ื‘ืกืดื“

Kavanot: Catered Affair

Thoughts on Tanach and the Davening

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื— was a soliloquy by ื—ื›ืžื” as woman (one whose house you should go to) and ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื˜ continues the metaphor, but now in the third person.

ื—ื›ืžื•ืช ื‘ื ืชื” ื‘ื™ืชื”; ื—ืฆื‘ื” ืขืžื•ื“ื™ื” ืฉื‘ืขื”ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ื˜:ื

The โ€œhouseโ€ of ื—ื›ืžื” has been a recurring theme, but now we have the image of seven pillars. โ€œSevenโ€ might be an idiom for โ€œa whole lotโ€, as we discussed in Man and Superman: (ืžืฉืœื™ ื•:ื˜ื–)โ€Ž ื•ืฉื‘ืข ืชื•ืขื‘ืช ื ืคืฉื•. But what do the โ€œpillarsโ€ represent? The commenators assume that the number is significant, and there are seven pillars that underlie ื—ื›ืžื”.

ื—ื›ืžื•ืช ื‘ื ืชื” ื‘ื™ืชื”: ืฉื‘ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืฉืืžืจ ืœืžืขืœื” ืฉื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ื ื‘ื ื” ืขืดื™ ื”ื—ื›ืžื” ื›ืžื• ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื”ืณ ืงึธื ึธื ึดื™ ืจึตืืฉืึดื™ืช ื“ึผึทืจึฐื›ึผื•ึน, ื•ืžื“ืžื” ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืœื‘ื™ืชโ€ฆื•ืžืฆื™ื™ืจ ืฉืชื›ืฃ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื‘ื ืชื” ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื”, ืฉื‘ื• ื ื‘ื ื” ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ืœืœื™ ื•ื™ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืŸ ืืœ ื”ื™ืฉโ€ฆื•ืื—ืดื– ื—ืฆื‘ื” ืขืžื•ื“ื™ื”, ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื” ืฉื™ืฆืื• ืคืจื˜ื™ ื”ืขื•ืœื ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ื•ืžื• ืฉื”ื ืขืžื•ื“ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช, ืฉื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉื ื‘ื ื” ื‘ื“ื‘ื•ืจ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืขืžื“ ื‘ืื•ื™ืจ ืชื•ืœื” ื‘ืจืคื™ื•ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื”ื™ื•ืœื™, ื•ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื›ื— ื•ืœื ื‘ืคื•ืขืœ, ื•ืขืžื•ื“ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื™ื• ืฉื‘ืขื”, ืฉื”ื ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช, ืฉื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืชื•ืœื“ื•ืช ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืื– ื ืฉืชื›ืœืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืขืœ ืขืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื–ืงื™ื.

ืžืœื‘ื™ืดื, ืžืฉืœื™ ื˜:ื

But that doesnโ€™t fit the ื‘ื™ืช metaphor we have been using. ื—ื›ืžื” did not build the universe; it was the blueprint with which ื”ืณ built the universe. The central metaphor of ืžืฉืœื™ imagines ื—ื›ืžื” inviting us into her ื‘ื™ืช, symbolizing the act of learning. So Rashi acknowleges the โ€œseven days of creationโ€ interpretation, but offers an alternative.

ื—ืฆื‘ื” ืขืžื•ื“ื™ื” ืฉื‘ืขื”: ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช. ื“ืดื ื–ืณ ืกืคืจื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ืชื•ืจื”; โ€ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื ืกื•ืข ื”ืืจื•ืŸโ€œ ืกืคืจ ืœืขืฆืžื• ื‘ืžืกื›ืช ืฉื‘ืช.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืžืฉืœื™ ื˜:ื

The ื‘ื™ืช of ื—ื›ืžื” is Torah. Thatโ€™s fine. But what does it mean to say that there are seven books of the Bible? If you look at ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื”, there are โ€œparenthesesโ€ around two psukim in ืคืจืฉืช ื‘ื”ืขืœื•ืชืš:

