Mordechai's Refusal to Bow/2

Mordechai's Refusal to Bow

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Mordechai's refusal to bow has been alternately perceived as personally, religiously, or politically motivated.   Hoil Moshe views Haman and Mordechai as rivals in the king's court, each vying for positions of power.  Haman's promotion irked Mordechai who, thus, refused to show him honor. 

The majority of commentators, though, drawing on the verse "כִּי הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא יְהוּדִי", instead assert that Mordechai had a religious obligation to refrain from bowing.  The Bavli maintains that Haman had turned himself into a god, while Esther Rabbah suggests that he wore an idol on his garments.  Both of these positions assume that Mordechai's action was not only justified but required by law.  In contrast, R. Reggio suggests that Mordechai mistakenly assumed that one may not bow to a human and that he endangered the entire nation due to his erroneous piety.

A final approach sets Mordechai and Haman in opposing political or national camps. This position subdivides regarding the perceived nationality of Haman and thus the specific threat that he posed.  According to Y. Eldad, Haman hailed from Greece and Mordechai considered him a fifth column and a security hazard to the Persian empire.  According to many Midrashic sources, in contrast, Haman was a descendant of Esav, the sworn enemy of Israel.  Either way, Mordechai deemed it dangerous to submit to the authority of an enemy.

Personal Rivalry

Mordechai refused to bow down out of pride and an ongoing personal 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,³ and therefore Mordechai could not bring himself to bow down to his servant.⁴
• Court competition – Hoil Moshe, in contrast, suggests that both Mordechai and Haman were prominent members of 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 particularly unjust 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? One might suggest that Mordechai should have swallowed his pride and flattered Haman rather than endanger the nation.⁵  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 servants' tattling – This approach might maintain⁶ that these words do not explain why Mordechai refused to bow, but rather why the king's servants informed on him.⁷  Since he was a Jew, they were jealous and desired his fall.
• Fabricated excuse – Alternatively, although Mordechai's real motives were personal, he pretended that he was acting out of religious concerns as a means of explaining his disobedience.

"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,⁸ rather than gods.⁹ He does not, though, address the question whether this is also true when the words appear together.¹⁰

Mordechai's religious identity – The First Targum of Megillat Esther maintains that Mordechai was an observant Jew.¹¹ It is possible, though, that Mordechai was fully assimilated into Persian society. He had taken on a Persian name¹² and had managed to rise to a position of power in the king's palace.  He thus viewed himself as at least equal to Haman.

Who was supposed to bow down to Haman and why?

• Hoil Moshe does not address the issue explicitly, but he might be assuming that only those in the king's court ("וְכׇל עַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ") were commanded to bow,¹³ as an acknowledgment that Haman was now promoted above them.  Mordechai, who viewed the promotion as baseless, refused.
• Alternatively, it is possible that the entire populace was commanded, and Haman, being second only to the king, was given special honor.  Mordechai who saw himself as more important than the average layperson and on par with Haman thought himself above the edict.

Authority behind the command – Hoil Moshe contends that bowing to Haman was a command of the king, but not yet signed into law, and thus could still 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.¹⁴  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.¹⁵

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, it is odd that Haman did not simply find a way to rid himself of Mordechai without annihilating an entire nation.¹⁶

"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 that this statement had nothing to do with Mordechai's refusal to bow to him.¹⁷

Religious Prohibition

Mordechai did now bow down due his belief that there was a religious prohibition to do so.  The exact nature of such a prohibition and the correctness of Mordechai's position are the subject of debate.

Sources:BavliMegillah 10bMegillah 12b-13aMegillah 19aSanhedrin 61aAbout the Bavli, Esther Rabbah6:27:88:7About Esther Rabbah, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer(Higger) 49About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, R. Saadia GaonIntroduction to EstherEsther 3:1-4About 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 considered himself a god,¹⁸ or because Haman wore an idol on his body.¹⁹
• 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.²⁰

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 die²¹ rather than transgress the prohibition (‎‏ייהרג ואל יעבור‎).²² 
• Kneeling before a person – Though there seems to be no prohibition against bowing (השתחוויה) to people,²³ it is possible that kneeling (כריעה) is not allowed even if the intent is just to honor.
• Era of destruction – One might also suggest that the era was a "period of decrees against Judaism" (שעת השמד) during which one is prohibited from doing even the slightest action upon command of another who is intent on the nation's spiritual destruction.²⁴

• 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. Reggio²⁵ claims that Mordechai made a mistake (טעה בהתחסדות), thinking he was being pious in not bowing to a person, when in reality this is permitted.  Moreover, since the halakhah is 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" – R. Saadia finds support for this position in this verse, understanding that Mordechai had given a religious reason ("הוּא יְהוּדִי") for his actions.

"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" – R. Saadia 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.²⁶

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

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.  According to those who maintain that He made himself a god, it is possible that the entire command was a means of gaining authority.

