44 Responses to Mordechai’s Chumra

1. Meir Weingarten on March 6, 2012 at 10:16 pm

   “I suggest that the answer lies in the last verse of the book of Esther. In describing Mordechai’s popularity, the text states that he was accepted by most of his brothers.”

   Note:That’s not the pshat in the pasuk. Pshat is “ratzui le’echav harabim” to the multitudes of his brethren.
   proof text: earlier in the megillah itself – 5:11
   וַיְסַפֵּר לָהֶם הָמָן אֶת־כְּבוֹד עָשְׁרוֹ וְרֹב בָּנָיו
2. Dov F. on March 6, 2012 at 10:27 pm

   Nice vort.
3. Wolfman on March 6, 2012 at 11:10 pm

   Your kashya is better than your teirutz. Where do we every find that one is allowed to endanger the entire community over a personal humra? Note the criticism of Zekhariya b. Avkulos in b. Gittin 59b, whose “humility” — i.e., inability or unwillingness to rationally consider the consequences of his unnecessarily pious behavior — is credited with the destruction of the Beit haMikdash.
4. Baruch Alster on March 6, 2012 at 11:53 pm

   Don’t forget the opinion of Rava who seems to be critical of Mordechai:

   רבא אמר כנסת ישראל אמרה לאידך גיסא ראו מה עשה לי יהודי ומה שילם לי ימיני מה עשה לי יהודי

   דלא קטליה דוד לשמעי דאתיליד מיניה מרדכי דמיקני ביה המן ומה שילם לי ימיני דלא קטליה שאול לאגג דאתיליד מיניה המן דמצער לישראל

   Megilla 12b-13a

   For a survey of Hazal on this and some more peshat-oriented reasoning, see R. Yaakov Medan’s article in the book Hadassah Hi Esther published by Tevunot (Michlelet Herzog).
   I couldn’t find the article on the net, but here’s a link to another Hebrew summary of traditional opinions with links to quite a few articles on the topic:
   http://tora.us.fm/tnk1/ktuv/mgilot/es-0302.html
5. Anonymous on March 7, 2012 at 12:39 am

   The same question is asked here:
   http://www.kbymedia.org/uploads/text/moadim/purim/purim024.doc

   “Why would he endanger himself and his entire nation over a personal stringency?”
   And how was he supposed to know Haman would lash out against all the jews because he alone upset him?
6. Moshe Shoshan on March 7, 2012 at 2:23 am

   Nice. Reminds me of the probably apocryphal story that RAL took on the chumra of washing mayim achronim with a full sized cup when he left YU for Harvard
7. Nachum on March 7, 2012 at 2:38 am

   Josephus, Antiquities, XI:6:5:

   “Now there was one Haman, the son of Amedatha, by birth an Amalekite, that used to go in to the king; and the foreigners and Persians worshipped him, as Artaxerxes had commanded that such honor should be paid to him; but Mordecai was so wise, and so observant of his own country’s laws, that he would not worship the man.”

   Adds Whiston in a footnote:

   “Whether this adoration required of Mordecai to Haman were by him deemed too like the adoration due only to God, as Josephus seems here to think, as well as the Septuagint interpreters also, by their translation of Esther 13:12-14, or whether he thought he ought to pay no sort of adoration to an Amalekite, which nation had been such great sinners as to have been universally devoted to destruction by God himself, Exodus 17:14-16; 1 Samuel 15:18, or whether both causes concurred, cannot now, I doubt, be certainly determined.”