ื† ืœื” ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื ืกืข ื”ืืจืŸ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืžืฉื”: ืงื•ืžื” ื”ืณ ื•ื™ืคืฆื• ืื™ื‘ื™ืš ื•ื™ื ืกื• ืžืฉื ืื™ืš ืžืคื ื™ืšืƒ ืœื• ื•ื‘ื ื—ื” ื™ืืžืจ: ืฉื•ื‘ื” ื”ืณ ืจื‘ื‘ื•ืช ืืœืคื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœืƒ ื†

ื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืคืจืง ื™

The gemara says that those parentheses mark a separate book, so what we call ืกืคืจ ื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ is really three separate ืกืคืจื™ื, one before ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื ืกื•ืข ื”ืืจื•ืŸ, one after, and the two-pasuk โ€œbookโ€ of ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื ืกื•ืข ื”ืืจื•ืŸ itself.

ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื ืกื•ืข ื”ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืžืฉื”: ืคืจืฉื” ื–ื• ืขืฉื” ืœื” ื”ืงื‘ืดื” ืกื™ืžื ื™ื•ืช ืžืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืžืงื•ืžื”. ืจืณ ืื•ืžืจ: ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื ื”ื•ื ื–ื”, ืืœื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืกืคืจ ื—ืฉื•ื‘ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžื•.

ืฉื‘ืช ืงื˜ื•,ื‘-ืงื˜ื–,ื

One could suggest that these two psukim serve as more than just a buffer. Albeit their brevity, they do describe the ideal fashion in which Bnei Yisrael should have traveled on their journey to inherit the Landโ€ฆ

To emphasize what โ€œcould have beenโ€ in contrast to what actually took place, the Torah intentionally delimits these two psukim with upside down nunโ€™s.

If so, then the โ€œthree booksโ€ of Sefer Bamidbar would be:

BOOK ONE: Bnei Yisraelโ€™s preparation for their journey (1-10) This โ€˜bookโ€™ is followed by two โ€œversionsโ€ of that journey:

BOOK TWO: the ideal (two psukim)โ€”what โ€œcould have beenโ€

BOOK THREE: the actual journey that โ€œfailedโ€ (i.e. chapters 11-36)

To accent the tragedy of book three, the Torah first presents a โ€œglimpseโ€ of what โ€œcould have beenโ€ in book twoโ€”the glorious manner in which Bnei Yisrael could have travelled, had they not sinned.

Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, Parshat Bhaโ€™alotcha

Looking at Torah as seven books symbolizes the idea that Torah is the blueprint of creation, not just of what is, but of what might have been and what might yet be.

ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื—ื›ื? ื”ืจื•ืื” ืืช ื”ื ื•ืœื“.

ืชืžื™ื“ ืœื‘,ื

ื—ื›ืžื” is not just knowing things; itโ€™s being able to anticipate how things might be.

Other commentators connect the seven branches of the menorah to these seven pillars of wisdom. They symbolize seven โ€œbranchesโ€ of study, all of which are part of ื—ื›ืžื”:

What is so special about the lighting the Menorah? My Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik addresses this issue. The Meiri and other Rishonim say that the Menorahโ€™s seven lights represent the seven wisdoms. The Rishonim classify them as follows:

  1. Tevunah, the ability to understand and draw conclusions
  2. The knowledge of natureโ€”in subjects like chemistry and physics
  3. The knowledge of the soulโ€”or as Rav Aharon puts it, the study of psychology
  4. The knowledge of biology
  5. Music
  6. Metaphysicsโ€ฆ(philosophy)
  7. The knowledge of Torahโ€ฆwhich is the most significant branch.
Harry Myles, The Seven Branches of Wisdom

And thinking of ืขืžื•ื“ื™ื” ืฉื‘ืขื” as the menorah emphasizes that (ื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื—:ื‘)โ€Ž ืึถืœ ืžื•ึผืœ ืคึฐึผื ึตื™ ื”ึทืžึฐึผื ื•ึนืจึธื” ื™ึธืึดื™ืจื•ึผ ืฉึดืื‘ึฐืขึทืช ื”ึทื ึตึผืจื•ึนืช.

