אֲ֭נִי אהביה [אֹהֲבַ֣י] אֵהָ֑ב וּ֝מְשַׁחֲרַ֗י יִמְצָאֻֽנְנִי׃
Miłuję tych, którzy mnie miłują, a ci co mnie usilnie szukają znajdą mnie.
Rabbeinu Bahya
In these verses Solomon warns man to endeavor to further the interests of his fellow and not to try and cause him any harm; he should do so as he can expect to reap the fruits of his activities, i.e. if he is helpful he will succeed, whereas if he is the reverse he will inevitably fail. Solomon espouses the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that sooner or later he will be measured by the yardstick he applied to others. He bases himself on Isaiah 3,10: “hail the just man, for he shall fare well, he shall eat the fruit of his works.” Concerning the wicked person the same prophet writes in verse 11 of the same chapter: “woe to the wicked man, for he shall fare ill; as his hands have dealt, so it shall be done to him.
The expression שוחר used by Solomon here is a reference to prayer. The word appears in a similar sense in Proverbs 8,17: ומשחרי ימצאונני, “those who seek Me out diligently (in prayer) will find Me.” In our opening verse too Solomon speaks of people who are so concerned with the well being of their fellow that they pray on his behalf. Such people are considered as if concerned with the securing of G’d’s goodwill. This is why our sages said in Baba Kama 92 that if someone prays for G’d to grant a particular request to a third party and he himself is in need of having that same request granted by G’d for his own needs, not only will his prayer concerning the third party be granted but his own unspoken prayer will also be granted. Proof is found in Job 42,10: “The Lord restored Job’s fortunes when he prayed on behalf of his friends, and the Lord gave Job twice what he had before.”
We learn from this that if someone is the leading member of the congregation and in a unique position he is obligated to offer prayers on behalf of the other members of the community who are less fortunate than he is. If he fails to do so he will punished for this omission as we know from what our sages explained in connection with someone who committed involuntary murder and who must remain in a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest (Numbers 35,25). The Talmud Makkot 11 explained why the length of time such a man has to remain in the city of refuge is tied to the death of the High Priest. The High Priest should have prayed on behalf of the people of his generation that no one should become guilty of killing anyone even unintentionally. Seeing he had failed to do so he is punished in that presumably all the people in cities of refuge will wish for his speedy death so that they may leave that city.
We find that anyone who fails to offer a prayer which he should have offered is called “a sinner,” as we know from Samuel I 12,23: “far be it from me to become guilty against the Lord by refraining from praying on your behalf.” [G’d had sent lightning, thunder, and rain in the middle of the summer to indicate that He had been displeased with the people’s request to be ruled over by a king. The people became scared at these unusual phenomena at that time of year. Ed.] We find a similar occurrence with David who prayed on behalf of others, their sicknesses, etc., when he said (Psalms 38,5,13) “yet when they were ill my dress was sackcloth, I kept a fast — may what I prayed for happen to me!” He added in Psalms 141,5: “my prayers are still against their evil deeds.” He meant: “while I am still alive I pray on their behalf as they have committed evil deeds.” At any rate from David’s statement that what he prayed for others he should also himself be granted we learn that praying for others has positive results for oneself, i.e. a form of מדה כנגד מדה, that it is appropriate to entreat G’d on behalf of others who need to be cured or otherwise helped. It stands to reason that if one prays that evil befall others that G’d will let such evil befall the petitioner. This is much worse than not praying on behalf of one’s fellow. Not only did one fail to pray on behalf of one’s fellow one even engaged in prayer to G’d to victimize him!
Most of those who wish evil on others are the ones who rely on their material wealth to protect them against harm. Wealth is the principal reason why one individual lords it over his neighbour who is less affluent. Such people arrogate to themselves the right to revenge themselves for any slight they think has been inflicted upon them. The word הוא in the line בוטח בעשרו הוא יפול, refers to the word בוטח. This is another facet of the principle of מדה כנגד מדה i.e. that the very wealth which someone put his trust in will be the cause of his fall. It is similar to Kohelet 5,12: עושר שמור בעליו לרעתו, “riches hoarded by their owner (lead) to his misfortune.”
Alternatively, the word הוא in the verse quoted at the opening refers to the word עושר, wealth, meaning that as a result of the fact that the wealthy made his wealth the source of his faith he is punished by losing it. Concerning wealth Solomon also said (Proverbs 23,5) “you see it then it is gone, it grows wings and flies away like an eagle, heavenward.” We also have a verse in Psalms 92,13: “the righteous bloom like a date-palm; they thrive like a cedar in Lebanon.” The speed with which the righteous may be rescued is compared to the blossoming of a development of a leaf, making way for the development of the fruit. What happens to the righteous is the exact reverse of what happens to the wealthy who makes his wealth the object he puts his trust in instead of putting his trust in the Lord. This is the plain meaning of the verses quoted.
The expression שוחר used by Solomon here is a reference to prayer. The word appears in a similar sense in Proverbs 8,17: ומשחרי ימצאונני, “those who seek Me out diligently (in prayer) will find Me.” In our opening verse too Solomon speaks of people who are so concerned with the well being of their fellow that they pray on his behalf. Such people are considered as if concerned with the securing of G’d’s goodwill. This is why our sages said in Baba Kama 92 that if someone prays for G’d to grant a particular request to a third party and he himself is in need of having that same request granted by G’d for his own needs, not only will his prayer concerning the third party be granted but his own unspoken prayer will also be granted. Proof is found in Job 42,10: “The Lord restored Job’s fortunes when he prayed on behalf of his friends, and the Lord gave Job twice what he had before.”
We learn from this that if someone is the leading member of the congregation and in a unique position he is obligated to offer prayers on behalf of the other members of the community who are less fortunate than he is. If he fails to do so he will punished for this omission as we know from what our sages explained in connection with someone who committed involuntary murder and who must remain in a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest (Numbers 35,25). The Talmud Makkot 11 explained why the length of time such a man has to remain in the city of refuge is tied to the death of the High Priest. The High Priest should have prayed on behalf of the people of his generation that no one should become guilty of killing anyone even unintentionally. Seeing he had failed to do so he is punished in that presumably all the people in cities of refuge will wish for his speedy death so that they may leave that city.
We find that anyone who fails to offer a prayer which he should have offered is called “a sinner,” as we know from Samuel I 12,23: “far be it from me to become guilty against the Lord by refraining from praying on your behalf.” [G’d had sent lightning, thunder, and rain in the middle of the summer to indicate that He had been displeased with the people’s request to be ruled over by a king. The people became scared at these unusual phenomena at that time of year. Ed.] We find a similar occurrence with David who prayed on behalf of others, their sicknesses, etc., when he said (Psalms 38,5,13) “yet when they were ill my dress was sackcloth, I kept a fast — may what I prayed for happen to me!” He added in Psalms 141,5: “my prayers are still against their evil deeds.” He meant: “while I am still alive I pray on their behalf as they have committed evil deeds.” At any rate from David’s statement that what he prayed for others he should also himself be granted we learn that praying for others has positive results for oneself, i.e. a form of מדה כנגד מדה, that it is appropriate to entreat G’d on behalf of others who need to be cured or otherwise helped. It stands to reason that if one prays that evil befall others that G’d will let such evil befall the petitioner. This is much worse than not praying on behalf of one’s fellow. Not only did one fail to pray on behalf of one’s fellow one even engaged in prayer to G’d to victimize him!
Most of those who wish evil on others are the ones who rely on their material wealth to protect them against harm. Wealth is the principal reason why one individual lords it over his neighbour who is less affluent. Such people arrogate to themselves the right to revenge themselves for any slight they think has been inflicted upon them. The word הוא in the line בוטח בעשרו הוא יפול, refers to the word בוטח. This is another facet of the principle of מדה כנגד מדה i.e. that the very wealth which someone put his trust in will be the cause of his fall. It is similar to Kohelet 5,12: עושר שמור בעליו לרעתו, “riches hoarded by their owner (lead) to his misfortune.”
Alternatively, the word הוא in the verse quoted at the opening refers to the word עושר, wealth, meaning that as a result of the fact that the wealthy made his wealth the source of his faith he is punished by losing it. Concerning wealth Solomon also said (Proverbs 23,5) “you see it then it is gone, it grows wings and flies away like an eagle, heavenward.” We also have a verse in Psalms 92,13: “the righteous bloom like a date-palm; they thrive like a cedar in Lebanon.” The speed with which the righteous may be rescued is compared to the blossoming of a development of a leaf, making way for the development of the fruit. What happens to the righteous is the exact reverse of what happens to the wealthy who makes his wealth the object he puts his trust in instead of putting his trust in the Lord. This is the plain meaning of the verses quoted.
Haamek Sheilah
This is unlike the love of Torah, as a complete love can be experienced in any place or time, as [expressed by] wisdom’s statement communicated by Solomon through Divine inspiration, “I love them who love me, and those who seek me earnestly shall find Me.”10Prov. 8:17. Two things are guaranteed, that she [the Torah] loves us [Israel], and that [the Torah] is readily accessible. It states in Tractate Sanhedrin 91,11It is actually 99b. See Part 2, chapter 6 for an additional understanding of this talmudic statement. “‘When the soul toils, the soul then toils for him,’12Prov. 16:26. he toils in one place and then the Torah toils for him in another.” The Torah assists [by both helping him] to understand it and by sweetening his heart so that he is drawn unto her with a complete love that is spiritual [in nature and] most powerful. In conclusion, in these times the love of Torah is more precious before God than the love of God, for [only] the love of Torah can be achieved in a most complete manner.
Haamek Sheilah
One should now understand that every occurrence of the word beni in Proverbs, uttered by the mouth of wisdom, does not denote yearning,23If beni is translated as “my son,” this would symbolize how Israel relates to understanding, which is represented by “mother.” That is, the understanding that is contained within the Torah yearns to join with her son, the people of Israel. but is in fact a noun that represents a scholar who deeply studies the Torah’s wisdom. Proverbs is exhorting this type of person, and is not directed toward the multitudes of Israel. Even those who fear God and hold His mitzvos dear are not at the intellectual level of those immersed in Torah study. It would be incomprehensible [to them], unlike someone involved in observation and analysis. This is unlike the section of Proverbs from chapter 10 [through chapter 30] describing ethics and etiquette applicable to all of Israel.24Beni in that section denotes longing. In chapter 31, Proverbs then reverts to reproaching Torah scholars in particular when it states: “The burden with which his mother corrected him. What, O beri, and what, O bar of my womb? And what, O bar of my vows?”25Some translate this verse as follows: “What, beri [my son], and what, bar [son, of my womb]? And what, bar [son, of my vows]?” The Netziv rejects this translation. “The burden with which his mother corrected him,” is referring to understanding, as we explained above [“mother” refers to understanding]; and understanding, she, calls to them: “And what, beri.” [Beri] is not Aramaic,26The Netziv appears to align with the opinion that Proverbs contains no Aramaic. Chapter 31, which begins with the introduction, “The words of King Lemuel,” are Solomon’s words. Lemuel is another name for Solomon. If this was composed by Solomon it would be very difficult to argue that beri and bar are Aramaic, since the Aramaic language was not the spoken vernacular until the time of the Babylonian exile. Another opinion is that this chapter was added by the Men of the Great Assembly, as stated by the Vilna Gaon on Prov. 24:23. and not to be translated as “my son”. Rather, it is a [Hebrew] noun [derived] from the word barur, [meaning that which is clear]. [Beri] denotes one who clarifies the words of understanding.27Similar to beni, the yud in beri is unrelated to the noun’s possessive construct. [Pertaining to the words]: “And what, O bar of my womb” [“bar” does not mean “son,”28The word “bar” is Hebrew, not Aramaic. but] is an adjective [meaning “pure”]. Just as a fetus whose formation is completed little by little within the darkness of its mother’s womb, so is the structure of wisdom and its clarity accomplished. At first it is slowly fashioned within the bowels of the observer, surrounded by the darkness and obscurity of thought, [after which] the spirit [of life is fashioned] from his understanding.29A play on words taken from Job 20:3: “Out of my understanding, my spirit answers me.” [Pertaining to] the phrase, “And what, O bar of my vows,” [bar] is also an adjective [translated as “pure”], meaning that the Torah assists one to achieve clarity [in his understanding], as [wisdom] promises: “I love those who love me, and those who seek me earnestly shall find me.”30Prov. 8:17. We therefore find that the clarity [of understanding the Torah] is achieved through vows [to study Torah].
Rashi
and I have become ill Heb. ואנושה, I am ailing and sick, as (Micah 1:9): “For she is mortally ill (אנושה) [from] her wounds,” and as (II Sam. 12:15): “and the child (sic) became mortally ill (ויאנש),” of Bathsheba. Now if you ask how this “aleph” serves as a radical and also as a prefix denoting the first person, this is the way of a word beginning with “aleph.” For example, (Mal. 1:2): “and I loved (וָאֹהַב) Jacob”; (Prov. 8:17), “I will love (אֵהָב) those who love me.” It is equivalent to וָאֶאֶהַב Similarly, (Zeph. 1:2): “I will totally destroy (אָסֹף אָסֵף),” like אֶאֶסֹף.