(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)

The modifier “the king” is a very common one in the Bible. About a quarter of all the times it appears in the bible is concentrated in the nine chapters plus three verses of megillat Esther, the Scroll of Esther. As we all know, the name of God does not appear anywhere in the megillah, neither specifically nor by means of any by-name or appelation used for God. Perhaps it was this that led our sages to see the king that appears numerous times in the megillah as King of the universe. That is precisely how Rabbi Tanhum interpreted the most problematic verse as referring to the King of the universe. “On that night the king could not sleep,” this is rather difficult to interpret as applying to King of the universe. “'On that night the king could not sleep.' Rabbi Tanhum said, the King of the universe could not sleep” (TB Megillah 15b).

What is interesting is that when Maimonides deals in the Hilkhot Yesodei ha- Torah with the law about writing Holy Names and mentioning them and holy by-names, he states regarding scribal writing (ketivat Stam) for the case of a scribe writing a Torah scroll, in which instances he must refer to the name that appears as a holy name and when as a mundane, non-holy name. He refers to the Sages' statements on other megillot, even when it seems that this is not at all the straightforward meaning. For instance, when Shelomo appears in Song of Songs, the basic meaning is clearly Solomon, and we know that our Sages considered him as the king to whom peace belonged [a play on words on the name Shlomo]. Interestingly, Maimonides in Song of Songs determines that one must regard Solomon as having a certain position of holiness. But he does not accept the interpretation that “the king” means King of the universe. Regarding this megillah, containing as we said at the outset, one fourth of all the times “the king” is used in the Bible, in which so many times it actually seems that the king in charge here is the King of the universe, Maimonides steadfastly clings to the idea that the fundamental reference to “the king” means Ahasuerus.

And this is how Maimonides puts it (Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah, 6, 9): “All the names used for Abraham — are holy. Even when it says, “My Lord, if now I have found favor in your eyes” (Gen. 18:3), it is holy. In plural, this is addressed to a number of people. “If now I have found favor in your eyes, it is holy.” Even though there Abraham is addressing people, angels, and certainly not using the name of God, yet it is holy, for it occurs with Abraham. “All the names used with reference to Lot are non-holy, except for: 'And Lot said to them, Oh, not so, my Lord, behold now, your servant has found favor in your eyes,' where he specifically directed his words to God, so it was holy. “All the names cited at Givat Benjamin are holy. All the names noted in Micah, non-holy . Everything derives from the place, the person, Abraham — holy, Lot — non-holy. “All the names used for Naboth the Jezreelite — holy, every Solomon mentioned in the Song of Songs — holy, and this is true of all the other by-names, except for 'you, O Solomon, must have one thousand, and those that keep its fruit two hundred'” (Song of Songs 8:12). Because there Solomon appears in a parallelism with someone else, so this cannot be a name for God. “Every malkhaya [king] referring to Daniel is non-holy except for ant malka melekh makkhaya (You, O king, are a king of kings; Daniel 2:37) and so it is for the other by-names,” and we now ask, and what about the king in the Scroll of Esther, the king of megillat Esther is no less peshat than Solomon? Yet, since our Rabbis have taught us to consider Song of Songs as having a deep internal meaning of a fable and the moral lesson drawn from it, so you teach us that the Solomon in Song of Songs should be viewed in an entirely different dimension, as the king of peace. But why is the king in the Scroll of Esther so far from this status? In the megillah, too, may one see the king to whom peace belongs? By the way, numerous times Ahasuerus's kingship appears to us as some kind of plastic imitation of Solomon's kingship, in so many ways, even in things that create for us not inconsiderable difficulties — the woman and the feasting, and even in things that have great powers — in the courtyard, the garden, the trees, millions of things. Solomon who is considered holy in Song of Songs, and the king and this megillah which contains one-quarter of the times the terms ha-melekh appears in the Bible earn no mention at all in Maimonides.

I have begun with this statement or this halakhah as Maimonides determined it, for I wish to discuss the Scroll of Esther, by understanding Purim. The Scroll of Esther, appears on the surface to really be some kind of story totally different from those in all the other books of the Bible. There are many historical stories, but here we do not have a historical story. We have here ten chapters the majority of which describe internal intrigues in the royal court, rebellions, clusters of manipulation, political infighting, parties and feasts. All kinds of things that, objectively, don't seem to be so important, and secondly, even if they are, how should we put it, they don't exactly belong in our bailiwick, it's not our style, it's not our atmosphere. The entire story revolves around Ahasuerus, the great revolutions and changes in the course of events in the megillah story completely ignore the great history of the kings of Persia and Mede, which receive scant mention only in a line at the end of the megillah in the verses preceding chapter 10, “And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in the book” (Esther 9:32) and they celebrate the Purim days. And then, suddenly, comes a piece of information that truly does not seems so important, “And the king Ahasuerus levied a tribute upon the land, and upon the islands of the sea” (Esther 10:1). How is this significant here? Here mentioned for the first time is something we would have expected to appear much earlier — that Mordecai was raised to royal status. When Joseph became part of royalty and became second in might to the kings of the great world, we were given whole parshot that described how he administered the kingdom. While here, just a few short words tell us “and all the incidence of the greatness of Mordecai, to which the king raised and advanced him, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?” (Esther 10:2). If you are interested in the history of this engaging period, seek it out in history books, but if you are interested in grand feasts, banquets, and how they took place, here you have nine deeply interesting chapters how they were precisely conducted. A megillah that demands a great deal of understanding.

There is a halakhah that belongs only to Purim, applying to no other day of the year: “It is the duty of a man to mellow himself [with wine] on Purim until he can't tell the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai” (Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim, 695:2). Please allow me to ask two questions about this halakhah. The first is a halakhic question, what is the meaning of “It is the duty of a man to mellow himself [with wine] on Purim”? For we usually act differently the year round! Is drunkenness good or bad? If it is bad, then why is it permitted on Purim? We do not find written here that a person is obligated to be happier than at any other time of the year, nor to drink more than he is used to but rather livesumei (to become mellow), to become drunk. Beyond that, what is “until he can't tell the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai”? We have spoken more than once about this “until he can't tell the difference,” but I wish to delve into it today from a different direction. I understand that the whole issue of Purim is yes, to know the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai. I understand that the issue of Purim is to know that “there was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital,” of “Herbonah remembered for the good,” and he proposed to turn everything upside down, “though it was turned around, that the Jews themselves ruled over those who hated them.”

Very strange, let's assume a person was drunk from the time Purim began until it ended and knew nothing, not cursed be Haman, not blessed be Mordecai, nothing at all. That was how he heard megillat Esther, that was how he prayed. As we go on you will see something very interesting, Rabbi Kook writes in Olat Re'ayah, “were I not afraid, I would rule that a drunk person could not pray the year round, but not [apply this] on Purim. So our drunken fellow began on Purim night and finished at the close of Purim, hadn't a clue to what he did, Lot doesn't know anything. He finished his se'udat Purim, the way he was supposed to, he was generous in giving mishlo'ah manot, gifts to the needy, and in fact, he fulfilled all the Purim commandments from start to finish. Do we have any other such holiday? Is there any other festival on which I can be oblivious to everything about my fulfilling the obligations of the holiday, and the less I know that I am carrying them out, the more I am doing my duty. What is the basic idea, the peshat, in all this? What's going on here?

The Shulhan Arukh determines “It is the duty of a man to mellow himself [with wine] on Purim until he can't tell the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai” (Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim, 695:2). The Mishnah Berurah immediately asks in Be'ur Halakhah (se'if katan 4) the first question we raised, “and if you say, how could our Sages make obligatory what is mentioned in the Torah and in the Prophets in a number of places, namely, that drunkenness is a great stumbling block.” An excellent question, drunkenness is always considered a stumbling block. Look at Noah, the righteous, blameless person who manages to withstand the flood but not wine. So how could it suddenly become something not only permitted but obligatory, “It is the duty of a man to mellow himself [with wine] on Purim”? The explanation given in Be'ur Halakhah makes things even harder for us. He replies, “and one must say that because all the miracles performed for the Jews in the time of Ahasuerus took place at feasts, since at first Vashti was harassed at a feast and then came Esther, and there is the issue of Haman and his fall at a feast,” so there is a mitzvah to get drunk. I do not understand, if Ahasuerus got drunk, such behavior should turn into a model for us? Yes, this happened at a feast, so what? I could understand if they came to me and told me: we will conduct our Purim, but we will not drink like Ahasuerus did, we are [civilized] people. Certainly Esther brought Haman to the feast. Our Sages ask regarding the megillah, why did she invite Haman and Ahasuerus to a grand feast? So they say, “Should your enemy be hungry, feed him bread.” This is a tactic. So the tactics Esther had to use became the ideal? Everything in the Scroll of Esther turns into the ideal? Those banquets described in the megilla are wantonness in the guise of a wasteful, morbidly decadent kingdom.

By the way, I always find myself fascinated by chapter 10 with the fact that suddenly the kingdom is beginning to put itself in order “And the king Ahasuerus levied a tribute upon the land, and upon the islands of the sea.” I think that the principal activity of Mordecai the Jew, second in command to the king, was that he put some order into Ahasurerus's chaotic kingdom, just like Joseph did with his economic activity in Egypt.

But back to our issue, if so, when did all that goes on in megillat Esther turn into some kind of model behavior for us? The Be'ur ha-Halakhah continues “And so the issue of Haman and his downfall came through a feast, so the Sages obligated [us] to get drunk so that the great miracle that came through the drinking of wine will be remembered.” Be'ur ha-Halakhah understands ultimately that is a bit difficult to accept; pay attention to his closing, “and in any event all of this is for a mitzvah and should not be delayed” — not to be delayed. We have previously noted that the Rama limited this mitzvah of being obliged to become drunk. He says (Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim), “and some say that one is not so much supposed to get drunk but to drink more than he is used to,” more than usual, “And he will sleep, and while sleeping he does not know the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai, and one does more and another less, but the main thing is that they direct their hearts toward the heavens.” This is an expression referring to sacrifices, now it is being applied to wine. So how does this explain, “until he does not know the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai? The Mishnah Berurah says that he does not know the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai is two positive things. At the end of the Scroll of Esther two miracles occur, one is that Haman declines and the other, that Mordecai is elevated. When you are properly alert you remember precisely the course of the story, when you are a bit mellow, you already don't quite remember what took place in this chapter and what in another. “Until he does not know the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai” is somewhat of a mix-up in the order of the megillah, now he does not remember exactly how the miracles occurred. I have seen people who were not even mellow who did not remember the details, and this, too, does not seem at all to be the straightforward explanation, certainly not according to the Shulhan Arukh that states “It is the duty of a man to mellow himself [with wine] on Purim until he can't tell the difference,” where the obvious meaning is to get so drunk as to “not know the difference,” and there he did indeed explain that there are feasts in the megillah.

