Halakhah sobre Proverbios 15:35

It is written: “The path of life is above the intelligent person, in order that he turn away from the grave below.” (Mishlei 15:24). This verse's intent requires a preface: The angels were created as part of the spiritual world on the second day, and although it is not explicitly stated in the Torah, it is stated in the Midrash and alluded to in the Psalm (Tehilim 104:3-4) – “Who roofs His upper chambers with water; Who makes clouds His chariot, which go on the wings of the wind. He makes winds His messengers, burning fire His ministers.” [NOTE: The psalmist is referring to the primordial water and the angels together, since both were created on the second day]. The animals were created as part of the physical world on the fifth day. Angels are intelligent, serve their creator, and do not have self-serving, physical drives. Animals, on the other hand, have such drives, but lack intelligence. The result is that angels cannot receive reward for their service, as they have no negative drives to overcome, and animals cannot be punished for their actions, as they do not have the intelligence necessary to overcome their drives.

Returning to the advice of King Solomon stated above, that "The path of life is above the intelligent person, in order that he turn away from the grave below." (Mishlei 15:24). The explanation can now be said to be: "Man, consider that you have two paths before you, either to raise your eyes and heart to the Creator, blessed be He, and that is the path of life, or to cast your stare downward to the base animal instincts. Therefore I command you that your life's path should only be to look upwards, in order that you remove yourself from the pit below." The point here is that if you train your stare towards your base instincts you will as consequence be led by them to fall to the pit - "Sheol", the first of the levels, and from there your path will descend lower and lower.

(Aleph)⁶Starting from here, each paragraph begins with a letter from an acrostic that sequentially includes all of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, followed by the author’s name. The Rabbis said (Bereishit Rabbah 8:5), “At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create man, He created a group of angels, etc. And they said (Ps. 8:5), ‘What is man that you should consider him’ [and so, they opposed his creation].” At first glance, [we would wonder] why the angels would care about man’s creation. [To answer this, we must understand the nature of man:] As the essence of man’s creation is [that he be] upon the earth. Even though the [human] soul benefits from the radiance of the glory from [the One from] which it has been hewn, and there is nothing lacking in the house of the King; [nevertheless] the Divine Wisdom, may His name be blessed, decreed that [the human soul] should be brought down [to the world], in order to test it with the performance of His commandments and the keeping of His Torah. And when ‘it is very righteous,’ ‘so will it multiply and so will it expand’ and ‘grow upwards,’ until ‘it returns to God who gave it’ ‘with great strength’ and ‘with abundance of power.’ And it is written in the Zohar 1:60a [to explain the verse in Prov. 5:15], “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well”; [that] when the soul is above, it only has the aspect of a cistern, which does not [produce its own water], but is rather filled from others. In of itself, however, it is empty. But when it comes down to this lowly world and achieves what it is supposed to achieve – like the wisdom of His decree, may His name be blessed – then it has the aspect of a well, which is an overflowing spring and is emanating from itself. And in this way it will not [acquire] the bread of shame.⁷The roots of this this idea – that unearned reward is a source of shame – are from several places in the Zohar. See, for example Zohar 1:4a. The basis for the metaphor, however is found in Talmud Yerushalmi Orlah 1:3, 61b. And the first well-known use of the actual phrase is only found later in R. Yosef Karo’s Maggid Mesharim 2:8, which was written in the 1500’s. As the essence of the matter is that anyone who has nothing from himself is a poor person that is considered as if dead.⁸Zohar 2:119a, Nedarim 64b. This is as is written in Gur Aryeh,⁹Maharal, Gur Aryeh on Exod. 4:19:2. that the water of a well is called living waters because it [produces water] from itself (meaning, its underground spring) – which is not the case with the water of a cistern. And so this is why a poor person is considered as if dead. [Hence (as in Prov. 15:27)], “and the one who hates gifts, lives.” See there. And if so, the whole time that the soul is in its source, it has the aspect of a cistern that has no life; as it is empty from itself, besides from what is given to it. [This is] until it descends here and emanates from itself with the aspect of a well and has life. And this is why it states (Gen. 2:7), “He blew into his nostrils a living soul.” That is because the main aspect of the creation of man on the earth was so that the soul could have the aspect of “a living soul.” And this is [the meaning of], these are the commandments, “that a man should do and live through them” (Lev. 18:8).

