Why is Esther in the Bible? — BT Megillah 7a — #27

It was taught: R. Eliezer says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, Haman said in his heart (Esther 6:6). R. Akiba says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, Esther found favor in the eyes of all who looked upon her (2:15). R. Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, The matter became known to Mordecai (2:22). R. Yose b. Durmaskit said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, They did not lay their hands on the booty (9:10). Shmuel said: Had I been there, I would have supplied a proof superior to all of theirs: It is said, They confirmed and took upon themselves (9:27), [which means] they confirmed above what they took upon themselves below.

INTRODUCTION

How did the Scroll of Esther come to be included in the Tana”kh (Hebrew Scriptures)? Have you ever wondered why and how the books in the Bible came to be included, and what others books (perhaps now lost to us) were excluded? The two most surprising choices for inclusion are Song of Songs, which, by any measure, is secular, erotic love poetry, and Esther, which does not contain the name of God. The Rabbis recognized this lacunae early on. In another passage from Talmud (BT Hullin 139b) they claim that Megillat Esther (the Scroll of Esther) was inspired by the holy spirit because the Torah alludes to Esther in the verse, I [God] shall surely hide My face from them (Deuteronomy 31:18)—the Rabbis read the term astir (“I will hide”) as an allusion to “Esther,” which sounds similar. In other words, based on a pun. Later commentators turned somersaults and contorted all reason to demonstrate that, in fact, God is alluded to in Esther, or to claim that God’s name was originally in the text but was subsequently removed for pious reasons.

COMMENTARY

In our passage, four sages provide textual arguments that Esther was composed under divine influence, and a fifth sage rejects the previous four arguments and provides his own, which he claims is superior.

R. Eliezer, R. Akiba, and R. Meir all argue that Esther is divinely inspired based on the presumption that the narrator could not know what the text claims without divine insight. How could the writer know what Haman was thinking but did not say aloud (6:6)? How could the writer know that every person who saw Esther admired her (2:15)? How could Mordecai have known of Bigthan and Teresh’s plan to kill the king without insider information from heaven? R. Eliezer, R. Akiba, and R. Meir are scrambling for evidence from the biblical text itself that warrants including Esther in the Jewish canon. 

But these are weak arguments. First, the manner in which the story unfolds makes it clear that Haman thought that King Ahasuerus was referring to him when when he sought Haman’s advice for honoring someone.  Second, the claim that Esther found favor in the eyes of everyone who saw her is easily understood as a hyperbolic affirmation of her beauty, but at face value, the statement isn’t much of a stretch given that King  Ahasuerus chose Esther from among seemingly hundreds of beautiful young women, each of whom was was provided a one-year beauty regimen prior to her one-night audition with the king. Third, the argument that Mordecai’s knowledge of the guards’ plot to kill the king hardly requires a telegram from heaven to explain, given that Mordecai camped out at the palace gate every day. Furthermore, we are told explicitly that the guards became angry and worked out their plot; angry people often fail to keep their voices low.  Besides, even if

Mordecai had insider knowledge from above, that doesn’t prove that the Scroll itself was written under divine influence. Fourth, the suggestion that it takes the holy spirit to know that not a single Jew in the large and sprawling kingdom of Persia collected booty from the the Persians both ignores the literary nature of the claim, as well as the fact that the claim does not prove that the Scroll itself was written under divine influence.

Shmuel rejects all four arguments for divine influence in favor of his own. Had he been among the Tanna’im (early Sages) who decided to include Esther in the canon, he would have argued for inclusion on the basis of Esther 9:27, which he reads to say, They [God and the angels in heaven] confirmed [that which] they [the Jews] took upon themselves, which is to say that God gave divine imprimatur to the narrative of Esther and to the Jews’ decision to obligate themselves and their descendants to observe Purim every year thereafter for all time. Shmuel is saying that the text wasn’t so much written under divine influence, as it received the divine stamp of approval after the fact. The community’s consensus and commitment conferred upon Megillat Esther and the celebration of Purim divine sanction and holiness.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Would you have voted to include Megillat Esther in the Tana”kh? Why or why not?
2. Three dates for celebration or mourning have been added to the Hebrew calendar in the modern period: Yom Ha’Atzmaut (Israel Independence Day), Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), and Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Reunification Day). On what basis should others be added? Can you suggest criteria?
3. In a sense, Shmuel doesn’t argue for the inherent divinity of the Scroll of Esther. He can be understood as saying: Whatever the community decides is sacred to them is sacred. Do you agree? Are their limits and parameters? If so, what are they?