There is a lot of repetition in ืกืคืจ ืืฉืื, as Shlomo returns to the same themes over and over. For something like Mussar, repetition is not a bad thing; we call that reinforcement. Itโs the only way to learn and retain anything. But generally thereโs a new twist each time.
ื ื ืฆืจ ืื ื ืืฆืืช ืืืื; ืืื ืชืืฉ ืชืืจืช ืืืื
ืื ืงืฉืจื ืขื ืืื ืชืืื; ืขื ืื ืขื ืืจืืจืชืื
ืื ืืืชืืืื ืชื ืื ืืชื ืืฉืืื ืชืฉืืจ ืขืืื;
ืืืงืืฆืืช ืืื ืชืฉืืืื
ืื ืื ื ืจ ืืฆืื ืืชืืจื ืืืจ; ืืืจื ืืืื ืชืืืืืช ืืืกืจื
This image of keeping the Torah and wearing it as jewelry has come up many times before (and it echoes the mitzvah of tefillin) but here the text adds the three-part ืืืชืืืืโฆืืฉืืืโฆืืืงืืฆืืช. At one level, this continues the tefillin idea and says that you will be protected as a reward for learning Torah as commanded in ืฉืืข:
ื ืืืืืช ืืช ืืณ ืืืงืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืื ื ืคืฉื ืืืื ืืืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืจืื ืืืื ืืฉืจ ืื ืื ืืฆืื ืืืื ืขื ืืืืื ื ืืฉื ื ืชื ืืื ืื ืืืืจืช ืื ืืฉืืชื ืืืืชื ืืืืืชื ืืืจื ืืืฉืืื ืืืงืืืื
But there is another way to interpret this, as a hint to life after death.
ืึผึฐืึดืชึฐืึทืึผึถืึฐืึธโ ืชึผึทื ึฐืึถื ืึนืชึธืึฐโืืขืืื ืืื, ืึผึฐืฉืืืึฐืึผึฐืึธ ืชึผึดืฉืึฐืึนืจ ืขึธืึถืืึธโืืฉืขืช ืืืชื, ืึทืึฒืงึดืืฆืึนืชึธ ืึดืื ืชึฐืฉืึดืืึถืึธโืืขืืื ืืื.
Which brings up the interesting question of whether there is an explicit idea of ืขืืื ืืืโlife after death, the immortality of the soulโin ืชื ืดื. Even if we read it here as a metaphor (this is ืกืคืจ ืืฉืื, after all), it still needs to be legible to readers of the text. Many academics say that there was no concept of life after death in the time of ืชื ืดื; that it was a later, foreign, concept that was adopted by the Rabbis. I disagree; itโs explicit in Daniel:
ืืจืืื ืืืฉื ื ืืืืช ืขืคืจ ืืงืืฆื; ืืื ืืืื ืขืืื ืืืื ืืืจืคืืช ืืืจืืื ืขืืืื
Yeshaya seems to describe it, though that may be metaphoric:
ืืืื ืืชืื ื ืืืชื ืืงืืืื; ืืงืืฆื ืืจื ื ื ืฉืื ื ืขืคืจ ืื ืื ืืืจืช ืืื ืืืจืฅ ืจืคืืื ืชืคืืื
The argument against the immortality of the soul is made by Shlomo himself in the beginning of ืงืืืืช:
ืื ืื ืืงืจื ืื ื ืืืื ืืืงืจื ืืืืื ืืืงืจื ืืื ืืื ืืืืช ืื ืื ืืืช ืื ืืจืื ืืื ืืื; ืืืืชืจ ืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืงืื ืืื; ืืื ืืื ืื ืืขืคืจ ืืืื ืฉื ืื ืืขืคืจื ืื ืื ืืืืข ืจืื ืื ื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืืขืื; ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืืจืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืืจืฅื ืื ืืจืืืชื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืฉืจ ืืฉืื ืืืื ืืืขืฉืื ืื ืืื ืืืงื; ืื ืื ืืืืื ื ืืจืืืช ืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืจืืื
But if he is arguing against it, the concept clearly existed; ืงืืืืช is all about proposing heretical ideas and rejecting them. In the end he concludes that in fact the soul will return to its creator.