   Gil, you should point out that you’re using Rabbinic chronology. The “Mordechai” of Ezra-Nechemiah would have lived at least fifty years before the Esther story.
8. first time poster, long time reader on March 7, 2012 at 7:59 am

   an almost identical idea is presented here:
   http://ybm.org.il/hebrew/ViewMovie.aspx?Lesson=3140&Format=V
   it becomes relevant starting from a bit before halfway thru the shiur
9. Hirhurim on March 7, 2012 at 9:06 am

   Dr. Alster: Thank you for bringing this to my attention! It would be great if this was Rava le-shitaso: Mordechai was permitted to bow to Haman and was therefore criticized. However, I’m not sure that is what the Gemara means. It could be just a complaint that Mordechai’s actions led to the whole problem but not a criticism of his refusal to bow. I’ll have to check some commentaries and see what they say.
10. Jacob on March 7, 2012 at 9:11 am

    I agree with Wolfman. Personal chumrot are very nice. But how did Mordechai have the right to jeopardize the lives of a whole community for his own chumra? (In other words, I would have agreed with the Op-Eds of the day).
11. joel rich on March 7, 2012 at 9:16 am

    The Gemara explains that since he left full time Torah study for political intrigue, even though it was for the sake of the Jewish people, he still faced opposed from some of his rabbinic colleagues. Torah study is greater than saving lives; leave politics for others. Apparently, Mordechai disagreed with this calculation and chose to leave the study hall for the palace courtyard.
    ==================================================
    Actually the gemara there does not give a reason. The original bal hamemra just states it as a “fact” that some of sanhedrin disassociated. Rav Yoseif then draws a lesson of comparing Torah learning and saving lives (nothing about politics). It’s Rashi who supplies the “bittul torah/srarah” reason. However other commentators differ – Ibn Ezra says it was jealousy, the alshich says it’s because he had to sit in judgement which always causes some bad feelings,the sh”ut chaim byad says the talmud torah rav yoseif was referring to was the 22,000 youngsters mordechai taught but else hatzalat nfashot is more important.

    I’m doing my Yahrtzeit drasha this year on community service so this was a big issue.

    KT
12. joel rich on March 7, 2012 at 9:22 am

    BTW imho the simplest answer is similar to the one given by the Nodeh byehuda as to how Esther could willingly go to Achashverosh (kaasher avaditi avaditi) – It was a psak by Mordechai and beit dino bruach hakodesh to save all klal Yisrael (which I would understand as meaning it’s not consistent with what we otherwise would have thought halacha to be, this is a unique case for some reason and don’t project to other circumstances, especially present day)
    KT
13. Lawrence Kaplan on March 7, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Rav Hutner discusses this in a more aggadic fashion in Pahad Yitzhak on Purim. True Yaakov and his eleven sons bowed down before Esav, but Mordecai was descended from Binyamin who was not born yet. He links this with the issue of when the principle of assur le-hitgarot bereshaim be olam ha-zeh applies, and when it doesn’t.

    Rav Dessler in his famous letter on Daas Torah defends Mordecai, citing the Gemara that the reason the Jews were in danger of being destroyed was because they benefitted from the banquet of Ahashverosh. They, however, unfairly blamed Mordecai for their predicament, lacking belief in Daas Torah, just as peple after the Holocaust. lacking belief in Daas Torah and having no Emunas Hakhamim, unfairly blamed the Gedolim for discouraging aliyah before WW2.
14. A Little Sanity on March 7, 2012 at 11:00 am

    “Da’as Mikra, a contemporary Orthodox commentary, notes that historians contend that Persians in Esther’s era did not deify themselves or wear idols. ”

    Actually, most, if not virtually all, historians of the period, would contend that the story told in the Book of Esther was not historical, and certainly not in all its details.

