Mordechai's Refusal to Bow/2

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mordechai's Refusal to Bow

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Mordechai's refusal to bow has been alternately perceived as personally, religiously, or politically motivated.  The Hoil Moshe views Haman and Mordechai as rivals in the king's court, each vying for positions of power.  Haman's promotion irked Mordechai who, thus, refused to show him honor.

The majority of commentators, though, drawing on the verse "כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי", instead assert that Mordechai had a religious obligation to refrain from bowing.  The Bavli maintains that Haman had turned himself into a god, while Esther Rabbah suggests that he wore an idol on his garments.  Both of these positions assume that Mordechai's action was not only justified but required by law.  In contrast, R. Reggio suggests that Mordechai mistakenly assumed that one may not bow to a human and that he endangered the entire nation due to his erroneous piety.

A final approach sets Mordechai and Haman in opposing political or national camps. This position subdivides regarding the perceived nationality of Haman and thus the specific threat that he posed.  According to Y. Eldad, Haman hailed from Greece and Mordechai considered him a fifth column and a security hazard to the Persian empire.  According to many Midrashic sources, in contrast, Haman was a descendant of Esav, the sworn enemy of Israel.  Either way, Mordechai deemed it dangerous to submit to the authority of an enemy.

Personal Rivalry

Mordechai refused to bow down out of pride and an ongoing personal rivalry with Haman.

What rivalry?
  • Slave/master relationship – According to the First Targum, Haman had previously sold himself as a slave to Mordechai,3 and therefore Mordechai could not bring himself to bow down to his servant.4
  • Court competition – The Hoil Moshe, in contrast, suggests that both Mordechai and Haman were prominent members of the king's court, and Haman had been promoted without merit.  Mordechai refused to degrade himself before one who was undeserving. It is possible that there was an element of jealousy in the actions as well; Mordechai likely found the promotion particularly unjust since he had just saved the king's life and was ignored, while Haman who had not done anything noteworthy was rewarded.
Was Mordechai justified? One might suggest that Mordechai should have swallowed his pride and flattered Haman rather than endanger the nation.5  In Mordechai's defense, though, he had no reason to assume that his actions would lead to such dire results.  How was he to know that to avenge his honor, Haman would set out to annihilate an entire nation?
"כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי"
  • Reason for servants' tattling – This approach might maintain6 that these words do not explain why Mordechai refused to bow, but rather why the king's servants informed on him.7  Since he was a Jew, they were jealous and desired his fall.
  • Fabricated excuse – Alternatively, although Mordechai's real motives were personal, he pretended that he was acting out of religious concerns as a means of explaining his disobedience.
"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" – The Hoil Moshe asserts that each of these verbs appear often in Tanakh in the context of people submitting or bowing to other people,8 rather than gods.9 He does not, though, address the question whether this is also true when the words appear together.10
Mordechai's religious identity – The First Targum of Megillat Esther maintains that Mordechai was an observant Jew.11 It is possible, though, that Mordechai was fully assimilated into Persian society. He had taken on a Persian name12 and had managed to rise to a position of power in the king's palace.  He thus viewed himself as at least equal to Haman.
Who was supposed to bow down to Haman and why?
  • The Hoil Moshe does not address the issue explicitly, but he might be assuming that only those in the king's court ("וְכׇל עַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ") were commanded to bow,13 as an acknowledgment that Haman was now promoted above them.  Mordechai, who viewed the promotion as baseless, refused.
  • Alternatively, it is possible that the entire populace was commanded, and Haman, being second only to the king, was given special honor.  Mordechai who saw himself as more important than the average layperson and on par with Haman thought himself above the edict.
Authority behind the command – Hoil Moshe contends that bowing to Haman was a command of the king, but not yet signed into law, and thus could still be reversed.  He suggests that Mordechai was trying to set himself as an example to other members of the court that they too should refuse to honor Haman and instead get the king to annul the command.
Did Mordechai know what the consequences would be? This position would probably maintain that Mordechai did not know what the consequences of his actions would be, since it is unlikely that he would have sacrificed the whole nation's lives just for his personal pride.14  From Chapter 5, though, it sounds as if Mordechai continued to refuse to pay Haman honor even after the decree, "וְלֹא קָם וְלֹא זָע מִמֶּנּוּ".  This position might respond that, even after the fact, Mordechai never realized that the reason that Haman had set out to destroy the Jews was because of his personal refusal to bow.15
Haman's edict against the entire nation – Haman's decision to destroy a nation due to competition with a single individual is somewhat difficult for this approach.  If the whole story was about personal vendettas, it is odd that Haman did not simply find a way to rid himself of Mordechai without annihilating an entire nation.16
"וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" – This position would probably suggest that Haman was referring to general laws that the nation did not abide by, and that this statement had nothing to do with Mordechai's refusal to bow to him.17

