Difference between revisions of "Achashverosh's Shock and Fury/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
<li><b>Religious persecution</b> – Malbim asserts that the word "לאבד" can refer not only to physical destruction, but to spiritual destruction as well.<fn>Given Haman's introduction regarding the unique ways of the nation and the fact that  "דָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם", it is not surprising that Achasheverosh might have heard a desire to eradicate the nation's religious beliefs and not their physical being.</fn> Haman convinced the king that the nation's observance of different religious customs were detrimental to the kingdom and that they should be forced to abandon their faith.<fn>This approach might encounter difficulty from the fact that Persian kings were known to be religiously tolerant.  It is not clear that Achashverosh would so easily be convinced to convert a nation to other religious beliefs.  In addition, the overwhelming majority of appearances of the root "אבד" clearly refer to physical destruction.  Both Yirmeyahu 18:18 and Yechezkel 7:26, though, do use the root in connection to loss of Torah knowledge.</fn></li> | <li><b>Religious persecution</b> – Malbim asserts that the word "לאבד" can refer not only to physical destruction, but to spiritual destruction as well.<fn>Given Haman's introduction regarding the unique ways of the nation and the fact that  "דָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם", it is not surprising that Achasheverosh might have heard a desire to eradicate the nation's religious beliefs and not their physical being.</fn> Haman convinced the king that the nation's observance of different religious customs were detrimental to the kingdom and that they should be forced to abandon their faith.<fn>This approach might encounter difficulty from the fact that Persian kings were known to be religiously tolerant.  It is not clear that Achashverosh would so easily be convinced to convert a nation to other religious beliefs.  In addition, the overwhelming majority of appearances of the root "אבד" clearly refer to physical destruction.  Both Yirmeyahu 18:18 and Yechezkel 7:26, though, do use the root in connection to loss of Torah knowledge.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Exile – </b>Y"S Reggio points to the verse, "וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר "‎<fn>See Yeshayahu 27:13.</fn> as evidence that the root can refer to exile and suggests that Haman told the king that it was best to banish the lawless nation<fn>Haman emphasizes throughout that the nation does not abide by the laws of the kingdom: "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים".</fn> from his empire.<fn>As further support for this possibility he points to Haman's earlier words, "וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין שֹׁוֶה לְהַנִּיחָם" and suggests that they are in effect parallel to the later phrase "יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם". It does not pay to leave the nation be in the empire, but rather the king should write an edict to evict them.</fn></li> | <li><b>Exile – </b>Y"S Reggio points to the verse, "וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר "‎<fn>See Yeshayahu 27:13.</fn> as evidence that the root can refer to exile and suggests that Haman told the king that it was best to banish the lawless nation<fn>Haman emphasizes throughout that the nation does not abide by the laws of the kingdom: "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים".</fn> from his empire.<fn>As further support for this possibility he points to Haman's earlier words, "וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין שֹׁוֶה לְהַנִּיחָם" and suggests that they are in effect parallel to the later phrase "יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם". It does not pay to leave the nation be in the empire, but rather the king should write an edict to evict them.</fn></li> | ||
