Mishlei 27:3 - The Weight of a Fool's Anger

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Grindstone, by Greg Simanson

Mishlei 27:3 - The Weight of a Fool's Anger

משלי כז:ג

כֹּבֶד אֶבֶן וְנֵטֶל הַחוֹל וְכַעַס אֱוִיל כָּבֵד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם:

Mishlei 27:3

The weight of a stone and the heft of sand – the anger of the fool is heavier than both of them.

There are four questions here:

1. What differentiates the anger of a fool from the anger of a non-fool? Clearly, the metaphors will address this in detail, but it's worth asking as its own question.
2. What are these metaphors? In what sense is the fool's anger comparable to both "the weight of stone" and "the heft of sand"? 
3. What does it mean to describe anger as "heavy"? There are a number of adjectives typically used to describe anger - such as "hot," "intense," "strong," "fierce," "unyielding" - but "heavy" isn't one of them.
4. Heavy for whom? Is the pasuk characterizing the fool's anger as heavy for the person who he's angry at, or for the person who is forced to confront the fool in his anger, or for the fool himself? 

Personally, I'm not bothered by the question of why the pasuk uses the word "koved" (weight) for a stone and "neitel" (heft) for sand. Either these are the two terms that are appropriate to use for their respective substances, or the pasuk is just using synonyms for stylistic reasons. 

[Time to think! Read on when ready.]

Here is my four-sentence summary of the main idea:

A stone and a load of sand are both heavy, but for different reasons: the individual stone is an inherently heavy substance, whereas sand is light as a substance but heavy in large quantities. So too, the Mishleic fool, whose expects reality to always work out in his favor, is “weighed down” by his anger in two different ways: (1) since he takes reality personally, he will perceive each individual instance of reality not aligning with his desires as an intolerable hardship; (2) since the fool’s anger stems from his ego, he will experience a high volume of these “anger incidents,” the sheer quantity and frequency of which will be its own source of pain. In other words, the fool is burdened by the fact that he gets very angry, very often. This is one of the many reasons why the Mishleic chacham works on his expectations, striving to make them as realistic as possible. 

This would be a good place to review a methodology point that I've mentioned earlier. Chapter 25 begins a new section of Sefer Mishlei: "These, too, are the Mishlei of Shlomo ha'Melech, which were copied by the men of Chizkiyah, king of Judah" (25:1). This section continues through the end of Chapter 29. 

These pesukim are stylistically different than the "mainstream" Mishlei written by Shlomo ha'Melech in Chapters 10-24. Most of the pesukim are quite straightforward and unequivocal in their wording - as opposed to many of the pesukim in Chapters 10-24, which can be confusing and ambiguous to read and translate. The mashalim (metaphors) in Chapters 25-29 are also very direct, and tend to be stated simply as "X is like Y" or "as X is to Y, so is A to B." 

I was recently asked whether the ideas taught in Chapters 25-29 differ from the ideas taught in Chapters 10-24. I haven't noticed any difference. I would expect the pesukim in Chapters 25-29 to presuppose familiarity with the content of Chapters 10-24, since the latter were composed earlier, but I don't even know whether this is supposition is the case. 

Mishlei 17:12 - Hell Hath No Fury Like a Fool Scorned

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Awaken the Bear, by Svetlin Velinov

Mishlei 17:12 - Hell Hath No Fury Like a Fool Scorned

משלי יז:יב

פָּגוֹשׁ דֹּב שַׁכּוּל בְּאִישׁ וְאַל כְּסִיל בְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ:

Mishlei 17:12

Better to for a man to confront a mother bear bereft of its cubs than a ksil (fool) in his eeveles (foolish rage).

This translation is based on R' Moshe Kimch (printed in the standard Mikraos Gedolos under the name "Ibn Ezra"), who explains that "shakool" means "deprived of its cubs." The Meiri, among others, adds that "shakool" implies a female bear. Although the second half of the pasuk says "than a fool in his foolishness," Rabbeinu Yonah explains it to mean "than a fool in his foolishness and his anger." Presumably, he gets this from the first half of the pasuk: a bear bereft of its cubs is "crazy enraged" rather than merely "crazy."

There are a few basic questions here:

1. How? Whenever Mishlei compares one thing to another, the question is: in what framework? "Better" in what sense? 
2. Really?! This pasuk seems to be an exaggeration. The Wikipedia article on bear attacks makes them seem pretty bad. 
3. What is unique about the eeveles (foolish rage) of a ksil (Mishleic fool)? All rage is destructive. What makes the rage of a ksil unique enough to single out in this pasuk?

[Time to think! Read on when ready.]

Here's my MORE than four-sentence summary of the main idea:

A mother bear bereft of its cubs is in the grips of a powerful, unthinking, animalistic rage; the same is true of a fool whose ego (or false sense of security) has been threatened and whose anger has been awakened. However, the fool is much more dangerous than the bear for a number of reasons: 

(1) the bear has a very narrow range of activity, making it relatively easy to anticipate its attack and to take the necessary precautions; the fool, on the other hand, has a wide variety of retaliatory actions at his disposal and is willing to go to any lengths to get his revenge, making him unpredictable and difficult to guard against 

(2) the bear’s anger subsides within a short period of time, whereas the fool might harbor a grudge for days, months, years, or decades 

(3) the danger level of the bear is apparent to all, whereas the fool might appear to be totally harmless, when – in truth – he is just waiting for the right moment 

(4) no one in his right mind deludes himself into thinking that he can control an enraged bear, but when dealing with a fool, it is easy to fall prey to the illusion that one has more control than one actually has.  

For these reasons (and more), one should avoid provoking fools, and steer clear of fools who have already been provoked.

The reason why I allowed myself to summarize the main idea in more than four sentences is because this pasuk falls into the category of "list pesukim." I've already explained this methodological point elsewhere, but I'll repeat my explanation here for the sake of convenience.

Many pesukim in Mishlei state a specific consequence for a specific foolish behavior or bad decision. In contrast, "list-pesukim" simply identify the actions of the fool/rasha and leave it to the reader to figure out the consequences, of which there are many. "List pesukim," such as our pasuk, will typically make general reference to the consequences in vague or categorical terms, so as not to lead the reader to focus on a narrow set of consequences.

The phenomenon of "list pesukim" exemplifies one of the many differences between Shlomo ha'Melech's proverbs and (for lack of a better term) "English proverbs." English proverbs are essentially spoon-fed truths which are instantly understandable: "the early bird catches the worm," "no pain no gain," "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." In contrast, the vast majority of Shlomo ha'Melech's proverbs are not readily understandable; their ideas can only be accessed after thought and analysis.

I believe that the main reason for this is because Shlomo ha'Melech is trying to do more than just deliver content. His goal is for his students to train their minds and acquire a different way of thinking about life. By stating these ideas in cryptic language, he forces the student to explore the subject matter of each pasuk in-depth and try out different ways of learning. In the end, the students gains more from the analysis of the pasuk than a single idea.

"List pesukim" fit into this paradigm because there isn't even a specific idea that he's conveying. Instead, these pesukim are like Shlomo pointing to a certain behavior and saying, "Hey - check that guy out. What do you think is going to happen to him? What mistake(s) is he making?" The "lesson" of the pasuk ultimately comes from the student's own analysis, with zero spoon-feeding.

"List pesukim" are also consistent with Shlomo ha'Melech's brand of "mussar without 'should's and 'shouldn't's," which I wrote about here.

Mishlei 29:9 - The Fool's Dirty Debate Tactics

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Browbeat, by Chris Rahn

Mishlei 29:9 - The Fool's Dirty Debate Tactics

משלי כט:ט

אִישׁ חָכָם נִשְׁפָּט אֶת אִישׁ אֱוִיל וְרָגַז וְשָׂחַק וְאֵין נָחַת:

Mishlei 29:9

Raw Translation: A wise man who nishpat with a foolish man, and he rages and he laughs, and there is no satisfaction/rest.

I chose this pasuk for today's Mishlei post because it's a good example of how ambiguity in the wording can lead to multiple directions in the analysis. When I learned this pasuk with my Mishlei group this past Shabbos, we didn't have access to my mikraos gedolos (compendium of commentaries), and we were forced to work out the translation on our own. I'll include the difficulties in my list of questions on the pasuk:

(1) What does "nishpat" mean? The root SH.F.T. (ש.פ.ט.) typically denotes "to judge," but can also mean "to dispute" or "to argue." The use of the nifal (passive) form is also very strange. "is judged" makes sense, but "is disputed" or "is argued [with]" are also valid translations.

(2) Who "rages" and "laughs"? Is the chacham (wise man) raging and laughing at the eveel (foolish man), or is the eveel raging and laughing at the chacham? 

(3) What, exactly, is this "rage" and "laughter"? Is "rage" different than mere "anger"? Is the emphasis on his feeling of anger, or on his display of anger? The laughter is even vaguer than the rage. Is this talking about "laughter" that stems from humor? Is it laughter of mockery? Is it laughter of happiness and camaraderie? And why is this person raging and laughing? What is the relationship between the situation (i.e. arguing, disputing, or being judged) and these two reactions? Is it davka (specifically) these two reactions, or are these just examples from within a larger category?

(4) Who doesn't receive satisfaction - and why not? The answer to this question is dependent on the answer to Question #2, and maybe dependent on the answer to Question #3.

[Time to stop and think about the pasuk in light of these questions. Read on when ready.]

Before we can present the main idea of the pasuk, we need to settle on a translation. Here are the approaches taken by the various meforshim:

Rashi: A wise man who argues with a foolish man may rage and laugh, but there will be no satisfaction [for the wise man].

Ralbag: When a wise man argues with a foolish man, [the fool] will rage and laugh, and there will be no rest [for the wise man].

Ibn Ezra: When a wise man is judged with a foolish man, [the fool] may rage and laugh, but there will be no satisfaction [for the wise man].

Metzudas David: A wise man who is judged with a foolish man may rage and laugh, but there will be no satisfaction [for the wise man]. 

As I mentioned, we didn't have access to meforshim when we learned this pasuk. The translation we came up with happens to be one that none of the meforshim explicitly say:

Our Translation: When a wise man is judged with a foolish man, [the fool] may rage and laugh, but he will have no satisfaction.

For those of you who appreciate charts, here are the five translations side by side:

The fact that none of the meforshim proposed this translation doesn't bother me. I am not aware of any grammatical or syntactical problems, and our translation reflects the most straightforward reading, both in terms of the use of the passive "nishpat" (which literally means "he is judged") and in the conservative reading of the ambiguous pronouns (i.e. "the fool may rage and laugh, but there will be no satisfaction for the fool"). Plus, "raging" and "laughing" seem more like the actions of an eveel than the actions of a chacham, which is why we shied away from translating the pasuk like Rashi and Metzudas David.

Here is my four-sentence summary of the main idea:

When a chacham finds himself in a situation in which he is being judged alongside an eveel (e.g. two participants in a public debate, two businessmen competing for the same customers, two candidates vying for the same position), he should prepare himself to face the dirty tactics that the eveel will use. The fool will attempt to prevail by utilizing provocatively aggressive displays of emotion – such as rage and mocking laughter – in an effort to destabilize the chacham, and to make himself appear dominant in comparison. As long as the chacham remains visibly unshaken and unperturbed by the eveel's bombastic onslaught, and doesn’t give him the satisfaction of pushing his buttons, then these tactics will backfire. The audience (i.e. whoever is in a position to pass judgment) will observe the stark contrast between the chacham’s cool, levelheaded, objective disposition and the eveel’s heated, combative, immature bullying; this side-by-side comparison will simultaneously boost the ethos of the chacham and diminish that of the eveel. Chances are that the eveel, himself, will become frustrated with the chacham’s indifference to his assaults, which will destabilize him, making him feel even more frantic and less in control of himself; this, in turn, will make him appear desperate and pathetic in the eyes of the audience, thereby giving the chacham an edge - in addition to the substance of his arguments, which will inevitably be superior to the eveel's.

After we came up with this explanation, and I gained access to my meforshim, I saw that the Ri Nachmias gives a very similar explanation of our pasuk. The only difference is that he translates "nishpat" as "argues" instead of "is judged," like Rashi and Ralbag, in contrast to Ibn Ezra and Metzudas David. Nevertheless, he also learns - like we do - that there is an audience present in the situation, which practically means that the chacham and eveel are being judged. Here is the relevant excerpt from the Ri Nachmias's (much lengthier) explanation:

If a wise man who argues with a fool, [the fool] may rage and laugh ... Since this fool doesn't have much knowledge, he'll project self-images (oseh tzuros me'atzmo) to deceive the people who are there ... These are polemical techniques (darchei nitzuach) which [the eveel uses to] trick listeners [into thinking that he] knows what he doesn't [actually know].

The Ri Niachmias quotes a pasuk from elsewhere in Shlomo ha'Melech's writings which supports our interpretation: "The words of the wise are heard calmness (b'nachas) over the shouting of a ruler among fools" (Koheles 9:17). In the Rambam's description of how talmidei chachamim (Torah scholars) speak and behave, he borrows this phrase from Koheles:

A talmid chachamim shouldn't yell or shout when he speaks, like animals and wild beasts, nor should he raise his voice; rather, his speech with people should be calm. And when he speaks calmly, he should be careful not to distance himself, to the extent that he appears haughty.

In other words, this calmness in speech shouldn't be limited to situations involving a fool. Rather, "nachas" (in the sense of "calmness" rather than "satisfaction") should be the default mode of speech for talmidei chachamim.

The Ralbag would agree with the title of this post, but according to him, our pasuk focuses on a specific tactic used by the eveel in debates: interrupting the chacham. He translates our pasuk as: "When a wise man argues with a foolish man, [the fool] will rage and laugh, and there will be no rest [for the wise man]." Here is his explanation:

When a wise man argues with a foolish man, in a verbal back-and-forth, the eveel will not allow the chacham to speak and to finish his statements. Instead, sometimes he'll react angrily to what he hears the chacham say and will not allow him to complete his statements, and sometimes he'll laugh and mock what he hears [the chacham] say, and he will not give him a pause (nachas) which would enable him to complete what he intended to clarify. This pasuk is, as it were, a warning to the chacham not to argue with an eveel.

One of the best examples of our pasuk in action is the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson. I found a video which exemplifies all three interpretations - that of the Ralbag, the Ri Nachmias, and ours. I wanted to find a shorter video, but this is the best I could come up with.


