Who You Are (still might need editing)
Mishlei Chapter 16 Verse 25
יֵשׁ דֶּרֶךְ יָשָׁר, לִפְנֵי-אִישׁ; וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ, דַּרְכֵי-מָוֶת
Questions:
1)What does it mean that man has a straight path? What kind of path is this?
2)Why does the pasuk say multiple paths of death? Does it mean death in a literal sense or in some other way?
3)Is this straight path, the only path available to man? Meaning, is the consequence inevitable or is man making a mistake choosing the straight path? (hint: Mishlei never talks about inevitabilities only about what is in the power of man to change)
First Associations
The first association that comes to mind when reading this pasuk is of a man actually walking down a path! Maybe he is walking through the dark forest and he sees a path that seems to take him straight to where he wants to go. But this straight path is deceptive and hungry wild animals are waiting by the various path which this straight road directly lead to.
First Observation
It seems that once man makes the decision to take this straight (direct) path he will be much less in a position to turn around later. Once he takes this path chances are that he will continue to going on it and he will not turn around.
First Move
What makes a path direct? Well, that depends on where a person is trying to go. Just like there are different direct paths to the grocery store or to school, there are different paths to becoming a lawyer or a doctor. Therefore, a path is direct if there is a destination that it is direct to. The path that this pasuk is talking about is not a physical path but a path in life. It is some goal that a person decides that he wants to pursue. In other words man
a) has some goal he is pursuing
b) he wants to take the most direct path
c) but Mishlei tells us that for some reason this direct path is not the best path because it will lead to paths of death.
Why? There seem to be two possibilities:
1)The destination is not a good one. Meaning that the goal that the person is aiming for is not good.
2)The path itself is not good. Had he chosen some other path, man would reach his destination unscathed.
Because this pasuk seems to focus on the choice of path (the direct one) the second possibility seems more likely.
Paths of death
Why does the pasuk not simply say path of death? Because the pasuk is not talking about a particular consequence. Rather, the pasuk is outlining a lifestyle which your initial choice will lead you to.
By way of example...
What is the lifestyle of the best actor? An actor is not just wealthy and gets to act in the best movies. He is also extremely famous and is adored by millions of people. He is also stalked by millions of people. He also never has a moment of privacy in his life. He also has millions of woman throwing themselves at him, eventually making him give in to one of them(reference:Tiger Woods) and thus destroying his family. He also get to go to the fanciest nightclubs where all his peers are snorting coke. He needs to escape so he decides to join etc...
Darchei Mavet
In other words when people evaluate decisions they only evaluate the direct consequence of their actions. In the example above, somebody can just really have the desire to make a good living. Being part of Hollywood can naturally and directly (if you're a good actor) bring about that result. However, he must evaluate the lifestyle consequences that his decisions will bring about. Someone who is thinking about becoming an actor must decide whether he wants to get himself involved in all those aspects of the Hollywood life as well as the direct results of his actions. The Hollywood case is a great example of making the mistake that pasuk warns against (taking the direct path without evaluating lifestyle consequences), and the awful consequences of making this mistake (Tiger Woods?).
But...
Is it inevitable that an actor will be snorting coke? Okay bad example, is it inevitable that actors will end up like Paris Hilton? No. After all, those actors have made a choice to do coke or cheat on their wives. Those actors have no moral values or decency. Most aspiring actors read the papers and are aware of all the facets of real actor's lifestyles. Take for example Billy. Billy comes from a good home and has strong values. He knows full well all the things that Hollywood actors do and decides now that he will forever avoid those things. Is Billy making a mistake?
Rambam Mishneh Torah – Hilchot Teshuva (Chapter 4) The Rambam lists all the people who will never be able to do Teshuva for their actions. Among them includes:
ד) וְהָאוֹמֵר אֶחֱטָא וְאָשׁוּב; וּבִכְלַל זֶה הָאוֹמֵר אֶחֱטָא, וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר.
There is a common mistake that people make which is to believe that they will be who they are, regardless of the decisions that they make. At times a person will have a strong desire to sin. He decides that it is okay for him to commit the sin because he knows that he is sinning so afterwards he will be able to do teshuva. That is a big mistake. Experiences shape who a person is. Once a person involves himself in a life of sinning he will have changed his perspective on life. He will not be able to do teshuva because the person who was planning on doing teshuva is no longer him.
This idea is similar to one described in pirkei avot which states:
Chapter 4 Verse 2:
בן עזאי אומר:
הוי רץ למצווה קלה כחמורה, ובורח מן העבירה. שמצווה גוררת מצווה, ועבירה גוררת עבירה. ששכר מצווה - מצווה. ושכר עבירה – עבירה
“Ben Azzai would say: Run to pursue a minor mitzvah, and flee from a transgression. For a mitzvah brings another mitzvah, and a transgression brings another transgression. For the reward of a mitzvah is a mitzvah, and the reward of transgression is transgression.”
Living the lifestyle of mitzvot brings about a change in the personality, one that is more attached to continuing doing mitzvot. That is what is meant by "mitzvah brings another mitzvah". However, the opposite is also true. Experiences of sinning contribute to shaping who the person is. His perspective will be distorted (from transgressing) so he will continue transgressing.
Back to our Pasuk
Therefore it is so important to take into account the lifestyle consequences of one's decisions even when one is confronted with a "straight path". Granted, that the extent to which one experience affects a personality is unknown, a lifestyle clearly alters and defines a person. Once Billy enters the world of Hollywood his experiences in Hollywood will help shape who he is. At that point, the Billy facing the decision of whether to do coke is not the Billy who is thinking about becoming an actor.
יֵשׁ דֶּרֶךְ יָשָׁר, לִפְנֵי-אִישׁ; וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ, דַּרְכֵי-מָוֶת
Questions:
1)What does it mean that man has a straight path? What kind of path is this?
2)Why does the pasuk say multiple paths of death? Does it mean death in a literal sense or in some other way?
3)Is this straight path, the only path available to man? Meaning, is the consequence inevitable or is man making a mistake choosing the straight path? (hint: Mishlei never talks about inevitabilities only about what is in the power of man to change)
First Associations
The first association that comes to mind when reading this pasuk is of a man actually walking down a path! Maybe he is walking through the dark forest and he sees a path that seems to take him straight to where he wants to go. But this straight path is deceptive and hungry wild animals are waiting by the various path which this straight road directly lead to.
First Observation
It seems that once man makes the decision to take this straight (direct) path he will be much less in a position to turn around later. Once he takes this path chances are that he will continue to going on it and he will not turn around.
First Move
What makes a path direct? Well, that depends on where a person is trying to go. Just like there are different direct paths to the grocery store or to school, there are different paths to becoming a lawyer or a doctor. Therefore, a path is direct if there is a destination that it is direct to. The path that this pasuk is talking about is not a physical path but a path in life. It is some goal that a person decides that he wants to pursue. In other words man
a) has some goal he is pursuing
b) he wants to take the most direct path
c) but Mishlei tells us that for some reason this direct path is not the best path because it will lead to paths of death.
Why? There seem to be two possibilities:
1)The destination is not a good one. Meaning that the goal that the person is aiming for is not good.
2)The path itself is not good. Had he chosen some other path, man would reach his destination unscathed.
Because this pasuk seems to focus on the choice of path (the direct one) the second possibility seems more likely.
Paths of death
Why does the pasuk not simply say path of death? Because the pasuk is not talking about a particular consequence. Rather, the pasuk is outlining a lifestyle which your initial choice will lead you to.
By way of example...
What is the lifestyle of the best actor? An actor is not just wealthy and gets to act in the best movies. He is also extremely famous and is adored by millions of people. He is also stalked by millions of people. He also never has a moment of privacy in his life. He also has millions of woman throwing themselves at him, eventually making him give in to one of them(reference:Tiger Woods) and thus destroying his family. He also get to go to the fanciest nightclubs where all his peers are snorting coke. He needs to escape so he decides to join etc...
Darchei Mavet
In other words when people evaluate decisions they only evaluate the direct consequence of their actions. In the example above, somebody can just really have the desire to make a good living. Being part of Hollywood can naturally and directly (if you're a good actor) bring about that result. However, he must evaluate the lifestyle consequences that his decisions will bring about. Someone who is thinking about becoming an actor must decide whether he wants to get himself involved in all those aspects of the Hollywood life as well as the direct results of his actions. The Hollywood case is a great example of making the mistake that pasuk warns against (taking the direct path without evaluating lifestyle consequences), and the awful consequences of making this mistake (Tiger Woods?).
But...
Is it inevitable that an actor will be snorting coke? Okay bad example, is it inevitable that actors will end up like Paris Hilton? No. After all, those actors have made a choice to do coke or cheat on their wives. Those actors have no moral values or decency. Most aspiring actors read the papers and are aware of all the facets of real actor's lifestyles. Take for example Billy. Billy comes from a good home and has strong values. He knows full well all the things that Hollywood actors do and decides now that he will forever avoid those things. Is Billy making a mistake?
Rambam Mishneh Torah – Hilchot Teshuva (Chapter 4) The Rambam lists all the people who will never be able to do Teshuva for their actions. Among them includes:
ד) וְהָאוֹמֵר אֶחֱטָא וְאָשׁוּב; וּבִכְלַל זֶה הָאוֹמֵר אֶחֱטָא, וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר.
There is a common mistake that people make which is to believe that they will be who they are, regardless of the decisions that they make. At times a person will have a strong desire to sin. He decides that it is okay for him to commit the sin because he knows that he is sinning so afterwards he will be able to do teshuva. That is a big mistake. Experiences shape who a person is. Once a person involves himself in a life of sinning he will have changed his perspective on life. He will not be able to do teshuva because the person who was planning on doing teshuva is no longer him.
This idea is similar to one described in pirkei avot which states:
Chapter 4 Verse 2:
בן עזאי אומר:
הוי רץ למצווה קלה כחמורה, ובורח מן העבירה. שמצווה גוררת מצווה, ועבירה גוררת עבירה. ששכר מצווה - מצווה. ושכר עבירה – עבירה
“Ben Azzai would say: Run to pursue a minor mitzvah, and flee from a transgression. For a mitzvah brings another mitzvah, and a transgression brings another transgression. For the reward of a mitzvah is a mitzvah, and the reward of transgression is transgression.”
Living the lifestyle of mitzvot brings about a change in the personality, one that is more attached to continuing doing mitzvot. That is what is meant by "mitzvah brings another mitzvah". However, the opposite is also true. Experiences of sinning contribute to shaping who the person is. His perspective will be distorted (from transgressing) so he will continue transgressing.
Back to our Pasuk
Therefore it is so important to take into account the lifestyle consequences of one's decisions even when one is confronted with a "straight path". Granted, that the extent to which one experience affects a personality is unknown, a lifestyle clearly alters and defines a person. Once Billy enters the world of Hollywood his experiences in Hollywood will help shape who he is. At that point, the Billy facing the decision of whether to do coke is not the Billy who is thinking about becoming an actor.
Comments
Post a Comment