    It seems to me that the emphasis on this sort of pilpul, over what may well have been an allegory, is symptomatic of what is most wrong with the frum community these days. In the meantime, press reports this week reveal that another baby died because of the m’tzitzah b’peh practice. A baby. Would that we could use our mental prowess to find better ways to protect the most innocent among us. But I interrupt. Back to Bava Metziah, gentleman.
15. Hirhurim on March 7, 2012 at 11:50 am

    See Edwin Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, p. 239:

    Gordis summarizes the various lines in favor of the historicity of Esther by concluding, “all in all, the case for the historical basis for the book is impressive.” Moore admits, “on the face of it, the story seems to be true… Nothing in the book seems improbable, let alone unbelievable.” If this is the case, and if the alleged historical problems are not insoluble, then it would seem preferable to take the book at face value as a historical narrative rather than to resort to subjective and highly speculative reconstructions. Scholars such as Wright, Shea, and Claus Schedl have indeed argued for such a view.
16. a westreich on March 7, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    See this fascinating quote from the Rama MiPano (אות ה).
    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46819&st=&pgnum=377&hilite=
17. David Tzohar on March 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    I always felt that Mordechai’s refusal to bow to Haman had to do with the fact that he was an Amalekite. How could he bow to someone whose people is eternally at war with Hashem and who he is commanded to kill if given the chance? As far as I know this idea is not mentioned in commentaries, but I think that it actually makes more sense than claiming that there is some kind of avak avodah zarah involved.
18. Holy Hyrax on March 7, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    >While Mordechai spent much time in the palace courtyard, he did not work for the king and therefore was free from this order.

    I don’t see how someone would be accepted into the palace courtyard unless he was somehow connected to the some sort of job with the palace. Whether guard, or janitor I think he would have to bow
19. Shlomo on March 7, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    I suggest that the answer lies in the last verse of the book of Esther. In describing Mordechai’s popularity, the text states that he was accepted by most of his brothers.

    Similarly: berov am hadrat melech – whenever you are praising God, you have to make sure that a minority of the people are not present.
    :)
20. Nachum on March 7, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    “Nothing in the book seems improbable, let alone unbelievable”

    Really, Gil? I wasn’t going to bring it up, but since you did:

    1. An entire kingdom run on a principle that no rule can ever be changed?

    2. Six months to put on makeup? Six months to put on perfume?
21. Nachum on March 7, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Oh, and for a really funny one, compare the names of the seven eunuchs to the seven advisors. :-)
22. LI Reader on March 7, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Question: Why is the book called “Megillat Esther”, and not “Megillat Mordechai” or “Megillat Mordechai v’Esther”?

    Answer: They both did jeopardize their lives. The difference was that Esther did it because she had to; she really had no choice. But Mordechai made a decision. He could have chosen to bow down, but instead he chose to jeopardize both himself and the entire people.

    Esther took us out of the fix that Mordechai brought us into. So of course the megilla is named only for her.

    (Source: Yaarot D’vash, cited in Birkat Chaim by Chaim Tsukerman.)
23. A Little Sanity on March 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    “See Edwin Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, p. 239″

    Yamauchi does not exactly appear to be mainstream. From Wikipedia:
    “He is a founding member of the Oxford Bible Fellowship church in Oxford, Ohio. He has been a supporter of the Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship throughout his career, and particularly at the campus of Miami University. He has contributed popular articles to periodicals like Christianity Today magazine on the resurrection of Christ and in response to controversial claims made about the Dead Sea Scrolls…Yamauchi was featured in the widely read Christian apologetic work The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. ”

    Can we also be somekh on Yamauchi about “The Case for Christ,” or does his ne’emanus only extend to the Persian period? :)
24. ruvie on March 7, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    a little sanity – if you haven’t noticed the scholarship is chosen by one’s hashkafa not the quality (or broad acceptance because of the data) or logic of any given scholar or work cited.
25. Ruvie on March 8, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    R’ gil – “Nothing in the book seems improbable, let alone unbelievable.” If this is the case, and if the alleged historical problems are not insoluble, then it would seem preferable to take the book at face value as a historical narrative rather than to resort to subjective and highly speculative reconstructions”

    Face value as literal? Which is more subjective and highly speculative – the case for literal and accurate history ( Jewish queen married to a goy – not a problem) or historical novella ( with word play, irony, farce and satire to boot)? Who here is the one resorting to subjectivity and speculation?
26. Hirhurim on March 8, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    Nachum: 1. An entire kingdom run on a principle that no rule can ever be changed?

