The Crisis of Kohelet

When we encounter the book of Kohelet(Ecclesiastes), we encounter an author in crisis. Kohelet son of David is unable to see any meaning in life. What is the nature of this personal crisis? How has the King come to this bleak outlook? Let's approach Kohelet through the lens of modern Tanach study and Psychoanalytic theory and see if we can gain some insight into these questions.

Contradictory Voices

Our sages found the book of Kohelet(Ecclesiastes) to be problematic, and considered omitting it from the Tanach, as the Gemara relates:

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes (and declare it apocryphal) because its statements contradict one other. And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning consists of matters of Torah and its end consists of matters of Torah.(Shabbat 30b).

How are we to understand the many internal contradictions in this book and what do they mean?

Yoel Bin-Nun and Yaakov Meidan present a novel approach to this question in their book "Ani Kohelet"(pub. 2017). The theory is that the book of Kohelet is a dialectic between four different "Personalities", from within the head of  a single author:

1. Practical Personality- a man of action and achievement
2. Hedonic Personality- out to enjoy all life has to offer
3. Wise Personality- a master of wisdom
4. Pious Personality- Godfearing man

This theory of different sub-personalities also explains the name of the book's mysterious author:

"The words of Kohelet son of David, king in Jerusalem."

Who is this Kohelet son of David who is mentioned nowhere else in Tanach? Our sages identify him as King Shlomo, but why the pseudonym?

Bin-Nun and Meidan read the name Kohelet as rooted in "Makhelah"--the Hebrew word for a "Choir". Shlomo refers to himself by this name as a reference to the choir of different voices in his head who engage in this poetic dialog. From this perspective, the Book of Kohelet reads almost like a Greek Play, performed by distinct characters, each singing their parts in dialog with one another.

Shlomo chooses to use a pseudonym due to the deeply personal nature of sharing his inner conflict.

Psychosynthesis

According to Bin-Nun and Meidan, the book of Kohelet records the conflict between the many sub-personalities in King Shlomo head. This literary theory reflects a popular psychanalytical model of personality.

Freud and Jung

Psychoanalysts like Freud and Jung developed the idea that Human personality can be understood as as an amalgam of various sub-personalities. A person strives to integrate these personalities and reach a state of equilibrium between them.  Jordan Peterson points out that, as challenges are encountered, the sub-personalities clash and each one "tries to make their case". As such, these sub-personalities are most apparent at times of crisis. This process of Psychosynthesis is actually adaptive and looks something like this:

1. Equilibrium- subject has a well-integrated personality
2. Crisis- breaks the equilibrium. One of the subject's sub-personalities has an extreme reaction to the crisis
3. Psychosynthesis- Subject thinks obsessively about the crisis, how he failed to anticipate it, how he failed in handling it, what he should do about it moving forward. Each sub-personality has a take and they argue with one another whose approach is correct. This can take days, weeks, months, or even years as the subject subconsciously seeks a satisfactory solution
4. Re-Integration- subject has "solved" the situation and now has an approach for dealing with it in the future.  A new equilibrium has been reached and they have grown as a person. 

King Shlomo's Crisis

This model of Crisis, Psychosynthesis, and Reintegration fits well with the description of Kohelet as a dialog between sub-personalities who reach a resolution in the end. That said, one cannot help but wonder what was the crisis that triggered the whole process. No external danger is mentioned, so it seems that we are dealing with an Existential Crisis.

Existential Crisis- in existentialism, a crucial stage or turning point at which an individual is faced with finding meaning and purpose in life and taking responsibility for their choices(from American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology)

I would speculate that Shlomo finds himself in a whopping Midlife Crisis. He has been incredibly successful: ruling over a stable kingdom, building God's temple, amassing a personal fortune, and having fathered numerous children with his many wives. At this point, the incredibly ambitious Shlomo looks forward to his next achievement and finds... nothing of significance. He has been spectacularly successful, but has already accomplished all of his greatest achievements. Looking forward, Shlomo sees only lesser goals and his own mortality looming.

Looking at the Structure of Kohelet, in the first half of the book Shlomo finds himself pulled in four different directions:

1. Practical Personality- pulls him to gather more riches and build more palaces and gardens
2. Hedonic Personality- pulls him to enjoy his remaining days in luxury
3. The Wise Personality- pulls him to prefer a life of scholarship over a material life 
4. Pious Personality- pulls him to live piously as a humble servant of God

Shlomo recognizes the value of each of these approaches, each "In it's own season", but ultimately chooses Wisdom and Piety as the focus for his latter days. This will make a worthy legacy as a son of David and King of Jerusalem. At this point he has integrated his sub-personalities, grown as a person, and the crisis is resolved. 

