The Gemara tells us that Vashti didn't come when Achashverosh caller her because she was embarrassed – she had A) broken out in pimples, or B) sprouted a tail. This ultimately led her death for refusing the king. A couple days ago a fellow asked me what I thought about Vashti's tail – did I believe that she really sprouted this appendage?
"Well," I said, "if I believe G-d can do things like create the universe or split the Yam Suf, is it so crazy for him to provide some Babylonian/Persian frau a tail?" "It's just too far fetched to me," he said.But it got me thinking – I hadn't had a problem with the tail story, and I didn't think that the tail was such an incredible concept, but I began to wonder what Meforshim may say about this tail. The internet provided me with a couple articles on the subject:
I responded, "You know it doesn't say that it was an alligator-tail or a shaggy-dog-tail or even a rat tail; for all we know, the "tail" could have been a small protrusion where a tail would be." "Good point," he said, "I can live with that."
1. A teacher who described her theory and method for teaching midrashim – a thoughtful piece but I wasn't so taken by it.
2. An article by R' Adlerstein . This one was compelling: First of all, quoting the Maharal carries some weight – if HE doesn't accept Vashti's tail as literal, he has my attention. So, by the end of this essay I was a new member to the club of those who don't necessarily take the literal view of Vashti's tail.
Then I tried it out when I got home:
I asked my wife about Vashti's tail, and she gave me one of "you better not start with your enlightened views again" look. But my fourteen year old son was walking by and said, "Everyone knows she grew a tail, what's the problem?"So, why am I troubled? Well, because I'm a bit torn here. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but even if less literal interpretations of Chazal work for me, what about the future? The chareidi & chassidishe view on Chazal is to err on the literal side. And this is for good reason – there is a real risk of eroding the basic emunas chachomim and emunas haTorah when we open Chazal up for debate. The message it sends is that we are the arbiters that decide which chalakim of our mesora to accept of reject, which is a risky business. It seems pretty clear to me that the simple fact is that the more rationalist view is less successful in maintaining a strong Yiddishkeit – which is essential to the future of Klal Yisroel. The battles between the haskola and the chareidi worlds clearly show that the more we open up mesora for dissection & reevaluation, the more we doom ourselves to a slide away from Torah. Most maskilim were frumme Yidden, but their path was a ticket to eventual assimilation, while the "small-minded, Pesi Ya'amin lechl dovor" chareidim maintained a kedusha and yiddishkeit that we can only wax nostalgic about.
My 11 year old daughter piped up, "Of course she had a tail!" So I had three of them staring me down and I say, "But don't we say that the miracles of Purim were hidden?"
Silence (I knew I had 'em beat then).
"Thats a good question" my son says.
So, I proceed to tell them that the Maharal makes the point, and in that moment I had 'em running from the literal interpretation like they had never considered it to be a real tail.
There is no end to this; once we open everything up we are left wondering about everything in Yiddishkeit. Did Purim happen? Did Pesach happen? If we put everything under the spotlight, we end up going around in circles in the dark, ultimately leading nowhere. So, what is the right balance?
In Yiddishkeit we have lists of stories (from recent to ancient), midrashim and bits of information that are dubious, even our dating of history is almost surely wrong, so where do we stand? To me it seems that we need to split the difference. I take the position that we take Chazal and our mesora – our version of yiddishkeit – with a presumed benefit of the doubt. Then we need to work on a case to case basis: If we are faced with an irreconcilable conflict, we may take a different view than main-stream Yiddishkeit; if we have gedolei olam (the Maharal for example) that take a non-literal view, than we can adopt that position – but not on our own.
Basically it comes down to the famous Chazal where Moshe Rabbeinu sees Rabbi Akiva teaching the secrets of the crowns on the Osios haTorah. Moshe becomes overwhelmed and asks R' Akiva, "Where do you know this from?!" To which R' Akiva says, "Everything comes from our Master Moshe" – and Moshe Rabbeinu is placated. Why is he placated? Not because Moshe Rabbeinu needs to feel proud that he gets credit, rather it's because R' Akiva is saying, "I do not rely on myself to interpret; I base it on the giants that came before me.
30 comments:
Nice Purim Teyreh - the picture isn't showing.
Read the medrash!
The pic seems to be working, at least on my page, and I uploaded it just like all the others.
1) what's that about the dating being incorrect?
2) in one of those new talmuds i've seen them address this issue. don't remember which one, though
Yes, anything can happen. Hashem can do anything. Good.
The question is: What were Chazal doing when they told us these things?
Were they saying, "By the way, the psukim don't say this, but we are privy to some facts by way of mesora that all this extra stuff happened too." ?
I don't think so. If they were, I'm ok with that too. I think that those who understand them on that level are missing the intent of their statements. I have no problem with my kids coming from school knowing that gemara. But thinkers will think about the meaning of medrashim and aggadeta and look into it deeper.
I have my own take on Vashti's tail that relates to "Vayizaneiv becha" in Parshas Zochor. My balebatim will be hearing it on Sunday.
Very thoughtful, well written and satifying to read.
It sound like you are pursing a position that is 'balanced' and logically'transparent' to all classes of people. This seems to be an impossible tightrope. although i tend to agree with your position of 'splitting the difference' its too intellectually potent and can cause havoc for most folks. perhaps its best left for intelectual circles and private conversations with friends/rabbonim rather than in public or in the house with women and children.
I just don't know how much value there is in reminding a wife and children that there are alternative manners/viewpoints/methodologies of adding 1+1 if its potentially destabalizing. most ladies, children and even grown ups need a more concrete vision of life. the stakes seem too high to publically pursue parallel truths. a child's emuna is pure and once deflowered is almost impossible to re-'bloom' to its original magnificence. this is definietely a balance issue where i would err like you said on the more literal versions, but then again, one's children can root out a faker, so if we tell them something that we don't beleive with conviction...they will know too and this is also trouble....hmmm....
Did not The Kuzari Say that aggadta gemurahs and medroshim are all allegorical
On a completely different topic: I cannot believe that Reb Shimshon Stock passed away on Purim of all days. The only feeling it gives me right now is that it is the day of year that fits Reb Shimshon the best... Hilula DeRashbi. Seriously, what would Reb Shimshon rather, that we cried at his Levaya or that we dance on Purim?
The Maharsha in Megilla 12b says that it was a real tail.
N,
Exactly. Read this and tell me what you think:
http://www.zootorah.com/essays/jumpingelephant.pdf
Re: Vashti's Tail - (Megila 12b)
"Amar R' Yosi bar Chanina, melamed sheporcho bo tzoraas. Bemisnisa tana - Bo Gavriel ve'oso lo zonov."
Maharsha quotes: "Kol dovor shehu yeser, sheinu kemidas chaveiro...korui zanov. - and he continues: Velo yodano mi hichricho lefaresh kach,
ve'eime dezonov mamesh osa lo kebeheimeh..."
The problem with all this is that the Rambam says opnely that the people who insist that Medrash and Aggadah are literal are destroyers of the Torah and are making Chazal look stupid. (hakdama to Perek Chelek).
So, unless the Rambam has been written out of frum yiddishkeit, he takes precisely the opposite approach with Aggadah. Go read what he says there and maybe qoute some of it in another blog post.
As far as the 'slippery slope' argument, people should be able to compartmentalize the difference between aggadah/drush and halacha. Just because something was said and meant bederech drush doesnt mean that you can wear tefillin made of cheese.
Rabbi Shafier in his Shmuzim talks about the Tail on Vashti and explains it in a way. There are many different explanations. Since Rabbi Shafier is a student of the Chafetz Chaim Yeshiva some of the stuff is really iteresting. Even though its misnagdish these shmuzim actually answer some of your questions
F.W.Q.
Link please?
For all that it's worth,I have my own thoughts about that medrash,but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about it.In my opinion chasal try to insinuate that Vashti was a lesbian,which would explain the obvious symbolism of the tail.Also Rashi on Megillas Esther writes that Vashti had the girls undress and "performed on them her labour" which usually is meant that she made them work on shabbos, but it's the same wording as in the instance of Yosef and Potiphar's wife, where it means that Yosef was about to have relations with her.
Ramban sais explicitly, that part of Midroshim have no literal meaning at all.
I once saw an amazing idea in either the Manos Halevi or Reb Tzadok. He writes that zonov is lashon sagei nahor and it really means tail as in שוואנץ if you know what I mean... In any case, it makes a lot more sense -- Vashti was trying to show that she was the boss, so the malach gavriel turned her into a male.
Hirshel - you have some strange comments here... lesbians, shventz... I dunno man.
What we can learn from all this is that every Yeshiva kid gets a "G-rated" education, even when an "R" or worse is the case. Today, in the Artscroll Megillah, I saw that when Achashveirosh called for Vashti to come before him BeKeser Malchus, he meant the crown and nothing else. They never taught us that in school. Were they lying then?, concealing the truth?, are they guilty of distortion? I wonder.
Anon,
There are many interpretations to everything. The G rated version is just as valid - and the kids can learn the other versions later. Big deal.
I agree that the G version is just as valid, but what I find interesting is that the basic Artscroll edition of some 20 pages, soft covered, with basically just the translation, and very litle other commentary, chose to mention these 2 things regarding Vashti and her refusal to appear before the King:
1) that she did it because she contracted leprosy, no mention of a tail.
2) that she was ordered to appear with the crown ONLY and nothing else.
If they do pick and choose when and where to comment, why these two examples? why omit the tail and quote the no clothes?!
regarding jumping elephants...its a good article (fun), on the whole and my limited intellect agrees with his positions without identifying any flaws in his approach but there are some things that bother me emotionally;
This Rabbi is clean shaven with a tie and respects secular scientists/science to the same degree as he does talmiday chachomim. He is not completely subservient to Halacha/torah/tradition in the way that an ideal chosid or rosh yeshiva would be....his lot is not primarily within a jewish society...his lot is with his intellect.......he is not risking anything by floating theories, but the contrary, he is becoming a bit famous. He quotes anonymous rabbis. This is the very silly. If he was a chosid, with a beard, and he was a conventional guy with a family within some sort of chareidi context (belonging to a society) i could embrace his opinions (which intellectually make sence already).
Also, as the rabbi described this elephant jumping, I went back and forth,,,, in my anticipation of where this dialogue would go jumping or not jumping and what tosfos meant. This rabbi took it as far as he could logically but that doesn't mean that his conclusion is the only logical end of this 'thread'. So really, no answer that he posits is necessarily the final answer.
Also, context means a lot. Within a 24/7 jewish life, week after week, year after year, these seemingly 'contradictions or lack of knowledge exhibited by those who are 'expected' to have ruach hakoidesh' are so relatively miniscule. If you evaluate them quantitatively in the context of all of torah its a drop of water in the ocean. if you do it quanitatively given a lifetime of activity, sleeping, eating, working, learning, davening, these contradictions occupy one seond within a lifetime....
It seems that in the cholent of life and history and torah there are a handful of random tiny particulars of something that appears to be treif at worst like jumping elephants. It doesn't seem logical to feel threatened by this on the level of learning, nor is it something that should unseat anyone's yiddishkeit, learning, yiras shomayim. Nevertheless, if this Rabbi assembles a book detailing these seeming 'inconsistencies', the tiny particulars massed together then seem to embody a really treif cholent, despite them being completely botil in the context of life and torah. If the book is available for scholar types, i don't see it as a problem nor would i have a problem with the rabbi. But if its created for the masses , I believe the rabbi is serving himself rather than truth, G-d, or the Jewish people, and skewing the torah for his own notariety.
Es geit mir nit on whether Vashti had a tail or not. What bothers me is why it bothers some people to say that she did. All the reasons they give don't add up, and one is left with the sneaking suspicion that it's because they're uncomfortable with the idea of nissim.
In fact, I just realised exactly what is bothering me. This whole debate reminds me of the story of Shimon Hakofer. I'm hard put to find a distinction between him and the people who try their hardest to de-emphasise the tale of Vashti's tail.
Of course, you do know that "Shimon Hakofer" is only a story (no credible source even claims otherwise... until recently anyway). I enjoyed it, but it's historical fiction.
No, actually anonymous, we do believe the Frierdike Rebbe above "credible sources." I'm glad you enjoyed it, but you can take your Menachem Friedman, Buber and Scholem and go snag yourself. They have as much credibility for me as a snake in Gan Eden.
The PR never claimed it factual, in fact he wouldnt allow it to be printed for that reason. Ask people in Chabad that "know" they'll tell you (unless they don't know you)
This just in(Re: Vashti's tail):
The Rashba in his Chidushei Hagadot says that it was a wart-like growth. (seen on areivim)
Unfortunately for you, it was printed. Good luck next time, Goebbels.
Hmmmmm,
Incorrect, you're just ignorant. When was it printed? Who printed it?
And if you don't like it from me, take it up with the Munshine & B. Levin
As far as deciding which midrashim are literal and what the mesorah means in very practical terms-
Read the Rashba in Teshuvos Chelek Alef Siman 9 and Chiddushei aggados to Bava Basra 74 (the 2nd long piece)
I quote and analyze the relevant soundbites of this Rashba in relation to Natan Slifkin's approach to Torah and Science on this post:
http://fkmaniac.blogspot.com/2006/02/guest-post-by-rabbeinu-shlomo-ben.html
Enjoy!
Post a Comment