Purim: The king did not approve the killing decree

Forensic and Legal Investigation:

The King Approved A New Tax Collection And Haman Published A Killing Decree

Taxes And Respect Were Important To The Sovereign

Haman informed the king that there was a certain nation that “neither performs nor keeps” the king’s laws (3:8).[1] Haman’s wide attack was designed to elicit a response from the king: either an inquiry into who was favorably exempt from his laws or to incite the king to punish that nation.[2] In any society, there are two kinds of laws: laws that mandate duties—and those are few—and laws that prohibit certain actions. Aeschylus in his book, The Persians,[3] explained that the three most important duties a resident owed his or her Persian rulers were:

1.      Respect for the law: the king consulted with historians and lawyers to act in accordance with the law (1:13,15); inquired about the crime of Bigthan and Teresh (2:23); decided to punish the nation that violated his laws (3:11); did not punish Haman’s sons for their father’s crime (7:9); and insisted that respect be paid to any decree signed in his name (8:8).

2.      Respect for the rulers: the king was enraged that Vashti disgraced him and his order (1:12), he was ashamed and avoided publishing the crime of Bigthan and Teresh, and the usurpation of power by Haman (8:7).

3.      Paying taxes: the king insisted on collecting taxes (10:1) in order to show his wealth (1:4).

Refusal to respect the king’s laws is a general crime that includes the two specific crimes of failure to respect the rulers and failure to pay taxes. Thus, Haman accused the nation of committing these two infractions, and not of violating all the king’s laws. The king was unaware that there was a nation that did not respect him, thus he concentrated on the all-important failure to pay taxes.

WordGame Of Haman

Haman suggested to the king: “There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are separate from those of every other people; neither do they keep the king’s laws; therefore it does not profit the king to let them rest. If it please the king, let it be written that they be [לאבדם LABDM];” (3:8-9). This sentence, as written in Hebrew, is not clear, in contrast to the English translation. The key problem is with the word LABDM, which Haman (3:9) and Mordecai (4:7) both used without explanation of the word’s meaning. The Hebrew word has several meanings:

1.      To scatter and get lost—Jeremiah declared, “Woe unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” (Jer. 23:1).  This passage refers to the ten tribes that were expelled and whose whereabouts were lost forever.  But, for the king, this was not a reasonable explanation because Haman had said that this nation was already scattered.

2.      Kill and destroy – this meaning was used by Ezekiel: “like wolves ravening the prey: to shed blood, and to destroy souls” (Ez. 22:27), and by Jeremiah “to destroy and to overthrow; to build, and to plant.” (Jer. 1:10). Haman used this explanation when he wrote in the killing decree: “to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish” (3:13).

3.      Enslaved – The Prof. Sandra Berg raised the possibility that the king was misled into thinking that Haman was suggesting a new tax collection plan, as Haman declared: “it profit not the king to let them rest (להניחם)”, rest (לנוח) from work,[4] or be exempt (הנחה) from paying taxes;[5] rather, the king’s subjects should be made to work or be enslaved. At the time, people who failed to pay taxes were sold to slavery (Deut. 15:12).

4.      Enslaved – the scholar Haupt explained that enslaving a nation causes their destruction as a national or cultural entity, since slaves assume their owner’s identity.[6] Esther heard from Mordecai that Haman offered a bribe to the king, but did not hear the part about letting them “rest.”  Nevertheless she assumed that the king thought that the word meant “enslaving,” as she explained to the king her willingness to be enslaved (7:4).[7] Prof. Carol Bechtel is using the homophonic nature of the word ABD ((אִבד ʼābad – kill destroy) and (עִבד ʻābad – enslave);[8] and, although there is no such reference in the Bible, one of the meanings of the word (עִבד ʻābad) is to enslave.[9]

The diversity of meanings is a key issue in understanding the Scroll, because it enforces the claim that Haman used a word game to confuse the king and ensure the approval to act against the king’s intentions. When the king understood that he was misled, Haman’s treachery, his abuse of royal power, was exposed.

Haman’s Multifaceted Plan

After Haman suggested harming a nation, he continued to present his plan to the king: “and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those that have the charge of the king’s business, to bring into _ the king’s treasuries” (3:9).This sentence does not clarify who was the owner of the 10,000 silver talents, who were the king’s workers, what they were supposed to do or what would be brought to the king’s treasuries.The fact that Haman said, “I will pay” only means that he would perform the payment; but he could have been referring to the king’s money, rather than his own.[10] Herodotus states that the gold was thirteen times more expensive than silver.[11] In accordance with this exchange rate, King David gave his son 46,500 silver talents (1 Chr. 29:4), and the money was paid to 150,000 workers (1 Kings 5:29) during seven years (1 Kings 6:38). Thus, the amount that Haman suggested was a reasonable amount for a king to invest in the plan, but an outrageously large sum for a minister, even for one who boasted about “the glory of his riches” (5:11).

In order for Haman to obtain his goal, his plan needed to be presented in several feasible ways:

1.      Tax collection – Haman suggested paying the king’s men from the treasury to collect money from the nation that failed to pay their taxes, and to enslave the tax evaders. For example, Abraham’s slaves took ten camels loaded with his master’s gifts and gave them to Rebeca and her family (Gen. 24:10,53); and Josef used Pharaoh’s money to build the cities and collect the grain, which he later sold, bringing the revenues to the Pharaoh’s treasuries (Gen. 43:48; 47:14-26).

2.      Bribe – Haman offered 10,000 silver talents as a bribe to the king; the porters would carry the silver from Haman’s house to the king’s treasuries.

3.      Paying expenses – Haman offered to pay mercenaries to kill all the people of the nation, and the loot would be brought to the king’s treasuries.

The King Approved The Tax Collection Plan And Ordered Haman to Execute It

The king did not inquire about the identity of the nation that was exempt from his laws. Haman recognized that there was no such nation that was excused from paying taxes or from demonstrating respect for the authorities.[12] When Mordecai learned about this conversation, he also understood that Haman was aware that the Jews were not exempt from kneeling before him; thus, his explanation lost its validity.  Mordecai knew that there was no need to display further respect, however limited, to Haman.

Careful reading of the text shows that Haman said: “I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who have the charge of the king’s business” (3:9) and the king answered, “The silver is given to thee” (3:11).

The king used the word “given.”[13] The king could only give away an object that is, in fact, his property—or would be in the future. The word “given” does not always transfer ownership, but only indicates that the item is in the hand of the new holder, for a limited time and to be put to limited use.  This new holder is supposed to follow through on an action agreed upon between the parties involved in the transaction. For example, when the king gave his signet to Haman, he did not transfer ownership of the signet to Haman (3:10).

The king’s response indicates which plan he selected:

1.      Tax collection – When the king said, “The silver is given to thee,” he did not add, “I do not need the money,” or “take the money for yourself,” or, “I give up the money.”  He simply authorized Haman, as his minister above all other ministers, to take the money from his treasuries and execute the tax collection plan. For example, the king Jehoiakim was instructed by Pharaoh-Necoh to extract taxes from each person according to his wealth (2 Kings 23:35). Herodotus informed us that Amasis created a law that required every person to explain to the head of the district the source of his income.[14] The purpose of the law was to get adequate taxes from merchants and professionals. Although there is no indication, in the Scroll, of the specific tax plan, it is possible that the king thought that Haman was going to create a similar new tax collection administration.

2.      Bribe – The king gave the bribe back to Haman; but such a waiver is not a “giving.”  If the king’s men were the porters who carried the silver, then Haman would not have mentioned them, just as Mordecai did not mention them when he told Esther about Haman’s bribe (4:7). In addition, the king might have been surprised to learn that Haman was so rich and was willing to spend so much money. The king might have suspected Haman of stealing money from him. Later we will see that the king behaved as if he had no clue about the killing decree (7:5) and was not insulted by Esther’s assertion that the king took a bribe (7:4).

3.      Paying expenses – The king gave the loot to Haman, and not the 10,000 silver talents. Such an explanation enabled Haman to use the loot to pay robbers and murderers that were not the king’s workers. Haman used this theory to justify his killing decree. This theory cannot be what the king had in mind, because it was very unlikely that the king would give such an unknown large gift to Haman in one large lump sum or in an unlimited annual income. In addition, the king got upset when he heard about the killing decree (7:7), which eliminates the possibility that the king assented to this option. The king used the description “the silver,” referring specifically to the silver that Haman mentioned and not the loot that Haman did not reference.

The custom of punishing tax evaders was a major endeavor that required use of the king’s signet to send numerous orders to his various states over a long period of time.  On the other hand, the signet only needed to be used once to set the killing decree in motion. Giving the signet to Haman indicated that the king was thinking in terms of a large, lengthy task. Since the king gave his signet to Haman, Mordecai deduced that the king was the owner of the money and had ordered Haman to use it to perform a new tax collection plan.

Haman Changed The King’s Order To A Killing Decree

In according with the new tax plan, Haman was authorized to investigate and punish each and every nation in the empire (3:11). If Haman would have been satisfied with the authorized order, he could have solved his problem, killed Mordecai, and avoided the complications that caused his demise. Haman used the unclear word “LABED,” but needed to explain the meaning of the word, whether it meant to “scatter” or to “kill”.[15] In order to avoid confusion Haman added two words “to destroy, kill and LABED,” and narrowed the order to refer only to the Jews (3:13). By making changes after receiving approval, without additional authorization, Haman demonstrated his evil intention and that he was abusing power. He did not return the signet after using it because the king might have been surprised and asked him: “did you finish collecting all the taxes?”

In the killing decree, no explanation for the punishment was given (3:12).[16] This created the impression that the king simply hated the Jews. The order itself did not put the king at risk; as we can see, the king did not have a problem with allowing the Jews and their enemies to fight it out for one day.  He preferred to maintain respect for the document signed by his own signet.

The conversation between Haman and the king was leaked to Mordecai who understood that the king had approved some other order, not the killing decree (4:7-8). Mordecai did not have to wait anymore, to expose his informers, or risk the rage of the king. Now he had a document falsely signed in the name of the king, a decree that did not benefit the king, and acted against the interest of the empire by destroying property and killing his people. The order authorized criminals, without military experience, to attack and torture their neighbors without explanation or reason.[17] There was the danger that the mob that Haman arranged could be used, under his direction, to attack the king.

Haman’s Habit

Habits are repeated responses that usually occur automatically, unconsciously, or as a unique, systematic modus operandi. In the Scroll, we witness two incidents in which Haman made proposals to the king and then double-crossed him with respect to (a) the killing suggestion, and (b) the honorary parade  (6:6). Etshalom explained that Haman’s suggestions are composed of two sections.[18] One section was explicit, and composed of whole sentences; it demonstrated that Haman was capable of thinking clearly and presenting his ideas. The second section was composed of unconnected, ambiguous words (examples: “LABDM” (3:9), “royal crown” (6:8)).[19] The king selected the option that suited him, believing it to be Haman’s true proposal. In both cases the king was satisfied with Haman’s suggestion, instructed him to execute it; and then, Haman changed the tax law into a killing decree, and paid homage to Mordecai, in the king’s name, while upset and sad (6:12).

The King’s Habit

A suggestion, made to the king, began with the words: “If it please the king” (3:9), and when the king authorized a wide discretion, he declared: “do … as it seemeth good to thee” (3:11).  However, the king’s assent did not negate the original request to please the king or authorized to take action that would be unpleasing to the king. Of course, execution of the king’s order might require additional details, but nothing that would contradict the original order.

In the entire Scroll, the king always respected the law and the customs. One can conclude that the king was a reasonable and rational person who acted appropriately for one in his position at that time.[20] The generally accepted interpretation of the king’s order to Haman, in regard to the people who did not obey royal law, was that he gave Haman completely free reign.  In the order to parade Mordecai, the king commanded Haman to strictly adhere to Haman’s own suggestions. Issuing orders in such a contradictory style is puzzling. Prof. Anita Superson claims that a rational person acts in a consistent style for his own benefit.[21] A consistent response enables other people to be able to predict the future responses of that person.[22] We can see that the king was repeating his statement, with just minor changes, three times: “even to the half of the kingdom” (5:3; 5:6; 7:2). Esther arranged the first banquet for the king as a practice run, to see how the king would behave in the second banquet. Haman knew that the king would come to the second banquet even though the king did not answer Esther’s invitation (5:12); and he knew that the king would execute him, so he begged Esther for his life—although the king did not say a thing when he left the banquet (7:7). Thus, we have to understand that, regardless of the actual words used, the two conflicting styles of commands are actually a single style and the orders are complimentary to one another. They are: DO FREELY, FOR MY BENEFIT, EXACTLY WHAT I ORDERED! [23]

With this knowledge, we can see that when the king strictly ordered Haman to throw a parade for Mordecai; Haman still had a free hand to select the route, the timing, the horse, and the dress. And, in the tax order, Haman was limited to collect tax in a lawful manner in accordance with the custom. Haman was aware that the king ordered him only to “LABED” the people and this was the reason that he left the ambiguous word in the killing decree, because there is nothing to “LABED,” after the murder and destruction were completed.

The author of the Scroll informed us that Haman modified the tax order; but we are not allowed to use information to which we are not privy. The only person that can clarify that such a change was made was the king itself.

————

Bibliography

Aeschylus, The Persians, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2008.

Bechtel C. M., Esther: Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching,

John Knox Press, 2002.

Berg S. B., The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure, Missoula, Mont.:

Scholars Press, 1979.

Berlin A., Esther, The JPS Bible Commentary, The Jewish Publication Society,

Philadelphia, 2001.

Etshalom Y., And He Did Not Bow Nor Bend: Explaining Mordechai’s Zealotry, 2009

Haupt P., “Critical Notes on Esther,” AJSLL 24 (1907-1908).

Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, Translated by George Rawlinson.

Superson A. M., The Moral Skeptic, Oxford University Press, Oxford New York, 2009.

—————

[1] Brown, Hebrew and English Lexicon, “דת” Pg. 206 is law in the Scroll of Esther.

[2] Esther, too, used such a style when she accused the king of publishing the killing decree; and the king responded in anger and asked: “who is he?” (Est. 7:5). Haman asked a hidden question when he tried to find the identity of the person whom the king wanted to honor (6:6).

[3] Aeschylus, The Persians. (585-589).

[4] Berg, The book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure. Pg. 102

[5] Berlin, Esther, The JPS Bible Commentary. Pg. 41.

[6] Haupt, “Critical Notes on Esther”. Pg. 135

[7] Mordecai changed the name of Hadassah to Esther (2:7) after the name of the goddess Ishtar (“עשתורת” (1 Kings 11:5)) in order to improve her posture and increase her chance of being elected. This might explain the awareness of Esther to the different between the letters “א” and “ע” (Esther/Ishtar (“אסתר/עשתר”)). .

[8] Bechtel, Esther:Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Pg. 42.

[9] “טוֹרְפַי עִבְּדוּנִי בְּכֹבֶד עֲבוֹדָה” (מגילת אחימעץ, צו) – מתוך מילון אבן-שושן

[10] Brown, Hebrew and English Lexicon, “שקל” Pg. 1053.

[11] Herodotus, The History of Herodotus. Book III – 91, 95, 96. Darius used 14,560 talents a year beside the gifts and the taxes from the islands and Europe.

[12] Herodotus, The History of Herodotus. Book III – 91, 97. Herodotus noted that the Persians were free from tax and a district which belonged to Arabia was free from tax because of their help to Darius. It is not clear if the Jews who lived in Persia were exempt, but Ezra warned the Jews in Jerusalem to respect the king and pay taxes (Ezra 4:13).

[13] Brown, Hebrew and English Lexicon, “נתן” Pg. 679 (r.= commit, entrust to).

[14] Herodotus, The History of Herodotus. Book II – 177.

[15] Although it is not possible to transport a scattered nation in one day.

[16] When Vashti was deposed there was an explanation (1:19). .

[17] On its face the killing decree was legally weak because it did not provide immunity to the killer and did not prohibit self-defense. .

[18 Etshalom, And He Did not Bow Nor Bend: Explaining Mordechai's Zealotry

[19] Herodotus, The History of Herodotus. Book I – 91. Such method was common with future readers, and Haman was using their services (3:7).

[20] Rational – having reason or understanding.

[21] Consistent – marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : free from variation or contradiction .

[22] Superson, The moral skeptic, pg. 26-27

[23] We are all using this style of ordering when we hire service from a professional such as car mechanic or surgeon.

.

About the Author

Engineer, Lawyer, Registerd Patent Attorney, Real-Estate Investor

The King Is Mine 1

Star Home Coquilles Rope Coaster, Set of 4 $37.50 Distinct shapes marry unique textures along with sea themed embellishments for Al fresco entertaining at its finest…

Bulldog rescued from sinking ship, First World War Photo Mugs When the King Edward is sunk by a mine during the First World War, the crew rescue Norah the bulldog, together with the monkeys and cats they had as pets. ….

King Solomons Mines Photo Mugs Front cover design Allan Quartermain saves Foulata from Scraggas spear… Date First published 1885….

Michael Jackson 25th Anniversary of Thriller (CD+DVD) $9.05 Where Off the Wall was pretty much straight good times, Thriller introduced dread into Michael Jackson’s solo work. By 1995’s HIStory, this element curdled into overwhelming self-regard and out-of-touchness, but here it’s bracing. While Thriller offers its share of cute (“The Girl Is Mine,” a duet with Paul McCartney that was the album’s first single; “P.Y.T.”), the most memorable cuts remain “Bil…

The Essential Carole King $11.12 As a singer, Carole King won over millions of fans with her honest portrayals of love and life. As a songwriter, she penned dozens of hits for others, many of which became American pop standards. Now for the first time, these two aspects of a long and celebrated career are combined, presenting the best of Carole King as both singer and songwriter. From her record-breaking and iconic Tapestry, …

Make Mine Music (Disney Gold Classic Collection) $8.09 Share in Walt Disney’s extraordinary vision of pairing imaginative stories with spectacular music in Disney’s 8th full-length animated classic, available for the first time ever.In the tradition of FANTASIA, MAKE MINE MUSIC is a glorious collection of musically charged animated shorts featuring such fun-filled favorites as “Peter And The Wolf,” narrated by the beloved voice behind Winnie The Pooh….