Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Inside Out
As usual, Mata Hari has given me some food for thought. And as usual, I'm going to steal her idea and make it into my own post.
In Judaism, there is a measurement of man referred to as Tocho K'voro, literally "his inside is like his outside." The intent of this statement is to highlight the praiseworthiness of the person who can claim that he internalizes all the values he professes. The ideal person is every bit as righteous internally as you would suppose from passing them on the street. With Yom Kippur approaching, the time feels right to explore the full intent of this statement, with its implications for my own self.
First, what if we reverse the formula, does the tenet still hold true? Should one's inside match one's outside? Let's suppose somebody is a truly holy man. But he wears torn jeans, a Green Day t-shirt, and an IPod glued to his ears. Is he in violation of our concept? We can understand that the bum who goes around daydreaming of drinking binges shouldn't go around implying that he is a Tzaddik. But if the core is pure, of what concern should the shell be?
Second, what defines this internal to external equality? Must his clothes match the nature of his character? Should passing him on the street tell you his innermost secrets? Or should what he says merely be in concert with what he believes.
Finally, what if a person doesn't meet the standard? He knows that his insides don't match his presentation. If he is internally evil, should he dumb down his outside, and let consistency flow? Or should he preserve his facade while he works on his inside? Or perhaps our phrase is only a measure of perfection achieved, not a rule that can be mandated?
The applications are endless, and seem to be significant to many of the controversies of the day. Should a Beis Yaakov girl wear tight jeans until she internalizes the meaning of Tznius? Should kids be rejected from school because of their background? Should one use the internet?
I don't think the answer is very complicated. The Talmud is simply teaching what would be later formulated as "To thine own self be true." If you think something is right, follow through with it. Don't submit to Groupthink. If you feel something is right, justified, do it. If you think something is wrong, evil, unconscionable, don't touch it and speak your mind. If everyone says something is Asur, and you believe it's Muttar, go ahead and do it. The individual whose inside is not like his outside is the individual who is afraid to say what he believes is right, and therefore withdraws into his shell. His outside is like everyone else's, but his inside is not.
The individual who portrays a life of righteousness externally but believes that such a lifestyle is not actual righteousness is actually committing a fraud of evil. To have an internal understanding of what is right, even if externally we show signs of failure, is an infinitely superior being. And the ultimate individual of praise is the one who fully lives the good morals without failure that they realize inside.
In Judaism, there is a measurement of man referred to as Tocho K'voro, literally "his inside is like his outside." The intent of this statement is to highlight the praiseworthiness of the person who can claim that he internalizes all the values he professes. The ideal person is every bit as righteous internally as you would suppose from passing them on the street. With Yom Kippur approaching, the time feels right to explore the full intent of this statement, with its implications for my own self.
First, what if we reverse the formula, does the tenet still hold true? Should one's inside match one's outside? Let's suppose somebody is a truly holy man. But he wears torn jeans, a Green Day t-shirt, and an IPod glued to his ears. Is he in violation of our concept? We can understand that the bum who goes around daydreaming of drinking binges shouldn't go around implying that he is a Tzaddik. But if the core is pure, of what concern should the shell be?
Second, what defines this internal to external equality? Must his clothes match the nature of his character? Should passing him on the street tell you his innermost secrets? Or should what he says merely be in concert with what he believes.
Finally, what if a person doesn't meet the standard? He knows that his insides don't match his presentation. If he is internally evil, should he dumb down his outside, and let consistency flow? Or should he preserve his facade while he works on his inside? Or perhaps our phrase is only a measure of perfection achieved, not a rule that can be mandated?
The applications are endless, and seem to be significant to many of the controversies of the day. Should a Beis Yaakov girl wear tight jeans until she internalizes the meaning of Tznius? Should kids be rejected from school because of their background? Should one use the internet?
I don't think the answer is very complicated. The Talmud is simply teaching what would be later formulated as "To thine own self be true." If you think something is right, follow through with it. Don't submit to Groupthink. If you feel something is right, justified, do it. If you think something is wrong, evil, unconscionable, don't touch it and speak your mind. If everyone says something is Asur, and you believe it's Muttar, go ahead and do it. The individual whose inside is not like his outside is the individual who is afraid to say what he believes is right, and therefore withdraws into his shell. His outside is like everyone else's, but his inside is not.
The individual who portrays a life of righteousness externally but believes that such a lifestyle is not actual righteousness is actually committing a fraud of evil. To have an internal understanding of what is right, even if externally we show signs of failure, is an infinitely superior being. And the ultimate individual of praise is the one who fully lives the good morals without failure that they realize inside.
Comments:
<< Home
Josh - first i have to say that i'm extremely flattered. even if what you wrote isn't true (being that you are erudite and original) it still made my day.
as to your question...i will admit to being somewhat conformist in my dress code. it was just never a troubling thing for me and i didn't feel at all rebellious growing up. i'm of the opinion - when in rome...so that doesn't mean that i would wear short sleeves or a short skirt if i were in a less religiously observant community...but e.g. i never understood why a guy would make a big deal about putting on a hat on a shabbos when in a community/shul where that's the typical dress code. and in the observant orthodox circles where there are so many gradations of observance - yes, i do feel it's important for someone's dress code to reflect the impression they want to convey. it may not be fair, but people do judge you by the way you dress. i can elaborate more, but i'm at work and don't have the time.
MH
as to your question...i will admit to being somewhat conformist in my dress code. it was just never a troubling thing for me and i didn't feel at all rebellious growing up. i'm of the opinion - when in rome...so that doesn't mean that i would wear short sleeves or a short skirt if i were in a less religiously observant community...but e.g. i never understood why a guy would make a big deal about putting on a hat on a shabbos when in a community/shul where that's the typical dress code. and in the observant orthodox circles where there are so many gradations of observance - yes, i do feel it's important for someone's dress code to reflect the impression they want to convey. it may not be fair, but people do judge you by the way you dress. i can elaborate more, but i'm at work and don't have the time.
MH
Your questions are really interesting. I guess my question would be whether it is so important for people to make so many implications based on outward appearance and to place such symbolism on mode of dress. Why must a black hat indicate a specific level of observance while a kippah serugah symbolizes something less? Who makes up the rules?
Shoshana - there's not one simple answer for your question. I don't think anyone made up the "rules" - I think the dress codes evolved and took on meanings over time. why does an investment banker wear a suit and tie, a policeman a uniform, a doctor a white coat? don't we make judgment calls on the way people dress in the workplace?
Could we say that the underlying theme is that everything should be done for a reason? If you wear a black hat, it should be for a good reason. If you don't wear a black hat, it should also be for a good reason. The bottom line is that we shouldn't just do without thinking. And we don't need to judge others, but worry how we'll be judged by Gd.
For those looking for Anon's reference, I deleted it.
And I'm "erudite"!!!
Post a Comment
For those looking for Anon's reference, I deleted it.
And I'm "erudite"!!!
<< Home