Behaalos’cha: Crowned With Humility

Parshas7 Bahaaloscha describes the attribute of humility that characterized Moshe, “The man, Moshe, was very humble, more so than any man on the face of the earth.”8

This verse has to be seen in the context of the words of Miriam and Aharon in the previous verse,9 “Has G‑d only spoken to Moshe? Hasn’t He spoken to us as well?” The narrative then continues,10 “G‑d suddenly said to Moshe, Aharon and Miriam, ‘Go out, all three of you, to the Tent of Meeting.’ ” Rashi explains that G‑d’s intent was “to make known to them that Moshe acted correctly in separating from [his] wife, since the Divine Presence would be revealed to him on an ongoing basis.”

G‑d continued to rebuke Aharon and Miriam, telling them:11

If there be prophets among you, [I,] G‑d, make Myself known [to them] in a vision; I communicate in a dream. This is not so [concerning] My servant Moses…. With him, I speak mouth to mouth… and he beholds the image of G‑d.

The commentaries12 focus on the fact that Scripture describes Moshe’s humility in the narrative, highlighting the uniqueness of Moshe’s level of prophecy. They interpret this as indicating that he attained this unique level of prophecy – and that the Divine Presence rested upon him in an ongoing manner13 – because of his humility.

This conclusion appears somewhat problematic in light of the Talmud’s statement,14 “The Holy One, blessed be He, rests His Presence only upon one who is valorous, prosperous,15 wise, and humble. [The necessity for] all these [attributes is derived] from Moshe.” Since humility is mentioned together with valor, prosperity, and wisdom, it appears that its necessity for prophecy is only equal to that of those other attributes.

Conversely, the fact that the verse from the Torah cited originally emphasizes solely Moshe’s humility in connection with the uniqueness of his level of prophecy indicates that although Moshe also possessed all the other attributes mentioned by the Talmud – as that passage states, “[The necessity for] all [these attributes is derived] from Moshe”16 – the attribute of humility has a greater connection to prophecy than the other attributes.

This conception is also reflected in the opinion17 mentioned in the Talmud in another context that “humility surpasses all the other [attributes],”18 and “it leads to ruach hakodesh (Divine inspiration).”19 According to this understanding, humility differs from the other attributes – valor, prosperity, and wisdom (which are not mentioned in the teaching of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair cited in Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.)20 – for it alone leads to ruach hakodesh.

Moreover, it can be said that humility is not merely a condition and secondary preparation for ruach hakodesh, but rather “it leads to ruach hakodesh.” (This resembles the pattern and sequence of the other virtues mentioned in the teaching of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair, “Torah study leads to careful observance. Careful observance leads to diligence…,” i.e., the virtue mentioned first not only makes possible the virtue that follows it, but shares an inherent connection to it, bringing about its acquisition and leading one to it.

The connection between humility and ruach hakodesh and the resting of the Divine Presence upon a person is almost explicitly stated in the Talmud, at the conclusion of Tractate Sotah in the Talmud Bavli.21

After Chaggai, Zechariah , and Malachi died, ruach hakodesh departed from the Jewish people. Nevertheless, they could still receive guidance from a Heavenly Voice.

On one occasion, [the Sages] were meeting in the upper story of the house of Gurya in Jericho. A Heavenly Voice addressed them, saying, “There is one person among you who is fit for the Divine Presence to rest upon him (like Moshe),22 but his generation is not fit for it.” [The Sages] directed their gaze to Hillel the Elder. When he died, they eulogized him, saying, “Alas pious one, alas humble one, student of Ezra.”

Again, on another occasion, [the Sages] were meeting in an upper story of a house in Yavneh, and a Heavenly Voice addressed them, saying, “There is one person among you who is fit for the Divine Presence to rest upon him, but his generation is not fit for it.” [The Sages] directed their gaze to Shmuel HaKatan. And when he died, they eulogized him, saying, “Alas humble one, alas pious one, student of Hillel.”

