Chavlei Shlomo

11:12 - Scorn and Self-knowledge

2011-08-10T10:34:00.000-04:00

משלי יא:יב

בָּז לְרֵעֵהוּ חֲסַר לֵב וְאִישׁ תְּבוּנוֹת יַחֲרִישׁ:

Mishlei 11:12

One who scorns his fellow is chasar leiv (lacks a heart), but an ish tevunos (man of understanding) will be silent.

Four Sentence Explanation

Unlike the chasar leiv who scorns and derides his fellow whenever the temptation arises, the ish tevunos restrains himself and keep silent. The ish tevunos understands that the desire (or urge) to scorn others stems from his own ego feeling hurt or threatened; he knows that lashing out at others is only a way of distracting himself from facing the true causes of his conflict, which are internal. He realizes that although he may derive temporary satisfaction from retaliating against the perceived offender, this will only lead to an ugly and volatile “battle of the egos,” and it is likely that his ego will suffer further harm from the battle and its aftermath; moreover, he recognizes that he runs the risk of making an enemy who will bear animosity and seek revenge in the future. Consequently, the ish tevunos will respond to his temptation to scorn his fellow by silencing himself and engaging in a process of introspection and self-analysis to discover the internal factors which caused his ego to feel insecure or wounded in the first place; in the long run, this self-knowledge will help him to avoid such ego-related suffering in the future, in addition to circumventing the consequences of scorning.

12:18 - Sympathetic Pronouncements

2011-06-21T10:36:00.001-04:00

משלי יב:יח

יֵשׁ בּוֹטֶה כְּמַדְקְרוֹת חָרֶב וּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים מַרְפֵּא:

Mishlei 12:18 – Sympathetic Pronouncements

There is one who speaks like the piercings of a sword, but the tongue of the wise heals.

The term used for speech in this pasuk is “boteh” which connotes “official pronouncements,” as in, “or if a person will swear le’vatei sefasayim (pronounce with his lips)” (Vayikra 5:4). In certain cases, when a pronouncement is made which has a detrimental impact on its listeners, the announcer is utterly insensitive to the harsh and painful affect of his words; this occurs either because he lacks sympathy, or because he seeks to avoid sympathizing with the listener. Consequently, those who hear the pronouncement will be more resistant to accepting it and will likely harbor animosity towards its source; this will lead to interpersonal and systemic friction. The chachamim, on the other hand, will take the emotional affect of their words into consideration by putting themselves in the shoes of the listeners; they will make an effort to formulate their pronouncements in a manner that generates minimal discord, and which aims to undo or prevent the emotional damage that has or will be done.

19:19 - Damage Control for Unstoppable Emotions

2011-05-30T12:20:00.000-04:00

משלי יט:יט

גְּרָל [גְּדָל] חֵמָה נֹשֵׂא עֹנֶשׁ, כִּי אִם תַּצִּיל וְעוֹד תּוֹסִף:

Mishlei 19:19 – Damage Control for Unstoppable Emotions

A person of great wrath will incur punishment, for if you escape [from one situation], you will [only] increase [your punishment in another situation].

If a person knows he is angry, he might try to suppress his anger in order to avoid an inappropriate angry outburst. Although this is the proper thing to do, he might erroneously come to believe that by suppressing his anger, he has eliminated it altogether. This will lead him to lower his guard, thereby making him more susceptible to an angry outburst in when he least expects it. Thus, the only thing he can do is to exercise damage control – to continue to guard against angry outbursts in situations where the consequences will be most harmful, and strive to let out his anger in ways that cause minimal harm.

Real World Example:

During my 1^st period Mishlei class I noticed that two of the 11^th grade boys were pestering each other. Reuven stole Shimon’s notebook when he wasn’t looking, and when Shimon found out what happened, he retaliated with a biting insult. This only provoked Reuven further, causing him to lunge at Shimon. I intervened and made them stop by threatening to write up for disciplinary referrals for both of them. One of the other boys said, “They’ve been at each other’s throats all morning, during davening and breakfast.”

Shortly thereafter, between 2^nd and 3^rd period, Reuven was standing in front of Shimon’s locker. Shimon asked him to move out of the way, but Reuven didn’t budge. Apparently, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Shimon snapped and hit Reuven. Reuven fought back, and a scuffle quickly ensued. One of the senior rabbis stepped in to break them up, and this lead to something nobody anticipated. In an effort to get in one more hit, Shimon threw a punch at Reuven. Reuven ducked, and the punch grazed the rabbi’s face, knocking off his glasses! Nobody was severely hurt, but both Reuven and Shimon got suspended.

If Reuven and/or Shimon had found healthier outlets for their anger – perhaps even by sticking to verbal insults – it never would’ve built up to the point that it did, and most likely wouldn’t have resulted in the unpredictably severe outburst of punching a rabbi in the face.

19:18 - Childish Parenting

2011-05-30T12:00:00.001-04:00

משלי יט:יח

יַסֵּר בִּנְךָ כִּי יֵשׁ תִּקְוָה, וְאֶל הֲמִיתוֹ אַל תִּשָּׂא נַפְשֶׁךָ:

Mishlei 19:18 – Childish Parenting

Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not let yourself be swayed by his protest.

There are two factors which dissuade parents from disciplining their children: (1) the feeling that your child is already set in his ways, and there is no hope that he’ll change; (2) the negative feelings triggered by the thought of causing pain and suffering to your child, as expressed by his protesting and crying. Both deterrents stem from a short-sighted perspective. In truth, a young child is not set in his ways, and there is still hope – although things might seem hopeless at the present; his behavior and personality can still be influenced in the long-run by your discipline or lack thereof, for better or for worse. Likewise, your decision to discipline or not discipline your child should be based on long-term objectives and outcomes of parenting – not on the emotional state of your child at present, which will naturally be immature, shortsighted, and resistant to any form of discipline which involves immediate pain and conflict. Ironically, to allow oneself to be dissuaded by either of these two factors is to behave like a child.

17:24 - Happiness in the Here and Now

2011-05-30T11:43:00.000-04:00

משלי יז:כד

אֶת פְּנֵי מֵבִין חָכְמָה, וְעֵינֵי כְסִיל בִּקְצֵה אָרֶץ:

Mishlei 17:24 – Happiness in the Here and Now

Wisdom lies before an understanding person, but a fool’s eyes are in the end of the earth.

The meivin and the ksil have fundamentally different values, and this difference of values will result in a different focus of their energies. The ksil is dissatisfied with reality and is therefore unable to be happy in the present; instead, he is driven by a compulsive preoccupation with fantasies of future happiness. The meivin, on the other hand, values chochmah and derives enjoyment from thinking about it; since chochmah is everywhere and since the meivin has the capacity to understand and appreciate that chochmah, then he will always be satisfied. Consequently, the ksil will spend his entire life in pursuit of an ever-receding horizon of fantasy-based satisfaction and will die without ever having lived, whereas the meivin will live a full and enjoyable life in the present, enjoying the chochmah which lies before him at all times.

17:13 - Mishleic Karma

2011-05-30T11:09:00.000-04:00

משלי יז:יג

מֵשִׁיב רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה, לֹא תָמיּשׁ [תָמוּשׁ] רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ:

Mishlei 17:13 – Mishleic Karma

If one repays good with bad, badness will not depart from his house.

For whatever reason, people have a latent expectation that good should be repaid with good; for this reason, the person who repays good with bad is universally abhorred. Such an individual is exceedingly egotistical: he believes that he is entitled to be the recipient of good from others, but at the same time, feels that he doesn’t owe them anything; not only that, but he feels free to treat them however he pleases, as though they are nothing but objects in his possession. As a direct consequence of this insensitive, egotistical way of relating to others, such an individual will be continually plagued by badness in four ways:

People will hate him and resent him.
They will not be willing to do good for him, since they know their goodness will be repaid with badness.
His egotistical sense of entitlement will cause him to be remiss in his responsibilities towards the members of the systems of which he is a part; this will harm the system as a whole, and he – as a part of that system – will suffer as a consequence.
His egotism will generate excessive and unrealistic expectations of how others should relate to him, and these unfulfilled expectations will breed perpetual dissatisfaction, conflict, and distress.

Although there is no such thing as actual Karma, the victim of this type of evil recompense can take solace in this “Mishleic Karma” and know with certainty that the perpetrator will suffer greatly as a “punishment” for the way he treats others.

17:12 - Hell Hath No Fury Like an Enraged Fool

2011-05-30T10:36:00.001-04:00

משלי יז:יב

פָּגוֹשׁ דֹּב שַׁכּוּל בְּאִישׁ וְאַל כְּסִיל בְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ:

Mishlei 17:12

Better to for a man to confront a bear bereft of its cubs than [to confront] a fool in his foolishness.

Summary:

A bear bereft of its cubs is in a state of instinctual, unthinking, animalistic rage; the same is true of a fool whose ego (or false sense of security) has been threatened and whose anger has been aroused. However, the fool is much more dangerous than the bear for the following reasons:

The bear has a very narrow range of activity, making it relatively easy to anticipate what it might do and to take the necessary precautions; the fool, on the other hand, has a wide variety of retaliatory actions at his disposal and is willing to go to any lengths to get his revenge, making him unpredictable and difficult to guard against.
The danger level of the bear is apparent to all, whereas the fool might appear to be totally harmless, when – in truth – he is just waiting for the right moment.
No one in his right mind deludes himself into thinking that he can control an enraged bear, but when dealing with a fool, it is easy to fall prey to the illusion that one has more control than one actually has.

For these reasons (and more), one should avoid provoking fools, and steer clear of fools who have already been provoked.

Related Sources:

"חָכָם יָרֵא וְסָר מֵרָע, וּכְסִיל מִתְעַבֵּר וּבוֹטֵחַ" (משלי יב:טז)
“A wise man fears and turns away from harm, but a fool is enraged and confident” (Mishlei 12:16).

ריש לקיש אמר: כל אדם שכועס, אם חכם הוא - חכמתו מסתלקת ממנו (פסחים סב:)
Reish Lakish said: Anyone who becomes angry – if he is wise, his wisdom departs from him.

14:4 - Cake and Ox-filth

2011-05-27T09:32:00.001-04:00

משלי יד:ד

בְּאֵין אֲלָפִים אֵבוּס בָּר וְרָב תְּבוּאוֹת בְּכֹחַ שׁוֹר:

Mishlei 14:4 – “Cake and Ox-filth”

Where there are no oxen, the barn is clean; but many crops come [through] the power of an ox.

This pasuk is a nuanced version of the American proverb: “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” The only way to have abundant crops is by means of an ox, but if you have an ox, you’ll have to deal with all of the filth it produces. The same is true in all other areas of life: if you desire an end, you’ll have to deal not only with the means, but even with the accidental byproducts of the means, such as the filth produced by the oxen. To desire an end without its means and their byproducts is to desire an impossible fantasy, and will only increase frustration and misery.

18:9 - Passive Destruction

2011-01-21T15:53:00.002-05:00

משלי יח:ט

גַּם מִתְרַפֶּה בִמְלַאכְתּוֹ אָח הוּא לְבַעַל מַשְׁחִית:

Mishlei 18:9 – Passive Destruction

Even one who is lax in his work is a brother to the master of destruction.

There are two types of destroyers: the “master of destruction,” who actively and intentionally causes destruction, and the “brother of the master of destruction,” who passively and unintentionally causes destruction. This pasuk highlights the fact that even one who is lax in his work causes destruction, insofar as the quality of his work suffers. The person who is lax in his work is often blind to (or rationalizes) his destructiveness because he can still define himself as “a worker” and convince himself and others that he is “working.” Perhaps, for this reason, the pasuk doesn’t merely identify the consequences of his behavior, but presents these consequences as a label, as if to say, “No – contrary to what you would like to think, you are not a worker, but a destroyer.”

1:1 - The Authorship of Mishlei

2009-05-12T00:01:00.001-04:00

מִשְׁלֵי שְׁלמה בֶן דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל

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

Main Question:

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?

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?

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

2009-05-10T21:47:00.002-04:00

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

2009-05-06T23:30:00.001-04:00

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

2009-04-27T09:20:00.000-04:00

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:

What do these three things have in common? What is the subject of the pasuk?
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

2009-03-18T16:31:00.001-04:00

“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

2009-03-12T00:35:00.000-04:00

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

2009-02-26T13:51:00.013-05:00

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.

29:6 - "The negligent offense of a bad man"

2009-02-23T10:27:00.001-05:00

בְּפֶשַׁע אִישׁ רָע מוֹקֵשׁ; וְצַדִּיק יָרוּן וְשָׂמֵחַ

"The negligent offense of a bad man contains a snare, but a man of justice will sing and rejoice" (Mishlei 29:6)

Questions/Problems:

According to the standard translation, I see one question and two problems:

What does Shlomo ha'Melech mean when by "negligent offense contains a snare"? "Snare" implies a harmful consequence from which it is difficult to escape.
What is the difference between the negligent offense of a bad man and the negligent offense of a regular guy? Negligence is negligence! For example, if someone is negligent and dents my car, his negligent offense will trigger certain consequences, regardless of who he is - yet, this pasuk only describes the negligent offense of a bad man as a snare, not the negligent offense of an ordinary guy. Why should the consequences of a negligent offense be dependent on the goodness or badness of the perpetrator?
What does the second half of the pasuk have to do with the first half? Great, a tzadik sings and rejoices. What does that have to do with negligent offenses and snares?

Idea (according to the standard translation):

In terms of the consequences of the negligent offense per se, it is true that negligence is negligence, and the consequences will be the same for the אִישׁ רָע and for the regular guy. A dent in a car is a dent in a car, no matter who caused it. The subject of this pasuk, however, is the relationship between the offender and the victim of his offense. If an אִישׁ רָע is the cause of a negligent offense, the victim will feel (or assume) that it was intentional and malicious, even if it was actually negligent. Thus, the אִישׁ רָע's reputation of רָע will be a snare for him, making it difficult or impossible to exonerate himself. But if the offender is a צַדִּיק, then the victim will be quick to pardon the offense.

For example, let's say someone accidentally says something that insults you. Let's assume that it was a genuine accident (to the extent that accidents can be genuine); he just let it slip, and if he would have known it would have offended you, he wouldn't have said anything. If the offender is an אִישׁ רָע (e.g. an aggressive guy, a bully, a scoundrel, etc.) you will naturally feel (or assume) that he offended you out of spite, to provoke you or to derive satisfaction at your expense. No matter how much he assures you that he didn't mean to say what he said, you won't believe him. His reputation as an אִישׁ רָע will be a snare for him, making it difficult (if not impossible) for him to undo his offense and repair the relationship. But if the offender is a צַדִּיק, such as _______ (insert the name of a צַדִּיק you know), then you will be quick to forgive him and to write off his offense as an accident.

That is what the pasuk means when it says that the צַדִּיק will sing and rejoice. Even צַדִיקִים make negligent mistakes which could potentially ruin relationships, and even צַדִיקִים experience the joy of relief when they escape potentially harmful situations.

Implications for Everyday Life:

Although the pasuk only deals with the negligent offenses of an אִישׁ רָע and a צַדִּיק, the subject of the pasuk is the effect of the offender's reputation on the victim's interpretation of negligent behavior. Thus, even if you are not a full-fledged אִישׁ רָע, but you just have a bad reputation in a certain area of behavior, the consequence of ensnarement will apply to all negligent behavior in that area.

Let's take the example of car denting. Let's say you accidentally back into a colleague's car. If you have a reputation as a careless driver, chances are you will have a hard time convincing him that it was a complete accident. But if you have a reputation as a scrupulously careful driver, then he will be much quicker to forgive you and accept your explanation that it was an accident without harboring feelings of hostility.

13:4 - An Example of "The Middle Guy"

2009-02-11T21:24:00.006-05:00

מִתְאַוָּה וָאַיִן, נַפְשׁוֹ עָצֵל; וְנֶפֶשׁ חָרֻצִים תְּדֻשָּׁן
"The soul of the sluggard desires but has nothing, but the soul of the diligent shall be abundantly gratified."

Questions:
At first glance, this Pasuk seems to be stating the obvious. After all, the definition of a lazy guy is someone who does not have the motivation to do tasks that he would like done, and the diligent person is basically the opposite. So what is Shlomo teaching us here? At the end of the day we should be able to answer why each person in the Pasuk receives what they receive.

Gateway:
A good question in this Pasuk, and in some other Psukim as well, is: "What about the middle guy??" Mishlei many times gives us two extremes to bring out the consequences of each side, but often in the heat of figuring out the extremes we tend to forget about "The Middle Guy."

In the case of this Pasuk, there is a clear jump from the lazy guy, who has nothing, to the diligent guy, who is abundantly gratified (I believe תְּדֻשָּׁן implies an "extreme" gratification). It seems like the middle guy is someone who is just plain gratified- not a crazy idea in its own right, but it allows us to set up the next step in understanding the Pasuk.

Now that we see each of the three people, we can proceed to the next question: What is the defining factor of each of them that causes their respective consequences?

Answer:
Let's use two things to answer the question: A general action "x" that causes result "y," and a specific example of playing poker to win money.

The lazy guy desires "y," and concludes that involving himself in "x" will get him that. That is the extent of his effort, and is also why he is lazy: He merely thinks that partaking in "x" will get him results, without finding out what "x" actually is. It seems that he has an immature view of "y," in that if there exists a way to get there, it will happen to him, no matter what. In the poker example, the lazy guy is someone who has this thought process: "Look at these guys who make so much money at playing poker. I want money... I'm gonna go play some poker with them!" It is clear that this person will fail immediately, as he has lost sight of the activity of poker in light of the fantasy of winning money. Without a proper understanding of poker strategy, the lazy guy is guaranteed to lose, to gain "nothing."

The middle guy, on the other hand, desires "y," but understands how "x" is directly tied to "y"; he has correct knowledge of rules of causality. He does not have an infantile view of "y," which allows him to study the rules of "x." In the poker example, he understands that not everybody who plays is going to win. In order to win, you have to know the strategy: fold when you have certain cards, play certain cards, know when to bluff, when to raise, etc. The better you know the established rules, the better you will play, and the more successful you will be in winning the money. This is "normal gratification," as it comes from normal rules of causality.

The diligent guy, on the third hand, desires "y," understands how "x" is directly tied to "y," and understands the system that exists behind the scenes that causes the relationship between "x" and "y." A person diligent in a certain area realizes that the rules only exist insofar as the system governs them. In other words, knowing the rules only goes so far, but to really gain the most you can from an area, you need to understand the system behind it. In the poker example, the highest level of poker playing understanding why the strategy works, based on the system of poker. When one understands the system behind poker, he can also understand when the normal strategy should be used and when it shouldn't. For instance, a diligent poker player can beat a middle-guy poker player without even looking at his cards. So the abundant gratification of the diligent guy is twofold: He gains the most efficient result "y," and he has an intellectual pleasure in understanding a governing system of x-y.

Obviously the three levels will be different depending on the specific area. Sometimes a level won't even exist at all. But I think this Pasuk does apply to many areas of life- can you think of one? Also I think the Pasuk is a good example of showing how the presence of the middle guy can help shape the Pshat.

On Themes and Order in Mishlei

2009-02-10T09:47:00.000-05:00

Matt,
I notice that your labels are based on chapter numbers. Is that only for ease of reference or do you see the chapters as unifying themes of the specific pesukim?
- Yaakov

Yaakov,

The labels are based on chapter numbers for reference purposes only. Other than Chapters 1-9 and Chapter 31, the other chapters are not thematic and the pesukim are not related to each other. I also recently rediscovered the following statement of the Meiri at the end of his commentary on Chapter 9:

We have now concluded the first section of Mishlei (i.e. Chapters 1-9), and the section section (Chapers 10-25) will follow. [This second section] does not proceed in a continuous order of ideas (סדר דברים נמשכים), like the first section, but it consists entirely of distinct pesukim with no relationship or connection between them other than the relationship of proximity. Each and every pasuk is a distinct subject (ענין), except for a minority of pesukim which are somewhat related to one another.

The question is: Why is Mishlei written this way?

It's nice to know they teach this to lifegaurds.

2009-02-09T17:43:00.005-05:00

In my lifeguarding class today, we learned the FIND method of decision making, which is something like

Figure out what the problem is
Identify possible solutions
Name the pros and cons of each
Decide which is the best choice, then act on it.

It was nice to happen upon a quick review of the fundamentals of decision making, especially since I slept through my Proverbs discussion this morning.

Does Shlomo ha'Melech Advocate Bad Actions?

2009-02-09T00:01:00.001-05:00

In his comments on 27:2 - "Let a stranger praise you", Dan asked, "Why would Shlomo ha'Melech advocate a seemingly negative quality?" This isn't unique to our pasuk, but occurs throughout Mishlei. Off the top of my head, I can think of three reasons for doing this.

Actions are Neither Good nor Bad

Whenever a student asks Rabbi Moskowitz, "Is it bad to lie?" he inevitably responds by asking: "Would it be bad if I came over and cut you up with a knife?" The unassuming student usually answers: "Of course it's bad!" to which Rabbi Moskowitz replies, "What if I'm a surgeon and you're on the operating table?" His point is that no action is inherently good or bad. Actions are only a means. It is the ends of actions which determine whether they are good or bad.

Chazal say: "איזהו חכם? הרואה את הנולד" - "Who is a chacham? One who sees the consequences [of his actions]" (Tamid 32a). The problem is that we aren't chachamim. Because we are resistant to seeing ourselves as part of a lawful universe, subject to the laws of nature like everything else, we are blind to the consequences of our actions. This blindness makes it difficult for us to act intelligently - to select the actions which serve as a means to the ends we seek, and to seek ends which are in line with what is good. Without the ability to plan intelligently, we cannot live the life of tzedek and chesed.

Now we can understand the place for a certain type of pasuk: a pasuk which shows the consequences of an action without labeling that action as good or bad. Almost all pesukim train the student of Mishlei in consequence-analysis, but these pesukim are particularly effective because they drive home the message that no action is inherently good or bad. Whenever I learn pesukim like this, I feel like I'm conducting an experiment: I'm not considering an action as a means to a practical goal, but I'm just seeing what happens as a result of a certain action. Pesukim like this, if learned properly, are often easier to approach in a more detached, objective way.

Lo Lishmah of Chochmah Empowerment

Mishlei is written for a variety of people at different developmental levels: the pesi, the naar, the chacham, and the navon (1:4-5), among others. The people at the lower end of the developmental spectrum, such as the pesi and the naar, are not interested in pursuing knowledge for the sake of pursuing knowledge, nor are they interested in developing into minds. What are they interested in? Health, wealth, power, success, and all of the other goods that the common man seeks. Likewise, these people are driven by "bad" emotions, such as greed, revenge, jealousy, anger, and the like.

Rather than try to uproot these desires - which would not only be unrealistic, but would turn these people off to chochmah - Shlomo ha'Melech works with them. He shows these individuals how chochmah can empower them to satisfy their desires. As Rabbi Moskowitz is always saying, "Mishlei is pro-selfishness - as long as it is intelligent selfishness, and not foolish selfishness."

Mishlei is filled with examples of Shlomo ha'Melech advocating the pursuit of material success. For example: "Praiseworthy is a person who has found wisdom . . . Length of days is at its right; at its left, wealth and honor" (3:13,16), "I am chochmah; I dwell in cleverness; I provide knowledge of designs . . . With me there is counsel and wisdom; I am understanding; with me is might. Through me, kings will reign and nobles will decree righteousness; through me officials will rule, and nobles, all who judge righteously . . . Wealth and honor are with me, great fortune and righteousness. My fruits are better than fine gold, even choice gold, and my produce is choicer than silver. I lead in the path of righteousness, amid the pathways of justice. I have what to bequeath to those who love me, and I shall fill their storehouses" (8:12-21). (Notice how he weaves in justice alongside material benefits.) There are many, many more examples throughout the book.

Sometimes, Shlomo ha'Melech will even advocate the "negative" lo lishmas. For example, the Torah certainly doesn't advocate pursuing the dream of being a billionaire like Donald Trump - yet, Mishlei says, "Have you seen a man with alacrity in his work? He will stand before melachim. He will not stand before [men of] darkness" (22:29). The Meiri explains the phrase "melachim" to refer to "rich people who aren't in need of anyone else." He says that the pasuk is telling you that if you work with alacrity, "you will become wealthy and will be counted among the richest men, and you will not be considered in the class of poor people." This is a perfect example of taking a lo lishmah motivation and encouraging it, as long as it is done with chochmah.

Occasionally, you'll even find a pasuk advocating something bad - not just a lo lishmah. For example, the Torah certainly doesn't approve of taking revenge on your enemy - yet, Mishlei says, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will be scooping coals [to heap] upon his head, and Hashem will reward you" (25:21-22). The Metzudos explains: "By feeding him bread, you cause him pain - as if you scooped coals from the fire to heap upon his head - for he will feel extremely guilty for causing you harm when you do good for him, and even though this will be considered taking revenge, nevertheless, Hashem will grant you the reward of doing tzedakah." In other words, Mishlei recognizes that although we should work to undo the emotion of vengeance, we don't always succeed. Sometimes, we are overpowered by the need to take revenge. But when we are overwhelmed with vengeance, we should at least take revenge in a manner that is in line with chochmah and tzedakah.

Our pasuk can be understood in light of this. It is true that the highly developed individual will not seek the praises of his fellow men . . . but the pesi and the naar will, and it would be detrimental to their development to force them to give that up at this stage. That being the case, Shlomo ha'Melech sees this as another opportunity for chochmah-training: if they're going to be selfish, teach them how to be intelligently selfish; if they want praise, teach them to obtain praise in the best way possible. This will teach them that "chochmah works" (as Rabbi Moskowitz likes to say), and they will become more attached to the life of chochmah on their lo lishmah level.

(Parenthetically, the Rambam in Chelek acknowledges that seeking praise is part of a natural lo lishmah. First the child learns in order to receive candy, then clothing, then money:

And when he reaches a deeper level of understanding, and he no longer ascribes the same value to money, he will be motivated by something that is of even greater value. He will be told: Learn so that you will become a rabbi or a judge, and others will honor you. They will stand before you, endeavor to uphold your words and enhance your reputation, both in your lifetime and afterwards, like so and so, and so and so. And so he will study to reach this position; the ultimate in his mind will be that other people will honor him, elevate him and praise him.)

To Give Ormah to the Pesi

One of the most basic goals of Mishlei is "to give ormah to pesaim" (1:4). I'm not going to elaborate on this idea in this post, but I'll briefly explain how it answers your question.

The pesi operates based on superficial, immediate impressions. If something looks good, he believes it is good, and if something looks bad, he believes it is bad. Consequently, he will end up thinking about something good that it is bad and about something bad that it is good. (The Rambam describes this condition as a "disease of the soul" in Hilchos Deos 2:1.)

For this reason, Shlomo ha'Melech will often take something that appears to be good and show that it is really bad. Likewise, he will take something that appears to be bad and show that it is really good. Such pesukim usually focus on actions that look bad by a pleasure/pain standard, but sometimes - as is the case in our pasuk - they highlight actions that look bad according to an "ethical" standard.

Saadia Gaon happens to interpret our pasuk this way. I'll try to write this up soon, but in the meantime, ask yourself: "Why would a person think it is bad to receive praise, and what is the source of that mistake?"

Dan - this post might be a bit rambly, but I'm writing it fast and late, and this is an informal blog anyway. Just let me know if I didn't answer your question, or if you find problems with the answer.

29:1 - "If an ill person stiffens his neck"

2009-02-06T15:07:00.001-05:00

אִישׁ תּוֹכָחוֹת מַקְשֶׁה-עֹרֶף -- פֶּתַע יִשָּׁבֵר וְאֵין מַרְפֵּא

"If an ill person stiffens his neck, he will suddenly be broken and there will be no remedy" (29:1)

Questions/Problems:

The plain pshat of the term "אִישׁ תּוֹכָחוֹת" is "man of rebuke," which means "a man who is deserving of rebuke" or "a man who is repeatedly rebuked." According to this translation, this is a general pasuk about someone who stubbornly refuses to heed rebuke. As a result of his stubbornness, reality will eventually catch up to him, and he will suffer harsh consequences. That would be the general approach; you can work out the details of this approach on your own, if you'd like.

However, there are several problems with this approach:

The phrase "and there will be no remedy" seems out of place. I can understand "suddenly broken," but what does refuah (healing) have to do with not listening to rebuke? Sure, you can always take this as a metaphor, but that's a last resort. Is there a literal interpretation of marpeh here?
Even if you take marpeh literally, then the statement "and there will be no remedy" is not necessarily true. What about teshuvah? We know that teshuvah is as relevant to character defects as it is to particular chataim, as the Rambam explains in Hilchos Teshuvah Perek 7:3. Sure, maybe there are some character defects that can't be remedied if you allow them to fester for too long, but this pasuk seems to be stating a general principle - not referring to a limited type of case.

Solution:

In my opinion, this is why the Meiri translates the pasuk in radically different way: "If an ill person stiffens his neck, he will suddenly be broken and there will be no remedy." This translation is based on the phrase "וְהוּכַח בְּמַכְאוֹב עַל-מִשְׁכָּבוֹ" which means "he is afflicted with pain upon his bed" (Iyov 33:19).

According to the Meiri, the pasuk is dealing with a person who "stiffens his neck" and stubbornly refuses to give proper attention to a symptom, medical condition, or illness. By choosing to persist in his obstinacy, he is taking a major risk of allowing his condition to worsen and spread until he is "suddenly broken" and forced to go to the doctor. By that time, it might be too late; "there will be no remedy."

Most of us have either experienced this ourselves, or heard about cases where this has happened to others. In this age of cancer-awareness, we are particularly aware of the potentially lethal consequences of ignoring mysterious symptoms.

The main question we must ask in order to understand the idea of this pasuk is: Why do people ignore symptoms? Symptoms are the body's warning signs. They signify when something is wrong. Why do we "stiffen our necks" and refuse to heed these warnings?

Idea:

Think back on the last time you experienced a strange symptom but decided not to do anything about it, and I believe you'll find you were operating under at least one of these two, unstated premises: (1) "This probably isn't anything serious; there's nothing wrong with me," and (2) "I don't need to see a doctor; It'll go away on it's own."

The first premise is built upon an underlying belief that your default state is health. Thus, you feel that any deviation from the norm must be a fluke - an anomaly, a blip on the radar, an accidental glitch. This premise is clearly irrational. Who says that your default state is health? Perhaps you are genetically predisposed to a certain disease? Perhaps you live or work in an environment where you are prone to be afflicted by a certain condition? Maybe your diet or health regimen (or lack thereof) was setting you up for this malady?

The second premise follows logically from the first irrational premise. If the problem is just a fluke, then it must go away on its own. And if it'll go away on its own, why go through the stress and expense of seeing a doctor?

These two premises might work for a while, but if the problem persists or worsens, then the psyche will make recourse to another desperate belief: If I ignore it, then maybe it'll go away. This is one more step removed from the prior stage. In the prior stage, you acknowledge that the problem is there, but you minimize its severity. In this stage, you acknowledge its severity, but you convince yourself that if you pretend it doesn't exist, then it will cease to exist. Is there a greater denial of reality than this? You are essentially saying: "If I don't acknowledge its existence, then it doesn't exist."

Perhaps the aforementioned premises correspond to the two consequences spelled out in the pasuk. The ish tochachos doesn't really think this isn't really a problem. Consequently, "he will be suddenly be broken" - i.e. the problem will cripple him, and then he will be forced to acknowledge that it's a problem. The ish tochachos refuses to see a doctor because he believes that the problem will go away on its own. Consequently, "there will be no remedy" - i.e. by the time he finally wants a remedy, it'll be too late.

Incidentally, this is a good example of what Ken calls "the ironic twist" or middah kneged middah: the fool suffers the very fate he tried to avoid as a consequence of his foolish attempt to avoid it.

The dynamics in this pasuk are illustrated in a broader way in Mishlei 1:20-33:

Chochmah sings out in the streets; it gives forth its voice in the squares. It cries out at the head of noisy throngs, at the entrances of gates, in the city, it speaks its words: How long, O pesaim, will you love pesi? Scoffers covet mockery for themselves, and fools hate knowledge. Return to my rebuke! Behold, I will express my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you. But because I have called you and you refused; because I stretched forth my hand and no one listened; and you rejected my every counsel, and desired not my reproof, I, too, will laugh at your misfortune and mock when your dread arrives. When your fear arrives as sudden darkness, and misfortune comes like a storm; when affliction and oppression come upon you, then they will call me, but I will not answer; they will search for me, but they will not find me. because they hated knowledge and did not choose fear of Hashem, they did not desire my counsel, they spurned all my reproof. They will eat the fruit of their way and will be sated with their own schemes. For the tranquility of the pesaim will kill them, and the contentment of fools will destroy them. But he who listens to me will dwell securely, and will be undisturbed by fear of evil.

27:3 - "A stone is heavy"

2009-02-05T00:01:00.001-05:00

כֹּבֶד-אֶבֶן וְנֵטֶל הַחוֹל; וְכַעַס אֱוִיל כָּבֵד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם
"A stone is heavy and sand is weighty, but the anger of an eveel (fool) is heavier than both of them" (27:3)

Questions:

What does it mean to say that anger is heavy?
Are "heavy stone" and "weighty sand" just two examples of heavy objects, or is Shlomo ha'Melech trying to bring out a unique element with each one?

Idea:

Anger is the pain we feel when we expect reality to conform to our desires and it doesn't. Ordinarily, Mishlei deals with anger in its most blatant form. When we read the word "anger," we picture someone getting angry. You know, red in the face, yelling, nostrils flaring, etc. But I think the anger in this pasuk is of a more subtle nature, and that once we see the idea Shlomo ha'Melech is getting at, we'll see that this anger is much more prevalent in our lives than the other.

The "heavy stone" and "weighty sand" are mashalim for two types of anger. What is the difference between a stone and sand? A stone is intrinsically heavy, and inherently immovable. Sand, on the other hand, is very light in small quantities, but incredibly heavy in large quantities. So too, there are two types of anger. The "heavy stone," which is intrinsically immovable, is a mashal for anger that comes from trying to control things that you can't control (the weather, traffic, the economy, events in the past, etc.). We typically refer to this type of anger as "frustration." The "weighty sand," which is light in small quantities but heavy in large quantities, is a mashal for the anger that comes from trying to control everything in your life - things which, in and of themselves, are controllable, but are overwhelming to the person who tries to control all of them. We typically refer to this type of anger as "stress."

Based on this explanation, it should be clear that the pasuk is not talking about the stereotypical "explosive anger," but the subtler forms of anger. Both frustration and stress are types of anger which "weigh down" on us, and that is exactly how the pasuk describes them.

According to our pasuk, an eveel's anger is heavier than both types of anger. An eveel is a person who can't tolerate the notion that there is an external reality which doesn't give a damn about his desires and doesn't regard him as the cosmically significant being he feels he is. "Yiras Hashem is the beginning of knowledge, but eveelim hate chochmah and mussar" (1:7). Why does the eveel hate chochmah and mussar? Because chochmah and mussar forces him to confront the fact that they his is not the center of the universe and that he won't always get what he wants. For this reason, the eveel is in a constant state of anger. The unrealistic demands he makes of reality cause him to experience life as a steady stream of frustration and stress. Since he lacks yiras Hashem - the realization of the lawfulness that governs the entire universe, including himself - he will constantly be bombarded with reminders of how little control he really has.

At this point it would behoove us to remember that although an eveel is a certain type of person, it is also a certain psychological trend which is present in all of us in varying degrees. As such, this pasuk is about us, just as much as it is about him.

I still feel like the nature of the eveel's anger needs to be clarified. At first I thought the pasuk was saying that his anger is qualitatively different than the stone-anger and sand-anger, but now I'm leaning towards the simpler interpretation - that his anger differs in degree, not in kind. What do you think? Is Shlomo ha'Melech just defining the two types of anger and saying that the eveel experiences them to a greater degree than normal people due to his anti-Yirah personality, or his he saying something more about the nature of the eveel's anger?

27:2 - "Let a stranger praise you"

2009-02-04T11:54:00.003-05:00

יְהַלֶּלְךָ זָר וְלֹא-פִיךָ; נָכְרִי, וְאַל-שְׂפָתֶיךָ

"Let a stranger praise you, but not your own mouth; an outsider, but not your own lips" (27:2)

Questions:

Is Shlomo ha'Melech advocating self-praise (albeit not through oneself)?
"Stranger" and "outsider" are funny terms to use. The pasuk should say something like, "Let your friend praise you, but not your own mouth; another person, but not your own lips." Why focus on "stranger" and "outsider"?

Idea:

That is exactly the point. This pasuk is about how to bring about the effect of self-praise. There are three ways to do this: (1) praise yourself, (2) get one of your friends to praise you, (3) get a stranger or an outsider to praise you.

The first option is bad. People are narcissists. We love ourselves, and we love talking about how great we are. Consequently, our ability to accurately assess ourselves is impaired by our ego. We amplify our merits, virtues, and accomplishments, and we minimize (or are blind to) our faults, imperfections, and failures. For this reason, people are skeptical and wary when they hear someone praise himself. Not only that, but nobody likes a braggart. Everyone is aware of that category of person who "loves to talk about himself," and self-praise is sure-fire way to place yourself in that category.

The second option is much better than the first. However, the majority of friendships are based on identification. Identification is where you view your friend as an extension of yourself. The closer the friendship, the greater the identification, and the greater the identification, the more self-love transfers to your friend. Thus, to the psyche, the difference between praising yourself and praising your friend is only quantitative. True, the quantitative difference is huge, but praising your friend is still an expression of self-love. Consequently, our ability to accurately assess our friends is inhibited for the same reasons as our ability to accurately assess ourselves. For this reason, people are often skeptical when they hear one friend praise another friend. They wonder, "Is this person really as great as he says, or is he just saying it because he's this person's friend?"

The third option is the best. If someone praises you who isn't your friend, then it's a pretty good guarantee that he is making an objective assessment, and his praise will carry a lot of weight - assuming that (a) he is qualified to assess the qualities he is praising, and (b) he has no other ulterior motives.

"The Ropes of Solomon"

2009-02-04T11:12:00.001-05:00

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 davar (principle) to another and one mashal (metaphor) to another, Shlomo arrived at the sode (hidden first principles) of Torah. This is what is meant by the statement: “The Mishlei of Shlomo, son of David” - through his mashalim, he arrived at the principles of Torah.

The name of this blog, "Chavlei Shlomo" (The Ropes of Solomon), is derived from the midrash in Shir ha'Shirim Rabbah 1:1 in which the mishlei Shlomo are likened to ropes (chavalim) and cords that are connected together and used to draw cool, sweet, good water from a deep well. According to the midrash, the people in the village were unable to drink from the well until the "hero" came along and connected these ropes together, enabling the villagers to access the deep waters of the well.

We've been discussing this midrash in Rabbi Sacks's shiur for the past month, and I'm not clear enough on the idea to even write an elementary explanation, but I'll at least identify the main questions:

What is the meaning of the mashal of divrei Torah to a deep well of cool, sweet, and good water?
What is the meaning of the mashal of mishlei Shlomo to a series of connected ropes and cords?
What differentiates the "hero" from the villagers? Apparently, nobody thought of this solution before. What is it about the villagers that blinded them to this solution, and what is it about the hero that enabled him to see it?

Introduction (from Kankan Chadash)

2009-02-04T10:40:00.000-05:00

Originally published on Kankan Chadash.

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 davar (principle) to another and one mashal (metaphor) to another, Shlomo arrived at the sode (hidden first principles) of Torah. This is what is meant by the statement: “The Mishlei of Shlomo, son of David” - through his mashalim, he arrived at the principles of Torah.

The Problems

Problem #1: I learn Mishlei every day, and I've encountered so many beautiful and beneficial ideas that I'd love to write up. The problem is that I have a hard time writing Mishlei ideas for Kankan Chadash. I don't know what it is, exactly. Part of it has to do with the fact that my Mishlei learning is built upon many premises - premises about the book itself, about human nature, about the nature of Torah, and about the methodology of thinking. Whenever I write a post, I feel an obligation to my readers to articulate, explain, and justify these premises. Although this is tremendously beneficial for me and (I hope) for my readers, it is very labor intensive and time consuming. You have no idea how many half-baked Mishlei posts I have sitting in my "drafts" folder, which I was forced to abandon because the writing process was so long and arduous. Moreover, I also feel that I can't just post a "raw idea" in Mishlei. I have to give it some context, or make some additional point above and beyond the ideas in the pasuk. The result of all this is that very few of the ideas I learn actually get written up as blog posts.

Problem #2: Since I learn Mishlei every day, I tend to cover a lot of ground. I'd like to remember the ideas I uncover, but I don't want to take notes in my various Mishlei seforim because I don't want to be biased the next time I learn the pasuk. In other words, I want to be able to remember past interpretations, but I also want the freedom to approach each pasuk afresh.

Problem #3: I don't always figure out what Shlomo ha'Melech is getting at. I'll almost always be able to come up with solid questions and a general approach to the pasuk, but I sometimes I just can't figure out the main idea. Likewise, sometimes I'll come up with an idea, but it doesn't sit well with me. In situations such as these, I tell myself, "I'll come back to this later on and refine my approach," but that almost never happens. Months or years later, when I actually revisit the pasuk, I've already forgotten the approach I was taking, and the potential for developing the idea has been lost.

Problem #4: I have several friends who learn Mishlei, and we often end up overlapping in the pesukim we learn without realizing it. For example, sometimes I'll tell Ken about a pasuk I learned with Yehuda, and he'll say, "Oh, Danny and I just did that pasuk last week!" This will typically be followed by a great exchange of ideas, which helps each of us to clarify our respective interpretations. The problem is that we aren't always aware that we've learned the same pesukim. Plus, my friends also forget their interpretations of pesukim over time. It would be really nice if there was some way to "look up" what my friends said on a given pasuk, without being bound by the memory-eroding limitations of time. It would be even better if I had an easy format to discuss Mishlei ideas with them.

The Solution

This morning I had a "eureka!" moment. I thought to myself: Why don't I start an informal Mishlei blog? This seemed like the perfect solution:

It would be "informal" in the sense that I wouldn't be writing for a "general audience." Instead, I would be writing for myself and my friends. Since we share common premises about Mishlei, I wouldn't have to explain them - unless, of course, I was taking one of them up as a topic in its own right.
It would enable me to post half-baked, unfinished, and unpolished ideas without feeling remiss in my duty as a blog author.
I would be able to post "raw ideas" in Mishlei without needing to find some additional message or point in which to encase the idea.
The blog would serve as a repository for the ideas I learn in my daily Mishlei, which would give me the option of reviewing old ideas without robbing me of my ability to approach each pasuk afresh.
It would also serve as a place to "store" partial and unsatisfactory approaches to be picked up at a later date.
And to top it all off, my friends who regularly learn Mishlei could also publish their own posts so I could see what they came up with, and the comment section would serve as an additional venue for discussing Mishlei ideas with them.

And so, it is with great pleasure that I present to you: Chavlei Shlomo (after the midrash from Shir ha'Shirim Rabbah 1:1 cited above).

At first I considered keeping this a private blog. After all, I was only going to be writing to myself and to other students of Mishlei. But then I thought: Why not open it to the public? Just because the blog isn't written specifically for them doesn't mean they can't participate. Not only that, but I've learned from my experience with Kankan Chadash that the "comments" section is often where the real learning takes place. Thus, you are all welcome to read and comment on Chavlei Shlomo - provided you keep the nature and purpose of the blog in mind.

Enjoy!