Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.
Mishlei 12:9 - Investing in Kavod
משלי יב:ט
טוֹב נִקְלֶה וְעֶבֶד לוֹ מִמִּתְכַּבֵּד וַחֲסַר לָחֶם:
Mishlei
12:9
Better to be
a degraded laborer than to maintain your honor and lack bread.
[Note: the phrase "eved lo" is ambiguous and grammatically awkward; my translation as "degraded laborer" follows the approach of Rabbeinu Yonah and Ralbag.]
The major questions on this pasuk are:
(1) "Better" in what sense? This is the first question one should ask on any pasuk which says "X is better than Y." By what metric or value are we measuring "better"?
(2) "Degraded" in what sense? There are many forms of degradation, and "degraded laborer" is rather vague.
(3) What does it mean by "one who maintains his honor"? The reflexive "miskabed" implies that this person is actively the cause of his own kavod. What does this mean?
(4) Why would we think otherwise? In other words, what decision-making mistake does this pasuk come to remove, and how does it do so? Specifically, how can this person insist on "maintaining his honor" if he "lacks bread"? Isn't this an obviously bad prioritization?
[You know what time it is: thinking time! Stop here to think about the pasuk and the questions on your own. When you're ready, read on.]
Here's my four-sentence summary of the main idea:
Everyone seeks kavod (honor or dignity) and tries to avoid degradation. However, the chacham (wise man) recognizes that it may be necessary to forego kavod in the short run and temporarily endure degradation if this will ultimately lead to a long-term kavod which is stable; for example, he will be willing to do menial labor if this is necessary for supporting himself and his family, knowing that this will allow him to maintain his dignity in the long run. The fool, on the other hand, will strive to artificially maintain or increase his kavod in the short term, even if this will result in a much greater degradation in the long run; for example, he will refuse to do jobs which he considers to be "beneath him" in a vain attempt to preserve his kavod, not thinking about how much kavod he will ultimately lose when he hits rock bottom in his poverty. There are at least three factors which contribute to the fool’s mistake: (1) viewing kavod as a real and inherent attribute of himself rather than a relational circumstance which is subject to change; (2) his unwillingness to face the fact that his kavod might not last, since this realization would interfere with his ability to enjoy his kavod; and (3) the fool's natural tendency to be preoccupied with immediate pleasure rather than long-term consequences.
Like much of Mishlei's content, this idea is simple - and yet, people make this mistake all the time. There are countless stories of highly qualified professionals who remain "unemployed" for years, telling themselves that "they can't find work," when in actuality, they would be better off temporarily taking "an inferior job" to make ends meet until they can find a better job which is more suited to their qualifications or aspirations. There are Jewish families who go on expensive vacations and throw lavish bar mitzvahs and weddings, and then apply for tuition assistance for their kids' private school education because they "can't afford full tuition." There are people who are deep in credit card debt, but continue to spend money they don't have in order to "maintain appearances." There are people who lack a skill or area of knowledge but fake it for the kavod, until eventually their ignorance is exposed and they suffer a greater level of shame than they would have if they admitted their shortcomings from the start.
So while our pasuk's idea is simple, it is also necessary. The mind can recognize the truth of an idea, but that doesn't mean that it's real to the emotions. Mishlei's approach to this dilemma is to go over these simple ideas again, and again, and again - each time from a slightly different angle, in order to have a slightly different impact on the emotions. Eventually, over time, these ideas will become real to the emotions, and will begin to affect one's decision-making.
This pasuk is also a great example of Mishlei's "should-less" approach to mussar (character development). Shlomo ha'Melech doesn't say, "You shouldn't care about kavod!" nor does he say, "You should get a job in order to sustain your family instead of your dignity!" He knows that this kind of mussar is useless. Instead, he says: "Look - you know and I know that you want kavod and don't want degradation. That's totally fine. I'm not going to try to dissuade you from seeking kavod or avoiding degradation. But I'll warn you: if you try to maintain your kavod in the short run by refusing to do work which you deem to be 'beneath you,' you are ultimately going to suffer a much bigger loss of kavod than you might realize, and that degradation will make you suffer big time. Instead, I advise you to temporarily take a lower job until you can get back onto your feet and earn enough money to be restored to the social status that you desire. Yes, this will involve a sacrifice of kavod in the short-run, but think of it as an investment: it is better for you to invest in kavod now for the sake of a long-term stable 'kavod profit' than to splurge on short-term kavod at the cost of major degradation."
The problem with so much the mussar that's out there today is that it aims to change character by trying to alter our desires directly. Mishlei's approach is indirect and non-confrontational. It works with the emotions instead of against them. It takes the desires we have and shows us how to satisfy them using chochmah, and shows us that if we don't use chochmah, we'll get the opposite of what we desire. Over time, if we continue to apply this type of mussar to our everyday decision-making, our desires will naturally evolve without us ever trying to force the change.
This is a nice and true idea. I wonder though, why, methodologically, did you interpret it as discussing which is more tov from a future kavod perspective, rather than simply which is more tov and better off in objective, non kavod respects? We could probably identify several ways that it is better (not just in an effort to maximize future kavod) to be able to meet one's needs but not be respected, than to lack bare necessities but be honored
ReplyDelete