The story of Esther has many intriguing elements. The third chapter begins with Haman’s meteoric rise to power. We witness a conflict between Haman and Mordechai.

מגילת אסתר ג:ה–ו

(ה) וַיַּרְא הָמָן--כִּי-אֵין מָרְדֳּכַי, כֹּרֵעַ וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לוֹ; וַיִּמָּלֵא הָמָן, חֵמָה. (ו) וַיִּבֶז בְּעֵינָיו, לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בְּמָרְדֳּכַי לְבַדּוֹ--כִּי-הִגִּידוּ לוֹ, אֶת-עַם מָרְדֳּכָי; וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הָמָן, לְהַשְׁמִיד אֶת-כָּל-הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל-מַלְכוּת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ--עַם מָרְדֳּכָי.

Megilat Esther 3:5-6

5) And when Haman saw that Mordecai would neither kneel nor prostrate himself before him, Haman became full of wrath. 6) But it seemed contemptible to him to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him Mordecai's nationality, and Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout Ahasuerus's entire kingdom, Mordecai's people.

The chapter is introduced with the words אחר הדברים האלה, “after these events”. What were these events? An attempt was made on the king’s life. He responded by promoting Haman to second in command and head of security. He had the king’s full support behind him. He could have anyone killed in an instant under the banner of national security.

Within this context, what was Mordechai thinking starting up with Haman? He may not have liked him, but there’s no prohibition to bow before another human being out of courtesy or duty. Yaakov bowed down before Eisav. This was not because he valued Eisav’s contribution to contemporary culture. He simply didn’t want Eisav to kill him. So why didn’t Mordechai just keep his head down and not start trouble? Why risk his own life and the entire Jewish people?

רש"י אסתר פרק ג

(ב) כרעים ומשתחוים - שעשה עצמו אלוה לפיכך ומרדכי לא יכרע ולא ישתחוה: (ד) היעמדו דברי מרדכי - האומר שלא ישתחוה עולמית כי הוא יהודי והוזהר על ע”א:

Rashi on Megilat Esther 3

(2)For he made himself into a god. Therefore, Mordehai would not bend or bow down. (4) Who said he would never bow down because he was a Jew, and he is vigilant regarding strange worship.

Rashi gives us insight into Mordechai’s motivation. He explains that Haman wasn’t just promoting his political authority. He was making himself into a god. Mordechai refused to promote this false philosophy. The Vilna Gaon adds an important comment:

ביאור הגר׳׳א למגילת אסתר

פירוש, שאמרו להמן שישגיח על זה ויראה שהוא אינו כורע, כי המן לא ראה מחמת גודל גיאותו.

Commentary of the Gaon of Vilna on Esther

To clarify, it was told to Haman to look out for this and see that he (Mordechai) did not bend, for Haman did not see this because of his profound arrogance.

A careful read of the text of the Megilah shows that Haman only noticed Mordechai after others pointed it out to him (see verse 3:4). Mordechai was not trying to start up with Haman. He was not standing at the front of the line making a show. He was trying to be inconspicuous. Haman was so arrogant he would not have even noticed on his own. But was Mordechai’s action truly wise?

The term “ruthless pragmatism” has been used to describe an approach within politics and contemporary culture. An article in The Atlantic outlines the concept and some of its history. It refers to a willingness to go to any length in order to achieve a particular ends. The ruthless pragmatist only calculates. Murder, cheating, lying pose no obstacle.

תלמוד בבלי – מגילה דף יט עמוד א

מה ראה המן שנתקנא בכל היהודים על ככה משום דמרדכי לא יכרע ולא ישתחוה

Talmud Bavli – Megila Page 19a

What did Haman see to make he quarreled with all the Jews? It was on account of Mordechai refusing to bend or bow down.

Haman saw Mordechai as an affront to his political movement and his authority. He calculated, “it seemed contemptible to him to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him Mordecai's nationality, and Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout Ahasuerus's entire kingdom, Mordechai's people" (3:6). He considered the political benefits of genocide, had the order signed and approved, and began preparing a final solution.

תלמוד בבלי – מגילה דף יט עמוד א

מה ראה מרדכי דאיקני בהמן על ככה דשוי נפשיה ע"ז ומה הגיע אליהם דאתרחיש ניסא

Talmud Bavli – Megila Page 19a

What did Mordechai see that he quarreled with Haman? It was on account that he made himself into an object of worship. And what happened to them as a result? A miracle occurred.

“Moral pragmatism” stands in stark contrast to the philosophy of ruthless pragmatism. Of course the moral pragmatist assesses consequences and outcomes, carefully weighing his or her options. But a higher ideal is also considered.

Mordechai is the paradigm of the moral pragmatist. What did he see? He saw Haman’s philosophy evolve beyond the political to the philosophical. Just like communism became more than just sharing the means of production, developing an antagonism toward God and religion. Mordechai refused to perpetuate Haman’s political and philosophical ideology.

Was it wise not to bow down to Haman? No, not practically. But Mordechai could not personally contribute to promoting Haman’s agenda. He refused to endorse a philosophy in complete opposition to what Judaism stands for. That’s what Rashi explains is the very definition of the Jew, someone who stands up against erroneous worship, against false values. “They told [this] to Haman, to see whether Mordechai's words would stand up, for he had told them that he was a Jew” (3:4). Would this “Jew” really stand up for his values? Or would he fold just like everyone else when confronted with expediency and practicality.

Esther and Mordechai are paradigms of moral pragmatism. The Moral Pragmatist is humble. She makes plans, but doesn’t presume to know every outcome with certainty. She has a firm grasp of her role, and the impact man can have on his world. He is moral first, and pragmatic second. He understands that the ultimate results are in the hands of God, but nonetheless does not shy away from playing his role.

There are “political realities”. We must take into consideration world opinion. But we can never abandon our eternal values for the sake of short-term political capital. If the ends justify any means, if any action is acceptable, then we forfeit our morality. Mordechai took a stand, even though it wasn’t politically expedient. If we are to fulfill our role as a light onto the nations, we may at times be called upon to take a stand. We humbly recognize man’s limitations at predicting the future, while simultaneously fulfilling our role in shaping our world.

References

Graves, L. (2014, February 19). Frank Underwood and a Brief History of Ruthless Pragmatism. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/frank-underwood-and-a-brief-history-of-ruthless-pragmatism/439893/

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bentorah.substack.com