ืืืฉื ืืขืคืจ ืขื ืืืจืฅ ืืฉืืื; ืืืจืื ืชืฉืื ืื ืืืืงืื ืืฉืจ ื ืชื ืื
ืืฉืื, however, doesnโt deal with these kind of metaphysical ideas, so I would read this pasuk as ืคืฉื; the Torah is our guide in all our activities of daily life. ืื ื ืจ ืืฆืื ืืชืืจื ืืืจ:
ืืฉื ืืืื ืฉืืื ืืืื ืืืืฉืื ืืืื ืืืคืืื, ืืืชืืืจื ืื ืืงืืฆืื ืืื ืืคืืชืื ืืื ืืืจืงื ืื, ืืืืื ืจืขื ืืื ืืืกืืื, ืืืื ื ืืืืข ืืืืื ืืจื ืืืื. ื ืืืื ื ืื ืืืืงื ืฉื ืืืจโื ืืฆื ืื ืืงืืฆืื ืืื ืืคืืชืื ืืื ืืืจืงื ืื, ืืขืืืื ืืชืืืจื ืืืื ืจืขื ืืื ืืืืกืืื, ืืืื ื ืืืืข ืืืืื ืืจื ืืืื. ืืืื ืฉืขืื ืขืืื ืืฉืืจโื ืืฆื ืืืื ืจืขื ืืื ืืืืกืืื, ืืขืืืื ืืื ื ืืืืข ืืืืื ืืจื ืืืื. ืืืืข ืืคืจืฉืช ืืจืืืโื ืืฆื ืืืืื.
Each individual ืืฆืืื is a candle, a little bit of spiritual illumination. Torah as a whole is a much brighter, longer-lasting light.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืืกืฃ: ืืฆืื, ืืขืืื ื ืืขืกืืง ืืโืืื ื ืืืฆืื, ืืขืืื ื ืืื ืขืกืืง ืืโืืืื ื ืืื ื, ืืฆืืื ืื ืืฆืื. ืชืืจื, ืืื ืืขืืื ื ืืขืกืืง ืื ืืืื ืืขืืื ื ืืื ืขืกืืง ืืโืืื ื ืืืฆืื.
But all the light in the world doesnโt help if you donโt know where you are going. So Shlomo concludes that ืืืกืจ is the ืืจื ืืืื.
And then Shlomo returns to the central metaphor of Mishlei: ืืืืช ืืชืืจื as a woman, and ืขืืืื ืืจื and ืืืื ืืจื as a foreign woman. They say you should write what you know, and Shlomo certainly knew his ืืืื and his women.
ืื ืืฉืืจื ืืืฉืช ืจืข; ืืืืงืช ืืฉืื ื ืืจืืื
ืื ืื ืชืืื ืืคืื ืืืืื; ืืื ืชืงืื ืืขืคืขืคืืื
ืื ืื ืืขื ืืฉื ืืื ื ืขื ืืืจ ืืื;
ืืืฉืช ืืืฉ ื ืคืฉ ืืงืจื ืชืฆืืื
ืื ืืขื ืืฉื ืืื ื ืขื ืืืจ ืืื:โฆืืืืืจ ืฉืื ืืืื ืืืืข ืืคืืื ืืืื ืืืช ืฉืืื ืืื ืืชืืจื. ืืืืดืฉ ืืืืจื (ืฉืืช ืงืื,ื) ืขืชืืื ืืฉื ืฉืชืงื ืืืจ ืฉื ืชืจืืื ืืชืื ืืืืืดื ืืชืฉืื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืื ืืืื ืืืืขืื.
Adultery leads to bad consequences.
ืื ืืืืชื ืืืฉ ืืฉ ืืืืงื; ืืืืืื ืื ืชืฉืจืคื ืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืืฉ ืขื ืืืืืื; ืืจืืืื ืื ืชืืืื ืื ืื ืื ืืื ืื ืืฉืช ืจืขืื; ืื ืื ืงื ืื ืื ึผึนืึตืขึท ืืื
ืืฉืืจื ืืืฉืช ืจืข: ืืชืืจื ืชืฉืืจื ืืืฉื ืฉื ืื ืื ืจืข. ืืขื ืืจืื ืื ืืืจ ืฉืืื โืืฉื ืจืขืโ ืืื ืื ืื ืขืืืืช ืืืืืื, ืฉืืื ืฉืงืืื ืื ืื ืืื. ืฉืื ืชืืืจ ืืฉื ืืื ื ืืืฉ ืืื ืื ืฉืืจื ืืฉืืื ืฉื ืชืืจื ืฉืฉืืืจืช ืื ืืืื ื ืืืื; ืืื ืขืดื ืื ืขืืืืช ืืืืืื ืฉืืื ืืืืจื ืื ืื ืืื.
Now, we have seen this metaphor before many times.
ืื ืืืฆืืื ืืืฉื ืืจื; ืื ืืจืื ืืืจืื ืืืืืงืืโฆ ืื ืื ืฉืึธืึธื ืื ืืืช ืืืชื; ืืื ืจืคืืื ืืขืืืชืืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื; ืืื ืืฉืืื ืืจืืืช ืืืืื
And the corresponding metaphor of Torah, the true ืืืื, as your true love
ืื ืืื ืืงืืจื ืืจืื; ืืฉืื ืืืฉืช ื ืขืืจืื ืื ืืืืช ืืืืื ืืืขืืช ืื; ืืืื ืืจืื ืืื ืขืช; ืืืืืชื ืชืฉืื ืชืืืื
So why does Rashi emphasize this now? I think because there is a change in the metaphor. The ื ืืจืื is no longer a ืืฉื ืืื ื but an ืืฉืช ืืืฉ. If we take the text literally, then adultery, with an ืืฉืช ืืืฉ, is far worse (and more dangerous). But if ืืฉืช ื ืขืืจื represents Torah and the ื ืืจืื represents โforeignโ ืืืื that tries to seduce you intellectually, then who is the husband? It would have to be those foreign nations whose ืืืื we are emulating. But why would it matter that other nations have other values? The metaphor breaks down here; why not leave the ืืฉืช ืืืฉ aspect out? Rashi says, no, the metaphor is still valid. He says the metaphee of the ื ืืจืื is ืขืืืืช ืืืืืื, idol worship, but I donโt think ืืฉืื is talking about specifically religious issues, ืขืืืื, as much as ethics, ืืจื ืืจืฅ. The model is the same; the ื ืืจืื is the ethical systems of other cultures, but those are intimately interconnected with what we call religion. And the Torah allows that other cultures can have their own religious systems.
ื ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึผึฐืึทืึฒืจึดืืช ืึทืึผึธืึดืื ืึดืึฐืึถื ืึทืจ ืึผึตืืช ืืณ ื ึธืืึนื ืึผึฐืจึนืืฉื ืึถืึธืจึดืื ืึฐื ึดืฉึผืึธื ืืึผื ืึดืึผึฐืึธืขืึนืช; ืึฐื ึธืึฒืจืึผ ืขึธืึธืื ืขึทืึผึดืืื
ื ืึฐืึธืึฐืืึผ ืึผืึนืึดื ืจึทืึผึดืื ืึฐืึธืึฐืจืึผ ืึฐืืึผ ืึฐื ึทืขึฒืึถื ืึถื ืึทืจ ืืณ ืึฐืึถื ืึผึตืืช ืึฑึพืึนืึตื ืึทืขึฒืงึนื ืึฐืืึนืจึตื ืึผ ืึดืึผึฐืจึธืึธืื ืึฐื ึตืึฐืึธื ืึผึฐืึนืจึฐืึนืชึธืื; ืึผึดื ืึดืฆึผึดืึผืึนื ืชึผึตืฆึตื ืชืึนืจึธื ืึผืึฐืึทืจ ืืณ ืึดืืจืึผืฉืึธืึธึดืื
ื ืึฐืฉืึธืคึทื ืึผึตืื ืขึทืึผึดืื ืจึทืึผึดืื ืึฐืืึนืึดืืึท ืึฐืืึนืึดื ืขึฒืฆึปืึดืื ืขึทื ืจึธืืึนืง; ืึฐืึดืชึผึฐืชืึผ ืึทืจึฐืึนืชึตืืึถื ืึฐืึดืชึผึดืื ืึทืึฒื ึดืืชึนืชึตืืึถื ืึฐืึทืึฐืึตืจืึนืช ืึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืืึผ ืึผืึนื ืึถื ืึผืึนื ืึถืจึถื ืึฐืึนื ืึดืึฐืึฐืืึผื ืขืึนื ืึดืึฐืึธืึธืื
ื ืึฐืึธืฉืึฐืืึผ ืึดืืฉื ืชึผึทืึทืช ืึผึทืคึฐื ืึน ืึฐืชึทืึทืช ืชึผึฐืึตื ึธืชืึน ืึฐืึตืื ืึทืึฒืจึดืื; ืึผึดื ืคึดื ืืณ ืฆึฐืึธืืึนึพืช ืึผึดืึผึตืจื
ื ืึผึดื ืึผึธื ืึธืขึทืึผึดืื ืึตืึฐืืึผ ืึดืืฉื ืึผึฐืฉืึตื ืึฑืึนืึธืื; ืึทืึฒื ึทืึฐื ืึผ ื ึตืึตืึฐ ืึผึฐืฉืึตื ืืณ ืึฑึพืึนืึตืื ืึผ ืึฐืขืึนืึธื ืึธืขึถืื
In the ืืืจืืช ืืืืื,โ ืึผึธื ืึธืขึทืึผึดืื ืึตืึฐืืึผ ืึดืืฉื ืึผึฐืฉืึตื ืึฑืึนืึธืื! The Torah seems to say the same thing:
ืื ืืคื ืชืฉื ืขืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืจืืืช ืืช ืืฉืืฉ ืืืช ืืืจื ืืืช ืืืืืืื ืื ืฆืื ืืฉืืื ืื ืืืช ืืืฉืชืืืืช ืืื ืืขืืืชื; ืืฉืจ ืืืง ืืณ ืืืงืื ืืชื ืืื ืืขืืื ืชืืช ืื ืืฉืืืื
ื ืืืชืื ืืงื ืืณ ืืืืฆื ืืชืื ืืืืจ ืืืจืื ืืืฆืจืื; ืืืืืช ืื ืืขื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืืื
ืืดื ืืฉืจ ืืืง, ืืืชื ืืื ืืขืืื ืืืืืช ืืจืืชื ืื ืืื ื ืืืฉืฉ ืืื.
How can we say that ืืณโ โืืื ื ืืืฉืฉโ about non-Jews worshiping other gods? Isnโt the prohibition of ืขืืืื ืืจื one of the ืฉืืขื ืืฆืืืช ืื ื ื ื?
ืืคื ืืืง ืืืคืืจืืฉืื ืขื ืืืจืื ื:ืื, โืึถืช ืึท๏ฌฌึถืึถ๏ฌช ืึฐืึถืช ืึท๏ฌนึธืจึตืึทโฆ ืึฒ๏ฌชึถืจ ืึธืึทืง ืืณ ืึฑึพืึนืึถืืึธ ืึนืชึธื ืึฐืึนื ืึธืขึท๏ฌพึดืืโฆโ, ืืืชืจ ืืืืืื ืืขืืื ืืช ืืณ ืโืฉืืชืืฃโ ืืืื ืืืจืื. ืืคื ืืืดื, ืืื ืขื ืืฉ โืฉืจโ, ืืืื ืืืืื ื ืขืืื, ืคืจื ืืขื ืืฉืจืื ืฉืืื ืืคืืฃ ืืฉืืจืืช ืืืณ. ืืคื ืฉืืกืืืจ ืืจืืืดื ืืืืืืช ืขืืืื ืืจื, ืขืืืืช ืืืืืืื ืืืืชื ืืชืืืืชื ืจืฆืื ืืืืืืื ืืืืืง ืืืื ืืืฉืจืชื ืืณ ืืืืืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืขื ืื ืขื. ืืงืืงืื ืืชืืื ืืฉืฉืืื ืืช ืืณ ืืขืืื ืจืง ืืช ืืืืืืื. ืืงืืงืื ืืื ืื ืืจื ืืคืืจืื ืืืืืืืืช ืืื ืืขืืื. ืืขืชืื, ืืขืืื ืืืืจื ืืชืฉืืื ืืืขืืื ืืช ืืณ, ืืืจื ืื ืืขืืื ืืืืงื ืื ืืืืืื, ืืืืงืืื ืื ืขื ืืืฉืื ืืืืช โืืฉื ืืืืืโ ืืคืจืื (ืืืืื ืืืืื ื ืขืืื), ืืื ืื ืื ืโืขื ืืฉืจืืโื ืื ืจืง ืืฉื ืืืงืื ื ืืขืืื ืืขื.
The question is a complex one, but the Rama concludes that the halacha is that it is acceptable for non-Jews to believe in ืฉืืชืืฃ, believing G-d has โpartnersโ in running the universe:
ืืืื: ืืืฉ ืืงืืืื ืืขืฉืืืช ืฉืืชืคืืช ืขื ืืืืชืื ืืืื ืืื, ืืฉืื ืฉืืื ืืืืชืื ืืืื ืืื ื ืฉืืขืื ืืขืืืืช ืืืืืื ืืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืืืืืจืื ืืขืืืื ืืจื ืืื ืืงืื ืืืื ืชื ืืขืืฉื ืฉืืื ืืืจืฅ, ืืื ืฉืืฉืชืคืื ืฉื ืฉืืืโฆืืืจื ืืื ื ืืืืืจืื ืขื ืืฉืืชืืฃ.
Shlomo allows that other ethical systems may be โmarriedโ, have legitimate places in other cultures. But he is warning us that, no matter how attractive those other ethical cultures are, we need to remain true to the Torah. And that is hard, because he has also told us (as we saw in The Widening Gyre) that we should learn from other cultures.
