Purim Thoughts
@@@@@@
Beware The Dog
The Medrash tells of a king who discovered that someone was pilfering from his garden. He put up a fence around it and stationed a vicious guard dog within. Sure enough, when the thief struck again, he was nicely bitten up, and caught besides. To his horror and shock, the king found that that the mystery thief had been none other than his own son…
Thereafter, whenever the king wished to warn his son about theft, he would mention offhand ‘You will recall, my son, that vicious dog?’
[He didn’t mean the dog… he meant ‘Remember why the dog bit!’…]
When told to remember Amalek, we are really being told something else; remember sin and its results. This is what we need to be remembering – among other things – when we hear the Meggillah too. Beware the dog!
@@@@@@
Conflicting Emotions
When hearing of the decree against the Jews, Mordechai cried out greatly and bitterly in the town square. Sounds like he was a bit concerned.
Yet he told Esther ‘If you refuse to intercede with Achashverosh for us, [we won’t suffer;] salvation will come from elsewhere. Only you and your father’s house will lose out!’ Sounds like he wasn’t concerned at all.
How do we reconcile the two?
Mordechai was very concerned about the situation, but also knew a sure-fire remedy to their problem. Tshuva. Mordechai was saying to Esther that we have salvation awaiting us when we will do t’shuvah. Guaranteed. Only you will lose out by not helping us.
Or: Mordechai had faith in Hashem that things will work out. It is altogether proper to hold such faith in Hashem. At the same time, Hashem was threatening them, waving the sword of destruction over their heads. Ignoring the threat is improper. The proper way is to be duly impressed, to respond. To let it hurt.
How can a person hold two conflicting viewpoints at the same time – does he feel safe or threatened? Surprisingly, he can feel both.
We exist on many levels. We are the intellectual viewing life philosophically. We are also the small child petrified at a threat. We can relate to the same event in two different ways.
Think of a roller-coaster. We are thrilled and petrified at the very same time. Our intellect knows that it’s perfectly safe, yet we shriek!
We relate to the same event in two different ways, and what’s more, we even control our focus.
Is this the whole of it? I don’t think so. It sounds like self-delusion. So what is the correct approach to dealing with this ambiguity?
@@@@@@
Being Close By Being Apart
The Mitzvos on Purim – Matanos L’evyonim and Mishloach Manos, point to Achdus, bringing Jews close to each other. Why then is the Meggillah read on different days for different communities?
We suggested that true Achdus does not mean everyone is doing the same thing. That is for automats. Our Achdus celebrates pluralism, providing different venues, to accommodate all.
Different paths do not divide us. On the contrary, our acceptance of the validity of other legitimate expressions of the same ideals actually leads to Achdus.
@@@@@@
Hidden Miracles
Which is greater: a hidden miracle or a revealed one?
We suggested a parallel. Two school teachers. One controls the class by yelling at the kids, threatening punishment. The other is sweet and demure, yet when she walks in the class everyone quickly find their seats, and no-one interrupts the lesson.
Which is more in control? The second! The first teacher’s yelling and screaming only accentuates her inherent lack of control.
So is it with Hashem. He does not need to show off His power. Subtle is the Lord. His greatness is in the very fact that even when He is not manifest He controls every action taken in the world. This, only this, shows that He is truly King, truly in charge.
Open miracles are fine, but real power lies in the hidden miracles. Any army can control the enemy while occupying its territory, but what army can control an enemy with no presence on the ground? Hashem can!
@@@@@@
Committment
Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai’s students asked him why the Jews of Purim deserved death. He responded ‘What do you think?’ They suggested that the Jews had sinfully enjoyed Achashverosh’s feast. Asked Rabbi Shimon ‘If so only the Shushan Jews should be punished, – only they enjoyed the feast, – not all the Jews in the world?” Said the students ‘So then what is the true answer?’ Answered Rabbi Shimon; Because the Jews had bowed to Nevuchadnetzar’s idol back in the days of Daniel. That was the sin, not eating from the party. So far the Gemarah.
However, in the Slichos on The Fast Of Esther we say that the Jews deserved death because they ate from the party. And Rashi explains ‘And Mordechai knew all that was done’ that Mordechai knew why Hashem agreed to Haman’s plan; it was both because the Jews bowed to Nevuchadnetzar’s idol, and because they enjoyed Achashverosh’s feast. Sounds like the feast had much to do with it, in direct contradiction to the Gemarah.
The answer must be that although indeed the (original) sin was bowing to the idol, the Jews of Purim-time were the bowers’ great grandchildren. They would not be called to account for a sin they themselves did not commit, unless root of that sin was still around. Hashem took the Jews of Shushan as a sample, an example that showed about all of us. They demonstrated that the problem was still there. Two seemingly completely disparate sins, the idolatry of bowing to the idol and the eating from Achashverosh’s feast, are really one and the same.
The link is that in both of them the Jews were willing to compromise on their religion, to trade on their faith, in order to make their king happy. They weren’t ready to stick to their guns. Putting being accepted or doing the socially proper thing, being contemporary, before their Yahadus showed that their Yahadus was shallow. Their commitment wasn’t real, and that was the reason they deserved death. The Teshuva for this was a renewed commitment to the Torah, the previous one was now weak and useless.
May we keep this renewed commitment – even when it has a cost!
@@@@@@
Money?
Rashi explains that although in his letter Mordechai specified that the Jews could plunder their enemies homes, in fact they did not touch the money, so that it be evident that they were not killing their enemies for money. Later on in the narration, when the Meggilah recounts that they killed their enemies but did not touch the money, Rashi explains that this was to avoid Achashverosh becoming jealous at their money, so instead they left it, perhaps to him.
These are two fine reasons for not touching their enemies’ money, but which one motivated them? It appears contradictory.
Perhaps there were two phases; at first the Jews were on the defensive, granted the right to protect themselves from enemy attacks. In that context looting was inappropriate; be happy to escape with your life! Rashi points out that it was only since Haman’s letters included plunder, Mordechai followed suit and included plunder in his, but the Jews did not touch the money, for it was inappropriate.
Later on, as public sympathies shifted over to the Jews, they attacked their enemies on the offensive. At that point they could have plundered them too, as was the custom. Now Rashi gives a second reason why they did not plunder; not to arouse Achashverosh’s envy.
©2014
kollel parshah | Tiferet Ramot 83-21, Jerusalem, Israel, 97290
Web Version
Forward
Unsubscribe
Powered by Mad Mimi ®