Understanding the
Megillah postscript
Model leadership in exile
On the surface, the Megillah is a story set firmly within the Babylonian-Persian
exile, far removed physically and spiritually from the concurrent events taking
place in Israel. Unlike the story of the Exodus, it is not a rescue from a
foreign land and there is no mass return to the land of Israel. In fact, there
is just a single background reference to the land of Israel in the entire
Megillah. Not only do the Jewish people remain in Shushan but they thrive there,
and even finish in a stronger position than where they started.
From this perspective, Mordechai and Esther represent the ideal exilic leaders,
rising to the top of the social hierarchy whilst staunchly maintaining, and
actively fighting for, their Jewish identity and religious faith. Within this
model, it is sustainable for Jews to live and even prosper in the diaspora.
To accentuate the exilic atmosphere, the Megillah takes the literary
form of a Persian chronicle. The opening frame of reference is 'the days of
Achashverosh' with a subsequent description of the grandeur of his reign and
apparently limitless wealth. The Megillah ends by closing the circle on the reign
of Achashverosh:
"All his mighty and powerful acts, and a full account of the
greatness to which the king advanced Mordechai, are recorded in the Book of
Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia."
This verse is familiar to us from other places in Tanach where such a
refrain is deployed to close off the chapters of various kings of Israel and
Judah. This is the only place, however, where it is used in reference to a
non-Jewish king. The purpose is to create a pretence that these events are
recorded purely from a Persian perspective. Readers tend to see this ending as
rather anti-climactic, but it is entirely consistent with the form of the
Megillah intended to mimic a Persian chronicle.
The Persian writing convention is retained throughout (albeit in satiric
form), with exaggerated descriptions of pomp and ceremony at each stage. God is
entirely absent, and the king of Persia is centre stage. Every turn in the
story is activated by Achashverosh and nothing can happen without his approval.
The king alone determines who will live and who will die, who will fall and who
will rise. The power of the king's ring is absolute and irreversible.
But of course, all this is laced in irony. The king makes all the
decisions yet has no opinion of his own. Not one significant decision is
rendered which is not initiated and shaped by someone else. On the surface he
controls everything, but in reality controls nothing. The king who made the
chauvinistic decree that 'every man should rule in his own house', ends up
doing everything that his wife (Esther) tells him.
The Yosef paradigm
The theme of God's providence extending into exile to ensure Jewish
survival, is at the heart of the well-known connections between the story of
Yosef and the Megillah, existing on both the thematic and textual plane. Esther
and Yosef both rise to a position power in a foreign land. They both hide their
identities and ultimately reveal them. In the Yosef story, the tragedy starts
when he is sold into slavery, whilst in Megillah the Jews are sold out to
Haman. In both stories, the turning point takes place when the king's sleep is
disturbed and then resolved when a previous forgotten deed/person is recalled (both
involving two guards/servants). Mordechai and Yosef are both led through the
city in honour and both are recipients of the king's ring.[1]
Some of these connections were already noted by Chazal:
וַיְהִי כְּאָמְרָם אֵלָיו יוֹם וָיוֹם (אסתר ג, ד), רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר רַבִּי לֵוִי, בָּנֶיהָ שֶׁל רָחֵל נִסָּן שָׁוֶה וּגְדֻלָּתָן שָׁוָה. נִסָּן שָׁוֶה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית לט, י): וַיְהִי כְּדַבְּרָהּ אֶל יוֹסֵף יוֹם יוֹם, וְכָאן כְּתִיב: וַיְהִי כְּאָמְרָם אֵלָיו יוֹם וָיוֹם וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם, וּלְהַלָּן כְּתִיב (בראשית לט, י): וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ. וּגְדֻלָּתָן שָׁוָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית מא, מב): וַיָּסַר פַּרְעֹה אֶת טַבַּעְתּוֹ מֵעַל יָדוֹ וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָהּ עַל יַד יוֹסֵף וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ בִּגְדֵי שֵׁשׁ, וְכָאן כְּתִיב: וַיָּסַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת טַבַּעְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱבִיר מֵהָמָן וַיִּתְּנָהּ לְמָרְדֳּכָי. לְהַלָּן כְּתִיב (בראשית מא, מב): וַיַּרְכֵּב אֹתוֹ בְּמִרְכֶּבֶת הַמִּשְׁנֶה אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וַיִּקְרְאוּ לְפָנָיו אַבְרֵךְ, וְכָאן כְּתִיב: וְנָתוֹן הַלְּבוּשׁ וְהַסּוּס וְקָרְאוּ לְפָנָיו כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הַמֶּלֶךְ חָפֵץ בִּיקָרוֹ. (אסתר רבה, ז)
