1:1 - The Authorship of Mishlei

מִשְׁלֵי שְׁלמה בֶן דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל


"These are the mashalim (metaphors) of Shlomo, son of David, King of Israel" (Mishlei 1:1)

Main Question:

1. Why is it necessary for us to know this information about the author of Mishlei? Other books of Nach (e.g. Tehilim, Eichah, Iyov) don't begin with biographical sketches. Why here? Why Mishlei?


2. Why is this the very first pasuk of Mishlei? One might argue that once the decision was made to include biographical information, the most reasonable place to put it is in the beginning of the book. But still, is there a reason why we need to know this before we start reading the book? What would be lacking in our reading of Mishlei without the first pasuk?


3. Why does the pasuk have to explicitly mention that these are the mashalim of Shlomo? Anyone who flips through the pages of Mishlei can tell that the book contains mashalim. Why not just say, "These are the divrei Shlomo ("words" or "statements" of Solomon), son of David, King of Israel," like it says in the first pasuk of Sefer Koheles, "These are the divrei Koheles, son of David, King of Israel" (Koheles 1:1)?

Idea:

This pasuk comes to address an intrinsic problem with the method of using mashalim: there is no way to tell from the outset whether a mashal has any true idea behind it! Consider the following statements:

• "Like the wind in a storm, and like the cry of an infant, such is the anger of a fool"
• "They who act without sufficient thought, will often fall into unsuspected danger."
• "The time to show a message is when too late and later there is no hanging in a blight."
• "The spider thou canst take with the hands, yet is she in kings' palaces."

These statements all sound very similar, and if I told you that they were all from the book of Mishlei, you might believe me - yet only one of them is actually from Mishlei. The first statement I made up on the spot; the second one is from a collection of ancient fables; the third one is a poetical rambling from Gertrude Stein; the fourth one is from Mishlei (30:28).

The point is that it is impossible to tell from the mashal itself whether it has any value. And even if the mashal itself can be used to express a valuable idea, that doesn't guarantee that it was stated with the proper understanding and intention. As Shlomo ha'Melech states, "Like the limp-hanging thighs of the cripple, so is a mashal in the mouth of fools" (ibid. 26:7), "Like a thorn in the hand of a drunkard, so is a mashal in the mouth of fools" (ibid. 26:8). A fool's parable can be particularly destructive, due to the mashal's rhetorical effects.

There is only one way to discern at the outset whether a mashal has any value: its author. If the author was a chacham, then it is reasonable to assume that his mashalim contain true and valuable ideas. That is the purpose of the first pasuk in Mishlei: to testify to the value of the mashalim therein.

• "These are the mashalim of Shlomo" - This author of these mashalim is Shlomo, about whom it was stated: "Behold, I (i.e. God) have given you a wise and understanding heart, such as there has never been anyone like you before, nor will anyone like you ever arise" (Melachcim I 3:12) and:

  "God gave wisdom and considerable understanding to Shlomo, and the breadth of his mind as [immense as] the sand which is upon the seashore. Shlomo's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the East and all the wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than all men; his fame spread to all the nations around him. He spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were one thousand and five. He spoke of the trees, from the cedar which is in Lebanon down to the hyssop which grows out of the wall; he spoke of animal, of fowl, of crawling creature, and of fish. They came from all the nations to hear the wisdom of Shlomo, [emissaries from all the kings of the land who had heard of his wisdom" (ibid. 5:9-14).
  

• "son of David" - The author of these mashalim was the son of David, about whom it was stated: "David was wise in all his ways, and Hashem was with him" (Shmuel I 18:14).


• "king of Israel" - Both the father and his son were kings of Israel, "a wise and discerning people . . . a great nation that has a God Who is close to it . . . a great nation that has righteous decrees and ordinances" (Devarim 4:6-8). Through Shlomo ha'Melech's kingship over Israel, he was able to increase his wisdom to unprecedented levels:

  "I, Koheles, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. I applied my mind to seek and probe by wisdom all that happens beneath the sky . . . Thus, I grew and surpassed any of my predecessors in Jerusalem; still, my wisdom stayed with me" (Koheles 1:12-13, 2:9).

In addition to addressing the general problem with mashalim, the first pasuk also delivers a specific message to each end of the spectrum of students. Mishlei was written for a wide range of people: "to provide the pesa'im with cleverness, a naar with knowledge and design; a chacham will hear and increase his learning, and a navon will acquire strategies" (Mishlei 1:4-5). We can subdivide these into two basic groups of students: beginners (e.g. pesi and naar) and advanced (e.g. chacham and navon). Each group is subject to its own unique pitfall which the first pasuk comes to prevent.

The pesi and the naar are prone to reducing the deep wisdom of Mishlei to trivial proverbs and common-sense folk-sayings. These individuals are to Mishlei what the Rambam's First Group is to the Midrashim of Chazal:

These people understand the words of the Sages according to their literal meanings without explaining them at all . . . Consequently, they think that the only meaning in the wise words of the Sages is what they, themselves, understand . . . The unfortunate people in this group. . . exalt the Sages in their own minds, but in reality, they degrade them to the utmost extent without realizing it.

Therefore, these readers must be reminded at the outset that these mashalim were composed by Shlomo ha'Melech, the wisest of men. Thus, if they think that they can readily understanding the ideas behind these mashalim at first glance, with little thought or analysis, then they are mistaken. Instead of uncovering the wisdom of Shlomo ha'Melech and raising themselves to a higher level, they will be halting their development by projecting their own ideas onto Shlomo ha'Melech's words, thereby dragging him down to their level.

The chacham and the navon will not make the mistake of learning Shlomo ha'Melech's statements superficially. The advanced readers have had experience with the words of chachamim, and are capable of analyzing statements for deep concepts without projecting their own ideas onto the text. Instead, these readers will make the mistake of devaluing the mashalim because of their outwardly simple appearance. Mashalim do not look like statements of wisdom (like a Tosafos or a mathematical formula), and learning Mishlei does not give one the feeling of being involved in deep, theoretical knowledge (because it is not).

Instead of unwittingly interpreting Mishlei superficially, like the pesi and the naar, the chacham and the navon are prone to consciously viewing Mishlei as superficial, and therefore, neglecting to learn it. The mistake of the chacham and navon is akin to (though not the same as) the mistake of the Second Group:

The second group is also a numerous one. It consists of persons who, having read or heard the words of the Sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Consequently, they degrade them, disparage them, and consider things to be ridiculous which are not actually ridiculous, and they will inevitably mock the words of the Sages. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the Sages, and that the Sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence who are incapable of attaining genuine wisdom. Most of those who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientists, critics, and philosophers. They are more foolish than the first group and more naïve.

Therefore, these advanced students must also be reminded at the outset that mashalim were authored by Shlomo ha'Melech, whose wisdom is unparalleled. That precautionary statement, if heeded, should give them pause, and make them realize that it would be worthwhile to invest their time and energy his book, in spite of its simple veneer.

Unlike the members of the Rambam's Second Group, most chachamim and nevonim would never openly deride or disparage Sefer Mishlei or its author. If asked their opinion on Mishlei, they would verbally acknowledge Shlomo ha'Melech's wisdom and the value of his book, but would admit that they haven't devoted time to learning his work. Yet, one must wonder: if these chachamim and nevonim truly believed what they were saying, then why don't they learn Mishlei? It's not like Mishlei is a secret, unknown manuscript - it's part of Tanach! It seems that, in their heart of hearts, these advanced students do feel that these mashalim are trivial, do not have much to offer, and are therefore not worth their time and energy. So, while these students are not as bad as the Rambam's Second Group, they both share the characteristic of viewing statements of chochmah as superficial, due to their outward appearance.

In summary, the first pasuk of Mishlei is an essential introduction to the Sefer. It provides a much-needed guarantee of the value of the mashalim therein, in addition to warning the pesi and naar not to take the mashalim superficially, and uprooting the prejudicial attitude of the chacham and navon which would cause them to dismiss the Sefer offhand.

Taking Revenge- Part 1

Chapter 25 Verse 21/22

“If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink. For thou wilt heap coals of fire upon his head, and God will reward thee.”

The Pshat-
1) The pasuk seems to be giving advice on how to deal with an enemy, or more precisely how to take revenge (a method).
2) The method the pasuk gives is to be nice and help your enemy. This advice will help you fulfill your goal of taking revenge.
3) There will be an additional reward for taking revenge in this manner.

Questions: How is being nice to your enemy the best method for revenge?

I am not referring to enemies who hate each other for philosophical or extreme reasons. This pasuk will probably not work on a nazi.

Enemies
People choose to cause other people harm in many ways with many methods. In some cases they will be more open about it (bully) and in others they will hurt you in less confrontational manners (lashon hora). However, it seems that in all cases there is an underlying pattern; the person tries to exert superiority over someone else. Sometime that can also mean putting the other person down by highlighting their weaknesses. Lashon hora for example, is a very powerful tool because it can truly define a person's existence in the eyes of other people. Other times, it is displaying one's own power over the other person (beating someone up).

Problem
Generally, people run into a problem. On the one hand they wish to take revenge but they know that revenge is forbidden. They suppress it, and continue to be hurt by the personality.
On the other hand they can choose to ignore their reason, and to take revenge escalating the situation.

Both possibilities seems to bring a lot of conflict.

The Response
As children, when kids bully us, we are often taught just to ignore them. It's good advice because it recognizes that the bully is craving a sense of superiority over you. By responding, you are fulfilling his wishes. By ignoring him, you are hurting him because you are denying the fulfillment of the pleasure that he seeks.

The advice in our pasuk is an extension of this idea. Not only do we not respond to an enemies attempts to put us down and to claim superiority over us, but we are also nice to them. We give them food and water becoming their benefactor. They are indebted to us. This will frustrate them even more because now they will feel inferior. We will have achieved our objective of revenge by not only not fulfilling their wishes, but acting contrary to them.


Question: What are the additional benefits to taking revenge in this manner? Why will God reward such a person?

Justice- Although we are fulfilling our desire of taking revenge to cause harm to another person, we are also committing an act of justice. To help those in need, even if they are your enemies, is just.
By understanding the nature of our enemies we are able to do true justice in a way that fulfills our personal selfish desires.

The ego- Why does a person become bothered by an enemy?
Someone who knows that he is stronger than the bully will not be bothered. The person is secure in the fact that the bully cannot exert superiority over him, and therefore he is not bothered. Similarly, a chacham will not have many enemies because he is secure with himself. He will not feel inferior to them and thus hate them. Only someone who is insecure will have many enemies. Every remark will appear to be a personal attack on his ego. He will feel intimidated by the bully because he knows that he is weak.
Ironically, the bully is suffering from the same conflict. He always feels inferior, and always feels like he needs to exert superiority over others to convince himself that he is not weak. In essence, by bullying, the bully is giving in to the same emotion that the person in our pasuk is overcoming.

The person who follows the advice of the pasuk can truly feel superior to his enemy. He did not let his insecurity get the better of him. His enemy did. Our guy can now feel a little less insecure.

Eventually the person will even be able to overcome his inferiority complex. Situation after situation, he will apply the advice of pasuk until he does not even have the desire to take revenge.

