After an assassination plot against the king is revealed, Haman is promoted to Prime Minister. In this capacity, all are required to bow down to him by order of the king. Mordechai refuses to bow down. While Haman doesn’t personally notice, it is brought to his attention and he is furious.

אסתר ג

(ו) וַיִּ֣בֶז בְּעֵינָ֗יו לִשְׁלֹ֤חַ יָד֙ בְּמׇרְדֳּכַ֣י לְבַדּ֔וֹ כִּֽי־הִגִּ֥ידוּ ל֖וֹ אֶת־עַ֣ם מׇרְדֳּכָ֑י וַיְבַקֵּ֣שׁ הָמָ֗ן לְהַשְׁמִ֧יד אֶת־כׇּל־הַיְּהוּדִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֛ר בְּכׇל־מַלְכ֥וּת אֲחַשְׁוֵר֖וֹשׁ עַ֥ם מׇרְדֳּכָֽי׃

Esther 3

6) But it seemed contemptible to him to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him Mordecai's nationality, and Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout Ahasuerus's entire kingdom, Mordecai's people.

But instead of going after Mordechai, Haman takes a different course. The verse says “it was contemptible in his eyes. The term “Vayivez” is worth analyzing. The Torah uses the term to describes Eisav’s rejection and devaluing of the birthright which he sells to Jacob (Beresheit 25:34). Eisav abandoned his birthright. Haman abandoned his plan to go after Mordechai individually. But apparently he wanted to. This is reflected in the Talmud’s analysis of the verse:

תלמוד בבלי מגילה י"ג:

"וַיִּבֶז בְּעֵינָיו לִשְׁלוֹחַ יָד בְּמׇרְדֳּכַי לְבַדּוֹ" (אסתר ג':ו') אָמַר רָבָא בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמָרְדְּכַי לְבַדּוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף בְּעַם מָרְדֳּכַי וּמַנּוּ רַבָּנַן וּלְבַסּוֹף בְּכׇל הַיְּהוּדִים.

Talmud Bavli – Megilah 13b

The verse states: “But it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay his hand on Mordecai alone; for they had made known to him the people of Mordecai; wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai” (Esther 3:6). Rava said: At first he wanted to lay his hands on Mordecai alone, and in the end on the people of Mordecai. And who were the people of Mordecai? They were the Sages, i.e., Mordecai’s special people. And ultimately he sought to bring harm on all the Jews.

Haman wanted to murder Mordechai. But he rejected the idea of murdering Mordechai the individual. Upon closer analysis, he realized Mordechai’s attitude was not an isolated problem. His philosophy was a threat to Haman’s quest for power. Haman masked his quest for power from the king, the kingdom, and perhaps even from himself to a degree, under the guise of promoting the enterprise of the state. Similarly here, he hid his murderous intentions behind the bureaucracy. The final solution for the Jews of Persia was dictated and carried as an official correspondence throughout the 127 provinces. The banality in execution obscured the violence and evil.

Haman had a personal grudge against Mordechai. But he understood Mordechai represented an ideology. This was representative of the ideology of the Jewish Sages and the Jewish people. What was that doctrine? The Torah, the Sages, and the Jewish people believe in an ethic independent of the state. Might does not make right, and the rules on the books do not dictate what is true and correct. Such an idea is the foundation of a just society, but is a threat to any bureaucrat or bureaucracy. The fact that it is the policy does not make it just or right.

Achashveirosh subscribed to no particular values. “The drinking was according to the desire of each individual” (1:8). He did not believe in an overarching morality. There are no specific set of rules that are absolute. It was in this context that Haman could propose his “kingdom first” philosophy, with no value judgements on the means employed.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks - A Letter in the Scroll

What is morality? To this question there have traditionally been two answers. The first is that morality is objective. It is out there in the world of facts, in nature ("natural law") or in the structure of society and its generally accepted conventions. In this view, to be moral is to conform.

The second view is that morality is subjective. It is “in here,” in personal emotion, private desire, or inner intuition. There is no moral truth beyond that which we feel in our own hearts. According to this view, to be moral is to be true to yourself.

Adherence to either of these views has yielded disastrous results. Nature is often blind and cruel, societies have been oppressive and conventions have been unjust. Sometimes morality demands that we do not conform. But if we are only true to ourselves, then we buy our freedom at the expense of others. Desires conflict, as do emotions and intuitions. Societies built on the principle of each doing "that which is right in his own eyes" end in violence and manipulation.

Rabbi Sacks beautifully articulates the two views espoused by Haman and Achashveirosh. Haman believed in conformity. He expected everyone to follow the laws of the state, and also wished to be at the head of that enterprise. Achashveirosh believed in each man simply following his own desires. The more power and riches, the more opportunity. Disturbingly it is often in the context of an Achashveirosh, in a society with no morals or value judgments, that a Haman can rise, promoting and implementing policies that are truly evil.

Mordechai was not just an individual hindrance to Haman’s desire for absolute power. The Torah champions an abstract and independent idea of truth and justice. This stands in opposition to dictatorships and governments founded on maintaining lies and requiring conformity. Haman understood this and chose to pursue the destruction of the Jewish people, which led to his ultimate undoing.

References

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

Steinsaltz, A., In Weinreb, T. H., In Schreier, J., & Hotsaat Koren (Jerusalem). (2017). Koren Talmud Bavli, the Noe edition: Talmud Bavli. Retrieved from: https://shas.alhatorah.org/

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bentorah.substack.com