Three stories widely divergent in plot

and setting converge upon a single

truth. The stories are those of Queen

Esther Rabbi Menashe Ben Israel and the sons of

Yaakov.

We’ll begin with the story of Queen Esther.

Let us imagine for a moment that Esther had cast

her accusations against Haman at the first drink-fest she

made for the king and his loyal minister. Suppose she

had given a straight answer then to the king’s question

“What is your request? Up to half the kingdom and it

shall be done.” Would her request have been granted?

Presumably not. Haman was then at the height of his

power and it doesn’t seem likely that the king would

have acceded to her demand.

The Megillah tells us however that Esther didn’t

ask a thing of him; she merely invited him and Haman

to a second banquet. Why didn’t she come right out with

her request? What intuition made her hesitate? We don’t

know. What we do know is that by putting it off for

another day she set off a chain of events that she didn’t

know about and certainly couldn’t control and that

these events brought about a new set of circumstances

overnight such that the next day her request was granted

and the wicked Haman was led to the gallows.

What brought about the change? We find the

answers tucked in among the psukim and the

Midrashim expound upon them. The exclusive nature

of the first banquet itself to which the king and Haman

were the only invitees sowed the seed of a certain fear

and jealousy in Achashveirosh’s heart a rising suspicion

as to why Haman was invited. Perhaps he and Esther

were weaving some sort of intrigue behind his back?

On this account his sleep was disturbed. An invitation

that was issued for the purpose of charging Haman with

genocide gave rise to fear on the king’s part that Esther

and Haman were getting too congenial.

And the King of the Universe Who also wasn’t

sleeping that night was contriving the next development:

the reading of the royal book of remembrances which

revealed that Mordechai had not been suitably rewarded

for having once saved the king’s life. Meanwhile Haman

is also experiencing new feelings; his pride is soaring

higher than ever as a result of Esther’s invitation. Thus

he comes to the king with a request that Mordechai be

hanged at the very moment when the king is consumed

with jealousy against him and is preoccupied at the same

time with the question of what should be done for a man

whom the king desires to honor. The wicked Haman

assuming that it is his own honor that has ascended in

the royal court suggests the pompous display he craves

for himself and the king’s jealousy increases. And now

conditions are ripe for Esther’s plea to be granted at the

second day of feasting.

That is the famous story of v’nahafoch hu the turning

of the tables against Haman. No diplomacy no court

politics manipulations or persuasions brought about

the reversal but rather Esther’s hesitation — planned

or not — to state her request at the first wine banquet.

Unknowingly and passively she triggered the reversal

by her very inaction — Divine providence after all

needs no human deed to bring about the desired result

nothing but purity of the human heart and of motive.

More than 1500 years after the events in Shushan we

meet Rabbi Menashe Ben Israel the rav of Amsterdam

who traveled to London to try to have a 300-year old

edict of expulsion against the Jews revoked.

And what looked like a painful diplomatic failure

at the time was in fact the catalyst for a major success.

The two men whose lives crossed paths were Oliver

Cromwell (1599–1658) and Rabbi Menashe Ben Israel

(1565–1657). Cromwell was the brilliant and unbending

leader of the Puritans who took their inspiration from

the Tanach. Rabbi Menashe the son of Anusim from

Portugal became a prolific writer a diplomat and a

publisher as well as taking the rabbinical seat in the city

of Amsterdam. One was a bold military commander

whose soldiers carried Bibles in their kit bags took

Biblical names for themselves and idealized their war

against the Catholic Church as “Israel’s war against

Amalek”; the other was a distinguished rabbi of broad

horizons proficient in fourteen languages welcome at

the courts of kings and queens and admired by Christian

intellectuals in many lands.

The events of that stormy period colluded to bring

together the Lord Protector — Cromwell who had

seized power in London — and the Rav of Amsterdam.

At the time the Jews of Europe were drowning in their

own blood. Catholic zealotry had lit the bonfires of

the auto-da-fe in Spain and Portugal. Refugees were

flowing into communities where religious freedom

prevailed such as Amsterdam Livorno and Hamburg.

In Eastern Europe the Cossack hordes of Chmielnicki

were wreaking havoc in Poland and Ukraine and from

there too many Jews were fleeing westward.