Mishlei Mishlei

The name of this blog is derived from a midrash in Shir ha'Shirim Rabbah 1. That midrash contains several mashalim which characterize the book of Mishlei (or the method of Mishlei) as a whole. I'd like to understand these mashalim in order to better understand Mishlei in general, and posting them on the blog is a good first step, so here they are:

ד"א: "שיר השירים": זהו שאמר הכתוב "ויותר שהיה קהלת חכם": אלו אדם אחר אמרן היית צריך לכוף אזניך ולשמוע הדברים האלה ויותר שאמרן שלמה ואילו מדעתו אמרן היית צריך לכוף אזניך ולשמעם ויותר שאמרן ברוח הקודש. "ויותר שהיה קהלת חכם עוד למד דעת את העם ואזן וחקר תקן משלים הרבה": ואזן דברי תורה וחקר דברי תורה. עשה אזנים לתורה, ואת מוצא שעד שלא עמד שלמה לא היתה דוגמא

Another explanation: The Song of Songs: this bears out what the text says, "And more so because Koheles was wise" (Koheles 12:9). Had any other man composed them, it would have been incumbent on you to incline your ear and to listen to them; all the more then since Solomon composed them. Had he composed them out of his own mind, it would have been incumbent upon you to incline your ear and listen to them; all the more then since he composed them in the holy spirit. "And more so because Koheles was wise, he also taught the people knowledge; yea, he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs" (ibid.). "He pondered" the principles of Torah "and investigated" the principles of Torah. He made handles to the Torah, and you find that till Solomon arose there was no parable.

רב נחמן תרתין: רב נחמן אמר לפלטין גדולה שהיו בה פתחים הרבה וכל שהיה נכנס בתוכה היה טועה מדרך הפתח, בא פקח א' ונטל הפקעת ותלאה דרך הפתח, היו הכל נכנסים ויוצאין דרך הפקעת, כך עד שלא עמד שלמה לא היה אדם יכול להשכיל דברי תורה וכיון שעמד שלמה התחילו הכל סוברין תורה

R' Nachman gave two illustrations. Said R' Nachman: Imagine a large palace with many doors, so that whoever entered could not find his way back to the door, till one clever person came and took a coil of string and hung it up on the way to the door, so that all went in and out by means of the coil. So till Solomon arose no one was able to properly understand the principles of Torah, but as soon as Solomon arose all began to comprehend the Torah.

רב נחמן לישנא חורי לחורשא של קנים ולא היה אדם יכול להכנס בה ובא פקח א' ונטל את המגל וכסח התחילו הכל נכנסין דרך הכסוח ויוצאין, כך שלמה

R' Nachman gave another illustration, from a thicket of reeds which no one could penetrate, till one clever man came and took a scythe and cut some down, and then all began to enter through the cutting. So did Solomon.

א"ר יוסי לקופה גדולה מלאה פירות ולא היה לה אזן ולא היתה יכולה להטלטל ובא פקח א' ועשה לה אזנים והתחילה להטלטל ע"י אזנים, כך עד שלא עמד שלמה לא היה אדם יכול להשכיל דברי תורה וכיון שעמד שלמה התחילו הכל סוברין תורה

R' Yose said: Imagine a big basket full of produce without any handle, so that it could not be carried, till one clever man came and made handles to it, and then it began to be carried by the handles. So till Solomon arose no one could properly understand the principles of Torah, but when Solomon arose, all began to comprehend the Torah.

א"ר שילא לקיתון גדול שהוא מלא רותחין ולא היה לו אזן להטלטל ובא א' ועשה לו אזן והתחיל להטלטל ע"י אזנו

R' Shila said: Imagine a big jug full of hot water with no handle by which it could be carried, until someone came and made it a handle, so that it began to be carried by its handle.

א"ר חנינא לבאר עמוקה מלאה מים והיו מימיה צוננין ומתוקים וטובים ולא היתה בריה יכולה לשתות ממנה, בא אדם א' וספק לה חבל בחבל משיחא במשיחא ודלה ממנה ושתה התחילו הכל דולין ושותין, כך מדבר לדבר ממשל למשל עמד שלמה על סודה של תורה דכתיב (משלי א) משלי שלמה בן דוד מלך ישראל ע"י משלותיו של שלמה עמד על ד"ת,

R' Chanina said: There was once a deep well filled with water that was cold, sweet, and good, but there was no one who could drink from it. One man came along who connected rope to rope and cord to cord and drew water from the well and drank, and everyone else began drawing and drinking as well. So too, by moving from one principle to another and one mashal to another, Shlomo arrived at the hidden principles of Torah. This is what is meant by the statement: “The Mishlei of Shlomo, son of David king of Israel; to know chochmah and mussar etc.” - through his mashalim, he mastered the principles of Torah.

