Mordecai, Esther and Joseph
Mordecai, Esther and Joseph

After elucidating how heroically Mordecai facilitated the miraculous salvation, the Megilla concludes with this description of Mordecai Because Mordecai, the Jew, was second to the king, great for the Jews, accepted by (Rov) most of his brethren, interested in the well-being of his nation and a good spokesman for his people (Esther 10:3). 

Although at first glance this seems to praise Mordecai for his successful action and efforts, surprisingly, Rashi (Esther 10:3), quoting earlier Sages, Chazal (Megilla 15b), disagrees.  Accepted by most of his brethren, implies that there were those, albeit a small number, who did not accept and appreciate Mordecai.  Although this already sounds amazing, upon discovering who these critics were, it becomes downright shocking.  Rashi believes that members of the Sanhedrin, the greatest Rabbinic authoritative body at the time, were disappointed in Mordecai.  They felt that Mordecai should have spent more time learning Torah and limited his involvement in politics.

Beyond the incredibly interesting political and ideological debate between those members of the Sanhedrin and Mordecai, this description is fascinating.  One must wonder why the Megilla concluded by raising doubt about Mordecai’s character?  Why end such a heroic and positive narrative with a critique?  Until this point Mordecai is a hero; there is nothing but praise for Mordecai’s commitment and dedication to Hashem and his people, why end on a downer?  Moreover, Mordecai himself authored Megillat Esther. Why would he allude to this critique of himself in such an anticlimactic way? 

Before directly answering our opening questions, let us make an interesting observation.  Both Esther and Mordecai are strikingly similar to Joseph.  Many details about Esther recall and resemble details that describe Joseph. 

Both Esther and Joseph are extremely attractive individuals. Both of them are described by the wordyouth" (Bereshit 37:2 and Esther 2:2, 4).  Moreover each found favor in the eyes of others, Joseph in the eyes of the warden (Bereshit 39:21) and Esther in everyone who saw her (Esther 2:15) (Sifri Bamidbar, Parshat Naso 41, Sifri Zuta 6). They each lived outside of Israel, in a foreign land. 

Moreover, both are separated from their families, courted by an aristocratic from the local country (Potifar and Achashvarosh) and ultimately married into the foreign aristocracy (Joseph married Potifar’s daughter and Esther married Achashvarosh). Esther and Joseph each withheld their true identity, Esther from Achashvarosh and Joseph from his brothers.  And after initially hiding who they were, they each reveal their identity in an incredibly dramatic manner, one that serves as the central turning point in each episode.

However, not only does the Megilla portray Esther as similar to Joseph, Mordecai is as well. 

Mordecai’s introduction (Esther 2:6) mentions his exile four times, just as Joseph was exiled by his brothers. Both were challenged daily by an aristocratic character in the story, Joseph by Potifar’s wife (Bereshit 39:10) and Mordecai by Haman demanding he bow down to him (Esther 3:4).  The Megilla says daily, quoting the Chumash and thereby highlighting this parallel (Bereshit Rabbah, Vilna Edition 87).   Achashvarosh got angry with and ultimately killed Bigton and Teresh just like Pharaoh got angry at the Sar HaMashkim and Sar HaOfim (butler and baker) and ultimately killed the Sar HaMashkim (Midrash Lekach Tov, Vayeshev 40).

Despite being exiled from the land of Israel, both Mordecai and Joseph rose quickly to political power.  They each became advisors to the king and ultimately second only to the king (Bereshit 41:44 and Esther 10:3); Mordecai was even labeled as Second to the King.  Each rose to power primarily based on a single act of helping the king; for Mordecai it was informing the king of a planned assignation and for Joseph it was interpreting his dreams.  Ultimately, they were both paraded around the city’s capital in a declaration of their elevated status (Bereshit 41:43 and Esther 6:11).  (Bereshit Rabbah, Vilna Edition 87).

The king empowered them both with important decision-making responsibilities by taking off his ring (Bereshit 41:42 and Esther 8:2). Mordecai, like Joseph, received special clothing symbolizing his beloved and unique status. (Bereshit Rabbah, Vilna Edition 87).

Although the question begs to be asked as to why the Megilla would present both main characters in parallel to Joseph, it is worth noting the contrasts between Esther and Mordecai on the one hand, and Joseph on the other, before offering a theory.

Here are numerous differences. 

In contrast to how Joseph was exiled as an individual and by his brothers, Mordecai was exiled as part of a nation (Esther 2:6).  Although both Joseph and Mordecai were given special clothing,  Joseph received his as a permanent gift from his father, while Mordecai’s was temporary and from the king. Moreover, Joseph’s clothing gift led to his misfortune while Mordecai’s clothing reflected his success.

