Megillat Esther: Esther's fast

Megillat Esther (4:16) records that Esther told Mordechai that he should tell all the Jews of Shushan to fast for three days and nights and that she and her maidens would also fast. This fast included not drinking water as well as not eating. 4:17 records that Mordechai did as Esther commanded and 5:1 records that Esther went to see Achashverosh on the third day, which presumably was the third day of the fast. This fasting is difficult. How many people can survive 72 hours without food or water? Was this a reasonable request by Esther for all the Jews of Shushan to fast for three days? How could Esther been able to see Achashverosh after three days of fasting?

Ibn Ezra (on 4:16) attempts to limit the fast since he notes that she came to Achashverosh on the third day which means that she “only” fasted two full days. He notes that even by the third day, her face would have been gaunt from fasting but that she trusted in G-d and not in her beauty. Yet, even two days of fasting is difficult, and the people who acceded to her request to fast for three days would not have known to stop after Esther met Achashverosh.

S. Goldman (1946, on 4:16) writes, “The fast need not have been a continuous fast for three days. The Midrash asserts that food was taken at the sunset of each day.” I do not know the source of this Midrash, but it seems difficult because 4:16 explicitly records that the fast was for days and nights. Instead, Goldman’s first suggestion, that the fast was on three separate days, seems very reasonable. Esther went to Achashverosh on the third day that she fasted, but she was able to speak to him and was her usual radiant self since she had "only" been fasting for half a day.

There is an interesting support for this understanding from Masekhet Soferim (9th century? 17:4 and 21:1, see also Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 666:3), which quotes that by Purim there was a three day fast but it was not continuous. The fast was on Monday, Thursday and Monday, and the custom in Israel was to have the three day fast after Purim. This custom of fasting on three separate days might have developed since it was considered too much to ask people to fast for three consecutive days, even though people could eat at night, or maybe the idea of fasting three separate days was because it was thought that Esther’s fast was also on three separate days.

A brief history of Ta'anit Esther

The day before Purim, the 13th of Adar, is the fast of Esther, Ta’anit Esther, but this fast is not mentioned in the Talmud. The fast is first mentioned by R. Aha of Shaba (8th century, see Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971, 6:914). Rashi (quoted by the Bet Yosef, Orah Chayyim, 686) notes that fast is not a rabbinic law but a custom that the people accepted.

What is the reason for the fast? Based on the name of the fast, one would think that the fast is to remember Esther’s fast before she went to see Achashverosh (Megillat Esther 4:16), and Megillat Esther (9:31) records that “the people at that time accepted upon themselves and their children the matter of their fastings.” There are several problems with this explanation. First, according to the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 8:6, see also Talmud Megillah 15a) Esther fasted in Nisan, and one would think that if we fast to remember her fast, we would fast in Nisan and not Adar. Two, her fast was for three days, while we fast for one day. Finally most importantly, it used to be forbidden to fast on the 13th of Adar. On this day, Judah ha-Maccabee had a great victory over Nicanor, a Greek general, and Megillat Ta`anit (first century prior to the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash) records that because of this victory it was forbidden to fast on the day. The victory over Nicanor happened several hundred years after the story of Purim, which means that if there was a fast on the 13th of Adar from the time of Purim, then the fast was annulled with Judah ha-Maccabee’s victory or the fast of Esther was initially observed on a different day.

The Rosh (1250-1327, Megillah, pages of Rosh 1:1) quotes Rabbenu Tam (1100-1171) that the reason for the fast of Esther is that surely the people in the time of the Megillah fasted on the 13th of Adar as part of their prayers before they went to defend themselves from Haman and their enemies. This supposition is troubling. It does not resolve the problem that eventually it became forbidden to fast on the 13th of Adar and also it is odd that the fast is called the fast of Esther when according to this approach there is no connection with Esther. Also, if there was always a fast on the 13th of Adar, then as Avraham Korman (2001, pp. 34-36) asks, why was this fast was not mentioned in the Talmud? Furthermore, it contradicts the ruling in the Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 571:3) that a person is not supposed to fast in times of danger in order not to weaken one’s self to fight the danger.

Masekhet Soferim (9th century? 17:4 and 21:1) records that by Purim there was a three day fast, Monday, Thursday and Monday, and the custom of the Rabbis in Israel was to have the three day fast after Purim. This custom to fast for three days matches up with Esther’s three day fast. This three day fast is recorded by the Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 686:3), but to the best of my knowledge nobody does this fast.

