Esther · Chapter 7

"And the king came, etc." — Here it will become clear, regarding what was written above, so as to decide in accordance with the opinion of Abba Gurion in the Midrash, whose view is that Haman was hanged on the seventeenth day of Nisan. For besides that this makes correct the statement, "And it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, etc." (Esther 5:1) — which was the third day of the fasts, that is, the sixteenth of Nisan — there is also a proof from the fact that at the first banquet it says only, "to the banquet that Esther had made," whereas here it says, "to drink with Esther." The reason is that there, at the first banquet, she did not drink, since she and her maidens were still fasting; but on the seventeenth day she did drink, for the days of the fasts had been completed.

"So the king and Haman came" etc. (Esther 7:1). It appears that this is why it is written here "to drink with Esther," and not "to the banquet that Esther had made," as is written above (5:5). For above, [the verse] meant: to the banquet to which Esther had invited [them] without the king's knowledge; therefore it says there, "let the king and Haman come to the banquet" — since she had already arranged the invitation without Ahasuerus's knowledge. But the second time, she did not make the feast [on her own initiative] first; rather, Esther first invited them to the banquet, and then asked the king that he come to the banquet. This is because the king had already fulfilled her wish once, and had come to the banquet; therefore she thought that perhaps it would seem improper in the eyes of Ahasuerus — how could she presume to rely on her own judgment that he come with Haman to the banquet a second time, seeing that the king had already fulfilled her wish once — but to do so twice is not proper, and the king might say that she relies on this because the king does her will in everything. Therefore she did not make the feast, that is, the banquet, until the king himself said that he would come to the banquet. That is why it is not written here except "to drink with Esther," and not "to the banquet that Esther had made" — since she did this by the king's will, it is as though the king himself were the one who made it, for he had agreed to do so. And furthermore, because the first feast was in the manner that friends customarily gather together at a feast — only that every feast is called by the name "banquet" (mishteh). But the second feast was not for the purpose of gathering together, since that had already been achieved at the first feast. Therefore the second feast was in the manner of friends who rejoice together, which is more than [merely] eating together at a feast, for this is like complete companionship (re'ut). Therefore, at the first feast it is written (above, 5:5) "to the banquet," while at the second feast it is written "to drink with Esther," which is certainly more than the first feast, whose main point was the eating. And with this is resolved [the question of] why Esther invited Haman a second time as well. For according to the explanation we gave — that Esther invited him because "pride precedes ruin" (Proverbs 16:18) — she therefore invited him a second time, so that Haman would think to himself that the king had companionship with him, as the second feast demonstrates. For the first feast is only in the manner of one who invites his friend to a feast, but the second feast is like companions and friends who join together to drink. That is why it is written "to drink with Esther," and thus it appears correct.

"And the king said," etc. — His saying "also on the second day" is superfluous, and so is "and he said" — for by his saying to her "What is your petition," we would already know that this too was on the second day. And also [to be explained is] what we noted above: that at the first banquet he did not refer to her by the title "queen" — neither at the banquet, in his saying "What is your petition" (Esther 5:6), nor in his saying "to do the word of Esther" (Esther 5:5) — whereas at this second banquet he called her "queen." Moreover, here he said "ve-tinnaten lakh" ("it shall be given to you," in the feminine form), whereas above, at the first banquet, he said "ve-yinnaten lakh" ("it shall be given to you," in the masculine form). Now, we wrote above that the king, at the first banquet, his heart was embittered, because she had not revealed to him her petition, as he said, "What troubles you, Queen Esther?" — and also because that banquet she had made for Haman alone and not for the king, as though she had said, "to the banquet that I made for him" [Haman], so that the king was, as it were, merely secondary to Haman. Therefore he truly had a troubled heart, thinking: "Who knows whether the two of them are scheming some secret plot against me, and I am brutish and do not know" (cf. Psalms 73:22); "they say to me, 'eat and drink,' but their heart is not with me" (cf. Proverbs 23:7). Therefore his heart was like wax, melting within him, and his sleep fled that night, and he ordered the book of records to be brought, to see whether there was anyone discerning [who could report] a matter concerning the king, who had done good for him and had not been repaid his due — for this reason no one had disclosed to him what this matter was between the son of Hammedatha [Haman] and Esther. He searched and found that Mordechai had reported [the plot], and nothing had been done for him, so he did him great honor, and set Haman beneath his feet [to lead his horse], hoping that perhaps he would divulge who it was that stood in secret counsel with Esther, and, like "that which has wings shall tell the matter" (Ecclesiastes 10:20), would disclose it. And the king's whole essential intent was really about Mordechai himself — for the king did not know that Mordechai was one of those who sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and knew the seventy languages, and thus understood the language of Bigthan and Teresh; rather, [the king assumed] that through his holy spirit the hidden secret of the two of them had been revealed to him. Therefore he did him honor and greatness, so that he would reveal the hidden matter between Esther and Haman. But he saw that despite all this honor, no one told him, nor made anything known. Then he concluded in his heart that there was no matter between him [Haman] and her concerning the king, for him to be told; and this was nothing but a petition or a request in the queen's heart, to ask of the king something pertaining to Haman. And his mind was set at ease regarding Esther, and he honored her even more than at the previous banquet, and did not withhold the royal word from calling her "queen," as he had at the first banquet — even though she had concealed the matter from him a day and a night, until midday of the second banquet, without disclosing it, during which time the king's heart was melting like wax on account of the fire of her concealing it from him, and "his thoughts alarmed him," and "imaginings arose upon his bed" (cf. Daniel 4:2). For this reason, one would have expected that he would not have had the patience to ask her anything like "What is your petition," out of his great anger, but rather that she would say it of her own accord. Even so, because after the honor done to Mordechai, nothing was reported — which itself indicated that there was no hidden matter between the queen and Haman — his mind was set at ease, and it therefore followed that "the king said" to Esther — even though it was the second day, on which she had withheld her petition from him until that time, and it might have been expected that he would not ask until she said it of her own accord — nevertheless he responded and said, "What is your petition" — and also in a manner of honor, in that he called her "Queen Esther." And he said "What is your petition" meaning to say: either it is a lesser matter, which pertains to a "petition" [she'elah], or a great matter, which pertains to a "request" [bakashah]. If it is a petition — "What is your petition, Esther" — since you are queen, why would you need [to ask] of me that I give it to you? Will it not be given of itself? This is why he did not say "ve-yinnaten" (in the masculine), as at the first banquet, when his heart was not yet fully at peace with her, as we have written — for then he spoke in the masculine form, to hint that she needed him [actively] to grant her petition; but now, in his goodwill, he said "ve-tinnaten" (in the feminine), as though it would come of itself, as discussed. Or one might say something similar along these lines, by paying attention to the fact that regarding the "petition" he used the language of "giving" and said "to you," whereas regarding the "request" he used the language of "doing" and did not say "to you." This is because he meant: behold, it is possible that the matter concerns yourself, or that it concerns another. If it concerns yourself, it pertains to a "petition"; and if it concerns another, it pertains to a "request." And so he said, "What is your petition, Queen Esther," as though in wonder, meaning: what possible thing could your petition be, seeing that you are queen, that you would need something to be given to you for yourself, since there is no rank higher than the one you already occupy? But if it concerns something pertaining to another, then "what is your request" regarding this — "and it shall be done" — for that requires an act, unlike what pertains to yourself [which requires only a giving]. And accordingly she answered and said, "Let my life be given me at my petition" — which concerns herself — "and my people" — which concerns another — "at my request" (Esther 7:3).

Questions: Why does it call her here "Queen Esther"? "What is your petition, Queen Esther" — now, out of his love for her, he added [the assurance] that even if she should ask for something great, fitting for her since she is queen, he would grant it to her; and for this reason he added "Queen Esther."

Let my life be granted me. That I should not be slain on the thirteenth of Adar, for you have issued an edict of massacre upon my people and my heritage. And my people. Shall be given me in my request, that they should not be slain. Now if you ask, “What does it concern you?” [my answer is] “For how can I see, etc.?” — Notes: (1) Below 8:6.

"let my life be given to me" — The meaning is: my petition is for nothing but my own life; and moreover, [I ask that] so honored a people be given to me [as well].

"Then Esther the queen answered," etc. — Behold, you [Achashverosh] had said: if it is a she'elah (a petition) — which is a light matter — it has no limit, for it may be granted to me in full; but if it is a bakashah (a request) — which is a great matter requiring special petitioning — it is granted only up to half the kingdom. Now, I have both a she'elah and a bakashah. Regarding the first she said, "if I have found favor in your eyes, O king"; and regarding the second she said, "and if it please the king." And she explained the first — "let my life be given me at my petition" — which refers back to "if I have found favor in your eyes, O king"; and the second — as I have said, "and if it please the king" — is "and my people, at my request." And the matter is this: she said in her heart, behold, a prisoner cannot free himself, how much less can he free others; therefore let my life be given to me first, at my she'elah, and afterward — that I be taken outside the boat [i.e., out of danger] — "and my people," at my bakashah. This further indicates her piety, in that she made her request for her people greater than for herself: for she did not say "and the life of my people, at my request," as she said "let my life be given me"; rather, this is because she said — regarding what pertains to myself alone, give me only my life, even if I remain a maidservant, and this is [the meaning of] "let my life be given me"; but regarding my people, I request everything, that they too be free people, and this is [the meaning of] "and my people, at my request" — and not their lives alone. Now you might ask: what sort of she'elah is this? Behold, what has already been done has been done — the sale has already been made, [and the king might say,] "what can I give you, for you are not mine — go ask it of Haman, for you belong to him." To this she answered, "for we have been sold," etc. — meaning: behold, the sale is void, for I and my people were sold, and it never occurred to you to sell your own wife, who is included in the sale, since you did not know that I am a Jewish woman; and had you known, you would have sold neither me nor my people. It thus emerges that this was a mekach ta'ut (a transaction made in error) — and for a second reason as well: there was great ona'ah (a discrepancy in value), for the adversary's [payment] is not equal to, and of no benefit to, the king, as against the harm that comes to him from the loss of taxes and tributes. Or, she may be saying: as for my statement — that had we been sold merely as slaves I would have kept silent, and now I am requesting even their freedom as well — do not wonder at this. For the reason I would have remained silent had we been sold as bondmen and bondwomen was not because I would not care about being reduced to servitude; rather, it is that you yourself would certainly have set the matter right, for the adversary's [payment] is not equal to the extent of the harm that would come to the king from having his own wife be a maidservant to one of his servants — for that would be nothing but contempt and intense wrath — and you would not have tolerated this harm in any way, since you gain no benefit from it equal to this harm; therefore I kept silent, for you yourself would set it right. But now that the sale is for destruction, for killing — even were I to be killed along with the rest, it is but a passing flood, and would not be felt or noticed the way it would be were I to remain alive as a maidservant continually — and therefore now I am making my request concerning everything. Or, she may be saying: what I meant by saying that I kept silent is that now that we have been sold completely [i.e., for death], the adversary's [payment] is not equal to the harm that comes to the king — as with Pharaoh, who sought to lay a hand against them [to kill them] — unlike had it been a sale into bondmen and bondwomen, where it is possible that you would suffer no harm through me, since either way we would be your servants. Or, she may be saying: let it not seem strange to you that Haman intended to "purchase" me in this sale; for know that the adversary's [payment] is not equal to, nor of benefit against, the harm to the king, should he wish to harm you — for behold, through me you are saved from trouble, as happened to you, that through me you were saved from Bigthan and Teresh. Therefore, upon seeing that the adversary, the persecutor, whose [payment] is not equal to the king's harm, wishes to remove me together with my people — so that the one who obstructs his harming you would be removed from before him — for he fears that just as through me you were saved from Bigthan and Teresh, so too my merit, or my mazal, or my wisdom, will protect you as well, so that you be saved from him too.

Questions: Why does she attribute the petition (she'eilah) to her own life, and the request (bakashah) to her people? "my life" — because, as I explained above, the petition (she'eilah) is what one requests for one's own sake, while the request (bakashah) is what one requests for the sake of others, she said: that which I request for my own sake is nothing other than my life alone; and likewise, the request on behalf of my people is nothing other than — not wealth and honor — but the saving of their lives from death. And according to the commentators I mentioned above, who hold that the petition is the essence of the request, while the request (bakashah) is the ultimate goal desired from the petition: behold, one who seeks to save his fellow's life from death — the petition would be the saving of his fellow's life, but the ultimate goal desired by him is that he cannot bear to see his fellow's misfortune; his soul is too impatient to witness his fellow's ruin. If so, the request (bakashah) is, in truth, for his own sake. Now Ahasuerus might have mistakenly thought that Esther's request was on behalf of her people, and that she meant: 'for how can I endure to see the evil that will befall my people' — which would mean that, in effect, the essence of the request is for her own sake, since she cannot bear to see the destruction of her people and her kindred. Therefore she said that this is not so; rather, the saving of her people was so precious in her eyes that she would have agreed that she alone perish, so long as her people were saved. Thus the petition to the king is for her own sake, as she said, 'for how can I endure and see' — but the essence and purpose of the request is her people.

"Let my life be given me at my petition" etc. (verse 3). Even though Haman's intent was not [specifically] against Esther [herself], nevertheless she said "let my life be given me at my petition," for this matter was certainly as though she herself were liable to death, since it was decreed upon her people — the decree was upon her as well, for she too was of this nation. And Haman had spoken of the whole nation, that "it is not worthwhile to tolerate them" (above, 3:8), and this is a greater disgrace to her, for in the end the sentence of death was upon her too. Therefore she said, "let my life be given me at my petition." And we have already said that "request" (bakashah) is greater than "petition" (she'elah). Therefore, regarding "my life," it is fitting to say "my life at my petition," while regarding "my people," which is the whole nation, "request" is more fitting, being greater than "petition."

For the oppressor has no regard for losses incurred by his majesty. He is not concerned about the king’s loss, for if he had sought your benefit, he should have said, “Sell them as slaves and maidservants and take the money,” or “keep them now to be your slaves, they and their descendants.”

"for we are sold" (ki nimkarnu) — [from] the nif'al construction, meaning "after we were sold." Compare "ve-hitmakartem" ("you shall sell yourselves") (Deuteronomy 28:68), where they sell themselves and there is no buyer. "ve-ilu" ("but if") — like "ve-ilu chayah elef shanim pa'amayim" ("though he lived a thousand years twice over") (Ecclesiastes 6:6), where the aleph is extra. And the meaning is: "for we were sold to be destroyed" — but if we had been sold to be slaves and maidservants, I would have kept silent, for this trouble that has come upon us is not, in our eyes, comparable to anything — even though there is nothing greater than it besides death itself — so that the king should not incur harm by considering it. Now, "ha-tzar" [could be] a noun, like "tzar u-matzok metza'uni" ("trouble and distress have found me") (Psalms 119:143); or the interpretation is that "ha-tzar" is an adjective [used substantively for "adversary"], meaning that the enemy is not comparably worthy that harm should come to the king. And the word "nezek" (harm), in Aramaic: "lo lehevei nezik" ("there shall be no harm").

Questions: Why would she have remained silent if they had been sold as slaves? And what is the meaning of "for the adversary is not worthy," which the commentators struggled to explain? "for we are sold" — she is arguing two claims. (1) That the essence of the sale concerned her, for Haman's primary intent was to destroy her, and by means of it he found a pretext against her people, so that afterward he could turn upon her and say that she too was of mortal stock, and kill her as well. This is what she means by "for we are sold, I and my people" — meaning: I am the principal one, the cause of the sale, and through me my people were sold as well. (2) The essence of the sale itself — that they were not sold into servitude, but rather to be destroyed and to perish. [And this is why she repeated throughout her words "if I have found favor" and "if it please the king" — for "finding favor" corresponds to the petition, which she requested for her own sake and which requires the finding of favor in order to be saved; while "if it please the king" corresponds to the request on behalf of her people, for in order to fulfill this request there is no need for finding favor — rather the matter is good in itself, since it would not be to the king's glory to destroy an entire nation without any wrongdoing.] She also clarified in her words how Haman deceived the king in two respects: (1) In that he told him "there is a certain people" — an unspecified, unidentified people — when in fact this was I and my people, the people among whom I dwell; and he ought to have made this known to the king. (2) In what he said, "let it be written to destroy them" — whereas the king's intent was to destroy the form (identity) of the nation and its religion, not to annihilate them, as above — but he (Haman) sold them to be destroyed, slain, and exterminated. And this is what she means by "but if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, etc." — meaning: if, in any case, he had deceived the king in only one respect — in that he did not reveal to him who the people was — then I would have remained silent, and I would not have exposed the deception and betrayal, since the matter had already gone forth inadvertently from the king. But this is not so now, for the whole matter is mistaken and constitutes an affront and a provocation to the king — for it is fitting that the one who deceives and betrays him should receive his punishment. And also, in response to what Haman said in his slander, that "it is not worth the king's while to tolerate them," [claiming] that this people cause harm to the king — she replied: on the contrary, the adversary is not worthy in regard to the harm to the king — Haman is not worthy that the king should let him live, because of the harm the king suffers from him, in that he is destroying his kingdom.

"For we are sold, I and my people" etc. (verse 4). Explanation: as for her saying "for we are sold" — why did she need to say this, when she might have simply said that he wants to kill us? Rather, this is what she meant: everything that he did, he did only because he is an enemy of the Jews. And the proof of this is that he gave money to hand Israel over into his power; and if he had done this for the king's benefit, what would it matter to him — if the king did not wish to destroy them, what difference would that make to him? Rather, he did this because he is an enemy of the Jews. And as for her saying "for we are sold," even though he had not [actually completed a] sale of them: there certainly was a sale, only that the king gave the money back to him, as it says (above, 3:11), "the silver is given to you." And she said, "but if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen," etc. And in the Gemara (Megillah 16a) it is expounded that "for the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged" [alludes to this]: he grew jealous over Vashti and had her killed, and he is growing jealous over me and seeks to kill me. This was difficult [to reconcile]: there would have been no need at all to write "for the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged," since she had already said "for we are sold to be destroyed and slain, but if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen," etc., and that would have sufficed. Therefore [the Sages] expounded that this phrase speaks of a different matter: "for the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged" applies also to other things — for he grew jealous over Vashti, and he grew jealous over me; and if so, "the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged."

King Achashveirosh spoke. He said to Queen Esther. Wherever it states, “and he said ... and he said,” twice, it is to be expounded upon. And the Midrashic interpretation of this is: Originally, he would speak to her through an intermediary, but now that he knew that she was of a royal family, he spoke to her personally. — Notes: (2) Maseches Megillah 16a.

"Then the king Ahasuerus spoke, and said" — [Scripture] states "vayomer" twice to indicate that the king grew angry at once, and out of the intensity of his anger he said, in haste, "who is he" twice — as if to say in his anger: "Who is this? Tell me! Who is this? Tell me quickly!" [As for] the tav of "nivat" ("and Haman was terrified," 7:6) — the meaning is like "nivhal" ("was dismayed"), from the same root as "ve-hine bi'atah" ("and behold, it terrified [him]").

"Then the king said, etc." — Now, this is difficult: it says "Then King Ahasuerus said" but does not say what he said, and then it says again "and he said to Esther" — it ought to have said "Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther, etc.," and moreover the word "Ahasuerus" is superfluous [since he was already named]. Furthermore, it says "Who is he, and where is he" — this is a matter that is stated twice, indeed three times over, when it would have been enough to say "Who is he who has filled his heart to do so." Furthermore, was he so overcome by forgetfulness that after only three days he forgot the matter of the sale, and the decree that had been issued in Shushan the capital, and that the king and Haman had sat down to drink in celebration of it — and now, astonishingly, he asks "Who is he and where is he, etc."? Is this not something obvious from its own context, since the matter was left obscure as to who that sale referred to, and he ought to have made inquiry into the related facts? However, [the truth is that] he saw and was astonished at Esther's statement, "for we have been sold, I and my people," which indicates that the one who sold intended to sell his own wife, and that she herself was the main point — for that is why she began with herself, saying "I and my people." Therefore he was stunned for a moment, and in his astonishment he answered and said "Ahasuerus" — as one calling out to himself, saying to himself: "Where, then, are you? Did you do this thing, that you sold your own wife?" And this is the meaning of "Then King Ahasuerus said" [to himself]. And after he had roused himself, he began to speak to her — "he said to Esther the queen" — for until this point he had been speaking to himself, and [only] now did he say to her, in a manner of crying out, "Who is he, etc." Or one may say — and this is the correct reading — "Then King Ahasuerus said," meaning: is it not that from your saying "we have been sold" rather than "we have been taken," it is indicated that the seller intended to sell you and your people? So Ahasuerus said to her, as one astonished, and said "Ahasuerus" — that is, "Is it Ahasuerus who sold you and your people?" — and he was angry that she suspected him of this. And this is the meaning of "Then King Ahasuerus said," that is: "Is it Ahasuerus who intended this?" And upon seeing that she did not say "yes," his mind was set at ease, and he said to Esther, "If it is not I, who is he" — meaning, who is it; is it this one before us, namely Haman? — and he fell silent; and he then said again, "and where is he," meaning: behold, the buyer and the seller are both laid out before you, so explain your words and tell me which of the two of us it is, for there is no one here but myself and him, and it must be one of us — tell me, then, which one is he who has filled his heart to do so, to sell the queen. Then Esther answered and said, "Heaven forbid that you should do this evil thing; rather, I meant only [to refer to] a man who is an adversary (tzar) and an enemy" — an adversary to you, for [what he did] does not equal the king's own loss, and an enemy to Israel. Or one may say: what filled his heart to do so was that he saw he had gained rank through having been an adversary (tzar), for through his having distressed (hitzru) Vashti, it followed that the king promoted him, saying that it was through him that she who had saved him from Bigthan and Teresh had become queen. And this is [the meaning of] "a man, an adversary" — meaning: what filled his heart was that he was a man bearing a title of importance and rank, as happens with all men who acquire such a title by chance, in that he had been an adversary in the matter of Vashti; and because of this he also became an enemy to us. And this is "a man, an adversary and an enemy." And also, through being an enemy to Israel, he rose to be head [of state]; and this is "this wicked Haman" — meaning, that through his being "the wicked Haman," he grew to the position of greatness that is now his. And this is what she means by "this" — that his greatness is well known, and therefore he holds fast to his wickedness and will not let go. Or one may say, paying attention to the king's statement when he said "which is he who has filled his heart to do so" — this is because it is known, from the words of our Sages of blessed memory, [that there is] a difference between the righteous and the wicked: the righteous man's heart is in his own control, while the wicked man is in the control of his heart. Ahasuerus said: the one who did this can only be explained by his being wicked, one who is in the control of his heart, so that he pays no heed to what may befall him, and acts out of a heart's desire that has been led astray, and does not realize that he speaks against his own soul [i.e., brings ruin on himself]. And this is "who has filled his heart" — that his heart filled him and led him astray to do this evil thing, in the manner of the wicked man who is in the control of his heart. And Esther said: do not wonder at this, for indeed from his own action you can recognize the wickedness of his heart, since he is indeed "a man, an adversary and an enemy" — for even a cruel man, after killing his enemy, has his hatred of him annulled, and his wrath subsides, and he is no longer his enemy afterward. But this man — you see that he is [both] an adversary and an enemy, so that after having been the adversary who brought about the distress, he is still an enemy — for he bought us in order to destroy and to kill, and even after the killing he still remains an enemy who wishes afterward to destroy even the limbs [of the bodies], beyond the spoil taken as plunder. If so, this is the description that fits this wicked Haman, who deserves to be called "the wicked one," with the definite article, uniquely, for he is exceedingly evil and bitter; and therefore his heart filled him to act so, and he gave no thought that it would be to his own detriment — rather, [he acted this way] because he is in the control of his heart. Now, should one ask: is he so devoid of sense that he would not answer and say, "I did not know that she was Jewish, and it never occurred to me to buy her"? And the king, too, would have believed him, since he himself did not know her people or her kindred, for Mordecai had commanded her not to tell — and Esther does whatever Mordecai says. Therefore it says, "and Haman was terrified before the king and the queen," meaning that because of this his arguments were stopped up [he had no answer].

Questions: What is the meaning of "and he spoke... and he said" [the double expression]? What is the doubling of "who is he" and "where is he"? I have already noted that Ahasuerus himself had agreed to this — so what is he now asking? "and he said" — first the king asked all the people of the house, Haman included, as though astonished, "who is he?" And after no one answered him, he asked Esther the queen, "who is he?" He asked two things: (1) who is this man who did such a vile deed; (2) "and where is he" — meaning, the cause that stirred him to do this. And this is why it says "whose heart has filled him" — referring to the cause: what is the cause that filled that man's heart to do so.

"Then the king said, and he said to Esther the queen" (verse 5). According to the plain sense, it would seem that the reason Scripture writes "vayomer" ["and he said"] twice is to teach that he began to speak immediately, at once — like someone who is startled by what he hears, and begins at once to ask about the matter he heard. Therefore the first "vayomer" comes only to indicate that he began at once to respond to the matter, while the second "vayomer" comes to state what the words were that he said to Esther the queen. Now, as for what he said, "Who is he, and where is he, etc." — did Ahasuerus himself not know that Haman had done this? Did not Ahasuerus give him permission to do this (above, 3:11)? It appears that Ahasuerus spoke this way because: even though I gave him permission, nevertheless he ought to have come back and asked again at the time of the deed, when he sent [the letters]*, rather than writing the documents and sending them on his own initiative. Therefore he said, "Who is he, and where is he, who durst presume in his heart to do so." Furthermore, because Esther had said (verse 4), "[for we are sold] I and my people" — meaning that Haman's intent was against me — therefore Esther said "I and my people." For if this were not so, and he merely hated the Jews alone, he should have sold them as slaves, and this would have been a benefit to the king. Rather, his intent was to kill me, as he did to Vashti, and this he could not accomplish if he sold them as slaves. And the reason Ahasuerus did not say [in giving permission] to sell them as slaves is that Haman wanted to destroy them; therefore he had said (above, 3:11), "and the people, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee" — meaning: since it is good in your eyes to destroy them. And Esther said [this] confident that he had certainly intended to destroy them, because his intent was against me. And concerning this he said, "Who is he, and where is he, who durst presume in his heart to do so." Now Ahasuerus had at first thought that when Esther said "for we are sold, I and my people," her meaning was that Haman had explicitly said he would kill Esther and her people — and therefore he said, "Who is he, and where is he, etc." But when Esther said (verse 6), "An adversary and an enemy, even this wicked Haman," he understood and knew that this was indeed why Esther had said "for we are sold, I and my people," as we explained above — for since he did not sell them as slaves and maidservants, his intent was certainly directed at Esther. Our Sages explained in the Midrash that Scripture writes "vayomer" twice because at first he had been speaking [to her] only through an interpreter, and once Esther said to him, mishaul ka atina ("I have come because of [my] petition"), he conversed with her directly, at once — and this is [what is meant by] "vayomer" ... "vayomer." And its explanation is this: had Scripture written only, "and the king said to Esther the queen," I would have said that this does not necessarily mean that he himself spoke to Esther the queen, for perhaps he was not speaking with Esther the queen* directly, but rather through a messenger. Therefore Scripture goes on to state again, "and the king said to Esther," a second time — [to teach] that the king spoke to Esther the queen directly, and not through the messenger. And it necessarily follows that before this he had been speaking through the messenger. And also according to this interpretation, one must still explain what he meant by saying, "Who is he and where is he, etc.," as we have said. And it appears that, according to the words of our Sages, [Scripture] comes to teach us, by means of saying "vayomer" ... "vayomer" twice, that now he was speaking with her directly himself — meaning that the redemption could only come about through Esther's having a complete bond (chibbur gamur) with King Ahasuerus. And this is what occurred when he spoke with her face to face (peh el peh), not through an interpreter — for through an interpreter there is no complete bond. For Ahasuerus was so wicked, and was wholly inclined toward the wicked Haman, as the greatness of his wickedness has been explained. And through Esther, who is righteous, some removal from wickedness came to him. Therefore it was necessary for Ahasuerus to have a complete bond to Esther, and to become separated from the wicked Haman. Therefore, when Scripture writes "vayomer" ... "vayomer" to indicate this bond to Esther, it immediately says "Who is he and where is he" as well — for from this point on, the bond with Haman was severed, and he became bonded to Esther, through whom the redemption came about.

Questions: The doubling of "adversary" and "enemy." "a man, an adversary" — in response to what he asked, what is the cause that filled the man's heart for this vile deed, she said the cause is that he is an adversary (tsar) and an enemy (oyev). And she doubled "adversary" and "enemy," for an adversary (tsar) is one who actually causes distress to his fellow, while an enemy (oyev) is one who seeks his fellow's harm but nevertheless does not actually cause him distress. Now, one who is not so cruel would be an enemy only before becoming an adversary — but once he has become an adversary, he would no longer be an enemy; that is to say, once he has caused distress to his fellow and taken revenge upon him, the enmity is removed. But Haman, in his cruelty — even though he caused distress and did evil — is still an enemy, and this cause moved his heart to cause distress to Israel out of his enmity. And in answer to the question "who is he" she answered: this wicked Haman. "And Haman was terrified" — the explanation of the MaHaRA"A is that before the king himself he could have defended himself and maintained his words, for what he had slandered concerning the Jewish people was entirely true, and he had not done so out of enmity — but then Esther's wrath would have grown even greater. And before Esther alone he could have pleaded that he did this before he knew that the Jews were her people and her kindred, and now he promises to continue to speak well of the Jews, so as to have the letters rescinded — but then the king's wrath would have grown, for he would say: does this not reveal that it was not out of love of truth that you wished to destroy them? For if it is true, as you say, that they deserve to be destroyed, how can you now shield them out of fear of the queen? Therefore he was terrified before the king and the queen together, in their being together.

"An adversary and an enemy, etc." (verse 6). Even though it was Ahasuerus who sold them to him [Haman], and if so, when she said "an adversary and an enemy," surely Ahasuerus, who sold them, is included in this as well. For we have already said above that it can be shown that Haman's intent was aimed at Esther alone, just as he did also with Vashti, as has been explained. And one should not object that Haman did not know that Esther was Jewish, just as Ahasuerus did not know. For this is why she said (verse 4) "but if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen" — meaning, was it not enough that he sold them as bondmen and bondwomen; rather, his intent was aimed at Esther, to kill her. And even though Ahasuerus did not know, Haman* [knew] this, that she was Jewish. Therefore Esther said "I and my people" — placing "I" before "my people" — [meaning] that he wants to kill me, but he sought [the destruction of] the whole nation, and I am included among them. But since he could not say anything bad about the queen [directly], he therefore stands against her whole people to destroy them, and Esther is included in this. And this was the cause of the king's wrath (verse 7), when he considered that Haman had done it all because of Esther, as we have said. "An adversary and an enemy, even this wicked Haman." It would have sufficed to say only "an adversary and an enemy, the wicked Haman" — or it could have been written "this wicked man" [without naming him] — so why does it say "the wicked Haman," naming him explicitly, and also say "this"? This is* a redundancy [a doubling]. According to the plain sense, it appears that she said "this" because Ahasuerus would say to Esther that she had invited him to the feast in his [Haman's] honor, and now she is saying such a thing about him. Regarding this she said "this wicked Haman" — meaning, I wanted him to be present before me, so that he could respond to my words. For had I said it not in his presence, he would have come to the king with false and deceitful excuses. But now let him say before the king why he did such a thing. This is one of the views mentioned above [explaining] why Esther invited him to the feast. Furthermore, it can be explained that the word "this" comes to exclude [any comparison] — that this one is wicked and an enemy, and there is no other like him. But in the Gemara (Megillah 16a) they said as follows: "'And Esther said: An adversary and an enemy, Haman' — this teaches that Esther was pointing her hand toward Ahasuerus, and an angel came and struck her hand toward Haman" — thus far [the citation]. And this is difficult: why did the angel need to strike her hand toward Haman — did she not [already] say "the wicked Haman"? It appears that the explanation is as follows: the king had said (verse 5) "Who is he, and where is he," and if Esther had said only "the wicked Haman" without pointing her hand toward Ahasuerus, Esther would have been speaking falsehoods, and it is written (Psalms 101:7) "he who speaks falsehoods shall not be established." For what could Haman possibly have done had Ahasuerus not sold them to him and placed them in Haman's hand (above, 3:11)? And redemption cannot come through words of falsehood, since it is written "he who speaks falsehoods shall not be established." Therefore Esther said "an adversary" and pointed toward Ahasuerus, for the "adversary" toward whom she was pointing her hand is the one who sold [them]. And she said "and an enemy, the wicked Haman" — meaning that both of these did it: Ahasuerus, and the wicked Haman — through both of them this came about. And so that Esther should not come into danger for what she said about Ahasuerus, "an adversary," an angel therefore came and struck her hand toward Haman. And the explanation is not that Esther uttered the word "this" from her mouth [in reference to Haman], but rather that her pointing her hand toward Haman is equivalent to the word "this." For a mute person who cannot speak but gestures instead — this gesture is considered speech in every respect. Therefore it is written "this wicked Haman." So it appears fit to explain. Furthermore, one can say: since it is written "he who speaks falsehoods shall not be established," and since he [the king] had said "Who is he, and where is he who has filled his heart to do so," and certainly the primary one upon whom [the blame] is to be hung is Ahasuerus, who sold them, and without Ahasuerus, Haman could not have done anything — had Esther said only "the wicked Haman," these words would be false, since the primary [cause] is Ahasuerus, and it is written "he who speaks falsehoods shall not be established." And all the more so, how could redemption come about through falsehood, seeing that it was not Haman alone who did* this deed, but that it came about through Ahasuerus as well? Therefore she pointed her hand toward Ahasuerus, meaning that both Ahasuerus and Haman are the perpetrators of the deed. And had she said only "the wicked Haman," it would be proper to say "he who speaks falsehoods shall not be established"; therefore an angel came and struck her hand toward Haman. And therefore she finished her utterance by saying "this" — as if she were saying, 'I am pointing toward Haman, and not toward Ahasuerus,' for that had not been her intent. And Esther knew* that the angel had struck her hand, therefore she finished her utterance [accordingly]. And now the difficulty of "he who speaks falsehoods shall not be established" does not apply, for in the end she spoke the truth, only that the angel* struck her hand. But the first explanation is the essential and correct one. "This wicked Haman." She placed "wicked" directly next to "Haman," and did not say "this Haman, the adversary and the enemy and the wicked one" — because the name "wicked" [applies] when the person is evil in himself, and not merely because of hatred or for some [other] reason. Therefore "wicked" was placed adjacent to his name, for the name indicates the essence of the person, and this matter will be explained shortly.

That it would end up. The evil, the hatred, and the vengeance were decided.

"for [the evil] was determined" (ki khaltah) — like "ki khalah hi" ("that it was concluded").

