One verse in our chapter opens up an entire world before us: "The eyes of Hashem preserve knowledge." We will dedicate the entire lesson to it, exploring the approach of the Vilna Gaon - whose method is often to branch out from the verse to explain a broad concept, and only afterward return to interpret the verse in its light - followed by the commentary of the Malbim.
עֵינֵי יְהֹוָה נָצְרוּ דָעַת וַיְסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי בֹגֵד׃ (כב, יב) - The eyes of Hashem preserve knowledge, and He overturns the words of the treacherous. (22:12)
In brief: the eyes of Hashem watch over the righteous so that knowledge is not forgotten by them, while the Holy One, blessed is He, overturns the words of the deceitful person - so that his deceit is exposed and he is revealed by it. And here, the Vilna Gaon begins a wonderful analysis.
Two Phrasings in the Verses on Bribery
Notice the verses dealing with bribery. In one place it is said: "For bribery blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the words of the righteous." In another place: "And you shall take no bribe, for bribery blinds the clear-sighted." In one verse it calls them "wise," and in another "clear-sighted." What is the reason for this difference? To answer this, the Vilna Gaon first turns to a different verse.
"And You Shall Inquire, Investigate, and Question Thoroughly"
The Torah states: "And you shall inquire, investigate, and question thoroughly; and behold, the matter is true and certain, this abomination has been committed." The Gemara explains: "And you shall inquire" - from the witnesses. Witnesses come and tell a story, and you must interrogate them well, listen carefully, clarify, and examine every detail and nuance in their words. "And you shall investigate" - from the Torah. After learning the factual account, one must see where this law is written in the Torah, what the Torah says about such a case. "And you shall question" - from the words of the Scribes: is there a Rabbinic decree regarding this, did the Sages establish anything on the matter?
And afterward: "And behold, the matter is true and certain." The Vilna Gaon asks: What is the difference between "true" and "certain"? What would have been missing had it only written, "and behold, the matter is true," or only, "and behold, the matter is certain"? Why the duplication?
And there is another duplication: Chazal say, "Anything that is not as clear to you as your sister, do not say it; and a matter that is as clear to you as your sister, say it." That is to say, does anyone doubt that his sister is forbidden to him by Torah law? That is something obvious to everyone. The Torah says: You want to state a halachah and teach the public? If the matter is as clearly forbidden to you as your sister is clearly forbidden to you, say it. But if it is not that clear to you, do not say it. Yet another dictum of Chazal states: "Any matter that is as clear to you as the morning, say it; and if not, do not say it." If the matter is as clear to you as it is clear right now that the sun is shining and it is morning, say it. The Vilna Gaon asks: Here too it is puzzling - why did they duplicate this, once saying "as your sister" and once "as the morning"?
Two Things Required of a Judge
The Vilna Gaon explains: A judge needs two primary things in order to render a true verdict. The first is erudition in the Torah. A problem is presented before the judge; he must know the sources, the proofs, the evidence, and how the halachah is ruled. Without this, he might pervert justice and act contrary to law and halachah.
An interview with Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu ztz"l describes the days he sat on the rabbinical court together with Rabbi Elyashiv. At the conclusion of the proceedings, a reasoned halachic ruling of several pages had to be written - and this, incidentally, was one of the few situations where Rabbi Elyashiv would write, and from which his writings have been preserved for us (apart from aggadah); in halachah, he was very hesitant to write. Rabbi Eliyahu related: We would sit, open sefarim, and study them deeply. Yet Rabbi Elyashiv would sit for fifteen minutes and write an entire responsum without opening a single sefer - citing all the sources from memory: Beit Shmuel, in such-and-such a siman, such-and-such a subsection, wrote this; on the other hand, another authority raises this point; and therefore in such a case, according to the rulings of the Poskim regarding the dispute in the Gemara, the halachah is such. Fifteen minutes, he was done, and went back to his learning.
