- According to R’ Eliezer of Worms, the verse points out that Mordechai came to Achashverosh without an invitation, and this shows his new power.
- M’nos HaLevi writes that there was a rule prohibiting approaching Achashverosh without invitation (see Esther 4:11). According to him, this rule died together with Haman. The entire point of the rule was to strengthen Haman’s influence on the king, virtually guaranteeing that his was the only voice whispering in the king’s ear.
- Unlike the opinion of R’ Eliezer of Worms, he further adds that Mordechai was called by the king.
- In fact, according to the Malbim, the verse implies that Mordechai was promoted.
י וַיִּתְלוּ אֶת–הָמָן עַל–הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר–הֵכִין לְמָרְדֳּכָי וַחֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁכָכָה
10. And they hanged Haman on the tree that he prepared for Mordechai, and the fury of the king subsided.
- Often, the word es serves to include something besides the explicit subjects following the word. Here, the M’nos HaLevi writes that it includes Haman’s sons in the decree to hang him.
- R’ Eliezer of Worms writes that, in this case, it serves to include Haman being dressed in his courtly robes. This way, he would be more recognizable in order to add to his degradation.
- The Einei Ha’Eida writes that Achashverosh even went to the trouble of setting up an umbrella over Haman’s hanging corpse to protect it from carrion birds in order for his face to remain recognizable.
- As mentioned previously, the song “Shoshanas Yaakov” concludes with the words, “v’gam Charvona zachur latov” (“and also Charvona should be remembered for good”).
- R’ Meir Zlotowitz explains that Charvona is so well remembered because his advice prevented Haman from speaking in his defense or offering a bribe.
- The Ben Ish Chai adds that Esther’s complaint to the kings was rather general. In detailing Haman’s plans, Charvona’s statement was specific.
- In Maileetz Yosher, the author suggests that Charvona is praised because Achashverosh changed his mind so often because of the Talmudic (Nedarim 10a) dictum that “evil people are filled with regrets.”
- According to the opinion that this manifestation of Charvona was actually Eliyahu dressed up as Charvona, the Dubno Maggid asks why Charvona is praised if Eliyahu was merely disguised as him. He answers that if people borrowed clothes to go to a wedding, they might bring back some delicacies from the wedding as a way to thank the lenders. Eliyahu, too, gave Charvona praise for allowing him to borrow his identity.
- The Shaar bas Rabbim explains that Charvona should be praised because when Eliyahu enters a person, he leaves a positive, indelible imprint on that person. This can be seen from a story in the Talmud (Yerushalmi Kiddushin 12:3) in which Rebbi (Yehudah HaNasi) became angry with R’ Chiya, his student. As a form of self-punishment, R’ Chiya stayed away from his teacher. On the 29th day of this self-exile, Eliyahu in the guise of R’ Chiya came to Rebbe and healed him of a certain 13-year-old pain he had. The very next day, R’ Chiya came to apologize, whereupon Rebbe thanked him for healing him. R’ Chiya said, “It was not me,” to which Rebbe responded, “It must have been Eliyahu!” Due to Eliyahu’s borrowing his body, R’ Chiya visited Rebbe the next day because he was inspired and became a better person through his contact with Eliyahu.
- The Ginzei HaMelech notes that, in the song, “Shoshanas Yaakov,” we sing about Esther and Mordechai who risked their lives, and about Charvona, who seems to have done very little in comparison. This acts to demonstrate the truth of the Talmud’s (Avoda Zara 17a) statement that “there are those who acquire the world in one moment.” He continues to explain that Charvona’s name is therefore written with a hey to hint to his earning this world, which the Talmud (Menachos 29b) says was created with a hey.
- The Dubno Maggid concludes that either way, Charvona must have had some good because the Talmud (Shabbos 32a) says that H-Shem only causes blessing through those who are worthy.
- According to the Ben Ish Chai, Charvona provides the seemingly unnecessary location of the gallows the king presumably already sees in order to imply that Haman was usurping Achashverosh’s power by executing people in his own property.
- R’ Chaim Kanievsky points out that, grammatically, the adjective describing the gallows should have preceded the preposition describing the gallows’ location. Charvona mentions the gallows’ height of 50 amos after mentioning Haman’s house. Furthermore, Charvona seems to say that the gallows are inside Haman’s house. In explanation, he quotes the Yalkut that suggests that the beam Haman used for the gallows was made from the crossbeam of his own house. In his hatred for Mordechai, he destroyed his own house. Throughout history, people have behaved in a self-destructive manner in attempt to fulfill their own temptations.
ט וַיֹּאמֶר חַרְבוֹנָה אֶחָד מִן–הַסָּרִיסִים לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ גַּם הִנֵּה–הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר–עָשָׂה הָמָן לְמָרְדֳּכַי אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר–טוֹב עַל–הַמֶּלֶךְ עֹמֵד בְּבֵית הָמָן גָּבֹהַּ חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ תְּלֻהוּ עָלָיו
9. And Charvona, one of the eunuchs before the king, said, “Also, behold! Here is the tree that Haman made for Mordechai who said good regarding on the king. It is standing in Haman’s house fifty-cubit tall.” And the king said, “Hang him on it.”
- The Malbim, Vilna Gaon, and Yosef Lekach propose that Charvona was simply one of the chamberlains sent to fetch Haman to feast (Esther 6:14).
- According to the Talmud (Megillah 16a), Charvona was an evil ally of Haman’s, intent on killing Mordechai. Once he saw that the plan would not succeed, he surrendered. This fits with the verse (Iyov 27:22) that allies of the wicked “will surely flee.”
