esther through the verses in which the word appears.

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon defines dat as, “decree, edict, commission of a Persian king,” or, “law, permanently valid and applicable” and notes that it is a “Persian loan word.”

Fittingly enough, the word only appears in the books of Ketuvim that were written in the Persian period, with one notable exception: an appearance at the end of Sefer Devarim. The Torah states: ‫פרשת וזאת הברכה פרק לג‬ ‫ב) ו ַי ֹּאמַַ֗ ר י ְק ָֹּ֞ו ָּק מִ סִ ינַ ַ֥י ָּב ֙א וְז ַ ַָּ֤רח מִ שֵּׂ עִ י ֙ר ָ֔ ָּלמֹו‬ ִ ‫ְָאתה מֵּׂ ִרב ְַ֣ב ֹּת ֹ֑ק ֹּדֶ ׁש ִמִֽימִ ינ֕ ֹו‬ ָ֔ ָּ ָּ‫֙יע מֵּׂ ַ ַ֣הר פ‬ ַ֙ ‫הֹופ‬ ָ֖ ָּ ‫ארן ו‬ :‫אשדת ֵּׂ ַ֥אׁש ָּ ָ֖דת ָּלִֽמֹו‬ 2) And he said: The LORD came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy, at His right hand was a fiery law unto them.

It is unclear at first what dat means here. The Hebrew-English Koren Tanakh renders esh-dat quite literally as “fiery law” (as does the translation brought above) whereas the Artscroll Stone Edition Tanakh takes some liberty in translation to increase clarity and renders it “the fiery Torah.” Artscroll’s

translation follows Onkelus who writes: ‫תרגום אונקלוס פרשת וזאת הברכה‬ ‫ב) … כתב ימיניה מגו אישתא אוריתא יהב‬ :‫לנא‬ …The writing of his right hand from which he gave us the fiery Torah.

Seemingly, the word that generally means “law” is understood here to refer specifically to the Torah. The majority of commentators seem to, at least implicitly, take this approach of assuming that dat refers to the Torah.

Similarly, the Gemara takes this approach, for example in a halachic statement: ‫מסכתות קטנות מסכת סופרים הוספה ב פרק‬ ‫ב הלכה יא‬ ‫ לא יתננו אלא‬,‫והנותן ספר תורה לחבירו‬ ‫ לא ניתנה אלא‬,‫ כשניתנה תורה מסיני‬,‫בימין‬ .‫ שנ' מימינו אש דת למו‬,‫בימין‬ One who gives a Sefer Torah to his fellow should give it in his right [hand], just as the Torah was given from Sinai, which was given in the right [hand], as it is said, “from His right hand was a fiery law unto them.”

And more explicitly in Masechet Berachot: ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף ו עמוד א‬ ‫ מימינו אש דת למו‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ זו תורה‬- ‫בימינו‬ “In his right”—this is Torah, as it is said, “from His right hand was a fiery law unto them”

PAGE 3

Obviously this definition of dat as (Continued on page 22)

How is Purim Like the Holiest Day of the Year?

Eliana Doft ‘16 It’s hard to believe that the two most polar opposite holidays on the Jewish calendar, Purim and Yom Kippur, have anything in common. Yom Kippur is the most spiritual day of the year, where we put aside materialistic things in order to focus on God. Purim, on the other hand, is completely physical. We eat, drink, dress up, and enjoy each others’ company. So when the Vilna Gaon says that Purim and Yom Kippur are so similar, that Yom HaKippurim is spelled just like Yom Ke-Purim, a day that is like Purim; what could he possibly be talking about?

First of all, the holidays are similar in the characters of their protagonists.

Esther’s brave actions when she went to plead before the king have many similarities with the actions of the Kohen Gadol - the High Priest - on Yom Kippur.

Esther dressed up before appearing to the king- ‫– ותלבש אסתר מלכות‬and the Kohen Gadol dressed in special garments before praying to God. Esther and the Jewish people fasted, just like all Jews do on Yom Kippur. Esther bravely went into the inner court of the palace, a place no one was supposed to enter, hoping for the Jewish people to be saved, just like

the Kohen Gadol entered the Kodesh Hakodashim, hoping for God to forgive the Jewish people. For both of them, if they received a favorable judgment, then they would emerge safely in addition to the Jewish people being saved. Yom Kippur and Purim represent the Jewish people’s salvation and redemption.

We can learn an important lesson from the connection between the two seemingly opposite holidays. Since Yom Kippur, the spiritual day, and Purim, the physical day, both send the message of the salvation and redemption of the Jewish people, so too, we need to find meaning in both the spiritual and physical aspects of our daily lives in order to achieve our goals and make us better people.

At Ramaz, this is exactly what we are working to achieve. For example, on Rosh Chodesh, we celebrate spiritually during tefillah and physically during chagigot. We have spiritual and physical growth built into our weekly schedules with Judaic studies, gym, and health classes. Even in our extracurricular activities, we have the option to join sports teams as well as Torah Bowl. As a senior about to leave Ramaz, I hope I can take both the aspects of Yom Kippur and Purim with me.

PAGE 4

Book Review: “God and Politics in Esther”

by Yoram Hazony Talia Davidovsky ‘16

**I want to thank Dr. Hazony for sending me a copy of the recently published version of his book before it became available to readers. I would also like to thank him for answering some of my questions on his book while writing this review. It was such a pleasure talking to him about his book and his thoughts on the political narrative contained in Megillat Esther.

God and Politics in Esther by Yoram Hazony analyzes Megillat Esther utilizing the ideas of western political philosophy; political context is given to the characters’ every action. It explains why the megillah is unique to every other book in Tanakh, yet valuable all the same, teaching Jews how to deal with political oppression and anti-Semitism while living under a foreign government.

Hazony, an Israeli philosopher and political theorist and president of The Herzl Institute in

Jerusalem, relates the themes of the megillah to important political and philosophical ideas such as civil disobedience, moral relativism, and totalitarianism.

Civil disobedience, referring to Mordechai’s actions against Haman, reflects a broader historical point of how Judaism constantly rejects the ways of others. Moral relativism refers to the idolatrous belief that certain immoral actions are acceptable if you only look at the situation from one point of view, and totalitarianism reflects both Achashverosh and Haman’s desire for control. This way of understanding the megillah seems to me to be an original one, but the author mentions that the narratives of Joseph, Daniel, and Nechemia are also political ones (each with slightly varying views on how to handle exilic politics) and told me in an email that “it’s hard to miss” politics throughout the Tanakh “once you start looking for it.” He also told me that his background in political philosophy influenced the way he read Megillat Esther and helped him realize that varied themes contained in both politics and Jewish theology are quite interrelated.

While Mordechai knew that Judaism is about questioning and finding multiple perspectives, he recognized that Haman was the complete opposite. For

PAGE 5

(Continued on page 16)

A Purim Poem Jeremy Gruen ‘16

There once was a king, Achashverosh his name Do you know Xerxes? The two were the same1 And he ruled over 127 cities2 Him and his wife, as well as advisors and committees And it came to pass on one given day That the king wished to show his wealth in some way So he invited the world to party and to drink Asked his wife to come naked, he clearly didn’t think3 So when the queen refused, he was filled with rage He wished to be rid of her, he wished to upstage So he had his advisors call for all the realm’s girls He was going to give them all a few whirls And shortly, thereafter he decided on one It was Esther the queen for she had outdone All of the other chosen females For some reason, although we don’t know the details4 It was by coincidence that Mordechai had heard5 The plan of Bigtan and Teresh that had been slurred So Mordy told Esther to tell the king And they were both hanged, necks on a string And then Haman was brought, he came to power But Mordy didn’t listen, for he wasn’t a bow-er6 So Haman got the king to sign a bill Demanding that all the Jews immediately be killed

It was soon thereafter that the king couldn’t sleep He asked for a book to help him count sheep He was told of the story of Mordy and the men And the king, comforted, could sleep again It was later that Mordy told Esther to tell the king And she threw a party to tell him something After 3 different parties she told Haman’s plan7 And the king was shocked by the wickedness of the man The king was so mad he would not have none So he hung Haman for what he had done But it was not enough to just be rid of him So he had Haman’s sons hung by their limbs And so the Jews who were once threatened Were now fill with strength, happiness, and weapons And that’s the story of v’nahafochhu8 And the story of Purim, which I’m sure you knew

[1]This is derived from a combination of Ezra 4:6 and Greek Historians. Ezra describes Achashverosh as the king after Darius (Daryavesh) and before Artaxerxes (Atarchshasta) while Herodotus describes Xerxes as the king between Darius and Artaxerxes who had a lust for women and wine, echoing the description of our Achashverosh.

