Defining Victory

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.