Is it really kosher to "apply" to become a gentile king's wife?

Question

Near the beginning of the Purim story, Esther lives in King Achashverosh's harem and "applies" to be queen by spending the night with him. What do our interpretations say about why she did this and whether it was, l'chatchila, Torah-sanctioned behavior?

My motivation for asking is that I wasn't aware that there were any special permissions for a Jewish woman to enter a non-Jewish man's harem or engineer to marry him, even if she had righteous intentions (nor for a father to give away his daughter to do this). Mitzvos that might apply are

Leviticus 21:29 "Profane not thy daughter, to make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness." (re: Mordechai's hand in this)
Deutronomy 23:18 "There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel"

(I don't know if Esther was literally being "וְאֶת רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה," but it would seem that at least a similar prohibition could be involved.)

...Someone told me that Esther and her father were "made" to do this, but the Megillah is not clear. If that interpretation is correct, please provide a textual source.

If she was, in fact, forced, I would be interested in any possible answers to the related question of whether Esther made effort to avoid being kept or chosen. I never get that sense from the Megillah itself, but I haven't read much commentary.

I don't have access to the source, now, but the word used in Hebrew is "Vatilakach Esther" (I think it's in Chapter 2). The word means that she was "taken" - i.e., forcibly. How this was done, is unclear. If she applied, she may have been forced to do so as were all the girls in Shushan. As to whether she tried NOT to be attractive, etc. so that she wouldn't be chosen is a separate issue that the Megillah doesn't mention directly. — DanF, Feb 19 '15 at 22:44
@DanF, Ester 2:15 is pretty clear that she wasn't looking to be attractive. — Yishai, Feb 19 '15 at 22:49
@msh210 - I assume that you are referring to the 2nd answer there? It says "Being taken is something that you CAN resist" - Huh? If you're taken forcibly, doesn't that imply that resistance doesn't work, i.e. - their force overpowers your resistance? — DanF, Feb 20 '15 at 15:33
'Someone told me that Esther and her father were "made" to do this, but the Megillah is not clear.' It is certainly not clear the other way. Your question didn't provide any reason to think that Esther "applied" voluntarily; do you have one? If not, the answer to your question is simple: Torah sources take the opposite for granted. — MichoelR, Mar 28 '24 at 09:32
Just in terms of simple logic, I think the words of the gemara https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.12b.15?vhe=William_Davidson_Edition_-_Vocalized_Aramaic&lang=bi&sbsq=%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94&with=SidebarSearch&lang2=en make a lot of sense: The king ruined a thousand women one after another, on a daily basis, all condemned to permanent exile to his harem. No one in her right mind would volunteer for a lottery like that. Fathers hid their daughters from him. — MichoelR, Mar 28 '24 at 09:35

score 9 · Accepted Answer · answered Feb 19 '15 at 23:03

9

There are several places in the Talmud which assume she was taken by force, e.g. Megillah 15a:

לך כנוס את כל היהודים וגו' עד אשר לא כדת אמר רבי אבא שלא כדת היה שבכל יום ויום עד עכשיו באונס ועכשיו ברצון וכאשר אבדתי אבדתי כשם שאבדתי מבית אבא כך אובד ממך

Rashi there:

עד עכשיו. נבעלתי באונס: ועכשיו. מכאן ואילך מדעתי: אבדתי ממך. ואסורה אני לך דאשת ישראל שנאנסה מותרת לבעלה וברצון אסורה לבעלה

When she agrees to go to the King to plead for the Jewish people, then it won't be Halachic rape anymore, and she will no longer be able to be reunited with her Halachic husband, Mordechai.