The Sages wrote that the Menorah represents wisdom and enlightenmentโ€ฆ

[E]ach branch of the Menorah is a metaphor for a specific category of intellectual pursuits. G-d prepared a path for each individual to attain wisdom according to his own character and interests.

However, we should be careful not to follow our natural intellectual inclinations exclusively. The Torah stresses that โ€œwhen you light the lampsโ€โ€”when we work towards that individual enlightenment that suits our particular character โ€” we should take care that this wisdom will โ€œshine towards the center of the Menorah.โ€ What is the center of the Menorah? This is the wisdom of the Torah itself. We need to draw specifically from the light of Torah, whose source is the underlying unity of all wisdom.

In truth, the seven branches of the Menorah are not truly distinct, separate paths. All seven receive light from the unified wisdom with which G-d enlightens His world. For this reason, the Menorah was fashioned from a single piece of gold, mikshah zahav. The special manner in which the Menorah was formed reveals the underlying unity of all forms of wisdom.

Rav Kook Torah, ๏ปฟBehaโ€™alotecha: The Seven Lamps of the Menorah, from Gold from the Land of Israel, pp. 239-240

And that fits with the central metaphor of this part of ืกืคืจ ืžืฉืœื™. You need to learn all aspects of wisdom, science and the arts, all seven branches/pillars. But it needs to stay centered, in the ื‘ื™ืช of Torah.


ื—ื›ืžื” invites us into her home:

ื‘ ื˜ื‘ื—ื” ื˜ื‘ื—ื” ืžืกื›ื” ื™ื™ื ื”; ืืฃ ืขืจื›ื” ืฉืœื—ื ื”ืƒ
ื’ ืฉืœื—ื” ื ืขืจืชื™ื” ืชืงืจื ืขืœ ื’ืคื™ ืžืจืžื™ ืงืจืชืƒ
ื“ ืžื™ ืคืชื™ ื™ืกืจ ื”ื ื”; ื—ืกืจ ืœื‘ ืืžืจื” ืœื•ืƒ
ื” ืœื›ื• ืœื—ืžื• ื‘ืœื—ืžื™; ื•ืฉืชื• ื‘ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืกื›ืชื™ืƒ
ื• ืขื–ื‘ื• ืคืชืื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื•; ื•ืืฉืจื• ื‘ื“ืจืš ื‘ื™ื ื”ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื˜

She serves not only ืœื—ื, the nutritious basis of any diet, but also ื™ื™ืŸ, the enjoyable drink. Thatโ€™s a metaphor for learning; as we said last time, you have to enjoy what you learn in order to have ื“ืขืช, an intimate, personal connection. Torah is compared to wine because it brings joy.

ื”ื•ื™ ื›ืœ ืฆืžื ืœื›ื• ืœืžื™ื ื•ืืฉืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื›ืกืฃ; ืœื›ื• ืฉื‘ืจื• ื•ืื›ืœื• ื•ืœื›ื• ืฉื‘ืจื• ื‘ืœื•ื ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื‘ืœื•ื ืžื—ื™ืจ ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืœื‘ืƒ

ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• ื ื”:ื

ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืžื— ืœื‘ื‘ ืื ื•ืฉ ืœื”ืฆื”ื™ืœ ืคื ื™ื ืžืฉืžืŸ; ื•ืœื—ื ืœื‘ื‘ ืื ื•ืฉ ื™ืกืขื“ืƒ

ืชื”ื™ืœื™ื ืงื“:ื˜ื•

As ืคืจืง ื— said,

ืœ ื•ืื”ื™ื” ืืฆืœื• ืืžื•ืŸ; ื•ืื”ื™ื” ืฉืขืฉื•ืขื™ื ื™ื•ื ื™ื•ื; ืžืฉื—ืงืช ืœืคื ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœ ืขืชืƒ ืœื ืžืฉื—ืงืช ื‘ืชื‘ืœ ืืจืฆื•; ื•ืฉืขืฉืขื™ ืืช ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ืืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื—

This image, of the feast prepared for us, ืขืจื›ื” ืฉืœื—ื ื”, is the source of the title of the ืฉื•ืœื—ืŸ ืขืจื•ืš.

[ืืœื” ื”ืžืฉืคื˜ื™ื] ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื”ื: ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืงื‘ืดื” ืœืžืฉื”: ืœื ืชืขืœื” ืขืœ ื“ืขืชืš ืœื•ืžืจ, ืืฉื ื” ืœื”ื ื”ืคืจืง ื•ื”ื”ืœื›ื” ื‘ืณ ืื• ื’ืณ ืคืขืžื™ื, ืขื“ ืฉืชื”ื ืกื“ื•ืจื” ื‘ืคื™ื”ื ื›ืžืฉื ืชื”, ื•ืื™ื ื™ ืžื˜ืจื™ื— ืขืฆืžื™ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื ื˜ืขืžื™ ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืคืจื•ืฉื•. ืœื›ืš ื ืืžืจ โ€ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื”ืโ€œ: ื›ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื”ืขืจื•ืš ื•ืžื•ื›ืŸ ืœืื›ืœ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืื“ื.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืฉืžื•ืช ื›ื:ื

And the contrast is with the ืืฉื” ื–ืจื”, who offers a feast but turns to a more prurient appeal:

ื™ื“ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืขืœื™; ื”ื™ื•ื ืฉืœืžืชื™ ื ื“ืจื™ืƒ ื˜ื• ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ื™ืฆืืชื™ ืœืงืจืืชืš; ืœืฉื—ืจ ืคื ื™ืš ื•ืืžืฆืืšืƒ ื˜ื– ืžืจื‘ื“ื™ื ืจื‘ื“ืชื™ ืขืจืฉื™; ื—ื˜ื‘ื•ืช ืื˜ื•ืŸ ืžืฆืจื™ืืƒ ื™ื– ื ืคืชื™ ืžืฉื›ื‘ื™ ืžืจ ืื”ืœื™ื ื•ืงื ืžื•ืŸืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื–

And then ื—ื›ืžื” offers some practical advice:

ื– ื™ืกืจ ืœืฅ ืœืงื— ืœื• ืงืœื•ืŸ; ื•ืžื•ื›ื™ื— ืœืจืฉืข ืžื•ืžื•ืƒ
ื— ืืœ ืชื•ื›ื— ืœืฅ ืคืŸ ื™ืฉื ืืš; ื”ื•ื›ื— ืœื—ื›ื ื•ื™ืื”ื‘ืšืƒ
ื˜ ืชืŸ ืœื—ื›ื ื•ื™ื—ื›ื ืขื•ื“; ื”ื•ื“ืข ืœืฆื“ื™ืง ื•ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœืงื—ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื˜

Mishleiโ€™s mussar message number ten: Learn to read the room.

I think this reflects a problem with having ื—ื›ืžื”โ€”knowing the right, the ethical thing to doโ€”is that you want to make everyone else right as well. There is a ืžืฆื•ื•ื” of ื”ื•ื›ื—ื”, rebuking. It is part of ืื”ื‘ืช ืœืจืขืš ื›ืžื•ืš.

ื™ื– ืœื ืชืฉื ื ืืช ืื—ื™ืš ื‘ืœื‘ื‘ืš; ื”ื•ื›ื— ืชื•ื›ื™ื— ืืช ืขืžื™ืชืš ื•ืœื ืชืฉื ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื˜ืืƒ ื™ื— ืœื ืชืงื ื•ืœื ืชื˜ืจ ืืช ื‘ื ื™ ืขืžืš ื•ืื”ื‘ืช ืœืจืขืš ื›ืžื•ืš; ืื ื™ ื”ืณืƒ

