"There was a famine in the land. Abram descended into Egypt to stay there for a while because the famine was very severe in the land." (Bereishit 12:10)
The famine has been identified by commentators as one of the tests of Abram (Avraham), but there are conflicting opinions about whether he passed the test and even about precisely what was the test.
Some say that Abram passed the test in his inner reaction. Rashi, for one, writes that there was "a famine in the land … to test him if he would take exception [doubt] the words of the Holy One Blessed Be He; for He had told him to go to the land of Canaan, and now He was inducing him to go out from it." Abram's trust in HaShem does not collapse in the face of the famine, according to Rashi, and so he succeeds. Gersonides agrees that Abram passes the test but seems to hold a different understanding of what is being tested. In contrast to Rashi concern with the inner reaction of Abram, the evidence of success here is given in Abram's outward reaction. In a didactic section of commentary, Gersonides praises Abram's move in accordance with the availability of food, descending to Egypt in order to protect his life and the lives of his house.
Other commentators, including R. Judah in the Zohar and the RaMBaN, say that Avraham failed the test. "Come and see. Because Abram went down to Egypt without first obtaining G-d's consent-for nowhere is it written that G-d told Abram to go down to Egypt-, therefore his descendants were enslaved to the Egyptians four hundred years" (The Zohar, 81b-82a). In these commentaries, as in Rashi's, the test is understood as a trial of Abram's trust. The RaMBaN writes, "[h]e should have trusted that G-d would surely save him and his wife and all his belongings, for G-d has the power to help and to save."
Yehuda HaLevi disagrees with an assumption made in the Zohar's commentary. The Zohar assumes that, since the written Torah does not say HaShem spoke with Abram telling him to go down to Egpyt, Abram was not told to go down to Egypt. HaLevi, in contrast, seems to assume that Avraham passed the test and accordingly that in fact he was commanded to go down to Egypt. "Neither did they [the patriarchs] leave it [the promised land] in times of dearth and famine except by G-d's permission" (Kuzari, part II, section 23).
Rav Hanan Schlesinger (who teaches here at Yeshivat Bat Ayin) identifies, in this disagreement over the interpretation of Avraham's actions, a conflict in the fundamental principles applied in reading the tzaddikim. Some say that we ought not criticize the tzaddikim. -How can we, who are on much lower levels, speak against the great, righteous heroes? Others say that if our intuitions lead us to conclude that a tzaddik made a mistake-say, David in taking Bathsheba and killing her husband, or Avraham in leaving the land he was commanded into-, then we should level our criticism and investigate to figure out why the tzaddik made a mistake. -Why would the Torah only give us for models perfect people when we need guidance in recovering from our mistaken actions and in refining ourselves?
There's a curious consequence of taking up the stance against criticism of the tzaddikim. If I adopt the principle of not criticizing those who are on much higher levels than myself, then, in holding this way, I-at least implicitly-criticize the great commentators who do criticize the tzaddikim. This problem might not be so troublesome. There seem to be people against criticism of tzaddikim who are on levels so high they can criticize those commentators who do criticize; and since these people are on such high levels, I can-and maybe should-pin my judgment on theirs and decide not to criticize. This solution, however, is problematic. How can I, who am situated on this low level, judge who is on a sufficiently high level to judge about commentary? So, adopting this stance, I don't escape possible errors in my judgment but merely displace the location of possible error.
Did Abram pass the test? Which of his middoth did HaShem test? Was it really a test? Can we criticize the tzaddikim? On what grounds can they be criticized? Is it helpful to do so? I invite you to engage in discussion of these issues in our online forum, http://www.batayin.org/forum/.
Shabbat Shalom!
(I am greatly indebted to R. Hanan Schlesinger who presented the sources in a shi'ur at Yeshivat Bat Ayin, 11 Cheshvon 5764.)