כי אם החרש תחרישי בעת הזאת רוח והצלה יעמוד ליהודים ממקום אחר ואת ובית אביך תאבדו ומי יודע אם לעת כזאת הגעת למלכות. ותאמר אסתר להשיב אל מרדכי. לך כנוס את כל היהודים הנמצאים בשושן וצומו עלי ואל תאכלו ואל תשתו שלשת ימים לילה ויום גם אני ונערתי אצום כן ובכן אבוא אל המלך אשר לא כדת וכאשר אבדתי אבדתי.
“If you will surely be silent at this time, salvation will come to the Jews from somewhere else, and you and your father’s house will be destroyed. And who knows if it was for this moment that you became queen. Then Esther said to reply to Mordechai: Go, assemble all the Jews to be found in Shushan and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I with my maids, will fast also. Then I will go in to the King though it is contrary to the law; and if I am to perish, I shall perish.” (Esther, 4:14-16)
One of the most pivotal moments in the dramatic story of Megillas Esther is when Mordechai forcefully tells Esther that she must risk her life to try to save the Jewish people from Haman’s decree, by going to the King without invitation, even though doing so risks punishment by death. Mordechai tells her that, in truth there is nothing really to worry about, as salvation will come from some place, if it does not come from her. However, if she does not try herself, then she and her father’s house will be destroyed. We read this episode every year and there is a tendency to take for granted that what Mordechai said was correct and easy to understand, as it did indeed set the chain of events in motion that led to the salvation of the Jewish people. However, on deeper analysis, Mordechai’s argument is somewhat surprising. It would have seemed most logical to implore Esther to risk sacrificing herself, if necessary, for the people because they are in desperate need of her help. Yet, Mordechai makes the exact opposite case – he says that the Jewish people do not need Esther at all. This line of argument could quite conceivably have the wrong effect – it could give Esther an escape route. She could reason that if the Jewish people will be fine without her, why did she need to risk her life anyway.
Mordechai’s subsequent point, that if Esther would not get involved, she would be destroyed, is equally difficult to understand. Since Mordechai just said that salvation could come without Esther, why should she be punished for keeping herself safe by doing nothing? At worst, she could be called a coward, but where do we see in the Torah that a coward deserves to die. Indeed, we see in the Torah that when the people went out to war, those who felt fearful were urged not to fight, but to return home – we don’t see anywhere that they were punished or deemed worthy of death! So, on what grounds does Mordechai argue that she risks death for the mere crime of acting to safeguard herself?
Rav David Fohrman shlit’a (in his wonderful sefer “The Queen you thought you Knew”, Chapter 9) suggests that the key to solving these problems is a remarkable resemblance between the words and concepts in Mordechai’s argument and a seemingly, totally unrelated passage in Parshas Mattos which discusses the laws of how a man can annul his wife’s vows. The most glaring similarity is that in both sections, the word for being silent – להחריש – is used in a double expression: In the Megillah, Mordechai tells Esther:אם החרש תחרישי - “if you will surely be silent”. In the passage about vows, the Torah states that if the husband does not annul his wife’s vow within a day of her vow, then it remains in force permanently. The pasuk describes the man’s silence as:ואם החרש יחריש לה – “if the man is surely silent” (Bamidbar 30:14). These are the only two times in the entire Tanach where the word, להחריש, is repeated consecutively in this fashion.
The similarities continue: The Megillah describes Esther as a na’arah – the Hebrew word of a girl about to reach adulthood. Likewise, the section in Mattos concerns itself with laws pertaining to a na’arah; Esther, the na’arah, is taken by Achashveirosh as his wife, and the na’arah in Mattos also marries. Mordechai instructs Esther how to act towards her husband, while the passage in Mattos gives laws that govern the relationship between a na’arah and her husband; Mordechai tells the na’arah that she is risking her own destruction and the destruction of “her father’s house.” The section in Mattos concludes with, “these are the laws of a na’arah in her father’s house.” Mordechai warns Esther about how disastrous it would be for her to keep silent, so too, in Parshas Mattos it warns of the disastrous consequences of keeping silent. Finally, Mordechai suggests that Esther must break her silence right now, and in Mattos, the silence must be broken in a very short amount of time as well.
In order to understand this uncanny resemblance, it is first necessary to analyze the passage in Mattos and then we will be able to see how Mordechai was to a large extent, paraphrasing this action and applying its meaning to Esther’s situation. It is permitted for anyone to take a vow, but if a married woman does so, the Torah teaches that at times, her husband can annul her vow. In particular, if a na’arah takes a vow that would cause her to experience hardship, such as to never again eat certain healthy foods, then her husband may protest and thereby annul the vow. However, this ability is limited to the day that he first hears about it. If he delays protesting more than a day, he loses the right to annul, and the vow will stand, regardless of what he later says. This man appears to have three options as to how to react to his wife’s vow: He can affirm it, in which case, it is bound forever, he can immediately protest it, in which case it is annulled forever, or he can be silent. However, the details of these laws show us that the third choice is not really a separate option at all. It teaches that silence in this case is akin to actively affirming the vow. Accordingly, if the man remains silent, it is as if he actively affirmed her vow, and she is bound by this potentially harmful oath forever.
This explanation is borne out by the Torah’s use of the word, להחריש, to refer to silence, in contrast with the more commonly used term, לשתוק. Rav Fohrman explains that in the Torah, לשתוק, often describes the quiet of inanimate objects. For example, when Yonah tells the sailors to throw him overboard, he adds that if he does so, then:ישתוק הים – “the sea will be silent” (Yonah 1:12). Anyone or anything can be silent. The other word for silence, להחריש, is only used for sentient beings. What exactly does it mean? Its root is made of ‘ches, reish and shin’, which, as a noun, refers to a חרש – deaf person.
Thus, the verb form of this word, להחריש, would seem to precisely mean, “to make oneself deaf” and to act as if one has not heard. The Torah uses this word to describe the husband’s silence in the face of his wife’s discomfiting vow. In the case of his wife’s impetuous vow to accept pain and suffering, the husband can either annul it or maintain it, either by actively affirming it, or by remaining silent. This passage comes to disarm us from an incorrect approach – that neutrality – doing nothing - is a third option. Neutrality looks like a third option, but it is illusory. Doing nothing is identical to choosing to affirm his wife’s pain and a husband that remains silent, is equally complicit in maintaining the pain and hardship of his wife.
Returning to Mordechai’s exhortation of Esther, Rav Fohrman suggests that Mordechai was paraphrasing the passage in the Torah and applying it to Esther’s situation. Achashveirosh made a verbal declaration that will cause terrible pain. Esther can protest it if she reacts immediately, and thereby annul the decree. Mordechai tells her that it is not for the Jews that she must act, but for herself, for if she is silent, then it is as if she is tacitly affirming the King’s decree. In such a case, she will bear responsibility and be punished accordingly. Her choice is to speak out and annul the decree or to remain silent and validate it. If she chooses the latter, then her legacy will be destroyed along with Haman.
We have seen how one of the pivotal moments in the Megillah is built around Mordechai’s strong speech to Esther. It seems that he was teaching her an idea that applies to everyone in their avodas Hashem. There are many times where doing nothing to rectify difficult situations or to help people in need is not considered as being free from guilt. Neutrality is not an option; this is borne out by many mitzvos in the Torah, including “do not stand by your brother’s blood”, rebuke and hashavas aveidah. In all these cases, refraining from doing anything is akin to actually harming the person’s physical or spiritual needs. Esther made the very difficult decision to risk everything to try to save the Jewish people. May we emulate her in our own way in our daily lives.
