Ingredients for Success

How did she do it? How did Esther succeed in a scenario of imminent doom? Arguably, she is the central character in the megillah story, undertaking a plan reflecting sheer brilliance, a thorough knowledge of the psychological makeup of her enemies, and a touch of guile. How do we know Esther could pull this off? Chazal are bothered by this very question, as expressed in a cryptic aggadta found in the Talmud.

Our first introduction to Esther comes in the second chapter of the megillah (2:7):

“And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's daughter; for she had neither father nor mother, and the maiden was of beautiful form and fair to look on; and when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter.”

It is interesting that Esther in fact was referred to as Hadassah, a distinction we will soon see taken up in the Talmud. However, one must also question the fact that there is only one time in the entire story that Esther is ever referred to as Hadassah – and it happens to be this verse. What is the purpose of this additional, seemingly non-functional name?

The Talmud (Megillah 13a) offers a fascinating debate regarding both Esther’s dual names, as well as the overall understanding of her beauty:

“And he brought up Hadassah. She is called Hadassah and she is called Esther. It has been taught: Esther was her proper name. Why then was she called Hadassah? After the designation of the righteous who are called myrtles, for so it says, And he stood among the myrtle trees. R. Judah says: Hadassah was her name — Why then was she called Esther? Because she concealed [mastereth] the facts about herself, as it says, Esther did not make known her people or her kindred.R. Nehemiah says: Hadassah was her name. Why then was she called Esther? All peoples called her so after Istahar. Ben ‘Azzai said: Esther was neither too tall nor too short, but of medium size, like a myrtle. R. Joshua b. Korha said: Esther was sallow [“green”], but a thread of grace (chesed) was drawn about her.”

We see five different views listed here. The first three deal exclusively with the different names. The final two seemed to be more concerned with Esther’s appearance. What exactly is the argument here between these various opinions? Furthermore, some of these explanations are quite difficult to ascertain. For example, why is Esther singled out for what seems to be quite a simple task – keeping her identity to herself? Another problem lies in the concept of “Istahar”; Rashi explains that this is an allusion to her beauty (loosely related to a beauty associated with the moon). Why is this significant? The last two opinions are as well difficult to understand. According to Ben Azzai, Esther was “medium” (beinoni), a strange reference to her supposed physical beauty. This characterization flies in the face of what is recorded in the megillah, namely that Esther was “yefas toar vetovas mareh”. The above quote is even more problematic when compared to what R Yehoshua ben Karcha offers us. It is quite hard to imagine Achashverosh being drawn to someone with a “green” appearance, a description commonly associated with nausea. Whatever this seeming physical malady was, this “thread of chesed”, which seems to have some Divine origin, seems to be the solution. What idea is being presented here?

When faced with such an obscure aggadta, it sometimes helps to develop one overall concept, an underlying idea that ties the various opinions together. In this instance, it is possible that what is being discussed here are the various “ingredients” that were responsible for Esther’s success. As we know from the story that unfolds, Esther possessed a sharp mind, a keen insight into the psychological makeup of her adversaries, and a beauty that aided her in accomplishing her objectives. She needed all of these to ensure the final result of saving the Jewish people. To a greater degree, these traits and features could be viewed as the needed components of any great Jewish leader facing such a crisis. These points are fleshed out by the various opinions cited in the Talmud.

As mentioned above, the first three opinions deal with Esther’s other name, Hadassah. It is clear Hadassah was not a practical name, as after its initial mention, it was never used again in the megillah. The existence of the “other” name seems to serve as a vehicle to a specific idea, a hint being offered to us that there is much that lies underneath the surface of this orphan. The first opinion is the easiest to understand. Esther possessed the qualities of a tzadik, and, as alluded to in the verse cited by the Talmud, such a person merits a Divine intervention. The tzadik is someone who is righteous, who is perfected, who lives a life in line with God’s will, and who, via his/her level, naturally warrants God’s attention. When facing a crisis that stands to affect the Jewish people, the qualities of the tzadik are essential in order to ensure success. This would seem to be laying out the fundamental trait necessary in all situations where the Jewish people are in danger. It could be, then, that the next two opinions focus on the traits she had that were pivotal for this specific crisis, the threat of Haman. The first of these two opinions maintains that the name Hadassah alludes to her ability to hide her identity. Without question, this trait was a huge part of the success of the overall plan. Esther never really let on to anyone about who she actually was. To be able to pull this off is nothing short of astonishing. It would indicate a supreme control of her psyche, a thorough knowledge of her own personal psychological makeup. Facing an adversary like Haman required someone who mastered her own emotions, as the slightest slip could mean disaster.  The final opinion again seems to be focused on a trait necessary for this specific scenario. We see that the nations of the world related to Esther as a unique beauty, a description beyond the one contained within the megillah. She wasn’t just beautiful – she had an objective beauty to her. No doubt, her physical appearance was critical to ensuring the Jewish people withstand the coming crisis. Esther understood how this feature could be a powerful vehicle.

After this final opinion regarding the issue of her primary name, two more opinions emerge concerning her appearance. It is possible that these supplemental opinions serve to expand the effect of her beauty on others. Looking at the first opinion, we are struck by the clear contradiction between this description and what is cited in the megillah. How can this be resolved? The first step is to consider that being tall or short here refer to standing out in some obvious way. If someone is tall, relative to others, a natural psychological feeling emerges in the viewer, in addition to the overall consideration of the person’s appearance. Many times, a unique physical feature in a person, while being part of his/her beauty, can produce a psychologically adverse reaction in the observer. Esther was beautiful, but there was nothing about her beauty that produced any sense of discomfort, insecurity, or any other negative emotions. This leads to the other possibility, that of Esther being “green”, yet surrounded by this “thread of chesed”. It is difficult to ascertain why the color green is the specific color chosen. Obviously, if she looked sickly, she would not stand a chance to become the queen, and would contradict the description of her in the megillah (although the Gra does attempt to resolve this – see 2:15). One possibility is that she actually had some type of exotic appearance (a similar interpretation offered by various commentaries when discussing “kushi”). In other words, she was beautiful, but it was a subjective, rather than objective beauty. This does not really help us in answering the main question. This is where the concept of the thread comes into the picture. The Talmud never says she was engaged in acts of chesed. Instead, she “wore” it, an indication there was an intimate association with her and chesed. It could be then that this is again referring to a specific effect she had on other people. While the person engaged in an action of chesed ideally should act in a selfless manner, the recipient no doubt will feel a certain self-value and security. According to this last position, her beauty was critical, but equally important was the positive emotional impact Esther had on other people, a product of her beauty. People felt around Esther the way someone would feel if chesed was done to them. Thus, the debate between these last two opinions hinges on whether her beauty did not produce any adverse emotions in people who saw her, or if in fact it had a positive effect.

These ideas presented in the Talmud help answer the original questions posed. Indeed, Esther possessed the traits necessary for success, and it made perfect sense why this person was able to step forward and save the Jewish people from annihilation.