The Long Awaited Change
Miriam Weitman
The deliverance from death to life that led to the establishment of Purim did not warrant the recitation of Hallel as part of the celebration of this holiday. The Talmud (Megillah 14b) is puzzled by this, and explains: “Hallel is not recited for a miracle that occurs outside of Israel … and Rava said ... we are still slaves to Ahashverosh.” Hallel is not recited on Purim, because although the Jews were saved from death, they were still not redeemed from exile.
Does this statement by Chazal express pain and grief over the continued exile, or criticism of the Jews who remained in exile? Was it possible to immigrate to the Land of Israel in the time of Ahashverosh? What was the historical background of the book of Esther, and what was happening in Israel at that time?
The book of Esther begins by stating a date: the third year of King Ahashverosh’s reign. However, this date, along with all the other time references in the Megillah which relate to Ahashverosh’s reign, reveals nothing of Jewish history or the occurrences in the Land of Israel at that time, and reflects only Jewish life under a foreign ruler. This is a shift from other dates in Tanakh, which reference the Exodus from Egypt (i.e. Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1 Kings), or the reign of the Kings of Israel and Judah (i.e. in Kings and some of the prophets), or even the years of exile (e.g. Ezekiel).
However, that which is veiled in Esther is explicated elsewhere in Tanakh. The books of Haggai, Zechariah, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah also reference the reign of Persian kings, and the edicts in the days of Ahashverosh are also mentioned in the book of Ezra, in the description of the difficulties faced by the returnees to Zion:
Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah … during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia. At the beginning of the reign of Ahashverosh, they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem (Ezra 4:4-6).
According to pseudo-Rashi and other commentators and scholars, this Ahashverosh, who ‘lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem,’ is identified as the historical Xerxes, son of Darius and grandson of Cyrus – the very order of Persian kings that appears in the book of Ezra. The book of Esther presents Ahashverosh’s edict against the Jews from the perspective of all the Jews of Ahashverosh’s kingdom, while the book of Ezra presents the edict from the viewpoint of the Jews in Israel, which was one of the provinces under the rule of the Persian empire, whose reign ranged from the Far East to Cush in Africa.
It therefore seems that the story of Esther took place during the time of the Return to Zion, but the Jews of Persia and Media did not return. They did not join their fate with the fate of the people who followed God’s message to Cyrus (Ezra 1:1) nor were they among those “whose spirit God had stirred to ascend and rebuild the house of the Lord in Jerusalem” (1:5). They also did not join the later waves of Aliya, described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. While their Jewish kin were coping with the hardships of trying to restore the land, engaged in battles to rebuild the Temple, the Persian and Median Jews enjoyed the king’s lavish feasts in Shushan. The returnees brought back some of the holy vessels conquered from the Temple by the King of Babylonia:
King Cyrus brought out the vessels belonging to the Temple of the Lord, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem … gold dishes 30 … silver pans 29 …
gold bowls 30 … other articles 1,000 … Sheshbazzar brought all these along with the exiles when they came up from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:7-11).
The detailed description of the vessels which were returned to Jerusalem indicates that these were not the Temple’s primary vessels; some of the vessels listed here do not appear in the descriptions of the Tabernacle or the First Temple. Nonetheless, returning vessels to Jerusalem brought tidings of continuity and an aspiration to rebuild the Temple. Chazal identify the “vessels of various kinds” (Esther 1:7) used by Ahashverosh in his feast as the Temple vessels which were exiled with the Jews (Megillah 19a). This is an expression not only of the exile and destruction in the background of the story of Esther, but also the tension between those in the nation who were engaged in returning the vessels to Jerusalem and the Temple, and those who became submerged in the Shushan feasts. Perhaps Chazal linked the odd phrase ‘other articles’ (כֵּלִים אֲחֵרִים) with the description of “vessels of various kinds” (וְכֵלִים מִכֵּלִים שׁוֹנִים) in Ahashverosh’s feast.
Even after experiencing a harsh threat of near-annihilation by Haman, the Jews of Persia and Media took no steps toward change. The megillah ends with the description of Mordecai’s high court position, and its blessed influence on his fellow Jews, much like Joseph’s position in Egypt:
Mordecai the Jew was second in rank to King Ahashverosh, preeminent among the Jews, and held in high esteem by his many fellow Jews, because he worked for the good of his people and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews.
(Esther 10:3).
However, the Talmud relates to this idyllic description as nothing more than exile and slavery: “we are still slaves to Ahashverosh.” The evil edict might have led to an introspection that could create a deeper change than continued comfortable life under the auspices of a Jewish second-in-command under the rule of Ahashverosh.
We too underwent a horrifying upheaval over the last months: a massacre, deaths, captivity, and a long hard war with many casualties. Will we be different than the Persian Jews in the wake of this disaster? Will we seek a deeper change after everything we’ve been through?
The Rambam opens his Laws of Fasting with instructions for coping with a personal or communal crisis:
When a disaster befalls, and the people cry out [to God] and sound the trumpets, everyone will realize that it occurred because of their evil conduct … and this will cause the removal of this trouble. But if the people do not cry out [to God] and do not sound the trumpets, and instead say, ‘What has happened to us is merely a natural phenomenon and this difficulty is merely a chance occurrence,’ this is a cruel conception, which causes them to remain attached to their wicked deeds (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Ta’aniyot 1:2-3).
The natural tendency in times of trouble is to look back, but the Rambam calls us to also look forward: not only to ask why, but also – to what end. A crisis should be employed toward introspection that creates change, improvement, and progress.
Our nation has experienced many overwhelming societal crises throughout the generations, including a civil war in the era of the Judges and the major separation of the united monarchy of Israel into two rivaling kingdoms. We too experienced a deep and painful societal crisis in the year that preceded Simchat Torah 5784. On the other hand, the sense of unity, dedication, and giving after Simchat Torah 5784 has been the among the greatest we have ever seen, a reminder of our common goals and desires. Will we be wise enough to maintain this giving spirit?
The Hatam Sofer offers two reasons for the mitzvah of Mishloach Manot:
The Trumat Hadeshen writes that the purpose is to provide people celebrating a joyous occasion with what they need: perhaps one will not have enough for a celebratory meal, so his friend helps him. And we might say even if he has plenty, this was established to prevent shame from those who are lacking … but in the book Manot Halevi it says the purpose is to enhance a sense of peace and friendship, to counter what our enemy said, that we are scattered and dispersed (Hatam Sofer, Orah Haim 695:3).
The first reason relates to a practical concern for the physical needs of others, while the second reason relates to an expression of peace, friendship, and comradery. Both elements seem to have merged into one since the Swords of Iron War began. We have experienced a society with a spirit of giving, volunteering, and incredible unity, on the front lines and the home front. We should pray and strive to continue down this path, to embark on a new road in the social dynamic in Israel, filled with a spirit of peace and friendship, and resolve our differences – even the most critical and extreme – peacefully, without personal tension.
The maker of peace on high, he should bring peace upon us, and upon all Israel, and we say: Amen.
עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן