Was Esther together with Achashverosh?

b from nj

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 10:47 am

chani8 wrote:

B from NJ, I seriously thought it was basic (charedi) hashkafa that Esther was married to Mordechai.

I don't know if it is or not but I was educated in BY school for elementary & HS & I cannot recall ever learning that even though it's possible that I may have learned it & it was just a very long time ago so I am just not remembering.

In any case, my issue with ppl. getting too bogged down with midrashim is that I really don't think we imamothers should be judging whether or not Esther was correct in going to Achashveirosh voluntarily etc etc. She went because that was what her cousin Mordechai had begged her to do to save the Jews. Who the heck are we imamothers to be debating whether she was right to do so or wrong in doing so?? WHAT!! It just makes no sense to me & the only reason ppl. seem to be doing it is b/c they are taking the midrashim too literally.

Several years ago, someone posted on fb or possibly in a blog about a midrash that she had read which explained that Sharvit Hazahav was really referring to Achashveirosh's private part & it was really referring to Esther having oral relations with the King! Really?!! Is this really so important for us to be studying & contemplating these kinds of midrashim? I remember she then saying that she will never be able to think about Queen Esther in the same innocent way & while reading the Megillah she & her friends always snicker when they come to that part in the Megillah. Really? Is there really a purpose to be sharing these kinds of midrashim other than to provide our friends & fellow imamothers with some shock value? I really think it is not (even though I guess I just did but it was to prove a point) & that is why I say once again, that I see no need to get bogged down with all the many Midrashim that one can find on the Megillah. It is a simple & straight-forward story that is easy to understand even without too many extra Midrashim & I think the Midrashim should only be used to enhance our understanding rather than just cause us to judge whether or not Esther or Mordechai did the appropriate thing etc.

etky

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 11:08 am

b from nj wrote:

Thank you. This is an extremely myopic, nitpicky discussion that somehow feels wrong in view of Esther's heroic role in this salvation. No conclusions whatsoever can be drawn based on random midrashim which in any case even collectively do not constitute a uniform or coherent viewpoint. It seems very difficult for people to divorce the midrash from what is actually written in the text. The fact that the two are so emeshed in so many people's minds is unfortunate. The midrash, if studied in the right context offers invaluable insights and moral teachings. However, many people never venture beyond what they learned in kindergarden. An overly literal understanding is a disservice both to the text and to the midrash itself.

imasinger

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 11:48 am

Why oral relations? It just says she touched the tip.

b from nj

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 11:52 am

imasinger wrote:

Why oral relations? It just says she touched the tip.

I really don't know, nor do I really care to investigate the Midrash any further (if it even exists).

Hashem_Yaazor

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 4:52 pm

The sharvit hamelech according to how I learned it : Coming in without invitation is saying that one is no longer under the rule of the king. Hashem (remember Hamelech?) was giving Esther the sharvit, so to speak, to hand over some of the rulership, since extending it is concession that the person who has come in is no longer under the king's rule but has some rule too (how? by the king not killing the one who came in, that means the person coming in has some power)....so Hashem handed over some of the rulership of the world, but only ad chatzi hamalchus.

I think that's a nicer way of looking at it than some of the posts above.

octopus

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 5:07 pm

rae gi wrote:

Just wanted to add that the reason Esther didn't leave Achashveirosh after the decree to kill the Jews was rescinded was probably because she had children by him and had she divorced the king she would never have been allowed access to her sons. *

* a la King Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon and their daughter Mary.

Achashveirosh was an absolute monarch. There was no leaving the king. There was no divorcing the king. Leaving the king would probably be considered treasonous, punishable by death. In an absolute monarchy, everyone is a slave to the king. (I.e. the queen is a slave to the king as well.)

eschaya

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 5:44 pm

regarding how to relate to midrashim...
I don't remember who it was who said (maybe Rabbi Wein? IDK) that someone who doesn't believe anything from midrashim is a kofer, but someone who believes everything stated in midrashim is a fool

amother

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 5:54 pm

eschaya wrote:

.

That means some are made up? Why is it written if we shouldn't believe it? How are we supposed to know which ones are true and which ones we shouldn't believe?

sequoia

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 6:04 pm

amother wrote:

.

That means some are made up? Why is it written if we shouldn't believe it? How are we supposed to know which ones are true and which ones we shouldn't believe?

Some of them are metaphors.

amother

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 6:06 pm

Interesting read on how to understand Midrash.

It's worth going through all three parts if you can

http://m.chabad.org/2398445

Hashem_Yaazor

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 7:24 pm

eschaya wrote:

I think the Rambam....

sequoia

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 7:52 pm

Yes, the Rambam talks very harshly about people who take them literally. Since this is the opposite of the chareidi viewpoint, this teaching of his is conveniently left out.

4everonadiet

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 8:56 pm

sequoia wrote:

Yes, the Rambam talks very harshly about people who take them literally. Since this is the opposite of the chareidi viewpoint, this teaching of his is conveniently left out.

I'm not sure it's the opposite. I was discussing the various midrashim with my twelve year old son and he was bringing all different versions when I asked him if the tail was real, or not etc. He rolled his eyes and said come on, it's midrash. Meaning don't take it so literally. And we're chassidish.

chani8

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 10:32 pm

I realize that there are different shittot on whether to take the midrashim literally or not. I was taught that the G-d who can part the sea can surely make a tail grow.

That said, I just don't understand how these midrashim came about in the first place, and why we would document the degrading ones at all.

That play on words about oral s-x, I doubt that is a midrash. Sounds like kids and slang running amuck.

Heyaaa

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 11:07 pm

chani8 wrote:

I doubt the megilla would be so flattering about achashverosh as to call his thingy golden.

It sounds totally made up.

chani8

Tue, Mar 03 2015, 11:40 pm

4everonadiet wrote:

Ask a 12 year old chassidish/charedi girl. I think you'll get a look of shock at the very question. (WADR. I say this from experience. Not mocking.)

etky

Wed, Mar 04 2015, 1:00 am

eschaya wrote:

It's a paraphrase of the Rambam.

Hashem_Yaazor

Wed, Mar 04 2015, 6:03 am

sequoia wrote:

Yes, the Rambam talks very harshly about people who take them literally. Since this is the opposite of the chareidi viewpoint, this teaching of his is conveniently left out.

What are you talking about? Why do you think "charedim" view agadata literally? I had an extremely charedi teacher for a couple years walking me through agadata and what it symbolized.

youngishbear

Wed, Mar 04 2015, 6:05 am

chani8 wrote:

Ask a 12 year old chassidish/charedi girl. I think you'll get a look of shock at the very question. (WADR. I say this from experience. Not mocking.)

4everonadiet ended her post with the statement that they're chassidish, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.

chani8

Wed, Mar 04 2015, 6:12 am

youngishbear wrote:

4everonadiet ended her post with the statement that they're chassidish, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.

She asked her son. What they teach the girls is different. That's what I meant.