ורבנן אמרין: אל יהי המשל הזה קל בעיניך שע"י המשל הזה אדם יכול לעמוד בד"ת. משל למלך שאבד זהב מביתו או מרגליות טובה לא ע"י פתילה כאיסר הוא מוצא אותה כך המשל הזה לא יהיה קל בעיניך שע"י המשל אדם עומד על ד"ת, תדע לך שהוא כן שהרי שלמה ע"י המשל הזה עמד על דקדוקיה של תורה

Our Rabbis say: Let not the parable be lightly esteemed in your eyes, since by means of the mashal a man can master the words of the Torah. If a king loses gold from his house or a precious pearl, does he not find it by means of a wick worth a farthing? So the parable should not be lightly esteemed in your eyes, since by means of the mashal a man arrives at the true meaning of the words of the Torah. Here is a proof that it is so; for Solomon by means of the mashal penetrated to the finest nuances of the Torah.

25:20 - Three Types of Misuse

מַעֲדֶה בֶּגֶד בְּיוֹם קָרָה, חֹמֶץ עַל נָתֶר, וְשָׁר בַּשִּׁרִים עַל לֶב רָע

An ornamental garment on a cold day, vinegar on natron, and one who sings songs to a sorrowful heart (Mishlei 25:20)

Explanation of Terms:

Ornamental Garment: We assume this is talking about a garment that is essentially designed for its looks.

Natron: According to Wikipedia, "natron has been used for thousands of years as a cleaning product for both the home and body. Blended with oil, it was an early form of soap. It softens water whilst removing oil and grease." The Meiri explains that both natron and vinegar can be used to remove stains. However, if natron is mixed with vinegar, the basic properties of the former will neutralize the acidic properties of the latter, and the resulting mixture will be too weak to remove any stains.

Sorrowful Heart: We understood this to be referring to someone who is in a state of severe depression: a close relative just passed away, he just lost his job, his girlfriend just dumped him, he has bipolar disorder, etc.

Questions:

1. What do these three things have in common? What is the subject of the pasuk?
2. What is Shlomo haMelech trying to tell us? Unlike most other pesukim, this pasuk doesn't seem to be making a statement about anything. It appears to just be a list.

Idea:

The subject of this pasuk is: misusing things. Our pasuk classifies the three ways that things can be misuse: wrong purpose (what the thing is for), wrong implementation (how to use the thing), and wrong application (what to use it on, or under what circumstances to use it). The explanation is as follows:

Wrong Purpose: Ornamental garments are designed for their appearance, not necessarily for their functionality. An article of clothing might look good, but it won't protect you from the elements. The guy in the first clause of this pasuk is using his ornamental garment for the wrong purpose. The consequence of his mistake is that the garment will not function as he wishes, and he'll be cold.

Wrong Implementation: Unlike the guy in the first clause of the pasuk, the second guy is using vinegar and natron for a correct purpose. His mistake is that he doesn't understand how to correctly implement these substances for this purpose. He reasons, "If vinegar removes stains and natron removes stains, then I can mix them together and make an über stain-remover!" If he would have stopped to consider how vinegar and natron remove stains, he would realize that their contrary properties preclude the manner in which he seeks to use them. The consequence of his mistake is that the vinegar and natron will not function as he wishes, and his clothes will remain stained (and he'll have wasted some good vinegar and natron).

Wrong Application: Unlike the first two guys, the guy in the third clause of the pasuk is using music for the right purpose (to uplift spirits) and he is implementing the music in the right way (a happy song, good artists, the right volume, etc.), but he is using music on the wrong type of person. Music uplifts the spirits of those whose spirits are capable of being uplifted - people who are neutral, or are in somewhat of a bad mood, not someone who is in a state of severe depression. His mistake is that he is trying to use music in a case where it will not work. The consequence of his mistake is that the music will not function as he wishes; he will not succeed in cheering up his friend, and he may even upset him.

