Talmudic Interpretations of the Book of Esther: Esther 3:8-3:11 (Megillah 13b-14a)
Part of a series on the extended aggadic sugya in Tractate Megillah 10b-17a. See the previous installments here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
The Talmudic exegesis of the Book of Esther in Megillah 13b-14a offers a rich and often surprising expansion of the biblical narrative. This passage focuses on Haman’s speech to Ahasuerus, analyzing the rhetorical strategies he employs to justify his genocidal decree against the Jewish people.
Through careful midrashic reading, the Talmud highlights Haman’s mastery of slander (לישנא בישא - lashon hara), his anticipation of royal objections, and his appeal to economic, demographic, and ideological arguments. At the same time, the sages embed within the discussion a broader theological counterpoint: the Jews’ presumed moral failures are weighed against divine intervention, particularly through the annual half-shekel donation to the Temple, which the Talmud portrays as a spiritual antidote to Haman’s bribe.
This analysis also reveals an underlying rabbinic concern with the power of political rhetoric and its role in shaping historical events. The sages emphasize how Ahasuerus’ removal of his signet ring—a seemingly bureaucratic gesture—ultimately stirred the Jewish people to repentance more effectively than the warnings of prophets. The Talmud’s exegesis, then, is not merely a commentary on Esther but a reflection on power, persuasion, and the precariousness of Jewish existence under foreign rule.
Outline
Haman’s Slander and Manipulation of Ahasuerus (Esther 3:8): Haman’s Eight Arguments and Addressing Ahasuerus’s Concerns
Intro
Addressing Ahasuerus’s Fear of Divine Retribution: Haman - the Jews had become lax in their religious observance
Refuting the Notion of Observant Jews: Ahasuerus suggests that at least some Jews still follow their traditions; Haman counters that they are “one people,” implying uniform neglect of mitzvot
Dismissing Concerns About Population Loss: Haman - the Jews are scattered among other peoples, so their eradication will not leave any noticeable unpopulated area
Economic Argument Against the Jews: Haman - the Jews are like a barren mule—unproductive and of no economic value
Highlighting Jewish Separateness: Haman - they aren’t concentrated in any one area
Haman emphasizes that the Jews maintain distinct customs: they do not eat non-Jewish food or intermarry
Accusing Jews of Idleness: Haman claims they evade civic responsibilities, constantly observing religious holidays
Allegation of Jewish Contempt for the King: Jews disrespect the throne and despise non-Jews, illustrated by their refusal to drink wine touched by a non-Jew, even if it were touched by the king himself
The Theological Counterbalance to Haman’s Bribe (Esther 3:9): the mitzvah of the half-shekel collection
The Parable of the Mound and the Ditch (Esther 3:11): two individuals with opposing problems - one had excess dirt and the other had a ditch that needed filling
The Influence of the King's Ring (Esther 3:10): Ahasuerus' act of removing his ring to approve Haman’s decree stirred the people to repentance more powerfully than all the prophets' warnings
The Passage
Haman’s Slander and Manipulation of Ahasuerus (Esther 3:8): Haman’s Eight Arguments and Addressing Ahasuerus’s Concerns
Above: a table illustrating Haman’s arguments, in the Talmud’s interpretation, in these sections.
Verse cited here for reference, Esther.3.8:
ויאמר המן למלך אחשורוש:
ישנו עם־אחד
מפזר ומפרד בין העמים
בכל מדינות מלכותך
ודתיהם שנות מכל־עם
ואת־דתי המלך אינם עשים
ולמלך אין־שוה להניחם
Haman then said to King Ahasuerus:
“There is (ישנו) a certain people (עם),
scattered (מפזר) and dispersed (מפרד) among the other peoples
in all the provinces (מדינות) of your realm,
whose laws (דתיהם) are different from those of any other people
and who do not obey the king’s laws;
and it is not in Your Majesty’s interest to tolerate them […]”
Intro
Haman tells Ahasuerus that the Jewish people are scattered throughout the empire, have distinct laws, and do not obey the king’s laws, making them unworthy of tolerance (Esther 3:8).
