Difference between revisions of "Esther's Relations with Achashverosh/2"
m |
m |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
<h1>Esther's Relations with Achashverosh</h1> | <h1>Esther's Relations with Achashverosh</h1> | ||
− | + | ||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
− | <p>Commentators differ in both their evaluation and defense of Esther's marriage to and relations with the idolatrous Achashverosh.  A minority opinion, championed by R. Reggio, castigates Esther and Mordechai for their actions | + | <p>Commentators differ in both their evaluation and defense of Esther's marriage to and relations with the idolatrous Achashverosh.  A minority opinion, championed by R. Reggio, castigates Esther and Mordechai for their actions. The approach claims that Esther's marriage did not conform to Torah law.  However, the majority of sources follow the lead of the Bavli, and while agreeing that a public marriage to an idolater is a serious sin, they nonetheless justify Esther's actions as she was taken under duress and was a passive victim of Achashverosh's desires. Ralbag opts for a different tack, asserting instead that the benefits gained by being in position to save the nation outweighed the negatives incurred by Esther's misdeed.  Finally, an additional approach argues that in the era or Mordechai and Esther, a blanket prohibition of intermarriage was not yet in existence.</p></div> |
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
<point><b>"וּבְכֵן אָבוֹא אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר לֹא כַדָּת וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי אָבָדְתִּי"</b> – The commentary attributed to Rambam reads this verse to mean that after Haman's decree, Esther willingly set out to seduce the king in an attempt to save her people.  Though she herself initiated the act, it was permitted due to the noble goal of saving her people.</point> | <point><b>"וּבְכֵן אָבוֹא אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר לֹא כַדָּת וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי אָבָדְתִּי"</b> – The commentary attributed to Rambam reads this verse to mean that after Haman's decree, Esther willingly set out to seduce the king in an attempt to save her people.  Though she herself initiated the act, it was permitted due to the noble goal of saving her people.</point> | ||
<point><b>Mordechai's and Esther's religious identity</b> – These commentators understand that Esther and Mordechai were observant Jews who put the interests of the nation above their own personal good.</point> | <point><b>Mordechai's and Esther's religious identity</b> – These commentators understand that Esther and Mordechai were observant Jews who put the interests of the nation above their own personal good.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – A similar concept of עבירה לשמה (a transgression for the sake of a noble purpose) is employed by <multilink><a href="BavliNazir23b" data-aht="source">Bavli Nazir</a><a href="BavliNazir23b" data-aht="source">Nazir 23b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> in its graphic depiction of how Yael was able to kill Sisera.<fn>The Bavli is reading "בֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ" in <a href="Shofetim5-27" data-aht="source">Shofetim 5:27</a> as a euphemism.  However, the Bavli's justification of Yael's actions is unnecessary if one assumes that she was not Jewish or if one simply does not attribute to her any such seduction of Sisera (see Radak).</fn> <br/>Ralbag consistently justifies similar actions, lauding protagonists for opting to commit a lesser sin in order to prevent some greater evil.  Thus, he defends Avraham's decision to endanger Sarai in Egypt, despite his knowing that she might be taken by a heathen, since the alternative (death by famine) was far worse.<fn>In Sarah's case, he points out that any relations would also be only under duress.</fn>  See <a href="Endangering Sarai in Egypt" data-aht="page">Endangering Sarai in Egypt</a> for elaboration.  He similarly justifies Tamar's sleeping with Yehuda and even Lot's daughters' relations with their father.</point> | + | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – A similar concept of עבירה לשמה (a transgression for the sake of a noble purpose) is employed by <multilink><a href="BavliNazir23b" data-aht="source">Bavli Nazir</a><a href="BavliNazir23b" data-aht="source">Nazir 23b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> in its graphic depiction of how Yael was able to kill Sisera.<fn>The Bavli is reading "בֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ" in <a href="Shofetim5-27" data-aht="source">Shofetim 5:27</a> as a euphemism.  However, the Bavli's justification of Yael's actions is unnecessary if one assumes that she was not Jewish or if one simply does not attribute to her any such seduction of Sisera (see <multilink><a href="RadakShofetim5-27" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakShofetim5-27" data-aht="source">Shofetim 5:27</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>).</fn> <br/>See also Ralbag who consistently justifies similar actions, lauding protagonists for opting to commit a lesser sin in order to prevent some greater evil.  Thus, he defends Avraham's decision to endanger Sarai in Egypt, despite his knowing that she might be taken by a heathen, since the alternative (death by famine) was far worse.<fn>In Sarah's case, he points out that any relations would also be only under duress.</fn>  See <a href="Endangering Sarai in Egypt" data-aht="page">Endangering Sarai in Egypt</a> for elaboration.  He similarly justifies Tamar's sleeping with Yehuda and even Lot's daughters' relations with their father.</point> |
+ | <point><b>Contemporary applications</b> – Later commentators discuss whether prophetic powers are required to authorize committing a transgression for a higher purpose.<fn>See for example, Shut Noda BiYehuda Yoreh Deah 2:161.</fn>  One of the ramifications of this issue is the use of espionage "honey traps" to protect national interests.<fn>See R. A. Schwat, <a href="http://www.zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=266&ArticleID=639#D">"גילוי עריות למען בטחון המדינה"</a>, Techumin 30 (5770): 68-81.</fn></point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>No Prohibition | <category>No Prohibition |
Latest revision as of 21:39, 22 March 2016
Esther's Relations with Achashverosh
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators differ in both their evaluation and defense of Esther's marriage to and relations with the idolatrous Achashverosh. A minority opinion, championed by R. Reggio, castigates Esther and Mordechai for their actions. The approach claims that Esther's marriage did not conform to Torah law. However, the majority of sources follow the lead of the Bavli, and while agreeing that a public marriage to an idolater is a serious sin, they nonetheless justify Esther's actions as she was taken under duress and was a passive victim of Achashverosh's desires. Ralbag opts for a different tack, asserting instead that the benefits gained by being in position to save the nation outweighed the negatives incurred by Esther's misdeed. Finally, an additional approach argues that in the era or Mordechai and Esther, a blanket prohibition of intermarriage was not yet in existence.
Improper Conduct
Esther's behavior did not conform with accepted halakhah, and it was prohibited and inappropriate for her to marry Achashverosh.
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 only the prohibition of having relations with an idolater. They all view the transgression as severe, but for different reasons:
- A simple reading of Bavli Sanhedrin8 implies that, under normal circumstances, relations with an idolater would not obligate one to forfeit one's life, but when done in public, it would.9
- 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 illicit relations prohibitions (גילוי עריות) for which one must be killed rather than transgress.
- Adultery (ביאת אשת איש) – According to Bavli Megillah,10 Esther was married to Mordechai.11 If so, her 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.12
- Abayye in Bavli Sanhedrin asserts that the obligation to sacrifice one's life rather than transgress only applies if one is an active participant.13 Since Esther was totally passive ("קרקע עולם") she was not required to forfeit her life, despite the severity of the sin or 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.14
- Rashi and R. Meir Arama claim that Esther hoped to avoid becoming queen altogether. She thought that Achashverosh would find her royal lineage16 appealing,17 and thus she tried to conceal her origins. For further discussion, see Why Conceal Esther's Nationality.
- 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.18 If he did the latter, she would have been forced to forfeit her life rather than transgress.19
- 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.21
- 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 discovered.
- No opportunity to save – According to R. Avraham Saba,22 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.23 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 rescue Esther from the palace. His daily walks by the women's courtyard "לָדַעַת אֶת שְׁלוֹם אֶסְתֵּר" might be explained in the same manner.
Ends Justify the Means
Esther's marriage to Achashverosh was permitted since it was necessary for saving the Jewish people.
- Knew via prophecy – According to the opinion cited in Ibn Ezra, Mordechai knew all along via prophecy that Esther was to save the Jews.
- Did not know – According to Ralbag and R. Yosef Chayyun, in contrast, Mordechai was unaware of any specific threat, and was only hoping to maneuver Esther into a useful position since life under foreign rule is always uncertain.32 According to them, even the chance of Esther's bringing salvation sufficed to permit the relations with Achashverosh.33
See also Ralbag who consistently justifies similar actions, lauding protagonists for opting to commit a lesser sin in order to prevent some greater evil. Thus, he defends Avraham's decision to endanger Sarai in Egypt, despite his knowing that she might be taken by a heathen, since the alternative (death by famine) was far worse.36 See Endangering Sarai in Egypt for elaboration. He similarly justifies Tamar's sleeping with Yehuda and even Lot's daughters' relations with their father.
No Prohibition
The prohibition of intermarriage was only a later Rabbinic enactment which did not yet exist in the time of Esther.