The Talmudic perspective of Purim is a combination of confusion and suspicion. The Talmud presents a variety of dilemmas ranging from doubts of Megillat Esther’s divinity [1], questions of its authorship [2] and suspiciously unique holiday customs [3]. However, there is one Talmudic story about Purim that is the most important and most confusing of all. Ultimately revealing how the Talmud managed to reverse the meaning of Megillat Esther in the greatest Purim v’nahafoch hu (reversal of fate) of all (Esther 9:1,22). Turning Mordechai into one of the story’s heroes and inventing God’s involvement.

The Talmud details the cryptic story of two rabbinic scholars, Rabba and Rabbi Zeira, who celebrated Purim together. In their zeal to abide by the unique Purim custom to get drunk, Rabba ends up killing Rabbi Zeira. When Rabba sobers up the next day he begs God for mercy and God revives Rabbi Zeira. The following year Rabba invites Rabbi Zeira again to celebrate Purim together but Rabbi Zeira refuses, responding that ‘one can’t rely on miracles’ (Megillah 7b). I submit that this anecdote is a metaphor of the rabbinate’s complicated relationship with the message of Megillat Esther. A secretive conflict deriving from the rabbinate’s struggle to rationalize the text of Esther and its critique of Mordechai’s guilt and God’s absence. Justifying reversing the roles of both Mordechai and God from the truth of the literal story as the quintessential v’nahafoch hu.

According to the text of Esther, the cause for Israel’s threat of annihilation was Mordechai’s refusal to bow to Haman (Esther 3:2-6), not idolatry (Megillah 12a) [4]. Mordechai refused a royal decree to bow to the viceroy, Haman, while sitting in the royal courtyard (Esther 3:2-3). The text details that Mordechai chose to sit in the royal courtyard, obligating himself to the royal decree to bow. Had he avoided the royal courtyard he would have been absolved of this decree. Furthermore, there was nothing religiously prohibited in this obligation to bow. Unsavory for sure, but certainly not biblically condemnable. Despite what midrashic sources have been offered (Esther Rabbah 7:6-8), the text makes it clear that Mordechai was intentionally making a public protest that he wanted associated with his religious and national identity (3:4). Whatever was so offensive about bowing for Mordehcai is so unimportant to the text that it is never explained. Yet it was important enough to Mordechai that he felt he had to place himself in the palace courtyard to perform his act of civil disobedience. A protest clearly targeted to incite Haman who was so incensed that merely punishing Mordechai was insufficient to him. Mordechai made the conscious decision to bring the rest of his nation into this fight (3:4), therefore Haman was going to include them as well in his response (3:5). Obviously there is no excuse for genocidal intent. Haman is a villain and a reprehensible human, but that does not exonerate catastrophic leadership decisions that invite the attention of evil. The text squarely places the blame of instigation on Mordechai. Yet, despite the undeniable conclusion from the plain meaning of the text, the Talmud (Megillah 12a) posits that Israel deserved national destruction, or at least the threat of destruction, because of idolatry. Yet, the text bears witness to the fact that the people are innocent. The decree of destruction is clearly the result of Mordechai’s behavior. The only way to be convinced of the Talmud’s displacement of blame is if you are motivated to protect the reputation of Mordechai. After all, Mordechai as a member of the Sanhedrin (Megilla 16b) must be expunged of guilt or risk casting the entire rabbinic class into disrepute by association.

Any other book of Tanach would have handled this situation the same way. When Israel faces a national crisis they turn to their leadership, cry out to God, and if deserving are saved from destruction. However, Esther is conspicuously different. There is not a single direct or indirect reference to God at all. There are a few generic expressions of spirituality such as communal fasting and public expressions of mourning, but nothing that is uniquely Jewish or expressly religious. The story is equally compatible with any contemporaneous Mesopotamian community facing crisis. The absence of God in Esther is unique in Tanach in that its salvation explicitly derives from human strategy and heroism. Furthermore, that salvation is arguably the product of Esther alone. The text in fact not only presents Mordechai as the cause of the danger, his role in the actualization of the salvation is minimal at best. The combination of these extreme textual phenomena, Mordechai’s guilt and God’s absence, compelled an even stranger rationalization by the Talmud.

