Existing for Ourselves

Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim

Our acceptance of any truth requires the utmost humility. For any truth is God’s creation…God’s ideas are infinitely deep; further than the heavens: 

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are My ways your ways” declares God. “Just as the heavens are high above the earth, so are My ways high above your ways and My thoughts above your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8,9).

Thus, we cannot tolerate mediocrity when explaining anything God created, certainly when we are explaining His justice, an intangible abstract system. All His ideas are brilliant:

The precepts of the LORD are just, rejoicing the heart; the instruction of the LORD is lucid, making the eyes light up. The fear of the LORD is pure, abiding forever; the judgments of the LORD are true, righteous altogether, more desirable than gold, than much fine gold; sweeter than honey, than drippings of the comb. (Psalms 19:9-11)

Rabbi Chaim Voloshin’s son wrote an intro to his work Nefesh Hachaim. Therein he says, “We exist not for ourselves, but for others.” The statement on a literal level is contradictory. For this in turn means that my friend exists for someone else, and he, yet for others. In the end, no one exists for himself. This problem is strengthened by other statements: “Your life comes before others” (Lev. 19:18, Ramban), “Do the greater mitzvah and let others do the lesser” (Moade Kattan 9b). Thus, one’e existence is of primary value, not secondary to others.

The resolve is that “existing for others” does not suggest one human is more vital, but it is the principle of “human equality.” It is wrong to literally suggest I exist only for others, as that is not equality for myself. Rather, the true principle of human equality dictates that I must act as is God’s will: society exists, God wants “many” people to have the good, not just me. Therefore I am compelled to support God’s will by seeking the good for everyone, not just myself. But we are all to treat, and be treated equally.

Let’s understand further. I do take priority in terms of saving my life before another: I am to be selfish by drinking the last cup of water in the desert (Bava Metzia 62a): “My life comes first.” And I must select the greater mitzvah and leave others to take the lesser. Why then when threatened with being killed if I don’t kill another, do I sacrifice myself? Why don’t I act selfishly again and kill another to save myself?

In all cases, the rule is to best uphold the Torah system, and this is determined by what is most crucial and primary. Although I must veer from lies, if my friend is marrying an unattractive bride, I must lie and say she is beautiful. This is because what is best in this situation is my friend’s happiness and peace of mind. When confronted with 2 mitzvahs, I must perform the greater mitzvah so Torah is best upheld. Keeping lesser mitzvahs retains a lesser Torah. That’s clear. When there’s insufficient water for both people, I must drink the remaining last cup, so again, without my existence, I cannot continue to uphold Torah. In all cases, I am not performing a negative, but a positive act. However, when threatened with being killed if I don’t kill another, I sacrifice myself, because here I am ignorant of who is of greater value: myself or the other. Perhaps the other is a greater Jew, therefore I cannot kill him even to save my own life. Similarly, when my teacher and father are both drowning, I must save my teacher. That choice best supports the Torah system, as my teacher teaches Torah and benefits more Jews.

In each case we must evaluate how to best maintain the highest level of Torah.