2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

Where does the story really begin?

The daf debates where one must begin reading the Megillah for it to count as fulfilling the mitzvah of reading. Four opinions are given (you can read the Talmud text below):

1. All of it must be read. Why? Because the story starts with Ahashverosh who 1) saw that the 70 years the jews were waiting to be redeemed from exile had come and gone and they had not been redeemed (from an earlier daf) – so they were an easy target because God had abandoned them. This led Ahashverosh to throw a drunken feast, where he ended up killing Vashti. Had any of this not happened, Esther would not have been queen and the Jews would not have been saved from Haman. SO, this is the logical starting point.
2. Another suggests that we start reading at the first mention of Mordecai. This argues that, had Mordecai not provoked Haman by not bowing down to him, none of this would have happened.
3. According to the third opinion, the events really begin with Haman deciding to kill all of the Jews. (He could have just brushed off Mordecai, but he was too small to forgive a slight.)
4. The last opinion is that we begin to read from “On that night” (when the King couldn’t sleep) says that the verse refers to Ahashverosh’s ordering of the book of Chronicles to be read. It was from this point that the miracle that saved the Jews began to unfold.

I love this. Where we choose to begin to tell our story changes the story so much. Was it the kings drunkenness? Was it Vashti refusing to dance? Was it Mordecai refusing to bow down? Haman plotting to kill the Jews? THe king’s inability to sleep and reading about Mordecai’s foiling of a plot to kill the king?

But this happens for us too, all the time.

When people ask me about how I became a rabbi, do I start with Junior year of college when my study partner suggested it to me and I could not shake the idea? Or do I explain why I was enrolled in the class with that study partner and what the class made me realize about Judaism and myself? Or do I go back to my love for Jewish camp? Or being the token Jew in my classes and having to teach Judaism from a young age? Or really teaching Sunday school? Or my talks with God as I stared at the sunset as I walked home from school in elementary school? Or to my tomboyness and the fact that I always was (and wanted to be) a girl in a boys field? Or even further back? To my grandfather being a rabbi? Or even further, that I am the 7th Rabbi Greengrass, that I know of? Or even further – that I am a Levite – someone dedicated to Temple service since birth?

It’s true of our love stories too. Where do they start? How do we choose to tell them? What memories do we share? True of how we define ourselves – what stories do we continue to tell ourselves and continue to allow to define us? True of our happiness level . . .

Where does the story begin?

On the last day of the secular year, it’s an interesting question to ponder. . . as well as, what stories start in 2022?

The Talmud text:

The mishna teaches that three Sages disagree about the question: Beginning from where must a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation? It is taught in a baraita that there is a fourth opinion as well: Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: One must start to read from “On that night” (Esther 6:1).

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all of these tanna’im, in arriving at their respective opinions, were expounding the same verse. As it is stated: “Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote about all the acts of power to confirm this second letter of Purim” (Esther 9:29). The one who said that the Megilla must be read in its entirety interprets “acts of power” as referring to the power of Ahasuerus, and so the Megilla must be read from the beginning, where the power of Ahasuerus is recounted.

And the one who said that it needs to be read from “There was a certain Jew” explains that “acts of power” is referring to the power of Mordecai. And the one who said that it needs to be read from “After these things” maintains that “acts of power” is referring to the power of Haman. And the one who said that it needs to be read from “On that night” understands that the expression is referring to the power of the miracle, which began on that night when Ahasuerus could not sleep, and therefore one must begin reading the Megilla from there.

As a child, I went to church a lot (well, for a Jewish girl). There were very few Jews in Ft. Wayne, the City of Churches, and if I happened to spend the night at a friend’s house on Saturday, I often ended up in church with them of Sundays. It was surprising to me how different the services were in that, the churches didn’t have a set liturgy. Each Sunday they would choose different passages to read, different hymns to sing – whereas the Jewish prayer service is set, and while some synagogues may do more in the vernacular or sing different tunes, it’s form is the same wherever you go. Today’s daf reminds us to stick to the formula of the prayer service and not to go beyond it, even if you’re adding praises:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to one who excessively declares the praises of the Holy One, Blessed be He, his fate is to be uprooted from the world, as it appears as if he had exhausted all of God’s praises. As it is stated: “Shall it be told to Him when I speak? If a man says it, he would be swallowed up” (Job 37:20). The Gemara interprets the verse as saying: Can all of God’s praises be expressed when I speak? If a man would say such a thing, he would be “swallowed up” as punishment.

What do we learn? We just finished learning the order of the blessings of the Amidah, not we learn that once the Amidah was established, a Jew is not supposed to ignore this set order, add to it, or freely recite the praises of God. So, the way the churches did it would not fit. In fact, trying to go beyond the set prayers implies that we are so arrogant to think that we can better capture all of God’s praise. No one can fully capture God, therefore, the Amidah is fixed so we do not try (imagine how long that service would be if we DID try!).

So, what’s better than trying to add to the prayer service? Silence.

A very zen gem:

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda, a man of Kefar Gibboraya, and some say he was a man of Kefar Gibbor Ĥayil, taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For You silence is praise” (Psalms 65:2)? The best remedy of all is silence, i.e., the optimum form of praising God is silence. The Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Israel to Babylonia, he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say an adage: If a word is worth one sela, silence is worth two.

Amen.

Two really cool things on today’s daf. The first is just a note that the exegetical (meaning line by line) interpretation of the book of Esther is unique in that the rabbis of the Talmud don’t do a complete exegesis for any other post biblical text (in the Talmud)! The second is that, in a new Mishnah, we get the order of prayers for the Amida and why each prayer is that particular number or before or after another particular prayer.

The order of the first three prayers is based on Psalm 29:

The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one says the blessing of the Patriarchs, the first blessing of the Amida? As it is stated: “Ascribe to the Lord, mighty ones” (Psalms 29:1), which means that one should mention before the Lord the mighty ones of the world, i.e., the Patriarchs. And from where is it derived that one then says the blessing of mighty deeds? As it is stated in the continuation of that verse: “Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength” (Psalms 29:1). And from where is it derived that one then says the blessing of holiness? As it is stated in the next verse: “Give to the Lord the glory due to His name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness” (Psalms 29:2).

Another highlight: And why did they see fit to institute to say the blessing of redemption as the seventh blessing? Rava said: Since there is a tradition that the Jewish people are destined to be redeemed in the seventh year of the Sabbatical cycle, consequently, they fixed redemption as the seventh blessing.

And And why did they see fit to institute that one says the blessing of healing as the eighth blessing? Rabbi Aḥa said: Since circumcision was assigned to the eighth day of life, and circumcision requires healing, consequently, they established healing as the eighth blessing.

Each blessings timing has a reason, and so we learn that we have to say the blessings in order. We also learn that these blessings which are traditionally said daily (multiple times a day) and can feel wrote have layers upon layers of meaning.

May your prayers always feel new and reveal layers of meaning.

The humiliation of Haman.

Haman is clearly an evil man, after all, he plots the genocide of thousands of people over his own ego blow. But reading today’s daf, you might almost feel bad for Haman as the rabbis imagine insult after insult being poured onto Haman.

In the Megillah, Haman thinks the king is going to award him (Haman) when he asks what should be done for a loyal servant of the king. On the daf, when Haman realizes that the king will be rewarding Mordecai and not him, he tries to retract:

The Gemara explains that when Ahasuerus said to Haman: “And do so to Mordecai,” Haman said to him in an attempt to evade the order: Who is Mordecai? Ahasuerus said to him: “The Jew.” Haman then said to him: There are several men named Mordecai among the Jews. Ahasuerus then said to him: I refer to the one “who sits at the king’s gate.” Haman said to him: Why award him such a great honor? It would certainly be enough for him to receive one village [disekarta] as an estate, or one river for the levy of taxes. Ahasuerus said to him: This too you must give him. “Let nothing fail of all that you have spoken,” i.e., provide him with all that you proposed and spoke about in addition to what I had said.

So, Haman can’t pretend he does not know who the King is talking about, and in his protestations, he ends up getting Mordecai and even greater reward!

The rabbis imagine that, when Haman goes to get Mordecai, he is teaching Torah and praying. When Mordecai is finished praying, he said to Haman: Wicked man, when a slave buys property, to whom belongs the slave and to whom belongs the property?

You may be confused. Well, according to the Sages, Haman was once Mordecai’s slave. Mordecai is responding to Haman’s silver he was paying the king in order to get to kill the Jews – but he is also reminding him of his lowly past.

It get’s lower.

Haman said to him: Stand up, put on these garments and ride on this horse, for the king wants you to do so. Mordecai said to him: I cannot do so until I enter the bathhouse [bei vanei] and trim my hair, for it is not proper conduct to use the king’s garments in this state that I am in now.

So, Mordecai wants to look fresh and clean. One problem:

In the meantime, Esther sent messengers and closed all the bathhouses and all the shops of the craftsmen, including the bloodletters and barbers. When Haman saw that there was nobody else to do the work, what did he do? he himself took Mordecai into the bathhouse and washed him, and then he went and brought scissors [zuza] from his house and trimmed his hair. While he was trimming his hair he injured himself and sighed. Mordecai said to him: Why do you sigh? Haman said to him: The man whom the king had once regarded above all his other ministers is now made a bathhouse attendant [balanei] and a barber. Mordecai said to him: Wicked man, were you not once the barber of the village of Kartzum? If so, why do you sigh? You have merely returned to the occupation of your youth. It was taught in a baraita: Haman was the barber of the village of Kartzum for twenty-two years.

So, Haman is forced to wash Mordecai like a bathhouse attendant and to trim his hair. Surely not what this enemy of Mordecai would want to do. Haman is reminded of his lower status as a barber for decades before his rise to power under Ahasuerus on top of everything else. But the humiliation does not end there.

After Haman trimmed his hair, Haman dressed Mordecai in the royal garments. Haman then said to him: Mount the horse and ride. Mordecai said to him: I am unable, as my strength has waned from the days of fasting that I observed. Mordecia does not have the strength to climb up onto the horse. So, what happens next? Haman then stooped down before him and Mordecai ascended by climbing on him. As he was ascending the horse, Mordecai gave Haman a kick. Haman said to him: Is it not written for you: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls” (Proverbs 24:17)? Mordecai said to him: This statement applies only to Jews, but with regard to you it is written: “And you shall tread upon their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29).

So, now Mordecai is literally kicking Haman when he’s down. But it gets much worse than that for Haman:

As Haman was taking Mordecai along the street of Haman’s house, Haman’s daughter was standing on the roof and saw the spectacle. She thought to herself that the one who is riding on the horse must be her father, and the one walking before him must be Mordecai. She then took a chamber pot full of feces and cast its contents onto the head of her father, whom she mistakenly took as Mordecai. When Haman raised his eyes in disgust afterward, and looked up at his daughter, she saw that he was her father. In her distress, she fell from the roof to the ground and died.

And this is as it is written: “And Mordecai returned to the king’s gate” (Esther 6:12). Rav Sheshet said: This means that he returned to his sackcloth and his fasting over the troubles of the Jewish people. Simultaneously, “but Haman hastened to his house, mourning, and having his head covered” (Esther 6:12). “Mourning”; over the death of his daughter. “And having his head covered”; due to what had happened to him, as his head was full of filth.

The story of the humiliation of Haman, of course, does not end here, it ends when he and his 10 sons are hanging from the gallows he built to be used against Mordecai and the Jews.

Reading this, you can almost feel bad for Haman – but only if we forget what his goal was: genocide. It seems the rabbis are fantasizing about what it would really mean for their enemies to get what’s coming to them. It reminds me of the movie “Inglorious Bastards” where you feel a cathartic satisfaction seeing the Nazi’s get utterly destroyed and humiliated in a way that did not happen in real life. Just a little fantasy about a fantastical story.

Another interesting day for the daf. There are two gems, a small pearl and a slightly longer piece. The first gem is that, when a righteous person dies, they are only lost to us, the living:

And Rabbi Elazar further said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: When a righteous man passes from this earth and is lost, he is lost only for the rest of his generation, who is now deprived of him, not for the righteous individual himself. This is similar to a man who has lost a pearl. The pearl does not care if it is lost, as wherever it is found, it is still a pearl; it is lost only to its owner.

How beautiful. We, the living, miss that person we have lost, but they’re not really lost, just as a lost piece of jewelry still exists somewhere, so does the righteous.

The second gem is a debate around why exactly Esther invited Haman to the banquet she threw to seduce the king.

The Sages taught in a baraita: What did Esther see to invite Haman to the banquet?

idea #1) Rabbi Elazar says: She hid a snare for him, as it is stated: “Let their table become a snare before them” (Psalms 69:23), as she assumed that she would be able to trip up Haman during the banquet.

idea #2) Rabbi Yehoshua says: She learned to do this from the Jewish teachings of her father’s house, as it is stated: “If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat” (Proverbs 25:21).

#3). Rabbi Meir says: She invited him in order that he be near her at all times, so that he would not take counsel and rebel against Ahasuerus when he discovered that the king was angry with him.

#4). Rabbi Yehuda says: She invited Haman so that it not be found out that she was a Jew, as had she distanced him, he would have become suspicious.

#5) Rabbi Neḥemya says: She did this so that the Jewish people would not say: We have a sister in the king’s house, and consequently neglect their prayers for divine mercy.

#6) Rabbi Yosei says: She acted in this manner, so that Haman would always be on hand for her, as that would enable her to find an opportunity to cause him to stumble before the king.

#7) Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said that Esther said to herself: Perhaps the Omnipresent will take notice that all are supporting Haman and nobody is supporting the Jewish people, and He will perform for us a miracle.

#8) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: She said to herself: I will act kindly toward him and thereby bring the king to suspect that we are having an affair; she did so in order that both he and she would be killed. Essentially, Esther was willing to be killed with Haman in order that the decree would be annulled.

#9) Rabban Gamliel says: Ahasuerus was a fickle king, and Esther hoped that if he saw Haman on multiple occasions, eventually he would change his opinion of him.

#10) Rabban Gamliel said: We still need the words of Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i to understand why Esther invited Haman to her banquet. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i says: She made the king jealous of him and she made the other ministers jealous of him, and in this way she brought about his downfall.

#11) Rabba says: Esther invited Haman to her banquet in order to fulfill that which is stated: “Pride goes before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18), which indicates that in order to destroy the wicked, one must first bring them to pride.

#12) It can be understood according to Abaye and Rava, who both say that she invited Haman in order to fulfill the verse: “When they are heated, I will make feasts for them, and I will make them drunk, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep” (Jeremiah 51:39).

So, what’s the answer? they need to bring in the big guy for this one – enter Elijah the prophet: The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Avuh once happened upon Elijah the Prophet and said to him: In accordance with whose understanding did Esther see fit to act in this manner? What was the true reason behind her invitation? He, Elijah, said to him: for all the reasons previously stated by the tanna’im and all the reasons stated by the amora’im.

In other words, Elijah said they were all right!

Esther inviting Haman did result in Haman getting haughty, the king getting jealous, and Esther winning the day. What a pearl.

Badass women and the men who are uncomfortable with them.

The Baraita mentions there are 7 prophetesses, the Gemara asks with regard to the prophetesses recorded in the baraita: Who were the seven prophetesses? The Gemara answers: Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. The Gemara then goes on to give textual examples of each fo these women’s prophecies. All these women play a secondary roll to men, except for two: Deborah the Judge and Hulda, the prophetess. So, what do we see? Some men are comfortable with this, and others find the need to knock these women down a peg.

