In praise of the ego?

The fourth chapter of the tractate of Avot features two mishnayot that address the same subject: humility. At Avot 4:4 Rabbi Levitas of Yavneh teaches:

מְאֹד מְאֹד הֱוֵי שְׁפַל רֽוּחַ, שֶׁתִּקְוַת אֱנוֹשׁ רִמָּה

Be very, very humble, for the hope of man is the worm.

Later, at Avot 4:12, Rabbi Meir teaches:

הֱוֵי מְמַעֵט בְּעֵֽסֶק וַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה, וֶהֱוֵי שְׁפַל רֽוּחַ בִּפְנֵי כָל אָדָם, וְאִם בָּטַֽלְתָּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה, יֶשׁ לָךְ בְּטֵלִים הַרְבֵּה כְּנֶגְדָּךְ, וְאִם עָמַֽלְתָּ בַּתּוֹרָה הַרְבֵּה, יֶשׁ שָׂכָר הַרְבֵּה לִתֶּן לָךְ

Engage minimally in business and occupy yourself with Torah. Be humble before every man. If you neglect the Torah, you will have many excuses for yourself; if you toil much in Torah, there is much reward to give to you.

Two obvious questions to ask here are (i) why do we need two mishnayot to teach the same point—that we should be humble—and (ii) why does Rabbi Levitas impress upon us the need to be very, very humble while Rabbi Meir is content to caution us only with regard to ‘entry level’ humility?

We could seek to strengthen the first question by suggesting that there is actually no difference between “humble” and “very, very humble”, humility being by definition the absence of ga’avah, pride or arrogance. If one possesses any degree of ga’avah, even a small amount, one is not humble. Rambam’s seminal discussion of the quality of humility (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De’ot 2:3) does not however support this answer: by maintaining that one should go to the opposite extreme from pride and arrogance rather than adopt a midway path between pride and humility, he recognises the existence of a gradated form of humility.

However, even assuming that there is no difference between the types of humility posited by Rabbi Levitas and Rabbi Meir, we can still appreciate why both teachings are needed. By citing man’s aspiration as being no more loftier than the worms that will consume his body after his death, Rabbi Levitas is referring to man’s humility before God, who gives life and takes it away—and whose love extends to all His creatures, including the worms that will consume us all. Rabbi Meir however refers to a different focus: that of humankind towards one another. Though we may spend our lives comparing ourselves with others and consider ourselves more important than many of them, we should scale down our self-assessment and realise how little, in the great scheme of things, we are really worth.

Turning to the second question, I found a thought-provoking observation by Rabbi Norman Lamm in Foundation of Faith, a collection of Avot-related perspectives edited by his son-in-law Rabbi Mark Dratch. This observation builds neatly on our answer to the first question:

“[W]hereas R. Levitas argues that in effect man has no reason to assert an ego, R. Meir acknowledges the existence of the ego and its legitimacy. Man possesses self-worth despite death. For R. Levitas, humility is a metaphysical judgement based upon man’s physical condition: since he will physically disintegrate, he has no metaphysical self worthy of esteem. R. Levitas thus negates the ego. For R. Meir, however, humility is an ethical-social obligation. R, Meir affirms the ego, with limitations. Finally, while R. Levitas is absolute in his denial of the ego, R. Meir urges that it be limited only “bifnei kola dam, before every man”., that is, man should not manifest arrogance in his human relations. He should seek out the ways in which to convince himself of the worth of his fellow man, even the superiority of his neighbor over himself, but he need not deny his self-worth”.

Rabbi Lamm goes on to examine the practical significance of this distinction in greater detail. There is something anachronistic in his explanation, in that the use of terms such as ‘ego’ and ‘self-worth’ would have been unfamiliar to Rabbis Levitas and Meir. Having said that, if we accept Rabbi Lamm’s explanation here, we must also accept that the two Tannaim had an understanding of the human psyche that was deep enough to embrace the concepts that lie beneath these modern labels.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Naughty to be haughty

Our previous post focused on the concept of achdut (unity, togetherness), asking why the word does not appear in Pirkei Avot. But it's not the only thing that is ostensibly missing.

Jewish tradition makes no secret of the fact that we should be humble, not haughty. גאוה (ga’avah, “haughtiness”, “arrogance”, “pride”, “conceit”) seemingly has virtually no place at all in the repertoire of acceptable Jewish behavioural characteristics.

