Esther 7:4

[Chris Watts]

I find it difficult to understand the relationship between : "I would have held my tongue/kept silent" and the qualifying reason : "because/since? the adversary/oppression could not equal the damage done to the King". (IE, his revenue from the Jewish population within his provinces, the taxes, the beneficial labour - I suppose)

I do understand an economic cause and effect with the loss of a part of your population, but it is Esther's statement about keeping silent that throws me a bit.

כִּ֤י נִמְכַּ֙רְנוּ֙ אֲנִ֣י וְעַמִּ֔י לְהַשְׁמִ֖יד לַהֲר֣וֹג וּלְאַבֵּ֑ד וְ֠אִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִ֨ים וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת נִמְכַּ֙רְנוּ֙ הֶחֱרַ֔שְׁתִּי כִּ֣י אֵ֥ין הַצָּ֛ר שֹׁוֶ֖ה בְּנֵ֥זֶק הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃

Chris Watts

[Jason Hare]

The first relationship is between

כִּ֤י נִמְכַּ֙רְנוּ֙ אֲנִ֣י וְעַמִּ֔י לְהַשְׁמִ֖יד לַהֲר֣וֹג וּלְאַבֵּ֑ד
For we have been sold—my people and I—to wipe out, to kill, and to destroy.

and

וְ֠אִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִ֨ים וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת נִמְכַּ֙רְנוּ֙ הֶחֱרַ֔שְׁתִּי
And if we had been sold as slaves and maidservants, I would have been silent.

The second sentence is a conditional that explains why Esther is speaking up at all. She says that if the people had simply been sold as slaves, then she would have remained silent. However, it is because they have been sold for their own destruction that she feels compelled to speak.

A couple of things about the text:

(1) BHS suggests that הַצָּר שֹׁוֶה should probably be read as הַצָּלָה שֹׁוָה. This might change our understanding of the text. "For deliverance (from slavery) is not worth the king's trouble."

(2) HALOT brings up this specific verse in its entry on שׁוה and quotes it as: "because it is not a need sufficient to trouble the king."

Taking it in this way, צַר should be taken as a substantive, referring to an anxiety or a need. The verb שֹׁוֶה is negated by אֵין, since it's a participle. The thing that it is compared to is prefixed with בְּ־.

כִּ֣י אֵ֥ין הַצָּ֛ר שֹׁוֶ֖ה בְּנֵ֥זֶק הַמֶּֽלֶךְ
For the need (of setting slaves free) is not worth the king's trouble.

Whereas, the need of keeping her people from destruction is indeed worthy of his attention.

HALOT on צַר

I צַר‎: I צרר‎, Bauer-L. Heb. 453y; SamP. ṣår; MHeb.: צָֽר‎, fem. צָרָה‎.

① adj.: —a. narrow Nu 22:26, חֹשֶׁךְ צַר stifling darkness Is 5:30, see Wildberger BK 10:204, 207, Is 49:20 (מָקוֹם‎, see also I צרר‎ qal A, 1 a) Pr 23:27 (בְּאֵר‎), Jb 41:7 (חוֹתָם‎) tightly closed with a seal, sealed tightly (Budde GHK 2/1²:265) :: cj. see below; צַר מִן‎ too cramped for 2K 6:1; —b. meagre Pr 24:10 (כֹּחַ‎), see Gemser Spr.² 88, 89.

② sbst.: —a. restraint, anxiety Jb 7:11 15:24; —b. need Is 26:16, cj. 30:20 for לֶחֶם צָר prp. לֶ׳ מִצָּר bread without need, see Wildberger BK 10:1189, 1190f, Ps 4:2 32:7 119:143 (parallel with מָצוֹק), Jb 36:19 38:23 Est 7:4, see Bardtke KAT 17/4-5:351, 354; פִּי צָר jaws of need (NRSV: distress; REB: hardship) Jb 36:16.

—cj.: —a. Is 63:9 for צָר prp. צִר, → II צִיר; —b. Jb 41:7 for חוֹתָם צָר prp. with Sept. חוֹתַם צֹר a seal of flint → I צֹר; —c. Is 59:19 כַּנָּהָר צָר‎ → I צור qal 4 a; —d. 1S 2:32 צַר מָעוֹן “limited in space”, which does not fit the context; textual corruption; for the various attempts at emendation see Stoebe KAT 8/1, 117. †

⟦ Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 1052. ⟧

[Jason Hare]

By the way, I really appreciate your question, Chris. I spent the evening doing some rearrangement of my bedroom, where I have my computer hooked up to a large monitor/television. I opened your question and let is sit as I worked on things, and I thought about it for quite some time. I really love the sense of Hebrew conditionals (especially counterfactual conditionals), and I kicked this verse around quite a bit before looking at HALOT and other sources. It was an enjoyable verse to process and to think about Esther's approach to the king and her defense of her people. Thanks for the question!

[Chris Watts]

The first relationship is between

כִּ֤י נִמְכַּ֙רְנוּ֙ אֲנִ֣י וְעַמִּ֔י לְהַשְׁמִ֖יד לַהֲר֣וֹג וּלְאַבֵּ֑ד
For we have been sold—my people and I—to wipe out, to kill, and to destroy.

and

וְ֠אִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִ֨ים וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת נִמְכַּ֙רְנוּ֙ הֶחֱרַ֔שְׁתִּי
And if we had been sold as slaves and maidservants, I would have been silent.

The second sentence is a conditional that explains why Esther is speaking up at all. She says that if the people had simply been sold as slaves, then she would have remained silent. However, it is because they have been sold for their own destruction that she feels compelled to speak.

A couple of things about the text:

(1) BHS suggests that הַצָּר שֹׁוֶה should probably be read as הַצָּלָה שֹׁוָה. This might change our understanding of the text. "For deliverance (from slavery) is not worth the king's trouble."

(2) HALOT brings up this specific verse in its entry on שׁוה and quotes it as: "because it is not a need sufficient to trouble the king."

Taking it in this way, צַר should be taken as a substantive, referring to an anxiety or a need. The verb שֹׁוֶה is negated by אֵין, since it's a participle. The thing that it is compared to is prefixed with בְּ־.

כִּ֣י אֵ֥ין הַצָּ֛ר שֹׁוֶ֖ה בְּנֵ֥זֶק הַמֶּֽלֶךְ
For the need (of setting slaves free) is not worth the king's trouble.

Whereas, the need of keeping her people from destruction is indeed worthy of his attention.

HALOT on צַר

I צַר‎: I צרר‎, Bauer-L. Heb. 453y; SamP. ṣår; MHeb.: צָֽר‎, fem. צָרָה‎.

① adj.: —a. narrow Nu 22:26, חֹשֶׁךְ צַר stifling darkness Is 5:30, see Wildberger BK 10:204, 207, Is 49:20 (מָקוֹם‎, see also I צרר‎ qal A, 1 a) Pr 23:27 (בְּאֵר‎), Jb 41:7 (חוֹתָם‎) tightly closed with a seal, sealed tightly (Budde GHK 2/1²:265) :: cj. see below; צַר מִן‎ too cramped for 2K 6:1; —b. meagre Pr 24:10 (כֹּחַ‎), see Gemser Spr.² 88, 89.

② sbst.: —a. restraint, anxiety Jb 7:11 15:24; —b. need Is 26:16, cj. 30:20 for לֶחֶם צָר prp. לֶ׳ מִצָּר bread without need, see Wildberger BK 10:1189, 1190f, Ps 4:2 32:7 119:143 (parallel with מָצוֹק), Jb 36:19 38:23 Est 7:4, see Bardtke KAT 17/4-5:351, 354; פִּי צָר jaws of need (NRSV: distress; REB: hardship) Jb 36:16.

