Like Rasag last week, Gra focuses a great deal of attention on the four places mentioned in verses 20-21. Gra, however, assumes that the wisdom being discussed is the wisdom of Torah (as had Rashi before him—without generalizing too much, we should note the difference in attitude between those who assume that wisdom means Torah, and those who can see it meaning other things as well). He sees Mishlei as referring to Torah and its calling out in the streets here in order to contrast it to the kinds of thieves that had been discussed in earlier verses, where the verse had repeatedly referred to their staying in hiding, lying in ambush, and so on.

Torah, however, is always out in the open, as Gra elaborates when he explains the specific words. As we give the details of his explanation, however, it will be worth your while to pay attention to how open and public the acquisition of Torah in his view. This formulation of Gra’s is particularly interesting, since (as we will see) his picture of the various places and kinds of voice that shout Torah out actually has a strong esoteric component to it.

We might recall, as prelude to seeing Gra’s interpretation, that neither Rashi nor Rasag took literally the places we are discussing in these verses. For Rashi, ba-hutz meant in batei midrash, Houses of Study; for Rasag, the "places" really referred to how well a person anticipated and prevented problems from arising. Gra, while agreeing with Rashi that Torah is the wisdom under discussion, is similar to Rasag in not envisioning the places as physical. He instead notes that the four terms used in these verses for types of places are really a reference to how close to a city one stands. In the highway, one is farthest away. When one comes to the edge of a city, the highway becomes a kind of marketplace, not yet in the city, but demonstrably different from the rest of the highway. Moving a little closer, there are the city gates, where the elders of the city sit and administer city matters. Only after seeing all these places does one get into the city itself.

Gra distinguishes the types of voice referred to in these verses based on the audibility of the voice. When calling someone from far away, there is first a simple sound, not even distinguishable as a voice. A little closer, there is the sound of a voice, but no content is yet audible. Closer still one is close enough to call out to the other, but not to actually have a discussion, and then finally there is a distance at which it is possible to carry on a full conversation. In both sets of terms, then, Gra sees the process as one of going from farther to closer.

Translating that process to Torah, Gra notes that Torah consists of a peshat and a sod, a simple sense and a secret (esoteric) one. When one is still far from the truths of Torah, there is the simple literal sense of the words. A step closer is the derush, the expansion of the words of the Torah to translate into halakhah. Even closer comes the remez, which prepares one (is the lead in for) the sod, the internal truths of Torah. Both verses, for Gra, are metaphors for the process of Torah calling out to us, depending on our "distance" from it, although distance does not mean physical distance, but intellectual. Interesting to me here is Gra’s assumption (as for others) that the essence of Torah is hidden from the masses of people, and is only accessible with a great deal of study and preparation.

FOR FURTHER THOUGHT: Do you conceive of Torah as essentially hidden? Do you assume, depending on your stage of Torah knowledge, that there is only more to know about Torah, or that there is a fundamentally different view of Torah and its workings to which you have not yet been introduced? Do you think that as you learn you will only add facts to your current picture of Torah, or that that picture itself will change in important ways as you grow in your Torah knowledge?

Gra next offers an interpretation of each of the kinds of people who do not heed Mishlei’s rebuke. Petayim are those who allow themselves to be lured by the physical enjoyments of this world (similar to Rashi’s assumption that peti means someone who is lured or seduced). Letsim are those who just enjoy sitting around and talking idly. Finally, kesilim are those who stop studying Torah simply because they do not wish to put in the time and effort that is necessary. Gra notes, interestingly, that the verse lists them in ascending order, meaning that in his view, the person who succumbs to the lures of this world is more evil than one who chats idly or simply does not learn Torah because it is hard.

FOR FURTHER THOUGHT: How would you place people’s failings in a hierarchy? Which would rank as among the worst and which among the most acceptable? What is the standard by which you intuitively judge such failings?

The next verse offers a solution for each of these problems. Tokhakhat, rebuke, is the only way to cure a person’s physical desires, namely by reminding oneself of the evil outcome of such an action. The most effective way to resist physical temptation is to remind oneself of the problems in giving in—eating that extra piece of cake will mean having to exercise extra, or diet for longer, or weigh more (to use an example that is not inherently sinful).

In discussing the verse’s reference to abi`ah lakhem ruhi, God giving his spirit to the letsim, the idle chatterers, Gra asserts an interesting theory of human experience. For every experience, Gra says, a spirit comes down to the person from Heaven leading that person to want more of that experience (sort of like inertia, and Gra’s understanding of mitsvah goreret mitsvah, ve-`averah goreret `averah, that good deeds and sins lead to more of the same). To get away from idle chatter, then, a person needs to do the opposite, which Gra sees as speaking matters of Torah. God therefore offers to give His spirit (rather than the spirit that would seek more idle chatter) for those who wish it. The final group, those who refrain from Torah study because of its difficulty, God promises to allow them to understand it and gain that pleasure.

I would note here, just because it is where I noticed it, that Gra sees the text as speaking in God’s voice, whereas until now it was at least possible to see it as the author’s voice, or perhaps the voice of Wisdom or Torah.

Gra adds that the levels of evil and their remedies here also correspond to an earlier verse’s reference to musar preceding the reading of Torah, which in turn preceded its true understanding. He seems to assume, in other words, that a proper control of one’s physical desires is not only important on its own but is also important for studying Torah itself.

The rest of the Gra’s interpretation is largely fitting the verses into this framework of kinds of sinners and the attempts being made to warn them of the pitfalls of their path. He does point out that Mishlei refers both to giving such people positive advice, as well as trying to rebuke them for their negative behavior. It is worth noting his assumption that friends not only offer advice, but that when they see a friend making an error, they make sure to try to bring it to his attention.

In terms of when disasters begin to befall such a person, Gra notes two aspects to a calamity, when it actually happens and when the person fears it will happen. The student of who recorded Gra’s ideas, R. Menahem Mendel of Shklov, notes that in Gra’s reading, the verse refers first to the actual disaster, edkhem, and then to the fear, pahdehem. Noting that he had not heard a reason from Gra or had forgotten it, he offers the suggestion that the kinds of people we are talking about are not sensitive enough to the consequences of their actions to fear calamity until at least some befall them. After that, it is meaningful to discuss their fear of calamity.

There are other, more minor points in Gra’s presentation, but I would close by noting that in verse 32, he takes the word petayim to refer to those who lack yir’at Hashem, fear of God, because one who had such fear could never be lured by the desire for sin. That equation of sin (and remember that here it means sin by virtue of physical desires) with a lack of fear of God is worth noting, as Gra will repeatedly assume that such desires are a central component of people’s tendency to sin.

Shabbat Shalom.