"And the king arose in his wrath, etc." It is fitting to take note of the following points: (1) It says "in his wrath" (bachamato), whereas it should have said "he arose in wrath" (kam bechemah), since it is obvious that it was his own wrath and not someone else's. (2) Why did he go to the palace garden — if it was in order to dispel his wrath from himself, then how did Haman see that the evil had been resolved upon him by the king? Is it not the opposite — that on the contrary he was going in order to cool his wrath? And if [you say] that Haman did not understand his intent and erred, then it should say "for he thought," not "for he saw," which indicates that he saw with his very own eyes and recognized that the evil had been resolved upon him by the king. (3) How, once the evil had been resolved upon him by the king, did he go to seek [mercy] from the queen? For all the more so had the evil been resolved upon him by the queen, since she was the one sold [into destruction], and bitter of soul over herself and over her people. (4) How is it that the king did not consider saying, "Why should Haman be put to death for this, seeing that he did not know she was Jewish, when he sought to acquire her [i.e., swept her into the decree of destruction]"? For behold, even to the king Esther had not told her people until this very day — so how could it be that he did not know, and yet be found guilty? (5) It says "and the king returned, etc." — for saying "to the house of the wine banquet" is superfluous, since a "return" is precise only regarding the place where he had been previously. (6) It says "will he even force [the queen]..." — for it appears that the jealous wrath of a husband had burned within him; if so, why does it say "to force," which is a term of subjugation/servitude? (7) It says "And Charvonah said" — what was it to him that he had not spoken until now? (8) It says "also, behold, the gallows" — for it would have been fitting to say "also, behold, he made a gallows," rather than speaking as though the king already knew that he had made a gallows for Mordechai. (9) Why did he inform him that he had made it in his own house? (10) It says "standing," which is superfluous, and he also informed him of its measurement, that it is fifty cubits high. (11) It says "who spoke well concerning the king," which appears to diminish Mordechai's deed; it would have been fitting to say "who saved the king's life," or something similar, but not "who spoke well," which indicates it was a mere statement — [a formulation] that seems to belittle, with a blade, the greatness of his good deed. However, behold, our Sages of blessed memory said, regarding "and the king's wrath was appeased" (Esther 2:1), that there are two appeasements [of wrath mentioned] — why? One concerning the killing of Vashti, and one concerning his having sought to kill Esther. Let us adopt [the view] that he had not forgotten the wrath [he bore] against the one who caused Vashti's death through Haman; rather, it remained fixed in his heart against Haman, and his wrath against him persisted until now — all the more so in light of some of the approaches we have written regarding "and his wrath burned within him" (Esther 1:12), which indicate that he considered what he had done to be evil, since it brought her to the gates of death — for silence would have been far better for him than speech, since [her refusal] is accounted to her as modesty. And so too we have written regarding "when his wrath was appeased... he remembered Vashti, etc." — that when his wrath was appeased over her having transgressed his command, he remembered her, for she was very precious [to him], and [he remembered] what she had done, that it was modesty, and that death had been decreed against her unjustly. Now let us come to the matter. He says: when the king heard Esther's words, he could not avoid passing judgment on his own verdict, coming to say, "I know that it did not enter his mind to include Esther in the sale [decree], for he did not think of her as Jewish" — and this is a true argument. But then he saw Esther's deed and remembered Vashti's departure from the world through him [Haman], and the wrath in his heart against him was stirred, and in a surge of fury his measure was filled, as he said, "What merit can I find for him in this?" — for they could say to him, "And by your own reasoning, what is there to say regarding Vashti?" Therefore, upon remembering his wrath over the matter of Vashti, it touched his heart, and he arose in the bitterness of his soul to the palace garden, the place where the sentence had been decreed against her — for there the banquet had been, and from there he had sent for her, and there it had been said to the wise men, "according to the law, what is to be done," and there the wicked man Memuchan — he is Haman — had been summoned and hastened her death, saying, "Not against the king alone... but against all the officials," so that the king was compelled to acknowledge [the sentence], lest he appear not to take to heart the honor of the officials whom she had wronged before their eyes, for the officials of the provinces were present there. And this is [the meaning of] "and the king arose in his wrath" — that is, in the wrath known to him, which was within him regarding the matter of Vashti; and therefore he went to the palace garden, to mourn over her in the place of her loss — whether to remain inconsolable, or to seek some merit on Haman's behalf. Therefore [while the king was there], Haman stood to plead for his life with Esther. For he saw the king going to the palace garden, that the evil had been resolved upon him by the king — for he would surely remember, and his soul would be downcast over his wife [Vashti] in that very place. And how could Haman go there to plead for his life, when that place would serve as a reminder of guilt to seize him, and would rather kindle the fire of the king's wrath against him? Yet he went there. Therefore he stood before Esther, saying to her: "Behold, I brought about your becoming queen by being the cause of Vashti's death, and even now my intention was not to acquire you [for destruction], for I did not know that you were Jewish." And while he was still speaking, he — that is, the king — came from the palace garden; for after his heart had been pained over Vashti in the palace garden, the place of her misfortune, he returned to the place of the wine banquet, that same place — for there it was revealed to him that Haman had sought to acquire the king's own wife [Esther] for killing, adding grief upon his previous grief. "And he saw, and behold, Haman was upon the couch," etc. Then he said, "Will he even force [the queen]..." — meaning: "Is your intent also to acquire the queen as a maidservant, on the day you acquired the Jews [for destruction]? Regarding that I was silent, for it was your money [to do with as you wished] — but with me, in the house?!" — in astonishment, for this evil has no measure. Or it may mean: "Was your intent in your purchase also to subjugate the queen? Is that why you came to subjugate her, since you had acquired her?" This he could have done even with me in the house, since she is his purchased property — but his doing so, drawing near to her while he himself [the king] was still outside the house, can only mean that he harbored lewd intent in his heart. Now, is this not to be regarded as strange in his thinking, at a time when the terror of death had fallen upon him? Rather, those sitting before him paid attention only to what had come forth from the king's mouth, even though there was no rational basis for it — and immediately Haman's face was covered, as though his sentence had already been sealed; they covered his face so that he would not see the king's face, "for in the light of the king's countenance is life." Now, even though Haman's face was covered, the king did not utter from his mouth [a sentence] to put him to death, because he was perplexed, still uncertain whether Haman had truly desired the queen's death — all the more so in light of what we wrote above, that it was in the king's heart that Haman had been the cause of his being saved from death through Bigthan and Teresh, since it was through him that the coming of Esther to the throne had been set in motion, through which he was saved. Therefore Charvonah came and said: "Behold, I saw you uncertain whether Haman also spread a net over the queen, to acquire her in order to kill her — for that is why you grew angry only upon remembering Vashti; and even now, when you said, 'Will he even force [her],' you did not utter words from your mouth to have him put to death, remaining in doubt, also because good had come to you through him by chance. But know that he intended to kill you, and do not be astonished, for here is proof for you: that he also intended to kill the queen, and also loathed the king's life. For behold, even the gallows that he made by himself for Mordechai — he did not make it out of hatred for him, but only because he had spoken well concerning the king. For even though Mordechai did not come to tell you himself about Bigthan and Teresh, but rather told it to Esther — in such a way that it was still possible the king's rescue would not have come to actual fruition had Esther not told the king — nevertheless, merely because the fact existed that good had been spoken concerning the king, he sought to kill him. If so, all the more so does he desire the death of Esther, who told the king and saved him from death, so that the cup should pass to her — for he desires the king's death!" And this is [the meaning of] "also, behold, the gallows, etc." — meaning: he sought to kill Mordechai too on account of his having spoken well, just as he seeks to kill Esther, as we have written. For if what he sought to kill Mordechai for was because he is a Jew, already marked for destruction, he would destroy him along with the rest, since he is like all the multitude of Israel; and if it was because he does not bow down to him, then why does the gallows still stand, and he had not torn it down, after seeing that Mordechai is a man whom the king desires to honor for having saved his life? And this is [the meaning of] "standing." And there is a second argument: that if it was on account of his transgressing the king's decree that all should bow and prostrate themselves to Haman, he would hang him on a gallows visible to all the peoples — so why did he make it in his own house? Rather, this can only be because he was enraged that Mordechai had spoken well concerning the king, and therefore he did it in secret, and drew him near to his house to tear at his life like a lion, in the darkness of evening, on a day when the king knew nothing of the matter. And this is [the meaning of] "in Haman's house." And since his [Charvonah's] intent was to say that Haman is, at heart, an enemy of the king, he did not say "Behold, he made a gallows," but rather "Behold, the gallows," meaning that what he had made was with this very intent — because Mordechai had spoken well concerning the king. This is unlike if he had spoken merely by way of information, in which case he would have said "Behold, he made a gallows," which would have seemed to be intended merely to inform of the existence of the gallows. Rather, from reasoning, he said that it was because Mordechai had spoken well, and therefore he made this the main point. And should you say, "But at the root there is a difficulty with this reasoning — for who can say that he made the gallows for Mordechai and not for someone else?" — to this he said, "fifty cubits high." For what could have entered his mind to make a gallows fifty cubits high? This is astounding, for such a thing was not done for anyone else. But this can only be because, out of fear that he would be unable to overcome him, since he is a great sage, he devised, as mentioned, to combine fifty forces of impurity against him. He also made it based on Mordechai's name — that the first letter of Mordechai and the last letter total fifty [in gematria] — in order to subdue him with his fifty forces of impurity. When the king heard this, he said, "Hang him on it" — for on the contrary, the letters of Mordechai's name would subdue Haman and his fifty [forces]. All the more so, because from Charvonah's words he saw that the one whom he had thought had risked his life [to save him] was, on the contrary, the one who sought to kill the very cause of his rescue. If so, how then could evil be repaid for good? Now, our Sages of blessed memory said that Charvonah is Elijah, who appeared as one of the eunuchs. But is this not to be regarded as strange? For it says "one of the eunuchs," which indicates that it was not Elijah, but rather actually one of the king's own eunuchs. But I think to be precise about this: its saying "before the king" is superfluous. Rather, the meaning is: "And Charvonah said" — he who is one of the eunuchs before the king — meaning that before the king, insofar as he is a man who sees with [physical] eyes, he appeared as one of the eunuchs, but not before Hashem — for the king sees only what appears before him as one of the eunuchs. And I have heard from one who was precise about this, that the name "Charvonah" mentioned here is spelled with a heh at the end of the word, and not with an alef, as Charvonah mentioned above among the king's eunuchs is spelled. Therefore [our Sages] spoke well, for the appearance of this one is not like the appearance of that one, and it is possible to follow this and complete his words: that the heh, which [numerically] is five, alludes to the five letters in the name Elijah (Eliyahu).