Religious Prohibition

Mordechai did not bow down due his belief that there was a religious prohibition to do so.  This approach subdivides regarding the exact nature of such a prohibition and the correctness of Mordechai's position:

Idolatry

Bowing would have been a violation of the prohibition against idolatry, either because Haman proclaimed himself to be a deity, or because he wore an idol on his clothing.

Human deity or figurine?
  • Human deity – Those who suggest that Haman viewed himself as a deity18 likely prefer this option since the verses speak explicitly of bowing to him, while nowhere mentioning an idol.  Additionally, it is unclear that bowing to a person who is wearing an idol would constitute idolatry.19
  • Figurine on his clothing – Those who present Haman as wearing a figurine,20 might question whether the worship of humans was prevalent in Persia.21
Was Mordechai justified? According to these exegetes, Mordechai's actions were justified since he had a religious obligation to act as he did. The law requires one to die22 rather than transgress the prohibition of idolatry (‎‏ייהרג ואל יעבור‎).23  R. Astruc asserts that even according to Persian law, Mordechai had no obligation to bow to Haman, since the kingdom had laws of religious tolerance and a Jew could not be forced to act against his faith.
"כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי" – R. Saadia finds support for this position in this verse, understanding that Mordechai had given a religious reason ("הוּא יְהוּדִי") for his actions.
"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" – R. Saadia suggests that although השתחוויה appears in Tanakh in relation to honoring people, the combination of כריעה and השתחוויה appears only in the context of religious worship, supporting the idea that the bowing here is idolatrous in nature.24
Did Mordechai know what the consequences would be? According to this position, even if Mordechai knew in advance that Haman would try to annihilate the nation in retaliation, he would have still been obligated to refuse to bow.
Who was supposed to bow down to Haman and why? Esther Rabbah maintains that Haman was using his political power for religious ends, and wore an idol on his chest because he wanted everyone to worship idolatry.  In contrast, those who maintain that Haman made himself into a god would likely contend that Haman was using religion as a means to amass greater political power.
"וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" – This position might suggest that all of the Jews followed Mordechai's lead in not bowing, and it is to this which Haman refers when he asserted that the Jewish nation did not follow the laws of the king.25
Haman's edict against the entire nation – If the Jews followed Mordechai's lead in refusing to bow, it would make sense that Haman took out his anger, on the whole Jewish people and not just on Mordechai.26
Mordechai's religious identity – According to this approach, Mordechai was an observant Jew whose actions were motivated by his loyalty to his faith.  His actions are to be lauded and emulated.27
Biblical parallels – R. Saadia compares Mordechai to Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah who similarly risked their lives in their refusal to bow to idolatry.

Bowing to Humans

Mordechai thought that it was prohibited to bow down to anyone other than Hashem.

"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לְהָמָן" – From the fact that the verse mentions bowing to Haman, R. Reggio claims that the issue could not have been bowing to an idol,28 but must have related to bowing to a human specifically.
Was Mordechai justified?
  • Unjustified – R. Reggio29 claims that Mordechai made a mistake (טעה בהתחסדות), thinking he was being pious in not bowing to a person, when in reality this is permitted.30 Moreover, since the halakhah is that one must abide by the laws of the land (דינא דמלכותא דינא), Mordechai was actually obligated to listen to the king's command and bow!  See also R. Yosef Karain N. French Commentary Esther 10:3About R. Yosef Kara who suggests that Mordechai's detractors blamed him for placing the entire nation in danger.31 R"Y Kara, however, does not go as far as R. Reggio, and does not say that the detractors were correct.
  • Justified – One might attempt to justify Mordechai's actions by claiming that he had a religious obligation to act as he did:
    • Kneeling before a person – Although there seems to be no prohibition against bowing (השתחוויה) to people,32 it is possible that kneeling (כריעה) is not allowed even if the intent is just to honor.
    • Era of destruction – One might also suggest that the era was a "period of decrees against Judaism" (שעת השמד) during which one is prohibited from performing even the slightest action upon the command of someone who is intent on the nation's spiritual destruction.33
"כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי" – R. Yosef Kara and R. Reggio claim that these words constitute Mordechai's reasoning for not bowing. Since Mordechai pointed specifically to his Judaism, this proves that his motives were religious in nature.
"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" – As mentioned above, these terms often refer to a show of subservience to another human even when not in the context of religious worship.34
Did Mordechai know what the consequences would be? According to R. Reggio, Mordechai never considered what his actions might lead to and was horrified at the outcome. He asserts that Mordechai regretted his decision and felt guilty that he had caused the edict of destruction.35
Who was supposed to bow down to Haman and why? R. Yosef Kara asserts that everyone was included in the command. The verse specifies only the officers in order to point out that even they were included, all the more so the laypeople.
Haman's edict against the entire nation – R. Reggio claims that Haman's edict against the nation as a whole emanated, not from Mordechai's specific action, but from his own antisemitism (which stemmed from his Amalekite roots).  He points out that it is only "because they told him Mordechai's nationality" ("כִּי הִגִּידוּ לוֹ אֶת עַם מׇרְדֳּכָי") that Haman thought to take Mordechai's action as an excuse to annihilate the Jewish nation.36
Mordechai's religious identity – R. Reggio paints a Mordechai with very little knowledge (basically an עם הארץ), unaware of the intricacies of Torah laws, whose "extra" piety put the entire nation in danger.

Political Opposition

Mordechai refused to submit to the authority of a person whom he considered to be a political or national threat.  This approach subdivides regarding whether Mordechai was looking after the interests of Persia or the Jewish people.

Aegean Threat

Haman and Mordechai were the leaders of two opposing Persian political parties, with Haman in favor of allying with the Greeks, and Mordechai drumming up opposition.  Mordechai thus refused to submit to Haman's authority, as he viewed him as a threat to the stability of the Persian empire.37

Historical background – This position identifies Achashverosh with Xerxes and reads the Megillah on the backdrop of his wars with the Greeks. Towards the beginning of his reign he suffered a defeat at their hands and made peace with them, and then ten years later he again waged war against them.  The Septuagint identifies Haman as a Macedonian,40 and suggests that he was trying to bring Persia under Greek control.41 Y. Eldad proposes that Mordechai and his fellow Jews were in the opposing political camp.42 If so, the Megillah's subplot is one of opposing political ideologies regarding the Greek threat.43
"כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי" – This position would likely assert, as above, that these words do not constitute the reason for Mordechai's refusal but rather explain why the king's servants informed on him to Haman.  Being in Haman's political camp, once they saw that Mordechai was a Jew and in the opposing camp, they recognized that his actions were a threat.
Did Mordechai know what the consequences would be? It is likely that Mordechai knew that his action would be considered provocative, but he had no reason to think that it would lead to a decree of annihilation.
Was Mordechai justified? According to this position, Mordechai's actions were a political statement (the equivalent of refusing to shake the hand of a perceived enemy).  Since he truly viewed Haman as a national security threat, he believed that a show of submission was extremely problematic and set a dangerous precedent.  In addition, as mentioned above, Mordechai was not knowingly endangering his nation, and his ideological statement was legitimate.
"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" – As mentioned earlier, there are many places where these terms refer to showing subservience to another human, and not in the context of religious worship.44
Mordechai's religious identity – According to the Septuagint, Mordechai was a religiously observant Jew.45  Eldad suggests that the Megillah is ambiguous on this point,46 but that it is immaterial to the discussion since it was Mordechai's views on foreign affairs, not his religious orientation, that motivated his actions.47
Haman's edict against the entire nation – Y. Eldad asserts that Haman's decree was motivated by both his personal antisemitism and his political leanings. He viewed the entire nation as a threat to his plans for Greek domination and, as such, did not suffice with killing Mordechai but tried to destroy the entire population.48
The miracle of Purim – Y. Eldad suggests that the true miracle of Purim was that Mordechai managed to convince the king that Haman was a threat, not just to the Jewish nation, but to Persia as a whole.
"וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" – According to Y. Eldad, Haman was suggesting that the Jews followed their own laws, trying to set up a state within a state.  This phrase had nothing to do with the refusal to bow or to other crimes that might have been religious in nature.

Jewish Pride

Mordechai's decision emanated from feelings of national pride and was unrelated to any religious prohibition or personal competition.

Source of pride
  • Yaakov and Esav – According to most of these sources, the antagonism between Mordechai (a descendant of Binyamin) and Haman (an Agagite, a descendant of Esav)50 was a continuation of the rivalry between their ancestors.  These Midrashim highlight that of all the children of Yaakov, Binyamin alone did not bow down and submit to Esav,51 and Mordechai followed his precedent.52 
  • Israel and Amalek – One might instead suggest that this is a stance against descendants of Amalek specifically. Mordechai refused to honor the descendants of a sworn enemy of Israel.  It is possible that he felt particularly strongly about this since his ancestor Shaul53 had failed to obliterate Amalek, and he might have seen it as his duty to correct this mistake. Thus, no show of mercy, and definitely no show of submission, could be countenanced.
  • Servants of Hashem not people – Yosef Lekach, instead, posits that Mordechai refused to bow down to anyone other than God, not because he viewed this as a religious prohibition, but simply out of pride in his role as Hashem's servant.54
"הָמָן בֶּן הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי" – It is not at all clear that Haman was actually from the line of Amalek, or even from Esav at all.  Though Agag was a king of Amalek, Haman's genealogy might refer to any other Agag.  Alternatively, as above, it could be a variant of אגיי and refer to the fact that Haman was from the Aegean or Greek sea.
מׇרְדֳּכַי בֶּן יָאִיר בֶּן שִׁמְעִי בֶּן קִישׁ אִישׁ יְמִינִי – The verse clearly points to Mordechai's being from the tribe of Binyamin, but the connection to Shaul is much weaker. Rashi55 and others assume that the Kish mentioned in the genealogy refers to the father of Shaul, but Ibn Ezra points out that if the verse wanted to highlight the connection to the king it is strange that it should skip generations to mention Kish by name but not Shaul.
"כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי" – According to this position, this phrase expresses the reason for Mordechai's actions; his Jewish nationality ("אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי") is what led him to refuse to bow.
Was Mordechai justified? R. Medan asserts that Mordechai recognized that a show of weakness to a sworn enemy comes with a price.56  Giving in to the other and succumbing to their demands all too often leads to more and harsher demands.57 Mordechai recognized the slippery slope and attempted to prevent it.
"אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁלְטוּ הַיְּהוּדִים הֵמָּה בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם" – R. Medan points to the nation's ability to fight against their enemies as proof of the success of Mordechai's policy.  The nation which had earlier been forced into submission by their enemies, now could rise to defend itself.
Did Mordechai know what the consequences would be? It is likely that Mordechai did not consider the possibility that Haman would punish the entire nation for his personal refusal.
Who was supposed to bow down to Haman? According to Yosef Lekach, the command was aimed only at the king's servants.  As such, Mordechai did not feel that he was included, since he viewed himself as a servant of Hashem, and not of humans.  The others might suggest that it was a more general command.
Haman's edict against the entire nation – Haman, like Mordechai, might have viewed the rivalry as one between nations.  As representative of Esav=Amalek, he viewed not just Mordechai, but Israel as a whole, as the enemy.
Mordechai's religious identity – These sources all maintain that Mordechai was a religious Jew.  One could have posited, though, that he strongly identified with his nation and lineage but was not particularly observant.