REACTING TO SUCCESS AND FAILURE - AVRAHAM

There are many aspects of Avraham Avinu’s greatness that are discussed a great deal, in particular his perfection in the trait of kindness. However, on deeper examination we see other, more subtle facets of his greatness. Throughout his life, Avraham underwent numerous difficult challenges and setbacks. Some of these tests ended with great success but others did not necessarily culminate in the way that Avraham would have hoped. The way in which he reacted to these events teaches us tremendous lessons in how to respond to both success and adversity.

Surely the most difficult challenge that Avraham ever faced in his eventful life was that of the Akeida, whereby he was commanded to slaughter his only son despite having no understanding of the reason for doing so. Finally, at the end of the arduous test he is told by the Malach that he has passed the test and thereby merited the blessing that his descendants will be like the stars of the Heavens. Avraham’s measure of success is further elucidated by a Yalkut Shimoni quoted by Rav Yissochor Frand shlita. When Avraham was about to slaughter his son at the Akeida, the Malach called to him, “Avraham,Avraham” Why did the Malach say his name twice? The Yalkut explains that there are two images of each person - his worldly image and his heavenly image; his worldly image is what he makes of himself in this world, and his heavenly image represents what he could become if he fulfill his potential. Avraham, after he passed the last of his ten tests, finally reached his complete potential and consequently his two images became identical. The Malach mentioned the two ‘Avrahams’ together, the Avraham of olam hazeh and the ideal Avraham of olam haba, indicating that the two of them were now the same. Thus at this point in time Avraham had reached the pinnacle of greatness, indeed he had attained spiritual perfection.

How would a person react after such a momentous event? A little pride in his achievements would be understandable; Or at least a feeling of elation and celebration would be reasonable. Yet Avraham’s reaction was very different. The verse immediately after the Akeida tells us: “Avraham returned to his young men, and they stood up and went together to Beer Sheba and Avraham dwelled in Beer-Sheba.” The commentaries note the Torah’s wording that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, Eliezer and Yishmael. This wording denotes a sense of being on the same level or with the same feelings. Thus, here the Torah is telling us that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, in that just as they had not undergone any great experience at the Akeida, so too Avraham travelled as if he had not faced and passed the most difficult test that any man had ever faced. He felt no sense of pride and even no sense of celebration, rather he returned to Beer-Sheba to continue his holy work of teaching the world about the Divine Presence.

Avraham’s greatness with regard to the aftermath of the Akeida is further demonstrated by his conduct in the subsequent incident discussed by the Torah; that of his dealings with the wily Efron in his efforts to acquire the Maaras HaMachpeila as a burial place for his wife, Sarah Imanu. Rabbeinu Yonah makes a seemingly baffling point – the Mishna in Avos tells us that Avraham faced ten extremely difficult tests, and most commentators explain that the Akeida was the final test. However, Rabbeinu Yonah writes that Avraham’s difficulties in finding a burial plot for Sarah constituted his final test. Rav Yissochor Frand shlita asks how it is fathomable that after the ultimate challenge, that of the Akeida, there could be yet another challenge that Avraham needed face – surely the Akedia represented the pinnacle of human achievement and no further tests were necessary!

He answers that of course the Akeida was the most difficult test that Avraham faced, however the final test offered a different challenge. It is human nature that after a person succeeds in a difficult endeavor he may have a tendency to want to rest on his laurels, and to feel that he has a right to relax a little. After enduring the incredible challenges involved in the Akeida it would have been understandable for Avraham Avinu to hope for a little respite. Accordingly, when he was immediately faced with the tragic death of his wife and the subsequent difficulties in acquiring a burial plot for her, he could have easily become frustrated with the course of events and harbored feelings of complaints towards HaKadosh Baruch Hu. However, Rabbeinu Yonah teaches us, he succeeded in this very different kind of test, by accepting that even after he reached his full potential, he was still liable to face new challenges. This teaches us a further dimension in Avraham’s greatness in his response to success. Not only did he remain humble, but he also remained prepared to face whatever new challenges could arise.

We have thus far seen how Avraham reacted to success without letting it affect his humility or hindering his Avodas HaShem. Yet how did Avraham react on the rare occasions where he did not succeed in his endeavors? One such instance occurred when HaShem informed Avraham of His plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of their evil behavior. Avraham launched into a lengthy attempt to rescue the people of Sodom. He argued that if there were fifty righteous people then HaShem should save the whole city, and so on until it became clear that there weren’t even ten. Once this had been determined and the decree had been issued the Torah makes a seemingly superfluous comment. “HaShem departed when He had finished speaking to Avraham, and Avraham returned to his place.” What is the significance of the fact that Avraham returned to his place; what lesson is it teaching us?

The Steipler Gaon zt”l addressed this question in making a vital point to Rav Elazar Shach zt”l. On one occasion the Mo’etzes Gedolei HaTorah made a certain decision in opposition to the views of Rav Shach and the Steipler. The matter was of such importance to Rav Shach that he felt a great sense of despair and his spirits were broken. Rav Shlomo Lorincz zt”l writes that soon after this incident he visited the Steipler who asked him how Rav Shach was faring. He answered that Rav Shach was thoroughly dejected and did not know which way to turn. So great was his disappointment that he said he had no more strength to continue. The Steipler listened to this sadly and said, “I would like you to go to Rav Shach for me and tell him the following.” The Steipler proceeded to ask the aforementioned question as to the significance of the fact that “Avraham returned to his place.” He answered with the following words. “What this means is that the Torah wants to teach us – tell Rav Shach this – that when one has done everything in order to save a situation and the goal has not been achieved one must implement, ‘And Avraham returned to his place’. One has to go back and resume the activity that one is obligated to engage in, continuing as though nothing untoward has happened. Under no circumstances whatsoever does lack of success justify a person giving way and being unable to carry on his holy work. Repeat this, word for word, on my behalf. He has done everything without missing a single detail, therefore he must also fulfill, ‘And Avraham returned to his place,’ and continue leading Klal Yisroel as before.” Rav Lorincz reports that when he conveyed this message to Rav Shach, Rav Shach replied that he accepted this lesson and would return to his work on behalf of Klal Yisroel.

The Steipler’s astute observation demonstrates Avraham’s attitude to failure – he recognized that he did his utmost to achieve his goal but when he failed he did not let that failure prevent his holy work. By the fact that a man as great as Rav Shach faced great difficulty in overcoming this challenge, it is clear that this is a test that can affect everyone. Avraham’s reaction to his setback teaches us the proper way to react to failure.

We have seen yet another facet to the greatness of Avraham Avinu – he excelled in his reaction to both success and failure. Perhaps the underlying trait that enabled him to succeed in all the tests that we have mentioned was his great humility. That taught him not to become haughty or complacent in the face of success, and not to despair when, through events beyond his power, he could not fulfill his goal.

TAMIM TEHIYEH - SHOFTIM

The Torah tells us “You should go with innocence before Hashem, your G-d .” Rashi explains that a person should accept the lot that Hashem gives him without trying to discern the future, rather he should accept everything with love and innocence. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l would make an inference from the passuk; it says that one should act with innocence with Hashem, but not with other people. During a person’s dealings with others he should use great wisdom and thought and not let himself be duped by untrustworthy people. The example he would bring was that of Yaako Avinu, who was called an ‘ish tam’ and yet acted with great cunning in his dealings with Lavan. On one occasion a number of B’nei Torah complained to the Chofetz Chaim about how they had been tricked out of a large amount of money by dishonest merchants. He told them this passuk and noted that since they had spent so much time in Yeshiva they had become used to going in temimus with Hashem. Their error, however, was that they had thought that it is also possible to go in temimus with their fellow man as well .

This lesson of the Chofetz Chaim zt”l seems very logical, however it needs to be reconciled with the mitzvo of “b’tzedek tishpot es amisecha:” This mitzvo teaches us that we must strive to judge our fellow man favorably, even when it seems that he is acting in a negative way. How is it possible to judge people favorably whilst simultaneously being suspicious of their righteousness? One could answer simply that we must, in our minds, judge our fellow favorably, but at the same time, be careful to take practical precautions to avoid being harmed in the eventuality that the other person is not trustworthy . There are two problems with this approach: Firstly, it seems almost impossible to adopt such a seeming contradictory attitude to the same person - how can a person be expected to genuinely judge his fellow favorably and simultaneously treat him in a suspicious manner ? Secondly, it seems difficult to say that the Torah should command us to give the benefit of the doubt to people of whom there is genuine reason to treat with distrust.

In order to reconcile these concepts it is necessary to analyze the mitzvo of “b’tzedek tishpot es amisecha” on a deeper level. There are many stories in which a person seemed to be acting in a clearly negative way and yet in truth there was some wild explanation for their behavior. Such stories imply that the mitzvo to judge favorably requires that we always strive to find the benefit of the doubt even when doing so seems to defy logic. In truth, this does not seem to be an accurate understanding of what this mitzvo involves.

The Rishonim write that there are different categories of people for whom there are different requirements of judging favorably . There is the ‘tzadik’, the ‘beinoni’, the ‘rasha’ and the ‘eino makiro’, (stranger): The tzadik is someone who hardly ever commits a sin - with regards to him we must judge him favorably even if his actions lean very strongly to a negative interpretation: The beinoni is a person who generally avoids sin but on occasion does falter - we must judge him favorably in situations that could be perceived equally in a positive and negative way, however when his actions seem negative we are not commanded to judge him favorably . The rasha regularly sins and as a consequence we need not judge him favorably even when his actions seem positive. Indeed, Rabbeinu Yonah says that we should judge him unfavorably ! An eino makiro is someone that we do not know - there is no obligation with regards to judging him .

What is difficult about all the above gedarim is that there is no allusion to them in the Torah or Chazal - the Torah makes no differentiation between different people, it simply tells us to judge our fellow favorably, implying that this applies equally to every Jew. Where did the Rishonim see such chilukim between different kinds of people?! My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that the mitzvo of judging favorably does not mean that we should irrationally judge every act in a positive way, rather it is telling us that we should judge people in a logical, reasonable and fair manner; a person may have a tendency to judge others in a harsh manner and not give them a fair judgement, the Torah comes and tells us that this is wrong, however it does not instruct us to judge people in an illogical fashion. Based on this understanding it becomes clear why the Rishonim gave different gedarim to different people: With regard to a tzaddik, even if he does something that seems like an aveiro is logical to assume that he did not do anything wrong. For example, if one sees a person who is known to be very strict on eating kosher, going into a non-kosher restaurant, it is logical to assume that he is not going in, in order to eat non-kosher food. Furthermore, even if we see him putting the food into his mouth it is more logical to say that he needs to eat in order to save his life and therefore it is permitted for him to eat this non-kosher food at this time. In contrast, when a rasha does something that seems positive, it is nevertheless logical that there is a negative way of interpreting his behavior. The same logic applies to the other categories - when it is logical to judge someone favorably the Torah requires that we do so, but when it is not, then there is no Torah obligation to judge favorably and there are even times when one should judge his fellow unfavorably.

With this understanding we can now reconcile the mtizvo of judging favorably with the Chofetz Chaim’s teaching that people should not be naïve. The mitzvo does not tell us to be naïve, in contrast it instructs us to be realistic and at times tells us that we should judge people in an unfavorable manner. Thus, when we are dealing with people in business, for example, ‘b’tzedek tishpot’ teaches us that we should not be naïve, rather we should judge people fairly and accurately. As we noted before, it is important to remember that this in and of itself is no easy task - a person’s natural leaning may be to judge people in a unfair fashion. This, the Torah tells us, is wrong, rather we should strive to see people in a fair light.

MISHLOACH MANOS AND MATANOS L’EVYONIM - PURIM

One of the unique features of Purim, are the mitzvos concerning giving to one’s fellow Jew. We are obligated to give mishloach manos and matanas la’evyonim . There is no other festival in which there is a similar obligation of chessed (kindness). What is the connection between these mitzvos and the story of Purim?

This question can be answered by analyzing of some of the passukim in the Megilla. When Haman approaches Achashverosh with his plan to destroy the Jewish people, he outlines why they do not deserve to be kept alive. “And Haman said to King Acharshverosh, there is one nation scattered and dispersed (mefurad) among the people.” The commentaries explain that Haman was making an accurate criticism of the Jewish people, one which helped convince the King that they would not be protected by HaShem. Haman was arguing that the Jewish people were not unified and accordingly, they were lacking the Divine protection that they merited when they were unified.

Accordingly, one of the most important ways of removing the decree of destruction from Above , was to renew the sense of unity amongst the Jewish people. Rav Yonasan Ebeshitz zt”l explains that this was the intention of Esther when she instructed Mordechai how to overturn the decree. “Go, assemble all the Jews to be found in Shushan, and fast for me.” She recognized that only a unified effort could overturn the decree.

