yehudarapoport_t4tvrj

In light of the Surgeon General’s recent statement regarding an epidemic of loneliness it is critical to think deeply about the meaning of friendship–the true antidote to loneliness.

In my previous post I presented Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik’s understanding of friendship. In this post I’d like to share Rambam’s understanding of friendship. (Translations of Rambam’s commentary on Avot are from Sefaria with some minor changes).

Rambam’s most extensive discussion of friendship can be found in his commentary on Pirkei Avot on the following Mishna:

Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [the oral tradition] from them. Joshua ben Perahiah used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, and acquire for thyself a companion and judge all men with the scale weighted in his favor. 

Rambam distinguishes between three types of friendship:

• for benefit
• for satisfaction
• for virtue 

One difficulty in understanding Rambam’s commentary should be pointed out before going further. The Hebrew word chaveir, that we are translating as friend, can refer to any kind of association between two people. This is important to keep in mind, especially when one takes a look at the first type of friend:

A friend for benefit is like the friendship of two [business] partners and the friendship of a king and his retinue. 

This kind of friendship is more what we would call a partnership or business association. 

The next kind of friendship–for satisfaction–has two types. The first type is a friend for pleasure. This, Rambam says is “like the friendship of males and females and similar to it.” I do not think he is trying to say that all relationships between men and women are for pleasure. Rather, it is one, very resonant example of a relationship of pleasure. We probably also wouldn’t call this friendship in English. 

The next type of friendship for satisfaction is a “friend for confidence.”  

The “friend for confidence” is when a man has a friend to whom he can confide his soul. He will not keep [anything] from him – not in action and not in speech. And he will make him know all of his affairs – the good ones and the disgraceful – without fearing from him that any loss will come to him with all of this, not from him and not from another. As when a person has such a level of confidence in a man, he finds great satisfaction in his words and in his great friendship. 

This type of friendship seems like a true friend–someone you can confide in and rely on. It’s hard to imagine a friendship greater than this. If Rambam hadn’t said there was a third type of friendship, I would have assumed that this is the highest form of friendship and what the mishna enjoins one to acquire. However, this is not the case. 

A friend for virtue is when the desire of both of them and their intention is for one thing, and that is the good. And each one wants to be helped by his friend in reaching this good for both of them together. And this is the friend which he commanded to acquire; and it is like the love of the master for his student and of the student for his master.

It is honestly hard to understand why this is the highest form of friendship. In fact, most people would feel uncomfortable calling the relationship between a master and student friendship. It’s noteworthy that Rambam uses this example. It would seem, at first glance, that there’s an imbalance in the relationship. The master bestows good on his student, not the other way around. Why is their friendship mutual?

I believe the answer is related to how our rabbis viewed the student–not as a passive recipient of knowledge, but an active partner in the pursuit of knowledge. The teacher is also not, as Plato describes, like a midwife, simply aiding the student through a natural process. The teacher is a partner with his student–perhaps more experienced–but also, in fact, a student of wisdom pursuing the highest good. This, I believe, is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s famous saying:

Much Torah have I studied from my teachers, and I have learned more from my colleagues than from them, and I have learned more from my students than from all of them. (Makkot, 10a; Koren – Steinsaltz translation) 

The teacher and student bond over a mutual pursuit of virtue. They come together, not for any ulterior motive, but to attain the highest good possible. They realize that this pursuit will be more fruitful when they join together.¹ 

Though the student-teacher relationship is clearly, in the eyes of Rambam, one of the highest examples of a friend for virtue, it should be remembered that it is an example. It is not only the student and teacher who collaboratively pursue the good. Likewise, two individuals engaged in any form of virtue–be it serving the needy, healing the sick, defending the innocent, etc.–are helping each other achieve the good. When two individuals pursue a life of virtue together in fulfillment of a desire to do good an intense bond is formed between them. Their confidence in each other stems from the fact that they’ve had a glimpse of the truest expression of the other’s soul. 

Rambam (also a Surgeon General of sorts) would probably advise the Surgeon General to encourage others to pursue a life of higher meaning–to pursue truth in study with others and to work with others to engage in acts of altruism.²

---

¹ Rabbi Yitzchak Sheilat, in his notes on Rambam’s commentary, suggests that Rambam’s three types of friends are typologies that for the purpose of definition present each type as being mutually exclusive of the others. But, in truth the ideal friend for virtue is also a friend of confidence, and may also, at times, be a friend for benefit. 

² Many studies have shown the mental health benefits of altruism. Here’s a nice summary.

In the majestic community, in which surface personalities meet and commitment never exceeds the bounds of the utilitarian, we may find collegiality, neighborliness, civility, or courtesy—but not friendship, which is the exclusive experience awarded by God to covenantal man, who is thus redeemed from his agonizing solitude. (Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik, Lonely Man of Faith)

“The mentally sick person is alone; he communicates alone, and a healthy person cannot penetrate his world” (J. H. van den Berg, A Different Existence: Principles of Phenomenological Psychopathology, 1972, p. 108).

A recent Associated Press article reports that Dr. Vivek Murthy, the Surgeon General of the United States, said that “widespread loneliness in the U.S. poses health risks as deadly as smoking up to 15 cigarettes daily, costing the health industry billions of dollars annually.”

He told the Associated Press:

We now know that loneliness is a common feeling that many people experience. It’s like hunger or thirst. It’s a feeling the body sends us when something we need for survival is missing. Millions of people in America are struggling in the shadows, and that’s not right. That’s why I issued this advisory to pull back the curtain on a struggle that too many people are experiencing.

The article also points out that technology has made the situation much worse. One study showed that people who use social media more than two hours a day are twice as likely to suffer from feelings of isolation than those who use it for 30 minutes or less. The Surgeon General said, “There’s really no substitute for in-person interaction. As we shifted to use technology more and more for our communication, we lost out on a lot of that in-person interaction. How do we design technology that strengthens our relationships as opposed to weaken them?” The question is why? 

Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik would say that new technology is not what is needed. Loneliness can only be alleviated with a much more radical shift. 

The Lonely Man of Faith 

Rabbi Soloveitchik explores the theme of loneliness in his essay, The Lonely Man of Faith (LMOF), through an interpretation of the first two chapters of the book of Genesis—the two accounts of the creation of man—what he calls the Story of Adam the first, Genesis 1, and the story of Adam the second, Genesis 2.

In the story of Adam the first, male and female are described as being created together.  Adam the first is told to conquer the earth and subdue it. He is technically minded. His approach to the world is pragmatic. His relationships can be described similarly.*

Adam the first, might join together with his fellow man in cooperation, in a “community” yet on a deeper level he has no true companion–no soul-mate. He marches on and on in step with the goals and missions of his collective. He functions harmoniously and efficiently, but there is no inner life. Adam the first belongs to what Rabbi Soloveitchik calls a “natural community”–not much different from what can be found in the animal kingdom. 

Adam the second looks out at the natural world and in awe, seeks the source of this creation and, above all, to know the source of his own being. He is overwhelmed by God’s majesty, and can’t help but see his own insignificance. Who is he relative to the source of all being? His questions are personal, not scientific and abstract. He knows that he is unique in his quest and, above all, in his inwardness. What other being questions his own existence? He simply wants to know, who am I? and who is He? 

But Adam the second is created alone. On one hand, this points to his uniqueness. There is no other being like him. On the other hand, God said of Adam the second: “It is not good for man to be lonely” (Genesis 2:17). He yearns for a companion–someone who can understand and share his burden of seeking. 

Communication and community

To overcome his loneliness Adam the second seeks companions with whom he can communicate and commune with in his quest.  

His quest is for a new kind of fellowship, which one finds in the existential community. There, not only hands are joined, but experiences as well; there, one hears not only the rhythmic sound of the production line, but also the rhythmic beat of hearts starved for existential companionship and all-embracing sympathy….(LMOF, p. 41).

“Work relationships” cannot satisfy Adam the second’s yearning for companionship.

There is certainly even within the framework of the natural community, as the existentialists are wont to say, a dialogue between the “I” and the “thou.” However, this dialogue may only gratify the necessity for communication which urges Adam the first to relate himself to others, since communication for him means information about the surface activity of practical man. Such a dialogue certainly cannot quench the burning thirst for communication in depth of Adam the second, who always will remain a homo absconditus [=unknowable person] if the majestic logoi [=words/thoughts] of Adam the first should serve as the only medium of expression (LMOF, pp. 66-67; brackets added for clarity).

Rabbi Soloveitchik would go beyond the Surgeon General’s warning to tell us that mental health is built upon communion—the ability to communicate, to have friendship. But true communication/communion can only be achieved by Adam the second–who understands that true friendship is not a practical arrangement. Friendship is the joining of souls in the pursuit of the highest ideals–the Most High. Modern Adam the first, must become reawakened to Adam the second or risk ever deepening estrangement.

---

* I use the masculine throughout this post to match Rabbi Soloveitchik’s reference to “Adam”, but it should be understood that “Adam” refers to humanity, both male and female.