And another story: Once in a din Torah where Rav Ovadia Yosef, of blessed memory, and Rav Elyashiv sat on the bench. Rav Ovadia argued that there was a rationale to be lenient according to a certain opinion, but Rav Elyashiv and the other dayanim did not accept it - they said that this was an Acharon, not a Gemara, and it is difficult to rely on an individual responsum; one needs more well-founded proofs. Rav Ovadia told them: I remember that years ago, when we were discussing Torah, Rav Ben-Zion Abba Shaul told me that he had a proof for this from Tosafot. Tosafot - that is Rishonim; that can already be considered. They sent to summon him. Rav Ben-Zion was in the middle of a shiur at the yeshivah; when he heard that the beit din wanted him, he immediately stopped the shiur and went. They asked him: Do you have a proof from Tosafot for this rationale? He said: Yes. He opened the Tosafot for them and showed them, and from it his words were proven - a tremendous wonder. Rav Ovadia himself did not remember what the proof was, only that there was a proof from Tosafot. They brought him, he brought the proof, and they ruled the din. A dayan must be erudite; he must possess vast knowledge.
Familiarity with the Ways of the World
And the second thing: The dayan must be familiar with the ways of the world, meaning not disconnected. There can be a dayan who is a tremendous genius, but he is not among people. And what happens to one who is not among people? He does not know scams, he does not know trickery, he does not know how to recognize on their faces when they are deceiving - he is so upright and honest that he cannot conceive that anyone could do such things. One must be familiar with the ways of the world, know how to understand the minds of people, probe their character, understand what is happening with them - and thereby uncover deceit. Without this, what is it? A computer: you feed in data, you get answers out. It does not work that way. The dayan must investigate and inquire and interrogate and see what exactly happened, how he said the things, in what manner.
I read about Rav Elyashiv that in his youth his father - a Jewish talmid chacham and rav - feared he was too great a matmid (diligent student). What does it mean to be too great a matmid? That he would not be familiar with the ways of the world, that he would be disconnected, because he was always learning, only learning. Therefore, he hired someone to sit with him and talk with him for half an hour a day about worldly matters, so that he would know what was happening in the world, so that he would engage in mundane conversation. After all, one of the forty-eight things through which Torah is acquired is "limited conversation"; and the Gra explains that "limited conversation," "limited laughter," "limited business" do not mean that you should not do them at all, but rather that you must do them, yet in moderation. You need a little conversation and a little laughter, something to relax slightly. Do not say: One must limit conversation, so I will have no conversation at all.
And that person relates that when he spoke with Rav Elyashiv, he was surprised to see how much - despite being a youth who had nothing in the world other than Torah - he grasped matters faster than he did and understood them better, and was truly in touch with reality. Not from prior worldly knowledge, for he had no worldly knowledge since he was engrossed in Torah, but rather that from his sharp mind and constant immersion in Torah, he grasped everything swiftly.
A Judgment of Absolute Truth
The Gra says: If the witnesses testify falsely, and the dayan is not familiar with the ways of the world and does not scrutinize the words of the witnesses and does not understand the deception - the judgment is indeed a true judgment according to their words, but it is not the Torah's absolute truth. According to the data they provided you, what you ruled is true; but had you checked properly, you would have seen that the data is flawed and that what the witness recounted is a fabrication.
And this is what Chazal say: Any judge who judges a case with absolute truth (din emet le'amito). This too is puzzling - if I judge a true judgment, is that not enough? But Tosafot explain: "To its very truth" - to exclude a fraudulent case. Truly, according to the data he provided me, the answer I produced is excellent; but had I investigated a little, I would have seen that the data is inaccurate. When is it absolute truth? When I investigate thoroughly and know precisely how the facts unfolded, and do not let the witnesses manipulate me and tell me tall tales that never were and never existed, and do not rely on whatever they pulled out on the spot. One does not judge solely based on data; one must verify that the data itself is real and accurate.
