Purim questions

Adena Kleiner asks:

1) I recently heard that the story of Purim might have not happened at all.
Is this true? If so how can a Jewish holiday be based on an event which may have never happened?

It is true that no record has been found of the Purim story in ancient Persian sources, which has led some to question the historicity of the story. However, this by itself does not constitute conclusive evidence that the story did not happen. The records that we have from antiquity are extremely incomplete, and it is a general principle in this context that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. The fact that no Persian written record of the Purim story has been found cannot be interpreted as positive evidence that the story did not happen. There can be no question that many events happened in antiquity that we have no knowledge of because of the scarcity of written evidence.

Moreover, the descriptions of the Persian court and the realia [objects and activities associated with a particular culture] described in the Megillah are very realistic. The descriptions of Persian royal culture, physical setting, and the machinations of the royal court are in keeping with what historians know of ancient Persia.

It is also important to note that, while the Purim story is important to us because of its implications for the Persian Jewish community and for Jewish history, it might not have been important enough to record from a Persian perspective. Persian records might not include a story of an intrigue in the king's harem, the choice of a new favorite wife, the loss of favor of one of the king's advisors, etc., because it is possible that such a story was not deemed as having significant historical import.

Another reason that some people think the Purim story is not historical fact is that some elements of the story are reminiscent of Persian mythology. They therefore think that the Purim story is a Jewish reworking of a Persian myth. I think it's just as convincing to say that the Megillah includes allusions to Persian legend for the same reason that both holy and secular literature often contains cultural references; it creates a more compelling, engaging, and multifaceted story. In fact, this is a tool that is employed throughout Tanakh. Tanakh frequently makes purposeful allusions to legends from the surrounding cultures, and very often this is in order to highlight the differences between Torah and pagan worldviews by contrasting the original legends with the values found in Tanakh stories. If anyone would like to talk to me about this more or discuss specific examples, come find me in school and I would be very happy to talk about it with you.

While there are parts of Tanakh that are not tied to a particular historical context (the most notable example is Sefer Iyov, which the Rambam and others believe is really a parable rather than a historical event), the Megillah is written in the style of a historical story and is taken as such by Chazal. There is still much that we don't know about the historical context, however. We don't know which Persian king should be identified with Achashverosh. Generally, he is identified with either Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.E.) or Artaxerxes II (409-359 B.C.E.). This question is relevant to understanding the message of the story. If we assume that Achashverosh was Xerxes I, then the story happened shortly after Hatzharat Koresh, which implies that the Persian Jews described in the Megillah are those who chose not to return to Israel but are instead living in luxury in Shushan. This may color the way we understand the basic message of the Megillah. This point is sort of tangential to your question, so I'm not going to go into much detail, but I just read an interesting article about this by Rav Yonatan Grossman and I would be happy to share it with you or talk to you about it if you're interested!

2) The popular Hamantaschen or Oznei Haman that we all eat on Purim are supposed to symbolize Haman's ears, yet I wonder, what do Haman's ears have to do with Purim? This minhag seems to be so random. Is there a deeper meaning to hamantaschen?

I think the basic idea behind oznei Haman/hamantaschen is that it's a way of making fun of Haman. Most people probably wouldn't be too flattered if someone made cookies in the shape of their ears! Another idea I heard is that "hamantashen" in Yiddish means "Haman's pockets," and it's a reference to the fact that Haman was corrupt and always had pockets full of money. In either case, whether it's his ears or his pockets, it's not particularly flattering. It's sort of the same idea as shaking a grogger when his name is mentioned.

I also think it could be (although this is just my own idea and I have no outside basis for it) that the idea of making cookies stuffed with filling is another reference to the hiddenness associated with Purim. The same that we dress up in costumes to symbolize the way that Hashem's involvement in the nes Purim was hidden from view, we make cookies of fruit covered up with dough. Actually, there's a minhag to eat kreplech on Purim (also on Erev Yom Kippur and Hoshana Rabba), which I think is associated with this same idea.