Questions: Why did he not plead with the king and the queen together? Therefore, when the king went out to the palace garden, he found an opportune moment to plead for his life with Esther alone.

"And the king arose in his wrath from the banquet of wine, etc." (verse 7) — He did not need to say merely "and the king arose in his wrath [and went] to the palace garden"; rather, [the verse wanted] to state the reason why he arose, and it says [it was] because he had been sitting at the banquet in a manner of joy, love, and friendship. And even if he had been angry for a short while, he would afterward be reconciled once they sat again at the wine-banquet. Therefore it states that he did not want to be reconciled, and so he arose from the wine-banquet. And afterward it is written (verse 8), "and the king returned from the palace garden to the house of the banquet" — and not "to the wine-banquet" — for since he had gone out from the wine-banquet, the wine-banquet had already ceased. Even though he returns afterward, he returned only to "the house of the banquet," not to "the wine-banquet" itself, because the house in which the banquet had taken place was called "the house of the banquet," and was not called after the wine, so as to say "[house of] the wine-banquet." And since the banquet had ceased when he arose to the palace garden, the house in which the banquet had been was called "the house of the banquet," not "the wine-banquet." Therefore it is also written, "and the king returned from the palace garden, etc." — he did not need to say merely "and the king returned to the house of the banquet"; rather, [it specifies "from the palace garden"] so that you should not say that the king's intention was that he wanted to come to the house of the banquet in order to be in the house of the banquet — for even though he was not returning entirely to the wine-banquet, in the end he wanted to be in the house where the banquet was, and eventually he would come to the banquet, and this would lead to reconciliation [with Haman]. About this it states that this is not so, for [it says] "he returned from the palace garden" — [meaning] that he no longer wanted to be in the palace garden, but he did not [then] want to return to the house of the banquet; rather, he simply no longer wanted to be in the garden, and he had no desire at all for the house of the banquet. And in the Gemara (Megillah 16a): "and the king returned from the palace garden" (verse 8) — this juxtaposes the returning with the rising: just as the rising was in wrath, so too the returning was in wrath. For he went and found ministering angels who appeared to him as men standing and uprooting the trees of the orchard and throwing them down. He said to them, "What is your task?" They said to him, "We were commanded by Haman." He came to his house, and "Haman was falling upon the couch" — it should have said "fell" [not "was falling"]. Rabbi Elazar said: [this teaches] that an angel came and threw him down upon it. And they explained it this way because it was difficult for them [to reconcile] that surely what caused him to rise from the wine-banquet to the palace garden was in order to calm the wrath that he had, and it would have been more fitting that he not go to calm his wrath, for this serves no purpose for the redemption — on the contrary, the calming of his wrath would be a deliverance for Haman. Therefore they said: on the contrary, [his wrath] increased, for the angels appeared to him as men cutting down trees. And furthermore, [they said] that it juxtaposes the returning to the rising because it is written "and the king returned from the palace garden," which, as explained above, did not need to be written [in this way], except that it comes to juxtapose the returning to the rising. And all this is because one might think that what Haman did, he did because he hated the Jews — and if so, for what reason is he liable to death, since every person seeks to destroy his enemy? And certainly, if the Jews had been Ahasuerus's own nation, then reason would dictate that he should avenge their vengeance upon him. But since they are not his nation — on the contrary, Ahasuerus hated the Jews — if so, why would he want to take his revenge from Haman? And although it appears that Esther said [what she said] for this reason, when the king said (verse 5), "Who is he, and where is he, who has presumed in his heart to do so," and she said (verse 6), "An adversary and enemy, this wicked Haman" — she said "an adversary" [ish tzar], meaning that Haman is to Israel like two people who both stand in a narrow, constricted place, and each one wants to bring down the other so that he will have relief. So too Haman, who is of the seed of Esau — "when this one falls, this one rises" (Megillah 6a) — and therefore Haman seeks and desires to bring down Israel. And on this account she called Haman "an adversary" [ish tzar] to Israel, [meaning] that he and the people of Israel are as though they are constricted in one place, which cannot hold the two of them together. And she said "and enemy," because he hates them on account of their religion — therefore she said "enemy." And more than this she said that he is himself an evil person, and since he is evil, he does evil to others because of his own evil nature — and of an evil person there is no [need to] ask why he did this, for the evil person does evil even for no reason at all. And because this matter does not enter into a person's heart — that there could be a person like this — and he would not believe it, therefore it appeared to him as though Haman's men were uprooting the trees, and they said that it was Haman's command (Megillah 16a). And there is nothing more evil and destructive than one who cuts down good trees, as it is written regarding this (Deuteronomy 20:19), "You shall not destroy its trees, wielding an axe against them." And how much more so [is this true] of Ahasuerus, who had elevated Haman (above, 3:1) — and this was only because he is an evil person, and the evil desires evil. And all this serves to establish Esther's words, that she said that Haman was evil.

Haman had fallen. The angel pushed him. — Notes: (3) Ibid. The literal translation is “and Haman was falling,” meaning that he tried to rise but the angel kept pushing him onto the couch and into a compromising position, which infuriated the king even more. On the couch upon which Esther reclined. Their custom was to sit at a meal [reclining] on their sides on couches, as it is stated in the beginning of the Book, “couches of gold and silver” for those who participated in the feast. — Notes: (4) Above 1:6. Even to overpower the queen. This is an expression of wonder. לִכְבּוֹשׁ [denotes] to subdue with force, as in “and the land is conquered [וְנִכְבְּשָׁה].” — Notes: (5) Bamidbar 32:22.

"And Haman had fallen" — for he had been pleading and bowing at her feet; and when he saw that the king had returned, he collapsed from the intensity of his fear. And the homiletical approach (derekh ha-derash) [to this] is also well known. "to force the queen" (likhbosh et ha-malkah) — a euphemism for lying [with her], that she be under his control; he would force her — similar to "ve-khivshuha" ("and they shall subjugate her"). And the meaning of "imi" ("with me," i.e., in my presence) is "that I have seen this." "they covered" (chafu) — [the subject is] the servants; and the meaning is like [they covered] his face, for such was the practice of the kings of Persia: the king's servants would cover the face of one with whom the king was angry, so that the king would not see him again — and this is already known from the books of Persia.

"Will he even" — since he [the king] already knew that Haman had planned to kill Esther along with the destruction of all the Jews, and now, even now, it also seemed to him that he wanted to kill her, he said: "Will you even conquer the queen? If you sold her people to be killed, was the queen included among them too?" This is a second [point]: "is it that also, before me, in the house" — for even one who is condemned to death, if he flees to the king's house, is not killed; how much more so to kill the queen within the house! And "they covered Haman's face" — it was the custom of the Persians to cover the face of one with whom the king was angry, so that the king's wrath would be assuaged. (Ibn Ezra)

"And Haman was falling upon the couch, etc." (verse 8). According to the plain sense, it is written "falling" and not written "fell upon the couch" — for if the king had not seen him actually falling, Achashverosh would have thought that perhaps he had come upon her, and even if it had been through coercion, ultimately it would still be a disgrace to her. And all the more so, he might think that she had consented to him. Therefore it is written "falling" — because he saw him [in the act of] falling — and he said, "Will he even force [the queen], etc." And in the Gemara (Megillah 16a) it says: "'Falling upon the couch' — it should have said 'fell'! Rather, an angel came and threw him down." It seems to say that the Sages, too, explained "falling" [to mean] that just as Achashverosh came in, Haman was [in the midst of] falling upon the couch, and therefore it is written "falling." Only they found it difficult: how did this happen, that he happened to be falling precisely at the moment Achashverosh returned from the palace garden — was this mere chance? Therefore they said that the angel threw him down specifically when Achashverosh came, and not before, so that Achashverosh would not think that Haman had come upon her, as we said. One may also explain that the Sages were precise [in noting] that "falling" (nofel) implies that the falling itself is a novel occurrence, for "fell" (nafal) implies that he had already fallen [i.e., thrown himself down], and there is nothing novel in that falling, since he simply wished to plead and beg mercy for himself for what he had done. But "falling" (nofel) implies that the falling itself is a new and sudden event, and therefore they expounded that the angel threw him down; whereas "fell" (nafal) does not imply novelty, and this is well known. "And they covered Haman's face." This is difficult: why was it necessary to say "and they covered Haman's face"? It seems to say that at this point his face began to be covered, and in the end he was hanged (below, verse 10), and that is the greater disgrace, coming on top of the first one. For such is the way of a miracle: it begins somewhat at first, and in the end it is brought to completion entirely. Therefore the beginning of this matter is that "Haman's face was covered" — and that is shame, for shame, which is a change in the face, is superior to everything, because shame reaches the radiance and countenance of the face, which belongs to man from the upper world. And therefore they said (Bava Metzia 59a): "One who humiliates his fellow (lit. 'whitens his fellow's face') and thereby nullifies the radiance and countenance of his face, has no share in the World to Come." And therefore, when the calamity came upon Haman, it began with this — that it says "and Haman's face was covered" — and afterward there befell him that he was hanged; and this matter is a disgrace to the image of man, which is the image of God, as will be explained. And also his soul was taken from him, and also his flesh was given to the birds of the sky.

