Book of Light – 1970

 A. Introduction

There is an intuitive feeling that there is a great closeness, if not identity, between modesty and humility. In these pages I would like to touch on the relationship between these two qualities, and examine the above intuition. As a background, I will try to characterize these two qualities each on its own, although, as mentioned, the main goal is a discussion of their mutual relationship. We would like to clarify the differences between these two qualities, on the one hand, and on the other hand, try to clarify why there is nevertheless a feeling that these two qualities are indeed close to each other, and in what ways.

Let's start with the words of Maimonides, Reish Ha-Len De'ut:

There are many opinions for each and every one of us humans, and this one is very strange and far removed from the other. There is a person who is always angry, and there is a person whose mind is fixed on him and he is not angry at all, and if he gets angry, he gets angry a little for a few years. There is a person who is extremely proud, and there is a person who is extremely low in spirit, and there is a person who is lustful, and his soul will not be satisfied by walking in lust. There is a person who has a very pure heart and will not desire even the few things that the body needs. There is a person who has a broad soul that will not be satisfied with all the wealth of the world, as it is said, "A lover of money will not be satisfied with money." There is a person who narrows his soul, even with a little thing that will not suffice him, and will not pursue to achieve all his needs. There is a person who ascetics himself with hunger and gathers it in his hand and does not eat a penny of his own except with great sorrow. There is a person who loses all his wealth in his hand in his opinion. And on these paths are all the rest of the opinions, such as boastful, self-indulgent, greedy, cruel, merciful, soft-hearted, courageous, and the like (Rambam, Reish HaL' De'ot).

There is a common mistake in understanding the term 'de'ot' in the language of the Sages. The modern use of this term means attitudes, or worldviews. In the language of the Sages, and also in the Rambam, the meaning of this term is qualities, mental strengths, character tendencies, or forms of behavior.[1]

As we see in these words of the Rambam, there are many qualities in the human soul. It is reflected in his words that some of them are positive and some are negative. The main point of the Rambam's halakha states that different people differ from each other in their 'deities.' Our concern here is not with comparing people but with comparing and determining the relationships between different qualities. In principle, it seems that several such different qualities can exist within one soul. There are some that are opposite to each other, and this opposite seems to prevent their simultaneous existence in the same soul. It is clear that the same person can sometimes be angry and sometimes be calm, but when we speak of anger or calmness as qualities (or deities), it seems that their mutual existence is not possible. There are people who are calm, and there are people who are angry, but a particular person should be characterized by only one of these two qualities.

To further focus this distinction, let us now look at some examples from the Maimonides' words quoted above. The word 'anger' indicates a form of behavior, but mainly an internal feeling or state of mind. In 'anger' it is less likely to be understood as a mental quality (although there is such a quality). 'Asceticism in hunger' is already actual behavior, and not a mental state and certainly not a mental quality. Although this behavior certainly stems from mental qualities and states, 'asceticism' is a word that describes behavior. In contrast to these two, the simple meaning of the word 'haughty heart' describes a mental state, and even more so a type of character, or a quality of mind, and less a form of behavior.

It seems, therefore, that when we talk about any measure, we must distinguish between three different levels of reference:

1. A character tendency, which we will refer to from now on as 'measure'.
2. A state of mind or feeling at a particular moment.[2]
3. Behavior that is derived from the mental state and inclination of the soul.

Our conclusion is that every human activity with a quantitative dimension can be described by an ordered chain of three stages representing the three aforementioned levels: a character tendency, which in given circumstances leads to certain mental states (emotions). These mental states then lead to behavior, which is the expression of the quantity in the external physical world.

Words associated with the world of qualities are used in different contexts to describe each of these three stages, or levels. We have seen that the word 'anger' is usually interpreted as a state of mind or a form of behavior. From the above argument we learn that there is probably also a mental tendency that underlies this feeling or behavior, and it is called the 'degree of anger', or the tendency to be angry (perhaps we could say 'anger').[3]This mental disposition is part of the person's own structure, while the feeling, as well as the particular behavior, are descriptions of the person's state at a particular moment that is about to pass.[4] They are not part of it itself.

In what follows, when we describe and compare modesty or humility, we will do so on these three levels: as character tendencies, as emotions, and as forms of behavior.

In the next chapter, we will discuss humility, and we will attempt to characterize those aspects of it that are expressed in the relationships we will present between it and modesty. Chapter 3 will discuss modesty from those aspects, and in Chapter 4 we will discuss the relationship between the virtues, which exists, as will become clear, in the three aforementioned levels. We will see that the root of the relationship between these virtues lies at a deeper level than the three levels of the chain of virtues presented here.

B. Humility

In this chapter, we will focus primarily on the description and characterization of humility on the moral-behavioral level, and not on the level of metaphysical purposes and meanings, which many have already delved into.[5]

The only appearance of the quality of humility in the Torah is in Numbers 22:3: "And the man Moses was very meek, more than any man that was upon the face of the earth." Humility appears in the other books of the Bible, and the humble are mentioned many times.

Humility in the Bible is usually a state of a person, and only in a few instances is it completely clear that it is a character trait. Some examples where humility appears clearly as a quality, or trait, are in Numbers 12:3: "And the man Moses humbled himself," Psalm 45:5: "On the word of truth and humility," Proverbs 15:33: "The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom, and before honor is humility," Proverbs 18:12: "And before honor is humility," and Proverbs 22:4: "By humility comes the fear of the Lord, riches, honor, and life."

There are a few other places where the meaning is not clear. Most of the appearances of humility in the Bible are descriptions of a person's condition. Usually a state of poverty, or perhaps more generally a state of misery, of which poverty is a particular case. Interestingly, several times there is even an appearance of the word "Kiri" and "Kitab" between "Poverty" and "Meaningful."[6]

Most appearances in the Bible do not allow for a simple understanding of the meaning of the quality of humility. In many places, the humble are described as someone whom God hears, cares for, and saves. In these cases, it is not simply clear whether the reference is to the unfortunate person, or to the one who is distinguished by the quality of humility, or perhaps to both. Explicit characterizations of the quality of humility do not appear in the Bible at all.

An initial understanding of the essence of the quality of humility can be learned from the Torah's testimony about Moses, who is described as "the humblest of all the people who were on the face of the earth."[7] Moses' humility is highlighted there in contrast to Miriam and Aaron's complaints about his arrogance towards them, for God also spoke and heard through them (they are also prophets).

Accordingly, the commentators there interpreted the quality of humility as a lack of arrogance (see, for example, Ibn Ezra there), meaning that God, blessed be He, is answering Miriam and Aaron that their complaint is not genuine. Ramban (and other commentators), after quoting Ibn Ezra's words, adds there that Moses' humility was that he suffered even when they spoke to him and did not answer them, and therefore God envied him, and the late author there:

And the man Moses answered very well, saying that God was jealous of him for his humility, because he would never answer a quarrel even if he knew. And the Rabbis interpret and say that he would not seek greatness over any man, nor would he boast of his virtue at all, even over his brothers, and they are sinners who speak about him for nothing. But in my book Rabbi Nathan says even in Moses' face, "Speak to him," as it is said, "And the Lord heard, and the man Moses was very humble, but Moses overcame the matter. Let us mention his humility, that he suffered and did not become humble, and God was jealous of him."

This addition of the Ramban appears in other places as a characterization of the virtue of humility, although its conventional classification is 'one who exceeds his standards.' This is the standard about which the Sages said: Those who are insulted and do not offend, who hear their disgrace and do not retaliate, act out of love and rejoice in their affliction, about whom the Scripture says, 'And those who love him are like the rising of the sun in its might' (R. Bavli Yoma 23a).

Usually this virtue is associated with the prohibition of revenge and revenge, but here it is the root of the tendency to take revenge and revenge. A humble person does not feel the need (and even if he does, he tries to overcome it) to respond to his enemies, and therefore does not take revenge and revenge. In the terminology of the chain of virtues in the previous chapter, it is said that humility appears here as a virtue, or a character trait, that underlies the behavior of a person who "transgresses his limits."

A similar description of the quality of humility appears in the book Hasidim (p. 155):

An incident occurred with a follower who was being shamed and was saying bad things to him. The crowd said to him, "We will rebuke him and banish him." He said to them, "Don't do it." They said, "We will do it so that he won't do it to others." He said to them, "Learn from me and do likewise, that I suffer and do not allow you to quarrel. Therefore, when you hear your disgrace from a scoundrel all day long, with a voice of reproach and blasphemy, do not pay attention to all his words. For it is written, "The man Moses was very meek of all men...

Here too, we see that he interpreted Moses' humility as someone who hears his disgrace and is humbled and does not respond.

The characteristic of "overstepping one's bounds" that the Ramban and the pious Rabbi add seems to go further than that of Ibn Ezra. Here, greater mental powers of overcoming are required. However, it seems that the measure of humility as the opposite of arrogance is more fundamental. This is the mental power that also underlies overstepping one's bounds. One can overstep one's bounds despite feeling deprived and hurt. This is restraint, patience, and tolerance that is found only on the behavioral level, perhaps even out of pragmatic considerations (for example, someone who does not want to be portrayed as offended or does not want to spoil their relationship with those who insult them, or even someone who does not want to cause controversy that seems morally superior). However, one who oversteps one's bounds as a result of not being arrogant and therefore not being hurt at all, is the one who expresses a higher mental quality, or quality. It seems that the words of the Ramban do add more depth to Ibn Ezra's interpretation, but the more fundamental measure is the one described by Ibn Ezra. It turns out that this is also the intention of Rashi there, who briefly explained: "Anu - humiliation and suffering."

This description is reminiscent of the well-known story of Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk, in which someone came to him and complained that he was running away from honor, yet the honor did not pursue him. To this, Rabbi Mendel replied that apparently when he runs away, he looks back (in order to make sure that honor is indeed pursuing him). His intention is to say that running away from honor is not the highest virtue. Higher than that is the feeling that there is nothing to run away from. To treat honor with equanimity. In such a case, the one running away does not even bother to look back. Anyone who interprets the article that honor pursues those who run away from honor as a promise, or as a description of the most effective way to achieve honor, may indeed be exaggerating his qualities, but he does so only so that they will value him more. In fact, there is a hidden pursuit of honor here, which is the inversion of humility as a virtue.

In Moses' description of the transgression of his own qualities stems from a degree of lack of arrogance and lack of recognition of honor, and not from any pragmatic consideration. Here we see a clear implication of the distinction between a form of behavior of humility and the degree of humility. Two completely opposite qualities in the soul can be expressed in the same form of behavior.

These things are explained in the Ruach Chaim by Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin on the fathers of the 4th and 6th centuries:

The essence of humility is not only that a person should accept insults and fulfill the command, "And let those who curse my soul be silent," but that his heart should also consider that he is considered nothing compared to the least of men. And even if he is a man of high intelligence and fear of God, he should remember that according to his intellect and nature, he did not serve God sufficiently. It may be that the lowest of men, according to his talents and meager qualities, works harder than him. But if a person in his heart considers himself great and powerful, even though in reality he behaves in a humble manner and suffers insults, the Scripture says about him: "With their mouths they will deceive, but their hearts are not right."

And also the 20th Remak in the case of the late Tomer Dvorah, 2nd and 6th century:

The essence of humility is that he does not find any value in himself [in his heart], but rather thinks that he is nothing, until he sees himself as the lowest of all creatures, despised and very disgusted, and considers his absence a good thing from reality, and in this way he will feel when he is despised as if the law is with them, and he is the despicable one who is to blame.

To clarify the point, it is worth noting that there are those who have explained that this measure can be justified by understanding that even insults come from God, and a person cannot harm me if I truly do not deserve it. This is the dependence of the degree of transgression on his own measure of faith in God's providence. Our conclusion here is that the one who even needs this argument is not yet humble. He is a great believer, but not humble. From the perspective of the humble, there is no harm here at all, and therefore he does not wonder who sent him this harm.[8]

This may be the meaning of the biblical interchange between humility and poverty. The humble person must live with the consciousness that he is poor and destitute. Destitute of spiritual possessions and of qualities worthy of respect. He must live with the consciousness of a person who has no such 'possessions', who is destitute in these respects.

So far we have discussed the extent to which one transgresses one's limits as an expression of humility. It is clear that those to whom one is accorded respect can also relate to this on the same levels. A person can protest this out of a genuine lack of recognition of one's own worth, or out of a false humility, which, of course, also has value. It establishes a correct norm in society, like the tolerance we described earlier, but it is still not real humility, and perhaps to a large extent it is its opposite.

In contrast to all this, many point out the fact that a person must recognize his own worth, and precisely because of this, be humble. The Netziv of Volozhin also writes in Ha'emek Davar in the same book:

And not because he is humble in himself and does not recognize that he does not deserve this sorrow and lack of honor. Rather, the meaning of humility is that he behaves without fear for his honor.

The moralists have elaborated on this point. In Lev Eliyahu, 1 Rac"d, he cites evidence for this from Moses our Rabbi himself, about whom the Torah is written (and, as mentioned, he himself wrote it): "Not so, my servant Moses, in all my house, he is faithful. I will speak to him face to face, and in a vision, not in riddles, and the image of the Lord he will behold." See also Or Yahel, 3:8, and in the name of Rabbi Yerucham Maimir in Marvetzi Torah and Mosar, chapter 13, 21, and 23:

Woe to the person who does not know the defects and shortcomings of his soul, for he does not know what he must correct. But woe to him sevenfold if the person does not know the powers and virtues of his soul, for then he does not even know the tools of his work.

It is interesting to note the words of Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk regarding the question of why God chose Mount Sinai to give the Torah on it. If He had sought a low (poor) place, He could have given it in a valley or on a plain. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Ladi, in his book "Collections of Torah," in the Desert, proves from this that a person must have a little haughtiness of heart, and not only humility and humility, otherwise He would not be able to continue working in the ways of God. Rabbi Mendel, on the other hand, argued that on a plain there is no need for him to be humble, for he has nothing to be proud of. God sought a mountain that would nevertheless be humble. God is not looking for a person without virtues, but a person with virtues who nevertheless maintains his humility and is not proud.

In many ways, there is a general characteristic of many virtues here. For example, the virtue of tolerance and openness is not worthy of any credit if the tolerant person does not believe in a different position. There is no merit in being tolerant and open when you yourself do not have any other position. Humility also has no value if there is nothing to be proud of. The humility of a person who lacks virtues (the sum total of shortcomings) has no merit.[9]

This is why the figures that the Sages choose to mention as symbols of humility were usually people of both Torah and greatness. Abraham (R. Berechot 6:2), Moses, Ezra, and Hillel (R. Bavli Sanhedrin 11, and Sota 48:2), and Rabbi (Ibid. 49:1).

These words seem to be the complete opposite of the demand of 'Tomer D'Vora' and 'Ruach Chaim' mentioned above. We see that man is commanded to recognize his virtue and advantages. It seems, therefore, that humility and the transcendence of his qualities cannot stem from the inner character, but only be at the level of external behavior. This is also evident from the formulation of the Netziv above, that the essence of humility is only behave Without fear for his honor. From this description it appears that in the terminology we defined in the previous chapter, humility is only behavior and not a measure.

Despite all this, there is no contradiction here. In order to be hurt and insulted, a person must know his virtues, but this is not enough. He must also appreciate them and ensure that others treat them with respect. Only if these two exist can a person be hurt by his fellow man. It seems, then, that a person must be well aware of his status, his advantages, and his wisdom, even compared to the others around him. All of this is at the level of facts, otherwise he is nothing but a fool. What a person is commanded by the virtue of humility is that he should not treat these things as virtues for which he deserves respect. In other words, it is his appreciation of these virtues that must disappear, and not the mere recognition of them.[10]

The comparison between humility and poverty here takes on a nuance that also has implications for the perception of poverty. A poor person is someone who feels poor. Just as a rich person is someone who is happy with his lot and not exactly someone who has assets, so a poor person is someone who feels deprived, and not exactly someone who truly has deprivation. We know many examples from life of this distinction. There are families whose objective situation is no better than families in distress, and yet they are not defined as such, and so on.

Humility is also a feeling that the qualities that exist in you are not worthy of respect, not the actual absence of these qualities, or even the absence of knowledge of the existence of these qualities. Only a mountain can be humble if it lives in the consciousness of a plain. A true plain is not humble, and cannot be so.[11]

Our conclusion so far is that a person needs to be well aware of his virtues and shortcomings, and the demand for a degree of humility from him is only at the level of evaluating the facts and not at the level of knowing the facts themselves, and not even at the level of awareness of their positive value.