[2]This is an intertextual reference to our mother Sarah, who lived for 127 years. Vashti and Sarah both converse with their husbands regarding their appearance. Vashti refuses to appear before the king for one of two reasons; either she was too pretty and the men would kill Achashverosh in order to take her, or she was so ugly that he would be shamed and embarrassed (Esther Rabbah 3:14). Avraham informed

PAGE 6

(Continued from page 6)

Sarah of his fear as they approached Egypt with a similar concern that he would be killed so that the Pharoah could take Sarah for a wife (Genesis 12:11-12). Perhaps this reference speaks to Esther’s role as saviour of our nation in comparison to Sarah’s role as its progenitor.

[3]This midrash can be found in “The Legend of the Jews” Volume 4 – Page 374 and criticizes Achashverosh’s drunken request.

[4]Notice in the poem how I did not mention God at all. This speaks to the idea of anthropocentricity (a focus on the human experience) in the megillah and how perhaps these details were omitted because the authors of the megillah wanted to focus more on human nature and tendencies rather than divine intervention. See Talia Davidovsky’s review of Yoram Hazony’s “God and Politics in Megillat Esther” on p.3 of this publication for an understanding of Megillat Esther that leans more heavily on the idea of human initiative, rather than reliance on divine aid.

importance in the kingdom and was near the gates often, enabling him to overhear Bigtan and Teresh.

[6]Most midrashim argue that Mordechai’s refusal was due to the idol around Haman’s neck, making it a religious revolt. Others say it was Mordechai’s stand against his political rival.

[7] There are those that claim the structure of Megillat Esther revolves around the different parties in the narrative. There are ten different parties, and each functions as a focal turning point in the narrative. The centrality of food and drink in the narrative’s flow speak compellingly about human nature and how we make decisions.

[8]Rather than providing the reader with the traditional d’var torah with a deeper message, I have hidden the message within a Dr. Seussesque poem. I have emulated both themes of purim being “masked” or “hidden” as well as “V’nahafoch hu”, as I’ve made it so that the reader must derive the hidden d’var torah from the poem.

[5]Rabbi Eric Grossman of the Ramaz Upper School suggested, in a lecture to our Megillot class, how perhaps it was not a coincidence at all.

Rather, Mordechai was a man of political

PAGE 7

From Hero to Heroine: Esther and the Seven Prophetesses Gabriel Klapholz ’17

Purim is unique in its glorification of a heroine, Esther. While it is difficult to claim that the role of women in Tanakh is lacking, as the heroine is a recurring theme, the story of the megillah stands out in a canon dominated by male figures and the endless lineage of fathers and sons. Esther is the sole example of female power. She uses seduction and sexual appeal to establish herself as one of the most important individuals in one of the mightiest empires of the ancient world. Massechet Megillah, however, puts into question Esther’s status as a significant powerbroker in the biblical narrative as well as that of other alleged female heroines throughout the Tanakh.

The seven prophetesses are seven biblical women that the Talmud seemingly glorifies as recipients of the divine inspiration. They are Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Channah, Avigail, Chuldah, and Esther. In Perek Aleph of Masechet Megillah Daf 14a, the rabbis engage in a lengthy discussion in which they verify the prophetic abilities of each of the prophetesses. The discussion can be viewed either as a rabbinic reinforcement of the theme of female heroism in the megillah, or as a passing reference to a marginalized group that plays a symbolic role in determining the Jewish narrative. The fact that the Talmud is able to mention seven prophetesses is quite a respectable feat.

Still, it is interesting that the Talmud can

only conjure up seven women. For male prophets, such a shortened list would not do justice to the numerous male heroes with whom God communicates. The short list of seven prophetesses also leaves out many other central female biblical personalities, including Rebecca, Rachel, Leah, Dina, Tamar, Tziporah, Yael, Bathsheba, Naomi, and Ruth. Whether these women were actual prophetesses or not, the Talmud represents female heroism as seven core instances of female connection with God. Interestingly, in the lengthy Talmudic discussion that seeks to prove the prophetic abilities of the seven women, the rabbis consistently return to starkly female images that complicates the matter under investigation. It is unlikely that the discussion of male prophecy would at all result in extraneous references to masculinity. However, that seems to be what happens in the case of Sarah and her femininity. In the case of Sarah, the Talmud first claims that a second name for Sarah is Yiscah (see Bereishit 11:29), using the name to derive her ability “to gaze upon” the holy inspiration, ie, praising her prophetic abilities. Nevertheless, the Talmud continues to mention a secondary meaning for the name Yiscah; Sarah was called Yiscah because everyone gazed at her beauty. In the flow of the Talmudic discourse, it seems that the second

PAGE 8

(Continued on page 20)

Charvonah Sara Araten ‘16

One of the pivotal moments of the Purim story is Esther’s accusation of Haman at her second party for Achashverosh. There she accuses Haman of plotting to kill her and all of her people. After Esther’s accusation, one of Achashverosh’s advisors, Charvonah, jumps in to point out that Haman also built a gallows on which Haman intended to hang Mordechai. As it says in the megillah: ‫ו ַי ֹּאמֶ ר חַ ְרבֹונָּה אֶ חָּ ד מִ ן הַ סָּ ִריסִ ים לִפְ נֵּׂי הַ מֶ לְֶך‬ ‫גַם הִ נֵּׂה הָּ עֵּׂ ץ אֲ ׁשֶ ר עָּ שָּ ה הָּ מָּ ן לְמָּ ְרדֳּ כַי אֲ ׁשֶ ר‬ ‫דִ בֶר טֹוב עַ ל‬ ‫הַ מֶ לְֶך ע ֹּמֵּׂ ד ְבבֵּׂית הָּ מָּ ן גָּב ֹּהַ חֲ מִ שִ ים אַ מָּ ה‬ (7:9) Meaning, Charvonah proclaimed to the king, “Also, here is the fifty foot tree near Haman’s house on which Haman intended to hang the good Mordechai.” By just looking at the peshat, Charvonah seems to be a very important character in the Purim story, as he pointed out more of Haman’s wrongdoings so that the king could rightfully punish him. Chazal agree with the peshat interpretation of Charvonah’s character, and they see him as an integral character who said the right thing at the right time and therefore helped change the course of history for the Jewish people.

To show Charvonah’s importance, upon completing the megillah we sing Shoshanat Yaakov where we mention “ ”‫וגם חרבונה זכר לטוב‬ “ -And Charvonah is also remembered for good.”

Although Charvonah is praised in Shoshanat Yaakov, not all of the chachamim agree that Charvonah was such an altruistic person. According to Masechet Megillah (daf 16a), Charvonah was actually one of Haman’s accomplices who had helped Haman plan to kill Mordechai. Charvonah betrayed Haman in order to save his own neck when he saw that the evil plan was revealed by Esther. Although this idea sees Charvonah as originally being on the wrong side, he can still be seen as favorable because he did change his allegiance to save Mordechai. The Midrash Rabbah on Esther also seems to say that Charvonah was not as praiseworthy as Chazal perceived him to be in Shoshanat Yaakov.

The Midrash Rabbah (10:9) says that after Esther told Achashverosh about Haman’s plan, Eliyahu appeared at the scene in the form of Charvonah. Thus, it was because of Eliyahu, and not because of Charvonah, that Mordechai was ultimately saved from the fate that Haman had planned for him.

So despite these two opinions, why do we still consider Charvonah to be the wholesome character that he is perceived as in the peshat of the megillah? I think Chazal find it important to remember Charvonah for good because of the fact that despite his murky past, Charvonah did the right thing and

PAGE 9

(Continued on page 21)

Were the Heroes of Megillat Esther Assimilated?

Talia Davidovsky ‘16

Why do Esther and Mordechai refer to Shushan as “The Capital” or “Habira” in the megillah when the word “Habira” is only used to describe one other thing in Tanakh: the Beit Hamikdash in Yerushalayim, the Jewish capital (Divrei Hayamim 29:1, 19)? It seems strange that the Torah would give Shushan such a prestigious title, elevating Shushan to the same level as Yerushalayim and the Beit Hamikdash.

One possible answer to this question is that Esther and Mordechai are so assimilated that they see Shushan as their real capital.

However, Mordechai and Esther are traditionally viewed in the midrash as religious heroes, not assimilated ones.

The problem with this traditional view is that if they are truly unassimilated, then we would expect them to have returned to Israel. Achashverosh reigns after Koresh, the first Persian king, who decrees that the Jews are allowed to return to Israel seventy years after Galut Yohayachin – a decree prophesied by Yirmiyahu (Yirmiyahu 25:11-12). Historically, the Purim story probably takes place when the second Beit Hamikdash is already built – the Jews begin to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash in 516 BCE but many modern historians say that Purim happens much later (Shaul Shaked, Book of Esther). The timing of Purim strengthens the question of why Mordechai and Esther did not return to Israel (though many opinions don’t agree with these particular

historians and say that the Beit Hamikdash is possibly not yet rebuilt).

Regardless of whether or not there is a second Beit Hamikdash by the time the Purim story takes place, Esther and Mordechai were able to go back to Israel, but never did. Perhaps they were comfortable living in Persia; plenty of Jews can maintain their tradition while choosing to stay in galut. However, in addition to the fact that Esther and Mordechai never return to Israel, they also refer to Shushan as “The Capital.” They introduce the megillah with a description of the power of the Persian empire (Esther 1:1) and they never mention Israel and the Jewish community in their text. This focus on Persia and its capital throughout the megillah further implies that Esther and Mordechai are assimilated into Persian society.

There are other reasons in the text to believe that the Jewish community of Persia has acculturated to their exilic surrounding. For example, the name Esther: she seems to be named after Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess of war and fertility (while Mordechai is possibly named after Marduk, another Babylonian diety). Additionally, Esther marries a non -Jew and she pretends not to be Jewish for many of the years that she lives in the king’s palace, which definitely would have made it difficult for her to keep many of the mitzvot.

PAGE 10

(Continued on page 11)

(Continued from page 10)

However, Chazal say that Esther’s name is also Hadassah, and the name Esther comes from hester or “hiding” her true identity (while Mordechai was actually named after mare deki, a type of spice). Esther’s marriage to Achashverosh is invalid because the megillah implies that she is forced into it (Megillah 13b).

As a queen, Mordechai and Esther make many secret accommodations to enable her to maintain her religious practices while she is living in the king’s palace, pretending not to be Jewish (Megillah 13a).

Through multiple midrashim, Chazal try to show us that Esther is not actually assimilated. These midrashim are probably the basis for why we traditionally view Esther as a religious heroine. However, according to the peshat, it appears that she is not so religious and, therefore, echoes the idea behind calling Shushan “The Capital.”

Interestingly, the words “Shushan Habira” are not the only allusion to the Beit Hamikdash made in the megillah.

"Hangings of white, fine cotton..." are present at the king’s parties (megillah 1:6) and the term “fine cotton” is almost always connected with the Beit Hamikdash (Divrei Hayamim I 5:26, Divrei Hayamim II 2:13, 3:14, 5:12). Chazal even say that the king was using objects taken from the first Beit Hamikdash at his party, and the Jews seemingly don’t react; they just enjoy the feast. Chazal add that Achashverosh had the feast to celebrate the fact that the Jews are still in galut instead of in Israel with the Beit Hamikdash, which means the Beit Hamikdash is on Achashverosh’s mind, but ironically not on the minds of

Mordechai and Esther (Megillah 11a).

The king’s palace is also remarkably reminiscent to the Beit Hamikdash. Both structures have outer courtyards that regular people can visit (the azara in the Beit Hamikdash and the sha’ar bet hamelech in Shushan). They both have an area just outside the innermost chamber that is only visited by a small group of people (the kodesh for the Kohanim in the Beit Hamikdash and the chatzer chitzona for political officials in Shushan). And they both have an inner chamber where very few people can enter (and only with special permission); if anyone enters without permission, the result is death (the kodesh hakodashim for the Kohen Gadol in the Beit Hamikdash and the chatzer hapnimit for the king and a few selected in Shushan). If Achasverosh’s palace is analogous with the Beit Hamikdash, then Achashverosh is analogous to Hashem, and Yerushalayim is analogous with Shushan. (Rav Yonatan Grossman, The Hidden Background of Megillat Esther).

It appears as though the megillah has replaced Hashem with Achashverosh, the Bet Hamikdash with the king’s palace, and Shushan with Yerushalayim. When the megillah calls Achashverosh the “king,” Chazal even say that the megillah is not talking about Achashverosh; instead, it is referring to Hashem (Megillah 16a), indicating that even the Midrashim that try to prove that Esther maintained her faith still say that Mordechai and Esther still do blur the lines between Hashem and Achashverosh when writing the megillah. If it is Mordechai and Esther’s intentions to

PAGE 11

(Continued on page 17)

Minor Characters in Megillat Esther Tess Solomon ‘16

The book of Esther, true to its tendency towards drama and epic royal narrative, is replete with fascinating minor characters who are mentioned once or twice to move the plot along or give a tidbit of advice and then are mostly forgotten. Perhaps he or she is mentioned in the closing chapters for the grand finale.

There is one category of minor character, though, that keeps reappearing. I refer to King Achashverosh’s chamberlains. The king sends for Vashti using some of them.

Hegai, the keeper of the women before they encountered Achashverosh in the kingdom-wide contest, and Shaashgaz, the keeper of the concubines after their encounters, were both chamberlains.

Bigtan and Teresh were, Hatach who carried messages between Mordechai and Esther was, as was Charvonah, who suggested using the gallows prepared for Mordechai for Haman instead.

Who were these “sarisim,” typically translated as chamberlains? These people were the eunuchs, who were in positions of power in the court of Achashverosh.

“Eunuchs,” according to Kristen Kukula and Richard Wassersug of The Atlantic, “Ran the show in many settings and for a long a time.” Historically, males were castrated before puberty to prepare them for governmental service.

They were conveniently unthreatening to the reigning dynasty because they had no descendants of their own to favor.

Kukula and Wassersug continue, “Castrated males

were key to the functioning of some of the largest and longest-lasting dynastic governments.”

The logic of a king’s using eunuchs for palace officials is understandable, but Esther is much more than a recounting of the intricacies of the court of Achashverosh. Their completely unique appearance in a canonized book of biblical literature implies there is more beneath the surface to this reliance on such uncommon characters.

Relevant to this discussion is the perception in the ancient world of intersexuality. Candida Moss reports in her article “Intersexuality and God Through the Ages,” “Biological variation was celebrated in the pantheon of the gods.” Intersexual beings (at least the mythological ones in Greece and Rome) were considered wise and prescient, having seemingly omniscient human knowledge, and they experience the world from both the male and female perspectives. [The most famous example is Tiresias, the blind prophet in Thebes, a character in the classic Greek Oedipus trilogy. Vikramaditya Rai, a literary critic, writes in her analyses of T. S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland,” in which Tiresias is a prominent character: “The symbolic significance of Tiresias is… important in this poem. He is bi-sexual with a fuller experience of life than any

PAGE 12

(Continued on page 13)

(Continued from page 12)

normal man or woman, and his physical blindness is more than compensated by his prophetic vision” (75-76).]

There is, of course, a distinction between eunuchs and hermaphrodites.

But the comparison is valid, as eunuchs, when castrated before puberty, do not undergo the hormonal transitions of an adult male, and retain previous ratios of estrogen and progesterone, the primary reproductive hormones in women. Kukula and Wassersug write, “Both historical accounts and contemporary research on how testosterone affects personality reveal that eunuchs had traits that made them different from intact males, and in some ways more like females. Their astuteness and objectivity in assessing others' strengths and weaknesses made them particularly effective as bureaucrats, diplomats and tacticians.” Evidence from the megillah corroborates an image of the eunuchs in the case of Hegai and Shaashgaz as not just castrated males, but as having “womanly” tendencies. The gemara on daf yud gimel (page 13) describes the actions of the women before and after their encounters with the king, as aided by these two people. The Gemara says that these men knew the oils to make the skin soft and the spices to make an amorous smell.

The Malbim on the book of Esther corroborates the classical view of eunuchs as prescient, clairvoyant individuals and makes specific reference to Hegai, the keeper of the women. In the second chapter, he wonders why Esther “pleased him, and she obtained kindness of him” (2:9), and answers that it is because Hegai could tell that Esther would succeed

in winning the Achashverosh’s heart.

Hegai gave Esther seven attendant maidens, “because the queen would have seven maidens, and he did this even though she was not yet queen.”

In Timothy K. Beal’s work The Book of Hiding: Gender, Ethnicity, Annihilation, and Esther, he proposes that eunuchs function in the story in direct correlation to their identity as genderless or mixed-gender. He explains, “As sexually ambiguous figures, the eunuchs function in Esther as go-betweens for the two sexes. They occupy the interstice, the lining along the inside edge of the male/female logic of opposition. They hold the threshold line between the sexes, the line that marks oppositional sexual difference; they also, most literally, regularly and repeatedly transgress (cross over) that line” (Introduction).

The episodes where the eunuchs appear corroborate Beal’s theory.

Eunuchs were the communicators between Achashverosh and Vashti at the beginning of the narrative. They are keepers of the women and the concubines for the palace. Hatach carries messages between Esther and Mordechai, whom, according to a

PAGE 13

(Continued on page 27)

Discovering the Essence of the Mitzvah of Matanot L’Evyonim Max R. Mailman ‘16

This year, 2016 and 5776, we celebrate Purim with two Adars because of its leap year (which occurs in 7 out of 19 years to ensure Pesach is during the spring season). Purim is a joyous holiday, and even though we do not say hallel, it is filled with exciting mitzvot and customs, such as the giving of mishloach manot and dressing up in costume. We can even relate the story of Purim to today; the story of Mordechai and Esther fighting to save the Jews from extinction is still relevant because we are currently in exile, struggling to preserve our nation and our identity.

The most fascinating thing to me is that we celebrate Purim despite the fact that there’s almost nothing related to this holiday mentioned in the Torah. The Torah does allude once to Purim when there’s a mention of Haman in Sefer Bereishit. God says to Adam- “‫ ”המן העץ‬- Did you eat from the tree?” But why would Haman be mentioned in Sefer Bereishit in regard to Adam and the Garden of Eden?

I heard a beautiful answer in the name of the Tolna Rebbe of the Chernobyl Hasidic dynasty. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree in the garden, “‫”מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל‬, except for one particular tree. He ultimately ate from that specific “forbidden tree” and succumbed to his desires even though God told him it was off limits. Just like Adam, Haman too, wanted what was “off limits”

to him and what he could not have.

Adam and Haman were in the same situation. As a popular man in the kingdom, Haman was used to getting what he wanted and when he wanted it. Consequently, when one lowly Jew, Mordechai, stood up for what he believed in and chose not to bow down to Haman, something that had never been done, Haman became very angry and decided to wipe out the entire Jewish people. These two individuals wanted what they could not have, even though they had plenty. When Adam learned that something was forbidden to him, or in Haman’s case, when he had to deal with something he was not used to, they both failed at reacting properly. They gave into their humanistic desires and curiosities, and they were not able to hold themselves back. We fall prey to this every day. We are constantly wishing and wanting things that we do not have, when we should be thanking God for all the amazing things that we do have.

The values of generosity and selflessness, that both Adam haRishon at one point and Haman at his core seemed to lack, are emphasized in the often overshadowed mitzvah of Purim: Matanot L’Evyonim. Matanot L’Evyonim allows us to give charity to those in

PAGE 14

(Continued on page 15)

(Continued from page 14)

need. Rabbi Paysach Krohn, in his book The Maggid Speaks, tells the story of the Manchester rosh hayeshivah, Rabbi Yehuda Zev Segal (1910-1993), and his method of giving tzedakah. Before going to sleep after long, strenuous days, he would always put a coin in the pushka (tzedakah box). One day a student who was staying with the Rabbi turned to him and asked him why he did that. He answered beautifully, “I am about to go to sleep.

How do I know that I will get up? What guarantee do we have that the Ribono Shel Olam will return my soul to me tomorrow morning? And so I give tzedakah because ‘‫ ’צדקה תציל ממות‬- Charity redeems from death’ (Mishlei 10:2, 11:4)”.

This story is very applicable to Purim. On Purim, we sometimes get caught up in the “fun” of the holiday.

Whether it be dressing up, making mishloach manot or having a few sips of wine, we sometimes lose sight of the greatness and essence of the holiday itself.

Like sleep, tzedakah should be a constant in our life and not something we just push

aside. Let us try and emulate the Manchester Rosh Yeshiva by remembering to give tzedakah, even when we might be consumed by Purim parties and celebrations. Just as Haman and Adam wanted something more than they had, which ultimately led to destruction, we should appreciate what we have and make that lead to good.

Unlike Haman, we should be appreciative of what we have and through Matanot L’Evyonim, we are given that opportunity. May we also learn from the mistakes of Haman and Adam haRishon to be extra “‫”בשמחה‬ this Purim. Remember to thank God for all His gifts and all that He has done and continues to do for us.

PAGE 15

(Continued from page 5)

Haman seemed to have entirely replaced all of Achashverosh’s many advisors with the many opinions seen at the beginning of the megillah, so that the king only heard one point of view. Mordechai realized that Haman’s position was anti-Jewish and refused to obey Haman’s one-sided rules. Though bowing to Haman may not have been idol-worship, it still represented an idolater’s inability to see beyond his own needs. Idolaters think that the ends justify the means. For example, they might think that it’s okay to murder if it brings rain.

However, Judaism looks to everyone’s perspective, believing in multiple viewpoints and multiple answers. But before refusing to bow, Mordechai had actually been trying to fit in and follow the rules of Persia; Jews are actually encouraged to integrate into society when living in the diaspora (as long as we still keep to our faith) because it enables us to be in an influential position in case we need it to combat antiSemitism.

I did grapple with one of Dr. Hazony’s ideas in the book, namely, the idea that Judaism is rooted in disobedience.

Dr. Hazony states that Mordechai represented the essence of a Jew when he refused to bow because the roots of Judaism can actually be found in the concept of disobedience. He mentions how Avraham, the first Jew, started by destroying his father’s idols and rejecting the ways of the idolatrous society. While this is a great example of how Jews have been questioning and disobeying since the beginning, I could not help but think of all the times we are not supposed to reject

what we’re told. The Torah is littered with stories of the Jews, as a brand new nation traveling through the desert, being punished by Hashem because we were disobedient. So it seemed a little uncomfortable to me to think that the positive essence of a Jew is disobedience.

Perhaps that disobedience can be used in both ways. I also did not find it particularly compelling to suggest that Mordechai was willing to risk his life and possibly his influence partly because he didn’t believe in the political move of making Haman in charge. I understand that Haman’s appointment represented a broader anti-Jewish idea, but Dr. Hazony says Mordechai refused to bow because he didn’t like the political move of appointing Haman. I wouldn’t think that someone would risk so much just for the sake of politics. Interestingly, Dr. Hazony told me that he believes that his understanding is just another level of peshat. However, it seems as though it is a bit more of a midrashic interpretation of the megillah because much of what he says is not very obvious in the text and accepting some of his suggestions did require some imagination from me.

Still, I truly enjoyed the thought process of the book and I thought the book does successfully show that much of what is traditionally believed to be luck could actually be interpreted as political strategy.

For example, Mordechai strategically told Esther to bide her time in the palace and keep

PAGE 16

(Continued on page 19)

(Continued from page 11)

replace Hashem with Achashverosh, then they would be considered heretics. However, we know they could neither be assimilated nor heretics because otherwise, Esther’s story would never have been canonized and we would never have instituted a holiday celebrating their victory.

