Q&A: Bigthan and Teresh
Bigthan and Teresh
Question
Can a rabbi who distributes a recording of someone who came to consult with him, when in his opinion there is enormous benefit in doing so (preventing an evil regime), be compared to Mordechai, who publicized the secret eavesdropping on Bigthan and Teresh (for some future benefit?)
There are those who say that it is forbidden to speak malicious speech about a gentile.
https://www.dirshu.co.il/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A2-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99/
Answer
There is a certain similarity. But the discussion of whether it is proper to do so or not should not depend on the question of similarity to Mordechai. If indeed the public good clearly requires that the candidate in question not become prime minister, based on personal acquaintance, then there is certainly justification for publishing these things. The question whether that is in fact the situation in our case here (that Gantz really is such a person, and that the things were really done out of concern for the Jewish people) is of course another question, on which I am not expressing an opinion here.
With God’s help, the fifteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar.
I hereby vehemently protest the harm done to Bigthan and Teresh, the two “gatekeepers” charged with law enforcement in the kingdom of Persia and Media.
Bigthan and Teresh fulfilled their duty as “gatekeepers” and sought to file an indictment against King Ahasuerus for governmental corruption, expressed in extravagant banquets designed to secure favorable media coverage from the public; sexual harassment of Queen Vashti, who was required to display her beauty before the banquet guests; kidnapping girls without their consent; and, last but most severe, appointing Esther as queen without investigating her background and identity.
The conduct of Ahasuerus involved extremely serious criminal offenses: bribery and breach of trust, rape and sexual harassment, kidnapping and enslavement of women. Even the use of pink champagne and cigars at the banquet, and bringing catered trays to anyone who wanted them, also points to criminal conduct.
The “gatekeepers,” therefore, were right in intending to put King Ahasuerus on trial (subject to a hearing). The rule of law and equality before the law are among the foundations of a proper society, and harming the “gatekeepers” entrusted with law enforcement could drag the kingdom of Persia and Media into unparalleled decay and corruption.
The act of Mordechai—who, as a sitting judge at the king’s gate, was made privy by his prosecutor colleagues Bigthan and Teresh to classified information—constitutes a grave breach of trust, obstruction of investigative and judicial proceedings, and harm to public servants. And Ahasuerus’s taking the law into his own hands by ordering the execution of the devoted gatekeepers without a hearing and without a fair trial raises a black flag over the kingdom of Persia and Media.
Anyone for whom the character of the Persian kingdom as a state governed by law matters is required to protest vehemently the injustice done to the “gatekeepers.”
With blessings, Shimshi Safra
Commentator on religion-and-law affairs for the newspaper The Thinking Satraps