Rasag sees all 14 of these verses as a single unit, so we’ll take them that way as well, although it may take us more than a week to cover them (but not more than two, be"H). The verses in question read:

Even before we look at the commentators, we can try to anticipate the issues they may choose to address. While Rasag deals with these verses as a unit, for example, they do not simply repeat the same notion. In verses 20-21, the text mentions where hokhmah (wisdom) announces itself, naming several types of places; a commentator might choose to define each place and its difference from the one before. Verse 22 lists different kinds of people who reject wisdom, again leaving room for commentarial definition and distinction. 23-25 points out the fools’ refusal to heed the rebuke/advice of wisdom, using various synonyms for rebuke. 26-27 follows by asserting that there will be no compassion for such people when they begin to receive their punishment, 28-30 says that when such people finally seek God, they will not find Him, since they rejected Him for so long previously, 31-32 stresses that they are simply reaping the consequences of their previous actions, and 33 comes back to say that one who does listen to God will be free of all worry. In each case of synonyms or seeming repetition, commentators may differ.

FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: If you were writing a commentary on Mishlei, seeing these verses, how would you interpret them? Would you assume each synonym had a different shade of meaning? How would you define wisdom? Rebuke?

Rashi does not translate each of the verses completely, but he throws out a few interesting ideas that give some sense of his perspective. First, on the word ba-huz (as in "wisdom sings out outside"), Rashi explains that the wisdom of Torah calls out in the study halls for people to adhere to it, meaning that he identifies wisdom with Torah, and sees the places being mentioned as those where Torah is purveyed. He understands the word petayim as referring to those who allow themselves to be lured by those who call others to do evil (apitui in Hebrew is a seducing factor, so a peti, in this reading, is one who allows him/herself to be seduced—a reading we saw previously in Gra). The last point of interest in Rashi’s presentation in his introduction of olam haba—in verse 31 regarding evildoers, and 33 regarding righteous people, Rashi interprets the 2 parts of the verse as referring to olam hazeh and olam haba, this world and the next (a factor we noticed in Rasag, and which we will have to keep track of in both).

Rasag’s presentation of this section is very lengthy, but mostly focuses on the first two verses, the places where wisdom calls out. Before interpreting those verses, Rasag describes four ways of dealing with issues that arise in life, in descending order of workability. In articulating these categories, he first uses the examples of health and religion, but he later asserts that the same categories apply to politics, business, and debate, so these are broadly applicable categories in his mind.

As he expresses it, the smartest way to approach any area of concern is to be aware of the factors that contribute to a good outcome, and to take care of those on a consistent basis. In health (in our terms—Rasag, living in the tenth century, makes the common medical assumptions of his time, that the body consists of various fluids that need to be kept in balance for good health), that means eating right and exercising all along, so as to maintain one’s health consistently. In religion, it means becoming aware of the requirements of God’s law and adhering to them. And so on.

Someone who has neglected to do that is well advised to adopt the second approach, noting a lack of equilibrium and adjusting it before any negative consequences occur. In health, that would mean noting a change in one’s body before it has any actual negative effects, and curing it (high cholesterol is an example that comes to mind). In religion, it means that the person has not sufficiently absorbed the lessons of mitsvot to completely avoid sin, but as sin presents itself to him, he knows enough to resist the temptation and move away from it. This is a less productive way of handling situations because it raises the possibility of danger, even if not suffering from that danger.

Third, again going down a step in one’s handling of a challenge, is someone who begins to suffer from the neglect of that area, although it is still easily solved. Someone who smokes and now has shortness of breath might be a useful example in health, while in religion Rasag gives the case of a person who has begun to commit sins, but is not yet so far from religiosity that return is a significant challenge.

Last (or, as some students of mine pointed out, second to last, since there are those who never successfully deal with problems that arise, but just see it spiral all the way down—as we are currently sadly watching with Daryl Strawberry and Robert Downey Jr) are those people who neglect a problem until it will necessarily have difficult consequences to avoid further damage. In health, Rasag notes someone who might have to cut off a limb to avoid further damage from some disease (he means in a situation where earlier care could have avoided that consequence). In religion, a person who will need to repent significantly (note Rasag’s assumption that serious sin with teshuvah is an extremely difficult process—true repentance involves much more, internally, than a simple commitment not to do more).

A POINT TO PONDER: Do you see this framework as useful in formulating life views? Are there areas that you handle according to each of these models? Which are they?

Without giving Rasag’s examples in other areas, note how broadly he conceives of wisdom. Where Rashi equated wisdom with Torah, for Rasag Torah is simply one example of an area of life that must be handled with wisdom. Torah is not radically other than the world in general for Rasag; the same methodologies of approaching the world as a whole should work for Torah, and here they do. We will obviously have more to say about this as we go on, but it is worth paying attention to—the question of how well Torah fits with the world "out there" is a central one for anyone who adheres to the religion, and I find Rasag’s assumption of the contiguity of the two vitally important.

FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: How contiguously do you view Torah and the world at large? Is Torah of a piece with the rest of your life, or is it segregated off from it, such that there are times when you are involved in Torah, and times when you are not? Is that a practical issue, or theoretical—can you imagine a way in which Torah would work seamlessly into a regular life, or are they inherently incompatible, in your mind?

Rasag does not pretend that the verse explicitly refers to those four methods of dealing with life, he just notes that the verses refer to the call of wisdom in increasingly narrow places, and voices that reach fewer people. Thus, we first have wisdom "singing out" outside, which Rasag sees as calling loudly in a very public place, the general call of taking care of problems before they fully arise. Streets and "giving voice," the next phrasing, are a slightly narrower group, and so on. That means that Rasag’s interpretation assumes this version of how to handle life, it does not extract it from the text. That’s a crucial question in how we read verses in Tanakh—do we think the verse has to tell us what it means, or will the verse rely on our previously existing knowledge to fill in the blanks it leaves? Repeatedly, we will see Rasag adopt the second position; in that version, a book like Mishlei cannot be understood without some prior thoughts on the nature of wisdom and the kinds of messages the text would be likely to transmit.

A lot to ponder, until next week. Shabbat Shalom.