Esther and Achashveirosh: wasn't this ye'hareg ubal ya'avor?

chavamom

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 10:02 am

sarahd wrote:

I also understood that Mordechai divorced Esther when she was taken to Achashverosh. At that point, being with A. was not yehareg ve'al yaavor since she wasn't married. Also, as an anusa - someone forced into relations - she was still permitted to Mordechai (had there been the possibility of remarriage.) Once she went to A. of her own volition, however, she was no longer permitted to Mordechai, and that's why she said, "Vaani kaasher avadti avadti."

The Purim story did not end happily ever after for all concerned. Esther was still imprisoned in the king's palace and was never able to leave.

This is how I learned as well - no malach or golem or anything.

Raisin

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 10:57 am

sarahd wrote:

merelyme wrote:

sarahd wrote:

Sorry.

Yehareg ve'al yaavor=you must allow yourself to be killed rather than transgress this aveira.

Va'ani kaasher avadti avadti="And as for me, if I am lost, I am lost."

Imprisoned wasn't meant literally; rather, for Esther being forced to remain in the king's palace must have been tantamount to imprisonment.

It was literal imprisonment. The king's concubines and even the queen were unable to come and go as they pleased, but were watched over by the "serisim" - eunuchs - such as Heigai and Shaashgaz.

Right, they were kept in a harem. I meant not literally as in Esther was not sitting in a prison cell.

I think it was probably worse then imprisonment. I was reading this book about asian muslim women who were in forced marriages in Britain. One of them did something desperate (I think tried to kill herself and her children) and ended up being sent to prison. After a few months the author came to vist her. The woman was happy for the first time in her life. Finally, she was allowed to do what she wanted without her husband or father telling her what to do. She could read and watch what she wanted, she wasn't being a slave to her family. Plus she wasn't being raped on a regular basis.

I guess life in those harems was kind of similar except they did not even have housework to occupy themsleves.

miami85

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 12:05 pm

I believe there is a Sichos mussar on "Aveira L'shma" that discusses the even of Sisra and Yael, which may be applicable to Esther. In that Yael was on the level that she gained no physical pleasure from the act and in that light it became a mitzvah. From what I was told Esther and Mordechai (COUSINS--not uncle/neice--it says in megillah "bas dodo"=cousin), were NOT divorced b/c that would have required a beis din, I.e. 3 men, to know about her, and mordechai did not want ANYone to know. I believe the book "Let my Nation Live", Deutsch discusses how Esther submitted herself to be taken to the palace.

LadyG

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 1:25 pm

miami85 wrote:

I learned that in seminary. It was aveirah l'shma b/c she 1) got no enjoyment out of it 2) through it there was hatzalah for klal yisrael and 3) hmm, I know I made up a hint back then with three "hays" but I can't remember it now...oh well.

LadyG

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 2:13 pm

She was forbidden to him because when she said that, she was going willinging to Achashveirosh. Still with the reasons from above, no enjoyment and to save klal yisrael, but because it wasn't against her will, she couldn't go back to mordechai.

chavamom

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 2:16 pm

GetReal wrote:

How do the two explanations work together though? If Mordechai divorced her, why did she say ka'asher avadoti adadoti - why would she be forbidden to him in case of remarriage if she hadn't committed adultery?

In the case of divorce, a woman is not allowed to remarry her original spouse if she's married someone in the meantime. Until this time they could say she was forced, but once she went willingly, she no longer had that "heter" so to speak.

Aylat

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 2:26 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Is it yaareg ubal ya'avor with someone not Jewish in any case? If it were, then it would have been an issue from the very beginning, ie, Esther would have had an obligation to die rather than be raped by him the first time, no? Or maybe that wasn't an option.

I don't think someone is obligated to give up their life to avoid being raped. Rape is not considered a voluntary action, as opposed to participating willingly in physical relations with one of the arayot, which one would be obligated to die rather than do.

In fact, I think rape is even compared to murder, and the rapist to a rodef (pursuer), whom one is allowed to kill in self-defence. Someone know if this is correct?

GetReal

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 2:34 pm

chavamom wrote:

GetReal wrote:

Thanks, that makes sense. Same thing applies to a [gentile]?

chavamom

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 2:42 pm

GetReal wrote:

chavamom wrote:

GetReal wrote:

Thanks, that makes sense. Same thing applies to a [gentile]?