Masekhet Soferim (21:2,3) questions why the three day fast was not done in Nisan, and answers that one does not fast in Nisan since the mishkan was established in the desert in Nisan and in the future the Bet ha-Mikdash will be re-built in Nisan. We see from the question that the three day fast was really supposed to be in Nisan since this is when it is believed that Esther fasted.

Daniel Sperber (1990, pp. 192-199) notes that a different three day fast, the fast of “Behab,” in the beginning of the month of Iyar, also seems to be based on Esther’s three day fast. This fast was also moved from Nisan, but in this case, a month later to Iyar.

In our discussion, “The fast of the firstborn son,” we argue that the fast of the firstborn son of erev Pesach was also due to Esther’s fast, but it was condensed from three days to one day, probably because of desire not to fast in the month of Nisan. This fast is also first mentioned in the time of the Geonim.

We see that by the time of the Geonim, there were three different set of fasts related to Esther’s fast, and either in conjunction with these fasts or as a different custom/ option, there developed the custom to fast on the 13th of Adar because of Esther’s fast. Of all of the possibilities this day was the most connected with the celebration of Purim, and since by the time of the Geonim, Megillat Ta`anit was annulled (see Rosh Hashanah 18b and Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 573:1), it was no longer forbidden to fast on this day. This fast on the 13th of Adar became accepted maybe because it seemed strange to people to fast for Esther after they had already celebrated Purim. 

Why in this period of the Geonim did these four fasts develop to re-call Esther’s fast? My guess is that this was part of the fight with the Karaites. The Karaites could have pointed out that Megillat Esther (9:31) records that people accepted upon themselves to fast, but nobody until then was fasting. In response to this claim, four different customs developed when to fast to re-call Esther’s fast: A one day fast on 13th of Adar (today’s Ta’anit Esther), a three day fast after Purim, a one day fast by the firstborn sons on erev Pesach and/ or a three day fast in the beginning of Iyar.

Bibliography:

Korman, Avraham (1917-2002, Tel Aviv), 2001, Techelet Avraham, Tel Aviv.

Sperber, Daniel, 1990, Minhagei Yisrael: Sources and history, Vol. 1, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Shemot 27:9-19 (Terumah) – Go west

Shemot 27:9-19 records the instructions to build the courtyard of the mishkan. The mishkan consisted of three areas or zones, the courtyard, the mishkan proper and the Holy of Holies. The largest zone was the courtyard, with the northern and southern sides being 100 amot (a foot and a half?) by 50 amot, while the eastern and western sides were both 50 amot, 27:9-19. These dimensions meant that the mishkan was a rectangle, and this same shape also appears by the second zone, the mishkan proper, which was situated within the courtyard. The mishkan proper was 30 amot by 10 amot, and again the northern and southern sides were the lengthier sides, 26:15-25. The mishkan proper was divided into two rooms, 26:31-35, with the western part of the room being the Holy of Holies, and this is assumed to have been a perfect cube, 10 amot by 10 amot by 10 amot.

In addition, both the courtyard and the mishkan proper were set up on an east west axis, as both entrances to the courtyard and the mishkan proper were on the eastern sides, and a worshipper moved towards the west when entering the respective zones. There seems to be no geographic need for this choice of direction, and the question is whether there is any significance to the fact that one would face west when entering the mishkan. Note the mishkan could have been built as a circle with no directional bias, but my guess is that this was technically more difficult.

Rambam (1963, Guide, 3:45) writes with regard to the Bet ha-Mikdash that, “Avraham defined the direction towards which one would turn in prayer, fixing it exactly in the west. For the Holy of Holies is in the west… In my opinion, the reason for this is as follows: inasmuch as at that time the opinion generally accepted in the world was to the effect that the sun should be worshipped, and that it is the deity, there is no doubt that all men turned when praying towards the east. Therefore, Avraham turned when praying on Mount Moriah – I mean in the Sanctuary – towards the west, so as to turn his back upon the sun.” While I do not know this reference to Avraham, and the Rambam is referring to the Bet ha-Mikdash, still this same principle should apply to the mishkan. The mishkan could not face east since that could imply that people were worshipping the sun. It is true that the sun sets in the west, but then the sun is waning.

