2

In keeping with the practice of taking half a sentence out of context, and playing with the translation in the name of Purim Torah, I will quote maseches Kilaim, chapter nine, mishna nine.

משיחות של ארגמן אסורות.‏

So what exactly is wrong with a purple female Moshiach that the mishna says they are assur?


This question is Purim Torah and is not intended to be taken completely seriously. See the Purim Torah policy.

closed as off-topic by msh210 Mar 23 at 22:11

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Purim Torah questions are on-topic only once a year, and will be closed after Purim. For details, see: Purim Torah policy" – msh210
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

7

It reminds us of the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater, which in turn reminds us of the one eyed one horned flying Lukshon Kuggle eater. And Lukshon Kuggle is very unhealthy.

  • 1
    +1 I was hoping someone would shtel tzu that song:) But considering we are dealing with Moshiach, I was also hoping for the description of Armilus (one big eye, one little eye) to come into play. – user6591 Feb 24 '15 at 16:23
1

A little bit of history is in order. According to Wikipedia,

The first written Greek law code (Locrian code), by Zaleucus in the 7th century BC, stipulated that:

A free-born woman may not be accompanied by more than one female slave, unless she is drunk; she may not leave the city during the night, unless she is planning to commit adultery; she may not wear gold jewelry or a garment with a purple border, unless she is a courtesan... [Later, in the Roman empire] Only the Roman Emperor could wear the symbol of his office, a Tyrian purple cape trimmed in golden thread, and Roman senators were the only ones who could wear the badge of their office, a Tyrian purple stripe on their toga.

In the Megillah as well we find:

אִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, יֵצֵא דְבַר-מַלְכוּת מִלְּפָנָיו, וְיִכָּתֵב בְּדָתֵי פָרַס-וּמָדַי, וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר: אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תָבוֹא וַשְׁתִּי, לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה. וְנִשְׁמַע פִּתְגָם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר-יַעֲשֶׂה בְּכָל-מַלְכוּתוֹ, כִּי רַבָּה הִיא; וְכָל-הַנָּשִׁים, יִתְּנוּ יְקָר לְבַעְלֵיהֶן--לְמִגָּדוֹל, וְעַד-קָטָן

As should be well-known by now, the problem of Vashti was that she was a Rabbah who did not respect her husband, the king. Many have written that the problem with a Rabbah is that which Maimonides codifies:

אין מעמידין אישה במלכות--שנאמר "מלך" (דברים יז,טו), ולא מלכה; וכן כל משימות שבישראל, אין ממנים בהם אלא איש.

This explains why Mordechai was allowed to wear the king's clothing, including purple:

וּמָרְדֳּכַי יָצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, בִּלְבוּשׁ מַלְכוּת תְּכֵלֶת וָחוּר, וַעֲטֶרֶת זָהָב גְּדוֹלָה, וְתַכְרִיךְ בּוּץ וְאַרְגָּמָן; וְהָעִיר שׁוּשָׁן, צָהֲלָה וְשָׂמֵחָה

The problem of Vashti was that she disrespected her husband. Since the halachah follows the opinion that "a man's home is his castle," it follows that Mordechai was the king of his home. However, allowing purple messiahs would violate not only ancient Greek and Roman sumptuary laws, but also perhaps the laws against Rabbahs and female kings that Vashti violated.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .