In this chapter, King Solomon continues to teach us the ways of character traits: our attitude toward the poor and the fallen, the bond between generations, and the trait of speech. Here we will examine three verses - one who mocks the poor and one who rejoices at calamity, grandchildren as the crown of the aged, and the need for caution regarding excessive speech and deceitful speech - according to Rabbeinu Yonah, the Vilna Gaon, Rashi, the Metzudos, and the Malbim.
לֹעֵג לָרָשׁ חֵרֵף עֹשֵׂהוּ, שָׂמֵחַ לְאֵיד לֹא יִנָּקֶה. (פסוק ה) - "He who mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker; he who rejoices at calamity will not go unpunished." (Verse 5)
And regarding "he who rejoices at calamity" - eid means ruin, and one who rejoices at the ruin of his fellow "will not go unpunished," meaning Hashem will not clear him, but will settle the score with him. Rabbeinu Yonah adds that the verse weighs these two traits against each other to teach that mocking the poor is more severe than rejoicing at calamity: one who mocks the poor has blasphemed his Maker, whereas one who rejoices at calamity will indeed be punished, yet he has not blasphemed his Maker. Know, then, that mocking is sometimes far worse than rejoicing at the ruin of another.
In Lashon Hakodesh, there are many terms for poverty: rash, ani, dal, dach, mach, evyon. Each one expresses a different type of poverty, just as gila, rina, simcha, ditza, chedva, sason, and alatz each convey a distinct nuance of joy. Among those whose approach is to elucidate these subtle distinctions are the Vilna Gaon and the Malbim.
The Vilna Gaon states: A rash is one who has been poor from birth, born destitute without anything at all. The Malbim explains dal similarly: one who had wealth and became impoverished - a dal is someone who underwent a process, who possessed money and lost it. The rash, by contrast, did nothing to become poor; His Blessed Wisdom decreed that he would be poor, and he was born under the constellation of poverty. One who disgraces such a person has blasphemed his Maker.
A novel insight emerges from the words of the Vilna Gaon: One who disparages a poor man who was once wealthy and lost his fortune does not fall into the category of "blasphemed his Maker," since it is possible that he acted foolishly and caused his own poverty. There are cases where wealth was decreed upon a person, yet he behaves with utter foolishness - and if he takes all his money and throws it into the sea, even if wealth was decreed upon him, he ruined it with his own hands. But the rash was born poor from the outset - what do you want from him? What fault lies with him? One who insults him is essentially insulting the Creator.
The Rambam states that most of the suffering and tribulations a person endures are his own fault, and most are preventable. If one suffers from illnesses, it is often due to unhealthy things he ate. Many physical ailments are caused by emotional distress: when a person lacks bitachon in Hashem, it affects him physically, leading to heart disease, ulcers, and high blood pressure. Who brought this upon him? Had he possessed greater trust in Hashem, he would have suffered far less. And so on in this manner: if someone walks out in the heat of the day and suffers heatstroke, let his heart not rage against Hashem.
The same applies in business: a person can make foolish choices and incur losses, and that loss is entirely his own doing. Certainly, a person must make his hishtadlut (effort), and if he fails after having made a proper effort, it is from Heaven; of that there is no doubt. But one must be careful not to be his own saboteur, doing things that defy logic and then claiming, "I suffered a loss." A compulsive gambler who spends all his money on gambling and loses everything cannot say, "Hashem caused this to happen to me." It was his own error in investing money on a one-in-a-million chance. In many respects, a person inflicts harm upon himself. But what is someone certainly not to blame for? Being born poor. "I came into the world without even a disposable plastic spoon, let alone a silver or gold one - what do you want from me?" If you mock him, you are mocking the handiwork created by the Creator of the world.
"One who rejoices at calamity (same'ach le'eid)," explains the Vilna Gaon, refers to someone who was once wealthy and upon whom calamity - that is, ruin - has fallen. This also relates to the festivals of the idolaters: the Gemara in Avodah Zarah brings two textual versions, "eideihen" (with an ayin) and "eideihen" (with an alef). In their language, "eid" (with an ayin) means a holiday, whereas "eid" (with an alef) in the Holy Tongue means ruin. The Sages deliberately alter the word from "eid" with an ayin to "eid" with an alef to refer to it disparagingly - "the day of their eid," the day of their ruin. From this we see that "eid" presumes that something was previously whole.
Therefore, the Vilna Gaon notes with precision, regarding one who rejoices at calamity it does not say "he insults his Maker." For the rich man is himself to blame for his downfall due to his sins: Hashem gave him wealth and he did not do with it what he ought to have done. Not only did the wealth fail to bring him closer to Hashem, but it broke him spiritually, exposing him to sins he would never have committed before. As it is written, "The wicked is thrust down in his evildoing," and "Evil pursues sinners" - the evil that pursued you is your own doing. Even so, do not rejoice at his ruin. As for the pauper, if you mock him, you are insulting the Holy One, Blessed be He, because the pauper is not to blame. But regarding the ruined rich man, one cannot say that you are insulting Hashem, for he is responsible for his own situation. Nevertheless, mocking the ruined rich man, or even rejoicing quietly in your heart, is displeasing in the eyes of Hashem, and Hashem does not desire it - and for such conduct, one will not go unpunished by Heavenly judgment.
There is another verse: "He who oppresses the poor insults his Maker." Seemingly, this expresses the same idea, except that there it speaks of oppressing the poor person (dal) while here it speaks of mocking the pauper (rash), yet in both cases he has insulted his Maker. Why? The Holy One, Blessed be He, is the One Who made and created the poor man, and He certainly prepared sustenance for him as well. One who robs him of that sustenance causes an insult upward, as if to say: Master of the Universe, You created a creature and failed to provide for it. After all, a parent who brings a child into the world and casts him aside is despised in our eyes; if you brought a child into the world, take care of him! The same applies here: onlookers say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created a being without providing for his basic needs - thus the oppressor has brought an insult upon the Creator.
The Malbim adds: One who mocks a pauper, because the pauper is frail and lacks a livelihood, likewise insults his Maker. For the Holy One, Blessed be He, surely created him in this state for a specific purpose. It may be that poverty is an atonement for a previous lifetime, in which he possessed great wealth and sinned with it, and therefore Heaven sent him down with a destiny of poverty. There could be many reasons. And when you insult him, whom have you insulted? The Holy One, Blessed be He - as though He created a creature improperly and failed to provide for him.
The Malbim makes another distinction: there is one who acts out of mockery, and there is one who acts out of revenge - because he hates his fellow and had a score to settle with him. The other's success was a thorn in his side; it pained him to see him prosper, and when he hears that he fell and is closing his business and its branches, he feels a sense of satisfaction. "I went to return an item, he refused, he spoke to me insolently - now I hear he closed the business, it serves him right." This is called "rejoicing at calamity," gloating over his downfall out of vengeance. And why will he not go unpunished? Because "When your enemy falls, do not rejoice" - it is unfitting even to call him your enemy, and you are forbidden to rejoice over his fall and ruin. Therefore, one who rejoices at calamity will not be cleared of Heavenly judgment.
עֲטֶרֶת זְקֵנִים בְּנֵי בָנִים, וְתִפְאֶרֶת בָּנִים אֲבוֹתָם. (פסוק ו) - "The crown of the aged is grandchildren, and the glory of children is their fathers." (Verse 6)
Rashi explains: What is the crown of the aged? Seeing their children and grandchildren walking in a good way. This is their joy, the crown upon their heads, and the greatest pleasure; there is no greater satisfaction for parents and grandparents than seeing an upright, blessed generation walking in the path of Hashem. "And the glory of children is their fathers" - when fathers are righteous, they are a glory to their children: "the son of Rabbi So-and-So," "the son of Sage So-and-So." The son walks with pride and takes glory in his father.
The Metzudat David adds a further insight: The grandfather also takes pride in his grandchildren and makes them a crown upon his head - "This is my grandson"; though he is not a son but a grandson, he ultimately descends from me. But children typically take pride in their fathers rather than in their grandfathers; a son takes greater pride in "This is my father" and less in "This is my grandfather," because the grandfather is one step further removed. It may also be that when there is a distinguished grandfather, I am merely one of twenty, thirty, or forty grandchildren, whereas with my father, I am one of four or five children, which fosters a much closer bond. Naturally, one takes pride in a grandfather as well, but not to the same degree.
The Vilna Gaon explains: regarding an elder to whom Hashem has granted many descendants, it is said, "Your children like olive shoots around your table" - the children and grandchildren are like a crown encircling his table. The word atarah (crown) derives from the root of encirclement, as in "they encircle (otrim) the city" - they surround it. The grandchildren and descendants surround and encircle him, and thus they are a crown to the elder. But fathers are not a crown to the children - after all, how many fathers does one have? One. One cannot adorn oneself with a single person as a crown; in one father, one can only take pride. Therefore: a crown to elders comes from the grandchildren, and the glory of children comes from their fathers.
The Vilna Gaon offers another explanation: It is written that a son protects his father in the World to Come, as it is stated, "A son brings merit to a father" (bera mezakeh aba) - when a person departs from this world and leaves behind a righteous son, the son brings merit to his father for life in the World to Come. But a father does not bring merit to a son - a father cannot grant his son merit for life in the World to Come. And that is what is meant by "The crown of elders is grandchildren" - children and grandchildren are a crown for the elder in the sense of shielding, protecting, and guarding him. But does having a righteous father protect someone in the World to Come like a crown? No. It is merely a source of pride: "I have a righteous father." Thus explains the Malbim: children and grandchildren have the status of a crown for an elder, whereas fathers are merely a reason for a son to take pride in them, but they are not a crown for him and do not shield him in the World to Come.
