It’s a wild tale, and it's not exactly in the Book of Esther. For that, we need to turn to the Legends of the Jews, that incredible compilation of rabbinic lore gathered by Louis Ginzberg.
Ginzberg recounts a fascinating scenario, a kind of prequel to the Purim story as we know it. According to the legend, King Ahasuerus sent both Haman and Mordecai on a military campaign to an Indian city. Both were given similar commissions, each leading an army of sixty thousand soldiers.
Here's where things go sideways for Haman. He apparently wasn’t the most responsible quartermaster. He squandered all the provisions entrusted to him, leaving his troops without rations. Can you imagine the pressure?
Desperate, Haman turned to Mordecai, hoping to borrow food on interest. But Mordecai, remembering the biblical story of Jacob and Esau – brothers, yes, but also a cautionary tale about exploitation – refused to lend to Haman with interest.
The stakes were high, and Haman was backed into a corner. His solution? He sold himself into slavery to Mordecai.
Now, here’s the bill of sale, as the legend describes it:
"I, Haman, the son of Hammedatha of the family of Agag, was sent out by King Ahasuerus to make war upon an Indian city, with an army of sixty thousand soldiers, furnished with the necessary provisions. Precisely the same commission was given by the king to Mordecai, the son of Shimei of the tribe of Benjamin. But I squandered the provisions entrusted to me by the king, so that I had no rations to give to my troops. I desired to borrow from Mordecai on interest, but, having regard to the fact that Jacob and Esau were brothers, he refused to lend me upon usury, and I was forced to sell myself as slave to him. If, now, I should at any time decline to serve him as a slave, or deny that I am his slave, or if my children and children's children unto the end of all time should refuse to do him service, if only a single day of the week; or if I should act inimically toward him on account of this contract, as Esau did toward Jacob after selling him his birthright; in all these cases, a beam of wood is to be plucked out of the house of the recalcitrant, and he is to be hanged upon it. I, Haman, the son of Hammedatha of the family of Agag, being under no restraint, do hereby consent with my own will, and bind myself to be slave in perpetuity to Mordecai, in accordance with the contents of this document."
Talk about a binding contract! It even extends to Haman's descendants. And the penalty for breaking the agreement? Well, let's just say it foreshadows Haman's ultimate fate.
This legend, while not found in the biblical text, adds a layer of complexity to the story of Purim. It suggests a pre-existing dynamic between Haman and Mordecai, rooted in financial desperation and ethical choices. It makes you wonder how much of their later conflict was shaped by this earlier power imbalance. Was Haman's hatred fueled by resentment of his former enslavement? Did Mordecai harbor any guilt or unease about owning his rival?
Food for thought, isn't it? It just goes to show, there's always more to the story than meets the eye.