So why does the megillah suddenly appear so heretical? The main themes of Purim and the megillah are irony and satire. I heard a suggestion from Shani Taragin that Esther and Mordechai tried to convey a powerful message in the megillah through satirical devices. They make many cryptic references to assimilation, Hashem, and the Beit Hamikdash throughout the megillah in order to get the Persian Jews to ask themselves an important question: If people like Haman are trying to kill us, what are we still doing in Persia, being ruled by a human and non-Jewish king, when we could just go to Israel? Mordechai and Esther are not assimilated. They are just making fun of assimilation: all the lavish parties the Jews attend, all their material comforts in Persia, and the fact that the Jews ignore the opportunity to return to Israel after Koresh’s reign (and, according to historians, ignore the fact that there is already a community of Jews living in Israel who have built the second Beit Hamikdash). Mordechai and Esther want to show the exiled community that assimilation will not make them comfortable; Haman still tries to wipe out the entire nation! The only thing they should be doing is returning to Israel.

The satirical message is very different from the explicit messages often

seen throughout the Tanakh. However, Mordechai and Esther realized that the explicit messages of many of the prophets, such as Yirmiyahu, did not encourage the Jews of this time to return to Israel when they had the chance. So they decided to get their message against staying in galut across in a different way – by using irony while writing the megillah and by instituting a holiday that celebrates the irony in their story.

The message of Mordechai and Esther still applies today. We may not be assimilated Persian Jews, but we are certainly all acculturated Jews still living in galut. Many of us consider New York City or some of its suburbs our home, but we must remember that our true Jewish homeland is in Israel. When we read the megillah and hear Shushan referred to as “Habira,” we should think about YERUSHALAYIM Habira, our capital, and we should ask ourselves what we are still doing in exile.

PAGE 17

The Ten Sons of Haman Talia Feingold ‘16

I have always wondered about the ten sons of Haman. First of all, what is their significance or relevance? The peshat of the megillah is that Haman’s ten sons were hung for their father’s transgression.

Yet perhaps there is more meaning to it than just that simple reading. R. Mordechai Sasson, in his sefer ‫דבר בעתו‬, states that what is in fact occurring is the conquering of the Yetzer Hara. Haman represents the Yetzer Hara, and his sons represent its ten bad characteristics  The first son is ‫—פרשנדתא‬the Yetzer Hara distances )‫ (מפריש‬you from the Torah )‫(דתא‬.  The second son is ‫(דלפון‬Dalphon) — he is a ‫(דלת‬door) to ‫(פניות רעות‬bad intentions): it obstructs the intentions of someone doing a mitzvah.  The third name is ‫ —אספתא‬which means "gathering". Your Yetzer Hara causes you to desire to gather money and leave no time for Torah.  The fourth son is ‫—פורתא‬meaning that your Yetzer Hara causes you to have inappropriate sexual thoughts.  The fifth name is ‫ —אדליא‬from lifted up—It causes you to feel above everyone else.  The sixth son is ‫ —ארידתא‬the Yetzer Hara like a lion to distract you from prayer.  The seventh name is ‫ —פרמשתא‬it rips apart )‫(פורם‬the strong connection among ‫עם ישראל‬.  The eighth is ‫ אריסי‬- it poisons you

with venom.  The ninth son is ‫ —ארידי‬it is the evil that subjugates )‫(רודה‬a righteous person to worry about the source of their livelihood.  The tenth name is ‫ —ויזתא‬the bitterness of the olive )‫(זית‬. The Yetzer Hara symbolizes bitter judgment.

Though some of these connections may seem like a stretch, the important take away is that there is more to these names than just the names listed. Also important is that Mordechai and Esther represent the Yetzer Hatov, which we hope will always be able to overcome the evil inclination.

Secondly, why do Haman’s sons get a special format and custom all of their own? Specifically, why is it our custom to say their names in one breath? The names of Haman’s ten sons are written in the megillah in a shira form different from the rest of our text.

Aryeh Leibowitz explains the mishna in Masechet Megillah (16a) which states that we say the names all at once because the sons died in one breath (i.e. all at once). Rabbi Yonatan continues and says that the “vav” in the name “Vayzasa” should be elongated because the sons were strung on one pole i.e. hung in the same gallows. The Gemara goes on to argue about

PAGE 18

(Continued on page 26)

(Continued from page 16)

her identity a secret because he recognized that her position as queen could be politically beneficial to the Jewish people.

Vashti’s banishment reflects Achashverosh’s desire for control; Esther’s initial passivity seemed like the perfect replacement for Vashti. Achashverosh’s troubled sleep was due to Esther’s confusing request to invite Haman over for a party; Esther recognized Achashverosh’s paranoia and hunger for complete control, so she purposely made it look as though there was some sort of conspiracy or affair going on between her and Haman. Achashverosh then read the king’s chronicles to see if he might have missed any possible conspiracy. Haman’s sudden appearance in the palace when the king saw that Mordechai had not been rewarded was because he wanted to talk to Achashverosh about executing Mordechai, since Mordechai had been protesting the decision to kill the Jews. All of these events are initially thought of as pure happenstance, but Hazony shows that this might not necessarily be the case, that everything that happened in the megillah is carefully planned by human thought.

In this version of the book (a later version of his earlier book titled The Dawn), Hazony stresses that the lack of coincidences does not diminish God’s hidden presence; the fact that Haman dies when it was supposed to be a Jew is a miracle and Esther and Mordechai’s political genius is still a miracle. However, the idea of God’s hidden miracles is not the only main value of the megillah. Megillat Esther also teaches us how to properly live in the diaspora by PAGE 19

elevating the idea of a political Jew, a Jew who participates in society without conforming to the point where we lose our faith, a Jew who takes action when necessary to do so in order to ensure the continued survival of the Jewish people. No book in Tanakh is quite like it; though many books that take place in the diaspora have important political elements, Esther’s greatest value, that may have led to its ultimate canonization, is that it teaches Jews how to interact with foreign rulership and exist under a foreign empire. God and Politics in Esther nicely captures this important and extremely applicable value.

(Continued from page 8)

meaning of the name does not contribute to the main goal of proving that Sarah is a prophetess, but focuses on her physical appearance.

A similar phenomenon appears with the discussion of Devorah. After proving the prophetess’s abilities (see Shoftim 4:4), the Talmud mentions that the reason for her tendency to sit under a palm tree was to avoid the transgression of yichud, the prohibition for a male and female to isolate themselves together. The palm tree would provide the necessary visibility to avoid suspicion around Devorah’s interactions with men who would approach her for counsel. Once again, the Talmud focuses on a reason for her location that is seemingly irrelevant to her prophetic abilities.

The theme recurs with Channah, the mother of Shmuel. The Talmud proves her prophetic abilities from a verse (see Shmuel I 2:1) and then moves to discuss the contents of her prayer to God. The discussion of Channah’s prayer ends with a conspicuous allusion to the very feminine theme of motherhood. The Talmud interprets one of the lines of her prayer as a praise of God’s ability to create a form inside another form, a child inside a mother.

In the case of Avigail, the discussion in the Talmud takes on most clearly the feminine character mentioned previously. Not only does the Talmud prove Avigail’s prophetic abilities in a story of lust that involves Avigail proving to King David that she is a niddah, a woman who is forbidden to

have relations with her husband due to her monthly menstrual cycle (see Shmuel I 25:20,33), but it also expounds on the theme of femininity. Rav Nachman states that when Avigail tells David to remember her, it is reminiscent of the saying, “while a woman talks, she spins fibers to make yarn” – a phrase that indicates Avigail’s self -interest in the matter and a reference to the traditionally female responsibility of spinning thread.

Regarding Chuldah, the Talmud briefly mentions a source that proves her prophetic abilities (see Melachim II 22:14).

The Talmud goes into length, however, about how Chuldah could prophesize during the time of Yirmiyahu, who was the dominant prophet of his era. One reason offered for why King Yoshiyahu sent his emissaries to Chuldah and not to Yirmiyahu is “women are merciful.” The statement follows the format that characterizes the other Talmudic descriptions of the seven prophetesses.

The Talmud mentions a uniquely female issue or characteristic after already completing its initial task of proving a prophetess’s prophetic abilities.

While the proof of Esther’s prophetic connection with God does not include any additional content about femininity, the rabbis offer a discussion about the seven prophetesses as a whole following the mention of Esther – the last of these seven divinely inspired women. Rav Nachman states, “yehiruta is not becoming to women.” Rashi’s Hebrew definition of the Aramaic yehiruta is chashivut, meaning importance or prominence. As an example, the Talmud cites Devorah and Chuldah, women who acted haughtily despite

PAGE 20

(Continued on page 21)

(Continued from page 20)

having names of repulsive creatures – a bee and a weasel. The actual examples offered to support the supposed haughtiness of these two prophetesses is less critical than the reasons behind the Talmud’s attempts at negating the centrality of women in positions of spiritual, religious, and political power. The seven prophetesses provide the rabbis with a strong opportunity to shed light on the importance of female figures in the Tanakh and, more specifically, in the megillah. It is interesting, however, that the rabbis confine Esther to a grouping of female prophets, rather than include her in a general listing of prophets, as if to transform her from hero to heroine. The Talmud makes bizarre superfluous references to femininity in its discussion of Esther and her fellow prophets, perhaps in an attempt to preserve Esther’s role as a woman and sustain the gendered binary of male and female. There seems to be an interesting reluctance in the Talmudic discourse to free Esther and other similar prophetesses from their classification as women and allow them to assume a genderless heroic status. By presenting Esther’s heroism within the context of other exceptional biblical women, the Talmud preserves Esther’s femininity as she takes on the classically male role of hero.

(Continued from page 9)

stood up for Mordechai. Instead of keeping silent, Charvonah realized that what he and Haman were planning to do was wrong and needed to be set right. The story is here to show us that even those who originally plot to do evil, can change their minds and do one small positive act to change the course of history; both their own and the world around them.

PAGE 21

(Continued from page 3)

Torah is closely related to “law” or “decree” as described above. However, it distances from the idea of a human decree, and focuses on a much stronger, wholly irreversible decree, from the Ultimate ruler.

In contrast, the uses of dat in Esther seem to present a less pure concept of law that stands in stark contrast to the ultimate law of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and instead one of laws that are not eternal.

Throughout the first two chapters of Esther, dat is used to describe drinking[1], the knowledge of Achashverosh’s advisers [2] , their decision to exile Vashti[3], the contest for a new queen[4], the preparation the contesting women received[5], and later, the law to kill anyone who enters the king’s chambers without permission[6].

Already we see that there seems to be more of a nuance to the definition we were using in Devarim. These are not just edicts of a king, they are laws and customs that appear to lack wisdom[7], and contribute to the vision we have of Achashverosh as an inept king.

This devaluation of the significance of the king’s dat continues in a slightly different way as we look at the other places it’s used. There are three sets of verses from the beginning of Esther that are echoed almost exactly, except in opposite ways, after the tide turns at the

end of the megilla and all three contain the word dat: ‫אסתר פרק ג‬ ‫ת ְבכָּל ־ מְ דִ י ָּנַ֣ה‬ ֙ ָּ‫י ד ) פַ תְ ֶ ַׁ֣שגֶן הַ כְתַָּ֗ ב לְהִ ָּנ ֵַּׂ֤תִֽן ד‬ ‫ָּל־הִֽעַ ִ ֹ֑מים לִהְ יַ֥ ֹות עֲ תִ ִ ָ֖דים לַיַ֥ ֹום‬ ָּ ‫ּומְ דִ י ָָּ֔נה ג ָ֖​ָּלּוי ְלכ‬ :‫הַ זֶ ִֽה‬ 14) The copy of the writing, to be given out for a decree in every province, was to be published unto all peoples, that they should be ready against that day. ‫אסתר פרק ח‬ ‫י ג ) פַ תְ ֶ ַׁ֣שגֶן הַ כְתַָּ֗ ב לְהִ ָּנ ֵַּׂ֤תִֽן דָּ ת֙ ְבכָּל ־ מְ דִ י ָּנַ֣ה‬ ‫ּומְ דִ י ָָּ֔נה ג ָ֖​ָּלּוי ְלכָּל־הָּ עַ ִ ֹ֑מים וְלִהְ י֨ ֹות היהודיים‬ ‫ְהּודים עתודים עֲ תִ ידִ י ֙ם לַיַ֣ ֹום הַ ֶָ֔זה לְהִ נ ֵּׂ ָ֖​ָּקם‬ ַ֤ ִ ‫הַ י‬ :‫ֵּׂיהִֽם‬ ֶ ‫מֵּׂ אֹּיְב‬ 13) The copy of the writing, to be given out for a decree in every province, was to be published unto all the peoples, and that the Jews should be ready against that day to avenge themselves on their enemies. ‫אסתר פרק ג‬ ‫טו) ָּה ִָּֽר ָ֞ ִצים יָּצ ְַ֤אּו דְ חּופִ י ֙ם בִדְ ַ ַ֣בר הַ מֶָ֔ לְֶך ו ְהַ ָּ ַ֥דת‬ ‫ְׁשּוׁשן הַ בִי ָּ ֹ֑רה ו ְהַ ֶ ַ֤מלְֶך ו ְהָּ מָּ ֙ן י ָּׁשְ ַ֣בּו‬ ַ֣ ַ ‫נִתְ ָּנָ֖ה ב‬ :‫ׁשּוׁשן נָּבִֹֽוכָּה‬ ‫לִׁשְ ָ֔תֹות ו ְהָּ ִ ַ֥עיר‬ ָ֖ ָּ 15) The posts went forth in haste by the king's commandment, and the decree was given out in Shushan the castle; and the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed. ‫אסתר פרק ח‬ ‫ׁש ָּהִֽאֲ חַ ׁשְ תְ ָּר ִָ֔נים ָּיִֽצ ְ֛אּו‬ ֙ ‫יד) הָּ ָּר ָ֞ ִצים רֹּכ ֵּׂ ְַ֤בי הָּ ֶ ֙ר ֶכ‬ ‫חּופים בִדְ ַ ַ֣בר הַ ֶ ֹ֑מלְֶך ו ְהַ ָּ ַ֥דת נִתְ ָּנָ֖ה‬ ָ֖ ִ ְ‫מְ ב ֹּהָּ ִ ַ֥לים ּוד‬

PAGE 22

(Continued on page 23)

(Continued from page 22)

‫ פ‬:‫ִירה‬ ִֽ ָּ ‫ְׁשּוׁשן הַ ב‬ ַ֥ ַ ‫ב‬ 14 So the posts that rode upon swift steeds that were used in the king's service went out, being hastened and pressed on by the king's commandment; and the decree was given out in Shushan the castle. ‫אסתר פרק ד‬ ‫(ג) ּו ְבכָּל־מְ דִ ָּינַ֣ה ּומְ דִ י ַָּ֗נה מְ קֹו ֙ם אֲ ׁשֶ֨ ר דְ בַר־הַ ֶ ַ֤מלְֶך‬ ִ ָ֔ ‫ו ְדָּ ת ֹ֙ו מַ ִָ֔גיעַ ֵּׂ ַ֤אבֶל גָּדֹול֙ ַלי‬ ‫ְהּודים ו ְַ֥צֹום ּוב ִ ְָ֖כי ּומִ סְ ֵּׂ ֹ֑פד‬ :‫ַ ַ֣שק ו ָּאֵָּׂ֔ פֶ ר י ַ ָֻ֖צע ָּל ִַֽר ִבִֽים‬ 3 And in every province, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes. ‫אסתר פרק ח‬ ִ ִ‫ד‬ ֙‫ָּל־עיר ו ָּעִַ֗ יר מְ קֹום‬ ַ֣ ‫(יז) ּו ְבכָּל־מְ דִ י ָּ֨נה ּומְ י ָָּ֜נה ּו ְבכ‬ ‫אֲ ׁשֶ֨ ר דְ בַר ־ הַ ֶ ַ֤מלְֶך ו ְדָּ ת ֹ֙ו מַ ִָ֔גי עַ שִ מְ ָּ ַ֤חה ו ְשָּ שֹו ֙ן‬ ִ ָ֔ ‫ַלי‬ ‫ְהּודים מִ ׁשְ ֶ ָ֖תה ו ְיַ֣ ֹום ֹ֑טֹוב ו ְַר ָ֞ ִבים ֵּׂמִֽעַ ֵּׂ ַ֤מי הָּ ָּ֙א ֶר ֙ץ‬ :‫ֵּׂיהִֽם‬ ֶ ‫ְהּודים עֲ ל‬ ָ֖ ִ ‫ִמִֽתְ י ַהֲ ָ֔ ִדים ִכִֽי־נ ַ ַָּ֥פל ַפִֽחַ ד־הַ י‬ 17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had gladness and joy, a feast and a good day.

And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them.

The sets are almost identical, with the one major difference being that in each case the content of the dat being given has changed. While we recall our earlier definition of dat as a “permanently valid

law,” it’s clear that in Esther the dat is most certainly not permanent.

Ironically, Achashverosh knows what dat is supposed to be, and he truly thinks that it cannot be overturned! He says: ‫אסתר פרק ח‬ ‫ְתב בְׁשֵּׂ ם ־ הַ מֶַ֗ לְֶך‬ ַ֣ ָּ ‫(ח ) … ִכִֽי ־ כ ְָ֞תָּ ב אֲ ׁשֶ ר ־ נִכ‬ :‫וְנַחְ ֛תֹום בְטַ ַ ַ֥בעַ ת הַ ֶָ֖מלְֶך ֵּׂ ַ֥אין לְהָּ ִׁשִֽיב‬ 8 …for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man reverse.

There he is referring to the letters that had been be sent out, containing the dat about killing the Jews, and his premise is that the dat that a Persian king sends out cannot be changed. Thus, there is clear dramatic irony in the story where Achashverosh thinks his dat is the classical dat of Persia, yet the readers know that his dat is flimsy, and can change in favor of the Jews at any time.

What emerges from all this is a usage of dat in the megilla that represents reversibility, and foolish decisions, and that acts as a foil to the dat that we described in Devarim. The megillah itself already compares the two ways to understand dat. In coming to complain about the Jews, Haman says:

PAGE 23

(Continued on page 24)

(Continued from page 23)

‫אסתר פרק ג‬ ַ‫ע‬ ַ‫ח‬ ‫(ח) ו ַ֤​ַי ֹּאמֶ ר הָּ מָּ ֙ן ל ֶ ַ֣​ַמלְֶך אֲ ׁשְ ו ֵּׂרָ֔ ֹוׁש י ֶׁשְ נַ֣ ֹו ם־אֶ חַָּ֗ ד‬ ‫ְכּותָך‬ ֹ֑ ֶ ‫מְ פֻ ָּזַ֤ר ּומְ פ ָֹּּר ֙ד ֵּׂ ַ֣בין ָּהִֽעַ מִָ֔ ים ב ְָ֖כ ֹּל מְ דִ ינַ֣ ֹות מַ ל‬ ‫ינַ֣ם‬ ָּ ֵּׂ‫מלְֶך֙ א‬ ָ֞ ֵּׂ‫ו ְדָּ ת‬ ֙ ֶ ַ‫יהֶ ם ׁש ֹּנַ֣ ֹות מִ כָּל־עַָּ֗ ם ו ְאֶ ת־דָּ ֵּׂ ַ֤תי ה‬ :‫ִיחִֽם‬ ָּ ‫ע ֹּשִָ֔ ים וְל ֶ ַ֥​ַמלְֶך אֵּׂ ין־ׁש ֶֹּוָ֖ה לְהַ נ‬ 8) And Haman said to king Achasverosh: 'There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; and their laws are diverse from those of every people; neither keep they the king's laws; therefore it profits not the king to suffer them.

The Midrash on the dat in Devarim, recognizes Haman’s complaint as against Torah observance: ‫מדרש תנאים לדברים פרק לג פסוק ב‬ )‫אש דת ואין דת אלא תורה שנ' (אסתר ג ח‬ :‫ודתיהם שנות מכל עם‬ “Fiery Law” and there is no law except Torah, as it is said, “and their laws are diverse from those of every people.”

He has a problem with the fact that the Jews submit to a higher authority, and protests that the Jews do not follow the king’s laws. The comparison between the dat he holds by and the dat the Jews hold by reflects the difference we have been building. Achashverosh’s law is called “permanent” but in reality is irrelevant compared to Hashem’s law, the Torah.

Megillat Esther is about enemies who do

not realize that, while ironically the futility of Achashverosh’s dat is displayed throughout the sefer. He can make laws for Persia, but when Hashem decides to orchestrate events, his law will be overturned. He can make illconceived laws, but the true King makes only perfect laws. Understanding this contrast gives us a better understanding of how to read Megillat Esther as a commentary on human kingship and human laws.

Additionally, perhaps this idea is why Midrash Tannaim brings the famous story about Hashem offering the Torah to every nation, each rejecting it due to a law they wouldn’t live by, and the Jews finally accepting it before even hearing the contents, on the words esh-dat in Devarim. In accepting the Torah, we as Jews realized that the dat from true royalty, the King of the universe, requires no explanation, and is truly everlasting, whereas other the nations could not separate between that dat and the dat that kings create out of thin air every day.

The sefer concludes: ‫א ) וַיָּשֶ ם֩ הַ מֶ֨ לְֶך א ח ש ר ש אֲ חַ ׁשְ ו ֵּׂ֧רֹוׁש׀ ַ ֛מס‬ :‫עַ ל־הָּ ָּ ָ֖א ֶרץ ו ְאִ ֵּׂיַ֥י הַ יָּ ִֽם‬ ‫ת גְדֻ ַ ַ֣לת‬ ָּ ‫ב) וְכָּל־מַ עֲ ֵּׂ ַ֤שה תָּ קְ פ ֹ֙ו ּוג ְַ֣ב‬ ֙ ַ‫ּור ָ֔תֹו ּופָּ ָּרׁש‬ ‫לֹוא־הם כְתּו ִַ֗בים‬ ֲ‫מָּ ְרדֳּ ַָ֔כי אֲ ֶ ַׁ֥שר גִדְ ָ֖לֹו הַ ֶ ֹ֑מלְֶך ה‬ ַ֣ ֵּׂ

PAGE 24

(Continued on page 25)

(Continued from page 24)

ֵּׂ ַ‫ע‬ :‫ל־ס֙פֶ ֙ר דִ ב ֵּׂ ְַ֣רי הַ יָּמִָ֔ ים לְמַ ל ֵּׂ ְָ֖כי מָּ ַ ַ֥די ּופָּ ָּ ִֽרס‬ ִ ַ֗ ‫ג ) ִ ַ֣כי ׀ מָּ ְרדֳּ ַ ַ֣כי הַ יְה‬ ‫ּודי מִ ׁשְ נֶה֙ ל ֶ ַ֣​ַמלְֶך אֲ חַ ׁשְ ו ֵּׂרָ֔ ֹוׁש‬ ִ ָ֔ ‫וְגָּדֹול֙ ַלי‬ ‫ְהּודים ו ְָּר ָ֖צּוי ל ְַ֣ר ֹּב אֶ ָּ ֹ֑חיו ד ֵּׂ ַֹּ֥רׁש טֹוב֙ לְעַ ָ֔מֹו‬ :‫ו ְד ֵּׂ ַֹּ֥בר ׁשָּ ָ֖לֹום ְלכָּל־ז ְַרעִֽ ֹו‬ 1) And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea.

2) And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the full account of the greatness of Mordechai, how the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?

3) For Mordechai the Jew was next to king Achashverosh, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren; seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his seed.

A first glance the tax appears to be a celebratory conclusion. However, I wonder if perhaps the ending is really bittersweet.

The ability to collect taxes can define sovereignty. Here, even after Hashem’s miraculous interventions throughout the megillah to save the Jews’ lives, Achashverosh still collects the taxes and is still unambiguously the human king ruling over these Jews …perhaps we need to ask ourselves: are we as Jews relying on the fleeting dat of the Achashverosh’s of our time or are we putting out faith in the dat of the true King?

