I'm looking to gather some more background, context, sources and opinions, regarding Mordechai's religiousness, or lack thereof.
This was the topic of a recent comment thread on Was Darius Jewish?, specifically on @avi's answer.
Though this was not the topic of the question nor the answer, a side comment turned into a long thread on this.
Instead of hashing it out there, and just between us, I thought it would be a good idea to gather some additional voices.
So, to the issue:
Many well-known midrashim pose Mordechai as a tzaddik, a religious leader, and even a member of the Sanhedrin. I'm sure we all learned these at one point or another.
On the other hand, reading the Megilla as a "story", focusing on the pshat, but taking into account the historical and cultural context, in addition to relevant background added by other books in the Tanach (such as Melachim Bet, Divrei Hayamim, and other Nevi'im) - it would seem that this was not the case. At the least, there is no evidence or basis for the "religious figure" theory, but rather the evidence seems (at least to me) to point in the opposite direction.
Now, taking into account the intended ambiguity, which is one of the most fundamental motifs of the Megilla, and the obvious historical distance, I don't expect to find "the one true history"...
But I am interested in hearing, what is the basis for the "religious leader" theory? Is there evidence for this, or is it "just" Midrash* ? What was the original source? What is the Midrash based on? (Obviously besides the Midrash itself, and the persuant discussions in e.g. Gmara*... )
Or, alternatively (and preferably), sources and explanations for the opposite theory?
EDIT: To emphasize, I am referring to Mordechai's "back story". Even according to the "non-religious" theory, there is plenty of room to allow for a change of heart as a result of the Purim events. Therefore anything that relates to his situation after the fact (such as @follick's excellent source in Nechemia) would be besides the point.
EDIT2: I don't intend on ignoring the midrashim, nor do I expect to be completely independant of them. Rather, I'm interested in the basis of those midrashim, as these are usually based on something, be it a reference, alliteration, extraneous wording, "secret" story, etc.
(*) I'm not belittling the importance of those Midrashim or the discussions in the Gmara, of course, but it is both important and extremely difficult to discern which stories are intended to be accepted literally, as "historical fact", and which not.
Hence this question.
Answer
Here are a couple:
The very fact that the Megillah introduces him as איש, and takes the trouble to tell us his lineage and background, indicates that he was a person of importance. (It is true that איש can mean simply "a man," but quite often in Tanach, when a person is introduced with this term, it bears the connotation of "a prominent person" - one example is Mordechai's ancestor Kish, in I Sam. 9:1.)
Contrast with Haman, whose background information is limited simply to the three words בן המדתא האגגי.
The man refused to bow to Haman even under pressure, and even though he knew he was thereby putting himself at risk. This is not the action one would expect from a person who, as in your comments to the other thread, is semi-assimilated. Neither would such a person's first reaction to the decree be putting on sackcloth and ashes rather than trying to use his connections at court.
For that matter, consider Esther's request to him, "Gather all of the Jews in Shushan, and fast for me..." She was Mordechai's ward, and it is reasonable to assume that this is an idea she learned from him. (Then, too, if he wasn't a known religious leader, why would she expect that anyone would follow his lead in doing so?)
It is also likely, of course, that the Talmudic and Midrashic evaluation of Mordechai is based on extra-textual considerations. Consider how we find them giving us quite a lot of information about the "Men of the Great Assembly" contemporary with these events (and mentioning Mordechai as one of its members), though their activities are barely recognizable in Tanach. Then, too, there is the Talmudic consideration that מגלגלין זכות על ידי זכאי, Hashem causes good things to happen through good people, so that from this point of view the salvation of the Jewish people and the establishment of the important holiday of Purim can hardly have been due to an assimilationist.
Some other comments:
The proof that follick brought from Ezra and Nechemiah (assuming, for argument's sake, that indeed it's the same Mordechai) does not represent, as you're thinking, a "potential change of heart" after the story of Purim. The verses there are talking about the first wave of Jews who returned in the wake of Cyrus' decree allowing the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash, a few years before the opening scene of the Megillah. We see, then, that there was someone named Mordechai in the first rank of Jewish leaders of the time.
Your argument (in the comments to the linked thread) that the name Mordechai, seemingly of pagan origin, demonstrates that he (or his parents) were assimilated Jews is rather weak. For one thing, the Gemara (Chullin 139b) associates it with the Aramaic expression מירא דכיא, "pure myrrh." I don't know whether the Gemara means this as an actual etymology for the name or simply an assonance, but it does at least indicate that it's not necessarily derived from a pagan source. Second, consider Antigonos of Socho, who unquestionably served as spiritual leader of Jewry (Avos 1:3) - and yet who bore a Greek name, only a couple of decades after Alexander's conquest of the country.
Your other argument, that the people who were exiled with Yechanyah (as Mordechai was) were semi-assimilated, also lacks any proof. Let's take the verses as given (leaving aside the midrashim on them), that they were "the carpenters and the locksmiths." Which makes them the (lower) middle class - far from the elite. Why would you assume that their commitment to Judaism was weaker than anyone else's?
No comments:
Post a Comment