answered Feb 19 '15 at 23:03

Yishai

31,937
1
62
130

Great, except I don't understand your last sentence. (Also, Mordechai was really her halachic husband?! I always hear "father"....) – SAH Feb 19 '15 at 23:12
@SAH Her actual father and mother had died, so Mordechai raised her (Esther 2:7). – Fred Feb 19 '15 at 23:14
The talmud a couple of pages earlier says that when it says he took her in as a daughter (לבת) it is hinting at לבית (literally "a house" - a reference to the wife which is the pillar of the home). Tosfos on 15a says he didn't divorce her because divorce would require witnesses, and he was worried news would get back to the king - so it doesn't say something like that outright in the Megillah for the same reason, compare to Ester 10:2 where the Megillah was also for the consumption of the Persians - this is one of the reasons Hashem's name isn't in it, Mordechai didn't want it translated to AZ – Yishai Feb 19 '15 at 23:18
@SAH ping ^^^^^ – Yishai Feb 19 '15 at 23:18
1

We must remember that the assertion that she was married to mordechai is mere midrash (see [below]) unsurprisingly the Baal Hameor in Sanhedrin is willing to suggest that the Gemara there doesnt hold of this midrash.(http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/53349/belief-in-medrashim/53351#53351) – mevaqesh Feb 20 '15 at 00:33
Please edit your answer to acknowledge the difference between indisputable fact, and midrash. – mevaqesh Feb 20 '15 at 00:34
1

Note that there are different opinions about what justified Esther to take an active role as opposed to a passive role (קרקע עולם, per Abaye in Sanhedrin 74b). The Noda BiYhuda (II YD 161), for example, says this was only allowed because it was necessary to save the Jewish nation, whereas the Sh'vus Ya'akov (II 117) says it was allowed to save masses of Jews (which is to say, the Sh'vus Ya'akov would permit taking an active role to save masses of people even if the entire nation was not at risk). – Fred Feb 20 '15 at 00:37
@mevaqesh, As indicated in the sources in Fred's comment, this idea in the Talmud is entirely within the realm of Halacha and not "mere" medrash. If you want to build an alternative answer based on the Ba'al HaMeor, I look forward to reading it (if not, I would still appreciate a more precise reference). – Yishai Feb 20 '15 at 01:30
@Yishai sorry but the sugya there is quite complex and not dependent on that midrash. In fact the Baal Hameor cited is right there on the sugya. The Gemara's question was that ester's sin was public. This follows the assertion that any "sin" even adjusting ones shoelaces is a cardinal sin if done publicly. There is no indication from the gemara that she was married for even a single jewish girl isnt permited to marry a non-jew, and this is at least as forbidden as adjusting shoelaces. Lastly this has nothing to do with "depending on the baal hameor" a midrash blaibs a midrash (see link). – mevaqesh Feb 20 '15 at 01:50
@mevaqesh, I don't see how the Ba'al HaMeor is supporting your assertions here. He very much sees an important dependency between the two, he engages it, and then suggests a way of learning that finds them in contradiction, and if they weren't in contradiction, the conclusion would be different. He doesn't just dismiss it as a nice drasha. – Yishai Feb 20 '15 at 02:31
1

@mevaqesh The gemara cited by Yishai (M'gilla 15a) is itself a factor in extensive halachic discussions regarding whether a woman is permitted to her husband (see e.g. R' Sh'lomo Kluger on EH 178, who explains that Ya'el was permitted to her husband because her actions directly allowed her to kill Sisera and save the Jews, whereas Esther's actions merely helped her gain favor in the eyes of Achashveirosh which indirectly allowed her to save the Jews). – Fred Feb 20 '15 at 02:55
1

@Fred Saying pshat in the halacha according to the author of that Midrash isnt the same thing as paskening based off it. But even if some posek or other would reckon with the Midrash, that doesn't change my comment that the initial sources cited (the Gemara Sanhedrin, Shvus Yaakov, and Noda Biyehuda) are independent of the Midrash, (IIR the contents of the tshuvos correctly) and certainly the Gemara is independent, and may even be mashma not like the Midrash (see Baal Hameor, Rishonim ad loc.). Furthermore, even if it is reckoned with b'tachlis hachomer as a method of deriving what the – mevaqesh Feb 20 '15 at 04:31
@Fred author of that Midrash held, that still doesnt mean that the Midrash ought to be presented as undisputed fact (as the Rishonim to the sugya in Sanhedrin show us that it likely is not). Even if that sugya wasn't potentially in conflict the Midrash still shouldn't be presented as fact given the varying interpretations to midrashim detailed here I therefore once again request that the language be toned down (I would be happy to do the editing :) – mevaqesh Feb 20 '15 at 04:39
1

@mevaqesh Rather than editing Yishai's answer in a manner possibly contrary to his intent, I suggest that you let your comments suffice (or also downvote if you think "this answer is not useful"). Perhaps also write your own answer to present your take; I expect that an answer based on the Ba'al HaMaor would be well received. But I don't think an answer needs to be revised whenever it takes an aggadic statement from the Talmud at face value (especially a non-fantastical aggadic statement that was likely intended to be understood literally). – Fred Feb 20 '15 at 05:08
@Fred I obviously never meant I would edit it against his will! I meant if he wanted it edited I would be happy to do the "work". (I cant write another answer with the Baal Hameor because that is a side point that Yishai inserted into his answer, and thus a presentation of the baal hameor, or even the views of the rishonim and particularly the Geonim about aggada in general wouldnt answer te question of why Ester signed up for the position. There was one answer to that which was that she was forced (in fact i'd ommit any mention of marriage to mordechai as it is relevant; even a pnuya is assur – mevaqesh Feb 20 '15 at 16:01
@mevaqesh Ah, I see. As far as writing your own answer, I didn't mean to suggest that you should write an answer only about the Ba'al HaMa'or, as that wouldn't answer the question. I was suggesting that if you write an alternative answer, you could include the Ba'al HaMa'or in your answer as part of an explanation for why you do not assume that Esther was married to Mordechai. – Fred Feb 20 '15 at 16:11
It should be clear to everyone that arguing whether or not the Medrash is "mere" is stupid. Mere-ness is not a defined category with any meaning. – Double AA Feb 20 '15 at 18:36
@DoubleAA, I understood "mere" (based on his link) to mean non-factual and non-halachic. TTBOMK everyone agrees there are at least some Midrashim in that category, although there is no clear consensus on which ones or even how to evaluate the question. I don't really find it very relevant to dispute the factuality of it, and whether or not we find disputes about it, although I agree with Fred that Rabbi Abba likely intended it literally. – Yishai Feb 20 '15 at 18:47
@Fred gonna have to check out that R' Shlomo Kluger. Does he adress the Yalkut that says Yael was not Jewish? – user6591 Feb 22 '15 at 02:54
@user6591 It's cited in חבל נחלתו (in 8:23:19). I don't know, but from the excerpt I saw it looks like he was assuming she was Jewish. – Fred Feb 22 '15 at 19:06
@mevaqesh This discussion seems to have gotten completely side-tracked. There is a discussion about the Midrash that Esther was married to Mordechai. But the question we're supposed to be discussing is taken completely for granted by the gemara: Esther was not with the king voluntarily. That should be the point taken out of that gemara. – MichoelR Mar 28 '24 at 09:26
And even for those who argue with that Midrash, and seek a more direct p'shat, does any such source suggest otherwise, that Esther's presence in the palace was voluntary? I haven't seen it. – MichoelR Mar 28 '24 at 09:29

score 7 · Answer 2 · answered Feb 20 '15 at 15:55

Esther 2:8 uses the term "Vatilakach" - she was taken. While it doesn't clearly imply "forcibly", there are several hints that this was mandatory.

One is 2:3 that says that the king should gather EVERY virgin girl. The text alone doesn't state that Esther was married, so she might have been a betulah.

Even if we follow the explanations that she was married, see Rash"i on 2:17 that says that the king took even married women.

Is it really kosher to "apply" to become a gentile king's wife?

2 Answers2