This morning we had an interesting discussion in the twitterverse. My JewCrew and I had been discussing many theological issues since last night, including whether Halacha (Jewish Law) evolves or not. One of my tweeps brought up a valid point about whether certain acts became assur (forbidden) or if they led to a recommendation to not do something. Not technically wrong, but advised to abstain.
The example that was given was connected to marital relations. Sex isn’t supposed to happen in the daylight and is supposed to be performed in a certain way. I am not going to get into details here. These things are not forbidden per se, but the rabbis strongly advise against it. From where was this extrapolated by some meforshim (commentators)? From the Book of Esther. Chapter 5 verse 2.
“The King extended to Esther the golden scepter he was holding. Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter.”
Apparently, according to those meforshim, this is all a euphemism for a particular sexual act that Esther performed with such aplomb that King Achashverosh gave her half his kingdom. *
I sat in my chair shell shocked. This is Queen Esther we are talking about! The Queen who saved us, her people, from being destroyed by the evil Haman!! How can holy rabbis even think to paint her in this negative light? I am not mad at the JewCrew Tweeps. They were just doing what we all always do, passing on knowledge to foster understanding and more conversation. Yes, Queen Esther did what needed to be done in order to save us. I was quite happy sitting in my naïve little bubble thinking that we fasted, she made a feast, ratted Haman the Evil One out, and we were free. The End.
Now my reading of the megillah (scroll, in this case the Book of Esther) will be forever tainted with the idea that the innocent girl that married King Achashverosh in order to save the Jews – was she a wanton hussy schooled in the erotic arts or was she a victim of the whole regime? It must be said that this is ONE of who knows how many explanations and could totally be misinterpreting the whole sentence. But I will never know, and that will now be in my head next Purim and every Purim after.
Why has this thrown me for a loop? It’s been on my mind all day. To me this seems almost sacrilegious. Perhaps it’s because I see myself as named after her in some way? The text calls her “Hadassah”. I guess Esther was her middle name and was used to identify her every subsequent time in the book. Not that I am so holy. I am not. But it’s almost like that moment when you realize your parent is a human being and not quite perfect. That pedestal didn’t seem quite so high after. It seems devastating to me to even think of Esther in a sexual context. Obviously our forefathers and foremothers were intimate with each other, otherwise we wouldn’t be here today. So why am I having such a hard time in dealing with this? Is it because I wonder if God forbid I was called upon to perform such an act to save my kids or my people – would I have the guts to follow through? Or is it because I now see her as perhaps more of a victim than she already was? So disturbed….
*this act was performed in broad daylight and sent the King into such a tizzy that he parted with half his kingdom, which is why we are warned against such behaviour. We don’t want to give away half of what we own for just a few minutes of blissful gratification.
In the Pink 
Interesting..
What I never understood is how Esther in essence “Married out”.
I mean here we are celebrating that despite it being one of the biggest red lines today.
Tosfos in Kesubos deals with this issue.
Basically, he says she was completely passive and one is permitted to act passively in violation of “Big 3” (murder, illicit relations, idol worship) to save one’s own life.
but it says she touched. that isnt passive
that answers in general how she could give herself to Achashveirosh for sex. It does not explain this specific incident referred to in the post in which she “touched the scepter”
Hadassah, you explained that so very well! I completely understand what you are saying and am not even in the JewCrew nor Jewish (shock and horror, I know) however, isn’t this the same King that asked the original Queen to appear in only her crown and she refused? If I am correct apparently he may have been a bit preverse and hail Esther/Hadasah for having the gall to do such an act, not sure I can even do it with the lights on!
I think we are so used to thinking of Esther as a heroine that maybe it threw you to think of her as a victim. Kinda hard to celebrate THAT.
I’m not sure why it is so disturbing. She married the guy, and was a “good wife” in many ways, including sexual ways. Does it sound so bad when phrased like that?
Many meforshim say that a husband and wife may do anything to pleasure each other (“guf neheneh meguf”) as long as they aren’t doing it to prevent a possible pregnancy. Maybe the same meforshim extrapolated this from the scepter comment.
Can you provide any sources for this interpretation, I would like to look it up.
i have been told, havent verified the sources myself – Midrash Esther Raba 31 & 32.
hmm, gotta hit the books tonight :)!
Looked it up and couldn’t find it anywhere.
Can you please ask your Jew Crew buddies where exactly I can find this in Medrash Esther Rabba, thanks!
See also Gemara Sanhedrin 74b – “Esther Karka Olam” (from @noahroth)
FnF, it was the king’s decree that all of the beautiful virgins in the land join his harem & refusing to go would have been a definite death sentence for Esther. Besides, she was advised by her uncle/cousin mordechai the tzaddik to join the harem & b/c she followed his advice she saved the jews from total annihilation. i guess “marrying out” was permissable in that unusual situation but that is certainly not the norm.
& hadassah, you may call me an apikores (if you’d like!) but i kinda take midrashim with a grain of salt so to speak & i look at them as 1 rabbi’s interpretation of what may have transpired & not as “the gospel” so to speak. My Bais Yaakov (orthodox jewish girl school) teachers might not be happy to hear me saying what i just said about midrashim, but you don’t have to tell them 🙂 & besides i doubt they would be too pleased to teach us the particular midrash you were alluding to anyhow-although maybe i will look it up b/c u got me curious now :)!
Actually the Malbim in the opening says that Mordechai and Esther were already married. He essentially was using his wife/relative to garner influence with the King.
Neither Esther nor Mordechai are seen as Tzadikim at the start, but more self serving individuals who were doing what they needed to for the good life.
They were married. They did have children together. It was a horrible marriage and she was trapped, but she did what she felt she had to do.
I think that because the whole story is presented to kids as a “Disney” fairytale, it is difficult for us to wrap our minds around the “Hans Christian Anderson” version of the events.
you are totally right. we are taught it as a fairytale with a heroine….
The Megillah is a satire
The Medrash teaches lessons (not history)
YC, like Z! asks, why do you think the megilla is a satire? i for one am pretty darn sure it is a true story otherwise why would we Jews observe a day long fast & then celebrate the story of the jews being saved in persia the following day with the holiday of purim. i think i’m with you, in terms of your opinion on the medrash but i don’t get why you think the megilla is a satire…
I do believe that many of the medrashim are true. What was possible in those times is not possible now, but doesn’t mean they did not happen- I mean, Hashem parted the Red Sea. Couldn’t he also make giants and other miracles?
Z!, i personally have an easier time believing the pshat (simple explanations) that are written in the texts more easily than the drash (deeper explanations) which doesn’t mean to say that i don’t believe midrashim at all but just that they are harder for me to digest & the truth is that they are explanations given by rabbis that weren’t around at the time that the actual stories occurred but they are just trying to explain what they felt happened according to their understanding…at least that is my understanding of the midrashic interpretations (& i may be mistaken)…
YC- I’m not sure I understand. I mean, Queen Esther is buried in Persia….
Z, Batya
Gulliver’s Travels is a satire. If you know what was going on in England and the world the cute story really comes alive.
Satire does not mean nothing happened. One example were they partying for 180 days or was the army waiting 6 months for the summer to go to war (against Greece).
Mordichai (Marduch) and Esther (Ishthar) were trying to say something about the kingdom. That is same if religious book about aliyah main Jewish characters were Christopher and Christine (or Mary and Jesus).
Z,
I think Medrashim have truth, teach truth but were not historical.
PS
If I really want to open a can of worms I would say the Bible is not as interested in us learning what happened as learning God’s perspective on what happened. Sometimes it takes telling over an event a few times with DIFFERENT / “contradictory” perspectives to tell one story.
She would not be the first woman in biblical history to use her sexuality to get her way. Tamar used it with Yehudah…
I think Esther did what she had to do. She started as a victim but took hold of the situation (pardon the pun in there) to save the Jewish people.
I think it says more about how Esther understood the male gender.
I always assumed that Esther used her femininity( and sexuality) to help save her people, and never felt horrified or shocked by that.
it never even occurred to me!! maybe it should have, but they didnt teach it that way in school.
Yes, I am not Jewish but I do understand exactly what you are saying.
It is something that shocked me when I re-read the story as an adult and really understood what was being eluded to. It goes back to the fact that even though we know that these people had to be intimate or as you said we would be here, all of us, no matter what our faith may be, see them as completely pure beings instead of human. So for us to think about the things that they may or may not have done, especially when it is eluded to like this, can be very disturbing. All of that aside, even with this knowledge, I still admire Esther for what she did in order to save her people. That had to have taken an amazing amount of strength.
Funny, the way it was interpreted is the way I wrote it into a panotmime we did in london.
And yes it got great reviews for our interpretation which i knew from past learning.
Of interest is Achashverosh could only give up to half of the kingdom away because he technically only owned half. The rest was Vashti’s family.
Lots more on megila if you want to read about it but does sex taint the megila? No more than the entire book of Breishit in some ways.
Personally I liken the euphemisms to Shakespear’s plays which most people never get them until pointed out.
I am coming from a very difference perspective. Our rabbi has always been very open about the sexual innuendos found in the text.
For example, it is not a beauty contest that determined which young maiden would win the favour of the King. It was the young maiden’s ability to sexually please the King. Once that act was completed, the young maiden was permanently installed in the King’s harem. Ibn Ezra points out that once a woman consorted with the King, it would not be proper for her to marry someone else.
The text is rife with double entendres. ANd it certainly raises theological/cultural/ethical issues. However, current mores ought not to determine our discomfort with the text. We need to get into the mind of the author and try to read the story in its historical context.
Though we encourage kids to come to our Megillah reading and the shpiel, we are pretty open about this darker side of the story.
Ironically, sex doesn’t bother us in the Reform movement. It is the 9th chapter, replete with vengeful rampages, that liberal Jews find distasteful and irreconcilable. So we just skip that part.
Seriously.
Jews of all stripes have made choices about what they pull out of the text and what is best to leave tucked away.
So sorry that I missed the convo on this earlier today.
What is vengeful, that they defended themselves and hung Haman and his ten sons? That they killed the people that wanted to kill them? That is part of the whole miracle, that Hashem helped us conquer our enemies, and this is what we say in Al Hanisim…or do you skip that as well?
No, we don’t skip Al Hanisim.
Defense is when one is being attacked. Given that Haman had been sentenced to death by the King, killing the sons and the thousands of Persians seems less an act of self-defense than one of retribution.
We were certainly delivered by God. However, one can argue that God’s Hand is seen in placing Esther in the right place and at the right time as well as having the courage to bring Haman’s plot to light.
If you read the text you will note that there were others who believed like Haman:
“to lay hand on such as sought their hurt”
chap 9, posuk 2
If you saw the bully yesterday say he was gonna break your legs tomorrow, but a reprieve came at the last minute, one could turn the other cheek(a christian not a jewish idea) but more likely is to ensure that the bully never gets a chance to catch you, or anyone else, again.
So whether you like self defense or not, it is basically outlined that the “bad guys” had to be done away with.
There was no reprieve from the attack, the best the king could do is to send out another letter allowing the Jews to defend themselves from the attack allowed in the first letter. too tired to write very clearly.
Haman and his sons were from Amalek and we have a commandment to wipe them from the face of the earth (parshas ki tatzai/zachor). The Persians had no love for the Jews and they were commanded by the king no less to kill the Jews. What, they had to wait till a couple of hundred Jews were murdered and then defend themselves? They were on their way to kill them from what I remember learning.
Every year we say in the Hagaddah “shefoch chamascha” that G-d should have vengence on those who don’t know him. Wondering if you say that.
As I understand it, many a Jewish heroine used womanly wiles to save the day according to commentary. I have heard this in regard to Yael and Sisra not to mention the in fact overt actions of Rus, Tamar, and others. I am not troubled by this, personally – they don’t call it the ‘facts of life’ for nothing. These are adults who act in ways that yield results – and certainly in the case of a married couple I feel the term ‘hussy’ is rather misplaced. I doubt any of the eventually freed Jews were complaining. Sometimes the ends do justify the means, and if Esther had to marry him in the first place (implicit therein that she was sleeping with the king, so I am surprised that this surprised you) then already situations were aligning for good results to come from sketchy groupings, as is the case in all the redemptions of the Jewish people leading up Moshiach himself.
What would trouble me more is the tendency to read sex into things that really don’t seem to call for it. Were I less respectful of the sages I would ponder that, not the situation itself.
Am I the only one interested in looking this up in the commentaries? Maybe this isn’t true….
i am currently trying to get the sources….my original tweeps who started the convo are in Israel and asleep, so maybe by tomorrow i will have the accurate sources..
yeah, i would like to verify the sources as well…
Okay, thanks! aren’t you curious to check this out yourself? I am the type of person that doesn’t believe it until I see it!!! Well, I guess I will check it out for you, maybe you don’t have medrash rabba but we do.
I’m not exactly going to ask the rabbi on this one! Bad for shidduchim 😉
LLL, i asked my husband & he’s never heard of this. i could ask my dad (a very well-versed rabbi) but that is, well, just a “tad” embarrassing so i think i will skip that one too. if i knew the exact sources than i could try & find them but otherwise i’m not sure exactly where to look…
Am I the only idiot who can’t figure out which sex act is implied? Is it something that only FFB’s understand? It must be a real kinky one if it is causing all this controversy.
FG, you & me both are equally clueless so don’t feel badly b/c it’s not something that only ppl who FFBs (frum/religious from birth) understand…u are certainly not the only one who is in the dark ;)!
I haven’t checked the Midrash yet, however, it is not in any of the meforshim in the Mikraot Gedolot. That doesn’t mean that it is not in the Midrash, however, I am beginning to think that if it is it is an allegory.
The ban on marital relations in daylight is actually halakha, it is brought down as such in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Poskim.
Darling, maybe you’re twitting to the wrong people. There are dangers to all these internet relationships.
Are you saying that there is danger in learning things (whether from twitter or elsewhere)?
being given a fresh way to look at things is not dangerous. I take it all with a grain of salt and do not believe everything… I love learning from my tweeps!
Ok went through Midrash Rabbah(Esther) Parasha 9. However there is so sex act. There is a few miracles and other such things but no sex act…
See Midrash Esther Rabba Maamar 31 (from @noahroth)
Sorry but the Midrash Rabba is not arranged that way. It is arranged by Parshiot(which preceded chapters and paragraphs as markers. As a nerdy Sofer fact there are 10 parshiot in Esther(though they do not necessarily align with the chapters). I read the entire Esther Raba trying to find this, it simply is not there.
There is a talmudic disagreement wheather or not Mordechai and Esther were betrothed. According to the opinion that she was NOT betrothed to Mordechai, there is no problem with any sexual relationship b/w Esther and her Husband Achashveirosh.
However, according to the more commonly held opinion that they were married, Esther would be forbidden to voluntarily have sex with Achashveirosh- even if threatened with death- as adultery is one of the three priohibitions one should be put to death rather than violate.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 74B records a disagreement b/w Abeya and Rava about how to resolve this problem. Abaye says, “Esther karka Olam,” that Esther was motionless like the ground, and essentially could not be over an active transgression while being passive. Rava says that only Achashveirosh enjoyed the act- implying that Esther was coerced.
Both opinions are problematic b/c we never apply either litmus test to any other sexual transgression, and both possibly violate the injunction to give one’s life rather than publicly violate the torah in a time of “Shmad” or religious persecution.
Esther Ch4 records Mordechai’s request to Esther to go see the King, and Esther’s response: “All of the people of the kindom know that anyone who enters the king’s chamber without being called will be put to death unless the king holds out to them his golden sceptor.”
In 5:2, when Esther actually goes to the king, he holds out his sceptor and the verse adds, “Vatikrav Esther Vatiga B”rosh Hasharvit.” That esther came close and touched the head of the sceptor.
There are two parallel interpretations in two different midrashim each attempting to explain this textual anomaly, as well as Achashveirosh’s immediate offer to grant Esther up to half of his kingdom.
The Midrash Raba Esther Parshah 9, Maamar Aleph interprets this entire interchange asexually. In Ch4 it explicitly states that the sceptor was a physical stick covered in gold, and in Ch 5, it suggests that additional phrase that Esther touched the head of the sceptor was to indicate that she remained a sceptor’s length away from the king to indicate her deference to the throne. It goes on to say that Achashveirosh’s offer of half the kingdom was based on an extra measure of Beuty provided to Esther by Hashem in response to her pious fast, and fear for her own life. This opinion is supported by the Patshegen Haktav, which cites her “Charada.”
There is another version of the midrash called Midrash Esther Raba (I’d link to it, but have not found a copy online) which, in Mamar 31, states that the added phrase that Esther touched the end of the sceptor was to teach that the sceptor was actually Achasveirosh’s male anatomy. This explains as well, why Achashveirosh offered half of his kingdom in response.
This explanation had an obvious problem reconciling itself with the passiveness suggested by (at least Abaye’s opinion, and possibly Rava’s as well- see the ran) Sanhedrin 74B.
However this interpretation has rabbinic support. the targum calls the sceptor a “Tigda” which is the same word used for male anatomy when swearing an oath. Targum Sheni refers to the touch of the sceptor using the word “Mitat” which would be more active that “Taga” or “natal.”
It is important to remember that Esther was written by HZ”l w/ ruach hakodesh, unlike the 5 books which are from har sinai. Also Midrash is not necessarily taken literally, especially when two midrashim conflict.
It would seem that there are parralel traditions which conflict with each other, one attempting to explain the textual anomoly, while the other attempts to provide consistency with the talmudic passage in Sanhedrin.
HADASSAH:
as i commented on your mikvah post a few weeks back, don’t assume that public knowledge/discussion of sexual matters was taboo in antiquity.
or rather, don’t be so victorian when reading these things.
i have no idea if there is any jewish basis for this, but a professor in college argued that ruth uncovering boaz’s feet was a sexual euphimism.
btw, where do you think eliezer put his hand when he swore for avraham. it wasn’t his thigh according to the midrash.
Victorian – i guess the shoe fits in this instance….ouch!
i dont think i even want to know where eliezer put his hand…..
“Sex isn’t supposed to happen in the daylight and is supposed to be performed in a certain way. I am not going to get into details here. These things are not forbidden per se, but the rabbis strongly advise against it. ”
don’t be so meikil. the shulhan arukh is very explicit about these issues. in some cases he simply says “asur.”
one can even find therein a basis for the hole-in-the-sheet “myth”
the shuhan arukh is nothing like what choson/kalah teachers teach today.
Nedarim 20A:
“Kol Mah Sherotzeh Adam Laasot Bi’ishto Ye’aseh.”
Anything a man wishes to do he may do with his wife.
noah, i heard similarly that anything is permissable between a husband & wife (when she is not a niddah-menstruating or in the 7 days following menstruation) as long as it is not deemed repulsive to any of the parties. also, it is well-known that the man has an obligation for “onah” to please his wife & not just for the purpose of “pru u’revu”/having children. the discussion here about the shulchan aruch is sounding extremely rigid, as though a satisfying intimate relationship between husband & wife is not recommended in jewish law & to me that just sounds wrong but i have never personally learned gemara or the shulchan orach so i do not claim to be well-versed in these texts.
NOAH:
yes.
but then how do you reconcile this gemara with the shulhan arukh? the nos’e kelim take issue here and there (e.g., with regard to covering vs. uncovering), but overall the SA stands.
the standard defintion of an orthodox jew is one who follows the SA (as modifed by the rema, etc.). but here we have an entire chapter that orthodox jews ignore.
Isn’t it the other way around? That the Shulchan Aruch has to reconcile itself with the Gemara which came first!
The Shulchan Arukh cannot contradict the psak of a gemarah.
To do so you must have a bet din that is greater in wisdom and in number than that of Ravina and Rav Ashei.
While greater in wisdom is subjective, if the one believes the mehaber was greater in number, it would resolve the wisdom question definitively for us.
Moreover, the Ramba’M in Hilchot Ishut cites the gemarah and brings it down as law.
NOAH:
unless one is teimani, the mishneh torah does not define normative codified practice (at least according to the popular definition i mentioned above).
anyway, i don’t recall the SA mentioning “kol ma”
I don’t know what you mean by “normative practice” in this context
.
Behaviors in Jewish Law are either:
1) Biblically commanded
2) Rabbinically Commanded
3) Permitted
4) Rabbinically prohibited
or
5) Biblically Prohibited.
Categories 1 & 5 require the Torah Sheb’al peh to cite a verse.
Categories 2 & 4 require the decree of a Sanhedrin Bet Din Hagadol, the last of which was the court of Ravina and Rav Ashei, as cited with the statement Ravina Virav ashei Sof Hora’a.
Unless you can find support for your position as a rabbinic decree in the Talmud, it must be category number 3, Permitted.
Hashem gave 2 torah’s on Har Sinai- written and Oral, not Ashkenaz and Sfard. While customs may differ, laws do not. Thus your citation visa vis Rambam is misplaced on an issue where Rambam is based on a talmudic source and the SA is not.
The issue of it needing to be dark comes from a stira in the Gemmarra. At one point it says whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may.
At another it states the need for all to be done in darkness, and that to transgress so much as by candlelight causes spiritual harm to the children.
Third it says that the spilling of seed is a Torah commandment and thus everything must be in the place of the mitzvah.
To reconcile these the Rishonim, followed by the Shulchan Arukh have learned that I man may do whatever he wishes with his wife(granted she consents) as long as his usual derech is the way of Pru Uvru, and it be by darkness.
I asked my Kallah teacher about it having to be dark, and she said that only when doing the actual act does it have to be dark, and to have a blanket on top.
I also asked her about the whole in the sheet, since a girl in college that was non Religious had asked me about it. So my Kallah teacher said that no we don’t do it that way, and that there are many sources about being Guf and Guf together, so no it’s not true. Though she said that there might be some Ger Chassidus that do it that way.
But I also get shocked with these “interpretations”. Now just hearing parsha stories again, gets me thinking in ways I’ve never thought when I was younger, and it makes me wonder how I didn’t have any questions back then. Like with Sara having to be put into a box, and being kidnapped. Or with the Pilagshim, with Hagar, and so many other things.
i would love to know the source for the “blanket on top” – did two rounds of kallah classes and didn’t learn that one. Anyone?
the hole in the sheet thing – AFAIK that comes from ppl hanging tzitzit on the line to dry, and someone not of the faith may have interpreted it in that regard.
She said it’s out of “tznius” and because the Kedusha comes down, but that it’s only for while doing the act, that before with kissing/hugging anything can be done without the blanket.
Right, that’s what my mother said when I asked her about it.
JEWISH SIDE:
“that’s what my mother said when I asked her about it.”
ugh. you asked your mother?
2 years ago, when that girl asked me, I was curious, so I asked my mother. (I talk with her about everything.)
bid gender difference.
i don’t think too many guys talk to their dads about this stuff
HADASSAH:
“the hole in the sheet thing – AFAIK that comes from ppl hanging tzitzit on the line to dry, and someone not of the faith may have interpreted it in that regard.”
come on. take a look again at big the hole is in the middle of tzitzis.
i have no idea where the sheet thing comes from, but the concept of uncovering one’s body just enough to perform the act (and also performing quickly and without pleasure) is there in black and white in the shulhan arukh (citing a story about r. eliezer and various interpretations).
“did two rounds of kallah classes and didn’t learn that one. ”
check out the shulhan arukh for other things you won’t learn no matter how many rounds you go through.
and also performing quickly and without pleasure
I would have to wonder if the authors of the Shulchan Aruch weren’t influenced by Christian thought in this instance.
hi mark,
the mechaber was raised (but not born) and lived in the ottoman empire
Hmmm, I wonder what the view on sex was in the Ottoman empire?
although if i recall correctly the story of r. eliezer he cites is from the gemara
Blanket on top I know is found in the Ben Ish Hai. However it should be noted that this is machlokhet and R’ Ovadiah Yosef takes serious issue with it as the blanket may form a mechitza in some small way between the man and woman which is forbidden at the time of the mitzvah.
Noah Roth, thank you for explaining and giving sources.
Is it to late in the discussion to point out that sometimes a sceptre is just a sceptre?
baila, i am with u on that :)! what is wrong with a king having a gold sceptre ? i think it is pretty logical that achashveirosh would have a real gold sceptre…
I think it’s disturbing just because it’s one more instance in which a woman had to use her sexuality to accomplish anything. Even though she was intelligent, beautiful, powerful, faithful to her people, it still took a *insert crude name for sexual act* to get her anywhere in her mission.
Personally, I think I’m so jaded by the true story of Chanukah that nothing really fazes me anymore.
Yeah, and how about that Samson story? So disturbing that it’s yet another instance of a man using his strength to accomplish something!
leigh ann, there is really nothing wrong with understanding the sceptre in the literal sense & not in the sexual sense. in fact, i’ve NEVER heard this kind of explanation until reading this blog & in truth all it is, is one possible explanation & probably NOT what really happened. in fact, purim should be celebrated b/c the jewish ppl. were saved from persecution thanks to esther a beautiful jewish maiden (although some interpretations claim that she was green & ugly but i don’t wanna even go there…). esther married the king & saved her ppl & we celebrate the holiday today. don’t let some far out midrashic interpretations jade you b/c that would be sad if it did in my opinion…
Wow
hi
believe, and been taught, that sex btwn a married couple is one of the most holiest acts we can hope to achieve. from all the stories about women using their sexuality to save others i find an affirmation of holiness and greatness imbued in womenhood and the sex act.
the fact that she married out i find an interestin question.
i also remember learning that thoguh mordechai and ester were married when she went ot achashveirosh originally when it came time to reveal her identity to achashveirosh they divorced so she could go willing.
(on benadryl sorry for any incoherence)