| − | <li><b>Enslavement</b> – R. Astruc<fn>For an extensive list of others who suggest that Haman meant the king to understand "לְאַבְּדָם" as sold into slavery, see B. Shpigel, "מהפכו של אחשורוש במשתה השני עם אסתר", Megadim 43 (2005):102, n. 49.  See also modern scholars who take this approach such as M. Lehmann, <a href="http://traditionarchive.org/news/article.cfm?id=103896">"A Reconstruction of the Purim Story"</a>, Tradition 12:3 (1971):90-98  and Y. Grossman, "גזירת המן וכרם נבות", Megadim 30 (1999):49-67.  The latter develops and attempts to support the approach from a literary comparison to the story of Navot.<br/>R. Ashkenazi agrees with this general theory but suggests that Achashverosh understood the two possibilities and recognized that Haman was intentionally hesitant to reveal his true desire.  He suggests that, nonetheless, Achashverosh granted him permission to do as he pleased (לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ), and to act upon either meaning of the word.  He did not personally sign the edict, though, since he preferred to be left in the dark.</fn> suggests that Haman told Achashverosh that the nation was rebellious<fn>This is inferred from Haman's words, "וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים".  R. Astruc suggests that Haman pointed out how the people were dispersed throughout the empire to show that this made them difficult to govern but easy for them to incite further rebellion or join with enemies.</fn> leading Achashverosh to conclude that they needed to be subdued and enslaved.<fn>In contrast to other variations of this approach, R. Astruc does not say that Haman was intentionally ambiguous, but more simply that his false accusation of rebellion led Achashverosh to the conclusion that the nation be enslaved.  Achashevrosh, thus, never approved of a plan to destroy the nation.  When he told Haman, "לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ" the king meant that he do only what will be "good", meaning to do what was necessary to make the people submissive, but not decimate them.  Haman, in his hatred, though, heard what he wanted to hear and felt free to do as he pleased. (Cf. the opinion of R. Saba in above note.)<br/>Those, in contrast to R. Astruc, who do suggest that Haman misled Achashverosh through his choice of language and not via false accusation must prove that the root "אבד" can indeed take on the meaning of enslavement.  There are no clear examples in Tanakh where this is the case, but  Y. Grossman (see above note) attempts to find support from the rebuke in Devarim 28 which speaks of "אבדון" in the context of exile and ultimately enslavement.  The immediate context there, though, is also one of destruction: "לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם" (Devarim 28:63).<br/>Another variation of this general approach is raised by Ohev Yisrael, brought in R. Kasher's Torah Sheleimah, Megillat Esther(Jeruslaem 1994): 196, note 14, who suggests that Haman actively changed the edict.  Achashevrosh had signed a missive written in Hebrew which read "לעבדם" (to enslave them) and Haman changed it to "לאבדם" (to destroy them).  One can alternatively propose that Haman purposefully picked a homonym so that the king could hear "לעבדם" rather than "לאבדם". The advantage of this variation is that it allows Haman to innocently claim that he had meant the latter all along and it does not have to posit a questionable secondary meaning to the word "לאבדם".</fn></li> | + | <li><b>Enslavement</b> – R. Yitzchak Arama suggests that Haman told Achashverosh to enslave the nation.<fn>For an extensive list of others who suggest that Haman meant the king to understand "לְאַבְּדָם" as sold into slavery, see B. Shpigel, "מהפכו של אחשורוש במשתה השני עם אסתר", Megadim 43 (2005):102, n. 49. See also modern scholars who take this approach such as M. Lehmann, "A Reconstruction of the Purim Story", Tradition 12:3 (1971):90-98 and Y. Grossman, "גזירת המן וכרם נבות", Megadim 30 (1999):49-67. The latter develops and attempts to support the approach from a literary comparison to the story of Navot.<br/>See also R. Ashkenazi who agrees with this general theory but suggests that Achashverosh understood the two possibilities and recognized that Haman was intentionally hesitant to reveal his true desire. He suggests that, nonetheless, Achashverosh granted him permission to do as he pleased (לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ), and to act upon either meaning of the word. He did not personally sign the edict, though, since he preferred to be left in the dark.</fn> R. Astruc<fn>For an extensive list of others who suggest that Haman meant the king to understand "לְאַבְּדָם" as sold into slavery, see B. Shpigel, "מהפכו של אחשורוש במשתה השני עם אסתר", Megadim 43 (2005):102, n. 49.  See also modern scholars who take this approach such as M. Lehmann, <a href="http://traditionarchive.org/news/article.cfm?id=103896">"A Reconstruction of the Purim Story"</a>, Tradition 12:3 (1971):90-98  and Y. Grossman, "גזירת המן וכרם נבות", Megadim 30 (1999):49-67.  