Examples:

We thought of several examples which might make this clearer. Here are two of them:

Windex: The father of the protagonist in the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding believed that Windex could be used for any purpose: treating wounds, curing diseases, fertilizing plants, improving a cooked dish, etc. His mistake was to use Windex for the wrong purpose (first clause). Alternatively, someone might use Windex for the right purpose (i.e. to clean windows), but he might implement it incorrectly (e.g. thinking that you are supposed to spray it and let it dry, or using too much or too little, or diluting it with water). Finally, someone might use it for the right purpose and implement it according to its instructions, but apply it in the wrong case (e.g. using it on a window that is too caked with dirt for the Windex to be effective).

Stamps: A little kid who doesn't know what stamps are for might use them as decorative stickers, or as a band-aid, or as food (i.e. for the wrong purpose). Alternatively, I was once part of a mailing-list assembly line, and the guy who was in charge of stamps was putting them on the wrong side of the envelope; he was using stamps for the correct purpose, but was implementing them in the wrong way. Likewise, someone might use stamps of the incorrect value. Lastly, a person might use stamps on the wrong type of parcel (i.e. I have a hunch that stamps won't work if you want to mail something to North Korea).

Deeper Idea:

These three types of mistakes can be caused by a variety of factors. Sometimes a person is just lacking knowledge, either because he is ignorant or because he is misinformed. Other times, he is under the sway of a powerful emotion which obscures his judgment and blinds his mind.

However, we noticed that there is an underlying egocentricity to the examples in the pasuk. The first guy knows that the stylish but light jacket will not keep him warm, but he nevertheless uses it on a cold day because he feels it will work for the purposes that he desires because he desires it.

The second guy might lack knowledge of the properties of vinegar and natron, but his mistake stems from the fact that he defines these substances based on the way he uses them - not based on an objective investigation of their properties. He thinks, "I use them to clean stains, so that is what they are." The objective chemist, on the other hand, defines these substances based on their actual chemical properties, and that knowledge would dictate his use. A good example of this mistake is vaccines. The layman thinks, "Viruses make me sick, so that is what they are." The scientist views viruses for what they actually are, irrespective of how they affect humans; it is this objective view which allows for the counter-intuitive use of viruses for creating vaccines, which prevent people from getting sick.

Likewise, the third guy might make his mistake because of lack of knowledge (e.g. he might not know how depressed his friend really is). But this mistake often comes from an unrealistic view of one's own ability to effectuate change in the external world. People often try to implement tools for the correct purposes but in the wrong situations, and convince themselves, "Yeah, you think this won't work here, but I can make it work."

But this deeper understanding still needs some refinement.

Chapter 25, Verse 12

“Like a golden nose ring and an ornament of fine gold, so is the reproof of the wise upon a heedful ear.”

Questions:
1)The reproof of a wise person seems valuable in itself. Isn't a golden nose ring just decoration?
2)What is the difference between the reproof of a wise men and reproof of anybody else?
3)Is the pasuk talking about a personality of taking advice from wise people or an action?

We could also ask about the qualities that cause someone to be heedful but I do not think that this is what the pasuk is addressing. The pasuk is telling us what the consequences of having a “heedful ear” are.

Lets try and understand the reproof of a wise person. When would a wise person give reproof? In the pasuk before we said that a true idea must be said in proper context. Part of that is understanding who the audience is.
For example, the Rambam tells us of how to get people at different stages in their lives to study Torah.
To a child we offer candy, to someone older money. If we began offering candy to the adult so that he learns Torah we would probably fail miserably. A chacham will understand this and provide the proper context or incentive for the idea of learning Torah.


