Difference between revisions of "Achashverosh's Shock and Fury/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
<li><b>Religious persecution</b> – Malbim asserts that the word "לְאַבֵּד" can refer to not only physical destruction, but to spiritual destruction as well.<fn>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.</fn> Haman convinced the king that the nation's observance of different religious customs was detrimental to the kingdom and that they should be forced to abandon their faith.<fn>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 <multilink><a href="#" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 18:18</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="#" data-aht="source">Yechezkel 7:26</a></multilink>, though, do use the root in connection to loss of Torah knowledge.</fn></li> | <li><b>Religious persecution</b> – Malbim asserts that the word "לְאַבֵּד" can refer to not only physical destruction, but to spiritual destruction as well.<fn>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.</fn> Haman convinced the king that the nation's observance of different religious customs was detrimental to the kingdom and that they should be forced to abandon their faith.<fn>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 <multilink><a href="#" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 18:18</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="#" data-aht="source">Yechezkel 7:26</a></multilink>, though, do use the root in connection to loss of Torah knowledge.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Exile </b>– Y"S Reggio points to the verse "וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר"‎<fn>See Yeshayahu 27:13.</fn> as evidence that the root "אבד" can refer to exile and he thereby suggests that Haman told the king that it was best to banish the lawless nation<fn>Haman emphasizes throughout that the nation does not abide by the laws of the kingdom: "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים".</fn> from his empire.<fn>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.</fn></li> | <li><b>Exile </b>– Y"S Reggio points to the verse "וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר"‎<fn>See Yeshayahu 27:13.</fn> as evidence that the root "אבד" can refer to exile and he thereby suggests that Haman told the king that it was best to banish the lawless nation<fn>Haman emphasizes throughout that the nation does not abide by the laws of the kingdom: "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים".</fn> from his empire.<fn>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.</fn></li> | ||
| − | <li><b>Enslavement </b>–  R.  Arama and R. Ashkenazi<fn>R. Ashkenazi differs from the others who take this overall position on one important point.  He maintains that Achashverosh understood the two possible meanings of the word 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.</fn> suggest that Haman tried to mislead Achashverosh into understanding that he wanted to enslave (and/or evict) the nation.<fn>For an extensive list of others who suggest that Haman meant the king to understand "לְאַבְּדָם" as sold into slavery, see B. | + | <li><b>Enslavement </b>–  R.  Arama and R. Ashkenazi<fn>R. Ashkenazi differs from the others who take this overall position on one important point.  He maintains that Achashverosh understood the two possible meanings of the word 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.</fn> suggest that Haman tried to mislead Achashverosh into understanding that he wanted to enslave (and/or evict) the nation.<fn>For an extensive list of others who suggest that Haman meant the king to understand "לְאַבְּדָם" as sold into slavery, see B. Spiegel, "מהפכו של אחשורוש במשתה השני עם אסתר", Megadim 43 (2005): 102, n. 49. See also modern scholars who take this approach such as M. Lehmann, <a href="http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2012/No.%203/A%20Reconstruction%20of.pdf">"A Reconstruction of the Purim Story"</a>, Tradition 12:3 (1971): 90-98 and Y. Grossman, "גזירת 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.</fn>  Akeidat Yitzchak does not bring any textual proof to support such an understanding of the word "‎‏לְאַבְּדָם‎",<fn>There are no clear examples in Tanakh where the root "אבד" refers to enslavement, but Y. Grossman (see above note) attempts to find support from the rebuke in <multilink><a href="#" data-aht="source">Devarim 28</a></multilink> which speaks of "אבדון" in the context of exile and ultimately enslavement. The immediate context there, though, is also one of destruction: "לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם" (Devarim 28:63).<br/> Another variation of this general approach is raised by Ohev Yisrael, brought in R. Kasher's Torah Sheleimah, Megillat Esther(Jeruslaem 1994): 196, note 14, who suggests that 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 alternatively propose 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".</fn> instead positing that Haman was suggesting that through hard labor they would perish.</li> |
<li><b>Despoiling</b> – A commentary attributed to "Ramah" suggests that the king understood "לְאַבְּדָם" to mean that the nation would be dispossessed and lose their property.<fn>See also M. Lehmann (above note) who similarly suggests that the term might mean to  dispossess, even though afterwards he suggests that as a whole the king thought Haman referred to enslavement.</fn></li> | <li><b>Despoiling</b> – A commentary attributed to "Ramah" suggests that the king understood "לְאַבְּדָם" to mean that the nation would be dispossessed and lose their property.<fn>See also M. Lehmann (above note) who similarly suggests that the term might mean to  dispossess, even though afterwards he suggests that as a whole the king thought Haman referred to enslavement.</fn></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<point><b>Honoring Mordechai</b> – According to this approach, Achashverosh's honoring of Mordechai is not the sign of a fickle king who decides to exterminate the Jews one day and revere them the next, but part of a consistently positive attitude toward the Jewish nation.  In fact, according to most of these sources, the king's disposition is what led Haman to hide the identity of the nation he wanted to harm.</point> | <point><b>Honoring Mordechai</b> – According to this approach, Achashverosh's honoring of Mordechai is not the sign of a fickle king who decides to exterminate the Jews one day and revere them the next, but part of a consistently positive attitude toward the Jewish nation.  In fact, according to most of these sources, the king's disposition is what led Haman to hide the identity of the nation he wanted to harm.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן יָשְׁבוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת"</b> – This position might view the drinking as a way of sealing a pact or signing an agreement, much like covenants in Tanakh are made over a meal.<fn>See <a href="ANE:Treaties" data-aht="page">ANE:Treaties</a> for examples of treaties in Tanakh and the Ancient Near East which were accompanied by a meal.  It should be noted, though, that none of these emphasize drinking.</fn> It need not signify that Achashverosh was a callous drunkard.</point> | <point><b>"וְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן יָשְׁבוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת"</b> – This position might view the drinking as a way of sealing a pact or signing an agreement, much like covenants in Tanakh are made over a meal.<fn>See <a href="ANE:Treaties" data-aht="page">ANE:Treaties</a> for examples of treaties in Tanakh and the Ancient Near East which were accompanied by a meal.  It should be noted, though, that none of these emphasize drinking.</fn> It need not signify that Achashverosh was a callous drunkard.</point> | ||
| − | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Two different letters</b> – Malbim interprets the doubling in the description of the dissemination of the edict to indicate that Haman sent out both open and sealed letters.  The open letter ("פַּתְשֶׁגֶן הַכְּתָב") simply told the provinces to ready themselves for war on the thirteenth of Adar, but did not reveal the identity of the enemy.  The name of the nation was contained only in the sealed<fn>Malbim suggests that the sealing of the letters with the king's seal ("וְנֶחְתָּם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ") was to ensure that the letters remained unopened until the appointed time.</fn> missive which was not to be opened until the thirteenth of Adar.  Thus, Haman attempted to ensure that word of his true plans would not get back to Achashverosh until it was too late.</point> |
| − | <point><b>Mordechai's report</b> – Y. Grossman suggests that Mordechai told Esther both | + | <point><b>Mordechai's report</b> – Y. Grossman<fn>See his article cited in the notes above.</fn> suggests that Mordechai told Esther about both the money that Haman meant to give the treasury "לְאַבְּדָם" and the letters which were sent "לְהַשְׁמִידָם"‎<fn>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.</fn> because he wanted to emphasize not just the impending tragedy, but the fact that  Haman had misled the king,<fn>He suggests that when the narrator states, "וּמׇרְדֳּכַי יָדַע אֶת <b>כׇּל</b> אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה" at the opening of chapter four, this is to allude to the fact that Mordechai discovered Haman's deception.</fn> telling him one thing but writing another.<fn>Mordechai was already hinting to the way in which Esther could undo the decree, by revealing Haman's deception to the king.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Esther's tactics – "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי"</b> – With these words Esther tried to make a rift between Achashverosh and Haman, suggesting that one was in the right and the other wrong.<fn>See Yosef Lekach and  Malbim who explain similarly and Y. Grossman who elaborates on this point.</fn> She thus "innocently" suggests that if the only wrong done was to sell her nation into slavery (what Achashverosh assumed he agreed to), that would not be worth troubling the king over, but when the stakes are life and death she could no longer remain quiet.</point> | <point><b>Esther's tactics – "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי"</b> – With these words Esther tried to make a rift between Achashverosh and Haman, suggesting that one was in the right and the other wrong.<fn>See Yosef Lekach and  Malbim who explain similarly and Y. Grossman who elaborates on this point.</fn> She thus "innocently" suggests that if the only wrong done was to sell her nation into slavery (what Achashverosh assumed he agreed to), that would not be worth troubling the king over, but when the stakes are life and death she could no longer remain quiet.</point> | ||
<point><b>Why does Haman not defend himself?</b> According to this approach, Haman has no defense since he actively misled the king.  The most he attempts is to seek mercy from the queen who has exposed him.</point> | <point><b>Why does Haman not defend himself?</b> According to this approach, Haman has no defense since he actively misled the king.  The most he attempts is to seek mercy from the queen who has exposed him.</point> | ||
Version as of 15:24, 19 February 2015
Achashverosh's Surprise
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators struggle to understand how Achashverosh did not know that Esther was referring to Haman and his plan to exterminate the Jews. In looking for solutions, most are are influenced by their overall perception of the king as a benign, inept, or wicked king. According to a large group of commentators, Haman had not been upfront with Achashverosh about the details of his plan, and the king had never been aware that Haman was intending to kill the Jews. Achashverosh, thus, was not an evil king, nor negatively disposed to the Jews; he had simply placed his trust in the wrong person.
A second school of thought suggests instead that Achashverosh had understood Haman's intent fully, but being a capricious and foolish king, he never gave it a second thought after removing his signet ring. Thus, when Esther said that her nation was in danger, he did not immediately put two and two together. Finally, a last approach asserts that Achashverosh was not truly surprised, but only acted as such so as to blame Haman. Achashverosh was a despot, unhesitant to blame others for his own failings and quick to eliminate any potential threats.
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 only after Esther pointed to Haman as the culprit that Achashverosh first became aware that Haman had been plotting to annihilate the Jews.1
Sources:Second Targum of Megillat Esther, R. Shelomo Astruc, Eshkol HaKofer, Akeidat Yitzchak, Commentary attributed to Ramah, Eliezer Ashkenazi, Vilna Gaon, R. Y"S Reggio, Malbim
Haman's request – "יֶשְׁנוֹ עַם אֶחָד" – Most of these commentators2 point out that when Haman petitions the king to approve his plan, he never names the particular nation to be punished,3 but refers to merely a generic "עַם אֶחָד". Achashverosh, due to either his ineptitude4 or his trusting of his right hand man,5 did not ask any questions and simply gave his rubber stamp without being aware that it was the Jewish people Haman sought to harm.
Haman's request – "יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם" – According to many of these commentators,6 Haman, when speaking to the king, was purposefully misleading in choosing the ambiguous language of "לְאַבְּדָם".7 Only in the official letters to the various states did Haman disambiguate, adding "לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד".8 These exegetes disagree, though, regarding how Haman meant for Achashverosh to understand the term "לְאַבְּדָם":
- Religious persecution – Malbim asserts that the word "לְאַבֵּד" can refer to not only physical destruction, but to spiritual destruction as well.9 Haman convinced the king that the nation's observance of different religious customs was detrimental to the kingdom and that they should be forced to abandon their faith.10
- Exile – Y"S Reggio points to the verse "וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר"11 as evidence that the root "אבד" can refer to exile and he thereby suggests that Haman told the king that it was best to banish the lawless nation12 from his empire.13
- Enslavement – R. Arama and R. Ashkenazi14 suggest that Haman tried to mislead Achashverosh into understanding that he wanted to enslave (and/or evict) the nation.15 Akeidat Yitzchak does not bring any textual proof to support such an understanding of the word "לְאַבְּדָם",16 instead positing that Haman was suggesting that through hard labor they would perish.
- Despoiling – A commentary attributed to "Ramah" suggests that the king understood "לְאַבְּדָם" to mean that the nation would be dispossessed and lose their property.17
10,000 pieces of gold – Haman's offer is understood differently by the commentators in accordance with their respective 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.
- Compensation for lost tax revenues – Y"S Reggio could suggest that Haman was offering to pay the amount that would be lost in taxes if the nation was to be exiled.18
- 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.19
"וְהָעָם לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ" – According to most of these commentators, these words signify Achashverosh's unwitting approval of Haman's plan, allowing him free reign to do as he wished.20
Did Achashverosh know Esther was Jewish? Most of these commentators likely assume that Achashverosh was unaware of Esther's identity. R. Arama, though, proposes that Achashverosh knew all along that Esther was Jewish;21 he simply did not know that Haman's edict referred to Jews. As support for this hypothesis, he notes that Esther, when pleading for her life, never explicitly mentions her nationality (as would have been expected had it been unknown). In addition, Achashverosh's surprise is not over Esther's identity but about who could have proposed such a plan, and Haman does not defend himself by saying that he was simply unaware of the queen's nationality.22
Honoring Mordechai – According to this approach, Achashverosh's honoring of Mordechai is not the sign of a fickle king who decides to exterminate the Jews one day and revere them the next, but part of a consistently positive attitude toward the Jewish nation. In fact, according to most of these sources, the king's disposition is what led Haman to hide the identity of the nation he wanted to harm.
"וְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן יָשְׁבוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת" – This position might view the drinking as a way of sealing a pact or signing an agreement, much like covenants in Tanakh are made over a meal.23 It need not signify that Achashverosh was a callous drunkard.
Two different letters – Malbim interprets the doubling in the description of the dissemination of the edict to indicate that Haman sent out both open and sealed letters. The open letter ("פַּתְשֶׁגֶן הַכְּתָב") simply told the provinces to ready themselves for war on the thirteenth of Adar, but did not reveal the identity of the enemy. The name of the nation was contained only in the sealed24 missive which was not to be opened until the thirteenth of Adar. Thus, Haman attempted to ensure that word of his true plans would not get back to Achashverosh until it was too late.
Mordechai's report – Y. Grossman25 suggests that Mordechai told Esther about both the money that Haman meant to give the treasury "לְאַבְּדָם" and the letters which were sent "לְהַשְׁמִידָם"26 because he wanted to emphasize not just the impending tragedy, but the fact that Haman had misled the king,27 telling him one thing but writing another.28
Esther's tactics – "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי" – With these words Esther tried to make a rift between Achashverosh and Haman, suggesting that one was in the right and the other wrong.29 She thus "innocently" suggests that if the only wrong done was to sell her nation into slavery (what Achashverosh assumed he agreed to), that would not be worth troubling the king over, but when the stakes are life and death she could no longer remain quiet.
Why does Haman not defend himself? According to this approach, Haman has no defense since he actively misled the king. The most he attempts is to seek mercy from the queen who has exposed him.
Significance to hanging? Haman was perhaps killed by hanging specifically since this was the general punishment for treason against the king, and he was viewed as a rebel for having veered from Achashverosh's desired edict.30
Biblical Parallels – Y. Grossman points to several linguistic parallels31 between this incident and the story of Achav and Navot's vineyard, pointing out that in both cases someone acts with the king's seal to send a message that will decree death on another. The allusion suggests that just as in the story of Achav the king was unaware of his proxy's actions, so too Achashverosh was not privy to Haman's real plan.
Portrait of Achshverosh – Most of these commentators view Achashverosh positively, suggesting that he honored the Jewish nation, and was innocent of any intent to kill them. Most view him not as a foolish king but one who unintentionally placed his trust in the wrong person.32
Fickle and Foolish
Achashverosh had previously known of Haman's plan to annihilate the Jews, but being both drunk and dim witted, he did not immediately make the connection between it and the threat to Esther's life.
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 – This approach might suggest that Haman offered the money as a bribe to Achashverosh, assuming that the foolish king would be swayed more by riches than by logical explanations or principles.
"וְהָעָם לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ" – Achashverosh, not particularly adept at governing on his own, was only too ready to hand over the necessary powers to Haman. He permitted Haman to do as he pleased, and was not overly concerned with the details.
"וְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן יָשְׁבוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת" – The verse highlights that, as the edict went out, Haman and the king drank to it, perhaps suggesting that even while discussing the issue, Achashverosh was not totally sober. The repeated mention of drinking throughout the scroll adds to the portrait of a drunkard who hardly remains sober long enough to process the goings-on in his kingdom.
"לֹא הִגִּידָה אֶסְתֵּר אֶת עַמָּהּ וְאֶת מוֹלַדְתָּהּ" – This approach assumes that Esther hid her full identity until the party and that it was only then revealed to Achashverosh. Lekach Tov suggests that Mordechai insisted that she do so from the beginning knowing that such secrecy might later play a role in saving the nation. By revealing the fact only at the opportune moment, she would be able to avert disaster.
How did Esther hide her identity? There are a variety of approaches which attempt to explain how Esther managed to keep her Jewish identity a secret, especially in light of Mordechai's apparently known Judaism. For details, see How Did Esther Hide her Identity?
Honoring Mordechai – It is odd that days after signing an edict to exterminate the Jewish nation, Achashverosh showers honor on Mordechai,a Jew, without any show of discomfort about the hypocrisy of his actions. This position would view this as further proof of the king's fickle nature and "out of sight out of mind" attitude.33
Why does Haman not defend himself? R. Arama questions this approach by pointing to Haman's silence in face of the king's accusation. Had the king really approved the plan and both he and Haman had been unaware of Esther's Jewish identity, why did Haman not say so in his defense? This position would assert that Haman was all too aware of the king's capricious nature and knew that the true facts would make no difference.
Esther's tactics – This approach might suggest that Esther purposefully chose a non-threatening setting to reveal her nationality in order to maximize the surprise. Moreover, she ensured that Haman would be present during her revelation so that the king would take out his wrath immediately before once again changing his mind.
Significance to hanging? According to this approach, Achashverosh on his own might not have insisted on the hanging of Haman. Charvona's words put the thought in his head and on the spur of the moment, he decided to act.
Portrait of Achashverosh – This position views the king negatively, but considers him inept, foolish and fickle more than actively wicked.
Playing Innocent
Achashverosh understood immediately that Esther was referring to Haman's plan which he himself had approved, but he feigned innocence so as to pin the blame solely on Haman.
Haman's request – Haman shared with Achashverosh both the identity of the nation he wanted to destroy and his desire for their destruction. Thus, Achashverosh was fully aware of the decree that was sent out in his name.
Did Achashverosh know Esther was Jewish?
- Unaware – This position might maintain that Achashverosh did not know that Esther was Jewish and thereby included in the decree of annihilation. When he became aware of his blunder, rather than take responsibility, he decided to blame Haman.
- Aware – Alternatively, Achashverosh knew his wife's nationality34 and had always planned to exempt her from the edict. He did not not learn anything new from her words, but rather took them as an opportunity to punish Haman for other offenses.
Why was Achashverosh mad at Haman?
- According to the first variation above, Achashverosh fumed at his adviser for not having done his homework and not realizing that Esther was included in the edict.
- Alternatively, Achashverosh was angry due to earlier incidents. When Haman had previously suggested that the king's "desired one" be robed in the king's garments and ride on the royal horse, Achashverosh became suspicious that Haman aspired to rule in his stead, interpreting his words as evidence of his hopes to be king.35 Esther's accusations opened a perfect opportunity to condemn the no longer trustworthy adviser.
Esther's tactics – This approach might suggest, like R. Eliezer HaModai in Bavli Megillah, that Esther tried to make the king jealous of Haman.36 Thus, rather than make an intimate party for two, she invited Haman as a third wheel. Haman's falling on her bed to plea for his life played perfectly into her plan. This reinforced Achashverosh's previous worries, leading to the conclusion that Haman was actively rebelling, wanting both the crown and accompanying queen.
Why does Haman not defend himself? The first variation of this approach would suggest that Haman recognized that he was to be the scapegoat for the blunder and that Achashverosh was not interested in the fact that he too had agreed to the plan. According to the second variation, Haman had no defense since the king viewed him as vying for the throne and queen.
Did Achashverosh want to undo the original decree? This approach might suggest that Achashverosh was actually ambivalent about undoing the original decree. At the banquet, his only goal was to punish Haman (either for his blunder or his perceived rebelliousness), not to undo his actions.37
Honoring Mordecahi – It is possible that Achashevrosh was unaware that Mordechai was Jewish. The Chronicles did not mention the fact and Achshverosh had no reason to ask. Thus, there was no hypocrisy in his actions and Achashverosh never associated him with the original decree.
Why hanging? In Achashverosh's eyes, Haman was considered a rebel who wanted his throne; hanging was thus the appropriate punishment.
Portrait of Achashverosh – Achashverosh was a shrewd king looking after his own self-interest, and thus ready to pawn off his mistakes on others. In addition, he was paranoid, looking to kill of all potential threats to the throne.
