Who Was Queen Esther? Perspectives on Purim.
Monthly Learning Forum by Rabbi Yaakov Kermaier: March 18, 2008 The Book of Esther — Long and Short Versions
How many times is G-d mentioned in Megillat Esther? The obvious answer is zero, and that’s true for our Masoretic text. But there is also a Septuagint version of the Megillah, and there the name of G-d appears 50 times. Whereas the Chumash was translated into Greek in roughly 285-286 BCE, tradition says that Esther was translated in approximately 170 BCE, or over 200 years after the story it depicts had taken place.
An English translation of the Septuagint version of Esther is available online, and our Hebrew text appears in the attached PDF file, along with an English translation and marginal notations that will become relevant to this summary. Not only is the Septuagint version 30-40% longer than our text, but it includes religious elements that are absent from the Masoretic version we read in synagogue. We assume the Jewish people prayed when they fasted, and we assume Esther did the same before she approached Achashveirosh. We assume that when Mordechai chastises Esther that she must approach the king, or else salvation will come from elsewhere (Esther 4:14), he is referring to divine salvation. But none of this is explicit in the text. In this respect, the Book of Esther is distinctly unbiblical.
By contrast, the Septuagint version portrays Mordechai and Esther as pious. It offers the texts of their prayers. For instance, Esther refers to her abhorrence of the bed of the uncircumcised (4:17u) and her refraining from the non-kosher food and drink that surrounded her (4:17x).
At first blush, the Septuagint version is “more Jewish,” and indeed the Midrash incorporates many of its stories. Josephus cites the Septuagint version extensively, and its stories have thus worked their way back into Jewish tradition. Yet, for some reason, the spare Masoretic version that we read in synagogue is deemed superior — indeed, inspired by ruach hakodesh.
We must understand that inclusion of a book in the canon of Tanach does not make it a biography or a history. The Torah does not tell us every event in the lives of the patriarchs and matriarchs. Its purpose, instead, is to present the important events from which we can learn, and part of the process of understanding these events is seeing how they are described and juxtaposed.
The same is true of the Book of Esther. Our shorter version is not deficient. To the contrary, we must understand why the extra information in the Septuagint version was edited out.
Who Is in Charge in the Megillah?
On the attached PDF file, the marginal notation L refers to the numerous times in the text where the word “dat” (law) appears in various forms. Achashveirosh deemed himself a legislator, a law-giver. The word “melech” (king) appears 250 times in the 167 verses of the Megillah, and Achashveirosh always thinks of himself as being in charge. But it is apparent to the careful reader that he is not in charge at all.
The first order he gives in the Book (1:11) — to bring Vashti before him — was disobeyed (1:12). The first law he gives, with respect to drinking at his party (1:8), is without any restriction or coercion. Ultimately, Achashveirosh’s laws were comical, because he had no control at all.
Thus, the scheming Haman knew that the way to make Achashveirosh hate the Jewish people and approve their destruction was to emphasize that they had their own laws (3:8). This got under the skin of Achashveirosh, who fancied himself as under control.
Haman, too, fancied himself as under control. He is shrewd, sure of himself, manipulative, a social climber, demanding strict allegiance. He is Achashveirosh’s No. 2 man and, unlike his boss, he knows what he wants and how to get it. But, at the same time, he is oblivious of his own destruction, of how every step he takes undermines him and brings him one step closer to the gallows. For example, when Achashveirosh cannot sleep and rereads the story of Mordechai’s saving his life (6:2), and he asks Haman what should be done for a man whom the king wishes to honor, Haman cannot imagine that the question pertains to someone other than himself (6:6). He builds a gallows intended for Mordechai (5:14), upon which Haman himself is ultimately hanged (7:9-10). He brags to his wife about the royal party to which he is invited (5:12), the party at which his perfidy would be revealed. Indeed, to the extent that the commentators identify Haman with Memuchan, who urged the removal of Vashti (1:16), Haman undermined his project right at the outset by opening the door of the palace to Esther.
What ultimately prompted Haman’s execution? When he pled with Esther for mercy, he prostrated himself on her bed, prompting Achashveirosh’s fury (7:8). So, ironically, Haman was executed for the one crime he did not commit.
