Mordechai's Refusal to Bow/2

Mordechai's Refusal to Bow

Exegetical Approaches

This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.

Personal Rivalry

Mordechai refused to bow down out of personal pride and a running rivalry with Haman.

Sources:First Targum of Megillat EstherTargum Rishon Esther 3:2About First Targum of Megillat Esther,¹ Hoil MosheEsther 3:2About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi²

What rivalry?

• Slave/master relationship – According to the First Targum, Haman had previously sold himself as a slave to Mordechai and thus Mordechai could not bring himself to bow down to his servant.³
• Competition in court – Hoil Moshe, in contrast, suggests that both Mordechai and Haman had been in the king's court and Haman had been promoted without merit.  Mordechai refused to degrade himself before one who was undeserving. It is possible that there was an element of jealousy in the actions as well; Mordechai likely found the promotion more unjust than others since he had just saved the king's life and was ignored, while Haman who had not done anything noteworthy was rewarded.

Was Mordechai justified? The Bavli and Tanchuma  both suggest that Mordechai's actions were not justified.  Mordechai should have swallowed his pride and flattered Haman rather than endanger the nation.  In Mordechai's defense, though, he had no reason to assume that his actions would lead to such dire results.  How was he to know that to avenge his honor, Haman would set out to annihilate an entire nation?

"כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי"

• Reason for tattle-telling - This approach might maintain as does the Northern French Commentary that these words do not explain why Mordechai refused to bow, but rather why the officers informed on him.⁴  Since he was a Jew, they were jealous and desired his fall.
• A fabricated excuse – Alternatively, though Mordechai's real motives were personal, he pretended that he was acting out of religious concerns as a means of explaining his disobedience.

Mordechai's religious identity – The First Targum of Megillat Esther maintains that Mordechai was an observant Jew.⁵ It is possible, though, to say instead that Mordechai was assimilated into Persian society. He had taken on a Persian name and managed to climb his way into a position of power in the king's palace and thus viewed himself as at least equal to (and, likely, more deserving than) Haman.

"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" – Hoil Moshe asserts that each of these verbs appear often in Tanakh in the context of people submitting or bowing to other people,⁶ rather than gods.⁷ He does not, though, address the question if this is also true when the words come together.⁸

Who was supposed to bow down to Haman and why?

• Hoil Moshe does not address the issue explicitly, but might be assuming that only those in the king's court ("כׇל עַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ") were commanded to bow,⁹ as a display that Haman was now promoted above them.  Mordechai, who viewed the promotion as baseless, refused.
•  Alternatively, it is possible that the command was on the entire populace.  Haman, being second only to the king, was given special honors. Mordechai who saw himself as more important than the average layperson and on par with Haman thought himself above the edict.

Strength of the command to bow – Hoil Moshe points out that bowing to Haman was a command of the king, but not signed into law, and thus still possible to be reversed.  He suggests that Mordechai was trying to set himself as an example to other members of the court that they too should refuse to honor Haman and instead get the king to annul the command.

Did Mordechai know what the consequences would be? This position would probably maintain that Mordechai did not know what the consequences of his actions would be, since it is unlikely that he would have sacrificed the whole nation's lives just for his personal pride.¹⁰  From chapter 5, though, it sounds as if Mordechai continued to refuse to pay Haman honor even after the decree, "וְלֹא קָם וְלֹא זָע מִמֶּנּוּ".  This position might respond that even after the fact, Mordechai never realized that the reason that Haman had set out to destroy the Jews was because of his personal refusal to bow.¹¹

Haman's edict – Haman's decision to destroy a nation due to competition with a single individual is somewhat difficult for this approach.  If the whole story was about personal vendettas, one would think that Haman should have simply found a way to rid himself of Mordechai but leave the rest of the nation alone.¹²

"וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" – This position would probably suggest that Haman was referring to general laws that the nation did not abide by and this statement has nothing to do with refusal to bow to him.¹³

Religious Prohibition

Mordechai did now bow down due to a religious prohibition to bow, though the exact nature of the prohibition is debated.

Sources:BavliMegillah 10bMegillah 12b-13aMegillah 19aSanhedrin 61aAbout the Bavli, First Targum of Megillat EstherEsther 3:2About First Targum of Megillat Esther, Esther Rabbah6:27:88:7About Esther Rabbah, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer(Higger) 49About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, R. Saadia GaonIntroduction to EstherAbout R. Saadia Gaon, RashiEsther 3:2About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Lekach TovEsther 3:2About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, R. Yosef KaraEsther Version A 3:2Esther Version B 3:2-4About R. Yosef Kara, Ibn EzraEsther Version A 3:2-4About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Y"S ReggioEsther 3:2About R. Yitzchak Shemuel Reggio

What was the religious prohibition? The commentators offer two possibilities:

• Idolatry – Most of these sources suggest that bowing would have been a violation of the prohibition against idolatry either because Haman wore an idol on him,¹⁴ or because Haman considered himself a god.¹⁵
• Bowing down to people – R. Yosef Kara and R. Y"S Reggio instead suggest that Mordechai thought that it was prohibited to bow down to anyone other than Hashem.¹⁶

Was Mordechai justified?

• Halakhically Justified – Most of these commentators claim that Mordechai's actions were justified since he had a religious obligation to act as he did:
• Idolatry – According to those who assert that bowing constituted worship of idolatry, Mordechai's refusal was justified since the law requires one to die rather than transgress the prohibition (‎‏ייהרג ואל יעבור‎).¹⁷ 
• Era of Destruction – According to the alternative, it would seem that Mordechai's actions were not necessary since there is no prohibition against bowing to people.¹⁸  R. Yosef Kara, though, might suggest that the era was a "period of destruction" (שעת השמד) during which one might be prohibited from doing even the slightest action upon command of another who is intent on the nation's spiritual destruction.¹⁹ 

• Legally Justified – R. Astruc asserts that even according to Persian law, Mordechai had no obligation to bow to Haman, since the kingdom had laws of religious tolerance and a Jew could not be forced to act against his faith.

• Unjustified – R. Reggio claims that Mordechai made a mistake, thinking he was being pious in not bowing to people, when in reality he did not understand the Torah's intentions (טעה בהתחסדות). Moreover, since the law states that one must abide by the laws of the land (דינא דמלכותא דינא), Mordechai was actually obligated to listen to the king's command and bow!

"כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי" – These commentators find support for their position in this verse, understanding that Mordechai had given a religious reason ("הוּא יְהוּדִי") for his actions.

Mordechai's religious identity – According to this approach Mordechai was an observant Jew whose actions were all motivated by his loyalty to his faith..

"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" – A. Chacham²⁰ suggests that although השתחוויה appears in Tanakh in relation to honoring people, the combination of כריעה and השתחוויה only appears in the context of religious worship, supporting the idea that the bowing here is religious in nature.²¹

Who was supposed to bow down to Haman and why? Esther Rabbah maintains that Haman wanted everyone to bow down to him so that they would thereby be worshiping idolatry.

Did Mordechai know what the consequences would be?

• Irrelevant – According to most of these commentators, even if Mordechai knew in advance that Haman would try to annihilate the nation in retaliation, he would have still been obligated to refuse to bow. 
• Unaware – According to R. Reggio, though, Mordechai was horrified at the outcome of his actions. He suggests that Mordechai regretted his decision and felt guilty that he had caused the edict of destruction.²²

"וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" – This position might suggest that all the Jews followed Mordechai's lead in not bowing and this is what Haman referred to when he said that the nation did not follow the laws of the king.

Haman's edict – This approach might suggest that Haman took out his anger on the entire nation because they all refused to bow.²³

A Portrait of Mordechai – Most of these sources laud Mordechai as a devout Jew, ready to give his life for the observance of Hashem's commandments.  R. Reggio, in contrast, paints a somewhat foolish Mordechai, unaware of the intricacies of Torah laws, whose "extra" piety put the entire nation in danger.

Biblical parallels – This position would view Mordechai like Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaria who similarly refused to bow to idolatry at potential expense of death.

Political Opposition

Aegean Threat

Haman and Mordechai were in two different political camps, one in favor of making peace with the Greeks and one against.  Mordechai refused to submit to the opposition whom he viewed as a threat to the kingdom.²⁴

Sources:SeptuagintEsther section E, vss. 7-14About the Septuagint, Dr. Yisrael Eldad²⁵

Historical background – This position identifies Achashverosh with Xerxes, who had been defeated by the Greeks towards the beginning of his reign, made peace and then ten years later rebelled again.  The Septuagint identifies Haman as a Macedonian,²⁶ and suggests that he was trying to bring Persia under Greek control.²⁷  Mordechai and his fellow Jews were in the opposing political camp.²⁸ If so, the Megillah's sub-story is one of opposing political ideologies regarding the Greek threat.²⁹

"כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי" – This position would likely assert, as above, that these words do not constitute the reason for Mordechai's refusal but rather explain why the officers informed on him to Haman.  Being in Haman's political camp, once they saw that Mordechai was a Jew and in the opposing camp, they recognized that his actions were a threat.

Did Mordechai know what the consequences would be? It is likely that Mordechai knew that his action would be considered provocative but he had no reason to think that it would lead to a decree of annihilation.

Was Mordechai justified? According to this position, Mordechai's actions were a political statement (the equivalent of refusing to shake the hand of a perceived enemy).  Since he truly viewed Haman as a national security threat, he believed that a show of submission was extremely problematic and set a dangerous precedent.  In addition, as mentioned above, in his refusal Mordechai was not knowingly endangering his nation so he had no reason to abstain from making an ideological statement.

"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" – As discussed above, there are many places where both terms are used in relation to showing subservience to another human, and not simply in the context of religious worship.³⁰

Mordechai's religious identity – According to the Septuagint, Mordechai was a religiously observant Jew.³¹  Eldad suggests that it is ambiguous, but that the fact is immaterial to the discussion since it was Mordechai's views on foreign affairs, not his religious orientation, that motivated his actions.³²

Haman's edict – Y. Eldad asserts that Haman's decree was motivated by both his personal antisemitism and his political leanings. He viewed the entire nation as a threat to his plans for Greek domination and as such, did not suffice with killing Mordechai but tried to destroy the entire population.³³

The miracle of Purim – Y. Eldad suggests that the true miracle of Purim was that Mordechai managed to convince the king that Haman was a threat not just to the Jewish nation but to Persia as a whole.

"וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" – According to Y. Eldad, Haman was suggesting that the Jews followed their own laws, trying to set up a state within a state.  This phrase had nothing to do with the refusal to bow nor did it relate to other crimes that might have been religious in nature.

Portrait of Mordechai

Jewish Pride

Mordechai's decision emanated from feelings of national pride which expressed itself in refusal to submit to any descendent of Esav= Amalek.

Sources:Second Targum of Megillat Esther3:3About Second Targum of Megillat Esther, Esther Rabbah7:8About Esther Rabbah,³⁴ Midrash Panim AcherotVersion B Parashah 3About Midrash Panim Acherot, Yosef LekachEsther 3:2About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi

Source of pride

• According to most of these sources, the opposition between Mordechai (a descendant of Binyamin) and Haman (an Agagi, a descendant of Amalek) was a continuation of the rivalry between their ancestors.  These midrashim highlight that of all the children of Yaakov, Binyamin alone did not bow down and submit to Esav,³⁵ and Mordechai followed his precedent.³⁶ One might add that as Amalek was a sworn enemy of the nation, Mordechai refused to honor his descendents.
• Yosef Lekach, instead posits that Mordechai refused to bow down to anyone other than God, not because he viewed this as a religious prohibition but simply out of pride in his role as Hashem's servant.

A corrective? One might also suggest that as Shaul was charged with destroying all of Amalek and failed, Mordechai saw it as his duty to correct this mistake. No show of mercy, and definitely no show of submission, could be allowed.

"כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי" – According to this position, this phrase expresses the reason for Mordechai's actions; his Jewish nationality (הוּא יְהוּדִי) is what led him to refuse to bow.

Who was supposed to bow down to Haman? According to Yosef Lekach, the command was aimed only at the king's servants.  As such, Mordechai did not feel that he was included since he viewed himself as servant of Hashem, and not of humans.  The others might suggest that it was a more general command.

Did Mordechai know what the consequences would be? It is likely that Mordechai did not consider the possibility that Haman would punish the entire nation for his personal refusal.

Was Mordechai justified? It is not simple to say that national pride is sufficient reason to anger a foe and invite retribution (even if not on the scale that Haman planned).  This position, though, might respond that a show of weakness to a sworn enemy comes with a price.  Giving in to the other and succumbing to their demands all too often leads to more and harsher demands. Mordechai recognized the slippery slope and attempted to prevent it.

Mordechai's religious identity – These sources all maintain that Mordechai was a religious Jew.  One could have posited, though, that he strongly identified with his nation and lineage but was not particularly observant.

¹ The First Targum of Megillat Esther also maintains that there was a religious prohibition of idolatry.

² See also Y. Medan, "ומרדכי לא יכרע ולא ישתחווה - מדוע"  in הדסה היא אסתר (Jerusalem, 1997):151-171 where he develops this approach and compares it to the positions which assume religious or nationalistic motives.

³ The Targum elaborates at length as to the circumstances which led to this sale.  Haman and Mordechai had each been sent by Achashverosh to lead a group of troops to help conquer a city.  Though each had been given equal amounts of provisions to supply their armies, Haman wasted his early on, forcing him to ask Mordechai for help.  Mordechai only agreed upon condition that Haman become his slave.  When Haman was later promoted by the king, he attempted to buy his freedom, but Mordechai refused, and instead repeatedly showed him the bill of sale.

⁴ This position assumes that Haman himself had not noticed that Mordechai had not bowed.  It is only in verse 5, after the servants tell him to watch Mordechai, that we read, "וַיַּרְא הָמָן כִּי אֵין מׇרְדֳּכַי כֹּרֵעַ וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לוֹ".  See R. Yosef Kara who already points this out.

⁵ Hoil Moshe does not address the issue.

⁶ As examples, he points to Avraham bowing to the Hittites and Moshe to Yitro.

⁷ He even suggests that the root "כרע" is just a variation of "כנע".

⁸ There are only four verses outside of Esther (Tehillim 22:30 and 105:6 and Chronicles II 7:3 and 29:29) in which both roots occur, and in each of these, the context is religious worship.  This might suggest that, when combined, the terms can refer only to bowing to gods.  Hoil Moshe would likely respond that the three cases in Esther where the combination occurs and refer to submitting to the human Haman are just as a large a pool of evidence in the opposite direction.

⁹ These are the only people who are explicitly mentioned as bowing.  According to this reading, Mordechai, who was also one of the servants in the gate would have been included in the edict, but the rest of the Jewish nation would not have been.

¹⁰ According to Hoil Moshe, who posits that there was even potential to annul the law to bow, Mordechai probably did not even view himself as doing anything seriously wrong.

¹¹ If so, after seeing Haman's evil decree, Mordechai had more reason, not less, to continue a show of dishonor.

¹² In the position's defense, though, it should be noted that the verses do present Haman as thinking that it was beneath him to strike Mordechai alone, and thus he decided to punish the entire nation as well.

¹³ If one maintains that the command to bow only referred to those in the court, obviously no others were transgressing the command.  But, even if one asserts that it was on the entire populace, there is no reason to believe that anyone besides Mordechai refused since his refusal was based on personal rather than religious or national issues.

¹⁴ See First Targum of Megillat Esther, Esther Rabbah, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer and Ibn Ezra who suggest this.

¹⁵ See Bavli, R. Saadia Gaon, Rashi, and Lekach Tov.

¹⁶ R. Reggio points out that the first alternative is absent from the book; if the problem was one of idolatry the verses would have said so. Since they speak only of bowing to a person, that in itself must have been the issue.

¹⁷ Ibn Ezra suggests that, nonetheless, perhaps Mordechai could have averted the problem and ensuing danger by simply leaving the area of the king's gate and thus not being around when Haman passed by.  He answers that Mordechai did not have permission to do so from the king and, as such, leaving his position might have meant his death. The Radbaz instead suggests that Mordechai never dreamed that Haman would avenge his action by trying to destroy the whole nation.

¹⁸ R. Y"S Reggio brings proof from the fact that Avraham bowed down to the people of the land (Bereshit 23:7), Yaakov to Esav (Bereshit 33:3), Yosef's brothers to him, David to Yonatan and many other similar cases.  Cf. R. Saadia Gaon who also claims that there is no prohibition in an honorary bow leading him to conclude that the problem must have been idolatry. Cf. Second Targum of Megillat Esther and Esther Rabbah who say that Haman told Mordechai to bow down to him since Yaakov bowed down to Esav.

¹⁹ See the discussion in Bavli Sanhedrin 74a-b, which speaks of being killed before violating even a minor command, such as changing one's style of shoelaces.  It is not clear, however, whether Mordechai's refusal actually took place in a setting of "destruction" since there is no evidence of religious coercion in the Megillah; even the physical threat was only after Mordechai's actions.
It should be notes as well, that in his comments at the end of the Megillah, R. Yosef Kara suggests that some of the Jews in Shushan questioned Mordechai's actions and some saw him at fault for their near annihilation.  This is why the verse states that Mordechai was only liked by "most" of his brethren.

²⁰ See commentary of Daat Mikra to Esther, (Jerusalem, 1973) on Esther 3:2, note 2.

²¹ It should be noted, though, that the combination of terms only appears in four other places outside of Esther (See Tehillim 22:30 and 105:6 and Chronicles II 7:3 and 29:29) which might not provide a large enough pool of sources to determine if this is indeed accurate. 
On the other hand, in support of Chacham, the root כרע, when used with the connotation of bowing rather than surrender in war or falling after attack, appears in ten places (besides Esther) and with but one exception, all of these refer to bowing to God or an idol rather than a person.  The exception relates to Eliyahu, and might be explained in light of his role as prophet of God.  See, though, Hoil Moshe above who suggests that the root כרע simply means submission and thus if one expands the pool of occurrences to include this connotation, it is often found in connection to humans and not just to religious worship.

²² He paints a picture of a man so overcome by guilt that all he can do is cry out in grief.  He suggests that Mordechai was not even capable of thinking clearly; it never occurred to him to pray for salvation nor even to speak with Esther.  It is she who sees him dressed in sack cloth and inquires to the reason; Mordechai on his own had not planned to ask for her help.

²³ See Y. Eldad, "פשר מדיני למגילת אסתר", who questions that if the whole story revolved around contrasting religious ideologies, one would have expected Haman's edict to be similarly religious in nature, calling for the spiritual, rather than physical, destruction of the Jews.  One might respond that Haman's initial desire was in fact to coerce his religion, but seeing that fail, he desired to eradicate all nonbelievers.

²⁴ See similarly Y. Hazony, The Dawn, (Jerusalem, 1995): 48-59, and R. Medan -- who both view the refusal to bow in political terms but disconnect it from the Persian-Greek wars.  Hazony suggests that Mordechai viewed Haman's rise to power as a threat to the Persian kingdom, because now power was consolidated in the hands of one man. [Previously, as seen in Chapters 1-2, there had been seven separate advisers.]  Haman was perhaps especially dangerous because he was power hungry. Bowing to him would be a show of support to a potentially devastating politician.
R. Medan has a similar thesis, suggesting that Mordechai was a representative of the judicial branch of power, in the high court of Persia (one who is יושב בשער המלך is equivalent to one who sits in court) while Haman was in the legislature. Mordechai thought it dangerous to submit one to the other; if the court was subordinate to the legislature, there would be no checks and balances.

²⁵ See his article, "פשר מדיני למגילת אסתר" from מחניים ס"ז.

²⁶ It is possible that אגגי mean "אגיי" or Aegean, of the Greek Sea.

²⁷ See Y. Eldad who suggests that there was a large"pro-peace" camp in Persia (numbering 75,000, the amount of enemies killed by the Jews).  This was led by Haman, who was really a fifth column for the Greeks.

²⁸ Y. Eldad suggests that in the original battle against the Greeks, Persia had aligned itself with Carthage and it is likely that the Jews played a role in brokering that alliance. The plot of Bigtan and Teresh which had been foiled by Mordechai might have also been political in nature and connected to these two warring factions.

²⁹ The plot of Bigtan and Teresh which had been foiled by Mordechai might have also been political in nature and connected to these two warring factions.

³⁰ See above discussion regarding both the individual usage of the root "כרע" and the combination of כריעה and השתחוויה.

³¹ The Septuagint adds several sections to the original which serve to portray both Esther and Mordechai as more obviously observant.  Thus, for instance, it has Mordechai instruct Esther to fear God and not change her ways when in the palace and includes a prayer that he makes after Haman's edict goes out.  For a more extensive discussion of these additions, see ??

³² He points out that even if Mordechai had assimilated in his rise to power, it would not be long before he would realize that assimilation does not exempt one from antisemitism, and all too often it itself is the cause. See R. Medan, as noted above, who explicitly suggests that Mordechai assimilated, but in the face of Haman's edict, was quick to learn that this did not exclude him from danger and as such, forced him to face his Judaism.

³³ As evidence that Haman's motives were racist rather than religious in nature he points out that Perisa was not known for imposing its beliefs in Zoroastrianism on its foreign citizens.  In addition, in Haman's arguments to the king he refers to the nation's distinctness and desire to form a state within a state rather than focusing on religious subversion. One might argue though that Haman's words "וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" do in fact refer to religious edicts that the nation was not following.

³⁴ Esther Rabbah holds that there was also a religious prohibition of Idolatry.

³⁵ When the two brothers met and Yaakov repeatedly bowed to Esav, Binyamin had not yet been born.

³⁶ In Yitzchak's blessing to Esav, he told him that at times he would be able to throw off Yaakov's yoke and harm him.  This position might thus suggest that any show of submission to Esav would in effect enable him to prevail over Israel.