Purim Questions

[rosends]

I'm back from reading #2, and have just had a breakfast of babka and tea so I'm ready to post some questions that arose in my mind during the readings. I haven't researched these so they might have simple answers but I don't know them. Please feel free to educate me.

1. The understanding is that Mordechai was part of the Sanhedrin (which explains how he knew the language spoken by Bigtan and Teresh). Why would the Sanhedrin have been in Shushan? Was it the center of Jewish life outside of Israel during the exile between the 2 temples?

2. If Haman explained to Zeresh that Mordechai is a Jew (5:13) and he was advised to make the gallows, why does Zeresh (in 6:13) say "If he is Jewish"? The simplest answer is that she understood that Hashem helps the Jews when they deserve it so initially, the assumption was "he is Jewish and you have the upper hand? The God is unhappy with the Jews -- take advantage" and then later was "if he has the upper hand on you then, because he is Jewish, you are doomed" but I have no source for that.

3. What happened to Zeresh? Charbona tells on Haman because of the gallows, but the idea comes from Zeresh. Is she punished?

4. Why does the 1985 JPS have for "וְיִתְל֤וּ" impale and not hang?

 

[Harel13]

Happy Purim!

The understanding is that Mordechai was part of the Sanhedrin (which explains how he knew the language spoken by Bigtan and Teresh). Why would the Sanhedrin have been in Shushan? Was it the center of Jewish life outside of Israel during the exile between the 2 temples?

I've always understood that he was a member of the Sanhedrin before the exile. However, another possibility is that he was a member of the reinstated Sanhedrin after Shivat Tzion during Koresh's time.
For whatever reason he eventually returned to galut.

 

[rosends]

Happy Purim!

I've always understood that he was a member of the Sanhedrin before the exile. However, another possibility is that he was a member of the reinstated Sanhedrin after Shivat Tzion during Koresh's time.
For whatever reason he eventually returned to galut.

Was there a Sanhedrin that would have convened in or around Shushan or was it dismantled and he just happened to have been a member?

 

[rosends]

Next question --

Why don't the Jews in walled cities celebrate the 14th as a holiday? Yes, in the time of Esther, the Jews in Shushan were still fighting but that doesn't mean that what happened in the 127 provinces is any less of a miracle for the entirety of the Jewish people. The holiday commemorates the entirety of the event. According to the megillah, Esther asks for the Jews of Shushan to fast, but the fast today isn't limited to just those in walled cities -- it is for all of us to mark the whole happening. And while I can understand that the additional fighting constitutes an ADDITIONAL miracle (like a localized Purim) just for those people in walled cities, I don't see how they should not be part of the larger miracle in which Jews defeated thousands of enemies.

 

[rosends]

and while I'm asking, what counts as "manot" that you have to give someone?

Let's say I run a wellness center and one thing we provide is an IV for people who want vitamin or saline infusions. Does putting in an IV fulfill anyone's (the person administering it, the person who runs the center etc) obligation to give "manot"?

 

[dybmh]

Why does the 1985 JPS have for "וְיִתְל֤וּ" impale and not hang?

Looks like it's based on the what was done in that time at that place:

Was Haman Hanged, Impaled or Crucified? - TheTorah.com

The manner in which Haman’s execution was depicted had real world consequences. | Dr. Abraham J. Berkovitz

www.thetorah.com

There's pictures of archeological finds depicting impaling.

 

[rosends]

Looks like it's based on the what was done in that time at that place:

Was Haman Hanged, Impaled or Crucified? - TheTorah.com

The manner in which Haman’s execution was depicted had real world consequences. | Dr. Abraham J. Berkovitz

www.thetorah.com

There's pictures of archeological finds depicting impaling.

that's a fascinating article but it has a couple of (IMHO) errors:

The biblical references (and the Assyrian reliefs) which would have "t-l-h" as impale (maybe) are post-death punishments on the body, not methods of execution. The nearest the author gets is "Perhaps they died there as well. " As an extension, the author claims that imposing the "hanging" reading is a later "anachronistic retrojection" but his only proof is his own sense that it doesn't fit, not any specific linguistic or historical evidence to the positive, supporting his contention. An argument by rejection or supposition doesn't seem especially strong.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I have a question about the Book of Esther, which I know I called a "story" in another post but which is nevertheless regarded as being an actual historical account within Orthodox Judaism. I don't doubt that perhaps the event is based on an actual historical event with possibly some of the account exaggerated, such as the size and nature of the victory.

But my question has to do with whether any and all mention of God was deliberately left out of the entire telling of the Book of Esther because we are supposed to be continually aware of God's presence even when God isn't mentioned?

