Esther’s plot – beating
Haman at his own game
The Megillah is full
of scenes where the motivations of the characters are unclear. Why does Esther
not reveal her identity? Why does Mordechai not bow down to Haman? Why does the
king promote Haman? Why is the king’s sleep disturbed? Why does Esther make two
parties before making her plea to the king? What was behind Haman’s plot to hang
Mordechai?
To this list one can
add many more and clearly this a signature feature of the Megillah intrinsic to
its hidden form. At each stage the reader is left to piece together the various
clues to uncover what is going on beneath the surface. This is very much connected
with the religious theology of the Megillah, but that is not the topic of this
post.
One such scene which I
would like to discuss is the reaction of Achashverosh upon hearing Esther’s
accusation of Haman. The obvious problem is that the king was well aware of Haman’s
plot as he was the one who authorised it. [1] What
are we therefore to make of his reaction of shock and anger upon hearing Esther’s
words:
וַתֹּאמֶר־אֶסְתֵּר אִישׁ צַר וְאוֹיֵב
הָמָן הָרָע הַזֶּה וְהָמָן נִבְעַת מִלִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַמַּלְכָּה׃ וְהַמֶּלֶךְ
קָם בַּחֲמָתוֹ מִמִּשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן אֶל־גִּנַּת הַבִּיתָן וְהָמָן עָמַד
לְבַקֵּשׁ עַל־נַפְשׁוֹ מֵאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה כִּי רָאָה כִּי־כָלְתָה אֵלָיו
הָרָעָה מֵאֵת הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ (אסתר ז:ו-ז)
There are a few
possible approaches one can take.
The king forgot the
original decree
One approach is to see
this as further evidence of the stupidity and/or self-interest of Achashverosh
who was so unconcerned with Haman’s plan to kill the Jews that he has forgotten
all about it. This is difficult for obvious reasons. Haman’s plan was presented
only a few days prior and was far from trivial. It involved a call to violence throughout
the kingdom, its magnitude reflected in the exorbitant sum of money which Haman
suggests will be paid out to the king.[2] The
king may have been indulgent and foolish but there is no evidence that he
suffered from amnesia.
Making Haman into the scapegoat
The second approach would
be to assume that the king finds himself in a quandary. Before Esther mentions the
name of Haman and the king blurts out ‘who is he and where is he’ (v.5), it is
reasonable to assume the king is genuinely enraged as he still has no idea what
decree Esther is referring to. But as soon as she mentions Haman, the king realises
he has fallen for the bait as Esther refers to none other than the very decree the
king himself authorised. The king does not know how to respond to his catch-22
situation, so he steps outside to ponder how he might condemn Haman without
incriminating himself. Upon returning, he is conveniently provided with the
pretext to get rid of Haman when he sees Haman ‘falling’ onto Esther:
וְהַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁב מִגִּנַּת הַבִּיתָן
אֶל־בֵּית מִשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן וְהָמָן נֹפֵל עַל־הַמִּטָּה אֲשֶׁר אֶסְתֵּר
עָלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ הֲגַם לִכְבּוֹשׁ אֶת־הַמַּלְכָּה עִמִּי בַּבָּיִת
הַדָּבָר יָצָא מִפִּי הַמֶּלֶךְ וּפְנֵי הָמָן חָפוּ׃ (אסתר ז:ח)
There would indeed be
a fitting irony if Haman was hanged under a false charge of treason as this is
exactly how he planned to do away with Mordechai and was the reason for his ‘urgent’
visit to the king in the middle of the night. We know from the earlier episode
of Bigtan and Teresh that the gallows was the choice method of execution for
high treason. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Haman intended to fabricate
a charge of treason which would result in Mordechai being hanged on the gallows
as per the advice of Zeresh (and which Haman himself is ultimately hanged on).[3]
This approach also faces
a difficulty as the text suggests that the king was genuinely angry at Haman. The
king ‘arises in anger’ and Haman is left to plead for his life. If Haman made an
innocent mistake (which the king was on board with), it is difficult to
understand the king’s rage.
We may respond that despite
being aware of the plan, the king was furious that it had imploded and held Haman
responsible. Being a capricious dictator, he was more than capable of placing the
blame squarely at the feet of his advisor who came up with the botched plan which
endangered his queen whilst he himself disassociates from it. Nevertheless, there
seems to be something deeper to his anger.
Haman did in fact
deceive the king
A very different approach
is proposed by the Malbim and further embellished by Prof. Jonathan Grossman.[4] The
Malbim argues that Haman did in fact deceive the king. In Haman’s conversation with
the king, he omits the crucial verb to ‘kill’ (le-harog):
אִם־עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יִכָּתֵב
לְאַבְּדָם וַעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים כִּכַּר־כֶּסֶף אֶשְׁקוֹל עַל־יְדֵי עֹשֵׂי
הַמְּלָאכָה לְהָבִיא אֶל־גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ (ז:ט)
Haman only mentions le-abed,
a more ambiguous term which on its own may refer to loss of freedom or exile. By
using this term, Haman insinuates to the king that the Jews will ‘only’ be sold
into servitude. This would explain the source of the vast sum of money which Haman
offers to the king; far too much to come from Haman’s own pocket. The omission stands
in contrast to the unequivocal wording of the letters:
וְנִשְׁלוֹחַ סְפָרִים בְּיַד הָרָצִים
אֶל־כׇּל־מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד
אֶת־כׇּל־הַיְּהוּדִים מִנַּעַר וְעַד־זָקֵן טַף וְנָשִׁים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד (ג:יז)
This would explain the
significance of the king giving the signet ring to Haman as this establishes
that the king is not actually aware what Haman has written, a fact which - according
to this approach - is critical to the narrative.
It is possible that Haman
was merely speaking in diplomatic euphemisms to the king but the end game was
very clear to both parties. This may even be the meaning of the king’s response:
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְהָמָן הַכֶּסֶף
נָתוּן לָךְ וְהָעָם לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ: (ג:יא)
If the king does not demand
the money then Haman is indeed licensed to kill them outright. This seems less likely, however, as the discrepancy between the private conversation and the letters plays a major role in Esther's accusation against Haman:[5]
כִּי נִמְכַּרְנוּ אֲנִי וְעַמִּי
לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרוֹג וּלְאַבֵּד וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת
נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי כִּי אֵין הַצָּר שֹׁוֶה בְּנֵזֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ (ז:ד)
On the surface, this
statement is bizarre. Why is Esther raising a hypothetical alternative of slavery?
Unless it was not so hypothetical and Esther was, consciously or subconsciously,
highlighting the gap between what the king agreed to and what Haman had written
into the letters.
Notwithstanding the validity of these points, it is difficult to pin the
king’s anger on just the discrepancy between death and slavery. At some point
the king would inevitably find out what transpired, and Haman must have felt
confident that he could satisfactorily reconcile his planned massacre with his discussions
with the king. Even if Haman miscalculated, the discrepancy doesn’t seem sufficient
to explain the shock and rage of the king which is centred on the personal
threat to Esther’s life.[6] It would
seem more reasonable to suggest that Esther was using the discrepancy as a way of
corroborating that Haman was out to deceive the king, yet the main betrayal (or
framed betrayal) lay elsewhere.
Framing Haman
It seems that the king’s
rage should instead be understood as a result of the trap which Esther had so carefully
laid for Haman. As already mentioned, it is apparent that Esther was trying to raise
suspicion that Esther and Haman were in a liaison and potentially conspiring against
the king. This is the only plausible explanation why Esther invited
Haman to the feasts.[7] The
king’s suspicions of Haman are raised substantially when Haman requests the
king’s horse and clothes when he thinks the honour due to Mordechai is intended
for himself. Thus, by the time Esther opens her mouth, Haman is already a
marked man.
