Too much celebration of history – too little personal experience. Many of those who assert the Messianism of the State of Israel do so not because of objective reasons, but because of a desire to tap the wellsprings of passion – which are so lacking in our lives. Wrong-headed, but right intention. Charles Lieberman once said that Orthodoxy had the only remaining source of religious passion.The ”letter” of the Megillah is said twice. First, by Mordecai (Esther 9:20-28). It is obviously one that is full of great emotion and joy. But then Esther sends a second letter (Esther 9:29-32). The key seems to be a very sturdy one -- the intention of Esther was that a the celebration of Purim in the future should not be merely a commemorations of Mordecai’s and Esther’s victory, but, it should retain the whole Intimacy of a personal experience, a Purim not remembered but relived, not recalled but reaenacted.Similarly, R. Meyer Shapiro on:

On passage in Meg. 12a that generation of Purim deserved destruction מפני שנהנו מסעודת אותו רשע: One interpretation has it that the crime of eating it that banquet was נבילות וטריפות. But another one maintains that the sin was one of immorality, זנות. Thus the interpretation of כרצון איש ואיש as, "to gratify the appetite of every man.” According to R. Ylshmael, 18,500 Jews of Shushan participated. If, in the Heavenly account, anti-Semitic destruction comes as a punishment for immorality, then here on earth we can perhaps discern another similar reaction: Intermarriage is a result of punishment for immorality.I feel that a major cause of intermarriage la more a weak family structure than a weak Jewish education. And if the Jewish family is in desparate trouble today, it is largely because it has adopted the life-style of modem society and all its *major norms. Indeed, much to our dismay, Jewish names abound in the list of leaders of revolutionary movements against moral codes, pornography, drug-culture, and ”swinging.” This newfound sexual freedom -- כרצון איש ואיש -- causes bothend of the family and Intermarriage -- and anti-Semitism, as a large population of the United States seaway from both coasts begins to resent what has been foisted upon them.

In reading the Megillah today, it occurred to me that there is in the Megillah a remarkable phenomenon of duplication. The repetition of certain things twice seems to crop up all through the work. Thus: There are two drinking parties, one for the nobility and one for the masses. There are two parties, one for Vashti, and one for Esther. More to the point, because they are inherently inexplicable (for which reason the Sages and Commentaries offer a variety of explanations) such as: A gathering of the maidens at a beauty contest to choose a queen twice—even though Esther had been chosen after the first one; Esther invites the king and Haman twice—even though she could have accused Haman at the first party; the legislation of two days of Purim, one for closed cities and one for open cities—a distinction which has no parallel elsewhere in the Torah and which defies easy explanation; and Mordechai and Esther twice legislate the reading of the Megillah and the attendant mitzvot on Purim--even though once would have sufficed. How to explain all this? Perhaps it is a subtle reaction against the dominant Persian religion. It has been commented often that Megillot Esther goes out of its way not to emphasize Jewish religion; thus, there is no mention of the name of G-d. The references to Him are vague and indirect. This is so, apparently, because the writers of the Megillah are still in exile, and must not upset the local authorities and masses who would not want the Jewish G-d to be credited with their redemption. For the same reason, the authors included subtle attacks, sardonic and satiric and humorous in nature, against the dualism of ancient Persian religion. By emphasizing the number 2 in the story of Jewish redemption, they mean to emphasize that the very number that characterizes the Persian religion is the characteristic number whereby the Children of Israel won their triumph against the Persians.

There is a subtle message in the Megillah that is worth noting: when the Persians and Medes are hostile to an individual, they blame all members of that person's group. There is an easy assumption of collective guilt because of the presumed sins of one of their number. Thus, note how Ahasuerus, furious at his incumbent queen, Vashti, takes it out not only on her but on all women who are assumed to share her guilt and, therefore, must bear thebrunt of her punishment as ordained by the king at the suggestion of his advisors.Then, when Haman is furious at Mordecai, he plans revenge not against Mordecai butagainst עם מרדכי, the entire people or race to which he belongs!And now compare this to Mordecai and Esther and their reaction when the tables are turned and they emerge victorious: Haman and his sons are hanged, but there is no vindictiveness displayed against Haman's ethnic group— the Amalekites, despite theancient enmity between Israel and Amalek.The last point bears looking in to, namely, the halakhic justification for not proceeding to enforce מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק. But whatever the reason, it speaks volumes about the ingrained character of the Jew not to take revenge on a whole group, not to indulge incollective guilt and therefore collective punishment.