- In a rather enigmatic comment, Rashi writes, “evil, hatred, and vengeance were decided.” Haman must have known that all negative things were being focused in his direction.
- The Brisker Rav asks how Haman knew that evil was decided. He answers that the Targum translates Achashverosh’s asking (Esther 7:5) “ay zeh” as “where is he.” In other words, the decision to punish whoever was responsible for this evil decree was final, and only required the finding of the culprit.
- The Ben Ish Chai answers that Haman knew bad things were in store for him because he had already been advised by his friends (Esther 6:13) that his situation was deteriorating. Besides that, Haman thought that his situation would regress because Zeresh and his advisers thereby made what the Talmud (Kesubos 8b) calls “an opening for the Satan,” – saying something that could allow the Heavenly accuser an opportunity to punish someone.
- The Dena Pishra answered that the verse, once again, used the word melech to refer to the King, H-Shem, because Haman angered Him, and now was certain the time had come for retribution.
- Both the Dena Pishra and R’ Moshe David Valle note that the last letters of the phrase “ki chalasa eilav hara” (“because he saw that evil was decided on him”) spell out H-Sem’s Name in order. As the Chida and Rabbeinu Bachya write, when H-Shem’s Name is encoded in order, it represents His quality of mercy. This hints to the fact that Haman must have realized that all comes from H-Shem.
- Parenthetically,this fact does not automatically define him as righteous righteous. After all, instead of getting on his knees at this point in true repentance to H-Shem, he begs for his life from an earthly queen. However, perhaps his begging Esther for his life instead of Achashverosh indicates that he acknowledges her righteousness, and its accompanying power. This very act may be the one that earned him the merit of having descendants who the Talmud (Sanhedrin 96b) says learn Torah in Bnei Brak learn Torah.
- Seemingly, Esther’s point is that the loaves of silver paid during Haman’s deal with the king (Esther 3:9) was a bad deal for the king. However, as the Maharal points out, Achashverosh returned the money (Esther 3:11), so an alternative interpretation is necessary.
- According to Rebbetzin Heller, Esther was saying that the humiliation that the Jews would experience would not justify bothering our great king, Achashverosh; it would be beneath his dignity to do such a thing.
- Also, the enemy – Haman – is not considering the loss to the king because he only cares about himself.
- As the Talmud (Megillah 16a) interprets this phrase, Haman does not care about Achashverosh. First, Haman advised the killing of Achashverosh’s beloved Vashti, and now Haman has set his sights on the king’s new beloved, Esther.
- The Ibn Ezra adds that Esther was saying that Haman cares so little for Achashverosh, that he does not even mind Achashverosh’s loss of tax revenue in killing out so many citizens of the realm.
- According to Rashi, Esther is pointing out that if he had cared about Achashverosh, Haman would have advised him to sell the Jews and keep the money.
- R’ Yehonason Eibshutz says Esther was protecting Achashverosh from an assassination plot; if he will kill her, then he would kill the king, as well.
- Like the Rokeach, the Yosef Lekach writes that Esther’s point was that enslaving the Jews is permissible by the Torah, but trying to kill them off is against Torah. Therefore, Achashverosh risked being punished for this, and Haman would not care if he were.
- The Dena Pishra writes that Esther’s point was that, as a king, Achashverosh could uniquely appreciate what a loss the Jews would be to H-Shem, their King, and how He will respond for the sake of His subjects.
- According to the Alshich, another point Esther was making is that, in returning the silver (Esther 3:11), Achashverosh essentially sold his own wife as slave for free.
- The Holy Shelah interprets “the king’s damage” as pain being inflicted upon the King of the World.
- The Ketones Or quotes the Talmud (Taanis 3b) that it is impossible for the world to exist without Jews. Accordingly, Esther’s point was that Haman does not care about that, so this plot is not to Achashverosh’s benefit.
- According to the Targum, Esther uses the word, “king” twice because she is referring to both the king, Achashverosh, and the King, H-Shem.
ג וַתַּעַן אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וַתֹּאמַר אִם–מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאִם–עַל–הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב תִּנָּתֶן–לִי נַפְשִׁי בִּשְׁאֵלָתִי וְעַמִּי בְּבַקָּשָׁתִי
3. And Queen Esther answered, “If I have found favor/grace in your eyes, and if it is good on the king, give me my soul in my request and my nation in my petition.
- The Midrash HaGadol (Shemos 33:17) writes that Esther mentions finding favor in the king’s eyes because the very definition of finding the favor of the king (or H-Shem) is that he (or He) would be willing to do all that is requested.
- According to the Midrash (Esther Rabba 9:2), Zeresh was advising Haman to convince the king that it was imperative that he kill Mordechai. He was supposed to explain to Achashverosh that Mordechai’s very existence threatened Persian civilization, even to the point that just his praying had the power to negate the power of their Persian gods.
- For another explanation for Haman’s not needing to ask the king, but rather tell him, we should recall that the Yalkut Shimoni (1053, commenting on Esther 3:1) writes that Achashverosh had built a throne for Haman that was even higher than his own, and that the Talmud (Megillah 51a, commenting on Esther 4:1) says that Mordechai’s cry after learning of the decree against the Jews was that Haman became more powerful than Achashverosh. Based on these, the Avnei Nezer writes that Haman was to tell the king instead of asking him because he had taken charge. Perhaps, as in history or literature, the king gave his adviser greater power than he realized in order to have less responsibility, himself.
- The Malbim writes that they wanted Mordechai hanged in the morning because that is when public executions were performed in order to show the strength of the monarchy.
- The Ben Ish Chai writes that Zeresh was, in effect, telling Haman that Mordechai was in prayer at that time, he wouldn’t be aggravated by the sight of him.
- The Maharal says that morning represents geulah (redemption). This is why the very next verse (Esther 6:1) begins the positive upswing of Megillas Esther.
- R’ Yehonasan Eibshutz quotes the Midrash Abba Guria that Zeresh wanted Mordechai to be killed during the time of Shema. That way, Mordechai would be unable to connect geulah to tefillah (prayer)1, which the Talmud promises would have otherwise protected him (Brachos 9b).
1This is a Halachic concept (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 66:7, Mishnah Berurah ibid., sub-paragraph 33) that forbids any interruption between the morning prayer ending in “ga’al Yisroel” (“Savior of Israel”) and the Amidah.
יב וַיֹּאמֶר הָמָן אַף לֹא–הֵבִיאָה אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה עִם–הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל–הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲשֶׁר–עָשָׂתָה כִּי אִם–אוֹתִי וְגַם–לְמָחָר אֲנִי קָרוּא–לָהּ עִם־הַמֶּלֶךְ
12. And Haman said, “Furthermore, did not Esther the Queen bring me with the king to the drinking party that she made that was with her. And also for tomorrow, I will happen upon her with the king.
- The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 9:3) notes that four characters used the term, “af” and their downfalls are recorded with the word, “af”: the snake (Bireishis 3:1), the baker imprisoned with Yosef (Bireishis 40:16), Korach’s group of usurpers (Bamidbar 16:14), and Haman in our verse.
- Torah Temimah points out that the Midrash is implying that they should have used the word, “gam,” a more humble alternative to “af.”
- The Dubno Maggid teaches that they used this word because “af” also means anger. These were angry people, and their hostility aroused H-Shem’s wrath. Things don’t work out for angry people. He continues that all four of these are characters who want more than they have, and are discontent with what they have. “Af,” then means “furthermore,” as though unsatisfied with what is already present.