A Unique Situation
Purim is unique among Jewish holidays in that it is observed differently by different Jews (Yom Tov Sheni for Jews in the Exile was added only due to calendar confusion resulting from disrupted communication between Israeli Jews and Jews in Exile). So why is Purim constructed differently than every other holiday?
Fostering Jewish Unity
To sharpen the question, we note that Purim is designed to foster Jewish fraternity. Haman observes that we are a splintered nation (Esther 3:8; all references not designated otherwise are to Megillat Esther), and we work to rectify it (Tikkun). Queen Esther requests that all the Jews of Shushan gather together for communal prayer (4:16). Later on, she and Mordechai ordain that we commemorate our salvation by giving gifts (mishloach manot) to one another and charity to the poor (matanot l’evyonim; 9:22).
Esther and Mordechai not only wanted to eliminate the threat of Haman and his supporters but also sought to prevent future Hamans from emerging. Our enemies see an opportunity to attack us when they discern Jewish disunity. Mishlo’ach Manot and Matanot Evyonim build unity and avoid division which exposes us to the danger of Haman’s heirs and imitators. Accordingly, we should share Mishloach Manot with friends and Jews with whom we do not yet have a relationship.
Sharpening the Question
Accordingly, it seems strange that Purim is the only holiday that different communities celebrate on different days, those in walled cities on the 15th of Adar and everyone else on the 14th. It's a day dedicated to unity, yet we observe it in a way that highlights division.
Answer #1 - Unity with Differences
Rav Shalom Rosner suggests that this apparent contradiction helps teach what Jewish unity means. It does not mean homogeneity and conformism. Every Jew does not have to dress, speak, or act the same. On the contrary, within an appropriate framework, diversity is healthy, and we should embrace it. True fraternity is seeing someone as a brother even if they are very different from you (the Ran and the Netziv make a similar point regarding the Migdal Bavel).
We Jews should not demand conformity on many matters. For example, it is a big mistake to expect that all Jews should be Democrats or Republicans. Healthy differences, such as the distinct practices of Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities, should not only be tolerated; we should celebrate them! According to this approach, we should be sure to send Mishloach Manot to Jews who dress differently than we do.
Answer #2 - Correcting Our Enjoying Achashevirosh’s Wild Parties
Rabi Shimon bar Yochai (Megillah 12a) explains that we deserved the scare of Haman since we enjoyed Achashveirosh’s extreme parties. Accordingly, we became much too comfortable and assimilated into Persian society. How could we have enjoyed a party celebrating Achashveirosh’s rule over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, including Eretz Yisrael?!
Not to mention the Midrashic assertions that Achachveirosh’s parties degraded the Beit HaMikdash by using the holy utensils of the Beit HaMikdash at the extreme parties and that he wore the Bigdei Kehunah at these terrible events (Megillah 12a). This is especially the case in light of this Gemara’s assertion that these parties were Achashveirosh’s celebration of the fact that, in his calculation, the prophecy that the Jews would return to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash after seventy years of exile was not fulfilled (Megillah 11b).
Haman’s ascent to power and the subsequent terrifying decree was intended by Hashem to “scare us straight.” After severely veering from the intended Torah path, we needed the extreme decree of Haman to restore our spiritual equilibrium. The extreme three-day fast in which we engaged served as a Tikkun (correction) for our illicit indulgence in Achashveirosh’s extreme party. At this point, we were ready for Hashem to intervene and save us from Haman.
Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Rav Yaakov Medan suggests that we observe Purim on different days since Purim is intended to correct our enjoyment of Achashveirosh’s wild parties. Achashveirosh’s conducted his parties in two steps. First, there was the one-hundred-and-eight-day-long party for the leaders throughout the Persian Empire. Then, he held a seven-day-long party for all the residents of Shushan, the Persian Empire’s capital.
The first step of Purim is for Jews worldwide to celebrate on the fourteen. Next, we celebrate Purim in our capital city Yerushalayim on the fifteenth. Accordingly, we celebrate two steps of Purim corresponding to the parties to reinforce the need to correct our enjoying them.
TABC Talmid Chaim Lipman suggests that the two components of Purim observance also correspond to the two parties to which Esther invited Achashveirosh, leading to Haman’s fall and the beginning of our salvation.
Shushan Purim, Archaeology, and Yerushalayim
Rav Medan’s approach has the ancillary benefit of explaining a puzzling aspect of contemporary Purim observance. There is considerable archaeological evidence suggesting that a wall surrounded many Israeli towns during Yehoshua Ben Nun’s time. These places include Lod and Beit El, as I discuss in my Gray Matter volume three (pages 261-264). Yet, despite the evidence and the agitation of several rabbis, Am Yisrael has resisted celebrating Purim on the fifteenth of Adar in these and other locales.
Apparently, the Jewish collective wisdom insists that Yerushalayim is the only place where we observe Purim on the fifteen. I dare say that it is as if a Bat Kol (heavenly voice) descended, proclaiming that we celebrate Purim on the fifteenth only in Yerushalayim. According to Rav Medan’s approach, this phenomenon makes perfect sense. We sense that Yerushalayim must correspond to Shushan. The parallel is especially important nowadays since the contemporary necessity for Jews to avoid indulging in “Achashveirosh’s parties” (such as office holiday gatherings or wild celebrations on college campuses) is especially acute.
