TEACHING
PERSONALITY
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. Rabbi
Benjamin Hecht 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 Return to top |
© 2010 NISHMA