The latter develops and attempts to support the approach from a literary comparison to the story of Navot.<br/>R. Ashkenazi agrees with this general theory but suggests that Achashverosh understood the two possibilities and recognized that Haman was intentionally hesitant to reveal his true desire.  He suggests that, nonetheless, Achashverosh granted him permission to do as he pleased (לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ), and to act upon either meaning of the word.  He did not personally sign the edict, though, since he preferred to be left in the dark.</fn> suggests that Haman told Achashverosh that the nation was rebellious<fn>This is inferred from Haman's words, "וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים".  R. Astruc suggests that Haman pointed out how the people were dispersed throughout the empire to show that this made them difficult to govern but easy for them to incite further rebellion or join with enemies.</fn> leading Achashverosh to conclude that they needed to be subdued and enslaved.<fn>In contrast to other variations of this approach, R. Astruc does not say that Haman was intentionally ambiguous, but more simply that his false accusation of rebellion led Achashverosh to the conclusion that the nation be enslaved.  Achashevrosh, thus, never approved of a plan to destroy the nation.  When he told Haman, "לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ" the king meant that he do only what will be "good", meaning to do what was necessary to make the people submissive, but not decimate them.  Haman, in his hatred, though, heard what he wanted to hear and felt free to do as he pleased. (Cf. the opinion of R. Saba in above note.)<br/>Those, in contrast to R. Astruc, who do suggest that Haman misled Achashverosh through his choice of language and not via false accusation must prove that the root "אבד" can indeed take on the meaning of enslavement.  There are no clear examples in Tanakh where this is the case, but  Y. Grossman (see above note) attempts to find support from the rebuke in Devarim 28 which speaks of "אבדון" in the context of exile and ultimately enslavement.  The immediate context there, though, is also one of destruction: "לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם" (Devarim 28:63).<br/>Another variation of this general approach is raised by Ohev Yisrael, brought in R. Kasher's Torah Sheleimah, Megillat Esther(Jeruslaem 1994): 196, note 14, who suggests that Haman actively changed the edict.  Achashevrosh had signed a missive written in Hebrew which read "לעבדם" (to enslave them) and Haman changed it to "לאבדם" (to destroy them).  One can alternatively propose that Haman purposefully picked a homonym so that the king could hear "לעבדם" rather than "לאבדם". The advantage of this variation is that it allows Haman to innocently claim that he had meant the latter all along and it does not have to posit a questionable secondary meaning to the word "לאבדם".</fn></li> |
| − | <li><b>Despoiling</b> - A commentary attributed to the Ramah suggests that the | + | <li><b>Despoiling</b> - A commentary attributed to the Ramah suggests that the king understood "לְאַבְּדָם" to mean that the nation would be dispossessed and lose their property.<fn>See also M. Lehmann (above note) who similarly uggests that the term might mean to  dispossess, even though afterwards he suggests that as a whole the king thought Haman referred to enslavement.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>10,000 pieces of gold</b> – Haman's offer is understood differently by the commentators, in line with their individual understandings of the connotations of "לְאַבְּדָם" above:<br/> | <point><b>10,000 pieces of gold</b> – Haman's offer is understood differently by the commentators, in line with their individual understandings of the connotations of "לְאַבְּדָם" above:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Self-financed</b> – According to Malbim, Haman was saying that, in their religious fervor, the officers would be so happy to fulfill the decree that they would finance it by themselves. </li> | <li><b>Self-financed</b> – According to Malbim, Haman was saying that, in their religious fervor, the officers would be so happy to fulfill the decree that they would finance it by themselves. </li> | ||
