Purim Torah

 

Think of it as Christmas in August, but for Jews.

Jews live in a state of hyper-awareness. We scour the news and we worry. We may not look it, and, sure, maybe there are some Jews who have settled into a blissful state of unawares, but I believe that I believe I speak for all Jews who are currently in my head right now, and after a cuppa from Dunkin (not decaf), that feels like a lot.

But what are we afraid of? Good question -- thanks for asking.

I was in an internet forum, picking fights with stupid people (as is my wont) this morning. Someone made a claim about hypocrisy in the Torah, citing the apparent contradiction created by the statement "thou shalt not kill" and the subsequent killing of the people after Moses descends from Har Sinai. I tried to explain that there is a textual distinction between the word used in the 10 statements (tirtzach) and the word used when the idolaters were killed (Shemot 32:26) hirgu. I pointed out that judicial killing, sanctioned by the state or a legal system is different from murder. The Torah is pretty consistent about this distinction (I have found one exception, but even that could be called "justifiable homicide").

H-r-g then, is a form of killing which has an excuse, a reason, a defense. It is allowed in a sense. It is not murder and wouldn't be proscuated or viewed as such.

I started thinking about Purim. I do that sometimes. In it, there is an interesting progression. In chapter 3, Haman, angry that Mordechai refuses to bow to him, wishes to do something. He doesn't lay hands on Mordechai (verse 6) but decides to destroy (sh-m-d) all Jews. This is not sanctioned - he has no cause or support. So he goes to the king and sells his story, that the Jews present a threat (verse 8) and asks to remove them (a-b-d) but he does not ask to destroy them (sh-m-d). He now has permission (verse 11) so his wording is different. The official word is sent out (verse 12), explained in verse 13 letting everyone destroy "l'hashmeed", but ALSO "laharog ul'abed". The first verb (the sh-m-d word) stands on its own based on the cantilations. The next two words start a new thought -- that there is sanction to kill and remove all the Jews. Wouldn't the first word suffice? No -- though the peple might want to destroy, anyway, they are being reassured by the next 2 verbs that their actions are politically supported. Everyone wants to destroy us but (like Haman with Mordechai initially) they hold back. Haman says "you're free to destroy because now you can couch it in governemental permission!"

Why did the Jews then mourn and fast? Not because there was an existential threat. Jews are used to existential threats. But because this threat would be "legal." Haman doesn't r-tz-ch Mordechai or the Jews, but finds a way to h-r-g, justifiably and within a judicial system, kill the Jews. When Mordechai tells Hatach (verse 7) he explains that the goal is "l'abdam" (to remove a-b-d) so he understands that this would be approved of by the law. He gives Hatach a copy of the letter to be given to Esther but stresses that the document is really and truly about destruction (not legally justified) so she would feel like she has room to ask for its annulment. He does not want her to be resigned to accepting the Jews' fate because the document seems perfectly legal. Instead he wants her to acknowledge that the proclamation is inherently illegal, and just a cover for a genocide so she should say something.

Esther is reluctant to go because there is a law forbidding her approach. She is pointing out that there is one legal code for everyone. If the document is a legal pronouncement, then it follows the law as well. Mordechai's appeal about the document's true nature (as a sh-m-d and not really an a-b-d) won't hold water. Mordechai says "you have to try" and says that if she doesn't, then she and her family will be removed -- not that she and her family will be killed or destroyed, but legally removed (a-b-d, verse 14). Does death hiding behind supposed legality make it any better? If she throws her hands up and says that there is nothing for her to do then she is effetively signing a death warrant for her own family and approving of the king and Haman's twisting of law. She and her family will be removed and no one will care because even she admitted it was a protected behavior. He tells her that this is why she has become royalty -- because she can have a say in the application of law as well. She says she will go but cautions saying "ka'asher avad'ti, avad'ti" if I am removed because the law demands it, then I am removed. This echoes something I recall from the story of the 10 martyred sages who were killed by various governments (a tale recounted on Yom Kippur and the 9th of Av). When Rabbi Yishma'el ascends to heaven to find out whether the king's decree was valid as an application of the law, it is confirmed by an angel: the law and verdict are valid even if cruel.

Esther finally confronts the king and Haman in 7:4 and she uses the same set of three verbs. She says that she and her family and nation were sold, and through this selling, the destruction was turned into a governmentally sanction killing. Again, the sh-m-d word is at the end of a phrase, while the next 2 verbs begin a new one. The people were sold so that they could be destroyed, but it has been turned into a sanctioned killing and removal! The king, faced with his own complicity in the event, changes his mind and has Haman killed (yay!). Esther asks the king to rescind the document (verse 5) which Haman wrote in which he allowed for the removal (a-b-d) of the Jews; the document only mentions the legal arguments and justifications, but those are driven by Haman, not the king (which should embolden the king to annul it). The document is couched in legality but misrepresents the royal position on the Jews so it should be rescinded as a perversion of law. The king says he cannot change teh law and the document IS legal. 

But in verse 11, the Jews are given the exact same 3 verbs (after the phrase "to stand up for their own lives" making this, explicitly, a case of self-defense, as approved by the crown). The Jews stand up for themselves. Great. Take a look at chapter 9, verse 5 -- the Jews strike their enemies with the sword, "v'hereg v'avdan" (judicially) killing and removing. No mention is made of sh-m-d as the Jewish motive was simply to exercise a legal right to get rid of the threat. There is no ulterior motive. Verse 6 reiterates this, using only those 2 verbs. Later verses indicate that the people only sought killing represented by "h-r-g" -- not even full removal (see verse 16 for an example).

So what was the threat? That, as stated in verse 24, Haman's goal was the legal removal of the Jews. Existential? Did Haman want to destroy Jews? Feh. So what? Who doesn't? But a legally sanctioned existential threat, against which any resistance would be illegal? That's a problem.

So what do we worry about now? Am I afraid of being murdered? Yeah, I guess. But I am more concerned about state sponsored activities in which my people are vilified and attacks against us and our country are judicially supported. Anti-semitism by the random crazy guy is a problem. But when a government, religious hierarchy or legal system says that attacking me or my nation is acceptable - that I and my people have done something wrong by virtue of existing, then I have cause to worry. That's the story of Purim (and Channukah, and Passover, and Tisha B'Av...) - governments, not people, tried to kill us.  A pogrom is bad enough, but when the perpetrators are the army, so there is no legal recourse to pursue justice, then what is there to do? (recall the whole "the holocaust was legal according to contemporary German law; Hitler took over the government and passed laws" reality) We live in a day and age where, on top of the concerns over a guy with a gun, we have to worry about a government with a rocket. This is why we don't feel safe.