[Avodah] Vashti's tail

[Chana Luntz]

RZS writes:

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 if we are reading the gemora closely, is it indeed clear that there
are two opinions? The gemora there starts off by commenting on the pasuk
that Vashti refused to come and asks - let us see, she was a pritzus as
the master said the two of them intended for a dvar averah,  so what was
the reason she did not come: amar Rav Yosi bar Chanina melamed parach ba
tzaraas bmatnita tana uba gavriel v'osa la zanav.  Now if you in fact
have two opinions, don't you have an amora (Rav Yosi bar Chanina)
arguing with a braisa (ie a tana)?  Now Rashi and Tosphos say that Rav
Yosi's opinion is based on a drasha brought in the Yerushalmi which
learns nigzar, nigzar from Uziah so there is some kind of textual
support - and we are talking aggadita, so maybe the general halachic
rules don't apply.  But isn't it somewhat odd to juxtipose the opinion
of an amora - especially where that opinion seems to be given as the
answer of the general question and then just throw in a tannaic opinion
that argues if you are going to say there are two legitimate opinions
and we don't have to hold like the second opinion.  Rather, if you are
to say there are two opinions the first amoraic, and the second
tannitic, I would have thought you would need to say that we have to
hold like the second opinion.

On the other hand, could you not understand the braisa as being brought
in support of Rav Yosi bar Chanina (ie of his basic point, which is that
Vashti did not come because there was something desperately embarressing
about what had occurred to her)?  Of course, you can only do this if you
make the leap that you do not want to make, which is that the reference
to Gavriel in the braisa is an idiomatic or allegorical one used to
indicate an extraordinary coincidence that was not a coincidence but
part of the divine orchestration behind the scenes, not that Gavriel
literally came and made her a tail.  But if you do understand it that
way, then what you have is one opinion, not two, with tzaaras and zanav
being different ways of giving an insight into the nature of Vashti and
her embarressment.  After all, as I questioned in an earlier posting -
it does not seem to me so axiomatic that an immoral non Jew would
necessarily have the same horror of tzoraas as a Jew steeped in Torah
would - but of course if Vashti did indeed regard it as no different to
a tail, that is clearly a different matter.


> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with 

Shabbat Shalom

Chana