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.²⁷

"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 and not just on Mordechai because they all refused to bow.²⁸

A Portrait of Mordechai – Most of these sources laud Mordechai as a devout Jew, prepared to suffer martyrdom for the observance of Hashem's commandments.  R. Reggio, in contrast, paints a Mordechai with little knowledge (basically an עם הארץ), unaware of the intricacies of Torah laws, whose "extra" piety put the entire nation in danger.

Biblical parallels – R. Saadia compares Mordechai to Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah who similarly risked their lives in their refusal to bow to idolatry.

Political Opposition

Aegean Threat

Haman and Mordechai were the leaders of two opposing Persian political parties, with Haman in favor of allying with the Greeks and Mordechai drumming up opposition.  Mordechai thus refused to submit to Haman's authority, as he viewed him as a threat to the stability of the Persian empire.²⁹

Sources:SeptuagintEsther section E, vss. 7-14About the Septuagint,³⁰ Dr. Yisrael Eldad³¹

Historical background – This position identifies Achashverosh with Xerxes and reads the Megillah on the backdrop of his wars with the Greeks. Towards the beginning of his reign he suffered a defeat at their hands and made peace with them, and then ten years later he again waged war against them.  The Septuagint identifies Haman as a Macedonian,³² and suggests that he was trying to bring Persia under Greek control.³³ Y. Eldad proposes that Mordechai and his fellow Jews were in the opposing political camp.³⁴ If so, the Megillah's subplot is one of opposing political ideologies regarding the Greek threat.³⁵

"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, Mordechai, in his refusal, was not knowingly endangering his nation so he had no reason to abstain from making his ideological statement.

"כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" – As discussed above, there are many places where these terms are used in relation to showing subservience to another human, and not simply in the context of religious worship.³⁶

Mordechai's religious identity – According to the Septuagint, Mordechai was a religiously observant Jew.³⁷  Eldad suggests that this 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.³⁸

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.³⁹

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.

Jewish Pride

Mordechai's decision emanated from feelings of national pride and was unrelated to any religious prohibition or personal competition.

Sources:Second Targum of Megillat Esther3:3About Second Targum of Megillat Esther, Esther Rabbah7:8About Esther Rabbah,⁴⁰ Midrash Panim AcherotVersion B Parashah 3About Midrash Panim Acherot, Yosef LekachEsther 3:2About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi

Source of pride

• Yaakov and Esav – According to most of these sources, the opposition between Mordechai (a descendant of Binyamin) and Haman (an Agagite, a descendant of Esav)⁴¹ 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,⁴² and Mordechai followed his precedent.⁴³ 
• Israel and Amalek – One might instead suggest that this is a stance against descendants of Amalek specifically. Mordechai refused to honor the descendants of a sworn enemy of Israel.  It is possible that he felt particularly strongly about this since his ancestor Shaul⁴⁴ had failed to obliterate Amalek and he might have seen it as his duty to correct this mistake. Thus, no show of mercy, and definitely no show of submission, could be allowed.
• Servants of Hashem not people – 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.⁴⁵

"הָמָן בֶּן הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי" – It is not at all clear that Haman was actually from the line of Amalek, or even from Esav at all.  Though Agag was a king of Amalek, Haman's genealogy might refer to any other Agag.  Alternatively, as above, it could be a variant of אגיי and refer to the fact that Haman was from the Aegean or Greek sea.

מׇרְדֳּכַי בֶּן יָאִיר בֶּן שִׁמְעִי בֶּן קִישׁ אִישׁ יְמִינִי – The verse clearly points to Mordechai's being from the tribe of Binyamin, but the connection to Shaul is much weaker. Rashi⁴⁶ and others assume that the Kish mentioned in the genealogy refers to the father of Shaul, but Ibn Ezra points out that if the verse wanted to highlight the connection to the king it is strange that it should skip generations to mention Kish by name but not Shaul.

"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 a 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.⁴⁷  Giving in to the other and succumbing to their demands all too often leads to more and harsher demands.⁴⁸ Mordechai recognized the slippery slope and attempted to prevent it.

Haman's edict – Haman, like Mordechai, might have viewed the rivalry as one between nations.  As representative of Esav=Amalek, he viewed Israel as a whole, and not just Mordechai as the enemy.

"אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁלְטוּ הַיְּהוּדִים הֵמָּה בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם" – R. Medan points to the nation's ability to fight against their enemies as proof of the success of Mordechai's policy.  The nation which had earlier been forced into submission by their enemies, now could stand to defend itself.

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 distinguishes between the terms "כֹּרְעִים" and "וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" suggesting that all the servants were "כֹּרְעִים" to the idol on Haman's chest and "מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים" to Haman himself. Mordechai neither kneeled before the idol because of the prohibition against worshiping idolatry nor bowed to Haman the person because of their personal rivalry.

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

³ A fuller account of this story appears in the MS Paris 110 version of this Targum.  Related versions appear also in some manuscripts (see British Library 5508, Vatican 134, and Goettingen 3) of Bavli Megillah 15a-b and Yalkut Shimoni 1056.

⁴ 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.