וּמׇרְדֳּכַי יוֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ קָצַף בִּגְתָן וָתֶרֶשׁ אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הִקְצִיף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָדוֹן עַל עֲבָדָיו לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן צַדִּיק וּמַנּוּ יוֹסֵף שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְשָׁם אִתָּנוּ נַעַר עִבְרִי וְגוֹ׳ עֲבָדִים עַל אֲדוֹנֵיהֶן לַעֲשׂוֹת נֵס לַצַּדִּיק וּמַנּוּ מָרְדֳּכַי דִּכְתִיב וַיִּוָּדַע הַדָּבָר לְמׇרְדֳּכַי וְגוֹ׳. (בבלי, מגילה יג:)
Whilst
one can find local significance to some of the specific correspondences, the overarching
intent is to set Yosef as a historical precedent and perhaps inspiration, for
the roles taken up by Esther and Mordechai. At great personal risk, Esther reveals
her identity as she attempts to win over the king's favour. At the same time, Esther
and Mordechai remain fully cognisant of God's role in orchestrating the events
and moving the pieces into place. As with the Yosef episodes, it represents a
model of dual causality. The Divine providence does not force anything but
works in tandem with human initiative, setting up the circumstances to enable the
human actors to take decisive action.
The cynical face of the Megillah
Despite the above, the masking of the story within a Persian chronicle,
suggests an ambivalence on the part of the author. Great as the salvation was,
the events are subsumed within Persian history. Whilst in exile, the story of
the Jewish people cannot stand independently to that of the host nation. They
may succeed in influencing and shaping the decisions of the leaders, but they
remain subservient and dependent on the host nation. In addition to the
precarious physical existence, they are by default part of that value system
(and perhaps integrally so). This is far from the ideal state of the Jewish
nation as a 'light unto the nations'.
Though one might question the conclusion above based on the form of the
Megillah alone, there can be little doubt that the strong literary allusions to
the land of Israel and the Bet HaMikdash, especially when considered in the
overall historical context, act as a criticism to the complacency of exile. As
will be shown, this criticism remains until the very end of the Megillah.
Regarding the historical context, there is a dispute when exactly the Purim story takes place. According to the view of Seder Olam, Achashverosh succeeded Koresh who authorised the return of the exiles (perceived as prophetic fulfilment – see Ezra 1:1). According to others, Achashverosh reigned after Darius some thirty to forty years after the second Bet HaMikdash was already built. According to either view, it was after the divinely inspired proclamation of Koresh and thus the story of the Megillah relates to those who, for whatever reason, decided to remain in the diaspora. The contrast in circumstances of the two communities is striking. Whilst the Jews in the Land of Israel are struggling to survive whilst trying to rebuild the Bet HaMikdash, the Jews in Shushan are enjoying themselves at Achashverosh's feast. [2]
The allusions to the Bet HaMikdash include the following:
In the opening scene, the terms 'yekar' and 'tif'eret' and 'techelet, butz, ve'argaman' are
associated elsewhere in Tanach with the Bet HaMikdash and the Kohen Gadol (see Megillah 12a). The 'various vessels' used
at the feast, as already pointed out by Chazal, may allude (at least in
literary terms) to the vessels of the Bet HaMikdash. Even the length of the
celebration, the 180 days followed by additional 7 days may correspond to the
six months spent building the Mishkan followed by the 7 days Milu'im. The
suggestion of Chazal that the feast celebrated the termination of Yirmeyahu's
prophecy of return – though difficult to accept on the literal level – also seems
rooted in these linguistic parallels.[3]
On several occasions the city of Shushan is referred to as Shushan
HaBirah. Whilst generally translated as Shushan 'the capital', the only other
usage in Tanach of the term Birah is in reference to the Bet HaMikdash.
