Two Radical Pieces of Talmud (Purim)

Two radical pieces of Talmud are both connected to Purim. Oddly enough one is from tractate Shabbat 88a and the other from Sanhedrin 99b.

The Talmud in Shabbat 88a famously says that God held Mount Sinai over the heads of the Israelites and forced them to accept the Torah. Since this is not a very promising way to view our acceptance of the Torah - we could argue it is not legally binding - the Talmud then adds, "But they reaccepted it willingly in the days of Achashverosh." 

The Talmud in 99b tell us: 

And Lotan's sister was Timna... Timna was a royal princess... Desiring to become a proselyte, she went to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they did not accept her. So she went and became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esau, saying, 'I had rather be a servant to this people than a mistress of another nation.' From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? — Because they should not have rejected her.

In both cases, the Talmud is saying something completely unexpected, something that presents fundamentals of Jewish thought in an unflattering light that you would never in a million years have imagined the rabbis of the Talmud would wish to adopt.

In the first case, it tells us that the Israelites had to be coerced into receiving the Torah. What kind of statement is this, after the Exodus and all the miracles? It takes the entire experience and deflates it like a flat tire. In the second case, that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob acted wrongly and that all the trouble we have had with our archenemy Amalek is, in essence, our own fault.

I think it is not a coincidence that both are related to Purim. Purim is the turnaround, the topsy turvy, the unexpected.... leading to these radical pieces of Talmud.
And it is also the resolution of that upside-downness. In the days of Esther, the people accept the Torah of their own free will. And in the days of Esther, the Amalekite Haman is finally defeated and shown that it's God's will that counts. (One might also stretch things a little and, connecting Esther with Ruth as two women after whom megillahs are named, say that in Ruth the Jewish people accepted a convert despite her Moabite background, and thus rectify the previous rejection of Timna).

Memuchan and Haman

The midrash likes to take two separate biblical characters and suggest they are one and the same person. This is also true of Memuchan, the advisor to King Achashverosh in Esther chapter 1, whom the Midrash declares is none other than Haman (officially, Haman only makes an appearance in chapter 3). 

Why conflate the two? Perhaps because we don't know why the King favours Haman and promotes him in Esther 3:1 - and Memuchan's advice was so appealing to the King that it would make sense that he would rise in the ranks. There are other lines of similarity as pointed out by Yaacov Bronstein here.

But it is also striking that both Memuchan and Haman both wished to disempower and destroy minorities. Memuchan wanted all women to obey their husbands, and never to show independent thought or rebel. Haman wanted to eliminate the pesky Mordechai who refused to obey the king's command and bow to him - and to take his stiff-necked, irritatingly different brethren with him. 

In the end, a woman, Esther, takes away all of Haman's power and brings about his death. And the Jews live on for many centuries and eventually return in joy to their ancient homeland, while Amalek has disappeared from the earth. 

* This insight arose while doing Bibliodrama, Adar 5782.

Think before rejecting

One of the most incredible paragraphs in the Talmud explains that Amalek came into being due to Jewish rejection of a prospective convert:

And Lotan's sister was Timna... Timna was a royal princess... Desiring to become a proselyte, she went to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they did not accept her. So she went and became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esau, saying, 'I had rather be a servant to this people than a mistress of another nation.' From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? — Because they should not have repulsed her. (Sanhedrin 99b)

We are not told why she was rejected. Since the mission of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was to spread monotheism, why did they not want to accept her? Was there something about her that made them feel uncomfortable? Whether that was true or not, this courageous section of Talmud makes no bones about its message. It was our own fault that we ended up plagued by Amalek, our arch-nemesis. Evil begets evil.

So next parshat Zachor, let's wipe out not only Amalek but also, in general, acts of rejection we commit due to insularity, snobbery, fear or hatred. Let's try harder to embrace and welcome people with open arms, even those who make us feel uncomfortable, and remember the words of Bob Marley in his song "Corner Stone":

Cause the things people refuse

Are the things they should choose

Amalek - who cares anyway?

Zachor.

Once a year, Jews are commanded to read this paragraph aloud in Synagogue:

Remember what Amalek did to you by the way, when you came forth out of Egypt;
How he met you by the way, and struck at your rear, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God.

This commandment is taken very seriously, and the synagogue is much more crowded than usual as the late sleepers force themselves out of bed. (Some communities even read the paragraph twice in different accents to make sure it is understood by all!)

The essence of the commandment is to remember a nation named Amalek (descended from Esau), in order to blot out their name entirely. The question begs to be asked - if we had not bothered to remember Amalek all these years, their name would long ago have dropped out of human history. Thus we end up achieving the opposite effect from the one ostensibly desired. 

Furthermore, what is the point of this mitzvah anyway today? Amalek probably died out long ago, no one knows for sure, so why can't we stop flogging a dead horse?

This year, noticing my friends grappling with this question, I understood something. Since it is not obvious who Amalek is, the commandment forces us once a year to try to pinpoint what evil is. Is Amalek an evil nation? Is it a spiritual evil, and if so, what is its nature (doubt? chance? meaninglessness? rejection?) The commandment generates discussion and debate on this topic.

I think once a year to attempt to define what evil is constitutes an important and meaningful act. We remember that there is evil in the world... and perhaps ask ourselves what we can do in order to combat it.

(With thanks to Ethan Stephen Press and Barak Tzuberi, through whose struggle with the question of Amalek this insight arose).