It is difficult to imagine how the text could have made it more clear that it seeks to detail the impressive actions of Queen Esther in the absence of any divine intervention. Therefore, the Talmud (Chullin 139b) submits that the biblical source for Esther is God’s hiddenness, “I will hide [haster astir] My face” (Deuteronomy 31:18) [5]. However, colloquially this biblical reference is understood as a solution for the absence of God in the text rather than the source for the text. Proponents explain that God is not mentioned because He is present but hidden. Orchestrating Israel’s salvation through the manipulation of events and people invisibly. Yet, a careful reading of this biblical source text explicitly argues the exact opposite.

According to the biblical source for hester panim, God is not only hidden, He has also abandoned Israel as a punishment for their sins. God’s hiddenness is the empirical reality of His practical removal of divine protection over Israel. Allowing the nation to fall victim to their enemies because they “go astray after the alien gods in their midst… and break My covenant with them (Deuteronomy 31:16).” This is what triggers God’s anger to “flare up against them” and compels God to “abandon them and hide My face from them…” and allow “many evils and troubles to befall them (Deuteronomy 31:17).” The Talmud connects this idea to Esther as the paradigmatic example. Claiming that the threat of national extermination in Esther was due to idolatry (Megillah 12a) just as God had warned would result in Him hiding His face (Deuteronomy 31:16). However, there is no mention of a national sin of any kind in Esther, certainly not idolatry. Regardless, the biblical text clearly views God’s hiddenness and abandonment as a punishment, not optimistically providential.

Recognizing the negativity of God’s hiddenness and abandonment, many have suggested that it is merely temporary and instructional. They infer from the same text a solution. “They shall say on that day, ‘surely it is because our God is not in our midst that these evils have befallen us’ (Deuteronomy 31:17).” This caveat is often extracted to salvage the idea of God’s hiddenness by suggesting God is merely awaiting the nation’s repentance to provide His providential salvation. However, this too is contradicted by the very same source text. Even after the nation recognizes that their sins caused God to hide, He reiterates that “on that day I will surely hide My face from them for all the evils they have done…” (Deuteronomy 31:18). There is no rectification or solution offered. There is only cause and effect. Abandon God and He abandons the nation. The hiddenness is both a consequence of the sin and a lasting reminder. God is warning that His hiddenness and abandonment is the punishment and does not end with a hopeful statement of pending salvation. It certainly doesn’t say that the nation can rely on God acting behind the scenes for their benefit. The point of this biblical section is to specifically serve as a warning for the dire fate inevitably awaiting a sinful nation (Deuteronomy 20-21,27-29).

Obviously this is a hard fact to accept, especially when the nation is facing impending destruction. However, God’s absence doesn’t mean the nation is fated to destruction. God’s absence only means the rules of nature are no longer asymmetrically altered to favor the nation’s success. Rather, in the absence of divine assistance, the nation’s fate is left to chance. This is the reason Megillat Esther chose to call the holiday Purim (Esther 9:26), deriving from the word pur, meaning lottery. Referring to the game of chance Haman employed to decide the nation’s destruction but Esther reversed to cause Haman’s demise. In a world where God is hidden the only choice is to do whatever is within human control to improve the odds. Esther’s heroism originated from her recognition of this unfortunate necessity. This is why Megillat Esther is a celebration of her tenacity and genius to fabricate salvation when there was no hope of miraculous intervention. This is the secretive message of Esther. The fate of the nation cannot rely on miracles.

Esther properly understood what was happening. God was hidden and abandoned the nation. Maybe it was for historical wrongs from before the destruction of the first Temple. Maybe it was for their own novel sins. The reason was irrelevant to her just as it seems to be irrelevant to the text which neglects to include any reference to it. The empirical reality for Esther and the entire Jewish nation was the absence of divine assistance. If the nation was to survive it would be up to them to materialize their own salvation. Esther rose to the challenge. She devised a plan to manipulate the king to gradually grow suspicious of Haman. Eventually bringing him to lose favor for Haman allowing her to compel the king to reverse Israel’s fate. An ingenious plan of wit and manipulation, epitomized by the mystery of the redundant parties with the king and Haman (see “Did Esther Really Need Two Parties?”). It was specifically the absence of God that made Esther take all the risk, develop a desperate but brilliant strategy and then execute it perfectly. She succeeded despite God, not because of God.

Esther epitomizes the reality within which the post-exilic nation exists. God is hidden. Their enemies are plentiful and powerful. In this vulnerable state religious antagonism to the elite invites evil men to target the nation as a convenient victim. Salvation will only be possible if those possessing any power use it to the nation’s advantage. Living in denial that we retain biblical miraculous divine protection infuses our leadership with erroneous confidence to contend with the cultural or political interests of our host countries. Attracting dangerous attention from those that have the capacity to harm the nation. Such pious leadership is superficially inspiring, but they are unaware that they are playing poker but no longer have an ace up their sleeve. A mistake that has proven devastating for the Jewish people throughout history.

Ironically, arguing that the message of Esther is God’s hidden salvation obscures the true message of the story. Reversing the fate of both God and Mordechai from negative to positive. The true story of Esther is a call to action. Publicising the fact that Jewish survival depends on the concerted effort and strategy of intelligent humans who don’t rely on miracles. Interpreting the story as God manipulating the scenes from the background obscures the true savior of the story, Esther, and distracts from the real blame, Mordechai’s irresponsible leadership. The motivation for this misrepresentation is understandably difficult for the pious to refuse. Honestly interpreting the story encourages a transition of power away from the religious leadership and into the hands of the lay people. Interestingly, the Talmudic discussion of Esther and its customs demonstrates how the rabbinate cautiously accepted the necessity of Esther’s message. Reframing the story to save face but also admitting that moving forward the leadership cannot continue relying on piety and miracles. Going so far as to admit that Purim was the final national miracle (Yoma 29a). A complex conversation that is beyond the scope of the present work.

Canonizing Megillat Esther was the rabbinate’s reluctant and humble recognition that national survival can not be left solely in the hands of those that act piously confident in divine assistance. Such religious leaders are spiritually inspiring, but their confidence that a hidden God will reliably convert their zealousness into salvation is dangerous when what is needed are practical solutions. This is why Mordechai, as the metaphoric proxy of the rabbinate, bears responsibility in the text for inciting destruction on the nation despite doing what he was convinced was right. Mordechai acted by faith alone. Esther was the one who saved the nation because she knew she could not rely on miracles.

This is the real reason why the Talmud (Chullin 139b) chose the biblical source for Esther to be the section detailing God’s indefinite hiddenness and abandonment of the nation (Deuteronomy 31:16-18). The story of Purim only happened because Esther knew God would be absent and the nation’s survival depended on someone with capacity to save them.

The cryptic metaphor of the drunk rabbis disguises this exact message. They both sincerely desired to piously comply with rabbinic instruction, despite that instruction being frowned upon any other day of the year. They were erroneously overconfident. Convinced that acting piously would miraculously protect them from any negative consequences of irresponsible behavior. This is why the next year Rabbi Zeira refused to continue celebrating that way since he realized piety does not protect against natural consequences and chance. He accepted the reality of the world and admitted ‘one cannot rely on miracles.’ The deeper question of the story is why Rabba didn’t come to the same conclusion. This subtle detail hints at an even more compelling secret hidden within the story of Purim and the Talmudic customs infusing the holiday. But that is for another time.

[1] E.g. Megillah 7a, Yoma 29a, Sanhedrin 100a. [2] E.g. Bava Batra 15a, Megillah 7a. [3] E.g. Megillah 7b, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 690:17. [4] There are subtle textual allusions to the Temple which has led some to ponder if the nation’s post-exilic behavior or even their voluntary perpetuation of exile precipitated the subsequent events as suggested by Megillah 12a. However, even the Talmud rejects that idea especially when the text explicitly details an actual cause. [5] The literal phrasing of our modern version of the Talmud appears to question the source for ‘Esther the person,’ however the answer implies the actual question was to source ‘Esther the book’ within the Torah. This is how Rashi understands it as well although he seemed to have also had a different version of the Talmud text.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)