[Avodah] Fwd (rbh at sympatico.ca): Insight 5768-34: Teaching Personality

[Micha Berger]

This was just too AishDas-y not to share.

-micha

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:04:16 -- 0400
From: Nishma <rbh at sympatico.ca>
Subject: Insight 5768-34: Teaching Personality

INSIGHT
5768 -- #34
Balak 

This INSIGHT is dedicated
in memory of
Hyman Scherer a"h
by Martin Scherer

TEACHING PERSONALITY
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht

Rabbi Yisroel Chait, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Bnei Torah, poses
a most fascinating yet bewildering question [1] that I continue to
find difficult to answer: how does one truly get through to a ba'al
gaiva, an inherently haughty person, that he/she should not be a ba'al
gaiva? Of course, it is possible to teach and, perhaps more importantly,
to motivate such a person to act humbly but that is precisely the Rosh
Yeshiva's point. If one looks at many of the sources within the Torah
literature in this regard, such as, for example, Avot 1:13 [2] one finds
arguments that contend that the method by which one receives honour is
by not seeking honour-but is the ultimate aim still not honour? Honour
would still seem to be the objective; the instruction is that the way
to achieve this objective is through a method that seems to convey the
opposite -- but is this the true lesson of such statements? Is the goal
solely to affect action or is the goal to affect the person, to cause
the person to not desire honour? It would seem that when we discuss
humility, the objective of such teachings is more than causing a change
in behaviour but rather to cause a change in personality: don't desire
honour! Yet the very teachings that try to affect this change actually
seem to reinforce this desire by using this desire itself to motivate
the person. You want honour so don't act haughty and thereby you will
get honour -- but the goal is still honour. How do you get across to
someone that he/she should not even have this drive for honour?[3] This
is the Rosh Yeshiva's question. If a person's yardstick in determining
behaviour is a drive for honour, you can cause them to change behaviour
by using this yardstick but is the goal not solely to change behaviour
but to change the yardstick? How then do you change the yardstick?

The answer may be that the goal is simply to change behaviour, that
it is not truly possible to change the yardstick. Alternatively,
it may be argued that the only way to change a yardstick is to find
another yardstick within the person that is more important to him/her
and use that yardstick to affect change in the yardstick of desiring
honour. An argument that haughtiness may hinder one's career would be
such an example, assuming that the desire for success in one's career
is more important to the person than honour. The person will thereby
not try to just change behaviour but also personality in attempting to
satisfy a greater drive within himself/herself. The problem is that this
is not what these teachings such as the one presented in Avot 1:13,
seem to be presenting. They are using the very drive to change the
very drive, or, perhaps, it is just the behaviour that is the focus
of these statements. What is perhaps most significant from all this,
though, is the recognition that you can only teach someone based upon
what motivates them.

The words of Mishlei 22:6 to teach a child according to his/her ways
would seem immediately to come to mind. It is not enough to present
someone with information expecting that person to affect change in
himself/herself by just encountering this information. One must cause
this information to touch the person; the nature and personality of the
person is thus most significant. What is being taught, thus, must be
molded in consideration of the person one is wishing to instruct. This,
though, places a parameter on the information that one wishes to impart,
even if this is Torah information. It would seem not to be enough to tell
someone what the Torah says; one must also determine why someone would be
interested in this information and then, most importantly, consider this
knowledge in conveying the Torah idea to this person. But does this not
mean that we are demanded to mold the Torah information in consideration
of the person? Does this not seem to imply that even Torah is defined,
to some extent, by the individual it is trying to reach and instruct?

The famous statement of T.B. Makkot 10b that states that in the way
someone wishes to go, the Torah will lead them, seems to be powerfully
on point. Included in the gemara's discussion is the case of Bilaam who
finally was allowed by God to go to with these emissaries of Balak even
though at first God said not to go with them. Is this stating that God
will give in to the desires of individuals? How could Bilaam, a person
who encountered God on the highest level possible for a human being to
perceive the Divine, consider an act that is even slightly removed from
the Will of God? The case of Bilaam seems to show that just the knowledge
of God, even at the highest level, cannot affect a person unless that
knowledge touches something within the personality of the person thereby
igniting a drive to follow that instruction. Yet Bilaam was still punished
for his misbehaviour and the words of Makkot still do not justify the sins
that one may commit. Indeed the Torah itself will lead you upon the path
you wish to go, indeed you will use the very words of Torah to justify
that which you wish to do, but nonetheless you are still responsible for
your misdeeds. It has always bothered me. I turn to Torah for instruction
yet I am told that the Torah itself can mislead me and seem to instruct me
in a way that I should not go because that is the way I want to go. The
Torah would seem to be intentionally open to being misleading. It seems
to be that it must be -- for the only way it can truly speak to me is
through knowledge of who I am and touching that which interests me.

To speak to me, the Torah must present itself in the context of my
being. My being thereby becomes a parameter in my understanding of
Torah. This very parameter, though, may also cause my understanding of
Torah to veer and affect the message in an inappropriate manner. How do
I know, though, when I am following the words of Mishlei and teaching
Torah in an appropriate manner that considers the person's being or
when I am following the model of Bilaam and applying a person's being
to distort the Torah message? How do I use a person's desire for honour
to teach that person not to be interested in honour?

Of course, in the case of Bilaam, he was first told not to go with the
men, so he should have already known better. What can we do, though, when
we can already distort the first message? As I said, I am still troubled
by this question. My only conclusion so far is that it is important for
us to understand and consider this dilemma as we contemplate the Torah
word. We must be also very careful to recognize what we truly want.

Footnotes
"""""""""
1 Heard orally.

2 This states that one who seeks a name, loses his/her name -- that the
one who seeks honour will ultimately not gain honour. This would seem
to be a tautology. If we argue that one should not seek honour because
seeking honour one will actually result in not gaining it, does the
not-seeking of honour, thereby, become a way of seeking honour?

3 Of course, some level of concern for one's honour may still be
appropriate and this question should be understood within this context. On
the difficult question of determining the proper level of this concern,
see, further, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Deot, c. 1,2.

(C) Nishma, 2008

We welcome your comments on this Insight at the Insight Discussion Forum
at our website, www.nishma.org, or click here to go directly to this
Discussion Forum.
www.nishma.org http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/ mail at nishma.org
IN CANADA: 1057 Steeles Avenue West P.O. Box 81684 Toronto, Ontario M2R 3X1
fax: 416-882-5867
IN THE U.S.A.: 1740 Ocean Ave. Suite 8-P Brooklyn, New York