Opposite Traits and Dispositions
From their moment of birth, man and woman are two distinct entities and beings,1 possessing distinctive personalities and character traits. Thus our Sages declare in the Gemara:2 “Women are a nation unto themselves.”
The differences between a man and a woman exist in many areas: in their form, the number of their bodily limbs, their nature, traits, and conduct, and how they affect the world.
For example, our Sages say: “The man brings in the wheat; the woman grinds and bakes it.”3 “It is the norm for men to go out and conquer; it is not the norm for women to go out and conquer.”4 Also: “The entire glory of the king’s daughter lies within.”5
The husband is considered the “head” of the household, as he conveys Torah knowledge to all the family members (Torah knowledge being the aspect of the head). The wife is likened to the “heart” of the household, as she infuses the home with positive emotions and fine character traits.6 The wife also inculcates all the family members with pure and unadulterated faith in G‑d, a faith that emanates from the depth of her heart.
These differences are also seen in the process of matching them together. Thus our Sages say,7 “Pairing them together in marriage is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea.”
To understand this, we must recognize an underlying difference between men and women.
Only the Man Is Obligated to Marry
In order to understand the essential difference between husband and wife, we must first contemplate the union of man and woman, i.e., their married life together, for this emphasizes and demonstrates the differences between them.
Regarding the mitzvah of marriage, we find two opposite extremes:
The Torah’s command to marry applies to the man and not to the woman;8 however, a woman’s desire to marry is stronger than a man’s. Thus our Sages say:9 “More than the man desires to marry, the woman desires to be married.” Our Sages say as well10 that only the woman says, “Better two bodies — whoever the husband may be — than to dwell alone.” This is not said with regard to the man, for his desire to marry is not as strong as the woman’s.
How can we reconcile the commandment to marry, which is only incumbent upon the man, and the desire to marry, which is more strongly felt by the woman?
A similar contradiction exists with regard to the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply.”
While it is incumbent upon the man and not the woman to have children,11 the burden of the nine-month pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, nursing the child, and generally rearing the children, fall on the woman and not on the man.
“Master” of the Home And “Mainstay” of the Home
In order to understand the essential difference between husband and wife, we must first better understand the respective roles of husband and wife in their mutual household.
The husband is deemed the “master of the home,” as our Sages say,12 “An upstanding woman among women is the wife who complies with her husband’s desires.” The husband bears the brunt of earning a living, sustaining his family, and seeing to the family’s needs. In this respect, the woman “receives” from her husband.13
[This is also true as discussed in kabbalisticand chassidicthought14 where the man represents and symbolizes the supernal Sefiros of Z’eir Anpin, the male aspect and bestower, and the woman is likened to Malchus, the female aspect, that of the recipient.]
On the other hand, the wife is termed the “mainstay of the home,” akeres habayis, for she is the crucial factor in the home. Generally speaking, the child-rearing as well as the spiritual status of the home depends on the wife. The spiritual status of the husband also depends to a large degree on his wife.
The Midrash15 describes the awesome power of the wife by relating the following two tales: One describes a righteous woman who married an evil man and succeeded in transforming him into a wholly righteous individual. The other describes a truly evil woman who married a very righteous individual and succeeded in turning him into an evil person. In conclusion the Midrash notes, “It all depends on the woman.”
The Leaders May Be Men
But Most Kindly Acts Are Performed by Women
Historically speaking, we also find differences between men and women — both in the annals of human history as well as in Jewish history.
By and large, it is primarily men who have served as the world’s leaders — kings, prophets, judges, and military commanders. That is to say, the leadership and influence were mostly in the hands of men and not of women.
When it comes to performing acts of kindness, we find throughout history a majority of acts of kindness performed specifically by women. So, too, when it comes to volunteering for worthy and charitable causes, women, in general, have historically been much more responsive than men. Thus our Sages state:16 “A woman is more sensitive to a guest’s needs than is a man.” This is to say, a woman is more naturally drawn to performing acts of goodness and kindness than a man.
This being so, the nature and character of caring for and assisting others is found within the woman to a greater degree than is found within the man, while the aspect of leadership of others is more the province of the man than of the woman.
In summary, while general leadership is usually the domain of the man, the woman more directly impacts her surroundings and immediate environment.
“The Woman Shall Encircle the Man”
Regarding the Messianic Era, the Prophet states:17 “The woman shall encircle the man.” In other words, the woman will be on a loftier spiritual level than the man; it is the woman who will then be the “master of the house” and its leader, not the man.