Rava states that Haman was a master of slander (לישנא בישא), crafting responses to potential objections from Ahasuerus to his wish to destroy (ניכלינהו) the Jews.1
״ישנו עם אחד״,
אמר רבא:
ליכא דידע לישנא בישא כהמן.
אמר ליה: תא ניכלינהו.
Haman said to Ahasuerus: “There is [yeshno] one people scattered abroad [mefuzar] and dispersed [meforad] among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; and their laws are diverse from those of every people; nor do they keep the king’s laws; therefore it does not profit the king to tolerate them” (Esther 3:8).
Rava said:
There was none who knew how to slander like Haman, as in his request to the king he included responses to all the reasons Ahasuerus might be reluctant to destroy the Jewish people.
He said to Ahasuerus: Let us destroy them.
Addressing Ahasuerus’s Fear of Divine Retribution: Haman - the Jews had become lax in their religious observance
Ahasuerus was afraid (מסתפינא) of harming the Jews, recalling how their God had punished those who opposed them in the past.2
Haman reassured Ahasuerus, claiming that the Jews had become lax3 in their religious observance, which made them vulnerable to attack.
אמר ליה: מסתפינא מאלהיהו, דלא ליעביד בי כדעבד בקמאי.
אמר ליה: [״ישנו״ —] ישנו מן המצות.
Ahasuerus said to him: I am afraid of their God, lest He do to me as He did to those who stood against them before me.
Haman said to him: They have been asleep [yashnu] with respect to the mitzvot, having ceased to observe the mitzvot, and, therefore there is no reason to fear.
Refuting the Notion of Observant Jews: Ahasuerus suggests that at least some Jews still follow their traditions; Haman counters that they are “one people,” implying uniform neglect of mitzvot.
Ahasuerus argues out that some Jews are observant of the mitzvot, namely the “rabbis” (רבנן) among them.
Haman dismisses this, claiming that “they are one people” (i.e. all Jews are the same and that none truly observe the mitzvot).
אמר ליה: אית בהו רבנן.
אמר ליה: עם אחד הן.
Ahasuerus said to him: There are the Sages among them who observe the mitzvot.
Haman said to him: They are one people, i.e., they are all the same; nobody observes the mitzvot.
Dismissing Concerns About Population Loss: Haman - the Jews are scattered among other peoples, so their eradication will not leave any noticeable unpopulated area
Haman anticipates a possible objection from the king—that destroying an entire nation might create a void4 in the kingdom.
He counters this by arguing that the Jews are scattered (מפוזרין) among other peoples (so their eradication will not leave any noticeable unpopulated area).
שמא תאמר, קרחה אני עושה במלכותך —
מפוזרין הם בין העמים.
Haman continued with his next response as expressed in the verse: Perhaps you will say that I am making a bald spot in your kingdom, i.e., you fear that if an entire nation is wiped out there will be a desolate area within the kingdom.
There is no need to worry, though, as they are scattered [mefuzarin] among the peoples, and eradicating them will not result in the creation of an unpopulated zone in the area where they had once lived.
Economic Argument Against the Jews: Haman - the Jews are like a barren mule—unproductive and of no economic value
Haman argues that even if one were to claim that there is some benefit to having the Jews, it is ultimately futile.
He compares the nation to a mule,5 which is incapable of producing offspring.6
שמא תאמר: אית הנאה מינייהו —
״מפורד״, כפרידה זו שאינה עושה פירות.
Furthermore, perhaps you will say that there is benefit from them;
but this nation is meforad, like this barren mule [pereida] that cannot bear offspring, and there is no benefit to be gained from them.
Highlighting Jewish Separateness: Haman - they aren’t concentrated in any one area
Haman says that the Jewish people are not concentrated in a single province (מדינתא).
ושמא תאמר, איכא מדינתא מינייהו —
תלמוד לומר: ״בכל מדינות מלכותך״.
And perhaps you will say that there is at least a province that is filled with them.
Therefore the verse states that they are scattered “in all the provinces of your kingdom” (Esther 3:8), and they do not inhabit one place.
Haman emphasizes that the Jews maintain distinct customs: they do not eat non-Jewish food or intermarry
Haman claims that the Jews are distinct from all other nations in that they refuse to partake in food from non-Jews and do not intermarry with non-Jews.
״ודתיהם שונות מכל עם״,
דלא אכלי מינן
ולא נסבי מינן
ולא מנסבי לן.
Haman continued: “And their laws are diverse from those of every people” (Esther 3:8),
as they do not eat from our food,
nor do they marry from our women,
nor do they marry off their women to us.
Accusing Jews of Idleness: Haman claims they evade civic responsibilities, constantly observing religious holidays
Haman claims they are idle all year, repeatedly citing religious observances as an excuse.7
״ואת דתי המלך אינם עושים״,
דמפקי לכולא שתא בשהי פהי.
“Nor do they keep the king’s laws” (Esther 3:8).
They spend the entire year in idleness, as they are constantly saying: Shehi pehi, an acronym for: It is Shabbat today [Shabbat hayom]; it is Passover today [Pesaḥ hayom].
Allegation of Jewish Contempt for the King: Jews disrespect the throne and despise non-Jews, illustrated by their refusal to drink wine touched by a non-Jew, even if it were touched by the king himself
A proof of their disdain (מבזו) is seen in their treatment of wine:
If a fly (זבוב) falls into a Jew's cup, he removes it and continues drinking.
However, if the king himself were to touch the cup, the Jew would “throw it to the ground” (חובטו בקרקע) and refuse to drink.8
״ולמלך אין שוה להניחם״,
דאכלו, ושתו, ומבזו ליה למלכא,
ואפילו נופל זבוב בכוסו של אחד מהן —
זורקו ושותהו,
ואם אדוני המלך נוגע בכוסו של אחד מהן —
חובטו בקרקע, ואינו שותהו.
The verse continues: “Therefore it does not profit the king to tolerate them,”
as they eat and drink and scorn the throne.
And a proof of this is that even if a fly falls into the cup of one of them,
he will throw the fly out and drink the wine it fell into,
but if my master the king were to touch the glass of one of them,
he would throw it to the ground, and would not drink it, since it is prohibited to drink wine that was touched by a gentile.
The Theological Counterbalance to Haman’s Bribe (Esther 3:9): the mitzvah of the half-shekel collection
Reish Lakish states that God preempted Haman’s financial bribe by instituting the mitzvah of the half-shekel collection:
The annual proclamation on the 1st of Adar regarding shekel donations9 ensured that the Jewish people's merits outweighed Haman’s attempted bribe to destroy them.
״אם על המלך טוב יכתב לאבדם
ועשרת אלפים ככר כסף וגו׳״,
אמר ריש לקיש:
גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם
שעתיד המן לשקול שקלים על ישראל,
לפיכך הקדים שקליהן לשקליו.
והיינו דתנן: באחד באדר משמיעין על השקלים ועל הכלאים.
Therefore, Haman concluded: “If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed,
and I will weigh out ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries” (Esther 3:9).
Reish Lakish said:
It is revealed and known in advance to the One Who spoke and the world came into being,
that in the future Haman was going to weigh out shekels against the Jewish people;
therefore, He arranged that the Jewish people’s shekels that were given to the Temple preceded Haman’s shekels.
And this is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 2a): On the first of Adar the court makes a public announcement about the contribution to the Temple of half-shekels that will soon be due, and about the need to uproot forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds of seeds from the fields now that they have begun to sprout.
Therefore, it turns out that the Jewish people give the shekels on the first of Adar, preceding the date of Haman’s planned destruction of the Jewish people and his own collecting of shekels.
The Parable of the Mound and the Ditch (Esther 3:11): two individuals with opposing problems - one had excess dirt and the other had a ditch that needed filling
R' Abba likens Ahasuerus and Haman's alliance to two individuals with opposing problems:
One had excess dirt,10 and the other had a ditch (חריץ) that needed filling. (I.e. each desired what the other wished to discard.)
When they happened to meet (נזדווגו), the ditch owner requested to buy the mound, but its owner, eager to rid himself of it, gave it away for free.11
״ויאמר המלך להמן:
הכסף נתון לך
והעם לעשות בו כטוב בעיניך״,
אמר רבי אבא:
משל דאחשורוש והמן למה הדבר דומה?