ื ืืืงืฉืื ืืืืื ืืื ื; ืชืื ืืื ืืชืืื ืื
ื ืื ืื ืืืื ื ืชืงืจื; ืืชืืื ื ืชืชื ืงืืืื
ื ืื ืชืืงืฉื ื ืืืกืฃ; ืืืืืืื ืื ืชืืคืฉื ืื
ื ืื ืชืืื ืืจืืช ืืณ; ืืืขืช ืืืงืื ืชืืฆืื
ืืกืคืจ ืืฉืื: ืึฐืึทืงึฐืฉืึดืื ืึทืืืึฐืึธื ืืืึฐื ึถืึธ ืชึผึทืึผึถื ืึดืึผึฐืึธ ืึทืชึผึฐืืึผื ึธืโฆ
ืืื ืื ืืื ื ืจืื ืื ืืฉ ืืืืื ืืืืช ืืืืืืช, ืื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืฉืืื ืื ืืฉื ืืชืืจื. ืฉืืจื ืืืืช ืืืืืืช ืื ืื ืื ืืฉื ืืชืืจื, ืฉืืจื ื ืชื ืืื ืืืืืชื ืืชืืจื.
โฆืืืืืืช ืืขืืื ืขื ืืืฆืืืืช ืืกืืจ ืืขืืื, ืืืืื ืืืชืจ ืืืืืโฆืื ืืืืื ืืืืช ืืื ืืื ืกืืื ืืขืืืช ืื ืื ืืืืช ืืชืืจื.
In terms of the metaphor, you can talk to other women but donโt go home with them.
ื ืืขืชื ืื ืื ืฉืืขื ืื; ืืื ืชืกืืจื ืืืืจื ืคืื
ื ืืจืืง ืืขืืื ืืจืื; ืืื ืชืงืจื ืื ืคืชื ืืืชืื
Let the other cultures perfect their forms of ืืืื, and learn what can be a ืกืืื ืืขืืืช ืื ืื ืืืืช ืืชืืจื.
Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek โthe best that has been thought and said in the world,โ and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. โAccept the truth,โ the Rambam urged, โfrom whomever states it.โ Following the precept and practice of Rabbenu Bahye, he adhered to that course himself; and we would be wise to emulate him.
The explicitly systematic discussions of Gentile thinkers often reveal to us the hidden wealth implicit in our writings. The Gentiles, furthermore, have their own wisdom, even of a moral and philosophic nature. Who can fail to be inspired by the ethical idealism of Plato, the passionate fervor of Augustine, or the visionary grandeur of Milton? Who can remain unenlightened by the lucidity of Aristotle, the profundity of Shakespeare, or the incisiveness of Newman? There is แธฅokhmah ba-goyim, and we ignore it at our loss. Many of the issues that concern us have concerned Gentile writers as well. The very problem we are considering has a long Christian history, going back to Tertullian and beyond. To deny that many fields have been better cultivated by non-Jewish than by Jewish writers is to be stubbornly, and unnecessarily, chauvinistic. There is nothing in our medieval poetry to rival Dante, and nothing in our modern literature to compare with Kant, and we would do well to admit it. We have our own genius, and we have bent it to the noblest of pursuits, the development of Torah. But we cannot be expected to do everything.
Importantly, Shlomoโs metaphor is consistent with this: ืืืืชื ืืืฉ ืืฉ ืืืืงื is about getting too close. Fire is a useful, even necessary technology. But it is very easy to get burned.
Shlomo continues:
ื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ื ืื ืืื ืื ืืืื ื ืคืฉื ืื ืืจืขืื
ืื ืื ืืฆื ืืฉืื ืฉืืขืชืื; ืืช ืื ืืื ืืืชื ืืชืื
Adultery is worse than crimes like theft. Theft, even if illegal, may be understandable. And the thief can pay back what he stole.
ืื ืืื ืื ืืื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืืืืืชื ืืดื ืืื ืื ืืืฃ. ืืื? ืื ืืจืขืืื ื ืคืฉื ืืื ืขืืฉื, ืืืืื ืืื ืื ืื ืืืื. ืืืฉื ืืฆื ืืฉ ืื ืชืงื ื ืืชืฉืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืชืจ ืืฉืื ืฉืืขืชืื ืืืืืจ ืชืฉืืืื ืืคื ืืจืืโฆืืืคืืื ืฆืจืื ืืืืืจ ืื ืืฉืจ ืื ืขื ืื ืืื ืืงืื ืืฉ ืื ืชืงื ื ืืืชืืื ืืืืช ืจืขื ืขืฉื.
But I think there is another side to ืื ืื that fits into the metaphor.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.
If there are things to learn from other cultures, steal them. Make them your own, make them part of the whole edifice of Torah. Donโt โcommit adulteryโ and be seduced by them.
And in general, this is an important rule in the struggle of ideas: we should not immediately refute any idea which comes to contradict anything in the Torah, but rather we should build the palace of Torah above it; in so doing we are exalted by the Torah, and through this exaltation the ideas are revealed, and thereafter, when we are not pressured by anything, we can confidently also struggle against it.
