I am pleased to present the first of what I hope will be many Mishlei posts. I'm going to try using the same style that I do in my Mishlei classes: we'll begin with the pasuk, followed by the major questions, and concluding with a four-sentence summary of the "main idea" (with a very liberal definition of "sentence"). In some cases I'll include a real-world example. I might occasionally add some methodology points as well.
משלי י:ב-ג
לֹא יוֹעִילוּ אוֹצְרוֹת רֶשַׁע, וּצְדָקָה תַּצִּיל מִמָּוֶת; לֹא יַרְעִיב ה' נֶפֶשׁ צַדִּיק,
וְהַוַּת רְשָׁעִים יֶהְדֹּף:
Mishlei 10:2-3
Treasuries of wickedness will not yield benefit [the wicked], but tzedakah will save [the righteous] from death. Hashem will not starve the soul of the righteous, but the destructiveness of the wicked will batter them.
Major Questions/Problems:
- What are "treasuries of wickedness"?
- Why won't "treasuries of wickedness" yield any benefit? Aren't treasuries beneficial?
- Should the word "tzedakah," in this context, be translated as "righteousness" or "charity"? Or can it be both?
- How can tzedakah save a person from death? Nobody escapes death!
- What does it mean that "Hashem will not starve the soul of the righteous"? (And how do we account for the tzadikim who do starve?)
- What is meant by starvation of "the nefesh (soul)"?
- What "destructiveness of the wicked" is this referring to? The wicked are destructive in many ways.
- What does it mean that this destructiveness "will batter them"?
At this point, it would be beneficial to stop and think about these pesukim on your own before you read my four-sentence summary of the main idea. I've strategically placed artwork here as a "buffer zone" so you don't accidentally see any part of the main idea before you're ready.
 |
| Artwork: Greed, by Izzy |
The mitzvah of tzedakah requires the giver to objectively assess all the needs of the recipient, as the Torah states, “Rather, you shall open your hand to him; you shall lend him his requirement, whatever is lacking to him” (Devarim 15:8). The tzadik, who is in the habit of giving tzedakah in the proper manner, will become adept at assessing human needs; consequently, he will be in tune with his own needs, which will help him to become wiser in his own spending habits, thereby saving him from a number of misfortunes (e.g. death by starvation), and his relationship to money will remain anchored in practicality and necessity. The exact opposite will occur in the case of the rasha: not only will he avoid doing tzedakah with himself and with others, but his insatiable fantasy-attachment to money will compel him accumulate excessive amounts of money, far beyond his objective needs. His money-addiction, his unhealthy spending habits, and his obliviousness to his own needs will lead him to seek profit through illicit means; eventually, the consequences of his criminal behavior will catch up to him and will either destroy him, or reduce him to a state of poverty in which he must rely on the tzedakah of others.
Nice Post!
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteI don't usually subscribe to the approach of interpreting all of the psukim of mishlei as commentary on the broad system of mitzvos, but I think that this one is trying to reveal an underlying point about a core distinction between mitzvos and rishus. I find the contrasts strange in this pasuk: yield/death, treasuries/tzedakah, starve/batter, Hashem/destructiveness.
ReplyDeleteMy 4 sentences: This pasuk is teaching us that the underlying principle of mitzvos is one of existence/life whereas the underlying principle of rishus is nonexistence/destruction. It begins by attacking the underlying cause for rishus and pointing out the futility of great stockpiles for selfish purposes - they do not bring any benefit. It moves on to the way of the tzadik, showing that the philosophy of the tzadik is one of life and perpetuates existence beyond even death. Finally, the pasuk concludes with revealing the deeper truth behind a philosophy of life versus a philosophy of death: Hashem is the sustaining force behind the tzadik and he will not starve, but the rasha at his core is one of destructiveness for he destroys the world to suit himself and even though he tries to shape the world to suit himself, he will ultimately lead to his own destruction and be battered by the changes he believes will suit him.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I am also not a fan of learning Mishlei strictly as a commentary on mitzvos, but in this case, it fit, and the meforshim seem to incline that way. Your observations about the strange opposites a good one; I don't know what to make of that.
DeleteNice idea, and great interpretation! In my limited experience, I would take your angle if I encountered such a pasuk in Tehilim (which deals, on a macro level, with the philosophical underpinnings of tzadikim and reshaim, rather than the micro level of particular decision-making trends in Mishlei), or in the first nine chapters of Mishlei (which are of a broad, introductory character). That's not to say that there's any problem with your interpretation. My mind just didn't go that way, given my experience with what Mishlei chapters 10-30 are about. Thanks!