With David HaMelech, there was a unique case where David said, "Avshalom, my son, my son" seven times and raised him from Gehinnom to Gan Eden. That was exceptional, and the explanation is that in David's case, the situation was, as it were, forced upon Avshalom. One cannot say it was truly forced, for he still possessed free will, but rather quasi-forced, since this occurred as a consequence of the curse spoken to David: "Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house," and "he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun." Out of your own house evil will arise against you. Therefore, David understood that he bore responsibility for what had occurred with Avshalom, that everything Avshalom went through was almost without free will, and he felt responsible for the matter - which is why he saw the need to draw him out of Gehinnom.
The Malbim explains: a person has both a spiritual existence and a physical existence. The spiritual existence is the part that animates him, a portion of God from Above - the nefesh, ruach, and neshamah; while the physical existence is the bodily part, the flesh he received from his father and mother. From the perspective of physical existence, elders are crowned by their grandchildren: true, I am departing from the world, but I have left behind a generation, I have children and grandchildren. When a person knows he has left a generation behind him, it is easier for him to depart from this world.
See how many people who were childless, Heaven forbid, feel the need to memorialize themselves - hospitals, a Sefer Torah, public institutions; it is difficult for a person to contemplate leaving the world without leaving behind anything or any continuation. A sensible person memorializes himself in a positive way: purchasing a Sefer Torah, donating to a charity, building a yeshivah, a kollel, or a synagogue - something that will grant him standing in the World to Come.
And what of someone who lacks understanding? Once, during a visit to the Jerusalem zoo, a sign on the monkey enclosure stated that it was a donation from so-and-so from Los Angeles. One could only remark to the children: may this merit of the monkeys, their children, and their grandchildren stand for them in this world and the next; no doubt the zoo administration makes a Mi Sheberach for them once a year and perhaps even remembers their souls, and may it be Hashem's will that the monkeys and the peanuts they eat serve as a merit and an advocate on their behalf forever, Amen. From this, one can appreciate how foolish it is - how much folly there is in someone who desires to leave a mark, but on what? In a zoo! Leave a mark in a place of holiness. This is cited only to illustrate how powerful a person's need is to leave an imprint and leave something behind.
Incidentally, if that person happens to be a prime minister, this urge can entangle us all: he wants to enter the pages of history as the one who brought peace, and even though there is no partner and no peace, he thinks, "Let us do it; who knows, perhaps something will come of it and they will remember that I did it" - and then they drag us into their adventures. In truth, however, they are not entirely to blame: when the flock goes astray, Hashem appoints a blind goat to lead them. Had we been more worthy, the Holy One, blessed be He, would have opened their eyes as well.
To return to the matter: from the standpoint of physical existence, old age is not an easy thing - one is about to depart from the world, advancing to a stage from which there is no return. Yet there is a crown: one's children and grandchildren remain here. And in what do the children take pride? In the merit of their fathers, whose righteousness stands for their children after them. This does not refer to the World to Come, for as mentioned, fathers do not grant merit to children for the afterlife; but in this world, one sees endless examples of people who succeeded and regarding whom it is said, "the merit of the fathers" or "the merit of their fathers aided them." It turns out, then, that in the spiritual realm, the father's merit benefits the son: if you succeed here, who knows which grandfather is praying for you in Heaven, or what merit you possess from your father or from earlier generations, unknown to us. Thus, we are positively affected by the spiritual aspect of our parents, while parents and grandparents are positively affected by the physical continuation they left behind in this world.
לֹא נָאוָה לְנָבָל שְׂפַת יֶתֶר, אַף כִּי לְנָדִיב שְׂפַת שָׁקֶר. (פסוק ז) - Excessive speech is not fitting for a base person, how much less lying speech for a nobleman. (verse 7)
The Vilna Gaon explains: A nadiv (nobleman) is a leader, related to authority, and his opposite is the naval (base person, churl), who is not noble or generous. It is the way of a ruler to speak sparingly, even when speaking words of truth. A person of stature and dignity does not babble or talk excessively; he always minimizes his speech. Look at great individuals - you do not hear them talking constantly; most of the time they remain silent.
A man once came to the Chazon Ish and said to him: "Honored Rabbi, there is a great mitzvah to protest against a certain matter; it is a severe breach. Why does the Rav not protest?" The Chazon Ish said to him: "And if I protest, will they listen to me?" The man said: "Certainly! Whatever the Rav says, people listen." The Chazon Ish replied: "Do you know why they listen to me? Because I remain silent. But the moment I begin speaking constantly, who will listen to me?" It is simple logic: when someone is normally silent, then when he finally speaks, people listen attentively to every word. The Chazon Ish did not speak often, but when he came out with his statements on the drafting of girls, and when he spoke regarding the drafting of yeshivah students, the entire land was shaken. Had he issued a new directive and a new protest every two days, people would no longer have read them or sat down to see what he wrote this time - thinking, "He probably found yet another breach, another problem." But when a person maintains silence, then when he does speak, his words carry immense power.
Thus, it is the way of a leader to speak sparingly, even with words of truth. The Vilna Gaon adds: a lie, even a small one, is worse than speaking a great deal of truth. Excessive speech is indeed not commendable, but if everything you say is true, that is still preferable to speaking few words where the little said is a falsehood. This is the meaning of: "Excessive speech is not fitting for a base person" - even if the base person speaks words of truth, yet speaks on and on, this is unfitting, for a person ought to speak sparingly. All the more so for a nobleman, a leader whose way is to speak sparingly even when speaking truth - how much more so is lying speech unfitting for him, even in the smallest measure.
Here the Vilna Gaon makes an observation that is quite relevant to the pre-election season as well. Why did Scripture attribute lying speech specifically to the nobleman? Because the nobleman is the one to whom many turn seeking promises, and if he promises and fails to deliver, that is lying speech. This is precisely what happens before elections: before the election, the walls shout at you - on every wall, "Vote for So-and-So," "Vote for Such-and-Such"; after the election, you shout at the walls, and who pays attention to you? Who listens to you? The problem with the nobleman is that he makes sweeping promises: "What do you want? A sidewalk? On which street? Yaakov, write this down - a sidewalk along the entire street, no problem at all! Right after the election I take office and change everything here." And every four years it is the same promise, while residents continue trudging through sand and mud, and promises are abundant. Therefore, Scripture states that lying speech is not fitting for a nobleman.
People look for promises from a nobleman - "Many seek the favor of the nobleman" - and the nobleman wants to please everyone, handing out checks freely, but the problem starts when people try to cash them. From a base person, however, no one seeks a firm commitment, for he lacks the means; they merely ask him for a favor, hoping perhaps he might be able to manage it. Therefore, if he said he would do it and did not, one cannot call that a lie, but rather excessive speech: you said you would do it, and you failed to follow through. But the nobleman, who possesses the capability, when you ask him for a commitment and he promises and fails to deliver, he is a liar. Therefore, "Do not put your trust in nobles": since a nobleman is susceptible to lying speech, it is proper not to rely on him.
The Malbim explains that the naval (churl) is the opposite of the nadiv (generous noble): the noble desires to give and bestow upon others, whereas the churl always wants to receive and never wants to share what he has with others. It is not the way of the churl to promise gifts and favors at all. Yet if he did promise something, not only is lying speech unfitting for him and he must keep his word, but he must fulfill it precisely, without falling short in any way.
And if he spoke "excessive speech," meaning he promised much and ultimately did little, that is a disgrace. He might walk away feeling content, thinking, "After all, I spoke and I acted," but you promised to do this much and ended up doing far less. You said much and did little; in your speech you exaggerated, and that is excessive speech. Concerning this it is said, "Excessive speech is not fitting for a base person": promising and then fulfilling only part of the promise, even though he did something, is a disgrace. Even though the churl was not inclined to volunteer in the first place, nevertheless, he must not renege on his commitment.
All the more so, "how much less lying speech for a nobleman," in which there is a disgrace from three aspects. First, on account of his being a nobleman of means: you promised, and you could not fulfill it? Second, people turn specifically to a nobleman seeking commitments, and they rely on his word; one does not rely heavily on the churl, but when a man of means makes a promise, you feel completely at ease - far more so than with the promise of a beggar on the street corner. And third, this involves an outright falsehood, for you promised much and performed little, which means you were untruthful in what you said.
The three pesukim we have studied teach one fundamental principle: respect for others and the honor of Heaven are bound up together. One who mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker, for the impoverished person is not to blame for his condition; and one who rejoices over misfortune - even if the fallen stumbled through his own fault - will not go unpunished, for "when your enemy falls, do not rejoice." "Grandchildren are the crown of the aged" teaches that grandchildren are a crown to the elder, surrounding his table and protecting him in the World to Come, whereas parents are only the glory of their children, their merit assisting them in this world. From this we also see the depth of man's need to leave an enduring legacy - provided it is an imprint of holiness. And finally, the trait of speech: it is fitting to minimize one's words even when speaking truth, and one who does speak should say little and fulfill everything, so that his mouth harbors neither haughty speech nor words of falsehood.