Achashverosh's Shock and Fury/2

Achashverosh's Surprise

Exegetical Approaches

Unaware and Fickle

Achashverosh had been unaware of Esther's Jewish identity, and being both drunk and foolish, did not immediately make the connection to Haman's edict.

Haman's request – This position assumes that Haman was upfront when discussing his plan to annihilate the Jewish people and that Achashverosh knew from the beginning both which nation was referred to and what Haman planned to do them.

10,000 pieces of gold

How did Esther hide her identity?

Honor to Mordechai

Significance to hanging?

Esther's tactics

Misled by Haman

Achashverosh had been deceived by Haman, who had hidden the identity of the nation he was planning on destroying and/or misled him regarding what he intended to do to that nation.  Thus, it was with Esther's comment that Achashverosh first realized that Haman planned to annihilate the Jews.

Haman's request - "יֶשְׁנוֹ עַם אֶחָד" – These commentators point out that throughout Haman's speech he never mentions which nation it is that he is referring to,¹ and only explains why they are problematic.  Achashverosh, either due to trust in his closest adviser,² or from pure stupidity,³ does not ask questions and just gives his stamp of authority.

Haman's request - "יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם" – According to most of these commentators, when speaking to the king, Haman was purposefully misleading in choosing the language of "לְאַבְּדָם", a word which can sustain more than one meaning.⁴ Only in the official letters to the various states does Haman disambiguate, adding ‎"‏‎לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד‎".⁵ The exegetes disagree, though, regarding what it was that Haman meant for Achashverosh to understand:

• Religious persecution – Malbim asserts that the word "לאבד" can refer not only to physical destruction, but to spiritual destruction as well.⁶ Haman convinced the king that the nation's observance of different religious customs were detrimental to the kingdom and that they should be forced to act like the other religions.⁷
• Enslavement – R. Astruc⁸ suggests that Haman told Achashverosh that the nation was rebellious⁹ leading Achashverosh to conclude that they needed to be subdued and enslaved.¹⁰
• Exile – Y"S Reggio points to the verse, "וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר "‎¹¹ as evidence that the root can refer to exile and suggests that Haman told the king that it was best to banish this lawless nation from his empire.¹²
• Despoiling - Alternatively, Haman thought the king would assume he simply wanted to plunder the problematic nation, understanding "לְאַבְּדָם" to mean that they would be dispossessed and lose their property.¹³

10,000 pieces of gold – Haman's offer is understood differently by the commentators, in line with their individual understandings of the connotations of "לְאַבְּדָם" above:

• Self-financed – According to Malbim, Haman was saying that, in their religious fervor, the officers would be so happy to fulfill the decree that they would finance it by themselves. 
• Tax replacement - Y"S Reggio might suggest instead that Haman was offering to pay the amount that would be lost in taxes if the nation was to be exiled.¹⁴
• Profits – According to those who suggest that Haman's words were understood as either selling the nation into slavery or dispossessing them, Haman might be telling the king that the profits from such a sale/plundering would go to the royal treasury.¹⁵ 

Different letters – Malbim points out that Haman sent out two sets of letters, sealed missives which contained the the identity of the nation to be killed and which were not to be opened until the thirteenth of Adar, and open letters which simply told the provinces to prepare themselves for war on that date.  Haman thus attempted to ensure that word of his true plans did not get back to Achashverosh until it was too late.

Did Achashverosh know Esther was Jewish? According to this approach it is possible that Achashverosh knew all along that Esther was Jewish; he simply did not know that the edict referred to Jews.  See -- for positions that suggest that Esther never tried to conceal her nationality but only her specific lineage and connections to the royal line.

Honor to Mordechai – According to this approach Achashverosh's honoring of Mordechai is not the product of a fickle king who decides to exterminate the Jews one day and revere them the next, but part of a consistently positive attitude towards the Jewish nation.  In fact, according to most of these sources, this very attitude is what led Haman to hide the identity of the nation he wanted to harm.

Mordechai's report – Y. Grossman suggests that Mordechai told Esther both about the money that Haman meant to give the treasury "לְאַבְּדָם" and the letters that were sent "לְהַשְׁמִידָם"‎¹⁶ because he wanted to share not just the impending tragedy, but more importantly, the fact that  Haman misled the king,¹⁷ telling him one thing but writing another.¹⁸

Esther's tactics - "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי" – -- that Esther tried to cast blame off Achashevrosh and pin it solely on Haman,  She thus "innocently" suggests that if the only wrong done was to slave her nation into slavery (what Achashverosh assumed he agreed to),  that would not be worth troubling the king over, but when the stakes are ife and death she cannot remain quiet.

Significance to hanging?

Biblical Parallels

Playing Innocent

Achashverosh immediately understood that Esther was referring to Haman's plan which he himself had approved, but he feigned innocence so as to cast the blame solely on Haman.

¹ According to most of these commentators Haman knew that the king admired the Jews for their wisdom and would never agree to harm them.   The Gr"a and -- add that Haman was thinking specifically about the kings feelings towards Mordechia.  After his role in saving the king's life it would not be easy to convince Achashverosh to kill off his nation.

² See Reggio and Malbim who defend Achashverosh, painting him not as a foolish king but as one who understandably relied on trusted advisers to act in his kingdom's best interests.

³ See R. Avraham Saba and R. Aharon Wolf who view Achashverosh negatively, critiquing him and painting him as a fool.  Since both these commentators suggest that Haman only misled Achashevrosh regarding the nation to be destroyed but assume that he was upfront about the actual destruction, Achashverosh emerges even worse. How can a king simply give his approval to annihilate a nation without even knowing who is referred to and without further questioning?

⁴ All the variations of this position must assume that Tanakh is preserving the ambiguity of the original Persian in which Haman would have spoken to the Achashverosh. Since he picked a word which could have been interpreted in more than one way, when Esther recounted the story she tried to find a matching word in Hebrew which would have a similar double meaning.

⁵ Since Achashverosh had given Haman his signet ring and told him to do as he pleased, Haman could easily have added these words without the king's knowledge.

⁶ Given Haman's introduction regarding the unique ways of the nation and the fact that  "דָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם", it is not surprising that Achasheverosh might have heard a desire to eradicate the nation's religious beliefs and not their physical being.

⁷ This approach might encounter difficulty from the fact that Persian kings were known to be religiously tolerant.  It is not clear that Achashverosh would so easily be convinced to convert a nation to other religious beliefs.  In addition the overwhelming majority of appearances of the root "אבד" clearly refer to physical destruction.  Both Yirmeyahu 18:18 and Yechezkel 7:26, though, do use the root in connection to loss of Torah knowledge.

⁸ For an extensive list of others who suggest that Haman meant the king to understand "לְאַבְּדָם" as sold into slavery, see B. Shpigel, "מהפכו של אחשורוש במשתה השני עם אסתר", Megadim 43 (2005):102, n. 49.  See also modern scholars who take this approach. M. Lehman, "A Reconstruction of the Purim Story", Tradition 12:3 (1971):90-98  and Y. Grossman, "גדירת המן וכרם נבות" Megadim 30 (1999):49-67.  The latter develops and attempts to support the approach from a literary comparison to the story of Navot.
R. Ashkenazi agrees with this general theory but suggests that Achashverosh understood the two possibilities and recognized that Haman was intentionally hesitant to reveal his true desire.  He suggests that, nonetheless, Achashverosh granted him permission to do as he pleased (לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ), and to act upon either meaning of the word.  He did not personally sign the edict, though, since he preferred to be left in the dark.

⁹ This is inferred from Haman's words, "וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים". Haman also pointed out how the people were dispersed throughout the empire which made them difficult to govern but easy for them to incite further rebellion or join with enemies.

¹⁰ R. Astruc does not actually say that Haman was intentionally ambiguous, but more simply that his false accusation of rebellion led Achashverosh to the conclusion that they be enslaved.  He suggests that when Achashevrosh told Haman, "לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ" the king meant that he do only what will be "good", meaning not to destroy the nation but simply make them submissive.  Haman, in his hatred,heard what he wanted to hear and felt free to do as he pleased.
Those that suggest that Haman misled Achashverosh through his choice of language and not via false accusation have some difficulty, for it not clear if the root "אבד" ever takes the connotation of enslavement.  Y. Grossman (see above note) attempts to find support from the rebuke in Devarim 28 which speaks of "אבדון" in the context of exile and later enslavement, but the immediate context there too is one of destruction: "לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם" (Devarim 28:63).
See the alternative possibility raised by Ohev Yisrael, brought in R. Kasher's Torah Sheleimah, Megillat Esther(Jeruslaem 1994): 196, note 14, who suggests that Haman was not simply ambiguous in his language but actively changed the edict. Achashevrosh had signed a missive written in Hebrew which read "לעבדם" (to enslave them) and Haman changed it to "לאבדם" (to destroy them).  One can suggest a variation of this approach, that Haman purposefully picked a homonym so that the king could hear "לעבדם" rather than "לאבדם". The advantage of this variation is that it allows Haman to innocently claim that he had meant the latter all along and it does not have to posit a questionable secondary meaning to the word "לאבדם".

¹¹ See Yeshayahu 27:13.

¹² As further support for this possibility he points to Haman's earlier words, "וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין שֹׁוֶה לְהַנִּיחָם" and suggests that they are in effect parallel to the later phrase "יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם". It does not pay to leave the nation be in the empire, but rather the king should write an edict to evict them.

¹³ See M. Lehman (above note) who suggests that the term might mean to  dispossess, even though afterwards he suggests that this refers to enslavement.

¹⁴ See R. Ashkenazi who suggests this though he understands the ambiguity in the word "לְאַבְּדָם" differently.  He points out that Haman was astute enough to note the possible reservations of the king and hoped to preempt them.

¹⁵ According to this position, Haman's earlier words "לַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין שֹׁוֶה לְהַנִּיחָם" would mean that it is not worth it to leave the nation be when there is an opportunity to make money off them.

¹⁶ One would have expected that he tell Esther only that Haman sent an edict permitting the nation's destruction, but not bother to relay the earlier discussion surrounding the money, especially in light of the fact that Achashverosh' refused Haman's offer.

¹⁷ He suggests that when the narrator states, "וּמׇרְדֳּכַי יָדַע אֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה" at the opening of chapter four, this is to allude to the fact that Mordechai discovered Haman's deception.

¹⁸ Mordechai was already hinting to the way in which Esther could undo the decree, by revealing Haman to the king.