Difference between revisions of "Mordechai's Refusal to Bow/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
| − | <p>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 a medallion with an idol.  Both positions assume that Mordechai's action was not only justified but required by law.</p> | + | <p>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. </p> |
| + | <p>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 a medallion with an idol.  Both positions assume that Mordechai's action was not only justified but required by law. .  R. Reggio, instead suggests that Mordechai mistakenly assumed that one may not bow to a human and due to his erroneous piety endangered the entire nation.</p> | ||
<p>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.</p></div> | <p>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.</p></div> | ||
Version as of 02:22, 27 February 2015
Mordechai's Refusal to Bow
Exegetical Approaches
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 a medallion with an idol. Both positions assume that Mordechai's action was not only justified but required by law. . R. Reggio, instead suggests that Mordechai mistakenly assumed that one may not bow to a human and due to his erroneous piety endangered the entire nation.
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.
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:Bavli, Esther Rabbah, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, R. Saadia Gaon, Rashi, Lekach Tov, R. Yosef Kara, Ibn Ezra, R. Y"S 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
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.
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.