| − | <li><b>Tax replacement</b> - Y"S Reggio might suggest instead that Haman was offering to pay the amount that would be lost in taxes if the nation was to be exiled.<fn>See both R. Astuc and  R. Ashkenazi who suggest this though they understand the ambiguity in the word "לְאַבְּדָם" differently.  | + | <li><b>Tax replacement</b> - Y"S Reggio might suggest instead that Haman was offering to pay the amount that would be lost in taxes if the nation was to be exiled.<fn>See both R. Astuc and  R. Ashkenazi who suggest this though they understand the ambiguity in the word "לְאַבְּדָם" differently.  They point out that Haman was astute enough to note the possible reservations of the king and hoped to preempt them.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Profits</b> – According to those who suggest that Haman's words were understood as either selling the nation into slavery or dispossessing them, Haman might be telling the king that the profits from such a sale/plundering would go to the royal treasury.<fn>According to this position, Haman's earlier words "לַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין שֹׁוֶה לְהַנִּיחָם" would mean that it is not worth it to leave the nation be when there is an opportunity to make money off them.</fn> </li> | <li><b>Profits</b> – According to those who suggest that Haman's words were understood as either selling the nation into slavery or dispossessing them, Haman might be telling the king that the profits from such a sale/plundering would go to the royal treasury.<fn>According to this position, Haman's earlier words "לַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין שֹׁוֶה לְהַנִּיחָם" would mean that it is not worth it to leave the nation be when there is an opportunity to make money off them.</fn> </li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Version as of 15:45, 7 February 2015
Achashverosh's Surprise
Exegetical Approaches
Unaware and Fickle
Achashverosh had been unaware of Esther's Jewish identity, and being both drunk and foolish, did not immediately make the connection to Haman's edict.
Sources:R. Moshe Chalio
Haman's request – This position assumes that Haman was upfront when discussing his plan to annihilate the Jewish people and that Achashverosh knew from the beginning both which nation was referred to and what Haman planned to do them.
10,000 pieces of gold – This approach might suggest that Haman offered the money as a bribe to the king, assuming that the foolish king would be swayed more by riches than by logical explanations or principles.
"וְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן יָשְׁבוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת" – As the edict goes out, the scroll highlights that Haman and the king drank to it, perhaps suggesting that even while discussing the issue, Achashverosh was not totally sober. The repeated mention of drinking throughout the scroll adds to the portrait of a drunkard who hardly remains sober long enough to process the goings-on in his kingdom.
"לֹא הִגִּידָה אֶסְתֵּר אֶת עַמָּהּ וְאֶת מוֹלַדְתָּהּ" – This approach might assert, as does Lekach Tov, that Mordechai insisted that Esther hide her identity knowing that such secrecy might later play a role in saving the nation. Had anyone known her religion, they would have surely kept her in the dark about any plots regarding the Jews. Moreover, if Haman knew that his plot was to affect the queen, he would have likely been more careful in its execution.
How did Esther hide her identity? There are a variety of approaches which attempt to explain how Esther managed to keep her Jewish identity a secret, especially in light of Mordechai's apparently known Judaism. For details, see
Honor to Mordechai – It is odd that days after signing an edict to exterminate the Jewish nation, Achashverosh showers honor on Mordechai without any show of discomfort about the hypocricy of his actions. This position would view this as further proof of the king's fickle nature and "out of sight out of mind" attitude.1
Significance to hanging?
Esther's tactics
Misled by Haman
Achashverosh had been deceived by Haman, who had hidden the identity of the nation he was planning on destroying and/or misled him regarding what he intended to do to that nation. Thus, it was with Esther's comment that Achashverosh first realized that Haman planned to annihilate the Jews.
Haman's request - "יֶשְׁנוֹ עַם אֶחָד" – These commentators point out that throughout Haman's speech, he never mentions which nation it is that he is referring to,3 calling them only "עַם אֶחָד". Achashverosh, either due to trust in his closest adviser,4 or from ineptitude,5 did not ask questions and gave his stamp of authority without ever knowing that it was the Jewish people Haman sought to harm.
