Kabalah of Bitul – Changing the “Self” Within “Selfish”

Moved by a powerful sense of humility and self-abnegation, two spiritually accomplished mystics were observed rolling on the floor while repeatedly affirming their sense of nothingness.

The true extent of their humility was not quite known however, until to their chagrin, a third individual of far lesser spiritual status decided to join them.

With rolling eyes, one mystic was overheard whispering to the other in utter disgust: “Take a look at who thinks he’s nobody!”

______________________________________

A certain Chassid was notorious for his extreme humility and self-effacement. Once he was asked: “Does not the Talmud say that even a Torah scholar must retain ‘one eighth of one eighth of pride?’”

Replied the Chassid: “Let us assume that you are right and that when I come to stand before the heavenly court it will indeed be found that I am a ‘Torah scholar.’ ‘Hmm,’ the supernal judge will sternly demand ‘What have we here? I see a Torah scholar. Where is your “eighth of an eighth’”?! Let us further assume, my friend, that as you claim, I was somewhat deficient in this area. I guess that this would put me into somewhat of a bind. Nevertheless, I am fairly confident I will somehow manage to scrape together enough evidence of ego and pride in my life to satisfy the Talmudic requirement.

But what of following possibility: I come before the heavenly court to account and I am told: ‘Eighth of eighth’s we see aplenty of that, but where is the “Torah scholar?”’ You see, I’d rather take my chances with the first scenario…”

______________________________________

“Just two choices on the shelf, pleasing G-d or pleasing self”― Ken Collier

______________________________________

Our Parsha, Bo, portrays the continued saga of Egypt’s insubordination to G-d and its resultant self destruction. More plagues; more shuttle diplomacy on the part of Moshe and Aharon; more changes of heart on the part Pharaoh…

It is obvious that the systematic downfall of Pharaoh and the Egyptian culture is of great significance to the overall Divine cosmic design – it played a particularly essential role in the emergence of the Jewish nation – a nation taken “From the midst of a nation.” Why otherwise would our birth be presented in this imaginative and dramatic manner?

The Torah is in fact, very clear about the significance of the humiliating downfall of Egypt by virtue of the damning plagues: “Come to Pharaoh,” says G-d to Moshe in the opening verse of our Parsha, “For I have made his heart and the hearts of his servants stubborn, so that I can place these signs of Mine in his midst; and so that you may relate in the ears of your son and your son’s son ‘That I made a mockery of Egypt’ . . . so that you may know that I am the Lord.”

But why is the Pharaoh’s public mockery so important to G-d?  What essential characteristic for that matter does he represent that is so abhorrent to G-d? And what in the end, are we to learn from Egypt’s dramatic downfall?

Given its prominent association with our earliest formation as a people, the trait in question must be of fundamental importance to our nationhood and mission as G-d’s chosen people. The latter precludes any pathological or psychotic condition, for it is not likely that the Torah would spend that many chapters or any chapters at all, even verses, describing an uncontrollable disorder, since there is nothing we can learn from it or do about it.

It also precludes the profile of a hapless and helpless fool, because neither would the Torah waist its time discussing traits that belong to imbeciles that can’t help themselves, as the Talmud states: “V’Chi B’Shuftini Askinan?” Are we then dealing with imbeciles? E.g. the Talmud doesn’t use cases involving morons in presenting its lessons and rules (Bava Metzia 40a). The same would certainly hold true with regards to Torah as well.

So, to what grave characteristic – of paramount importance to our function as a people – does the Torah alert us by weaving our origins with the protracted narrative of Pharaoh’s stubborn defiance and painful collapse?

The answer is got to be “Selfishness.” Selfishness is indeed the mother of all negative traits, for all evil within man stems from her. In absence of selfishness, there would be no arrogance, anger, hate, prejudice, jealousy, intolerance or any of the other harmful attributes.  “Almost every sinful action ever committed can be traced back to a selfish motive. It is a trait we hate in other people but justify in ourselves,” Stephen Kendrick, The Love Dare.

Well you say, who could argue with that? Selfishness is by all accounts a very harmful and destructive human character flaw; it makes perfect sense to attribute the destructive defiance of Pharaoh and his Egyptian cohorts to this repugnant mortal trait and deficiency.

The simple lesson would then be that selfishness is so detrimental a flow that it is responsible for bringing down the most sophisticated and advanced ancient culture and turning its mighty leader into a shameful mockery; who’s only trace of existence is relegated to the artifacts of modern archeology and the pages of history books.

Indeed, this foretelling scenario has been repeated in the annals of history in connection with every despot and corrupt culture that has defied the world’s true and rightful Owner, from Haman to Hitler – Nebuchadnezzar to Saddam Husain.