Apparently, we are here reaching a level known among the Hasidim as "equality." A typical description of this level is found in the book Likutim Yakrim (page 57a):

"I have made the Lord equal to my equals." I have made the language of equality equal. In everything that happens to him, everything will be equal to him, whether in matters that people judge him or that disgrace him, and so on in all other things, and so on in all the food that he eats, whether it is delicacies or leftovers, everything will be equal in his eyes, since the evil inclination has been completely removed from him.

The degree of equanimity as described here is broader than the degree of humility. There is equanimity here with respect to every inclination or feeling. It is in many ways the deadening of a person's instinctive emotional world, and a lack of regard for anything that is not relevant to the work of God. This is the work of God of the one who is equanimous. Here we describe the degree of humility as equanimity with respect to feelings of pride, anger, or insult.

It seems to me that humility has the opposite of the degree of equanimity. A person with a dead emotional world does not need to not appreciate his virtues in order not to be hurt. He has blocked his ability to be hurt. We are talking about a completely opposite work here. The urge to be hurt and this power in the soul should not be touched. This is a creation of God that we must not kill. What we need to do is understand that we have nothing to be offended by. It is our assessment of our virtues that needs to change. Again, I do not mean that we should not appreciate our virtues, but that we should not demand respect and honor for them from ourselves and others. Clearly, we need to be aware that these are virtues and not shortcomings, and to know that this is what a person who is built correctly should look like. Our assessment should focus on the moral-value level, not the level of pride. We need to be aware of our moral and value value as built this way and yet not hold (and demand that others hold) any favors for ourselves for it. This is a type of equality, but it is done only on the mental, not the emotional, level. This is indeed minute-by-minute work in the temple.

Only in light of this division can we understand Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Nachman in Bavli Sotah 49b:

When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin were nullified. Rabbi Yosef said to him, "You will not give me humility, please." Rabbi Nachman said to him, "You will not give me fear of sin, please."

R. Nachman and R. Yosef knew their virtues well, yet they did not keep any favors for themselves. They reached the level of equality in these areas. R. Yosef does not mind at all, in a discussion about the degree of humility, pointing out that he himself is excellent in this respect. His approach is factual and moral, not arrogant.[12] Most people would not say such a thing. This does not necessarily stem from their humility, but simply from shame. We are still not on an equal footing with pride, even when we manage to overcome it to some extent. In Rabbi Mendel's terms, we would say that Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Nazarene do not even bother to escape from honor.

The Shelah on Parashat Akev, page 1 of the book of Sha'a Anava, brought from this verse evidence of equality, that praise and censure were equal in their eyes. We also see in the book of 'Duties of the Hearts', chapter 1, Yichud Ha'Ashe, which tells a story about one of the Hasidim who asked his friend about equality, meaning have you reached a level where praise and censure are equal in your soul? He said no. He said to him, "If so, you have not yet reached the height of humility." It seems that this is the equality that we have defined here (the mental one) and not the equality of the author of Likutim Yakrim (the emotional one).

If we do indeed recognize our virtues and advantages, and we also do not fundamentally break the tendency that exists in our emotions to be hurt when we are harmed (as the Hasidic equivalents do), how can we explain to ourselves why we should not hold ourselves in high esteem for this? We not only recognize the virtues we have, but also the fact that these virtues are good, and as a matter of course.

Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, whom we quoted above, justified this requirement by saying that a person does not do everything he can achieve with his qualities and intellect, and therefore he should not be proud of his achievements. This is also implied by Rabbi Yonah ('Sha'arei Teshuvah 1:24), who writes:

In man's eyes, everything will be small compared to what he owes to serve God, so he will submit and serve modestly, and will not covet honor for his honorable deeds, nor will he seek to be praised for his actions, and will hide them from the knowledge of others as best he can.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai in the Book of Avot says: "If you have learned much Torah, do not hold back a favor for yourself, for you were created for this." This is a more far-reaching statement than that of Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin above. Rabbi Chaim wrote that humility is based on the fact that everyone has not yet reached the level that they could have reached according to their qualities and talents ('their intellect and their nature'). Here we see that even if a person theoretically reaches everything they could have reached, they should not hold back a favor for themselves, since that is how they were created. This is a natural and expected thing towards God, Who created these 'intellect and their natures' in them. You do not demand gratitude for yourself when you simply repay a debt that you owe. Gratitude is due and required of a person who has done more than is required of him according to the strict law. In other words, humility is based on the recognition that a person who fulfills his moral-religious duties does not do anything beyond the basic duty imposed on him. The fact that others do not always meet this task to the same degree as I do does not detract from the fact that this task is a simple and natural debt to myself and to God, the Almighty, who created me.

In the Babylonian Sota, 5:120 and 6:3:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi said, "A wise scholar should have one of the eight in the eighth and a crown for him, because he is a sasa for the sake of the shubh. Rava said, "In excommunication for one who has pride in him and for one who does not have it." Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak said, "He did not specify or specify." Who is more junior than the one who is written, "Every haughty heart is an abomination to the Lord"?

It is known that the Rambam in De'ut P'2 Ha-Gor and R' Yonah in Avot P'1 13, as well as the Rosh in Erchot Chaim A', ruled that R' Nachman bar Yitzhak (R' Lakman in Chapter 5). And in the name of the Gra in the verse 'Kol Eliyahu' there he cites an eighth verse, where the eighth verse refers to the eighth Torah section (and sent) the eighth verse there: 'I am the least of all the graces.' That is, a scholar should remember that even if he has many rights, he has eaten their reward through the abundance of G-d's graces with him, and in that case he has nothing at all to be proud of. This interpretation of the Gra is very similar to our definition above of the root of the virtue of humility.

It has been found that the foundation of a person's demand of humility from himself is two-stage: 1. If he has not yet exhausted all his abilities and talents, he has nothing to be proud of. 2. Even if some of his talents have been exhausted, this is a natural duty that he owes to God Almighty and to himself as the image of God.[13]

It should be noted that there is no purpose or reasoning here as to why the quality of humility is excellent. There is a statement here as to why it is right for every person to be humble. The question of why humility is a good quality in the soul is a different question. It would be appropriate to say that even if there is nothing to be proud of, what could be wrong with a little pride? We have accepted that humility as a quality is an excellent quality in itself, but these are not necessarily the reasons for this. We are only pointing out here that a person has nothing to be proud of. This is also the type of emotion that a person should feel that will lead him to behave humbly. A person should feel that he is only fulfilling a simple duty, and in any case he will not be proud.

It has been found that the behavior of humility comes to its full expression when a person overreacts and does not respond to those who offend him (overstep his bounds), certainly when he does not demand respect for himself. Although this behavior can also stem from motives other than humility. Such behavior, only when it comes from a feeling of 'let's do something,'[14] Expresses real humility. Here there is no restraint, but a lack of impulse to respond. Although the absence of this impulse does not stem from a lack of recognition of a person's virtues, certainly not from the deadening of his emotional world and natural tendencies (extreme equanimity), but from their inhibition by the understanding that a person is only fulfilling his simple duty.

Perhaps this explains why humility is presented as the foundation for the fear of God and the fear of sin in the Bible and in many places in the Sages. In Proverbs 22:4: "By humility comes the fear of the Lord, ten thousand, honor, and life." Accordingly, it is stated in the Baraita of Dr. Pinchas ben Yair that humility leads to the fear of sin (see Maharal Nativ Anava). If a humble person has a simple sense of duty in everything he does, it is clear that he will have no desire to sin. It is found that humility, at its root, leads to the fear of sin.

We saw here a description of the moral chain defined in the introduction: the quality in the soul that leads to a feeling, which is expressed in an act (or behavior).

We will note here, continuing what we said in the previous chapter, that this chain is two-way. Just as the measure determines the feeling and behavior, so too the way to reach and internalize this measure in the soul and character of a person is by developing a consciousness and feeling of achievements as fulfilling a natural duty, and this, among other things, through acts of humble behavior.

On the level of the purpose and value of the virtue of humility, many have gone into detail, both good and bad, so I would like to be brief here.

In the book "Duties of the Heart," the chapter on submission is dedicated to humility. From the very term "submission," we can learn that Rabbi Chaim emphasizes humility as a person's duty to the Creator. Through submission to the Creator and the understanding of his lowliness compared to the Creator's greatness, a person comes to be close to the Creator, and from there also to behave humbly toward the people around him. There is an additional emphasis here on the degree of humility as the way in which a person stands, or perceives himself, in standing before the Creator.

There seems to be a different starting point here than the two we raised earlier. We have seen references to a person not exhausting his talents and abilities, and we have seen that even when he exhausts them, he should not boast about it, since this is his simple duty. Here we see a reference to those abilities and abilities themselves, which in comparison to the Creator appear as lowly and worthless.

It seems difficult to identify with such a feeling, since I do not compare myself to the Creator but to people like me. There is no point in measuring my skills in relation to the Creator of the world. For the same reason, it is very difficult to arrive from such a comparison at a feeling of inferiority that would be significant in a person's relationship to the people around him. It seems possible to find here the fact that the abilities I possess were planted in me by my Creator, and therefore I have nothing to be proud of. Utilizing and implementing them, as stated, is my elementary duty, and therefore there is no reason to be proud of this. We are, therefore, back to the starting point.

Jewish thought throughout history placed increasing emphasis on humility as a way of standing before the Creator, but this already concerns the metaphysical meanings of humility (the basis for the inspiration of the Divine Presence, for the possession of wisdom, Torah, and the Holy Spirit), which we will not discuss here.[15]

Let us now summarize the current chapter on humility. The quality of humility exists only in those who have advantages and skills, and who also recognize their value, even if they have a strong human emotion that tends to be hurt and demand respect for themselves. The requirement of humility is that despite all this, a person should not attribute a value of importance or respect to these skills and achievements. This is our basic definition of the essence of the quality of humility. As a result of such a quality in the soul, a person lives with the feeling that his achievements have nothing beyond fulfilling his elementary duty towards his Creator, and therefore on the level of behavior he does not demand respect for himself, he transgresses his qualities, he is not angry or offended, etc.

C. Modesty

The degree of modesty is the subject of this book, and therefore I will content myself with a more concise discussion here, which will serve as an introduction to the next chapter.

Modesty is almost never mentioned in the Bible. In Micah 6:8: "Adam, tell me what is good, and what does the Lord your God require of you, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." And in Proverbs 1:20: "When wickedness comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble comes wisdom." In contrast to the concept of 'humility' discussed in the previous chapter, in these two appearances in the Bible it is quite clear that the term 'modesty' denotes a measure and not a condition.

In the literature of the Sages, we also encounter this term as indicating a situation. Often, a modest thing indicates something hidden, and to be modest means to hide (see, for example, Mishnah Shabbat v. 10:11, and many more). Concealment is mentioned in relation to studying Torah and performing mitzvot in secret, conducting oneself in the house of the throne with modesty, behaving between a man and a woman, hiding covered parts, and many more.

Modest are also those who restrain their lust and gluttony. Rabbi Bavli Yoma 39:1: "The greedy hold back their hands, and the gluttonous take and eat."

Modesty also appears in the context of avoiding arrogance. See, for example, Bavli Sotah 49:2, "They decreed that a bride should not go out in a veil, etc., 49 because of modesty." The same is true of the law that a woman should not go out in red clothes. In this context, modesty is the opposite of the quality of boldness. See, for example, Bavli Sotah 58:1 and Rashi, where a modest person is one who does not have the audacity to strike on his father's grave.

Modesty is also required of a person within the home. Rabbi Tanchuma and Shelzah Si' 6:5, 'And her judgment came out': "Rabbi Pinchas HaCohen bar Hama said: While she is modest within the home, just as the altar atones, so she atones for her home," etc. The laws concerning the matter of covering the head and concealing the private parts of men and women within the home are also well known. Rabbi Ood Shabbos 53b: "A case involving a man who carried a girdle and did not recognize her until the day she died. Rav said, 'Come and see how modest this woman is that her husband did not recognize her.' Rabbi Hiyya said to him, 'This is her way of doing it, but how modest this man is who did not recognize his wife.'"

It is clear that all of these are descriptions of behavior, and not definitions and characterizations of the measure itself. Naturally, the Sages do not directly refer to the definition of the psychological roots of the measure, and to the feeling that accompanies the humble act.

When we try to examine what all these meanings have in common, and to get down to their moral root, it seems that modesty has two opposite roots. On the one hand, it seems that it is a restraining measure, the purpose of which is to prevent a person from bringing out things that are not appropriate to bring out. Also, restraining lust and gluttony, or preventing boasting, is the concealment of a power that should be stored inside. In other words, it is a measure that is equivalent to shame. We have seen that it also appears as the opposite of boldness. It is actually behavior that is dictated by others. It is forbidden for others to see all kinds of things, and I should be ashamed of them. In this picture, the modest person is one who acts and does not act. Therefore, Maharal Barish Nativ HaTzenahut writes and Z"t:

In the book of Proverbs, "When malice comes, disgrace comes, but with the humble comes wisdom." King Solomon wanted to say that with malice, meaning someone who is not humble, he is called malice who has no shame. To be amazed by people And this is called malice of heart. And when a person is like this, disgrace and disgrace come to him according to his measure, which is drawn after him, because he is far from honor, and therefore 'disgrace comes.' 'And wisdom to the humble' because whoever is modest, wisdom is drawn after him, because wisdom deserves modesty.

We see here that modesty is 'being amazed by people.' And the opposite of this is malice, which is shamelessness, or audacity. The Sages also see that the modest are those who prevent themselves from moving their lips (see Babil Shabbat 29:2, "the humble are those who push their lips back with a stick"), meaning that they behave according to the way they are seen. This is the first aspect that we see in the roots of modesty.

The other side of modesty seemingly contradicts the first. Modesty is also required in private. Here it is clear that it is not a matter of shame from others, and it clearly seems that there is a deeper root here. Modesty in this context is actually a lack of activity from others. A person does his actions not so that others will say, or not say, something about him, or because others look at it in one way or another. A person does what is right to do only because it is right to do so.

This seems to be a trend that is specifically designed to create a lack of consideration for the attitudes of others. For example, modesty that appears as studying Torah and performing mitzvot in secret suggests a trend of building an autonomous person who acts on his own strength and is not influenced by what others see, say, or think. A person who acts in secret does in a completely pure way what he actually thinks is right. Here modesty is not a stopping measure but a constructive, creative, and pushing measure. Hiding the self is for the purpose of its realization and building, and not, as it might seem at first glance, stopping and restraining it from external factors.

Covering the covered parts and lack of showiness also show such a trend. A person does not dress according to what is expected of him, or according to what will be thought of him, but according to what is truly appropriate. Clothing should be functional, mainly to cover, protect and hide, and not an end in itself to be seen.

If we are honest, we see that there are two contradictory tendencies in modesty. One is to be ashamed of others, that is, to be influenced by external factors, and the other is precisely not to be impressed by others. What these two tendencies have in common on the behavioral level is concealment, but at their root they are opposite tendencies: one stops the self from being revealed, and the other creates and pushes, building it as an independent and powerful factor. One is passive, and the other is active. It seems that the word 'modesty' is used with a proportional double meaning only because of the similarity of the consequences on the behavioral level.

Nowadays, it seems that these two meanings are mixed. The one who practices immodesty in public is not less shameful than others, since this is an accepted norm. In many ways, there is precisely a leadership here that is activated by others. Following a certain fashion is going with the flow, and there is certainly activation by others.

There is a feeling that it is still correct to say that a person who walks immodestly in the Lord is shameless. In addition, it seems that establishing absolute halachic norms for modesty also implies a value that goes beyond consideration or inconsideration for others. There are absolute standards for modesty. Clearly, not all standards are like this, but clearly there are some. The commandments of modesty are not only derived from the existing form of the Lord, there is a clear tendency here to influence the Lord as well.

It seems, then, that shame is not defined solely by the norms of society. Someone who walks immodestly, even in a place where everyone behaves this way, is not considered modest. He certainly did not lack modesty in private rooms, where no one says anything about him.

From this it follows that shame is also a concept with absolute components, shame is not necessarily from someone else. It follows, therefore, that the first side of modesty does not stand opposite, or in direct opposition to, the second side. Today it is clear that those who want not to be influenced by their surroundings must walk in a modest manner. Nowadays, an absurd situation prevails in which modest walking itself is sometimes shameful, and if so, modest walking actually has a dimension of autonomy, of shamelessness and lack of activation from external society.

The conclusion that emerges from what has been said here is that the root of modesty is autonomy and lack of activation from others. Shame does not have to be automatic activation from others, unless they themselves meet the requirements of modesty. In other words, activation is the secondary side of modesty, and autonomy is its primary side.

It seems that this definition of modesty can be deepened. The accepted opposite of modesty is breaking in. Breaking in means external. Usually, when breaking out of somewhere, one does so outwardly. Sometimes, seemingly logical suggestions are made that say that one can reach a less breaking and more modest state by sweepingly permitting all prohibitions of modesty.[16] According to these people, when there is a more natural attitude towards the relationship between him and her, for example, there will be less tension and there will be less tendency to break through the fence.[17] It will then be possible to freely release the energies that are trapped within us, and thus they will be less likely to erupt uncontrollably.

Even if the assumptions underlying this proposal are correct, which the Anad strongly doubts,[18] There is a fundamental error here in understanding the essence of modesty. The purpose of modesty is not to dissipate a person's instinctual energies, but rather the opposite: to store them and preserve their power, in order to use them in beneficial directions.

For example, Freud's psychoanalysis argues for the importance of the sexual drive as a driver for a wide variety of human activities.[19] If this energy is not at its full potential, a person's strength and drive throughout their entire life will be significantly diminished. Turning off this source of energy is turning off a person's engine. Modesty requires a person to restrain themselves in several directions, so that they can use these energies in the desired channels at their full potential.

A strong example of this is seen in the Babylonian Sanhedrin 64:1, where it is described that the members of the Great Knesset abolished the desire for incest, and at the same time searched for a fresh egg for the patient and could not find it in all of Eretz Yisrael. And according to Rashi, even those that were complete the previous day did not come out. The abolition of the desire for transgression paralyzed all activity in the world. The sages here describe the desire as a motor with a broader meaning than for sexual activities alone.[20]

A particular case of this principle is seen in Chazal's description of modest women as those who adorn themselves for the sake of their husbands. See, for example, the Rabbis in Parasha 4, Hadith 'Nard': "From what is given under the tooth, the modest and kosher daughters of Israel adorned themselves and made their husbands happy every forty years that Israel was in the wilderness." Similarly, the women of Israel in Egypt gave birth to six children in one womb, from which they would seduce their husbands after hard labor. The modesty of these women allows them to bring these energies to expression in their relationships with their partners.

I would like to point out that I intend to describe a much broader phenomenon here. All human activities are driven by instinctual energies, and therefore they must not be extinguished in any way. Man must channel them in the desired directions, not neutralize them. The channels through which these energies find expression can be completely different from the original channel (see Lakman in his discussion of the channeling of the instinct of honor).

From this we learn that modesty has the function of building a person's internal energies. Earlier we saw that the root of modesty is the autonomous activity of a person who is not influenced and acted upon by others. Here we see that it is the building of a person himself. In secret, a person builds himself without outside interference. Modesty is not only ignoring others, but also, and perhaps primarily, a person's concentration on his own self in order to build it. It is like stretching a spring by squeezing and contracting it, an action that stores within it a great deal of potential energy, energy that is supposed to burst forth in the directions we designate for it.

In this sense, modesty is the root of moral work and the building of all other virtues. A person's concentration on his own self, and its building, is the cornerstone of the work of all virtues. It should be noted that the virtue of modesty is not the root of the other virtues themselves, but of moral work for the improvement and building of the other virtues. There is no relationship here between different virtues, but rather a condition for working on the virtues.

In this generation where self-realization is a supreme and self-evident value, it seems that it is indeed possible to reach greater depth in understanding the degree of modesty and working on it. The hiding of the humble is a 'contradiction' in order to build.[21]

Now we can try to touch on the deeper metaphysical meaning of modesty. In every object in the world we distinguish between the thing in itself (noumena in Kant's terminology), and the thing as it appears to us (phenomena). In Aristotelian language, this is the distinction between matter and form. In this sense, matter is higher than form (unlike in the Maharali usage, for example), it is the hyolic thing before referring to its specific form. It is the being itself (=its essence) even before its form and outward appearance (=its characteristics). The Jerusalem monk explains that the thing in itself is the Kabbalistic world of creation,[22] While form is the world of creation. The combination of both creates the object as we know it in the world of making. Form is the way the object looks outwardly, and matter is as it 'really' is.

According to this, it seems that modesty is a concern with the 'matter' of man (in its higher sense), with man in himself. Prizrot is a concern with his external form, as it appears to those around him. The matter, or the thing in itself, is something that is hidden from the eyes of the observer. In the language of the monk it is said that one can only 'hear' it (in the sense of 'auditory reason' in the monk's teaching), or 'listen' to it, and not 'see' it.[23]

In Jeremiah 13:17 it is written: "And if you do not hear in secret places, my soul will weep for my body." And in the Babylonian Hagigah 5:2, they learned from this that God, the Holy One, has a place and His name is "in secret places."[24] The true 'being' exists precisely in the hidden. God is invisible and unperceived, since He is a self without an external form. This fact is related to the fact that He is not acted upon by anything from the outside, but rather acts in a completely autonomous manner. His actions, of course, have no prior cause. We see here a connection between the being of a thing hidden and 'modest', and its being autonomous and active (not acted upon). Both things are related to the preoccupation with the self, and not in a form that is directed outward. Things that exist only in the external are not 'being' but 'non-being' that pretends to be. Everything when referred to in its own essence is true, a lie can only be in the way that it is revealed outwardly.[25] Modesty is a concern with 'is' and not with 'is not', with truth and not with falsehood.

The popular proverb 'still waters run deep' expresses the power of modesty. There is a higher beauty when it is quiet, modest and hidden. Internal and not external. In another context, even a powerful protest is precisely that which is made through restraint (understatement in Hebrew). A striking example of this is Mahatma Gandhi's protest in India. There too, a self was created, this is the Indian national self. There it became impressively clear that something restrained and hidden is more powerful than an external expression, however intense and violent it may be. This is an expression of true creation and not merely external.[26]

We have arrived at a metaphysical description of modesty. It is not just inaction by others. It is not just the construction of the self. On the metaphysical plane, modesty is a concern with the true essence and not with the way it is seen and perceived.[27]

In this sense, there is no question of what exactly one does with the self. Are we building a certain ability or power, this or that? This is where all the other qualities come in. As long as one is engaged in building the self, it is an occupation of concealment, an occupation of modesty. This is the root of the matter of spiritual occupation. Therefore, as we have seen, the study of Torah and mitzvot should also be done in a modest manner.

What emerges from all of the above is that modesty, in certain senses, is not exactly a measure, but a way of life that constitutes a framework for measures. Of course, certain forms of behavior are derived from it, as we have seen.

If we try to describe the chain of virtues that we defined in the introduction, we can say that the degree of modesty is the ability to engage in one's own self and what is required of it without influence from others. To be an actor and not to be acted upon. The feeling that accompanies these situations is a feeling that a person has no interest in what society dictates to him, even if it is in line with his inner obligations. Some of the actions that derive from modesty are described in the laws mentioned above.

The benefit and purpose of modesty is primarily itself. The ability to build oneself is an end in itself. It is clear that all abilities to improve one's character are derived from it, but it seems that they are not its end but only a consequence of it. Autonomous activity of man is the image of God in him and not just a means to reach various goals.

As we have already mentioned, the chain of virtue is two-way. Modesty can be achieved through modest actions. On the intellectual level, a person has to overcome the automatic influence of others on him, and explain to himself that there is no harm in what is thought or said about him. It is known that in the Novohardok yeshiva, students would do strange things, such as entering a pharmacy in order to ask to buy nails there. These actions are intended to reach a spiritual level in which those present are not affected by what is said about them.

The description given here is extreme. It is clear that a person needs to be sensitive to a certain extent to what his surroundings think and say about him. There is a clear halakhic obligation to prevent desecration of God. We have seen that modest people also try to prevent themselves from speaking ill of others, and hence a person does need to integrate into society and needs to be told how beautiful his actions are, etc.

