Esther 7:8, Question 2. Why is Achashverosh upset?

  • 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.
Advertisements

Esther 7:8, Question 1. How and why does Haman fall on the bed?

ח וְהַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁב מִגִּנַּת הַבִּיתָן אֶלבֵּית ׀ מִשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן וְהָמָן נֹפֵל עַלהַמִּטָּה אֲשֶׁר אֶסְתֵּר עָלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ הֲגַם לִכְבּוֹשׁ אֶתהַמַּלְכָּה עִמִּי בַּבָּיִת הַדָּבָר יָצָא מִפִּי הַמֶּלֶךְ וּפְנֵי הָמָן חָפוּ

8. And the king returned from the garden of his house to the house of the wine feast. And Haman is falling on the bed on which is Esther. And the king said, “Also to attack the queen with me in the house?!” The word went out from the mouth of the king, and Haman’s face was covered.

  • Rashi notes that people in those days reclined on beds or couches during meals, as was mentioned earlier (see Esther 1:16).
  • The Talmud (Megillah 12a) pointed out that during Achashverosh’s party in the beginning of the story, that the couches were designed to be equal in order to avoid jealousy. Here, ironically, the couch provokes the epitome of jealousy.
  • In a simple explanation of this verse, the Ibn Ezra writes that Haman was merely beseeching Esther, and fell from fear when Achashverosh entered.
  • Similarly, the Vilna Gaon states that because Haman was so deeply saddened, he could not stand.
  • R’ Dovid Feinstein stresses that, had Haman been simply begging for his life, he would have been on the floor, so an explanation beyond the simple understanding is in order.
  • The Talmud (Megillah 16a) is bothered by the verse’s use of the present tense nofal (“is falling”) instead of nafal (“fell”). It records that when Achashverosh returned from his garden, an angel was in the process of pushing Haman onto Esther’s bed. Achashverosh yelled, “Woah onto me in my house and woah onto me outside.”
  • R’ Avigdor Bonckek explains that the use of the present tense is meant to express the mental image in our minds like an ongoing event.
  • The Baal HaTurim, in his commentary on the Torah (Bereishis 48:2) points out the phrase “al hamita” (“on the bed”) is used in TaNaCh twice – here, and in reference to Yaakov giving his blessing to his grandchildren through Yosef, Menashe and Efrayim. This is meant to contrast the righteous, who lift themselves up even at their weakest moments (as Yaakov raised himself from his deathbed to bless his progeny), to the wicked, who fall even when they are at highest peak of their success (as Haman fell from the king’s grace).
  • The Talmud (Pesachim 100a) uses the phrase “hagam lichvosh es hamalka imi babayis” (“also to attack the queen with me in the house”) to criticize someone who follows the opinion of Rabbi A in the presence of Rabbi B when those opinions conflict. Similarly, Rabbi Paysach Krohn tells a story of the Klausenberger Rebbe who prayed one late afternoon at the grave of the tanna R’ Yehuda bar Ilai outside Meron in Eretz Yisrael. In the evening, the rebbe became unusually downcast. When he was asked about his sudden change of mood, he explained that the R’ Yehuda bar Ilai’s opinion was that mincha needed to be prayed earlier, and “hagam lichvosh es hamalka imi babayis!”
  • The Talmud (Sanhedrin 105a) tells us that a proof to the idea that the wicked Bilam performed magic through immoral acts is the fact that the Torah (Bamidbar 24:4) records that he called himself “fallen.” This bears a marked similarity to Haman’s situation in this verse, in which he falls. Falling onto a bed is a reference to falling into immorality.
  • The Maharal suggests that Haman fell over the bed because he could not see it due to his embarrassment. He refers us to the Talmud (Bava Metzia 59a) that teaches that embarrassed people behave clumsily.
  • Perhaps he could not see the bed because his inflated ego caused his head to be perpetually in the air, even as he is about to die.
  • The Ma’amar Mordechai points out that Haman knew that Achashverosh would get jealous if he saw Haman and Esther together, and, knowing that he was as good as dead already, he tried to take Esther down with himself.
  • The author of the website doreishtov.blogspot points out that the Talmud calls the holiday of Purim by the name, “Puraya,” which also means “bed” in Aramaic. He suggests that this event of Haman falling on Esther’s bed is more central to the story from which the holiday comes than the lots that Haman threw.
  • The Sfas Emes points out that Haman fell twice, once here, and again when his followers fall on the thirteenth of Adar. The Sfas Emes continues that these multiple falls were foreshadowed when Haman’s advisers said (Esther 6:13) “nafol tipol” (“falling you will surely fall”). The Sfas Emes concludes that this also foreshadows the ultimate downfall of Amalek at end of history as promised in the Torah (Bamidbar 24:20), it should be in our days.