⁵ See Megillah 12b-13aAbout the BavliTanchumaVayechi 6:6About the Tanchuma who suggest as much.  See also Rava in the BavliMegillah 12b-13aAbout the Bavli who also seems to rebuke Mordechai for his decision.  It is not clear from either source, though, what they think Mordechai's motives were.

⁶ See the Northern French Commentary(Parma 456) Esther 3:4About Northern French Commentary which says this explicitly.

⁷ 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.

⁸ As examples, he points to Avraham bowing to the Hittites and Moshe to Yitro.  See also R. Saadia below for a more extensive list.

⁹ He even suggests that the root "כרע" is just a variation of "כנע".

¹⁰ See below that R. Saadia points out that 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 refers to submitting to the human Haman are just as a large a pool of evidence in the opposite direction.

¹¹ Hoil Moshe does not address the issue.

¹² Mordechai name appears to be related to the name of a Babylonian god, Marduk.

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ 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 having done anything particularly problematic.

¹⁵ If so, after seeing Haman's evil decree, Mordechai had more reason, not less, to continue a show of dishonor.

¹⁶ 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.

¹⁷ 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.

¹⁸ See Bavli, R. Saadia Gaon, Rashi, and Lekach Tov.  R. Saadia points out that if Haman perceived himself as a god and expected others to bow to him not only as a show of respect but as an act of worship, this is just as problematic as bowing down to an idol.

¹⁹ See First Targum of Megillat Esther, Esther Rabbah, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer and Ibn Ezra who suggest this.

²⁰ 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.

²¹ See R. Saadia Gaon who emphasizes that when the law of the land conflicts with the laws of Torah, one is not permitted to transgress the Torah to abide by the law of the land. In this statement, he appears to be reacting to the events of his own time period, directly addressing the laypeople of his own day: "למען לא יהיו סבורים אנשי ההמון שבאומה, כי בעת שנמסרו ביד המלכים רשאים הם להישמע לכל מה שיצוו אותם בנטישת הדת".

²² See R. Saadia who says this explicitly.  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 Radvaz instead suggests that Mordechai never dreamed that Haman would avenge his action by trying to destroy the whole nation.

²³ R. Saadia 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 (Bereshit 42:6), Natan to David (Kings I 1:23) and many other similar cases.

²⁴ 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 "decrees against Judaism" since there is no evidence of religious coercion in the Megillah; even the physical threat was only after Mordechai's actions.

²⁵ R. Yosef Kara does not address the issue explicitly but in his comments at the end of the Megillah, he says that some of the Jews in Shushan questioned Mordechai's actions and faulted him for their near annihilation. This is why the verse states that Mordechai was liked by only "most" of his brethren.

²⁶ 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 the accuracy of the contention.  One might have suggested that the three cases in Esther in which the terms relate to Haman offer just as conclusive evidence in the opposite direction.
On the other hand, in support of R. Saadia, 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.

²⁷ 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.

²⁸ 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.

²⁹ See similarly Y. Hazony, The Dawn, (Jerusalem, 1995): 48-59, and R. Medan (in a lecture summarized by a student) 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.

³⁰ The Septuagint provides the background for this approach but does not directly address the issue of the reasoning behind Mordechai's refusal.

³¹ See his article, "פשר מדיני למגילת אסתר" in Machanayim 67.

³² It is possible that אגגי mean "אגיי" or Aegean, of the Greek Sea.

³³ 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.

³⁴ 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.

³⁵ 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.

³⁶ See above discussion regarding both the individual usage of the root "כרע" and the combination of כריעה and השתחוויה.

³⁷ 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.

³⁸ 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.

³⁹ As evidence that Haman's motives were racist rather than religious in nature he points out that Persia 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.

⁴⁰ Esther Rabbah holds that there was also a religious prohibition of Idolatry.

⁴¹ See Bavli Megillah12b-13aAbout the Bavli who points to the fact that Haman was a descendant of Agag the Amalekite, himself a descendant of Esav.

⁴² When the two brothers met and Yaakov repeatedly bowed to Esav, Binyamin had not yet been born.

⁴³ 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.

⁴⁴ See Rashi on Esther 2:10 who suggests that the Kish of Mordechai's genealogy is the father of Shaul.  See also Megillah 13b which traces Esther back to the royal line as well.

⁴⁵ This reasoning is thus fundamentally different than the approach of R. Yosef Kara or R. Reggio above who asserted that Mordechai believed that bowing would violate Torah law.

⁴⁶ See his comments on Esther 2:10.

⁴⁷ See R. Medan in the article in Megadim cited above, pp. 167-170.

⁴⁸ R. Medan points to Zeresh's words to her husband, "אִם מִזֶּרַע הַיְּהוּדִים מׇרְדֳּכַי אֲשֶׁר הַחִלּוֹתָ לִנְפֹּל לְפָנָיו לֹא תוּכַל לוֹ כִּי נָפוֹל תִּפּוֹל לְפָנָיו" as further proof that once one begins to fall before another, one is likely to continue to fall even harder.  He asserts, as well, that this verse is evidence that the conflict was national in character, for Zeresh points to Mordechai's Jewish roots as the problematic issue.