Introduction
We continue in chapter 21 of Mishlei, with the verses dealing with man and his desires: what is true joy and what is futile joy, what is the proper order of Torah study, and how the Holy One, Blessed be He, rescues the righteous and upright. We begin where we left off, with verse 17, examining the explanations of Rabbeinu Yonah, the Vilna Gaon, and the Malbim, and from there proceed to verse 18.
אִ֣ישׁ מַ֭חְסוֹר אֹהֵ֣ב שִׂמְחָ֑ה אֹהֵ֥ב יַֽיִן־וָ֝שֶׁ֗מֶן לֹ֣א יַעֲשִֽׁיר׃ - "A man who loves pleasure will be in want; he who loves wine and oil will not grow rich."
"In Proportion to One's Joy, So Will His Sorrow Increase Upon Losing It"
The second reason brought by Rabbeinu Yonah is that in proportion to a person's joy in something, so will his sorrow increase when he must part from it. A person who grew accustomed to a certain standard of living finds it very difficult to come down from it. Having become used to one lifestyle, it will be extremely hard for him to adapt to another. One sometimes sees tragic situations where people are driven to despair, even to taking their own lives. What happened? "I was on top, I was respected, people sought me out" - and suddenly, from a high roof to a deep pit. He cannot bear the thought of becoming an anonymous, needy person. In less extreme cases, a person lives in constant humiliation because he fails to realize that he must shift phases, that he needs to "change the record": your former reality has changed, and a new reality has begun.
Many of those who suffer from this are various "celebrities" and performers. For a certain period, he was a superstar: every prime-time show clamored to interview him, his manager charged tens of thousands of shekels for each appearance, and he became a minor millionaire within six months. Yet fame, as is well known, is fleeting. One can look into the dustbin of history and find many who briefly captured the spotlight, only to find themselves utterly forgotten the next day. The phone stops ringing. He calls his own number just to check if the phone is working. He begins looking for a local venue that will take him for any meager sum, and eventually even that dries up. Then he cannot find a job. Why? Because after what he once was, he feels entitled to nothing less than CEO. But the truth is, he has no real skills: he released a catchy tune, made headlines, dropped out of high school, never studied, and acquired no trade. "So what, am I supposed to stack shelves in a supermarket?" Yes, those are your skills. And because doing ordinary work is beneath his dignity, yet no one will pay him what he thinks he is worth, such people end up literally begging for bread.
This is not the Torah's way. According to Judaism, a person must acknowledge his true situation: you were prominent once, but you are not now. Therefore, make something of yourself today, according to your present capabilities. A person must know how to look forward: whatever I once was is finished; it is behind me, and I no longer dwell on it. What destroys these people is that they remain constantly immersed in their past: "Do you know who I used to be?" It is over. Live in the present; live in your reality today. If your reality today is that you have nothing to eat, and a job is offered, go and work. If people say, "Those were the days," answer, "True, but that is history." The train moves on, the wheels keep turning, and one must live with reality as it is. This is the meaning of: in proportion to the joy, so does one's sorrow increase upon losing it. Just as you now love pleasure and chase after every indulgence because you are riding high, so too will the sorrow intensify when fortune turns. Therefore: do not overindulge, do not chase after desires excessively, and do not climb too high, so that the eventual fall will not be painful.
Joy in Fleeting Things - A Sign of Foolishness
Rabbeinu Yonah adds another point: taking joy in something transient indicates foolishness. A child rejoices over marbles, an adult rejoices over money, and an enlightened person rejoices in the Torah and words of wisdom. If what brings you joy is marbles, that reflects on your inner world: how empty it is, how hollow. Eleven hooligans chasing an inflated piece of leather - what is the difference between that and marbles? It is simply a bigger marble with more money surrounding it. And that is what interests you; that is the news that captures your attention.
Similarly with people: a man buys a car and struts around like a peacock. What happened, my friend? You swapped worn sheet metal for shiny sheet metal. He will lecture you about the control systems, cruise control, what extras they promised him, and what features he added. What are you talking about? A wagon. You talk about it as if you unlocked a difficult passage in Tosafos, as if you discovered a tremendous Torah insight. Rabbeinu Yonah explains: this indicates foolishness, for he rejoices in a transient thing. "And of joy, what does it accomplish?" - what is there to celebrate in foolishness and futility? Treat the item for what it truly is: yes, it is a new car, comfortable, you need to get from place to place, and it serves that purpose, nothing more. But to treat it like a baby, invest in it, spend tens of thousands on spoilers and accessories, washing and waxing it every other day - why get so excited over a material object? Therefore, one who loves joy in material things is an "ish machsor" (a man of lack): he reveals just how empty he truly is. As Iyov already said, "If I rejoiced because my wealth was great" - could I ever imagine rejoicing simply because I have abundant money? Is that truly what ever brought me joy?
"He Who Loves Wine and Oil Will Not Grow Rich"
Rabbeinu Yonah explains: wine and oil symbolize the pleasures of food. When one wants to describe food as delicious, one refers to it as "rich" or "fat" - fatty meat; and the fat portion was always considered choice - "all the fat belongs to Hashem," and fat is rich. Wine certainly expresses indulgence and drawn-out pursuit of food and drink. Such a person accustoms himself to perpetual leisure: moving from one feast to another, from a party to a lounge and from there to another gathering, constantly chasing pleasures and appetites. Such a person neither toils nor exerts himself and accomplishes nothing with his life. Laziness envelops him, and consequently he makes no progress. This holds true materially, to say nothing of the spiritual dimension, where it is thoroughly destructive. This is the meaning of "he who loves wine and oil will not grow rich" - instead of investing yourself in productive labor, you seek entertainment and indulgence.
The Vilna Gaon's Explanation: A Needy Man - Deficient in Torah
The Vilna Gaon first explains according to the plain meaning: The most deficient person of all is one who loves joy, wanting to rejoice constantly, and loves wine and oil, and he will not grow rich - for his entire preoccupation is chasing after wine and oil. From here, as is his way, the Gaon applies these matters to Torah. "A needy man" (ish machsor) - a man deficient in Torah. He lacks Torah, and is always looking for where there is "neiyehs" (gossip and chatter), where there is news, where there is some matter to busy oneself with, where people are talking, where there is politics - that is what captures his attention. And "one who loves wine and oil" - one who pursues the desires of this world, wine for drinking and oil for anointing, "will not grow rich" in Torah. For these matters are contrary to Torah: Chazal taught that a person does not acquire Torah until he vomits up the milk he nursed from his mother's breasts, and they said, "This is the way of Torah: Eat bread with salt, drink water in small measure, and sleep on the ground." In Torah, one must toil. It follows that the pursuit of pleasures is the exact opposite of engaging in Torah, and consequently, one who pursues wine and oil will not grow rich in Torah.
Joy Versus Fear of Heaven
The Gaon further explains: Scripture states, "There is no lack for those who fear Him" - a God-fearing person lacks nothing. If so, "a needy man" (ish machsor) is someone who lacks yirah (fear of Heaven), for had he been among those who fear Him, he would not be lacking. Fear and deficiency do not go together. And the opposite of fear is joy, as we find: "Serve Hashem with fear" versus "Serve Hashem with joy." Indeed, joy stands in contrast to fear: What is fear? Awe and vigilance, where a person conducts his actions with alertness, fearful lest he err, lest he do something improper. And what is joy? Release and abandon. A joyful person speaks freely and acts freely; he lacks that solemn awe, which is the opposite of alertness. One who is alert is taut, like a coiled spring, his mouth tight; whereas one who is joyful - everything expands within him, and a broad smile spreads across his whole face. "Good tidings make the bones fat" - joy is expansion. If so, a needy man is not among those who fear Him, and therefore he loves joy - he loves let-down and abandon.
Bread, Wine, and Oil - The Order of Study
The Gaon continues with his parable: Bread represents Halachah. The most foundational element is the study of Talmud and Halachah, and this is called bread, as it says, "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine I have mixed." Just as a person in his diet requires bread - he can eat fruit and snack, but without bread he does not feel satiated from a meal - so too in Torah, one must have bread, which is the Talmud and the halachot. In contrast, there are wine and oil, which are the side dishes and accompaniments: Aggadah, remez (allegory/hint), and sod (the esoteric secrets of Torah). There is peshat (the plain meaning), and there are remez, derash, and sod, and remez, derash, and sod are in the category of wine and oil, an addition to the bread.
