וְהַמֶּ֡לֶךְ שָׁב֩ מִגִּנַּ֨ת הַבִּיתָ֜ן אֶל־בֵּ֣ית ׀ מִשְׁתֵּ֣ה הַיַּ֗יִן וְהָמָן֙ נֹפֵ֗ל עַל־הַמִּטָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶסְתֵּ֣ר עָלֶ֔יהָ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ הֲ֠גַ֠ם לִכְבּ֧וֹשׁ אֶת־הַמַּלְכָּ֛ה עִמִּ֖י בַּבָּ֑יִת הַדָּבָ֗ר יָצָא֙ מִפִּ֣י הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וּפְנֵ֥י הָמָ֖ן חָפֽוּ׃
When the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet room, Haman was lying prostrate on the couch on which Esther reclined. “Is he attempting,” cried the king, “a conquest of the queen in my own palace?” No sooner did these words leave the king’s lips than Haman’s face was covered.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation.)
The (infinitive) verb לִכְבּוֹשׁ can express either a sexual or a political power play, or both.
In the JPS Bible Commentary series, Adele Berlin incisively perceives that both aspects are evoked here (emphasis added):
“It is not merely the question of a sexual advance. [It] has all the political connotations always associated with an attempt to take someone else’s (especially a king’s) wife or concubine: it signals an attempt to supplant the husband’s authority and replace it with the usurper’s (see Ibn Ezra).”
Berlin goes on to explain that this ostensibly treasonous act is (ironically) what actually seals Haman’s doom.
On some level, the king rightly perceives that his prime minister is a threat to his authority. In that light, when the king hears that Haman is prepared to kill the very man who saved his life, it underscores that sense of threat (v. 9).
As for translation into English, the NJPS rendering “‘Does he mean … to ravish the queen in my own palace?’” expresses only the perceived sexual advance. Yet the rendering needs to express also the perceived challenge to the throne, because that nuance is needed to explain what happens next.
The NJPS rendering is misleading because, for better or worse, the charge of sexual assault alone would not have warranted a summary execution. I.e., that rendering inaccurately depicts ancient Near Eastern gender norms.
(For the same reason, equally misleading is the NRSV/REB/ESV/NLT rendering ‘assault’ and the CEV/GNT ‘rape’ and the NIV ‘molest’. )
Conversely, the fairly literal verb ‘to conquer’ would be an inadequate rendering because it lacks the sexual component. However, the noun form ‘conquest’ can express both of the desired meanings. The revised rendering thus recasts the sentence as needed to incorporate this noun.