Esth 9:13

“For the Jews that were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar,.... As they had on the thirteenth: and slew three hundred men at Shushan; the Targum adds, of the family of Amalek: but there is no reason to confine it to them; it respects all such as were the enemies of the Jews, and rose up against them; so that the whole number slain in Shushan were eight hundred persons, besides the sons of Human: but on the prey they laid not their hand; See Gill on Est 9:7.”

“Susan. Aman’s influence had been the greatest there, and had stirred up many enemies to the Jews, who were to be carefully sought out. (Haydock) — If we should consider only the dictates of clemency, we should think that the Jews were too eager in their revenge. But when we reflect, that their enemies had intended to destroy them all, and to seize their effects, we shall allow that they did not exceed the limits of justice, as they acted by royal authority, and abstained from touching any effects of the deceased. (Calmet) — In the capital, 800 men fell victims to their fury. But as the citizens of that place were probably the most guilty, we must not imagine that other cities would be treated with the like severity. (Haydock) — Gibbets, for a terror to the wicked. (Menochius) — This disgrace was not unusual, chap. xvi.18. Polycrates was treated thus. (Herodotus iii. 125.)”

“let it be granted to the Jews which are in Shushan to do to-morrow also according unto this day's decree--Their enemies adroitly concealing themselves for the first day might have returned on the next, when they imagined that the privilege of the Jews was expired; so that that people would have been surprised and slain. The extension of the decree to another day at the queen's special desire has exposed her to the charge of being actuated by a cruel and vindictive disposition. But her conduct in making this request is capable of full vindication, on the ground (1) that Haman's sons having taken a prominent part in avenging their father's fall, and having been previously slain in the melee, the order for the exposure of their dead bodies on the gallows was only intended to brand them with public infamy for their malice and hatred to the Jews; and (2) the anti-Jewish party having, in all probability, been instigated through the arts or influence of Haman to acts of spiteful and wanton oppression, the existing state of feeling among the natives required some vigorous and decisive measure to prevent the outbreak of future aggressions. The very circumstances of their slaying 800 eight hundred Jews in the immediate vicinity of the court (v. 6, 15) is a proof of the daring energy and deep-rooted malice by which multidues were actuated against the Jews. To order an extension, therefore, of the permissive edict to the Jews to defend themselves, was perhaps no more than affording an opportunity for their enemies to be publicly known. Though it led to so awful a slaughter of seventy-five thousand of their enemies, there is reason to believe that these were chiefly Amalekites, in the fall of whom on this occasion, the prophecies (Exo 17:14, 16; Deu 25:19) against that doomed race were accomplished.”

“Esther requested: "let it be granted to the Jews which are in Susa to do to-morrow also according to the decree of to-day (i.e., exactly as to-day), and let the ten sons of Haman be hanged upon the tree," i.e., their dead bodies nailed on crosses - majoris infamiae causa, according to Hebrew and Persian custom; comp. Deu 21:22 and the explanation of Ezr 6:11. On the motive for this request, see above, p. 194.”