The Structure of Kohelet

Kohelet(Ecclesiastes) is a difficult book to read. Most books in the Tanach are divided into distinct stories, poems, or prescriptive passages. Kohelet, on the other hand, is written in a stream-of-consciousness style, full of repetitive and and contradictory passages that make it hard to follow. As a first step to approaching this book, it may be helpful to analyse it's structure.

Kohelet divided based on Masoretic divisions

The Masoretic Structure

For a start, let's look at the breaks in the Masoretic text of Kohelet. Verse 11 ends with an Open Break and the poem "For Every Season" is also delineated with Open Breaks. There is also a break 52 verses before the end of the book. In all, these divisions give us five sections. This is not satisfactory as the bulk of the book remains in one long 118 verse section followed by a 52 verse section. Compare this with Esther whose 167 verses are broken into over 20 sections by the Masoretic breaks, making it's structure explicit.

  

Kohelet divided by Chapter

Chapter Divisions

What about the 12 chapter divisions in Kohelet? These divisions are not part of the original text(circa the 9th century BCE), but were made by Stephen Langton in the 13th century based on his understanding of the text. These divisions are generally based on textual cues, but sometimes seem disconnected from the text(for instance consider the break between Kohelet Ch. 4 and 5, when there is no discernible break on the narrative, and perhaps was added due to Langton's desire to create roughly consistent chapter sizes).

The granular Chapter Divisions can help us get an overview of the text, since they are roughly similar in size and each one's content can be summarized. That said, this structure is not fundamental since the divisions are not based on a deep textual analysis.

I am Kohelet

I recently encountered a fresh take on Kohelet in Yoel Bin-Nun and Yaakov Meidan's "Ani Kohelet"(published in Hebrew in 2017). They develop a literary theory that the book of Kohelet is a dialectic between four different "Voices", each a different perspective presented by the book's single author:

1. Wise Man- a master of wisdom
2. Practical Man- a man of action and achievement
3. Hedonic Man- out to enjoy all life has to offer
4. Pious Man- Godfearing man

"Ani Kohelet" is a collection of lectures and papers developing this approach, delineating these characters, their literary styles, and their themes. This theory quite effectively explains the book's dialectic style and resolves it's conflicts since the voices are explained as warring perspectives in the mind of the author.

Incidentally, the name "Kohelet" is explained as rooted in the word "Makhelah"--the Hebrew word for "Choir". These four arguing voices come together into a sort of choral song of multiple voices.

Structure Based on Ani Kohelet

If we map-out the passages spoken by each of the four voices(as well as a fifth voice for general narration), then a clear structure for the book emerges.

Yoel Bin-Nun divides the book into two distinct halves of similar size, with the 2nd half beginning with Chapter 7. He also divides the halves into 3 sections each, roughly along Chapter divisions, but with notable exceptions in chapers 4 and 9.

Kohelet's Structure based on "Ani Kohelet"

In the first half, the four voices are in constant, chaotic dialog with one another, with no clear winner emerging. At the beginning of Section 3, the Pious Voice opens with a significant monologue, but this is immediately undermined by the other voices. This unresolved dialog goes well with the theme of the "To Every Season" poem at the beginning of the Section 2. The Poem's meaning is that there is no ultimate perspective and that different times call for different approaches. The four voices demonstrate this principal as they refute one another's arguments, but with no clear winner emerging.

In the second section, the dialog is much more ordered. The Wise Voice has a long monologue spanning all of Section 4, and then argues with each of the other three voices individually in Section 5. In Section 6 the Wise Voice has a final monologue, but is then undermined by the Pious voice and his final monologue. Kohelet ends with the general Narrator's summary, first restating Kohelet's dilemma, then  praising Wise men and their works, and the finally arguing for Piety and the fear of God.

Insights from the Structure of Kohelet

If you would have asked me to summarize Kohelet before this analysis, I would have said that King Solomon is seeking the meaning of life and ultimately concludes that it is to live a God-Fearing life.

After performing this analysis, however, I think that King Solomon's answer is much less black-and-white. Solomon really truly believes that each of the four perspectives herein have their "season". That said, he ultimately favours Wisdom and Piety as primary over Practicality and Hedonism.

Blood on the Doorpost

 

Let's explore the meaning of the mitzva of Mezuza.

The first time this mitzva is mentioned is Devarim chapter 6

ד שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל:  יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.  ה וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ.  ו וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--עַל-לְבָבֶךָ.  ז וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ, וְדִבַּרְתָּ בָּם, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ.  ח וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת, עַל-יָדֶךָ; וְהָיוּ לְטֹטָפֹת, בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ.  ט וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל-מְזֻזוֹת בֵּיתֶךָ, וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ.

This paragraph is loaded with new mitzvot, according to the Sefer Hachinuch there are 7

1. תיז. מצות אחדות השם
2. תיח. מצות אהבת השם
3. תיט. מצות תלמוד תורה
4. תכ. מצות קריאת שמע שחרית וערבית
5. תכא. מצות תפלין של יד
6. תכב. מצות תפלין של ראש
7. תכג. לקבוע מזוזה בפתחים

How are these mitzvas related to one another and what do they have in common?

Besides that, another question arises when we read the Ramban's introduction to Devarim.

הספר הזה ענינו ידוע שהוא משנה תורה יבאר בו משה רבנו לדור הנכנס בארץ רוב מצות התורה הצריכות לישראל ולא יזכיר בו דבר בתורת כהנים ולא במעשה הקרבנות ולא בטהרת כהנים ובמעשיהם שכבר ביאר אותם להם. והכהנים זריזים הם לא יצטרכו לאזהרה אחר אזהרה אבל בישראל יחזיר המצות הנוהגות בהם פעם להוסיף בהם ביאור ופעם שלא יחזיר אותם רק להזהיר את ישראל ברוב אזהרות כמו שיבאו בספר הזה בעניני עבודת גלולים אזהרות מרובות זו אחר זו בתוכחות וקול פחדים אשר יפחיד אותם בכל ענשי העבירות. ועוד יוסיף בספר הזה כמה מצות שלא נזכרו כלל כגון היבום ודין המוציא שם רע והגרושין באשה ועדים זוממין וזולתו. וכבר נאמרו לו כולן בסיני או באוהל מועד בשנה הראשונה קודם המרגלים כי בערבות מואב לא נתחדשו לו אלא דברי הברית כאשר נתפרש בו.

The Ramban says that many mitzvot are brought in Devarim for the first time, with no previous mention in the text of the Torah. Is that the case with Mezuza?

To explore this question, let's begin by looking more deeply at the mitzva of Tefillin. Tefillin scrolls contain the same two paragraphs from Devarim that a Mezuza does, but it also contains two paragraphs from sefer Shemot. Let's look at the first of these in Shemot chapter 13.

ח וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר:  בַּעֲבוּר זֶה, עָשָׂה יְהוָה לִי, בְּצֵאתִי, מִמִּצְרָיִם.  ט וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל-יָדְךָ, וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ, לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יְהוָה, בְּפִיךָ:  כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה, הוֹצִאֲךָ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם.

Here we have a clear reference to tefillin! Why does the Sefer Hachinuch only count the mitzva in Devarim?

Looking at the Rashbam gives us the answer:

לאות על ידך - לפי עומק פשוטו: יהיה לך לזכרון תמיד, כאלו כתוב על ידך. כעין, שימני כחותם על לבך.

בין עיניך - כעין תכשיט ורביד זהב שרגילין ליתן על המצח לנוי.

The references to write the exodus on one's hand and between one's eyes is only a metaphor to keep the exodus in our minds and hearts always. It is only formalized into the Mitzva of Tefillin later in Devarim. Is it possible that the mizva of mezuza has a similar background?

We hear the term mezuza in the previous chapter of Shemot with regard to the Korban Pesach, and the one-time commandment to paint it's blood on the doorposts and lintel of our homes.

ז וְלָקְחוּ, מִן-הַדָּם, וְנָתְנוּ עַל-שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת, וְעַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף--עַל, הַבָּתִּים, אֲשֶׁר-יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ, בָּהֶם.

יג וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת, עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם שָׁם, וְרָאִיתִי אֶת-הַדָּם, וּפָסַחְתִּי עֲלֵכֶם; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה בָכֶם נֶגֶף לְמַשְׁחִית, בְּהַכֹּתִי בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

What is this bloody practice? Some sort of magic? Rav Yoel Bin Nun suggests a more rational answer

מתוך: מאבק הזהות של משה: איזה ילד לא נימול, ומדוע? הרב יואל בן נון

האות הזה ניתן דרך בנו בכורו של משה דווקא, כי אחיו אשר במצרים היו נימולים, וזהותם הייתה ברורה. האות הזה של מלאך ה' למשה ("ויבקש המיתו"), עם דם הברית של "חתן דמים", מקביל, כמובן, למשחית שלא ייגוף את בני ישראל בזכות הדם על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות של הפתח במכת בכורות (י"ב, יג, כג), והוא הרעיון הידוע של "בדמיך חיי" (יחזקאל ט"ז, ו, לקראת הברית עם ה') – "דם פסח ודם מילה".

The blood on the doorpost represents the blood of the brit mila i.e. the covenant between God and the descendents of Abraham. By painting it on the door, the Israelites are creating a potent symbol that "this house is a house of the covenant". It is this dedication to God's covenant that saves them from the angel of death on the night of the final plague.

But then, what is the mitzva of Mezuza? Our most basic tenants of faith and dedication to the covenant are written on a scroll and affixed to the doorway to our home. The symbolism is clear: this home is not merely a mundane shelter for our bodies, rather it is a center for faith in God and dedication to his commandments. As with Tefillin, it would appear that we are given a Mitzva in Devarim that formalizes an important concept from the Exodus.

Building a Camping Eruv

My chavruta and I have been learning the Gemara in Eiruvin this year and I recently stumbled on a sugia that seems very relevant to a previous post.

As you may recall, in 2018 we went camping over Shabbat Chol Hamoed Sukkot. This necessitated the challenge of building both a small Sukka and an Eiruv so that we could carry items around our camp site on Shabbat.

The Eruv construction method I went with was simple- four 3 meter tall bamboo poles stuck in the ground around our campsite(4 or 5 tents around a mat for eating on), with heavy metal screw inserted at the top. A metal wire was then stretched taught between the four screws at the top of each pole, thus creating a "צורות הפתח" on each side. This was a simple solution that required few materials. That said, the 3 meter poles can be a bit tricky to secure. There are also a number of laws of "צורות הפתח" that need to be minded to have a kosher Eiruv.

Now lets' look at Eiruvin chapter 1, Mishnas 8-10:

שַׁיָּרָא שֶׁחָנְתָה בְּבִקְעָה וְהִקִּיפוּהָ בִכְלֵי בְהֵמָה, מְטַלְטְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא גָדֵר גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְלֹא יִהְיוּ פְרָצוֹת יְתֵרוֹת עַל הַבִּנְיָן. כָּל פִּרְצָה שֶׁהִיא כְעֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, מֻתֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְפֶתַח. יָתֵר מִכָּאן, אָסוּר:

מַקִּיפִין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבָלִים, זֶה לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה וְזֶה לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בֵּין חֶבֶל לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. שִׁעוּר חֲבָלִים וְעָבְיָן, יָתֵר עַל טֶפַח, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא הַכֹּל עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים:

מַקִּיפִין בְּקָנִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בֵין קָנֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. בְּשַׁיָּרָא דִבְּרוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא דִבְּרוּ בְשַׁיָּרָא אֶלָּא בַהֹוֶה. כָּל מְחִצָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל שְׁתִי וְשֶׁל עֵרֶב, אֵינָהּ מְחִצָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי דְבָרִים. אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים פָּטְרוּ בַמַּחֲנֶה, מְבִיאִין עֵצִים מִכָּל מָקוֹם, וּפְטוּרִים מֵרְחִיצַת יָדַיִם, וּמִדְּמַאי, וּמִלְּעָרֵב:

The Misha teaches that the requirements for an Eiruv for a temporary encampment are actually less stringent than for a permanent settlement. The requirements listed in the Mishna include:

• The Eiruv can be a temporary "fence" 10 handbreadths high constructed from saddles, bags, and other equipment piled up for this purpose
• The fence can have breaches, as long as the fenced length is greater than the breached length(up to a maximum breached width)
• If you build a fence with posts, you only need 3 cords, each within 3 handbreadths of one another
• You can also use vertical reeds spaced a distance of 3 handbreadths
• No Eiruv chatzerot is required for the area shared between tents

I need to research the practical halacha more, but from this it sounds like alternative Eiruv constructions techniques could potentially include:

1. Arranging your tents in a tight circle, then filling some of the breaches between them with luggage up to 10 handbreadths high

2. A stake & chicken wire fence(10 handbreadths high)

3. A fence utilizing the solution used commonly in aluminum sukkas, where a rope is set at 10 handbreads high, then 3 additional horizontal ropes are used to close the gap.

Achimedes and the Exilarch

My chavruta and I are excited to have finally reached the end of mesechet Shabbat from the Talmud Bavli. That said, the end of this tractate was rather anti-climactic.

Talmudic tractates are largely filled with dry, matter-of-fact discussions of Jewish legal matters. These are interspersed with more colorful aggadic sections containing stories, legends, and medical remedies. That said, the Talmudic redactor usually will save a particularly juicy aggada for the end of a Tractate. Classic examples of this are the oft-quoted poetical drashas about Talmidei Chachamim at the end of mesechet Brachot and the famous story of Rabbi Akiva's laughter while the other sages cry at the end of Makkot.

And so, I was primed to see what Talmudic tidbit the huge, 314-page mesechet Shabbat would end with. Perhaps there would be some inspiring story of Shabbas observance, or maybe a lesson on the true meaning of the day. How disappointing to find a dry discussion of which rabbinic prohibitions we are allowed to violate for the sake of performing a Mitzva and the principle of Mitasek.

And yet, upon re-reading this final story on Mitasek, I begin to wonder if my first impression was wrong. Chazal's writing can work at multiple levels, and this particular story contains a number of surprising details brought in the typical concise and understated manner of Talmudic texts.

עולא איקלע לבי ריש גלותא חזייה לרבה בר רב הונא דיתיב באוונא דמיא וקא משח ליה אמר ליה אימר דאמרי רבנן מדידה דמצוה דלאו מצוה מי אמור אמר ליה מתעסק בעלמא אנא:

One Shabbat, Ulla visits the house of the Exilarch, Raba bar Rav Huna, a sage of renown and one of the one of the most powerful men in the Babylonian diaspora. Ulla has no doubt come to consult on some Torah matter, yet he finds the Exilarch immersed happily in a barrel of water, engaged with the critical task of measuring the volume of liquid in the barrel. Somewhat taken aback, Ulla interrupts Raba's computation, asking him 

"Did not the Rabbis prohibit measuring on Shabbat?!"

Rabba turns to him and replies

"Generally speaking, you are correct, but I'm not actually trying to compute something of significance! I'm just playing around enjoying my bath!"

This absurdist image of Rabba bar Rav Huna taking a bath brings to mind an older story of a different sort of sage taking a bath: the famous story of Archimedes of Syracuse.

Archimedes, the famous mathematician, is floored when his Monarch tasks him with the problem of determining if the golden crown he commissioned is actually made from pure gold. The great sage ponders the problem for days without arriving at a solution. Finally, despairing of a solution, he goes to take a bath. Sitting in the tub, watching his mass displace the water, Archimedes suddenly arrives at the critical insight, shouting "Eureka!" and running naked through the streets of Syracuse to tell the King.

The Romans were fond of this story of Archimedes, and the sages of the Talmud were no doubt familiar with it. And so, we now understand why the story of Ulla and Raba bar Rav Huna was chosen to end the mesechta, and that it has something fundamental to say about the Sabbath rest. At first glance, it seems absurd to find the great sage playing in the bathtub like a child- is this how a Great Man conducts himself? Yet the story alludes to the classic parable of Archimedes to teach us that rest is actually essential to the creative process. Rabba bar Rav Huna's playful Shabbas diversions are actually what allow him to be such an effective scholar and leader the rest of the week.

הדרן עלך מסכת שבת!

Babel as Man-Made Garden

The second chapter of Bereshit provides us with seven verses on the architecture of the Garden of Eden:

ח וַיִּטַּ֞ע יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים גַּן־בְּעֵ֖דֶן מִקֶּ֑דֶם וַיָּ֣שֶׂם שָׁ֔ם אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָצָֽר׃ ט וַיַּצְמַ֞ח יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה כָּל־עֵ֛ץ נֶחְמָ֥ד לְמַרְאֶ֖ה וְט֣וֹב לְמַֽאֲכָ֑ל וְעֵ֤ץ הַֽחַיִּים֙ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַגָּ֔ן וְעֵ֕ץ הַדַּ֖עַת ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע׃ י וְנָהָר֙ יֹצֵ֣א מֵעֵ֔דֶן לְהַשְׁק֖וֹת אֶת־הַגָּ֑ן וּמִשָּׁם֙ יִפָּרֵ֔ד וְהָיָ֖ה לְאַרְבָּעָ֥ה רָאשִֽׁים׃ יא שֵׁ֥ם הָֽאֶחָ֖ד פִּישׁ֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסֹּבֵ֗ב אֵ֚ת כָּל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽחֲוִילָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־שָׁ֖ם הַזָּהָֽב׃ יב וּֽזְהַ֛ב הָאָ֥רֶץ הַהִ֖וא ט֑וֹב שָׁ֥ם הַבְּדֹ֖לַח וְאֶ֥בֶן הַשֹּֽׁהַם׃ יג וְשֵֽׁם־הַנָּהָ֥ר הַשֵּׁנִ֖י גִּיח֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסּוֹבֵ֔ב אֵ֖ת כָּל־אֶ֥רֶץ כּֽוּשׁ׃ יד וְשֵׁ֨ם הַנָּהָ֤ר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי֙ חִדֶּ֔קֶל ה֥וּא הַֽהֹלֵ֖ךְ קִדְמַ֣ת אַשּׁ֑וּר וְהַנָּהָ֥ר הָֽרְבִיעִ֖י ה֥וּא פְרָֽת׃

 Salient features of the garden:

1. A garden with all types of tree
2. Two mystic trees at the center- one of Knowledge, the other of Life
3. Gold and precious stones 
4. A river extending from Eden which branches into four rivers:
1. Pishon- not clear it's location. Opinions range from the Nile in Egypt to the Ganges in Ethiopia
2. Gichon- not clear it's location. Opinions range from Ethiopia to Mesopotamia
3. Chidekel- commonly identified with the Tigris in Mesopotamia
4. Prat- commonly identified with the Euphrates in Mesopotamia

Now compare this with the architecture of the city of Babel in chapter 11:

ג וַיֹּֽאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֗הוּ הָ֚בָה נִלְבְּנָ֣ה לְבֵנִ֔ים וְנִשְׂרְפָ֖ה לִשְׂרֵפָ֑ה וַתְּהִ֨י לָהֶ֤ם הַלְּבֵנָה֙ לְאָ֔בֶן וְהַ֣חֵמָ֔ר הָיָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לַחֹֽמֶר׃ ד וַיֹּֽאמְר֞וּ הָ֣בָה ׀ נִבְנֶה־לָּ֣נוּ עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל֙ וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם פֶּן־נָפ֖וּץ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Parallel features to Eden:

1. A city with buildings and eventually all types of language
2. A mystic Ziggurat-Temple at it's center(and historically two Ziggurats, one in Ur, the other in Babel)
3. City is made of bricks that form "stone"
4. The historic ziggurats of Ur and Babel are both in cities near the Euphrates river in Mesopotamia

So it seems like there are some strong parallels between these two passages in both text and subtext. What does this indicate?

I would argue that this parallel teaches us the nature of Mankind's sin in the Tower of Babel story. In the construction of this city & tower, Mankind was trying to build an artificial Garden of Eden. In this sense they were rebelling against God's decision to evict Man from the garden and exile them to our world with it's difficult day to day existence.

A Leitwort Pair from Esther

So, recently I've been reading Yonatan Grossman's excellent book on biblical style "גלוי ומוצפן: על כמה מדרכי העיצוב של הסיפור המקראי". The first couple chapters deal with many various types of word choice and word play. For this post, I'd like to highlight a wordplay I noticed recently in Megilat Esther between the words כן and חן, which together form a Leitwort Pair for the book of Esther. This wordplay directly connects to one of the Megila's major themes, that of the conflict between Human Kingship and God's Kingship amidst Exilic existence.

The Law

The word כן appears 13 times in 11 verses in the Megilla, always associated with Persian Law and Royal Decrees. This includes the laws of Ahasuerus' feast, the contest rules for a new Queen, Vashti and Haman's judgements, and Esther's commands to the Jews to fast and to celebrate.

1. אסתר א8: והשתיה כדת אין אנס כי כן יסד המלך על כל רב ביתו לעשות כרצון איש ואיש
2. אסתר א13: ויאמר המלך לחכמים ידעי העתים כי כן דבר המלך לפני כל ידעי דת ודין
3. אסתר ב4: והנערה אשר תיטב בעיני המלך תמלך תחת ושתי וייטב הדבר בעיני המלך ויעש כן
4. אסתר ב12: ובהגיע תר נערה ונערה לבוא אל המלך אחשורוש מקץ היות לה כדת הנשים שנים עשר חדש כי כן ימלאו ימי מרוקיהן ששה חדשים בשמן המר וששה חדשים בבשמים ובתמרוקי הנשים
5. אסתר ג2: וכל עבדי המלך אשר בשער המלך כרעים ומשתחוים להמן כי כן צוה לו המלך ומרדכי לא יכרע ולא ישתחוה
6. אסתר ד16: לך כנוס את כל היהודים הנמצאים בשושן וצומו עלי ואל תאכלו ואל תשתו שלשת ימים לילה ויום גם אני ונערתי אצום כן ובכן אבוא אל המלך אשר לא כדת וכאשר אבדתי אבדתי
7. אסתר ו10: ויאמר המלך להמן מהר קח את הלבוש ואת הסוס כאשר דברת ועשה כן למרדכי היהודי היושב בשער המלך אל תפל דבר מכל אשר דברת
8. אסתר ז5: ויאמר המלך אחשורוש ויאמר לאסתר המלכה מי הוא זה ואי זה הוא אשר מלאו לבו לעשות כן
9. אסתר ט14: ויאמר המלך להעשות כן ותנתן דת בשושן ואת עשרת בני המן תלו
10. אסתר ט19: על כן היהודים הפרוזים הישבים בערי הפרזות עשים את יום ארבעה עשר לחדש אדר שמחה ומשתה ויום טוב ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו
11. אסתר ט26: על כן קראו לימים האלה פורים על שם הפור על כן על כל דברי האגרת הזאת ומה ראו על ככה ומה הגיע אליהם

But is this a Leitwort? On the one hand, a Leitwort needs to be a word that catches the ear of the reader. So, the word כן cannot have this distinction because it is such a simple, common word in Tanach. But what if it relates to another word?

Esther's Charm

The Megilla's use of the word כן becomes a wordplay with the introduction of Esther and her influence on Ahasuerus' court. Esther time and again approaches the challenges of Persian Law and overcomes them. She does this with the attribute of charm(חן). This חן of Esther overcomes the כן of Persian law six times throughout Megillat Esther, hence the wordplay between two similarly sounding words.

1. אסתר ב15: ובהגיע תר אסתר בת אביחיל דד מרדכי אשר לקח לו לבת לבוא אל המלך לא בקשה דבר כי אם את אשר יאמר הגי סריס המלך שמר הנשים ותהי אסתר נשאת חן בעיני כל ראיה
2. אסתר ב17: ויאהב המלך את אסתר מכל הנשים ותשא חן וחסד לפניו מכל הבתולות וישם כתר מלכות בראשה וימליכה תחת ושתי
3. אסתר ה2: ויהי כראות המלך את אסתר המלכה עמדת בחצר נשאה חן בעיניו ויושט המלך לאסתר את שרביט הזהאשר בידו ותקרב אסתר ותגע בראש השרביט
4. אסתר ה8: אם מצאתי חן בעיני המלך ואם על המלך טוב לתת את שאלתי ולעשות את בקשתי יבוא המלך והמן אל המשתה אשר אעשה להם ומחר אעשה כדבר המלך
5. אסתר ז3: ותען אסתר המלכה ותאמר אם מצאתי חן בעיניך המלך ואם על המלך טוב תנתן לי נפשי בשאלתי ועמי בבקשתי
6. אסתר ח5: ותאמר אם על המלך טוב ואם מצאתי חן לפניו וכשר הדבר לפני המלך וטובה אני בעיניו יכתב להשיב את הספרים מחשבת המן בן המדתא האגגי אשר כתב לאבד את היהודים אשר בכל מדינות המלך

The two repeated words with similar sounds כן-חן, form what Grossman calls an Leitwort Pair(צמד מילים מנחות). This is simply a Leitwort between the two related words like שמש-ירח or טוב-רע (see p.146). In our case the words are related phonetically, but they are also thematic opposites of sorts.

The point of the כן-חן wordplay is to highlight the conflict between the two central authorities in Esther. On the one hand we have Man's Kingship, the lone apparent superpower in the story. The King's commands are law for all to obey. On the other hand, we have God's kingship. The Jews are in exile, God's temple in ruins, yet even under these circumstances, God's influence ultimately overcomes Man's. It does so through more subtle means, symbolized by the softer, Feminine power of Esther. Thus the כן-חן wordplay emphasizes and sharpens the Man vs. God theme of the Megilla.

Esther accusing Haman, Ernest Norman, oil on canvas, 1888

Begging

But this particular wordplay does not stop there. Twice the text mentions Esther begging on behalf of her people, and again the ח-נ root is employed:

1. אסתר ד8: ואת פתשגן כתב הדת אשר נתן בשושן להשמידם נתן לו להראות את אסתר ולהגיד לה ולצוות עליה לבוא אל המלך להתחנן לו ולבקש מלפניו על עמה
2. אסתר ח3: ותוסף אסתר ותדבר לפני המלך ותפל לפני רגליו ותבך ותתחנן לו להעביר את רעת המן האגגי ואת מחשבתו אשר חשב על היהודים

Compare this with Haman's begging for his life then the ב-ק-ש root is instead used:

• אסתר ז7: והמלך קם בחמתו ממשתה היין אל גנת הביתן והמן עמד לבקש על נפשו מאסתר המלכה כי ראה כי כלתה אליו הרעה מאת המלך

Esther's influence reaches it's climax when she abandons subtlety and explicitly asks the King for mercy for her people. This more direct expression of Esther's influence is also an expression of God's Kingship in the world, as hinted at by the employment of the common root.

Names

One final piece in this puzzle is encoded within the names of incidental characters. In the names of the King's chief advisor Memuchan and the Judean King Yechonya associated with Mordechai, mentioned at the start of the Megilla, we again see the syllable כן employed.

1. אסתר א14: והקרב אליו כרשנא שתר אדמתא תרשיש מרס מרסנא ממוכן שבעת שרי פרס ומדי ראי פני המלך הישבים ראשנה במלכות
2. אסתר א16: ויאמר מומכן לפני המלך והשרים לא על המלך לבדו עותה ושתי המלכה כי על כל השרים ועל כל העמים אשר בכל מדינות המלך אחשורוש
3. אסתר א21: וייטב הדבר בעיני המלך והשרים ויעש המלך כדבר ממוכן
4. אסתר ב6: אשר הגלה מירושלים עם הגלה אשר הגלתה עם יכניה מלך יהודה אשר הגלה נבוכדנצר מלך בבל

Yechonya is spelled various ways in the Tanach:

• יהויכין 
• יויכין
• יכוניה
• יכניה

Megilat Esther chooses the last spelling because it best fits with the כן-חן wordplay. The purpose of citing Yechonya and Memuchan at the beginning of Esther is to set up the two sides of the conflict. On one hand, the Persian Advisor Memuchan represents the Kingship of Man, on the other hand Mordechai, an exile of Yechonya, represents the Kingship of God which is in exile. The conflict between these two sides forms the basis for the action of the story.

Similarly, at the climax of the Megilla, another Persian councilor appears, to seal the fate of Haman. Harvona has the letters ח and נ embedded in his name, again emphasizing the triumph of the character trait of חן.

• אסתר ז9: ויאמר חרבונה אחד מן הסריסים לפני המלך גם הנה העץ אשר עשה המן למרדכי אשר דבר טוב על המלך עמד בבית המן גבה חמשים אמה ויאמר המלך תלהו עליו

Esther, Daniel, Yosef

Now let's connect this back to our previous look at the parallels between Esther and two other Biblical stories, those of Yosef and Daniel.

It's worth noting that the root ח-נ also figures prominently in the story of Yosef, and in much the same context:

• בראשית לט4: וימצא יוסף חן בעיניו וישרת אתו ויפקדהו על ביתו וכל יש לו נתן בידו
• בראשית לט21: ויהי ה' את יוסף ויט אליו חסד ויתן חנו בעיני שר בית הסהר
• בראשית מב21: ויאמרו איש אל אחיו אבל אשמים אנחנו על אחינו אשר ראינו צרת נפשו בהתחננו אלינו ולא שמענו על כן באה אלינו הצרה הזאת 
• בראשית נ4: ויעברו ימי בכיתו וידבר יוסף אל בית פרעה לאמר אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניכם דברו נא באזני פרעה לאמר

Sefer Daniel seems to favor a different word choice. Consider, for instance this line, which could have used the term למצא חן:

• דניאל א9: ויתן האלהים את דניאל לחסד ולרחמים לפני שר הסריסים

That said, there is a thematic parallel in that both Daniel and Esther include the challenges of surmounting a strict legal system whose laws cannot be revoked or overridden. But what is interesting is how these two heroes differ in how they overcome their challenges: in Daniel, the laws are overcome through dream visions and miracles, while in Esther they are overcome through charm and political means. In this way Megillat Esther revises Daniel's message of how the Jewish People can survive in Exile. While Daniel charts a path of uncompromising piety and reliance on divine intervention, Esther shows how a more flexible approach can actually be an expression of God's kingship, rather than an affront to it.

Links

On a final note, I used Erel Segal-Halevi's Tanach Search Engine in preparing this topic, so a big thanks to him for providing this resource to the public.