From the above, it is clearly evident that the statement of the Heavenly Voice that “there is one person among you who is fit for the Divine Presence to rest upon him” is connected with his attribute of humility. None of the other attributes – valor, prosperity, or wisdom – are mentioned.23

Therefore, it is necessary to say that there are two dimensions and expressions of humility: one that is on the same plane as the other conditions required for prophecy and another that causes the attribute of humility to be considered the sole cause and the catalyst for ruach hakodesh.

This concept can be clarified by analyzing the variation in the wording used in the story related at the end of Tractate Sotah.24 In the eulogy for Hillel, “alas pious one” is stated before “alas humble one.” By contrast, in the eulogy for Shmuel HaKatan, “alas humble one” is stated before “alas pious one.”

In his Chiddushei Aggados,25 Maharsha writes that the reason the eulogies mentioned these two attributes is that:

These two attributes both lead to ruach hakodesh, as mentioned in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah26 regarding the difference of opinion between Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One maintains that piety surpasses all other virtues and leads to ruach hakodesh, while the other maintains that humility surpasses all others and leads to ruach hakodesh.

According to this understanding, it can be said that those who eulogized Hillel followed the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that humility surpasses all others. Therefore, they began by mentioning piety and concluded by mentioning humility, progressing from the lesser quality to the greater one. By contrast, those who eulogized Shmuel HaKatan considered piety to be the supreme virtue (as indicated by the teaching of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair). Therefore, they began by mentioning humility and concluded by mentioning piety.27

Nevertheless, there is a difficulty with that interpretation because the Talmud Yerushalmi’s Tractate Sotah28 quotes both these stories and concludes both of them by mentioning humility before piety – “When he died, they eulogized him, saying, ‘Alas humble and pious one.’ ”29

Therefore, the opposite appears to be true. The difference between the eulogies was not dependent on the perspectives of those who eulogized Hillel the Elder and Shmuel HaKatan, but rather on the virtues of the Sages themselves.

It is obvious that the spiritual level of a student’s generation is lower than that of his teacher’s generation. If so, the level of humility of Shmuel HaKatan, Hillel’s student, cannot be compared to the level of the humility of Hillel the Elder, his teacher. With regard to Hillel, our Sages explicitly state,30 “A person should always be humble like Hillel” and they elaborate regarding his humility.24 By contrast, with regard to Shmuel HaKatan, the Talmud Yerushalmi states,22 “Why was he called Katan? Because he would hold himself small.” This indicates that Shmuel HaKatan’s humility was not comparable to that of Hillel, whose humility was far more renowned.

Therefore, when Hillel died, he was eulogized with the words, “Alas pious one; alas humble one,” concluding with humility. By contrast, Shmuel HaKatan was eulogized with the concluding words regarding his piety, “Alas humble one; alas pious one, the student of Hillel,” because his humility was not as great as that of Hillel.

True, in its version of the story, the Talmud Yerushalmi states, “Alas humble and pious one,” speaking about both Sages and mentioning humility before piety. However, it can be said that the Talmud Yerushalmi is speaking about a more sublime level of humility, loftier than both aspects of humility indicated by the Talmud Bavli. This distinction relates to another distinction between the story as it is told in these two texts. In the initial portion of the story, the Talmud Yerushalmi states, “There is one person among you who is fit [to receive] ruach hakodesh,” while the Talmud Bavli states, “There is one person among you who is fit for the Divine Presence to rest upon him.” The difference in implication between these two versions will be explained below.