וְלִשְׁלֹמֹה
בְנִי תֵּן לֵבָב שָׁלֵם לִשְׁמוֹר מִצְוֺתֶיךָ עֵדְוֺתֶיךָ וְחֻקֶּיךָ
וְלַעֲשׂוֹת הַכֹּל וְלִבְנוֹת הַבִּירָה אֲשֶׁר־הֲכִינוֹתִי (דברי הימים א, כט:יט)
The palace of Achashverosh is itself modelled on the Bet HaMikdash,
notably containing a Chatzer Penimit – an inner chamber – where unauthorised
entry results in death, corresponding to the Kodesh haKodashim. The apprehension
of Esther to enter this chamber certainly recalls the fear of the Kohen Gadol
before entering the Kodesh HaKodashim on Yom Kippur. The outer courtyard, where the 'ro'ey penei haMelech' were
allowed to go may correspond to the Kodesh with its limited entry to the Kohanim.
Finally, the 'sha'ar bet haMelech' where Mordechai sat but mourning was
prohibited, parallels the Azarah.
In summary, from the perspective of the Megillah,
Shushan has replaced Yerushalayim, Achashverosh's palace has replaced the Bet
HaMikdash, and the King of Persia has replaced the King of Kings.
The bittersweet ending
Considering the above, it is important to reconcile
the implicit criticism levelled at the Jews in the exile with the Yosef
paradigm mentioned earlier. It was, after all, Yosef who actively encouraged
his family to leave in Israel and join in him in Egypt. To understand this
paradox, we revisit the end of the Megillah:
וַיָּשֶׂם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ מַס עַל־הָאָרֶץ וְאִיֵּי הַיָּם...
(אסתר י:א)
The textual significance of the tax has troubled
many commentators. Even if a tax was required to pay for Achashverosh's
excesses, this is hardly sufficient to justify the inclusion of this verse. It
is difficult to see what would be missing from the story without this added
detail.
As a first step, it is interesting to note that
economic policy was a central theme in the Yosef story as well. In a
great display of foresight, Yosef collects the grain from across the country in
the years of plenty in order to provide for the country during the lean years.
In contrast, Achashverosh spares no expense in his lavish parties (there are no
fewer than 10 in the Megillah!) and 'showing off his riches'.[5] His early generosity even
includes a tax holiday for his kingdom. When the dust settles, however, the tax
collectors come calling. The apparent beneficiaries of Achashverosh's limitless
wealth will be the ones to foot the bill when boom turns to bust. Such cynicism
serves to cast suspicion on any benevolence or goodwill displayed by the
Persian king. This is important for contextualising the final two verses:
וְכָל־מַעֲשֵׂה תָקְפּוֹ וּגְבוּרָתוֹ וּפָרָשַׁת גְּדֻלַּת מָרְדֳּכַי אֲשֶׁר
גִּדְּלוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ הֲלוֹא־הֵם כְּתוּבִים עַל־סֵפֶר דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים
לְמַלְכֵי מָדַי וּפָרָס׃ כִּי מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי
מִשְׁנֶה לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְגָדוֹל לַיְּהוּדִים וְרָצוּי לְרֹב
אֶחָיו דֹּרֵשׁ טוֹב לְעַמּוֹ וְדֹבֵר שָׁלוֹם לְכָל־זַרְעוֹ׃ (אסתר
י:ב-ג)
How are we to relate to this? The other place where a similar expression
is found is where Haman boasts about his own power:
וַיְסַפֵּר לָהֶם הָמָן אֶת־כְּבוֹד עָשְׁרוֹ וְרֹב
בָּנָיו וְאֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר גִּדְּלוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר
נִשְּׂאוֹ עַל־הַשָּׂרִים וְעַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ (אסתר ה:יא)
Arguably this is part of the general pattern of reversal in the Megillah.