I have mentioned this halakhah only to get us back to our starting point. This entire megillah that does not contain God's name, and in which there is a kingdom that seems so petty, so foolish, so involved in nonsense, in ceremonies, in all kinds of insignificant things, not only do I not understand what it is seeking, but rather that the main point of the Purim halakhah is that I must act during part of the festive meal as written in the megillah.

It seems to me that if we go deeply into the megillah we come across something very interesting that deserves our attention. When the Sages said “It is the duty of a man to mellow himself [with wine] on Purim until he can't tell the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai,” they did something strange. They requested that we read the megillah and that during Purim you should not know the purpose of the megillah. For the book is there to tell you something, so don't know it. I think the first think that our Sages wanted from us was to pay attention that at the heart of the megillah are Mordecai and Haman. What is the true reason for the great hatred between the two of them? The megillah does not give an explicit answer. It tells us two separate stories. One relates, “There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital, and his name was Mordecai, son of Ya'ir, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjamite,” and it describes his background, “who was exiled from Jerusalem with the exile,” the only time Jerusalem is mentioned in the megillah. And one of the few times in the bible that Jerusalem is written with ketiv male, with that the letter yod appears, Jerusalem that is so much missed in the Scroll of Esther, when it does appear does so in its full spelling, in its entirety. “Who had been exiled …with the exiled with Jeconiah king of Judah…he was the guardian of Hadassah, that is, Esther, daughter of his uncle.” And then we are told of Haman, “After these things king Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and elevated him,” and then it informs us, with no prior background, of the very great personal tension between Mordecai and Haman. “And all the king's servants, who were in the king's gate, kneeled and bowed to Haman…But Mordecai did not kneel, nor did he bow.” The kings servants try to find out why, and this becomes the most interesting issue, and they ask why don't you kneel and why don't you bow down? Why do you act this way? And he does not respond at all. Apparently the question why, means what is the background? Why this tension? Was there something between Mordecai and Haman?

One must understand that megillat Esther describes for us a blip that doesn't even rate half a chapter in the chronicles of the kings of Persia and Media. For when they are telling us the history, then we are certainly not interested now in all these petty details that have nothing comparable outside the Scroll of Esther. When you study the chronicles of the kings of Persia and Media it is not written whether Ahasuerus is that same member of the dynasty who was actually involved in the great war against Greece as historians would like to see it or not, all of this is not evident. Nothing at all appears about this entire period, about all the connection between the Scroll of Esther and the period of Cyrus's declaration and the building of Jerusalem by Ezra and Nehemia. As to Daniel and Beltshazzar, the atmosphere is similar; there, too, we find meals and feast, there, too, they dream dreams, and there are many, many kings. Of all this, nothing appears.

When you come to the two heroes, the evil one and the good one, and you want to understand what the discussion is about, you identify completely with the king's servants. They want to comprehend why Mordecai does not bow. “Now it came to pass, when they spoke to him day after day, and he did not listen to them” (Esther 3:4). This reminds all of us of Potiphar's wife who turns to Joseph and speaks to him daily, and he did not succumb to her wiles to seduce him. With Mordecai, too, they speak every day and he refuses to be enticed, this is the same situation. This megillah all of which seems to be a secular story, as it were, does not give any background to the story. The king's servants want to know why he does not bow down and they receive no reply. Only then do they know he is a Jew, because he tells them. He does not say that that is why he does not bow down, even further on in the megillah we do not find the reason for the tension. The Sages in the midrashim say that the king's servants came to Mordecai and said to him: But it is written, they bowed down before him seven times, and your ancestor bowed down to our ancestor, there were always obeisances. There is, of course, an explanation that the Sages use, one we have been accustomed to since we were children, that Mordecai saw an idol on Haman, saw him involved with idol worship. The Sages wish to use this description to make Haman into a religious priest, an important religious person who tries to make things vague with his religiosity, but this is not written in the megillah.

There is a very strange midrash that asserts that since all of the Scroll of Esther does not describe historical background, then we are missing a story, and the story is as follows: (Otzar HaMidrashim, Eisenstein; Yalkut Shimoni Esther par. 1056 ) “and it was that Mordecai was exiled with the Exile and was going along the way and Haman the Evil was with him and he was hungry on the road, so he asked Mordecai to give him bread and he said to him for the sake of the mighty Lord on high, so he gave him bread. The second day Haman sought bread in all the camp and none but Mordecai gave him. He said to him: Give me bread that I should live. Mordecai said to him: I am not obligated to sustain you and at the same time kill myself. So Haman said to Mordecai: Buy my body. Mordecai said to him: I will buy your hands for a loaf of bread. Haman replied: Buy half [my body] with two loaves of bread.” Business. If you are willing to take my hands for a loaf of bread, give me two loaves, I want lots of food, and I will give you half my body. “He bought half [his body] with two loaves. Mordecai said to him: I will write a document on your feet as a tattoo. He said to him: Write. He wrote on his foot that Haman son of Hemmedata is the servant of Mordecai, and this is why Haman was so zealously opposed to Mordecai.” By the way, the Sages continue this in a number of variations. Later, when Haman asked that Mordecai take a bit of pity on him with the story of the horse, he said to him: You belong to me in any event, and he said to him: Lift up your foot. When he got up on the horse and showed him the document, and this story goes on with all kinds of transformations. What is going on here?

In another midrash the Sages describe Ahasuerus. Ahasuerus makes a feast with the intention that there be “royal wine as plentiful as the king's bounty,” and here we have almost reached the main point, that he conducts all this feasting to “do according to every man's pleasure.” To do according to every man's pleasure is difficult. When Joshua is about to be appointed, Moses asks the Lord (Numbers 27:16–17), “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, who may go out before them, and who may go in before them.” On “God of the spirits of all flesh,” Rashi comments there “Appoint over them a person who will know how to deal with the spirit of each person.” This is a great characteristic, this is a Divine characteristic. For in order to go along with every person's pleasure, I must be the root of all of them. Our Sages say (Esther Rabbah 2:14), “To do according to every man's pleasure, said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him: 'I cannot satisfy all My creatures,” what a daring midrash, saying, as it were, I cannot handle it. “And do you seek to do according to every man's pleasure? It often happens that two men seek the hand of the same woman. Can she marry both of them? It must be either one or the other. So two ships will lie in a harbor, one waiting for a north wind, the other for a south. Can the same wind carry them both together? It must be either one or the other. Tomorrow two men will appear before you in a suit, a Jewish man and a man who is an adversary and an enemy. Can you satisfy both of them? You will have to exalt the one and hang the other.” This is a wondrous midrash that precedes Haman and Mordecai just like the previous story, but now not in a story, and it essentially places us into much more realistic dimensions.

Mordecai did not come into being out of nowhere. He is a Jewish man who was exiled, he belongs to a large family and he was an important minister under Ahasuerus. And there is Haman the Evil, the same one who “at that time the king increased in importance.” There are great tensions, and these great tensions are described by Haman on one side and Mordecai on the other, they are tensions whose roots go far back. Ahasuerus symbolized the king whose desire is to be like the King of the universe. He tries to respond to each person's will, he holds sway over 120 countries, he wants that drinking should be the law of the king, that there should be no forcing, that all will be full and everything will be available. Within this kingdom there are two powers, one, that of Mordecai, the other, that of Haman. All of the Scroll of Esther actually measures these two powers, one against the other, and it essentially is intended to make a revelation which is the deeper meaning of “until he not know.” And the revelation is this, that neither Haman nor Moredcai are important to the story, but only God is. My aim on Purim is to attain such a state in which I learn that the revelation of God in the world is not through how he reveals himself but through how all the systems collapse. This is the tremendous revolution megillat Esther make here. All of Divine Scripture wants to show us how God reveals himself here, the Scroll of Esther strives to show us how all the alternatives collapse, and then God reveals himself. In my opinion the true story of the Scroll of Esther begins in the first verse of chapter 11 which was never written at all, until that point everything has been an introduction.

I want to take this slowly. More than once when we have dealt with Purim we have linked up with R. Nachman, a link present all year round, but with Purim it takes on even stronger power. Today I saw a comment by my friend, Rabbi Yigael Ariel of the Golan, he notes this in an aside, and I think that it is a wonderful statement: He wants to see the story of the son of the king and the son of the maid who were switched, parts of which I will get to in just a minute, as a story essential based on megillat Esther. When I think about it, I realize that this is absolutely true, though one must devote a number of study sessions to the story to see how it really derives from it. This is one of the most special, greatest, most elevating of R. Nachman's stories. He tells of a son of a king and son of a maid who were switched at birth. This happened, according to the story, because there was a maid in the service of the queen in the royal household, and just at the moment the queen was to give birth so was this maid. The midwife decided to see what would happen if things were changed, and she would switch the children. So begins the story “A Tale of a Son of a King and a Son of a Maid Who Were Exchanged.” She wanted to see what would happen if the son of a king grew up with the maid and the son of the maid in the home of the king. As long as the maid worked in the palace, then the son of the king absorbed its atmosphere but from the point of view of the maid's family, while the son of the maid lived as the son of a king. The experiment was to examine if there were something internal in them. The father of the true son of the king, that is, the king, was a kind, good man, and he saw that people were beginning to talk, even though there was an agreement not to speak about it, but as is the custom of our holy Jews the secret was out. Slowly the world spread, but no one could prove anything about who was the son of the king and who the son of the maid.

Since people began to talk, the impostor son of the king felt obligated to maintain tighter control so that rebellions would not erupt. Thus, the true son of the king, who had grown up with the maid, suffers and goes into exile. He wanders around the forest, goes from place to place, becomes seriously depressed, and begins to drink and becomes an alcoholic. At a certain stage he wakes up and then begins to have dreams. Those dreams tell him to go to a certain fair, he wants to go, but each time he is ensnared by drink. Finally he decides things can not go on this way, he must go. He begins to walk to the forest, and then the story takes twists and turns in the forest — how he comes into the company of animals, there is a whole story of the man of the forest and the horse. The son of the maid continues all along in his role in his kingdom, while the true son of the king is wandering around the forest and learning all kinds of things in inhuman places. He begins to understand, just like in some grand legendary story, that he is actually in an uninhabited place. But his role is to bring the powers he absorbs to the powers of the village, that he slowly begins to comprehend, he hears animal voice. And every morning the great laughter of all the trees rustling and trembling is heard. And the servant says to this son of the maid, ask the man of the forest what this laughter is. “And they ask: What is this sound of great laughter in early morn? And they answered him: This is the laughter of the day over the night, for every morning the day laughs at the night, for the night asks the day: Why is it that when you come, I do not have a name?” Every time Mr. Morning comes, I am nameless.

This is a tremendous idea. For the night is not an object that has a name, it is simply the absence of light. There is no night as an entity, the night manages to function like the impostor son of the maid, since the true son of the king was wandering in the forest, because he could not enter a village. But finally “a day will come which is neither day nor night,” and then there will be great laughter “and our mouths will be filled with laughter.” Then there will suddenly be a kind of mighty laugh because what we have called night and we have given the name "evil,” and we have considered evil as an entity, as an object with a name in its own right, will suddenly be revealed as the absence of light.

Then he answers him: Why when you come to me do I have no name? Then the day laughs loudly, and from this laughter it becomes day. This is the day, not our temporary diurnal cycle. This is the light that has been hidden for the righteous in the future. When this darkness will annul its name, the light will appear.

So the story continues to go on and on and on, and the man of the forest gives the true son of the king some wondrous musical instrument, and he teaches him how to use it. But he says to him: “You won't be able to use this instrument unless you find a certain animal or cattle to try out the instrument further.” He finds a horse, and the horse's rider takes his place and so on, and they have to go ride a certain number of parsot until they come to the gate. There are a few entrances, but only one real way in. They make their way around the wall until they come to the gate, but the guards do not let them in, since the country's king has died and the son of the king is alive. The king left a will calling to change the name of the country. That is, wonder of wonders, that until now the country was called stupid country and the king wise, and now it would be called the opposite, a wise country and a stupid king. When someone would show up with girded loins and return its name to the previous one, that is, that he will be able to cause the name of the country to be changed back to the original — a stupid country and a wise king — he will be the king. So in this legendary country they do not let anyone in, only a person who would be willing to take the risk. When this man wanted to enter, they asked him if he was willing to take the risk and to enter this country. He agreed and went in riding a horse, and he began to use his tune, and he began to understand things.

So the story reaches its climax when he goes inside the country and enters the garden, perhaps that same garden of the pavilion. He goes into the garden, he begins to reorganize the country, and finally it is again called a stupid country with a wise king. So when this happens, the king gave an order to set everything aright. Above the throne was a rose, and this rose he knew to put exactly in its place. And he arranged all details as they should be, and everything began to play a very wonderful tune. So they gave him the kingdom, so now the son of the king who had just been made king said to his servant, whom he had acquired during his journeys, that he was actually the son of the maid of the story of the impostor. Now I understand that I am the true son of the king and you are actually the son of the maid.

As I see it, the entire story of Mordecai and Haman is the story of the son of the king and the son of the maid. Both of them grow up in the palace, and the question is who is the really the son of the king and who really the son of the maid? The role of megillat Esther is to reveal that the country is stupid and the king wise. The function of megillat Esther is to reveal that the very attempts by the king here on earth to be king cannot turn out well, they will fail. Haman as he tries to fight against Mordecai from the beginning of the first story tries to gather strength. When Haman succeeds in obtaining a loaf of bread from him, he calculates and says to him: Then I will give you double and I will buy two loaves. That is what he does all the time, he weighs 10,000 talents of silver, he takes and he gives, takes and gives, and he thinks that he will solve problems and he will rule. When Mordecai will not kneel nor bow to Haman, it is because Mordecai is not willing to accept the idea that what we have here is the kingdom. When he says that Haman turns himself into idol worship it is not important whether Haman made an image for idol worship or Haman made himself a god, history teaches us about both these types. It teaches us about exalted gentlemen who made a shape for idol worship and thought that they would thereby solve the problems of the world, and it teaches us about the Nebuchadnezzars who turned themselves into a god, about the Pharaohs and the others who made themselves objects of idol worship. When Mordecai becomes attuned to this controversy, we then have a tremendous controversy between two concepts. To answer each person's wish, one you have to raise up, and the other you crucify. Both of them cannot get along with each other, for one comes to say that the country is stupid and the king wise. One comes to say, and this is megillat Esther and this is its power, that also when “I will surely hide my face on that day,” even when they meet nothing, precisely then the vacuum is so wide, it fills itself with many alternatives, and the alternatives can lead one astray, and its seems that the alternatives offer some proposal. Then two show up who seem to offer alternatives in the form of all kinds of movements, ideas, aspirations, and dreams, and all these alternatives suddenly melt away, and the world finds itself in crisis. These alternatives are all nonexistent from the viewed through the concept that the king is king of the universe.

Megillat Esther is a megillah which essentially is intended to exhibit the deep concept that what I really wish discern in the megillah story, that you should really not know to differentiate between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai, for the greatest success of Mordecai the Jew s will be that he not appear. The greatest victory will be that when the systems collapse, we will then succeed in filling this vacuum since God now comes to rule. What does Ahasuerus claim? Or what does Haman claim? He claims” I am the king,” he claims “I am the one that rules,” “I am the real son of the king.” So he always proposes a great deliverance, a kind of redemption, and his true enemy will always be Mordecai's nation. His true enemy will be the nation that does not kneel nor bow. For in all earnestness, it cannot accept a flesh and blood king. Haman does not make illogical assertions, his arguments are very real ones, he clarifies anti-Semitism as much as possible, it could not be more distinct. “There is a certain people ...” It does not matter that Haman would like to take the kingdom for himself, that is not at all relevant. Haman tells Ahasuerus that they have a common interest — to destroy the nation that will never accept another king, so whether it is I or you, we will we will be brought down by them. Your interest in answering to each man's pleasure will not work, because this nation wants a foolish country and a wise king. When it will be able to create this, then Mordecai will begin to be given expression, and Esther will begin to be expressed,. He must see these systems collapsing. The disintegration of systems is horrifying, it is shocking, I think we are living in just such a period. If we think about it seriously, perhaps it comes to do just this great thing “until he cannot tell the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai,” it is not at all important what happens through cursed by Haman or through blessed be Mordecai. Only one thing is significant, that everything, but everything, returns to being naught before the king and that here there is no king.

Ibn Ezra describes this in a delightful piyyut for the Sabbath, though we do not always remember what the historical background was for this poem. I am referring one of the beautiful zemirot, Sabbath table songs, “Tzam'a nafshi,” “My soul thirst for the Lord, for the living God, my heart and body will sings to the living God, one God created me and spoke, therefore I am.” It is an acrostic on the name of Abraham ben Ezra, and at the end there is a verse stating, “Remember the ancient love and the resurrection of the dead and approaching day when ben Yishai will live [Messiah].” Then Ibn Ezra calls — and on Purim eve 5760 it is worth remembering, this is the same concept we are grappling with in megillat Esther.— “look at woman of truth, a maid is speaking, No for it is your son who is dead and my son lives.” What are we talking about here? “I will bow down, I will stretch my hand out to you when I open my mouth with nishmat kol hai.” This is all an introduction to “Nishmat kol hai,” just as there were introductory poems to other prayers. “Agadlekha” was a preface to “Yitgadal ve-yitkadash,” such that the poem ends and one goes right into the Kaddish. So this was a leader into “Nishmat” and Ibn Ezra sat down and composed it. He is actually quite explicit here, and we are talking of long after megillat Esther. He is speaking about a woman who claims she is the well-born person and we are the maid. She further claims that her son lives and ours has died. Obviously he is referring to Christianity as in many other piyyutim. But it is clear that we have here the noble woman and the maid of whom we learned in the earlier depictions, and the power of the well-born woman derives from belonging to the nobility. The best proof for God's having abandoned the Jews is that you are a maidservant, careworn and insignificant. So Ibn Ezra turns everything around, and says: Master of the universe change the places of the son of the king and the son of the maid. “See the woman of truth,” see the true noble woman; the maid, Christianity, grew up in the palace and took its nobility from it, “A maid speaks, no, your son is dead, and my son lives.” Things are clear-cut, this is the same work that we were dealing with regarding the megillah.

When the Maharal of Prague deals with the obligation to get drunk, he does not suffice with the reason that feasts were in involved in the Purim story. But his idea can be linked in depth to the idea that there were feasts there. Let's take a minute to look at the Maharal's statements (in Or Hadash): “But the Purim days are another issue, for God saved them [the Jews] from Haman, since a person is not considered anything and he has no help from himself, and since a person is not considered anything, his existence is from God. And in what aspect is a person not considered anything.” What are we talking about? The feeling that man is completely dependent upon God, from what aspect does this occur? “This occurs from the aspect of the body and therefore one must become mellow on Purim, for when he is mellow and he does not know the difference between cursed by Haman and blessed be Mordecai, so what can a person be considered when his intellect has been taken away from him?” So why is this so good, what man is considered? Because the miracle of Purim is that in this case all rules do not hold, everything disintegrates, and then they let God rule. God's name does not appear in the megillah, what does appear is the king here who does not appear in halakhah as king of the universe, but this is the kingdom that takes itself apart and which ultimately allows the King to step in. This is the story of Purim, and it is different from any other festival. So all the other festivals will be annulled in the end, for they all describe one act or another that belongs to something in history, and it will finally become relatively limited in relation to the great redemption. But Purim describes more than any other holiday that what seems to us to be a total, well-oiled system ultimately collapses and gives way for God to step in and act. On Purim what is a person's joy? It is to feel the happiness, this sounds strange, the joy in his nothingness, the joy in his minuteness.

What did the feast do to King Ahasuerus? When Ahasuerus drank, he turned into the king of everyone. Now he can gather everyone and rule over them as he pleases. He already has Esther, and again all the virgins, why? For everything is nothing, I am all, for all is depravity. On Purim all of us are commanded to drink like Ahasuerus to be happy for our being totally dependent upon God. If I have an ounce of sense, it is more difficult. “It is the duty of a man to mellow himself [with wine] on Purim until he can't tell the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai,” when he sees the systems collapsing, he says, “nothing without you, our Redeemer,” he gets the message that there is a God in the universe. The Scroll of Esther is the opposite, [Hullin 139b states] “Where is Esther indicated in the Torah? — [In the verse,] And I will surely hide [astir] my face on that day” (Deut. 31:18). But where does it say “And I will surely hide [astir] my face”? This occurs immediately after the verse “they will say…Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?” I heard today in the name of my teacher and rabbi, R. Avrum Shapira who expressed a tremendous idea. The sin, he says, the problem is not that God hides, rather “And I will surely hide” is the explanation. Do you know why I am hiding? Because you transgressed with “because our God is not among us.” The Scroll of Esther is ostensibly the megillah in which “our God is not among us,” God's name does not appear in it at all, there is a director of all the universe, someone is running it.

“When Mordecai knew all that was done…and put on sackcloth with ashes.” The Sages ask how did he now all that was done? Where did his information come from? Certainly he was not on the inside, these are things for a limited forum, the mini-cabinet. And the Sages say: When Mordecai knew' — The master of dreams told him that this was the decree from heaven since they bowed down to the image and because they enjoyed the Ahasuerus's banquet.” How does one come to enjoy Ahasuerus's banquet? How does one come to bow down to an idol? One reaches this stage because of his sense that the Ahasuerus-controlled power is so strong, this is what led to the disaster of “I will surely hide.” It seemed to you that “God was not among us,” for you basically thought that here, heaven forbid, was an alternative. Bit by bit you began to believe in other “isms”, in other ideas, other teachings, other people. This is what happened to our society from time to time over the past 100 years. And the “God is not among us” and the “I will surely hide” always marched along simultaneously with things that had power. Megillat Esther in contradistinction to any other source is not aimed at clarifying the power of the Lord, but to spotlight the collapse of things that seem to be powerful. This is what Mordecai aims at doing.

This person on Purim who does not know about cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai but is happy that he is entirely part of God, he understands the joy of being what? Nothing, attached to the Above, linked to the Most High. This is the greatest, most sincere happiness there is. No logical supposition, no pride, no display of genius can reach this worship of the Lord through self-abnegation of the one who feels he belongs completely to the Most High, I have nothing that belongs to me. This is not one iota less than Yom Kippur. So in the end all the festivals will be canceled but not Purim. For again, to reach the future what needs to happen is that people should understand that the kingdom on earth comes from the Kingdom on high and that nothing actually belongs to the earthly kingdom.

A number of times we have told you, in the name of Rabbi Soloveitchik, zt”l, who asks this when discussing the beginning of Yom Kippur, why do we begin with Kol Nidrei? The beginning of Purim is very similar to that of Yom Kippur, veritably the same thing, but from two opposite directions. On Yom Kippur we abnegate the body to correct the desire [to not act properly], on Purim we abnegate the intellect, if we have the strength to do so, if are are capable of doing so. So the Rama immediately says if, heaven forbid, being drunk can lead you to doing something else, do get drunk. For “one does more and another less, only they should direct their hearts toward the heavens.” Here there is no commandment for its own sake, the mitzvah is to reach it in this way, this is the aspiration. How do we start Yom Kippur? With Kol Nidrei, “All vows, bonds, devotions and promises...” Rabbi Soloveitchik, zt”l, explains what this opening is, for we have already perform the release from vows, so what is new in what we are doing? And halakhically, why is it so very important to perform this release from vows? He says as astounding thing, before I enter Yom Kippur I say: Master of the universe, I have a problem, I very much wish to begin Yom Kippur, only I have a simple problem — that I have committed myself to so many gods already. I have so many vows and bonds and devotions and promises that I have taken upon myself this year, and I don't always have space available for you, too, Master of the universe. I really would like to worship you, but I already serve so many kinds of ideas. So help me by letting all my vows and bonds and devotions “that we have vowed and sworn…made void and have no effect, they shall not be binding nor have any power,” as if they never were.

The Maharal continues thus (Or Hadash): “And when he is mellow and can't tell the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai, so what is a person considered when his intellect has been banished…and when a person is considered totally worthless, his existence stems from God.” How does a Jew begin his day? With “Modeh Ani lefanekha.” We have said numerous times that modeh is “thank you”, but modeh is also vidui, confession. First of all, I know that I have to make a great confession, it is wonderful that I have gotten up. I know that everything that is in me comes from the existence of God. And then he comes to “and from now on it is clear that the days of Purim have feasts and gladness, for whoever has a grander feast and more happiness, is not considered as nothing, and it does not resemble a yom tov, a holiday.” This is the opposite of what we are used to, so this passage by Maharal is difficult. Among us the more I have, the happier I am, but in the end the result is just the opposite, for the more I have, the more I think I have control over everything, but actually I am no longer in control. I forget that I am really dependent and that all that I have comes from Him. How did Jacob say it. “I have everything.” So the days of Purim have feasts and gladness, for whoever has a grander feast and more happiness, is not considered as nothing, and it does not resemble a yom tov.” Really, why isn't Purim called a yom tov, a holiday. “For they are times of gladness, for gladness is not only when you have the spiritual wherewithal for it, not to annul the intellect.” On Passover what is the joy? The Passover joy is that I am remembering that I went out of Egypt, so I am happy about the Exodus from Egypt. So to be reminded that I left Egypt, it is forbidden to drink, and then I am happy, for I think and come to the conclusion that I left Egypt, so I am happy about it — fine. But there are also a number of other problems.

On Purim I am happy because I am totally dependent upon You, there is no Ahasuerus, there is no Haman, no Vashti, nothing, there is only You. You do not have to reveal yourself by name, you reveal yourself through Haman. He should not know the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai, through everything you are made known, since there is nothing that has any essence of itself. When nothing that has any essence of itself, then really what is the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed by Mordecai? There is no difference, it is the same thing. So he says, “But on Purim all eating and drinking is the removal of the intellectual and the abnegation of a person until he is considered as nothing, and that is sufficient for those who understand their words which are very deep indeed. The Alexander Rabbi adds to these words of the Maharal, he cites what is written by our Sages, “they received the Glory in the days of Ahasuerus,” they once again received the Torah in the time of Ahasuerus with love, why? “For on Purim the pleasantness of the miracle was enhanced, they accepted the yoke of heaven in total willingness, without begin forced,” (Hashvah le-Tovah, The Alexander Rabbi) now comes the wonderful expression “and the experience of the body is annulled in favor of the experience of the soul.” So what do I do then? Then I eat, since I have no problem eating. Annulling the experience of the body is not that I become spiritual and do not have to eat, I must eat, I am a human being. But this need does not make me material, this need makes me dependent upon God, so this is the most spiritual thing that can be. Therefore every holiday can have the commandment of “and you should rejoice on your festival,” but the essence of the day is not entirely one of feasting and joy. But as to Purim, that is all it has, it has nothing else., it only has feasting and joy, for all that it has it the collapse of the system, for through this collapse God reveals himself here.

