Purim: Chances and Last Chances

A Havolim classic, updated.  Originally posted in February of 2007. 

The haftorah of Parshas Zachor tells us about Shaul Hamelech. More than most figures in Tanach, Shaul is described in an intensely personal manner, and we see many disparate stages in the development of an extremely complex, powerful, and righteous man.

The Haftorah describes Shaul's battle against Amalek, and his failure to completely destroy them when he had a chance to do so, and how Shmuel Hanavi told him that he lost the throne because of that. First we have to remember that Shaul was one of the greatest men of history, even greater than David. Hashem told David that one hundred Davids were not the equal of one Shaul, and that Shaul only lost the malchus for this one specific failing. If he were from Shevet Yehuda, perhaps he would have been forgiven. But there was this one terrible, fatal mistake. As told in the navi, Shmuel confronted Shaul for having left the Amaleiki king Agag alive overnight, and said that Hashem regretted making him king. When Shmuel turned away, Shaul, distraught, desperately grabbed at Shmuel's cloak and it tore, and Shmuel said (Shmuel I 15:28,29)

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו שְׁמוּאֵל קָרַע ה' אֶת מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם; וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ 

“Kara Hashem es mamlechus Yisrael mei’alecha hayom u'ne'sanah l’rei’acha hatov mimeka. “God has torn your kingdom from upon you and has given it to your compatriot who is better than you."

וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם  כִּי לֹא אָדָם הוּא לְהִנָּחֵם, 

V’gam neitzach Yisrael... "And the eternity of Israel will not be false or fail.”

There are some questions we need to ask.

• Of course, ‘rei’acha' means David, as it says in perek 28 when Shmuel again told Shaul that the kingdom had been given “l’rei’acha l’david.” But doesn’t rei’acha also mean 'your friend' or your compatriot (as the Gaon notes in Shemos 11:2)? Certainly, David was no friend of Sha’ul’s.
• And what does “hatov mimeka”, who is better than you, mean? What was the point of telling Sha’ul that his successor was better than he? Just to add insult to injury? And was it really so, that David was greater in al ways than Shaul? But Chazal say that Hashem said that Shaul was greater than David (see, e.g., Moed Kattan 16b and the Tosfos HaRosh and the Kosev in the Ein Yakov in the name of the Ra'n)!
• Also, what was the point of “vegam neitzach,” that the eternal hope of Israel will never fail? What does that have to do with what Shmuel had just told him? Why did he have to tell him a hashkafa lesson after telling him about his loss? The meforshim there explain that Shmuel was telling him that teshuva won’t restore the malchus to him, because it has already been given to another, and Hashem will not retract a gift once given.  But we can say another pshat.

To understand the other pshat, we have to look into Megillas Esther. When Memuchan told Achashveirosh that Vashti’s sin needed to have consequences, he said, וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה. ”u'malchusah yitein hamelech l’re’usah hatovah mimenah,” the king will give her royalty to her peer who is better  than she.  Memuchan was simply giving Achashveirosh good advice, and the words he used to give that advice to the king were not unusual and had no carefully crafted hidden meaning. Replace Vashti with someone who is better than she, who won't shame the royal house.

Who did this "re’usah" turn out to be? It was Esther. We know from the Gemara (Megilla 13a) that both Esther and Mordechai were direct descendants of Shaul’s.

Now pay attention to the deep meaning in the words of the Megilla and in the words of the navi Shmuel. Shmuel told Shaul “Kara Hashem Malchuscha mei’alecha unesanah l’rei’acha hatov mimeka"-- and Memuchan told Achashveirosh to take away the malchus from Vashti and "yitein Hamelech l’re’usoh hatovoh mimenoh.” When Shmuel told Shaul that the malchus was taken away because he failed to destroy Amolek, he said that malchus would one day be given to his own great grand daughter, Esther. Esther was the “rei’achoh” to whom malchus would be given, and she was “mimeka,” she was Shaul's granddaughter, and she would be given the opportunity to do what Shaul failed to do. And when Memuchan said that the Melech should give royalty to re'usa, who do you think "Hamelech" turned out to be?

Memuchan had no idea of what he was talking about; that is the whole point of Megillas Esther, of hidden movement and manipulation, miracles that happen under our noses while we are completely unaware of what is happening-- we are even unaware of what our own words mean.

Shmuel said "Netzach Yisrael lo yeshaker!" We humans make plans for a day, for a week, for a year— but Hashem makes plans for 520 years. It is nitzchiyus, and Hashem is not a 'person' that is misnacheim. Shaul lost the malchus, but the malchus was not completely lost. There would be another chance.

But Mordechai told Esther that for her and her part of the family, this was their chance to do what their ancestor Shaul had failed to do; but this was their last chance. Her family’s burden through the generations was to remedy that failure. If Hashem could just as well bring about His plan through someone else (as Mordechai told her,) why did Esther have to suffer the disgrace and emotional trauma of being Achashveirosh’s odalisque, his concubine? Why couldn’t someone else have been the catalyst of this event without having to be disgraced and shamed? The answer is that it was for her own family’s sake that Hashem was granting her the opportunity to be the one who brings about the yeshua, and for Esther, the only way to get it done was by becoming Queen; here, the Queen was the pawn. It was a great opportunity for her; but everything hung in the balance. If she wouldn’t seize the opportunity, then “aht uveis ovich toveidu...,” her family would lose forever the opportunity to fulfil their tafkid, forever stigmatized by the chet of Shaul. It was not only she that was on the edge of disaster-- it was "veis avich" as well; the entire family, the legacy, the history of five hundred years of missed opportunity, that stood on the brink.

And when Esther made the decision to risk her life to destroy Haman, the Megillah says "Vatilbash Esther Malchus...." When Esther made her decision, she put on the levush malchus, the royal garb that Shmuel had said had been torn away from her grandfather Shaul--"Kora Hashem malchuscha mei'alecha...." The Melech who had torn away Shaul's royal garb rewarded Esther's courage and allowed her to put it on and do what her grandfather had failed to do.

It is possible that during the intervening centuries there were other opportunities that were not taken advantage of, protagonists we never heard of--because they failed. It may also be that“netzach Yisroel” means that the malchus that Shaul was given did remain in his family and was not completely erased; a balance may tip in one direction or another, but the elements remain in place. Netzach Yisroel, although a God-given gift might submerge for a generation, or two, or even five hundred years, it is still there, and will express itself eventually. “Lo adom Hu l’hinacheim;” Hashem gave you malchus, and you will have malchus, in a different form and a different time.

Perhaps this gives a special insight into the purpose of Shalach Manos Ish L’Rei’eihu. Use this opportunity to give someone who has offended you a second chance, just as Hashem gave Shaul’s family a second chance.

This ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION is based on a dvar torah said by Habochur Hayokor Moshe Eisenberg of Yeshiva of Staten Island, Telz Chicago, and Yeshivas Kodshim of Harav Tzvi Kaplan, Yerushalayim.

 

This idea is alluded to in the Medrash Rabbah 4:9 on Esther in the name of R’ Chaninah brei d’rav Avohu.

 בלשון שנטלה המלכות מזקנה שאמר לו ונתנה לרעך

הטוב ממך בו בלשק חזר לה המלוכה.
הה״ד וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה

Please note, however, that the Gemara in Zevachim 102a seems to have a very different point of view. 

An interesting commonality is mentioned in another Medrash, both in Breishis 67:4 and in Esther Rabba 8:

אמר רבי חנין: כל מי שאומר שהקב"ה וותרן (ומוותר לצדיקים), יקרעו בני מעיו, אלא הקב"ה מאריך אפו, אבל גובה את חובו, תדע שהרי זעקה אחת הזעיק יעקב לעשו, דכתיב (בראשית כ"ו) 'ויצעק צעקה גדולה ומרה' והיכן נפרע לו? בשושן, שנאמר: ויזעק זעקה גדולה ומרה 

but I'm not sure what this Medrash means to highlight with this connection.  Harav Dr. Eli E suggests that this is the price of subterfuge as opposed to direct confrontation; but I don't know that any alternative existed for Yaakov or for Mordechai.

A comment that I like from the original posting:

Chosid said...
Interesting vort. I have always wondered about people who speak of yeshuas Hashem Kheref Ayin as meaning immediately. The lesson of your article implies that the RBSHA idea of kheref ayin can mean 520 years or more. How warped our sense of time is compared to the RBSHA! The other interesting thought is that it is never too late for redemption both for ourselves and our offspring even if it spans five centuries.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Agreeing with Chosid, I point out the Gemara in Sanhedrin 38a:

א״ר אחא בר יעקב שמע מינה מהרה דמרי עלמא תמני מאה וחמשין ותרתין הוו

"Fast, for Hashem, is eight hundred and fifty two years."  So five hundred and twenty is, indeed, the blink of an eye.

Why we wear masks and costumes on Purim: The answer you never heard.

A Havolim Classic, originally posted February of '07. It's a good example of Gresham's Law as applied to minhagim: simplistic reasons drive other explanations out of the market.  There are many minhagim that seem trivial only until you learn their true source and their true meaning.

The generally accepted explanation for the costumes we wear on Purim is (Rama OC 696:8) that the Miracle of Purim was not through mighty and obvious changes in nature, through nissim niglim. Instead, God operated behind the 'mask' of nature, and accomplished, through hidden manipulation of natural events, as great a miracle as the splitting of the Red Sea. So we, too, wear masks, to symbolize that "hester panim," the "hidden face." This theme resonates throughout the Megilla, with Esther (Esther/hester, Chullin 139b) hiding her ethnicity, and Mordechai changing his clothing from the glorious vestments of a royal favorite to mourner's sackcloth and back.

And then there is the "mah yafis" poppycock that it stems from mimicry of Christian festivals. In fact, of course the minhag far predated the Venetian Mardi Gras the above alludes to. In Maseches Purim, written by R. Kallonymus ben Kallonymus (1286-1328), he writes ובארבעה עשר לחודש אדר, בחורי ישראל לכבוד ולהדר... זה ילבש שמלת אשה ולגרגרותיו ענקים... וזה יתחקה כאחד הרקים תף ומחול שמחה ושלישים. אלו עם אלו אנשים עם נשים... (Thank you to Eliezer Brodt in the Seforim Blog for the reference.)  (please see end of post for a brief discussion of Cultural Diffusion.)

Those are the explanations that you may have heard. Now, here is an excellent explanation you did not know.

I have a friend, Rabbi Leibel Schwartz, (who, on Purim, should be referred to as “Black Leibel”-- Schwartz=Black,) who was rushing to get his wife to the doctor because she had a high fever and was having trouble breathing. Unfortunately, in his hurry he mis-stepped and fell down the stairs. He broke four ribs and collapsed a lung, and was in a great deal of pain. Next time you inhale, think about four cracked ribs grinding against each other with each breath. Anyway, when we found out about it at our shiur, we called him, and one member of the shiur, who shall remain nameless, told him that our call reminded him of the story about the President of a shul who called his rabbi who had been hospitalized. The Shul President told his Rabbi that the board of directors had voted eleven to nine to wish him a speedy recovery. Telling a joke like that to a man with four broken ribs and a collapsed lung is not a laughing matter. But it was funny anyway, and speaks volumes about the people who come to my shiur.

When I visited him, Leibel showed me a sefer from his grandfather’s uncle, Tshuvos Eirech Shai, from the Dayan of Siget. (Or, Sighet; the town where Eli Weisel was born, which has been said variously as having been in Romania, Hungary, Ukraine, and Transylvania.)  In the section on Orach Chaim, he has remarks on Shulchan Aruch. On Siman 570, in the Laws of Chanuka, he discusses the Taz’s question about why there is no minhag to have special festive meals on Chanukah. The Taz distinguishes between redemption from spiritual threat, which should be commemorated with religious ceremonies, and redemption from existential threat, which should be commemorated with festive meals. The Dayan suggests another answer.