ื•ื™ืงืจื ืคืจืง ื™ื˜

ื”ื•ื [ืจืณ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ] ื”ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ: ื™ืฉ ืœืš ื—ื‘ื™ืจื™ื, ืžืงืฆืชืŸ ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืš ื•ืžืงืฆืชืŸ ืžืฉื‘ื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืš. ืื”ื•ื‘ ืืช ื”ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ืš ื•ืฉื ื ืืช ื”ืžืฉื‘ื—ืš, ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžื•ื›ื™ื—ืš ืžื‘ื™ืืš ืœื—ื™ื™ ื”ืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื ื•ื”ืžืฉื‘ื—ืš ืžื•ืฆื™ืืš ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื.

ืื‘ื•ืช ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื›ื˜:ื

But there is a limit: you have to know how to rebuke, and when to rebuke:

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื•ืื” ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืžื’ื•ื ื” ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื•ื›ื™ื—ื•? ืฉื ืืžืจ: ื”ื•ึนื›ึตื—ึท ืชึผื•ึนื›ึดื™ื—ึท. ื”ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ื•ืœื ืงื‘ืœ, ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื•ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื ื•? ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ: ืชึผื•ึนื›ึดื™ื—ึท, ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื. ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืฉืชื ื™ื ืคื ื™ื•? ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ: ืœึนื ืชึดืฉึผื‚ึธื ืขึธืœึธื™ื• ื—ึตื˜ึฐื.

ืชื ื™ื, ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ: ืชืžื™ื”ื ื™ ืื ื™ ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื“ื•ืจ ื”ื–ื” ืฉืžืงื‘ืœ ืชื•ื›ื—ื”, ืืคื™ืœื• ืืžืจ ืœื• โ€ื˜ื•ืœ ืงื™ืกื ืžื‘ื™ืŸ ืขื™ื ื™ืšโ€œ, ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• โ€ื˜ื•ืœ ืงื•ืจื” ืžื‘ื™ืŸ ืขื™ื ื™ืšโ€œ.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื”: ืชืžื™ื”ื ื™ ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื“ื•ืจ ื”ื–ื” ืฉื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื”ื•ื›ื™ื—โ€ฆ

โ€ฆืขื“ ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืชื•ื›ื—ื”? ืจื‘ ืืžืจ: ืขื“ ื”ื›ืื”, ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ: ืขื“ ืงืœืœื”, ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ: ืขื“ ื ื–ื™ืคื”. ื›ืชื ืื™: ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ: ืขื“ ื”ื›ืื”, ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ: ืขื“ ืงืœืœื”, ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ: ืขื“ ื ื–ื™ืคื”.

ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ื˜ื–,ื‘

Itโ€™s too easy for the ืžืฆื•ื•ื” of ื”ื•ื›ื—ื” to become a weapon, to become the ืขื‘ื™ืจื” of ืœื ืชืฉื ื ืืช ืื—ื™ืš ื‘ืœื‘ื‘ืš.

Call-Out Culture is when someone says or does something problematic, and subsequently faces criticism from people who disagree, or who want to correct them.

Gavin Inglis, Call-Out Culture vs. Cancel Culture: Know the Difference

However, somewhere along the line, call outs started shifting in purpose. Where, once, they were used as tools against abuse, people began building a name for themselves through call outs. The personal connection was lost and it became a social performanceโ€ฆ

Call outs have morphed into a tool for maintaining a social order.

Katelyn Burns, How Call Out Culture Snowballed & Why Itโ€™s Here To Stay

And now we come to the end of book one of ืกืคืจ ืžืฉืœื™. The next perek starts with (ืžืฉืœื™ ื™:ื)โ€Ž ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื” again; itโ€™s a new book. Shlomo concludes with an inclusio:

ื™ ืชื—ืœืช ื—ื›ืžื” ื™ืจืืช ื”ืณ; ื•ื“ืขืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื”ืƒ
ื™ื ื›ื™ ื‘ื™ ื™ืจื‘ื• ื™ืžื™ืš; ื•ื™ื•ืกื™ืคื• ืœืš ืฉื ื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ืืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื˜

