Esther's Relations with Achashverosh/2

Esther's Relations with Achashverosh

Exegetical Approaches

This topic is still being developed and updated

Under Duress

Esther was not culpable since the relations were forced by Achashverosh, and she was not a willing or active participant.

Sources:Bavli Megillah15a15bAbout the Bavli, Bavli Sanhedrin74a-bAbout the Bavli, Second Targum of Megillat Esther2:84:114:16About Second Targum of Megillat Esther, R. Saadia GaonEsther 2:8Esther 2:16Esther 2:20About R. Saadia Gaon, RashiEsther 2:7Esther 2:10Esther 2:11Esther 4:16About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Ibn EzraEsther Version A 2:7Esther Version A 2:10Esther Version A 2:15Esther Version B 2:8Esther Version B 2:10Esther Version B 2:15Esther Version B 2:16About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary attributed to RambamEsther 2:8Esther 5:1, R. Avraham SabaEshkol HaKopher 2:8About R. Avraham Saba, Akeidat YitzchakEsther 2:10Esther 2:15About R. Yitzchak Arama, R. Meir AramaEsther Part 1About R. Meir Arama

What prohibition was being transgressed?

• Adultery (ביאת אשת איש) – According to Bavli Megilah13a13b15aAbout the Bavli,¹ Esther was married to Mordechai.² If so, sleeping with Achashevrosh would constitute adultery, and falls into the category of illicit relations for which one is obligated to forfeit one's life rather than transgress.
• Relations with an Idolater (ביאת עכו"ם) – Most of the other commentators assume that Esther was not married, and was thus only transgressing the lesser prohibition of having relations with an idolater.³
• Bavli Sanhedrin suggests that under normal circumstances this action would not obligate one to forfeit one's life,⁴ but when done publicly, it does.⁵ 
• R. Saadia appears to maintain that even had the marriage not been public, such relations nonetheless fall under the category of "גילוי עריות" for which one must be killed rather than transgress.

Why is "duress" an excuse?

• Abayye asserts that the obligation to give one's life rather than transgress only applies if one does an action.⁶  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.⁷

"לֹא הִגִּידָה אֶסְתֵּר אֶת עַמָּהּ וְאֶת מוֹלַדְתָּהּ" – According to Rashi, the Akeidat Yitzchak, and R. Meir Arama, in not revealing her identity, Esther was trying to avoid being forced into prohibited relations, or at least lessen the gravity of the transgression.⁸

• Rashi and R. Meir Arama claim that Esther hoped to avoid becoming queen all together.  She thought that if Achashverosh knew of her royal lineage,⁹ he would find her an appealing candididate, 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.¹⁰  For elaboration and other explanations, see Why Conceal Esther's Nationality.

Mordechai's obligations – These commentators disagree regarding the level of Mordechai's obligations to prevent Esther from being taken.  If he handed her to the officers, would she still be considered "under duress"?

• Active participation allowed – The Second Targum maintains that Mordechai actively took Esther out of hiding once they were threatened with death, suggesting 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, many of the Jews of Portugal preferred to die and even kill their own children rather than have them baptised.¹¹

Did Mordechai resist? In line with their positions above, the exegetes differ in their understanding of what Mordechai actually did or did not do to protect Esther:

• 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 Rabbah29About Seder Olam Rabbah, the Second Targum, and the commentary attributed to Rambam, Esther had gone into hiding.  The second Targum claims that only when it became life-threatening did Mordechai feel forced to take her out.
• No opportunity to save – According to R. Avraham Saba,¹² 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.¹³  Otherwise, he would have even risked his life to prevent her being taken.

"וַתִּלָּקַח" – Ibn Ezra and R. Meir Arama assert that the word "וַתִּלָּקַח", in both 2:8 and 2:16, implies Esther's being taken by force and against her will.¹⁴

"לֹא בִקְשָׁה דָּבָר" – The Akeidat Yitzchak and R. Meir Arama¹⁵  suggest that the emphasis on the fact that Esther did not request any jewelry or fragrances is further evidence that she was forced to go before Achashverosh, and did not do anything of her own will before being taken..

"וַאֲנִי לֹא נִקְרֵאתִי לָבוֹא אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ זֶה שְׁלוֹשִׁים יוֹם" – The Second Targum understands the word "לָבוֹא" (to come) in its sexual sense, and reads the verse to mean that Esther had been praying for thirty days that Achashverosh would not ask for her to have relations again.

"וּבְכֵן אָבוֹא אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר לֹא כַדָּת וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי אָבָדְתִּי"

• R. Abba in Bavli Megillah¹⁶ 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.¹⁷
• 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.

Mordechai and Esther's religious identity – According to this approach, Esther and Mordechai were fully observant Jews.

Ends Justify the Means

Esther was permitted to act as she did since her transgression was necessary to save the Jewish people.

Sources:Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBeshalach Amalek 2About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Yefet the KaraiteYefet Esther 2, Others say in Ibn EzraEsther Version A 2:10About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RalbagEsther 2:10Esther Toelet 15About R. Levi b. Gershom, R. Yosef ChayyunEsther 2:8Esther 2:10About R. Yosef Chayyun

What prohibition was being transgressed? 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 severe a sin they view this act.  From Ralbag's description of it as a  "גנות מועט" (small disgrace), he does not appear to consider it one of the cardinal sins for which one would have to forfeit one's life.¹⁸ 

Why do the ends justify the means? 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.¹⁹  Thus, too, Esther was allowed to violate a Torah law 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.

"וַתִּלָּקַח" – R. Chayyun asserts that not only was Esther not taken by force, but Mordechai actively placed her in public, hoping that she would be taken. ²⁰  He could explain that the passive language of "וַתִּלָּקַח" simply means that all candidates were taken to the palace by the king's officers, but not necessarily against their will.

"לֹא הִגִּידָה אֶסְתֵּר אֶת עַמָּהּ וְאֶת מוֹלַדְתָּהּ" – Ralbag asserts that Esther concealed her nationality in order that she would be chosen as queen.  If Achashverosh had known her lowly origins, he might have rejected her out of hand.  See Why Conceal Esther's Nationality for more details.

Did Esther hide? According to Yefet, Esther originally hid, but then left her hiding place so she will be chosen as queen. However, according to R. Yosef Chayyun, Esther never hid, but rather sat in public so that she will be found easily.

Mordechai's precognition – According to Ralbag, Mordechai knew (via some sort of prophecy) that Esther would be chosen, while R. Yosef Chayyun suggest that Mordechai did not know anything definite and was merely hoping that Esther would be chosen. Both agree that Mordechai was not aware of any specific threat, and was only maneuvering Esther into a useful position in case something happens. In contrast, the opinion cited in Ibn Ezra claims that Mordechai received a prophecy or a dream that explicitly said that Esther will save the Jews.

Mordechai and Esther's religious identity – These commentators understand that Esther and Mordechai were observant Jews who decided on their course of action according to the framework of Halakhah.

Improper Conduct

Esther did not behave in a halakhic manner, and it was prohibited and inappropriate for her to marry Achashverosh.

Sources:Opinion cited by Ibn EzraEsther Version A 2:10About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, perhaps RadakBereshit 12:15About R. David Kimchi, R. Elazar HaRokeachEsther 4:16About R. Elazar HaRokeach, R. Y"S ReggioIntroduction to EstherAbout R. Yitzchak Shemuel Reggio

Did Esther go willingly? Radak claims that "וַתִּלָּקַח" implies going willingly, and not being taken by force.

Mordechai and Esther's religious identity – R. Elazar HaRokeach understands the three day fast of Esther to be an atonement for three sins, including improper sexual relations and eating non-kosher food, which implies that he finds fault in her actions. R. Y"S Reggio is less explicit, although he agrees that Esther and Mordechai were certainly not knowledgeable in Halakhah. According to both of them, Mordechai and Esther did not see any issue with Esther becoming queen and marrying a non-Jew.

"לֹא הִגִּידָה אֶסְתֵּר אֶת עַמָּהּ וְאֶת מוֹלַדְתָּהּ" – According to R. Y"S Reggio, Esther was embarrassed by her exilic origins. See Why Conceal Esther's Nationality for more details.

¹ See also Rashi in its wake.

² On the verse, "לְקָחָהּ מׇרְדֳּכַי לוֹ לְבַת", R. Meir remarks, "אל תקרי לבת אלא לבית" (do not read 'as a daughter' but as a 'house').  As support, he notes the parallel between Mordechai "taking Esther as a daughter" and the description in Shemuel II 12:3 of the poor man of Natan's parable viewing his lamb as a "daughter".  Just as in the parable, the lamb-daughter (analogous to Batsheva) is really wife of the poor man's (Uriah), so too Esther was not a daughter but a wife.
R. Nachmiash points out that the text's description of Achashverosh's officers gathering "virgin" women specifically would seem to argue against this reading. These sources would likely suggest that the officers did not limit themselves to virgins, but gathered other women as well.  See Rashi on 2:17, that the phrase "וַיֶּאֱהַב הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת אֶסְתֵּר מִכׇּל הַנָּשִׁים וַתִּשָּׂא חֵן וָחֶסֶד לְפָנָיו מִכׇּל הַבְּתוּלוֹת" suggests that Esther was favored above both the virgins and the wives who were gathered.

³ R. Saadia points to Devarim 7 as the source for this prohibition.  Though this verse only mentions marrying members of the seven nations of Canaan, he assumes that the prohibition applies to all idolaters. Since the reason given for the prohibition is lest the marriage sway one to idolatry, it is easy to apply it to other idolaters as well.

⁴ The Bavli assumes that only the illicit relations mentioned in Vayikra 18 are considered "גילוי עריות" for which one would have to be killed rather than transgress, while marriage to an idolator might not even be a capital crime.

⁵ Normally the concept of ייהרג ובל יעבור (be killed rather than transgress) is limited to the three cardinal sins of murder, idolatry and illicit relations (as listed in Vayikra 18).  However, in cases where the transgression is public in nature, the law is expanded to include all prohibitions.  In the case of Esther, even though no one would have been witness to the actual sexual act, the fact that it was public knowledge that Esther and Achashverosh were living together as man and wife, is considered sufficient to view the act as a "public" one.

⁶ See Rivam who explains that one can learn from the laws of murder to illicit relations.  Just as one is not expected to forfeit his life unless he is told to actively kill another (thus, if he is thrown on a baby and suffocates it there would be no such requirement), so too a passive woman who is forced into illicit relations may transgress rather than be killed. 
However, though this suffices to exempt a a married woman who is forced to have relations in private, or a woman who is being forced to transgress the less severe prohibition of relations with an idolator even in public, it does not exempt a married woman from having illicit relations of a public nature.  Thus, those who maintain that Esther was married would offer a different defense for her actions. [See the opinion of Rava.]

⁷ The ZoharRa'aya Meheimna Ki Tetze 276aTikkunei Zohar 57bAbout the Zohar gets around the problem in an entirely different way, suggesting that Mordechai used his mystical knowledge to replace Esther with a demoness when approached by Achashverosh, so that Esther never actually had carnal relations with Achashverosh.

⁸ Ibn Ezra, instead, claims that Esther hoped that it would be easier to observe commandments in general if no one knew her religion.

⁹ According to Rashi, Esther was a descendant of King Shaul.

¹⁰ If he did the latter, she would have been forced to forfeit her life rather than transgress.

¹¹ R. Saba speaks from personal experience and anguish; his own two sons were forcibly taken from him and baptized during the decree.

¹² See Ibn Ezra as well.

¹³ Here, too, r. saba might be speaking somewhat autobiographically, wishing that he could have saved his own children from being taken.

¹⁴ Cf. RadakBereshit 12:15About R. David Kimchi.

¹⁵ See also the commentary found in MS Munich 5MS Munich 5 Esther 2:15About Ba'alei HaTosafot.

¹⁶ See also the Second Targum and Rashi who follow his understanding.

¹⁷ R. Abba agrees with the opinion that Esther was married to Mordechai, and says that Esther was sacrificing her relationship with Mordechai, since a married woman who willingly sleeps with another man is prohibited to her husband. See also the Second Targum which says this explicitly.

¹⁸ Though, the Bavli maintains that if one is asked to transgress any sin in public, one should forfeit thier life rather than transgress, is possible that he does not consider Esther and Achashverosh's relations to be "public" as the actual act was not not on display.

¹⁹ See Yoma 85b, and the discussion there about violating Shabbat in order to save a life.

²⁰ Cf. Radak, who claims that the word "וַתִּלָּקַח" implies going willingly and not by force.