Rabbi Menashe went out in search of some

lebensraum for his displaced people. Cromwell’s

England was showing signs of tolerance despite the

harsh religious principles of the Puritans. After much

careful maneuvering Rabbi Menashe personally visited the British Parliament in 1655 to present a formal request

that they repeal the expulsion edict issued against the Jews

in 1290. Yet although he enjoyed Cromwell’s personal

sympathies and dined at his table at least once and despite

Cromwell’s position of absolute power the repeal of the

edict was not ratified by Parliament.

Nevertheless there was an influx of Jews to London a

kehillah was formed and the authorities were sympathetic

enough to turn a blind eye. That was good enough for

the Jews but not for Menashe Ben Israel. He wanted a

Declaration of Rights officially sanctioned and binding.

But all his efforts at persuasion were to no avail.

Menashe Ben Israel returned to Holland disappointed and

died there brokenhearted feeling he had failed in his life’s

mission.

Now comes the interesting part. According to Professor

Cecil Roth after the Lord Protector’s death in 1658 and

the succession of his son Richard Cromwell a period of

general turmoil ensued.

“The Lord Mayor and the Corporation of the City of

London lost no time in presenting a petition complaining

in exaggerated terms of the great increase of Jews in

England their interference with the trade of the citizens

and their treasonable correspondence with their coreligionists

in other states beseeching the king ‘to cause

the former laws made against the Jews to be put into

execution and to recommend to your two Houses of

Parliament to enact such new ones for the expulsion of

all professed Jews out of your Majesty’s dominions and

to bar the door after them …’

“The small London community which had already

begun to take precautions … was thrown into panic and

hastily prepared a counter-petition. But meanwhile other

influences had been at work. Charles II was essentially

tolerant in a manner in which Cromwell was not simply

because religion was to him a matter of minor consequence.

On conscientious grounds he had no objection whatsoever

to the presence of Jews in his dominions … The House

determined to consider the matter at an early opportunity.

A week later before anything was done the Convention

Parliament was dissolved and it does not appear that the

City of London even received a reply to its address. But

the Crown's attitude was clearly defined: on the question

of tolerating the Jews Charles II had taken up much the

same position as Oliver Cromwell.

“In this manner there was obtained easily — almost

casually — from Charles Stuart that formal instrument

which Menasseh ben Israel had despairingly endeavoured

to procure from the all-powerful Lord Protector….

“That the resettlement of the Jews escaped the same

fate as the Commonwealth and everything associated with

it was in fact because of what Menasseh ben Israel had

considered his failure.” (Cecil Roth A History of the Jews

in England Chapter 7)

And that is our second story an illustration of man’s

possibilities and limitations of the great deeds he endeavors

to accomplish his creative power … and nevertheless his

lack of control over the long-term results.

Here we come to a point of contact between the

narrative of Yosef’s brothers traveling to Egypt and our

other two stories so divergent in setting and plot. The

heroes of this Biblical tale had also acted according to

their wishes and interests but they never imagined the

consequences. They had laughed at Yosef’s dreams

of monarchy and sought to confound them by selling

him to Egyptian travelers … leading him straight to his

awaiting throne. Divine providence chose to use them of

all people to advance its own plan. One who will take a

long historical view will see how the descendants of this

same Yosef ruled in Samaria for hundreds of years over

the nation of Israel.

These three stories lead us to one truth a truth

most clearly and eloquently expressed by the prophet

Yeshayahu (46:10): “I tell the end from the beginning and

from before what was not done; I say ‘My counsel shall

stand and all My desire I will do.’ ”

Rabbi Menashe Ben Israel acted nobly for the sake

of his nation. All his dedication and love for his people

were expressed in his failed diplomatic mission. Yet his

value as a person from the Jewish point of view is not

determined by his practical success or failure — these

are in G‑d’s hands — but by his loyalty to Torah values:

justice honesty truth and morality in his every action.

The sons of Yaakov on the other hand failed to

prevent Hashem’s will from materializing. Yosef became

viceroy of Egypt through their actions. But that did not

change the way their act was judged — the sale of Yosef

brought condemnation and retribution. The Torah saw this

behavior as ill-befitting these lofty men.

Esther’s act reached an even higher level. All she

did (after asking the nation to fast and do teshuvah) was

invite the king to a small party. That was all. Everything

that followed happened on its own. Yet the pure will to

save others to do what is right is enough to set Divine

providence in motion.

Today “coincidental” events add up and evil alliances

are formed against us as individuals as a people and as a

state. Yet we should be comforted by the thought that no

matter how bad things may appear we never see the end

of the story.