Eight Answers/Approaches To Hashem’s Name Being Missing
March, 2022
“Putin is Haman” a member of my shul recently whispered in my ear. I bristled at the suggestion, but not for reasons one may suspect. Allow me to explain.
Each Purim season in Ami I share questions my ballabatim ask about this most mysterious of days and events. Over the years we have explained the history of costumes on Purim, the halachic history of the Gra Megillah, the authorship and name of Megillas Esther, and even the background to Purim mesechtos, spiels and the ‘Purim rav’.
This week, we will focus on one question rabbanim hear from children. Often, their rebbe or teacher shares this basic concept with them along with one or two elementary explanations. Here, we will delve much deeper.
The issue to which I refer is the absence of Hashem’s name from the megilla. This question is so well-known that it risks losing its dynamism. But in truth, this a prodigious oddity. A sefer written by neviim, to be read even after moshiach comes, and included in our holy canon omits the One True Author of these events?! How could this be?
Last year, after a few drinks, someone dropping off shaloch manos, made the following disturbing comments to me. “You see rabbi, this was a political retelling of an event from the Jews perspective. Chazal therefore sought to redeem it by spending so much time discussing it because they also understood that it should not really be in tanach”.
I was flabbergasted one would sincerely think in such a way, and I fear such drivel may be spreading…especially since his error was based on an kernel of truth.
I.
The Rokeach (Esther 10:2) and the Ibn Ezra (1:1) both explain that this ballabuss is dangerously half correct. Precisely because this sefer records one particular historical event, there was the inevitability of it entering the libraries of kings and leaders. Would Hashem’s name be in it, these kingdoms would modify it with their gods names, R’l, as they did to sefer Bereishis (‘bara ashima’).Perhaps the most famous approach to this inexplicable omission comes from the Maharal (Ohr Chodosh 2:21), who explains that Hashem’s absence from the megillah is symbolic of this ness which was performed b’hester panim. Specifically, he writes, hester panim refers to the fact that remained in galus even after.
II.
The Shevet Mussar (d. 1729) explains differently. Chazal teach (Tanchuma, ki sitzai #11), “R’ Levi says in the name of R. Chama bar Chanina, as long as the Amalek is in the world, Hashem’s Name will not be at peace (lit. ‘whole’) and the kisei hakvod will not be at peace. Only when Amalek is removed, the kisei will be at peace, and the Name will be at peace.” Since the Purim story does not end with a complete destruction of Amelek, we signify the lack of completeness to the Name by omitting it (Einei HaEidah 1:p.158).
III.
Another explanation has its own fascinating background. The sefer Yosef Lekech on Esther was written by the great gaon Rav Eliezar Ashkanazi (d.1586). This sefer was dedicated to Joseph Nasi, the Duke of Naxos. In his capacity as a political force, he helped fund talmidei chachamim and defend yiddeshkeit before Christians. With perhaps the life of his dedicatee on his mind, Rav Ashkanazi posits a real-world, political, concern in the composition of Esther. Since this sefer reaches its crescendo with the Jews rejoicing at the hunted becoming the hunter -and indeed we are obliged to joyously remember this each year -Mordechai and Esther wanted it to appear as if it was not a religious document. By removing all religious elements from the text, even Hashem’s name, no future leader could claim the our faith revels in the death of the Gentile (Yosef Lekech, 5:4).
IV.
Shevet Mussar comes to offer yet another explanation. Chazal teach us how while at har sinai we accepted the Torah by force –kofin alehem har k’gigus -on Purim ‘kimu v’kiblu hayehudim’ we accepted the Torah by complete choice (Shabbos 88). He therefore explains, the neviim wished to highlight that this choice was all our own. By omitting Hashem from the text it demonstrates our bechira in that ultimate choice (Einei Ha’Eida 1:p. 158). Even further, he states, the fact that we chose to daven, fast and do teshuvah in the Purim story was cause to show the world that we took on initiative ourselves (ibid.). At first blush, such an answer is hard to fathom, for as Rav Tzadok teaches, even by teshuva a person should not believe kochi v’otam yadi (it is all up to me)!
