Speech
The Self-Image of the Rabbi (1981)
A good part of the functioning of a rabbi, in the many aspects of his career as a teacher of Torah and leader of his community, depends upon his self-confidence – a psychological and also spiritual issue which involves his self-image as a rabbi and student of Torah, and his conception of his role, his identity, and his destiny. At first blush, the problem is a rather simple one. Self-image is a question of gaavah (pride) or anivut (humility), and Maimonides in his Hilkhot Deiot is quite clear on this. In all other attributes of character, as a matter of Halakhah, Maimonides demands that we follow the middle way between the ex-tremes. We are to shun the extremes and follow the path of moderation, the mean between the two polar opposites. This middle way, what is popularly known as the “Golden Mean,” Maimonides identi-fies as “The Way of the Lord.” But there are two exceptions that Maimonides makes in formulating this halakhah of character, and one of these is self-assessment. Here Maimonides identifies the two extremes as gaavah (pride) and shiflut (lowli-ness), and the middle way as that of anivut (humble-ness). Unlike other characteristics, or deiot, a per-son here must choose the extreme of shiflut — of self-abnegation or lowliness. Thus, we read con-cerning Moses that והאיש משה ענו מאוד , "and the man Moses was very humble” (Numbers 12:3). Maimonides interprets the intensive as indicating the extreme; thus, “very humble” (anav me’od) equals “of lowly spirit" (shefal ruah).Similarly, in the fourth chapter of Avot we read that R. Levitas of Yavneh says, “Be exceedingly careful (me’od, me’od) to be lowly of spirit.” Hence, with regard to a person’s self-definition, the “golden mean” or middle way does not apply and, instead, one must opt for shiflut or lowliness—the extreme or intensive form of anivut, humbleness.However, the matter is too complex and too con-sequential to leave it at that. An analysis of Maimonides’ view leaves us with a number of troubling questi…
