Achashverosh's Shock and Fury/2

Achashverosh's Shock and Fury

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Commentators struggle to understand both how Achashverosh did not know that Esther was referring to Haman's plan and why he became so furious.  In searching for solutions, many are influenced by whether they perceive Achashverosh to generally be a benign, inept, or shrewd and opportunistic 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 pin the blame on Haman.  Intervening events had led him to be suspicious of Haman, and he seized Esther's plight as an opportunity to quickly dispose of Haman.  This position views Achashverosh as a despot, quick to eliminate any potential threats to his throne.

Misled by Haman

Achashverosh had been deceived by Haman, who had hidden the identity of the nation he was intent on destroying and/or misled him regarding what he planned to do to that nation.  Thus, it was only after Esther pointed to Haman as the source of danger that Achashverosh first became aware that Haman had been plotting to annihilate the Jews.¹

Sources:Second Targum of Megillat Esther8:13About Second Targum of Megillat Esther, R. Shelomo AstrucEsther 3:11Esther 7:6About R. Shelomo Astruc, Eshkol HaKoferEsther 3:8-10Esther 7:6About R. Avraham Saba, Akeidat YitzchakEsther 3:8-10About R. Yitzchak Arama, Commentary attributed to Ramah, R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, Vilna GaonEsther 3:8-9About R. Eliyahu of Vilna, R. Y"S Reggiop. 21-24About R. Yitzchak Shemuel Reggio, MalbimEsther 3:8-15Esther 4:7Esther 7:4About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

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":

• Despoiling – The commentary attributed to Ramah⁹ suggests that the king understood "לְאַבְּדָם" to mean that the nation would be dispossessed and lose their property.¹⁰
  
• Enslavement – R.  Arama and R. Ashkenazi¹¹ suggest that Haman tried to mislead Achashverosh into understanding that he wanted to enslave (and/or evict) the nation.¹²  Akeidat Yitzchak does not bring any textual proof to support such an understanding of the word "‎‏לְאַבְּדָם‎",¹³ instead positing that Haman was suggesting that through hard labor they would perish.
• Exile – R. Reggio points to the verse "וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר"‎¹⁴ 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 nation¹⁵ from his empire.¹⁶
• Religious persecution – Malbim asserts that the word "לְאַבֵּד" can refer to not only physical destruction, but to spiritual destruction as well.¹⁷ 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.¹⁸

Shock and fury – According to this approach, both Achashverosh's surprise and his anger stem from the one source, Haman's deception.

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:

• Compensation for lost tax revenues – R. Reggio could suggest that Haman was offering to pay the amount that would be lost in taxes if the nation was to be exiled.¹⁹
• 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.²⁰ 
• 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.

"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.²¹

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;²² 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.²³

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.²⁴ It need not signify that Achashverosh was a callous drunkard.

Two different letters – R. Ashkenazi , R. Reggio and Malbim interpret 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... גָּלוּי") 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 sealed²⁵ 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.²⁶

Mordechai's report – R. Yonatan Grossman²⁷ suggests that Mordechai told Esther about both the money that Haman meant to give the treasury "לְאַבְּדָם" and the letters which were sent "לְהַשְׁמִידָם"‎,²⁸ not to emphasize the looming threat, but rather to alert her to the fact that Haman had misled the king,²⁹ telling him one thing but writing another.³⁰

Esther's tactics – "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי" – With these words Esther tried to create a rift between Achashverosh and Haman, suggesting that one was in the right and the other wrong.³¹ She thus "innocently" suggests that if the only wrong done had been to sell her nation into slavery (as Achashverosh had intended), she would not have troubled the king, but when the stakes are life and death (as per Haman's deception) she can no longer remain silent.

Why does Haman not defend himself? According to this approach, Haman has no defense since he actively misled the king.  His best hope is to seek mercy from the queen who has exposed him, and this is exactly what he does.

Significance to hanging? M. Lehmann³² asserts that Haman may have been killed specifically by hanging since this was the general punishment for treason against the king, and Haman was viewed as having rebelled against the king by veering from Achashverosh's desired edict.³³

Biblical parallels – R"Y Grossman³⁴ points to several linguistic parallels between this incident and the story of Achav and Navot's vineyard.³⁵  He notes that, in both cases, someone uses the king's seal to send a death warrant.  The allusions suggest 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 intentions.

Portrait of Achashverosh – Most of these commentators view Achashverosh positively, suggesting that he honored the Jewish nation, and was innocent of any intent to kill them.  Thus, they view him, not as a foolish king, but as one who unintentionally placed his trust in an evil adviser.³⁶

Fickle and Foolish

Achashverosh had previously known of Haman's plan to annihilate the Jews, but being  a dimwitted drunkard, he did not immediately make the connection between it and the threat to Esther's life.  Moreover, caring more about his personal pleasures than running the affairs of his kingdom, he had no qualms about agreeing with one person one day, only to discard them in favor of another on the next day.

Sources:R. Gamliel in Bavli Megillah15bAbout the Bavli, R. Moshe ChalayoR. Moshe Chalio Esther 7:7

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 to which nation Haman was referring and what he wanted to do with them, but did not dwell on the fact.

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 story adds to the portrait of a drunkard who hardly remains sober long enough to process what is going 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 TovEsther 2:10About R. Toviah b. Eliezer 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 her religion only at an opportune moment, she would be able to save her people.

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 approach would view this as further proof of the king's fickle nature and "out of sight, out of mind" attitude.³⁷

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 facts would make no difference.³⁸

Esther's tactics and Achashverosh's Anger – 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.  It was only Charvonah's words which put the thought into his head, and, as was often the case, on the spur of the moment, he decided to act.

Portrait of Achashverosh – This position views the king negatively, but considers him to be more inept, foolish, and fickle, than actively wicked.

Feigning Innocence

Achashverosh understood immediately that Esther was referring to Haman's plan which he himself had originally approved.  However, he pretended to be unaware in order to be able to use the opportunity to eliminate the threat to the throne posed by Haman.

Haman's request – As Haman had shared with Achashverosh both the identity of the nation he wanted to destroy and his desire for their destruction, Achashverosh was fully aware of the decree that was sent out in his name.

"וְהָעָם לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ" – This position would view Achashverosh's words as a granting of permission to a (then) trusted adviser to carry out a plan that he whole-heartedly agreed to.

"וְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן יָשְׁבוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת" – Like the first approach above, this position does not view Achashverosh's drinking as a sign of hedonism, but more simply as a way of sealing a deal, or perhaps celebrating an important decision.

What happened between the edict and the party? The night before the party, Haman had advised the king that the "one the king desired to honor" be robed in the king's garments and ride on the royal horse.  Achashverosh interpreted these words as evidence of Haman's aspirations to become king.³⁹ Esther's accusations, thus, opened a perfect opportunity to condemn the no longer trustworthy adviser.

Shock and fury – According to this position, Achashverosh's shock is not genuine, though his fury is.  The anger, though, stems not from the immediate conversation, but from the events of the night before and his suspicions of Haman.

Did Achashverosh know Esther was Jewish? According to this position, the revealing of Esther's Jewish identity was irrelevant and on its own not a reason to reverse the edict.  Had the king desired, he would have simply exempted her from the destruction,⁴⁰ but Achashverosh took her plea as a chance to easily punish Haman.

Esther's tactics – This approach might suggest, like R. Elazar HaModai in Bavli Megillah15bAbout the Bavli, that Esther tried to make the king jealous of Haman.⁴¹  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 the queen.

Why does Haman not defend himself? Haman had no defense since the king viewed him as actively vying for the throne.

Honoring Mordechai – It is possible that Achashverosh was unaware that Mordechai was Jewish.  The Chronicles did not mention this fact and Achashverosh had no reason to ask.  Thus, there was no hypocrisy in his actions and Achashverosh never associated Mordechai with Haman's decree.

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; his feelings about the destruction itself might not have changed. This would explain why Esther must approach Achashverosh again in Chapter 8 with a special request to negate the decree.⁴²

Why hanging? When Achashverosh hears that Haman had planned to kill Mordechai, a person who had proven his loyalty by saving the king's life, Achashverosh's suspicions that Haman is a traitor are further confirmed. Charvonah helps to seal Haman's fate, and he himself is hanged, the punishment of choice for treason.

Portrait of Achashverosh – Achashverosh was an opportunist, fully alert to the goings-on in his kingdom, and ready to remove all potential threats to his throne.

¹ This approach is discussed at length by B. Spiegel, "מהפכו של אחשורוש במשתה השני עם אסתר", Megadim 43 (2005): 87-118. There, he brings an exhaustive list of commentators who develop various aspects of this position and its variations.

² R. Shelomo Astruc is the lone exception.  According to him, Haman's intent to exterminate the Jews was clear.  However, when the king disagreed with the suggestion to destroy the nation, Haman did not heed his words and nevertheless sent out an edict in the king's name commanding their annihilation.

³ 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 R. Reggio add that Haman was thinking specifically about the king's feelings towards Mordechai.  Given Mordechai's role in saving the king's life, it would not be easy to convince Achashverosh to kill off his nation.

⁴ See R. Avraham Saba who suggests that Achashverosh was not as wicked as Haman, but was nonetheless a fool.  As R. Saba maintains that Haman only misled Achashverosh regarding the nation to be destroyed but 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 its identity or giving any consideration to the matter?
It should be noted that R. Saba ultimately comes to Achashverosh's defense and suggests that he never actually permitted the nation's destruction.  He told Haman only to do "as was good", by which he meant to be more merciful.

⁵ See R. Astruc, R. Arama, R. 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.  R. Astruc points out that in a large kingdom there is no way for one individual to pay attention to all that is going on; out of necessity one needs to delegate authority.

⁶ The exceptions are the Second Targum, R. Astruc, R. Saba, and the GR"A, who do not posit that there was deception intended by the use of "לְאַבְּדָם".  R. Saba explicitly states that while Haman hid the identity of the nation, Achashverosh clearly understood that the intentions were to destroy whichever nation it was.

⁷ 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 Achashverosh. Since Haman chose a word which could have been interpreted in more than one way, the book of Esther selected a corresponding word in Hebrew which would have a similar double meaning.

⁸ 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.  It is also possible that Haman simply lied to the king, saying one thing and writing another.

⁹ See also M. Lehmann, "A Reconstruction of the Purim Story", Tradition 12:3 (1971): 90-98, who similarly suggests that the term might mean to dispossess.  Subsequently, though, he suggests that, as a whole, the king thought Haman referred to enslavement.

¹⁰ This position might be supported from Haman's next words, that he would place ten thousand pieces of silver in the king's treasury, presumably the monetary equivalent of the property to be dispossessed.

¹¹ 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 ambiguous. 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.

¹² 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 R"Y Grossman, "גזירת המן וכרם נבות", Megadim 30 (1999): 49-67, who develops and attempts to support this approach from a literary comparison to the story of Navot (see below).

¹³ There are no clear examples in Tanakh where the root "אבד" refers to enslavement, but R"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 ultimately enslavement. The immediate context there, though, is also one of destruction: "לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם" (Devarim 28:63).
Another variation of this general approach is raised by the Ohev Yisrael, cited in Torah Sheleimah, Megillat Esther (Jerusalem 1994): 196, note 14, who suggests that Achashverosh had signed a missive written in Hebrew which read "לעבדם" (to enslave them) and Haman changed it to "לְאַבְּדָם" (to destroy them).

¹⁴ See Yeshayahu 27:13.

¹⁵ Haman emphasizes throughout that the nation does not abide by the laws of the kingdom: "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים".

¹⁶ As further support for this possibility, he points to Haman's earlier words, "וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין שֹׁוֶה לְהַנִּיחָם", and he suggests that they are in effect parallel to the later phrase "יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם". Haman is saying that it does not pay to let the nation remain in the empire, but rather the king should issue an edict to expel them.

¹⁷ Given Haman's introduction regarding the unique ways of the nation and the fact that "דָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם", it is not surprising that Achashverosh might have understood Haman to be expressing a desire to eradicate the nation's religious beliefs rather than their physical being.

¹⁸ 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.

¹⁹ See both R. Astruc and  R. Ashkenazi who suggest this (though they understand the ambiguity in the word "לְאַבְּדָם" differently).  They point out that Haman was astute enough to note the possible reservations of the king and hoped to preempt them.

²⁰ 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.

²¹ R. Astruc and R. Saba, though disagree with this reading.  See above that they assume that Achashverosh well understood that Haman planned to destroy a particular nation.  Thus, in contrast to the other commentators, they read Achashverosh's words here to be telling Haman to do only what was right and proper ("כַּטּוֹב"), i.e. to merely subdue the nation, but not to destroy them. Haman's hatred, though, led him to ignore the true intent of the king's words and instead do as he pleased. His misleading of the king was thus not in the presentation of his plan, but in executing it against the king's wishes.

²² It is possible that that Esther never tried to conceal her nationality but only her relationship to Mordechai or perhaps her lineage and connections to the royal line. This explanation, though, is difficult because the verse explicitly mentions concealing her nationality, "לֹא הִגִּידָה אֶסְתֵּר אֶת עַמָּהּ".
Alternatively, one might suggest that the concern regarding her identity was only prior to being chosen as queen, but afterwards Esther was free to reveal her background. If so, one must understand that the verse at the end of Chapter 2 which repeats the fact of concealment is either a summary statement (cf. Rashbam there) or relates specifically to the period in which there was the second gathering of virgin women, when Esther was again in a position in which she might lose the queenship.  See Why Conceal Esther's Nationality for discussion of the issue and various reasons why Esther might have hidden her identity.

²³ According to R. Arama, when originally devising his plan of extermination, Haman, too, knew of Esther's Jewish identity but had assumed that she would be spared and thus this need not arouse the king's ire.  He believed that in becoming queen, Esther had repudiated her Jewish status, and if not, that in the year until the plan's execution he would be able to convince the king not to be bothered over her.

²⁴ See ANE:Treaties 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.

²⁵ 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.

²⁶ R. Reggio further suggests that the nation as a whole, like the king, were positively disposed towards the Jews and would not have easily agreed to the edict.  Only Haman's fellow officers were antisemitic and thus only they were privy to the secrets of the decree.  As evidence he points to the fact that later the scroll says that it was specifically the officers who exalted the Jews, suggesting that until then they had not.

²⁷ In his article in Megadim 30 (cited in the notes above), p. 54.

²⁸ 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' had turned down Haman's offer.

²⁹ He suggests that the narrator's statement at the opening of Chapter 4, "וּמׇרְדֳּכַי יָדַע אֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה", alludes to the fact that Mordechai had found out about Haman's deception.  It is not clear how he would have known this, but it is possible that in his position at the king's gate he had managed to amass a network of people who fed him inside information.  Since the verse states explicitly that he knew of Haman's offer of money and that previously he was privy to the plans of Bigtan and Teresh, it is not surprising that he might have also heard of Haman's tactics.

³⁰ Mordechai was thus hinting that Esther could undo the decree by revealing Haman's deception to the king.

³¹ See R. Ashkenazi and Malbim who explain similarly and Y. Grossman (in Megadim 30, cited above) who elaborates on this point.

³² See his article in Tradition 12:3 (cited above) pp. 94-95.

³³ See Ezra 6:11 which explicitly points to hanging as punishment for altering a royal decree. The hanging of Bigtan and Teresh is further evidence that hanging was the punishment of choice for treason.

³⁴ In his article in Megadim 30 (cited in the notes above), pp. 55-57.

³⁵ Compare Esther 3:12-13 with Melakhim I 21:8:

• "בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ נִכְתָּב" and "וַתִּכְתֹּב סְפָרִים בְּשֵׁם אַחְאָב"
• "וְנֶחְתָּם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ" and "וַתַּחְתֹּם בְּחֹתָמוֹ"
• "וְנִשְׁלוֹחַ סְפָרִים בְּיַד הָרָצִים אֶל כׇּל מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ" and "וַתִּשְׁלַח  סְפָרִים אֶל הַזְּקֵנִים"

³⁶ B. Walfish, in his book, Esther in Medieval Garb, (New York, 1993): 191-192, suggests that many medieval Spanish exegetes went out of their way to defend the king because of "the ideal of the gracious king which was so prevalent in certain circles of Spanish Jewry."  He points out that the Jewish courtier class had a special relationship to the monarchy, viewing themselves as "indispensable to their rulers" and as such could not fathom that a king would possibly want to annihilate the Jewish nation.  If a king did indeed suggest some harm, it could have been due only to bad counsel.  This attitude was read into the story of the Book of Esther as well.

³⁷ Alternatively, he also did not know that Mordechai was Jewish.  This fact was not written in the king's chronicles, and he would have had no reason to delve further into his nationality.

³⁸ One could alternatively explain that Haman realized that he was to be the scapegoat for the joint blunder of himself and the king.

³⁹ See First Targum of Megillat Esther7:6About First Targum of Megillat Esther who suggests that Esther herself even alluded to this fact when she referred to Haman as "אִישׁ צַר וְאוֹיֵב הָמָן הָרָע הַזֶּה".  See also the Second Targum of Megillat Esther6:18:13About Second Targum of Megillat Esther and Esther Rabbah10:1About Esther Rabbah which suggest that this suspicion is what kept Achashverosh up the night before.

⁴⁰ It is possible that he even knew of her Judaism, either because he had discovered it some point on his own, or because she herself had revealed it.  [See above note for the Akeidat Yitzchak's postion that it is possible that Esther only hid her identity until her position as queen was secure.]

⁴¹ See also R. Yehoshua b. Korcha there, as understood by Rashi.  Later sources such as Midrash Panim AcherotNusach B:5About Midrash Panim Acherot elaborate on the specific tactics Esther used to arouse the king's jealousy. See also Lekach Tov who suggests that the king's troubled sleep was caused by this jealousy.

⁴² It is not clear what would have led him to undo the decree at that point but it is possible that after learning that Mordechai was her relative and also Jewish, he finally realized that the nation posed no threat to his kingdom.