The genius of Esther’s
plan was to paint Haman’s decree as an act of treason against the king. If
Haman hid a personal grudge against Mordechai behind a plan for genocide, then
Esther beat him at his own game by reworking the genocidal decree into a personal
plot against her.[8]
The way Esther has framed it, Haman did not make an innocent mistake but has betrayed
the king. She is successful in her accusation as the seeds of suspicion were sown
over the course of the two parties and the events in between.
In her appeal to the
king, Esther makes sure to place herself first and the nation second to present
the decree as an attack on the crown:
תִּנָּתֶן־לִי נַפְשִׁי בִּשְׁאֵלָתִי וְעַמִּי בְּבַקָּשָׁתִי׃ כִּי
נִמְכַּרְנוּ אֲנִי וְעַמִּי…
Note that in Haman’s portrayal
of the Jews, he presented them as a marginal and isolated people:
יֶשְׁנוֹ עַם־אֶחָד מְפֻזָּר וּמְפֹרָד
בֵּין הָעַמִּים בְּכֹל מְדִינוֹת מַלְכוּתֶךָ וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכָּל־עָם
וְאֶת־דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין־שֹׁוֶה לְהַנִּיחָם (ג:ח)
The simple understanding
of Haman’s words is that the Jews are weak and helpless, therefore annihilating
them would not present too much trouble or cause too much disruption. As it
turns out, Esther is queen of Persia and Mordechai has proven loyalty to
the crown, which makes a mockery of the claim that the Jews are peripheral and disregard
the rule of law. Haman’s false marketing therefore feeds into Esther’s (false) allegation
that Haman was plotting against the crown. In this context, the allusion to the
discrepancy between killing and selling into slavery – though not material on
its own – can be seen as a further tool used by Esther to frame Haman as deliberately
deceiving the king and driving a wedge between them.
When the king exits
the room in rage, Haman’s only option is to protest Esther’s claim by saying that
there was never any intention to harm Esther or the king. Perhaps the king is acutely
aware of the two interpretations of the events – poor due diligence vs treason -
as he steps outside for a breather. Nevertheless, when the king returns from
the garden and sees Haman falling onto Esther’s bed his mind is made up:
הֲגַם לִכְבּוֹשׁ אֶת־הַמַּלְכָּה עִמִּי
בַּבָּיִת…
This should be seen as
the king’s verdict on the entire episode and not just the scene which greets him
as he returns to the room.
Reversing Haman and
Memuchan’s decrees
In light of the above
we can add yet another element to the pattern of reversal which pervades the
Megillah.
The speech of Memuchan to rid the king of Vashti contains over 100 words and is by far the longest in the Megillah, but its
contribution to the overall plot is not so apparent. Yet a close reading shows
a remarkable number of similarities between Memuchan’s advice and Haman’s plan.
We will list just the main ones below.
Like Haman, the king
is enraged by an act of stubborn disobedience by an individual:
וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי לָבוֹא
בִּדְבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר בְּיַד הַסָּרִיסִים וַיִּקְצֹף הַמֶּלֶךְ מְאֹד
וַחֲמָתוֹ בָּעֲרָה בוֹ׃ (ב:יב)
וַיַּרְא הָמָן כִּי־אֵין מָרְדֳּכַי
כֹּרֵעַ וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לוֹ וַיִּמָּלֵא הָמָן חֵמָה (ג:ה)
Although Chazal
generally vilified Vashti, by having the courage to stand up to the megalomaniac
king, Vashti is paralleled to Mordechai who stands up to Haman.[9] Both stories
are further tied by their textual links to Yosef’s resistance to Potiphar’s wife's attempts
to seduce him.[10]
Like Haman, Memuchan
solves a personal problem by widening the scope of the problem to cover an entire
population.
