Before us is the sixth essay in the book Zera Shimshon on Megillat Esther, which focuses on the central verse of Haman's decree - "There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed" - and on the homiletical teaching of Chazal who interpreted "yeshno" (there is) as related to "yashenu" (they slept), meaning that the Jewish people had grown lax and asleep regarding the mitzvot. From this unfolds an entire dialogue, point and counterpoint, between Haman and Achashverosh, culminating in Esther's response at the banquet. Following the insights of the author of Zera Shimshon, we will see how every word in this verse is interpreted as a link in this exchange.
וַיֹּאמֶר הָמָן לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ: יֶשְׁנוֹ עַם אֶחָד מְפֻזָּר וּמְפֹרָד בֵּין הָעַמִּים בְּכֹל מְדִינוֹת מַלְכוּתֶךָ, וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכָּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים, וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין שֹׁוֶה לְהַנִּיחָם׃ - And Haman said to King Achashverosh: There is a certain people, scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your realm; their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king's laws, so it is not in the king's interest to tolerate them.
The difficulty in this verse is apparent: what is the meaning of "There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed"? He should have said: "This nation is scattered and dispersed among the peoples." Some explain that this reflects the depth of his hatred, as an enemy cannot bring himself even to utter the name of the one he hates. We find an example of this with Shaul, who never refers to David by name, but always as "the son of Yishai" - "Why has the son of Yishai not come to the meal?" It is as if he has no name of his own; his father's name is Yishai, but he himself is left nameless. So too with Haman: "There is a certain people." Nevertheless, the phrase "yeshno" ("there is") still requires explanation.
Chazal expounded: Do not read yeshno ("there is"), but rather yashenu ("they slept") - the Jewish people were asleep to the mitzvot, meaning they were no longer observing the commandments properly. Here the author of Zera Shimshon asks: "What does sleep have to do with this context, and furthermore, how does it fit the flow of the verse itself?" That is, why specifically use the imagery of sleep, and how does this connect to Haman's overall argument against the Jewish people? At first glance, this seems like a forced midrashic reading: just because the word is written yeshno, you read it as yashenu? What prompted Haman to frame his accusation in this specific terminology?
As a point of wit: where do we ourselves contradict Haman's claim? In Tikkun Chatzot, for one. But also in the verses: in Hallel we cry out, "Not to us, Hashem, not to us, but to Your Name give glory" - we are not asleep; we fulfill Your mitzvot, and we care about the honor of Heaven rather than our own honor.
According to the esoteric tradition, there is a profound dimension to this concept of sleep: what the Kabbalists refer to as the dormita of Ze'ir Anpin, which characterized the spiritual state of the Sefirot at that time. This is also connected to the practice on Purim to drink more than one is accustomed and go to sleep, as the sleep on Purim corresponds to that dimension of sleep that took place, as it were, in the higher realms.
However, here the author comes to explain the matter according to the plain sense (peshat). One can explain this based on what is taught in Midrash Tehillim on the verse, "He will judge the world with righteousness": when He judges the Jewish people, He judges them by day, because when they are asleep, they are idle from the mitzvot; whereas when a person awakens from his sleep, he immediately hurries to the synagogue, recites the Shema, and prays. Thus, "with righteousness" means a judgment through which the Holy One, blessed be He, vindicates them. The nations are judged by night, while the Jewish people are judged by day.
Proof that the nations are judged at night can be seen from the teachings on dreams, specifically Pharaoh's dream. When did Pharaoh dream? On the night of Rosh Hashanah. And how could he dream at night what was destined to happen, when the Day of Judgment takes place during the day? Rather, for the nations, judgment occurs at night; and since everything is already determined for them at night, he dreamed of the future at night. For us, this does not apply, since our judgment is sealed during the day.
Night is fundamentally the time when strict judgment holds sway; therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, judges the nations at an hour when judgments rule. The Jewish people, however, He judges by day, for at night they are asleep and dormant from mitzvot, whereas during the day a person rises, hurries to the synagogue, recites the Shema, and prays - and judgment arrives while we are clothed in merits. Furthermore, the daytime represents the shining of lovingkindness (chasadim), in contrast to the night, which is the time when strict judgments predominate.
Therefore Haman said yeshno ("there is / they are asleep") - they are like sleeping people who are idle from the mitzvot. For he maintained that the Jewish people deserved annihilation, Heaven forbid, because they had bowed down to the idol, in accordance with the opinion in the first chapter of Megillah; and whoever acknowledges idolatry is considered as if he denies the entire Torah - meaning they are effectively devoid of mitzvot. If you say, "Behold, we see them fulfilling mitzvot!" Haman replies, "Yes, but they bowed down to the idol."
And what was that idol, and what was its purpose? It is worth reviewing the Book of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream an entire statue, and Daniel interpreted for him that he was the "head of gold"; after him would come silver and copper, and down below, iron and clay. The meaning of the dream was that his kingdom would pass away, for silver and copper would succeed him. To ensure that the kingdom would remain in his hands, he went and built an entire statue made entirely of gold, reasoning that if the whole statue were gold, the entire kingdom would forever remain gold - meaning his reign would endure eternally. And the moment everyone bowed down to the statue, this constituted an acceptance of the golden reign, that the gold would rule forever. That was his plan in erecting the statue.
And in the words of the Rav, "for the opinion of the disciples of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai" - although the footnotes indeed point out that it was the reverse: Rashbi asked his disciples why the enemies of Israel (a euphemism for Israel) in that generation deserved destruction. He said to them, "Tell me." They said to him, "Because they derived benefit from the feast of that wicked man." He said to them, "If so, let those in Shushan be killed, but those in all other places should not be killed!" They said to him, "You tell us." He said to them, "Because they bowed down to the idol." Thus, bowing to the idol was Rashbi's own answer, not that of his disciples.
In any event, this was Haman's claim: they bowed down to the idol, which means they acknowledge idolatry, and whoever acknowledges idolatry is considered as if he denies the entire Torah. By the way, the reverse is also true: whoever denies idolatry is considered as if he acknowledges the entire Torah. Therefore, it is of no avail to tell me that they fulfill this mitzvah or that mitzvah - once they acknowledged idolatry, it is finished; it is as if they denied the entire Torah, and they are left completely devoid of mitzvot.
According to this, the expression yeshno ("they are asleep") fits beautifully: Haman does not define them as completely abandoning the mitzvot, but rather as sleeping through the mitzvot. A "sleeping" person is not someone who does nothing at all, but someone who acts in a sleepy manner, as if acting in his sleep. That is to say: you performed an act that nullified all your mitzvot - you bowed down to the idol - and therefore all your mitzvot are like deeds performed in sleep, having almost no significance.
Now let us examine the dialogue between Ahasuerus and Haman, which is an exchange of claim and counter-claim. Haman argued yeshno ("they are asleep"), and Ahasuerus replied to him, "One people" - I fear lest they become one united people and there be peace among them. For we learn in the Jerusalem Talmud (Peah), Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: In the generation of David, all of them were righteous, but because there were informers among them, they would go out to war and fall; yet in the generation of Ahab, they were idolaters, but because there were no informers among them, they would go out to war and prevail. Hence, they might overcome their enemies even though they bowed down to the idol.
In other words: the moment they are united, that poses a danger. Even if they bowed to the idol, it will not bring about their downfall. How do we know this? From the generation of Ahab. They were idolaters, yet because there were no informers among them - meaning they lived in unity - they were victorious in battle. And how do we know there were no informers among them? Obadiah hid fifty prophets per cave, and no one told and no one revealed it. Could it be that nobody knew? After all, he had to provide them with food and a thousand and one other things; people heard, yet did not inform. By contrast, in the generation of Saul, every few minutes people came to him: "Is not David hiding with us in the hill of Hachilah?" and the Ziphites came - constantly seeking his favor and looking out for his kingdom. Says Ahasuerus: If so, of what use to me is your claim that "they are asleep from the mitzvot"? In Ahab's generation too, they were asleep from the mitzvot and worshiped idols, yet they prevailed because they were one.
What does Haman answer? "Dispersed and scattered" - do not look at them as united; they are dispersed and scattered, and so now is the opportunity when you can overcome them. Ahasuerus said to him: "Among the peoples" - and they will call me a severed kingdom (malkhuta keti'ata), since I cannot kill all of them. That is to say, this people is dispersed among the nations, and if I destroy them within my kingdom, my kingdom will be called a severed kingdom - as there is an entire nation that no longer exists within it, like a severed limb. Notice when this presents a problem: specifically when this nation exists in the other kingdoms and only my kingdom is missing them. But if I could kill all of them throughout the entire world, my kingdom would not be called severed, for that people would simply no longer exist anywhere.
Haman said to him: "In all the provinces of your kingdom" - not one of them is located outside the provinces of your kingdom, for you rule over the entire world, they are all settled under your domain, and you can destroy them all. But this poses an apparent difficulty: if Ahasuerus ruled over the entire world, what was his concern in the first place? Rather, some explain that although Chazal say that several rulers ruled over the entire globe, this does not mean every corner of the earth, but rather over all the known nations of that era. Therefore, Ahasuerus still feared that there might be distant places inhabited by Jews. To this Haman replies: You have nothing to worry about; they are settled right here, in all the provinces of your kingdom, and nowhere else.
The Malbim continues: "Furthermore, 'and their laws are diverse'" - and there is a difficulty with the redundancy of "and their laws are diverse" followed by "neither keep they the king's laws," for they seem to be one and the same. After all, if their laws are different, then naturally they do not observe the king's laws! To be sure, one could resolve this simply: "and their laws are diverse from all people" means that while all other nations share a common legal framework, they have a different one; and lest one say that despite this, they still comply with whatever the king decrees, he added, "neither keep they the king's laws," indicating that they do not observe even the royal statutes. Yet let us see how the Malbim resolves it.
This can be understood through what the Gemara states in Bava Kama (113a): It was taught: If a Jew and a gentile come to judgment - if you can exonerate him under Jewish law, exonerate him and say to him, "This is our law"; if under gentile law, exonerate him and say to him, "This is your law"; and if not, one employs circumvention against him; these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One does not employ circumvention against him, due to the desecration of God's Name (Chillul Hashem). The Gemara infers: According to Rabbi Akiva, is the reason only because of Chillul Hashem, implying that where there is no Chillul Hashem, one may employ circumvention? But is stealing from a gentile permitted? Was it not taught that Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiva expounded this when he arrived from Zafrin: From where do we know that stealing from a gentile is forbidden? As it is written, "After that he is sold, he may be redeemed again"; could it mean that one may deceive him? The verse states, "And he shall reckon with him that bought him" - he must be exact with his purchaser. And the Gemara resolved: Here it refers to outright theft, whereas there it refers to the cancellation of his loan.
Now, one word is missing from the citation as brought, and even in the footnotes the Gemara was cited incompletely. The precise wording of the Gemara is: "A Jew and a violent Canaanite (anass) who come to judgment." An "anass" is a violent, extortionate person, where there is concern that he will rob the Jew, refuse to accept the verdict, or later act to harass the Jew; only in such a case was the ruling stated that money may be recovered from him indirectly. Indeed, the Meiri writes there that this applied only to the wicked nations of ancient times, who were idolatrous and corrupt, and not to civilized nations that possess an orderly judicial and legal system. The Chazon Ish explains that this is part of the penalty imposed on the nations for not accepting the Torah - from Sinai hatred descended upon the nations of the world: an ox of a Jew that gores an ox of a non-Jew is exempt, while an ox of a non-Jew that gores an ox of a Jew is liable; this is part of the fine the Holy One, blessed be He, levied upon the nations. In this way he explains the principle: when a Jew comes to litigation against a gentile, every effort must be made to vindicate the Jew.
The meaning of the matter is as follows: If you can exonerate him under Jewish law, exonerate him and say to him, "This is our law." If according to Jewish law the Jew would be found liable, but according to gentile law he is innocent, exonerate the Jew and say to him, "This is your law; consult judges among your own people." And if according to both Jewish law and gentile law the Jew should be held liable, one employs circumvention against the gentile, in the words of Rabbi Yishmael - meaning the ruling is arranged through shrewd evasiveness. Rabbi Akiva disagrees because of Chillul Hashem, for the gentile may realize he was deceived and say: There is no justice there; they extracted money from me unlawfully.
The Gemara infers that according to Rabbi Akiva, were it not for Chillul Hashem, this would be permitted - yet Rabbi Akiva himself expounded that robbing a gentile is forbidden! It is important to realize: in the view of the Rama, the prohibition against robbing a gentile is on account of Darkei Shalom (ways of peace), but according to Maran the Shulchan Aruch, it is forbidden Biblically, for Scripture does not state "You shall not steal from your fellow," but simply "You shall not steal." And although retaining an error made by a gentile is permitted, robbing a gentile is Biblically forbidden according to the Rambam, and so rules the Shulchan Aruch. It is also written in the Zohar that one who robs a gentile causes a great heavenly accusation against Israel, for a cry ascends to Heaven, giving the Accuser power to prosecute: "Behold, so-and-so robbed such-and-such a gentile" - and through this he acquires the license to act against Israel.
What is the meaning of "could it mean that one may deceive him (yaglom alav)"? The verse says: "After that he is sold, he may be redeemed again" - when a Jew is sold into slavery to a gentile, he is redeemed by paying the gentile the money remaining for the balance of the period. "Yaglom" means: could it be permitted to deceive him and redeem the slave at a lower price? For instance, showing him a calendar and claiming only three years remain when in truth four remain - this is deceit, and therefore the verse states, "And he shall reckon with him that bought him," meaning he must be exact with his purchaser. The Gemara's resolution is: "Here it refers to outright theft, whereas there it refers to the cancellation of his loan" - the prohibition is against depriving him of money through robbery; whereas what was permitted where there is no Chillul Hashem is the retention of a defaulted loan, such as when a gentile lent money and forgot about it, so that he never becomes aware of it. However, wherever the matter might come to light, there is Chillul Hashem, and therefore Rabbi Akiva stated that he is concerned solely about Chillul Hashem.
Therefore, Haman argued: Whenever we engage in legal disputes with them, they have laws that differ from all other nations. If they can vindicate themselves under our laws, they tell us, "This is your law"; and when they are vindicated under their own laws - "neither keep they the king's laws," for they judge the gentile according to Hebrew jurisprudence. And even when neither applies - that is, even when the Jew would be held liable whether under their laws or under ours - "they employ circumvention against us," as Rabbi Yishmael taught, finding a devious loophole to extract the gentile's money. This is the meaning of "neither is it for the king's profit [ein shaveh] to suffer them" - their law is not equal [din shaveh]; the scales are never balanced with them. Instead, they always tilt the scales in their own favor, "only as it seems best in their eyes." Therefore: "If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed."
אִם עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם, וַעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים כִּכַּר כֶּסֶף אֶשְׁקוֹל עַל יְדֵי עֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה לְהָבִיא אֶל גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the business, to bring it into the king's treasuries.
By way of an illustration: A gentile judge once asked a Jew, "Why do you Jews always approach me with offers of bribes? Doesn't your Torah forbid bribery?" The Jew replied, "Bribery is forbidden because it biases the judge's mind. But when a Jew comes to trial against a gentile before a gentile judge, the judge's mind is already biased ninety degrees toward the gentile. What does the Jew do? He pays, and all he accomplishes is leveling the scales - so that the judge views him as a human being rather than an armed bandit; and that is all."
Similarly, a veteran attorney once testified that whenever a Chareidi person - and all the more so a Sephardic Jew - comes to him facing trial, he tells him at the outset: "You would be wise to settle and resolve matters out of court, because your chances of receiving a fair trial are virtually nonexistent." When he voiced this, the judicial foundations of the country trembled, causing a tremendous uproar in the press. Yet no one could dismiss his words as nonsense, for they knew he spoke from vast experience matched by few others. He went on to add a provocative point: "People speak of judges as wise and knowledgeable individuals, but I tell you that a yeshivah student - with his analytical sharpness, his pilpul, his depth, and his ability to deduce one matter from another - leaves the greatest judges I have ever known in the dust. And to imagine that true justice is to be found precisely there? As the saying goes: Justice (Tzedek) is merely the name of a planet."
וַתַּעַן אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וַתֹּאמַר: אִם מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאִם עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, תִּנָּתֶן לִי נַפְשִׁי בִּשְׁאֵלָתִי וְעַמִּי בְּבַקָּשָׁתִי׃ - Queen Esther answered and said: "If I have found favor in your eyes, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be granted me at my petition, and my people at my request.
כִּי נִמְכַּרְנוּ אֲנִי וְעַמִּי לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרוֹג וּלְאַבֵּד, וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי, כִּי אֵין הַצָּר שֹׁוֶה בְּנֵזֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But had we been sold as slaves and bondwomen, I would have remained silent, for the adversary cannot compensate for the king's damage."
Esther knew that Haman's entire prosecution - that word "yeshno" ("there is a certain people," hinting that they were asleep to the mitzvot) - was built upon the bowing to Nebuchadnezzar's image, an act that rendered them as having denied the entire Torah. Yet the Gemara continues with the dialogue between Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his disciples: If they bowed to the image, why were they not destroyed? Is there favoritism before God? The answer: they acted only for appearances, so He too dealt with them only for appearances. That is, they did not bow out of genuine belief in the idol, but purely under Nebuchadnezzar's coercion, solely outwardly; therefore, their punishment was also only outward - they were terrified of annihilation, but a true decree of destruction was never sealed against them. The decree was inscribed in soft clay, not in blood.
And this is the Malbim's explanation: Esther knew that they bowed only for appearances, as the Sages noted: Had they flogged Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, they too would have bowed to the statue. For surrendering one's life in martyrdom is far easier than enduring prolonged torture; torture is the most unbearable trial of all. People subjected to torture have confessed to the most egregious crimes in history, even when they possessed no information and had no involvement whatsoever. As the story goes, a Soviet leader once lost his watch and contacted the KGB to launch an investigation. Half an hour later, he found the watch on his bathroom shelf. When he called back to cancel the investigation, they told him: "Impossible, we already have four confessions."
Furthermore, our Sages explained that this statue was an "andarta" - a royal monument in honor of the king, not actual idolatry or a figure presumed to possess divine power, but a political symbol: by having everyone bow to the golden statue, they were declaring allegiance to that "head of gold" and the perpetuity of his dynasty. If so, Esther argued, we were never truly guilty of idolatry, and that is not the cause of this decree. "The only sin that brought about the exile was the neglect of the Shemittah and Yovel years in the Land," as the Torah states, "Then shall the land make up for its sabbaths." Therefore she said: "Let my life be granted me at my petition, and my people at my request, for we have been sold" - we have been sold without cause, without any justifiable reason.
This raises a difficult question, asks the Malbim: What was the point of saying, "had we been sold as slaves and bondwomen, I would have remained silent," if they were already his subjects? After all, they were already Ahasuerus's servants, and one cannot say, "Had you done this to me, I would have kept quiet," when you are already in that very condition! It is like someone saying to a police officer: "Why did you give me a ticket for obstructing traffic? Had you ticketed me for parking in a red-and-white zone, I would have kept quiet" - when he was never ticketed for the red-and-white zone to begin with!
Others frame the difficulty differently: What does she mean by "had we been sold as slaves and bondwomen, I would have remained silent"? Did we deserve to be sold into slavery? It sounds as though it was decreed upon us to suffer something in any case, yet why should I suffer at all? Why do I deserve to be punished and sold as a slave?
Some commentators suggested taking "had we been sold as slaves and bondwomen" quite literally - that Ahasuerus had initially intended to sell them as slaves. The holy Alshich cites this explanation, which was already advanced by Rav Sherira Gaon. He explains that the royal edicts were originally drafted in the Holy Tongue, and Ahasuerus had agreed to write "yikatev le'ovdam" (let it be written to enslave them). What did Haman do? He replaced the letter Ayin with an Aleph, turning it into "yikatev le'abdam" - "let it be written to destroy them." According to this, the verse becomes crystal clear: Esther was hinting to the king that Haman had forged the royal decrees. "What you enacted - to sell us as slaves and bondwomen - I accepted in silence; I have no grievance against your decree. My grievance is solely against what he did - why he wrote to destroy us." This also resolves why she would have remained silent: she needed to flatter Ahasuerus and assure him that his own actions had been entirely acceptable to her.
Rather, the Malbim explains, Esther's true intention was this: It would be understandable had we been sold as slaves and bondwomen - to that I would justify the Divine judgment, for our sins brought that upon us; but to be destroyed? We have committed no sin so severe as to warrant such a punishment! It appears that this answer primarily resolves the second question: Why did we deserve to be sold into slavery? To that, she says she was prepared to accept enslavement, because we neglected the Shemittah and Yovel years and our sins brought exile upon us. But a heavenly decree of annihilation was never warranted against us, for we committed no sin that incurs total destruction. This also resolves the first question: regarding the mere fact of being subjugated to Ahasuerus, I have no complaint - that is deservedly our lot.
The commentary continues: And if the claim stems from the words of Rabbi Yishmael, who permits dealing with a non-Jew through circumvention, and based on this Haman argued, "it is not fitting for the king to tolerate them" - on the contrary, the Halachah follows Rabbi Akiva, because of kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God's Name). That is to say, if you claim that Jewish law does not judge a Jew and a non-Jew equally, the Halachah does not follow Rabbi Yishmael, but Rabbi Akiva: one must not circumvent him, one must pay a non-Jew what is rightfully his and not deceive him, and even when redeeming a Jewish servant from him, one calculates scrupulously with him.
"Furthermore, robbing a non-Jew is forbidden, and the law of the kingdom is the law (dina d'malchuta dina), for the adversary's damage does not warrant the loss to the king." Stealing from a non-Jew is forbidden to us by Halachah; and dina d'malchuta dina means that monetary decrees enacted by the government possess validity according to Torah law, and if a certain payment or tax liability is due under royal law, the Jewish people submit to that law. In the Diaspora, this is certainly the case; in Eretz Yisrael the Halachic authorities differ - some hold that this rule applies specifically to a non-Jewish government, while others hold that it applies only where the law is just, whereas under arbitrary or discriminatory governance (dina d'chamsanuta) - when the regime does not apply its laws equally to all its citizens - this rule does not apply at all.
And whoever looks around sees how much injustice reigns supreme: Haredi children study in trailers, while entire empty school buildings sit vacant and authorities refuse to release them, simply because these are neighborhoods where they do not want Haredim to set foot; yet in other matters, the courts would uphold the right of any citizen to live wherever they wish. By contrast, in the United States it is agreed among the Halachic authorities that dina d'malchuta dina applies, since there it makes no difference what your color, religion, or creed is - equality of opportunity is absolute, and it is strictly forbidden to act against the law of the land. And this is what Esther argues: among us, the law of the kingdom is binding law, and one cannot claim "it is not fitting for the king to tolerate them," for we conduct ourselves strictly according to the king's laws - dina d'malchuta dina.
The commentary concludes: This yields yet another reason why Haman contemplated wiping out all the Jews - for what did Mordechai's sin have to do with his entire people? "Shall one man sin, and You be wrathful with the entire congregation?" Why did he seek to destroy them all? And the words of a wise man's mouth are gracious.
We have seen how a single verse - "There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed" - unfolds into an entire dialogue: Haman argues yeshno ("there is" / "they are asleep"), that Israel is asleep to the mitzvot because they bowed to the idol, and whoever acknowledges idolatry is considered to have denied the entire Torah; Achashverosh replies am echad ("one people"), that so long as they remain unified they cannot fall, like the generation of Achav where there were no slanderers; Haman replies mefuzar u'meforad ("scattered and dispersed"); Achashverosh fears a "severed kingdom," and Haman assures him that they reside b'chol medinot malchutecha ("throughout all the provinces of your realm"). Finally, v'dateihem schonot ("and their laws are different") - that they do not judge equally between a Jew and a non-Jew, and therefore "it is not fitting to tolerate them." In response to all of this stands Esther: they only bowed for outward appearances, and the true iniquity was the neglect of the Yovel and Shemitah cycles - a transgression for which servitude suffices and which warrants no decree of annihilation; and in Halachah - the Halachah follows Rabbi Akiva out of kiddush Hashem, robbing a non-Jew is forbidden, and dina d'malchuta dina. And the conclusion of this discussion leads directly to the next question: what possessed Haman to annihilate an entire nation over a single man?