Moreover, there is the gallows. He “also” committed another evil, that he prepared the gallows to hang the king’s friend, who saved the king from [being] poison[ed].

"Harbonah" — some say that Elijah, of blessed memory, appeared to the king in the likeness of a chamberlain. And the meaning of "ve-chamat ha-melekh shakhakhah" ("and the king's wrath was assuaged") is that his wrath did not rest until Haman was hanged — from the same root as "ve-hashibbati me-alai" ("and I shall remove [it] from upon me"), even though they are two different grammatical constructions.

The questions: From where did the chamberlain know about the matter of the gallows? Why did he mention "who spoke good concerning the king"? And what practical difference does it make whether it stands in Haman's house or does not stand now, and whether it is fifty cubits high or not? "One of the chamberlains" — who had gone to call Haman to the banquet, and through this they knew about the gallows, as above. Also, "behold, the gallows" — meaning: behold, there is yet more clear proof that this man Haman was seeking only the king's harm; for behold, he made a gallows to hang Mordecai, and found no fault in him except that "he had spoken good concerning the king" — for because Mordecai had saved the king's life from death, this angered Haman, and he wanted to hang him, for Haman too was among the conspirators against the king. This is a second [point]: "it stands in Haman's house, high," etc. — behold, the gallows still stands, and is fifty cubits high, so that it would be visible to the eyes of all; and this is a great disgrace to the king — that at the time when Mordecai wore royal apparel and it was proclaimed before him that the king desired to honor him, nevertheless the gallows prepared for him, to hang him on it, stands openly before the eyes of all, saying that the man whom the king desires to honor is ready to be hanged — and there is no rebellion greater than this. And according to this, the king rightly ruled and passed his sentence to hang him — so shall all the enemies of Hashem perish.

"And Harbonah, one of the chamberlains, said" (verse 9) — Why did the verse need to say that he was "one of the chamberlains"? Because if this had come about through one of the king's advisors, the miracle would have come about through that man who advised the king to do this, and it would be as though the redemption had not come through Queen Esther. And it is not fitting that something pertaining to the redemption should have come about through anyone other than Esther. Therefore it did not come through one of the advisors whom the king consults for counsel, but rather through one of the chamberlains who stood before the king, who merely reported the matter to him, as is the way of chamberlains to relate what happened — and this was not counsel at all. And therefore it is said in the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 3:7) that one must also say, "And Harbonah too be remembered for good." And it appears that the view of the Jerusalem Talmud is that this Harbonah was Elijah, remembered for good, because it is difficult [to understand] how the redemption could come about through Harbonah. Even if you say that what Harbonah related was merely a report of facts, and was not counsel at all, still it is not fitting that the redemption should come except through Esther and Mordecai. Therefore they said that this too came through Elijah, remembered for good, and this too was from Heaven — such is the view of the Jerusalem Talmud. And even if you say that it was not Elijah himself, the Jerusalem Talmud holds that Elijah was carrying out his mission through Harbonah. For Elijah too is a messenger for whatever Hashem, may He be blessed, wishes to do. And since he was only carrying out the mission of Hashem, may He be blessed, one cannot say that the redemption came about through him [Harbonah] as well. Therefore one must say, "And Harbonah too be remembered for good," for he was the messenger of Elijah. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1059): "And Harbonah said" — Rabbi Chama bar Chanina said, Harbonah the wicked was also party to that plot, [but] once he saw that his plot had not succeeded, he fled at once. This is [the meaning of] what is written (Job 27:22), "He hurls it at him without pity; from His hand he flees in headlong flight." Rav said: Harbonah be remembered for good. And some say: at that hour Elijah, remembered for a blessing, came and took on the appearance of Harbonah. He said: My lord the king, there is a tree in his [Haman's] house, from the House of the Holy of Holies, fifty cubits high. And the king commanded that Haman be hanged, to fulfill what is stated (Ezra 6:11), "Let a beam be pulled out of his house, and let him be lifted up and fastened thereon." And the king took all that was Haman's and gave it to Esther, to fulfill what is stated (ibid.), "And his house shall be made a dunghill for this." "And Harbonah said" — Harbonah, too, was an enemy of Mordecai; concerning this it is said, "The ox has fallen — [here come] his slaughterers*." Harbonah said: Did he [Haman] do only this evil to you [the king]? He was together with Bigthan and Teresh in that very plot. Know that this is so, for as soon as Mordecai* informed you of the matter, he [Haman] immediately bore him a grudge and prepared a gallows for him — and behold, it is [now] in Haman's house! The king immediately said, "Hang him on it." And to this Midrash as well, it was difficult [to understand] how the redemption came about through Harbonah, and what connection he had to the redemption. Therefore they said that Harbonah was with Haman in that plot, and when his plot did not succeed, he fled, and he was afraid that it would become known to Esther that Harbonah had been party to that plot, and so he said these things. And in the end, it was because he was afraid of Esther that he spoke these words, and it was all on Esther's account, but from his own side this was not so. And likewise, according to the one who says that Harbonah hated Mordecai — it was only because he saw Haman's downfall that he finished off Haman's downfall, as people say (Shabbat 32a), "When the ox falls, sharpen the knife." And therefore this matter came about on account of the downfall that had already come upon Haman first; therefore this matter is not attributable to Harbonah at all, but rather it was drawn along after the essential redemption, which had already come upon Haman first from Hashem, may He be blessed, and was not from Harbonah. And Rav, who said that one should say, "And Harbonah too be remembered for good," held that Hashem, may He be blessed, was doing these things* through Elijah, and therefore one must say, "And Harbonah too be remembered for good." Even though it was the matter of the gallows that served* [as the visible instrument] — that is to say, Hashem, may He be blessed, was acting through Harbonah [himself], having placed this word in his mouth so that he said this — still, in the end a good thing came about through him, and therefore one must say, "And Harbonah too be remembered for good." And so that you should not say that this matter came about through Harbonah merely because he was one of the chamberlains — for if so, how could this matter, which is the very essence of the redemption, namely the hanging of Haman, come about through one of the nations? — therefore Hashem brought the letter heh into the name "Harbonah" in place of an alef, for above (1:10) it is written "חרבונא" with an alef, whereas here* it is written with a heh, which is one of the letters of the [Divine] Name, to indicate that Hashem, may He be blessed, was the One acting when Harbonah said this thing. And therefore the heh should not be understood as joined to the [root of the] name "Harbonah" at all, for the heh is merely an addition, and here there is only an interchange* of heh for alef, to indicate the intention we have stated. And as for what is said, that the gallows was from the House of the Holy of Holies — this was explained above, that the Temple was in the portion of Binyamin, for Mordecai was from Binyamin (above, 2:5), and the Temple ascends to the fiftieth gate by virtue of its rank and level, and this is what caused Haman to be hanged. For the Temple is for [Hashem's] service, may He be blessed, and therefore the Temple is the opposite of Haman, who made himself into idolatry (Megillah 10b). Therefore this gallows is [an expression of] the power of Mordecai, for the Temple was in the portion of Binyamin. And Mordecai was also called by that name after "mari dakhya" (pure myrrh), which was in the incense that they would bring into the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies. And he too was the opposite of Haman, for the Temple is for the service of Hashem, may He be blessed, while Haman made himself into idolatry. And these matters will yet be explained further. And therefore it says that this gallows remained from the Temple, [in a place] over which enemies had no dominion, for they do not reach this fiftieth level at all; therefore the gallows remained. And by the power of the remaining gallows, over which the enemies had no dominion, came the hanging of Haman. And this is what is meant by saying that the gallows was from the Temple; understand this. "And Harbonah said, Behold also the gallows, fifty cubits high, which Haman has made, etc." Why did Harbonah need to say, "Behold, the gallows [is] fifty cubits [high]"? What difference does it make whether it was fifty or forty cubits? Rather, he said to the king: See how far Haman's schemes went — for he had already made the gallows fifty cubits high, so that it would be visible to the eyes of all that he was making this gallows for Mordecai, to hang him upon it, even though the king had not yet given permission. Had he made a small gallows, this would not have been considered significant, since it would not have been visible. But this gallows was visible to all, and he did this without the king's permission. At the very least, he should have first asked the king and obtained permission from the king, and only afterward made the gallows; instead, he committed an affront to the king.

"So they hanged Haman, etc." — We have written above that the verse says "that he had prepared" and not "that he had made." This is because he made a preparation to subdue Mordechai through his own intention: in making the gallows he intended to combine the fifty forces of his impurity, in order to subdue the one whose name's first letter and last letter add up to fifty, as Harvonah hinted to the king, saying: "O king, if he is innocent in his judgment, his own powers will stand by him, so that this gallows will have no power over him" — to which the king said, "Hang him on it!" — so that it should be seen. And then, "so they hanged Haman on the gallows" that he had prepared with his sorceries for Mordechai, and thereby "the king's wrath was assuaged." Now, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, disagreed regarding these two "assuagings" [of wrath, in the two verses]: some say that one is the wrath of the Holy One, blessed be He, and one is that of Ahasuerus; and some say that one is that of Vashti and one is that of Esther. According to the plain sense, it is possible to say that there were many wraths: the wrath of Ahasuerus against his wives, the wrath of Mordechai and Esther on Israel's account, and above all these, the wrath of the Holy One, blessed be He, concerning the affair of His people. The verse states that once they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordechai — for the destruction of the wicked and the deliverance of the righteous is a joy before Him, may He be blessed — and how much more so since it was his own net, which he had hidden, that trapped him, and "the righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked comes in his stead" (Proverbs 11:8) — from this too it was fitting that Mordechai's wrath should be assuaged, since Haman was given in his place, and likewise the wrath of Esther, his cousin. Yet, it says, despite all this, only the king's wrath was assuaged — but not the wrath of Hashem, nor the wrath of Mordechai and Esther — until the completion of Israel's redemption. This is because the king's heart was still set on carrying out Haman's letters against the Jews, to destroy them, apart from Mordechai and Esther. And this is known from the words of our Rabbis, that the king desired to destroy Israel even more than Haman did, as in the parable of the owner of the pit and the owner of the mound. The matter is this: Haman, who was descended from Amalek, could rise only through Israel's fall, for when one falls, the other rises. Therefore, even though Haman himself had attained high rank, he still had a deep, low pit, since his own people had not attained that rank, and he could not fill the pit of his people's lowliness except by placing Israel into a pit of lowliness — and only then would he and his people rise. Ahasuerus, however, regarded Israel as a mound and a stumbling block before him, since they had written to him an accusation concerning Jerusalem, that the kingdom of Israel had a history of harming kings, etc. — therefore Israel's heart still could not be confident that the king would hold back his wrath from destroying them. And in the Midrash there is a parable: the wicked Haman is like a bird that nested on the seashore, and the sea swept away its nest. It said, "I will not budge from here until I turn the sea into dry land and the dry land into sea." What did it do? It took water from the sea in its beak and poured it onto the dry land, and took dust from the dry land and cast it into the sea. Its companion came and stood over it and said to it: "Bad luck, and your fortune (mazal) has sunk — in the end, what can you accomplish?" So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the wicked Haman: "You, greatest fool in the world! I said, as it were, to destroy them — and I could not, as it is said, 'And He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses...' (Psalms 106:23). But you said to destroy, to slay, and to exterminate. By your life — your head is surrendered in place of their heads, for they are to be rescued, and you to be hanged." Now, it is worth paying attention to the meaning of this parable, and how its details apply properly to the matter of Haman; and also, how, given that the parable speaks of a "companion" — saying "its companion came and stood over it" — the object of the parable (the nimshal) then says, "so the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him" — in what way could the Holy One, blessed be He, be related to Haman as a companion? Heaven forbid! However, I say that the Rabbis intended to convey a sound and proper understanding, namely: we had sinned and rebelled, and a decree had been sealed in the heavens above; and what Haman decreed against us was indeed like an axe in the hand of the one who wields it, for it was from Heaven that war was waged against us through him — just as with Nebuchadnezzar, to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Wicked servant — go and destroy!" — and he destroyed Jerusalem. So too with Haman: it was His will, may He be blessed, that he do what he did, for Israel had become liable to destruction before the Omnipresent. If so, then, when Hashem's fierce anger turned away from us, is it not to be reckoned as righteousness on His part, may He be blessed, that He overturned Haman's plan by means of the letters — even though "what is written... cannot be reversed" (Esther 8:8) — and yet it was turned for us from death to life? But as for also hanging our mortal enemies — by what merit did we attain this reversal, in addition to our rescue? This is why they told the parable of the wicked Haman, etc. — to say that there are three reasons involved: One, that Haman was wicked in that he did not act to carry out His will, may He be blessed, against us because we had sinned against Him, but rather acted so as to take revenge for what Israel had done to Amalek in the days of Saul. This is the meaning of "a bird that nested on the seashore" — for Amalek dwelled in the land of the Negev, on the shore of the settlements of Israel, who are likened to a sea filled with merits like the waters covering the sea. Saul came and swept away the nest — that is, all of Amalek's dwelling place — and this was done not by all of Israel but by some of them, like the sweep of a wave on the seashore that washes away a nest on the seashore, while the bird, the owner of the nest, survived — that is, Saul spared Agag their king and his offspring. Haman, who was descended from Agag, sought to take revenge on all of Israel, and not merely on the portion that had swept away his nest — like the parable of the bird, which was angry not merely at the wave on the seashore, but at the whole sea, wishing to turn it into dry land. And this is what he meant by saying that he would turn the sea, which is Israel, into dry land, and the dry land, which is Amalek, into sea — the reverse of the way things naturally stood. His intention was that the waters of the sea would become like Amalek, and be poured out over the face of the land, which is Israel, sweeping it away as the sea sweeps over the dry land. This was his decree, which he decreed to destroy Israel through the aforementioned Amalek. This is the meaning of his saying that he would turn the dry land into sea and the sea into dry land. And there was a second thing that he did: he took water from the sea and cast it onto the dry land, and took dust from the dry land and cast it into the sea. This means that with his mouth he schemed and enticed Israel, leading them to partake of the feast of Ahasuerus, in order to dry up the merit of Israel — this is the meaning of "taking dust from the dry land and casting it into the sea." This is also known from what our Rabbis said in the Midrash, that Haman gathered them to the feast. And likewise, his "taking water from the sea and casting it onto the dry land" refers to his statement, "and their laws are different from every people" (Esther 3:8) — for he cast aspersion on the merit of Israel and their law, pouring it out toward the dry place, which is Amalek, saying that the merits and the laws of Israel were statutes that were not good, while the laws of Amalek were better than theirs. Thus there were found in his hand two evils: first, that his intent was to take revenge, and not to carry out the will of Him, may He be blessed; second, that he caused Israel to sin with his mouth, casting aspersion on the true faith. And a third evil, furthermore: that he was cruel with a double and redoubled evil, in that he was not satisfied merely with decreeing "to destroy" them, but also "to slay" and also "to exterminate." Therefore He, may He be blessed, was greatly angered at him, to the point of pouring out His wrath upon him, saying: "Behold, I am Master of all, and I said only to destroy them, and, as it were, I could not, for they were not lacking in merits to protect them; but you said to destroy, to slay, and to exterminate — by your life, for these three decrees, your head is surrendered in place of their heads, for they are to be rescued and you to be hanged" — meaning, that through these deeds of yours, not only will I rescue them, but "they are to be rescued and you to be hanged," for you shall bear their sins and be their atonement, in that I give a man in their stead. And should you ask: if Israel is so beloved before Him, may He be blessed, why did He leave them in Haman's hand, who brought them to the gates of death, so that afterward He had to redeem them from his hand? Therefore, to soften the language, the author of this teaching formulated the matter by saying "its companion came and stood over it," while in the nimshal he said, "so the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the wicked Haman" — for since the bird is the mashal-image for Haman, how could it be, in the nimshal, that the Holy One, blessed be He, stands to Haman as the bird's companion stood to the bird? Heaven forbid! Rather, the meaning is that in a certain sense He is related to him as a "companion," in that He too, may He be blessed, had consented to Israel's distress because they had sinned against Him; but in His abundant mercy, He relented from the evil, and He turned and healed them.

"So they hanged Haman on the gallows, etc." (verse 10). As for why it was necessary to say (there) "which he had prepared for Mordecai" — we have already said that this very thing, that Haman had prepared for Mordecai, was itself the cause of Haman's hanging, because he had prepared the gallows for Mordecai; for since he had prepared it for Mordecai, it was turned back upon him, for everything that Haman intended to do to Mordecai was turned back upon him. And so too they instituted in the blessing, "For Haman's lot (pur) was turned into our Purim." This matter is known to men of wisdom, and it will be explained further. "Then the king's wrath was assuaged." As for why it was necessary to say "the king's wrath was assuaged" — what difference would it make if it had not been assuaged? After all, the wrath was directed at Haman alone, and it would have been better still if the king's wrath against Haman had not been assuaged. Therefore the Midrash expounded on "the king's wrath was assuaged" that [the word implies] two subsidings: one, the King of kings of kings, and the other, a king of flesh and blood. The intent is that Scripture comes to say that the wrath of the Supreme King was assuaged. And do not say that the wrath of the Supreme King was not yet assuaged — [reasoning] that Israel had been sinners, and destruction had been decreed upon them, and the decree was turned over onto Haman who had sought their harm; while those who had sinned, against whom the decree had been made, would remain [alive] — so that, God forbid, one might still have cause to fear another decree from Hashem, may He be blessed. To this it responds that this is not so, for the wrath of the Supreme King was assuaged, and it is because of this that the wrath of the king of flesh and blood was also assuaged. And do not say that those things which Haman had spoken against Israel, as mentioned in Haman's words, were still in the king's heart. And as for what they expounded (Megillah 16a) — "two subsidings" — this is derived from the fact that it is not written "and the king's wrath died down (shakh)" but rather in a form implying two subsidings (shekhikhot): one for the Supreme King, and the other for the king of flesh and blood, as we have said. And now the verse comes out correctly: "And the king said, hang him on it; and the king's wrath was assuaged" (verses 9-10) — that is, both the wrath of the Supreme King and also the wrath of the king of flesh and blood were assuaged, and therefore (below, 8:1) "On that day, etc."