“Then Mordechai returned to the king’s gate, while Haman hurried home, in mourning, with his head covered.” (Esther 6:12)
The Gemara in Megillah (16a) writes: כי הוה נקיט ואזיל בשבילא דבי המן חזיתיה ברתיה דקיימא אאיגרא סברה האי דרכיב אבוה והאי דמסגי קמיה מרדכי שקלה עציצא דבית הכסא ושדיתיה ארישא דאבוה דלי עיניה וחזת דאבוה הוא נפלה מאיגרא לארעא ומתה - “As Haman was taking Mordechai along the street of Haman’s house, Haman’s daughter was standing on the roof and saw the spectacle. She thought to herself that the one who is riding on the horse must be her father, and the one walking before him must be Mordechai. She then took a chamber pot full of waste and cast its contents onto the head of her father, (whom she mistakenly took as Mordechai). When Haman raised his eyes in disgust afterward, and looked up at his daughter, she saw that he was her father. In her distress, she fell from the roof to the ground and died.”
The Gemara continues: והמן נדחף אל ביתו אבל וחפוי ראש אבל על בתו וחפוי ראש על שאירע לו - “But Haman hastened to his house, mourning, and having his head covered, ‘Mourning’ over the death of his daughter. ‘And having his head covered’ due to what had happened to him, as his head was full of filth.”
The Gemara says Haman was an avel [in mourning] over the fact that he lost his daughter and chofuy rosh, because his head was covered with waste. If, so, the pasuk should first mention he was chofuy rosh and only then say he was an avel – the reason Haman became an avel was because after his daughter realized she threw waste on him she fell off the roof, why does the pasuk mention it the other way around?
The Rogatchover once derech sachus [jokingly] offered an answer based on the Gemara in Bava Kama (17a). The Gemara says: אמר רבה זרק כלי מראש הגג ובא אחר ושברו במקל פטור דאמרינן ליה מנא תבירא תבר- “Rabbah says: If one threw a vessel from a roof and another came and broke it with a stick as it was falling, the one who hit it with the stick is exempt from all liability as we say to him that he broke a broken vessel”.
Tosfos speaks out: נראה דאם זרק אבן או חץ על הכלי ובא אחר וקדם ושברו דפשיטא דחייב ולא שייך כאן מנא תבירא תבר – “It seems that if a person throws a rock or arrow towards a vessel and another person comes along and shatters the vessel before the projectile strikes it, certainly the one who shattered the vessel (and not the one who threw the rock) is liable.” Tosfos says there is a difference between if one throws the vessel itself and if one throws a projectile towards the vessel.
We can apply this distinction to our case. Haman’s daughter poured waste on her father’s head, even before it got there, she realized what had happened and she immediately jumped off the roof. In regard to Haman’s daughter, since she threw herself off the roof, as soon as she jumped, she was already considered dead - like a vessel where we say that as soon as it’s thrown off the roof: מנא תבירא תבר – it’s already considered broken. In regard to Haman, however, whose daughter threw waste towards his head, the waste has the status of a projectile going towards a vessel and as long as it hasn’t got there, we don’t see it as if anything has happened. Therefore, as soon as Haman’s daughter jumped off the roof, she was already considered dead, however, Haman was only considered chofuy rosh, when the waste actually covered him. Therefore, the pasuk says he was aval, before it mentions that he was chofuy rosh.
However, we can ask on the above as perhaps we only apply the din of, מנא תבירא תבר, when it comes to matters involving money, however, in matters concerning aveilus who says we apply the above. The Gemara in Bava Kama (26b) discusses a case of: זרק תינוק מראש הגג – “Someone threw a child off a roof” and: בא אחר וקבלו בסייף – “Another came along and impaled him on his sword”. The Gemara discusses if the second person is liable for anything? The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira and the Rabbanon. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira maintains the second person is liable: מפני שקירב מיתתו – “Because he brought the victims death closer”. We see, that even though the child will inevitably die, as long as he is still alive if someone brings the child’s death nearer, he is liable. Although the Rabbanon argue and hold that the second one isn’t liable, it’s for a side issue, we see that we don’t say, מנא תבירא תבר, when it comes to aveilus.
Additionally, the above peshat doesn’t fit with the Gemara in Megillah. The Gemara says: שקלה עציצא דבית הכסא ושדיתיה ארישא דאבוה דלי עיניה וחזת דאבוה הוא נפלה מאיגרא לארעא ומתה – “She then took a chamber pot full of waste and cast its contents onto the head of her father, (whom she mistakenly took as Mordechai). When Haman raised his eyes in disgust afterward, and looked up at his daughter, she saw that he was her father. In her distress, she fell from the roof to the ground and died.” We see that only after the waste landed on Haman’s head and he looked up did his daughter jump, not before that. (Shalmay Todah)
