Much later, Hillel answered, in his way:
If I am not for myself who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when?
The line that seems to warrant the most attention here is line 2, properly translated not as “who am I” but “what am I.” The implication is that when we serve only ourselves, we are something less than human. It is our connectedness, our service to others, that is the key to our very humanity.
It is important to note, however, that this appears in line 2. Why, if this is the essence of our humanness, is it the second condition we are asked to consider? Hmmm...
One might be tempted to banter about the notion that one cannot love others until one loves oneself, but I think that's a bit trite, and possibly even untrue. Self-love, be it what it may, is not necessarily the same as being for oneself. Being for oneself has a much broader—and more profound—meaning. As if to say: If I do not live my life, then who will live it for me? It is about being present. It is about being genuine. It is about... well... being.
From this interpretation, we can see why this question must be raised first: It is me, myself, who must be this person and perform the acts of my life. The responsibility is mine. I must act.
Because being is not about a state of emotion, it is about a state of action. Sure, you can love yourself. That's wonderful. But if you sit home and love yourself, what good does it do? You may feel marvelous—you may even look marvelous—but what are you? Not much fun at parties, to say the least.
You can even talk about tending to your own needs. It's not just about self-love, it's about self-care: If I don't take care of myself, who will take care of me? Okay, so we've moved from feeling to acting. This is good, for a number of reasons. For one thing, we are back to responsibility. It is MY JOB to do the stuff that needs to be done for me to live. This is all part of being. And it still leads neatly to question number 2: Yep. YOU need to BE for you. But not only for you, eh-eh-ehhh... (Finger-wagging and tongue-clicking ensues.)
The trouble with this thinking is the mistaken notion that we should do for ourselves first. I really doubt Hillel would have wanted us to get that harebrained idea. Which is why he needed to really put the punch in line 2, with the kick-in-the-pants of line 3:
Listen, pal. It's not about you. Do what you need to do to take care of yourself, sure—it's your duty. But you better also be looking after the other guy, and you better be doing it now. Not later. Not after your needs are met. Not when you feel like it.
Actually, there's a little flaw in the logic that we need to meet our own needs if we're all looking after each other. Which is why I like the basic notion of being as an action in and of itself rather than being as a means to an end.
The real point is this: You have to pay attention in this life to be effective. You have to BE for yourself, and you have to be attentive to others. It's very Buddhist, really. (Or is Buddhism Jewish?) Be mindful, be present, be generous. NOW.
You know, the way Moses could only know the presence of G-d because he was willing to gaze? (You don't know? Well, stick around...)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I wish I had my copy of Pirke Avot handy. I am sure there are pencil marks on this famous passage from Hillel that would guide my comments now.
The part that has always confused me is the end of line 1 "...or else who will be for me?" It sounds as if we must be self-reliant because there might not be anyone out there to help in our hour of need. So the meaning of line 1 might be "take care of yourself first so as not to impose that responsibility on others--who may or not be there when you need them."
But (line 2) that is not good enough. We get real meaning from helping others who are not as luck as we are. Furthermore (line 3) now is the time. Get going!
Yes. That's the logical inconsistency I was talking about. I think the point is, as you suggest, that it is our responsibilty to care for ourselves-- and, perhaps in a certain light, removing that burden from others is part of being "for" them as well.
But in the end analysis this is why I like the idea of "being" as an action, rather than taking care of oneself as the main point. Because no one CAN "be" for us, even if they wanted to.
Post a Comment