Haman on Trial Sources

(1) Some time afterward, King Ahasuerus promoted Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite; he advanced him and seated him higher than any of his fellow officials. (2) All the king’s courtiers in the palace gate knelt and bowed low to Haman, for such was the king’s order concerning him; but Mordecai would not kneel or bow low. (3) Then the king’s courtiers who were in the palace gate said to Mordecai, “Why do you disobey the king’s order?” (4) When they spoke to him day after day and he would not listen to them, they told Haman, in order to see whether Mordecai’s resolve would prevail; for he had explained to them that he was a Jew.aI.e., that as a Jew he could not bow to a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king; see 1 Sam. 15, and cf. Exod. 17.14–16; Deut. 25.17–19.

(5) When Haman saw that Mordecai would not kneel or bow low to him, Haman was filled with rage. (6) But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone; having been told who Mordecai’s people were, Haman plotted to do away with all the Jews, Mordecai’s people, throughout the kingdom of Ahasuerus.

(7) In the first month, that is, the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, pur—which means “the lot”—was cast before Haman concerning every day and every month, [until it fell on] the twelfth month, that is, the month of Adar. (8) Haman then said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the other peoples in all the provinces of your realm, whose laws are different from those of any other people and who do not obey the king’s laws; and it is not in Your Majesty’s interest to tolerate them. (9) If it please Your Majesty, let an edict be drawn for their destruction, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the stewards for deposit in the royal treasury.”

(10) Thereupon the king removed his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the foe of the Jews. (11) And the king said, “The money and the people are yours to do with as you see fit.”

(1) On the third day, Esther put on royal apparel and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, facing the king’s palace, while the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room facing the entrance of the palace. (2) As soon as the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, she won his favor. The king extended to Esther the golden scepter which he had in his hand, and Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter. (3) “What troubles you, Queen Esther?” the king asked her. “And what is your request? Even to half the kingdom, it shall be granted you.” (4) “If it please Your Majesty,” Esther replied, “let Your Majesty and Haman come today to the feast that I have prepared for him.” (5) The king commanded, “Tell Haman to hurry and do Esther’s bidding.” So the king and Haman came to the feast that Esther had prepared. (6) At the wine feast, the king asked Esther, “What is your wish? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to half the kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.” (7) “My wish,” replied Esther, “my request— (8) if Your Majesty will do me the favor, if it please Your Majesty to grant my wish and accede to my request—let Your Majesty and Haman come to the feast which I will prepare for them; and tomorrow I will do Your Majesty’s bidding.” (9) That day Haman went out happy and lighthearted. But when Haman saw Mordecai in the palace gate, and Mordecai did not rise or even stir on his account, Haman was filled with rage at him. (10) Nevertheless, Haman controlled himself and went home. He sent for his friends and his wife Zeresh, (11) and Haman told them about his great wealth and his many sons, and all about how the king had promoted him and advanced him above the officials and the king’s courtiers. (12) “What is more,” said Haman, “Queen Esther gave a feast, and besides the king she did not have anyone but me. And tomorrow too I am invited by her along with the king. (13) Yet all this means nothing to me every time I see that Jew Mordecai sitting in the palace gate.” (14) Then his wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him, “Let a stake be put up, fifty cubits high, and in the morning ask the king to have Mordecai impaled on it. Then you can go gaily with the king to the feast.” The proposal pleased Haman, and he had the stake put up.

(1) So the king and Haman came to feast with Queen Esther. (2) On the second day, the king again asked Esther at the wine feast, “What is your wish, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to half the kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.” (3) Queen Esther replied: “If Your Majesty will do me the favor, and if it pleases Your Majesty, let my life be granted me as my wish, and my people as my request. (4) For we have been sold, my people and I, to be destroyed, massacred, and exterminated. Had we only been sold as bondmen and bondwomen, I would have kept silent; for aEmendation yields “a trifle” (ḥiṣṣar), lit. “little finger.”the adversary-a is not worthy of the king’s trouble.” (5) Thereupon King Ahasuerus demanded of Queen Esther, “Who is he and where is he who dared to do this?” (6) “The adversary and enemy,” replied Esther, “is this evil Haman!” And Haman cringed in terror before the king and the queen.