Professor Adele Berlin of the University of Maryland, among others, has noted that the Book of Esther is written in the classical style of a farce: the audience is aware of facts not revealed to the players themselves, with comical effect. That the Tanach takes on various literary genres and styles is intended to urge us to peel away the layers and achieve greater understanding. Professor Berlin argued that the Megillah’s use of farce is intended to establish the tone for the holiday of Purim as well as legislating some of its specific rules (like mishloach manot and matanot l’evyonim). (In addition to Professor Berlin’s writings, Rabbi Kermaier referred in this shiur to an article by Moshe David Stern in Tradition in 1997, an article by Rav Avraham Leibtag of Yeshivat Har Etzion, and the collection Esther Hee Hadassah produced by the Herzog Teachers College of the same yeshiva.)
The Megillah’s use of farce, in showing how Haman set himself up for a fall, causes us to once again ask the question the Megillah wants us to ask: Who is really in charge? The marginal notations “J” in the attached PDF file show cases where the language of the Megillah mimics the language of the story of Joseph (Yosef). Compare Esther 2:3 with Bereishit 41:34, Esther 3:4 with Bereishit 39:10, Esther 4:16 with Bereishit 43:14, and Esther 8:6 with Bereishit 44:34.
Aside from the linguistic parallels to the story of Yosef, there are common themes:
- Jews from pious backgrounds find themselves in the courts of gentile kings in order that they might save the people of Israel.
- Yosef and Mordechai both receive public honor from royalty: royal garb, royal rings, proclamations, royal horses/chariots.
- Yosef achieved proximity to royalty through the criminal activity of the butler and the baker. Mordechai achieved proximity to royalty through his disclosure of the plot of Bigtan and Teresh (Esther 6:2).
The linguistic parallels between the stories can be readily understood. Yosef found himself in a situation where for a long time the hand of G-d was not apparent, but he understood that G-d was guiding him all along. Thus, he told his brothers not to worry about his taking revenge, because what they had done was all part of G-d’s plan (Bereishit 50:20).
Thus, if you want to understand who is really in charge in the Megillah, read the story of Yosef, and you’ll learn how to see G-d’s hand behind the scenes.
Analogy to the Temple
The final series of marginal notations in the attached PDF file are the letter T, for instances in which the story of the Megillah refers indirectly to the Beit Hamikdash (Temple), as pointed out by Rav Leibtag.
The court of Achashveirosh (2:19) is analogous to the Azara, the courtyard of the Temple, where all Israelites were permitted to go. Achashveirosh’s outer court (6:4) is analogous to the Kodesh, the Holy, where only the Kohanim (priests) were permitted to go. Finally, the king’s inner court (5:1) is analogous to the Kodesh Kodashim, where only the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) was allowed to enter, and only on Yom Kippur.
In addition, the materials described in the Megillah (1:6) are the same as were used in the priestly robes. The Sages say that Achashveirosh went to his party wearing the stolen garb of the Kohen Gadol. The reference to various vessels (1:7), moreover, which we read in the mournful tune of Eicha (Lamentations), is associated with the plundered vessels of the Beit Hamikdash.
By hinting at the Beit Hamikdash, the Book of Esther is telling us that G-d was as present in Achashveirosh’s palace as in the Temple itself. The Megillah, by suppressing G-d’s name even when you expect it, as when Mordechai chastises Esther (4:14), forces us to ask where G-d is. In this sense, the Megillah’s silence speaks louder than someone screaming at the top of his lungs.
Who Was Esther?
There is a popular conception that Esther was Mordechai’s niece. The Megillah is explicit, however, that they were first cousins (2:7). The Septuagint version says the same. “Niece” appears only in Josephus, possibly because of a mistake. Professor Louis Feldman offers another possible theory, that Josephus put Esther into the next generation so as to make the story more credible in the context of Achashveirosh’s search for a beautiful maiden. According to many of the Sages, Mordechai and Esther were married to each other (which would have posed no legal difficulties whether they were cousins or uncle and niece).
At the end of the story (10:3), Mordechai is the toast of the town. We hear nothing of Esther, however. As everyone else celebrates, she is stuck in Achashveirosh’s palace, having sacrificed aspects of her religious observance for the salvation of her people. The Megillah’s hiding of religiosity forces us to imagine and face the challenge of Esther’s own life.
Conclusion
In the end, the canon does not include the Septuagint version of the story, because we do not want the story spelled out explicitly. The Jews of Persia had to find their faith in an atmosphere that was not conducive to doing so. The Book of Esther wants to prod us to look for G-d ourselves, whether we find ourselves in Shushan or in New York City.
|