For this reason I wrote above that one should vaporize the influence The automatic On him. The decision when to be influenced by others and when to ignore them should also be made out of autonomous consideration, and not out of fear or activation by others. When a person sees that his actions will lead to blasphemy, he should avoid it. However, he should do this because of a decision that in this situation he must do so and not due to automatic influence, or instinctive fear, of how society views him. Every person should certainly consider others, but he should do so in an internally controlled manner, and not automatically.

Interestingly, the self-realization that is common in our time is often the exact opposite. Many engage in self-realization out of society's expectation of them to do so. This is self-realization, but it is rooted in the complete opposite of modesty. By the nature of such realization, it is always done in public and in front of all onlookers (exhibitionism),[28] Therefore, to a contemporary person, it seems at a superficial glance that self-realization is the opposite of modesty. Self-realization that is based on the right root and the right motives,[29] Not only does it not contradict modesty, but it is the very definition of modesty.

In another way, we can say that the prevailing value in the world today is 'self-expression' and not 'self-realization.' Although on the surface the two concepts seem similar, there is a big difference between them. 'Self-expression' is the expression of the self outwardly, while 'realization' is from the root 'to be.' This is the transformation of the self into being, its empowerment, its creation and construction, and its bringing from power to action. Today, the terminology is heard changing precisely because of the phenomenon we pointed out above. Today, the goal is outward expression, activation, and not the creation and realization of the self, true autonomy. Despite the apparent autonomous appearance of our society, it is nevertheless activation and not activity.

Let us now summarize our remarks in this chapter. We have seen two trends that exist in the concept of modesty, which are seemingly contradictory to each other. We have seen that modesty, on the one hand, is a restraining force, in which a person acts on others, with shame. On the other hand, we have seen that modesty is a constructive and active force, in which a person does not act on others. This direction is precisely reminiscent of boldness.

In light of what has been said here, it seems that at the level of the measure as a mental disposition of character (and perhaps, as we have seen, at an even earlier level than this mental force, and mental force in general), modesty is a constructive and active force that expresses self-realization. After a person is autonomous and makes decisions independently, he can (in those circumstances in which it is appropriate to do so) make a decision to be ashamed or to act on others. This side of modesty exists only in the two outer layers of the moral chain of modesty, the emotional and the behavioral. At the moral level, as stated, there is only the constructive and active force. The division made in the introduction, in which we distinguished each measure in a three-stage chain, clarifies here the apparent contradiction between the two seemingly contradictory meanings of modesty. In the deep sense of modesty, in the inner, moral link of the chain, there is no contradiction. There, modesty means autonomy.

D. What is the difference between humility and modesty?

At the beginning of this article, the intuition was mentioned regarding the closeness that exists between the degree of modesty and the degree of humility. It seems that this feeling is expressed in the Bavli Kiddushin, page 111:

Rav Yehuda said, Rav said: A name consisting of forty-two letters is not given except to someone who is Humble and humble And he stands in the middle of his days and does not get angry, nor does he get drunk, nor does he set his standards…

It seems that this section does not contain a list of different qualities, but rather a collection of traits that all together constitute humility and modesty. We saw in Chapter 2 that someone who is not angry and does not overstep his bounds (= does not overstep his bounds) is characterized as having humility. Someone who does not get drunk seems more suitable for the description of a modest person (Wine enters, secret comes out. Wine brings out modest things).

The intuition linking the two virtues is based on the fact that both the humble and the meek try to avoid standing out. In many ways, humble behavior is considered an external expression of the degree of humility that is found within a person. Ostensibly, according to the definitions in the introduction, these are two links in a single virtuous chain, in which modesty is the behavior that expresses an internal character tendency of humility.

This distinction may explain why concepts of modesty entered the Shulchan Aruch and the binding halacha (Jewish religion, red clothing, the House of the Throne, the House of Tzni'ot in the Book of Mormon, the Book of the Temple, and more), while as far as I remember, humility does not appear at all.[30] Halacha generally commands behavior on a practical level, rather than abstract virtues. This may also be the reason why humility appears a lot in the Bible, and modesty very little, while characteristics of humility appear less in the Sages than characteristics of modesty.

In light of all of the above, it seems that modesty does indeed belong to the realm of behavior, and humility to the realm of virtues and character, and both belong to the same chain of virtues.

This is the first layer of the relationship between humility and modesty.

On the other hand, in the previous chapters we saw that each of these two virtues has its own complete chain of virtues. Modesty is a tendency to build and develop the self, and to eliminate behavior that is influenced by environmental influences. Humility, on the other hand, is the negation of the value of the advantages that a person is endowed with, despite recognizing their importance. In both cases, there is a similar expression outwardly, in a manner of behavior that tries not to stand out.

It seems that the minority of the external form nevertheless stems from two different motives, and has different characteristics in the two cases. Humility is the root of self-reduction, while modesty is the root of concealment (without reduction). The appearance of any object can be concealed from the observer in two ways: either by actually reducing the object, or by hiding it behind partitions (in 'concealments').

In the Babylonian inscriptions 111b, an interesting metaphor for humility is presented, incidentally:

They said, "Not like this world is the next world. This world has sorrow to bear and to tread in. The next world brings humility One in a wagon or a ship and placed in a corner of his house, and he provides from it a large pot, and its trees are watered under the stew, and you don't have a single grape that doesn't have thirty jugs of wine in it...

If there is no printer's error here (and perhaps even if there is), it seems that the appropriate metaphor for humility is a grape. Humility presents a person as a grape, which is a small fruit. In the Babylonian Sanhedrin 11, there is a story about the little Samuel who is a continuation of Ezra and Hillel in his humility, and therefore is probably also called "little." Although from the description above it seems that this is not just a small thing, but the individual being one of many, a grape from a cluster of grapes. The recognition that you are, despite your uniqueness, one of many is what can bring you to humility. Therefore, the humble person is "little," described as a "grape."

On the other hand, the appropriate metaphor for modesty is perhaps a pomegranate. "Like a pomegranate slice, your temple is hidden behind your braid" (Sh. 4:3), said of the wife who modestly covers her temple behind her braid. In the pomegranate, all the grapes are there, but behind the rough skin that protects them and hides (modestly) them. Modesty does not refer to a person as small, but as hidden.

We have seen that concealment, which is the result of the degree of modesty, aims to build the character and inner mental structure of a person, his selfhood. In contrast, the reduction, which is the result of the degree of humility, is the diminution of the value of the building that has been built. As we saw above (in the chapter on humility), this diminution of value is not on the moral-ethical level, since a person must be aware of the importance of virtues and spiritual achievements in themselves. This diminution is made only on the level of self-importance due to the existence of these spiritual achievements in oneself, or in relation to a demand for reward or a claim for recognition of this building on the part of others.

This lack of value is first and foremost in the eyes of the person himself, and only then in the eyes of others. The lack of value in the eyes of others is a means designed to help the person achieve such a consciousness in himself. In contrast, the concealment of modesty is entirely intended to conceal from the other and not from the person himself. Concealment from the other, as stated, is intended precisely to build the person's awareness of the internal structure of his self.

More sharply, it can be said that modesty is a quality that 'builds' something, while humility is a quality that 'destroys'. Modesty builds the self, while humility destroys the value (in the above-mentioned senses) of that building.

This is a second layer of the relationship between these two dimensions.

Another, more fundamental level of relationship between these two qualities can be discerned if we view modesty not as a measure, but as a general proportional mechanism. We have seen that modesty in its full sense is not a measure at all, but rather a general form of reference to the stopping of an instinctual tendency, or some type of power, or spiritual energy. This stopping is intended to strengthen this mental energy, and not, as it may seem at a superficial glance, to extinguish it. Strengthening the energy is intended so that after the building, we can channel this energy in the desired directions. Usually, modesty is used in this sense in relation to the energies of sex, and therefore its expressions are the concealment or stopping of aspects related to this instinct or energy. This is the common use of the concept of modesty, but this is only a narrow sense of it. Modesty can be seen as a more general mode of action.

We pointed out that Freud claimed that the energy (drive) of sex is the engine that drives man in his many and varied activities, in various areas that are not necessarily related to what we would define as the sexual drive. Turning off the sexual drive is turning off the person, even in contexts completely different from the sexual context. Therefore, modesty is not supposed to turn off this energy.

There are other schools of psychology that attribute the human drive to other types of energies. Some attribute it to the desire for respect (Adler), or the desire for meaning (Viktor Frankl), and so on. Even if we do not accept the total assertion of each of these schools that claim dominant control of one of the mental forces, and that it is the basic engine in the universe of knowledge, in any case it is clear that there are different types of energies that drive man.

Each type of such energy can be defined as its own modesty. It is a concealment, or stopping of that energy, which is intended to build this mental energy, in order to channel it into positive and desired channels. This refers to modesty not as a specific measure, but as a proportionate force.

If we take, for example, the energy of the human desire for honor (the human drive according to Adler), the mode of modesty we will define in relation to it will be precisely the degree of humility. Humility is a special case of the form of action, or mode of action, that we called modesty, when it is activated by the instinct of honor. The instinct of honor must be stopped, not to extinguish it, but to channel this energy into positive channels.

Above, when I discussed the Hasidic concept of 'equality,' I argued that the purpose of humility is not to kill the tendency to be offended by insults hurled at a person, but to establish a feeling that there is nothing to be offended about. There is no tendency to kill the emotional world of a person who is a divine creation, but rather to preserve it and direct it correctly. The tendency to be offended is intrinsically linked to the desire for honor. In fact, what is said there is that the purpose of humility is not to neutralize and dismantle mental forces, but to preserve and channel them. This is precisely our argument here. Humility is a 'destructive' quality only with regard to a person's tendency to withhold goodness for themselves, and not with regard to the sources of this tendency. We have learned that humility is the exercise of the fundamental quality of modesty toward the instinct of honor.

This is the third layer of the relationship between humility and modesty.

This claim raises a difficulty in the words of the Maimonides. The Maimonides states that in the measure of humility one must act in an extreme manner, that is, not in the middle way. One must be totally humble, and without any inclination towards honor (=highness of heart) at all. And the rabbi in De'ot P"2 53:

And there are opinions that a person is forbidden to act in moderation, but rather he should distance himself from one extreme to the other, and he is haughty. That there is no path to goodness for a person to be merely humble, but rather to be lowly in spirit, and his spirit will be very low. And therefore it is said in Moses our Lord, "Be very humble," and not merely "Be humble." And therefore the Sages commanded, "Be very, very low in spirit." And they further said, "Whoever elevates his heart is an apostate, especially as it is said, "And your heart is lifted up, and you have forgotten the Lord your God." And they further said, "In the name of the Lord, from whom you have come, there is a haughtiness of spirit, even a little of it."[31]

It seems from this that there is absolutely no room to build the mental energy of honor, since there is absolutely no positive direction in which this pent-up energy can be channeled. So, it seems that humility cannot be perceived as we suggested above, as a form of modesty that acts on the instinct of honor, in order to build it and direct it into positive channels. It seems that according to Maimonides, there are absolutely no such positive channels.

It seems to me that the energy of withheld honor can also be utilized in broader ways than honor in positive contexts alone (which, as stated above, do not exist at all according to the Maimonides). Such energy is a significant motivator for completely different human actions. Something like what Freud claimed about the sexual drive, or energy, can also be said about honor (and so did Adler). Honor can serve as energy that motivates actions that do not seem at all related to levels of honor (for example: there is no honor but Torah). This is energy that a person will use in completely different directions. If he wastes it on the pursuit of honor, he extinguishes it. The purpose of humility, according to this perspective, is to store this energy and channel it in these directions.[32]

In conclusion, we have seen three levels of relationship between modesty and humility. The first level observes that modesty is not a measure at all. It is the external behavior derived from the measure of humility. This level of relation places these two measures on a single chain of measures. In the second level of relation, we understood these two measures as measures, each of which has its own complete chain of measures, from mental inclination to action. Here, modesty was used as a measure, but only in the narrow sense (in the context of the relationship between it and itself). The third level of relation states that modesty is not a measure at all in the conventional sense, but rather a measured mode of action. In this sense, humility is nothing more than a particular case of modesty. It is certainly to be expected that there will be other measures (apart from humility) that will constitute particular examples of the mode of action of modesty. These three levels of relation express three different approaches to modesty: as behavior, as a measure, and finally, on the deepest and most essential level, as a measured mode of action.

[1] See also Bavli Berakhot 58:1, and Tosefta 56:5, and in Madbar Pinchas, Parasha 21:2, and more.

[2] The distinction between this stage and the previous one must be clarified here. In defining 'feeling' here, I mean a state of mind in a given situation, and not a tendency of the emotional part that permanently exists in a person. Here we are talking about 'anger' and not 'anger'. Earlier we spoke about mental strength, and not about a state of mind. Mental strength is what creates the concrete mental states when a person is in some specific situation. A person is called 'angry' in a certain situation that is usually temporary. A person's anger is part of his permanent character. He is 'anger-possessed'.

[3] 'Anger' is usually seen as a description of the appearance of an angry person, and not as a learning or general tendency in the soul, etc.

[4] Feeling constant anger towards someone is seemingly a state that does not pass, but despite this it is clear that it is a feeling and not a character trait. It may indicate the strength of some character trait, but the two should not be confused. It is still a characteristic of this person's condition and not part of him himself. As an analogy, it is known that all possessions for time are not possessions of the body but possessions of fruits. To the same extent, possessions of fruits are essentially temporary possessions. But in principle, it is possible to have a state of possession of fruits whose time is forever.

[5] See Maharal Nativ Anva, and in the book Midot ve Gahamim, Asa Kasher and Aharon Namdar (eds.), Hoshen Lamishpat, Ramat-Gan, 1995, in the article by Emanuel Etkes (ibid., p. 13).

[6] See Psalms 9:13, 10:12, Proverbs 3:34, 14:21, 16:19. And conversely (written "an'u'im" and read "an'ayim"): Isaiah 32:7, and Psalms 9:19.

[7] It is interesting to note that Moses himself wrote the Torah, and if so, he testifies to himself that he was humbled by every person on earth. This reminds us of the seemingly puzzling statement of Rabbi Yosef, which will be discussed later, that when a rabbi died and they said of him that the death of a rabbi nullifies humility, Rabbi Yosef rebuked them by claiming that he himself still exists (i.e. humility does not nullify).

[8] And see in the words of the Gra on Proverbs 16, "All arrogance is an abomination to the Lord," which is the same for the quality of pride. He also explains there that pride is a quality of character even if it does not come to any practical expression in practice.

[9] In the Babylonian Vows 38:1-3, the Blessed One does not place His Shekinah except on a hero, a rich man, a wise man, and a humble man, and all of them are Moses… The same is true for those in power that Moses seeks in the Parshat Yitro, and the same is true for the High Priest. It is possible that all the requirements for wisdom, beauty, wealth, and heroism are merely prerequisites for humility. Without all of these, humility has no meaning. Only someone who has all of these in him is his humility considered a virtue, and Akmal.

[10] There is a well-known story about the rabbi Reka who came to Warsaw and all the city's residents went up to the rooftops to watch him. When he saw this, he asked his companion if he was really so ugly and his back so bent that everyone wanted to watch him. I have never believed this story. Reka was known as humble but not a fool. Even in his references to himself, it was clear that he knew his place, at the level of facts. In the polemic over the printing of the Shas, it is known that he wrote about himself that he was the greatest of his generation and that anyone who disagrees with him could be harmed. And as mentioned, this does not contradict his humility. Perhaps in the story about his visit to Warsaw he wants to teach the listeners a lesson in humility and does not intend to make this statement seriously. It still seems strange to me, and I agree.

[11] He can, of course, be proud (unjustly), and we have learned that pride is not necessarily the opposite of humility, and so on.

[12] In the above comment, we saw that even Moses, when he writes in the Torah, "Not so, my servant Moses, in all his house he is faithful" and describes himself as "more faithful than any man on the face of the earth," says similar things to Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Nachman. It is true that these words were spoken by the mouth of the mighty through Moses, and not by Moses himself, and therefore it is in their interest to Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yosef to teach us this standard.

[13] Pride in things that are not spiritual achievements is not at all a defect in humility. It is simply a mistake, or a problem in faith and worldview. Defective humility is pride in the advantages and achievements of truth.

[14] See Bavli Khulin, 9th century BC.

[15] These levels are the main concern of the Maharal on the Path of Humility.

[16] Similar to the argument that proposes allowing the use of addictive drugs so that they are not considered 'stolen water,' the same goes for allowing pornography and hacking.

[17] Indeed, as is known, there is a small organ in a person that makes him hungry and makes him full, and so on.

[18] When norms become more unbridled, the desire to break through barriers will have to find expression in even more extreme acts. There will always be a breach of a barrier, the question is how high the barrier is breached. Today, when the barrier is very low, almost anything is permitted, a person who wants to protest or break through a barrier for one reason or another has to engage in provocations, or very extreme acts. This is why the artistic norms of things that are displayed in public are deteriorating. Art that wants to make a statement must break through a barrier. If the barrier is that a woman must completely cover her head, a protest would be to reveal a little of her hair, if the norm is that a woman should be dressed in something minimal, then breaking through the barrier can only be done by removing this minimum (if not more). See my comment on art below.

[19] Therefore, in Freud, the sexual instinct (libido) is defined as the life instinct (eros), in contrast to the death instinct of aggression and destruction (thanatus).

[20] My thanks to my friend Rabbi Uriel Eitam for reminding me of this verse in this context.

It is interesting to note in this context that when the Sages seek to eliminate the urge for fornication, they do so in part, so as not to paralyze activity in the world as prescribed. Even when the elimination is in part, it would seem that there was a place to eliminate the urge in a place that is forbidden, and to leave it only in places that are permitted or commanded. There, in the Book of Genesis, it is described that they eliminated half of it so that no one would provoke his relatives. And Rashi there explains that the urge for a prostitute and a man's wife remained. Apparently, the Sages could have asked that the entire urge for fornication be eliminated in a place that is forbidden, and not only in relatives. Apparently, an urge that turns only in permitted directions, or directions of a mitzvah, cannot serve as an engine that drives a person. Of course, this does not mean that one should surrender to this urge. Here we clearly see that a world without this urge, and precisely in a place of transgression, cannot function. Without attempts to overcome the urges, the world cannot function properly.

From this it is clear that after the abolition of this instinct, even for half, the world is not at a higher level, but rather a lower one. Man is half-extinguished. It should be noted that this is also true regarding the instinct of idolatry, which was also abolished by the people of the Knesset. Often the feeling prevails that the world is in a better and higher state as a result, but it is not (at least from this aspect). With the abolition of this instinct, a certain internal engine is extinguished, and so on.

[21] To contradict a building is to conceal it, not to erase it. That is why it is called a 'contradiction.' For this reason, the halacha requires in Sabbath works that there be a contradiction in order to build. The concealment is not in order to make the thing disappear from the world, but in order to build better (in the Hebrew Shabbat 31, the Hebrew word for contradiction requires a contradiction in order to build in its place. That is, to build the same thing itself, and not simply to use stones to build something else. Contradicting something is part of its own improvement). Also, contradicting someone's words should be done out of a desire to build something better together, and not for the sake of destruction and humiliation. Here too, a contradiction is needed in order to build. All the terms of 'contradiction' are concealment not in order to eliminate, but in order to build and improve. So is the concealment required of a person who practices modesty.

[22] Creation describes something from nothing. The creation of the being itself is creation. To give it a form is creation. Therefore, the world of creation is the world of things in themselves, and the world of creation is the creation of their forms (= the Platonic world of ideas). The result of the combination of these two is the world of action.

[23] Hearing means the recognition of hidden things. On the physical level, sounds can be heard beyond a partition, but seeing is not possible even if a thin partition separates the object from the observer. This is one of the reasons why the monk uses the metaphor of 'hearing' to indicate the recognition of hidden things, and I will elaborate on this. On this subject, see the monk's book 'The Voice of Prophecy - Hebrew Audible Logic' (and also in the evaluation articles printed at the end).

[24] The scripture in Lamentations 3:10 says: "A bear lies in wait for me, a lion in secret places" (see Rashi, where the bear is God, the Holy One).

[25] An exception to this rule is Amalek, of whom it is said, "And his end is a lost witness." In the future, when everything is revealed at its root, it will become clear that Amalek's selfhood has nothing, and he will disappear from himself. Amalek is a form without matter (without selfhood).

[26] One of the problems with contemporary art, as it is perceived through religious eyes, is modesty. This is not just a halakhic problem, but a problem of character. The demands of modesty do not reduce the intensity of protest, but rather intensify it. A strong, external experience passes as quickly as it comes. A quiet expression of protest penetrates deeply, and is much longer-lasting. There is no opposition to protest here, but an attempt to shape its character differently. The debate over the problematic performance of the Bat Sheva dance troupe on Independence Day (1998) should not be conducted on the level of consideration for the feelings of the religious minority, but on the level of artistic debate. The debate is how art, or even protest, should look and be expressed, and so on. See also the comment above on breaking through barriers.

[27] This division is related to the Kabbalistic division between graces and virtues (or laws). Laws and virtues are the form, and grace is the self. The virtues restrain and create a form for grace, which is the Being itself, and all things are possible.

In light of this, perhaps it will be understood why the commandments of modesty for women are more numerous, more prominent, and more stringent than those for men. In our terminology, the woman is the form (Din, Geburah, the left side in Kabbalah) and the man is the substance (Hachesed, the right side in Kabbalah). Here too, Achamal, and Dal.

In light of this, it will also be understood why "you are modest, wisdom," and as the Maharal continues on the path of modesty, the result of modesty is wisdom, and wisdom is imparted to them. And see also in the Madaber, Parasha 8, Da'a Va'ish, Shek: "While she practices the Jewish religion itself, which is modest, she deserves that sons who are knowledgeable in the Scriptures and who have a Mishnah will come out of her," etc., and further in the Shihshahar, Parasha 4, Da'a Nafat, Ita, that a learned scholar must be modest.

Wisdom also belongs to the right wing (above kindness), opposite understanding (above heroism). It also represents the entity in wisdom, or wisdom itself. Wisdom is the bringing forth of wisdom, a thing out of a thing, that is, 'formal', mathematical rules, for deriving truths from previous truths, in mathematical terminology: 'understanding' are the rules of derivation used to derive derived sentences (theorems, which are 'knowledge') from the axioms (which are 'wisdom'). Wisdom is wisdom in its essence (the basic premises) from which understanding derives all knowledge (=knowledge). Again we see that the right side is the entity, the thing itself, and the left side is its covering and its outward reflection. Therefore, it is clear that 'you are modest wisdom', and in this too, it is a matter of conscience.

One last note that concerns the hidden of the hidden (= in modesty). The blessing, as is well known, is also contained in what is hidden from view. Even with regard to the tablets, in the Tenchuma, it says, "The first tablets, because they were given in public, therefore the evil eye had dominion over them, and they were broken." And here, God, blessed be He, has nothing more beautiful to you than modesty, as He says, "And walk modestly with your God." The modest thing is what exists. The external has no real existence. It is only the appearance of the thing (the form) and not the thing itself (the substance). The evil eye has no control over the bones. Therefore, the Sages said that whoever does not believe in the evil eye, it does not control him. This stems from the fact that the evil eye is a false reality, whose existence depends on people's belief in it, or on their 'seeing it' (this is a form without substance). If they do not believe in it, it does not exist. The evil eye does not harm the humble, and that is a good thing.

[28] See the note above on the nature of art today.

[29] In light of what we have described above, it is more accurate to say that there are no motives for self-actualization at all. Self-actualization means behavior that does not stem from motives. It is what constitutes a fundamental motive for all other behavior.

[30] Perhaps the prohibition against walking upright that appears at the beginning of the Book of Proverbs, which is also perceived, rightly or wrongly, as good conduct, or a special virtue, rather than as a binding rule. There are also things that are forbidden because of arrogance, and the like.

[31] Maimonides' source is the Babylonian Sota 5:1, quoted above in chapter 3, es.

[32] In Bavli Berakhot 6b, the Gemara says that the one who establishes a place for his prayer is called one of the disciples of our forefather Abraham, and when he dies, they say about him, "He is neither humble nor pious among the disciples of our forefather Abraham." When considering this Gemara, the question immediately arises as to the connection between establishing a place in prayer and the quality of humility. It is possible to understand that the quality of humility in this context acts like modesty. It builds the self. Creating my place is creating a permanent status before the Creator, or in fact, building my selfhood. This is precisely modesty. Humility can also act as modesty. And yet, this Gemara is a blessing.