In most religious schools, the story of Purim ends with the demise of the evil Haman. But in the Book of Esther, the story continues. By the time the story ends, the Jews have slaughtered thousands of their enemies all over Persia. How do we understand these large scale acts of violence? Is there any possible justification for the taking of so many lives? To better answer this question, let's look back at this often overlooked section of the Book of Esther.
Ase we read this passage, let's ask ourselves:
1. What exactly happened in Persia on the 13th and 14th of Adar.
2. Who did the Jews kill?
3. Why did the Jews kill so many people.
4. What is the significance of the fact that the Jews did not take any spoil?
Dalphon,
Aspatha, (8) Poratha,
Adalia,
Aridatha, (9) Parmashta,
Arisai,
Aridai,
and Vaizatha, (10) the ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the foe of the Jews. But they did not lay hands on the spoil. (11) When the number of those slain in the fortress Shushan was reported on that same day to the king, (12) the king said to Queen Esther, “In the fortress Shushan alone the Jews have killed a total of five hundred men, as well as the ten sons of Haman. What then must they have done in the provinces of the realm! What is your wish now? It shall be granted you. And what else is your request? It shall be fulfilled.” (13) “If it please Your Majesty,” Esther replied, “let the Jews in Shushan be permitted to act tomorrow also as they did today; and let Haman’s ten sons be impaled on the stake.” (14) The king ordered that this should be done, and the decree was proclaimed in Shushan. Haman’s ten sons were impaled: (15) and the Jews in Shushan mustered again on the fourteenth day of Adar and slew three hundred men in Shushan. But they did not lay hands on the spoil. (16) The rest of the Jews, those in the king’s provinces, likewise mustered and fought for their lives. They disposed of their enemies, killing seventy-five thousand of their foes; but they did not lay hands on the spoil. (17) That was on the thirteenth day of the month of Adar; and they rested on the fourteenth day and made it a day of feasting and merrymaking. (
To understand this story, it is important to note that there are other stories in the Bible where God seems to command wholesale slaughter of the enemies. For example, look at God's instructions regarding the Amalekites and how Saul carried them out.
As time went on, some rabbis and scholars began to question how God could sanction the wholesale slaughter of so many people. Let's look at some the answers we find in medieval sources. For each source, let's try to identify the case that the commentator is making that the Jews' action in Persia were justified.
(א) ונחתוםשם . יש לשאול למה כתב מרדכי להרוג שונאי היהודים ורב לו ולהם שימלטו, דע כי חכם גדול היה והנה אחשורוש אמר לו עם כל מה שתוכל כדי למלט עמך כי הספרים הראשונים שכתב המן נכתבו בשמי ונחתמו בטבעתי לא אוכל להשיבם כי כן דת מדי ופרס,
Why did Mordechai write that the Jews should kill their enemies? Would it not be enough for him and for them that they (the Jews) should escape? Know that Mordechai was a great and wise man and Ahasuerus said to him "Whatever you might try to do to have your people escape, the original letters that Haman had written in my name and sealed with my signet ring--I can't take them back for that is the law of Persia and Media."
. "ונח מאויביהם" (פסוק טז), פירוש "ונח מאויביהם" שלא היו צריכים לדאוג מהם כלל. ומתחלה כתיב (כאן) "ועמוד על נפשם" להציל אותם מן המות, ואחר כך אמר "ונח מאויביהם" שהיו נחים מן המצירים להם, ולא היו דואגים עוד שיהיו מצירים להם. אבל שיהיו נחים ועושים יום טוב, זה לא היה ביום י"ג, רק ביום י"ד. ועל זה כתיב (להלן פסוק יח) "והיהודים אשר בשושן נקהלו בשלשה עשר בו ובארבעה עשר ונוח בחמשה עשר". ואצל שאר מדינות כתב "ונוח מאויביהם", ולא אצל שושן, וזה כמו שבארנו למעלה כי עיר שושן לא היה להם היראה שם כל כך, ולא נשארו צוררים להם כלל, ולפיכך לא הוצרך לכתוב "ונוח מאויביהם". אבל בשאר מדינות המלך, יש לחשוב כי נשארו צוררים אל היהודים, לכך כתיב "ונוח מאויביהם", כי לגמרי נחו. ושלא תאמר שלא הרגו ממש, רק שנקהלו לעמוד על נפשם להרוג אותם, והיו האויבים מכניעים עצמם לפניהם, ולא עשה בהם היהודים מעשה הריגה, כי זה לא נזכר, כי לא כתיב רק "נקהלו ועמוד על נפשם", לכך כתיב "והרוג בשונאיהם", שהרגו אותם. ולא כתיב "הרוג בשונאיהם" ואחר כך "ונוח מאויביהם", כי אם כן הייתי מפרש כי נחו מאויביהם שהיה להם משתה ושמחה אחר כך, וכדכתיב (פסוק יח) "ונוח בחמשה עשר ועשו משתה ושמחה"*. ולכך מקדים לומר "ונוח מאויביהם והרוג בשונאיהם", ומוכח מזה כי "ונחו מאויביהם" לא איירי שנחו ועשו בו יום טוב, רק הנחתם מצוררים שלהם.
Ohr Chadash on Esther 9:16 (Maharal of Prague 16th century)
"And they had peace from their enemies": The meaning of "peace from their enemies" is that they no longer had to worry about them at all. And before that it is written "and they defended their lives"--they had to save themselves from death. And afterwards, they had peace from their enemies, they could rest from those who intended to trouble them, for they did not have to worry any more about those who wanted to trouble them, they could rest and have a holiday. This was not on the 13th but only on the 14th. About this it is written "the Jews in Shushan assembled on the 13th day and on the 14th day and rested on the 15th day. Whereas about the other provinces, it is written "they had peace from their enemies" but not about Shushan. And this is as we explained above, that in the city of Shushan, they did not have too much to be afraid of, because none of their troublers remained , therefore the author did not have to write that they had "peace from their enemies." But in the rest of the provinces of the King, we can imagine that there were remaining those who would trouble the Jews, that why it is written "they had peace from their enemies"--they had a complete rest from their enemies, so they did not have to say that they killed so many, only those who arose and actively tried to kill them. Regarding those enemies who humbled themselves before the Jews the Jews did not have to kill them, for that is not mentioned.
Here are two more modern views?
Considering our modern sensibilities and the (theoretical) rules of war that most of us accept as ethical baselines, reading biblical accounts of slaughtering women and children is difficult to accept. We jump to the rationale for the war itself, self-defense against a massive preplanned anti-Jewish pogrom. After all, the people they were seeking to kill were enemies of the Jews and, but for the change in the king’s mind, would have been themselves killing Jews indiscriminately. So now that they had the opportunity, they killed them.
Notwithstanding this point, the stark reality is that the Megillah portrays an offensive war against the enemies of the Jews in which the Jews indiscriminately kill their enemies, including the women and children. We should not be afraid today to read ancient texts as they are. There is no reason to whitewash the past.
Was Esther intended as a work of fiction? Lawrence M. Wills thinks that is likely. Wills dates Esther to the Hellenistic period and sees it as belonging to the genre of novel that is prevalent in that period. I date the book to the Persian period, as an increasing number of people do nowadays, a time when we canalready speak of fictional storytelling of the kind we find in Ruth and Jonah.
My main point is that Esther typifies storytelling
about Persia from the Persian period. It takes some of its motifs from
biblical literature, and it partakes of many others from the broader literary
world of its time, preserved for us most abundantly in the Greek writings. We
should, therefore, use these Greek writings in connection with Esther for literary
purposes, not for historical purposes. In a way, the story of Esther is nothing
more than a conglomeration of common motifs associated with the Persian
court, woven throughout the equally conventional story lines such as the wise
courtier in a foreign court, the contest between courtiers, and the woman who
saves her people. The wonder is that from all this standard literary fare could
come such a clever and funny entertainment.
Adele Berlin: The Book of Esther and the Art of Ancient Jewish Storytelling