12

Elsewhere on this site, avi cited sources to the effect that, contrary to the Bavli (M'gila), the events recounted in the book of Ester took place after the second bes hamikdash was built. Do any rishonim (or earlier Judaism sources) say as much, thus lending credibility to the claim? (A number of rishonim, in their commentaries on Nach, did not hesitate to argue with the Bavli's reading of Nach.) I seek not sources who merely could be interpreted as implying as much (after all, one could say the p'sukim themselves imply as much), but sources who actually say so.

Community
  • 1
msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
  • 1
    Why do rishonim affect believability here? They were working with less than we have to determine the history. – Double AA Dec 29 '13 at 01:04
  • 8
    @DoubleAA Rishonim had a better m'sora than we do about what took place when: they were closer to the events. Also, they were holier than we, so I trust their reading of Tanach more than I trust later persons' reading of it, especially where such contradicts the (holier yet) Bavli. – msh210 Dec 29 '13 at 02:10
  • ... To be honest, I wouldn't mind early acharonim as answers to the question, but I figured "rishonim" is a (slightly) easier-to-define category than "rishonim and early acharonim", so I left it at that. – msh210 Dec 29 '13 at 02:16
  • 2
    Holiness is a pretty unfit tool for determining history. How does it help? Were they receiving prophecy? Do you have any evidence for that? I trust that given a history they could derive better messages from the stories, I guess. I'm not sure what mesora you are talking about here. I'm not aware of any such mesora nor do I know of any evidence for it. Do you think there were details about the Persian kings passed down secretly and not recorded till late rishonim? What evidence do you have for that claim? What's the incentive for them to do that? – Double AA Dec 29 '13 at 02:19
  • 3
    Holiness is a pretty fit tool for interpreting Tanach, and I don't think it's unlikely that rishonim had a m'sora, when they learned Ester, that "this took place before|after the binyan bayis sheni" (nothing necessarily to do with Persian kings directly). – msh210 Dec 29 '13 at 05:07
  • I don't see how your first statement contradicts me as there is plenty of interpreting to be done without knowing the history at all. I also don't think you appreciate just how connected Persian history is to dating events in Esther/Ezra. If you don't know the relevant Persian history, there's no way you can be expected to understand the verses accurately. It's not like they were written to teach us Persian history. – Double AA Dec 29 '13 at 05:15
  • Very, very similar: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/35457 – msh210 Feb 12 '14 at 21:39

1 Answers1

1

The most commonly held opinion is that the story of Esther took place after the foundation of the 2nd Beis HaMikdash was built, but before the building was completed. (See Artscroll on Ezra, among others; Medrash Esther Rabba; etc.) The building process was halted by royal edict in the middle of the construction. The exact timeline is discussed in depth by the commentaries on Ezra, where the text itself gives many details of the sequence of events.

Therefore, one could correctly say that the story of Purim took place after the [start of the] building of the 2nd Beis HaMikdash, before the [end of the] building of the 2nd Beis HaMikdash, or during the building of the 2nd Beis HaMikdash. It's just a matter of semantics.

LN6595
  • 5,360
  • 1
  • 20
  • 48
  • 1
    "The accepted opinion" What does that even mean? – Double AA Feb 02 '15 at 18:23
  • 1
    -1 avi's first source by Rabbi Chaim (Howard) Jachter states "even though the events of Megillat Ester occurred in 482 B.C.E., 478 B.C.E., and 473 B.C.E., long after Cyrus permitted Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael (539 B.C.E.) and the Beit Hamikdash was completed (515 B.C.E.)." – Double AA Feb 02 '15 at 18:46
  • @DoubleAA Thank you for the correction. I removed the incorrect section. – LN6595 Feb 02 '15 at 18:48
  • But what is left in this post then? msh210 for some unclear reason want's to know if anyone from a certain limited time period held that view. Can you provide a source to any such example? – Double AA Feb 02 '15 at 18:49
  • @DoubleAA Until we have a better answer, this serves the purpose of disambiguation by clarifying exactly what is being discussed, which is permitted according to the Mi Yodeya Meta. http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/3412/is-it-ok-to-post-extensive-comments-as-answers – LN6595 Feb 02 '15 at 18:51
  • This doesn't qualify under that post at least because it doesn't acknowledge it is not an answer. I'm also not really clear how this material is so helpful as it discusses opinion specifically excluded by the op. – Double AA Feb 02 '15 at 18:58
  • 1
    @LN6595, one score-two answer on Meta is *not* the same as the community agreeing on something. – MTL Feb 02 '15 at 18:58
  • So go ahead and let's figure out what the community agrees. But absent a clear consensus otherwise, the approach Mike takes seems logical to me. – LN6595 Feb 02 '15 at 18:59
  • 1
    Please see isaac's answer there then please [edit] your post to indicate how it "at least provide[s] information that could be helpful toward getting an answer to the question". Right now i dont see how this qualifies. – Double AA Feb 02 '15 at 19:27
  • @LN6595 Again, there is clear consensus there in the form of Isaac's answer. Please edit to bring this into line, or it is likely to be deleted. – Double AA Mar 13 '16 at 05:00