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.