Why will the relationship between man and woman change so radically during the Messianic Era? What possible connection is there between the role reversals of man and woman and the Time to Come?
Benefactor and Recipient (Man and Woman) — Which Is Greater?
With regard to the roles of benefactor and recipient, husband and wife, it is worth investigating which role is most dominant.
It would seem at first glance18 that the benefactor/giver is more important and has a far greater role to play than the recipient. Seemingly, the ability to be a benefactor is indicative of a far more important role in the partnership between giver and receiver and thus is the more important of the two. The receiver, on the other hand, has nothing to offer and can only receive from the benefactor.
The words of our Sages however indicate otherwise:19 “Much have I learned from my masters, even more from my friends, but from my students most of all.” In other words, “Although I have received much from my teachers and friends, I have received even more from my recipients.”
Truly, this needs to be understood. How is it possible that the master receives from his students — who derive all their knowledge from him — more than he receives from his own teachers?20
The Attribute of Receiving,
Being Bound to Another, Is Even Loftier Than Giving
Essentially, the matter is as follows:
For one to be truly complete, one must be in contact with others and with one’s environs. Only an individual who benefits from his surroundings and absorbs the wisdom and knowledge of others can be considered whole and complete. When someone is cut off from his surroundings, he will inevitably be lacking, even if he possesses countless personal qualities.
In order to better understand this, let us contemplate the human condition in general.21
Creation is divided into four general categories: the inanimate (stones and earth), vegetative growth (plants and trees), living beings (fish, animals, birds, and so on), and mankind. Man is termed medaber, the species that speaks.22
Why does man’s description center around the quality of speech, when his most superior quality over all other beings is that he possesses rational thought?
Picture, if you will, an individual who speaks fluently and is able to enunciate his words perfectly. His only flaw is that he is entirely irrational. Does his speech have any meaning or significance? On the other hand, consider, for example, an extremely wise individual who unfortunately is a mute. Although this person is physically challenged, he is still an extremely rational and wise human being.
This being so, wouldn’t it make more sense to term man a sentient and rational being, not merely a speaking being, one who is possessed of the power of speech?
Man’s Special Quality — His Ability to Bond With and
Benefit From His Surroundings
Man’s true greatness lies in his ability to break boundaries and escape his limitations; to be roused and to benefit from his surroundings and environment. Man possesses the capacity to connect extreme opposites and transform them into a single unity and entity. He does so by connecting to his surroundings.
No matter how brilliant the lone individual may be, even if he possesses a tremendous degree of knowledge, he will still find that his knowledge is limited and finite. As much as he can accomplish on his own, it cannot be compared at all to that which can be accomplished by the collective whole. When a group of people work together, they will inevitably accomplish much more than a lone and solitary individual working on his own. Thus our Sages note23 that when two individuals work in tandem, they are able to accomplish three times as much as they could working alone.
This is what makes the human being so special — he is able to absorb and learn from all of creation. This is the unique aspect that signifies man. All other created beings are inherently limited and cannot possibly change their innate natures. Man, however, is not subject to these limitations and possesses the ability to learn from and contribute to his surroundings.
Man is therefore known as a “speaking being,” for man communicates with his surroundings through the medium of speech. It is true that intellect enables man to bestow benefit on others as well as to benefit from his surroundings. However, the means of his interaction is specifically through the power of speech.
The truly loftiest aspect of man — his ability to break all boundaries and limitations and connect with his surroundings — is achieved through his power of speech. It is for this reason that man is known as a “speaking being.”
Recipient’s Connection With Surroundings
Greater Than That of the Giver
Regarding the matter under discussion, what is the difference between a benefactor and a recipient in terms of their being affected by their surroundings?
The recipient’s connection with his environment is stronger than that of the giver’s, for the recipient’s very nature involves not being closed off from others and wrapped up in one’s self. On the contrary, the recipient is aware and sensitive to others and benefits from them.
Although the benefactor is also connected with his environment — departing from his inner self, turning his attention outward, and affecting his disciples — this is not a reciprocal relationship. True, the giver gives of himself to others, but he personally does not derive benefit from his surroundings. Thus, the giver remains the same, for his interaction with others does not cause him to change.
On the other hand, the main quality of the receiver is to “soak up” and take in that which is offered by others. This enables him to absorb the qualities of others; to receive and benefit from his surroundings.
The receiver thus possesses a quality the giver lacks: he is not shut off from others but is able to stretch and reach out beyond himself. In other words, the traits and tendencies that prevent the benefactor from enjoying a reciprocal relationship with others is not one of the failings and flaws of the recipient.
Intellect Is Revealed Through Speech
An additional example of a qualitative superiority enjoyed by the recipient but lacking in the giver can be gleaned from the powers of intellect and speech, for intellect is termed “benefactor” and speech is deemed “recipient.”
Man’s thought and intellect can function quite well without the medium of speech, as a person can be alone and ponder intellectual thoughts and subjects. On the contrary, speech impedes the flow of thought. In order for a person to concentrate his thoughts, think deeply, and generatenovel ideas and concepts, he must remain silent.24
While intellect is in no need of speech, spoken communication requires intellect. Speech receives from intellect, for words in and of themselves have no true meaning or content outside of the intellectual content that speech receives from intellect. When a person speaks words of wisdom, intellect garbs itself in his words, serving as a conduit that enables others to become aware, appreciate and understand the speaker’s ideas and concepts.
This being so, intellect is the benefactor and speech is its recipient.
Speech Expands Intellect
However, the opposite is sometimes true — where speech serves as the benefactor and intellect becomes the recipient. This means that there are times when speaking increases and enhances one’s intellect and thoughts. Were he not to have spoken, he would never have attained this deeper degree and level of understanding.
For example, there are times when speech broadens the parameters of a concept, providing it with numerous details, expanding the concept to a far greater degree than was originally conceived. When the person was merely meditating on the concept before he articulated the idea, he could not possibly have imagined that the concept possessed such a plethora of nuances, details, and depth.
Additionally, there are times when a person comes up with a brilliant concept that can only be understood by geniuses and extremely wise individuals but not by “simple folk.” When the person begins explaining the concept verbally, he suddenly finds the means by which he can explain this formerly obscure concept even to simple and regular folk.
Also, speech will sometimes reveal new depths of the concept to the person himself. When he begins explaining the concept verbally, he suddenly finds new meaning and depth and arrives at a deeper level of intellect. Indeed, he had not been able to attain this level when this concept was only in his thoughts and had not yet descended into speech.
Moreover, through speech, one is sometimes able to combine two things that had previously seemed contradictory in his thoughts. In other words, while thinking about these two matters, they seemed to contradict each other, but now that he is verbalizing his thoughts, the seeming contradiction disappears.
Speech thus shatters all boundaries of self. The person is not limited to his own being, but is able to speak, receive and establish a connection with others. By means of the power of speech, he can study and learn and become knowledgeable in those areas of wisdom and intellect that others have already conceived and developed.25
“You Shall Speak of Them”
This is why there is particular emphasis in the Torah that the mitzvah of Torah study be performed specifically through the medium of speech, as the verse states,26 “You shall speak of them.”
For it is specifically through verbalization that the person attains the utmost depth of understanding Torah. He achieves a degree of profundity that he would never have attained had his Torah study been conducted entirely in his mind and thought, without ever reaching the medium of speech.
Our Sages also inform us that verbalization increases one’s memory: “He who learns silently will soon forget; he who learns out loud will remember what he learned.”27
Additionally, speech has a very strong impact on a person’s emotions.
For one who loves, his love will be increased and enhanced through speaking words of love. Similarly, one who is angry will see his anger increase by speaking angrily.
It is therefore stated in Reishis Chochmah28 that one of the ways to minimize anger is to hold one’s tongue while angry; to make sure not to speak. For speech increases and swells one’s anger while silence tempers and cools the passions of that anger.
[Not only speech itself, but the way in which one speaks can have a very strong impact on the speaker.At times, speaking loudly will enable a person to concentrate and focus his heart. Therefore the following law exists concerning the Amidah prayer: Although this prayer is primarilyto be recited in a hushed tone; nevertheless, during the High Holy Days — when concentrating on one’s prayers and atoning for one’s sins is of primary import— it is permitted to pray the Amidah out loud, for the sound of one’s voice will rouse his concentration and focus.29 ]
Speech Frees a Person From His Limitations
It becomes obvious from all the above that although speech is the recipient of intellect, it does possess qualities that intellect lacks, to such an extent that in certain circumstances it increases and enhances the intellect.
The reason for this is that the loftiest level of all lies not within man himself but in his ability to rise beyond himself and receive and absorb from his surroundings. And this is effected through the aspect of speech.
For notwithstanding its ability to ponder the most magnificent and transcendent matters, intellect is still basically limited quantitatively as well as qualitatively.
Through the medium of speech, however, a person is able to become wise not only in those matters that he himself has come to understand, but also in those novel ideas and thoughts originated by others.
This quality of speech — the nullification of limitations and boundaries and the connection to entities outside of oneself — is truly the most complete state of all; the state of completion that is achieved by the combination of opposites.30
We clearly see here the special merit and quality of the recipient, for as stated above, a recipient is not limited by his own self since he can receive from others as well.The ability to transcend one’s own state and condition (even if he possesses the highest forms of intellect) is the most immense power of all, even higher than that of being a benefactor.
In Conclusion: Which Is Greater? Benefactor or Recipient
In conclusion, during the initial stages of the giver-receiver relationship, there is a quality found in the giver that the recipient lacks, for the benefactor is replete with superior qualities and seems not to require anyone else. The recipient, however, lacks many qualities and therefore needs a benefactor to supply them to him.
However, upon further investigation, we realize that the recipient also possesses qualities that the benefactor lacks. The fact that the recipient is more than eager to receive that which others have to offer indicates a tremendous quality, for he escapes his own boundaries and limitations and absorbs much from his surroundings. This makes possible the harmonious union of opposite qualities.
The Nature of the Woman, the Recipient,
Consists of Drawing Close to Another
The same is true regarding the relationship of man and woman.
Man is the benefactor, feeling complete within himself and lacking the necessity to approach others for his needs. The fact is, however, the state of man is incomplete. Despite all the positive powers and talents he may possess, he is still, after all, inherently limited.
The woman is the “receiver.” Although this term indicates that she is incompleteand must receive from others, there is a unique quality of completeness in her state as well. For since she is receiving from others, by necessity she possesses the traits and qualities of combining opposites, capable as she is of receiving from all different aspects and levels. These varying aspects and levels converge and merge within her. The ability to combine these opposites denotes a truly great level of completeness.
To clarify this matter further, it is true that a man also connects with others. Indeed, the husband is responsible for the welfare of his household: he must earn a living, provide for his family’s needs, etc. Nevertheless, what is most important to him is not the aspect of departing from his own self and interacting with his home, but only that of providing to the home. In no way does he do this in order to receive from the home in return.
The recipient (the wife), by contrast, has a most obvious connection with her benefactor (her husband). In order to receive from him, she must put her own needs aside. Thereby her union with her benefactor and her connection with her surroundings achieves a complete state of unity.
Man and Woman
In light of the above, we will better understand all the differences between man and woman.
a) With regard to the inner and inherent division between husband and wife, the husband is deemed the “master of the home” — the “benefactor” and “giver”; the provider — while the woman “complies with her husband’s desires,” i.e., she “receives” from him.
b) Most acts of kindness are performed specifically by women. While the general aspect of “benefactor” is usually the role of the man, the truest aspect of relating and connecting to others is found in women more than it is found in men. This is why women are generally more concerned than men about the welfare of others. The same is true regarding performing acts of kindness such as volunteering for worthy and charitable causes. It is the woman who does so to a much greater degree than the man.
c) World leaders, those who had the greatest degree of overall influence, were by and large men and not women. Man, being the “giver” and “benefactor,” is the one best prepared to more greatly influence general world events, while the woman, as “receiver,” lacks this degree of influence. However, because of her connection to her surroundings and environment, she is more aware of and sensitive to their immediate needs and she is able to be of more direct assistance.
d) With regard to the times of Mashiach, it is the woman who will rule — “The woman will encircle the man” — for in the truest sense, the ability to relate and meld with others and with one’s surroundings and environment is the greatest quality of all.
In the times of Mashiach, when the truth will be fully revealed, we will clearly see how the trait of “receiver” — the trait of self-nullification; being “empty” of oneself and one’s personal ego in order to receive from others — is the greatest strength and quality of all, as it is able to combine many different and opposite individuals and situations.
e) The mitzvah to marry and “be fruitful and multiply” is incumbent upon the man and not the woman, for the function and role of the man is to act as “giver,” to establish and sustain a Jewish home. On the other hand, the desire and yearning to have such a home is found to a greater degree within the woman. For it is in her nature to seek out and find her “giver,” her husband, to marry him and together build a Jewish home.
The longing and craving for children is also found within the woman to a greater extent than is found within the man. Since the woman is more sensitive and responsive to the needs of others and desires to give of herself to them, she longs to build a home and have children to a greater extent than the man.
Recipient Is Closer to G‑d
We must further consider a person’s unique quality to depart from his inherent limitations and form a connection with his surroundings. How does this quality relate to developing a unique relationship with G‑d?
Chassidus explains31 that all forces and aspects of creation, including the highest and most complete, have no inherent connection (on their part) to G‑d, for G‑d is truly infinite and unbounded while all created beings are finite and limited. There is absolutely no relation between something finite and something that is infinite. They are so far apart that there is no way they can be said to be intrinsically connected and close to each other.
[Moreover, G‑d’s relationship with even the most perfect creation in the world, whether the greatest or the smallest inherently limited matter of this world, is entirely equal — both are utterly insignificant in relation to Him and both bear no comparison to Him at all. To Him, the most exalted created being and the lowliest created being are both equally “naught and absolute nothingness”;32 they are both equally and utterly inconsequential to Him.33 ]
Thus, it is specifically the recipient who enjoys a more intimate degree of closeness with G‑d, since the recipient — by the very nature of being a recipient and not a giver — exists in a state of self-nullification before G‑d. This state of “nothingness” and self-abnegation enables the recipient to be a proper vessel for the indwelling of the Divine Presence, enabling him to connect and attach himself to G‑d.
Thus, the fact that the recipient possesses the ability to contain and unite opposites is a result of the recipient’s lofty spiritual source. Just as the loftiest spiritual forces and powers contain no limitations and boundaries, and even those matters that seem to our eyes to be opposites unite above, the same is true of the recipient’s ability to do so when he is nullified to G‑d. The recipient, too, can be aware of this, as he possesses the ability to unite opposites.
Therefore, that which seems to our mortal eyes to be a fault and a deficiency, that the recipient is merely an “empty vessel” containing nothing, is in truth a tremendous quality. For it is that quality of “emptiness” and of self-abnegation that enables the recipient to break through all straits and limitations and unite with the other. This trait and ability stems from its lofty spiritual source and its closeness to G‑d Who is truly without limit and end.
Thus, the only force in the universe that bears the slightest comparison to G‑d, the truly Infinite One Who possesses no limitations and can combine opposites, is the particular individual who is a recipient, who possesses the power of self-nullification and is able to leave his “selfness” and connect with another. This is what the recipient does when it leaves its self-enclosed comfort zone in order to connect with its benefactor.
[We will understand accordingly why the child is formed by the woman and not by the man. As a recipient, the woman enjoys a special degree of closeness with G‑d and it is therefore she who forms the child, since this formation comes about through G‑d’s Divine power as shall be later explained.]
Speech Derives From The Soul’s Essence
Let us further consider the quality of speech (the recipient of intellect) and its superiority, possessing qualities that even intellect (its benefactor) lacks.34
We have already mentioned that when a person verbalizes intellectual concepts, the very fact that he gives voice to these concepts will enhance and increase his intellectual understanding.
Truly, what unique trait does speech possess that enables it to increase intellect? How can the mere words and letters themselves add depth to the idea and concept?
Chassidus explains that the unique quality of speech lies in its very lofty source, and often states: “The source of speech derives from the soul’s very essence,” the loftiest level of man’s soul, a level that far transcends intellect. Since the source of speech emanates from an even higher level than intellect, it can therefore cause an increase in intellect.
To clarify the meaning of the term “the soul’s essence,” when we say that something is “essential,” we are implying that this thing is entirely self-contained and complete. It needs nothing else since it already possesses everything and contains no fault.
[In our physical world, such an essential matter, i.e., something totally self-contained and complete, is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find. For by and large, everything that exists in this world, even the very best things, can be improved, enhanced, made even more beautiful, etc. Thus, the very fact that an article or item can be enhanced demonstrates that even after its enhancement, it is still nottotally complete, nor will it ever be. Something will always be lacking, which is why improvement was and still is possible.
Thus the term “essence” or “essential” as applied to objects and beings in this world is wholly relative — some things are more self-contained and complete than others, but none are perfect. All are constantly subject to enhancement and improvement.
The only true Essence and Essential Being is G‑d, concerning Whom we use the term “G‑d’s very Essence and Being.” G‑d is truly complete and lacks for nothing. He is not subject to any possible enhancement or any degree or level of improvement.35 ]
The “Essential” State of Speech Transcends Even That of Intellect
With regard to the matter at hand — intellect and speech — which of them is closer to “essence”?
An intellectual concept, even that originating in the mind of an authentic genius, is inevitably incomplete. It is always possible for the idea’s originator to add additional dimensions and further layers of depth to the original concept. For no man, even the greatest genius among us, can reach or plumb the depths of intellect. For this reason, it is always possible to attain ever-greater achievements in intellectual depth, thereby adding another wrinkle, layer or dimension to the original concept and thought.
This explains why geniuses of the first rank who come up with the most novel ideas take pleasure in their idea being well received by their peers. Why should this be so? Seemingly, shouldn’t they take satisfaction in the idea itself, not in the opinion of others?
The reason for this is related to the limitations and potential fallibility of any human idea. Thus, the idea’s originator needs to know that his thoughts have been accepted by others as well. The very fact that other people accept the veracity of his opinion strengthens the truthfulness and acceptability of his original concept.
We thus realize that a person’s need to have his ideas and opinions seconded by others is an indication of his realization that as a human being, even his most original and brilliant ideas may be flawed and subject to error. Achieving the accolades of one’s peers reassures him that his idea is in fact correct, and moreover, will hopefully be further improved upon and refined through peer review.
An idea, therefore, no matter how brilliant it may be, can never be termed “essence” — whole and complete and lacking nothing. It is always lacking as it can always be improved upon.
Speech, by contrast, involving as it does a relationship and connection between two different people and the transfer of knowledge or feelings from one to the other, does have this quality of essence.
Utilizing the power of speech, a person is able to transmit to others any and all possible messages that exist, from the most profound concept to the most extremely idiotic notion, from the most ardent and intense degrees of love to the most fiery and incensed feelings of anger, hatred and the like.
This capacity of speech, serving as a vessel for all manner of expression, is an indication of “essence”: it possesses no faults or blemishes and possesses the capacity to contain all.36
The ability of speech to enhance and increase one’s understanding will be understood accordingly.
The very essence of speech, its ultimate basis and foundation, is the soul’s essence that far transcends any measure of intellect. Therefore, when intellect is clothed within the garb of speech, it is infused with a new radiance; a luminosity that derives from the very essence of the soul. This new degree and level enables intellect to scale heights that it could never before achieve on its own.
Explanation as to Why “From My Students Most of All”
In accordance with the above, we can now better understand the Mishnah’s statement: “Much have I learned from my masters, even more from my friends, but from my students most of all.” Seemingly, what can the student teach his master?
The unique aspect and quality of the student lies in his ability to reveal his master’s loftiest source: “essence.” He is able to do so since the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student is achieved via the teacher’s power of speech. When the teacher utilizes this power and clothes his wisdom in speech, he causes his intellect to ascend to the degree of “essence.”
Moreover, the very fact that the teacher’s idea and concept was understood by his students indicates that the source of this concept resides in the soul’s essence. For in order for an idea to be accepted by different types of people, possessing different opinions and outlooks, etc., the concept must be rooted in a most lofty source, a place where division and differences between one person and another simply do not exist. Such a power can only reside in the “essence of the soul.”
In the lower forms of soul powers, differences, and quite often major differences, exist between one person and another. Since these powers are inherently limited, each individual will only receive a given portion or aspect of that power. Thus no two people will view the same matter in an identical light.
“Essence,” however, is the same in all, as the Alter Rebbestates,37 “They are actually all equalin rank.” For “essence,” containing everything, implies a complete and whole state that lacks for nothing. From that perspective there are no differences between one person and the next. For differences stem from variations in features and qualities that each person possesses individually, while concerning their source in essence, all matters are equal.38
When a group of competent pupils equally understands and agrees with their teacher’s words, this reveals the essential quality of his teaching, making it equally accessible to all. Therefore, “Much have I learned from my masters ... but from my students most of all” — it is specifically through one’s students that a person attains the highest level of all, the level of essence.
The above in no way contradicts the simple meaning39 of “from my students most of all”: that the many questions asked by the students sharpen the teacher’s mind and understanding of the particular matter.
For both explanations are actually one and the same. The questions asked by the students enable the teacher to reach ever-greater intellectual heights, even to the degree of “essence,” for the students as recipients are intrinsically closer to this degree of essence, as explained above.
