The End of
the Megillah: Self-Defence or Massacre?
Mention of genocide in the context of the
Megillah immediately brings to mind Haman's plot to annihilate the Jewish
people. Mordechai alone refuses to bow down to Haman in accordance with the
king's order, yet Haman seeks to exterminate the entire nation on a single day:
'young and old, children and women' (Es. 3:13).
This grim scenario in which Jews are collectively targeted
due to the actions of individuals (whether real or imagined, and whether
justified or not) is all too familiar from Jewish history. Fortunately, in the
story of the Megillah, the plot failed. However, then as today, certain academics
took issue and condemned the ‘disproportionate’ response of the Jews once they
gained the edge over their enemies.
Consider the following verdict by the renowned American biblical scholar, archaeologist and
historian, Lewis Bayles Paton (1864 − 1932):
"There is not one noble character in
this book. Xerxes is a sensual despot. Esther… conceals her origin, is
relentless toward a fallen enemy, secures not merely that the Jews escape from
danger, but that they fall upon their enemies, slay their wives and children,
and plunder their property. Not satisfied with this slaughter, she asks
that Haman's ten sons may be hanged, and that the Jews may be allowed another
day for killing their enemies in Susa." [1]
Notwithstanding the antisemitic nature of some of
the critiques, the basis for the charge is that the Jews do indeed obtain license
for indiscriminate slaughter:
לְהַשְׁמִיד וְלַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד
אֶת־כָּל־חֵיל עַם וּמְדִינָה הַצָּרִים אֹתָם טַף וְנָשִׁים וּשְׁלָלָם לָבוֹז
(אסתר ח':יא)
A number of medieval commentators were already troubled by the content of
Mordechai's letters and sought to justify it on various grounds.[2]
Ibn Ezra (8:8) offers a creative (and it must be
said improbable) answer that the letters Mordechai dispatched constituted the original
decree of Achashverosh, which Haman had surreptitiously amended. According to
Ibn Ezra the editing of the original letters comprised the treasonous act of
Haman for which he was hanged.[3]
Some modern scholars even proposed amendments of
the text to remove the reference to women and children.[4] Others suggested that the
decree only pertained to those seeking to attack the Jews.[5] Both of these proposals are
difficult for obvious reasons.
Comparing the letters to the narrative
The starting point must be to compare the reported events to the content of the letters, and not read one into the other.
As happens so often in biblical texts, there are significant differences
between plan and execution. The differences may be broken down into three key elements:
1. The text notes that the actions of the Jews
specifically targeted those that ‘sought to harm them’ which is strongly suggestive of a defensive action.[6]
נִקְהֲלוּ הַיְּהוּדִים בְּעָרֵיהֶם
בְּכָל־מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֳחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בִּמְבַקְשֵׁי רָעָתָם
וְאִישׁ לֹא־עָמַד לִפְנֵיהֶם כִּי־נָפַל פַּחְדָּם עַל־כָּל־הָעַמִּים׃ (אסתר
ט':ב)
To this we should add that
Esther originally requested that Haman’s decree be revoked altogether. It was
the king’s insistence that the initial decree could not be revoked which forced
them to fight. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the
holiday was established on the day they rested from the fighting and not on the
day of the victory itself.
2. Whilst the letters apparently enabled the
killing of women and children of the enemy, this element is entirely
absent from the reported events. On the contrary, the verses refer only to the men
(ish) which were killed.[7] On a plain reading,
therefore, it was only the men which were killed and not the women and children.
3. Most glaringly, there is a direct
contradiction regarding the fate of the spoils. Whereas the letters speak of
the plundering of the enemy possessions (u-shlalam la-voz), the ensuing narrative
emphasises no fewer than three times that ‘they didn’t lay hands on the spoils’
(9:10 ,9:15, 9:16). If the plundering
did not take place as planned, then it seems highly plausible that the lack of
reference to the women and children within the death counts, is intended to
convey that this element of the letter was also not fulfilled.[8]
If correct, this leaves us with a different challenge to explain the difference between the letters and the related events.
One might answer simply that the main purpose of
the letters was to maximise the fear factor for anyone contemplating attacking the Jews. Beyond formally allowing the Jews to defend themselves,
the purpose of the letters was to create the impression that the state backed
the Jews, even whilst there would be no active intervention or ‘boots on the
ground’. To further intimidate the enemy, it was deemed necessary to project
confidence of victory (hence the spoils) and threaten the enemy with annihilation. In practice, though, civilian casualties and collateral damage were to be
minimised.[9]
Beyond this relatively technical explanation, I
think the answer runs deeper and touches on a key theme in the Megillah.
Law and order in Shushan
The episode in which Mordechai refuses to bow
down to Haman (which triggered the decree of annihilation) has surprising, though clear
connections with the earlier episode in which Vashti defies the king’s orders
to present herself at the king's feast.
In both instances, the king’s command is defied
by an individual inflicting a personal insult on the king or his advisor
thereby damaging their ego. Whilst the offender is an individual, the
resulting decree is disproportionally broadened to target an entire population.
In the case of Vashti, all women are now subject to the bizarre decree that a 'man should rule in his house'. In the case of Mordechai’s refusal to bow,
all the Jews are slated to be slaughtered due to Mordechai’s violation. A
parallel expression (va-yivez / le-havzot) is used in both cases to justify the
widening of the decree.[10]
What both these episodes highlight is a total
lack of self-control and restraint, but concealed within a facade of law and order. Megalomania
and debauchery are masked by high culture and etiquette. Right at the outset we
read how the unlimited drinking at the banquet is performed in 'accordance with
the law' (kha-dat). This word – dat - continues to accompany us
throughout the Megillah giving the impression everything in Shushan is governed
by a legal framework. The disobedience of Vashti becomes a matter of national
importance demanding an emergency meeting (ke-dat ma-la'asot) to establish
a law to contain the supposed anarchy. The way girls should anoint themselves
with myrrh oil and perfume for 12 months must all subscribe to established
custom (ke-dat ha-nashim). The issue which seals the fate of the Jews is
that they do not follow the laws of the king (ve-et datei ha-melech einam
osim). Anyone wishing to approach or entreat the king must adhere to a
strict etiquette or risk death (asher lo kha-dat). Even the way a
population is to be annihilated has to follow protocol (le-hinaten dat).
Most important of all, an edict which has been issued by the king can never be
revoked.
All these so-called laws are just a thin veil
for the corruption and depravity of those in power. The Megillah waxes lyrical about
the glories of the king, yet between the lines, it is those who oppose his
immoral laws that are truly praiseworthy.[11] We mentioned above the
connection between Mordechai and Vashti's violation of the king’s orders. Both
these episodes independently allude to the story of Yosef in Potiphar’s house.
With respect to Mordechai's refusal, there is an
obvious textual parallel to the Yosef episode:
וַיְהִי (באמרם) [כְּאׇמְרָם] אֵלָיו
יוֹם וָיוֹם וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם (ג':ד)
וַיְהִי כְּדַבְּרָהּ אֶל־יוֹסֵף
יוֹם יוֹם וְלֹא־שָׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ (בראשית ל"ט:י)
With respect to Vashti, like Yosef, her appearance is described as beautiful.
Like Yosef, she is called upon to perform an immoral act and like Yosef she refuses
(va-tema'en / va-yema'en).[12]
The linguistic parallels underscore a deeper
thematic parallel. Just as Yosef risked his life to maintain loyalty to his
true master, the Megillah holds a similar evaluation of Mordechai and
Vashti’s defiance of the king in favour of a higher order of values.[13]
The covert reading of the Megillah heaps scorn on
a debased and amoral society masquerading as orderly and civilised. Law is necessary to set proportionate boundaries for the benefit of society, but in Shushan
there are no boundaries at all. Instead, laws are arbitrarily invented to serve
the needs and egos of those in power.