ืื ื ืืฃ ืืฉื ืืกืจ ืื; ืืฉืืืช ื ืคืฉื ืืื ืืขืฉื ืื
ืื ื ืืข ืืงืืื ืืืฆื; ืืืจืคืชื ืื ืชืืืื
ืื ืื ืงื ืื ืืืช ืืืจ; ืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ื ืงืื
ืื ืื ืืฉื ืคื ื ืื ืืคืจ; ืืื ืืืื ืื ืชืจืื ืฉืืื
Here, the metaphor breaks down. The betrayed โhusbandโ, the other cultures, arenโt going to be jealous if the Jews learn from them. So Rashi has to take the metaphor in a different direction. The ืืืจ who is jealous is the โfather-in-lawโ, the One responsible for the Torah (as the bride), ืืงืืดื himself.
ืื ืงื ืื: ืืชืงื ื ืื ืืืคืจืข ืื ืืืชื ืฉื ืืงืืดื ืฉืืื ืืืืจ ืขื ืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ื ืงื.
The next perek expands on the theme of Torah as lover.
ื ืื ื ืฉืืจ ืืืจื; ืืืฆืืชื ืชืฆืคื ืืชืื
ื ืฉืืจ ืืฆืืชื ืืืื; ืืชืืจืชื ืืืืฉืื ืขืื ืืื
ื ืงืฉืจื ืขื ืืฆืืขืชืื; ืืชืื ืขื ืืื ืืืื
ื ืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืชื ืืช; ืืืืข ืืืื ื ืชืงืจืื
When Shlomo says ืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืชื ืืช, he is not using ืืืชื as a metaphor. It is a common ืชื ืดื idiom.
ืื ืืคื ืืืื ืืืชื ืืื; ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืฉืื ืื ืืื ืืฉืืืื
ืืืชื ืืื ื ืืืชื ืืื ืืจืืชื ืืืจื ืขื ืืฉืื ืืืืชื ืืขืจื ืขื ืืืฉื ืฉืชืืชื ืืื ื ืขื ืืืื; ืืืื ืจืขืื ืฉืชื ืืฉืืจื ืืืืืื
And that may be part of what is going on when the ืืืืช call their wives โืืืืชโ.
ืืืจื ื ื ืืืชื ืืช ืืืขื ืืืื ืื ืืขืืืจื ืืืืชื ื ืคืฉื ืืืืืื
That the patriarchs were willing to pass off their wives as their sisters for this purpose has posed a difficult exegetical problem for Biblical commentators almost since commentaries were first written.
In 1963 major new light was brought to the question in a scholarly article by one of the worldโs greatest authorities on ancient Near Eastern texts, E. A. Speiser of the University of Pennsylvania. These views received a major popular airing in Speiserโs best selling commentary on Genesis for the Anchor Bible seriesโฆ
Speiser based his insights on some cuneiform tablets he was studying from the famous library of Nuzi, an ancient city in Iraq which thrived at the time of the patriarchs. Nuzi itself was one of two cultural centers of the Hurrian ethnic area. The other was Haran where Abraham lived after leaving Ur and before coming to Canaan. Because Haran and Nuzi were part of the same ethnic and cultural milieuโthey were both centers of Hurrian societyโit is often thought that Nuzi social customs and laws can shed important background light on the age of the patriarchsโฆ
The crucial fact for Speiser was that the same girl who is given in marriage as wife in the first tablet is also given as sister in the second tablet. From this, โit followsโ, according to Speiser, โthat a wife could have simultaneously the status of sisterโ. In other words, she could be wife and sister at the same time. Moreover, โThe fact that a separate sistership document was deemed necessary, in addition to the usual marriage contract points up the husbandโs concurrent status as brother.โ
Clearly thatโs not the whole story, because Avraham justifies himself not by claiming that Sarah was his โbelovedโ but that she was literally a kinswoman:
ืื ืืืืืจ ืืืจืื ืื ืืืจืชื ืจืง ืืื ืืจืืช ืืืงืื ืืืงืื ืืื; ืืืจืืื ื ืขื ืืืจ ืืฉืชืื ืื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืชื ืืช ืืื ืืื ืื ืื ืืช ืืื; ืืชืื ืื ืืืฉืื ืื ืืืื ืืืฉืจ ืืชืขื ืืชื ืืืงืื ืืืืช ืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืื ืืกืื ืืฉืจ ืชืขืฉื ืขืืื; ืื ืื ืืืงืื ืืฉืจ ื ืืื ืฉืื ืืืจื ืื ืืื ืืืื
But it adds another dimension to the story. So here Shlomo is not saying that Torah should be your sister, but it should be your true love, a ืืืข, an intimate relation.
