Rambam closes Hilchot Megillah (2:18) by citing the enigmatic view of the Talmud Yerushalmi ("haneviim vehaketuvim atidin libatel vechamishah sidrei Torah ein atidin libatel; ...Resh Lakish amar af Megillat Esther vehalachot ein atidin libatel...vezichram lo yasuf mizaram") that elevates Megillat Esther above the rest of Nach and that groups it with the Torah itself as the exclusive biblical canon in the era of yemot ha-mashiach. Ra'avad registers his objection to this apparently unvarnished reading that he conceives as being simply untenable. Instead, he proposes that the Yerushalmi intended only to limit public readings to Torah and Megillat Esther, while the canonical status and stature of the entire Tanach remains inviolate. Nonetheless, even in his qualified interpretation, Megillat Esther emerges with elite status that needs to be accounted for. The prooftext invoked by the Yerushalmi - (Megillat Esther 9:28) - is particularly intriguing as it presumably (emphasized by Radvaz, as we shall discuss) accentuates the unforgettable distresses and dangers leading to Purim, alongside and notwithstanding the ultimate joyous conclusion.
The Midrash (Mishlei 9) articulates a parallel perspective on the singular standing of Purim with respect to other moadim - "shekol hamoadim beteilim veyemei haPurim lo yihiyu beteilim". Rashba (Responsa 1:93) was queried about the astonishing assertion that the moadim excluding Purim are subject to cancellation. Even as he emphatically rejected, even dismissed the superficial reading and implication of this text, Rashba posited that the midrash identifies a unique facet shared only by Purim and Yom Kippur. He explains that although other festivals are also depicted as "chukat olam" in the sense of being unqualified annual obligations ("azharah"), only Yom Kippur and Purim are guaranteed ("havtachah") to be eternally relevant and immune to any historical disruption or dislocation, irrespective of Klal Yisrael's conduct! It is curious that while Rashba accounts for Yom Kippur's intrinsic status - the fact that the day itself conveys expiation ("itzumo shel yom mekaper"), perhaps even absent repentance (particularly according to Rebbe [Shavuot 13a] also the author of this midrash), he does not articulate the basis for Purim's special status, almost as if it is self-evident.
Radvaz (Resp. 2:666), responding to a query about the aforementioned Yerushalmi passage, notes the Rashba's discussion of the midrash, integrates the two sources, and provides additional insight into both texts. He suggests that the spiritually conducive climate of the messianic era might render the other festivals somewhat gratuitous, but that Purim's theme, rooted as the Yerushalmi prooftext indicates, in the challenge of severe crisis and calamity and its subsequent joyous resolution remains acutely compelling and ever regnant - "ki yihiyu Yisrael zochrim hatza'ar, vechi nimkeru lemitah, vekol mah she'ira lahem beoto zeman".
Indeed, the change in the Megillah's formulation of this festival reflects an acute focus on hashgachah, faith, spiritual resilience, and indomitable optimism. The Megillah (9:19) initially depicts Purim as a more conventional "yom tov" typically expressed by "simchah u-mishteh" in conjunction with the more specific focus on "mishloach manot ish le-reiehu". The Talmud (Megillah 5b), weighing whether there is a prohibition against "melachah" on Purim ultimately dismisses this ubiquitous and defining mo'ed standard, noting that several verses later, the Megillah (9:22) reformulated the holiday, dropping this typical feature - "Melachah lo kabilu alayhu demeikara ketiv simchah umishteh veyom tov, u-levasof ketiv la'asot otam yemei mishteh vesimchah, veilu yom tov lo ketiv". While the Talmud does not emphasize them, other equally important, albeit subtle changes were also introduced into the new and normative articulation of Purim. The precedence of "mishteh" to "simchah" conveys a different motif than a typical yom tov seduah, one in which the heightened consciousness of Hashem's mercy and generosity triggered by targeted physicality (a proper, reflective application of "ad delo yada") is appropriately employed. [See also the view and formulation of the Yerushalmi Megillah 1:4 regarding the exclusion of seudat Purim on shabbat. I hope to examine this fascinating text and issue elsewhere, as it possibly also crystallizes the unique focus of Purim with respect to the initiatives to formalize it as a festival, as well as its singular features that differentiate it from typical moadim.] Moreover, the exclusion of "yom tov" was accompanied by the inclusion of "matanot l"evyonim", a particularly crucial and defining theme, as we shall briefly elaborate. Especially in light of the elite elevated status of Purim, reflected by the Yerushalmi and midrashic texts, these differences should not be perceived as reflecting a less rigorous protocol, a concession to the rabbinic status of the commemoration. Rather, the changes characterize a bolder spiritual aspiration, one more conducive to highlighting the ubiquity and urgency of Hashem's special providence that stems from the irrevocable and inimitable bond with Klal Yisrael.
Let us briefly focus on the centrality of mattanot l'evyonim as it likely exemplifies Purim's special theme. Rambam (2:17, see Magid Mishnah and also compare with Hilchos Yom Tov 6:20) strikingly asserts that this facet of Purim commemoration surpasses mishloach manot, notwithstanding the fact that it was, unlike mishloach manot, only inserted into the later iteration of Purim. Apparently, the addition of "mattanot l'evyonim" in conjunction with the subtraction of "yom tov" is characteristic. Perhaps Rambam's assertion is further substantiated, maybe even inspired by the view of R. Yosef (Megillah 4b). The Talmud notes that the megillah is not read on shabbat and provides two different rationales. The normative view (Hilchos Megillah 1:13) is that, like lulav and shofar, there is a concern lest one come to violate the prohibition to carry on shabbat. However, the gemara also records R. Yosef's argument that one cannot separate mattanot l'evyonim from keriat ha-megillah inasmuch as there is an urgent expectation of support in conjunction with the keriah - "eineihem shel aniyyim nesuot le-mikra Megillah"- that cannot be met on shabbat! The fear of chilul Shabbat per se is not a sufficient obstacle, but the disappointment of evyonim is! This inextricable link is normatively manifest in the law (Megillah 4b and Rambam Hilchos Megillah 2:14) that although kefarim dwellers who advance their keriat ha-Megilah do not partake of the seudah or mishloach manot until Adar 14, mattanot l'evyonim is fulfilled in conjunction with the earlier keriah to avoid frustrating the hopes of evyonim! The choice of the term "evyonim" rather than "aniyyim" in this context underscores the theme of desperation and the urgency not only of assistance but equally of hope and optimism.
The danger and distress of am Yisrael in the aftermath of Haman's genocidal plot engendered a renewed and advance appreciation for Divine providence, and the role of faith, trust, and optimism. For this reason, Taanit Esther, defined by the charge of "leich kenos ha-Yehudim", plays and outsize role on Purim. [I hope to demonstrate this elsewhere.] The themes of "ve-nahapoch hu", "balayalah hazeh nadedah shenat ha-melech", "u-mi yodea im le-eit kazot higa'at lemlachut" and others highlight the centrality of Divine providence and reflect the special bond that always defines the relationship between Hashem and Klal Yisrael. Rav Amram Gaon ruled that one should say tahanun on Purim, as it is a day that highlights the efficacy of prayer. His stirring articulation of this idea is vital reading. We read the Megillah closely as a "sefer" but equally with a broader vision of hashgachah as an "iggeret" for this very reason.
If the crisis background of Purim was merely the context for greater joy, appreciation, and hoda'ah alone that surely would have been very significant and merited a holiday, although one that was cast in a more conventional form. The decision to structure Purim in a singular manner that more broadly emphasizes the proper halachic way to process and respond to crisis and distress and that embodies the ubiquitous need for faith and trust catapulted Purim still further, establishing it as an elite indispensable moed, as crystallized by the ambitious statements of the Yerushalmi and the midrash.
The crises of recent years have again tested our perspective on Purim. The superficial and mistaken impression that Purim is a celebration or at least a pretext for frivolity precludes its full commemoration in somber times. In fact, as Rashba explains, there is no historical circumstances that would justify cancelling or even minimizing Purim. Indeed, its focus on optimism and faith - shekol kovecha lo yevoshu velo yikalmu lanezah, kol hachosim bach (see also Rambam's stirring depiction of Purim in his preamble to Yad Hachazakah) - establishes a properly appreciated and appropriately celebrated Purim as even more vital in times of uncertainty and crisis.