Background to Answer #3 - The Special Danger of Shushan’s Haman’s Hardline Supporters
We suggest a new answer based on a careful analysis of Esther’s three-step plan to overcome Haman and his supporters. Haman had become the second to the king and enacted a government-endorsed “Jew extermination day” on the thirteenth of Adar. The danger to the Jewish people was severe.
The first step was to change the tide by Esther managing, with Hashem’s help, to eliminate Haman. She brilliantly orchestrated manipulating Achashveirosh and convincing him that Haman is a threat and that he needs Mordechai and Esther to protect him. Once Haman is neutralized, and Mordechai replaces him as the Mishneh LeMelech (and he is well-received by the citizens of the Persian Empire, see Esther 9:4), we are in a dramatically better position.
However, the danger is not over since the decree proclaiming the thirteenth of Adar as “international Jew extermination day” remains in effect. Even with Esther as queen and Mordechai as the Mishneh LaMelech, the Persian Empire forbade rescinding a royal edict. Moreover, while Haman is dead, he has ten sons eager to fill their father’s shoes and lead the charge on Adar 13.
Esther, in turn, persuaded Achashveirosh to neutralize the decree by adding a new rule that the thirteenth of Adar is also the official “Jew right to defense day.” Mordechai and Esther used the intervening time to unify the Jewish people and help them organize and prepare an effective defense. When the day arrived, the Jews, with Hashem’s support, eliminated five hundred Haman supporters in Shushan and killed Haman’s Shushan-based ten sons. As a result, we dispensed with seventy-five thousand Haman supporters in the rest of the Persian Empire.
It is critical to clarify that we did NOT engage in a massacre! Esther 8:11 describes that the Jews' right is limited to strict self-defense. It is reminiscent of the pre-State Hagana’s policy of Havlaga, exercising restraint and engaging only in strictly defensive action against Arab attacks. In the case of the Haganah, we feared taking preemptive measures to avoid antagonizing the British. In the Megilla, we feared irking Achashveirosh.
One wonders why we eliminated only these people. Were not all Persian subjects ready to destroy the Jews? We suggest that those we killed were only the hardline Haman supporters, who were prepared to attack us even after Haman died and Mordechai was in power. The rest were not ardent Jew haters. While they were not particularly fond of us, they were just “along for the ride” (and the loot) with Haman. With Haman dead, Mordechai in power, and Jews well-organized, they dropped out of Jew extermination day.
Esther’s third step is surprising - she asks Achshveirosh to repeat Adar 13 in Shushan (9:13). Why did she do this if Jew extermination day had ended with an overwhelming Jewish victory? Why does Esther risk opening a can of worms for a second day? Moreover, why did she limit it to Shushan if she felt we needed another day? It should extend to the Persian Empire!
It seems that Esther had to be modest in her request. After all, Achashveirosh limited her requests to only half of the kingdom. She also would have needed time to spread the message if the replay day applied throughout the Empire. But, on the other hand, Esther wanted to seize the momentum of Adar 13’s triumph, so she could not wait for the word to spread.
In addition, it is suggested that Esther wanted to make a statement of intimidation to the lingering Haman hardliners. What better place than the capital to make such a statement? The capital sets the tone for the remainder of the Empire.
For this reason, Esther also requested that Haman’s ten sons' dead bodies be hung on display. Normally, the Torah strongly objects to hanging executed individuals for more than a very brief interval (Devarim 21:22-23). Although this Halacha technically applies only in Israel, the spirit of this Halacha applies to the entire world ). However, in this case, the hanging was necessary to ward and warn off those who were not yet scared to follow Haman’s path.
Finally, I believe Esther eliminated the remaining Shushan hardliners. Any such extremists posed a danger since they had access to the Persian king to influence his policies (as did Haman). My older son Binyamin observes that the Shushanite Haman rose to prominence in government from being an ordinary barber (Megilla 16a). Esther did not want to risk a repeat and proactively acted to prevent it.
Answer #3
Accordingly, we celebrate a special day in Yerushalayim for Shushan Purim to highlight several points: First, to learn from Esther to solve the problem at hand and preemptively address future issues. Second, we thank Hashem for influencing Achashveirosh to consent to this bold request. Third, we learn to moderate our appeals to a foreign power, even when we enjoy a degree of influence. Finally, we appreciate the impact of those positioned near the foreign government and the need to counter their harmful effects. For this reason, Mordechai devoted considerable time to “sit in the king’s gate.”
Conclusion – Countering Today’s Anti-Semites of Washington, D.C.
Enemies of the Jews with access to top leaders pose a serious threat to our people. The same applies today when Squad members spew vile anti-Israel (read: anti-Jewish) venom in Congress. We must follow in Esther’s footsteps and do whatever is legally permitted to pro-actively promote a pro-Israel stance among every last member of Congress. Active participation in congressional pro-Israel lobbying organizations, such as NORPAC and AIPAC, is the most effective way today to follow in Esther’s footsteps and neutralize those who reside in or near Washington, D.C., and regularly and brazenly slander Israel to top government officials.
We must follow Mordechai’s example and “sit in the king’s gate.” In our times, this means becoming involved in pro-Israel activism in Washington with AIPAC and NORPAC. Esther heard the call of Mordechai and Jewish History summoning her to advocate for her people. We dare not do any less!
Acknowledgment
Special thanks to my TABC Talmidim and guests for Seudat Purim 5783, who all contributed significantly to this discussion.