    Where does it say that in the Megillah? If you want to see a great political interpretation of the events, read Yoram Hazony’s The Dawn. He puts it all into a comprehensive and plausible context.

    2. Six months to put on makeup? Six months to put on perfume?

    I don’t understand the problem. He tried out 1 girl a night. Even he did this every single night, which is hard to imagine, there must have been hundreds of girls which would have led to a long queue.

    A Little Sanity: I never understood the attitude that religious people’s opinions are worthless on the Bible and only secular scholars count. Yamauchi’s book is excellent.

    Ruvie: What exactly is your argument? That the story of Esther improbable? That’s the whole point! Yes, I take it at face value and have trouble seeing why anyone would not.
27. Steve Brizel on March 8, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Ruvie-I agree with R Gil on this isssue. For anyone interested in Midrashim that are sardonic and graphic, and certainly aproach what in a wholly secular context would be an “R” rating, take a look at the Midrashim in the volume published by Torah Shelemah on Megilas Esther. The Midrashim and other commentaries cited in the footnotes in the above mentioned sefer as well in the Toras Chaim edition of Megilas Esther underscore the importance of using Midrash as a means of not just serving a basis for drashos but for also understanding many of the unique halachic issues surrounding Purim, including but not certainly not limited to a three day fast not just in Nisan, but on Pesach itself.

    I haven’t seen this anywhere yet, but perhaps one approach is the radical nature of that fast, as suggested by Esther HaMalkah, was one of the reasons why Chazal in Masectah Megilah debated as to whether Megilat Esther, (as well as Shir HaShirim and Koheles, and Rus,) should be accepted as part of Kisvei HaKodesh. KIOW, the question confronting the Tanaim was whether such a sefer, which included a one time Horaas Shah of a communal Pikuach Nefesh, should be included in Kisvei HaKodesh. When one adds that factor together with the Kabalas HaTorah MeRatzon, as well as the ultimate permission to build Bayis Sheni, whcih stemmed from the offspring of Esther, then one can feel fairly confident that Chazal, both in the Talmud, and especially in the Midrash, had a tradition of how to read between the lines in what the Megilah tells us was a long drawn out affair of more than a few years in duration.
28. Steve Brizel on March 8, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Ruvie-I agree with R Gil on this issue, but from a wholly different vantage point.

    Why not start with what Chazal said both in the Agaddic sections of Masectah Megilah and especially the Midrashim, at least for a slight understanding of what was happening between the lines, and was not explicitly mentioned in the Megtilah?Why not look first between the lines and see how Chazal and the Midrashim understood the events therein both respect to the salvation of the Jews of Shushan and subsequent events in Jewish history?

    For anyone interested in Midrashim that are sardonic and graphic, and certainly aproach what in a wholly secular context would be an “R” rating, take a look at the Midrashim in the volume published by Torah Shelemah on Megilas Esther, especially on the mores of Achashverush and Vashti. The Midrashim and other commentaries cited in the footnotes in the above mentioned sefer as well in the Toras Chaim edition of Megilas Esther underscore the importance of using Midrash as a means of not just serving a basis for drashos but for also understanding many of the unique halachic and halachic issues surrounding Purim, including but not certainly not limited to a three day fast not just in Nisan, but on Pesach itself, and why Mordechai and Esther were sucessful in rallying the Jews of Shushan to do teshuvah, as opposed to all of the prior Neviim.

    I haven’t seen this anywhere yet, but perhaps one approach is the radical nature of that fast, as suggested by Esther HaMalkah, was one of the reasons why Chazal in Masectah Megilah debated as to whether Megilat Esther, (as well as Shir HaShirim and Koheles, and Rus, each of which also presented problems in their own right as to whether the same should be accepted as Kisvei HaKodesh) should be accepted as part of Kisvei HaKodesh.

    IOW, the question confronting the Tanaim was whether such a sefer, which included a one time Horaas Shah of a communal Pikuach Nefesh, that essentially deemed Pikuach Nefesh as more important than celebrating Yetzias Mitzrayim because of the existential threat posed by Haman, should be included in Kisvei HaKodesh. When one adds that factor together with the Kabalas HaTorah MeRatzon, as well as the ultimate permission to build Bayis Sheni, which stemmed from the offspring of Esther, then one can feel fairly confident that Chazal, both in the Talmud, and especially in the Midrash, had a tradition of how to read between the lines in what the Megilah tells us was a long drawn out affair of approximately nine years.

    As for why Mordechai and Esther were successful with their rallying cry of Lech Knus Kol HaYehudim, once again the Midrash cited in the Torah Shelemah lends light. Mordechai and Esther were descendants of Shevet Binyamin, which played no role in Meciras Yosef, an enormously divisive act in Jewish history.

    Why a fast for three days? The Rokeach, cited in one of the footnotes in the Torah Shelemah edition of Megilas Esther, notes that the reference in Esther 8:11, of “Lhashmid, VLaarog Ulabed” refers to three separate decrees. Perhaps, a source for the same is the trup for that Pasuk, which separates each word, and even is repeated, with a slight pause between each word.

    Again, we see that Megilas Esther, which is an Igeres, in which only the surface elements are revealed to the casual reader, was understood on a far deeper level by Chazal, both in the Aggadic sections of Masectah Megilah and in Midrashim.

    One should also note that even if one assumes that Mordechai was not confronted with actual AZ, there is also the factor of Avizurahu of AZ, and Mordechai’s status as a teacher of Torah, which might render him an “Adam Chashuv”, thus dictating that he follow a stricter sense of Halacha, especially in a society where the Klei HaMikdash had been displayed at a royal party, at which his fellow Jews attended and partook of.
29. ayg on March 9, 2012 at 5:08 am

    Dr Kaplan – what evidence is there that the people blamed mordechai
30. Mike S. on March 9, 2012 at 6:49 am

    ayg–Dr. Kaplan’s source for that is the gemara in megilla, toward the end of the 1st chapter.
31. ruvie on March 9, 2012 at 9:00 am

    r’ gil – “What exactly is your argument? That the story of Esther improbable? That’s the whole point! Yes, I take it at face value and have trouble seeing why anyone would not.”

    i was objecting to your fanciful line of logic (as intimated by a little sanity). your logic is if and if… insoluble etc.. then lets take them as fact and then you claim that others are resorting to speculative reconstruction but you are free of that.
    no doubt that megilat esther contain details that are true of the persian court but it is written as a farce or comedy of errors – just read the book. to say that a miss persia contest is the way they chose queens, a king not caring about killing off part of his tax base, haman offering amount of money that is larger than any one individual could have(50-60% of entire tax base of the empire), persian kings cannot change decrees once it was sealed – is contrary to what we know of a tolerant and multi ethnic rule of the persians.

    i would think that at the minimum you are reconstructing the facts – not that there is anything wrong with that but to say if and if and then others are guilty of speculation while you are not is ironic and aligned with the theme of megilat esther. at least be honest about it.
32. ruvie on March 9, 2012 at 10:45 am

    steve b. – i have no problem in reading aggadita and midrashim to get greater insights into the story of purim. i believe chazal offer us much to think about. but with most midrqshim i do not think chazal are trying to teach us historical facts (remember the way we look at history is far different than then) but eternal truths or hints to a way to approach issues etc. (for example the famous midrash on lot and sodom that it was pesach and he served matzot – is a hint for the reader to look at the wording of passage as compared to words used in shemot – see r’ yoel bin nun essay on the matter).

    as to the fast of esther its post talmudic i believe (gaonic) and the 13 of adar was a day of celebration and prohibited to fast – see megilat taanit and mitchell first article above of the origins of the taanit. derashot sometimes are just derashot
33. Steve Brizel on March 9, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Ruvie-Let’s put aside Taanis Esther and its dating.

