Chapter 3 of Megillat Esther is the turning point: from the background of the feast, Esther's selection, and Mordechai sitting at the king's gate, we transition to the sudden rise of Haman, Mordechai's refusal to bow and prostrate, and the decree of annihilation against all the Jews. We will study the chapter according to the explanation of the Malbim, who follows the plain meaning of the verses and resolves the difficulties within them.
אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה גִּדַּל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ אֶת־הָמָן בֶּן־הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי וַיְנַשְּׂאֵהוּ וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת־כִּסְאוֹ מֵעַל כָּל־הַשָּׂרִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ׃ - "After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him."
In the previous chapter, we saw that Esther was chosen as queen, that Mordechai sat at the king's gate, and that Bigthan and Teresh grew angry with Ahasuerus and sought to kill him - and Mordechai saved the king. Regarding this, the verse states: "After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman." The obvious question arises: when you say "After these things," it implies that this event is connected to what preceded it. What is the connection between Esther's reign and Mordechai's saving of the king, and the promotion of Haman? And if there is no connection, Scripture should not have written "After these things," but simply "King Ahasuerus promoted Haman."
A second question: "Promoted... and advanced him" - are these not the same thing? Why does Scripture duplicate the wording? And a third question, which is the greatest difficulty of all: why did he promote him in the first place? No reason is stated. What did Haman do to earn this? Nothing. If so, we understand neither "After these things," nor what earned him this greatness, nor the duplicated wording.
The Malbim explains in the name of the commentators: Ahasuerus forgot that Esther had revealed the matter in Mordechai's name. He remembered that Esther had saved him, but forgot that Mordechai was the one who told her. The king deeply desired to reward the one who had saved his life. Yet Esther already had everything, as she had the king himself; how could he bestow favor upon her? The king reasoned: I will benefit Esther by benefiting the one who benefited her. And who was the minister who advised executing Vashti and taking another wife, through whose counsel I reached Esther? That was Memuchan, who is none other than Haman. It was Memuchan who advised, "Let beautiful young virgins be sought for the king," and through him the king married Esther. Thus, by promoting Haman, the king was ostensibly repaying Esther for saving him from death.
The Malbim adds: since the king forgot who had truly saved him, Haman, in his great cunning and shrewdness, managed to sway the king's heart to believe that it was through him that the king was saved from death to life. As it were, Haman wrapped himself in a cloak that was not his own, letting the king understand that he had been instrumental in his rescue. In truth, this honor belonged to Mordechai, but Heaven orchestrated and unfolded events in this manner so that when the time arrived, Mordechai would receive his due, and Haman would plummet from the highest roof into the deepest pit.
And what is the reason for the duplicated wording? The Malbim explains: royal protocol dictates that one is not elevated from the deepest pit to the highest roof all at once. It is like the military: one does not enlist as a private and become chief of staff two months later; rather, it takes time to rise through the ranks. Similarly, ministers were elevated in royal rank by the king stage by stage, step by step, and only at the very end would the king appoint him over everyone. We see this with Joseph and Pharaoh as well: Joseph tells his brothers, "He made me a father to Pharaoh," then "and master of all his house," and then "and ruler throughout the land of Egypt" - a gradual ascent in stages. So too here: first, "King Ahasuerus promoted Haman" - appointing him a minister; then he added greatness to his stature, "and advanced him" - elevating him above the ministers; and finally, "and set his seat above all the princes" - appointing him head over them all.
וְכָל־עַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לְהָמָן כִּי־כֵן צִוָּה־לוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ וּמָרְדֳּכַי לֹא יִכְרַע וְלֹא יִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה׃ - And all the king's servants who were at the king's gate bowed and prostrated themselves before Haman, for so the king had commanded concerning him; but Mordechai would not bow nor prostrate himself.
This verse raises three questions. First, what does "who were at the king's gate" mean - why this particular emphasis? Second, "for so the king had commanded concerning him [tzivah lo]" - it should have said "commanded them [tzivah lahem]," since the king is commanding the servants to bow down. And third, a fundamental question of understanding: "but Mordechai would not bow nor prostrate himself" - why? What prevented Mordechai from bowing to Haman?
The Malbim explains: After the king "promoted" and then "advanced him," came a third stage of grandeur - that all those seated at the king's gate should bow and prostrate themselves before him. And this was an immense honor. Notice: the king did not command that the entire populace bow to him, but specifically those seated at the king's gate. Why was this such an immense honor? Because in the presence of the king, no one is permitted to show honor to another person. Why was Uriah the Hittite liable to death by King David? Because he said, "and my master Yoav" - when speaking with King David, you have no other masters; you should have said "and your servant Yoav." By saying "my master Yoav," you declare that you have another lord. The same applies here: imagine the king is seated, a minister enters, and everyone bows down to him - the king is right there! In the king's presence, one sees no one else. But Achashverosh waived his own royal honor and commanded that they bow to Haman even while he himself was present. Thus, all the king's servants at the king's gate - the members of the royal cabinet and closest ministers - bowed to Haman.
This explains the phrase "for so the king had commanded for him [tzivah lo]": the king commanded on Haman's behalf, waiving his own royal honor so that they would bow to him. Furthermore, we learn from this: had this honor been instituted solely for Haman's sake, Haman could have waived it. But since it was not merely for his honor, but an explicit royal decree, Haman had no authority to waive it. On the other hand, since this command was not granted to Haman as a personal prerogative, he could not personally punish anyone who failed to comply. If someone is personally granted a title or status, one who dishonors him harms his personal standing; but here, the status was not his own, but rather whoever refused to bow was violating the king's decree. It was not Haman's place to demand satisfaction for his honor; the offender had transgressed the king's command, not Haman's. Thus, anyone who did not bow was running afoul not merely of Haman, but of the king himself. And despite all this - "Mordechai would not bow nor prostrate himself." Why?
The commentators explain that this bowing was tantamount to accepting him as a deity. While there are various opinions among the commentators, we are following the approach of the Malbim. The Malbim explains a concept already familiar to us from the books of Daniel and Ezra: the ancients were accustomed to attributing divinity to a person who possessed exceptional greatness. In their eyes, such a person was considered one of the "sons of the gods" - for otherwise, how could a mortal possess such extraordinary qualities?
Where do we see this explicitly? With Daniel. When Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, it says, "and he prostrated himself before Daniel" [u-le-Daniyel segid] - Nebuchadnezzar bowed down to him, "and commanded that they offer an oblation and sweet odors to him" [u-minchah ve-nichochan amar le-nassacha leh] - he sought to offer libations to Daniel himself! And what name did he give him? "Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god" - naming him after his deity. As we explained there, this was the reason Daniel refused to eat from the king's royal fare: Daniel calculated that if Nebuchadnezzar poured libations to him, the food was an offering to idolatry, since Nebuchadnezzar regarded Daniel as a god.
We find the same with King Yoash. He was seven years old when he began to reign, having been raised in the Beis HaMikdash - hidden away from his grandmother Athaliah, who had murdered the royal seed. Later, after the death of Yehoyada the Kohen Gadol, he strayed. Why did he stray? Chazal tell us that the people came to him and said: "You lived in the Holy of Holies? Do you realize what the Holy of Holies is? 'And the non-Kohen who approaches shall be put to death'; even the Kohen Gadol enters only once a year after extensive sanctification in dread and awe, yet you lived there for seven years - you must possess divine qualities!" They planted these thoughts in his mind, and he made himself into a god.
What is the principle here? What did a "god" mean to them? It was a flesh-and-blood human being, known to have been born of a woman, but in whom people saw extraordinary greatness - and thus came to view him as a son of the gods. Through this, we can also understand how Pharaoh was considered a deity in Egypt, proclaiming, "My river is my own, and I have made it for myself." Did they not remember that he was born a human being? Of course they did; but he possessed extraordinary wealth, majesty, honor, and wisdom, which in their eyes made him akin to a son of the gods upon whom celestial powers bestowed their divine influence.
So too here. Mordechai perceived that people were treating this man as a deity: here was one seen as a son of the gods, showered with immense wealth, honor, and power - a state of divinity. Therefore, Mordechai reasoned: If I bow to him, it is as though I am accepting him as a god over myself, or bowing to a deity imbued with celestial divine force or astrological power channeled through him. And I cannot bow down to the celestial spheres and constellations, nor can I bow down to a mortal made into a god.
Mordechai had yet another reason. Mordechai listened closely to the king's decree, and the decree specified: "and all the king's servants who were at the king's gate" - two distinct conditions: that one be of the king's servants, and that one be seated at the king's gate. "The king's gate" refers to the prominent ministers who sat at the gate. "The king's servants" means one who executes the king's will, a royal subject serving in his palace - what we would call today someone on the royal payroll. Mordechai met only one criterion: he sat at the king's gate, but he was not the king's servant. Why? Because under the laws of Persia and Media, a Jew could not be conscripted as a servant to the king. Mordechai said: Although I am held in high regard here, I am not the king's servant; therefore, the decree does not apply to me. For the text states "and all the king's servants" as well as "at the king's gate," whereas I am only at the king's gate, not a servant of the king.
Both of these reasons are encompassed in the expression, "for he had told them that he was a Jew": a Jew does not kneel and prostrate himself to someone as a deity, and a Jew is also not considered a servant of the king. Therefore, Mordechai maintained: The decree does not apply to me; I am merely a minister of the king and only sit at the king's gate, and consequently, I am exempt from bowing down.
וַיֹּאמְרוּ עַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְמָרְדֳּכָי מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה עוֹבֵר אֵת מִצְוַת הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - Then the king's servants who were at the king's gate said to Mordechai, "Why do you transgress the king's command?"
וַיְהִי כְּאָמְרָם אֵלָיו יוֹם וָיוֹם וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם וַיַּגִּידוּ לְהָמָן לִרְאוֹת הֲיַעַמְדוּ דִּבְרֵי מָרְדֳּכַי כִּי־הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר־הוּא יְהוּדִי׃ - Now it came to pass, when they spoke to him day by day, and he did not listen to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordechai's words would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew.
וַיַּרְא הָמָן כִּי־אֵין מָרְדֳּכַי כֹּרֵעַ וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לוֹ וַיִּמָּלֵא הָמָן חֵמָה׃ - And when Haman saw that Mordechai did not kneel nor prostrate himself before him, Haman was filled with wrath.
Here, too, there are things that require explanation. "That they told Haman, to see whether Mordechai's words would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew" - what is meant by "whether Mordechai's words would stand"? He said he was a Jew; was there any doubt about that? It should have said, "to see whether Mordechai's words would stand, for he told them he would not bow down" - as in, "I declared I will not bow, let us see if I persist in this to the end or if they will force me against my will." But how does it make sense to say "whether his words would stand" regarding the mere fact that he is a Jew? This is the first difficulty.
A second difficulty: Why was Haman not enraged until he saw it with his own eyes? After all, it is written, "they told Haman," and only afterward, "And when Haman saw that Mordechai... Haman was filled with wrath." It does not say, "And Haman heard and was filled with wrath." When someone tells you that a person refuses to bow down to you, become enraged immediately! Yet no, only after he went and saw it for himself was he filled with wrath. One could answer simply that hearing is not comparable to seeing, or that until he saw it, it was merely an unverified suspicion, and only upon seeing did it become clear to him. However, we will see a deeper explanation.
From the fact that they first spoke with Mordechai, we learn that they did not hate him, and they did not inform on him to Haman out of hatred. Rather, what was the case? The king had charged them with upholding the king's commands and rebuking anyone who violated the royal decree, and the royal decree was to bow down to Haman. Therefore, they said to him: We do not seek your harm, but the king gave us an order to honor Haman, and we see that you are not complying; therefore, first of all, we wish to warn you. And this is the meaning of "when they spoke to him day by day" - they warned him repeatedly, demonstrating that they had no desire to cause him harm.
And what did they say to Haman? "To see whether Mordechai's words would stand." Mordechai had claimed that he did not bow down because he was a Jew, and according to his religion it was forbidden. The Malbim explains: This claim is valid only when Haman walks at a distance and does not see you. Then, if you do not bow down, it is because you maintain that one must not bow to him as a deity. But if Haman passes right next to you and you do not bow - here, after all, bowing is not on account of divinity at all! For Jews certainly bowed down before kings when standing in their presence; Tanach is full of this: people come before David and kneel and prostrate themselves. It is customary to kneel and prostrate out of respect for authority, with no connection to idolatry or divinity. People appear before Ahasuerus and prostrate themselves before him because they stand before the king; by virtue of standing before the king, one is obligated to bow, and this is not bowing out of any notion of divinity. There is also no doubt that Yosef, when he appeared before Pharaoh, bowed to him, and even Yaakov bowed to Yosef when appearing before him - as the sages noted, "When the fox has his hour, bow down to him." Before a king, one is supposed to bow.
However, if he is not right in front of me and I only see him from afar, why should I bow? He does not see you, so it is not a matter of showing respect; if you do bow under those circumstances, it is a sign that you consider him a god and are worshiping him as a deity. In contrast, when he is right beside me and I bow, it is out of deference to his authority and royal status. Therefore they said: "they told Haman, to see" - you, Haman, go see and check for yourself. If you walk right past him and he does not bow down to you, that proves he is truly rebelling against you and does not accept your authority. But as long as he simply refuses to bow when you are far away, there is no proof of rebellion, since he might genuinely be refraining because of his religion, refusing to treat you as a deity.
And this is the meaning of "to see whether Mordechai's words would stand": let Haman come and approach Mordechai, and through this we will know whether the excuse he gives us - that he does not bow because he is a Jew - will hold up. How will we test this? Now Haman will come right next to him; if the excuse is true, he will have to bow down now, for this does not contradict his Judaism - one bows to a minister. And if he continues not to bow, the excuse that he does not bow because Haman made himself a deity falls away. Here he is right next to you, and on account of his official authority you are obligated to bow, and if you do not bow, it is a sign that you are rebelling against the king.
And indeed, "and Haman saw" - Haman listens to them, walks over and passes by him, and sees that nevertheless Mordechai does not kneel or bow down. And from this he understands: "and bowing to him" - specifically to him, because of you; he has a personal hatred toward you, he has something personal against you, he begrudges the great honor the king has given you. For now that I see you, you ought at least to bow to me on account of official authority and the king's honor, and there is no bowing to a deity in this. If so, this is something personal: I will not bow to you, even if you are not a deity, even if you are only a minister. And this is precisely what infuriates Haman - what does he have against me that he refuses to bow to me?
וַיִּבֶז בְּעֵינָיו לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בְּמָרְדֳּכַי לְבַדּוֹ כִּי־הִגִּידוּ לוֹ אֶת־עַם מָרְדֳּכָי וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הָמָן לְהַשְׁמִיד אֶת־כָּל־הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל־מַלְכוּת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ עַם מָרְדֳּכָי׃ - Yet it was contemptible in his eyes to lay hands on Mordechai alone, for they had told him of Mordechai's people; so Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the entire kingdom of Achashverosh, the people of Mordechai.
And this requires understanding: what was the sin of Mordechai's people? He does not want to kill Mordechai alone, but the entire nation - "Shall one man sin, and You be wrathful with the entire congregation?"
By way of parenthesis, there is a wonderful explanation cited in the Midrash. It is related that Mordechai bought Haman as a slave: there was a war and both of them were army commanders, and Haman's legion ran out of food in a short time, leaving them with nothing to eat. They turned to Mordechai's legion, and Mordechai agreed to give them food from what he had, on the condition - since Haman had no money to pay - that he sell himself to him as a slave. Haman sold himself to him as a slave, and Mordechai inscribed this upon his shoe. And from the moment Haman became Mordechai's slave, whatever wealth Haman acquires belongs to his master, meaning to Mordechai.
Consequently: if I kill Mordechai, have I freed myself from slavery? No. For I will then become a slave to his heirs, and there is no Jew who does not have heirs. The Gemara states that the only person who has no heirs is a convert, but among the Jewish people, every Jew is a relative, if only through Avraham Avinu. If so, as long as a single Jew remains in the world, I have not escaped the trap. And according to Chazal, whenever Haman passed by, Mordechai would hold up the shoe on which it was written that he was a slave, saying: When does a slave bow to his master? That is, should a master bow to his slave? Haman thought: How can I rid myself of this trouble? I will always remain a slave. I must kill all the Jews - that is the only way I can go free from slavery.
However, the Malbim, who explains the verses according to their peshat, offers a different explanation, and here Haman's wickedness and arrogance are laid bare. The main fury was directed at Mordechai, for it became clear that Mordechai was doing this out of personal hatred rather than on account of his religion - as the people told him, from a religious standpoint there is no issue with bowing when you are close to him, since one must bow to an important minister. And this further accentuates the malice of Haman's heart: you have a personal grudge against one man - would you go and kill all the members of his religion? If the problem had stemmed from his religion, one might say: such a religion causes this, so I will punish all adherents of that faith. But it became clear to you that it was not because of religion but a personal issue, that he hated you according to your understanding, and if so, there was no reason to punish them all.
Rather, the king's servants "had told him of Mordechai's people," meaning they said to him: Know that Mordechai told us that he also has a religious objection - "for he had told them that he was a Jew," as explained earlier. If so, a religious dimension is added here as well, not merely personal hatred. Because of this, Haman said: I hate anyone whose religion produces people who will not bow to me; whoever adheres to such a religion, I want to kill. Therefore, "Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the entire kingdom of Achashverosh, the people of Mordechai" - since they are "the people of Mordechai," sharing his religion, I must destroy this religion. And how does one destroy a religion? By destroying its practitioners. When does a religion cease to exist? When no one is left to practice it. How many religions have vanished from the world: who worships Dagon today? There is no religion of Dagon, nor of the Baal, and the like - their practitioners died out, and the religion died with them. Haman thought: I will kill the practitioners of the Jewish religion, and thereby eliminate the religion that leads people to disdain my honor.
בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּא־חֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הִפִּיל פּוּר הוּא הַגּוֹרָל לִפְנֵי הָמָן מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וּמֵחֹדֶשׁ לְחֹדֶשׁ שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂר הוּא־חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר׃ - In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Achashverosh, they cast pur, which is the lot, before Haman from day to day and from month to the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar.
In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, these events took place, and now Haman casts a pur (lot) to determine when to carry out his plan to destroy the Jewish people. Here several difficulties arise: What is meant by "which is the lot, before Haman" - what does "before Haman" signify? And what is "from day to day, and from month to month"? He should have simply cast a lot to arrive at a specific day; what does it mean to cast a pur "from day to day" and "from month to month"? Furthermore, we will see later that the lot fell on the thirteenth of Adar, and the Malbim remarks: it is impossible that such an outcome occurred without Divine Providence. If the lot ultimately fell specifically on the thirteenth of Adar, this was undeniably orchestrated from Heaven, and we must understand the significance of this.
The Malbim explains: "Pur" is a specific type of lot, just as today there are different types of lotteries and draws with various names. "Which is the lot before Haman" means that this lot was a regular and constant fixture before him; whenever Haman wanted to know what to do, how to do it, and when it was advisable, he would use this lot. This was Haman's constant, go-to lot.
The casting of lots took place on the thirteenth of Nisan. Surely, the Malbim notes, Haman's intention was not to postpone the final solution by many months; his intention was to carry it out immediately, meaning the very next day, the fourteenth of Nisan. He would have been delighted had the lot fallen on tomorrow. He tested the next day by lot - and it did not come up. The fifteenth - did not come up. The sixteenth - did not come up. Thus he cast lots day after day, until he arrived at the final day. And the final day was the thirteenth. For when one searches for a single day out of the month, one day must ultimately emerge as the chosen day; he rules out the first (the fourteenth), the second (the fifteenth), the third (the sixteenth), and so on, and if all are rejected, the last remaining day is the chosen one. Since he began with the fourteenth, the last day of the cycle was the thirteenth. It turned out that instead of an immediate day appearing as he desired, what came up was the latest possible day - the thirteenth.
After finishing the casting of lots for the days and seeing that the day was deferred to the following month, he proceeded to cast another lot. He said to himself: perhaps this timing is not working out because the month itself is inauspicious. I wanted it to fall immediately, and yet where has the lot been pushed? All the way to the last day of the month. This does not bode well; evidently this month is not propitious. I shall therefore cast a lot for the month. I already have the day, and now I will seek a suitable month. He began casting lots for the months: Nisan - no; Iyyar, Sivan, Tammuz, Av, Elul, Tishrei, Cheshvan, Kislev, Tevet, Shevat - and in the end, Adar came up. Once again, the very last option emerged: among the days it was the last day, the thirteenth, and among the months it was the last month, Adar. Thus it came out: the thirteenth of Adar.
The Malbim observes: Everything was directed by Divine Providence, pushing off the decree to the furthest possible limit. Standing on the fourteenth, the matter was postponed to the end of the year, to the thirteenth of Adar. Yet we must consider: if a calculation is made for the months, why shouldn't it fall in Nisan? After all, had Nisan come up in the lot, that would have been the ultimate postponement, deferred to the absolute end: standing on the fourteenth of Nisan, it would be postponed to the thirteenth of Nisan a full year later! Whereas when it was postponed to the thirteenth of Adar, it was pushed off by a year minus one month.
The answer is as follows: When Haman began calculating the days, he started from the fourteenth - that is, he did not take the current day into consideration for the time being. He asked: Will tomorrow work? It does not work. The day after tomorrow? No. The fourteenth, the fifteenth, the sixteenth; and when he reached the thirtieth and started back at the first - which first was this? Not the first of Nisan, since he was already standing on the thirteenth of Nisan, but the first of the following month, the second of the following month. And when the thirteenth came up, it obviously meant the thirteenth of the following month, not the thirteenth of today.
Afterward he said to himself: Let us set aside the days and examine the months. But if I check months and Nisan comes up, it might refer to this very month itself, and not to the thirteenth of next month as I previously understood. For if the lot indicates "in Nisan", and I already have a day - the thirteenth - then it would have to be today. Therefore, he began to check: Not Nisan - meaning, not today; not Iyyar, not Sivan, not Tammuz, and so forth, until he reached the final month - Adar. Adar is considered here the final month, because the thirteenth of Nisan would have had to be today itself; in checking months, if the month explicitly indicates Nisan, it surely indicates today. And even though in the calculation of days we were speaking of the next month, when it comes to the months and the month is explicitly indicated, the meaning would be today. Therefore, once having arrived at the day of the thirteenth, the thirteenth of Nisan was ruled out, and the latest possible month was the month preceding Nisan - the thirteenth of Adar.
And here, says the Malbim, Haman should have already paused to reflect. You should have already realized that the hand of Hashem is at work here, taking your plan and pushing it off to the furthest possible date. There is nothing further than the thirteenth of Adar, as we have explained; nothing beyond this was possible. And if you ask: could it not have been even later, such as the end of the month of Adar? The answer is that Haman began with the lottery of the days, and since he began with the days, the latest possible day came up - the thirteenth; and afterward with the months, the latest possible one came up. And from the combination of the latest of days with the latest of months, the thirteenth of Adar was obtained. Yet Haman failed to reflect upon how the lot itself was working against him.
In this chapter, we learned how Haman rose to greatness - not on the merit of any deed, but because Achashverosh forgot that Mordechai had saved him and wished to show favor to Esther through Memuchan (who is Haman), who even wrapped himself in a mantle not his own; and how the king elevated him in stages: "promoted", "advanced", and finally the command to bow down to him at the king's gate while setting aside the king's own honor. Mordechai did not kneel or bow for two reasons: bowing to Haman meant attributing divinity to him, in the manner of the ancients who ascribed divinity to people of high station; and furthermore, the decree applied to "the king's servants", and Mordechai was not the king's servant, but merely sitting at the gate. The king's servants warned him day after day out of their obligation, and then suggested the test to Haman: that he draw close and see whether Mordechai would be willing to bow out of deference to his authority. When Haman saw that even in close proximity Mordechai would not bow to him, he was filled with fury born of personal hatred; and once he learned that there was also a religious dimension to the matter, he sought to destroy all the members of that faith to eradicate it. Finally, he cast the pur, and through Divine Providence the decree was deferred to the latest possible day and month - the thirteenth of Adar - yet Haman did not reflect upon the fact that the lot itself was working against him.