The gemara today changes the rating of the storyline from PG to R. Mordechai instructed Esther to "visit" Achashveirosh willingly even though the consequence of this seduction would be that she can no longer return back to live with Mordechai. Regarding her relationship with Mordechai the gemara considers this to be a willing act of adultery. However, in her tefillah she asks why has Hashem left me, "maybe you are judging an o'nes like ra'tzon" - and rashi explains that although she is making a decision to go, it is regarded as o'nes since it is for the sake of saving the Jewish people. Regarding the aveira of adultery she is considered forced and not liable, but regarding her husband it is considered consentual adultery. The reason is found in the Beis Shmuel (Even Haezer 178) in the name of Maharik that although her action was not a rebellion against Hashem, she becomes assur to her husband since it is a rebellion against him (the pasuk of adultery being assur to her husband is "mu'ala bo ma'al" not "ma'al b'hashem").
R' Shlomo Kluger (E.H 178 in chochmas shlomo) tries to prove that although Yael did something similar to Esther by seducing Sisrah, she remained mutar to her husband from the fact that in shiras devorah it refers to her as "aishes chever hakeini". He then tries to make a distinction between Yael and Esther based on whether the adultery was an imminent and clear lead to saving the Jewish people. A tremendous chiddush!!
6 comments:
I always assumed that pashut peshat in why Devorah refers to Yael as "eishes CHever Hakeini" is to explain her choice of weapon. Having been married to Chever Hakeini (a bedouin) it makes sense that tent pegs are accessible to her and she is proficient in using them.
More on topic, check out the Noda B'yehuda tinyana Yoreh Deah 161
Question on rashi 15a.
the gemora says until now esther was beones but now it is beratzon. Rashi brings down on "now" and adds mecan veelach midati. Why does rash add from now on? can't achsav just be interpreted as now this one time it will be midati?
my chavrusa had the same question. i think it is a very good question. i was thinking based on the gemara in kesubos 51b that says kidnapped women are mutar to their husbands. the gemara asks why should they be mutar, since they do actions that indicate they are b'ratzon like bringing them food. the gemara answers that they do this out of fear. you see from the gemara that if the circumstances indicate that she is b'ratzon, even if the act of bi'ah seems to be b'ones, we assume that it is ratzon. therefore by esther, once she goes to see achashveirosh, which is a sign of ratzon, from the perspective of beis din we would have to assume that from here on in she is b'ratzon.
the question still remains that there is no nafka minah whether she is b'ratzon once or multiple times. one way or the other she is assur to mordechai.
I think i remeeber learning once you do it once berotzen and there is some hanah even after since there is that hanah it is like bratzon
it sounds like you are refering to "misasek b'chalavim v'arayos chayav shekein nehene" (krisus 19b). but that would not make it b'ratzon to assur her on her husband. if you find a source, please let me know.
2/25/07
i just found an interesting chofetz chaim (hil. loshon horah 6:6 in a footnote on b'er mayim chaim) who explains that the act of walking to achashveirosh was to save klal yisroel, the act of relations was passive (karkah olam) so she should not have become assur to mordechai (a big chiddush). But, since she is doing an act by going, knowing that it will lead to relations with achashveirosh, it is considered violating giluy arayos actively, not just passively.
Post a Comment