I left my last post hanging with a question, which I hoped to address in my next essay. However, I have been busy studying for the past few weeks and I haven't found the time to go through enough sources to give an answer that I find to be satisfactory. Instead of posting a half-baked conjecture that may not be worth the pixels it is published with, I am leaving that post on the back burner until after my exam. For now, in honour (no, that isn't a typo) of the month of Adar, I am posting something I wrote last year for Purim.
A quick perusal of the Book of Esther yields
a plethora of textual incongruities that delights the layman and scholar alike.
It seems as if an endless amount of approaches to the Purim story can be found
in both the Talmud and all of the classic commentators. I started my annual
trek through the Purim story with the intent of comparing the approaches of
both the Malbim[1] and
Nesivos[2]
to each other, but after the first two chapters it proved to be too arduous a
task, and so I chose to focus on the Malbim alone. Perhaps next year I will get
to the Nesivos. The following are some thoughts that I would like to share. For
those that benefit from my writing in English, you can thank my brother, Eli,
for pressuring me to write in English more often.
There
are two words that continue to appear throughout the Megilla, להשמיד
and לאבד, both of which are seemingly synonymous - to eradicate or
destroy. Sometimes they appear together, appended with another word, להרוג - to kill - while at other times they
appear as isolated words. The word להשמיד first appears in the
reaction of המן upon realizing that מרדכי refuses to bow to him
due to his religious convictions:
ויבז בעיניו לשלח יד במרדכי לבדו כי הגידו לו את עם מרדכי ויבקש המן להשמיד את כל היהודים אשר בכל מלכות אחשורוש עם מרדכי (אסתר ג, ו)
However,
just a few פסוקים later, when petitioning the king for
permission to take care of the “Jewish problem”, המן
uses a different word:
ויאמר המן למלך אחשורוש ישנו עם אחד מפזר ומפרד בין העמים בכל מדינות מלכותיך, ודתיהם שנות מכל עם ואת דתי המלך אינם עשים ולמלך אין שוה להניחם. אם על המלך טוב יכתב לאבדם, ועשרת אלפים ככר כסף אשקול על ידי עשי המלאכה להביא אל גנזי המלך (אסתר ג, ח-ט)
In a
brilliant textual analysis, the Malbim raises a few insightful question on
these פסוקים. First, how it possible that a king of 127
countries would agree to wipe out an entire nation, especially as it seems from
the simple reading of the פסוקים that Haman never told Achashverosh which
nation he was referring to. Furthermore, when the Purim story finally reaches
its climax, as Esther tells Achashverosh that her nation has been prepared for
a mass execution, Achashverosh exclaims, “מי הוא זה ואי זה הוא
אשר מלאו לבו לעשות כן”. How is it possible that Achashverosh doesn’t
immediately realize that she is referring to Haman, especially in light of the
fact that only three days had passed since Haman’s decree?
The
Malbim asserts that, in fact, Achashverosh did not have the slightest clue of
Haman’s real intentions. He explains that Haman fooled the king in two ways.
First, he never told Achashverosh that his scheme had anything to do with the
Jews. The Jewish people had a reputation of being an עם חכם ונבון,
and Haman knew that Achashverosh would never agree to annihilate them outright.
Therefore, Haman simply tells Achashverosh, “ישנו עם אחד”.
Furthermore, he says that they are an עם מפזר ומפרד בין העמים.
They do not have their own countries and cities, rather, they are spread out in
all of our neighborhoods, thereby “negatively” influencing all of the citizens,
as they follow their own laws and customs, thus rejecting the דתי המלך.
Hence, למלך אין שוה להניחם, as they are detrimental to Persian
society.
In
addition, Haman deceived the king with his choice of language. The Malbim
explains the different connotations of להשמיד, which means to
annihilate, as opposed to לאבד, which means to assimilate. Though in פסוק ו'
Haman reveals his intention to annihilate the Jews, when he proposes his idea
to Achashverosh he uses the verb לאבד, to assimilate. Knowing that the king would never agree to simply
kill off an entire nation of his vast kingdom, Haman instead proposes to
assimilate the nation for the betterment of the kingdom.