It seems more likely, however, that this verse, as with so much of the
Megillah, contains no small measure of irony. How reliable is a position of power
granted by Achashverosh? The self-interest and fickleness of Achashverosh as
evidenced in the Megillah, suggests that it is just a matter of time before the
pendulum swings the other way.[6] On a more general level, this
is part of the inherent instability of the exile to which the Megillah alludes.
This brings us to our final point. It is possible, as Jonathan Grossman proposes,
that the conclusion of the Megillah contains one final textual allusion to the
story of Yosef. The one other place in Tanach where the expression to 'impose (lit.
to place) a tax/tribute' appears is none other than the continuation of the
Yosef story:
וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ־חָדָשׁ עַל־מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַע אֶת־יוֹסֵף...
וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים לְמַעַן עַנֹּתוֹ בְּסִבְלֹתָם (שמות
א:ח-יא)
If this connection is indeed intentional, then if it supports a subverted reading of the postscript which parodies a happy ending. The success of Yosef, with all the good it brought, was short-lived. As is so often the case in Jewish history, the power which Yosef and the nation acquired, became a source of resentment. The sober ending of the Megillah thus sends a message that there inevitably will come a time when a new king [or the same king with a change of heart!] will arise who does not know Mordechai.
Sources and further reading:
J. Grossman, Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading
(Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scripture, 6, 2011), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/topics/megillat-esther
M. Leibtag, https://tanach.org/special/purim/purims1.htm
M. First, Roots & Rituals: Insights into Hebrew, Holidays and
History (Kodesh Press, 2018), p.214-218, https://seforimblog.com/2013/02/identifying-achashverosh-and-esther-in/
[1] A fairly comprehensive list of these parallels can be found in the introduction to the Da'at Mikra volume on Megillat Esther.
[4] The term Birah is also used in reference to the Bet HaMikdash in the Mishna (see Midot 1:9).
[5] Like Yosef, Achashverosh also undertakes an intense gathering and storage exercise. Rather than gathering grain for the people, however, it is women which are gathered and stored for personal gratification.
וְיַפְקֵד הַמֶּלֶךְ פְּקִידִים בְּכָל־מְדִינוֹת מַלְכוּתוֹ וְיִקְבְּצוּ אֶת־כָּל־נַעֲרָה־בְתוּלָה טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה אֶל־שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה אֶל־בֵּית הַנָּשִׁים אֶל־יַד הֵגֶא סְרִיס הַמֶּלֶךְ שֹׁמֵר הַנָּשִׁים וְנָתוֹן תַּמְרוּקֵיהֶן (אסתר ב:ג)
יַעֲשֶׂה פַרְעֹה וְיַפְקֵד פְּקִדִים עַל־הָאָרֶץ וְחִמֵּשׁ אֶת־אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּשֶׁבַע שְׁנֵי הַשָּׂבָע׃ וְיִקְבְּצוּ אֶת־כָּל־אֹכֶל הַשָּׁנִים הַטֹּבֹת הַבָּאֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְיִצְבְּרוּ־בָר תַּחַת יַד־פַּרְעֹה אֹכֶל בֶּעָרִים וְשָׁמָרוּ׃ (בראשית מא:לד-לה)
[6] A cynical reading of
this verse, albeit from a slightly different angle, is also proposed by Chazal
(Megillah 16b) and Ibn Ezra.
No comments:
Post a Comment