However, I am reminded of what Rav Chaim Volozion writes in the Nefesh Hachaim. When the mishneh (Sotah 49b) shares all the bad the events and middos that will precede the arrival of Moshiach, chazal conclude, ‘v’ein lanu al mi l’hishoen elah al avinu sheba’shomayim -we will only have Hashem to rely upon’. Rav Chaim explains that, in fact, this last line is a continuation of the negative forecast! In that, instead of trying to fix things ourselves we will simply say it’s up to Hashem alone and not any of our own hishtadlus!
V.
The Shevet Hamussar offers his third, most interesting, reasoning for Hashem’s absence. To understand this approach, let us take a lesson from recent history.
“Adolph Hitler was compared today With Haman, the Persian minister of ancient times who plotted to massacre the Jews, in an article appearing in the Nazi paper Judenkenner.‘Both Hitler and Haman are leaders with a profound knowledge of the Jews,’ … Jewish Telegraph Agency,April 8, 1935
While sadly and eerily prescient, 1935 was not the first time this comparison was made.
What follows is stunning, and I would not believe it if not being sent a scanned copy of the document I am soon to describe (sent to me, after a request, by the ISJL).
Just two months after Hitler was elected (we must never forget that he was democratically elected), the Jews of Harlan, Kentucky and the surrounding towns decided to make a Purim feast. It is unclear how what happened next came to be, but at some point that evening they drafted a press release which was sent to President Roosevelt as well as the American ambassador to Germany.
The press release stated, in part: “Monday March 12, 1933…Over one hundred men, women, and children gathered…under the auspices of Bnei Shalom congregation of Southwestern Kentucky to celebrate the Feast of Purim founded on the dramatic story in the biblical book of Esther, dating back to 4 BCE. In the course of the meeting a motion was adopted to draft resolutions protecting against Haman-like designs of the German Hitler against German Jews…”
Sorrowfully, the Nazis took this comparison to heart. One Purim SS guards took ten Jews to be hanged in Zduńska Wola for payment for the hanging of Haman’s ten sons. That Shavous they did the same to represent the luchos, R’l (20th Century Jewish Thought, p. 949).
Yet, in the spirit of Purim, they had their comeuppance. During the Nuremberg trials twelve men were sentenced to hanging. However Hermann Göring (who committed suicide) and Martin Bormann were absent, so….ten men were hanged. Sound familiar? Amazingly, Julius Streicher -who ran the propaganda arm of the Nazis –made a strange comment as he was taken to be hanged: “Purimfest 1946!”.
He may have been referring to what Time magazine (March 7, 2012) reported Hitler himself said in a speech in 1944, “If the Jews defeat me they should make a second Purim”!
The Shevet Mussar explains that to an enemy like Amalek they will take pride in the fact that Hashem waged war with them, they are the foe of the creator. Thereofre did we omit Hashem’s name (Einei Haeida, ibid.)!
For this reason was I uncomfortable with the Putin/Haman connection. Let’s not give Putin a bigger head than he already has!
VI.
Another explanation offered is based on a famous chazal (Megilla 10) that Hashem does not rejoice at the downfall of His enemies. Since the megilla is a form of shira (it replaces Hallel), Hashem’s name does not appear (Yaffa Eineim, Teztaveh).
VII.
Finally, a most amazing explanation, again from the Shevet Hamussar. Moshe said mecheini nuh m’sifrecha, and was indeed erased from tetzaveh. Moshe didn’t wish to witness the destruction of klal yisroel, and would then wish his name erased. As alluded to in chazal (Yalkut to Yeshayahu 43 #455), Hashem does not wish to have His name mentioned if the yidden are not, chalila, here. So, since He did decide to destroy klal yisroel (see Esther Rabbah 7:13), Hashem ‘followed’ the path of Moshe by erasing Himself from the megillah!
Shul Chronicles 
Leave a comment