Lookstein Logo

Megillat Esther: Repairing Sha’ul’s Mistake

  • 2 or 3 40 minute sessions
  • Grades: 9-12
  • Lesson Plan

Students trace back Mordechai’s and Haman’s ancestry and see that Megillat Esther’s battle mirrors the battle their ancestors fought.

Introduction

Most students associate Haman with Amalek, as that is what they have been taught, based on traditional sources. Yet not once in Megillat Esther is Haman referred to as an Amaleki. In contrast, students often are unable to trace Mordechai’s ancestry to Sha’ul, even though the author–who, according to tradition is Esther herself–goes out of her way to stress it.

By tracing Mordechai and Haman’s ancestry, students will discover that their conflict in Megillat Esther mirrors a much earlier one. Even though the outcome remains the same (i.e. victory to Israel), subtle differences allow Mordechai’s victory to be more permanent.

In the lesson, students will work on concordance research skills, as well as deepen their understanding of the connection between Tanakh, Midrash, and Talmud.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In order to understand this lesson, students will need to know some background information:

  1. The story of Pilegesh BeGiva in Sefer Shoftim. Students need a basic familiarity with the story with special attention paid to the civil war between the tribe of Binyamin and the other tribes, that the tribe of Binyamin was almost wiped out, and how the few Binyamin survivors of the civil war married the residents of Yavesh Gilad.
  2. The divisions of the Kingdoms of Yehuda and Israel after the death of Shlomo. 
  3. The tribe of Benyamin sided and assimilated into the Kingdom of Yehuda.

It is possible to explain this background before or during the course of the lesson, but it would be far more beneficial if the students had studied this material previously.

Lesson objectives

  1. Regarding the history and heritage of the main characters in Megillat Esther, students will be able to describe:
  • The ancestry of Haman
  • The battle between Shaul and Agag, king of Amalek
  • How Shaul succeeded
  • How Shaul failed
  • The ancestry of Mordechai (primary) and Esther (secondary)– including the history of the city of Yavesh Gilad
  1. Regarding the battle between Mordechai and Haman, students will be able to:
  • Compare and contrast Mordechai’s battle with Haman to Shaul’s battle with Amalek and Agag
  • Articulate where Mordechai and Esther succeeded
  • Posit why Mordechai and Esther succeeded
  • Describe ways that the historical lessons apply to their present lives

Skills

Students will be able to:

  • Examine and analyze Biblical text
  • Compare texts from different Biblical sources
  • Find sources in different texts
  • Use a concordance (either printed or online)
  • Analyze traditional sources such as Midrash and Talmud (Torah she’b’al peh)
  • Compare Tanakh and Torah she’b’al peh sources
  • Describe what Torah she’b’al peh sources add to our understanding of Tanakh texts

Values

Students will be able to appreciate:

  • How Israel’s history seems to have a Divine design to it
  • How one generation can correct the errors of a previous generation
  • How we can learn from our history and potentially apply the lessons to our current lives

Resources & Equipment needed

  • Copies of Megillat Esther for students or Sefaria link
  • Concordance or online concordance
  • Copies of the lesson worksheet for all students (this will be completed throughout the lesson)

Procedure

TRIGGER

Introduce the lesson with two trigger questions: 

    1. Raise your hand if you know who Haman’s famous ancestor was.  
    2. Raise your hand if you know who Mordechai’s famous ancestor was.

Compare the number of hands, It may be more “exciting” if you don’t give them the answer (or allow them to call it out.)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Introduce the lesson with the necessary background information.  This can have been done for homework, can be done frontally, can be done by asking students to summarize, and/or can be done in class with the text of Shoftim and Melachim Aleph (either printed or linked below).

  1. Pilegesh Ba”Givah (Shoftim perakim 19-21)
  2. Division of the Kingdom (Melachim Aleph, perek 12)

LESSON SEQUENCE

  1. Hand out the worksheet.
  2. Work through the worksheet together, citing from text wherever possible.

Note to Teacher: These are answers to the questions on the worksheet. The answers can be a guide for discussion or for formative/summative assessments. 

Question 1

a) (i) Ish Yehudi – a man from the tribe of Yehudah (ii) Ish Yemini – a man from the tribe of Binyamin.

b) Yehuda and Benyamin were separate tribes. How was it possible for Mordechai to belong to both?

c) You will need to explain some history to those students who are unaware of the background: After King Shlomo’s death, ten tribes split away from the ruling tribe, Yehuda, to form a separate country: The Kingdom of Israel or the Northern Kingdom. The tribe of Benyamin remained loyal to Yehuda. Together they formed the Kingdom of Yehuda or the Southern Kingdom (it may be useful for you to use a basic map to demonstrate this distinction).

The Kingdom of Israel was eventually destroyed and its inhabitants exiled. (They are now known as the Ten Lost Tribes and their whereabouts are unknown.) The people of Benyamin assimilated with its dominant partner: Yehuda. Eventually, all the inhabitants of the Southern Kingdom became known as Yehudim (Jews), irrespective of their origin.

