Esther 9:10

Est 9:10 The ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews, slew they; but on the spoil laid they not their hand.

Ver. 10. The ten sons of Haman] Of whom he had so boasted, Est 5:12, and bore himself bold, as believing that being so full of children, he should leave the rest of his substance to his babes, Psa 17:14. These ten likely were ringleaders to those Hamanists in Shushan, that durst appear in so bad a cause, being evil eggs of an evil bird. Non enim fieri ullo mode potest, ut ex me et Agrippina vir bonus nascatur, said Domitius, the father of Nero; It cannot be that of myself and Agrippina should come any good man. Kακου κορακος κακυν ωον (Dio. in Ner.). Haman brought up his sons to bring down his house; and was a parricide to them rather than a parent. His darling Vajezatha he corrected not, but cockered; no wonder, therefore, that he proved to be of a gastrill-kind (disquieting his own nest), of a viperous brood; and, therefore, though not hanged together with his father, and the whole family (as the Apocryphal additions of Esther, Esther 16:18, tell us, but not truly), yet slain in this insurrection at Shushan, together with the rest of his brethren; the good people crying out, as once they did at Rome, when the son of Maximinus, the emperor, was put to death, Ex pessimo genere ne catulum quidem habendum, Let not one whelp be left of so evil a litter.

But on the spoil laid they not their hand] Lest the king should be damnified, or themselves justly taxed of covetousness and cruelty. "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God," 1Co 10:32. Non semper omnia quae licent sunt facienda Not everything which is permitted should be done. (Lavat.). This is oft repeated in this chapter, to their great commendation; that although, by the king’s grant, they might have taken the spoil, Est 8:11, yet they did it not: 1. To show that they were God’s executioners, not thieves and robbers. 2. To gratify the king for his courtesy towards them, by leaving the spoil wholly to his treasury. 3. It is not unlikely, saith an interpreter (Fevard), that Mordecai and Esther had admonished them how ill Saul had sped with his spoils of the Amalekites, and Achan with his wedge of gold, which served but to cleave his body and soul asunder, and his Babylonish garment, which proved to be his burial sheet.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Est_9:10

But on the spoil laid they not their hand.

Leaving the spoilt

It is not always good to seize all the money to which one has a legal right. There are many cases in which a regard to ones own credit, and there are others in which a sense of duty, should bind up our hands from receiving what we might otherwise take without injustice. The kings edict gave the Jews the right to take the spoil of their enemies. If they had done so, the tongue of slanderers might have alleged that they had slain innocent persons to enrich themselves. (G. Lawson.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Est 9:10. But on the spoil laid they not their hand — The king had granted them leave to take it, Est 8:11, but they declined to do it; that it might appear what they did was not done out of malice or covetousness, but out of mere necessity, and according to the great law of self-preservation; that they might not so much as seem to desire any thing but their own safety; and that the king might have the greater kindness for them, in whose exchequer these goods were to come, if he pleased so to appoint, or to go to the children of such as were slain.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:10 But they did not take any plunder: Although taking plunder from those who attacked was permitted (8:11), the Jews did not want anything to do with the defiled wealth of Haman’s sons. Many years earlier, Abram had refused his portion of the plunder from the king of Sodom (Gen 14:21-23).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Whereby they declared that this was God’s just judgment upon the enemies of his Church, forasmuch as they sought not their own gain, but to execute his vengeance.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 10. The ten sons of Haman] Their names are given above. And it is remarked here, and in Es 9:16, where the account is given of the number slain in the provinces, that the Jews laid no hands on the spoil. They stood for their lives, and gave full proof that they sought their own personal safety, and not the property of their enemies, though the decree in their favour gave them authority to take the property of all those who were their adversaries, Es 8:11.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(10) On the spoil laid they not their hand.—This they might have done, according to the edict (Est_8:11).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. on the spoil they laid not their hand] although according to the terms of the edict (Est_8:11) they had a legal right to do this. Their desire was deliverance and also vengeance, but not material gain. Cp. the case of Abraham, when he refused to make himself liable to the imputation that he had been enriched by his overthrow of the king of Sodom’s enemies (Gen_14:23).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Goods, in any place, (Tirinus) that they might not appear to be actuated by the desire of riches, (Calmet) to fall upon the innocent. How often does this fatal cause blind Christian conquerors! The sons of Aman were married, and had separate establishments, chap. viii. 1.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Either because they were desirous it should come into the king’s treasury; or because they would leave it to their children, that it might appear that what they did that day was not done out of malice to their persons and families, or covetousness of their estates, but out of mere necessity, and by that great and approved law of self-preservation, and that they were ready to mix mercy with judgment and would not deal with their enemies so ill as it was apparent that their enemies intended to do against them.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. On the spoil laid they not their hand — The king’s decree granted them, as it had done their enemies, the right to the spoils, (Est_3:13; Est_8:11,) but they showed that they had no desire to enrich themselves by the goods of their fallen foes.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But, &c. - Because they would leave it to their children, that it might appear what they did was not done out of malice, or covetousness, but out of mere necessity, and by that great law of self-preservation.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The ten sons of Haman I saw in Seder Olam (ch. 29): These are the ten who wrote a [false] accusation against Judea and Jerusalem, as it is written in the Book of Ezra (4:6): “And in the reign of Ahasuerus, at the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the dwellers of Judea and Jerusalem.” Now what was the accusation? To stop those who ascended from the exile during the days of Cyrus, who had commenced to build the Temple, and the Cutheans slandered them and stopped them, and when Cyrus died, and Ahasuerus reigned, and Haman was promoted, he feared that those in Jerusalem would engage in the construction, and they sent in the name of Ahasuerus to the princes of the other side of the river to stop them.

but on the spoil they did not lay their hands so that the king should not cast an envious eye on their money.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.