Was Mordechai a Batlan?
Guest post by Rav Rafael Dembovsky
As Israel’s various air defences battle Iranian ballistic missiles above the cities of the Holy Land, the primary message of Purim - learning to see the hidden ‘hand’ of G-d guiding the natural world - has hardly ever been more pertinent. We pray that G-d will bless the brave efforts of His children and provide us with complete salvation from all our modern-day Hamans. Nevertheless, in the spirit of Shtark Tank, we will attempt to highlight another aspect of the Megillah.
The very last pasuk of the Megillah (10:3) reads as follows:
כי מרדכי היהודי משנה למלך אחשוורוש וגדול ליהודים ורצוי לרוב אחיו…
For Mordechai the Jew was second-in-command to King Achashverosh; he was great for the Jewish People and beloved by the majority of his brethren…
The Gemoro in Megillah 16b derives from this pasuk that whilst Mordechai was indeed beloved by the majority of the nation, to רוב אחיו, he had lost the favour of a minority. This minority, explains the Gemoro, was a few members of the Sanhedrin (מקצת סנהדרין) who looked askance on Mordechai’s political career and deemed him to be guilty of bittul Torah.
In this context, the Gemoro proclaims גדולה תלמוד תורה יותר מהצלת נפשות. Although there is no dispute that one engaged in Talmud Torah must cease learning if an opportunity of הצלת נפשות that no-one else can perform presents itself, the Taz explains that the merit of one who is ‘lucky’ enough to be able to learn undisturbed outweighs the merit of one who is forced to interrupt his learning even for such a praiseworthy cause as saving lives[1]. Accordingly, whilst these members of the Sanhedrin were cognizant of the fact that Mordechai was engaged in הצלת נפשות, they nevertheless judged him to have undergone a spiritual decline as a result of his lack of learning.
However, Mordechai himself clearly disagreed. And, as many comment on that Gemoro, the majority of the members of the Sanhedrin apparently sided with Mordechai, as only מקצת סנהדרין were critical of his behaviour. What then was their response?
One possible means of explaining this debate is by invoking the machlokes between Rabi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabi Yishmael in Brachos 35b. Rashbi called for single-minded devotion to Talmud Torah (תורה מה תהא עליה), whilst Rabi Yishmael advised the pursuit of Talmud Torah together with Derech Eretz (הנהג בהן מנהג דרך ארץ); the Gemoro concludes with Abaye’s observation that the ruling of Rabi Yishmael best suits the masses, with many meforshim noting that Abaye implicitly appears to endorse the opinion of Rashbi for an elite minority.
Thus, it seems logical to suggest that such was the machlokes between the members of the Sanhedrin at the end of the Purim story. Mordechai, representing the majority opinion amongst the Sanhedrin, ruled in accordance with Rabi Yishmael’s (future) opinion that Talmud Torah should ideally be combined with Derech Eretz; therefore, he opted to retain his position of political influence despite the negative effect it would have on his personal learning. However, a minority of the Sanhedrin maintained, much like Rashbi many centuries after them, that Talmud Torah should optimally be pursued to the exclusion of all else; therefore, they reacted to Mordechai’s career choice with displeasure.
However, in light of another passage in the Megillah, an alternative justification of this debate emerges.
In his slander of the Jewish People to the King, Haman proclaimed the following (Esther 3, 8):
ישנו עם אחד מפוזר ומפרד בין העמים בכל מדינות מלכותך ודתיהם שונות מכל עם ואת דתי המלך אינם עושים ולמלך אין שוה להניחם.
There is a nation scattered and isolated among the nations, in all the provinces of your realm. Their laws differ from those of every other people, they do not observe the King’s laws. It is not befitting the King to tolerate them.
Rav Hirsch (Collected Writings, Adar III) writes that Haman was not incorrect in his description of the Jewish People; in fact, his portrayal of a people who remain a distinct, separate entity despite their dispersion remains strikingly precise to this day. Nevertheless, his hatred and his envy distorted his judgement of the facts, leading him to the conclusion that למלך אין שוה להניחם. Esther, on the other hand, maintained that אין הצר שוה בנזק המלך - Haman was not cognizant of the damage to the King that the destruction of the Jewish People would bring about, and that on the contrary, her people were an integral component of the Persian society.
Rav Hirsch explains that the ability of Klal Yisrael to coalesce as a distinct, separate entity (מפרד) despite being dispersed amongst the many nations of the world (מפוזר) stems from the unique character of their laws (ודתיהם שונות מכל עם) in contrast to all other bodies of law. Secular law is formed by the people; the Jewish People is formed by their law. Secular law serves the people; the Jewish People serve the law. Secular law and many other forms of non-Jewish Religious law are separate institutions, each confining the other to a specific realm; Jewish law, on the other hand, is not confined to the Shul or the study hall. Rather:
“... in the life of the Jew, religious and social life are closely interwoven. There is only a single element of life and all areas of the Jew’s existence and activities are embodied in the one Divine thought of God’s law. It is particularly in these aspects of “secular” life that religion finds its ultimate fulfilment; the Jew considers them religious in nature, considers them religion itself, and they are therefore an integral part of the Law.”
Says Rav Hirsch, it is precisely this all-encompassing nature of the laws of Judaism that maintains the Jewish People throughout the centuries of exile. “If the Jewish law… were to be practiced only in a synagogue… Judaism would have disappeared long ago. The Jews in the diaspora were preserved as an isolated entity not because the practice of their “religion” demands a synagogue but because their law demands purity in marriage and at the table. Judaism as a “synagogue-religion” would not have sustained the nation and would not have preserved its heritage… But תורת ה’ תמימה, the Torah encompasses all of life and elevates it into one continuous Divine service… The Law transforms daily life into a magnificent hymn to G-d. It transforms the Jew into a priest, his home into a temple, his table into an altar, his life into an offering.”
Thus, according to Rav Hirsch, the Mitzvos of the Torah are not to be viewed as divorced from mundane, everyday living. Rather, every single Mitzvah informs and educates towards the sacred task of living one’s every moment in the service of G-d.
Needless to say, this position of Rav Hirsch is not unanimous; many throughout the ages have not shared his understanding of the fundamental role of the performance of Mitzvos in the life of the Jew, nor have they agreed with his assertion that the ultimate expression of religion is in the application of religious principles to ‘secular’ situations. Rather, they have viewed Mitzvos as spiritual islands and Noah’s Arks, providing safe haven from the tempestuous storm of life ‘outside’ that seeks to overwhelm the ‘עבד ה. Therefore, they have sought to limit their encounters with all that is not unadulterated spirituality to an absolute minimum, in order to maximise their engagement with ‘pure spirituality’.
Perhaps this was the dispute between the members of the Sanhedrin. Those that were unhappy with Mordechai’s decisions would have favoured the latter approach, perceiving Mordechai’s forays into the political echelons of Persia as an unfortunate, spiritually risky endeavour. Mordechai and his comrades, on the other hand, would have championed the position of Rav Hirsch, viewing the opportunity to fulfil the dictums of the Torah in the palace of Persia as the ultimate expression and manifestation of Judaism.
As Mordechai is indeed the undoubted hero of the Purim story, we can all draw strength from his perspective as we attempt to follow in his footsteps, each utilizing his own unique life circumstances as an opportunity to perform the Mitzvos of the Torah in their ideal form.
For a thorough Halachic and Hashkafic analysis of the fundamental topics discussed in this Dvar Torah, as well as analysis of many other related topics, such as Secular Studies, Hashgacha and Hishtadlus and Taking Money for Learning Torah, please look out for my upcoming book with Mosaica Press entitled Between Torah and Derech Eretz. The book has just recently gone to print and will B’ezras Hashem be in stores in the coming months.
Purim Sameach!
Rafael Dembovsky
[1] This position of the Taz seemingly aligns with the position that the importance of Talmud Torah is independent of the fact that it leads to Mitzvah performance.
However, as many Shtark Tank followers will be familiar with, perhaps the most dominant opinion amongst the Rishonim regarding the supreme value of Talmud Torah is that it is מביא לידי מעשה, in accordance with the Gemoro in :קידושין מ. In which case, the Gemoro in מגילה is rather difficult to understand - how could תלמוד תורה be גדולה than הצלת נפשות, בנין בית המקדש וכיבוד אב ואם? If anyone has an answer I would love to know!
 | A guest post by
|