Rabbi Michael RosensweigMegillat Esther: Truth and Peace in the Pursuit of Jewish Survival

Return To TorahWeb.org Homepage

"Mishenikhnas Adar marbin be-simchah." As we anticipate the upcoming celebration of Purim, it is incumbent upon us to explore some of the central themes of that joyous holiday that marks the miraculous if subtle salvation of the Jewish people. As the story nears conclusion (Esther 9:30), the megillah itself is depicted as "divrei shalom ve-emet - matters of peace and truth". What is signified by this surprising characterization and combination? Indeed, the mefarshim (ad loc) struggle to interpret these words.

The gemara (Megillah 16b) derives from this enigmatic phrase that the megillah requires sirtut (lines) like "amitah shel Torah" (most mefarshim- like a sefer Torah; Rabbeinu Tam- like a mezuzah). The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that this consideration establishes the megillah as the kind of sacred text that also justifies and even demands rabbinic explication (nitan lidaresh- see Chidushei ha-Griz on Hilchos Megillah). Why does the description of the megillah as "divrei shalom ve-emet" trigger this response and justify this conclusion?

Generally, the qualities of peace and truth present a study in contrast. Peace is typically associated with diplomacy and compromise, albeit often for the sake of a greater good or larger prize. Truth conjures images of rigid principle and can be identified with unyielding steadfastness, even inflexibility in the protection of the just and the right. Indeed, Chazal (Berreishit Rabbah) convey that the competing qualities of truth and peace disagreed about the very creation of imperfect man.

A preliminary analysis of the Purim story might reinforce the impression that the respective perspectives of Esther and Mordechai exemplified these contrasting and mutually exclusive approaches of peace and truth. Esther's manages to rise to royalty even as she disguises her real identity (2:10). The Talmud (Sanhedrin 74b) questions how she was able to compromise religious standards in her relationship with the king. She appears very reticent to take bold action that might antagonize the king even when the nation is endangered. Indeed, Mordechai practically accuses her of self-interest (al tedami be-nafshekh... 4:13) Even as she is poised to act on behalf of Klal Yisrael, she maintains a diplomatic posture, professing that she would not have expended her political capital and intervened if the stakes were only to prevent Klal Yisrael from being enslaved (7:4).

Mordechai, in sharp contrast, is described as defiant in the protection of his religious convictions, notwithstanding the evident danger. The megillah depicts his refusal to bow to Haman in future tense as well - "lo yichre ve-lo yishtachaveh"(3:2), emphasizing that his conduct stemmed from unshakeable conviction that could not change. According to some mefarshim, he refused to employ even legitimate heterim (license or allowance) that would have safeguarded him from jeopardy (see Tosafot Sanhedrin 61b re. ha-oved mei-ahavah u-mi-yirah). He emerges as a fearless crusading figure on behalf of his nation, urging actions to avert calamity, cajoling Esther with his faith in Divine providence - "u-mi yodea im la-eit ka-zot higaat la-malchut" (4:14).

However, further reflection reveals a more nuanced perspective. While Mordechai and Esther surely played different roles and even exhibited different postures and perspectives, they also worked in concert, and their respective inclinations were hardly mutually exclusive. Indeed, Esther's subterfuge was actually at Mordechai's behest (2:10). Moreover, when diplomacy and prayer ran its course, Esther repeatedly put her own survival at risk to ensure the survival of Klal Yisrael (4:15; 7:3,6). In retrospect, one may perceive the differences between Mordechai and Esther as a matter of leadership style, possibly also due to personality, maturity, and different roles, rather than as reflecting a significant difference in commitment to principle.

We find a parallel relationship of shalom and emet, each of which is utilized idealistically in the leadership of Klal Yisrael in the Torah's depiction of Moshe and Aharon. The gemara (Sanhedrin 6b-7a) characterizes Moshe Rabbeinu as one who embodies the quality of unwavering justice - yikov ha-din et ha-har. Moshe is associated with truth - Moshe emet ve-torato emet. Aharon is identified with love and peace (in Pirkei Avot he is described as ohvev shalom ve-rodef shalom) and is the father of pesharah (compromise). Chazal note that only the beloved peace-making Aharon was mourned by "kol beit Yisrael." Yet, these are not viewed as incompatible persona or even approaches. Indeed, Tehillim extols the interaction, integration and harmony of the two brothers - "hineh mah tov u-mah naim shevet achim gam yachad". Each of these midot plays a crucial role in Jewish leadership as long as the goals are idealistic and the motivations are principled and sincere. In fact, each of these qualities qualifies as a Divine characteristic and even a sheim Hashem. Chotamo shel Hakadosh Baruch Hu emet - Hashem's seal is truth. Equally, Shalom (Peace) is a Divine name (Shelomoh - mi she-hashalom shelo).

We tend to view megillat Esther as an exotic tale that is inspiring as a demonstration of Divine providence, but not so evidently relevant or applicable to our mundane experience. Moreover, we sometimes perceive the rush of events in the megillah as unruly and chaotic interactions that are nevertheless guided by or at least redeemed by Divine intervention. The imperative of sirtut in the megillah provides a corrective to this impression, as it accentuates the presence of a subtle order and structure. This stylistic norm in the megillah inspires us to think anew about the relationships, values, and personalities that are at work. It not only permits us but demands that we subject the entire megillah to multilayered scrutiny, like Torah itself. The coexistence of, and interaction between shalom and emet, seemingly disparate, highlights the megillah's deeper layers, as well as its importance as a paradigm of Jewish leadership and crisis survival. Thus, the sirtut, inspired by divrei shalom ve-emet dictates that the megillah is the kind of ketuvim that is conducive to profound rabbinic explication ("nitan lidaresh").