אסתר, פרק ו׳, פסוק ג׳

After the historical records are read aloud, a sudden wave of concern washes over the king. He worries that the man who saved his life might not have been properly compensated. He even suspects that a reward might have been granted but simply accidentally omitted from the official archives [יוסף אבן יחיא, ביאור שטיינזלץ].

There are several explanations as to why the hero was not rewarded immediately after the rescue. Perhaps the king originally believed that exposing a rebellion to save the monarch was merely a basic civic duty expected of any citizen, not an act requiring a prize [אור חדש, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Alternatively, the delay stemmed from the savior's own modesty. He had asked the queen to conceal his identity, which naturally prevented him from receiving immediate recognition [חומת אנך]. Another perspective suggests that the king initially suspected the man's motives, assuming he acted solely for the queen's benefit, and therefore chose to bestow the reward upon his top minister instead [אלשיך]. Ultimately, however, this delay was orchestrated by God, ensuring that the compensation was held back for the most critical and opportune moment [אור חדש].

Seeking clarity, the king inquires about the specific type of compensation provided. He distinguishes between two forms of reward: public, immediate, and temporary respect, alongside wealth or a permanent, ongoing position of power in the government. Furthermore, because the man who saved him already held a respectable position sitting at the palace gate, the king needs to know if any reward was given specifically for the act of saving his life. He wonders if the current status was simply a result of other factors, such as the man's role as the queen's guardian [מלבי״ם, מנות הלוי]. By asking this, the king might also be considering a double reward: one for the rescue itself, and another for the loyalty and humility demonstrated by acting without any expectation of profit [חומת אנך].

The king's attendants deliver their response in the morning, as it was not customary for government ministers to visit the palace at night [אבן עזרא]. They firmly report that absolutely nothing was done for him, clarifying that his position at the palace gate predated the assassination plot, meaning he received no compensation for the rescue [מנות הלוי].

Yet, a deep political and personal motive hides behind their response. The attendants answer this way not out of affection for the savior, but out of a deep hatred for the king's highest minister. This animosity is subtly woven into their reply. First, they refer to the hero impersonally rather than by name, a clear sign of their lack of affection for him, as people naturally mention the names of those they love [נחל אשכול]. Second, their definitive statement that nothing was done is a deliberate exaggeration meant to provoke the king's anger against his senior officials. By doing so, they frame the chief minister, who is responsible for executing royal decrees, as grossly negligent in his duties [תורה תמימה]. Finally, their response carries a veiled sting directed at this same minister, hinting to the king that the honor and greatness rightfully belonging to the man who saved him were instead granted to someone else, a person who ultimately repaid the king's kindness with evil [אלשיך].