While in the Joseph story, redemption began with Pharaoh’s dreams at night, it was Achashvarosh’s insomnia that lead to Mordecai and Esther’s salvation. Furthermore, king Achashvarosh asked his most-trusted assistant, Haman for advice, while Pharaoh consulted a stranger, an imprisoned Hebrew slave.  The contrast is even more profound because Haman’s advice was selfish, while Joseph’s was completely selfless.  It was precisely these events which led to Haman’s downfall and to Joseph’s rise to power.

Esther was taken by Achashvarosh while Potifar’s wife was unsuccessful in her courting of Joseph, but the contrast may be extended, because as a result Esther became the queen while Joseph was incarcerated. Although ultimately both Esther and Joseph reveal their true selves, Esther communicates that Achashvarosh does not know her upbringing and past, while Joseph says the exact opposite; he tells his brother that they do know his history and past. 

Esther further tells her family “You think we are family, but you do not know me.” while Joseph conversely states “you think that I am an Egyptian stranger, surprise, we are family.”

Joseph’s story beings with a national problem, a famine in Egypt; a problem that Joseph creatively solves.  In Persia, by contrast, there was a plethora of food, enough to eat and drink for one hundred eighty days of partying for one hundred and twenty seven nations.  Unlike the naturally developed problem that Joseph solves, Achashvarosh creates for Bnei Yisrael, one that Esther solves. Joseph’s primary intention was to assist Pharaoh and save the Egyptian kingdom while Mordecai’s primary mission was to save the Jewish people; transforming the city into,The city of Shushan was cheerful and happy. (Esther 8:15) was a byproduct mentioned only peripherally at the end.

Achashvarosh took his wife Esther from Mordecai while Pharaoh gave Joseph a wife (Bereshit 41:45).

Returning to why the Megilla was written this way, firstly it was with Mordecai’s merit, like Joseph’s, which caused Hashem to save the foreign monarch (Midrash Lekach Tov, Lech Licha 12).  But the parallel is stronger, for in neither episode is an overt miracle performed, yet each redemption clearly displays Hashem working behind the scenes.  The numerous unlikely coincidences that occur one after another can only be traced back to him.  Joseph faithfully trusts Hashem that his being sold, falsely accused of adultery, imprisoned and then ultimately crowned as second in command were all part of Hashem’s larger plan.  Mordecai, equally devoted, expresses his faith when he requests Esther’s help.  He states with confidence that we cannot know the larger plan, but the outcome will be positive.  Hashem will bring salvation and will not abandon his people (Esther 4:14).

However, although it is speculative, perhaps we can further hypothesize why the Megilla was written this way.  Perhaps Mordecai was subtly defending himself against the critics.  Mordecai was addressing the members of the Sanhedrin, who disapproved and thought that he was too involved in government.  Mordecai used Joseph as a religious paradigm and precedent for government involvement, believing his approach was at least a legitimate one.  Joseph too lived among the foreign people, assisting and abetting a foreign government.  Joseph too was second to the king and perhaps also sacrificed some of his time - that could have been devoted to Talmud Torah - instead involved in Egyptian political affairs.  Perhaps paralleling the stories defends both Mordecai and Esther, who were criticized for their heavy involvement in the Persian government.

In addition to the many similarities listed above, there are a number of opposites as well.  By contrasting these stories, Mordecai may have been further explaining and justifying his heavily involvement in the Egyptian government.  Unlike Joseph, whose intentions were to save himself and yet completely legitimate, Mordecai and Esther were tasked with the salvation of the Jewish people, a significantly more altruistic ambition.  If Joseph was justified in his conduct, as presumably his critics would concede, the justice of Mordecai and Esther’s actions should be all the more apparent.  Moreover, Joseph has a completely happy ending.  He reunites with his family, while Esther, by contrast, remains a wife to Achashvarosh.

However, there may be an additional defense for Mordecai’s character.  Even if one disagrees with Mordecai’s ideological position with regards to a Jew’s involvement in government, somehow rejecting the comparison to Joseph, Mordecai can still claim that he was well-intentioned.  In other words, even if he acted incorrectly, which the author, Mordecai, does not accept, he certainly did not act selfishly.  This may be precisely the conclusion of the Megilla.  Immediately after communicating that Mordecai wasaccepted by most of his brethren the Megilla says he was interested in the well-being of his nation.

Lastly, perhaps the phrase accepted by most of his brethren, while hinting to the comparison with Joseph  (who was also not fully appreciated by his brothers), also highlights the fact that Mordecai, unlike Joseph, was liked by the majority.  Mordecai, as the author, is telling his readers that one must recognize and even respect those with different ideological values. And yet this does not conflict with the need to be true to one’s heart, looking for proper ideological direction from the Torah and tradition in order to act with sincerity and selflessness.