(7) The king, in his fury, left the wine feast for the palace garden, while Haman remained to plead with Queen Esther for his life; for he saw that the king had resolved to destroy him. (8) When the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet room, Haman was lying prostrate on the couch on which Esther reclined. “Does he mean,” cried the king, “to ravish the queen in my own palace?” No sooner did these words leave the king’s lips than Haman’s face bMeaning of Heb. uncertain. Emendation yields “blanched”; cf. Ps. 34.6.was covered.-b (9) Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “What is more, a stake is standing at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high, which Haman made for Mordecai—the man whose words saved the king.” “Impale him on it!” the king ordered. (10) So they impaled Haman on the stake which he had put up for Mordecai, and the king’s fury abated.

Questions

WHY did Achashverosh elevate Haman so much? WHY did this happen“after these events”? WHAT is the difference between “promoted” and “elevated”?

After these things – the commentators explain that Achashverosh forgot that Esther had informed him about the assassination plot in the name of Mordechai, and that this king wanted very much to reward those who did him good, but he did not find with what he could pay Esther back for saving his life. He thought she would be delighted if he did good to the princes that advised him to get Esther, Memuchan being first among them, and it was Memuchan who had suggested that the maidens be assembled, which led to Esther becoming queen – and therefore he was raised above all. Since the king had forgotten who revealed the conspiracy of Bigtan and Teresh, it was easy for Haman to convince Achashverosh that he was the one who had exposed the plot, which led to further elevation of Haman who was "wearing a talit that was not his" [ie receiving glory that he did not deserve] but this glory was really owed to Mordechai – nevertheless this came from God, that the evil one should temporarily receive this honor until the time came to give it to its rightful owner.

Promoted and elevated – It is a custom among kings not to advance someone from a low rank to a very high suddenly, but rather gradually, in stages. I explained this in parashat Miketz, regarding the advancement of Yosef by Pharaoh: [And God] put me as a father to Pharaoh and then as a master in his house and then as a king over all Egypt (Gen. 45:8). And so too did Achashverosh: he initially promoted Haman to be one of his officials, and then elevated him until Haman reached the pinnacle – placed his seat above all the princes who were with him, above everyone else.

Questions

WHAT was the point to restrict the command to bow to those “at the king’s gate” rather than all the king’s servants should bow? WHY are we told, “this is what the king had commanded him,” rather than “this is what the king had commanded them”? WHY didn’t Mordechai bow?

And all - Achashverosh gave Haman further glory that all the king’s servants, even those who were at the king’s gate, were obligated to kneel and prostrate themselves before him. According to the customs of kings when the king is present it is forbidden to show honor to anyone else, as this would be a slight to the king’s honor (as we have seen that Uriah the Chitite was rebelling against the Davidic rule because he called Yoav ‘my master’ in front of David see II Sam 11:11 and Kiddushin 43a). Achashverosh let go of this honor and ordered that even those “at the king’s gate” bow down to Haman, since the king had commanded him and did forgo this honor – not only due to Haman’s honor, he wanted to show that he was the one who could forgo this honor – and [yet] he didn’t give to Haman the possibility of checking and punishing those who transgressed the commandment of the king. Despite this, Mordechai, however, would not bow and was determined not to do so under no circumstances. The reason for his refusal according to commentators was that bowing down to someone was considered acceptance of divinity. The olden peoples believed that if a person had unusual capabilities on some area, being wise, rich or strong it was attributed to his being “a son of the gods” or because a “star” or “higher power” provided this in him, as we read about Nevuchednetzar (Daniel 2:47) Then the king Nevuchednetzar fell upon his face, and bowed down to Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an offering and sweet odors to him. Therefore, Mordechai refused because he was a Jew. Secondly, the king’s edict applied to those under two conditions: servants of the king who sat at the king’s gate. Mordechai had upon him only one condition: he sat at the king’s gate, but was not one of the king’s servants since he was Jewish, and a Jew could not be a servant of the king under Persian custom. Both of these reasons are included in what is written: he had told them that he was a Jew.

Questions

ISN’T it unthinkable that a ruler assent to the extermination of an entire group with no crime in their hands? MORE, if he had agreed to this, why was he surprised, saying Who is this who dares to do this (7:5)? Is this enormous thing unimportant, that he did not remember who did what? Also, if he did decided to do this evil thing, WHY is he so enraged with Haman? And WHY does he writing the whole narrative for posterity, a story in which he will be remembered, for eternity? WHEN Haman is informing the king, why not mention the Jewish people by name, saying only that “there is a certain people”? WHY he does not say “to destroy them” but only “to lose them” ? WHY are the words “scattered” and “dispersed” both used? WHY say “their religions” in the plural? WHY does the text say that “their religions are different from all people”? It should say, “are different from the religions of all people.”

And Haman said – It will be explained that Haman deceived Achashverosh in two things. One, he never told him which people he was denouncing: if Achashverosh knew it was the Jews, who were known as a wise and intelligent people, he would never have listened to Haman’s advice. This would also have applied for another, more humble and despised people if he had explicitly told him that his goal was to annihilate them also he would not have agreed. But Haman cunningly said, “There is a certain people” – a nation so obscure that they cannot even be referred to by name. Given that he wanted to inform on them as harmful to all the other peoples, in their faith and their civil behavior they would pose no danger if they were living by themselves, in their own province, even if they were the least desirable of nations; and even if they lived in provinces inhabited by other people but lived in their own separate towns, their bad influence would be small and the king would not have condoned their destruction. And so Haman explained that they are scattered to make the point that they do not have their own province, and also they are dispersed – they do not live in their own separate towns but are found in every area and in every neighborhood, they do not inhabit a small area but are among the peoples throughout all the provinces of your kingdom, in a way that their bad influence is to be found everywhere. Then he began describing how this influence can be dangerous in two general areas: In the area of their faith, since their religions are different from all people. This includes three different aspects:

1. The difference of the Israelite religion from other religions
2. All religions are different from each other - but they usually differ only in their beliefs and underlying principles, but they can be grouped by their religious practices. The Israelite religion, though, has so many practices and so many mitzvot which can be grouped differently that it seems to be composed of many religions, all of which are different from other religions, and are not similar to them in any aspect.
3. Not only is the Israelite religion different, but the Jews themselves are intrinsically different from all people, since their religion separates them from other people in the food they eat, in the clothes they wear and how they behave, to the point that their very personal lives are different from the rest of the peoples. And regarding the national collective he states that they do not adhere to the king’s laws that even the laws that do not conflict with their religious beliefs and only require compliance with their fiscal duty to the king, they flagrantly disregard, and from them other peoples learn to rebel against the king and his authority. Now that you think of the great damage that comes through them, don’t even think that there might be a possible gain from leaving them be: it is no use for the king to let them be, there is absolutely no gain that can possibly outweigh the damage [they cause] by their being left alone.

Questions

WHY is it significant that he gave his ring to Haman? WHY is Haman’s lineage mentioned here again, and why is Haman referred to as adversary of the Jews?

And he took off – The text comes to tell now that the king was not culpable regarding this at all, since he tricked him by not telling which was the nation and that his aim was extermination. If the king himself would have read and signed the letter, he would have seen that [Haman] was lying and he would not have agreed with him. But the king, due to his trust in Haman, gave him the royal signet ring with which to sign on his name and so [Haman] was then able to change things and write to kill etc (Esther 3:13). This is why it says that the king was not culpable in this, only Haman was the adversary of the Jews and wrote it all by himself, spurred by the hatred of his ancestors and which remained in him for eternity since he was an Agagite.

Questions

WHY is on that day written? WHY are do we read “did not rise” and also not “move”? We are told that “Haman was full of anger against Mordechai” but (in 3:5) “Haman was full of anger.” [without “against Mordechai”] WHY the difference?

We now learn the true evil of Haman’s character. Despite his tremendous success he had never had a happy day in his life, since at every level he rose, he was always searching for the next, and the previous one seemed small in his eyes. Now on that day, he reached the level of being equal to the king, so he went out happy and with a glad heart - but this did not last long, since when he saw Mordechai, his emotions turned about to grief and sadness. Mordechai did not rise, he did not even move in his presence – Mordechai was not at all intimidated by Haman even though he could have Mordechai killed. Mordechai refrained from bowing for religious reasons but he should be fearful in front of someone who could severely punish him. Therefore now, when he saw that Mordechai was not even slightly in awe of him, Haman was full of anger against Mordechai, personally (at the beginning his anger included both his people and their religion and so the text had simply "he was full of anger" see Esther 3:5).

Questions

From "Haman restrained himself and went home" we learn that if he had not restrained himself, he would have gone somewhere else. WHERE?

Haman initially thought of returning to the king, denouncing Mordechai, and having him killed. However, Haman restrained himself and went home to consult with his friends.

Questions

WHY did Haman now recount the “glory of his wealth”?

And he recounted - Haman had not ordered Mordechai’s execution because he deemed it beneath his dignity to quarrel with a lowly, solitary Jew for not bowing down to him. Haman’s importance was a reason for ignoring the insult of such a lowly individual. On the one hand, Haman’s greatness multiplied the severity of Mordechai’s offense. On the other hand, it was an obstacle to punishing Mordechai.

Therefore, Haman started by recounting his exalted stature. This was the root cause of his need for advice as to how to handle Mordechai. A person's temporal success has three areas: great number of possessions, of children, and how great one's authority is. Haman self-glorified in all the three areas – the glory of his wealth, the large number of his sons, and how the king had promoted him.

Questions

WHAT was so shrewd about the suggestion to build the gallows, and WHY should it be “fifty cubits tall”? WHY should Haman speak to the king sepcifically “in the morning”?

Haman’s friends and wife gave him shrewd advice how to avenge [his honor] on Mordechai without lowering his prestige. If he were to hang Mordechai for the offense of not bowing down to him it would be humiliating to have had a quarrel with a Jew who had slighted him but, occasionally, the king might order the execution of a dissident to create an atmosphere of fear and to instill discipline into his subjects, expressing that whoever does something like this will be hanged. For this purpose one of the lowliest individuals was chosen and hanged publicly on a tall gallows, so that everyone could see and be afraid. If Mordechai was hanged this way, it would not take away from Haman's honor to have killed such an abject individual since it would not be because of the offense of not bowing to Haman, but to set an example to the king’s subjects.

And so they advised him with guile that he should make a gallows fifty cubits tall to show clearly that his hanging was intended to be a public example so all will hear and fear. Second, the hanging should take place early in the morning because this is the way of execution for this goal, as as people left their homes they would see and not transgress anymore. For a person hanged due to a specific personal transgression it would not be so, since they are hanged after the trial which would continue until the afternoon and also they were hanged from lower gallows, and with all this done he could go happily to the banquet.

Questions

“IT was found written” seems to imply that it would not be expected to be written there, as if one might think it would have been erased.

It was found written because there the name Mordechai was not erased since it was from the king’s private record and so [the king learned that] it was not Haman who had told Esther but that Mordechai had informed her. From this the king became aware that his promotion of Haman, in the belief that he had saved his life, had been a mistake, and that the honor belonged to Mordechai. And here Divine providence is told, that at the very moment that Haman comes to ask the king to hang Mordechai, the thing is upended, as the king becomes aware that Haman’s prominence really belonged to Mordechai.

“There is one people” (Esther 3:8):

Rava said: No one was ever as skillful at evil language as Haman.

Haman said to Ahashverosh: Come, let us destroy them.

Ahashverosh replied: I am afraid of their God, lest He do to me as He did to my predecessors.

Haman replied: They are “negligent” (yashu) of the precepts.

Ahashverosh said: There are Rabbis among them.

Haman replied: They are “one people”. Should you say that I will make a void in your kingdom, they are “scattered abroad among the peoples”. Should you say: There is some profit in them, I reply, “they are dispersed” [nifredu], like an isolated bough [peridah] that does not bear fruit. Should you say that they occupy one province, I reply, “they are in all the provinces of your kingdom”. “Their laws are diverse from those of every other people”: they do not eat of our food, nor do they marry our women nor give us theirs in marriage. “Neither keep they the king’s laws”, since they evade taxes the whole year by saying today is Shabbat, today is Pesah. “Therefore it does not profit the king to suffer them”, because they eat and drink and despise the throne. For if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, he throws it out and drinks the wine, but if my lord the king were to touch his cup, he would dash it on the ground and not drink from it. “If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver”:

And the king said to Haman, The silver is given to you and the people also, to do with them as it seems good in your eyes.”

[14a]

R. Abba said: To what can we compare Ahashverosh and Haman? To two men one of whom had a mound in the middle of his field and the other a ditch in the middle of his field. The owner of the ditch said, I wish I could buy that mound, and the owner of the mound said, I wish l could buy that ditch. One day they met, and the owner of the ditch said, Sell me your mound, whereupon the other replied, Take it for nothing, and I shall be only too glad.

“And the king removed his ring” (Esther 3:10): R. Abba b. Kahana said: This removal of the ring was greater than forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses who prophesied to Israel; for all these were not able to turn Israel to do good, and the removal of the ring did turn them to do good.