Haman's request - "יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם" – According to most of these commentators, when speaking to the king, Haman was purposefully misleading in choosing the language of "לְאַבְּדָם", a word which can sustain more than one meaning.6 Only in the official letters to the various states did Haman disambiguate, adding "לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד".7 The exegetes disagree, though, regarding what it was that Haman meant for Achashverosh to understand:
- Religious persecution – Malbim asserts that the word "לאבד" can refer not only to physical destruction, but to spiritual destruction as well.8 Haman convinced the king that the nation's observance of different religious customs were detrimental to the kingdom and that they should be forced to abandon their faith.9
- Exile – Y"S Reggio points to the verse, "וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר "10 as evidence that the root can refer to exile and suggests that Haman told the king that it was best to banish the lawless nation11 from his empire.12
- Enslavement – R. Yitzchak Arama suggests that Haman told Achashverosh to enslave the nation.13 R. Astruc14 suggests that Haman told Achashverosh that the nation was rebellious15 leading Achashverosh to conclude that they needed to be subdued and enslaved.16
- Despoiling - A commentary attributed to the Ramah suggests that the king understood "לְאַבְּדָם" to mean that the nation would be dispossessed and lose their property.17
10,000 pieces of gold – Haman's offer is understood differently by the commentators, in line with their individual understandings of the connotations of "לְאַבְּדָם" above:
- Self-financed – According to Malbim, Haman was saying that, in their religious fervor, the officers would be so happy to fulfill the decree that they would finance it by themselves.
- Tax replacement - Y"S Reggio might suggest instead that Haman was offering to pay the amount that would be lost in taxes if the nation was to be exiled.18
- Profits – According to those who suggest that Haman's words were understood as either selling the nation into slavery or dispossessing them, Haman might be telling the king that the profits from such a sale/plundering would go to the royal treasury.19
Different letters – Malbim points out that Haman sent out two sets of letters, sealed missives which contained the the identity of the nation to be killed and which were not to be opened until the thirteenth of Adar, and open letters which simply told the provinces to prepare themselves for war on that date. Haman thus attempted to ensure that word of his true plans did not get back to Achashverosh until it was too late.
Did Achashverosh know Esther was Jewish? According to this approach it is possible that Achashverosh knew all along that Esther was Jewish; he simply did not know that the edict referred to Jews.20 As support for this hypothesis one might note that when pleading for her life, she never explicitly mentions her nationality as would be expected if it was unknown. In addition, Acahshverosh's surprise is aimed not at who she is but at who could have devised such a decree.
Honor to Mordechai – According to this approach Achashverosh's honoring of Mordechai is not attestation of a fickle king who decides to exterminate the Jews one day and revere them the next, but part of a consistently positive attitude towards the Jewish nation. In fact, according to most of these sources, this very attitude is what led Haman to hide the identity of the nation he wanted to harm.
Mordechai's report – Y. Grossman suggests that Mordechai told Esther both about the money that Haman meant to give the treasury "לְאַבְּדָם" and the letters that were sent "לְהַשְׁמִידָם"21 because he wanted to share not just the impending tragedy, but more importantly, the fact that Haman had misled the king,22 telling him one thing but writing another.23
Esther's tactics - "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי" – With these words Esther tried to make a rift between Achashverosh and Haman, suggesting that one was in the right and the other wrong.24 She thus "innocently" suggests that if the only wrong done was to sell her nation into slavery (what Achashverosh assumed he agreed to), that would not be worth troubling the king over, but when the stakes are life and death she could no longer remain quiet.
Significance to hanging? Haman was perhaps killed by hanging specifically since this was the general punishment for treason against the king, and he was viewed as a rebel for having veered from Achashverosh's desired edict.25
Biblical Parallels – Y. Grossman points to several linguistic parallels26 between this incident and the story of Achav and Navot's vineyard, pointing out that in both cases someone acts with the king's seal to send a message that will decree death on another. The allusion suggests that just as in the story of Achav the king was unaware of his proxy's actions, so too Achashverosh was not privy to Haman's real plan.
Playing Innocent
Achashverosh immediately understood that Esther was referring to Haman's plan which he himself had approved, but he feigned innocence so as to cast the blame solely on Haman.
