Assimilation vs. Annihilation

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.)

---

[1]  Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel Weiser (1809-1879)

[2]  Rabbi Yaakov ben Yaakov Lorberbaum of Lisa (1760-1832), known as the “Nesivos” after his monumental work on the Choshen Mishpat, titled “Nesivos Hamishpat”.