Even so lowly a creature as Nazi war criminal Hans Frank – brought to justice at the historic Nuremberg trials and one of those hanged for his part in the Nazi atrocities and crimes against humanity – has managed to play his role in this Divine law – the self destruction of the arrogant – that seems implanted in the very nature of the world: “Here [in the prison of Nuremberg] are the would-be rulers of Germany,” declared Frank, “Each in a cell like this, with four walls and a toilet, awaiting trial as ordinary criminals. Is that not proof of G-d’s amusement with man’s sacrilegious quest for power?…This trial is willed by G-d.”

It’s hard to believe that Hans Frank, aka the “Jew Butcher of Krakow,” could possibly have known how profound his words actually were. Is this not the greatest fulfillment of the foretelling Divine declaration in our Parsha: “So that I may place these signs of Mine in his midst; and so that you may relate in the ears of your son and your son’s son ‘that I made a mockery of Egypt’… so that you may know that I am the Lord?”

The humbling of the arrogant appears to be particularly pleasurable to G-d; it is the ultimate expression of Divine truth in the world. It is even more so the case when the conceited are alone compelled to acknowledge their humility before G-d and recognize the consequences of their “Sacrilegious quest for power.”

This then is the lesson of our Parsha in its declaration: “I made a mockery of Egypt’… so that you may know that I am the Lord…”

Isn’t everyone selfish?

Yet the depravity of the selfish nature and its foul core is far from decisive; not without challenge. There is a long standing and well founded argument to the contrary. The gist of the differing philosophy is best summed-up in the questions: “But isn’t everyone selfish? Doesn’t everyone do what they do because it’s what they desire, otherwise why would they do it? Since every purposeful action is motivated by some value or goal on the part of the actor, one always acts selfishly, whether one knows it or not.

This argument is actually the subject of a 1964 collection of highly debated essays and papers by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden; compiled in a book called The Virtue of Selfishness – A New Concept of Egoism. The Virtue of Selfishness presents Ayn Rand’s revolutionary moral code of rational selfishness and its opposition to the prevailing morality of altruism—the duty to sacrifice for the sake of others.

Rand argues that the misguided definition of selflessness has created the image of the ‘Brute’ as its antithesis; portraying any concern with one’s own interests as evil, regardless of what these interests might be. The brute’s activities, they claim, are perceived as personally gainful, which altruism enjoins us to renounce for the sake of our neighbors.

Altruism and selflessness, Rand asserts, are misinterpreted to suggest that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of its moral value – so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself. This misinterpretation plays in no small way directly into our corrupt principles and standards, she contends.

According to altruism’s inherent criteria, to paraphrase the argument, an industrialist who produces a fortune and a gangster who robs a bank are regarded as equally immoral, since they both sought wealth for their own “Selfish” benefit. A dictator is regarded as moral, so long as the unspeakable atrocities he committed were intended to benefit ‘The people,’ not himself…

Most importantly however reasons Rand, beneficiary based selflessness essentially devalues and disregards the significance of all higher purpose, since higher purpose inevitably produces self-gain, which – according to the rules of altruism – is ostensibly not a gain at all but rather a loss.  Self-inflicted pain and incomprehensible duty is what comprise its actual goals.

One may at best hope for the occasional sacrifice by others as he grudgingly sacrifices himself for them. But he knows that this relationship brings mutual resentment, not pleasure. He knows that this pursuit of moral values is like an exchange of unwanted, un-chosen gifts, which neither is morally permitted to buy for themselves. Yet apart from some dispassionate act of self-sacrifice, one is forbidden higher “Selfish” ambition and fulfillment. Gainful action has nothing to offer to him; it is regarded either as evil or, at best, amoral.

Moreover, since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival and since he has to support his life by his own effort, man’s effort and desire to live is hence, by definition, evil. Man’s life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more ludicrous than that.

To summarize the conundrum in simple terms, we are faced here with the ultimate catch 22: To seek higher values and purpose in life requires a sense of self awareness and self-fulfillment.  Self-awareness and fulfillment are by definition “Selfish.” Selfishness as we’ve established at the very outset, is the root of all evil.

Were we to recant the premise of the evil within selfishness, then where would we draw the line, since we would all have to agree that selfishness in its most raw form is certainly a source of evil, if not the ultimate source?” This whole question of pride it seems is very confusing. Would Judaism frown on a man taking pride in his work or on a Jew taking pride in his Jewishness? It can be argued that in some circumstances pride is the driving force for worthwhile activities. The subject of pride and selflessness – Bitul, is indeed a very complex one. So how are the inconsistencies resolved?

