Mordechai the Villain: Rava's Shocking Reason for Drinking on Purim

Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until one does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai.

Rava said: Wine and good scents make me wise.

(5) At the end of this period, the king gave a banquet for seven days in the court of the king’s palace garden for all the people who lived in the fortress Shushan, high and low alike. (6) [There were hangings of] white cotton and blue wool, caught up by cords of fine linen and purple wool to silver rods and alabaster columns; and there were couches of gold and silver on a pavement of marble, alabaster, mother-of-pearl, and mosaics. (7) Royal wine was served in abundance, as befits a king, in golden beakers, beakers of varied design. (8) And the rule for the drinking was, “No restrictions!” For the king had given orders to every palace steward to comply with each man’s wishes.

“To comply with each man’s wishes” (Esther 1:8). Rava commented on the literal meaning of the verse, which is referring to two men, a man and a man [ish va’ish], and said: The man and man whom they should follow indicates that they should do according to the wishes of Mordecai and Haman. The two of them served as butlers at the feast, and they were in charge of distributing the wine. Why is the verse interpreted in this way? Mordecai is called “man,” as it is written: “There was a certain Jewish man [ish] in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair” (Esther 2:5). And Haman is also called man, as it states: “A man [ish] who is an adversary and an enemy, this evil Haman” (Esther 7:6).

The students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai asked him: For what reason were the enemies of Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves when exhibiting behavior that is not in their best interests, in that generation deserving of annihilation? He, Rabbi Shimon, said to them: Say the answer to your question yourselves. They said to him: It is because they partook of the feast of that wicked one, Ahasuerus.

The verse states with regard to Mordecai: “Who had been exiled from Jerusalem” (Esther 2:6). Rava said: This language indicates that he went into exile on his own, not because he was forced to leave Jerusalem.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said an alternative explanation: Mordecai’s father was from the tribe of Benjamin, and his mother was from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, he was both a Yemini, a Benjamite, and a Yehudi, from the tribe of Judah. And the Rabbis say that the dual lineage is due to a dispute: The families competed with each other over which tribe could take credit for Mordecai. The family of Judah would say: I caused the birth of Mordecai, as only because David did not kill Shimei, the son of Gera, when he cursed him (see II Samuel, chapter 16) was it possible for Mordecai to be born later from his descendants. And the family of Benjamin said in response: In the end he came from me, as he in fact was from Benjamin’s tribe. Rava said: The Congregation of Israel at the time said this from the opposite perspective, not as a boast, but as a complaint, remarking: See what a Judean has done to me and how a Benjamite has repaid me. What a Judean has done to me is referring to the responsibility of Judah, as David did not kill Shimei, although he was liable to the death penalty. The grave consequences of this failure included that Mordecai was born from him, and it was he against whom Haman was jealous, leading Haman to issue a decree against all of the Jewish people. And how a Benjamite has repaid me is referring to the fact that Saul, who was from the tribe of Benjamin, did not kill the Amalekite king Agag immediately, from whom Haman was later born, and he caused suffering to the Jewish people.

It has been taught: If one engages in idolatry through love or fear of people, but does not actually accept the divinity of the idol, Abaye said, he is liable to punishment; but Rava said, he is free from a penalty. Abaye ruled that he is liable, since he worshipped it; but
Rava said that he is innocent: only if he accepts it as a god is he liable, but not otherwise...

Abaye said: What is the source for my position? It has been taught in an earlier rabbinic source:

After bringing in his proof text, Abeye explains how this rabbinic source proves his point: And Haman was worshipped through fear, which means that this earlier rabbinic source held that it was prohibited to bow to him even though it was done in fear.

Rava responds by reading the earlier rabbinic source differently: The prohibition in the source only applies to someone "like
Haman" but not altogether like Haman. To bow down to one "like Haman" is forbidden, since he set himself up as a divinity; but the prohibition only extends to someone not altogether like Haman for Haman was worshipped through fear, while the prohibition applies only to a voluntary action.

Rava said: All forms of idolatry were
included in the general prohibition of "You shall not worship them" (Exodus 20:4); but when the Torah specified "And live by them" (Leviticus 18:5), which teaches that you should not not die because of your observance of them (i.e., observance of the commandments), this specification teaches that a person who acts under
coercion of physical violence is excluded from the general prohibition against idolatry. After that, however, the All Merciful Torah wrote "And you shall not profane my holy name" (Leviticus 22:32), which means that one may not worship idolatry not even under coercion of physical violence! How can these two views -- that idolatry under threat of physical coercion is both permitted and prohibited -- be reconciled?

The former refers to an act in private, the latter to an act in public.

But Esther violated a cardinal sin in public by having sex with King Ahasuerus, which everyone knew about!

Abaye answered: Esther was passive in her sin.

Rava said: When a persecutor demands violation of a sin for their personal pleasure, it is different, and therefore permissible, even when in public. For otherwise, how could we bring materials to the churches of the local idolaters? Therefore, cardinal sins performed for their personal pleasure is different, and permissible; so here too, in Esther's case, her action was purely for the coercer's, King Ahasuerus's pleasure, and was therefore different, and permissible.

This concurs with Rava's view expressed elsewhere. For Rava said: If an idolater said to a Jew: "Cut grass on the Sabbath (a traditionally prohibited act) for the cattle, and if not I will kill you," he must cut the grass rather be killed; but if the idolater said: "Cut it and throw it into the river," he should be killed rather than cut it. Why so? Because his intention in the latter case is to force the Jew to violate his religion, rather than do something for the idolater's pleasure, which is the first scenario of cutting grass to feed cattle.

(8) When the king’s order and edict was proclaimed, and when many girls were assembled in the fortress Shushan under the supervision of Hegai, Esther too was taken into the king’s palace under the supervision of Hegai, guardian of the women. (9) The girl pleased him and won his favor, and he hastened to furnish her with her cosmetics and her rations, as well as with the seven maids who were her due from the king’s palace; and he treated her and her maids with special kindness in the harem. (10) Esther did not reveal her people or her kindred, for Mordecai had told her not to reveal it... (20) But Esther still did not reveal her kindred or her people, as Mordecai had instructed her; for Esther obeyed Mordecai’s bidding, as she had done when she was under his tutelage.

(1) Some time afterward, King Ahasuerus promoted Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite; he advanced him and seated him higher than any of his fellow officials. (2) All the king’s courtiers in the palace gate knelt and bowed low to Haman, for such was the king’s order concerning him; but Mordecai would not kneel or bow low. (3) Then the king’s courtiers who were in the palace gate said to Mordecai, “Why do you disobey the king’s order?” (4) When they spoke to him day after day and he would not listen to them, they told Haman, in order to see whether Mordecai’s resolve would prevail; for he had explained to them that he was a Jew. (5) When Haman saw that Mordecai would not kneel or bow low to him, Haman was filled with rage. (6) But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone; having been told who Mordecai’s people were, Haman plotted to do away with all the Jews, Mordecai’s people, throughout the kingdom of Ahasuerus.

The verse states: “But it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay his hand on Mordecai alone; for they had made known to him the people of Mordecai; wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai” (Esther 3:6). Rava said: At first he wanted to lay his hands on Mordecai alone, and in the end on the people of Mordecai. And who were the people of Mordecai? They were the Sages, i.e., Mordecai’s special people. And ultimately he sought to bring harm on all the Jews.