And then we go back to the ืืฉื ืืจื.
ื ืืฉืืจื ืืืฉื ืืจื; ืื ืืจืื ืืืจืื ืืืืืงืื
ื ืื ืืืืื ืืืชื ืืขื ืืฉื ืื ื ืฉืงืคืชืื
ื ืืืจื ืืคืชืืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืื ื ืขืจ ืืกืจ ืืื
ื ืขืืจ ืืฉืืง ืืฆื ืคื ื; ืืืจื ืืืชื ืืฆืขืื
ื ืื ืฉืฃ ืืขืจื ืืื; ืืืืฉืื ืืืื ืืืคืืื
ื ืืื ื ืืฉื ืืงืจืืชื; ืฉืืช ืืื ื ืื ืฆืจืช ืืื
The narrator is looking at the other women from the window of his own home. Thatโs OK; in Rabbi Carmyโs metaphor:
We want a room with a view, since there is knowledge to be had that we want to have for our enhanced study of Torah. But we cannot do our work, we cannot prepare to build the palace, unless we do it in a room of our own.
And then Shlomo goes into great detail about the seductiveness of the ืืฉื ืืจื:
ืื ืืืื ืืื ืืกืจืจืช; ืืืืชื ืื ืืฉืื ื ืจืืืืื
ืื ืคืขื ืืืืฅ ืคืขื ืืจืืืืช; ืืืฆื ืื ืคื ื ืชืืจืื
The foreign woman is just like the voice of ืืืื, out in the streets, calling out to the ืคืชืืื, the easily seduced, the ื ืขืจ ืืกืจ ืื.
ื ืืืืืช ืืืืฅ ืชืจื ื; ืืจืืืืช ืชืชื ืงืืืื ืื ืืจืืฉ ืืืืืช ืชืงืจื; ืืคืชืื ืฉืขืจืื ืืขืืจ ืืืจืื ืชืืืจื
What happens when our feckless hero goes off with the wrong woman?
ืื ืืืืืืงื ืื ืื ืฉืงื ืื; ืืขืื ืคื ืื ืืชืืืจ ืืื
ืื ืืืื ืฉืืืื ืขืื; ืืืื ืฉืืืชื ื ืืจืื
ืื ืขื ืื ืืฆืืชื ืืงืจืืชื; ืืฉืืจ ืคื ืื ืืืืฆืืื
She presents herself as โfrumโ, as religiously acceptable as ืืืืืช. She has a ืงืจืื ืฉืืืื that needs to be eaten. The nature of a ืฉืืืื is that is has to be eaten within two days; it creates ืฉืืื because you have to invite guests to share it. So too, she has so much to offer, she canโt keep it to herself. She needs the ื ืขืจ to come to her home.
ืื ืืจืืืื ืจืืืชื ืขืจืฉื; ืืืืืช ืืืื ืืฆืจืืื
ืื ื ืคืชื ืืฉืืื ืืจ ืืืืื ืืงื ืืืื
ืื ืืื ื ืจืื ืืืื ืขื ืืืงืจ; ื ืชืขืืกื ืืืืืืื
ืื ืื ืืื ืืืืฉ ืืืืชื; ืืื ืืืจื ืืจืืืงื
ื ืฆืจืืจ ืืืกืฃ ืืงื ืืืื; ืืืื ืืืกื ืืื ืืืชืื
Rashi, as above, says that the ืืืฉ who is ืืืโฆืืืืชื; ืืื ืืืจื ืืจืืืง, is referring to ืืงืืดื. The foreign wisdom says G-d wonโt care, come into my house.
ืื ืืื ืืืืฉ ืืืืชื: ืจืืืชื ืฉืกืืืง ืืงืืดื ืฉืืื ืชื ืืื ืืื ื ืชื ื ืขืืืื ืืืืืื.
But I think we can read the metaphor more directly. This ืืฉื ืืจื has prepared her bed but her husband has left. The wisdom of other cultures exists, but they donโt study it any more. David Goldman made this point in a review of Rav Lichtensteinโs article in Judaismโs Encounter with Other Cultures: Rejection or Integration?