Essentially, there is no excuse for puffing ourselves up with airs and graces. In recent years rabbis, notably R’ Chaim Friedlander (Siftei Chaim: Middot veAvodat Hashem) and R’ Shalom Noach Berezovky (Netivot Shalom) have repeatedly hammered home the dangers of cultivating this undesirable personal quality, which is as repugnant to God as it is to ourselves. As the Talmud teaches us:

R' Hisda said, and according to another version it was Mar Ukva: Every man in whom is haughtiness of spirit, the Holy One, blessed be He, declares, I and he cannot both dwell in the world; as it is said: Whoever privately slanders his neighbour, him will I destroy; he who has a haughty high look and a proud heart I will not tolerate:— read not “he” [I will not tolerate], but “with him” I cannot [dwell] (Sotah 5a).

So why does ga’avah go unmentioned in Pirkei Avot? If we dip beneath the surface of the words of Avot we find that the concept is not ignored.

In the first place, the Tannaim take a positive stance. Rather than discourage arrogance and pride, they encourage humility. Since it is not in practice possible for a person to be characterized both as humble and as arrogant, the endorsement of the one automatically entails the rejection of the other.

Secondly, commentators on Avot throughout the ages have used the language of Avot in order to condemn arrogance.  The Bartenura and the commentary ascribed to Rashi both take the opportunity to warn against ga’avah in the context of Avot 4:4 (where R’ Levitas Ish Yavneh urges people to be extremely humble), as do the Rambam, Rabbenu Yonah, the Meiri, the Abarbanel and R’ Chaim Volozhiner. There are other opportunities to preach against ga’avah elsewhere in Avot. For example the Maharam Shik uses Avot 5:1 as a peg upon which to hang his comments about God creating the world with 10 utterances rather than a single one: by not showing off, as it were, God is demonstrating His own form of modesty or humility, setting an example that we too should emulate by avoiding ga’avah when we contemplate our own achievements.

None of this explains why none of the teachings of the Tannaim and Amoraim found in Avot mention the g-word. Possibly Rebbi, when redacting the tractate, considered that the subject had already been sufficiently covered by the mishnayot and baraitot on humility. If anyone has a better explanation, I do hope that they come forward and share it.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Arrogance and humility: the dream team?

It is fair to say that, on the whole, arrogance gets a pretty bad press at the hands of Jewish sages. It's a shame that there's not much demand for arrogance, since it is usually in plentiful supply. Humility, in contrast, is highly praised for its efficacy both in our dealings with God and for how we relate to our fellow humans—but it would regrettably appear to be in short supply.

In his work Elef HaMagen, Rabbi Eliezer Papo (better known as the Pele Yo’etz) tells the story of a man who, when rudely insulted by another, refused to respond to this provocation. When asked how he managed what must have looked like a huge feat of self-restraint, he explained as follows:

When the man insulted me, I was not alone. On one side of me stood Arrogance, and he said to me ”how can you find it within yourself to pay any attention to this person? Surely it is well beneath your dignity to retaliate against a meaningless attack by a worthless individual! Treat him with disdain and just ignore him”. To the other side of me stood Humility, who said to me “is this not the time to demonstrate how meek and humble you are, bearing in mind the wise words of our sages who say that it is far preferable to be among the insulted than to be classed among those who do the insulting”.

The Pele Yo’etz ties this in with the first two teachings of Yehoshua ben Perachya (Avot 1:6):

“Aseh lecha rav, ukoneh lecha chaver”: עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וּקְנֵה לְךָ חָבֵר

These words are usually translated along the lines of “make for yourself a teacher (or master) and acquire for yourself a friend”. The word rav has the additional meaning of “great”, so the first part of this teaching can be taken at a pinch as meaning “make greatness for yourself”, i.e. “make yourself arrogant”. As for kaneh lecha chaver, the word kaneh—which means “acquire”—has the same three-letter root (קנה) as kanah, a reed. The reed is a symbol of humility since it bows and bends in the breeze. So the man who faces insult and abuse but follows the path to which this Mishnah alludes is able to summon up both arrogance and humility in order to reach the right behavioural conclusion.

********************

Illustration from Thesaurus.plus