As we said last time, a ืืฉื is a memorable expression of fundamental truth, a rule for life, an apothegm. But we generally use it to mean โmetaphorโ.
metaphor
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in โa sea of troublesโ.
or
One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol.
From Latin metaphora, from Ancient Greek ฮผฮตฯฮฑฯฮฟฯฮฌ (metaphora), from ฮผฮตฯฮฑฯฮญฯฯ (metapherล, โI transfer, applyโ), from ฮผฮตฯฮฌ (meta, โwith, across, afterโ) + ฯฮญฯฯ (pherล, โI bear, carryโ)
We talked about learning moral intuition from stories rather than from rules; we observe the behavior of others and subconsciously transfer those stories to ourselves. A metaphor extends that mental image to everything else in the universe: we observe one thing and transfer that story to something else relevant to us.
The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936) by rhetorician I. A. Richards describes a metaphor as having two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the object whose attributes are borrowed. In [โAll the worldโs a stageโ], โthe worldโ is compared to a stage, describing it with the attributes of โthe stageโ; โthe worldโ is the tenor, and โa stageโ is the vehicleโฆ
In Hebrew, we have the terms ืืฉื and ื ืืฉื. I would call them โmetaphorโ and โmetapheeโ, but no one listens to me.
We need metaphors because we have primitive monkey brains. In order to survive, we need to be able to predict the future. What are the consequences of our actions? But we canโt; the universe is too big to fit in our brains. So we create models of truth, small simplifications that arenโt right, but allow us to anticipate enough of the future to get along.
All models are wrong but some are useful.
Metaphors are exactly that: models that are literally completely wrong, but yet useful in allowing us to think about things we wouldnโt otherwise. So we can get meta, and to use a metaphor to explain this:
A map is not the territory.
ืื ืื ื ืกืืชื ืืืืื; ืืืจืชื ืืืืื ืืืื ืจืืืงื ืืื ืื
ืืืืจ ืืกืคืจ ืืื ืืฉืื, ืฉืื ืงืืืฆืช ืืฉืืื, ืฉืืืืื ืืืจืื ืกืชืืืื ืืขืืืงืื ืืืืชื ื ืืืขืื ืืืฆืื ืืื ืืฉื ืืืืจืื ืื ืืืขืื, ืฉืืจื ืืืืืฉ ืฉื ืืืฉื ืื ืืืข ืืืื ืืืชืืืฉ ืฉืืื ืื ืืฉื ืืืืชื ื ืืืข.
But now weโre stuck with what I call the Raven and Writing Desk problem.
โYour hair wants cutting,โ said the Hatter. He had been looking at Alice for quite some time with great curiosity, and this was his first speech.
โYou should learn not to make personal remarks,โ Alice said with some severity: โItโs very rude.โ
The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was โWhy is a raven like a writing-desk?โ
Enquiries have been so often addressed to me, as to whether any answer to the Hatterโs riddle can be imagined, that I may as well put on record hereโฆ[T]he riddle, as originally invented, had no answer at all.
Even if we know something is meant to be a metaphor, and even if we know what the metaphee is, we still donโt know what the point of comparision is. If the map is a model, what is it a model of? That is the question we have to ask whenever we see a ืืฉื: โWhy is a raven like a writing-desk?โ
Yechezkel pointed out this problem explicitly:
ื ืืืื ืืืจ ืืณ ืืื ืืืืจื ื ืื ืืื ืฉืื ืคื ืื ืืจื ืชืืื ื ืืืืฃ ืื ืืจืื; ืืื ืื ืื ืืขืจ ืืฉืื ื ืืื ื ืืืืจืช ืืืขืจ ืื ืื ืฉืืข ืืืจ ืืณ; ืื ืืืจ ืืื ึพื ืืณ ืื ื ื ืืฆืืช ืื ืืฉ ืืืืื ืื ืื ืขืฅ ืื ืืื ืขืฅ ืืืฉ ืื ืชืืื ืืืืช ืฉืืืืช ืื ืฆืจืื ืื ืื ืคื ืื ืื ืื ืฆืคืื ืื ื ืืจืื ืื ืืฉืจ ืื ืื ื ืืณ ืืขืจืชืื; ืื ืชืืืื
ืืืืจ ืืื ืืื ึพื ืืณ; ืืื ืืืจืื ืื ืืื ืืืฉื ืืฉืืื ืืืื
ืืืจ ืฉืื ืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืจื ืืฉื ืืืื, ืืืจ ืื ืืืขืื ืื ืืืื ืืืืช, ืืื ืืื ืืืืจืื ืื ืฉืืจืื ืืืฉื ืืฉืืื ืืืืจืื ืฉืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืื ืืืืจื.
ืื ื ืขืื ืืืืจืื ืขืื: ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืฉื, ืื ืืื ืื ืื ืืืคื ืืืฉื ืืคื ืืขืชืื ื ืืืืืื.
ื ืืืื ืืืจ ืืณ ืืื ืืืืจื ื ืื ืืื ืฉืื ืคื ืื ืื ืืจืืฉืื ืืืืฃ ืื ืืงืืฉืื; ืืื ืื ืื ืืืืช ืืฉืจืืื ื ืืืืจืช ืืืืืช ืืฉืจืื ืื ืืืจ ืืณ ืื ื ื ืืืื ืืืืฆืืชื ืืจืื ืืชืขืจื; ืืืืจืชื ืืื ืฆืืืง ืืจืฉืขื ื ืืขื ืืฉืจ ืืืจืชื ืืื ืฆืืืง ืืจืฉืข; ืืื ืชืฆื ืืจืื ืืชืขืจื ืื ืื ืืฉืจ ืื ืื ืฆืคืืื ื ืืืืขื ืื ืืฉืจ ืื ืื ื ืืณ ืืืฆืืชื ืืจืื ืืชืขืจื; ืื ืชืฉืื ืขืืื
So here we are left with a problem; we need to know what Shlomo is talking about in order to understand what he is talking about. One example comes up a lot in ืกืคืจ ืืฉืื: the โgood womanโ. Is that meant to be advice about shidduchim, or is the woman here a metaphor?
ืืฉืื: ืื ืืืจืื ืืืืืืช ืืืฉืืื; ืืฉื ืืชืืจื ืืืฉื ืืืื, ืืืฉื ืืขืืืื ืืืืืื ืืืฉื ืืื ื.
Ibn Ezra, however, takes it literally:
ืืืฆืืื ืืืฉื ืืจื: ืคืืจืืฉื ืื ืืืฉืจ ืืชืืื ื ืชื ืฆืจืื ืืืืฉ ืจืข ืื ืชืฆืืื ืืืฉื ืจืขื ืื ืืจืื ืืขืืืจ ืฉืื ืืืื ืืขืฉื ืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืืจืข ืืจ ืื ืืจื.
And that interpretation fits with Shlomoโs life and his downfall:
ื ืืืืื ืฉืืื ืืื ื ืฉืื ื ืืจืืืช ืจืืืช ืืืช ืืช ืคืจืขื; ืืืืืืืช ืขืื ืืืช ืืืืืช ืฆืื ืืช ืืชืืชื ื ืื ืืืืื ืืฉืจ ืืืจ ืืณ ืื ืื ื ืืฉืจืื ืื ืชืืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืช ืืืืื ืืืจื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืืง ืฉืืื ืืืืืื ื ืืืื ืื ื ืฉืื ืฉืจืืช ืฉืืข ืืืืช ืืคืืืฉืื ืฉืืฉ ืืืืช; ืืืื ื ืฉืื ืืช ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืขืช ืืงื ืช ืฉืืื ื ืฉืื ืืื ืืช ืืืื ืืืจื ืืืืื ืืืจืื; ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืื ืขื ืืณ ืืืงืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ื ืืืื ืฉืืื ืืืจื ืขืฉืชืจืช ืืืื ืฆืื ืื; ืืืืจื ืืืื ืฉืงืฅ ืขืื ืืื ื ืืืขืฉ ืฉืืื ืืจืข ืืขืื ื ืืณ; ืืื ืืื ืืืจื ืืณ ืืืื ืืืืื
So, you could take the ื ืฉืื of ืกืคืจ ืืฉืื as literal: Shlomo is relating the experience of his life. Or, you could take them as metaphoric, and Shlomo is using the examples from his life to explain the nature of wisdom. We will take Rashiโs approach and assume that the stories of good and bad women are metaphors for good and bad wisdom.
To help us understand the ืกืคืจ, he starts by introducing himself:
ืืฉืื ืฉืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืฉืจืืื
ืืคืืขื ืืื ืฉืืื ืื ืืื, ืืืืจ ืื ืฉืืฉื ืชืืจืื, ืื ืืืืชืืืช ืืชืืืขื, ื] ืขืดื ืืืืื ืื ืื ืืืื, ืืขื ืื ืืืจ ืฉืืื, ืฉืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืขืืื ืจืื ืืืงืื, ื] ืืชืืืขื ืขืดื ืืงืืื, ืืขื ืื ืืืจ ืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืงืืื ืืืืืชืื. ื] ืขืดื ืืืืื ื ืืื ืกืืื, ืฉืื ืืฉืื ืขืดื ืงืืืฆืช ืืืืื ืจืืื, ืืขืืดื ืืื ืืฉืจืื, ืฉืขืดื ืฉืืื ืืื ืขื ืขื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืืื ื ืืกืคืื ืืืื, ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืขื ืื ืื, ืืืดืฉ (ืงืืืช ื:ืื) ืึธึผื ืึนื ื ึดืกึดึผืืชึดื ืึทืึธืึฐืึธื.
And then he has an introductory paragraph:
ื ืืืขืช ืืืื ืืืืกืจ; ืืืืื ืืืจื ืืื ืื ื ืืงืืช ืืืกืจ ืืฉืื; ืฆืืง ืืืฉืคื ืืืฉืจืืื ื ืืชืช ืืคืชืืื ืขืจืื; ืื ืขืจ ืืขืช ืืืืืื ื ืืฉืืข ืืื ืืืืกืฃ ืืงื; ืื ืืื ืชืืืืืช ืืงื ืื ื ืืืืื ืืฉื ืืืืืฆื; ืืืจื ืืืืื ืืืืืชืื
We will look at all these items in more detail.
And he tells us the starting assumption that underlies everything that is to come.
ืืจืืช ืืณ ืจืืฉืืช ืืขืช; ืืืื ืืืืกืจ ืืืืืื ืืืื
Start from ืืจืืช ืืณ, and donโt reject discipline (that is the way of the fool).
Rโ Yisrael Salanter once said that the โeleventh commandmentโ is โDonโt be a foolโโฆ
So lets learn some ืืืื. First we have to look at the structure of ืกืคืจ ืืฉืื. When ืกืคืจ ืืืืื describes Shlomoโs wisdom, it says:
ืืืืืจ ืฉืืฉืช ืืืคืื ืืฉื; ืืืื ืฉืืจื ืืืฉื ืืืืฃื
But we donโt find three thousand apothegms in our book. So Rashi takes ืืืคืื midrashically, as though it was from the Aramaic root ืืืืฃ, to learn (source of the modern Hebrew ืืืืคื).
ืฉืืฉืช ืืืคืื ืืฉื: ืฉืืฉืช ืืืืื ืืฉืืืช, ืฉืืฉ ืคืขืืื ืืชืื โืืฉืื ืฉืืืโ ืืกืคืจ ืืฉืื.
The midrash spells those out:
ืฉืืฉ ืืฉืืืช ืืืจ: (ืืฉืื ื:ื): ืึดืฉืึฐืึตื ืฉืึฐืึนืึนื ืึถื ืึผึธืึดื ืึถืึถืึฐ ืึดืฉืึฐืจึธืึตื. (ืืฉืื ื:ื): ืึดืฉืึฐืึตื ืฉืึฐืึนืึนื ืึผึถื ืึธืึธื ืึฐืฉืึทืึทื ืึธื. (ืืฉืื ืื:ื): ืึผึทื ืึตืึผึถื ืึดืฉืึฐืึตื ืฉืึฐืึนืึนื ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึถืขึฐืชึผึดืืงืึผ ืึทื ึฐืฉืึตื ืึดืึฐืงึดืึผึธื ืึถืึถืึฐ ืึฐืืึผืึธื.
ืืฉืื ืฉืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืฉืจืืื
ืืฉืื ืฉืืื; ืื ืืื ืืฉืื ืื; ืืื ืืกืื ืชืืืช ืืืื
ืื ืืื ืืฉืื ืฉืืื ืืฉืจ ืืขืชืืงื ืื ืฉื ืืืงืื ืืื ืืืืืื
So we have three books of ืืฉืื, the first in chapters 1 through 9 and the second in chapters 10 through 24. We will have to see what the difference is between them. The third book is interesting, because even though it is composed of โืืฉืื ืฉืืืโ, it was transcribed some 300 years later, at the time of Chizkiyahu. That book is in chapters 25 through 29, because the last two chapters are appendices that are attributed to others (though, as we will see, the aggadah says that both were pseudonyms of Shlomo himself).
ืืืจื ืืืืจ ืื ืืงื ืืืฉื; ื ืื ืืืืจ ืืืืชืืื; ืึฐืึดืืชึดืืึตื ืึฐืึปืึธืื
ืืืจื ืืืืื ืืื ืืฉื ืืฉืจ ืืกืจืชื ืืืื
Interestingly, the most famous perek of ืืฉืื,โ ืืฉืช ืืื, is part of that last appendix.
So, now to look at that first book, ืืฉืื ืฉืืื ืื ืืืโฆ