Rabbi Frand
זיכוי
הרבים לעילוי נשמת יהודית
נחמה בת ר'
מנחם
ע"ה
Defining
Victory / Diverse Motivations
Victory
Is Defined As Achieving One's Stated Objective
After
fighting all night with the guardian angel of Eisav, the malach
tells Yaakov "Let me go, for dawn has arisen." Yaakov
responds, "I will not send you free unless you bless me."
The malach
asks Yaakov his name. Yaakov answers that his name is Yaakov. The
malach
responds "Your name will no longer be called Yaakov; it will be
called Yisrael, for you have struggled with the Divine and with men
and have overcome." [Bereshis 32:27-30]
Yaakov
has struggled with Divine refers to his wrestling with the malach.
What does it mean "he has struggled with men and has overcome"?
Rashi says this refers to his struggles with Eisav and Lavan.
Yaakov has emerged victorious from his confrontations with both Eisav
and Lavan.
Rav
Moshe Soloveitchik, zt"l, (Lucerne/Zurich, Switzerland) asks an
interesting question. It is understandable to say that Yaakov
Avinu was victorious with his uncle Lavan. Lavan tried to cheat
him; he tried to rob him; he gave him trouble. At the end of
the day, at the end of the sojourn in the House of Lavan, Yaakov was
in fact victorious. Yaakov came out intact with his family and
with his children and he was very successful financially.
But
how can we term what happened in Parshas Vayishlach (in terms of the
encounter with brother Eisav) as a victory? Yaakov is afraid of
Eisav; he is subservient to him; he is servile; he bows down to him
continuously; he appeases him. This isn't victory. This
is appeasement! How can the Torah describe this as "Sarisa
im anashim vatuchal"
[you have striven with men and have overcome]? How is Yaakov
victorious if Yaakov had to pay Eisav off and act like a slave to
him?
Rav
Moshe Soloveitchik offers a very interesting thought: If we ask
this question, we do not understand the meaning of the word
"victory". Victory does not necessarily mean that one
vanquishes his enemy. The definition of victory is achieving
what one started out wanting to achieve. Victory is achieving
that goal regardless of how it is achieved. Yes, Yaakov could
have in fact tried to tough it out with Eisav, but it may have cost
him his family or part of his family. Yaakov Avinu was not
interested in boasting rights, such as "I showed my brother!
I really gave it to Eisav!" Yaakov was interested in
remaining alive. He was interested primarily in being a servant
of G-d. He was interested in preserving his family. At
the end of the day he achieved all of those goals.
Rav
Moshe Soloveitchik told this idea over to a couple that had come to
him for marital counselling. In marriage, as we all know, there
are many times disagreements between husband and wife. Often
the issue about which they argue becomes secondary to the larger
issue of "Who is going to win?" Each side digs in
their heels because they want to achieve victory. Rav Moshe
Soloveitchik told the couple that they should each define victory as
achieving Shalom
Bayis
[Domestic tranquility] in their home.
As
we all know, when peace dwells between husband and wife, the
Shechinah [Divine Presence] dwells between them. The desired
goal should not be "I want to go to my parents for Yom Tov and
you want to go to your parents for Yom Tov" or "I want to
do it this way and you want to do it that way". Victory is
when the Shechinah
dwells between them. If the way to achieve "Shechina
shreyua beineihem"
is in fact to give in, then that is not considered a defeat, it is
considered a victory.
This
does not only apply in relationships between husbands and wives, but
it applies in relationships between other people as well. When
people get into arguments (machlokes),
the desire to win is so overwhelming that, at the end of the day,
nothing else counts.
All
of us need to realize that when we have an adversary, the real
adversary is not the person with whom one argues; the adversary is
the yetzer
harah
[evil inclination] that tells us to prolong the machlokes.
Victory
is not achieved by getting one's way and not by vanquishing one's
opponent or not by getting him to admit that he is wrong. The
real victory is achieved when machlokes
ends and the yetzer
harah
is defeated. We must always keep in mind: The adversary
is not my landlord; the adversary is not my boss; and the adversary
is not my neighbor. The adversary is the yetzer harah that
continuously tells us "Don't give in. Don't be a wimp.
You need to stand up for your rights!"
A
Parting Of Company Between Comrades In Arms
The
Torah records the terrible incident that happened to Dinah, daughter
of Leah. She was violated by Shechem, son of Chamor.
Shimon and Levi, two of Yaakov's sons, were terribly upset about this
and wanted to defend the family honor. They devised a plan to
have all the males of the town circumcise themselves and when they
were weak, killed all of them.