It will not always be possible for a chacham to avoid debating with or being judged alongside an eveel. When such a situation arises, the chacham must keep the eveel's repertoire of tricks at the forefront of his mind, and not allow him to get the upper hand. 

The Mishleic Spectrum: A Glossary of Mishlei Personalities

If you are interested in Mishlei methodology, I highly recommend that you read Saadia Gaon's Introduction to Mishlei, How to Learn Mishlei: a Step by Step Guide, and Mishlei Methodology: Meiri - Nigleh and Nistar. Those three posts, together with this one, constitute my online "Mishlei 101" class. 

Click here for a printer friendly version of this blog post. It is recommended to print this in color.

The terms on this chart will be translated, defined, and explained in the post below - after an introduction. 

The Mishleic Spectrum: A Glossary of Mishlei Personalities

What This Is, and What This Is Not

Several years ago my Mishlei rebbi and I sat down to write a book on Mishlei. Our goal was to write a "Mishlei Primer" comprised of three parts: (1) a methodological "How to Learn Mishlei" guide, and (2) a Mishlei Glossary, in which we would provide definitions for the many terms and personalities of Mishlei, and (3) a "sampler" of pesukim and their explanations, in accordance with our method.

We decided to begin our research with two of the most obscure Mishleic personalities: the bogeid ("Traitor") and the bliyaal ("Lawless Person"). We ended up spending the whole summer trying to define those two personalities, and we didn't get any further. The following year we tackled the atzel ("Lazy Person"), and spent the whole summer working on that. Suffice it to say, writing a Mishlei glossary was more difficult than we thought at the outset. We shelved the project and haven't returned to it since.  

In retrospect, I think that the standard we established for ourselves was too high. We set out to define each of these terms to the best of our understanding, with the greatest degree of certainty we could muster. This led to a continual revision, re-revision, and re-re-revision of our definitions. For instance, we ended up learning through every pasuk in Mishlei about laziness a total of six times; we started with the first pasuk, then moved on to the second, and so on - but by the time we got to the final pasuk, we felt the need to relearn all of the pesukim again in light of our updated understanding. This was great in terms of our own learning, but not great in terms of our project.

Perhaps what we should have done is to try to figure out working definitions instead of absolute definitions. Our goal should have been to provide definitions which were clear to enable the beginner to get started, but without aiming to definitively proclaim, "This is Mishlei's definition of tzadik" or "This is what Shlomo ha'Melech meant by chochmah." 

This more realistic goal is what I intend to accomplish here, in my rough draft of a "Mishleic Glossary." My goal is to provide working definitions - NOT absolute, authoritative, definitive definitions - of primary, secondary, and some tertiary Mishleic personalities. This definitions in this dictionary should be clear enough to consult and use in case you get stuck on a pasuk and need to "plug in" a definition to work with until you are able to arrive at your own understanding.

Understanding Mishleic Labels

It should be noted that Mishlei speaks in absolutes. Shlomo ha'Melech will say things like, "The ksil (fool) does such-and-such, but the chacham (wise man) does such-and-such" - as if "the ksil" and "the chacham" are living, breathing individuals whom you might run into one day on the street. 

In reality, this isn't the case. Real human beings are complex, and don't fit neatly into Mishleic labels. It is entirely possible for the same individual to be a chacham in his business dealings, an atzel when it comes to Torah study, a rasha in his relationships, and a chasid in halacha. To an extent, we all have elements of ALL Mishleic characteristics within ourselves, in different proportions. 

Mishlei's labels should be thought of as archetypes or paradigms. From a pedagogical standpoint, it is much easier for Shlomo ha'Melech to teach the reader how to become a chacham and avoid the pitfalls of a fool by describing "pristine" decision-making scenarios involving a prototypical chacham character and a prototypical fool character as his foil. 

Sources (or Lack Thereof)

Each of the meforshim (commentators) on Mishlei has his own understanding of the terms we are about to discuss. Some meforshim state their definitions explicitly and bring support from other pesukim or Chazal. Other meforshiim simply explain the pesukim in accordance with their understanding, and the reader of Mishlei must infer their implicit definitions. 

The definitions in this post reflect my current "working definitions" as of June 13th, 2017. Some of these can be traced back to explicit statements provided by pesukim, statements of Chazal, and other meforshim; other definitions I have inferred from their commentaries, some of these definitions are from my Mishlei rebbi, and some are the result of my own Mishleic knowledge and intuition (which I have been cultivating over the past 16 years of uninterrupted Mishlei learning). 

Likewise, the arrangement of these Mishleic personalities on a spectrum is the result of my own analysis, synthesized from a number of different meforshim. There is no unanimous agreement as to where each personality falls out on the spectrum. For example, some (like myself) view the tzadik as a further development of the yashar; others flip the two. 

I have chosen not to cite any sources for these definitions, since this would be a herculean task which I am not up to at the moment. Instead, I will now identify my "go to" meforshim from which these definitions were drawn. The five meforshim I used the most, in order, are: Meiri, Rabbeinu Yonah, Saadia Gaon, Metzudas David,  and Ralbag. These are the five meforshim who, along with my Mishlei rebbi, gave me a derech (method) of Mishlei, and have shaped my development of my own derech.

Color Code

I've decided to color-code the labels in my spectrum, to add a layer of clarity:

Without further ado, here are sixteen Mishleic personalities - presented in the most suitable conceptual order. 

A Glossary of Mishleic Personalities

Primary Mishleic Personalities: these are the ones I focus on in my introductory Mishlei classes, since they are the most basic; all other personalities are subdivisions within these. 

1. נער - Naar ("Youth"): the average person who hasn't learned Mishlei. The term "youth" isn't a reference to age, but to wisdom - just as the Torah uses zakein ("elder") in reference to someone who has acquired much wisdom, regardless of his age. The naar has had enough life experience to form his own views, personality, and habits, but for the most part, he has no major flaws which stand in the way of Mishlei learning and Mishleic development. The naar is one of the audience members for whom Shlomo ha'Melech intended his book, as it is stated: "to [provide] the naar with knowledge and intelligent planning" (Mishlei 1:4).

2. חכם - Chacham ("Wise Person"): one who makes decisions based on long-term consequences. Chazal express this definition in the dictum: "Who is a chacham? One who sees the consequences [of his decisions]" (Tamid 32a). The chacham wants to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. He realizes that in order to do this, he must make decisions using his intellect and not just act based on his feelings and whims. When faced with a decision the chacham will weigh the long-term benefits/pleasures against the short-term pain/harm, and the long-term painful/harmful consequences against the short term pleasures/benefits. Shlomo ha'Melech also intended Mishlei to be learned by chachamim, who are still developing in their chochmah towards becoming tzadikim, as it is stated: "the chacham will hear [the words of Mishlei] and increase his learning" (Mishlei 1:4).

3. אויל - Eveel ("Foolish Person"): one who seeks immediate gratification. The eveel is the opposite of the chacham. He is so caught up in his single-minded pursuit of immediate gratification that he will choose short-term pleasure/benefit even if this brings about long-term pain/harm, and he will forego long-term pleasure/benefit if the price is short-term pain/harm. This severely limits the perspective of the eveel, restricting his view of reality to a superficial level. Although it might be possible to reach the eveel through Mishlei, this is an uphill battle. For this reason, the eveel is not included in Shlomo ha'Melech's intended readership.

NOTE: Mishleic fools (i.e. eveel, ksil, pesi, arum, etc.) should NOT be thought of as "stupid" in the sense of having a low IQ, nor should they be thought of as bumbling imbeciles. In Mishlei "foolishness" refers to a flawed pattern/habit of decision-making - not a lack of intelligence. It is possible to be extremely smart but still be classified as a "fool" according to Mishlei. 

4. כסיל - Ksil ("Fool"): one who is addicted to immediate gratification to the extent that he unconsciously expects reality to align itself with his desires. The ksil is similar to the eveel in his superficial outlook on reality and his focus on immediate gratification - so similar, in fact, that many of the meforshim seem to regard the two terms as synonyms. But to my mind, there is one important difference: the ksil has an arrogance which the eveel lacks. The eveel's resistance to chochmah stems from his dim recognition that chochmah threatens his mindless pursuit of immediate gratification. In contrast, the ksil is attached to a worldview with himself at the center; his resistance to chochmah stems from his vested interest in this egocentric worldview. Unlike the chacham, who recognizes that he must align himself with reality to get what he wants, the ksil expects reality to yield to his will. The difference between the eveel and the ksil might seem minor, but it is this modicum of arrogance which allows the ksil to develop into something worse (i.e. leftward on the Mishleic spectrum), whereas the eveel will usually remain locked in place. Furthermore, the ksil displays a degree of stubbornness and close-mindedness which the eveel lacks. To use an analogy: if chochmah is the father, the eveel is the kid being dragged to the school bus kicking and screaming, whereas the ksil is the kid with crossed arms and an angry face who has firmly planted himself behind the locked doors of his bedroom.

5. צדיק - Tzadik ("Righteous Person" or "Person of Justice"): one who makes decisions based on the good of the system, as a whole, of which he is a part. The tzadik may be thought of as "the finished product" of the Mishlei Program. Like the chacham, the tzadik thinks long-term, but whereas the chacham's long-term thinking is linear - and therefore, limited - the tzadik's is systemic. For those who think visually, perhaps this diagram will clarify what I mean by "linear" vs. "systemic":

Here is the explanation of this diagram:

• The perspective of the eveel is limited in two ways: (a) his thinking is extremely short-term, and (b) when he does think ahead, he can only think in a linear fashion ("If I do A, then B will happen.") 
• The perspective of the chacham is broader: (a) his thinking is long-term, but (b) it is also limited to a linear perspective.
• The perspective of the tzadik is even broader than that: (a) his thinking is long-term, but extends beyond the long-term thinking of the chacham because (b) he thinks systemically ("If I do A, this will have an impact on the entire system, which will bring about B, C, D, etc."). 

To further clarify, here are three examples to illustrate the differences between the decision-making of an eveel, a chacham, and a tzadik.

SCENARIO #1: LOST OBJECT

• When an eveel encounters a lost object, he will either take it for himself, if he wants it (seeking of short-term pleasure), or he will leave it there and move on if he doesn't want it (avoidance of short-term pain).
• A chacham would make an effort (short-term pain) to return the lost object to its owner knowing that this might yield long-term benefits (e.g. a reward, goodwill, being owed a favor, increasing the likelihood that the owner of the lost object will look out for the chacham's lost objects, being viewed as an honest and caring person, etc.). 
• A tzadik would also return the lost object; he is aware of the long-term benefits that motivated the chacham, but he will think beyond those benefits and consider how his action will impact the system of which he is a part. The tzadik knows that by returning this lost object, he will contributing to a society (e.g. school, workplace, neighborhood, etc.) in which people care about each other's possessions. Such a society is beneficial for all of its members - including the tzadik himself. For this reason, the tzadik - unlike the chacham - will return the lost object even if there is no chance of a direct personal benefit which will result from his efforts. He views the short-term cost of returning the lost object as an investment in the greater long-term benefits of shaping his society for the better.

SCENARIO #2: STEALING

• An eveel will have no problem cheating or stealing. The prospect of immediate gain will overshadow the consequences that he might suffer as a result. He is likely to either not think about the possibility of getting caught, or hastily convince himself that he won't get caught.
• A chacham will refrain from cheating and stealing. He knows that the consequences of getting caught far outweigh the short-term gains. He knows that even if he doesn't get caught this time, it will be extremely difficult to limit himself after stealing just one time. That initial crime will make it easier for him to rationalize stealing again, and again, and again. Eventually, he will get sloppy, or take too big of a risk, and he will get caught and suffer the consequences. Moreover, this will tarnish his reputation, which will make it even harder to make an honest profit in the future.
• A tzadik will factor in all of the pros and cons considered by the chacham, but he will also think about how his actions will impact the system of which he is a part. For example, if he steals a pen from his colleague in the office, this might lead his colleague to feel that it is okay to do the same thing. Not only would this put his own pens in danger from being stolen by that colleague, but it would push the entire office one step closer to being a society in which people don't respect each other's ownership. This disregard for personal property might extend to other areas as well (e.g. failing to clean up after themselves in the cafeteria, not pulling their weight in shared responsibilities, not being willing to cover for each other in extenuating circumstances). This might seem like a slippery slope type argument, but the tzadik knows that this is how systems devolve: one self-centered decision at a time. "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

SCENARIO #3: EATING

• An eveel will eat foods which yield short-term pleasure and will shun foods which would bring him short-term displeasure - even if these eating habits leads to harmful consequences in the long run (e.g. health problems, image problems, financial costs) and the withholding of long-term benefits (e.g. living longer, being able to enjoy old age, being able to continue eating the foods that he has become accustomed to enjoy).
• A chacham will eat foods which yield long-term benefit/pleasure and enable him to avoid long-term pain/harm - exactly the opposite of the eveel.
• A tzadik shares all of the chacham's motives, but his concern will extend beyond these personal, linear benefits to the entirety of system of which he is a part. For example, if he is a father in a household with a wife and kids, he will eat healthy for his own sake and for the sake of his family as well. Maintaining his long-term health will increase the chances of him being there for his family in the future. If he and his wife eat healthy, their kids will grow up eating healthy as well. Not only will they benefit from the diet itself, but they will have grown up with parents who regularly exercised self-control in the realm of the appetitive. Not only that, but if he and his wife eat healthy, and their kids eat healthy, then this increases the likelihood of healthy progeny all the way down the line. 

I hope the diagram and scenarios clarified these three terms. Back to the glossary.

6. חסיד - Chasid ("Pious Person"): one who goes beyond what is required. This definition is intentionally vague because it deals with a subject matter outside of Mishlei; its usage will differ based on the framework and context in which it is used. For example, in Tehilim the term "chasid" has to do with one's relationship to Hashem - going beyond what is required and acting in accordance with His design and His plan. In Pirkei Avos, the term "chasid" denotes lifnim mi'shuras ha'din (going "beyond the letter of the law") within the system of Taryag Mitzvos. In the Rambam's Hilchos Deos, the term "chasid" refers to an extra degree of vigilance and management in one's own ethical development. The common denominator is that a chasid's actions are characterized by chesed ("excess"), going beyond what is required. I only included the term in this glossary to show that it is barely dealt with in Mishlei. 

7. רשע - Rasha ("Evil Person"): one who seeks to impose his own system onto reality in order to achieve power and greatness. The rasha is the opposite of the tzadik. The tzadik strives to understand the system of which he is a part, and to facilitate the good of that system as a whole. In contrast, the rasha wishes to dominate others and to emerge on top as the greatest and most powerful being. He will do whatever it takes to force this design upon the existing circumstances. Since this is an artificial scheme, rooted in a fantasy-driven megalomania, it will inevitably clash with what is good for the other members of the system, and many people will be trampled and harmed in the rasha's rise to power. The rasha's personality is best exemplified by people like Paroh, Haman, and Hitler (shem reshaim yirkav) - all of whom sought to subjugate others in an attempt to reshape the world into a shrine for their own glory. Ultimately, the rasha is doomed to fail when his delusional master plan clashes with reality. For Paroh, this failure was brought about by Hashem; for Haman, it was orchestrated by Mordechai and Esther; for Hitler, it resulted from his overambitious attempts to extend his reign beyond what was possible (e.g. his failed attempt to invade the Soviet Union).

NOTE: For the most part, each term on the right-hand side of the spectrum builds upon, and includes, the qualities of the previous level. For example, the tzadik includes all the characteristics of the navon, who includes all the features of the chacham. But on the left-hand side of the spectrum, this isn't necessarily true. The ksil embodies all the qualities of the eveel, but the rasha doesn't share the features with either of them. In fact, in order to be a rasha, one must possess the long-term thinking of the chacham. Consider Hitler. He certainly wasn't an eveel or a ksil. Hitler needed to think long-term - and even forego immediate pleasure and endure immediate pain - in order to realize his ego-maniacal vision. The only area in which the rasha is a ksil is when it comes to the end-game. The rasha is blind to the fact that his grand vision is built upon a foundation of falsehood fueled by a denial of reality (i.e. refusal to acknowledge that he is a limited, finite particular within a natural system - not an omnipotent god-like ruler of a self-glorifying system of his own design).

Secondary Mishlei Personalities: these show up with near-equal frequency, but represent variations on - and transitional phases between - the basic personality types. 

8. פתי - Pesi ("Naive Simpleton"): one who is easily "seduced" (mispateh) by his own emotions. The pesi is extremely subject to external influences. The principle which drives his life may be summed up as follows: if it feels true then it is true, and if it feels good then it is good; likewise it feels bad then it is bad, and if it feels false then it is false. The pesi shares qualities with the eveel and the naar. He resembles the eveel in that he views reality in a superficial way. He resembles the naar in that he can be positively influenced by Mishlei. The eveel and the ksil are "locked" into their flawed ways of thinking. The pesi, thanks to his malleable mind, can be guided towards the good by chachamim and tzadikim. For this reason, Shlomo ha'Melech included the pesi in his intended audience - something he didn't do for any other Mishleic fool - as it is stated: "to provide pesaim with cunning" (Mishlei 1:4).

9. ערום - Arum ("Cunning Person"): one who has a working knowledge of how emotions influence decision-making. You'll notice that the arum appears in two places on the spectrum: slightly to the right of the naar (on "the good side") and on the borderline of the group of the evildoers (on "the bad side"). The reason for this is simple: the arum's cunning (i.e. his working knowledge of the psyche and its capacity to influence behavior) is a tremendous gift which can aid his development into a chacham or be used in the pursuit of foolish or wicked ends. The arum has a leg up over the naar because he is keenly aware of how much his own thinking might be influenced by his emotions; if he is wise, this will give him pause in his decision-making - and if he makes this into a habit, then he will be well on his way to becoming a chacham. On the other hand, the arum is also in the perfect position to manipulate others for sinister purposes - as the Torah itself states, "The snake was more cunning than all the other beasts of the field" (Bereishis 3:1). This type of cunning is a valuable tool in the rasha's arsenal, and is essential for his success. In short, the arum is a potential chacham and a potential rasha.

10. נבון - Navon ("Understanding Person"): an abstract thinker (i.e. one who can inductively derive new universal principles from particulars and deductively apply universals to new particulars). This is one of the few definitions which all of the meforshim agree upon. The question is: How does he fit into this spectrum? I'm not entirely clear on that point. Descriptively, the navon represents the transitional stage between the chacham and the tzadik. The chacham must be able to do more than see the long-term consequences of a particular decision. He must be able to uncover universal principles of decision-making from his day-to-day situations, which will allow him to expand his chochmah to new scenarios. Abstract thinking is also necessary to break out of the linear thinking of the chacham and to view things systemically like the tzadik. The navon is also mentioned as a primary audience of Mishlei, as it is stated: "[through Mishlei] a navon will acquire strategies" (Mishlei 1:4).

11. לץ - Leitz ("Scoffer"): an egotistical person who is malicious in speech (but not in action). This definition comes directly from a pasuk in Mishlei: "The arrogant malicious one - 'leitz' is his name" (21:24). The leitz has a massively inflated ego which stems from a deep-seated feeling of deficiency and inferiority. Instead of dealing with his flaws through chochmah, he denies his imperfections and degrades others to artificially boost his self-esteem. His self-confidence is so low that he doesn't even take proactive measures to boost his own standing, but instead takes the cowardly approach of speaking rechilus (gossip), lashon ha'ra (negative speech), and hotzaas shem ra (slander) behind people's backs. The leitz is the school bully - not the one that beats kids up and steals their lunch money, but the one who cuts them with hurtful words and makes fun of them in public. The best and worst thing about the leitz is that he is all talk, and no action. This is good in the sense that one don't have to worry about him causing physical damage to oneself or to one's possessions. This is bad in that the leitz can cause a LOT of harm through speech.

Tertiary Mishleic Personalities: these don't appear too often, and this isn't an exhaustive list. Like the secondary personalities, they are variations on the basic types, or transitional phases between developmental milestones.

12. תם - Tam ("Evenly Keeled Person"): one who has no extreme emotions pulling him in either direction. The tam is a "beginning personality" like the naar, but has a huge advantage over the latter. In all probability, the naar is likely to be a mixed bag. While he doesn't have any outstanding flaws in his way of operating (like the eveel and the ksil), he is bound to have certain weaknesses and deficiencies in his middos/personality. He might have a short temper, or be prone to jealously, or have problem managing his money, or be overly timid or overly reckless, or overly competitive or not competitive enough, etc. In contrast, the tam is balanced. His emotions are fluid, and provide little to no resistance. If the situation calls for him to save money, he'll be able to do it. If the situation calls for him to spend money, he will spend it without any conflict. If he needs to be self-assertive, he'll be self-assertive. If he needs to remain in the background, this will not cause him any conflict. Although it is possible to become a tam through the proper training, some people are fortunate to naturally be tamim. We all know certain individuals who are calm, cool, and collected, and don't seem to be disturbed or agitated by anything. Chances are that such an individual is a natural tam. The next step for such a person is to learn how to think like a chacham, which will be much easier for him to do without personality-obstacles and emotional resistances. 

13. ישר - Yashar/Yosher ("Upright" Person): one whose inclinations and intuition draw him towards tzedek (what is good for the system), but without a working understanding of the system. Out of the sixteen terms on this chart, this is the one I understand the least. Descriptively, this is a navon on his way to becoming a tzadik. He frequently makes the same decisions that a tzadik would make, but not in the systematic manner of the tzadik. The tzadik consciously does what is best for the system, with forethought and full understanding. The yashar intuitively acts this way, but he hasn't taken that final developmental step to make tzedek his modus operandi. 

14. עצל - Atzel ("Lazy Person"): one who compulsively attempts to avoid all immediate pain and conflict. Like the eveel, the atzel is locked into the superficial world of immediate pain and pleasure. But unlike the eveel, who seeks immediate gratification above all, the atzel is paralyzed by the compulsive need to avoid immediate pain. In Scenario #1 (about the lost object), the atzel will usually just leave the object where it is, since it's too much work to take it. In Scenario #2 (about stealing) the atzel wouldn't steal in a proactive effort to increase profits, but he might steal if it helps him to avoid work or conflict. In Scenario #3 (about food) the atzel won't necessarily go for the most pleasurable food; he'll just eat whatever takes the least effort, even if he doesn't really like it as much.

15. בוגד - Bogeid ("Traitor" or "the Mishleic Jerk"): one who repays good with bad and impulsively "lashes out" at reality when things don't go his way. This is also a difficult personality to understand. In a sense, the bogeid is as the opposite of the yashar. The yashar's intuition is in line with reality (i.e. tzedek, or "the system"), but the bogeid's intuition routinely brings him in conflict with reality. In the social realm he has no intuitive sense of justice or basic decency, and will act like a jerk even to those who benefit him and treat him kindly. Deep down, he has an anthropomorphic view of reality (i.e. he relates to reality as though it were a person); consequently, he takes reality personally, and will vent his frustration by complaining and acting out when he feels "victimized." Both the bogeid and the ksil have a strong sense of entitlement, but whereas the ksil's sense of entitlement causes him to walk around with a false sense of security leading to proactive self-sabotage, the bogeid's sense of entitlement causes him to throw frequent tantrums and engage in reactive self-sabotage.

16. בליעל - Bliyaal ("Lawless Person"): one who cannot tolerate being subjugated to any authority. The word bliyaal is a compound of bli (without) + ole (yoke). The essence of his personality is that he does not want to feel controlled, ruled, or dominated by anyone. He is anti-authoritarian - not in a philosophical way, but in a "wild animal" or "stubborn child" way. Like the bogeid, the bliyaal has an anthropomorphic view of reality, to the extent that when reality "obligates" him to do something, he rebels. For example, he won't plant his field during the planting season because he unconsciously feels: "How DARE they make me plant! Nobody is gonna tell ME what to do!" Like the leitz, the bliyaal derives enjoyment from causing destruction and harm - not because he shares the leitz's sadism and malice, but because wreaking havoc in this manner makes him feel independent and unrestrained. The only authority to whom the bliyaal will pledge his loyalty is the rasha, so long as the rasha gives him an outlet for his lawlessness. It is for this reason that you will see examples of bliyaal in the second tier of criminal hierarchies (e.g. mafia strongmen, gang members who do the dirty work for gang leaders, Nazis who were given outlets for their sadism by being assigned positions of authority in concentration camps).

Conclusion (for Now)

I repeat: these definitions are not authoritative, nor are they set in stone. These are working definitions intended to aid the beginning in learning Mishlei until he or she forms his or her own understanding.

There are more personalities in Mishlei that I haven't even touched upon here: the ish mezimos ("scheming person"), the meivin ("discerning person"), the ben meivish ("embarrassing son"), the charutz ("diligent person"), the ish chamas ("violent person"), the chasar lev ("one who lacks an understanding mind"), and more. Perhaps I will define these in the next edition of the Mishleic Glossary.

For now, I hope you find this guide to be useful in your own Mishlei learning! 

Walk-through of Mishlei 15:5

I thought it might be a good idea to follow up yesterday's How to Learn Mishlei: a Step by Step Guide post with an example of the method in action. I was going to write up a new blog post when I remembered that I wrote a walk-through of a Mishlei pasuk back in 2012. I reread it, concluded that it has withstood the test of time, and decided to edit it for re-posting today. Enjoy!

Artwork: Despise, by Todd Lockwood

Walk-through of Mishlei 15:5

Introduction

This post is intended as a sample analysis of an "average" pasuk in Mishlei, using the five-step method outlined in How to Learn Mishlei: a Step by Step Guide. I say "average" because in truth, there is no average pasuk in Mishlei. Each pasuk is a little, unique, self-contained world of insight. I hope that this post succeeds in giving you a sample of that flavor. 

Without further ado, let us commence with the first phase!

Phase #1: Reading and Translation

Here is the text of our pasuk:

משלי טו:ה

אֱוִיל יִנְאַץ מוּסַר אָבִיו וְשֹׁמֵר תּוֹכַחַת יַעְרִם:

I'll begin by translating the unequivocal terms into English, but I'll leave the ambiguous phrases as transliterations for now. Here is the first attempt at translation:

An eveel will despise the discipline of his father, but a shomer-rebuke will gain ormah.

If I had to settle on a working translation at this point, it would probably look something like this:

A fool will despise the discipline of his father, but one who guards rebuke will become cunning.

But we must remember that this is only a working translation. It is important to remain flexible as we proceed through our analysis, and constantly revisit the original Hebrew to modify our translation. 

Now that we've read and translated our pasuk, it's time for the real analysis to begin!

Phase #2: Questions 

For the sake of thoroughness, I am going to spell out all of the questions in as much detail as I can. In addition to formulating the questions concisely (in bold), I will elaborate on all of them and try to explain the import of each one. As I see it, there are seven major questions: 

1. What is an "eveel"? Shlomo ha'Melech is the taxonomist of fools par excellence. His book features a whole cast of fool-characters, each plagued by a different type of foolishness: eveel, pesi, leitz, ksil, boor, chasar leiv, naar, atzel etc. Sometimes these terms are used in a technical sense with a specific definition; other times they are used generically and interchangeably. Sometimes the definition can (and should) be derived from the specific context; other times it must be derived from elsewhere in Mishlei. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary to know the definition of the fool in order to understand the main idea of the pasuk; other times, the fool is just being used to highlight one of his specific features (e.g. a particular habit he has, or an action he does, or an emotion he experiences), and it is not necessary to understand his nature in order to get the main idea of the pasuk. As you can see, there are no rules for how to approach this type of question. Follow your intuition, and hone it over time.
   
2. Why does the pasuk focus on the eveel's rejection of mussar av (his father's discipline), specifically? The second half of the pasuk seems to be talking about all rebuke, not just rebuke from one's father. If so, why does the first half of the pasuk zero in on rebuke from such a specific source?
   
3. What is the meaning of "shomer tochachah"? The word "shomer" means "to guard," "to keep," and "to watch over." It is an unusual term to use in relation to rebuke. One would expect the pasuk to say something like, "one who listens to rebuke" or "one who accepts rebuke." 
   
4. What is ormah? Just as Shlomo ha'Melech classifies fools, each according to their particular type of foolishness, he also classifies chachamim (wise people) according to their intellectual virtues. There are as many words for chachamim in Mishlei as there are for fools: chacham, navon, meivin, ish tevunos, yashar, arum, ish mezimos, etc. The "sometimes" and "other times" guidelines stated above (in Question #1) apply to these terms as well. In our pasuk, however, it seems that the meaning of ormah is central to the main idea, and we will need to precisely define what it means.
   
5. How does being a shomer-tochachah cause a person to gain ormah? Our pasuk posits a cause-and-effect relationship: if a person is a shomer-tochachah, he will gain ormah. How does this work? For example, let's say you rebuke me for being a reckless driver or for waiting until the last minute to study for tests. I can see how I would benefit from such a rebuke, but that benefit would be in terms of avoiding traffic accidents and bad grades - not in terms of "gaining ormah," which seems to be a much broader quality.
   
6. How is a shomer-tochachah the opposite of an eveel who rejects his father's discipline? This brings us to a huge methodology principle in Mishlei. The vast majority of Mishlei pesukim are to be viewed as a contrast in opposites; the content of the first half of the pasuk will, in some sense, be the opposite of the content of the second half. Sometimes it is obvious how the two halves are opposites, but in other cases, it seems that the two halves are slightly "off." In some cases, the first half seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the second half. When this happens, our goal is to figure out how to understand the pasuk such that we can grasp the oppositional symmetry. In our case, we can assume that the shomer-tochachah who gains ormah is the opposite of the eveel who rejects his father's discipline. The question is: How?
   
7. What is the subject of the pasuk? Every pasuk is about a specific subject, and unless you can identify that subject, you will not fully understand the pasuk. In this case, it is clear that the subject has something to do with rebuke, but it is unclear whether the subject is more specific than that. (Oftentimes the subject of the pasuk will emerge from thinking about how the two halves of the pasuk are opposites, but it's still a good idea to ask this question separately.) 

There is an eighth question that some people might wonder about: What is the difference between tochachah and mussar? I won't say that this is a bad question per se, but it's not the type of question I concern myself with. Almost all meforshim disregard such questions. The only exception is the Malbim, whose entire derech hinges on such subtleties of the pasuk's language. The other meforshim have no trouble with the notion that Shlomo ha'Melech employed synonyms, since that's the way normal people talk (a la dibrah Torah ki'lshon bnei adam - "the Torah speaks in the language of man"). For this reason, I don't treat questions like this as "major questions," nor do I assume that the main idea will emerge from scrutinizing such subtleties. Instead, I keep these types of questions in the back of my mind while I learn the pasuk. If they trigger my intuition, so be it. If not, no problem. If, after arriving at the main idea, I can see an added dimension reflected in the subtlety of the lashon, then that's great. If I can't, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

[At this point in the original blog post I wrote a blurb about Mishlei methodology. I wish I had remembered this blurb when writing yesterday's post, since yesterday's post covered much of the same material. In order to spare the regular readers of my blog from redundancy, I took this part out. If you're interested in reading it, I've included it as an addendum at the end of this post.]

Phase #3: Thinking

Much of this step is intuitive, which makes it hard to capture in writing. I will do my best to share the steps I took in my analysis of this pasuk to arrive at the main idea.

Three out of the seven questions we raised are "definition questions" (#1, #3, and #4), and since it is impossible to understand what the pasuk is saying until we understand what it is talking about, it seems like these questions are the logical place to start. 

I knew that out of all of Mishlei's terms for fools, "eveel" (lit. "fool") is the most generic. I sensed that for our purposes we wouldn't need to define the nature of the eveel. All we would need to know about the eveel is that he despises all discipline - a fact which is clear from many pesukim in Mishlei. For example: "Fear of Hashem is the beginning of knowledge, but eveelim scorn wisdom and discipline" (1:7) and "The way of the eveel is upright in his own eyes, but one who listens to counsel is wise" (12:15). Notice how this strengthens our Question #2. Considering the fact that the eveel, by definition, despises all discipline, then why does the pasuk specifically refer to his rejection of his father's discipline? 

The next step was to define "ormah" (lit. "cunning" or "cleverness") which I had done previously in my Mishlei learning. My working definition of "ormah" means knowledge and awareness of how emotions distort thinking. How did I arrive at this conclusion? By inferring the meaning of "ormah" and "arum" from their opposites: "pesayus" and "pesi," which refer (respectively) to a specific type of foolishness and the fool it characterizes, respectively. Let's do a quick overview of this type of foolishness.

Shlomo ha'Melech begins his book by stating that Mishlei is designed "to provide pesa'im with ormah" (1:4). Likewise, "When the scoffer is struck, the pesi gains ormah" (19:25). Throughout Mishlei, the pesi is contrasted with the arum. For example: "A pesi believes everything, but an arum understands every step" (14:15) and "An arum sees evil and hides, but the pesa'im transgress and are punished" (22:3). It is reasonable to conclude that by understanding who the pesi is and the type of knowledge/intelligence he lacks, we will understand ormah and what it means to become an arum.

Rabbeinu Yonah (on Mishlei 1:4), paraphrasing Chazal (Eiruvin 19a), defines pesi (lit. "one who is seduced") as "one who is mispateh b'yitzro" (lit. "seduces himself with his own inclination"). In other words, a pesi is someone whose convictions are heavily influenced by his emotions. To a pesi, what feels good is good, and what feels true is true. He is "seduced" by his psyche into thinking that his feelings and first impressions reflect reality, and he is oblivious to how his emotions distort his thinking. Rabbeinu Yonah (on Mishlei 1:22) says that if the pesi were aware of the distortion-capacity of his own emotions, he would not be so quick to jump to conclusions, and he would be much more careful in his thinking.

Thus, if "ormah" is what a pesi lacks and if an arum is the opposite of a pesi, it follows that ormah refers to knowledge and awareness of how emotions distort one's thinking. This quality of ormah can be used for the good, as it is throughout Mishlei, or it can be used for evil, as in the case of the snake in Gan Eden: "and the snake was more arum than all the beasts of the field" (Bereishis 3:1). The nachash used its ormah - its knowledge of how human emotions distort thinking - to lure Chavah into eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

Back to our pasuk. The most mysterious phrase here is "shomer tochachah." I thought about the clues I discovered when formulating the questions, namely: 

• We'd expect Mishlei to say "listens to rebuke" or "accepts rebuke," so "shomer tochachah" must mean something above and beyond that. (Question #3)
• Whatever "shomer tochachah" means, it must somehow lead to ormah. (Question #5)
• The shomer-tochachah who gains ormah is the opposite of the eveel who despises his father's discipline. (Question #6)
• If the eveel despises all rebuke, why does the pasuk focus on his rejection of mussar av (his father's discipline) in particular? (Question #2)

It was then that I had my "EUREKA!" moment - like the "click" on a luggage combination-lock - and the main idea rapidly unfolded from there. 

I realized that mussar av evokes a different type of emotional resistance than all other mussar, due to the special place that a father holds in a one's psyche. (I don't feel the need to support this with evidence or explanation; anyone who has been rebuked by his father knows what I'm talking about.) The eveel is oblivious to the uniqueness of this emotional reaction. Even though he reacts much harsher to his father's discipline than anyone else's, he will give no thought to this difference. Why? Because he lacks awareness of his own emotions - or, in Mishlei terminology, he lacks ormah. I realized that that is the subject of the first half of the pasuk: not the eveel's rejection of mussar in general, but rather, the eveel's lack of ormah as evidenced by the nature of his rejection of his father's mussar in particular. (Yeah, ya might want to read that sentence a few times.)

It follows, then, that the shomer-tochachah is someone who does have an awareness of his own emotions. A good sign that we are correct is that this is exactly what the pasuk says: "The shomer-tochachah will become an arum." In other words, the shomer tochachah will gain self-awareness and knowledge of own his emotions and their power to distort his thinking. This is when I knew I was on the right track.

I realized I was now in a position to define "shomer tochachah." How can a person relate to tochachah in a manner that will gain him an increased awareness of his own emotions? It must be by watching over his own emotional reactions to the tochachah he receives. By monitoring his inner world, he will gain knowledge and awareness of his own emotions (i.e. ormah). In other words, the shomer-tochachah doesn't just look to the tochachah as a way to improve his life in the localized area of decision-making which was the subject of the tochachah. Rather, he looks at the tochachah as a tremendous opportunity to learn about himself by analyzing his own reactions to being rebuked. This type of knowledge will benefit him in all areas of decision-making; awareness of his own emotions will help him to guard against distortions in his thinking, and he'll be more in tune with his own psychological needs and will be able to know what to pursue in his decision-making, thereby leading to healthier and more realistic decisions. 

I then realized that the root SH.M.R. here is not being used in the sense of "guard," "protect," or "keep," but in the sense of "examine," "watch over," or "monitor," as in "ve'haya lachem l'mishmeres ad arbah asar yom la'chodesh ha'zeh" (Shemos 12:6) which means "[The Pesach lamb] shall be yours for examination until the fourteenth day of this month." Thus, I decided to translate "shomer tochachah" as "one who monitors rebuke," meaning, "one who monitors, examines, and analyzes his own emotional response to the rebuke that he receives."

This is when the subject of the pasuk came clearly into focus. The subject of this pasuk is: rebuke as an opportunity for self-knowledge. The fool misses out on this opportunity, in addition to missing out on the benefit of listening to the rebuke itself. In contrast, the shomer-tochachah seizes this opportunity, in addition to implementing the rebuke in action. 

Phase #4: The Main Idea

Now we are in a position to concisely formulate the main idea. In this phase I try to do what I ask all of my students to do: state the main idea in 1-4 clear sentences. Here is my post-analysis translation of the pasuk, and my summary of the main idea, which became clearer once I began formulating it:

Mishlei 15:5: A fool rejects the discipline of his father, but one who monitors rebuke will become cunning.  

In order to successfully heed rebuke, one must approach it from two angles: (1) practicality (i.e. figuring out how to correct your actions and/or decision-making) and (2) psychology (i.e. continually monitoring and managing your emotional reaction to the rebuke in order to overcome the internal resistances to accepting it and implementing it). One who places the emphasis on the practical dimension of the rebuke will improve his life in that specific area of decision-making, but one who goes beyond that and focuses on the psychological dimension rebuke will gain the additional benefit of becoming cunning; that is to say, he will gain self-awareness and knowledge of his own psyche, which will benefit him in all areas of decision-making. In contrast, the fool not only “scorns [all] wisdom and discipline” (Mishlei 1:7), but he is so out of touch with his own emotions that he fails to recognize the nature of his own psychological resistances, as evidenced by the especial disdain he harbors towards his father’s discipline in particular. Consequently, he will suffer the localized consequences of ignoring the rebuke, as well as the widespread consequences of his lack of cunning. 

Now, if we stopped here, we would - at the very least - have a nice idea. But our goal is not only to learn nice ideas, but to learn from the teachings of Shlomo ha'Melech. In order to make sure we've accomplished this goal, we must conclude our analysis with the final phase.

Phase #5: Testing the Main Idea

Here is where we do our final check-over to see if we have actually understood the pasuk. 

• Does the idea make sense? Check. Not only does it make sense, but it resonates with my real-world experience, as all true ideas (ideally) should. 
• Did I answer all of the major questions? Check. 
• Does the pasuk read smoothly according to this idea, in a manner that expresses the idea without feeling forced? Check. 

Conclusion

And that, my friends, is a walk-through of a typical Mishlei pasuk! I hope this was helpful not only in understanding how I arrived at this particular idea, but in demonstrating my approach to Mishlei in general. Let me know what you thought of this idea, and the "walk-through" format of this blog post. If this is something people want, maybe I'll do more in the future!

Addendum: Methodology - How to Learn Mishlei

Before we analyze our pasuk, I'd like to state a brief preface about methodology in Mishlei. My Mishlei rebbi once told me that the purpose of methodology serves two purposes: (1) to set up the facts prior to thinking, and (2) to avoid logical mistakes in thinking. However, when it comes time for the actual thinking itself, "You should think as though there is no method." In other words, your mind should be totally free to explore and to be creative. In The Evolution of Physics, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld describe the transition from the stage of fact gathering to the stage of thinking: 

In nearly every detective novel since the admirable stories of Conan Doyle there comes a time where the investigator has collected all the facts he needs for at least some phase of his problem. These facts often seem quite strange, incoherent, and wholly unrelated. The great detective, however, realizes that no further investigation is needed at the moment, and that only pure thinking will lead to a correlation of the facts collected. So he plays his violin, or lounges in his armchair enjoying a pipe, when suddenly, by Jove, he has it! Not only does he have an explanation for the clues at hand, but he knows that certain other events must have happened. Since he now knows exactly where to look for it, he may go out, if he likes, to collect further confirmation for his theory.

That is exactly how I experience the learning of Mishlei. First comes the fact-gathering step, in which the focus is on understanding how to read the words in the pasuk. This is followed by a question step, in which the major questions and problems are identified and clearly articulated. Sometimes these steps are sequential, and sometimes they overlap, but both are necessary at the beginning, before the analysis can commence. Otherwise, one runs the risk of projecting preconceived notions onto the pasuk and missing out on what Shlomo ha'Melech is trying to teach. Also, if you don't take the time to articulate your questions in advance, you run the risk of getting so caught up in your idea that you fail to realize that you've neglected to answer a glaring problem in the pasuk. 

After the initial steps of "the facts" and "the questions" are done, now comes the period of thinking. How the thinking and analysis plays itself out is unpredictable and highly individualized, based on the intuition of each thinker. Once your mind sees a possible idea or approach, explore that idea freely and see where it leads. If it helps, you can think about the idea in conjunction with the pasuk. Personally, I find that it's best to temporarily forget about the pasuk and develop the idea on its own terms.

Once your mind is on the trail of an idea and you've found a good possibility or even a partial possibility (a "kernel" or a "glimmer of an idea," as I sometimes say), you can then return to the pasuk to see whether you have, indeed, figured out what Shlomo ha'Melech is teaching in the pasuk. At this point, it is beneficial to see which of your major questions you have answered and which remain to be answered. You may also find that you'll need to rework the facts in light of your idea. Be prepared to change the entire manner in which you initially read the pasuk. 

The interplay between facts, questions, thinking, and testing can go up and back and around in cycles. That's totally natural and fine. The main thing is to make sure that you've covered all four bases: that your facts are solid, your questions are precise and answered, your idea is clear and makes sense, and that it flows from the words in the pasuk without being forced.

Once you have succeeded in arriving at a clear idea which naturally flows from the pasuk and answers your major questions AND you can clearly see the application and relevance of this idea to real-world decision-making (which is the subject of Mishlei), then you can say: "I understand this pasuk." And if you can clearly summarize your interpretation of the pasuk in four sentences or less and provide an actual real-world example, then you would receive an "A" in my high school Mishlei class!