—cj.: —a. Is 63:9 for צָר prp. צִר, → II צִיר; —b. Jb 41:7 for חוֹתָם צָר prp. with Sept. חוֹתַם צֹר a seal of flint → I צֹר; —c. Is 59:19 כַּנָּהָר צָר‎ → I צור qal 4 a; —d. 1S 2:32 צַר מָעוֹן “limited in space”, which does not fit the context; textual corruption; for the various attempts at emendation see Stoebe KAT 8/1, 117. †

⟦ Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 1052. ⟧

Thankyou Jason for the grammatical analysis as well. Plus the descriptives of the hebrew word. i must add that quoting HALOT is like trying to read chinese, BDB is just as bad if not worse (I have the references and never ever look at BDB - impossible to read). I use Gesenius and tragelles - hope you understand. Without going into detail is it possible that Esther's remark has more to do with saying that the damage done to the King by this action would be worse than the action itself, Or possibly another explanation that this action is not even equal to the wealth that what haman had originally promised to the King when he petitioned the King's permission to start this , I am relying on scriptural consistency with the verb : נזק as used in Ezra 4: 13, 15 and 22 where this word is used in relation to damage to the King's Koffers, his finances? A word that occurs only 5 times in all scripture, 3 in Ezra, one in Daniel and one here in Esther.

By the way I have never been thanked for asking a question, so thanks for thanking me Jason. Interesting could you give
just some easy examples of CounterFactual Conditionals so that I can appreciate what you mean. Stress is on the descriptive "Easy to process"

Chris Watts

'

[ducky]

Hi Chris and Jason,

Jason, there is no need to offer a suggestion of הצלה instead of הצר.
It sounds very far and very pushed.
And I don't see even why it is needed.
The same understanding can be made with reading the word הצר in the meaning of "trouble" (like צר ומצוק in Psalms).
And with that, the same understanding of Esther saying that she wouldn't bother the king for that trouble (of slavery) is made as well.

**
Chris, in your first post you said that you don't understand, but according to what I read, you did understand it.

One of the explanations is the way you said it.
She wouldn't say anything if the people would become slaves (since it wouldn't hurt the king's wealth), but since it is about killing them, it means that the buyer (Haman) doesn't really care about the king's wealth.

***
These words of her are not just to be understood in a simple way. Her speech is very rhetorical, and even though it seems that her words are about seeking mercy, she is actually blaming Haman for betrayal.

[Chris Watts]

Hi Chris and Jason,

Chris, in your first post you said that you don't understand, but according to what I read, you did understand it.

One of the explanations is the way you said it.
She wouldn't say anything if the people would become slaves (since it wouldn't hurt the king's wealth), but since it is about killing them, it means that the buyer (Haman) doesn't really care about the king's wealth.

***
These words of her are not just to be understood in a simple way. Her speech is very rhetorical, and even though it seems that her words are about seeking mercy, she is actually blaming Haman for betrayal.

Hallo David, in an attempt to grapple with the rhetoric, may I put forward the inverse of Esther's speech thus:
" We are being sold as slaves, I am keeping silent about this because the oppressor/enemy is able to re-imburse the damage done to the King: (Finances and economically that is). In this manner I understand it much better, but am I correct? So it would seem to me that Esther is cunningly taking the emphasis AWAY from the danger to her people and subtly laying the emphasis on a threat to the King's administration and his wealth.

Chris Watts

[Jason Hare]

As much as I like Gesenius, scholarship has moved on from that time. HALOT is better because it is more updated in terms of the scholarship behind it. That's why I quote it. It's worth learning to understand it.

As far as נֶ֫זֶק nḗzeq is concerned, even though it is only used five times in the Bible, it is a very commonly used word in later Hebrew. In fact, there's an entire order of the Talmud called נְזִיקִין nəzîqîn, the plural that is used of the singular נִזְקָא nizqāʾ in Jewish Aramaic. From this is derived the verb Hebrew לְהַזִּיק ləhazzîq "to cause damage" in the rabbinic period.

The word refers to all kinds of injuries or damages incurred as the result of an accident or mistreatment by another. It can certainly refer to financial damages incurred as the result of a bad decision, but it doesn't seem to mean that here. HALOT specifically says that it refers to a burden that you put upon someone, which I think is what we should see it as here. By drawing the king's attention, she is asking him to take up the burden of her request. She says that if her people were simply servants, she wouldn't burden the king; but the fact that their annihilation is being planned, she feels that this is important enough to come to him with her burden (and to make it his burden).

[Jason Hare]

Hi Chris and Jason,

Jason, there is no need to offer a suggestion of הצלה instead of הצר.
It sounds very far and very pushed.
And I don't see even why it is needed.
The same understanding can be made with reading the word הצר in the meaning of "trouble" (like צר ומצוק in Psalms).
And with that, the same understanding of Esther saying that she wouldn't bother the king for that trouble (of slavery) is made as well.

I didn't write the BHS or its textual apparatus. I'm just saying what it says. It reads: ᵃ⁻ᵃ prp הַצָּלָה שׁוָֹה. That means that it should "probably" (prp) be read as הַצָּלָה שׁוָֹה. Take it up with them. I didn't write it.

[ducky]

Hello David, in an attempt to grapple with the rhetoric, may I put forward the inverse of Esther's speech thus:
" We are being sold as slaves, I am keeping silent about this because the oppressor/enemy is able to reimburse the damage done to the King: (Finances and economically that is). In this manner I understand it much better, but am I correct? So it would seem to me that Esther is cunningly taking the emphasis AWAY from the danger to her people and subtly laying the emphasis on a threat to the King's administration and his wealth.

Chris Watts

Hi Chris,

If I read you right, then your literal understanding is wrong.
She doesn't say that she and her people were sold to slavery.

Let's do it part by part.

כי נמכרנו אני ועמי .1 - we were sold/given away (for what?) -->2.

להשמיד להרוג ולאבד .2 - to be killed and ended...
(Notice that the infinitives here are in their active forms but the meaning is passive.
It is written in active form because it is the version that was written in Haman's letters. So she's saying the same forms, but the meaning is passive).

So up until now, she's telling the king that she and her people were given away to be killed.

3. ואלו לעבדים ולשפחות נמכרנו - and if we were sold to be slaves
(literal order: and if **to be** slaves we were sold)
(Notice that the prefix ל comes to bring the purpose
It is not that they would be sold to slaves (as being slaves of slaves)
but they are sold to be slaves).

4. החרשתי - I would be silent.

**
So basically, she starts with the fact (as Haman's letters write): We were given away to be killed.
And then she makes a comparison between this case of killing and to the case of slavery (which is not what really happens).
But she says that if it would be just a case of slavery - she would not say a thing about it. But since it is not just a case of slavery, but a case of death, she must talk.

****
As for the last part
כי אין הצר שוה בנזק המלך
This part, even though the basic meaning is understood, it is not clear to the point. And so some words in it can be understood in a few ways, and with that, a few translations can be made.

The word צר can be understood as the enemy or as the trouble.
The word שוה can be understood as worthy, equal, thinks about, gives benefit.
The word נזק can be understood as a loss, damage, burden, bother.

So there could be a few ways to connect these meanings into a few meanings.

you wrote about the damage to the king...
And of course one of the ways to also see it is that she shows him the financial damage that Haman causes him. Because killing people would make him lose taxes and so on. But by making them slaves - he doesn't really lose a financial force. And also, he can un-slave them any time he wants - what he cannot do with killed people.

***
And you are right that she tries to show the king that the other side of the contract is really trying to harm him.

And the fact that she starts her words with "Me and my people" (Me=the queen).
She actually "hints" about another man try to have the queen (a sign of betrayal).
Also, the fact that she throws the slavery option (that didn't exist) gives the sense of trying to make himself a new king (after all, when you buy and enslave a whole ethnic group as yours, you actually turn yourself into a king of a people).
And she wisely finishes with "I wouldn't talk if it wouldn't harm the king" - as if it is own interest to punished that "mysterious man" (which was the king loyal man).

[Chris Watts]

Hello David, in an attempt to grapple with the rhetoric, may I put forward the inverse of Esther's speech thus:
" We are being sold as slaves, I am keeping silent about this because the oppressor/enemy is able to reimburse the damage done to the King: (Finances and economically that is). In this manner I understand it much better, but am I correct? So it would seem to me that Esther is cunningly taking the emphasis AWAY from the danger to her people and subtly laying the emphasis on a threat to the King's administration and his wealth.

Chris Watts

Hi Chris,

If I read you right, then your literal understanding is wrong.
She doesn't say that she and her people were sold to slavery.

Hallo David, thankyou for that exhaustive explanation. Unfortunately I wrote the inverse of what Esther said in order to Clarify for myself what she was actually meaning, IE I understood that she was not being enslaved. Sometimes in maths I think the opposite in order to work out the correct calculation, a bit like reverse engineering. The clarification you gave certainly cements my understanding, thankyou.