Let me tell you a story about Mordecai and Haman, two figures whose animosity shaped the fate of an entire people, and whose story is forever entwined with the holiday of Purim.
This tale takes place a little before the events of the Book of Esther, during the reign of King Ahasuerus. According to Legends of the Jews, a city in India decided to rebel against the king. So, naturally, Ahasuerus sent in the troops. Who did he put in charge? None other than Mordecai and Haman. Talk about awkward!
Now, this wasn't going to be a quick skirmish. The campaign was estimated to take three whole years. Imagine the logistics! Provisions, supplies, manpower… everything had to be carefully planned. And initially, it was. Both Mordecai and Haman were given equal provisions for their respective troops, enough to last the entire three years.
But here’s where things get interesting… or, perhaps, predictably disastrous. By the end of the first year, Haman, well, he’d squandered all his supplies. Gone. Poof! Maybe he wasn't the best at managing resources. Maybe he threw some really extravagant parties for his soldiers. Whatever the reason, he was in a serious bind.
So, what did he do? He went to Mordecai, hat in hand, and asked for help. Could Mordecai spare some provisions? But Mordecai, remembering past grievances (and perhaps foreseeing future ones!), refused. Fair is fair, right? They'd both been given the same amount, and Haman had simply mismanaged his share.
Haman, ever the schemer, then offered to borrow from Mordecai and pay him interest. A loan, with usury, or ribbit in Hebrew. Think about that for a second. It wasn't just about the food. It was a power play.
But again, Mordecai refused. And for two very good reasons. First, if Mordecai gave away his supplies, his own soldiers would suffer. He couldn't betray his own men to bail out Haman’s poor planning. But more importantly, there was a principle at stake.
As we find in the Torah, specifically in Deuteronomy 23:20, "Unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury." The Torah prohibits charging interest to fellow Jews. And as the story reminds us, Mordecai and Haman were, in a sense, brothers. They were descendants of Jacob and Esau, respectively. (This connection is highlighted in many sources, including Ginzberg's retelling in Legends of the Jews.) So, lending with interest was not only impractical but also a violation of Jewish law.
Think about the weight of that refusal. It wasn't just about food or money. It was about principles, about fairness, and about the complex, often fraught relationship between brothers. It was a microcosm of the larger conflict that would soon engulf them both, a conflict that would test the very survival of the Jewish people. And all because of a little mismanagement and a refusal to compromise on principle. It makes you wonder, doesn't it, how small decisions can echo through history?