This same dichotomy of east versus west appears in the book of Bereshit. After Adam and Havva were thrown out of the Garden of Eden, the Torah records that the garden was guarded on the east by the keruvim, which meant that the opening of the Garden of Eden was also in the east, Bereshit 3:24, also Bereshit 2:8?. Also, traveling east in the book of Bereshit is a bad sign, as by the episode of the Tower of Bavel, the people traveled east, Bereshit 11:2, when Lot left the land of Israel, the Torah records that he traveled to the east, Bereshit 13:11, and Avraham sent his sons from the concubines to the east, Bereshit 25:6. Conversely traveling west is viewed favorably, as Abraham and Yaakov entered the land of Israel from the east which meant that they were traveling westwards, and the Jewish people in the desert, circled the desert to enter the land of Israel from the east. Could it be that this preference towards traveling west was also part of the fight against the worship of the sun?

Yet, would the westward alignment of the mishkan really negate the worship of the sun? Many pagan temples were built that the sun’s first rays would strike a particular mark on certain special days, and hence with the openings of the mishkan in the east, this could still allow for the sun’s rays to enter the mishkan. The answer here is that while one entered from the east side of the mishkan, there really was no real opening for sunlight. Both the eastern side of the courtyard and of the mishkan proper had screens that covered the entire side and were ten amot high, which meant that the sun’s early rays could not directly enter the mishkan without passing through the curtains. Furthermore, in the mishkan proper, there were coverings both on the top and on the sides which probably precluded almost all sunlight from entering the mishkan proper, as almost certainly, the Holy of Holies was a dark room, 26:1-14.

If the goal was to limit direct sunlight in the mishkan, why then was the mishkan not built on a north south axis? One possible answer is from the Rambam that the objective was for people to turn their backs on the sun. A second possibility is that the north was also considered sacred by some pagan religions, as for example the German and Norse societies worshipped the North Star. Furthermore, it seems that pagans in the southern hemisphere treated the south as being sacred since at midnight the South Pole Star aligned with the sun.

Accordingly, maybe the westward alignment of the mishkan was chosen to exclude any possible pagan influences on the mishkan. The eastwards direction was disqualified due to the worship of the rising sun, while the north and south axis was rejected due to pagan worship of the stars. The only remaining direction was for the mishkan to face west since this direction was not associated with any pagan religions.

Shemot 20:17 (Yitro) - What was the reason for the Decalogue?

Shemot 20:1-14 records the Decalogue, but was it necessary for G-d to speak to the people? 

One might answer that the people had to hear the laws, but there are opinions (Rambam, Moreh 2:33, 1963, pp. 363-366) that the people did not understand what G-d spoke to them. Also, Moshe could have told the people the laws, as he relayed all the other laws in the Torah. While the declaration of the Decalogue was one of the most, if not the most impressive, event recorded in the Torah, from a historical perspective the crucial event at Mount Sinai was the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people that was made afterwards, and this was done with Moshe as the intermediary between G-d and the Jewish people. Why did G-d declare the Decalogue to the people?

Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Fundamental laws of the Torah, 8:1) explains that we do not believe in Moshe because of all the miracles that he performed, but because of the events at Mount Sinai, that the people heard Moshe speaking to G-d and G-d answering him, as recorded in 19:19. Furthermore, as the Rambam quotes, this idea accords with 19:9, which records that "G-d told Moshe: Here, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you, and also that they may trust in you forever." Accordingly, one reason for the Decalogue was to validate Moshe as the prophet of G-d, which had to happen prior to the covenant since Moshe was the intermediary between G-d and the people.

Yet, while 19:19 is probably the fulfillment of 19:9, the conversation of 19:19-24 does not seem to be referring to the Decalogue. It was not the Decalogue itself that established Moshe as the prophet, but the conversation immediately prior to the Decalogue. However, one could argue that without the Decalogue, Moshe would not have been able to have the conversation of 19:20-24, and hence the Decalogue was part of the validation of Moshe.

A second rationale for the Decalogue is that it was to increase the people's fear of G-d. This is mentioned in 20:17 (16), where Moshe told the people "do not be afraid! For it is to test you that G-d has come, to have awe of Him be upon you, so you do not sin" (Fox translation, 1995, p. 373). Similarly, Devarim 4:10 records that when Moshe was recollecting the events at Mount Sinai, he said that G-d told him to "assemble the people to me, that I may have them hear my words that they may learn to hold me in awe all the days that they are alive on the soil," (Fox translation, 1995, p. 866). We know the people were fearful when G-d declared the Decalogue, as they told Moshe, "let not G-d speak with us lest we die," 20:16 (15). Yet, I doubt that the prime reason for the Decalogue was to increase the people's fear of G-d. G-d did not have to speak to the people to increase their fear. It would have been sufficient for G-d to impress them with the awesome atmospheric disturbances that accompanied the Decalogue, 19:16-18. Also, a mere forty days after the Decalogue, the people sinned by the golden calf, and hence their fear of G-d dissipated rapidly.