Subverting the law
This returns us to the discrepancy between the
letters and the narrated events. The letters seem to be yet another example of
the theme of reversal which proliferates throughout the Megillah. Haman and
Mordechai use identical expressions in their respective letters highlighting the reversal of fortunes:
לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד אֶת־כָּל־הַיְּהוּדִים מִנַּעַר וְעַד־זָקֵן טַף וְנָשִׁים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד בִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂר הוּא־חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר וּשְׁלָלָם לָבוֹז׃ (ג':יג)
לְהַשְׁמִיד וְלַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד
אֶת־כָּל־חֵיל עַם וּמְדִינָה הַצָּרִים אֹתָם טַף וְנָשִׁים וּשְׁלָלָם לָבוֹז
(ח':יא)
But perhaps the deeper reversal lies in the next stage. As suggested earlier, the tone of Mordechai’s letters were presumably intended to intimidate. The strategy seems to have been effective as the Megillah repeatedly notes that the fear of the Jews fell upon their enemies. However, despite having the upper hand and 'legal' authority to do as they please to their enemies, they act with restraint by only targeting those 'who sought to harm them'. The spoils are not taken, and the women and children are not targeted.[14] This is an inversion of Haman’s disproportionate actions which sought target an entire nation in response to the ‘sin’ of one person.
I believe this reversal is hinted at through
the comparable expressions used in relation to Haman’s unrestrained anger, and the restraint exercised by the Jews when they fought back:
וַיִּבֶז בְּעֵינָיו לִשְׁלֹח יָד בְּמָרְדֳּכַי לְבַדּוֹ (ג':ו)
וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת־יָדָם
(ט':טו)
Although the words are based on slightly different roots, there is a clear linguistic similarity and probably an etymological connection.[15] The choice of the expression va-yivez to denote reluctance to pursue a course of action is unique and presumably intended to create the connection with the latter phrase. Haman manufactures a genocidal law out of his all-consuming hatred of one person, whilst the Jews minimise the civilian casualties in their retaliatory onslaught in ‘defiance’ of a mirror image law in their favour. As mentioned above, lack of restraint and proportionality are key characteristics of Achashverosh’s kingdom. The restraint shown by the Jews in the penultimate chapter amounts to an ironic subversion of the law, thereby demonstrating that they are indeed deserving of Haman’s accolade: 'they do not follow the laws of the king'.
[1] L. B. Paton, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Book of Esther, (1908) p.96. For more references to Christian
condemnations (also connnected to issues around canonisation) see here.
[2] Whilst the number of deaths seem high
(800 in Shushan over two days and 75,000 across the other provinces), we
obviously have no way of determining how proportionate this was relative to the
threat faced and size of the enemy.
[3] Ralbag (8:3) identifies those killed as Amalekites as if to
rationalise it, but we will not open that pandora's box.
[4] J. Hoschander, The Book of
Esther in the Light of History, (1923) p.240-245 (link available here). The suggestion is based on the Greek version, but it is unconvincing as
the Greek versions of the Megillah were highly edited and contained many elements
(such as overt religious references) not present at all in the Masoretic text.
[5] Referenced in Hoschander, ibid.
[6] The letters stated that the Jews were allowed to fight
for their lives (le-amod al nafsham) against their oppressors, ha-tzarim
otam. The JPS translation on this verse is noteworthy:
"If any people or province attacks them [emphasis added], they may
destroy, massacre, and exterminate its armed force together with women and
children, and plunder their possessions".
[7] The word ish in Tanakh consistently refers to males specifically,
and not to people as a collective.
[8] It is worth pointing out that some critical scholars have proposed, with
no evidence it should be said, that the phrase u-va-biza lo shalchu yadam
is a later supplement, possibly to transform the story from aggression to self-defence (see here).
[9] The tone of the letters also suggests the intention was to embolden the
Jews to fight.
[10] This is in addition to other identical phrases such as be-omram,
and le-chol medinot ha-melech.
[11] A common suggestion is that the Megillah was censored and therefore there
are no explicit references to God or direct criticism of the king. It would be
more accurate to say that the style of the Megillah mimics a Persian chronicle with
subversive messaging and concealed cynicism. The reason for this requires
broader discussion but is related to the significance of the exilic theme. See
[12] These should be considered amongst the dozens of other parallels to
the Yosef narratives.
[13] Grossman, ibid, p.85-92.
[14] It is interesting to contrast the actions of the Jews in the Megillah
to Shaul's battle against Amalek. There the women and children were killed, but
the spoils (i.e. the animals) were taken and the Agag the king was spared.
[15] The root of ביזה is ב-ז-ז whereas ויבז derives from the root ב-ז-ה. They are probably etymologically connected in the sense that appropriation of personal possessions (ביזה) is a mark of disgrace (ביזיון) for the victim (see Ez. 9:6).
