Mishlei 12:9 - Investing in Kavod

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. 

Truman: On What Ruins a President

I was going to wait until January 20th to post this, but considering all of the unrest about Trump's election, I thought it might be beneficial to post it now.

Trump (#45) and Truman (#33) - sharing the first four letters of their surnames, and not much else

Truman: On What Ruins a President

One of the best biographies I have ever read is Merle Miller's Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (1974). There are many memorable (and quotable) passages in this book, but when I think about the upcoming inauguration of our 45th U.S. president, two passages come to mind. The first is about the the danger of becoming a President. Harry Truman said:

"You see the thing you have to remember. When you get to be President, there are all those things, the honors, the twenty-one-gun salutes, all those things, you have to remember it isn't for you. It's for the Presidency, and you've got to keep yourself separate from that in your mind ... If you can't keep the two separate, yourself and the Presidency, you're in all kinds of trouble." 

[Miller said to Truman:] Jonathan Daniels says in one of his books that - I hope you'll forgive me - he was very upset when he was a boy, and he and a friend were passing the White House, and his friend reminded him that the President - I believe it was Coolidge at the time - the President had to go to the bathroom just like everybody else.  

"That's right. We've had a few Presidents who've not remembered a thing like that, and the minute it happens, you can't possibly do the job" (pp.203)

The second passage is about what ruins a man:

[Truman] said, "Do you want to know what I think causes the ruination of a lot of men?" 

I said that I most certainly did. The question is one that has occurred to me now and again. 

"Well," Mr. Truman said, "I've made a great, long study of these things, as you can see up there if you've looked." 

He pointed to the bookshelves, which, as I've said, mostly contained biographies and histories. 

"Three things ruin a man if you want to know what I believe. One's power, one's money, and one's women. 

"If a man can accept a situation in a place of power with the thought that it's only temporary, he comes out all right. But when he thinks that he is the cause of the power, that can be his ruination. 

"And when a man has too much money too soon, that has the same effect on him. He just never gets to understanding that getting enough money to eat and getting a roof over his head is the thing that throughout history most people have spent their lives trying to do and haven't succeeded. ... If you've got too much money too soon, it ruins you by setting you too far apart from most of the human race. 

"And a man who is not loyal to his family, to his wife and his mother and his sisters can be ruined if he has a complex in that direction. If he has the right woman as a partner, he never has any trouble. But if he has the wrong one or if he's mixed up with a bunch of whores, why, then he's in a hell of a fix. And I can name them to you, the ones that got mixed up in that way. But we won't do it now. 

"Those three things, though, in my opinion, power, money, and women in that order, are what most often contribute to the ruination of a man. You read your history and you'll find out" (pp.342-343).

If we accept Truman's theory about what ruins a man, then we can be quite certain that Trump will be ruined. We know he has problems when it comes to women: his fidelity to his wives, his treatment of his daughter, and most of all, the way he treats and views women in general. We know he has problems with money: he definitely "got too much money too soon," and it is fair to say that he lives a life "too far apart from most of the human race." And Trump's desire for power, while maybe not as great as Hillary Clinton's, is evident in everything he does.

Suffice it to say, this does not bode well. 

The real question to my mind is whether Trump will be able to keep himself and the presidency separate. I am inclined to think not. The only source of hope I have is that Trump has consistently surprised everyone, and has defied almost all predictions. I hope this will be the case here as well.

Let us pray that our new President can keep himself separate from the Presidency, and that his power, money, and his way of relating to women do not lead to his ruination and the ruination of our country.

Megilas Rus: A Different Kind of Stinginess

Here's my second post on Megilas Rus. When I set out to write this post I was fairly certain of the veracity of the theory I planned on writing about. But as I set up the problem, I realized that this needed more work. Thankfully, I was able to incorporate my uncertainty into the post and fully express the idea while leaving the question open. Let me know if you find a good answer!

Artwork: Pious Evangel // Wayward Disciple
(My image of Elimelech when he was living in Eretz Yisrael before the famine,
and after the famine, when he fled to Moav.)

Megilas Rus: A Different Kind of Stinginess

Megilas Rus begins with the flight of Elimelech and his family, and the tragedy that followed:

And it happened in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine in the land, and a man went from Beis-Lechem in Yehuda to sojourn in the fields of Moav - he, his wife, and his two sons. The name of the man was Elimelech, the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Machlon and Chilyon, Ephrathites of Beis-Lechem in Yehuda. They came to the field of Moav and there they remained. Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died; and she was left with her two sons. They married Moabite women; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the second was Rus, and they lived there for about ten years. The two of them, Machlon and Chilyon, also died; and the woman was left of her two children and of her husband.

In this post we will focus on two basic questions: (1) Why did Elimelech leave Eretz Yisrael? (2) Why did he die?

Rashi answers both questions in one shot:

a man went - [Elimelech] was a very wealthy man, and was a leader of his generation. [However,] he left Eretz Yisrael for Chutza la'Aretz because of his stinginess (tzarus ha'ayin); he was stingy when the poor people came to pressure him [to give money,] and this is why he was punished.