A Chasidic master once put it this way: ‘Every person must have two slips of paper in his pocket. On one there should be inscribed the words uttered by Abraham: ‘I am dust and ashes.’ On the other there should be inscribed the words taken from the Mishnah: ‘For my sake the whole world was created.’ In moments when the danger lurks of excessive pride he should take out the slip reminding him that he is dust and ashes. But when his self-doubt threatens to be completely stultifying, he must take out the other slip to reaffirm that the whole world was created for his sake. But that does not answer the question.

To resolve the enigma let us begin by establishing a clear distinction between the emphasis that Chasidus places on Bitul and Rand’s so called altruism. Bitul is directed towards a higher sublime being, i.e. the ‘Supreme Creator of heaven and earth.’ Rand’s theory of ‘Objectivism’ and ‘Rejection of ethical altruism,’ does not pertain to G-d, or any higher deity for that matter, but rather to fellow man. Now this is a huge distinction. Chasidus would no doubt agree with Rand that complete abnegation and selflessness towards a fellow human being is irrational, for what makes him better than you, or in the vernacular of the Talmud, Sanhedrin 74b: “What makes his blood redder than yours?”

In light of the above, a good part of Rand’s argument is invalidated from the get-go. The question really comes down to what ’Prevailing morality of altruism,’ or ‘Duty to sacrifice for the sake of other,’ might Rand be referring to? Rand didn’t direct her question of ‘Objectivism’ and ‘Selflessness towards a ‘Higher Authority,’ it thus has nothing to do with the Chasidic concept of Bitul, which is clearly directed towards the Supernal Creator.

The above notwithstanding, the question that Rand raises still stands vis-à-vis Bitul; selflessness towards higher Divine existence and purpose which Chasidus does mandate – since it is inevitably driven by a sense of self-awareness and self-fulfillment. This creates a paradox, as self-awareness and fulfillment are by definition “Selfish” and selfishness is by definition the opposite of Bitul. How then are the two reconciled?

The answer to this puzzle lies, at least in part, in the fact that there exists a Divine Soul within man that is part of his essential makeup and being. This Supernal spirit, which according to Chasidus is an actual spark of G-d and shares His boundlessness, allows us to achieve unprecedented transcendence and surpass our finest “Selfish” natures.

Since we possess this Divine soul as part of our core being, we need not actually change or reconstruct our human nature and character in order to transcend ourselves, we have only to uncover and align ourselves with the Divine within. By actively connecting with our higher Divine spirit we can conduct ourselves in thought, speech and deed with the true will of G-d.

Another way of putting it: While we cannot change the fact that higher values and purpose in life, even the most lofty and religious, are driven by a sense of self-gain and actualization, which is inevitably selfish by definition, we can and are actually required to change and refine the ‘Self’ within the ‘Selfish;’ to align it with our ever present essential Divine dimension until we are naturally in sync with the highest form of G-dliness; aware that we are part of something greater than ourselves—that if our existence has meaning, it is only because it serves a reality beyond its own finite and subjective self.

However until we reach that level of perfection there will always remain a trace of the self that cannot be avoided. Perhaps that is the idea of the “Eighth of an eighth” (Shminis She-B’shminis) that the Talmud refers to. In fact, according to Chasidus the service of our Divine Maker lies within the struggle itself. While as mortals it may not be possible for us to achieve absolute perfect Bitul for the reasons stated above, our struggle with the very matter; our awareness and concern over our incapability of complete Bitul is itself the Bitul that G-d expects of us.

There is however a point at which these two forces converge and unite. This is the point at which it is recognized that the refinement and perfection of the self can itself be an altruistic enterprise —when it is undertaken solely because this is what the Creator desires from us. A better self—a more knowing, sensitive, accomplished self—is a self better equipped to fulfill its purpose in creation. Indeed, the making of this better self is the fulfillment of its purpose in creation. Ultimately, improving the self is the ultimate service of G d.

Chassidic master R’ Zusha of Anipoli is reputed to have said: ‘If it were offered to me to exchange places with Abraham our father, I would refuse. What would G d gain from this? He’d still have one Zusha and one Abraham.’ R’ Zusha’s life was driven by the burning ambition to become an Abraham—but only in order that G d should have another Abraham. If the end result is that there’s only one Abraham for G d, what’s the point? When a person attains this acme of love for G d, the ultimate criterion is service of G d, its passions are cultivated, its ambitions are encouraged; its selfhood is fully integrated in the selflessness of the self.”

Through our sincere struggle with this delicate topic, may the Almighty give us the eyes to see, the ears to hear and the heart to know the right formula and hasten thereby the coming of the righteous Moshiach BBA.