Indeed, this approach succeeded. The Vilna Gaon zt”l demonstrates in a number of passukim, that the Jewish people displayed great unity when they finally took the upper hand against their enemies. “The rest of the Jews throughout the King’s provinces gathered together and defended themselves (amad al nafsham)..” The Vilna Gaon notes the word ‘amad’ is in the singular form, as opposed to the plural form of ‘amdu’. This, he writes, demonstrates that they were completely unified, as if they were one entity. Soon after, the Megilla informs us that Mordechai instituted the festival of Purim. In reaction, it tells us that, “The Jews undertook (kibel) to continue the practice they had begun..” Again, the word, ‘kibel’ is in the singular form, further demonstrating that they were unified. Finally, the Sifsei Chaim adds a similar explanation to the famous verse in which, according to Chazal , the Jewish people willingly accepted the Torah: “They fulfilled (kiymu) and accepted (kiblu) upon themselves…to observe these two days…” The would kiblu is read in the plural form, however it is written in the singular ‘kibel’, again alluding to the fact that they accepted the Torah in complete unity.

With this understanding of the significance of unity in the Purim story, it is easy to understand why Chazal instituted mitzvos in the realm of bein adam lechaveiro. Purim reminds us of the importance of unity amongst the Jewish people. Giving to one’s fellow Jew is an excellent tool to help us care more about them. Moreover, it is not enough for a person to give to one’s friends alone, he must not ignore those who are far less fortunate - the destitute people who are easily forgotten about. Therefore, in addition to Mishloach Manos, Chazal instructed us in matanos la‘evyonim..

We now understand that disunity was a key factor in the decree against the Jews, and how increasing unity played a significant role in the removal of the decree. However, it remains unclear as to why the Jews were so lacking in unity at this time, and how they were able to rectify this flaw. The Sifsei Chaim addresses this issue by bringing the explanation of Rabbeinu Yonah on a passuk in Mishlei. Shlomo HaMelech writes: “Taava yevakesh, nifrad ” Rabbeinu Yonah explains this to mean that a person who follow his desires, will become alienated from his friends. This is because natural desires are inherently self-serving and clash with the desires of everyone else. Accordingly, a person who only cares about satisfying his desires will have divergent goals from the people around him. Consequently, a society that is full of such people will not possess any unity. Haman understood that the Jewish people had become influenced by the ideologies and desires of the various nations that they dwelled in, accordingly he stressed to the King that the Jewish people were “spread out and dispersed among the nations.” Sifsei Chaim explains that he deliberately emphasized the fact that they were among the nations, because this was the cause of their disunity. Each Jew’s goals were influenced by those of the surrounding societies, therefore there was no unity amongst the Jewish people as a whole.

Rabbeinu Yonah continues by explaining that the key to unity is a common goal - that of serving HaShem. The Jewish people can only achieve their role in the world by sharing this common purpose. When this takes place, problems of machlokes and damaging competition dissipate, allowing the people to focus all their efforts on doing HaShem’s will. This is what famously occurred before the Giving of the Torah at Har Sinai. Chazal tell us that they were unified to the extent that they were “like one man with one heart”. It was no coincidence that they attained this level of harmony at Har Sinai. It enabled them to focus all their energies on accepting the Torah; had they been involved in disputes, they would have been unable to properly accept the Torah.

Esther recognized that the disunity of the Jewish people was caused by their divergent goals, and that taiva played a key role in causing this disunity. Accordingly, she instructed that the people should gather together in the context of a fast. As well as the obvious reasons for fasting, abstaining from physical enjoyment can weaken a person’s attachment to his physical desires and help him focus on Avodas HaShem. In this way, it seems that the fast helped the people reconnect with their true goal of doing HaShem’s will.

Similarly, it seems that it is no coincidence that the unity they Jews achieved when they fought their enemies, came about after fasting on the 13th of Adar. Again, the fasting strengthened their ability to weaken their own selfish desires and focus on the single goal of fulfilling Ratson HaShem. Morever, this level of unity enabled them to re-accept the Torah just as they had done at Sinai.

With this insight into the connection between weakening of taiva and unity, we can now attain a deeper understanding of mishloach manos and matanos la’evyonim. In order to attain the level of unity that the Jews reached, we must detach ourselves from our natural taivas. That is always a difficult task, and this is even more so, the case on Purim when we greatly involve ourselves in the physical world. Giving gifts and money to our fellow Jew is an excellent way of ensuring that we do not get pulled down into the selfishness that results from following one’s taiva. By thinking about, and giving to, other people, we can ensure that our eating and drinking help bring us closer to HaShem and not further from Him.

Purim is a time when we remember the importance of unity to the Jewish people. May we merit to focus all our energies on the common goal of fulfilling HaShem’s ratson.