Difference between revisions of "Esther's Relations with Achashverosh/2"
m |
|||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
<point><b>What prohibition was being transgressed?</b> These sources maintain that Esther was not married, and as such limit the transgression to that of having relations with an idolater.  It is not clear, however, how severely they view this act.  <br/> | <point><b>What prohibition was being transgressed?</b> These sources maintain that Esther was not married, and as such limit the transgression to that of having relations with an idolater.  It is not clear, however, how severely they view this act.  <br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li> | + | <li>Ralbag believes that this is a Torah level prohibition,<fn>In his comments to <a href="Devarim7-1-4" data-aht="source">Devarim 7:1-4</a> he claims that the prohibition there includes marriage to idolaters. </fn> but nonethless only describes it as only a  "גנות מועט" (small disgrace).<fn>Though the Bavli maintains that if one is asked to transgress any sin in public, one should forfeit their life rather than transgress, it is possible that Ralbag does not consider Esther and Achashverosh's relations to be "public" as the actual act was not not on display.</fn></li> |
− | <li>This position might also maintain that relations with an idolater is only a rabbinic prohibition, | + | <li>This position might also maintain that relations with an idolater is only a rabbinic prohibition, which did not exist yet in the time of Esther.  As such, there was no legal issue with the action at all, just a discomfort with the concept.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Why do the ends justify the means?</b> R. Yosef Chayyun compares Esther's actions to the law that one is allowed to violate Shabbat once in order to enable a person to observe many Shabbatot.<fn>See Yoma 85b, and the discussion there about violating Shabbat in order to save a life.</fn>  Thus, too, Esther was allowed to violate one prohibition to ensure that the nation as a whole would be able to keep their religion intact, and observe many Torah laws.  Ralbag similarly expresses that the benefits that the nation would gain from Esther's misdeed by far outweighed any of the negatives of the act.</point> | <point><b>Why do the ends justify the means?</b> R. Yosef Chayyun compares Esther's actions to the law that one is allowed to violate Shabbat once in order to enable a person to observe many Shabbatot.<fn>See Yoma 85b, and the discussion there about violating Shabbat in order to save a life.</fn>  Thus, too, Esther was allowed to violate one prohibition to ensure that the nation as a whole would be able to keep their religion intact, and observe many Torah laws.  Ralbag similarly expresses that the benefits that the nation would gain from Esther's misdeed by far outweighed any of the negatives of the act.</point> |
Version as of 21:53, 21 March 2016
Esther's Relations with Achashverosh
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators differ in both their evaluation and defense of Esther's marrying and having relations with the idolatrous Achashverosh. The majority of sources view the public marriage to an idolater as a very serious crime, but justify Esther's actions since she was taken under duress and was a passive victim of Achashverosh's desires. Ralbag instead asserts that the ends justified the means. The benefits gained by being in position to save the nation by far outweighed the negatives incurred by the misdeed. Finally, a minority opinion condemns Esther for her actions, claiming that she did not behave according to Jewish law and should not have acted as she did.
Under Duress
Esther was not culpable since the relations were coerced by Achashverosh, and she was neither a willing nor an active participant.
- Relations with an Idolater (ביאת עכו"ם) – Most of these sources assume that Esther was unmarried, and was thus transgressing the prohibition of having relations with an idolater. They all view the transgression as severe, but for different reasons:
- A simple reading of Bavli Sanhedrin, Ramban, and R. Yitzchak Arama suggests that under normal circumstances this action would not obligate one to forfeit one's life,4 but due to the public nature of the act, in Esther's case it did.5
- R. Saadia and R. Meir Arama, in contrast, maintain that even had the marriage not been public, such relations nonetheless fall under the category of illlicit relations prohibitions for which one must be killed rather than transgress (גילוי עריות)
- Adultery (ביאת אשת איש) – According to Bavli Megillah,6 Esther was married to Mordechai.7 If so, sleeping with another man would constitute adultery, and falls into the category of illicit relations for which one is obligated to forfeit one's life rather than transgress.
- Abayye asserts that the obligation to give one's life rather than transgress only applies if one does an action.8 Since Esther was totally passive ("קרקע עולם") she was not required to forfeit her life, despite the public nature of the marriage.
