Where the previous book had an overarching theme and image: a parent lecturing their son to learn ืืืื, in the sense of ethics, from the Torah and through ืืจืืช ืืณ, this one is a collection of individual apothegms, with a common structure. Each ืืฉื has two phrases (called hemistiches) each with two clauses. Steinsalzโs ืฉืืื ื ืืืื ืืืจืืืืช ืืฉืชื ืฆืืขืืช is because each clause is a noun phrase, usually with with two words. For example:
And we will analyze those two aspects,
taking them one at a time. Each hemistich of the form โThis is Thatโ or โThis is more than Thatโ. The classic example is from Peanuts:
What makes it a ืืฉื in the sense of an educational apothegm is that we understand one of the clauses and it teaches us about the other. We know what a warm puppy is, and Schultz is telling us that such things are the essence of happiness.
โHappiness is a warm puppyโ is, essentially, a way of saying โHappiness is simple.โ That, we think, is so, so true. Happiness and satisfaction isnโt something that you climb up to by acquiring more things and more status and, well, just more. Satisfaction is a moment that you experience with whatever your โwarm puppyโ is. Maybe, for you, itโs actually a warm puppy. Perhaps itโs a moment of quiet on a backyard swing. Watching your family eat dinner. The smell of cookies that you just baked. The feeling at the end of a long run.
Similarly, ืื ืืื ืืฉืื ืื means โa parentโs happiness lies in having a wise childโ ,with โwiseโ in the sense that ืืฉืื has used it: phronesis, knowing right behavior from wrong. But itโs not so simple, because the Hebrew of ืกืคืจ ืืฉืื is paratactic.
parataxis
The placing of clauses or phrases one after another without coordinating or subordinating connectives.
So we donโt know which clause is teaching us about the other. ืื ืืื ืืฉืื ืื might also mean โA wise child is one who makes their parents happyโ, teaching us about what it means to be a ืื ืืื.
A similar problem is that the language is so terse. A possible parallel to ืื ืืื ืืฉืื ืื might be Shakespeareโs
How sharper than a serpentโs tooth it is
To have a thankless child.
Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 1 scene 4
But in the language of ืืฉืื, that might be (I totally made this line up, but the alliteration and terseness seem appropriate):
ืฉื ืฉืคืืคืื ื ืขืจ ื ืื
Lacking rhyme, metre, and any overt device such as comparison, these lines are what we should normally call poetry only by virtue of their compactness; two statements are made as if they are connected, and the reader is forced to consider their relations for himself. The reason why these facts should have been selected for a poem is left for him to invent; he will invent a variety of reasons and order them in his own mind. This, I think, is the essential fact about the poetical use of language.
So ืกืคืจ ืืฉืื is poetic. The meaning is not obvious.
The other aspect of the ืืฉืืื is that there are two hemistiches. That is called โparallelismโ.
In 1753, in the third of his Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Robert Lowth observed โa certain conformation of the sentencesโ which is
chiefly observable in those passages which frequently occur in the Hebrew
poetry in which they treat one subject in many different ways, and dwell
upon the same sentiment; when they express the same thing in different
words, or different things in a similar form of words; when equals refer to
equals, and opposites to opposites: and since this artifice of composition
seldom fails to produce even in prose an agreeable and measured cadence,
we can scarcely doubt that it must have imparted to their poetryโฆ an
exquisite degree of beauty and grace.
The phenomenon which Lowth described hereโฆwas more precisely defined in 1778 in his introduction to Isaiah.
The correspondence of one Verse, or Line, with another, I call Parallelism.
When a proposition is delivered, and a second is subjoined to it, or drawn
under it, equivalent, or contrasted with it, in Sense; or similar to it in the
form of Grammatical Construction; these I call Parallel Lines; and the
words or phrases answering one to another in the corresponding Lines Parallel Terms.
Note that there are two different kinds of parallelism: the lines can be grammatically parallel (โsimilar to it in the form of Grammatical Constructionโ), either directly; in our pasuk, it is subject (with noun-adjective)-predicate (with adjective-noun). The lines can also be chiastic, as in
which has predicate-subject parallel to subject-predicate.
The other kind of parallelism is semantic (โequivalent, or contrasted with it, in Senseโ), and itโs here where things get interesting.
Revelant to all of this is the paratactic style of biblical poetry. The lines are placed one after another with no connective or with the common multivalent conjunction waw; rarely is a subordinate relationship indicated on the surface of the text.
Sometimes the connection is obvious, as in our verse: we are contrasting two kinds of children and their effects on their parents. We could read them (in James Kugelโs term) โsharplyโ, trying to understand why different words are used.
Two contiguous lines which
have the same syntactic structure tend to be viewed as having
some correlation in meaning, and even when there is no obvious semantic
connection
between them, we seek a correlation through our interpretationโฆIn this way one aspect of parallelism affects other
aspects. Equivalence in one aspect is projected onto another aspectโฆThis is one of the ways in which parallelism gains its
power and effectiveness: from partial equivalence it creates the illusion of
total equivalence. Equivalence is transferred from one aspect to another
and from one line to another. In this sense, parallelism is metaphoric.
Itโs up to us to figure out the metaphoric connection between thorns and proverbs.
So letโs look at this, the second book of ืกืคืจ ืืฉืื. It starts with the same metaphor as the first book, a parent lecturing a child. These are short, memorable statements that have the kid rolling their eyes, since Dad says them over and over. But they stick. The goal is to have his voice echoing in your mind ever after.
The theme of this book is also different. It is not fundamentally about ืืื-ืืกืื but ืฆืืืง-ืจืฉืข.
This is a sequence of statements about the rewards of righteousness: ill-gotten wealth does not save; only righteousness will, because ืืณ will support the ืฆืืืง, and then we have an example of ืฆืืงืืช. They are all โsort ofโ parallel; the meanings of each second half doesnโt correspond exactly to the first half, but the message is the same.
ืื ืืจืขืื ืืณ ื ืคืฉ ืฆืืืง is easy enough to understand, but ืืืืช ืจืฉืขืื ืืืืฃ uses very obscure language. ืืืื means โdesireโ, generally for bad things.
So again, the halves are semantically parallel: ืืณ will not allow a ืฆืืืง to starve, but will reject all the ืจืฉืข's desires.
Before we look at the third line, I want to look at the message of the second: possessions will not save you; being a ืฆืืืง will. It is a different message from ืกืคืจ ืงืืืืช:
ืืฉืื is concerned with the problem of ืฆืืืง ืืจืข ืื and tries to solve it. ืงืืืืช recognizes the problem and, at least in ืคืจืง ื, says itโs not a problem because there is no such thing as a real ืฆืืืง.
In the third line, ืจืืฉ ืขืฉื ืืฃ ืจืืื is one of those ambiguous clauses: what is cause and what is effect?
So for Rashi, ืคืกืืง ื is an example of being a ืฆืืืง;โ ืจืืฉ ืขืฉื ืืฃ ืจืืื should be read as predicate-subject: dishonest weights make one poor, but being accurate (ืืจืืฅ) makes one rich. The pasuk is chiastic; ืืฃ ืจืืื corresponds to ืื ืืจืืฆืื.
The message, though is problematic, because ืงืืืืช is right. ืื ืืจืขืื ืืณ ื ืคืฉ ืฆืืืง is simply untrue. We say this in bentching:
How can David claim that he has never seen a ืฆืืืง whose children were beggars? That is clearly not true in our own experience. Hirsch and the Etz Yosef (Enoch Zundel ben Yoseph, 19th century commentator on ืืืจืฉ ืชื ืืืื, ืืืฆื, ื) both translate ืืืจืขื ืืืงืฉ ืืื as โ[even] when his children are begging.โ The ืฆืืืง does not feel himself abandoned when he has to depend on others; he is aware that ืืณ provides but does so in various ways. Just as he gives graciously, he accepts graciously.
This
illustrates a difference between ืชืืืืื and ืืฉืื: in ืืฉืื, I think Shlomo means ืื ืืจืขืื ืืณ ื ืคืฉ ืฆืืืง literally. A ืฆืืืง will not starve. ืชืืืืื says ืื ืื ืืืืื: things will get better. ืืฉืื says ืฆืืืง ืืจืข ืื means that the ืฆืืืง must have sinned; if you are suffering, you deserve it. Use the opportunity of suffering to learn to be better. It is in fact consistent with the ืงืืืืช message.
There (in A Bugโs Life), we took this as a lesson about doing the work in interpersonal relationships; here I think is it more literal: Shlomo is offering us
two sets of advice: be a ืฆืืืง and you wonโt starve, work hard and you wonโt starve. We need ืืืื ื and ืืฉืชืืืืช.
And we could even argue that ืืฉืื and ืชืืืืื agree about the wealth of the ืฆืืืง; to be a ืฆืืืง means
understanding the purpose of wealth.
ืืขืงื can say ืืฉ ืื ืื: I have everything I need, because by definition, if I am doing the things I need to do, then ืืณ gives me what I need. ืขืฉื sees wealth as something he wants for its own sake; he may have a lot or a little (in this case he has a lot, but the lesson is that the concept of comparing those numbers doesnโt make sense).
A person is never jealous of someone elseโs prescription glasses. Clearly it is the other fellowโs prescription. They will not work for the other person. So too, in the essence of it, when we are jealous of someone else, it is because we are not happy with whom we are.
But ืชืืืืื and ืืฉืื end in the same place: ืืืจืืช ืืืืฉ ืฉืืื and ืืืจ ืฆืืืง ืืืจืื. Both approaches to ืฆืืืง ืืจืข ืื emphasize that in the long run, the ืฆืืืง will be successful.
And the final reward of the ืฆืืืง is their ืืืจ, how they are remembered.