This
explanation holds true as well, later, when Mordechai discovers both aspects of
Haman’s intentions and relays the message to Esther through a messenger:
ויגד לו מרדכי את כל אשר קרהו, ואת פרשת הכסף אשר אמר המן לשקול על גנזי המלך ביהודים לאבדם. ואת פתשגן כתב הדת אשר נתן בשושן להשמידם נתן לו להראות את אסתר ולהגיד לה, ולצוות עליה לבוא אל המלך להתחנן לו ולבקש מלפניו על עמה (אסתר ד' ז-ח)
When
describing the conversation between Achashverosh and Haman, Mordechai says that
Haman’s plan is לאבד, to assimilate the Jews. However, when he sends a copy of the
actual decree, it says להשמיד, to kill the Jews.
Achashverosh
agrees to the proposition, and allows Haman to do “כטוב בעיניך”
to carry out what he believes to be a plan to inculcate Persian values and
culture into this עם מפוזר ומפרד. However, when the letters are sent out,
we are told the following:
ונשלוח ספרים ביד הרצים אל כל מדינות המלך להשמיד להרג ולאבד את כל היהודים מנער ועד זקן טף ונשים ביום אחד בשלושה עשר לחדש שנים עשר הוא חדש אדר, ושללם לבוז (אסתר ג, יג)
It is
noteworthy that Haman chooses to use both terms in the text of his actual
decree. Though Haman personally wants to kill the Jews, it is understandable
that he chose to avoid using להשמיד in his conversation with the king.
However, after receiving permission to do “כטוב בעיניך”,
why does Haman include the term לאבד in his decree? Bearing in mind the explanation of the Malbim,
how is it even possible to both assimilate and kill the Jews at the same time?
Perhaps
this can be better understood by use of analogy to George Orwell’s classic,
“1984”. I don’t know if Orwell ever read the Book of Esther, and even if he
did, I highly doubt he learned the Malbim’s commentary, but the character of
O’Brien seems to have a striking resemblance to Haman. While torturing and
brainwashing Winston, O’Brien gives Winston the following talk, which I quote
verbatim:
“Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To cure you! To make you sane! Will you understand, Winston, that no one whom we bring to this place ever leaves our hands uncured? We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them. Do you understand what I mean by that?”“The first thing for you to understand is that in this place there are no martyrdoms. You have read of the religious persecutions of the past. In the middle ages there was the Inquisition. It was a failure. It set out to eradicate heresy, and ended by perpetuating it. For every heretic it burned at the stake, thousands of others rose up. Why was that? Because the Inquisition killed its enemies in the open, and killed them while they were still unrepentant; in fact, it killed them because they were unrepentant. Men were dying because they would not abandon their true beliefs. Naturally all the glory belonged to the victim and all the shame to the Inquisitor who burned him.”“Later, in the twentieth century, there were the totalitarians, as they were called. There were the German Nazis and the Russian Communists. The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had done. And they imagined that they had learned from the mistakes of the past; they knew, at any rate, that one must not make martyrs. Before they exposed their victims to public trial, they deliberately set themselves to destroy their dignity. They wore them down by torture and solitude until they were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put in their mouths, covering themselves with abuse, accusing and sheltering behind one another, whimpering for mercy. And yet after only a few years the same thing happened over again. The dead men had become martyrs and their degradation was forgotten. Once again, why was it? In the first place, because the confessions that they had made were obviously extorted and untrue.”“We do not make mistakes of that kind. All the confessions that are uttered here are true. We make them true. And, above all, we do not allow the dead to rise up against us. You must stop imagining that posterity will vindicate you, Winston. Posterity will never hear of you. You will be lifted clean out from the stream of history. We shall turn you into a gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you: not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.”
