Masking Revenge as Self-Defense: Domesticating the Book of Esther

Was the 13^th of Adar a day when the Jews successfully defended themselves against their enemies, or was it a day when they could take vengeance against their enemies? Does Mordechai’s edict offset Haman’s edict or replace it?

Following Haman’s decree, Esther’s mission is to intercede with the king to save the Jews (4:8, 14).^[1] With this goal in mind, she arranges her drinking parties with Ahasuerus and Haman, and keeps Ahasuerus in suspense about a special request that he might grant her (5:8). Finally, at the second party, she dramatically expresses her plea:

^{אסתר ז:ג} וַתַּעַן אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וַתֹּאמַר אִם מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאִם עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב תִּנָּתֶן לִי נַפְשִׁי בִּשְׁאֵלָתִי וְעַמִּי בְּבַקָּשָׁתִי. ^ז:ד כִּי נִמְכַּרְנוּ אֲנִי וְעַמִּי לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרוֹג וּלְאַבֵּד...

^{Esth 7:3} Queen Esther replied: “If Your Majesty will do me the favor, and if it pleases Your Majesty, let my life be granted me as my wish, and my people as my request. ^7:4 For we have been sold, my people and I, to be destroyed, massacred, and exterminated…”

The king is then told by his servant Harbona that Haman is planning on having Mordechai, the Jew who saved the king’s life, executed this very day. Furious, the king immediately has Haman executed in Mordechai’s place, after which he calms down.

Ahasuerus Makes Mordechai the Vizier

Ahasuerus then makes it clear to Esther that Haman and his decree are in the past, and officially gives Mordechai the royal signet ring:

^{אסתר ח:א} בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נָתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה אֶת בֵּית הָמָן צֹרֵר (היהודיים) [הַיְּהוּדִים] וּמָרְדֳּכַי בָּא לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי הִגִּידָה אֶסְתֵּר מַה הוּא לָהּ. ^ח:ב וַיָּסַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת טַבַּעְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱבִיר מֵהָמָן וַיִּתְּנָהּ לְמָרְדֳּכָי וַתָּשֶׂם אֶסְתֵּר אֶת מָרְדֳּכַי עַל בֵּית הָמָן.

^{Esth 8:1} That very day King Ahasuerus gave the property of Haman, the enemy of the Jews, to Queen Esther. Mordechai presented himself to the king, for Esther had revealed how he was related to her. ^8:2 The king slipped off his ring, which he had taken back from Haman, and gave it to Mordechai; and Esther put Mordechai in charge of Haman’s property.

This formal, ceremonial scene is interrupted abruptly when Esther falls to the ground at the king’s feet, begging for mercy for her people, the Jews:

^{אסתר ח:ג} וַתּוֹסֶף אֶסְתֵּר וַתְּדַבֵּר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וַתִּפֹּל לִפְנֵי רַגְלָיו וַתֵּבְךְּ וַתִּתְחַנֶּן לוֹ לְהַעֲבִיר אֶת רָעַת הָמָן הָאֲגָגִי וְאֵת מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָשַׁב עַל הַיְּהוּדִים.

^{Esth 8:3} Esther spoke to the king again, falling at his feet and weeping, and beseeching him to avert the evil plotted by Haman the Agagite against the Jews.

The king, perhaps as puzzled as the reader, motions with his scepter for Esther to stand up and explain (v. 4),^[2] and she continues:

^{אסתר ח:ה} וַתֹּאמֶר אִם עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב וְאִם מָצָאתִי חֵן לְפָנָיו וְכָשֵׁר הַדָּבָר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְטוֹבָה אֲנִי בְּעֵינָיו יִכָּתֵב לְהָשִׁיב אֶת הַסְּפָרִים מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הָמָן בֶּן הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי אֲשֶׁר כָּתַב לְאַבֵּד אֶת הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ. ^ח:ו כִּי אֵיכָכָה אוּכַל וְרָאִיתִי בָּרָעָה אֲשֶׁר יִמְצָא אֶת עַמִּי וְאֵיכָכָה אוּכַל וְרָאִיתִי בְּאָבְדַן מוֹלַדְתִּי.