This can be compared to Levi’im, who do not originate from the tribe of Yehuda but are nevertheless, also called Yehudim. The author emphasized that although Mordechai was a Yehuda national, his ancestry stemmed from the tribe of Binyamin.

Question 2

a) Yair
b) Shimi
c) Kish – it is possible the author was just mentioning Mordechai’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather by way of a general introduction. However, basic research refutes this claim: these figures are noted in the Tanakh as being heroes of Binyamin ancestry. It is more likely, then, that the author was trying to associate Mordechai with these heroes to show that Mordechai was of noble blood. It is therefore incumbent upon us to learn more about these people.

Question 3

Questions 3–5 provide an excellent way to introduce your students to a concordance and demonstrate its value. You should explain the purpose of a concordance and how it is used.

Ask students to look up the names “Yair”, “Shimi” and “Kish” in the Concordance, so that they can find the references on their own.

a) Yair was known as Yair HaGiladi (Yair from the Gilad). This was the area of land on the trans-Jordan that was inhabited by half the tribe of Menashe.
b) Early on in Israel’s history, the tribe of Binyamin was almost destroyed completely in a civil war. In their anger against Binyamin, the other tribes swore not to allow their daughters to marry the six hundred surviving men. The people of Yavesh Gilad however, did not make this oath, nor did they fight against Binyamin, and therefore, permitted intermarriage. This guaranteed Binyamin’s survival.

Shaul’s first act as king was to defend the inhabitants of Yavesh Gilad from the threat of Nachash HaAmoni. It is possible that Shaul was determined to fight such a risky battle as he considered the Giladim to be family (see Shmuel Aleph perek 11). The ancestors of Gilad were also the ancestors of Binyamin. Yair remains a hero for the tribe of Binyamin as well as the people of Gilad.

Question 4

a) Shimi was from the tribe of Binyamin and was the only surviving relative of Shaul. He was the next in line to the throne and would have been king had David not taken it away from Shaul.

b & c) Shimi considered David the murderer of Shaul’s whole family so that he would not have any challengers to the throne. When David was dethroned by his son Avshalom and was retreating from Jerusalem, Shimi took the opportunity to vent his anger against David, by stoning, cursing, and calling him “the man with blood on his hands.”

Question 5

Kish was Shaul’s father, from the tribe of Binyamin.

Question 6

The author seems to be going out of his/her way to associate Mordechai with Shaul’s royal blood. The students may ask why the author did not say this explicitly. The story of Megillat Esther was written more than five hundred years after Shaul’s death and during the exile of the Jews to Babylonia/Persia. It is possible that the author relied on tradition, rather than direct evidence, given the time discrepancy between the two events. Rather than write something that could not be proven and that could potentially stir up criticism, the author instead hinted at Mordechai’s ancestry, which only the learned understood. 

It should be noted that Megillat Esther comes from the Ketuvim section of the Tanakh, not the Nevi’im section. That is, even though the author was undoubtedly a great scholar who was religiously inspired, s/he was not a prophet who could corroborate all facts through prophecy. Now that we have examined Mordechai’s ancestry, we will examine Haman’s.

Question 7

a) Hamedata
b) The Agagi.

Question 8

Agag was the name of the Amaleki king, whom Shaul defeated and brought home in chains.

Note: While Shmuel preached that Shaul made a terrible mistake by not slaying Agag immediately and confiscating their cattle, militarily and in the eyes of the people, the war against Amalek was a tremendous success. What bigger sign of victory can there be when all the enemy’s wealth has been confiscated and their king captured and brought before the victor tied up in chains?!

Question 9

Hamedata may have been a well-known character at the time, for whom we no longer have any records. You may point out that we have lost many ancient books mentioned in the Tanakh, such as Sefer Milchamot Hashem (Bemidbar 21:14), Sefer HaYashar (Yehoshua 10:13), and even Divrei HaYamim LeMalchut Paras Umadai (Megillat Esther 2:23). Another factor to keep in mind is that this account had to pass the censors; if there were others with the name Haman, they would not want to be confused with the eventual villain and traitor to the king. 

Despite this drawback, we can still conclude that the author is associating Haman with Amalek. Perhaps s/he does not say it explicitly because there is no direct proof. Or, it is possible that Haman displayed certain characteristics of blind hatred towards Jews including the desire for their physical annihilation, and this indicates that he was either the physical descendant of Amalek or a spiritual heir. This would be similar to the way Nazis are considered the descendants of Amalek, even though there is no chronological evidence for this claim.

Question 10

a) Both these battles are attempts at total annihilation of the enemy.
b) Shaul was forbidden to take from the spoils of war, but he did anyway. Mordechai was permitted to take from the spoils of war (see Esther 8:11), yet he did not. Moreover, the megillah goes out of its way to state that the Jewish defenders did NOT take from the spoils. (see Esther 9:15 and 9:16.)

Question 11

Mordechai is associated with being the descendant of Shaul, while Haman is seen as being the heir to Amalek. They seemed to have played out the same battle that their ancestors fought. This time, however, Mordechai, corrects the mistake of his ancestor, by not taking from the spoils of war. Shaul’s battle with Amalek is the haftorah for Shabbat Zachor, the Shabbat before Purim.