This is the last Hillel verse for a while, by the way. I like Hillel, but he takes some work.
He used to say:
The more flesh, the more worms.
The more possessions, the more worry.
The more wives, the more witchcraft.
The more maidservants, the more unchastity.
The more slaves, the more robbery.The more Torah, the more life.
The more the company of scholars, the more wisdom.
The more counsel, the more understanding.
The more charity, the more peace.If one acquires a good name he acquires something for himself.
If one acquires for himself knowledge of the Torah he acquires for himself life in the world to come.
The contrast here is between acquiring a good name and acquiring knowledge of the Torah; a reputation could be for Torah but is more often for other things. What makes a good name? Kindness, charity, integrity. Rabbi Menachem ben Solomon ha-Meiri says that ‘by a “good name” is meant ethical virtues. “He acquires something for himself,” that is to say, something profitable to him, which may serve as an introduction and path to the learning of Torah and wisdom.’ According to Meiri, then the contrast is between Works and Learning; similar to the Christian distinction between Works and Faith, although based not on inner conviction, nor on Divine Grace, but on study.
Is it, then, my old enemy the mind/body split? Or is this an imposition by Meiri?
Another thing that my attention rests on is the acquisition—after discussing the acquisition of so many things that are bad and things that are good, we are now talking about acquiring… what? Hillel is not saying what the man with the good name acquires, just that it is (a) his own, and (2) implicitly in this world, as contrasted to the World to Come. The implication, I think is that it whatever the man acquires, it is a Good Thing, being a pairing of a Good Thing with a Good Thing. That is, it falls into the second set of doubles, rather than the first. Similarly, gaining learning in the Torah gets you life in the world to come, which is traditionally understood to be a Good Thing, at least better than either Sheol or total nonexistence, but is still only the vaguest acquisition compared to, f’r’ex, worms or lewdness or even peace. Certainly it’s not easy to check the accuracy by empirical means.
And then, while by a good name you can acquire something for yourself, can you acquire the World to Come for somebody else? And wait a moment, because although it seems obvious that one cannot inherit a good reputation, I’m not sure that’s true. A bad reputation can certainly be passed along. And a college glories in its brilliant alumni not just to beg money from them but to bask in reflected glory. If the good name is the result of your good deeds, then surely more is acquired than your own good name—my own reputation, after being the recipient of your generosity, is enhanced by being (f’r’ex) a productive and educated citizen rather than an ignorant parasite. Whether I then obtain entry into the World to Come is not, of course, a matter for your reputation in this world, but surely my own reputation is connected to yours in a bond that has some feedback in it? Should I become learned in the Torah, as a direct result of your ethical actions, is that something I have only for myself?
This pair of pairs, then, is much murkier than the earlier ones in meaning and in implication. R. Travers Herford suggests that it is added later, or rather that the sayings are from “a separate group” of Hillel sayings. But they were placed here, and here is where we find them. Is there a path from the paradoxes of the first five verses to the complements of the next four to the… what? the mysteries of the last two? Are we to see the world-to-come as a culmination of a process of leaving aside all the things of this world, from meat to reputation?
I think I’ll try to address that question, and the verse as a whole, in yet another new note.
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.