The Gaon says: One who seeks to pursue things too great and wondrous for him and does not study the halachot - ask him what the law of borer (sorting) is on Shabbat, and he will say, "I remember we learned that once, I heard something." How can it be that he does not know basic, elementary matters? Because he engages only in other realms: he has already "completed" the Idra and Sha'ar HaMitzvot of the holy Ari, and explains to you about spiritual worlds, emanations, and the kavanot of the Rashash - yet regarding basic questions of putting on tefillin and daily mitzvah observance, he is clueless. What does this person have? Wine and oil. And what is he lacking? Bread. And that bread means "filling one's belly with Shas and Poskim," and only afterward engaging in matters of this kind. Before filling one's belly with Shas and Poskim, how can one skip ahead to remez, derash, and sod, which are far more sublime matters? "And bread sustains the heart of man" - what sustains a person first is bread, and one cannot arrive at the secrets of the Torah except through it.
Stories: The Chazon Ish and Rav Elyashiv
It is told of the Chazon Ish that at a certain stage, he wished to study Kabbalah. As is known, this requires a teacher to transmit it, for one must receive it from a sage. They told him of a certain rabbi who was a great and expert kabbalist, and the Chazon Ish decided to visit him. When he arrived, since talmidei chachamim do not converse except in words of Torah, he asked him a question - without revealing that he had come to study Kabbalah from him. He said to him: "I have a difficulty with a certain Tosafot; what does the Rav say?" The kabbalist examined the matter and could not answer. The Chazon Ish concluded the discussion, bid him farewell as a courtesy visit, and later remarked: "Can someone who cannot explain a Tosafot teach me Kabbalah?"
Even those who think they are learning need to know that scratching the surface is not enough. What is considered learning - merely reciting? There are those who recite Shas. Once, Rav Elyashiv tested a kollel where they studied Shas, and they later asked him for his impression of the avreichim's knowledge. He replied: "There are three there who studied; the rest prayed Gemara." There is someone who truly studies: he takes the Gemara, delves into it, encounters difficulties, contemplates, analyzes Tosafot, opens the Maharsha, tries to understand, examines the Rishonim - that person studied. And then there is someone who merely reads: "Abaye said, Rava said, Rav Chisda said, Rav Sheshet said" - what did you understand? A little bit on the surface. Not quite reciting Tehillim, but as Rav Elyashiv put it: he "prayed Gemara." And if a person has not filled his belly with Shas and Poskim, when he comes to Kabbalah, he "prays Kabbalah" - it is like reciting Tehillim for him. Is that how Kabbalah is studied? Look at how the kabbalists studied, how the Torah giants of the world studied. It is related of the holy Arizal that he could spend long weeks on a single passage of the Zohar in order to understand it. We are not on such levels, but at least understand: look at the books of Kabbalah, the writings of the holy Ari, the She'arim, the Idra - and see how many commentaries were written on them to explain their meaning and depth, and what profound peshat exists within the words of the Ari and within Kabbalah. Kabbalah is not something learned superficially; it is something one must delve into deeply.
Therefore, the Vilna Gaon says: One cannot arrive at the secrets of the Torah except through bread; hence, "he will not grow rich" in the secrets of Torah and will end up with nothing. There must be an order: study Gemara in depth, study according to the order established by Chazal, and then whatever material you study, you will understand, because you will delve into it, contemplate it, and already know how to learn it. But one who does not do so - it seems to him that he has partaken of a feast, but it is a meal of wine and oil alone, and from such a meal one is never satisfied. Who truly achieves attainment? One who followed the path charted by Chazal: in his earlier years, he immersed himself in Shas and Poskim, eating bread; and afterward, at the end of the meal - from age forty, as Chazal stated - he began to study the additional realms. Such a person will grow rich and attain great wealth in Torah, for he possesses both the peshat and the supplement, which is in the category of wine and oil.
The Malbim's Explanation: "For Joy Does Not Endure"
The Malbim notes a wonderful insight here that is deeply characteristic of our generation. These are his words: One who loves joy - wishing to always be joyful - is a man of want, for such joy cannot endure. Whatever brought him joy when he first acquired it, once he looks at it or owns it for a few days, will no longer bring him joy. He will then crave something new to replace it, and the new item will bring him joy - leaving him perpetually lacking.
This is a reality in which our generation is drowning. A person once related after being approved for a new car: "I bought the car, and no one was happier than I was. I drove around like a peacock - brand new, gleaming, all leather. Before that, I drove beat-up clunkers, and I cannot describe the joy I felt. How long did it last? A week, two weeks. And then I started looking around at other cars, wondering what more advanced models were out there." And so it is when a person buys a phone: he has 4G, then he hears 5G has arrived; he has 5G, and 5.5G is already here. Tell me, why upgrade? You bought it just six months ago! You delighted in the gadget like you wouldn't even spoil your own child, and suddenly it is no longer thrilling. Every toy loses its charm; we know this with children, where a toy lasts a day and a half and that is it. And so it is with adults: he casts the old one aside and searches for something new.
Unfortunately, some believe this applies to marriage as well, changing wives or husbands like socks. Why? Because there was momentary excitement, and one does not realize that marriage means building a home, an enduring bond. He bought a phone and he also got married; getting married was a bit more expensive, but he treats it as mere material pleasure and gratification - and physical pleasure fades, it has an expiration date, it does not last forever. Consequently, such a person is a man of want. This is why the pleasures of this world are always compared to salt water: you drink and feel quenched for an instant, but the salt begins to sting, and seconds later you are twice as thirsty as before. This is the meaning of "he who has one hundred desires two hundred," the endless chase after worldly pleasures. And who is the happy person? The one who decides: "I am taking myself out of this rat race; I do not pursue pleasures and desires; what I have is enough for me." You see him walking with a simple phone - why? "It is enough for me. I can reach my wife on it, calls do not drop, it fulfills all necessary functions. So why replace it?"
The Malbim adds: "He who loves wine and oil will not grow rich" - one who loves wine and oil, meaning he is consumed by desires and luxuries, constantly drinking wine and anointing his body with delicacies, is in an even worse state. One who loves pleasure is a man of want, perpetually lacking, yet he does not necessarily squander his wealth; whereas one who loves wine and oil spends his money on his cravings, and his cravings are boundless. Consequently, not only will he not become wealthy, but on the contrary, he will fall into poverty.
Verse 18: A Ransom for the Righteous Is the Wicked
כֹּ֣פֶר לַצַּדִּ֣יק רָשָׁ֑ע וְתַ֖חַת יְשָׁרִ֣ים בּוֹגֵֽד׃ - The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the treacherous replaces the upright.
Rabbeinu Yonah explains: The wicked person (rasha) is the opposite of the righteous person (tzaddik), and the treacherous person (boged) is the opposite of the upright person (yashar). In our own language we speak similarly: "he was straight with me" means he acted honestly, while "he betrayed me" means he acted deceitfully; and the opposite of wicked is righteous. When a decree looms over the righteous and the upright, the Holy One, blessed be He, removes the decree from them by placing someone else as a ransom for their soul: "The righteous man is rescued from distress, and the wicked takes his place." Rashi cites in this context the verse: "The righteous man is rescued from distress" - this is Mordechai, who was saved from the gallows, and who was hanged upon that tall tree? Haman. Similarly, "I have given man in your stead" and "I gave Egypt as your ransom." Who serves as the ransom for the righteous? The wicked.
The Vilna Gaon's Explanation: One for One, and One for Many
The Vilna Gaon likewise agrees with Rabbeinu Yonah that the opposite of a tzaddik is a rasha, and the opposite of a yashar is a boged. The wicked person serves as a ransom for the righteous: when a decree is issued against the tzaddik - without the tzaddik even knowing of it - a wicked person takes his place and serves as his atonement. However, the Gra adds that there is a level higher than a tzaddik, and that is a yashar, as we say in the liturgy, "the righteous and the upright of heart." When it comes to a tzaddik, it requires one for one - one wicked person as a ransom for one righteous person. But with the upright, who are on a loftier level, many upright people are saved through the ransom of a single treacherous person: one traitor serves as an atonement for many upright individuals.
The Malbim's Explanation: The Difference Between "Ransom" and "In Place Of"
Seemingly, the wicked being a "ransom" (kofer) for the righteous and the treacherous being "in place of" (tachat) the upright express the exact same concept - one being taken in exchange for the other. What, then, is the difference between tachat and kofer? The Malbim explains: The word tachat ("in place of") always refers to the exact same category as the liability - "a life for a life [nefesh tachat nefesh]," "a burn for a burn [keviyah tachat keviyah]," "a wound for a wound [chaburah tachat chaburah]" - both are of identical nature. In contrast, kofer ("ransom") is not necessarily of the same category: if an ox kills a person, the Torah says, "and its owner shall also be put to death," but then states, "if a ransom is laid upon him" - and that suffices; the owner is never actually executed, but rather pays a ransom. Thus, a ransom is not of the same kind - he was liable to death, yet he pays money; money and human life are not of the same nature, whereas "a life for a life" and "a burn for a burn" are of the identical kind.
Following this introduction, the Malbim explains: When the Holy One, blessed be He, judges the world, He assesses between the righteous and the wicked, and whoever emerges guilty in his judgment serves as the atonement for the righteous. Note that "tzaddik" and "rasha" are relative terms. When we say "tzaddik," it does not necessarily mean the greatest sage of the generation or an extraordinary saint, but rather one who is righteous relative to the wicked. Even in everyday slang today, to whom do people say "you came out a tzaddik"? To someone who did not cheat you! What kind of righteous person is that? He could have stolen and did not steal, so immediately people exclaim, "You're a righteous man!" In Torah terms, the criteria for a tzaddik are somewhat different, requiring immense toil to achieve that spiritual stature. Yet the Malbim explains that this colloquial usage is not entirely wrong, for "tzaddik" is indeed a relative term. As the verse states explicitly: "When the wicked swallows up one more righteous than he" - what kind of tzaddik is he? Merely "more righteous than he," better than the wicked person. Thus, even if the tzaddik himself has debts and spiritual shortcomings, in comparison to the wicked person he is considered good. Therefore, the term "kofer" (ransom) is used here, because it applies even when there is no exact equivalence between the two.
However, regarding "and the treacherous in place of the upright" - there the correspondence is complete, which is why the word "in place of" (tachat) is used. This is because uprightness is an absolute, intrinsic perfection, not a relative one. There is no such thing as "I am upright compared to you" or "compared to him, I am upright." When speaking in the Holy Tongue and using the term yashar (upright/straight), the Malbim explains, it is not a relative description: when one says a ruler is straight, it is not measured relative to a crooked table; when one says a spirit level is level, it is not relative to a crooked wall. What is straight is straight in its own right, and the upright are upright in and of themselves. Therefore, the upright person does not require atonement at all and needs no ransom (kofer). Rather, in worldly matters, it may happen that a treacherous person seeks to kill the upright - and then the traitor himself falls in his place, just as Haman sought to kill Mordechai and took his place on the gallows instead. This is what is meant by the verse: "The righteousness of the upright will rescue them, but through calamity the treacherous will be trapped" - where havot signifies ruin and destruction. Thus, regarding the upright, the term "in place of" is fitting, a life for a life in complete equivalence, whereas regarding the righteous (tzaddik) - who may himself bear some liability, and is called righteous only relative to the wicked - the term "ransom" is appropriate, which is used where there is no exact correspondence.
In summary:
Verse 17 teaches us that a love of material pleasure is a sign of deficiency rather than fulfillment: the greater the pleasure, the greater the sorrow when it departs, and rejoicing over transient matters indicates foolishness and inner emptiness. The Vilna Gaon adds that "a man of lack" is one who lacks Torah and the fear of Heaven, and that one cannot attain "wine and oil" - Aggadah, Remez, and Sod - except after having acquired "bread," which represents Shas and Halachah. The Malbim reveals the root of the matter: physical pleasure does not endure, every new acquisition quickly loses its charm and merely gives birth to a new craving, and one who pursues wine and luxury squanders his wealth and falls into poverty. In verse 18, we learned that the Holy One, blessed be He, rescues both the righteous and the upright, delivering the wicked as a ransom for the righteous and the treacherous in place of the upright - where "righteous" is a relative designation, and therefore the term "ransom" is used, while "upright" represents intrinsic perfection, and therefore the term "in place of" is used, reflecting complete equivalence.