The Mishna on amud aleph teaches:

Certain unfit items, once they have been placed on the altar, are nevertheless sacrificed and not to be removed. The mishna teaches: The altar sanctifies only items that are suited to it. The tanna’im disagree as to the definition of “suited for the altar.”

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire (ishim) on the altar, e.g., burnt offerings and the sacrificial portions of other offerings, which are burned on the altar — if it ascended upon the altar, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, it shall not descend.

Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar — even if it is not typically consumed — if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio.

The mishna comments: The difference between the statement of Rabban Gamliel and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is only with regard to disqualified blood and disqualified libations, which are not consumed by the fire but do ascend upon the altar, as Rabban Gamliel says: They shall not descend, as they are fit to ascend upon the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall descend, as they are not burned on the altar.

Ben Poras Yosef (Derush L’Shabbos HaGadol) interprets the words of the mishna allegorically. Who is fit to remain on the altar as he ascends? Meaning: Who will retain his status as he rises spiritually? The one who remains “fit for the altar” — that is, one who stays humble. The verse prohibits steps on the altar (Shemos 20:23): it is prohibited to be arrogant and leap ahead of the personality and character traits necessary to merit sustaining spiritual status.

Yet we also have another teaching: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire (ishim) on the altar shall not descend. A person who attains a position of leadership — a play on the word ishim, which can also connote a prestigious person — may allow some degree of honor and bearing in order to maintain authority, provided he is pure and sincere in his motives.

Ben Poras Yosef adds that this distinction — between the practical necessity for dignity and authority in a leader versus the restraint expected from a private individual — explains a contradiction in the Rambam. In Hilchos Deos (1:3–4), the Rambam prescribes that a person conduct himself in a balanced manner. Regardless of the character trait, one should avoid extremes: not to be too miserly nor wasteful, not self-denying to the point of harming the body nor a glutton or hedonist. The Rambam also gives as an example that one should not be too proud nor extremely self-negating. Yet in chapter 2 (article 3), the Rambam seems to contradict himself, stating that in matters of arrogance versus humility, and anger versus patience, one must go all the way to the extreme and be excessively humble and forgiving.

There are various answers to this famous contradiction. Ben Poras Yosef says the answer is that the Rambam is distinguishing between the individual personality and the leadership personality. The private individual must always pursue excessive humility, but the leader sometimes must employ the trappings of power and authority — displays of wealth and honor — in order to inspire and lead.

There are other answers given for this Rambam as well, and the one that I was zocheh to develop is that there might be a difference between experiencing an emotion on an intellectual level versus on a visceral level. For example, there are times when a person knows he is angry, but it has not yet entered his body. He understands his feelings, but they have not taken him over. And then there is anger that is glandular — the heart races and adrenaline pumps. So too with arrogance: one can intellectually recognize a sense of pride with distance and awareness, or one can experience it physically, hormonally, where it becomes overwhelming and animalistic. The Rambam advocates balance when it comes to recognizing and understanding the factors in life that could lead to anger or pride. Psychologically speaking, the most dangerous people are those who pretend they are not angry when, in fact, they are, and generally, when they deny the feelings that they’re acting upon, it’s worse than at least acknowledging that they are under the sway of their emotions.. A degree of pride and a degree of aggression are necessary and healthy to maintain a human being. However, those emotions cannot be allowed to manifest strongly in the body or they will take over, and we will be no different than animals. In this sense, the Rambam urges that we go to the extreme and distance ourselves from the embodied forms of those traits.

Returning to Ben Poras Yosef’s answer, we might say that it is not only about the conventional leader, but about leadership. All of us occupy roles of leadership at various times in our lives. A parent is a leader to his children. A teacher is a leader to his students. A contractor may be a leader in the realm of his vision and the service he provides for those who need repairs or construction. The idea that a leader must allow for a certain pride is not just about a king or a rabbi, but about anyone who must step into responsibility. Whenever one of us must occupy leadership in a particular aspect or role, that is when we allow a certain degree of pride or aggression — not to indulge the ego, but to maintain the dignity and authority of a role.