To explain all the above: When defining humility, there are many levels. As a whole, three general approaches can be outlined:31

a) A humble individual does not focus on or credit himself for his own virtues and achievements. Consequently, he does not see himself as superior to other people. Such a person is aware of his own virtues and realizes that they surpass those of others and thus knows his own standing.32 Nevertheless, he is not at all proud, since he realizes that all these virtues were given to him by G‑d. Consequently, he makes a personal evaluation and appreciates that, were these potentials given to someone else, that person would also have achieved this lofty level. Indeed, he thinks that if the other person had been given these potentials, it is possible that he would have achieved an even loftier rung through his efforts.33

b) Not only does such a humble person not focus on or credit himself for his virtues and achievements, he holds himself as lowly and sees himself inferior to all others, because he is genuinely humble and batel.34 Therefore, the way he sees things, it is a given – not merely a possibility – that if the same inherent attributes and qualities that G‑d gave him had been given to another person, that person would certainly be greater than him.

c) There is an even loftier rung of humility, one that motivates a person to lower himself and to descend and become involved with those whom he clearly recognizes as absolutely lowly and base.35 To offer a parallel: Our Sages state,36 “In the place of the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, there you find His humility.” G‑d’s humility finds expression in His lowering Himself37 to be called great – i.e., assuming greatness is an act of humility that involves a descent. This is reflected by the verse,38 “G‑d is great and exceedingly praised in the city of our L‑rd.” It is in “the city of our L‑rd,” i.e., the worlds He brought into existence and among the created beings, where His greatness is manifest. Now, the very fact that He lowers Himself and manifests greatness by bringing these worlds and created beings into existence is a tremendous descent for G‑d, for He transcends creation entirely, as the Zohar metaphorically states,39 “It is not the manner of a king to speak about commonplace things.” In the analogue, the King speaking about “commonplace things” refers to the Ten Utterances of Creation through which G‑d created the world. This is not “the manner of the King” – i.e., G‑d, to involve Himself with such matters; He does so solely as an expression of His humility.

Similarly, in order to relate to the full spectrum of humanity, even those truly lowly, a person who is characterized by this level of humility is willing to lower himself and involve himself in base matters that would be considered commonplace for people at large and, certainly, for himself.

Since humility leads to the resting of the Divine Presence upon a person and ruach hakodesh being granted to him as explained above, it is understood that the three different approaches to humility described there also differ in their relation to the Divine Presence resting upon this person.

To explain: Bittul and humility are necessary for the Divine Presence to rest upon the person, not only with regard to prophecy and ruach hakodesh, but with regard to all levels of manifestation of the Divine Presence, including those mentioned in our Sages’ statements,40 “The Divine Presence rests upon every gathering of ten [Jews],” and “even when one [Jew] sits and occupies himself with the Torah, the Divine Presence rests [upon him].”41 In all these situations, the prevailing principle is, “The Holy One, blessed be He, only rests upon an entity that is batel to Him.”42

It can be said that this relates to the first level of humility described above. Since the person is aware that all the potentials he possesses were granted to him by G‑d, he is humble, and his humility is a necessary preliminary condition for the Divine Presence to rest. Without it, the Divine Presence cannot rest upon an individual at all. (In this context, humility resembles the other prerequisites for prophecy: valor, prosperity, and wisdom. All of these are merely prerequisites and preliminaries, without which the Divine Presence cannot rest.)

A loftier level of humility is reflected in the statement, “humility leads to ruach hakodesh.” On this rung, humility is not merely a peripheral prerequisite, but a direct catalyst. Moreover, it leads to ruach hakodesh, which is a precise term, implying a superior level, above the ordinary dimension of the Divine Presence resting.43 This is the implication of “humility lead[ing] to ruach hakodesh.” When a person is genuinely humble and batel (i.e., at the second level of humility mentioned above), this serves as a direct catalyst for ruach hakodesh. This level of humility is manifest only within a person who possesses all the attributes mentioned in the teaching of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair cited previously:19 diligence, austerity, fear of sin, and holiness, etc.

However, even this is merely an expression of humility in human terms. The third level of humility and bittul described above is of an entirely different and loftier nature. Not only does the person not feel any personal pride – and, indeed, holds himself lowly before all people – he does not feel his ego at all, but instead feels motivated to descend and lower himself to be involved even with people on a base level.

