According to Megillas Sesarim, Achashverosh is concerned that annulling the decree would lead his people to say that not only is the king fickle, but he is also playing favorites. Historically, nepotism has been a legitimate cause for rebellion. Many wars have begun over the choosing of an undeserving successor.
R’ Avigdor Bonchek writes that Achashverosh is afraid to annul the decree because he is overcompensating for his own fickleness.
In accordance with the previously mentioned opinion of the Rema (see #458 above), there are things stamped with the seal of the King that cannot be changed. There are sins for which teshuva (“repentance”) can gain atonement, but will still not be taken back, like chillul H-Shem (“debasement of H-Shem’s Name”). The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuva 1:4) writes that such a sin can only be overwritten by a diametrical act of Kiddush H-Shem (“sanctification of H-Shem’s Name”).
According to the Talmud (Megillah 16a) Achashverosh’s eunuchs rushed Haman in a state of confusion.
The Torah Temimah explains that they rushed Haman against his will to indicate the king’s lack of respect for him.
The Maamar Mordechai quotes the Yalkut Shimoni that Esther sent these servants.
Alshich writes that, aside from most of the adviser’s dislike of Haman, everyone in the palace knew that Haman was on the outs with the king, effectively blacklisting him.
In one comment, the M’nos HaLevi writes that Haman was rushed in order to not have the chance to wash off his daughter’s excrement from his head.
In another comment, he writes that if the servants had not rushed, Haman would have hanged himself.
Similarly, the Vilna Gaon writes that Haman would have used his added time to take down the gallows. Since the gallows will be needed for him, the eunuchs were rushed.
Also, Dena Pishra writes that Haman would have run to his governor sons, and they would begin the rebellion they were planning. On that note, the M’nos HaLevi points out that an opinion in the Talmud (Pesachim 22b, Kiddushin 57a) interprets any appearance of the word es to include something to a given statement. Therefore, he interprets this verse’s containing an es in “es Haman” to include Haman’s sons.
The M’nos HaLevi also notes that the word “vayavhilu” (“and they rushed”) is written without a letter yud between the hey and lamed. The missing yud has a gematria of ten, implying Haman’s ten sons.
Perhaps the fact that the addition of the ten would make the gematria of vayavhilu (6+10+2+5+10+30+6=69) the same as hadas (“willow”) (5+4+60=69) fits well with the above-cited opinion from Yalkut Shimoni that it was Esther/Hadassah who sent these eunuchs.
The Maharal explains another reason for their rushing. The organic process of nature is slow. A seed placed in the ground does not turn into a plant immediately. Anything that comes directly from H-Shem is sudden, and without preparation. The Shelah quotes from the Talmud (Brachos 9b) that kings eat their main meals in the morning. These servants are therefore rushing Haman to get to Achashverosh’s meal on time. This is the reason for his Halachic position (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 695:2, Mishnah Berurah ibid., sub-paragraph 9) that a Purim seudah should ideally be held in the morning hours.
R’ Moshe Rephael Luria quotes the Midrash (Bireishis Rabba 2:4) which discusses how the second verse in the Torah (Bireishis 1:2) alludes to all four exiles of the Jewish people. The Midrash parallels that verse’s use of the word vavohu (“emptiness”) with this verse’s use of the word vayavhilu.
Another Midrash (Eicha Rabba 2:11) writes that this verse is a fulfillment of the verse from the Song at the Sea (Shemos 15:15) “az nivhalu alufei Edom” (“then the princes of Edom will tremble”). After all, Haman – a descendant of Edom – is trembling and confused from being rushed. The trembling of our enemies will come with our sudden escape from their exile, bimheira biyameinu.
The Maharal notes that Haman’s advisers must have known that Mordechai was a Jew, as Haman, himself mentioned to them (Esther 5:13). After all, it was possible that Mordechai was brought into Persia with King Yechanya (Esther 2:6), but was not actually a Jew. Therefore, the Talmud (Megillah 16a) understands the advisers’ remarks as relating to Mordechai’s tribal lineage. In effect, they were saying that if he were from the tribe of Yehudah, Binyamin, Efrayim, or Menasheh, Haman could not expect to be successful against him. In Bireishis (49:8), Yaakov promised Yehudah that his descendants would conquer their enemies. In Tehillim (80:3), King David prays that H-Shem strengthen Efrayim, Binyamin, and Menasheh. As it happens, Mordechai could trace his paternal lineage to one of these listed tribes and his maternal lineage to another.
The Maharal points out that Yehudah, Efrayim and Binyamin all represent Jewish unity because the Beis HaMikdash, and the Mishkan in Shilo and Nov were all located in their tribal inheritance. As proof, the Maharal quotes from the verse (Bamidbar 16:6) in which Moshe attempts to quell the rebellion of Korach and his group by saying they should all bring fire-pans. The entire group bringing individual fire-pans would represent the very opposite of unity. In fact, the unity of Jews’ uniqueness with H-Shem’s Uniqueness fights off the doubts and confusion that Amalek represents. The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:2) considers the description “Yehudi” as being derived from the adjective “yechidi” (“unique”) or the noun echad, (“one”).
According to the Targum, the advisers were not asking if Mordechai was a Jew, but if he were from the holier, saintly Jews. The Vilna Gaon writes that, unlike Haman’s assertion that the events he described were chance, Zeresh and the advisers were saying that it was not. After all, as a member of the Yehudim, Mordechai enjoyed the situation promised by the Talmud (Shabbos 156a, Nedarim 32a) that “ein mazal b’Yisroel” (“there is not mazal for Israel”).
R’ Dovid Feinstein explains that the advisers were focusing on the fact that Haman’s situation could go either way, based on Jews’ behavior.
The Ginzei HaMelech quotes R’ Meir Shapiro, who focused on the word, “zerah” (“seed”). They were saying that if the Jewish youth had no serious connection to Mordechai. They considered the aged Mordechai only powerful if he still held relevant sway on the youth of his people. So when Haman told them that Mordechai was surrounded by thousands of students learning a (temporarily) outmoded law regarding grains and Temple service, the advisers realized Haman has no chance. When Judaism is relevant for the invigorated youth, our enemies stand no chance.
Similarly, says the Ginzei HaMelech, Mordechai has to be mizerah (“from the seed”) of Yehudim – an invigorated member of the youth in vitality – and then Haman should just give up.
According to the Ben Ish Chai, Haman gave a short history lesson saying Mordechai was a descendant of Shaul, who only ruled briefly and not successfully. In response, the advisers said, that may be true, but Mordechai was also a descendant of Yehudah from his mother’s side, so he will win as promised. Homiletically, he reads the word im (if) as eim (mother).
The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:8) teaches that, by answering that he is a Jew, Mordechai really intended to emphasize that, as a Jew, he is forbidden to worship anyone or anything besides H-Shem.
Rav Shlomo Kluger says that “Mordechai’s words” indicate his reporting the plot of Bigsan and Seresh. Mordechai wanted to see if his demonstrated loyalty to the king would be enough to excuse him (and perhaps the other Jews) from this bowing.
The Chasam Sofer says that the words “that he is a Yehudi” refers to Haman. As mentioned in the Talmud (Megillah 15a), Haman sold himself as a slave to Mordechai. Yalkut Shimoni (953) tells us there was rebellion against Achashverosh in one of his Indian states. Haman and Mordechai were chosen to command two of Achashverosh’s battalions. Due to his spending practices, Haman ran out of provisions. Mordechai, due to his righteous care for his resources (see Rashi to Bireishis 32:25 and Talmud, Chullin 91a), did not. Haman begged Mordechai for some of his rations, on condition that Mordechai sell himself to him as a slave, to which Haman agreed. Having nothing on which to write handy, Mordechai wrote the deed on his shoe, or armor he had on his feet. That being the case, a slave to a Jew who then goes free becomes Jewish, himself (Talmud, Chagigah 4a and brought down in Halachah in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 267:3-5, 11). According to the Chasam Sofer, then, Mordechai was saying that he does not have to bow down to him since Haman was once his slave. For that reason, according to the Midrash, every time Haman would pass by, Mordechai would point down to his shoe.
The verse makes it sound as though the servants did not trust Mordechai, and Mi’archei Lev writes that Mordechai gave them reason to respond this way. After all, it was well-known that he was from Benyamin, but he aroused suspicion by saying he was a Yehudi.
Rabbi Yehonasan Eibshutz writes that Haman felt confident about conquering Mordechai as he was from Benyamin. Here, Mordechai is pointing out that he comes from another tribe as well – Yehudah. Yehudah, being the tribe of Moshiach, is the great challenge to the power of Amalek. Mordechai represents the Yehudi who can conquer the power of evil. Rav Eibshutz also writes that Haman set up a test for Mordechai by one time coming out without a statue. Nevertheless, Mordechai still refused to bow to him. Even though Mordechai knew there was no statue, other people didn’t know, and this would constitute maaris ayin.
There are numerous reasons given for Bigsan and Seresh’s anger. The Yalkut Shimoni (1053) says that Bigsan and Seresh previously had important positions, and were upset with Mordechai for seemingly usurping them. The Malbim sees this in the actual words of the verse. After all, the verse relates Mordechai’s “sitting at the king’s gate” to Bigsan and Seresh’s anger to point out that their anger was directly caused by his position.
The Talmud (Megillah 13b) says they were upset with the king and queen because they were tired at nights having to protect their door as they spent time together, much like Pharoah became upset with the baker and butler for small reasons (Bireishis 40:1).
Rav Elisha Gallico says they were upset that Mordechai was sitting at the king’s gate, deciding cases based on Jewish law. Bigsan and Seresh therefore saw it as a patriotic duty to kill the king (who was, by the way, not Persian) for his seeming betrayal of Persian law in promoting a Jew to this position.
The Me’am Loez writes that the two of them were relatives of Vashti, and waited this long period of time to avenge her death. Another opinion he brings is that they were upset that Achashverosh rejected Haman’s daughter during the search for a new queen, and Haman convinced them to join in a rebellion against the king. The Me’am Loez also quotes Yossipon that this was just one part of a much larger rebellion, and that these two wanted to kill Achashverosh to bring the king’s head to the Greeks, enemies of the Persians, and thereby ingratiate themselves to them.
The Malbim points out that, regardless of the reason, their motivation was petty. This parallels the story of Yosef mentioned in the above Talmud. The Malbim continues that, just as H-Shem can inspire a king (Pharoah) to be angry with his servants for no reason, so, too, can H-Shem inspire a servant (Bigsan and Seresh) to hate a king for no reason. Rav Dovid Feinstein asks why these two stories are being paralleled by the Talmud. He answers that the verse says “shnei” (“both”), equating the feelings of Bigsan and Seresh. In the natural order of things, this is impossible because no two people can have the same exact emotion from the same exact motivation in the same exact degree. This is yet one more indication that these events were led Divinely.