When Judaismโs Encounter with Other Cultures first appeared in 1998 under the editorship of R. J.J. Schachter, the question was: Should religious Jews learn the แธฅokhmah of other cultures, Western Christian culture in particular? An additional question now arises: Can we learn Western culture, even if we want to?โฆ
We have far less to fear from Gentile แธฅokhmah than in the past, but we also have less opportunity to learn from it. Only a generation ago, the culture of the West with its deep Christian associations still appeared as a challenge to Judaism. For nearly two hundred years the first rank of Jewish talent was decimated by defections to science (Jacobi, Einstein, Pauli, Schroedinger), poetry (Heine), fiction (Kafka), philosophy (Hermann Cohen, Cassirer, Husserl, Scheler), music (Mendelssohn), painting (Modigliani, Max Liebermann), and other Gentile cultural endeavorsโฆ
Jewish Action published an exchange between R. Lichtenstein and Prof. William Kolbrenner of Bar-Ilan University in its Spring 2004 issue. Wholly in sympathy with R. Lichtensteinโs position, Kolbrenner nonetheless warned that the hostility of modern universities to Western classics made it virtually impossible for religious students to reproduce R. Lichtensteinโs course of study two generations earlierโฆ
R. Lichtenstein replied to Kolbrenner insisting that the benefits of learning Western literature justified the effort even in adverse conditions: โEven advocates of Dr. Kolbrenerโs position can acknowledge the need to keep the home fires burning in hope for better timesโฆ We, in the interim can, minimally, โonly stand and wait,โ yearning for a fresh dawn. Even if winterโs here, might we not, with inspired vision and informed counsel, anticipate the spring?โ
We might, and we should. But in the intervening decade and a half, the position of Western classics in the universities has descended from isolation and suspicion to outright persecution and ridiculeโฆ
[Harold] Bloom predicted that his Western canon would all but perish at the hands of what he dubbed the School of Resentment: โWe are destroying all intellectual and aesthetic standards in the humanities and social sciences, in the name of social justiceโฆAfter a lifetime spent in teaching literature at one of our major universities, I have very little confidence that literary education will survive its current malaiseโโฆ
The fate of Western literary classics in todayโs universities is if anything more ignominious than Bloom imagined in his gloomiest moments.
So we almost feel sorry for the ืืฉื ืืจื. If secular universities have abandoned Aristotle, who will learn him? The poor ืืฉื ืืจื is perfumed with ืืจ ืืืืื ืืงื ืืื but her husband has abandoned her. Shlomo describes her as ืฉืืช ืืื ื, โputting onโ the harlot. She is, ืืืืืื, acting like Tamar:
ืื ืืืื ืืชืืจ ืืืืจ; ืื ื ืืืื ืขืื ืชืื ืชื ืืื ืฆืื ืื ืื ืืชืกืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืืชื ืืขืืื ืืชืืก ืืฆืขืืฃ ืืชืชืขืืฃ ืืชืฉื ืืคืชื ืขืื ืื ืืฉืจ ืขื ืืจื ืชืื ืชื; ืื ืจืืชื ืื ืืื ืฉืื ืืืื ืื ื ืชื ื ืื ืืืฉืื ืื ืืืจืื ืืืืื ืืืืฉืื ืืืื ื; ืื ืืกืชื ืคื ืืื
Should we now learn Shakespeare, Milton, and Keats even though the Christian world has stopped learning them? And if we do, who will teach us? Shall we train Jewish specialists in English poetry to teach Jewish students an art that the Gentile world has almost abandoned? Shall we create our own schools of literary criticism to determine which of the pearls of Gentile poetry are worth preserving? In that case, religious Jews would become the last curators of some parts of Western civilization, like Catholic monks in the Middle Ages preserving the แธฅokhmah of pagan Greece and Rome. And if the religious Jewish world were to undertake such an effort, by what criteria would we judge secular literature? One wishes that R. Lichtenstein had given us more guidance.
We donโt know what Rav Lichtenstein would say, but we do have Shlomoโs response:
ืื ืืืชื ืืจื ืืงืื; ืืืืง ืฉืคืชืื ืชืืืื ืื
ืื ืืืื ืืืจืื ืคืชืื; ืืฉืืจ ืื ืืื ืืื; ืืืขืืก ืื ืืืกืจ ืืืืื
ืื ืขื ืืคืื ืืฅ ืืืื ืืืืจ ืฆืคืืจ ืื ืคื;
ืืื ืืืข ืื ืื ืคืฉื ืืืื
ืื ืืขืชื ืื ืื ืฉืืขื ืื; ืืืงืฉืืื ืืืืจื ืคืื
ืื ืื ืืฉื ืื ืืจืืื ืืื; ืื ืชืชืข ืื ืชืืืืชืืื
ืื ืื ืจืืื ืืืืื ืืคืืื; ืืขืฆืืื ืื ืืจืืืื
ืื ืืจืื ืฉืืื ืืืชื; ืืจืืืช ืื ืืืจื ืืืชื
Itโs not worth the risk. We can live without Aristotle; we canโt live without Torah.