Esther 2:14, Question 1. Why does the verse stress the time of the day?

יד בָּעֶרֶב ׀ הִיא בָאָה וּבַבֹּקֶר הִיא שָׁבָה אֶלבֵּית הַנָּשִׁים שֵׁנִי אֶליַד שַֽׁעֲשְׁגַז סְרִיס הַמֶּלֶךְ שֹׁמֵר הַפִּילַגְשִׁים לֹאתָבוֹא עוֹד אֶלהַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי אִםחָפֵץ בָּהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְנִקְרְאָה בְשֵׁם

14. In the evening she would come, and in the morning she would return to the second house of women by the hand of Sha-ashgaz, eunuch of the king, guard of the concubines. [She] would not come again to the king unless she was desired by the king and he called her by name.

  • In this verse, one gets a glimpse into the pure evil that is Achashverosh. What we had been calling a beauty contest turns out to have been infinitely more immoral. Not only were these women gathered against their will, but after having relations with the king, one at a time, they were taken to the harem to be available – along with all of the other gathered beauties – whenever the king requested them.
  • The Talmud (Megillah 13a) teaches that, evil as he was, one characteristic of Achashverosh which is worthy of praise is his decision to at least not have relations in the daytime. There is a Halacha (Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha’Ezer 25:5 and Orach Chaim 240:11) that a couple should ideally have intimate relations at night. This is the tznius to which the Maharal refers in regard to Achashverosh (as we said earlier).
  • On a more mystical level, the Zohar says that this verse is discussing how H-Shem operates in this world. Half of the elements of life refer to the Midas HaChesed, the Attribute of Kindness, and the other half refer to the Midas HaDin, the Attribute of Strict Judgment. The Midas HaDin comes before H-Shem every night requesting His judgment. It complains about all of the evil committed during the course of the past day saying, “Enough already! Punish these people already!”
  • The Rema contends that, since it speaks about going from evening to morning, this verse is the source of the idea of “gilgul” (“reincarnation”). Although not all Jewish authorities believe in this idea (see Saadya Gaon), those authorities that contend that it is a Jewish idea (see Ramban to Iyov 33:30) that souls may be sent back to this world to complete a task they had previously left unfinished. In “the evening” of one’s life, a person dies, and “in the morning” of the next life that person may go to the second house. He adds that if a person chooses material pleasures in life, then that person would have to redo life. In the end, the Rema’s contention is far from tenuous when one considers that the months preparing (Esther 2:12), the myrrh (ibid.), the items the girls requested (ibid. 13) – they all add up to a vapid, materialistic existence. And a material focus in life will force the soul to return after death to focus on spirituality.

Esther 1:8, Question 2. Why was there no force used in Achashverosh’s party, and why is this mentioned?

  • The Talmud (Megillah 12a) informs us that Haman and Achashverosh made the party for the express purpose of causing immorality there. If Jews sin through coercion, they are not held liable in the Heavenly court. On the other hand, if they (Heaven forfend) succumb without force, they become fully responsible for their actions.
  • The Malbim adds that, since there were so many cups at the feast, everybody had their own, and did not have to share. As such, no guests were forced to hurry with their drinks.
  • The Ohr HaChaim, in his Rishon L’Tzion adds that Achashverosh put the most delicious non-kosher cuisine before the Jews, hoping they will sin on their own. His ultimate goal would have been to strengthen his kingdom by restraining the Jews from rebuilding their own.