The same passage in Rabbi Kook we mentioned earlier continues (Olat Re'ayah 1, 440), “For even if the understanding of the intellect are banished without the body, yet the bodily powers are themselves already holy, and abstain from all evil, and take upon themselves true perfection that is in the light of the face of the Living King. From this derives comes the commandment to become mellow, and thereby the great light continues as explained by the Ari. And would I not be afraid I would declare that even on all other days, a drunk person should not pray, in any event, on this day, even if there is a commandment about it, it would not disturb,” for even though he has a general obligation, it may be that he is not obligated, being drunk. “For the main reason a drunk may not pray, is that prayer is the offering of a sacrifice to God, and if there be anything bad connected to it, it is as if he were offering upon the altar something that is not worthy of holiness, but on this day the powers of the body are consecrated to the heavens, and the light surrounds them in all its shades,” in all shapes. So he appends another addition that is a revolutionary innovation. We know that on Purim people always talk about the contradiction that on one side the Sages related to Purim as not so much of a holiday, by virtue of the fact that there is no prohibition against melakhah, creative work, on Purim. On the other hand, all festivals stand to be annulled except Purim. Rabbi Kook says, I do not understand the contradiction — see such power. The reason is that they did not take upon themselves a prohibition against melakhah, since it is permitted to go to work. Most people do not go, but it is not forbidden. “For on that the material does not clash with the spiritual, as on the festival days, the main purpose of all of them being mikra kodesh, a holy assembly.” And what is a hold assembly? To take joy in the Lord, to separate oneself from the secular and to enter into a holy assembly, “it is not fit that one would be occupied with daily works, for they belong to the 39 works that everyone does,” they belong to the curse, they are part of Adam's curse on work. “But they said the day that turned from curse to blessing, and even if one is engaged in melakhah there he finds the light of holiness.” It is not that Purim is not important enough that they did not prohibit melakhah, but Purim is entirely dependent upon the Lord, in any event this may be melakhah related, or work related, even physical or dealing with food and drink.

The son of the king and the son of the maid who were switched are restored to their rightful places at the end of the megillah. When the son of the king returns and rules, he relinquishes his position to the King therefore “my House will be a house of prayer for all nations.” Mordecai the Jew who does not kneel nor bow, in the end, is the one who truly serves the rule of Ahasuerus's kingdom, since he has his own power and he lets the King of Kings rule the world. So he can hand over what the Jews have to give to Ahasuerus's kingdom. Jews who had bowed to the king, perhaps to be not so provocative, maybe not to irritate him, maybe because Ahausuerus invites people to grand feasts, so really why not? They essentially blurred the Mordecai-ness, made the Jewish man vague, caused harm not just to the Jewish man — this is the short chapter 10. They damaged Ahasuerus's kingdom and ultimately the entire world, for what the world needs is a true son of the king whose authenticity is expressed by his relinquishing his position in favor of the King, and then my House will be a house of prayer for all nations. These are the internal struggles during the nine years, from the third year of Ahasuerus's reign until the 12th year of his regular rule. The ones between the world view acquiescing to dining with Ahasuerus, bowing to the image, ingratiating oneself, agreeing to tow the line and be like the other nations, because if Ahasuerus reigns, Ahasuerus rules, and the approach saying that the son of the maid cannot rule, that Haman gives voice to the opposite mode action in the world than that which Mordecai is supposed to express. For whether Haman goes about with an image for idol worship, or sets himself as the object for idol worship, he has one function — to sever the connection between God and the Jews. His single role is to interfere with the rebuilding of the Temple and the Shekhinah that will appear there.

That story about the switching of the sons ends there in the garden with a chair and a rose (shoshanah); these are the Temple, the throne, and perhaps shoshanat Ya'akov. This is the same rose that was among the thorns restored to its place and when shoshanat Ya'akov will be once again in its rightful place, a melody begins throughout the world. These melodies are not just hers, but belong to everyone. When our Purim is once again linked to the ancient dispute and with whomever calls itself noble woman and speaks of the dead son and the living son, about messiahs that exist and messiahs that do not exist, we must remember that our driving force to cope will exist, or heaven forbid, cease to exist over only one simple question: will we realize that the only way we can contribute to the world is by being ourselves, in being Mordecai who is a Jewish man? When they told him to which nation Mordecai belonged, he was contemptuous of him, for he knew what Mordecai's role was. He knows that there is a nation in the world that reveals the existence of the One, so it is one nation whether it be scattered or not. The whole course of action of the king, the entire non-historical course of the not-understood megillah — this unimportant, tangential episode in history — is that very course which is most important educationally, and for revering God, from the aspect of true service from one who wishes to receive the Torah once again with love, of one who can disassociate himself and not be frightened when systems collapse, but allow God to appear in those systems disintegrating before Him. When this whole process takes place, Mordecai, as Moses did, relinquishes his position, and asks us not to know, only to know that God reveals himself in His ways, through cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai.