ื‘ืกืดื“

Kavanot: Why is a Raven Like a Writing-Desk

Thoughts on Tanach and the Davening

As we said last time, a ืžืฉืœ is a memorable expression of fundamental truth, a rule for life, an apothegm. But we generally use it to mean โ€œmetaphorโ€.

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 โ€œa sea of troublesโ€.

or

One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol.

From Latin metaphora, from Ancient Greek ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฮฟฯฮฌ (metaphora), from ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฮญฯฯ‰ (metapherล, โ€I transfer, applyโ€œ), from ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฌ (meta, โ€œwith, across, afterโ€) + ฯ†ฮญฯฯ‰ (pherล, โ€I bear, carryโ€œ)

wordnik, metaphor; definition from The American Heritageยฎ Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition and etymology from Wiktionary

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 [โ€œAll the worldโ€™s a stageโ€], โ€œthe worldโ€ is compared to a stage, describing it with the attributes of โ€œthe stageโ€; โ€œthe worldโ€ is the tenor, and โ€œa stageโ€ is the vehicleโ€ฆ

Wikipedia, Metaphor

In Hebrew, we have the terms ืžืฉืœ and ื ืžืฉืœ. I would call them โ€œmetaphorโ€ and โ€œmetapheeโ€, 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 canโ€™t; the universe is too big to fit in our brains. So we create models of truth, small simplifications that arenโ€™t right, but allow us to anticipate enough of the future to get along.

All models are wrong but some are useful.

George Box

Metaphors are exactly that: models that are literally completely wrong, but yet useful in allowing us to think about things we wouldnโ€™t otherwise. So we can get meta, and to use a metaphor to explain this:

A map is not the territory.

Alfred Korzybski

ื›ืœ ื–ื” ื ืกื™ืชื™ ื‘ื—ื›ืžื”; ืืžืจืชื™ ืื—ื›ืžื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืจื—ื•ืงื” ืžืžื ื™ืƒ

ืงื”ืœืช ื–:ื›ื’

ื—ื•ืžืจ ื”ืกืคืจ ื”ื•ื ืžืฉืœื™, ืฉื”ื ืงื‘ื•ืฆืช ืžืฉืœื™ื, ืฉืœื”ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืกืชื•ืžื™ื ื•ืขืžื•ืงื™ื ื”ื‘ืœืชื™ ื ื•ื“ืขื™ื ื™ืžืฆื™ื ืœื”ื ืžืฉืœ ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ื ื•ื“ืขื™ื, ืฉื“ืจืš ื”ืœื‘ื•ืฉ ืฉืœ ื”ืžืฉืœ ื”ื ื•ื“ืข ื™ื•ื‘ื˜ ื”ืžืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉื”ื•ื ื”ื ืžืฉืœ ื”ื‘ืœืชื™ ื ื•ื“ืข.

ืžืœื‘ื™ืดื, ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื

But now weโ€™re stuck with what I call the Raven and Writing Desk problem.

โ€œYour 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.

โ€œYou should learn not to make personal remarks,โ€ Alice said with some severity: โ€œItโ€™s very rude.โ€

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was โ€œWhy is a raven like a writing-desk?โ€

Lewis Carroll, Aliceโ€™s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter VII: A Mad Tea-Party

Enquiries have been so often addressed to me, as to whether any answer to the Hatterโ€™s riddle can be imagined, that I may as well put on record hereโ€ฆ[T]he riddle, as originally invented, had no answer at all.

Lewis Carroll, quoted in Paul Anthony Jones, The Story Behind Lewis Carrollโ€™s Unsolvable Riddle

Even if we know something is meant to be a metaphor, and even if we know what the metaphee is, we still donโ€™t 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 ืžืฉืœ: โ€œWhy is a raven like a writing-desk?โ€

Yechezkel pointed out this problem explicitly:

ื ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืณ ืืœื™ ืœืืžืจืƒ ื‘ ื‘ืŸ ืื“ื ืฉื™ื ืคื ื™ืš ื“ืจืš ืชื™ืžื ื” ื•ื”ื˜ืฃ ืืœ ื“ืจื•ื; ื•ื”ื ื‘ื ืืœ ื™ืขืจ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื ื’ื‘ืƒ ื’ ื•ืืžืจืช ืœื™ืขืจ ื”ื ื’ื‘ ืฉืžืข ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืณ; ื›ื” ืืžืจ ืื“ื ึพื™ ื”ืณ ื”ื ื ื™ ืžืฆื™ืช ื‘ืš ืืฉ ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ืš ื›ืœ ืขืฅ ืœื— ื•ื›ืœ ืขืฅ ื™ื‘ืฉ ืœื ืชื›ื‘ื” ืœื”ื‘ืช ืฉืœื”ื‘ืช ื•ื ืฆืจื‘ื• ื‘ื” ื›ืœ ืคื ื™ื ืžื ื’ื‘ ืฆืคื•ื ื”ืƒ ื“ ื•ืจืื• ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ื™ ืื ื™ ื”ืณ ื‘ืขืจืชื™ื”; ืœื ืชื›ื‘ื”ืƒ

ื™ื—ื–ืงืืœ ืคืจืง ื›ื

ื•ืืžืจ ืื”ื” ืื“ื ึพื™ ื”ืณ; ื”ืžื” ืืžืจื™ื ืœื™ ื”ืœื ืžืžืฉืœ ืžืฉืœื™ื ื”ื•ืืƒ

ื™ื—ื–ืงืืœ ื›ื:ื”

ืื—ืจ ืฉื‘ื ืืœื™ื• ื”ื ื‘ื•ืื” ื“ืจืš ืžืฉืœ ื•ื—ื“ื”, ืืžืจ ืžื” ืื•ืขื™ืœ ื‘ื ื‘ื•ืื” ื›ื–ืืช, ื”ืœื ื”ืžื” ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื™ ืœืžืฉืœ ืžืฉืœื™ื ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ืื•ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื™ืžื™ื ืœื‘ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™.

ืžืœื‘ื™ืดื, ื™ื—ื–ืงืืœ ื›ื:ื”

ื‘ื ื™ ืขืžื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืขืœื™: ื”ืœื ื”ื•ื ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืžืฉืœ, ื•ื ื•ื›ืœ ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื”ืคืš ื”ืžืฉืœ ืœืคื™ ื“ืขืชื™ื ื• ื•ืœื˜ื•ื‘ื”.

ืžืฆื•ื“ืช ื“ื•ื“, ื™ื—ื–ืงืืœ ื›ื:ื”

ื• ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืณ ืืœื™ ืœืืžืจืƒ ื– ื‘ืŸ ืื“ื ืฉื™ื ืคื ื™ืš ืืœ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื ื•ื”ื˜ืฃ ืืœ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ื; ื•ื”ื ื‘ื ืืœ ืื“ืžืช ื™ืฉืจืืœืƒ ื— ื•ืืžืจืช ืœืื“ืžืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื›ื” ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ื”ื ื ื™ ืืœื™ืš ื•ื”ื•ืฆืืชื™ ื—ืจื‘ื™ ืžืชืขืจื”; ื•ื”ื›ืจืชื™ ืžืžืš ืฆื“ื™ืง ื•ืจืฉืขืƒ ื˜ ื™ืขืŸ ืืฉืจ ื”ื›ืจืชื™ ืžืžืš ืฆื“ื™ืง ื•ืจืฉืข; ืœื›ืŸ ืชืฆื ื—ืจื‘ื™ ืžืชืขืจื” ืืœ ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื ื’ื‘ ืฆืคื•ืŸืƒ ื™ ื•ื™ื“ืขื• ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ื™ ืื ื™ ื”ืณ ื”ื•ืฆืืชื™ ื—ืจื‘ื™ ืžืชืขืจื”; ืœื ืชืฉื•ื‘ ืขื•ื“ืƒ

ื™ื—ื–ืงืืœ ืคืจืง ื›ื

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 ืžืฉืœื™: the โ€œgood womanโ€. Is that meant to be advice about shidduchim, or is the woman here a metaphor?

ืžืฉืœื™: ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื“ื•ื’ืžื•ืช ื•ืžืฉืœื™ื; ืžืฉืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืืฉื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื”, ื•ืžืฉืœ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“ื™ ื’ืœื•ืœื™ื ื‘ืืฉื” ื–ื•ื ื”.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื

Ibn Ezra, however, takes it literally:

ืœื”ืฆื™ืœืš ืžืืฉื” ื–ืจื”: ืคื™ืจื•ืฉื• ื›ื™ ื›ืืฉืจ ื”ืชื‘ื•ื ื” ืชื ืฆืจื›ื” ืžืื™ืฉ ืจืข ื›ืŸ ืชืฆื™ืœืš ืžืืฉื” ืจืขื” ื•ื ื›ืจื™ื” ื‘ืขื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืœื ืœืžื“ื• ืžืขืฉื” ื”ื˜ื•ื‘ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื ืžื–ืจืข ื–ืจ ื•ื ื›ืจื™.

ืื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื, ืžืฉืœื™ ื‘:ื˜ื–

And that interpretation fits with Shlomoโ€™s life and his downfall:

ื ื•ื”ืžืœืš ืฉืœืžื” ืื”ื‘ ื ืฉื™ื ื ื›ืจื™ื•ืช ืจื‘ื•ืช ื•ืืช ื‘ืช ืคืจืขื”; ืžื•ืื‘ื™ื•ืช ืขืžื ื™ื•ืช ืื“ืžื™ืช ืฆื“ื ื™ืช ื—ืชื™ืชืƒ ื‘ ืžืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื™ื ืืฉืจ ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืืœ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ืชื‘ืื• ื‘ื”ื ื•ื”ื ืœื ื™ื‘ืื• ื‘ื›ื ืื›ืŸ ื™ื˜ื• ืืช ืœื‘ื‘ื›ื ืื—ืจื™ ืืœื”ื™ื”ื ื‘ื”ื ื“ื‘ืง ืฉืœืžื” ืœืื”ื‘ื”ืƒ ื’ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืœื• ื ืฉื™ื ืฉืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื•ืคืœื’ืฉื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช; ื•ื™ื˜ื• ื ืฉื™ื• ืืช ืœื‘ื•ืƒ ื“ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืœืขืช ื–ืงื ืช ืฉืœืžื” ื ืฉื™ื• ื”ื˜ื• ืืช ืœื‘ื‘ื• ืื—ืจื™ ืืœื”ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื; ื•ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืœื‘ื‘ื• ืฉืœื ืขื ื”ืณ ืืœืงื™ื• ื›ืœื‘ื‘ ื“ื•ื™ื“ ืื‘ื™ื•ืƒ ื” ื•ื™ืœืš ืฉืœืžื” ืื—ืจื™ ืขืฉืชืจืช ืืœื”ื™ ืฆื“ื ื™ื; ื•ืื—ืจื™ ืžืœื›ื ืฉืงืฅ ืขืžื ื™ืืƒ ื• ื•ื™ืขืฉ ืฉืœืžื” ื”ืจืข ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ ื”ืณ; ื•ืœื ืžืœื ืื—ืจื™ ื”ืณ ื›ื“ื•ื“ ืื‘ื™ื•ืƒ

ืžืœื›ื™ื ื ืคืจืง ื™ื

So, you could take the ื ืฉื™ื of ืกืคืจ ืžืฉืœื™ 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 Rashiโ€™s 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:

ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื” ื‘ืŸ ื“ื•ื“ ืžืœืš ื™ืฉืจืืœืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื

ื”ืคื•ืขืœ ื”ื•ื ืฉืœืžื” ื‘ืŸ ื“ื•ื“, ื•ืืžืจ ื‘ื• ืฉืœืฉื” ืชืืจื™ื, ื›ื™ ื”ืืžืชื™ื•ืช ื™ืชื•ื“ืขื•, ื] ืขืดื™ ื”ื—ื›ืžื” ืื• ื”ื ื‘ื•ืื”, ื•ืขืœ ื–ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืœืžื”, ืฉื”ื•ื ื”ื™ื” ื—ื›ื ื•ื—ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืจื•ื— ืืœืงื™ื, ื‘] ื™ืชื•ื“ืขื• ืขืดื™ ื”ืงื‘ืœื”, ื•ืขืœ ื–ื” ืืžืจ ื‘ืŸ ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ืงื‘ืœื” ืžืื‘ื•ืชื™ื•. ื’] ืขืดื™ ื”ื‘ื—ื™ื ื” ื•ื”ื ืกื™ื•ืŸ, ืฉื–ื” ื™ืฉืœื ืขืดื™ ืงื‘ื•ืฆืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ื, ื•ืขื–ืดื ืžืœืš ื™ืฉืจืืœ, ืฉืขืดื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืœืš ืขืœ ืขื ื—ื›ื ื•ื ื‘ื•ืŸ ื”ื–ื” ื”ื™ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื ืืกืคื™ื ืืœื™ื•, ื•ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื›ื—ื• ืœื‘ื—ื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื ื™ื ื™ื, ื›ืžืดืฉ (ืงื”ืœืช ื–:ื›ื’) ื›ึธึผืœ ื–ึนื” ื ึดืกึดึผื™ืชึดื™ ื‘ึทื—ึธื›ึฐืžึธื”.

ืžืœื‘ื™ืดื, ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื

And then he has an introductory paragraph:

ื‘ ืœื“ืขืช ื—ื›ืžื” ื•ืžื•ืกืจ; ืœื”ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื™ื ื”ืƒ ื’ ืœืงื—ืช ืžื•ืกืจ ื”ืฉื›ืœ; ืฆื“ืง ื•ืžืฉืคื˜ ื•ืžืฉืจื™ืืƒ ื“ ืœืชืช ืœืคืชืื™ื ืขืจืžื”; ืœื ืขืจ ื“ืขืช ื•ืžื–ืžื”ืƒ ื” ื™ืฉืžืข ื—ื›ื ื•ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœืงื—; ื•ื ื‘ื•ืŸ ืชื—ื‘ืœื•ืช ื™ืงื ื”ืƒ ื• ืœื”ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœ ื•ืžืœื™ืฆื”; ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื“ืชืืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื

We will look at all these items in more detail.

And he tells us the starting assumption that underlies everything that is to come.

ื™ืจืืช ื”ืณ ืจืืฉื™ืช ื“ืขืช; ื—ื›ืžื” ื•ืžื•ืกืจ ืื•ื™ืœื™ื ื‘ื–ื•ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื–

Start from ื™ืจืืช ื”ืณ, and donโ€™t reject discipline (that is the way of the fool).

Rโ€™ Yisrael Salanter once said that the โ€œeleventh commandmentโ€ is โ€œDonโ€™t be a foolโ€โ€ฆ

Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation, Split Personalities

So lets learn some ื—ื›ืžื”. First we have to look at the structure of ืกืคืจ ืžืฉืœื™. When ืกืคืจ ืžืœื›ื™ื describes Shlomoโ€™s wisdom, it says:

ื•ื™ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœืฉืช ืืœืคื™ื ืžืฉืœ; ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื™ืจื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ืืœืฃืƒ

ืžืœื›ื™ื ื ื”:ื™ื‘

But we donโ€™t find three thousand apothegms in our book. So Rashi takes ืืœืคื™ื midrashically, as though it was from the Aramaic root ืืœื•ืฃ, to learn (source of the modern Hebrew ืื•ืœืคืŸ).

ืฉืœืฉืช ืืœืคื™ื ืžืฉืœ: ืฉืœืฉืช ืœืžื•ื“ื™ ืžืฉืœื•ืช, ืฉืœืฉ ืคืขืžื™ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ โ€ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื”โ€œ ื‘ืกืคืจ ืžืฉืœื™.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืžืœื›ื™ื ื ื”:ื™ื‘

The midrash spells those out:

ืฉืœืฉ ืžืฉืœื•ืช ืืžืจ: (ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื): ืžึดืฉืึฐืœึตื™ ืฉืึฐืœึนืžึนื” ื‘ึถืŸ ื“ึผึธื•ึดื“ ืžึถืœึถืšึฐ ื™ึดืฉื‚ึฐืจึธืึตืœ. (ืžืฉืœื™ ื™:ื˜): ืžึดืฉืึฐืœึตื™ ืฉืึฐืœึนืžึนื” ื‘ึผึถืŸ ื—ึธื›ึธื ื™ึฐืฉื‚ึทืžึทื— ืึธื‘. (ืžืฉืœื™ ื›ื”:ื): ื’ึผึทื ืึตืœึผึถื” ืžึดืฉืึฐืœึตื™ ืฉืึฐืœึนืžึนื” ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ื”ึถืขึฐืชึผึดื™ืงื•ึผ ืึทื ึฐืฉืึตื™ ื—ึดื–ึฐืงึดื™ึผึธื” ืžึถืœึถืšึฐ ื™ึฐื”ื•ึผื“ึธื”.

ืฉื™ืจ ื”ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืจื‘ื” ื:ื

ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื” ื‘ืŸ ื“ื•ื“ ืžืœืš ื™ืฉืจืืœืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื

ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื”; ื‘ืŸ ื—ื›ื ื™ืฉืžื— ืื‘; ื•ื‘ืŸ ื›ืกื™ืœ ืชื•ื’ืช ืืžื•ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ื™ืƒื

ื’ื ืืœื” ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื” ืืฉืจ ื”ืขืชื™ืงื• ืื ืฉื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืžืœืš ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ื›ื”:ื

So we have three books of ืžืฉืœื™, 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 โ€œืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื”โ€, 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 ื‘ืŸ ื™ืงื” ื”ืžืฉื; ื ืื ื”ื’ื‘ืจ ืœืื™ืชื™ืืœ; ืœึฐืึดื™ืชึดื™ืึตืœ ื•ึฐืึปื›ึธืœืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืœ:ื

ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืœืžื•ืืœ ืžืœืš ืžืฉื ืืฉืจ ื™ืกืจืชื• ืืžื•ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืœื:ื

Interestingly, the most famous perek of ืžืฉืœื™,โ€Ž ืืฉืช ื—ื™ืœ, is part of that last appendix.

So, now to look at that first book, ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื” ื‘ืŸ ื“ื•ื“โ€ฆ