Achashverosh's Shock and Fury/2

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 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, Eliezer Ashkenazi, Vilna GaonEsther 3:8-9About R. Eliyahu Kramer, 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":

• 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 – The 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 not to emphasize the looming threat, but rather to alert her to 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 create 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 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? 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.³⁰

Biblical Parallels – Y. Grossman³¹ points to several linguistic parallels between this incident and the story of Achav and Navot's vineyard.³²  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 advisor.³³

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.

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.

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 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.³⁴

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.

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.  It was only Charvonah's words which put the thought into 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 to be more inept, foolish, and fickle, 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 nationality³⁵ 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 Haman 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.³⁶ 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 Megillah15bAbout the Bavli, that Esther tried to make the king jealous of Haman.³⁷  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? 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.

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.³⁸

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.

Why hanging? In Achashverosh's eyes, Haman was considered a rebel who wanted to be king; 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 eliminate 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 exception.  He maintains that Haman was clear in his intent and only deceived the king later.  When the king disagreed with the suggestion to destroy the nation, Haman did not heed his words but nevertheless sent out an edict in his 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 Reggio add that Haman was thinking specifically about the king's feelings towards Mordechai.  After his 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 nonetheless a fool.  As R. Saba maintains that Haman only misled Achashverosh regarding the nation to be destroyed but assumes 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?
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 have mercy.

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; one of necessity 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.

⁹ 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 heard a desire to eradicate the nation's religious beliefs and not their physical being.

¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ See Yeshayahu 27:13.

¹² Haman emphasizes throughout that the nation does not abide by the laws of the kingdom: "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים".

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ 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 Reconstruction of the Purim Story", 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.

¹⁶ 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 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 Ohev Yisrael, brought in R. Kasher's 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). One can alternatively propose that Haman purposefully picked a homonym so that the king could hear "לעבדם" rather than "לְאַבְּדָם". 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 "לְאַבְּדָם".

¹⁷ 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.

¹⁸ 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.

¹⁹ 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.

²⁰ 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 its execution against the king's wishes.

²¹ 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 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 Concealing Esther's Religious Identity for discussion of the issue and various reasons why Esther might have hidden her identity.

²² According to R. Arama, when originally devising his plan of extermination, Haman, too, knew 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 lost 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.

²³ 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.

²⁴ 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.

²⁵ In his article in Megadim 30 (cited in the notes above), p. 54.

²⁶ 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.

²⁷ 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.

²⁸ Mordechai was thus hinting that Esther could undo the decree by revealing Haman's deception to the king.

²⁹ See Yosef Lekach and  Malbim who explain similarly and Y. Grossman who elaborates on this point.

³⁰ 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.

³¹ In his article in Megadim 30 (cited in the notes above), pp. 55-57.

³² 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"

³³ 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.

³⁴ Alternatively, he did not know that Mordechai was Jewish either.  This fact was not written in the Chronicles and he would have had no reason to look further into his nationality.

³⁵ See above note that it is possible that Esther only hid her identity before her position as queen was secure.  Thus at some point after the second batch of competitors were rejected in her favor, she might have no longer kept the secret.  Alternatively, Esther might never have actively revealed her identity but the king was able to guess based on her connection to Mordechai or other factors.

³⁶ See First Targum of Megillat Esther7:6About First Targum of Megillat Esther who suggests that Esther 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.

³⁷ 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.

³⁸ This would explain why Esther must approach Achashverosh again in chapter eight with a special request to undo the decree.  It is possible that it is only after learning that Mordechai is her relative and also Jewish (see bullet below) that he is convinced that the nation poses no threat to his kingdom.