I mean, a lot of the trouble happened between Mordechai and Haman because Mordechai refused to bow down to Haman for the reason that Jews don't bow down to anyone but God. And, of course, this offended Haman. So we have the reminder of God's presence even there, as illustrated by Mordechai's refusal to bow to Haman. The miracle of the victory, of course, is also a reminder of God's presence -- but the Book doesn't seem to credit God for that miracle. Is that correct?

In fact, Esther plays such a major role, and her bloodthirstiness is kind of empowering (something that most women will recognize), that I sometimes wonder whether the Book was written by a woman.

 

[rosends]

There are hints to the presence of God (words that, as initialisms, spell God's name and the understanding that some of the mentions of "the king" are not about Achashveirosh, but about God).

Much has been written about this

אתר ישיבה | Yeshiva.co

עכשיו באתר ישיבה

www.yeshiva.co

Hidden Messages - Jewish Holidays

And Esther said: If it pleases the king, let the king and Haman come today to the banquet that I have prepared for him. (Megilat Esther 5:4) And the king arose in his fury from the wine feast to the orchard garden, and Haman stood to beg for his life of Queen Esther, for he […]

www.ou.org

https://www.chabad.org/holidays/purim/article_cdo/aid/849741/jewish/Why-Isnt-Gds-Name-Mentioned-in-the-Megillah.htm

I don't, however, see any evidence of Esther's being bloodthirsty. In terms of authorship, Mordechai and Esther composed it and it was edited by the Men of the Great Assembly.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I don't, however, see any evidence of Esther's being bloodthirsty. In terms of authorship, Mordechai and Esther composed it and it was edited by the Men of the Great Assembly.

Thanks for those links, @rosends

I was thinking of how the king asked Esther what was to be done with Haman and his sons. The Megillah that I've heard every year on Purim states that Esther asked for them only to be hanged. But the English translation in the 1985 edition of the JPS (which you mentioned previously) has Esther asking that they be impaled. I know that there is some debate as to the translation of the actual Hebrew word used, and that in ancient Persia it was common to impale an enemy on a stake (often after the enemy had been already killed) to further demean the corpse of that enemy. Either way, I think that Esther's request was a bit bloodthirsty, although justifiably so. I think that it also admirably shows that Esther was more than a mere ornament for a king to show off -- that Esther was made of tougher stuff than Vashti.

 

[rosends]

Thanks for those links, @rosends

I was thinking of how the king asked Esther what was to be done with Haman and his sons. The Megillah that I've heard every year on Purim states that Esther asked for them only to be hanged. But the English translation in the 1985 edition of the JPS (which you mentioned previously) has Esther asking that they be impaled. I know that there is some debate as to the translation of the actual Hebrew word used, and that in ancient Persia it was common to impale an enemy on a stake (often after the enemy had been already killed) to further demean the corpse of that enemy. Either way, I think that Esther's request was a bit bloodthirsty, although justifiably so. I think that it also admirably shows that Esther was more than a mere ornament for a king to show off -- that Esther was made of tougher stuff than Vashti.

If you look at Rashi on 9:13, she is requesting that the sons who were hanged (as reported a couple of verses earlier) should have their bodies displayed posthumously. She isn't asking for a killing.

 

[Harel13]

Was there a Sanhedrin that would have convened in or around Shushan or was it dismantled and he just happened to have been a member?

P'shat tradition seems to hold that he used to be a member. However, as I said, one may also consider him to have been a member of the reinstated Sanhedrin after Koresh's time (who was before Achashverosh) who decided to return to galut for unknown reasons (much like, perhaps, Zerubavel eventually returned and created the Resh Galuta lineage).
For most classic commentators, it is thought that the verse "אשר הגלה עם הגלה אשר הגלתה עם יכניה מלך יהודה" refers to Mordechai himself, but nowadays I've seen suggestions that this refers to one of Mordechai's ancestors, perhaps Kish or Shim'i. Again, most of classic commentary understands Kish to being Shaul's father, but some modern commentators suggest that he was simply Mordechai's great-grandfather, not great X15 (or something). However, there are also traditions of Mordechai's full lineage, and those do understand that though Kish was Shaul's father, Shim'i was Mordechai's father's father and he was a direct descendant of Shaul (and not of Shim'i ben Gerah) (see sources here).
Rabbi Yaakov Medan thinks that Mordechai was a 2nd or 3rd-gen exiled Jew who was deep in the process of being assimilated into the general non-Jewish community, until the Purim story reminded him and other Jews of their heritage (and that's a certain explanation of various midrashim, including that they reaccepted the Torah).

Back to the Sanhedrin, the short answer is that we don't have clear evidence of an active Sanhedrin in the Babylonian exile, but it might be possible to infer such a thing, or a similar body of justice from a couple of sources:

1. Yechezkel refers multiple times to "זקני יהודה", "זקני ישראל", "זקני יהודה וישראל" listening to his prophecies and teachings. These elders might have been part of a special group.
2. L'havdil, the Church Father Jerome wrote in his commentary on Yirmiyahu that the Jews of his time believed that the evil judges from the apocryphal book of Susanna (ספר שושנה) were to be identified with the false prophets Achav ben Kolyah and Tzidkiyahu ben Maasiyah (29:21; link to Jerome' commentary). If they were indeed judges (which doesn't contradict them being false prophets), perhaps this reflects a tradition that there was some kind of Jewish judicial body in Babylon, and that might have moved to Shushan when it became the new capital.
3. In Megillah 7a it says: "Esther sent to the Sages: Write me for future generations and canonize my book as part of the Bible. They sent to her that it is written: “Have I not written for you three times”". These sages might have been part of a collective Beit Din.
4. Finally, Targum Esther does state explicitly that there was a Sanhedrin in Shushan: "בְּיוֹמַיָא הָאִנוּן וּמָרְדְכַי יָתִיב בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין דְתַקִינַת לֵיהּ אֶסְתֵּר בִּתְרַע מַלְכָּא" (Esther 2:21), "אָמַר לֵיהּ הָמָן סַגִיאִין מָרְדְכַי יְהוּדָאֵי אִית בְּשׁוּשַׁן אָתִיב לֵיהּ מַלְכָּא לְהַהוּא דְסַדְרַת אֶסְתֵּר לֵיהּ סַנְהֶדְרִין בִּתְרַע פַּלְטְרִין דְמַלְכָּא" (Esther 6:10)

 

[Harel13]

3. What happened to Zeresh? Charbona tells on Haman because of the gallows, but the idea comes from Zeresh. Is she punished?

Of course. Don't you boo when you hear her name? And we also sing "ארורה זרש אשת מפחידי"...
More serious, no idea. Perhaps...אין שליח לדבר עבירה?

 

[rosends]

Of course. Don't you boo when you hear her name? And we also sing "ארורה זרש אשת מפחידי"...
More serious, no idea. Perhaps...אין שליח לדבר עבירה?

if so, then Haman was not guilty -- she effected the attempt on Mordechai's life and he just did what she said.

 

[Harel13]

if so, then Haman was not guilty -- she effected the attempt on Mordechai's life and he just did what she said.

Oh, wait, I got the statements mixed up. The gist I was going for was דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין. But in any case, Haman was still guilty for creating the plan to have all of the Jews killed. Zeresh and his other advisors only come into the story for the Mordechai part.
It's also possible that Ruach Hakodesh isn't evidence in court? After all, how else would we about Zeresh's part in the story? (unless she fessed up while the Megillah was being written)

 

[Harel13]

if so, then Haman was not guilty -- she effected the attempt on Mordechai's life and he just did what she said.

No, wait. אין שליח לדבר עבירה is the correct statement (though דברי הרב etc is also relevant). אין שליח means that the Shaliach, Haman, is indeed guilty and not simply passing on the plan of the evil mastermind (Zeresh).

 

[rosends]

Oh, wait, I got the statements mixed up. The gist I was going for was דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין. But in any case, Haman was still guilty for creating the plan to have all of the Jews killed. Zeresh and his other advisors only come into the story for the Mordechai part.
It's also possible that Ruach Hakodesh isn't evidence in court? After all, how else would we about Zeresh's part in the story? (unless she fessed up while the Megillah was being written)

All they do is call chachamav and ohavav who were there also (and nothing happened to them). Can a non-Jew provide eidus in beis din? Come to think of it, I'm not even talking about a beis din situation -- Haman and his sons weren't put to death via a religious system, but through the secular courts. How did Achashveirosh not do anything against her?

 

[rosends]

No, wait. אין שליח לדבר עבירה is the correct statement (though דברי הרב etc is also relevant). אין שליח means that the Shaliach, Haman, is indeed guilty and not simply passing on the plan of the evil mastermind (Zeresh).

right -- ein shliach is explained through divrei harav. So they are both guilty.

 

[Harel13]

right -- ein shliach is explained through divrei harav. So they are both guilty.

I don't think they're both guilty. See here:

אין שליח לדבר עבירה – ויקיפדיה

he.m.wikipedia.org

So only Haman is guilty.

 

[Harel13]

4. Why does the 1985 JPS have for "וְיִתְל֤וּ" impale and not hang?

See note 76 here for some info:

Aramaic Studies 17 (2019) 198-255 Aramaic Studies Three Aramaic Piyyutim for Purim: Text, Context, and Interpretation

This article presents a critical edition of three Aramaic piyyutim for Purim. The piyyu-tim are unique in that they were not written in Hebrew, the overwhelmingly dominant language of classical piyyutim, but in a biblicizing register of Aramaic. This

www.academia.edu