On this level, humility and the indwelling of the Divine Presence are not two separate things; they are an indivisible whole. The possibility for such a lofty and superior person to descend and involve himself even with lowly and base people does not stem from ordinary human capacities,44 but it is a Divine potential, deriving from the Divine attribute of dwelling “on high, in holiness… and with those who are crushed and lowly in spirit.”45

Such humility is a manifestation of the Divine Presence and the light of G‑d resting upon a person. For “the indwelling of the Divine Presence is the revelation of G‑dliness… in an entity, i.e., that that entity is subsumed in the light of G‑d and utterly and entirely batel to Him.”46 The person does not function as an independent entity, but rather as an extension of the Divine Presence and, therefore, emulates its propensities.

On this basis, it is possible to explain the differences in the versions of the above narrative in the Talmud Bavli and the Talmud Yerushalmi: The Talmud Bavli uses the wording, “who is fit for the Divine Presence to rest upon him.” This is not speaking about the lofty level of ruach hakodesh.47 As such, it is understood that the Talmud Bavli is referring to ordinary levels of humility and bittul, including the two general categories: a) a level where one is humble in his own eyes, and b) a loftier level, that he feels himself inferior and lowly when compared to others.

Generally speaking, this is the distinction between the humility that characterized Shmuel HaKatan, Hillel’s student, and Hillel himself, who was renowned for his humility. Therefore, when the eulogy quoted in the Talmud described Hillel using progressive levels of distinction, it said, “Alas pious one, alas humble one.” By contrast, regarding Shmuel HaKatan, his eulogy began with humility, because his humility was on a lower level than Hillel’s.

The Talmud Yerushalmi takes a different tack and speaks about an even loftier level of ruach hakodesh. The humility associated with this level is of an entirely different nature than the humility described previously. Hillel epitomized this level; not only did he hold himself lowly in relation to other people, but he also related to them all with patience and forbearance. He descended and lowered himself to people of base stature, even to non-Jews who came to convert with an attitude that caused Shammai48 to refuse to accept them.49 Nevertheless, Hillel accepted them50 because of his great humility, one that knew no limits. As the Talmud states51 afterwards, the converts said, “The humility of Hillel brought us close, under the wings of the Divine Presence.” Due to his humility, Hillel involved himself with the most lowly and base, even with non-Jews.52 Humility of this type is connected with ruach hakodesh.

According to this understanding, it can be said that when the Talmud Yerushalmi used the expression, “Alas humble and pious one,” it was not speaking of two separate qualities, as the Talmud Bavli did. Instead, the intent was a single virtue: pious humility. Piety involves “being generous with one’s Maker,”53 going beyond the letter of the law.54 But pious humility implies humility that goes beyond the letter of the law. This characterized Hillel. He possessed the virtue of pious humility. He was humble beyond the letter of the law and lowered himself before everyone, even before base people, reflecting his attainment of the third level of humility mentioned above.

Furthermore, based on the above, it is possible to say that when the Talmud Yerushalmi spoke of Shmuel HaKatan, it also implied such a lofty level of humility55 that was expressed in a manner56 similar to Hillel’s. Therefore, the Talmud Yerushalmi did not content itself with saying, “Why was he called Katan, ‘the small’? Because he held himself small,” but also continued, “There were those who say [that he is described with this name] because he was only slightly less than [the Prophet] Shmuel of Rama.” Shmuel was an actual prophet and his dedication to the Jewish people was of a wondrous nature. With utter selflessness, he would journey from city to city to judge the people, hearing – and patiently resolving – disputes concerning their business needs and the like.57 This demonstrated the great degree of bittul and humility he possessed.58 Shmuel HaKatan was considered small in relation to him. Although he was also characterized by humility, his humility was comparable – but less – than that of the Prophet Shmuel.

