Before us is the third essay in the book Zera Shimshon on Megillat Esther. It addresses two central matters: First, why was Haman so careful not to force the Jews to drink wine at Achashverosh's feast, while regarding bowing down to his idol he actively compelled them through force? Second, what is the meaning of the verses "to see whether Mordechai's matters would stand" and "yet it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay hands on Mordechai alone," and why did his fierce wrath burn specifically against Mordechai's people even more than against Mordechai himself?
"To Do According to Each Man's Will" - The Will of Haman and the Will of Mordechai
וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה כַדָּת אֵין אֹנֵס כִּי־כֵן יִסַּד הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל כׇּל־רַב בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת כִּרְצוֹן אִישׁ־וָאִישׁ׃ (א, ח) - "And the drinking was according to the law, without compulsion; for so the king had established upon every officer of his house, to do according to each man's pleasure" (1:8).
Rashi explains: "According to the will of Haman and Mordechai." And who are "each man"? Two figures in the Megillah are designated by the title "man": "There was a Jewish man (ish yehudi) in Shushan the capital" - this is Mordechai; and "An adversary and an enemy, this wicked man (ish tzar ve'oyev)" - this is Haman. Both were appointed over the feast, and the king acted according to the will of both of them.
And what was their will? Rashi writes that Haman did not want the Jews compelled to drink their wine, because if they drank under duress, they would be exempt from punishment, whereas if they drank voluntarily, there would be a severe claim against them in Heaven. Mordechai, on his part, also did not want them coerced into drinking, but with the opposite intent: so that as a result, they would not drink at all. Thus, both wanted "none did compel," and this is "to do according to each man's will."
The Question of the Zera Shimshon: Why Did He Force Them to Bow?
The author asks: If so, how could Haman wish to compel Israel to bow down to him, at a time when he had idols affixed to his heart and intended to make himself an object of idol worship? After all, if they acted under compulsion, they would not be punished. According to his own logic, just as he did not force them regarding the drinking so that they would drink willingly and be held accountable, so too he should not have forced them regarding bowing down, allowing them to bow on their own out of flattery or deference, which would then bring a claim against them. Did Haman suddenly change his strategy?
The Answer of the Zera Shimshon: One Who Has Already Transgressed Willingly Can No Longer Claim Coercion
We may explain that after they derived pleasure from Achashverosh's feast and drank his wine, Haman was no longer concerned about compelling them. A plea of duress is no longer effective for them, since they had already transgressed without compulsion. In other words, in the first stage of his plan, Haman had already succeeded: they ate, drank, and enjoyed the feast, all of their own free will. From that point on, Haman reasoned, there was no longer any need to avoid coercion, for the plea of "I acted under duress" is valid only for someone who never committed the act willingly.
This is similar to what the author of Beit HaLevi wrote: Suppose a woman is in labor on Shabbat and must be rushed to the hospital, and there is a neighbor who is driving on Shabbat anyway. Who should drive her? The Beit HaLevi rules: You should drive. And why not the neighbor, who instead of driving to a soccer match would drive to the hospital? Because that neighbor, when driving on Shabbat, will not be judged as having performed a mitzvah, but rather as a Shabbat desecrator. You, however, when you drive, will not only not be judged as a Shabbat desecrator, but will even receive reward. The reason is simple: he cannot say, "Master of the Universe, I drove only to transport a woman in labor," since he would have driven even without her, and the justification falls away. For a Shabbat observer, however, the justification is genuine: he would not drive otherwise, and if he drove, he did so solely due to duress. So too here: once Haman proved that they were not acting under duress, he was no longer worried, and could bring any sin upon them, even through coercion, and they would still be held accountable for it.
A Difficulty: From Yayin Nesech to Idolatry?
This seems difficult to understand. It is true that regarding the drinking of yayin nesech they were not under duress. But because of this, are we to say that from now on every sin they commit, even the most severe of the severe, will be considered as having been done willingly? If a person moves muktzeh intentionally, is that proof that he is capable of committing murder intentionally? To be sure, this is an extreme comparison, but here too we are dealing with yayin nesech on the one hand and bowing down to an idol on the other. How can the two be linked?
Two Explanations in "Tziyunim U'Mekorot"
In the *Tziyunim U'Mekorot* notes published by the World Union for the Dissemination of the Teachings of Zera Shimshon, this question is addressed. Incidentally, several commentaries have been written on the *Zera Shimshon*, but none come close to the commentary of this edition: a magnificent, detailed work with sources, an extraordinary effort. It is only a pity that it is not yet available on the Torah, and one constantly urges them to finally publish on the Torah as well.
The first explanation they suggest: perhaps this was Haman's error. That is to say, the premise is correct - stumbling in wine does not render them willful transgressors regarding idol worship - but Haman mistakenly thought it did. Yet this is quite a weak answer and difficult to accept, for when providing an answer, one seeks a genuine resolution rather than attributing everything to an erroneous notion of Haman.
However, it can be explained based on what the Rama writes, prohibiting the drinking of *yayin nesech* (libation wine) even for an ill person whose life is not in danger; and the Gra cites the Rivash that *setam yeinam* (ordinary non-Jewish wine) is forbidden even in a life-threatening situation, because it falls under the category of *avizrayhu de'avodah zarah* (accessories of idolatry). With this, the matter is well settled: if they transgressed an offshoot of idolatry and drank non-Jewish wine at the banquet, they are also capable of stumbling into actual idolatry. From this, Haman argued: I no longer need to ensure that their bowing is strictly willful, since they have proven that they are careless regarding matters of idolatry. Consequently, even if they transgress under duress, it is reckoned against them as though they transgressed willingly.
"To See Whether Mordechai's Words Would Stand" - What Is There to Examine?
וַיְהִי כְּאׇמְרָם אֵלָיו יוֹם וָיוֹם וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם וַיַּגִּידוּ לְהָמָן לִרְאוֹת הֲיַעַמְדוּ דִּבְרֵי מׇרְדֳּכַי כִּי־הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר־הוּא יְהוּדִי׃ (ג, ד) - "Now it came to pass, when they spoke to him day after day, and he did not hearken to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordechai's words would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew." (3:4)
The Malbim further points out: The phrase "to see whether Mordechai's words would stand" implies that he said something that might not hold true. Yet he merely said that he was a Jew, which is an undeniable fact, so why check whether it would stand? Was there any doubt that he might turn out not to be a Jew?
It is worth mentioning that the Chida offers a wonderful explanation of this matter, and Rashi explains it according to the literal meaning; whoever wishes may look there. We will not delve into that at this moment.
Some explain this based on the tradition that Haman was sold to Mordechai as a slave - he sold himself for a loaf of bread (*tulma denahama*) during that military campaign. Once sold as a slave, he assumed the halachic status of an Israelite, as a Canaanite slave undergoes a partial process of conversion and is considered like a Jew who is obligated in mitzvot like a woman. This is what Mordechai meant: "I will not bow to him, for he is my slave, and does a master bow to his slave?" According to this, "for he had told them that he was a Jew" means that Mordechai told them that *Haman* was a Jew.
"And He Disdained" - Why His Wrath Burned Against the Nation
וַיִּבֶז בְּעֵינָיו לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בְּמׇרְדֳּכַי לְבַדּוֹ כִּי־הִגִּידוּ לוֹ אֶת־עַם מׇרְדֳּכָי וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הָמָן לְהַשְׁמִיד אֶת־כׇּל־הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכׇל־מַלְכוּת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ עַם מׇרְדֳּכָי׃ (ג, ו) - "And he disdained in his eyes to lay hands on Mordechai alone, for they had told him Mordechai's people; so Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the entire kingdom of Achashverosh, the people of Mordechai." (3:6)
The Malbim continues to analyze: What was the contempt or indignity in laying hands on Mordechai alone? Furthermore, why was his anger aroused against the rest of the nation, when they did in fact bow down to him?
And one can say that Haman was not actual idolatry, and they were not obligated to give their lives over it, as we say in Sanhedrin 61b, and even Mordechai could have bowed according to the strict letter of the law. Why he did not do so was for Kiddush Hashem, the sanctification of God's Name, as Tosafot explain there. For it was merely an andarta (a royal statue), and not an idol that is bowed to in divine worship.
And this was Mordechai's intention: even though this is not idolatry and strictly speaking is permitted, I want to be a complete Jew. "He had told them that he was a Yehudi" - a complete Jew, and I do not want to bow at all. And as we say in the first chapter of Megillah: Why is he called a Yehudi? Because he renounced idolatry. A Yehudi is one who repudiates idolatry and refuses to have anything to do even with something that resembles it.
Yet this raises a difficulty: What is the special virtue in this? Every person is obligated to renounce idolatry - it is a basic duty! Rather, it must be because this was not actual idolatry, but merely an andarta that only resembled it; thus Mordechai acted beyond the strict requirement of the law for the sake of Kiddush Hashem. It is for this reason that Scripture praises him and calls him a "Yehudi." This was his greatness: he was unwilling to compromise his Jewish identity in the slightest, even in something that merely bore a semblance to idolatry.
What They Came to Test, and Why Haman Was Ashamed to Kill Him
And when they heard these words, they told Haman, "to see whether Mordechai's words would stand" - that is, to see whether he would surrender his life for something permitted by the letter of the law, or perhaps recant when he found himself in danger. After all, a person stands firm as long as he feels secure; but when he realizes that it will cost him his life, he might say: "This is not outright idolatry, but merely a royal monument," and begin to compromise. This is what they came to test.
Because of this, Haman felt it was beneath his dignity to kill Mordechai alone, for Mordechai had a valid claim to say, "Either a true Jew, or a true gentile." But his wrath was far greater against the people of Mordechai, who were neither genuine Jews nor genuine pagans. This is why the verse states, "for they had told him of the people of Mordechai" - meaning, they appeared to be Jews, yet were not.
"Either a Jew as a Jew, or an Aramaean as an Aramaean"
This is similar to what is related in the Yerushalmi: A certain Aramaean brought non-kosher meat (neveilah) to Rabbi Abba bar Zamina. He said to him: "Eat, and if not, I will kill you." He replied: "If you wish to kill me, kill me, but I will not eat neveilah." The Aramaean said to him: "Who revealed to you that had you eaten, I would have killed you? Rather: 'Either a Jew as a Jew, or an Aramaean as an Aramaean.'"
In other words: no games. Either be a Jew all the way, or a gentile all the way; not half and half, and not halfway. And this was Mordechai's stance: I am a Jew all the way through, and I do not play games with my Judaism. For this reason, it was a disgrace in Haman's eyes to lay hands on him alone.
Against the people of Mordechai, however, his wrath burned far hotter, because they were straddling two opinions: neither fully Jewish nor fully pagan. On the one hand, they bowed to the image and drank libation wine, yet on the other hand, they did not bow to actual idols. His accusation was against them, and therefore he was not satisfied with targeting Mordechai alone, but sought to destroy them all. Just as that Aramaean had said: had you played games, I would have killed you - indeed, recognizing the integrity of one who remains wholly true to his path. See further below on the verse "And Haman said," and also on the verse "What they saw concerning this," see there. And the words of a wise man's mouth are gracious.
In summary: "According to the will of each and every man" reflects the desire of both Haman and Mordechai: that the drinking of wine should be without compulsion - Haman desiring this so that they would be held accountable for it, and Mordechai so that they would refrain from it. Once they willingly transgressed the prohibition of gentile wine (setam yeinam), which is an accessory to idolatry, Haman no longer cared whether their bowing was compelled, since they could no longer plead coercion - just like someone who drives on Shabbat anyway and cannot claim his trip was for a mitzvah. Mordechai, meanwhile, who was permitted by the letter of the law to bow to a mere royal monument, risked his life beyond the strict requirement of the law for the sake of Kiddush Hashem, and was therefore called a "Yehudi," one who repudiates idolatry. Haman was therefore ashamed to strike at him alone, for "either a Jew as a Jew," whereas against Mordechai's people, who were half this and half that, his fury burned and he sought to destroy them all.