Apparently. I actually know of a case where the wife went OTD, married a [gentile], did teshuva and wanted to get back with the original husband. They had to consult with a big posek (don't remember which one) and in the end, they were told since she had lived as a married woman with the non-Jewish man, nope, couldn't remarry. It was quite sad as they had a number of children who all wanted to see the parents get back together and have a "normal" frum family life again.

Mommyme1

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 3:42 pm

Ruchel wrote:

I learned Yael and Yehudit did not "go all the way", and Esther was replaced by a similar looking form (golem? or something).

According to DH - the gemara discusses Yael - and she did go all the way. It says there - 'gedolah aveirah lishmah memitzvah sheloh lishmah'.

Yehudis it doesn't discuss which he said means we can't know for sure if she went all the way or not, but she probably didn't or the gemara would mention her too when it mentions Yael & Esther.

Mommyme1

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 3:45 pm

chavamom wrote:

sarahd wrote:

This is how I learned as well - no malach or golem or anything.

I learned that until the time she went willingly it was a shin daled taking her place but when she went willingly she had to go herself and therefore - 'kaasher avadti avadti'.
I asked DH and he said this is one pshat. Another is the one you learnt. He did not know of any pshat that the shin daled went instead the time of the party, but then said "but I don't know Torah kulah"

amother

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 11:15 pm

I feel bad for Esther if she was in a harem the way it's described in this thread.
she is the heroine of the story, and as a kid, I didn't think of how difficult it was for her, I just thought she lived a royal life as a queen and it was probably so nice. she saved the jewish people, became a heroine, and continued to be a queen. I used to think of her as someone who had everything she wanted.

it's only years later when I think of it as her being secluded, raped etc.

and so many people dress up as Esther Hamalka, and think they want to be like her. but she really had a hard life.

amother

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 11:17 pm

I'm not familiar with the word harem and just looked it up briefly and I get the idea that she's secluded and it is forbidden for others to go near her.

I find it interesting that it's similar to the word cherem, like when someone is put into cherem, it is forbidden for others to get too close to the person, so the person is also secluded.

I'm sure there are differences, lihavdil, but I wonder if the word comes from the same root, even though it's different languages.

octopus

Mon, Dec 13 2010, 11:24 pm

I think that the purim story has two tragic underlying stories- that of Esther and that of a generation of Jewish girls that were also lost to the Jewish ppl. Many Jewish girls were taken into the harem. Only one became the queen- and that was Esther. There probably was a shortage of girls for a generation. Achashvierosh was such a pig he had to sleep with basically every single girl in his lands. That thought always makes me want to puke. What a rasha.

amother

Tue, Dec 14 2010, 2:46 am

I must sound very stupid to you all, but I am confused what you're talking about that she went to him willingly. When was this? Was this when she went to invite him to her party for the first time? Or something else... I suppose this is not something they teach in school. Can someone explain please? thanks!

merelyme

Tue, Dec 14 2010, 3:28 am

Remember when she talks to Mordechai and says she hasn't been called to the king for 30 days, and then goes to the king and he extends his scepter to her? That's it.

And the idea of a king or ruler having first dibs on any girl under his rule has been practiced over the ages in many times and places.

amother

Tue, Dec 14 2010, 3:55 am

merelyme wrote:

thanks for answering. So isn't that when she invites him to her 1st party? or am I wrong?
And I find it so silly that I don't even know the real story. I always thought that all that happened there was she went to his big room, he stuck out his sceptor and asked what would you like, and she said come to my party. zehu. And then she went back. How was I supposed to know there was relations somewhere there too.? I suppose I learned the BY version and never learned the updated adult version.

I wonder what else I don't know about this story and others..

oh yeah, yael and yehudis...never knew they slept with those men... errr I wonder if I'm just very naive that I took the stories I learned in elementary school as face value and never thought there was more to them?

shosh

Tue, Dec 14 2010, 4:28 am

I wasn't exactly taught about the s-xual side of Esther's relationship with Achasheverosh either. But when you read Rashi or Meam Loez on how much she couldn't stand him, if you think about it, this explains why. She was dragged off to marry him. He slept with as many virgins as he could. One meforesh (can't remember which) says that she kept the laws of mikveh. And he was beginning to tire of her when Mordechai told her to go to him. It must have been truly horrible for her, and her evident distaste for him is more than understandable, especially when put in that light.