משלי יח:ט
גַּם מִתְרַפֶּה בִמְלַאכְתּוֹ אָח הוּא לְבַעַל מַשְׁחִית:
Mishlei 18:9
Also one who is lax in his work is a brother to the master destroyer.
Major Questions / Problems
- Who is this "master destroyer"?
- What does it mean to be his "brother"?
- Why focus on "one who is lax in his work"?
- What does the word "also" add?
- General Mishlei question: What is the subject of the pasuk?
 |
| Artwork: Structural Collapse, by Sam Burley |
Four Sentence Summary of the Main Idea
If “master destroyer” is someone who actively brings about destruction, then a “brother” to the master destroyer is someone who causes the same level of destruction in a different manner – in this case, through passivity. The audience of this pasuk is the person whose laxity causes the quality of his work to suffer, thereby resulting in a type of destructiveness. Such an individual tends to rationalize his laxity by defining himself as “a worker,” which allows him to reassure himself and other people, saying, “See? I’m working!” Perhaps this is why the pasuk doesn't specify the consequences of this person’s behavior, but instead, calls him out on his rationalization, as if to say, “You may wish to define yourself as a worker, but in truth, you are a destroyer.”
Nice! What do you think of this as the opposite? Someone who does the same shoddy work but because of a rational evaluation of his priorities. This isn't destruction because it's productive for the subject, whereas real laxity only operates in the field of the work, where it is indeed destructive
ReplyDeleteActually, I hadn't thought about the opposite. Your approach is definitely a possibility. What, then, would you say is the subject of the pasuk? I want to think of the possibilities before committing to an opposite.
Deletegoing the way i suggested, i think the theme would be prioritization. let me see if i can show you how. so the lax guy doesn't use the technique (I would call it a technology, but I think using that word here would confuse the reader) of prioritization of tasks, so he's always in conflict about what to do and what he should be doing right now – from his perspective, everything needs to be attended to with equal urgency. the conflict saps his energy and his ambivalence deflates his enthusiasm in his current task. This is a bad situation to find oneself in. Whereas one who does prioritize tasks doesnt have that conflict. freed from conflict and ambivilance, he can confidently immerse himself in his top priority task and not worry that maybe he should be doing something else
ReplyDeleteCool! I like that idea a lot. I don't know if I would agree that the subject is prioritization (since I'm learning that it's more along the lines of rationalization, or laziness), but I definitely like those two opposites on their own.
Deletethanks!
Delete