A Chanukah Lesson on the Tension of Jewish Identity and Interacting with Other Cultures

When I was lighting Chanukah candles last night, my mind focused on a specific detail about the lighting. How do we place the candles on the menorah? The candles are placed on the menorah from right to left. One of the features that drew me to Judaism is that there is symbolism in everything. I am sure that there is some symbolism behind it, or that I could at least find some. I was spending the evening with a friend, and it became more clear that I was perplexed by finding the answer to this "why" question. He then said to me, "You know, Hebrew is read from right to left. Maybe that is why the candles are placed that way." After giving it some more thought, I realized that he may be on to something. 

Hebrew is indeed written and read from right to left. In contrast, Greek is written from left to right. Why do I bring up the Greeks specifically? Because in the Chanukah story, the occupying force (King Antiochus III in particular) was Greek. One of the main motifs of the Chanukah story is that the Maccabees fought the Greeks to maintain their Jewish practice and identity. Perhaps putting the candles from right to left is another subtle way of the Jew reminding himself or herself that there are features of Judaism that make Jews different from the rest of the world. There is some truth in that. At the same time, a further look into Chanukah practices paints a more complex view of how the Jew interacts with the greater world. 

Let's start with the dreidel, the four-sided spinning top commonly associated with Chanukah. The dreidel brings up a certain paradox on this theme, one that I pointed out over a decade ago. On the one hand, the dreidel has uniquely Jewish characteristics. It has four Hebrew letters on it and it is played on Chanukah. On the other hand, look at the role of the dreidel in the Chanukah story. It was a game played in the streets to not arouse suspicion from the fact that the Jews in the Chanukah story were studying Torah, an act that was considered illegal under Antiochus' regime. Plus, the dreidel game has its origins in the practice of teetotum, a English top game that was popular around Christmas time. As Rabbi David Golinkin points out, the irony of the dreidel is that a way that Jews celebrate a victory over cultural assimilation is through the dreidel game, which is unto itself an act of assimilation. 

The potato pancakes, or latkes, are another example. If you care about history, you cannot argue in good faith that latkes have always been a part of Jewish tradition. For one, the Chanukah story is one that took place centuries after the story of receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. Two, the origin of the potato is the Andes. Potatoes were not brought over to Europe until after Christopher Columbus made his mark on the Western Hemisphere. Even then, the potato pancake is a staple of multiple European nations, including Sweden (raggmunkar, potatisbullar), Germany and Austria (Kartoffelpuffer), Bulgaria (patatnik), and Poland (placki ziemniaczane). Similarly, the recipe for the sufganiyah, the jelly-filled donut eaten on Chanukah, was first published in a non-Jewish, German cookbook in the late fifteenth century (Encyclopedia of Jewish Food by Gil Marks). 

Gift-giving on Chanukah provides further insight on the matter. Looking at the history and significance of giving on Chanukah, there was a pre-modern practice of giving money (gelt) to children on Chanukah. However, this practice was quite modest in comparison to what we have today. Gift-giving on Chanukah is a primarily American practice that evolved from interactions with non-Jewish neighbors. Gift-giving as a Jewish-American practice resulted from two phenomena. One is that it was a response to Christmas. The other is that after World War II and the suburban sprawl, Jews could better assimilate into greater U.S. society. Gift-giving on Chanukah became a way to not feel left out.

For a more complicated relationship with the greater world, look at Ma'oz Tzur, a liturgical poem that is commonly sung on Chanukah. The most common melody of Ma'oz Tzur is based on a German folk song. At the same time, the poem was written at a time where Jews were being oppressed by their Christian neighbors. Johns Hopkins Professor Yitzhak Melamed details how Ma'oz Tzur has anti-Christian sentiment in light of the fact that Jews during the Crusades died "in the name of the Cross." It is true that there historically been discord, tension and animosity between Christians and Jews. It is also true that Judeo-Christian relations are, on average, better than they ever have been. We live in an age where we are not trapped in the past and we can coexist in a pluralistic society. 

If you take a look through Jewish history, the Talmud, or other aspects of Jewish culture, what you will note is that relations with broader society can be complicated and cannot be overgeneralized. There are moments when relations are good and times when they are bad. Context matters. Regardless of whether relations are good or bad, one thing that is undeniable or inescapable is that the Jewish world is influenced by broader society. As Chanukah practices illustrate, Judaism does not interact within a bubble. 

How do we resolve the tension within the paradox? One of the many reasons I converted to Judaism is because I was fascinated by the and resilience and adaptability of the Jewish people over time. The Jewish people have maintained their rituals, customs, and practices. The continuity of the tradition is fascinating. The Jewish people learned how to be comfortable with the uncomfortable feeling of being different. They also learned how to interact with and succeed in broader society. After all, the Jewish text Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) teaches that one who is wise is one who learns from all people (4:1), and that includes people who are not Jewish. 

Cultural exchange is how we evolve and better our lives. Even as the "Chanukah spirit" teaches us to be proudly Jewish, it also reminds us that Chanukah would not exist in its current form had Jews not interacted with and learned from non-Jews. That is integration in a nutshell: maintaining a sense of who you are while being part of broader society. The lesson of Chanukah is neither about assimilating nor trying to isolate ourselves from those who are different from us. It will be different for each Jew, but at the end of the day, one of the main lessons of Chanukah is about maintaining that balance between Jewish identity and being a part of broader society.

The Rittenhouse Trial: A Reminder of the Importance of Defensive Gun Usage and Self-Defense

Sometimes, it amazes me how events can become politicized so easily. Take a look at the Kenosha unrest shooting that resulted in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. On August 23, 2020, Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black man, was shot in Wisconsin by a white police officer, Rusten Sheskey. In response, Black Lives Matter protests and riots ensued in the city of Kenosha from August 23 to September 1. It was on August 25 when 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse got into an altercation with Joseph Rosenbaum, who was unarmed. Rosenbaum, along with journalist Richard McGinnis, confronted Rittenhouse later. Rittenhouse ended up fatally shooting two men and severely injuring another man. Rittenhouse was charged with multiple charges, including first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide. Rittenhouse's defense team asserted that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. To make a long story short, the jury delivered a not guilty verdict based on the self-defense argument. 

If we look at the facts of the case instead of pundits' comments, it was an open-and-shut self-defense case. In this case, Rittenhouse was not the aggressor. Even Gaige Grosskreutz, the individual that was shot by Rittenhouse but survived, admitted that he approached Rittenhouse while aiming a gun at him. Rittenhouse received a non guilty verdict not because the justice system is broken, but because the prosecution could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

That did not stop the politicizing or the race-baiting, which is unsurprising given that it is 2021. Congresswoman Cori Bush (D-MO) called the case "white supremacy in action," even in spite of the fact that the individuals that Rittenhouse shot were all white. MSNBC host Joy Reid referred to Rittenhouse as a modern-day slave catcher. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which traditionally has defended the rights of criminal defendants, was peeved that Rittenhouse actually received his constitutional right to due process.

This case goes beyond the usual divide between Democrats and Republicans on gun control and the Second Amendment. What we have witnessed, especially by pundits and activists on the Left, is there is true disdain for the idea that a "good guy with a gun" could exist, especially if that guy is white. Anecdotally, I have come across people on the Left that think that the Second Amendment is some antiquated relic and that guns could not possibly have any real value. My takeaway from the Rittenhouse case is that many on the Left has true disdain for guns, even in a legitimate case of self-defense.

In response, I would like to ask the question of how prevalent defensive gun usage (DGU) is. The U.S. Department of Justice found that from 2007 to 2011, there were 338,700 instances of DGU (Table 11). This annual average of 67,740 is on the more conservative end of the spectrum of estimates, but is still higher than the 39,707 firearm deaths in 2019. That figure is arguably low for a number of reasons, including that people do might not want to divulge their gun ownership, that they have illegally acquired a gun, that crimes are generally underreported, or that they were ashamed of being victimized. 

As such, I am more inclined to accept the finding of a 2013 publication from the National Academies Press [NAP], which was commissioned by the CDC. They found that "Defensive use of guns is a common occurrence...with estimates of annual usage ranging from 500,000 to more than 3 million." In 2021, a Georgetown University professor conducted the largest survey of gun owners to date (English, 2021). Not only did Professor English find that 31.1 percent of gun owners have used their firearm in self-defense at some point, but also extrapolated that there are approximately 1.67 million instances of DGU annually. 

Yes, the exact number of instances of DGU in a given year is in dispute, as are so many figures used in political discourse. What should not be in dispute is that regardless of which figure you use, there are enough cases of DGU that it ought to be considered prevalent enough to dispel the myth that there is "no such thing as a 'good guy with a gun.'" One of the main uses of a gun is self-defense. As nice as it would be to have a peaceful world without gun violence, the truth of the matter is the continued existence of violent and criminal individuals bolsters the argument for DGU. Much like taking the COVID vaccine, wearing a seatbelt, or buying insurance, the purchase of a gun for self-defense purposes is a preventative measure. 

If self-defense does not work, then why do police officers, Secret Service agents, and the Department of Homeland Security agents carry firearms? I ask that question rhetorically because evidence finds that DGU works. To quote the NAP report again, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., instances in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." 

The importance of defensive gun usage is not some abstraction or a fantasy of some ultra-conservative, gun-wielding nut job. DGU is a common and effective form of self-defense, and I am fairly certain that those who have used a gun for self-defense would agree. These figures on DGU do not provide a case for getting rid of the Second Amendment. If anything, these figures, as well as the Rittenhouse case, reinforce the idea of why DGU is just as important now as when the Constitution was drafted.

My Takeaway from the COP26 Conference: There Is No Imminent Climate Change Crisis

Everything is a crisis these days. If you watch the news, there are multiple crises: a health care crisis, a financial crisis, a transportation crisis, a supply chain crisis, a justice crisis, an immigration border crisis. Another crisis has been making its rounds in the news: the climate change crisis. Last week, the United Nations finished its global climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland (COP26). Representatives from nearly 200 nations signed a new treaty. The signatories promise to keep global warming below 1.5ºC by 2100. Some of the more prominent ideas to maintain this ceiling that were brought up at COP26 are net-zero emissions by mid-century, cutting methane by 30 percent by 2030, reducing deforestation, and a coal phase-down. 

Part of where I take issue with such summits as the COP26 is the crisis mentality. I am not saying that crises never exist, that global temperatures are not increasing, or that human activity has not played any notable role in shifts in climate. What I take issue with is perceived magnitude of the problem. The word "crisis" comes from the Latin crisis (judgement, critical stage), which was borrowed from the Greek krísis (one of the meanings being "turning point"). Are we really at such a critical juncture that if we do nothing, the world will end up going to hell in a hand basket? No, not particularly. I am not going to cover every last point in the climate change debates both because I do not have the time and because I have covered the topic of climate change on this blog before. What I will provide today are a few reasons why I am not flipping out about climate change:

1. Going above 1.5ºC by 2100 would not be the end of the world. What happens if we do nothing? The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report can provide some insight. If we have a no-policy response and the global temperature rises to 3.66ºC, there is an estimated GDP loss of 2.6 percent (Ch. 3., p. 256). While 2.6 percent lesser growth sounds undesirable, also keep in mind that current projections show that the global economy is supposed to grow anywhere from 600 percent to 1,800 percent compared to 2017 (Leimbach et al., 2017). While it is hard to predict that far out in the future (see Point #3), it is a reasonable assumption that economic and technological progress will get better over time (see Point #4).

2. Weather-related deaths have been on the decline. You would think that with the increase of CO2 over the past century, more people would be dying from weather-related deaths. Yet here is a peer-reviewed paper from European scholars that says otherwise (Formetta and Feyen, 2019): "Results show a clear decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability, with global average mortality and economic loss rates that have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980-1989 to 2007-2016." Looking at a more longitudinal view of time, global death risk from extreme weather declined 99 percent between 1920 and 2020 (Lomberg, 2020). 

3. Climate change modeling is difficult and fraught with assumptions. Hearing that the world is going to end if we do not change our behavior on environmental policy and climate change is nothing new. At least since the first Earth Day in 1970, we have been bombarded with "gloom-and-doom" predictions about how the world is going to end in the near future if we do not do something about the environment right now. And guess what? They have not come to pass. Sometimes, I feel as if climate change doomsayers are like a cult leader trying to predict the coming of the Apocalypse. When it does not come, they simply say, "Oh, I really meant later." And yet we continue to listen to such apocalyptic predictions. 

Again, I am not saying that there are no problems related to the climate or that humans do not contribute to these problems. What I am saying is that climate change modeling is difficult. Look at budgetary and economic modeling five to ten years down the road. We do our best, but looking that far down the road is difficult. It is not because economists are stupid or because modeling is inherently problematic. It is because modeling is only as good as its assumptions. It is hard enough to make certain assumptions with medium-term budgetary or economic predictions. The pandemic should have quelled our assumptions on that front, that we can have such foresight. All the more so with climate change modeling. 

You are talking about a longer time span and more variables to consider with climate change modeling fifty or one hundred years down the road. Plus, there is a complexity predicting long-term patterns such as interactions between clouds and oceans, solar activity, physics, and how much human activity contributes to the climate change. If you need a more technical piece on the difficulty of predicting climate change scenarios, here is one from professors at the University of Colorado and University of British Columbia published in Issues in Science and Technology. But for argument's sake, let's forget the history of climate change predictions for a moment and assume that the models are at least somewhat accurate. This does not mitigate my final point below....

4. Technological development will help us mitigate climate change. Even with this pandemic, there is still technological development. Such technological developments have helped us in the past. As we progress, innovation provides both greater wealth and improved technological capabilities. HVAC systems have gotten better over time, which can help fight temperature-related deaths. Better infrastructure development improves resilience in hurricanes, tornadoes, and flooding. Weather-related deaths have dropped in no small part because we as a species have learned how to adapt to our surrounding. I would take an educated guess that both economic growth and innovation in relevant sectors would lead to even greater resilience to climate change over time. 

Postscript

I am not saying shifts in climate are not going to have any impact. There are going to be some regions hit harder than others. This, to be sure, will be based on such factors as economic development, natural resources, and geography. But I do not see it as an imminent crisis that is going to destroy us all without some drastic action. Climate change is manageable if we approach it at a more level-headed mindset. Look at what happened with the COVID-19 pandemic when we resorted to panic. Before the pandemic, experts told us that lockdowns were ill-advised. But when fear took over, we locked down because of scary modeling, even though the public health experts previously told us it was a bad idea. At least now we have data to show that lockdowns do not work to lower excess deaths. In addition to lockdowns, governments implemented a whole series of regulations and practices "in the name of science" that do little to nothing to curb COVID transmission. This inanity caused billions of dollars in economic damage, considerable unemployment, a lot of mental health problems, disrupted supply chains, and greater world hunger. 

I hope the pandemic response is a lesson for those who would like to use heavy-handed government as a response. Whether we are talking about carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, investments in renewable energy so we can gradually transition away from fossil fuels, or any other policy alternative, the question we should ask ourselves is whether the cost of the policy is greater than the damage we are looking to avoid. But a first good step is understanding the extent of the problem. As I brought up before in a previous piece, catastrophic climate change projections rely on such improbable, worst-case assumptions as complete inaction, an unrealistic consumption of coal, and a lack of technological development (also see Pielke and Ritchie, 2021; and Hausfather and Peters, 2020 on how climate change activists cling on improbable, worst-case scenarios). If we put ourselves in a crisis mindset when the problem is in fact a manageable one, I will not be surprised if the attempts of world leaders to mitigate climate change will be more harmful than climate change itself. 

Source: Hausfather and Peters, 2020

Parsha Toldot: The Timeless Lesson of How Envy Causes Harm and How to Minimize It

I have studied multiple languages over the years, and I have been amazed at how much we rely on idioms in the English language. Idioms make English such a colorful language, but also difficult for non-natives to learn. One of the idioms that has fascinated me is "to cut off one's nose to spite one's face." Having its origin in the late 18th century, the phrase means that one should not do something that harms you simply because it harms someone else. There are some who would be blinded enough by revenge where they would endure anything to get payback. There is another more common reason, one that we see play out in this week's Torah portion, Toldot (Genesis 25:19-28:9). That reason is envy. 

There was a famine in the land of Canaan (Genesis 26:1). Isaac goes to settle in the land of Canaan because G-d promised that if Isaac stayed, he would be blessed (26:3-4). He stayed in the land and reaped a harvest 100 times what he was expecting. Isaac became wealthy as a result: flocks, herds, a large household (26:13-14). What happens as a result from Isaac's success? In spite of having stopped a famine, the Philistines envied Isaac (26:14). The townsfolk could not kill Isaac because he was under the king's protection (26:11; Sforno's commentary of Genesis 26:15). However, they did decide to stop up Isaac's wells and prevent him from producing more (26:15). Because of this envy, King Abimelech sent Isaac away (26:16). To recap, the townspeople drove away the guy that pulled them out of famine. They did not care that their actions meant less food production because they could not handle the fact that he produced greater material wealth. I feel like there is a modern-day lesson there about excessive taxation and regulation, but I will say that how the Philistines reacted to Isaac's success is a biblical example of "cutting off your nose in spite of your face" indeed! We see throughout the biblical texts how envy causes harm. 

• Look at the two matriarchs, Leah and Rachel. On the one hand, Rachel had Jacob's love. On the other hand, Leah was producing children. In any case, there was considerable tension between the two sisters (e.g., Genesis 30:15). 
• Miriam's envy caused her to speak ill of her brother (Numbers 12:1), thereby making her leprous (Numbers 12:10). 
• There was Joseph and his technicolor dream coat. Joseph buttered up to his father and became the favorite child. Joseph's siblings became so envious that they initially tried murdering him (Genesis 37:20), but eventually decided to sell Joseph into slavery (Genesis 37:27-28). 
• King David develops an attraction towards Bathsheba. David forces Bathsheba to sleep with him. To cover up the pregnancy, David sends Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, into battle to be killed (I Samuel 11). 
• And who could forget the story of Cain and Abel? Both Cain and Abel provided offerings to G-d. Abel gave his most precious animals. Cain tried to get away with offering less than his best. Call it a spiritual form of half-assing it. Cain did not want to put in the effort, and unsurprisingly, G-d noticed and favored Abel. How did Cain react? He was so envious that he murdered his brother (Genesis 4:3-9), an act that effectively killed a quarter of the planet's population. 

The perils of envy go beyond biblical texts. It is something we regrettably see throughout history. A good friend of mine sent me a video (see below) about how history played a deleterious role in history. For one, it helped explain anti-Semitism better. In the Middle Ages, there were very few options for someone who was not of noble blood to become wealthy. Being a merchant was one of those ways. While there were non-Jewish merchants in the Middle Ages, it was a profession disproportionately taken on by Jews. And guess what? They were good at it....so good that their neighbors were envious. It led to the Spanish Inquisition and other expulsions in which people cut off their nose to spite their face. The Jewish people were not the only ones to experience the negative effects of envy, but it does make for a good cautionary tale for us. 

Unfortunately, envy was not a relic we left in the Middle Ages. Going back to the video above, envy became a hit with the rise of socialism and communism. Not even the fall of the Berlin Wall could bring down envy. If we look at the philosophy of the social justice movement and how it is applied, the politics of envy continue to this very day. I do recognize that there are those on the political Left that are legitimately and primarily concerned with justice, even if it is quite redistributive. However, I would contend that much of what is taking place on the political Left is not primarily out of concern for justice, but motivated by envy. The way the "Eat the Rich" crowd reacts to the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Elon Musk is reminiscent of the Isaac story discussed earlier. Success, a good education, and a work ethic are derisively dismissed by the social justice movement as privilege. It leads to thinking we could screw over the rich while regulating and taxing our way out of poverty. In spite of the technological progress we have made and in spite of the fact that our lives are materially better by most metrics than they ever have in history, envy still rules the day. Why? Envy is not how much one has in absolute terms, but in relative terms. Some things truly never change. 

I begin to understand why the prohibition of coveting is in the Ten Commandments (see my 2014 analysis on the topic). According to twelfth-century rabbi Maimonides, what makes coveting problematic is that it leads to committing more egregious acts (Mishneh Torah, Gezelah v'Avedah 1:9-11). Go back to the list of biblical stories I cited above. In those biblical stories, envy brought about such disastrous results as slander, murder, criminal activity, and cruelty. Envy really is an ugly character trait. Aside from committing unethical acts, why is envy such a problem?

With envy, one is constantly comparing themself to others while deflecting any criticism or need to improve on themselves. Envy does not contribute to anything positive, whether on a personal or societal level, because it is about tearing people down instead of lifting people up. Envy destroys not only others, but ourselves. The Talmud points out that envy rots the bones (Shabbat 152b). Envy also makes it difficult to enjoy life. To quote R. Joseph Telushkin in his book A Code of Jewish Ethics: Book 1 (p. 302), "Envy destroys our ability to enjoy what we already have; instead, our joy is diminished or entirely eliminated by the fact that others have more--perhaps only one thing more--than us." That would explain why Rabbi Elazar HaKappar said that envy is one of the things that removes us from this world (Pirke Avot 4:28)...or to quote President Theodore Roosevelt, "Comparison is the thief of joy."

Rabbi Telushkin hits on a major point about envy. It does not matter that those of us in the 21st century have more material wealth that our ancestors could dream of, whether that comes in the form of smartphones, refrigerators, indoor plumbing, computers, the dishwasher, the vacuum, or heating and air conditioning. If we focus on what others have and what we do not, if we continue to compare ourselves to others, we will always be miserable. 

So how do we reduce envy? After reading this article from Chabad on the topic, I concluded that of the Jewish sages, Ben Zoma, gave some sound advice in Pirke Avot on how to deal with envy (4:1). He asked and gave answers to the following four questions:

1. Who is wise? The one who learns from everyone. On the one hand, this does not directly address envy. On the other hand, learning from everyone implies a lot. Because this wisdom means that you are willing to learn, it means you do not know everything. While the Jewish definition of humility (or rather, a definition based on Jewish texts) differs a bit from how we commonly understand humility, it is still necessary to have that open-mindedness and ability to give other people space if we want to reduce envy. Also, learning gives us the ability to grow. As we will see later, focusing on your own personal growth and development reduces envy. 
2. Who is rich? The one who enjoys their lot. Yes, abject poverty is awful. The Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 31:14) says that if all the troubles were placed on one scale on poverty on the other, poverty outweighs them all. At the same time, I like how Ben Zoma turns the definition of richness on its head. Richness is not about the accumulation of material wealth, but about our perspective on what we have in life. This definition sounds a lot like what philosopher Frederich Nietzsche called amor fati, which is Latin for "love of one's fate." I can see a "love life" approach to be pollyannish or looking through the world with rose-colored glasses. The phrase in Hebrew for gratitude is הכרת הטוב, or literally "recognizing the good." We do not ignore the bad or set it aside. We also do not give into complacency because Judaism teaches that we can always better ourselves. But we do acknowledge and put emphasis on what blessings we do have. It's no wonder that a traditional Jewish practice is to say 100 blessings a day. This emphasis on recognizing what we do have and how fortunate we are does help with curtailing envy. 
3. Who is strong? The one who conquers their evil inclination. For one, this quote implies that you should focus less on others' shortcomings and focus on your own. Two, you do not have a strong sense of self or self-control if you are envious. Envy is a weakness. It means that you would rather keep up with the Joneses and be yanked around by others' expectations of you. Having that envy drives you means that you are, in Marcus Aurelius' words (Meditations 12:19), are dancing like a puppet. It also means that you are not addressing what is causing the feeling of envy, nor are you focusing on what you can do to strengthen your own personality or improve your quality of life. Creating a sense of equanimity and emotional resilience means that you have greater control over your life, as opposed to being jerked around by external events over which you have little to no control. 
4. Who is honored? The one who honors others. Another undesirable outcome of envy is that you are self-absorbed. Look, I'm not here to insult self-care. I actually find self-care to be important because if you are of sound body and mind, you are strong enough (see previous point) to be there for others. R. Jonathan Sacks once said that humility is not holding yourself low, but holding others high, which is a positive-sum approach. Bringing it back to the topic at hand, Rabbi Telushkin advises us that "Helping others achieve success, and feeling a sense of personal involvement in it, is one way to diminish feelings of envy." Going back to the first point in this list, the one about learning from others, I think we can both learn from others and honor others when we see other people as human beings instead of an opponent, as "other," an oppressor, or through a zero-sum lens. 

I think there are moments in which we can feel at least a bit jealous of what others have. It is part of the human condition to want a better quality of life. However, just because there is some sort of inequality does not mean we have to tear the other person down. If someone has something we do not, we can always ask what we can do to emulate the other person so we can also have it. The commandment of "do not covet" (לא תחמד) is in the active voice. Coveting goes beyond a brief longing for something we lack. It is a brooding, festering, and active perpetuation of the negative emotions that eventually lead to something worse. Not only does envy harm others, but it makes people cut off their noses in spite of their faces, and that is not a good look for anybody.