Lives in Balance
And Mordechai said to respond to Esther: Do not imagine about yourself that you can escape in the house of the king from (the destiny) of the Jews. For if you are silent at this time, relief and rescue will arise for the Jews from some other place and you and your father’s household will be destroyed. Who knows if for a moment such as this you arrived to your royal position. (Megilat Esther 4:13-14)
Esther and Mordechai debate the proper course of action
One of the most moving portions of the Megilah is a dialogue between Mordechai and Esther. Haman has persuaded King Achashverosh to allow him to issue a decree authorizing the wholesale slaughter of the Jews within the kingdom. Mordechai appeals to Esther to approach the king and plead for the lives of her people. Esther initially objects that this is not the proper time for her to act. She shares with Mordechai that she has not been summoned by the king for thirty days. In order to speak with the king, she must appear at his palace and seek an audience. This is a dangerous venture. Appearing at the palace without a summons is regarded as an affront to the king’s dignity. Anyone who approaches the king in this manner is subject to death. Only if the king specifically directs, is the person spared. Esther does not suggest a specific alternative to Mordechai’s plan but she apparently believes it best to wait for a more opportune time. When that time comes, she will plead with Achashverosh to spare her people.[1]
Mordechai responds to Esther. His response has four components. First, he tells her that she cannot save herself from the fate of her people. She should not imagine that her position as queen will shield her. Second, he explains to Esther that whether she acts or surrenders to her fears, the Jews will be saved. Hashem will not allow His people to be destroyed. Third, if the Jews are saved through some means other than her intervention, then she and her father’s household will be destroyed. Fourth, he suggests to Esther that perhaps, providence placed her in the role of queen specifically for this moment.[2]
Do not bear tales among your nation. Do not stand upon the blood of your neighbor. I am Hashem. (Sefer VaYikra 19:16)
The obligation to rescue another Jew from danger
The above passage commands us to not be idle when a fellow Jew’s life is in danger. Maimonides explains that this commandment requires that we use our resources to save our fellow Jew from danger. For example, if I observe someone drowning and I can swim, then I must swim out to the person and save him.
It is clear from this example that one is not obligated to sacrifice oneself in order to rescue another. Maimonides is not suggesting that one who cannot swim rush into a river to save his friend. However, Bait Yosef raises a question. Is one required to place one’s life at risk[3] to save another whose death is otherwise virtually certain?[4] For example, I observe someone drowning in the river and I know how to swim. However, I must swim a challenging distance to affect the rescue and the current is swift. I assess that I will endanger myself through the attempt. In other words, my friend’s life will certainly be lost if I do not act. However, by acting I endanger my own life. Am I required to risk death in order to save my fellow Jew from certain death? Bait Yosef concludes that one is obligated to affect the rescue despite the personal risk. Others question this conclusion and suggest that one is not obligated to incur even the risk of death in order to recue another.[5]
Mordechai told Esther to endanger her life
This discussion presents two related problems. First, it seems that Bait Yosef should have availed himself of an obvious and compelling proof for his position. Was not the dialogue between Mordechai and Esther a discussion of this issue? Mordechai told Esther that her fellow Jews were destined to be slaughtered and that she needed to intervene and save them. She responded that taking action would place her own life at risk. Mordechai told her that despite the risk to her life, she must act to rescue her people. Mordechai ruled that one must risk one’s life in order to intervene on behalf of another who will otherwise die. Yet, although Bait Yosef’s ruling is supported by this explicit narrative in the Megilah, he makes no mention of it.
Second, as noted above, Bait Yosef’s conclusion is disputed by others. These authorities maintain that one is not required to place one’s life in danger to save another from certain death. How can these authorities reconcile their position with Mordechai’s ruling? According to their view, Esther was actually completely justified in her response and Mordechai’s position was incorrect.[6]
Passivity would place Esther’s life in forfeit
Rav Yisrael Chait suggests a solution to this problem. He bases his suggestion upon a closer analysis of Mordechai’s comments to Esther. As noted above, Mordechai’s response has four components. However, his main focus is upon a single issue. Mordechai is telling Esther that she is in certain danger. She should not delude herself. She cannot save herself through passivity. If Haman succeeds in his ruthless campaign to destroy the Jewish people, she will not be saved by hiding herself in her palace. Her royal status will not protect her. In fact, by not acting she places her life in even greater jeopardy. Hashem will save His people through some other means. But perhaps, providence has preserved her specifically to now take action.[7] If she does not accept this responsibility upon herself, then providence will abandon her. Hashem will preserve His people but she will perish.[8]
In short, Mordechai told Esther she must act now to save her people and to save herself. According to this analysis, Mordechai’s instructions to Esther are not relevant to the discussion of the circumstances under which one must risk oneself for another. Mordechai was not instructing Esther to risk her life only to save another. He was telling her to save herself by saving her people. Bait Yosef and his opponents are dealing with placing one’s life at risk to save another. Mordechai was telling Esther that she should risk her life to save her people and herself!
Living a meaningful life
Mordechai told Esther that he suspected providence had brought about her ascent to the throne for this moment. Malbim comments that his suspicion was based on the unlikelihood of such an occurrence. Mordechai felt justified in warning her that her failure to act would undermine the plan of providence and place her life in jeopardy.
There is a message in Mordechai’s comments that can be extended beyond Esther. Our lives must have meaning and purpose. In Esther’s case, Mordechai felt that this meaning and purpose could be identified. She was placed in her position as queen to save her people. In assessing our own lives, it more difficult to identify a specific mission that has been assigned to each individual. Yet, Mordechai’s message has relevance for us. His message urges us to make our lives meaningful and to seek purpose. If we live only to exist, then we deprive our lives of significance. If we accept the challenge of identifying and pursuing a purposeful life, then we endow our lives with meaning and consequence.
[1] Esther told Mordechai that she had not been summoned by the king for thirty days. What message was she communicating to Mordechai with this information? According to Malbim, she was explaining to Mordechai that she expected Achashverosh to soon ask for her. She was suggesting that when this occurs, she will plead with him to spare the Jewish people. Gersonides – Ralbag – proposes a different interpretation of Esther’s comments. She was explaining to Mordechai that she would be placing herself in danger. The king did not summon her often. She had not been invited to his palace in thirty days. She could not know when he would next extend an invitation. Therefore, she could petition the king on behalf of the Jews only by approaching him without an invitation. This would be dangerous.
These two interpretations represent very different views on the intent of Esther’s reply. According to Malbim, Esther was suggesting to Mordechai an alternative plan. Let’s just wait for a better moment to appeal to Achashverosh. This opportunity is likely to occur soon. According to Ralbag, Esther did not present Mordechai with an alternative plan. She was expressing her fear.
[2] How certain was Mordechai of his interpretation of providence’s intent? He said to Esther, “Who knows”. He seems to acknowledge some degree of doubt regarding his conclusion. Among the commentators there are two opinions on the nature of his uncertainty. According to Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Mordechai was not prepared to declare with certainty that providence had placed Esther in this position so that she could now save her people. Malbim and Rashi suggest that Mordechai was not expressing doubt regarding the mission assigned by providence. He was addressing Esther’s suggestion that she delay taking action until a more favorable moment. Mordechai responded that perhaps, providence placed her in this situation in order to act at this point in time. His uncertainty was not in regards to the mission assigned by providence; it related to how that mission should best be executed.
[3] To risk or endanger one’s life means to incur the possibility of death.
[4] Of course, “certain” in this context does not mean 100% certainty. A more detailed analysis is required to precisely define the point of demarcation between “risk” and “certain” death. See, for example, Rav Aharon Soloveitchik, Perech Mateh Aharon, volume 2, pp 139-140. For the purposes of this discussion this analysis is not essential.
[5] Shulchan Aruch does not include a ruling. S’MA suggests that the ruling is omitted because the issue is not discussed by any of the authorities upon whom Shulchan Aruch generally relies. Seemingly, according to S’MA, Shulchan Aruch is declining to rule on the issue. Pitchai Teshuvah suggests that the issue is not discussed by these authorities because they do not distinguish between placing oneself in certain or possible danger. In other words, even if one will subject oneself to possible danger in the rescue of his fellow from certain death, one is not obligated to affect the rescue.
[6] Mordechai could not have been certain that Esther’s intervention would be successful. Is one obligated to place one’s own life at risk when it is uncertain that this will save another? BaCh suggests that the answer is unclear and the authorities dispute whether one must risk one’s own life under such circumstances. He suggests that Tur records both positions without clearly ruling. BaCh’s view suggests a further question. Mordechai was not certain that Esther’s efforts to rescue the Jewish people would be successful. Mordechai asked that she place her life in danger to possibly recue her people. This seems to conclusively prove that one is obligated to risk one’s own life to possibly rescue another’s life. Yet, according to BaCh, despite Mordechai’s clear ruling, the authorities dispute the issue.
[7] It is generally agreed among the commentators that Mordechai was certain that Esther would perish if she declined to act. However, they have different views on his specific reasoning. According to Ibn Ezra (note 2, above), Mordechai made two separate points. One was that Esther and her father’s household would perish if she did not act. He did not share with Esther how he came to that conclusion. His second point was that perhaps providence gave her this mission. According to Rashi and Malbim, Mordechai had no doubt regrading Esther’s mission. His only doubt related to the specifics of providence’s plan. Malbim explains that because Mordechai was certain that the existential meaning of Esther’s life was tied to this mission, her failure to act would place her life and her father’s household in forfeit.
[8] This understanding to Mordechai’s comments seems to be supported by GRA. See his comments on 4:13.