True, the Talmud Bavli relates the same story – however, according to the above explanations, it can be said that it is speaking about a lower level of humility both with regard to Hillel and with regard to Shmuel HaKatan. However, a straightforward explanation can be given. Both Hillel and Shmuel HaKatan experienced different levels of spiritual development at different times in their lives, and it can be taken for granted that they ascended to loftier levels over the course of time. This is true also of their attributes of humility and bittul. Therefore, the Talmud Bavli, which speaks about a lower level, the resting of the Divine Presence, highlights a lower level of humility. By contrast, the Talmud Yerushalmi speaks about a loftier rung, as explained above.59

When concluding the study of a Talmudic tractate, it is common to explain it within the context of ideas of a greater scope. The above discussion of the relationship between humility and ruach hakodesh contributes to the understanding of a similar story that serves as the conclusion of Tractate Sotah in the Talmud Yerushalmi:60

An incident occurred when the elders ascended to the upper story of the house of Gadya in Jericho. A Heavenly Voice addressed them, saying, “There are two among you who are fit for ruach hakodesh to rest upon them. Hillel the Elder is one of them.” [The elders] directed their gaze to Shmuel HaKatan.

On another occasion, the elders ascended to the upper story [of a house] in Yavneh. A Heavenly Voice addressed them, saying, “There are two among you who are fit for ruach hakodesh to rest upon them. Shmuel HaKatan is one of them.” [The elders] directed their gaze to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkanus. [Also,] they were joyful, for their understanding had accorded with that of the Omnipresent.

The commentaries have discussed whether this story is presenting a different account61 of the passage from the Talmud Yerushalmi cited previously, see sec. 2 above – because in that initial passage, only one name was mentioned each time – or whether there were two incidents.62

Regardless, analysis is required why, in this instance, it was said, “There are two among you who are fit for ruach hakodesh to rest upon them. Hillel the Elder is one of them,” and the name of the second Sage is not mentioned. The same issue applies regarding the second episode where only Shmuel HaKatan is mentioned.63

From the flow of the narrative, it appears that there were two separate incidents. The incident described at the conclusion of the Talmud Yerushalmi occurred at an earlier time, when Hillel and his student Shmuel HaKatan were together. At that time, Shmuel HaKatan had not yet attained the level of humility of Hillel, his teacher, for Hillel was much greater than him. This was what the Heavenly Voice was coming to say: Although they were both fit for ruach hakodesh to rest upon them, Shmuel’s name was not mentioned, only Hillel’s, to emphasize Hillel’s distinction.

The preceding story in the Talmud Yerushalmi regarding Hillel, which began, “There is one among you who is fit for ruach hakodesh…,” took place before the story in which both Hillel and Shmuel are mentioned. The story concerning Shmuel alone took place afterwards, after the death of Hillel, when Shmuel had ascended to a level of humility comparable to Hillel’s to the extent that he was fit for ruach hakodesh.

It is possible to say that, in the second incident described at the conclusion of the Talmud Yerushalmi, when the elders “directed their gaze to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkanus,” his distinction also resulted from his humility. As the Talmud relates,64 the Sages came and asked him several questions. He refrained from answering them but, instead, diverted the discussion to other matters. It was “not because he was distancing them with words” – i.e., “diverting their attention to other matters like one who intends to avoid [the issue] because he does not know how to answer.” In truth, Rabbi Eliezer could have answered them, but refrained from doing so “because he never conveyed a teaching that he did not hear from his teacher.”

Although he knew what to answer, he constantly felt bittul towards his teacher. Therefore, he could not share a new concept that he developed with his own logic from the general principles that he heard from his teacher. To illustrate the concept by borrowing wording from the laws regarding salting meat,65 “one that is engrossed in absorbing cannot release.”

Nevertheless, Rabbi Eliezer’s humility concerned merely his relationship with his teacher or even his relationship with his students and those who asked him questions. It was not comparable to the humility of Shmuel HaKatan as a whole, and how much more so not after Shmuel ascended to the level of humility possessed by Hillel. Therefore, in the second instance, only Shmuel HaKatan’s name was mentioned and not the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben

Adapted from sichos delivered on erev Shavuos, the second day of Shavuos, and Shabbos Parshas Naso, 5742 (1982)
Likkutei Sichos, Volume 38, P. 40ff.