He brings from his book on the Chumash that Yitzchak wanted to save his son, Eisav, from his impending spiritual self-destruction. When Yitzchok told Eisav “sah nah tel’yicha” (pick up the weapons that hang at your side) it was a hint that he hoped to save Haman, Eisav’s descendant, from being hanged. Certainly, a blessing to Eisav would have empowered him and his descendants with strengths beyond what they would naturally have. But Yaakov made a special festive meal for his father Yitzchak, as Yitzchak had instructed, at which he served wine in order to stimulate Yitzchak's spiritual joy and happiness to enhance the blessings-- ויגש לו ויאכל ויבא לו יין וישת, "and he brought him food and he ate, and he brought him wine and he drank.". In order to mislead his father, Yaakov put on a disguise, a disguise that fooled Yitzchak into thinking he was Eisav! The result of the festive meal and the wine and the disguise was that Yitzchak did not realize that the person in front of him was not Eisav. So this was the first case where a festive meal and a disguise resulted in “D’lo yada bein baruch Mordechai l’arur Haman”!

This is a wonderful new perspective on the seudah and minhagim of Purim; we are not only commemorating the events of Shushan. We are remembering and re-enacting the very first victory of Klal Yisrael over Amaleik, which took place one thousand two hundred years before the story of Megilas Esther occurred. So we make a se’udah, and we serve wine, and we wear disguises, and our disguises might be those of pirates or vampires or Arabs. Costumes that look like a Kohen Gadol or (l'havdil) Spongebob are very nice. But that’s not the idea of Purim. We are commemorating the way Yaakov turned the tables on his nemesis by dressing like him- like Eisav/Amaleik/Haman- and got the brachah from Yitzchak, which ultimately expressed itself in the story of Purim.

Here are the words of the Sighetter Dayan, Harav Shlomo Yehuda Leib Tabak:

בטורי זהב פק"ג דהיא קבעו למשתה כפורים 

טעם שקבעו משתה רק בפורים ולא בחנוכה 

באגדות שלי כתבתי (brought below) דשרש הנס של פורים ע"י יעקב שעשה סעודה ליצחק ויבא לו יין ועי"ז היה מפלת המן שהוא עשו כי יצחק רצה להצילו מתליה כשאמר לו שא נא תליך. לכן בפורים עושים סעודה ומשתה ומבסמין עד דלא ידע בין ברוך מרדכי שהוא יעקב לארור אמן שהוא עשו, כמו שלא ידע יצחק אבינו ע"ה כשבירך ליעקב. וע"כ לובשין פרצופין בפורים כאשר עשה יעקב אז נתחפש בבגדי עשו ובעורות גדיי עזים 

 originally from his Megillas Esther.

והנה איתא במדרש רבה פי תולדות על פסוק שא נא כליך תליך וכוי תליך זה מדי שנאמר ויתלו את המן ופירש האלשיך שיצחק רצה לברך את עשו שאותו גלות מדי שעתיד יעקב לגלות יהא תחת עשו ולא יהא המן תחת אחשורוש ולא יתלה עיי"ש והנה יע שנתלבש יעקב בבגדי עשו ונדמה לאביו כעשו ברכו וכסבור שבירך את עשו והמן ובאמת בירך יעקב ומרדכי נמצא לא ידע יצחק בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי בשעה שבירך ליעקב ואמר אררך ארור 

והנה איתא בתרגום יונתן על פסוק ויבא לו יין ויישת שלא היה ליעקב יין ונעשה לו נם והביא לו מלאך יין והנה לא עביד קוב"ה ניסא למגנא וודאי אילו היה מברכו בלא יין לא היה נעשה נם ביין רק ודאי לולא היין לא היה מברכו מחמת שהיה בספק שאין זה עשו וע"י היין לא הכירו עיין באלשיך דלולא היין היה מבחין יע טעם הבשר שאין זה בשר צבי רק גדי והיה מרגיש שהוא יעקב רק יע היין לא הבחין עיי"ש נמצא יע היין בירך את יעקב ואירר את עשו ולא ידע וכסבור שהוא להיפך והם המה מרדכי והמן ולא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי וע"י כן נעשה הנם וגבר מרדכי על המן ונתלה המן ע זכר לנס זה ולסיבתו חייב לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע 

Another very valuable point here is that EVEN IF YOU GET DRESSED UP LIKE EISAV, YOU HAVE TO BE SURE THAT THE ‘KOL KOL YAAKOV.” People can drink, and wear absurd costumes, but they better be sure that they act like Yaakov. As they used to say, "Dress like the British, but think in Yiddish." Don't get inebriated: get in-Ivri-ated.

Everyone knows that people have ancestors, and everyone knows that certain ancestral character traits manifest themselves in their descendants. What not everyone realizes is that events have ancestors as well, and the past creates roots that eventually grow into things that happen five hundred, or a thousand years later. And this is true not only for events that happened in ancient times; what we do today will influence our descendants in unimaginable ways. Just as Shem's covering his father, and Avraham's refusal to accept Melech Sdom's money, changed the nature and significance of the mitzvah of Tzitzis, what you do today will have consequences and ramifications until the end of time.

See, also, the Targum Esther 3:6, which goes like this:

והוה חוך קדמוי לאושטא ידא למקטל ית מרדכי בלחודוהי ארום חויאו ליה דמרדכי

אתי מן יעקב דשקל מן עשו אבא דאבוי ית בכרותא וית ברכתא ויהודאי אינון

עמא דמרדכי ובעא המן לשיצאה ית כל יהודאי בכל מלכות אחשורוש עמא

דמרדכי

Normally, when I repost, I include the comments, but the only worthy comment was from Gvir-Adir, who said that he used it for a Seudas Pidyon Haben in a very creative manner-- the kashe is, why celebrate pidyon, if it commemorates the bechor's loss of kedusha. He answered by saying that it recalls how Yakov took both the bechora and the bracha from Eisav, a chain of events which culminated with the Seuda of Yakov and Yitzchak. The other comments were various refreshing and creative assertions that the vort was 'bogus' and that I am a rotten baal gaava.

UPDATE:

Many scholars say that the minhag to wear costumes stems from cultural diffusion; that Jews saw the Venetian masked balls and parties and adapted the concept to our holiday.  Whether this has any truth to it is not important to me.  Here is a remark I made on the topic on a Jewish news site:

Cultural diffusion only to the extent that a style of celebration was not adopted but instead adapted; not commingled but instead co-opted. It is no different than the minhag of heseiba on Pesach, which was a Greek way of expressing freedom and tranquility at their banquets. Our seder is not at all like a Greek banquet; but we adapted this manner of expressing cheirus. It is no different than using fur hats to express dignity and grandeur. It is no different than standing up for a Chassan and Kallah or using "Italian Lights" for Sukkos in Israel. We adopt/adapt behaviors only when our re-casting serves to emphasize a uniquely Jewish idea. Calling it 'cultural diffusion' creates a false implication of parity, denigrating our minhag by associating it with the louts and hedonists of Venice. What you can say is that the concept of hester panim is fundamental and ubiquitous in the story of Purim.  But only in Venice, where wearing masks was widespread and in the minds of all the citizens, did that seed of symbolism elicit the novel concept of a minhag to wear costumes and masks. 

Purim: A Guest Post from Reb Anonymous Drush Guy

Here is something a commenter sent. I think it is very nice, and I hope you enjoy it.
Yasher Koach!

Who was the true hero of this miracle? The Megilla seems to indicate that the victory was won only by the combination of Mordechai and Esther. In what sense is that so? And why is Mordechai Hatzadik the only individual in Tanach whose lineage from both his mother's and father's side is mentioned?

Why was Esther such an essential figure? What was her specific contribution? For this we must understand that the battle is fought as much on a spiritual battleground as it is on a physical one. We can now rephrase the question: What gave Esther her spiritual domination over the power of Amalek?