A third reason for the Decalogue is presented rather cryptically in 20:17, that Moshe told the people, "Do not be afraid! For it is to test you that G-d has come," (Fox translation, 1995, p. 373). What was the test? Many suggestions have been offered.

Rashi (on 20:17) quotes from the Mekhilta that the test was to exalt the people in the eye of the other nations in the world that they would know that G-d had appeared to the Jewish people. Ramban (on 20:16,17) rejects this rationale without providing a reason, while the Netziv (on 20:17) questions how the people of the world would know that G-d spoke to the Jewish people. See also Rashbam and Ibn Ezra (both on 20:16, 17) for their cryptic explanations.

Rambam (Moreh 3:24) explains that the test was that if G-d sent a false prophet to test the people by telling them to violate the Torah (Devarim 13:4) the people having experienced G-d speaking to them would know not to listen to the prophet. Ramban rejects this since according to this idea, Moshe should then have told the people that the experience at Mount Sinai was to test the people in the future. Yet, in 20:16, Moshe states the test was that "G-d came to the people."

Ramban (also see Cassuto, 1967, p. 253) writes that the test was whether the people would follow the laws. However, again it seems that the hearing of the Decalogue itself was the test and not any actions afterwards.

Abravanel (1997, p. 335) suggests several answers. One, that the test was whether the people would be able to endure the experience of hearing G-d. He explains that there was no doubt that the people were able to pass the test, but the point of the test was to enable the people to know their own abilities. Yet, did the people really demonstrate that they could hear G-d speaking to them, as they told Moshe, "let not G-d speak with us lest we die," 20:16 (15)? Two, the Mekhilta and Rashi's explanation, and three the fear here is like Rudolf Otto’s (1959) idea of mysterium tremendum that the awe of G-d would remain with them throughout their lives. (This was apparently was not successful since the people would sin shortly with the golden calf.) Four, to teach the people that G-d can speak to man and five, to teach the people to listen to G-d's prophets.

Moshe Greenberg (1960) argues that word test, should be understood as experience, that the people were to experience G-d directly to impress upon them the fear of G-d. He writes, "the only natural sense of the clause (to test) in this context can be, to test whether or not the people will be terrified." Yet, as mentioned above, I doubt that the fear of G-d is the main reason for the Decalogue.

My own guess is to vary Abravanel's first reason that the test was whether the people could endure hearing G-d. Yet, as opposed to Abravanel who assumes that the people passed the test, my guess is that the people failed the test since they were scared out of their wits. The test was to see if G-d could speak to a nation as a whole, and the answer was no. The people at Mount Sinai had experienced the plagues, the splitting of the Yam Suf, the mahn, and had time to prepare for the Decalogue, but even they were unable to endure hearing G-d. This purpose was not mentioned before the Decalogue because this information could have influenced the outcome of the test, and as the people failed the test, there was no reason to mention it again. Accordingly, Moshe referred to the test cryptically in 20:17 (16), and since the people failed the test, he immediately mentioned the secondary reason of increasing the people's fear of G-d, which was actualized.

The lesson from the test was not only relevant to the Jewish people, but to all of mankind, that never again would G-d speak to an entire nation. This lesson was needed before the establishment of the covenant since once it was demonstrated that G-d could not speak directly to the people, then there was a need for an intermediary between the people and G-d. Thus, in conjunction with the idea above that the conversation prior to declaration of the Decalogue (19:19-24) established Moshe as the true prophet of G-d, the day of the declaration of the Decalogue both established the need for an intermediary between G-d and the Jewish people in order to make the covenant and that Moshe was to be the intermediary.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Greenberg, Moshe (1928-2010), 1960, נסה in Exodus 20:20 and the purpose of the Sinaitic theophany, Journal of Biblical Literature, 79:3, pp. 273-276.

Otto, Rudolf, 1959, (1869-1937, original in German in 1917), The idea of the Holy, translated by John W. Harvey, Middlesex: Penguin (Pelican) Books.