The good take on Deborah:

With regard to Deborah, it says: “And she sat under a palm tree” (Judges 4:5). The Gemara asks: What is different and unique with regard to her sitting “under a palm tree” ? Rabbi Shimon ben Avshalom said: It is due to the prohibition against being alone together with a man. Since men would come before her for judgment, she established for herself a place out in the open and visible to all, in order to avoid a situation in which she would be secluded with a man behind closed doors. Alternatively, the verse means: Just as a palm tree has only one heart, as a palm tree does not send out separate branches, but rather has only one main trunk, so too, the Jewish people in that generation had only one heart, directed to their Father in Heaven.

Sounds good right?! Deborah is a phenomenal leader according to the text, but, as we shall see, Rav Nahman seems uncomfortable with just praising her leadership – as the was the tribal leader. She and Huldah were independant women who lead because of their own skill and not because of relationship to men – he seems very uncomfortable with that.

Rav Naḥman said: Haughtiness is not befitting a woman. And a proof to this is that there were two haughty women, whose names were identical to the names of loathsome creatures. One, Deborah, was called a hornet, as her Hebrew name, Devorah, means hornet; and one, Huldah, was called a marten, as her name is the Hebrew term for that creature. From where is it known that they were haughty? With regard to Deborah, the hornet, it is written: “And she sent and called Barak” (Judges 4:6), but she herself did not go to him. And with regard to Huldah, the marten, it is written: “Say to the man that sent you to me” (II Kings 22:15), but she did not say: Say to the king.

Rav Nahman insults these two women for the arrogant way in which they treat the authoritative men around them. But is what Chief Deborah says inappropriate given her rank? Is Hulda not just alluding to the king out of respect for him and in fact not talking down? (I think he is mad they went to Hulda when they could have gone to Jeremiah).

So, again, we are learning text, but maybe more about the men writing Talmud than the Tanakh . . .

What an interesting day we have today!

First, we get Pharaoh’s daughter, Batya, getting credit for having born Moses (today’s Torah reading!) and being called “HaYehudiyyah” meaning “the Jewish woman.” And this gem, “anyone who raises an orphan boy or girl in his house, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him.”

We get Esther’s definition of beauty as one of those ethno-ambiguous models when Rabbi Elazar said: this teaches that she appeared to each and every one as if she were a member of his own nation.

We get a really interesting drash about Jacob and Rachel (13b4)

So far, heart warming, interesting . . .well, here comes disturbing:

A tanna taught a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Do not read the verse literally as for a daughter [bat], but rather read it as for a home [bayit]. This indicates that Mordecai took Esther to be his wife.

Gross! So, what do the rabbis conclude when Esther is taken as the wife of the King? 

Rabba bar Lima said in the name of Rav: This means that she maintained a relationship with Mordecai, as she would arise from the lap of Ahasuerus, immerse herself in a ritual bath, and sit in the lap of Mordecai. 

Double gross.

Had this not been on the same page as arguments for Mordecia’s righteousness (the not bowing down to idols – hence being called Yehudi; the argument that he was in fact a member of the Sanhedrin and that’s why he could speak the languages of Bigtan and Teresh who were plotting the kings assassination) we might have thought Rav did not find Mordecai such a good man, after all, while Jews are not permitted to worship idols, we are allowed to bow to dignitaries and royalty, Mordecai got us into this mess with Haman in the first place, pimped out his adopted daughter (who Rav and Rabbi Meir believes was sleeping with her the whole time).

The straight story of Esther and Purim is crazy and interesting enough, but our rabbis take it to a whole new level. I do wonder if Rav/Rabbi Meir really believed this, or if it was just another example of a rabbi playing with puns in the Hebrew. Just the tiny letter yud changes Bat to Bayit, and maybe that’s an interesting take – but it’s also disturbing beyond belief. They seem to be one upping one another with taking a story of feminine sex appeal as being a source for salvation and allowing the conversation to evolve (or devolve) into disturbing sex fantasies.

Well, no one can argue Talmud is boring.

And who knew that the adoption by an Egyptian, Batya, or a Jew, Moses, would be such a better model than the adoption of a Jew, Esther, by a Jew, Mordecai. 

Vashti, evil queen or feminist icon? When reading the plain reading of the Megillah, we can picture Queen Vashti as a feminist icon who refuses to go and dance before the princes and ministers wearing her crown (and likely nothing else) after they have been in a drunken feast for a week (her husband even longer). But, you may have grown up hearing she was evil, that she grew a tail – ever wonder where that part of the story came from? Today’s daf tackles Vashti, and I mean, knocks her down:

The verse states: “Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women, in the royal house, which belonged to King Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:9). The Gemara questions why she held the feast in the royal house, a place of men, rather than in the women’s house, where it should have been. Rava said in response: The two of them had sinful intentions. Ahasuerus wished to fornicate with the women, and Vashti wished to fornicate with the men. This explains the folk saying that people say: He with pumpkins and his wife with zucchinis, indicating that often a man and his wife engage in similar actions.

Okay, let’s ignore for a moment, this fabulous reference to masturbation with pumpkins and zucchinis . . . here, Rava puts the king on queen on equal footing in terms of licentiousness. He calls it a Persian swingers party. So, then what goes wrong?

The Gemara continues to detail what occurred at the feast. So too, at the feast of that wicked man, Ahasuerus, when the men began to converse, some said: The Median women are the most beautiful, while others said: The Persian women are the most beautiful. Ahasuerus said to them: The vessel that I use, i.e., my wife, is neither Median nor Persian, but rather Chaldean. Do you wish to see her? They said to him: Yes, provided that she be naked, for we wish to see her without any additional adornments.

Okay! “Well, East coast girls are hip, I really dig those styles they wear. And the Southern girls with the way they talk – They knock me out when I’m down there. The Midwest farmer’s daughters really make you feel alright. And the Northern girls with the way they kiss . . .” So, the drunken men now sound like the Beach Boys bragging about where the most attractive girls are from (and yes, they all sound like lecherous old men). But Ahasuerus is the nastiest of all when he calls his wife the “vessel” he uses and agrees to show her off naked.

This is horrible! Or is it? Two response are given by the men writing the Gemara. The first is that this is retribution for what Vashti did to Israelite women and the second remembers what was just said, about Vashti wanting this to be a swingers party, and asking if this is what Vashti would have wanted anyway . . .

Response #1) The Gemara comments: Vashti was punished in this humiliating way for it is with the measure that a man measures to others that he himself is measured. In other words, God punishes individuals in line with their transgressions, measure for measure. This teaches that the wicked Vashti would take the daughters of Israel, and strip them naked, and make them work on Shabbat. Therefore, it was decreed that she be brought before the king naked, on Shabbat. This is as it is written: “After these things, when the wrath of King Ahasuerus was appeased, he remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what was decreed against her” (Esther 2:1). That is to say, just as she had done with the young Jewish women, so it was decreed upon her.

Response #2) The verse states: “But the queen Vashti refused to come” (Esther 1:12). The Gemara asks: Since she was immodest, as the Master said above: The two of them had sinful intentions, what is the reason that she did not come? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: This teaches that she broke out in leprosy, and therefore she was embarrassed to expose herself publicly. An alternative reason for her embarrassment was taught in a baraita: The angel Gabriel came and fashioned her a tail.

Yep. There’s the tale of the tail. Is it in the text? No. But the rabbis can’t figure out why this queen wouldn’t want to dance naked in front of drunk men after being called a vessel the king uses . . . so, a tail.

One would think her refusal understandable. So, why does the king get so upset?

The verse continues: “Therefore the king was very wrathful, and his anger burned in him” (Esther 1:12). The Gemara asks: Why did his anger burn in him so greatly merely because she did not wish to come? Rava said: Vashti not only refused to come, but she also sent him a message by way of a messenger: You, son of my father’s stableman [ahuriyyarei]. My father, drank wine against a thousand men and did not become inebriated, as the verse in Daniel (5:1) testifies about him: “Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand”; and that man, referring euphemistically to Ahasuerus himself, has become senseless from his wine. Due to her audacity, immediately “his anger burned in him” (Esther 1:12).