It is well known that the majority of the children of Adam have sleeping hearts and theyslumber; they eat with the blood and they spill blood themselves.³¹This whole paragraph, which in Hebrew is all rhymed prose, is a remarkable pastiche of Biblical allusions; nearly every phrase has a Biblical source. See Chavel, who lists as sources Is 11:7; Hos 4:18; Prov 23:30; Ez 48:20; Prov 16:28; Nah 2:5; and Ps 37:4. There are others, including Prov 15:17 (see next note). Like an ox eats straw they eat their bread, and their souls are wasted and devastated, drunk from the wine of lust and not of the wine of intellect; their drink turns on them.³²Hos 4:18. In their quest for more intense stimulation of their senses, their souls are far from the way of truth. There are some, witless and ignorant, or capricious, who enjoy without blessing or neglect blessings. There are some fools who spit the good of the world into their vessels; if they drink from their bowl, they will forget the point of their eating at their tables, and the light of their calm will flash away like lightning. But unique is the one who fears and delights in the Lord even over a dinner of vegetables.³³An allusion to Prov 15:17: “Better a meal of vegetables where there is love, than a fattened bull where there is hate;” and Midrash Mishlei 15:1 (on it), which R. Bahya quotes and discusses at length in his commentary on the Torah (Be’ur, 2:376-7). The midrash’s point is to teach derekh eretz – “good manners.” Even a poor host, who invokes the blessings of God, can make his “meal of vegetables” more palatable to his guest, than a rich host who says the wrong thing, though serving his guest a sumptuous meal. It is worth quoting the whole midrash:
“BETTER A MEAL OF VEGETABLES WHERE THERE IS LOVE, THAN A FATTENED BULL WHERE THERE IS HATE.” (Prov. 15:17) R. Levi said, “About whom did Solomon say this verse? About two men who met him after he had lost his kingdom and was wandering from door to door looking for a job. Two men met him, who recognized him. One of them came up, prostrated himself before him, and said to him, “My lord the king, if it pleases you, take a meal with me today.” Immediately he went with him. He had him go up to the best seat, slaughtered a bull, had many delicacies brought to him, and began to recite to him all the things having to do with his kingdom. He said to him, “Remember how you did such and such a thing on such and such a day when you were king.” But as soon as he reminded him of the days of his kingdom, he began to cry and moan. And so it was for the whole meal until he got up and left having cried himself out. The next day, his host’s companion met him. He began to prostrate himself before him, and said to him, “My lord the king, if it pleases you, take a meal with me today.” He said to him, “Perhaps you seek to do for me as your friend did yesterday?” He said, “My lord, the king, I am a poor man, but if it pleases you, take a meal with me today of the little bit of vegetables I have.” At that very moment he went to his house. The man washed his hands and feet, brought him a little bit of vegetables, and began to console him. He said to him, “My Lord the king, the Holy One Blessed Be He surely swore to your father that the monarchy will never cease from your line, as it is said, “The Lord swore to David a firm oath the He will not renounce, ‘One of your own issue I will set upon your throne’” (Ps. 132:11). It’s just the way of the Holy One Blessed Be He to rebuke and then repent from rebuking, as it said, “For whom the Lord loves, He rebukes, as a father the son he favors.” (Prov. 3:12). But He will restore your kingdom to you.
R. Hiyya said…when Solomon got his kingdom back, he wrote in his wisdom, “’BETTER A MEAL OF VEGETABLES WHERE THERE IS LOVE’ which I ate at the poor man’s home, ‘THAN A FATTENED BULL WHERE THERE IS HATE’ which the rich man who reminded me of my sorrow fed me.”

It is the practice of pious people, not to accept gifts, but to trust that Hashem, will take care of their needs, as it is said, "But he that hates gifts will live.⁶⁷Proverbs 15:27.