- Rava maintains, instead, that one need not give one's life when the prohibition is being violated solely for the pleasure of the Gentile.9
- Rashi and R. Meir Arama claim that Esther hoped to avoid becoming queen altogether. She thought that if Achashverosh knew of her royal lineage,11 he would find her an appealing candidate,12 and thus she tried to conceal her family status.
- The Akeidat Yitzchak maintains that Esther concealed her nationality to make sure that Achashverosh would be forcing her to have relations only for reasons of his personal pleasure, rather than to intentionally cause her to violate her religion publicly.13 If he did the latter, she would have been forced to forfeit her life rather than transgress.14 For elaboration and other explanations, see Why Conceal Esther's Nationality.
- Active participation allowed – The Second Targum maintains that Mordechai actively took Esther out of hiding once they were threatened with death. This suggests that this was allowed and did not affect Esther's status as "forced."
- No need for active resistance – According to R. Saadia, it seems that Mordechai would not have been allowed to actively hand Esther over, but once she was taken by force, he was not obligated to actively resist either.
- Resist at all costs – R. Avraham Saba implies that Mordechai should have even killed Esther (if nothing else would have availed) so as to prevent her from being given to an idolater. He compares the episode to events in his own time, during the forced conversion of Portuguese Jewry, when many of the Jews preferred to die and even kill their own children rather than have them baptized.16
- Resistance – R. Saadia raises the possibility that Mordechai did indeed actively resist the taking of Esther, but was simply overpowered and failed. Nonetheless, he prefers to say that his resistance was passive in nature since otherwise Esther's Jewish identity would have become apparent.
- Hiding – According to Seder Olam Rabbah, the Second Targum, and the commentary attributed to Rambam, Esther had gone into hiding, but was eventually found out.
- No opportunity to save – According to R. Avraham Saba,17 in contrast, since Esther and Mordechai lived in or near the palace, she was immediately seized and Mordechai never had opportunity hide or protect her.18 Otherwise, he would have even risked his life to prevent her being taken.
- Looked to save even afterwards – See also R. Avigdor Kohen Tzedek who proposes that the reason that Mordechai was "יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ", was that he was looking for a way to steal Esther from the palace. His daily walks by the women's courtyard "לָדַעַת אֶת שְׁלוֹם אֶסְתֵּר" might be explained in the same manner.
- R. Abba in Bavli Megillah19 understands the word "אָבוֹא" to have sexual connotations, suggesting that Esther intended to seduce Achashverosh into saving the Jews. Though until that point she had been under duress, from this point on she went willingly, and as such, violated the Torah's prohibitions on improper sexual relations. Thus, she says that she is coming "אֲשֶׁר לֹא כַדָּת", against Torah laws (and not the Persian law against entering the King's throne room). Similarly, when Esther laments "וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי אָבָדְתִּי", she refers not to her potential death but to the Torah requirement that she leave her husband, Mordechai, after having relations with another man.20
- The commentary attributed to Rambam also seems to understand that Esther intended to seduce Achashverosh, but according to him, this was not a sin, as she was going not to satisfy her own desires but to save Israel.
Ends Justify the Means
Esther was permitted to act as she did since her transgression was necessary to save the Jewish people.
- Ralbag believes that this is a Torah level prohibition,21 but nonethless only describes it as only a "גנות מועט" (small disgrace).22
- This position might also maintain that relations with an idolater is only a rabbinic prohibition, which did not exist yet in the time of Esther. As such, there was no legal issue with the action at all, just a discomfort with the concept.
- Knew via prophecy – According to the opinion cited in Ibn Ezra, Mordechai knew via prophecy that Esther was to save the Jews.
- Did not know – According to Ralbag and R. Yosef Chayyun, in contrast, Mordechai was not aware of any specific threat, and was only hoping to maneuver Esther into a useful position since life under foreign rule is always uncertain.24 According to them, even the chance of Esther's bringing salvation sufficed to permit the relations with Achashverosh.
Improper Conduct
Esther did not behave in a halakhic manner, and it was prohibited and inappropriate for her to marry Achashverosh.