Difference between revisions of "Achashverosh's Shock and Fury/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
m |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<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 act like the other religions.<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 act like the other religions.<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>Enslavement</b> – R.  S. Astruc<fn>For an extensive list of others who take this approach, see B. Shpigel, "מהפכו של אחשורוש במשתה השני עם אסתר", Megadim 43 (2005):102, n. 49.  See also, more recently, M. Lehman, <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, "גדירת המן וכרם נבות" Megadim 30 (1999):49-67.  The latter develops the approach and attempts to further support it from a literary comparison to the story of Navot.<br/>R. Ashkenazi agrees that Haman was ambiguous but suggests that Achashverosh understood the two possibilities and recognized that Haman was intentionally hesitant to reveal his true desire.  He suggests that, nonetheless, Achashevrosh 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".</fn> and that they should therefore be subdued and enslaved.<fn>It is not clear if the root "אבד" ever takes the connotation of enslavement.  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 later enslavement, but the immediate context there too is one of destruction: "לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם" (Devarim 28:63).<br/>See the alternative possibility raised by Ohev Yisrael, brought in R. Kasher's Torah Sheleimah, Megillat Esther(Jeruslaem 1994): 196, note 14, who suggests that Haman was not simply ambiguous in his language but 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 suggest a variation of this approach, that Haman purposefully picked a homonym so that the king could hear "לעבדם" rather than "לאבדם". The advangtage 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 seconadry meaning to the word "לאבדם".</fn></li> | + | <li><b>Enslavement</b> – R.  S. Astruc<fn>For an extensive list of others who take this approach, see B. Shpigel, "מהפכו של אחשורוש במשתה השני עם אסתר", Megadim 43 (2005):102, n. 49.  See also, more recently, M. Lehman, <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, "גדירת המן וכרם נבות" Megadim 30 (1999):49-67.  The latter develops the approach and attempts to further support it from a literary comparison to the story of Navot.<br/>R. Ashkenazi agrees that Haman was ambiguous, inferring slavery, but suggests that Achashverosh understood the two possibilities and recognized that Haman was intentionally hesitant to reveal his true desire.  He suggests that, nonetheless, Achashevrosh 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".</fn> and that they should therefore be subdued and enslaved.<fn>It is not clear if the root "אבד" ever takes the connotation of enslavement.  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 later enslavement, but the immediate context there too is one of destruction: "לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם" (Devarim 28:63).<br/>See the alternative possibility raised by Ohev Yisrael, brought in R. Kasher's Torah Sheleimah, Megillat Esther(Jeruslaem 1994): 196, note 14, who suggests that Haman was not simply ambiguous in his language but 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 suggest a variation of this approach, that Haman purposefully picked a homonym so that the king could hear "לעבדם" rather than "לאבדם". The advangtage 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 seconadry meaning to the word "לאבדם".</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 this lawless nation 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 this lawless nation 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> | + | <li><b>Despoiling</b> - Alternatively, Haman thought the king would assume he simply wanted to plunder the problematic nation, understanding "לְאַבְּדָם" to mean that they would be dispossessed.<fn>See M. Lehman (above note) who suggests that the term might mean to  dispossess, but afterwards clarifies that this refers to enslavement.</fn></li> |
| + | </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":<br/> | ||
| + | <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>Tax replacement</b> - Y"S Reggio might suggest instead that Haman was offering to pay the amount that would lost in taxes if the nation were to be exiled.<fn>See R. Ashkenazi who suggests this though he understands the ambiguity in the word "לְאַבְּדָם" differently.  He points out that Haman was astute enough to note the possible reservations of the king and hoped to preempt them.</fn></li> | ||
| + | <li>Proftis – According to those who suggest that haman's words were understood as either selling the nation into slavery or dispossessing them, Haman told 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 ""</fn> </li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | |||
<point><b>Different letters</b> – Malbim</point> | <point><b>Different letters</b> – Malbim</point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Did Achashverosh know Esther was Jewish?</b> 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.</point> | + | <point><b>Did Achashverosh know Esther was Jewish?</b> 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.  See -- for positions that suggest that Esther never tried to conceal her nationality but only her specific lineage and connections to the royal line.</point> |
| − | <point><b>Honor to Mordechai</b> – According to this approach Achashverosh's honoring of | + | <point><b>Honor to Mordechai</b> – According to this approach Achashverosh's honoring of Mordechai is not the product of a fickle king who decides to exterminate the Jews one day and revere them the next, but perhaps 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.</point> |
| − | <point><b>Mordechai's report</b></point> | + | <point><b>Mordechai's report</b> – Y. Grossman suggests that</point> |
<point><b>Esther's tactics - "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי"</b></point> | <point><b>Esther's tactics - "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי"</b></point> | ||
<point><b>Significance to hanging?</b></point> | <point><b>Significance to hanging?</b></point> | ||
Version as of 03:54, 5 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.
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
How did Esther hide her identity?
Honor to Mordechai
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,1 and only explains why they are problematic. Achashverosh, either due to trust in his closest adviser,2 or from pure stupidity,3 does not ask questions and just gives his stamp of authority.
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. Only in the official letters to the various states does Haman disambiguate, adding "לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד".4 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.5 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 act like the other religions.6
- Enslavement – R. S. Astruc7 suggests that Haman told Achashverosh that the nation was rebellious8 and that they should therefore be subdued and enslaved.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 this lawless nation from his empire.11
- Despoiling - Alternatively, Haman thought the king would assume he simply wanted to plunder the problematic nation, understanding "לְאַבְּדָם" to mean that they would be dispossessed.12
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":
- 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 lost in taxes if the nation were to be exiled.13
- Proftis – According to those who suggest that haman's words were understood as either selling the nation into slavery or dispossessing them, Haman told the king that the profits from such a sale/plundering would go to the royal treasury.14
Different letters – Malbim
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. See -- for positions that suggest that Esther never tried to conceal her nationality but only her specific lineage and connections to the royal line.
Honor to Mordechai – According to this approach Achashverosh's honoring of Mordechai is not the product of a fickle king who decides to exterminate the Jews one day and revere them the next, but perhaps 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
Esther's tactics - "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי"
Significance to hanging?
Biblical Parallels
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.
