פורים

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…