^{Esth 8:5} “If it please Your Majesty,” she said, “and if I have won your favor and the proposal seems right to Your Majesty, and if I am pleasing to you—let dispatches be written countermanding those which were written by Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, embodying his plot to annihilate the Jews throughout the king’s provinces. ^8:6 For how can I bear to see the disaster which will befall my people! And how can I bear to see the destruction of my kindred!”

The implication of Esther’s plea is that the hated decree stills stands, which is strange since Haman has been executed and Mordechai is now the vizier.

The king does not respond to Esther directly, but instead addresses Mordechai and Esther together. He first highlights that he has just given Esther Haman’s house after having executed him, but again says nothing at all about cancelling Haman’s edict, simply telling them to write whatever they wish:

^{אסתר ח:ז} וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וּלְמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי הִנֵּה בֵית הָמָן נָתַתִּי לְאֶסְתֵּר וְאֹתוֹ תָּלוּ עַל הָעֵץ עַל אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח יָדוֹ (ביהודיים) [בַּיְּהוּדִים]. ^ח:ח וְאַתֶּם כִּתְבוּ עַל הַיְּהוּדִים כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ וְחִתְמוּ בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי כְתָב אֲשֶׁר נִכְתָּב בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ וְנַחְתּוֹם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לְהָשִׁיב.

^{Esth 8:7} Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther and Mordechai the Jew, “I have given Haman’s property to Esther, and he has been impaled on the stake for scheming against the Jews. ^8:8 And you may further write with regard to the Jews as you see fit in the king’s name and seal it with the king’s signet, for an edict that has been written in the king’s name and sealed with the king’s signet may not be returned.”

What about Haman’s original decree? Why doesn’t the king respond to Esther’s request?

Royal Decrees Cannot be Annulled?

Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1167)^[3] argues that the final phrase, that “an edict that has been written in the king’s name and sealed with the king’s signet may not be returned (אֵין לְהָשִׁיב)” is Ahasuerus’ response. He was admitting that he can’t withdraw the edict as Esther requested, but instead he will allow them to write some other edict:

והנה אחשורוש אמר לו עשה כל מה שתוכל כדי למלט עמך, כי הספרים הראשונים שכתב המן ונכתבו בשמי ונחתמו בטבעתי לא אוכל להשיבם, כי כן דת מדי ופרס.

Now Ahasuerus said to him (=Mordechai): “Do what you can so that your people may escape destruction, for the copies of the first edit, which Haman wrote, and which were written in my name and sealed with my ring, cannot be returned, for that is the law of Media and Persia.

However, if the text wanted to present Ahasuerus as telling Esther that he cannot rescind Haman’s edict, that should have been presented earlier, as part of an apology. In context, Ahasuerus seems to be assuring them that the new edict that Mordechai and Esther write, when stamped with the royal seal, will not be “returned,” i.e., “disregarded.” Thus, R. Isaiah di Trani the Elder (Rid, c. 1180 – c. 1250) interpreted the phrase:

אין תושבי הממלכה רשאים להמנע מלקיימו.

The inhabitants of the kingdom are not free to refrain from carrying it out.

This is also how it the Vetus Latina version renders the message:

^{Esther VL 180 (=8:8)} Write, then, letters in my name as it pleases you and Mordechai! And seal (them) with my ring! Everything written by command of the king and sealed—those things are not defied.”^[4]

A passage in Isaiah that uses the same term about YHWH’s “edicts” supports this interpretation:

^{ישעיה יד:כז} כִּי יְ־הוָה צְבָאוֹת יָעָץ וּמִי יָפֵר וְיָדוֹ הַנְּטוּיָה וּמִי יְשִׁיבֶנָּה.

^{Isa 14:27} For YHWH of Hosts has planned, who then can foil it? It is His arm that is poised, and who can turn it back?

Others cannot turn back (or reverse) God’s purposes. God, however, can have a change of heart, if God so chooses.^[5]

In sum, the simple meaning of the claim that a royal edict אֵין לְהָשִׁיב “cannot be returned” is that an order sent with the king’s seal must be obeyed. Yet it is still strange that Ahasuerus does not address Esther’s plea directly. Moreover, given that Ahasuerus has already entrusted Mordechai with the ring, why is Esther so concerned that the decree will not be annulled?

