19

Darius the Second (the son of Queen Ester and Achashveirosh) was at first glance Jewish, as he was the son of a Jew. On the other hand,the Gemara Rosh Hashana implies that he wasn't Jewish.

What was his status with regards to his Judaism?

ertert3terte
  • 40,485
  • 7
  • 96
  • 205
  • 3
    For those who don't know...Darius=Daryavesh. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 06 '12 at 19:50
  • 2
    +1. Can you cite his being Ester's son? – msh210 Jan 06 '12 at 19:59
  • 3
    There were at least 3 different "King Darius of Persia"s. Can you be more specific please? – Double AA Jan 06 '12 at 20:11
  • @DoubleAA the one who let the Jews rebuild the Beis Hamikdash. – ertert3terte Jan 06 '12 at 21:07
  • @msh210 not a good source, but OU mentions it (under Beit Hamikdash). – ertert3terte Jan 06 '12 at 21:12
  • This seams to be a Kashe on the Gemoreh that says that implies he wasn't Jewish. I would re-phrase the question. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 06 '12 at 21:36
  • 2
    @HachamGabriel It seems to be more. I don't know of anywhere else where he is referenced as a Jew. The only issues that the Gemara found with him was that he wanted to build the Beis Hamikdash in a destroyable fashion (so if the Jews would rebel, he could destroy it again). It would be a strange thing to do if he considered himself Jewish. – ertert3terte Jan 06 '12 at 22:14
  • 2
    Moreover, AFAIK, while there is a discussion as to how Queen Ester kept Torah in Achashveiroshe's palace, no one discusses anything about Daryaveish keeping Torah. Not only that, but he doesn't seem to be criticized over any other Aveira. – ertert3terte Jan 06 '12 at 22:16
  • Particularly odd that the OU would say that it was Esther's son who allowed the Beit haMikdash to be built when they say that that happened in 516 BCE. – Double AA Oct 14 '12 at 05:52
  • See also Shapur II: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews#Sassanid_period_.28226.E2.80.93634_CE.29 – הראל Dec 25 '12 at 07:54
  • http://www.dafyomi.co.il/rhashanah/insites/rh-dt-003.htm – hazoriz Jul 10 '16 at 22:03

4 Answers4

17

There is an opinion (Rit Algazi, in his commentary to Ramban's Hilchos Bechoros 8:65) that the rule about the son of a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father being Jewish comes with a caveat: it depends on how he was raised. If (as was often the case in earlier times) a non-Jew impregnated a Jewish woman (whether consensually or not) and afterwards wasn't involved in his upbringing, so that the mother raised him as a Jew among Jews - then indeed that's what he is. On the other hand, if the father has custody of the child and raises him as in a non-Jewish environment, then retroactively he's considered to not have been born a Jew.

(It must be stressed that this is a solitary opinion. For practical halachah, CYLOR.)

Based on this, Beis Yitzchak (Even Haezer 1:29:8) suggests that Darius may indeed not have been considered halachically Jewish, since he was raised as Achashverosh's heir.

Another possibility is that he might be considered an apostate Jew, who for certain purposes is treated as a gentile. This argument is advanced by R. Yaakov Chagiz, in his responsa Halachos Ketanos, part 2, no. 240. (Daf Al Daf to Yevamos 23a cites this source, although they seem to understand him as referring more broadly to any child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man.)

Alex
  • 90,513
  • 2
  • 162
  • 379
10

From: http://www.mail-archive.com/daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il/msg01649.html (or http://shemayisrael.co.il/pipermail/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il/2008-March/001616.html)

"The Ben Yehodaya cites the Zohar and the Arizal, that in fact Esther herself did not have relations with Achashverosh, but instead there was a "Shidah" - a demon - who appeared instead of Esther whenever Achashverosh wanted to have relations with her."

So according to this opinion Darius was not actually her son, and therefor was obviously not Jewish.

(Presumably a Shidah is a Succubus.)

Ariel
  • 5,159
  • 14
  • 29
  • 2
    I think this raises more questions than it answers. How could demonspawn be the vessel for building the beit Hamikdash? – avi Jan 08 '12 at 18:44
  • @avi I don't think Judaism has this concept of "demonspawn" being automatically evil. I'm not even sure Judaism has a concept of demonspawn at all. The closest I can think of is Nephilim, and their children were ordinary (but large) humans. – Ariel Jan 09 '12 at 00:44
  • @avi In any case, even if he was not her biological child she presumably raised him (at least for a time). So maybe she influenced him when he was young, and that stayed with him. – Ariel Jan 09 '12 at 00:45
  • The Zohar most certainly has ideas of Demonspawn. And they are most certainly evil. Which is what you quoted from as an explanation :) What you basically just said is that Darius was born from the Sitra-Achra, and that a demon gave birth to him. – avi Jan 09 '12 at 06:58
  • 4
    This is what happens when you take two non-literal statements and try to treat them as historical fact :) – avi Jan 09 '12 at 06:59
  • @avi this is not a contradiction at all in light of the Tanya citing Etz Chayim with regards to the source of the souls of non-Jews. In this respect there is no difference between Darius and any other. – yoel Dec 24 '12 at 21:51
  • @yoel the source of souls of non-Jews, does not explain how someone from the Sitra Achra could be called "My Moshiach" by Gd. – avi Dec 26 '12 at 05:58
  • @avi why not, though? – yoel Dec 26 '12 at 17:26
  • Because you then justify abuse, fraud, and organ harvesting with a donation to a yeshiva – avi Jan 01 '13 at 09:08
  • 4
    Did Esther appear pregnant for 9 months when there was really a secret hiding pregnant demon tied up in her hall closet? – Double AA Sep 30 '14 at 15:28
  • A suggestion. This goes along with @avi, perhaps the Zohar needs to be taken a bit more allegorically. She sent a demon, meaning she unidentified herself with this act to the extent that although she was physically there it was not her and did not affect her. –  Mar 16 '17 at 21:33
2

Rabbi Hershel Schachter often discusses Darius with regards to the current question of religious Zionism. A "Jewish king"'s years are counted differently than a "non-Jewish" king. Darius was born to a Jewish mother but was king of Persia. Hence, in his younger years when he was more sympathetic to Jewish causes, that was enough for his chronology to work as a "Jewish king." Later in life he "soured" and thus while still legally Jewish as an individual, no longer had the conventions of a "Jewish king."

(Rabbi Schachter continues: if a Jewish-born king of Persia sympathetic to Jewish causes is enough to be called a "Jewish king", then certainly a state that identifies as Jewish -- complex as its relationship with religion may be -- qualifies as "Jewish government." Rabbi Schachter reads the mitzva of "establish yourself a king" as "establish yourself a Jewish government.")

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • How does R' Schachter understand the mitzvah of "placing a King upon yourself?" Would that include a democratic government? – Emet v'Shalom Jun 16 '15 at 22:45
  • @Emetv'Shalom yes, he's explicitly said it means "establish a Jewish government over the land of Israel." (His proof is a rabbinic opinion that the war against Amalek, which first requires a "king", could have been fulfilled by the prophet Samuel who instead functioned as a "judge.") He feels that today's State qualifies. – Shalom Jun 17 '15 at 01:19
  • Which opinion says that? It is a huge chiddush to say that the word "melech" in the Torah would not be literal. The Torah should have used a different term like "manhig" or something else if "melech" isn't literal. – Emet v'Shalom Jun 17 '15 at 04:10
-7

Your real question here is weather or not the Midrash which says that Darius was the son of Queen Ester and Achavarosh is a true midrash, or if it's just there to teach us a lesson.

Darius was not Jewish, since he was Persian. There is no indication, outside of the medrash that he would have been Jewish.

This leads to two possible answers.

Either, The Midrash is not literal, or in the times of Darius, Jewishness was not passed on by the mother, but rather by the father.

Edit: It seems that the last line of my answer was not clear enough. I was not arguing that Jewishness is passed on by the father, I'm saying that if the Midrash is taken litterally, and Esther was his mother, but Darius was not Jewish, then that would mean that Judaism is only passed on by the father.. which is not the case.