It
would seem that Shimon and Levi were cut from the same cloth, so to
speak. They apparently had similar natures, similar desires,
and similar temperaments. Neither could stand for such
injustice towards a family member. Although Dinah was a sister
to all the brothers, it was Shimon and Levi who became comrades in
arms in devising and executing the plan for revenge.
In
Parshas Vayechi, when Yaakov blesses his children, he lumps Shimon
and Levi together. In fact, he seems to curse them rather than
bless them and tells them "therefore I will divide them in Jacob
and I will disperse them in Israel." [Bereshis 49:7] They
were the only two tribes that did not get their own portion of land
in Eretz
Ysrael.
Shimon had a portion of the inheritance that was granted to the Tribe
of Yehudah and the Tribe of Levi was dispersed among the different
cities of Israel. It thus seems that throughout their lifetime,
Shimon and Levi were two peas in a pod. They shared this common
temperament of zealousness and that's the way it was throughout their
lives.
And
yet we see that there was a demarcation and a parting of company
between Shimon and Levi. During the incident in the desert when
Zimri, Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, publicly preformed an act of
immorality, Pinchas, grandson of Aharon, of the Tribe of Levi took up
the mantle of zealousness and killed him. In that incident,
Chazal
tell us, the members of the Tribe of Shimon sided with their prince.
Ironically, a descendant of Levi took up arms here against his old
comrade in arms, his old ally from the battle of Shechem. In
this incident, they split and went on divergent paths.
The
Netziv makes an observation on the pasuk "And it came to pass on
the third day, when they were in pain, that two of Yaakov's sons
(shnei
bnei Yaakov),
Shimon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took his sword and they came
upon the city confidently, and killed every male."
[Bereshis 34:25]. The Netziv asks why the pasuk
needs to tell us that Shimon and Levi were "two of Yaakov's
sons" (shnei
bnei Yaakov)?
We can count!
The
Netziv answers that there were two motivating factors. Shimon
and Levi were upset, as the pasuk describes "for he had
committed an outrage in Israel by lying with a daughter of Yaakov –
and such a thing is not done" [Bereshis 34:7]. The Netziv
identifies the two factors as follows. Number one it was a
shame for the family (lishkav
es bas Yaakov).
Then there was another crime as well: "Ki
nevalah assah b'Yisrael"
– the holiness of the Jewish people was violated by this act of
immorality. One factor was Kavod
Mishpacha
[family pride] and one factor was Kedushas
Yisrael
[Jewish sanctity]. The Netziv suggests that they both did the
same act of revenge but the motivations of Shimon and Levi were
different. Shimon did it because of the affront to the family.
Levi did it because of the violation of the sanctity of the Jewish
nation, which must remain intact.
The
difference, says the Netziv, manifested itself generations later with
the incident of Zimri and Pinchos. Shimon was always more
interested in family honor and dignity. He was not motivated by
Kedushas
Yisrael,
Jewish sanctity. When the prince of the House of Shimon was
involved in an immoral act, the tribe members rallied around their
prince. They came to the defense of their family member.
Levi and his descendants did not focus on Kavod
Mishpacha
– but on the larger issue that was at stake here – Kedushas
Yisrael.
Shimon
and Levi parted company over Kedushas Yisrael versus Family Pride.
Shimon said "Family comes first. This is our man.
This is our prince. We must stand up for him and do what's
right for the family." Levi said "Shimon, sorry.
This is where we need to go our separate ways."
This
is Levi following his own approach throughout all of the Torah
(l'sheetoso).
When a Tribe was needed to fight the battle of the Golden Calf, it
was this very tribe. "Who is for G-d, gather around me.
And the entire Tribe of Levi gathered around him (Moshe)" [Shmos
32:26]. Levi had the genetic capacity – when it came to
defending the Holiness of Israel (Kedushas
Yisrael)
– to put aside all other considerations." This is what
Moshe alludes to at the end of the Torah when blessing Levi:
"The one who said of his father and mother, 'I have not seen
him'; his brothers he did not recognize and his children he did not
know; for they kept Your statement, and Your covenant, they would
preserve." [Devorim 33:9]
As
long as their agendas coalesced, Shimon and Levi were comrades in
arms. But at the incident of Pinchos and Zimri, there were two
divergent agendas – Kavod Mishpacha versus Kedushas Yisrael.
Levi came out on the side of Kedushas Yisrael and zealously defended
the Honor of G-d.