On the flip side an adult (not yet developed) wants money. By listening to the chacham and learning, the adult can become rich. However, if the advice were coming from anybody else, then that person may not be able to present the proper context for the advice or the reproof.
The chacham understands context, and will realize that the only effective reproof, is reproof that can also yield a secondary benefit.


This pasuk seems to be giving two ideas
1)how a chacham should give advice.
2)How a person who listens to the chacham's advice can get positive secondary consequences.

Another example for 2: A person smokes because he is interested in maintaining a certain image. A wise person should tell him that he should stop smoking not because of its inherent harm but because it will make his teeth yellow and will be seen as a follower. A person who wants an image will definitely be interested in appearing as a leader (and in appearance) and will be able to achieve the secondary benefit by stopping smoking.

Now, lets see if we can explain the first part of the pasuk according to either of our interpretations.

Mashal
a golden nose ring has two qualities
1)valuable in itself (fine gold) - Primary
2)is decorative and beautifies the person wearing it. - Secondary

Taking the primary value of gold, it can also yield a secondary value of looking good. Even if one is not interested in its primary value, he should still take it for the way that it beautifies the person. That is the secondary benefit that a heedful person will get.
On the flip side, a chacham must be willing to utilize the secondary benefit of gold to get the person to take in something valuable. Its building on the pasuk before, by showing the positive consequence that placing ideas in their proper context can bring. A chacham will be able to perfect those around them by letting the heedful ear take in the secondary value, slowly being drawn in to the true value of the chacham's advice.

Conclusion-
It is still very difficult for me to follow halacha or the Torah lifestyle for its own sake. What gets me motivated is thinking about the different pleasures that I can get, which are not essential, but are definitely there. People often mistake pleasure as being inherently taboo. Such a view creates a conflict between the desires and this feeling of taboo. If I can realize that the Torah lifestyle is the life of pleasure then it will be much more easier for me to make proper decisions and to listen to the advice of the wise.

Chapter 25, Verse 11

Chapter 25, Verse 11 - “Golden apples on silver platter are like words said in their proper place.”

Questions
1)What type of words are we referring to?
2)What does it mean to be in their proper place. How can words be in the improper place?
3)What is the relevance of Golden apples on a silver platter?

Let us first approach the golden apples. It is a pretty reasonable to conclude that golden apples are meant to be viewed, and is a valuable decoration. Therefore, we must approach the apple analogy as though we are the viewers or observers. What observations can we make:

Golden apples are more valuable than the silver platter itself. Our intuition tells us that the material (gold and silver) is significant. What should interest us is the platter. The platter is the “proper place” for
the apples which we really care about. So what role does the material of the platter play?
What if the platter was also gold?
What if the golden apples were on a paper plate?
Improper Presentation – The viewers Perspective

Gold Platter
If the platter were gold, then instead of the apples being our focal point, the presentation as a whole grabs our attention (consequence 1). Since the platter is worth just as much as the apple, why should we be interested in the apples themselves? Assuming that we want the viewer to appreciate the apples, we will have totally failed.

The cause for the failure is that we drowned out that which is most important, by focusing too much on the context and the presentation.
Example - a teacher complained that when she was trying to teach her students fractions, she decided to order pizzas for the kids to play with. Instead, the kids ended up focusing on the pizza too much, and did not get the message that the teacher was trying to convey.
Example 2- Have you seen those fancy commercials where you have no idea what the advertised product is?

Drowning out an idea being presented by “surrounding it with too much other stuff” seems to be one way that words can be said in their improper place.

Paper Platter
If the platter were paper, it would be hard for the viewer to take the apples seriously. Nothing valuable is ever presented in such a way, so why shouldn't the viewer disparage the value of the apples?
In this case, the mistake was that not enough context was given. People simply cannot appreciate an image or an idea that comes with limited context.
Example- When learning Gemarah, reading Rashi straight will not seem very interesting or to yield much insight. However if before going to Rashi, you can understand the problem in the Gemarah that needs to be addressed, and then seeing how Rashi answers, then the ideas will be much more meaningful and clear. Without the proper context, Rashi's insight is minimized.