לשני בני אדם,
לאחד היה לו תל בתוך שדהו
ולאחד היה לו חריץ בתוך שדהו.
בעל חריץ אמר: מי יתן לי תל זה בדמים!
בעל התל אמר: מי יתן לי חריץ זה בדמים!
לימים נזדווגו זה אצל זה.
אמר לו בעל חריץ לבעל התל: מכור לי תילך!
אמר לו: טול אותו בחנם, והלואי!
Ahasuerus responded to Haman’s request: “And the king said to Haman:
The silver is given to you;
the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you” (Esther 3:11).
R' Abba said:
The actions of Ahasuerus and Haman can be understood with a parable; to what may they be compared?
To two individuals,
one of whom had a mound in the middle of his field
and the other of whom had a ditch in the middle of his field, each one suffering from his own predicament.
The owner of the ditch, noticing the other’s mound of dirt, said to himself: Who will give me this mound of dirt suitable for filling in my ditch; I would even be willing to pay for it with money,
and the owner of the mound, noticing the other’s ditch, said to himself: Who will give me this ditch for money, so that I may use it to remove the mound of earth from my property?
At a later point, one day, they happened to have met one another.
The owner of the ditch said to the owner of the mound: Sell me your mound so I can fill in my ditch.
The mound’s owner, anxious to rid himself of the excess dirt on his property, said to him: Take it for free; if only you had done so sooner.
Similarly, Ahasuerus himself wanted to destroy the Jews. As he was delighted that Haman had similar aspirations and was willing to do the job for him, he demanded no money from him.
The Influence of the King's Ring (Esther 3:10): Ahasuerus' act of removing his ring to approve Haman’s decree stirred the people to repentance more powerfully than all the prophets' warnings
R' Abba bar Kahana emphasizes that Ahasuerus' removal of his ring, signifying his approval of Haman’s decree, had a greater impact on the Jewish people than the prophecies of the 48 prophets and 7 prophetesses.12
While the prophets failed to bring the people to repentance,13 the existential threat posed by Haman’s decree succeeded in doing so.
״ויסר המלך את טבעתו״,
אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא:
גדולה הסרת טבעת יותר מארבעים ושמונה נביאים ושבע נביאות שנתנבאו להן לישראל,
שכולן לא החזירום למוטב,
ואילו הסרת טבעת החזירתן למוטב.
The verse states: “And the king removed his ring from his hand” (Esther 3:10).
R' Abba bar Kahana said:
The removal of Ahasuerus’s ring for the sealing of Haman’s decree was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people.
As, they were all unable to return the Jewish people to the right way,
but the removal of Ahasuerus’s ring returned them to the right way, since it brought them to repentance.
As described in the next sections, where the Talmud goes on to interpret the verse phrase by phrase. I cited the full verse above for reference.
קמאי - literally: “the first ones”.
ישנו - literally: “asleep”; a wordplay on Haman’s opening words “there is” (ישנו).
קרחה - literally: “bald spot”.
פרידה - pereida, a wordplay on mefurad (מפורד) of the verse.
פירות - literally: “fruit”; emphasizing that no real benefit can come from them.
דמפקי לכולא שתא בשהי פהי
“They spend (מפקי) the entire year in Shehi pehi (שהי פהי)”
The phrase Shehi pehi is traditionally interpreted as an acronym for “Shabbat hayom” ("It is Shabbat today") and “Pesaḥ hayom” ("It is Passover today").
I.e., Jews are always refraining from work due to their frequent holidays.
As wine touched by a non-Jew is prohibited. See my previous series on this prohibition.
Citing the first sentence in Mishnah Tractate Shekalim (Mishnah_Shekalim.1.1).
On this Mishnah tractate, see my Academia piece: “Mishnah Tractate Shekalim: Featuring Reader-Friendly Formatting, Summaries, and Tables“.
תל - a mound.
Likewise, Ahasuerus harbored animosity toward the Jews, and Haman, seeking their destruction, provided the opportunity. Ahasuerus willingly granted him the authority without demanding payment.
On this count, see Hebrew Wikipedia:
הנבואה במסורת ישראל, section “זיהוי הנביאים בחז"ל והמפרשים”.
מוטב - literally: “betterment".