A Later Supplement Reframing Ahasuerus’ Statement

Both problems are solved if the scene with Esther’s second plea (vv. 3–6) is a later supplement. The passage (vv. 1–2, 7–8) opens with Ahasuerus giving Haman’s property to Esther (v. 1), and Ahasuerus refers to this in his statement (v. 7). Esther presents Mordechai before the king (v. 1), so the king responds by addressing them both (v. 7). Ahasuerus gives Mordechai his ring (v. 2), and explains what Mordechai is to do with this new power (v. 8). The text originally read:

^{אסתר ח:א} בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נָתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה אֶת בֵּית הָמָן צֹרֵר (היהודיים) [הַיְּהוּדִים] וּמָרְדֳּכַי בָּא לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי הִגִּידָה אֶסְתֵּר מַה הוּא לָהּ. ^ח:ב וַיָּסַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת טַבַּעְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱבִיר מֵהָמָן וַיִּתְּנָהּ לְמָרְדֳּכָי וַתָּשֶׂם אֶסְתֵּר אֶת מָרְדֳּכַי עַל בֵּית הָמָן. // ^ח:ז וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וּלְמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי הִנֵּה בֵית הָמָן נָתַתִּי לְאֶסְתֵּר וְאֹתוֹ תָּלוּ עַל הָעֵץ עַל אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח יָדוֹ (ביהודיים) [בַּיְּהוּדִים]. ^ח:ח וְאַתֶּם כִּתְבוּ עַל הַיְּהוּדִים כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ וְחִתְמוּ בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי כְתָב אֲשֶׁר נִכְתָּב בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ וְנַחְתּוֹם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לְהָשִׁיב.

^{Esth 8:1} That very day King Ahasuerus gave the property of Haman, the enemy of the Jews, to Queen Esther. Mordechai presented himself to the king, for Esther had revealed how he was related to her. ^8:2 The king slipped off his ring, which he had taken back from Haman, and gave it to Mordechai; and Esther put Mordechai in charge of Haman’s property. // ^8:7 Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther and Mordechai the Jew, “I have given Haman’s property to Esther, and he has been impaled on the stake for scheming against the Jews. ^8:8 And you may further write with regard to the Jews as you see fit in the king’s name and seal it with the king’s signet, for an edict that has been written in the king’s name and sealed with the king’s signet may not be disregarded.”

In this version, Ahasuerus gives Mordechai the signet ring with a clear purpose, so that Mordechai and Esther can write whatever they please on behalf of the Jews. Adding the scene with Esther pleading for her people, however, implies that, if Esther hadn’t pleaded, Ahasuerus would not have given them permission to write a new decree about the Jews. If so, then in verse 2, Ahasuerus is giving Mordechai his signet ring with no specific purpose in mind, and only after Esther makes her plea, does Ahasuerus note that fortuitously, he has already given Mordechai his ring to stamp edicts with royal authority.

Haman’s Edict: No Longer in Effect

Mordechai’s new decree did not produce a situation in which the two edicts, his and Haman’s, stood side by side, each authorizing the killing of the other group. Rather, Mordechai’s edict cancelled Haman’s and was alone in effect on the 13^th of Adar. This is clear from the parallel description of how they were propagated:

Haman’s Edict	Mordechai’s Edict
^{אסתר ג:יד} פַּתְשֶׁגֶן הַכְּתָב לְהִנָּתֵן דָּת בְּכָל מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה גָּלוּי לְכָל הָעַמִּים לִהְיוֹת עֲתִדִים לַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.	^{אסתר ח:יג} פַּתְשֶׁגֶן הַכְּתָב לְהִנָּתֵן דָּת בְּכָל מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה גָּלוּי לְכָל הָעַמִּים וְלִהְיוֹת (היהודיים עתודים) [הַיְּהוּדִים עֲתִידִים] לַיּוֹם הַזֶּה לְהִנָּקֵם מֵאֹיְבֵיהֶם.
^{Esth 3:14} The text of the document was to the effect that a law should be proclaimed in every single province; it was to be publicly displayed to all the peoples, so that they might be ready for that day.	^{Esth 8:13} The text of the document was to be issued as a law in every single province: it was to be publicly displayed to all the peoples, so that the Jews should be ready for that day to avenge themselves on their enemies.

Just as the first edict was displayed to allow the citizens to be “ready for that day” when they would be obligated to kill the Jews, the second edict implies that all the citizens and authorities were now under orders to stand back and allow the Jews to slaughter their enemies.^[6] Significantly, nowhere does the book of Esther mention that gentiles attacked the Jews on the 13^th of Adar. Instead,

^{אסתר ט:ה} וַיַּכּוּ הַיְּהוּדִים בְּכָל אֹיְבֵיהֶם מַכַּת חֶרֶב וְהֶרֶג וְאַבְדָן וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם כִּרְצוֹנָם.

^{Esther 9:5} So the Jews struck at their enemies with the sword, slaying and destroying; they wreaked their will upon their enemies.

If the Jews were simultaneously being attacked in an empire-wide civil war, we would expect to hear something about that, including the miraculous circumstance that none of the masses of Jews were killed!

Executing Haman is a De Facto Cancellation

Without the addition of Esther’s plea, the clear implication of Ahasuerus executing Haman and bringing on Mordechai as his replacement is that the decree is a dead letter. This is illustrated nicely in a Greek translation/retelling of the book of Esther called the Alpha Text,[7] which includes a letter from Mordechai, in which he writes:

^{Esther AT 8:36} “Haman has sent to you letters as follows: ‘Hasten with all speed to send to destruction on my behalf the disobedient race of the Jews.’ ^8:37 But I, Mordechai, advise you that the man who did this has been hung at the gates of Susa, and his family has been slain. ^8:38 For he planned to kill us on the thirteenth day of the month which is Adar.”^[8]

The added scene of Esther pleading a second time (Esth 8:3–6), however, creates the impression that the decree still stands. The author of this supplement foregrounds the ambiguity in Ahasuerus’ phrasing (“cannot be returned”), thereby reinterpreting it to mean that the king cannot cancel Haman’s decree, but will allow Mordechai to write another, conflicting, one. ^[9] I suggest that the supplementer wished to reframe the story, recasting the Jewish slaughter of their enemies at the end of the story as an act of self-defense.^[10]

Turning the Slaughter into Self-Defense

Mordechai’s edict allows the Jews to slaughter their enemies wholesale, including women and children:

^{אסתר ח:יא} אֲשֶׁר נָתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ לַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל עִיר וָעִיר לְהִקָּהֵל וְלַעֲמֹד עַל נַפְשָׁם לְהַשְׁמִיד וְלַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד אֶת כָּל חֵיל עַם וּמְדִינָה הַצָּרִים אֹתָם טַף וְנָשִׁים וּשְׁלָלָם לָבוֹז.

^{Esth 8:11} That the king has permitted the Jews of every city to assemble and fight for their lives; they may destroy, massacre, and exterminate the armed force of any enemies together with women and children, and plunder their possessions.

This implication disturbed the Israeli biblical scholar, Yehezkel Kaufmann (1889–1963), who argues that the war account describes a defensive action, since Haman’s original decree (Esth 3:9), allowing the Jews’ enemies to slaughter them on the 13^th of Adar, was still in effect. To support this reading, Kaufmann notes that the phrases “fight for their lives” and “enemies” implies the Jews were under attack:

…Esther seeks only the annulment of Haman’s firman of destruction (8:3–6), and not license also to take vengeance. In the story, the bloody finale is the consequence of the necessity of a countermand, in order that the Jews might fight their enemies (8:7 f.).

The Jews are permitted “to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life,” to slay those “that would assault them” (8:11). The two firmans, both officially valid, counter one another and the result is civil turmoil. The enemies of the Jews act on the basis of the earlier command, which cannot be annulled, and the Jews strike back by reason of the second command.

Throughout the empire they “gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives… and slew of them that hated them” (9:16). Theirs was essentially a defensive action which turned into a war of revenge.^[11]

Many modern interpreters to one degree or another adopt this interpretation.^[12] It is strange, however, that the Jews would need an official edict to permit them to defend themselves from attackers. Would the Jews have passively submitted themselves and their families to slaughter if not for the permission granted by the edict?^[13] Moreover, the narrative itself implies the opposite.

The Reaction to the Decree

The joyous reaction of the Jews to Mordechai’s decree coupled the Persian people’s newfound fear of the Jews, makes it clear that, contrary to Kaufmann’s suggestion, the Jews were going to go on the offensive:

^{אסתר ח:יז} וּבְכָל מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וּבְכָל עִיר וָעִיר מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר דְּבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ מַגִּיעַ שִׂמְחָה וְשָׂשׂוֹן לַיְּהוּדִים מִשְׁתֶּה וְיוֹם טוֹב וְרַבִּים מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מִתְיַהֲדִים כִּי נָפַל פַּחַד הַיְּהוּדִים עֲלֵיהֶם.

^{Esth 8:17} And in every province and in every city, when the king’s command and decree arrived, there was gladness and joy among the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many of the people of the land professed to be Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.

If Haman’s edict was still in place, and their enemies also had months to prepare for the war, why were the Jews so joyous? Similarly, why would so many “peoples of the land” choose to become (or: pose as) Jews^[14] if the Jews were only going to act in self-defense, and kill people who attacked them? Instead, I suggest that “enemies” in the verse refers to people who would have harmed Jews as a result of Haman’s decree, if it hadn’t been nullified.

The natural implication of the edict, which allows the Jews to kill their oppressors, along with their women and children,^[15] and to take their property as their personal plunder (8:11), strongly implies an offensive war. Killing women and children and taking booty is not defensive but retributive: Haman’s edict had ordered the killing of the Jews, including women and children, and the plundering of their possessions (3:13). Retributive justice requires that the same fate be visited upon the enemies of the Jews, the supporters of Haman throughout the empire.[16]

An Act of Retribution and Vengeance

The edict of Mordechai speaks of לְהִנָּקֵם “executing vengeance” (8:13),^[17] a term that refers to punishment for previous grievances, often to a disproportionate degree.^[18] So, on the thirteenth of Adar, on the very same day the Jew-haters planned to attack the Jews and slaughter thousands of them, the Jews will do this to them and then some:

^{אסתר ט:טז} וּשְׁאָר הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בִּמְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ נִקְהֲלוּ וְעָמֹד עַל נַפְשָׁם וְנוֹחַ מֵאֹיְבֵיהֶם וְהָרֹג בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים אָלֶף וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת יָדָם.

^{Esth 9:16} 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; though they did not lay hands on the spoil.

Further evidence that the Jews were engaged in an offensive attack comes from Esther’s request of Ahasuerus, at the end of the 13^th of Adar, to have the day’s edict extended to the morrow:

^{אסתר ט:יג} וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר אִם עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יִנָּתֵן גַּם מָחָר לַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּשׁוּשָׁן לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדָת הַיּוֹם וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵי הָמָן יִתְלוּ עַל הָעֵץ.

^{Esth 9:13} Esther said, “If it please Your Majesty, 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.”

If Mordechai’s edict merely allowed the Jews to defend themselves, there would be no reason to extend it, as Haman’s edict was limited to the 13^th of Adar. Presenting the killings on the 14^th as an extension of Mordechai’s edict shows that it was concerned with retribution, not self-defense. Certainly Esther’s second request, which was to impale the bodies of Haman’s—already killed!—ten sons as a display, cannot be characterized as an act of self-defense.^[19]

Standing Up to Long-Time Enemies

In sum, Mordechai’s edict (Esth 8:23) allows the Jews, on the 13^th of Adar, to slaughter their longtime enemies, those הַצָּרִים אֹתָם, who have been “harassing the Jews” (8:11) on a continual basis.^[20] This, in turn, is the meaning of Ahasuerus allowing the Jews to “stand up for their lives.” In the outlook of the narrative, excessive punitive measures against hostile populations ensure the future security of the Jewish communities, as the “terror of the Jews” falls upon everyone. In this broad sense, the killings of the enemies are rhetorically presented as “defensive,” but the edict itself allows for a one-sided, straightforward attack of the Jews against their enemies.^[21]

Uncomfortable with this, the supplementer added Esther’s second plea so as to reinterpret Ahasuerus’ words to mean that he could not retract Haman’s decree, thereby reframing the story from one of vengeance to one of genuine self-defense. This editorial addition could not completely remove the theme of vengeance, which strongly dominated the earlier form of the text, but it did create the impression that the Jews slaughtering their enemies was an urgent and unavoidable necessity.

Postscript

Facing the Slaughter in Esther Honestly

For many readers of the book of Esther, the mass killings at the end of the book are morally offensive, even reprehensible.^[22] Not surprisingly, Christian scholars, especially those of earlier generations, have been particularly vocal in their critique of the story. The following evaluation of Lewis Bayles Paton, writing for the International Critical Commentary on Esther in 1908, is characteristic of this attitude:

[Esther] secures not merely that the Jews escape from danger, but that they fall upon their enemies, slay their wives and children, and plunder their property (8:11; 9:2–10). Not satisfied with this slaughter, she asks that Haman’s ten sons may be hanged, and that the Jews may be allowed another day for killing their enemies in Susa (9:13–15).^[23]

Not infrequently, these critiques take on a distinctly antisemitic tone.^[24] In response, many Jewish scholars have countered by promoting apologetic interpretations that mitigate the ethically difficult issues. Yet, an overly defensive exegetical approach runs the risk of preventing us from understanding the text properly, and seeing its problems.

We should not fear to acknowledge that parts of our heritage are flawed. Indeed, an honest confrontation with the “dark side” of our tradition can help us come to terms with our own dark sides, both as individuals and as a people.

View Footnotes

Published 2023-03-06

Editor’s note: For discussion of whether the term יהודי in the Megillah should be translated Jew or Judean, see Ophir Yarden, “Jewish Not Judean: The Diaspora in the Book of Esther,” TheTorah (2022).
The meaning of Ahasuerus’ gesture with his scepter, which feels artificial in this scene, is likely repeated based on its appearance in 5:2, where it serves as a pardon for appearing before the king uninvited.
The comment is found in his first commentary on the Megillah (ad loc.). Ibn Ezra wrote a second commentary as well, in which he makes the same point.
English is from Simon Bellman and Anathea Portier-Young, “The Old Latin Book of Esther: An English Translation,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 28.4 (2019): 267–289. Similarly, in the Old Greek translation:
^{Esther OG 8:8}You also write in my name as it pleases you, and seal it with my ring, for whatever is written as the king commands and sealed with my ring cannot be countermanded (οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς ἀντειπεῖν).
In the Greek Alpha-Text version, the same phrase is used earlier in the story, when the king gives the seal to Haman to make the first decree, and tells him:
^{Esther AT 3:10} “Write to all the lands, and seal [the letter] with the king’s ring. For there is none who will reject the king’s seal.”
In this case, there is no earlier decree to return, making the point clear. The same meaning is possible regarding לא יעבור, which is said with reference to the proposal to write into law that Vashti’s queenship should be given to another (1:19). Exegetes commonly interpret this as meaning that Persian law cannot be revoked, but, as Adele Berlin forcefully argues, it may well mean simply that the written laws cannot be transgressed. Adele Berlin, Esther, The New JPS Commentary (Philadelphia: JPS, 2001), 18.
The text describes what happens on that day as following the king’s edict:
^{אסתר ט:א} וּבִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ הוּא חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר בִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בּוֹ אֲשֶׁר הִגִּיעַ דְּבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ לְהֵעָשׂוֹת בַּיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר שִׂבְּרוּ אֹיְבֵי הַיְּהוּדִים לִשְׁלוֹט בָּהֶם וְנַהֲפוֹךְ הוּא אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁלְטוּ הַיְּהוּדִים הֵמָּה בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם.
^{Esth 9:1} And so, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month—that is, the month of Adar—when the king’s command and decree were to be executed, the very day on which the enemies of the Jews had expected to get them in their power, the opposite happened, and the Jews got their enemies in their power.
This refers exclusively to one regal command – the one presented in the edict of Mordechai.
[7] In the view of several scholars, the Greek Alpha-text preserves a pre-Masoretic version of the Esther story. See, David J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story, JSOTSup 30 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 71–92; Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1991), 255–262; Frederic W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, WBC 9 (Dallas: World Books, 1996), 281–292. Others consider AT to be a revision of the LXX. See Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSupp 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 1.535–548; Kristin De Troyer, The End of the Alpha Text of Esther: Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1—17, LXX 8:1—17, and AT 7:14—41 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000). See, also, Karen H. Jobes, The Alpha Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).
[8] Note also the formulation in addition E of the Old Greek version of Esther:
^{Esth OG E:17}You are well advised, therefore, not to act upon the letters sent by Haman son of Hammedatha since he who contrived these things has been hanged at the gates of Susa with all his family…
At the same time, v. 20 reads, “and support them so that on the same day (the thirteenth of the twelfth month Adar) in the hour of trial, they may defend themselves against those who attack them.” See Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, AB 44 (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 233.
The supplementer probably found the idea that Persian kings cannot revoke their own laws in the story of Daniel in the lion’s den (Daniel 6), where it features prominently, and imported it into our story, newly applying it to edicts written in the king’s name and sealed with his signet ring. Note that when Ahasuerus gives Haman his signet ring at 3:10, he does not state that its use renders edicts irreversible. It seems clear that the purpose of the ring is merely to authorize the edicts. For instances of reading elements from Daniel into the book of Esther in Rabbinic literature see Koller, Esther, 191–198.
This is not the first time that biblical polemics employs the claim that “they forced us to fight.” It can be seen clearly in the entire passage of Judges 11:12–28. See the discussion in Susan Niditch, Judges, OTL (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 131–133.
Yehezkel Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel, Volume IV, From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy, C. W. Efroymson trans. (New York: KTAV, 1977), 522–523. For Jewish exegesis on this matter in the medieval period see Barry Dov Walfish, Esther in Medieval Garb: Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Esther in the Middle Ages (Albany: SUNY Press, 1993), 127–135.
Clines, The Esther Scroll, 19; Edward L. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther,” in Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine and Ernest S. Frerichs eds., Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 236; Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, 95, 220—226; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 445, 452—453; Jon D. Levenson, Esther, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1997), 109—110 (as a possibility); Adele Berlin, Esther, The New JPS Commentary (Philadelphia: JPS, 2001), 77. See also, much more extensively, Tricia Miller, Three Versions of Esther: Their Relationship to Anti-Semitic and Feminist Critique of the Story, CBET 74 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 41—73.
See Berlin, Esther, 77, who raises this question, and suggests that the real purpose of Mordechai’s edict is to serve as a deterrent against would-be attackers.
For a discussion of the possible meanings of מתיהדים see Berlin, Esther, 80–81.
Robert Gordis attempted to circumvent the ethical difficulties with 8:11 by taking “women and children” as the objects of “those attacking them.” The text thus refers to the Jewish women and children that the enemies of the Jews would try to destroy. See Robert Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Narrative,” JBL 95 (1976), 49—53. For a compelling rejection of this apologetic interpretation, see Michael V. Fox, The Redaction of the Books of Esther: On Reading Composite Texts (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 284.
The report of the actual killings emphasizes that the Jews refrained from taking the booty that Mordechai’s edict had mandated (9:10, 15–16). Yet the removable phrase, וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת יָדָם “and they did not take the booty” may be a secondary, apologetic addition, facilitated by the ambiguity in the original text that does not explicitly specify that the spoils were taken. The problem is that the text itself gives no explanation as to why the Jews refrained from taking the spoils of their enemies when this was granted to them and within their rights. Considering that Haman is presented as an “Agagite,” and that Mordechai is a descendant of Kish, father of Saul (1 Sam 9:1), many have suggested that the renouncing of spoils reflects a subtle “correction” of the sin of Saul and the Israelites in the conflict with Agag, king of Amalek, when they wrongfully to the spoils (1 Samuel 15). See, for example, Levenson, Esther, 122; Marc Zvi Brettler, “Megillat Esther: Reversing the Legacy of King Saul,” TheTorah (2017); Aaron Koller, Esther in Ancient Jewish Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 86—89, with bibliography at note 32. This approach falters, however, on the fact that Mordechai specifically mandates the taking of the spoils. If Mordechai is the new Saul, Haman the new Agag, and the anti-Semites the new Amalekites, then Mordechai fails to correct the sin of Saul. On the contrary, by allowing the taking of the spoils he risks its repetition! It is thus reasonable to assume that in an earlier version, the edict of Mordechai was implicitly carried out as specified. This may also be supported by the Alpha-text, which states, “In Susa the Judeans killed seven hundred men as well as Pharsan and his brother, and Pharna, and Gagaphardatha, and Marmasaima, and Izathouth, and the ten sons of Haman son of Hamadathos, the Bougean, the enemy of the Judeans, and they plundered all he owned” (8:44). Similarly, the Septuagint follows its report of the killings in Shushan with the comment, “and they plundered on the same day” (9:10–11). (See, however, Moore, The Additions, 242, who raises the possibility that the negation has fallen out of the Septuagint text.) We may also point out that Mordechai himself gains the spoils of his rival, Haman, as he acquires Haman’s presumably wealthy household (8:2).
According to Fredric W. Bush (Ruth, Esther, 453) the edict’s reference to נקמה “vengeance” must be interpreted within the context of the elements of self-defense highlighted in the text. The Jews, Bush asserts, are allowed to execute vengeance upon any group that attacks them.
Thus, Samson kills thousands of festive Philistines in a suicide attack inside their temple, in revenge for their having blinded him earlier (Judges 16). Earlier in the Megillah, it is vengeance against Mordechai for his refusal to bow to him that motivates Haman to annihilate the entire Jewish people, “the people of Mordechai” (2:6). Similarly, both Lamech (Gen 4:23–24) and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:23–24) slay children for relatively mild offenses. The abundant killing of anti-Semites, including their women and children, in retribution for their intention to annihilate the Jews fits well within this context, as it serves as an affirmation of fragile Jewish pride. The same may be said concerning the public hanging of Haman and his ten sons. For a fine treatment of related issues see T. S. Laniak, Shame and Honor in the Book of Esther, SBLDS 165 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). See also the wonderful comparison of the LXX version of Esther with Tarantino’s film “Inglourious Basterds” (sic.) in Adele Reinhartz, “LXX Esther: A Hellenistic Jewish Revenge Fantasy,” Eileen Shuller and Marie-Theres Wacker, eds., Early Jewish Writings (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 9—28. Reinhart’s analysis is most pertinent for an understanding of the MT as well.
The Alpha-text gives no hint that the killings were anything other than punitive. Thus, 8:18–20 reads, “Moreover, Esther said to the king, ‘Grant me permission to punish my enemies with slaughter… And the king said, So be it. And she smote the enemies in great numbers.” In complete accord with this, the killings are not dated. There is thus no reason to assume that they took place on the day of Haman’s edict. Presumably, Esther’s enemies and the enemies of the Jews are one and the same. Interestingly, Esth AT 8:46 reads, “And Esther said, ‘Let permission be given to the Jews to slay and plunder whomever they wish.’ And he agreed. And they slew 70,100 men.” This formulation fails to present those killed as “enemies” and instead presents them as “whomever” the Jews wished to slay!
See slightly differently, Amos Hakham, “Esther,” in חמש מגילות, דעת מקרא, 52—53. Hakham suggests that the phrase הַצָּרִים אֹתָם refers to the thwarted intention of the enemies to harm the Jews. Support for this interpretation may be found in 8:7, which refers to Haman as having “sent forth his hand against the Jews” even though he never actually harmed anyone. His intention to do harm is equated with the actual deed.
Editor’s note: For discussion of the theme of antisemitism in the Megillah, see Marty Lockshin, “Haman’s Antisemitism: What Did He Not Like About the Jews?” TheTorah (2017).
For a recent full scale moral evaluation of the book of Esther see Charles D. Harvey, Finding Morality in the Diaspora? Moral Ambiguity and Transformed Morality in the Book of Esther, BZAW 328 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003). Editor’s note: See also Meylekh Viswanath, “The Megillat Esther Massacre,” TheTorah (2016).
Lewis Bayles Paton, The Book of Esther, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, reprint 1992), 96.
For a detailed discussion of scholarly antisemitism regarding the book of Esther see Eliot Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 23—45.