If you see houses of idolatry in a settled state⁵Rashi explains that this refers to places where idol worshippers live in peace and prosperity. The Rif explains this to mean a place of idol worship. you should say: "God will uproot the house of the haughty."⁶Proverbs 15:25. (If you see them) in a state of destruction, you should say: "Almighty of vengeance, God, Almighty of vengeance, reveal Yourself."⁷Psalms 94: 1.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they said (Makkot 5a) that the matter of refutation is upon the witnesses themselves, as we have said - for example that they say to them, "You were with us in place x." But with the matter of contradiction, we do not believe these over those; and the testimony of all of them is nullified. And what is the content of contradiction? For example, that they testify about the testimony itself: that the first group says, "Thing x happened," and the latter says, "It did not happen," or it comes by implication of their words that it did not. And [also] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Makkot 3b) that colluding witnesses are not killed, nor do they pay money nor are they lashed until they are both refuted. And [also] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Makkot 3b) that colluding witnesses do not need warning, but rather once they are refuted, they are judged; and that witnesses that were first contradicted and, afterwards, refuted - behold these are also judged; as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 3b), "Contradiction is the beginning of refutation." And [also] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Ketuvot 20a), that we only refute witnesses in front of them, but we contradict witnesses [also] not in front of them. And if they extracted money with their testimony, the court returns the money to its owner, and the witnesses pay according to the amount of money that they thought to make him lose. But with capital cases, it is not like this: As if one is killed according to them and they are refuted afterwards, they are not killed - as so does it come in the received tradition (Makkot 5a), "[If] they did not kill, they are killed, if they killed, they are not killed." And there is somewhat of a reason to give about the matter: [It is] because 'God is present in the congregation of judges.' And were it not that the convicted was guilty because of his [other] evil deeds, the judicial procedure would not have been concluded against him. But rather he was fit for this [punishment], and the judgement against this evildoer was orchestrated from the Heavens. And about similar to this is it stated (Proverbs 15:4), "even an evildoer for an evil day." And since the matter is clarified to our eyes that this man was to die, the Torah did not want that we should kill the witnesses over him. And the analogy about this is one that kills a treifah (someone who is deathly ill) is not killed over him. [And] this one is like that - since we knew in the way that we said that he is guilty in the Heavenly court, [it is considered as if] he had no blood. And the rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in Tractate Makkot (Chapter 1).

I have written about the roots of the commandment and a few of its laws and all of its matter in its positive commandment in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 545) - see there. And there we also spoke about this negative commandment; that it is rectified by the positive commandment of "you shall surely send away the mother." And they, may their memory be blessed, have already taught us in Tractate Makkot 15a in the chapter [entitled] Elu Hen HaLokin [about] all negative commandments that have a positive commandment (that reverses the result of transgressing the negative commandment) - that if he fulfilled its positive commandment, he is exempt [from punishment]; [but] if he did not fulfill the positive commandment and it is [now] impossible to fulfill it, he is liable for lashes. And as it is stated over there, "As Rabbi Yochanan said to the teacher, 'It is taught, "He fulfilled it and he did not fulfill it."'" And that is the correct textual variant (like the variant of Rif and Ramban). And from this opinion we learned that any time the mother dies or another man has sent it away - and even though he has now not negated the positive commandment with his [own] hands, as behold, he did not kill it, but rather it died on its own; and there is no need to say if he killed the mother with his [own] hands - that he is liable for lashes according to everyone. But any time that he sent it before it died - even though he did not send it when he took it [with] the nest - he has not violated the negative commandment nor the positive commandment, since the Torah rectified it with the positive commandment; and behold, he [now] fulfilled it. And [this is so] even though it is not fitting to do so - as maybe the mother will die or the sender [will die] before the sending and he will not be able to fix [it]; and also since 'enthusiasts are prompt with commandments,' and 'how good is a thing in its time.'

On the 14th and the 15th day of Adar I, we do not fall upon our faces [recite Tahanun], and we do not say [Psalm 20] "A Psalm... may the Lord answer you," and on those [days], it is forbidden to eulogize or to fast. There are those who say that even eulogy and fasting are permitted. Rema: The custom is according to the first understanding. There are those who say that one is obligated to increase in joy and feasting on the 14th of Adar I (Tur in the name of the Rif); however, this is not our practice. Nevertheless, one should increase their feasting slightly, in order to fulfill the opinion of those who are stringent (Hagahot Maimuni in the name of the SeMaK). "But the good-hearted has a continual feast" (Proverbs 15:15).