avi
  • 18,985
  • 1
  • 52
  • 81
  • 2
    Third possiblity, though he was halachically Jewish, he was not raised as such, and did not consider himself Jewish (possibly even not known it). This is still not a problem with the Gmara, since he had no "Jewishness" about him. – AviD Jan 07 '12 at 19:48
  • 3
    How could Queen Esther not tell her son that he was Jewish? How could he grow up not knowing that his mother saved the Jewish people by hiding her Jewishness? – avi Jan 07 '12 at 21:29
  • 3
    Where is the indication that Jewishness was passed on by the father? – WAF Jan 08 '12 at 00:07
  • 1
    @WAF if you read tanach plainly, it's strongly implied. Lots of situations where non-Jewish women are brought into the tribe with no mentioning of conversion. However that never happens with men. However, since that's not really halacha, I just take the non literal approach with this midrash. Also, Ezra forced all the men to divorce their non-Jewish wives before moving back to Israel. – avi Jan 08 '12 at 06:54
  • @AviD Even if a person does not know they are Jewish, they are still responsible for not following Mitzvot. Especially if it's ever pointed out to them that they are Jewish. Which most certainly would have happened during the time of Ezra. – avi Jan 09 '12 at 08:56
  • Actually there is also the concept of tinok shenishba, however my point was not that he was not responsible, rather that he didn't consider himself Jewish. Not necessarily a big surprise, there - take into account the historical context, and the probability of him knowing is lowered considerably. – AviD Jan 09 '12 at 09:44
  • @AviD It does not matter if he considered himself Jewish or not. A greek Hellenized Jew is still criticized as not giving his son a brit milah. tinok shenishba only goes so far. And if he mother was Queen Esther, then the historical context makes the probability of him knowing that he was Jewish HUGE. – avi Jan 09 '12 at 09:54
  • 2
    Really? Queen Esther hid her Jewishness for years. Alluva sudden she's gonna go shouting to everyone? For all we know, by the time she revealed to Achashveirosh, her son could have already been grown. And he would have grown up in a culture and household where Jews are despised. That's not the type of world-shattering revelation that was so common back in the day... – AviD Jan 09 '12 at 10:00
  • 1
    Btw, and this is very much an aside, there is a large school of thought that Queen Esther was not really all into the Jewishness herself, except perhaps as nationhood, but not as a religion. – AviD Jan 09 '12 at 10:01
  • @AviD have you never read the end of the book of Esther?!?!? Did you not read the "big reveal"?!? If Darius did not know he was Jewish, he would as soon as all the Jews started asking him to do things for his Jewish brothers. – avi Jan 09 '12 at 10:03
  • @avi Ah see, you're reading that through the filter of your expectations, and your context, not theirs. Where does it say she "came out" to the whole country? It was a private issue, between her and the King (and his personal advisors, of course, who were of course sworn to secrecy). From there on, it was all on Mordechai, the fear of the Jews, revenge against the enemies, killing all the haters, was led by Mordechai. He was mishneh lamelech, signed the letters, etc. – AviD Jan 09 '12 at 10:14
  • On the other hand, even if all the Jews knew about this - they would not have been allowed to approach the reigning King and question his heritage. Don't forget, even the Queen herself was forbidden from approaching the king without his express approval. How would Shlomo from the butchershop (or even Ezra HaSofer) be able to start talking about his momma? – AviD Jan 09 '12 at 10:14
  • @AViD Read the last few verses again "Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority, to confirm this second letter of Purim. And he sent the letters unto all the Jews, to the hundred twenty and seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth, To confirm these days of Purim in their times appointed, according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined them, and as they had decreed for themselves and for their seed, ... And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in the book." – avi Jan 09 '12 at 10:25
  • Two points: "... and he sent", obviously Mordechai was the man in front. But moreover, while it may not have been a closely guarded secret, this letter was sent to the Jews (who, apparently, kept pretty much to themselves). Doesn't mean any one of them could just waltz up to the king, or even the crown prince, and say "Hey Darry, what's shakin' my Jewish homeboy??!" – AviD Jan 09 '12 at 10:34
  • "he sent" is refering to king achashverosh, not Moredchai. Your reading of this is ridiculousness. Darius lived in the Palace, not the rest of the country. – avi Jan 09 '12 at 10:37
  • "He sent" is at best ambiguous, either way it doesn't prove your point. And the fact that he lived in the palace, not the rest of the country, proves mine :). Either way, I think there might be enough meat here for its own question... – AviD Jan 09 '12 at 10:49
  • @AviD I can't tell if you are being serious or not. Go look in the Megilah, it's about as ambiguous as Esther reveling her Jewish identity to the palace AND all 127 principalities. – avi Jan 09 '12 at 11:02
  • Oh I agree with you on that point - that is, they are both quite ambiguous, but then the whole story of Megillat Esther is inherently ambiguous. Without harping on emotional sore points, I respectfully suggest that you re-read it, focusing on the story without filters except the historical context. – AviD Jan 09 '12 at 13:24
  • @AviD You mean the complete lack of mentioning any children at all? Sure. – avi Jan 09 '12 at 13:41