Yep, according to Rava, she called him a low-birth commoner who can’t hold his liquor and reminded him of her royal lineage – calling him classless in every sense of the word.

So, was she evil? Or did Rava just have a thing against her? Was she a feminist icon? Or was she an evil woman who got wrapped up in an evil world and got burnt for it?

Many lessons can be drawn from this tale of tails. It all depends on how we read it.

On today’s daf, our rabbis begin to read Megillat Esther, going word by word explaining what that word or phrase means. The exegesis results in some interesting interpretations. Here is one of my favorites from today’s page:

It was taught in a baraita: “I will not reject them”; this was in the days of the Chaldeans, when I appointed for them Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to pray on their behalf. “Nor will I abhor them”; this was in the days of the Greeks, when I appointed Shimon HaTzaddik for them, and the Hasmonean and his sons, and Mattithiah the High Priest. “To destroy them utterly”; this was in the days of Haman, when I appointed for them the righteous leaders Mordecai and Esther. “To break My covenant with them”; this was in the days of the Romans, when I appointed for them the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages of other generations. “For I am the Lord their God”; this will be in the future, when no nation or people of a foreign tongue will be able to subjugate them further.

We lead from this that whenever an evil ruler has sought to eliminate the Jews, that there have been a few righteous people who stood up and put a stop to it. I love this passage, especially when discussing Esther. Esther was never told by God to do anything. Neither was Mordecai. They just knew that they were the only ones who might succeed. They didn’t wait for a sign or for permission. They were the righteous of that time and place who stood up and acted.

We are told that, in the future, God will “appoint” righteous whenever there is subjugation. Who knows who that person might be? Maybe it’s me. Maybe it’s you. What is the need in front of you? Perhaps, as Mordecai said to Esther, “You were brought to the Palace for a moment such as this?”

A little bit on genealogy wins as today’s gem (although there are many):

Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers. The Gemara questions: What novel element is this statement teaching us?

Already, I am won over. Amoz and Amaziah are brothers – already, you must wonder about the parents. We have a few families like this, we have a family of 5 where they all have the same initials and therefore, everyone’s name starts with the same letter: A. There is a married couple where they both have the same first name. Here, two boys with very similar names. And I love it because the Gemara basically asks: Who cares?

Let’s find out why we should care.

The Gemara responds: It is in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophets will emerge from her. From where do we derive this?

Okay, so, was there a bride who was modest in her father’s house who these boys descend from? Yes. and not just any bride: From Tamar, as it is written: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute; for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). Can it be that because Tamar covered her face he thought her to be a prostitute? On the contrary, a harlot tends to uncover her face.

Rather, because she covered her face in the house of her father-in-law and he was not familiar with her appearance, Judah didn’t recognize Tamar, thought she was a harlot, and sought to have sexual relations with her.

Ah! So, in the book of Genesis, when Tamar seduces her father in law (King David eventually descends from their child) after he fails to provide her with his other son for a Leveraite marriage (she is deemed “more righteous than I” by Judah for this action) it says that Tamar wore a veil, like harlots did. but this makes no sense! Then, as in now, harlots tend to show more skin to entice their customers. So, the rabbis say Tamar was veiled in her father in laws house when she was married, so he didn’t really know what she looked like! (Sounds like hijab.) This kind of modesty is not required, or common. So, her intense modesty resulted in her reward that: she merited that kings and prophets emerged from her. Kings emerged from her through David, who was a descendant of Tamar’s son, Peretz. However, there is no explicit mention that she was the forebear of prophets. This is derived from that which Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors. Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers, and it is written: “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz” (Isaiah 1:1). Amoz was a member of the Davidic dynasty, and his son, the prophet Isaiah, was also a descendant of Tamar.

So, Tamar has kings and prophets.

Fun fact, I named my children and only later realized one is named for a king and the other for a prophet. May they both achieve greatness. (No pressure.)