- The Dubno Maggid explains this with the following allegory: A blind beggar works with a young boy. One day, the boy stole the blind beggar’s wallet with 30 coins. When he saw the beggar crying pitiably, the boy returned the wallet saying, “I found the wallet with the 30 coins.” Instead of thanking the boy, the beggar began to beat the boy mercilessly for the theft. How did he know that the boy stole it? How else could the boy have known that there were 30 coins in the bag? Likewise, the Talmud knows that Charvona is evil because how else could he have known that the gallows were 50 amos tall if he were not in on the plot.
- The Ben Ish Chai points out that Charvona noticed that Haman lost the ability to defend himself, and this emboldened him to speak up.
- The Midrash (Esther Rabba 10:9) lists what many of the angels and other Heavenly Beings were doing during the climax of the Purim story. It says that Eliyahu appeared like Charvona, and said the words attributed to him in this verse.
- Another Midrash (Yalkut 1059) and the Ibn Ezra concur that Charvona is Eliyahu.
- The Alshich adds that another proof that Charvona is Eliyahu is that the verse describes him as “before the king,” and Eliyahu is certainly a minister of the King of kings.
- Interestingly, the song, “Shoshanas Yaakov,” sung on Purim after the public reading of Megillas Esther ends with the words, “v’gam Charvona zachur latov” (“and also Charvona should be remembered for good”). Charvona is the only person who shares the epithet, “zachur latov” with Eliyahu.
- When Charvona is mentioned earlier (Esther 1:10), he is the third in a list of the king’s chamberlains/eunichs. The M’nos HaLevi notes that the name is spelled with a letter aleph at the end there, and with a letter hey at the end here. He explains that when Charvona was on the side of evil, his name is spelled with an aleph. When he repents, and is Eliyahu, it is spelled with a hey.
- In an explanation, R’ Dovid Feinstein writes that this name ending with an aleph means destruction in Aramaic. With a hey, it is a composite of “charav boneh” (“destroy, build”). In the process of true repentance, he was rebuilding that which he had earlier wanted to destroy – namely, Mordechai.
- Rabbeinu Bachya, in his commentary on the Torah writes that he was called Charvona because he helped destroy Haman.
- The Chasam Sofer and R’ Dovid Feinstein both say that with an aleph, it is the gentile Aramaic; with a hey, it is Hebrew, so it is Jewish.
- According to a Midrash, Achashverosh is upset at this point because, in the garden, Achashverosh remembered that Haman (as Memuchan) was responsible for Vashti’s demise (Esther 1:16).
- The Dena Pishra adds that Achashverosh was upset that Haman was speaking to Esther behind his back. He even considered that if she pleads for his life, Achashverosh would still not listen to her.
- The Yosef Lekach notes that Achashverosh took Haman’s silence as admission of guilt, based on this principle in the Talmud (Yevamos 87b) that people are expected to speak up for themselves when accused unjustly.
- The Malbim writes that Achashverosh was angered that Esther seemed included in decree without his expressed agreement. The Malbim adds that this anger created an unsafe environment in the palace, despite its providing political and legal sanctuary.
- The Ben Ish Chai writes that the Talmud (Shabbos 33a) teaches that dropsy and its attending discoloration affect people who are guilty of immorality. Thus, Achashverosh suspected Haman of immoral acts due to his face coloring.
- R’ Moshe David Valle notes that Achashverosh could only think immorality was on Haman’s mind at a time like this if he so was inspired by H-Shem.
- Perhaps some insight may be gained on this topic from the Talmud’s (Horiyos 10b) understanding of the story (Shoftim 4:17-22) between Sisera and Yael. There, Sisera is in mortal danger, and yet is easily seduced by Yael. Violence and immorality sometimes go together.
- However, according to Midrash Shmuel, Achashverosh did not really think anything immoral was happening. In fact, he did not even accuse Haman of anything like that. Rather, H-Shem had the words come out of the king’s mouth to make Haman more nervous.
- The Vilna Gaon writes that Achashverosh simply thought Haman intended Esther harm. Perhaps, this anger was pretense, and was Achashverosh’s method for ridding himself of Haman in the most politically expedient fashion. Interestingly, none of these answers explaining Achashverosh’s anger need be exclusive; the combined reasons create a massive, unappeasable anger that justifies the king’s next act.
ז וְהַמֶּלֶךְ קָם בַּחֲמָתוֹ מִמִּשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן אֶל–גִּנַּת הַבִּיתָן וְהָמָן עָמַד לְבַקֵּשׁ עַל–נַפְשׁוֹ מֵאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה כִּי רָאָה כִּי–כָלְתָה אֵלָיו הָרָעָה מֵאֵת הַמֶּלֶךְ
7. And the king rose in his fury from the wine feast to the garden of his house. And Haman stood to ask for his life from Queen Esther because he saw that evil was decided on him from the king.
- It is very likely that Achashverosh left to “cool off.”
- The Yad HaMelech points out that the verse stresses that Achashverosh left specifically when he was “in his fury.” Otherwise, he would have realized that it would be unwise to leave Esther alone with the murderous Haman. Alas, anger causes people to make silly mistakes.
- Similarly, the Maharal sees the verse as stressing that Aschashverosh left from the feast.
- Megillas Sesarim explains that his current state of inebriation increased his anger.
- Rav Galico points out that although Achashverosh went to cool off, this is actually another example of hashgacha pratis (H-Shem’s supervision of the world) in order to incriminate Haman more.
- On the other hand, R’ Moshe David Valle explains that Achashverosh was really upset with himself for giving Haman authority in the first place.
- Perhaps Achashverosh was actually looking for a way to scapegoat Haman and consequently rid himself of him without seeming politically weak.