We have proposed that Hillel established two different modes of leadership: the dynastic mode, that ends in the middle of chapter 2, and the chain of leadership by merit, which is recounted in the middle of chapter 2 until its end. One might expect then that Hillel would formulate the same teaching differently for each model and that is what we find. As we will shortly see, the only difference between the two versions is that for the dynastic model, the warning to be an independent individual (in other words, to think for your self) precedes the prescription to work for the community whereas fort he "merit" model, the prescriptions to subect oneself to communial needs is put before the warning that one must be independent. Each model is told first what it needs to hear first and then what it needs to hear second.
Compare:
1:14 He (Hillel) would also say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?
2:4
Hillel would say: Do not separate yourself from the community. Do not believe in yourself until the day you die. Do not judge your fellow until you have stood in his place. Do not say something that is not readily understood in the belief that it will ultimately be understood [or: Do not say something that ought not to be heard even in the strictest confidence, for ultimately it will be heard]. And do not say "When I free myself of my concerns, I will study,'' for perhaps you will never free yourself.
To make this apparent, I will combine the two versions, so you can see:
Chapter 1
If I am not for myself, who is for me.
Chapter 2
Do not judge your fellow until you have stood in his place. Do not say something that is not readily understood in the belief that it will ultimately be understood.
Both versions set up the individual as the final arbiter of what is right.
Chapter 1
And if I am only for myself, who is for me?
Chapter 2
Do not separate yourself from the community. Do not believe in yourself until the day you die.
Both versions urge subjection of individual to the community
Chapter 1
If not now, when?
Chapter 2
And do not say "When I free myself of my concerns, I will study,'' for perhaps you will never free yourself.
It appears that Hillel understood or consciously set up a hybrid model of joint leadership- by birth and by merit. He also left two sets of teachings, saying the same thing but edited differently for each group. As we proceed through the rest of this and next chapter, we will repeatedly encounter similar teachings, each edited to fit one of these particular models of religious leadrship.
I very much disagree with the insertion of "only" into the second line of Im ein ani li mi li. Not only is it not there in the Hebrew, I think it distorts what Hillel was saying.
He asks, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" I'm responsible for myself, and it isn't right for me to demand of others that they work on my behalf if I won't work on my own behalf.
He then asks, "And when I am for myself, what *is* 'me'"? What does it mean to be for myself? Does it mean to be grasping and greedy and thoughtless? We have to understand what kind of actions are truly to our own benefit.
And then he asks, "And if not now, when?" meaning that all that theory is great, but it has to be put into practice.
I agree with you that the two sets of statements fit together like puzzle pieces. "Don't judge your fellow until you've stood in his place" and "Don't separate yourself from the community" both speak to the fact that no person has a special status relative to others. If I don't want people to steal from me, I can't steal from them. If I don't want people to hurt me, I can't go around hurting them. The only way to have a world that's safe for me is to understand that anything I permit myself to do to others is likely to be done to me as well.
This also blends with other things Hillel said. "What is hateful to you, don't do to your fellow". "Because you drowned others, you were drowned. And those who drowned you will be drowned in the end."
Yes, Hillel says, you have to act on your own behalf. But that doesn't mean you can hold yourself as being above others. You have to recognize the right of others to act on their own behalf as well.
Posted by: Lisa | June 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM