[Avodah] Vashti's tail

[Zev Sero]

Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:

> Here is another take on Vashti's tail (posted originally to Areivim):
> [...]
> He was attempting to show, and gain the support of the people for his
> claim that he was actually the King, and not just the consort.

This is from the Malbim.


> And Vashti grew a tail.  Or more accurately -- instead of being the
> head of the ruling couple, she became the tail of the ruling couple.
> She lost her rank as Queen and became the Consort herself, the "tail"
> of the couple.  At this point, she attempted to make the point that
> she was actually the Queen, but she lost - not just "growing a tail"
> -but actually losing her head.

That's very nice, and fits well with the Malbim's take on what was going
on behind the scenes (which IMHO was meant more as a commentary on 19th
century German politics than on what he thought the megillah really means).
But it's impossible to read this into the actual gemara which says that
Gavriel came and made for her a tail.  Not that as a result of this
story she *became* a "tail".

Bear in mind that the first opinion, that she developed tzaraat, is
not attributed to angelic intervention.  Skin conditions do develop
naturally, and do appear suddenly; that it happened just at the right
time for it to cause her downfall and Esther's rise was clearly
miraculous, but the outbreak itself would not be supernatural.

But the second opinion rejects that approach, and insists that her
disfigurement wasn't some mere skin outbreak, but a supernatural
event, one that requires the instrumentality of Malach Gavriel;
perhaps the reason why this was necessary was to drive home to her
that she hadn't merely suffered from bad luck, but was being
punished for her misdeeds.  I think the fact that the gemara names
Malach Gavriel is a clear proof that we should *not* try to look for
natural explanations, and like the Maharsha we should accept that
the author of this opinion meant it literally.

Of course we don't have to hold like that opinion.  We can prefer the
first opinion, which is also Torah.  But to force the second opinion
into this "naturalist" approach seems to me to be either promoting an
agenda instead of honestly trying to understand the gemara, or to speak
of a disbelief in miracles in general, ch"v.  In other words, one need
not believe that Gavriel gave Vashti a tail, but to believe that he
*couldn't* have done so is apikorsus, and to believe that the gemara
doesn't really mean to say that he did is evasive.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas