הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם מַה־טּוֹב וּמָה־יְהוָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כִּי אִם־עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם־אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃
“He has told you, O man, what is good, And what the LORD requires of you: Only to do justice And to love goodness, And to walk modestly with your God;
עשות משפט זה הדין אהבת חסד זה גמילות חסדים והצנע לכת זה הוצאת המת והכנסת כלה
Would you tell your six-year-old there's no Santa Claus, and then describe exactly how you bought and wrapped all the Christmas gifts? If your spouse asked who was on the phone, would you say "it's your best friend about the surprise party we're planning for your birthday"? Would you tell your boss about your plans to test your new idea, with its 50-50 odds of success, at work next Monday?
If you answer "no" to these questions, then you have a healthy and normal appreciation for the value of hiding some facts, from some people, some of the time. It's part of life as an autonomous adult to make these hidden pockets of information, which give people room to try new things, to make difficult decisions, to protect others or to make them happy. There are many good, even noble, reasons for this kind of version-control. When you protect the boss from blame for your gamble, it's a form of loyalty. When you don't disclose where the Christmas presents come from, it's a form of loving care.
So why do people often throw this instinct out the window when they think about companies, governments and other institutions? Individuals who protect their personal privacy nonetheless assume that in groups of people, total openness must be the most efficient, effective and only morally right way to operate.
As a consequence, even privacy's defenders often concede that it's a kind of sand in the gears—gears that would turn better if nothing were hidden. We only accept the sand, they say, to preserve other things we value. We could catch terrorists if the government spied on all communications, but you don't want cops reading your email. You'd get more out of workers if you tracked their every move 24/7, but you don't want companies snooping on you in the bathroom. "Commercial aviation would be safer if we were all required to fly stark naked," the journalist Nicholas Kristof wrote some years ago, "but we accept trade-offs — such as clothing — and thus some small risk."
This kind of argument is so familiar that it's kind of shock to wonder if it's true. Yet it's just these unquestioned assumptions about privacy that need examining as it comes under increased pressure from increasingly powerful technology. It is well worth asking: Must a government or business lose competence when it gives people some power to decide what is known about them, and who knows it?
Ethan S. Bernstein, a Harvard Business School professor, expected to find that the answer is yes. He had, as he wrote a few years ago, accepted what he calls "the gospel of transparency" in business. But his research on companies in China, the U.S. and elsewhere changed his mind. He found, in fact, that giving workers a certain measure of privacy led them to perform better than their more heavily monitored peers.
There's a natural state of heightened attention to the self when we know we're being watched, Bernstein notes. "Our practiced response become better," he told me, "our unpracticed responses become worse." So actions that have been drilled by the boss may well turn out better when everyone believes the boss is watching. On the other hand, for behavior that isn't already learned—where the best response needs unselfconscious focus on the problem, and the chance to try something new without fear—being watched makes things harder. Attention that could have gone to one's actions goes, instead, to managing the appearance of one's actions.
By the same token, when an overly modest person more sincerely avoids talk of an accomplishment, she implies that the rest of us are too fragile to even hear about it. Take Jane, the filmmaker, at a dinner party. When the topic of her recent big movie comes up, what should she say to be truly modest? Of course, she shouldn't quote the rave reviews or mention the sold-out theaters. But neither should she deny her achievements outright with comments such as, "Oh, I don't direct very well." No matter how demurely she says it (unlike the winking Mr. Harvard), the other guests will likely feel insulted—as if Jane must prevent them from viewing their own inadequacies in relief.
Instead, Jane could acknowledge her feat but downplay it ("Thank you, it took years to make it"), show her gratitude to others ("The support I receive from friends helps so much"), or divert the conversation elsewhere, possibly highlighting something that she struggles with ("Thanks, but what about your new book—I wish I could write like that!"). Any of these would show that she puts her success in the proper context. She's not denying it, but acknowledging that it doesn't make her a better person than anyone else—just better at one thing (and perhaps worse at others).
On the surface, modesty seems to be focused inward, on how people think of themselves. But as it turns out, it's more about how one sees and respects others. To be truly modest, you shouldn't deny your own triumphs. In fact, you have to be more cognizant—and considerate—than ignorant.
In the end, virtue does rely on honesty. I'm proud to have come to that conclusion, if I do say so myself!
-Einstein, for example, was a modest man who no doubt recognized his exceptional accomplishments in physics, but believed that our personal talents and accomplishments are of less importance when related to our role and place in the universe. Considering each human being's marginal place in the universe, or for some people, considering the greatness of God, the differences among individual human beings become insignificant.
-At the basis of romantic love there is a profound positive evaluation of one or a few of the beloved's characteristics. By giving a significant weight to assorted characteristics of the beloved, lovers do not necessarily distort reality nor are they completely blind to the beloved's faults; they simply do not consider such faults to be significant and sometimes they even perceive them to be charming. Romantic love does not necessarily involve cognitive ignorance; rather, it is based upon evaluative preferences that cannot be described as true or false.
In a somewhat similar manner, the modest person gives greater weight to the aspects she has in common with other human beings and less weight to her professional or personal achievements. In doing so, she is not ignoring reality but is attributing different weight to other characteristic. In this sense, she cannot be incorrect. Thus, if a woman is madly in love with a caring and wise man that is not handsome, we cannot say that she is mistaken in doing so.
(5) מה טבו אהליך HOW GOODLY ARE THY TENTS — He said this because he saw that the entrances of their tents were not exactly facing each other (Bava Batra 60a; cf. v. 2).
After Bilaam's initial efforts to curse Klal Yisrael, the Torah (Bamidbar 24:1) records his shift in orientation: "vayar Bilaam ki tov be-einei Hashem le-vareich et Yisrael." The next verse identifies the source of his inspiration in this new undertaking: "vayisa Bilaam et einav vayar et Yisrael shochen le-shevatav va-tehi ruach Elokim." The gemara (Bava Basra 60a, also cited by Rashi 24:2,5) reveals that Bilaam was moved by Klal Yisrael's scrupulous adherence to the laws of hezek reiyah, which was manifest by a building code that protected family privacy. Indeed, Bilaam begins his blessing (24:5) by underscoring this very motif: "mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov mishkenotecha Yisrael."
Given the momentous character of this transition, Bilaam's focus on privacy seems rather prosaic, certainly curious, and even idiosyncratic. The fact that this theme apparently spurred his nevuah ("va-tehi ruach Elokim") compounds the mystery. Indeed, the gemara (though omitted by Rashi) significantly adds that after extolling this quality, Bilaam explicitly attributes Klal Yisrael's special tie to Hashem to its cultivation:"amar reuyin halalu she-tishreh aleihem Shechinah".
Maharal of Prague (Chidushei Aggadot, Bava Basra) perceives this expression of tzeniut as a hedge specifically against arayot-zenut, and adduces from this source that precluding arayot is the sine qua non of hashraat ha-Shechinah. This conclusion is consistent with Chazal's interpretation of "kedoshim tihiyu- hevu perushim min ha-arayot." However, the halachah's view on hezek reiyah is much broader, encompassing the right and value of privacy per se (see chapter 1 of Bava Basra and Rambam's codification of these laws in Hilchot Shecheinim), not merely with respect to protection from arayot. How does this expansive view coordinate with Bilaam's response? Indeed, the gemara derives the norm governing community construction and hezek reiyah from the Bilaam episode.
Perhaps the very expansiveness of these laws and their legal formulation as damages (hezek reiyah) accounts for these phenomena. Halachic privacy laws are designed not only to preclude the specific adverse effects of the violation of privacy, but to positively promote the value of privacy as an expression of personal tzeniut and human dignity. Moreover, it is noteworthy that these laws impose obligations and restrictions on the neighbor; they do not primarily focus on the defensive structural requirements of the potential victim. This point is reinforced in the sources that link these laws to the Bilaam experience: "shelo yatzitz le-toch ohel chavero" (Rashi 24:2). Undoubtedly, this emphasis entails a pragmatic component, but it equally accentuates the principle of arevut-mutual responsibility, fostering a protective posture vis-a-vis others. These laws convey an important perspective on neighborly relations and very concept of community that are worthy of being hailed as manifestations deserving hashraat ha-Shechinah.
inally, it is noteworthy that these regulations not only apply in a tzibbur or shecheinim context, but also characterize and define an important dimension of personal, community, and even national life- "vayar et Yisrael shochen le-shevatav". In most cultures, there is an antagonistic tension between personal aspirations and communal-national agendas, between privacy and community. The Torah's vision of mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh, however, perceives personal dignity and individual privacy as essential building blocks in communal and national structures that also transcend their individual components and that are particularly hospitable and conducive to hashraat ha-Shechinah.
In theory, the movement towards greater sharing should yield better relationships, closer connections, and improved capacity for emotional intimacy. After all, being open with a person is a fundamental part of connecting with that person. And yet, more and more research confirms that in fact it is doing the opposite. An obsession with sharing and a proclivity for being revealing actually damages relationships, hurts self-esteem, increases anxiety, lowers self-control, and breeds narcissism.
-Imagine a world suddenly devoid of doors. None in your home, on dressing rooms, on the entrance to the local pub or even on restroom stalls at concert halls. The controlling authorities say if you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you shouldn’t mind. Well, that’s essentially the state of affairs on the Internet. There is no privacy.”
-Building and maintaining an enduring, intimate relationship is a process of privacy regulation,’ said Dr. Altman, now an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Utah. ‘It’s about opening and closing boundaries to maintain individual identity but also demonstrate unity with another, and if there are violations then the relationship is threatened.’”
The layout of the Mishkan, the holy Tabernacle, consisted of the outer courtyard that hosted the altar where sacrifices were offered, the Kodesh, or the holy section, that housed the menorah and the table, and the last section was the Kodesh Ha’Kadoshim, the Holy of Holies that housed the Aron (Ark) and was only entered by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. Our sacred ark, which held our sacred tablets of the Ten Commandments and the original Torah scroll, was in the most private and inaccessible part of the Mishkan.
Rabbi Soloveitchik suggested that we model our personal lives after the structure and layout of the Mishkan:
From the time I was young, I learned to restrain my feelings and not to demonstrate what was happening in my emotional world. My father would say that the holier and more intimate the feeling, the more it should be concealed. There is a hidden curtain that separates between one’s interior and the exterior: “and the dividing curtain shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.” What location is more sanctified than the inner sanctum of one’s emotional life?
However, Bilaam himself, in the following pasuk, reveals to us just what he did see. "[These tents] stretch out like rivers, like gardens alongside the river, planted like spices, like cedars along the water." What is the point of comparing our homes to the span of a river bed, spices, and well nourished gardens and cedars? Perhaps all four share the quality that the breadth and depth of their impact is determined by the strength of their source, without in turn weakening that source. The length and strength of the river flow will heavily depend on the strength of its water source without threatening the source's ability to bring ever fresh water. The cedar will impress itself upon viewers far beyond its immediate environs, without in any way being diminished; the spices will, if the source is potent and pleasant, be enjoyed by many without taking any scent away from any other. In this lies one of the great secrets of the home and the community. Our ability to impact on others will be far more dependant on the vibrancy of the core than on the calculated design of its reach.
Apparently, Bilaam was impressed not so much with the privacy per se but with the intensity of focus on one's own tent which was communicated by turning the entrances away from one another
(ה) כארזים עלי מים שגדילין והולכין כן ישראל יפרו וירבו ויגדלו אהליהם:
they specifically grow ohaleyem.. their tents.. grow in their privacy
ואמר רבי יצחק אין הברכה מצויה אלא בדבר הסמוי מן העין שנאמר יצו ה׳ אתך את הברכה באסמיך תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אין הברכה מצויה אלא בדבר שאין העין שולטת בו שנאמר יצו ה׳ אתך את הברכה באסמיך
And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Blessing is found only in a matter concealed from the eye, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses” (Deuteronomy 28:8), where the grain is concealed. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Blessing is found only in a matter over which the eye has no dominion, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.”
There is a Walgreen's around the corner from me. I wasn't thrilled when it was built (I was hoping for a Barnes and Noble) but it has proven very useful. It is open 24/7 and is convenient for last minute school supplies, toiletries, prescriptions and most of all, developing photos.
My kids joke (complain?) that all my pictures of them have been replaced with pictures of the grandchildren. It's not quite true but there definitely are a lot of them around. And it's so easy to download pictures from the digital camera and send them to Walgreen's (especially when my daughter does it for me).
There was one picture recently that we really liked so we decided to blow it up to an 8 x 10. When we picked it up, for some reason, the envelope was slit open.
That was no big deal -- it just made it easier for me to look inside at the picture. The strange thing was that the cashier felt the same way. While we were paying, she was opening the envelope and looking inside. And while all grandparents like to hear that their grandchildren are cute, I was so taken aback by her behavior that I could barely respond.
I just couldn't imagine what made her think it was appropriate to open an envelope that belonged to someone else -- a complete stranger and a customer no less -- and look at them.
I was stunned the whole walk home. What has happened to our sense of privacy?
I can only speculate that with the open display of personal information online, with the washing of dirty laundry in public on talk shows, with the gossip in magazines, that the world has forgotten what privacy means. And that's unfortunate.
In Ethics of Our Fathers we are advised to build a fence around the Torah. Why a fence? What does a fence do? It guards what's inside. It conveys the idea that there is something special and precious in here and I want to protect it. That's how we're meant to treat things that are valuable to us -- our Torah, our relationships, our very souls.
Without the recognition that privacy is of importance, the dignity of the human being is diminished. It robs us of our uniqueness and confuses our sense of who we are. If everything is public, where is our inner core?
Sometime politicians feel like they are public beings with nothing left inside, a hollowed out shell. They have become so adept at giving the desire or required answers that they no longer check their internal compass. They may no longer have one.
We are all at risk. The more public we make ourselves and the details of our lives, the less of a solid center remains within.
The more we allow strangers access to our innermost thoughts and dreams, the less that is left for us.
Our privacy is invaded constantly -- by telemarketers on the phone, by salespeople at the door, by casual acquaintances who ask inappropriate questions (like "Are you planning to have more children?" to which my friend would always respond, "You'll be the first to know!"), by busybody friends. Our task is to try to preserve our dignity in the face of this bombardment.
At our core lies our soul, our Divine essence, the center of our being. It's too precious to expose to the cashier at Walgreen's. I'm bringing tape with me in the future
(9) The School of R. Anan compares Torah to the thigh. Just as the thigh is usually hidden by one’s clothing, so too the study of Torah should not be done publicly in a manner intended to draw attention to one self. One should not sit on the top of a hill and study Torah so that all the people of the town could see. Rather, one should act humbly and study Torah in a more modest setting.
The same lesson is drawn from R. Elazar’s statement. Micah uses the phrase “walk humbly” to describe mitzvoth that are done in public because they involve helping others. If, R. Elazar says, we are to walk humbly in the performance of such public mitzvoth, all the more so we should be humble when engaging in a more private act, the study of Torah.
(ב) פְּסָל לְךָ וֶהְיֵה נָכוֹן לַבֹּקֶר. כָּךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיֹת הַבֹּקֶר וְגוֹ' (שמות כה, ח). וְכָאן: וְגַם אִישׁ אַל יֵרָא. הַלּוּחוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת עַל שֶׁנִּתְּנוּ בְּפֻמְבֵּי, לְפִיכָךְ שָׁלְטָה בָּהֶם עַיִן הָרַע וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ. וְכָאן אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: אֵין לְךָ יָפֶה מִן הַצְּנִיעוּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמָה ה' דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כִּי אִם עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת (מיכה ו, ח).
(2) Hew thee and … and be ready by the morning (ibid. 34:1–2). With reference to the first tablets, it is written: And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightning (ibid. 19:16). But with regard to the second tablets, it is said: Neither let any man be seen (ibid. 34:3). Because the first tablets were given openly, the evil inclination prevailed over them, and (for that reason) they were broken. But in this instance (the second tablets) the Holy One, blessed be He, said: There is nothing more desirable than humility, as it is said: And what doth the Lord require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with the God (Mic. 6:8).
(א) כְּתִיב, וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם אֱלֹהֶיךָ. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ הָאָדָם לִהְיוֹת צָנוּעַ בְּכָל אָרְחוֹתָיו. וְלָכֵן כְּשֶׁלּוֹבֵשׁ אוֹ פּוֹשֵׁט אֶת חֲלוּקוֹ אוֹ שְׁאָר בֶּגֶד שֶׁעַל בְּשָׂרוֹ, יְדַקְדֵּק מְאֹד שֶׁלֹּא לְגַלּוֹת אֶת גּוּפוֹ, אֶלָּא יַלְבִּישׁוֹ וְיַפְשִׁיטוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹכֵב עַל מִשְׁכָּבוֹ מְכֻסֶּה. וְאַל יֹאמַר הִנְנִי בְחַדְרֵי חֲדָרִים וּבַחֲשֵׁכָה מִי רוֹאֵנִי, כִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְלֹא כָל הָאָרֶץ כְּבוֹדוֹ, וְכַחֲשֵׁכָה כָּאוֹרָה לְפָנָיו יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ. וְהַצְּנִיעוּת וְהַבֹּשֶׁת, מְבִיאוֹת אֶת הָאָדָם לִידֵי הַכְנָעָה לְפָנָיו יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ (סִימָן ב').
(1) It has been written, "And to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8). Therefore, a person must be modest in all his ways. And therefore when he puts on or takes off his robe or other garment that is upon his flesh, he must be very exacting so as not to reveal his body. Rather, he should dress and undress while he is under the covers of his bed. And do not say, "I am in the innermost room, and in the darkness, who can see me?" For the Holy One, Blessed is He--the world is filled with His glory, and darkness is like light before Him, may His Name be blessed. And modesty and shame bring a person to submission before Him, may His Name be blessed.
(ג) וכן מדת הצניעות צריכה לתורה ומצוות, כדכתיב (מיכה ו ח) והצנע לכת עם אלהיך. וכתיב (משלי יא ב) ואת צנועים חכמה:
Pele Yoetz is a book of Jewish Musar literature (Ethics) first published in Constantinople in 1824 by Rabbi Eliezer Papo.[1]
This book of musar (ethics) is not limited to abstract ethical precepts and esoteric concepts; but rather it encompasses all aspects and phases of day-to-day Jewish living, the ritual as well as the ethical, the mundane as well as the sublime.
(יד) וגם מתנאי התענית שלא יפרסם תעניתו. וכבר בספר החסידים מעשה באשה אחת שהיתה מגלה תעניתה ונענשה על תעניתה. זולת בזמן שרבים מתענים, כגון בימי השובבי''ם או בעשרת ימי תשובה, שאז אין אסור לפרסם. וזה כלל גדול בכל היהידות ובפרט במלי דחסידותא, שיקים (מיכה ו ח) והצנע לכת עם אלהיך. ולא זו שלא יגלה, אלא יסתיר מאד מעשיו וירצה שלא יתגלו, לא כמו רבים מעמי הארץ שאינם מגלים דברי חסידות שעושים, אבל לבם חפץ שיתגלה אם היה באפשר על ידי אחר, כדי שיהללוהו בשערים מעשיו, עד שמתוך כך מבקשים עלות והמצאות כדי שיבוא לידי גלוי, וכשרואים שנתגלה הדבר מראים עצמם כאלו רוצים להכחיש הענין ולהסתיר מעשיהם, ועושים עצמם ענוים בפה, ולבם הולך חשכים, ושמחים ואומרים בלבם, ברוך מפענח נעלמים, אלו הם מכת הצבועים, אבל האיש השלם יסתיר מעשיו כאשר יוכל אפלו מבני ביתו, וכמו שכתבנו לעיל בערך סתר, אם לא שחטא בחטא מפרסם ונעשה חלול השם, אז צריך הוא לפרסם תשובתו, כמו שכתב בספר החסידים (סימן קסז). וכבר יספר על הרב החסיד מוהר''י כולי, שפעם אחת עשה הפסקה של שלשה ימים, ויהי ביום השלישי לעת ערב הצרך לילך לבית עשיר אחד, וכבדו העשיר במשקה הקאב''י, ושתאו כדי שלא לגלות שהיה בתענית. עושה אלה בודאי שהשם יחשב לו כאלו התענה תענית שלם ואין נגרע מערכו:
(יט) אך יש איזה תוספות חסידות שאם יעשה אותם האדם לפני המון העם ישחקו עליו ויתלוצצו, ונמצאו חוטאים ונענשים על ידו, והוא היה יכול להניח מלעשות הדברים ההם, כי אינם חובה מוחלטת, הנה דבר כזה ודאי שיותר הגון הוא לחסיד שיניחהו משיעשהו, והוא מה שאמר (מיכה ו:ח): "והצנע לכת עם אלהיך". וכמה חסידים גדולים הניחו ממנהגי חסידותם בהיותם בין המון העם, משום דמחזי כיוהרא.
(19) But there are some additional matters of Piety, which if a person were to do before the common people, they will laugh at him and ridicule him, thereby sinning and incurring punishment through him, and this is something he could have abstained from doing since these things are not complete obligations. Thus, for such things, it is certainly more proper for the Chasid to abstain from it than to do it. This is what scripture says: "and walk discreetly with your G-d" (Michah 6:8). Many great Chasidim abstained from their pious practices when in the presence of the common masses because it appears like arrogance.
But Driver argues that modesty seems to require a certain degree of ignorance; as she points out, the statement "I am modest" seem to be contradictory, for claiming to be modest is itself immodest! In other words, modesty is unique among the virtues in that it demands the modest person underestimate his or her self-worth. This position of Driver's been criticized on several grounds, such as that one can underestimate his or her self-worth and still be immodest. Also, if you wish to emulate a modest person, can you choose to become ignorant, or learn to underestimate your self-worth? This comes dangerously close to self-deception, and there is something absurd about recommending such an action to someone who wishes to cultivate an attitude of modesty!
McMullin claims instead that modesty involves an accurate assessment of one's worth combined with sensitivity to the feelings of others that prevents you from talking about it too much. She argues that previous accounts of modesty ignore (or mischaracterize) this other-regarding aspect of modesty:
A fundamental characteristic of modesty, then, is the fact that it is not simply a self-regarding attitude, but is instead a profoundly other-regarding stance. Though it involves a heightened mode of self-awareness, it is a type of self-awareness which is accessible to me only through (a) recognition of how I am being experienced in the eyes of others, and (b) a desire to alleviate any suffering that this may cause. (p. 786)
Therefore, whereas we may think that the modest person is one who thinks less of himself or herself than an objective person might, McMullin argues that, paradoxically, in order to be modest, you must realize in what ways you surpass others, so you can then act in such a way to shield them from that knowledge:
McMullin argues that modest people must be aware of their good qualities, precisely so they know to downplay them. For example, imagine Jane, a well-known filmmaker. If Jane doesn't realize how amazingly successful she is compared to most, she's likely to talk ad nauseam about her box-office hits and Cannes awards, unaware of how this makes people feel. It's the paradox of modesty: You must realize how good you are to know how to avoid insulting others.
(י) כָּל הָעוֹבֵר מִדַּעְתּוֹ בְּלֹא אֹנֶס עַל אַחַת מִכָּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה בִּשְׁאָט בְּנֶפֶשׁ לְהַכְעִיס הֲרֵי זֶה מְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם. וּלְפִיכָךְ נֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר (ויקרא יט יב) "וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי ה'". וְאִם עָבַר בַּעֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה חִלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם בָּרַבִּים. וְכֵן כָּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵעֲבֵרָה אוֹ עָשָׂה מִצְוָה לֹא מִפְּנֵי דָּבָר בָּעוֹלָם לֹא פַּחַד וְלֹא יִרְאָה וְלֹא לְבַקֵּשׁ כָּבוֹד אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַבּוֹרֵא בָּרוּךְ הוּא כִּמְנִיעַת יוֹסֵף הַצַּדִּיק עַצְמוֹ מֵאֵשֶׁת רַבּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׁם:
(10) Anyone who knowingly, without duress, transgresses one of the commandments that are stated in the Torah, contemptuous of soul, in order to anger, behold, [such a one] is desecrating the Name. And therefore, it is said regarding a false oath, "and you profane the Name of your God; I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:12). And if he transgressed among ten of Israel, behold [such a one] has desecrated the Name in public. And so [too], anyone who abstains from transgression or performs a commandment, not for any worldly reason - not fear, and not awe, and not to seek honor - but for the sake of the Creator, Blessed be He, like Yosef the righteous one's holding himself back from his master's wife, behold [such a one] is sanctifying the Name.
The Rambam states that one of the ways to fulfill the mitzvah if kiddush hashem is by doing a mitzvah or by refraining from sin for the sole reason that Hashem said so. If a person does a mitzvah lshem shamayim, not because of any personal considerations, he has actually fulfilled two mitzvos: the immediate mitzvah he has done plus the act of the great mitzvah of kiddush hashem,
This is a wild concept! We usually think of kiddush hashem as either huge martyrs or going on a trip and being told to make a kiddush hashem because were wearing yarmulkes. The Rambam completely redefines kiddush hashem as being something that is completely personal and does need not be witnessed by anyone at all.
(really, what we think of in public and making a good impression is actually a kiddush hashem brabim)