Postscript: This concept of two definitions of dat which act as foils to each other works very nicely to explain a situation in Daniel where the word is also used. The viziers of Darius the Mede are trying to find a

pretext against Daniel but say that they will not be able to find a problem with him unless they find a problem with him through the dat of his God. ‫דניאל פרק ו‬ ‫ו ) ֱ֠אדַ י ִן ֻגב ְַר ָּיַ֤א אִ ֵּׂל ְ֙ך ָּאִֽמְ ִ ָ֔רי ן ִ ַ֣די ָּ ֧לא נְהַ ׁשְ ַ ֛כח‬ ‫לְדָּ נ ִֵּׂיַ֥אל דְ ָּנָ֖ה כָּל־עִ ָּ ֹ֑לא לָּהֵּׂ֕ ן הַ ׁשְ ַ ַ֥כחְ נָּ ִֽה עֲ ָ֖לֹוהִ י‬ :‫ב ָּ ְַ֥דת אל ֵָּּׂהִֽה‬ 6) Then said these men: 'We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him in the matter of the law of his God.' They then persuaded the king to pass a law that prohibits praying, requesting that the law be inscribed as a dat: ‫דניאל פרק ו‬ ‫ט) כ ַ ְַ֣ען מַ ְל ָָּ֔כא תְ ִ ַ֥קים אסָּ ָּ ָ֖רא ו ְתִ ְר ֻ ַׁ֣שם כְתָּ ָּ ֹ֑בא ִ ַ֣די‬ ]8[ :‫י־לא תֶ עְ ֵּׂדִֽא‬ ַ֥ ָּ ִ‫ָּ ֧לא לְהַ ׁשְ נָּ ָּי֛ה כְדָּ ת־מָּ ַ ַ֥די ּופָּ ַ ָ֖רס ד‬ 9) Now, O king, establish the interdict, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which alters not.

Daniel prays as usual, and is then brought to Darius for punishment.

Darius actually tries to save Daniel, but the men reminded him that a dat cannot be changed: ‫דניאל פרק ו‬ ָ֔ ַ‫מ‬ ַ‫ע‬ ִ ַ‫ה‬ ֵּׂ ִ‫א‬ ַ ‫ט ז ) בֵּׂא דַ ֙ י ִ ֙ן ֻגבְר ָּיַ֣א לְך ְר ָ֖גׁשּו ל ־ ל ָּ ְֹ֑כא‬ ‫ו ְָאמְ ִ ַ֣רין לְמַ ְל ַָּ֗כא ַ ַ֤דע מַ ְלכָּא֙ ִדִֽי־דָּ ת֙ לְמָּ ַ ַ֣די ּופָּ ַָ֔רס‬ ‫ִדִֽי ־ כָּל ־ א ָּ ַ֥סר ּוקְ ָּי֛ם ִדִֽי ־ מַ ל ָּ ְַ֥כא י ְהָּ ֵּׂ ָ֖קי ם ָּ ַ֥לא‬ :‫לְהַ ׁשְ נָּ ָּי ִֽה‬ 16) Then these men came tumultuously unto the king, and said unto the king: 'Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians, that no interdict nor statute which the king establishes may be changed.'

Thus, Darius is forced to throw Daniel

PAGE 25

(Continued on page 26)

(Continued from page 25)

(Continued from page 18)

whether or not other words are included in this one breath. What about the deaths of 500 hundred men the megillah states right after these ten men? The opinion to include them faces strong objection because the whole point of the one breath is that the ten sons died simultaneously.

How could five hundred men die at once?

Perhaps this can be resolved by stating that each son was a leader of fifty and thus their battalions died with them. Or perhaps, these men died simultaneously too, as part of a greater miracle. The whole point of the one breath, in fact, is in large part related to God’s dominance and a praise of his might. We won. We may in fact view this as a victorious shira after all, even though our mesorah is based on the Gemara.

into the lions’ den, and tells Daniel that he hopes Hashem saves him. As it happened, Hashem did save Daniel from the lions’ and he came out safely.

Just like we saw in Esther, there is a contrast between the divine dat and the Persian dat. Sefer Daniel includes Persian leaders who think that their human dat is so strong that it cannot be broken; they think they can use their own dat to attack someone for following Hashem’s dat. However, as will always be the case, Hashem’s dat takes precedence and wins out: He saves Daniel and shows, once again, that His is the only true dat.

Hebrew text from Bar Ilan Responsa Project Version 23+. Tanakh Translations from Mechon Mamre: JPS 1917. Other translations are mine Disclaimer: As demonstrated in this article, translations cannot convey the full meaning of the text

[1]

Esther 1:8 ibid. 1:13 [3] ibid. 1:15, 19 [4] ibid. 2:8 [5] ibid. 2:12 [6] ibid. 4:11, 16 [7] The phrase ke-dat that appears to describe drinking in 1:8 also appears in 9:13 to describe the Jews’ self-defense. That self-defense is also not, as it might seem, an ideal situation, rather a situation caused by the king through his ineptness (or malice).

[8] c.f. Daniel 6:13 [2]

PAGE 26

(Continued from page 13)

famous midrash, were married. We repeatedly see these prescient, transcendent characters functioning as messengers, serving as “mediators between the sexes” (55), straddling the “boundary of sexual opposition” (Introduction).

However, there are two eunuchs, probably the most famous in the story, who do not fall quite as explicitly into this category. These are Bigtan and Teresh, the guards of the palace who plot to kill Achashverosh. Though an argument can be made for how they too function on the gender boundary, these two eunuchs most clearly implicate what this existence of a boundary itself represents. Bigtan and Teresh are “keepers of the threshold” (2:21), not just in the sexual sense, but in the physical sense as well; they guard the palace.

There is another character in the book of Esther who continually exists on interfaces, and that is Mordechai. He is usually found loitering, it seems, near the gates of the palace. That is where Haman sees him refusing to bow down. The gate is where he sits in mourning following the decree against the Jews. The gate is where he overhears the plans of Bigtan and Teresh. “In fact,” Beal writes, “it appears that Mordechai’s place in the world of the narrative is always on the edge or periphery, on borderlines. Mordechai is neither inside nor outside, but is always found along the edges, gazing in” (56).

Mordechai, the first famous exilic Jew, exists on the boundary of the palace both literally and metaphorically. The Jewish people in exile were in the process of

determining a new identity for themselves, defining what it meant to be a people without a land. Mordechai, powerful both Jewishly and secularly, can never fully be in either category given his situation. He is a microcosm of the Jewish people, who now must function in two worlds at once.

The eunuchs in the Book of Esther, who seemed to be plot devices with foreign names, emerge as vitally important to understanding what this megillah teaches about boundaries and straddling them, be they gender boundaries or existential ones.

(Continued from page 2)

miracles into the creation of the world, that miracles are miraculous because they work within the laws of nature. God created the world in such a way that the special miraculous stitches will appear exactly where and when they are needed.

According to this philosophy, the splitting of the Red Sea wasn’t a miraculous wall of water, but a natural process where the water receded. The Rambam applies this same philosophy to Megillat Esther as well.

God isn’t mentioned outright because He doesn’t do anything directly miraculous. In Megillat Esther, God did not save the Jews.

The Jews saved the Jews, but God created the circumstances for this to happen and that is the true miracle of the story of Purim. think about.

PAGE 27

Dedicated in Honor of the Birth of our Twins

‫ יהודה‬and ‫לאה מרים‬

Serena and Scott Shatz May their lives combine the study of Torah with a passion for all knowledge.

Monica and Brian Shatz (Continued from front cover)

When Mordechai approaches Esther and tells her that it is time for her to stand up for her people, Esther resists, giving excuses that her life will be in danger if she approaches the king without being summoned. Mordechai, who realizes that Esther has an UNDISCOVERED inner strength, challenges Esther to be more than she is. Mordechai makes a biting accusation, “You can’t be silent now, and who knows if for this very reason you were placed in the king’s palace.” Esther immediately hears and understands the UNDERLYING message of what Mordechai is trying to relay. She realizes that she needs to assume her role as a leader and that the fate of the Jewish people is in her hands.

It is for these reasons that we chose to design this issue of Illusions in black and white with only some splashes of color. While Purim is generally a very colorful holiday full of excitement, fun, and costume, we wanted to illustrate and emphasize these ideas of hidden messages and underlying meanings in the story of Purim. We all are familiar with the story of Purim. We know the basic storyline and characters and it all can appear to be very “black and white.” But if you look beneath the surface, you can discover the hidden meanings and underlying messages. We hope that this Purim you delve deeper into the story and feel encouraged to think about the story of Megillat Esther in a different and brand new light with all of its various splashes of color.

Chag Purim Sameach!

Elianna Schwartz, your new Co-Editor