Monday, March 1, 2021

Rabbenu Tam and the Case of Gentile Adultery

 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/rabbenu-tam-and-case-gentile-adultery

 The gemara in Sanhedrin (74b) questions the appropriateness of Esther’s behavior, and particularly her willingness to marry Achashverosh even though she was married to Mordechai (according to Chazal).  In questioning her behavior, the gemara claims that her behavior was unacceptable because the public was aware of her conduct.  Even minor mitzvot must be kept under pain of death if their commission is public knowledge.  Although the gemara’s question is relevant, Esther’s conduct could have been questioned on more basic grounds - she was committing giluy arayot!! This conduct must be avoided EVEN IN PRIVATE.  Why was the gemara only concerned with the public nature of her conduct and not with her decision to violate giluy arayot?

7 comments:

  1. Rabbenu tam's view is one solution
    Another is that Estehr wasn't married to mordechai at all. at least from an adultery perspective, it makes things simpler.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rashba
    אלא שדברי אגדה הן ואין משיבין עליהן.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What does that mean? You don't respond to aggadah, or to those who claim it is aggadah?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The same Chazal who came up with this midrash also knew the Megillah off by heart. They knew that Achashverosh only wanted virgins and if Esther was taken, it's because she was a virgin. So if they came up with this midrash anyway, knowing that it violated the whole point of the story and turned Esther into a huge sinner, there must have been a reason.
    One could say "Well, they couldn't accept that Mordechai would do yichud with Esther since she was just an adopted daughter so they had to explain that they were actually married." Which is worse? That Mordechai lived with his adopted daughter and probably took proper precautions or that Esther out and out committed adultery?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seems he is in agreement with the rashba - it's aggadah

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm totally agreeing with the Rashba. I'm pointing out why it's obvious we can't accept this midrash as historical fact.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.