    My point, which you seemed not to address, was that Esther HaMalkah herself called for three days of fasting, which the Midrashim understood based on the text of the Megillah was to occur on Pesach, a quite radical idea, but for the fact that Klal Yisrael were in a communal situation of Pikuach Nefesh, and that this may well have underscored the debate in Masecta Megilah as to whether Megilas Esther would be included within Kisvei HaKodesh. I also do not think that we can ignore the simple fact that Mordechai and Esther played a crucial rule because they were descended from Shevet Binyamin.

    One can argue that based on Megilas Taanis that both we observe both Purim and Chanukah, because the same were major events that had to with the rebuilding and reestablishment of Bayis Sheni and the karbanos therein.
34. ruvie on March 9, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    steve b. – lets agree to disagree. the first to record the idea of the fast- gaonim -do not mention esther’s fast and it was called taanit purim. see: http://seforim.blogspot.com/2011/03/origin-of-taanit-esther.html …also, its possible they fasted because the custom of fasting the day you go to war (i believe tosafot)

    the fact is pesach is not mentioned seems odd (or fasting on a chag). that esther’s diet – kosher food anyone -wasn’t commented on (unlike daniel who became a veggie) etc. without a doubt the author of megilat esther is settling old scores with the story (shaul vs agag) with manyy references to other characters. of course its intentional.

    chazal decided to include megilat esther because it had meaning for future generations and maybe because it explains why we celebrate this holiday to begin with (and all the differences and complications of the celebration which is extremely odd for our religion).

    shabbat shalom
35. Steve Brizel on March 9, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Ruvie-The Midrashim explain the idea of the fast for three days. Do we not assume that the authors of the Medrashim lived well before the Tekufas HaGaonim?WADR, I think that the Medrashim also explain the unique circumtances that warranted such a fast-even and especially on Pesach.
36. Steve Brizel on March 9, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    Ruvie-did you see the following comment to the article that you cited, (or did you merely accept the article at face value because it suited your POV)?

    “With all due to respect to the excellent scholarship presented herein, your argument is untenable to the the traditional scholar who shares the Rishonim’s veiw of the Geonic tradition that ‘כל דבריהם דברי קבלה’. What precedent is there to accuse them of manipulating and distorting a rabbinic source for polemical purposes. I also find it strange that there would be no legitimate way for them to push their agenda, relying on sound talmudic argumets, rather than create some dubious (and in your opinion, patently false) explanation in a gemara megilla of all places.

    Furthermore, I feel it is wrong to claim that there is no talmudic source for this fast day, when according to the interpretation of the she’iltot, this is the intention of the gemara megilla 2a that states “יום י”ג זמן קהילה לכל הוא”, an interpretation consistent with the view of Rabbenu Tam (cited in Rosh first perek) that the fast is to commemorate the fast of the Jews who fasted prior to the battle (rather than Esther’s fasts).

    Lastly, according to the manuscript evidence cited on p. 223 of the mirsky edition, the She’iltot’s interpretation of “יום הכניסה” is not contradicted by Rashi and Tosafot. See here:
    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21484&st=&pgnum=228
37. ruvie on March 9, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    steve b. – i don’t have a point of view on this – i link to the article to show that your comments are not necessary established and there are many issues to say that is the reason for the fast – plus i threw in tosafot’s answer. if you are looking for a remez in the gemera i am sure you can find one – whether it is there or not. 13 of adar was yom hikanor which is prohibited to fast according to talmudic sources

    the midrashim i believe are post talmudic. we could just disagree how to look at the situation. the fast was a late establishment – that there is no question of. why? we can all speculate.
38. Steve Brizel on March 10, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    Ruvie-Let’s be real-you tend to favor verified academic reasons over what may very well be a reason either in Chazal or Medrashim, the latter of which you view as having less weight because you think the same are post talmudic, when in fact, many of the Gdolei Hamifarshim refer to, and with far greater caution than you tend to acknowledge. Regardless of when Taanis Estherwas formally instuituted as a Taanis, the fact remains that the Megilah tells us that Esther gave instructions to fast for three days.I reject your characterization of the reasons given by the Medrashim as speculative
39. ruvie on March 11, 2012 at 3:47 am

    steve b. – i think you misunderstood my comments or they eluded your careful analysis. i do like to know as many facts as possible – especially dating timelines – before rendering conclusions. i try to take most items at face value but understand that meanings can differ to what the original author may have been trying to convey based on context and style of the time.
    my original comment had to with r’ gil answer to a commenter that (to paraphrase) that everyone else is speculating – about the facts of the story -while he was on some type of solid ground with outliers in the scholarship field. all i ask for is a little bit of honesty – which i found lacking.

    as to the taanit – my remark was simply the taanit is of a very late origin – post talmudic it seems – which you did not dispute and to as why – well we seem to have different traditions to why. this does not effect the halacha of fasting etc. i never said the midrashim reasons are speculative. please do not say things that i did not say. i said we can speculate to why the fast was instituted – and it seems from our traditional sources there are more than one reason – not from academic research or studies. one can always speculate and prefer one over the other – so when you quote things that are definitive – like you most often do – i object.
40. Steve Brizel on March 11, 2012 at 9:06 am

    Ruvie wrote:

    “steve b. – i think you misunderstood my comments or they eluded your careful analysis. i do like to know as many facts as possible – especially dating timelines – before rendering conclusions. i try to take most items at face value but understand that meanings can differ to what the original author may have been trying to convey based on context and style of the time.”

    Dating timelines are interesting, but IMO, are mere icing on the cake. Where do you draw the line in your well stated comment that “meanings can differ to what the original author may have been trying to convey based on context and style of the time”?
41. ruvie on March 11, 2012 at 10:51 am

    steve b – the line is more or less talking about midrashim and commentators that need to be read in context to understand their true meaning and not just believing them literally – i do no think they are meant for that. usually, common sense draws the line for you.
    do you think its odd that the taanit began being observed more than 1000 years after the holiday of purim was established? and that our ancestors did not give the reason you gave when it was started? doesn’t mean you cannot connect the fast to the fast that esther did on pesach – but it is for derashot (which try to give meaning to what we do and i am all for that) not simple facts (as you stated). i think we have beaten this topic to a pulp.

    “you tend to favor verified academic reasons ” – may i ask what that means?
42. Steve Brizel on March 11, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Ruvie asked:

    “do you think its odd that the taanit began being observed more than 1000 years after the holiday of purim was established”

    Interesting, and even fascinating from a historical perspective, but not odd-we know that the Megillah records that Esher HaMalkah called for a three day fast, which the Midrashim understood took place on Pesach. That may have been a one time occurrence, which the Gaonim viewed as Makor for Taanis Esther or that Taanis Esther was established as a Zecer of that three day fast. It would not be the first time that a later rabbinic ordinance was instituted as a remembrance of a prior event.
43. Steve Brizel on March 11, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    Ruvie asked:

    ““you tend to favor verified academic reasons ” – may i ask what that means?”

    Look at your posts on a wide range of subjects. You tend to favor that which it is verified by the academic world, as opposed to living with the traditional answers that may be intellectually unsatisfying, but which exist not just as “answers” , but as reminders that “teiku”, whether in Halacha or Parshanut is a very praiseworthy attitude, as a mark of man’s finite intellectual and spiritual abilities and reach.
44. March Roundup | Hirhurim – Torah Musings on April 2, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    [...] Mordechai’s Chumra [...]