וַיֹּאמֶר מְמוּכָן לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַשָּׂרִים לֹא עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ
לְבַדּוֹ עָוְתָה וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה כִּי עַל־כָּל־הַשָּׂרִים
וְעַל־כָּל־הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל־מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ׃ כִּי־יֵצֵא
דְבַר־הַמַּלְכָּה עַל־כָּל־הַנָּשִׁים לְהַבְזוֹת בַּעְלֵיהֶן בְּעֵינֵיהֶן
בְּאָמְרָם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ אָמַר לְהָבִיא אֶת־וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה
לְפָנָיו וְלֹא־בָאָה׃ (ב:טז-יז)
וַיִּבֶז בְּעֵינָיו לִשְׁלֹח יָד בְּמָרְדֳּכַי לְבַדּוֹ
כִּי־הִגִּידוּ לוֹ אֶת־עַם מָרְדֳּכָי וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הָמָן לְהַשְׁמִיד
אֶת־כָּל־הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל־מַלְכוּת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ עַם מָרְדֳּכָי׃
(ג:ו)[11]
Given the similarity
in strategy, it is little wonder that the Midrash identified the character of Memuchan
with Haman. Finally, both cases result in a decree which is disseminated through
the sending of letters throughout the country translated into local languages.
Against this background,
we may suggest that Esther’s successful redirection of Haman’s decree – from a
decree against a nation to a personal attack on the queen – serves as a reversal
of the opening sequence where Memuchan exaggerates a crime of the queen to impose
a senseless decree upon all women of Persia.
In a final irony, it should be added, the plot
of Haman becomes undone as both he and the king listen to their respective
wives in breach of the very law that Memuchan instituted: ‘each man should rule
in his own home’.
Purim Same'ach!
[1] The hypocrisy of the king raging about a plot he himself was party to is alluded to by Chazal (which cannot be understood
literally):
וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר אִישׁ צַר וְאוֹיֵב
הָמָן הָרָע הַזֶּה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיְתָה מַחְווֹה
כְּלַפֵּי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, וּבָא מַלְאָךְ וְסָטַר יָדָהּ כְּלַפֵּי הָמָן (בבלי
מגילה טו.)
[2]
One estimate puts this
as equivalent to $280bn in today’s money (see here)
[3]
Unfortunately for
Haman, the timing could not be worse. This happens to be the exact time that
the king was kept awake with suspicion of Haman and is made to hear about the
loyalty of Mordechai.
[4]
See Malbim (3:9-14 and
7:4); J. Grossman, Megillat Setarim (2013), pp. 109-121
[5]
It also seems doubtful
that Achashverosh genuinely intended to forgo the money as Mordechai refers to it
in his conversation with Esther (see 4:7). It seems to me that it is hyperbole, as sincere as his offer to give half the kingdom to Esther. There may even be
an allusion here to Efron’s insincere rejection of Avraham’s offer to pay for Ma’arat
Ha-Machpelah.
[6]
Grossman himself acknowledges
this but nevertheless pins the surprise of the king on this discrepancy.
[7]
This suggestion,
amongst several others, can be found in Chazal (see TB. Megillah 16b)
[8]
Malbim (7:4) suggests a
similar approach with various nuances. See also R’ David Fohrman, The Queen You
Thought You Knew (2018), pp. 51-77
[9]
Chazal were also split
on whether Mordechai’s actions were praiseworthy or unnecessarily provocative (see
TB. Megillah 12b)
[10]
Regarding Yosef it says
וימאן as he resists Potiphar’s wife’s advances which
corresponds to the ותמאן of Vashti. It
also says ויהי כדברה
אליו יום יום to describe the repeated occurrence which
is similar to ויהי כאמרם
אליו יום יום regarding Mordechai. See Grossman (ibid,
pp. 93-97)
[11]
One can also point to
the following wording correspondences:
ושתי: כִּי־יֵצֵא דְבַר־הַמַּלְכָּה עַל־כָּל־הַנָּשִׁים לְהַבְזוֹת בַּעְלֵיהֶן בְּעֵינֵיהֶן בְּאָמְרָם…
מרדכי: וַיְהִי באמרם [כְּאָמְרָם] אֵלָיו יוֹם וָיוֹם... וַיִּבֶז בְּעֵינָיו לִשְׁלֹח יָד בְּמָרְדֳּכַי לְבַדּו…