A cursory reading of Rashi might lead one to conclude that Elimelech was guilty of your "run-of-the-mill stinginess," just like any other person who is unwilling to give money to the poor. The Malbim helps us to appreciate the complexity of Elimelech's cheit by painting a more complete picture of the circumstances:

During the days of famine, the multitude of the poor would converge on the wealthy and compel them to provide bread and grain - and if not, they would take it by force, since there was no king to instill fear in them. This is what caused "[the] man to depart from Beis Lechem Yehuda to sojourn in the fields of Moav." Since he was a wealthy man, he was afraid that the poor people would seize upon him and loot everything that he had.

The Malbim almost does too good of a job explaining Elimelech's rationale for leaving. He makes it seem like Elimelech had a legitimate cause for concern, and that he wasn't necessarily wrong in leaving. But if we read further, we realize that this wasn't the case:

But even though this was a time of misfortune and despair, only [this] one man left [the country]; the other wealthy people did not join him in leaving Eretz Yisrael to outside of the land. Even the members of Elimelech's household didn't leave by their own volition, for they didn't want to abandon their beloved land; only his wife and his two sons, who were subordinate to him, were compelled to follow after him. 

If Elimelech's decision to leave Eretz Yisrael stemmed from a real concern, why was he the only one who left? Wouldn't the other rich people have taken similar precautions to protect their wealth? Furthermore, wouldn't the other members of Elimelech's family be on board with this decision if it were really in their best interests? Rather, it would seem that Elimelech's rationale for leaving was merely a pretext for stinginess.

Lastly, we turn to the midrash in Rus Rabbah, which adds one more layer of complexity to our analysis of Elimelech's cheit:

Why was Elimelech punished? Because he struck despair into the hearts of Israel. He was like a prominent man who dwelt in a certain country, and the people of that country depended upon him and said that if the years of drought came, he could supply the whole country with food for ten years. When the drought came, however, his maidservant went out and stood in the market place with her basket in her hand. And the people of the country said, "This is the man upon whom we depended that if a drought should come he would sustain us for ten years, and yet, here his maidservant stands in the marketplace with her basket in her hand!" So with Elimelech: he was one of the prominent members of his place and one of the leaders of his generation, but when the famine came he said, "Now all Israel will come knocking at my door, each one with his basket." He therefore arose and fled from them. This is the meaning of the verse, "And a certain man of Beis Lechem went."

According to the midrash, it would seem that Elimelech's stinginess differed from the norm. A regular stingy person never gives to charity. In contrast, Elimelech had built up such a reputation for generosity that the people of his generation felt they would be able to depend on him to sustain them if the need ever arose. It was only when the famine struck that Elimelech's stinginess kicked in, even to the point where his maidservant would be begging on the street.

So what was the nature of Elimelech's stinginess? Why was he willing to use his money for tzedakah before the famine, but not after?

Honestly, I can't say for sure. My chavrusas and I discussed a number of possibilities, but they were too speculative and/or problematic for us to be satisfied with our conclusions. However, I would like to present an idea about stinginess that we came up with in thinking about the question. Whether or not this idea has anything to do with Elimelech is an open question. 

In the final chapter of the Moreh ha'Nevuchim the Rambam writes about the four kinds of perfection that man can acquire:

The first kind, the lowest, which most people spend most of their days trying to acquire, is perfection of material possessions: the possession of money, garments, furniture, servants, land, and the like; the possession of the title of a great king also belongs to this class. There is no real connection between this possession and its possessor at all; it is a totally circumstantial relationship, and most of the pleasure derived from it is totally imaginary. By that I am referring to when a person says, “This is my house! This is my servant! This is my money! And these are my hosts and armies!” For when he examines himself he will find that all these things are external, and their qualities are entirely independent of the possessor. When, therefore, that relation ceases, he who has been a great king may one morning find that there is no difference between him and the lowest person, and yet no change has taken place in the things which were ascribed to him. The philosophers have shown that he whose sole aim in all his exertions and endeavors is the possession of this kind of perfection, only seeks perfectly imaginary and transient things; and even if these remain his property all his lifetime, they do not give him any perfection.

The wealthy individual can easily fall into the trap of regarding his wealth as a quality of himself, rather than a feature of his circumstances. People say "I am rich" when they really mean "I have wealth." In truth, the connection between themselves and their wealth is purely imaginary.

We need not elaborate on how destructive this mentality can be. Not only does it inflate the wealthy person's ego and sense of entitlement, but it renders him even more vulnerable to the fallacy of "kochi v'otzem yadi," and all of its consequences.

At the same time, this distorted view of wealth can serve as a beneficial lo lishmah (ulterior motive) for mtizvos and maasim tovim (good deeds). There are many philanthropists out there who get an ego-boost from giving tzedakah, and whose charity is fueled by the feeling that they - not Hashem - are the sustainers of the poor. When they give, they think to themselves, whether consciously or unconsciously, "Look at how I am benefiting the poor!" "See how dependent they are on me!" Sure, these aren't the most noble motives, but like any lo lishmah, they're good insofar as they get the mitzvah done.