ื ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื” ื‘ืŸ ื“ื•ื“ ืžืœืš ื™ืฉืจืืœืƒ ื‘ ืœื“ืขืช ื—ื›ืžื” ื•ืžื•ืกืจ; ืœื”ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื™ื ื”ืƒโ€ฆ ื– ื™ืจืืช ื”ืณ ืจืืฉื™ืช ื“ืขืช; ื—ื›ืžื” ื•ืžื•ืกืจ ืื•ื™ืœื™ื ื‘ื–ื•ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื

We are social primates; we have to interact with others in order to survive. That is why ethics results in ื™ืจื‘ื• ื™ืžื™ืš and ื™ื•ืกื™ืคื• ืœืš ืฉื ื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื. It teaches us how to act in society.

There are many systems of ethics, but ืžืฉืœื™'s message is that if we, as finite human beings, try to create our own, they will inevitably fail. We need to go back to the infinite wisdom and the source of all reality, ื™ืจืืช ื”ืณ, as the basis for our ethics.

And then Shlomo adds an important point: your decisions are your responsibility. You have free will and therefore responsibility:

ืื ื—ื›ืžืช ื—ื›ืžืช ืœืš; ื•ืœืฆืช ืœื‘ื“ืš ืชืฉืืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื˜:ื™ื‘

To summarize:

In this section, wisdom and folly are presented symbolically as two women who generously proffer their wares. Both of them address the simple folk, who must choose between them.

Steinsaltz Introductions to Tanakh, Proverbs, Section Preface 9

And Shlomo ends with a slightly changed metaphor. Before the ืืฉื” ื–ืจื” was clever and alluring; here Shlomo concludes that she is as foolish as those she is trying to entice.

ื™ื’ ืืฉืช ื›ืกื™ืœื•ืช ื”ืžื™ื”; ืคืชื™ื•ืช ื•ื‘ืœ ื™ื“ืขื” ืžื”ืƒ
ื™ื“ ื•ื™ืฉื‘ื” ืœืคืชื— ื‘ื™ืชื” ืขืœ ื›ืกื ืžืจืžื™ ืงืจืชืƒ
ื˜ื• ืœืงืจื ืœืขื‘ืจื™ ื“ืจืš; ื”ืžื™ืฉืจื™ื ืืจื—ื•ืชืืƒ
ื˜ื– ืžื™ ืคืชื™ ื™ืกืจ ื”ื ื”; ื•ื—ืกืจ ืœื‘ ื•ืืžืจื” ืœื•ืƒ
ื™ื– ืžื™ื ื’ื ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™ืžืชืงื•; ื•ืœื—ื ืกืชืจื™ื ื™ื ืขืืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื˜

Note that her appeal is the same as the ื—ื›ืžื”:โ€Ž ืžื™ ืคืชื™ ื™ืกืจ ื”ื ื”; ื•ื—ืกืจ ืœื‘ ื•ืืžืจื” ืœื•. But her ethical advice is antithetical to ethics: complete nihilism. ืžื™ื ื’ื ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™ืžืชืงื• means that the only rule is to violate the rules.

But that only leads to the destruction of society. Such nihilists are ืจืคืื™ื, ghosts.

ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื›ื™ ืจืคืื™ื ืฉื; ื‘ืขืžืงื™ ืฉืื•ืœ ืงืจืื™ื”ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ื˜:ื™ื—

The book of Proverbs tells us โ€œStolen waters are sweetโ€ (Proverbs 9:17). This corresponds to the special sense of achievement that we sometimes feel when weโ€™ve gotten away with something. But this same book of Scriptures tells us โ€œOne who hates gifts will liveโ€ [ื•ึฐืฉื‚ื•ึนื ึตื ืžึทืชึผึธื ึนืช ื™ึดื—ึฐื™ึถื”] (Proverbs 15:27). Life and vitality are our portion when we desire only those gifts which we deserve and which God sends us in a proper fashion.

Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir, Do I Deserve a Discount?