Here, there are two consequences that are the flip side of one idea.
1)The paper platter means that the object or the idea presented must be not very valuable (psychological)
2) No one is even prepared to see such a valuable apple on such a plate, so their mind will not be able to comprehend it.

The analogy with an idea presented on a “paper platter” is another way that words can be said in their improper place.

The improper Presentation – The presenters perspective

Why would someone present an idea in one of these two ways?
Golden Platter- The presenter has lost himself in his own presentation. The golden apple on the golden platter wont attract attention to the apple, but at least it will a “wow” from people who will be impressed with the whole image. The presenter does not seem to be wholly secure with the idea itself so he decides to drown it out by its context. He projects his insecurity's in his presentation

Ironically, the presenter will get the greatest consequence. The teacher was insecure in her ability to present fractions to her students, ordered pizzas, only to find that the kids were more interested in the pizza than in what she was teaching them. This was her insecurity, her fear realized (bad teacher sticker)
simply because she acted on her insecurity in the first place.

Paper Platter- The presenter is suffering from what seems to be, the opposite condition. He is arrogant in believing in the greatness of his idea. Everybody must be thinking and seeing the way I am, and will surely appreciate what I have to say. Why not present it with a paper platter, because everybody should see how great the golden apple is. The standard for the presentation is his mind. Since my mind is the center of all (unconscious) everybody must understand me.

Here too, the consequence will be great. People will disparage his presentation, and the presenter will feel disparaged. In a way, he will suffer more, because he has always taken his greatness for granted. It will be painful when reality opens up before his eyes, completely contrary to what he has believed.

Conclusion
This pasuk is a lesson for all who wish to present any sort of idea. A person must present the idea with proper context, but must be careful not to get caught up in his own presentation. If he follows the middle path, placing the golden apple on the silver platter, then people will appreciate the idea and praise the presenter. However, such a presentation will only be possible, if the presenter is able to get away from his ego.

14:6 - The scoffer seeks wisdom yet there is none

בִּקֶּשׁ-לֵץ חָכְמָה וָאָיִן; וְדַעַת לְנָבוֹן נָקָל

"The scoffer seeks wisdom yet there is none, but wisdom will come easily to the understanding one." (Mishlei 14:6)

Questions:

1. What is a scoffer?

2. How can wisdom just disappear when the scoffer seeks it?

3. What is an understanding one?

4. Why will wisdom come easily to the understanding one and why doesn't it disappear for him?

Idea:

1. What is a scoffer? One who puts people and things down. He does this because he has a fantastical view of himself that is not supported by the evidence he finds in his interaction with the world. The process is as follows. He looks at the world and sees that there are people and things that are greater than him. He then has two options. The first is to improve himself. The second is to denounce everything else. He chooses the second and this is his mistake for denouncing everything else changes his relative status only in his fantastical view of the world and not the world itself.

2. How can wisdom just disappear when the scoffer seeks it? In the eyes of the scoffer there is no wisdom for he denounces any wisdom he comes across as it represents a challenge to his supremacy.

3. What is an understanding one? An understanding one is one who accepts as true that which he sees in the world even if it means he is not supreme.

4. Why will wisdom come easily to the understanding one and why doesn't it disappear for him? When the understanding one seeks wisdom it is a simple matter of looking at himself, determining that he lacks wisdom, looking at the world, identifying a source of wisdom, and then going to it. Whereas the scoffer is unable to find wisdom as he denounces it all, the understanding one creates no artificial barriers for himself and is thus able to seek and obtain wisdom like a hungry driver looking for food and seeing a fifty-foot-tall McDonald's sign.

One practical application:

I often find myself choosing not to pay attention to what people have to say if I don't like them. According to the pasuk this is nonsensical. My opinion of the person and the potential to learn from the person are unrelated. In my not liking the person I denounce the person in my mind, faking myself out into thinking that the person has nothing to offer me. What I should do is set my dislike aside, learn what I can, and only then go back to disliking the person.