Now, imagine a wealthy person who is operating under this type of lo lishmah. So long as the poor people continue to look favorably upon him and enable him to feel good about his generosity, then his lo lishmah will remain intact, and he will continue to give.

But when famine strikes and the people become desperate, things change. When our hypothetical philanthropist hears the mob threatening to break down his door, and when he sees the hunger and need in their eyes, then the truth stated by the Rambam becomes undeniably apparent: "there is no real connection between this possession and its possessor at all." He realizes: "These people don't need me; they need my money ... and if push comes to shove, they'll be willing to cast me aside in order to take what they need by force."

This realization totally shatters the lo lishmah. No longer can the philanthropist derive ego-gratification from thinking about how he is needed by so many people. Once he realizes that he is nothing but an obstacle between the mob outside of his door and the money in his vaults, his motivation for giving tzedakah completely dissolves.

This, I believe, is a plausible explanation for how a person might be exceedingly charitable when times are good, but become tightfisted when the tides turn.

Did Elimelech, himself, succumb to this trap? Is this why he was so willing to give of his money under normal circumstances, but panicked and became overly protective of his money the famine struck? Is this the type of cheit that would be worthy of death, as the midrashim seem to imply? I cannot say. A lot of this depends on how high of a level one assumes that Elimelech was on, and how the hashgachah relates to people in his position.

But even if we haven't explained the cheit of Elimelech, at least we have come away with an insight into this peculiar type of foul-weather stinginess. 

Mishlei 18:23 - The Supplications of the Poor and the Brazenness of the Rich

משלי יח:כג

תַּחֲנוּנִים יְדַבֶּר רָשׁ וְעָשִׁיר יַעֲנֶה עַזּוֹת:

Mishlei 18:23
A poor man speaks [with] supplications, and a rich man responds with brazenness.

Major Questions / Difficulties

1. Why does the first half of the pasuk have to tell us that a poor man will speak with supplication? Isn't this obvious? What is the chidush (new insight)?
2. What, exactly, does the pasuk mean by "responds with brazenness"? 
3. Why does the rich man respond with brazenness? 
4. What scenario is the pasuk talking about? Mishlei usually compares two individuals' decisions in the same decision-making scenario. If that is the case here, what is that scenario? Or is this pasuk describing an interaction between the poor man and the rich man - as it would seem from the use of the word "responds"?
5. Which consequences/benefits is Mishlei pointing out here? Remember that Mishlei is a book about how to make good decisions and avoid bad ones. This pasuk doesn't spell out the ramifications of the decisions being made here. 
6. To whom is this pasuk addressed? Is it giving advice to the poor man about how to speak to the rich man? Is the pasuk rebuking the rich man for how he treats the poor? 
7. What is the subject of this pasuk?

Four Sentence Summary of the Main Idea (According to Rabbeinu Yonah)

When performing a cost/benefit analysis of wealth and poverty, it is easy to focus exclusively on the financial dimension and lose sight of the fact that wealth and poverty have a detrimental effect on a person's middos (character traits) as well. Poverty often spawns detrimental middos, such as subservience (since he is dependent on them for his livelihood), fear of people (insofar as he feels that his fate is in their hands), flattery (since he constantly needs to beg for money), and other degenerate qualities. Likewise, the rich man becomes brazen, arrogant, harsh in his speech, wise in his own eyes, stubborn, and all of the other negative traits which arise from an inflated ego. For this reason, the wise man will pray: "give me neither poverty nor wealth, but provide me with my daily allotment of bread" (Mishlei 30:8) - not only because this makes sense in its own right, but because he is concerned about the harmful ethical effects of wealth and poverty on his character.  

Four Sentence Summary of the Main Idea (According to Us)

A poor man thinks that the best way to ask a rich man for money is to supplicate, in order to awaken the rich man’s mercy and arouse his pity. This is a mistake which will likely backfire: pity stems from identification with the other person, and if the poor man makes himself seem too wretched and needy, the rich man will be repelled, for it he will find it too painful, frightening, and abhorrent to see himself in the poor man’s shoes, and all hope of empathy will be lost. On the other hand, if the poor man is too assertive and demanding, he is sure to tread on the rich man’s ego, and once that happens, there is no way that the rich man will want to help him. The key is to strike a perfect balance: to cater to the rich man’s ego by making him feel like a proud and powerful benefactor, while being careful not to make himself seem too pitiful or too bold – both of which would pose a threat to the rich man’s ego.

Mishlei 10:2-3 - Tzedakah Saves from Death

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: 

1. What are "treasuries of wickedness"?
2. Why won't "treasuries of wickedness" yield any benefit? Aren't treasuries beneficial? 
3. Should the word "tzedakah," in this context, be translated as "righteousness" or "charity"? Or can it be both?
4. How can tzedakah save a person from death? Nobody escapes death! 
5. 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?)
6. What is meant by starvation of "the nefesh (soul)"? 
7. What "destructiveness of the wicked" is this referring to? The wicked are destructive in many ways.
8. 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

Four Sentence Summary of the Main Idea

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.