Perhaps this is the answer.
The power of Amalek comes from Eisav. Eisav had one spiritual power above his brother Yakov– his almost perfect respect for his father. Esther was an orphan, raised without a mother or father. This, ironically, means that Esther was not weakened by an imperfect Kibud Av Ve’em. Even though Eisav's respect of parents was of greater than his Brother Yakov's, Esther was not at a disadvantage, as she never failed in any duty to her parents. Now: it may be true that she didn't have any imperfection in her mitzvas Kibbud, but oneis lav ke'mahn de'avid, being prevented from doing an act is not the same as having done it. But that is not the case here: Not only was she not weakened by imperfect Kibbud Av Ve'eim, one can assume that she wished, with all her heart, that she had parents she could honor, and Chazal tell us that Hashem deems one who wants to do a mitzvah but is unable to fulfill it as if that person has fulfilled the mitzvah. In theory, each of us wants to do proper Kibbud Av Ve'eim, but in real life, the Yeitzer Hora gets in the way. Esther, on the other hand, had only the pure desire to do the perfect Kibbud Av Ve'eim. So in a sense, her Kibbud Av was not only unflawed, it could be viewed as perfectly done.

Step two brings us to the second element– Mordechai. The original question has yet to be addressed: why the double lineage? Let us once again return to Eisav. His strong point was his profound respect and concern for his parents--except in one situation. This perfect son sent his own son Elifaz to kill Yakov. Where was his concern for his parents’ suffering here? Didn’t he care that the death of Yakov would be a terrible blow for Yitchak and Rivka? So perhaps we have found the fatal flaw in the merit of Amalek! But, unfortunately, we lost our advantage, because the Shvatim sold Yosef and told their father Yakov that Yosef had been killed. So it seems that once again, we are at a disadvantage. But–at the selling of Yosef, were all the brothers involved? No we have one individual that was untainted by this blemish, and that is Binyamin, who was not involved in the sale in any way, neither in the sale nor by instigating the sale by bearing tales to Yakov, as Yosef did.. The perfect pawn in our game of spiritual chess, he was not involved as he was not born and can not be held responsible.


If so, you might ask, Mordechai should only need a lineage to Binyamin. Why was the Yehuda lineage important too? Because there is another valid complaint against Klal Yisrael– our treatment of a certain Princess Timna, Amalek’s grandmother. Timna, a gentile, so much so wanted to be connected to Avraham's family, but she was rejected when she came to convert. In desperation for some connection, she went and became a concubine to Elifaz and said "better to be a maidservant amongst the children of Avraham (as Elifaz was his Grandchild) than a Princess among the other nations" Here again it seems we have a problem in our treatment of people trying to join Klal Yisroel. And that flaw is countered by the Yehuda linage. Shevet Yehuda is the model of behavior for accepting of Geirim! Yehuda married a Canaanite Giyores named Shua and then another Giyores named Tamar. Than later, his descendant Boaz married Rus, another convert. We have come full circle, and now we can see how both Mordechai and Esther, and Mordechai lineage from both Yehuda and Binyamin, were essential to the victory over Amalek.

Homer Bshem Omro Mevi Es Hageulah
דברי מהרי''א

UPDATE 2021

Rabbi Avraham Bukspan, the man of remarkable bekiyus, told me that as long as we were being sensitive to מביא גאולה לעולם, I should know that this vort is to be found, step by step, in the Yaaros Devash from Reb Yonasan Eibschutz (drush 2 vol 2 page 25.) That being the case, we will assume that the "מהרי"א" that was cited was not meant (as is most often the case) to refer to Rav Yehuda Assad, the successor of the Chasam Sofer, but rather to Rav Yonasan Eibshutz.

Purim

I am not adding any Divrei Torah on Purim this year for several reasons. First, the ones I have already are, Be'ezras Hashem, and with all due humility, very good, and I prefer to not dilute excellence with mediocrity. Second, I (am) an aveil this year (written in March, 2008.) That means that I cannot receive any Shalach Manos, I cannot send more than one shalach manos, and I can't participate in a joyous seudas Purim with friends, although this is not really anything new for this Litvak. I hope next year will be more inspiring. Meanwhile, go ahead and enjoy what I posted in the past.

I can, however, offer a suggestion for shalach manos:

Eschew 'themes.' Themes are the colors women wear at weddings, not a din in shalach manos.

Friends don't send friends little bottles of wine with candy conglomerate and cookie debris at the bottom of the bag.

They're called manos because a manah is a course of a meal. If you really want to make someone happy, send a nice hot pizza, or a tray of lasagna; put some poppy seeds on it if you want it to be special. Or, think about what most men, and many women, would enjoy at special occassions: hot pastrami, barbecued turkey, ribs, lamb, things like that.

Of course, there is always the perfect Purim Gift-- "The Purim Salami! It's Elegant and Nutritious!" (C). For a very special family craft project for the kids, with googly eyes, pipe cleaners, and some construction paper, you can dress up your salamis like Haman, or Mordechai or Esther. Or, you can send it dressed up like Vashti. Just remove the casing and put on a crown.

Call me crass, but when I receive an honorarium, or a host gift, I very much prefer that it be one of the following:
1. edible
2. negotiable.

For 'beautiful,' my imaginative faculty will suffice, thank you.

~

Yoseif and Mordechai, the Sons of Rachel

Rav Mordechai Rogow,in his sefer Ateres Mordechai Al Hatorah brings down a Medrash that says

"R’ Yuden besheim R’ Binyomin omar Boneha shel Rochel nisson (meaning their nisyonos) shaveh ugdulasam shaveh. Nisson shaveh, vayehi kidabra el Yosef yom yom, vayehi be’omram ailav yom yom; velo shoma ai’leha, velo shama aleihem. Gedulasam shaveh-vayaser paroh es tab’ato, vayaser hamelech es tab’ato.” (The sons of Rochel, their trials were the same and their greatness was the same.) By Yosef and by Mordechai, "yom vayom" (Breishis 39:10 and Esther 3:4) and the idea of the 'hasaras taba'as' of the king (Breishis 41:42 and Esther 8:2).

Rav Rogow says, when a person is being pressured to do an aveira, even though the first time he stands against the nisayon, it has an effect. Every time he is tested, his resolve is weakened more and more, till he might do the aveira. The gadlus of Yosef and Mordechai was that the first time had no roshem at all on them, and every subsequent time was like the first time, and they stood unshakeable in their resolve-yom yom, the last day was like the first day.

A critical reader might have some reservations about this pshat. Is it really true that when you are faced with a nisoyon that it weakens you and makes you more susceptible to future tests? On the contrary, it would seem that it would add to your strength of character.

Harav Avram Lawrence, of the Mirrer Kollel in New York, suggested a very good clarification of Harav Rogow’s derech. He suggested that it depends: if you don’t do the aveira because of you strength of faith and fear of sin, then your strength and victory add to your resolve and your ability to withstand it in the future. If, on the other hand, you didn’t do the aveira because the time wasn’t right, or because you were afraid to get caught, or that you never thought of doing it, so you avoided the sin out of habit, then the next time it arises, you will be weaker and more susceptible to the aveira. There are victories that make you stronger, and there are pyrrhic victories that make you weaker.

It has been said that merchant sailors are the healthiest people in the world. They are exposed to every vile disease and noxious environment in the world, and they have survived, so they must be supremely healthy. Or, one might say, they are the weakest people in the world, because they have been so weakened by their life experience, that they are doing all they can merely to survive, and the slightest additional trauma might push them over the edge. It really depends on whether they just barely survived, or whether they flourish.

We can say a slightly different mehalach. Both these men were under extreme pressure to make compromises, to sin when they could have told themselves that it didn’t matter, that nobody would know, that Hashem had abandoned them and didn’t care what they did. They both refused to do so. This teaches, as Chazal say by "Hachodesh hazeh lochem", that we are not 'in the hands of time', but rather, that the times are in our hands. This means that instead of making compromises to accommodate changing morals and attitudes, we make our stand and refuse--despite threats to our lives and livelihoods--to retreat an iota from what Hashem requires from us.