David Brooks, in an editorial titled โThe Moral Bucket List,โ developed the concept that there are โtwo sets of virtues, the rรฉsumรฉ virtues and the eulogy virtues. The rรฉsumรฉ virtues are the skills you bring to the marketplace. The eulogy virtues are the ones that are talked about at your funeral.โ
Both types of virtues are important and worth pursuing and honing, but only eulogy virtues have any lasting value and legacy. Developing rรฉsumรฉ virtues is fairly straightforward. You read more books, you practice, you develop skills & you get more education. But the development of eulogy virtues is not as clear-cut. It involves a lifetime of making good decisions and prioritizing things of lasting value.
Both the ืืื and the ืืืื do things, but only the ืืฆืืืช have any lasting import. ืืฆืืืช in ืกืคืจ ืืฉืื refer to what we call ืืฉืคืืื.
In all these cases, at the level of ืคืฉื, the ones who have or are called out for lacking ืืจืืช ืืืงืื are non-Jews. This ืืจืืช ืืืงืื is what we would call โbasic decencyโ, what we have been calling ืืจื ืืจืฅ. Shlomo is
talking to Jews, using the โpersonalโ name of ืืืื, not ืืืงืื, but the ืืฆืืช are the universal ones. Shlomo is saying here that you still need a sense of โcommandednessโ and of an absolute source of moral authority; donโt rely on your own ethical reasoning to determine the ืืฉืคืืื.
[One could] argue that morality without religion is simply inconceivable, a position succinctly summarized by Ivan Karamazov (in Dostoyevskyโs novel): โWithout G-d, everything is lawful.โ This claim is made on a philosophical plane.
Others, however, argue from a practical standpoint: even if, conceptually, goodness can exist independently of a religious outlook, on a practical level a person or a society can arrive at morality only through religion.
This is
an example of how hard it is to understand the parallelism. ืืืื ืืชื clearly goes with ืืืขืงืฉ ืืจืืื, but what does ืืื ืืื have to do with ืืืืข? Independently, saying โone whose path is crooked will be discoveredโ makes sense: the evildoer will not be able to hide his plans. But it doesnโt go with โwalk securelyโ.
So Rashi goes with a more obscure meaing of ืืืข that fits better:
This is about winking and chattering, not integrity. And the parallelism is different from the rest of this section: the hemistiches are not antithetical but equivalent.
So I would read this as going back to the central metaphor: Dad is lecturing again. And the child is rolling their eyes ๐. So the text interrupts to remind them (and us, the reader), that if they donโt listen they will regret it.
Shlomo now has a series of apparently independent apothegms. The first repeats a phrase from before: ืืจืืืช ืืจืืฉ ืฆืืืง; ืืคื ืจืฉืขืื ืืืกื ืืืก.
But here the parallelism tells us that the meaning is different. The earlier pasuk told us about how the ืฆืืืง is rewarded with ืืจืืืช and the ืจืฉืข will suffer ืืืก. Here, the pasuk describes the difference between the words of the ืฆืืืง and ืจืฉืข: the mouth of the ืฆืืืง brings life, while the mouth of the ืจืฉืข (while it may seem positive) conceals violence.
โHatred incites strifeโ is not a tautology; it is a statement about how we interpret the world around us.
The idea isโyouโre in [a] terrible relationship. Your partner has given you ample reason to hate them. But now you donโt just hate them when they abuse you. Now even something as seemingly innocent as seeing them eating crackers makes you actively angry. In theory, an interaction with your partner where they just eat crackers and donโt bother you in any way ought to produce some habituation, be a tiny piece of evidence that theyโre not always that bad. In reality, it will just make you hate them worse. At this point, your prior on them being bad is so high that every single interaction, regardless of how it goes, will make you hate them more. Your prior that theyโre bad has become trapped. And it colors every aspect of your interaction with them, so that even interactions which out-of-context are perfectly innocuous feel nightmarish from the insideโฆ
For some reason neither Ozy nor I ever wondered about the opposite phenomenon. Is it possible to like someone so much that the positive emotion builds on itself, grows stronger and stronger with every interaction, until itโs one of those blue supergiant stars in the galactic core?
Just to ask the question is to answer it: Iโve seen lots of couples in this position. Not all, maybe not even most. But some family members. Some friends. And after two years of dating my now-wife, I can viscerally sense the possibility. Like a slope Iโm just beginning to roll down, gathering speed as I go.
ืคืกืืง ืื is
another example where the parallelism is hard to find; we would have understood ืืฉืคืชื ื ืืื ืชืืฆื ืืืื to mean that you can learn wisdom from smart people, but that doesnโt go with the rod on the back of the foolish. So Rashi explains that the ืืืื here refers to the smart one admitting when they are wrong.
So there is an elision in the pasuk: โIn the lips of the smart you can find wisdom, and in the caning of the foolish [you can also find wisdom]โ. And the next verse extends that: learn from the words of the wise to admit fault, not from the foolish who deny it.
And then Shlomo concludes this section with a summary that goes back to the beginning, about wealth and poverty and knowing how to appreciate both.
Wealth is real, and, while money canโt buy happiness, poverty is miserable. So Dad is telling his kid: work hard, be honest, and you will do well in life.
