[Avodah] Vashti

[Chana Luntz]

Further to my previous post - the underlying moral question reminds me
of "Those who walk away from Omalas" (any Ursula Le Guin fans out
there?).  In that story, Ursala Le Guin dramatises the moral question
raised, I think by Dostoevsky (I think it was actually a form of repost
to utalitarianism) as to whether it would be moral to have a society
where everybody was completely and utterly happy - bar one individual,
who was completely and utterly wretched, if somehow the happiness of
everybody else was in some way predicated on keeping that one individual
completely and utterly wretched.  Ursula Le Guin dramatises this in
Omalas, the perfect town, except for this one wretched and humiliated
child, who was kept in the most appalling conditions imaginable.  But
that every now and then, there are individuals who feel compelled to
walk away from Omalas, ie they feel morally compelled to reject the
perfect town when it is built on such foundations.

My sense is that Chazal would take the moral perspective of those who
walk away from Omalas (ie is your blood redder than your fellows
applies, even when applied to one versus the many).  So to have the
whole celebration of Purim being based on the unjustified misfortune of
a righteous Vashti would make it morally problematic.  On the other
hand, if indeed Vashti was wicked, then in fact the story has yet
another satisfying moral turn.  And if in fact her natural inclination
was to be brazen rather than modest (ie reveal when she should conceal),
there is a certain mida kneged mida aspect where she becomes too
embarressed to reveal even the nature of the problem (would it have been
too embarressing for her to have said she had tzoraas? - within Jewish
circles yes, because tzoraas has moral links, but would that have been a
problem in Vashti's Shushan to reveal one had an "immoral" disease? - it
might have been a badge of honour.  However a tail certainly conjures up
for me something that I think anybody, and particularly a queen, would
find too embarressing to even want to admit to).

Regards

Chana



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chana Luntz [mailto:chana at kolsassoon.org.uk] 
> Sent: 06 March 2007 23:37
> To: 'avodah at lists.aishdas.org'
> Cc: 'eliturkel at gmail.com'
> Subject: [Avodah] Vashti
> 
> 
> RET writes:
> 
> > I repeat my previous question - what forced Chazal to assume
> > Vashti has sins and was evil. This is not pshat in the 
> > pesukim.
> 
> My instinct is that it is because they understood the megila, 
> in totality, as being about everybody getting their just 
> desserts (ie good triumphing over evil). However, unless you 
> understand Vashti in the way Chazal do, then what happened to 
> her does (and probably should) lead to some moral discomfort. 
>  After all, despite the triumph of Esther, and the total 
> necessity of her being installed as queen, the situation does 
> feel a bit tarnished if in fact she got the position from a 
> tzadekes who ended up suffering for her tzidkus. After all 
> (getting back to an old debate on Avodah) if one is supposed 
> to feel some measure of sorrow as to the drowning of pharo 
> and the mitzrim in the yam suf, even though they were both 
> evil and chasing after the Jews, how should we feel about 
> somebody who would appear to be righteous, and yet whose role 
> in the narrative is to be pushed aside and disposed of, in 
> order that the Jews should have a mechanism for being saved.  
> Can we really have legitimate and thorough simcha in such a 
> case?  And yet the clear message of the megilla is not that 
> way (read the concluding psukim) - so I think one does need 
> to conclude that Vashti must have, in some way, been evil.
> 
> > 
> > --
> > Eli Turkel
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chana
>