Perhaps
we can suggest that Haman was, in fact, the original O’Brien. When he told
Achashverosh that he wished to assimilate the Jews, he was not blatantly lying
to the king’s face. It was one hundred percent true! However, Haman did not
reveal his complete intentions to Achashverosh. In fact, Haman’s plan was to
kill the Jews, but first he wished to assimilate them completely. Haman’s
“final solution” was twofold – first eradicate the Jewish religion and culture,
and only then completely annihilate anybody with “Jewish blood”, so as to
ensure that no Jews will be killed על קידוש השם. Haman was a model
Amalekite, following in the footsteps of his infamous lineage. He understood
that the key to Jewish survival was due, in part, to their continuous
persecution and martyrdom, and he refused to succumb to the same mistakes that
the Inquisitors, Communists and Nazis were destined to make many years later.
Fortunately for the Jews, and to Haman’s misfortune, Haman overlooked God’s
part in Jewish survival, not realizing the fantastic display of השגחה
פרטית that follows the Jews throughout their exiles.
This
explanation makes the plight of Esther that much more meaningful, when she
finally reveals her true identity to Achashverosh:
כי נמכרנו אני ועמי להשמיד להרוג ולאבד, ואלו לעבדים ולשפחות נמכרנו החרשתי כי אין הצר שוה בנזק המלך (אסתר ז, ד)
In
light of the above, Esther is essentially pleading, had we just been physically
oppressed and sold as slaves, I would not have said anything. But now that my
nation has been marked for slaughter, and not only that, but we will not even
be afforded the possibility to sanctify God’s name as martyrs, as we will be
first assimilated and then killed, I must plead my case.
However,
brilliant as the Malbim’s textual nuance may be, it is yet to be determined if
it holds to be consistent throughout the entire Book of Esther. After the
downfall and execution of Haman, when it would seem as if the Jews are now out
of harm’s way, Esther continues to request assistance from Achashverosh.
Although Haman has been killed, his decree has already been sent out, and
Esther is still afraid of the possible consequences of such a decree:
ותאמר אם על המלך טוב ואם מצאתי חן לפניו וכשר הדבר לפני המלך וטובה אני בעיניו, יכתב להשיב את הספרים מחשבת המן בן המדתא האגגי אשר כתב לאבד את היהודים אשר בכל מדינות המלך. כי איככה אוכל וראיתי ברעה אשר ימצא את עמי, ואיככה אוכל וראיתי באבדן מולדתי. (אסתר ח, ה-ו)
Yet it seems strange that Esther
only mentions part of the decree, אשר
כתב לאבד,
that which Haman decreed assimilation upon the Jews, and not אשר כתב להשמיד, to kill the Jews. The Malbim on those פסוקים
does not point out this inconsistency.
Perhaps we can suggest that
after the downfall of Haman there was no immediate threat to the physical
wellbeing of the Jews. The mass killing of Persian Jewry could not take place
after the public execution of Haman, who presumably would have been the general
in charge of the war on the Jews. However, there was still an existential
threat of assimilation. Though Haman was out of the picture, there is no reason
to believe that forces of assimilation had ceased to exist, just as they
continue to exist in every generation. For this, Esther requested the help of
Achashverosh to ensure the survival of the Jewish religion and culture, so they
would not be forced to assimilate and disappear into the surrounding Persian
culture.
(To the best of my knowledge, I
think I have covered every instance of either להשמיד or לאבד in the Book of Esther, except for the last
three. It should be pointed out that the phrase להשמיד
ולהרג ולאבד
appears in פרק ח פסוק יא in reference to the counter-decree giving the Jews the right to
defend themselves against their enemies. Also, the verb לאבד
appears in פרק ט פסוק ו as well as פסוק יב without להשמיד, in reference to the killing of Haman’s
sons and the 500 people killed in Shushan. The Malbim does not address any of
these, and as of yet I do not have a satisfactory explanation for these three
instances. Also, I have not addressed what the exact connotation of להרוג is, and why it is placed in between להשמיד
and לאבד in some instances.)
