Mishlei 17:1 - Meat of Conflict

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Mel Gibson in Signs (2002)

Mishlei 17:1 - Meat of Conflict

משלי יז:א

טוֹב פַּת חֲרֵבָה וְשַׁלְוָה בָהּ מִבַּיִת מָלֵא זִבְחֵי רִיב:

Mishlei 17:1 – Pleasure, Pain, and Peace of Mind

Better a dry piece of bread with peace in it than a house filled with meat of conflict.

[Note: the word "zevach" literally means "offering" or "sacrifice," but most of the commentators translate it in this context as "meat."] 

The questions are:

1. How can bread have peace "in it"? Peace is something that exists between human beings; it is not a nutrient found in food.
2. What is "meat of conflict"? Does this meat generate conflict? Is it a product of conflict? Is it consumed amid conflict? Are people arguing about the meat?
3. "Better" in what sense? The term "better" is meaningless unless one identifies the quality being measured and compared. 
4. Why "a dry piece of bread" vs. "a house filled with meat"? What is the significance of these qualitative and quantitative qualifiers?
5. What practical decision-making idea do we learn from this pasuk? We should ask about every pasuk, but in most pesukim we are given at least some clue as to how the idea can be implemented in practice. On the surface, is difficult to see the practicality in this pasuk.

[I recommend stopping here, thinking about the pasuk and these questions for the next day or two, and then coming back and reading the rest of the post.]

Before I share my own understanding of this pasuk, I'd like to make a methodology point. I explained in my earlier post, Mishlei Methodology: Meiri - Nigleh and Nistar, that we should train ourselves to take every pasuk as literally as possible unless we are forced to take it as a mashal (metaphor). Although Mishlei certainly can be learned metaphorically, as the title of the book implies, but it is far too easy to slip into "unbridled free-association mode," and convince oneself that one is learning the wisdom of Shlomo ha'Melech when one is actually just making up ideas. Sticking to a literal reading is a good way to anchor oneself in 

Despite my continual reiteration of this methodology principle in my Mishlei classes, my students usually assume that this pasuk should be taken metaphorically. They are inclined to think this because of Questions #1 and 2. I disagree. 

Here is my four-sentence summary of the main idea:

The enjoyment and satisfaction of a physical experience is highly dependent on one’s psychological state of mind. If one has a troubled or conflicted state of mind, then even an abundance of the highest quality food (e.g. “a house filled with meat”) will bring no gratification, but if one has a peaceful state of mind, then even a small and simple pleasure (e.g. “a dry piece of bread”) will bring delight and satisfaction. Those who are wise will factor in this psychological reality in their pleasure-seeking plans; those who are foolish, and fail to take this into account, will pay the price of diminished enjoyment. This idea should be kept in mind when planning particular sessions of physical pleasure, and when planning one’s long-term lifestyle; for example, a person might make a lot of money from a high-stress job, but if that stress prevents him or her from enjoying life, then is it still worth it?

My favorite depiction of this is in the movie Signs (2002). Mel Gibson plays an ex-priest who rejected his religion when his wife died in a tragic accident. In this scene Mel Gibson's character tells his family that they can have whatever they want for dinner. Cut to dinner time. All of the family members are gathered around the table, and as Mel Gibson's character is about to dig in, his son suggests that they pray. Mel Gibson's character refuses to pray, and his refusal sets off a chain reaction of conflict, negativity, and crying which quickly spirals out of control. Finally, he reaches his breaking point and yells, "Now, we are going to enjoy this meal. No one can stop us from enjoying this meal, SO ENJOY IT." He then proceeds to angrily seize food and scarf it down while trying not to cry - and is clearly not getting any pleasure from the feast.

Evidently, there was someone who could stop him from enjoying his meal: himself.