Purim 5785
Words of Wisdom with Rabbi Efrat Zarren-Zohar
|
King Ahasuerus Condemns Haman to Death by Anton Petter
“It can’t happen here,” thought the Jews of Susa on the eve of their planned extermination, “not here; this is the country of Cyrus the Great!”
They were right to be shocked. Persia’s emperor Cyrus had allowed – and helped – the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple after the Babylonian Exile...
The incredulity of Persian Jews when Haman the Wicked so easily convinced King Assuerus to massacre the Jews is understandable.
If the fact itself was shocking, the ease with which Assuerus’ acquiesce to betray his ancient allies was outstanding.
He had no animosity towards Jews. He was just a frivolous monarch, interested in hunts and parties, akin to a modern politician who spends his tenure golfing.
The extermination of the Jews would be for him another excuse for a feast, another way to keep his people, and himself, entertained.
Mass murder for fun; ancient Persia’s version of reality TV.
Though the Persian kings had been extremely benevolent toward Jews, our ancestors missed a key element: the Persian kings were, well, kings after all.
A king has absolute power, and by definition you are subjected to his whims.
Arbitrariness and impulsivity are not bugs but features in an absolute monarchy.
Yes, a king may choose to bound himself to norms, but he’s not obliged to.
Even if by temperament or convenience, the king decides to be bound by laws, there’s no guarantee.
Once the system invests unchecked power on a single person, it’s only a matter of time until they use it against you.
The Purim story would have been impossible in a modern liberal democracy.
There could be a Haman, but the free press would have denounced him, the courts would have intervened, the army would be bound by laws not to execute his illegal orders, and the parliament could have impeached Assuerus.
Today, exhausted by antisemitism and crushed by the betrayal of our allies, we feel the temptation of putting our lives in the hands of autocrats who seem to like us and would protect us from harm.
It’s not totally crazy to hope for that. After all, antisemitism is pervasive, and convincing millions of people not to hate us seems impossible.
So isn’t it more efficient to back a single “strong man”? We know that there may be a trade-off in the form of some personal liberties, but maybe it’s worth it for our security.
The other temptation is, of course, to just give up on one’s identity, as Haman wanted the Jews of Persia to do. Today, the far left is demanding just that.
Jews are welcome, as long as they betray their own and submit to the dogmas of Critical Race Theory.
Both of our modern authoritarianisms, left and right, demand fealty — one to an ideology, the other to an individual.
Purim shows us that a tradeoff that bestows unchecked power in a man or an ideology is not worth it. It will always come back to bite us.
The Jews of ancient Persia should have known that.
The history of our slavery in Egypt happened for the exact same reason. “A Pharaoh that did not know Joseph,” arbitrarily changed the kingdom’s policy towards the Israelites.
Democracy doesn’t eliminate antisemitism. The last few years have proven that, but that’s not new...
Autocracies – either ideological or based on personality cults – may offer temporary respite, but it’s fleeting.
In the first decade of the Soviet Revolution, Jews experienced a dramatic decrease in antisemitism. We know how that ended.
The Jews that had backed the revolution were murdered by the paranoiac delusions of a Stalin with unchecked power.
Many Jews embraced Mussolini – one of them, Margherite Zarfati, quite literally, as she became his lover.
They thought he would provide order after the chaos of the Great War and protect them. The elimination of constitutional guarantees was the proverbial egg one had to break to make the omelet of security.
But when Il Duce betrayed the Italian Jews, sent them to camps, and allied with Hitler, there were no courts or parliaments to prevent it.
The truth is stubborn: not a single liberal democracy ever persecuted Jews, and virtually all autocracies did at some point or other.
The Jews of Persia had no choice; that’s how the world operated in their times.
But we have a choice.
For them, autocracy was a given; for us, it’s a choice that many are deliberately making.
Democracy isn’t perfect, but that’s why it protects us.
It’s the only system that admits its own imperfections, providing checks, balances, and fail-safes.
Yes, that makes the system clunky and slow, but every “perfect” system, every infallible leader, ended up causing indescribable tragedy.
Neo-Marxism and Far-Right Populism have always threatened the best system we have ever had.
What has changed in recent years is that many of us seem to be captivated by these new pied pipers, following them blindly to our oblivion.
We seem tired of the messiness of freedom and want the bliss of submission.
But the warning of Purim couldn’t be more prescient.
The story ends well because frivolous Assuerus, susceptible to flattery, pretty women, and good banquets, reversed his extermination decree with the same triviality as he had established it…
Are we willing to roll the dice?