Now the Verses Become Clear
"And you shall inquire" - from the witnesses: you must interrogate them so that they do not speak falsehood, to attempt to uncover the lie in their words. And afterward, "and you shall investigate" - from the words of Torah: after I know exactly what happened and did not let them trick me, now I will investigate from the Torah what the law should be in such a situation; I will open the books, study, and examine the topic.
And from here the duplication "it is true and the matter is certain" is understood: "True" - that I derived a true judgment from the Torah, that I am proficient enough in the Torah to issue a true ruling. "The matter is certain" - that I interrogated the witnesses regarding what they said, and indeed the words that came from their mouths are accurate, and I did not let them spin me around with stories. Sometimes it can be that the ruling is true but not accurate - because you did not extract the true facts from the witnesses.
And according to this, the duality in the words of Chazal is also explained. "Clear to you as your sister" - from where is the prohibition of one's sister derived? From the Torah. We have no source for this prohibition other than the Torah. That is to say, the first thing a dayan needs is knowledge of the Torah: just as you know from the Torah that your sister is forbidden, so too must you know regarding the matter you are now judging that the thing is forbidden or permitted - absolute knowledge of the Torah. "Clear to you as the morning," like the shining of the sun - the shining of the sun is part of the physical world. You must be familiar with worldly matters: just as it is clear to you now that the sun is shining and everyone sees it, so too you must see on their faces and understand from their words that what they are saying is indeed true. And one needs both things together.
The Wise and the Astute
From this, explains the Gra, the duplicate phrasing in the verses concerning bribery becomes self-evident. A chacham (wise person) is someone wise in Torah, as in the Gemara's phrasing, chacham ikri - one who is wise in Torah is called wise. A pike'ach (astute person) is an expression used for someone well-versed in the ways of the world: this person is very sharp, knows how to get things done, senses subtle shifts, grasps matters quickly, and is keen. This is what the Torah is telling us: know that bribery has the power to distort both the Torah scholar and the astute person who says, "Leave it to me, I know people well; I will not let anyone deceive me, I read people immediately." Bribery can corrupt both of them.
In both verses, the reference is to the eyes. It should be noted that the Gra did not write these words himself, but rather his students recorded them, and when they cited the second verse, they mistakenly wrote, "for bribery blinds the eyes of the astute" (einei pikchim) - yet there is no such verse, as the verse actually states, "it blinds the astute" (ye'aveir pikchim). But the answer is that even if the word "eyes" is not explicitly written, it clearly refers to the eyes, for it says "blinds" - and blindness pertains to the eyes, not the hands. That is to say, both regarding the wise and regarding the astute, it refers to something connected to the eye.
Two Eyes and One Mouth
And why is this so? The Gra explains: The Holy One, blessed be He, created man with two eyes - one for wisdom and one for worldly affairs - but only one mouth. The Holy One, blessed be He, did not create two mouths for man. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai initially lamented this: what a pity that there are not two mouths, one sacred mouth for prayer, the service of Hashem, and Torah study, and a second mouth for mundane matters (and some might have wanted a third mouth for gossip, but two would be quite enough). Nevertheless, he concluded: it is good that it is so. For if there were two mouths, first of all, a person would speak in stereo, which would already be a problem; but above all, one would end up using the second mouth for idle chatter as well, which is even worse. And certainly, no one would want their spouse to have two mouths! So it is best that matters remain as they are.
Corresponding to this, among the prophets we find that vision is twofold. A prophet has two titles: ro'eh (seer) and chozeh (visionary) - both relating to the eyes. These correspond to the Early Prophets and the Later Prophets: the earlier ones were called ro'im because they saw through the luminous glass within the non-luminous; for only one person saw through the completely luminous glass - Moshe Rabbeinu - whereas all other prophets were lesser and saw through a non-luminous glass. Yet even within the non-luminous glass there are gradations: there is one who sees through the luminous within the non-luminous, and one who sees through the non-luminous within the non-luminous - depending on the degree of film or haze upon that pane. The Later Prophets perceived through the non-luminous within the non-luminous, which is constriction upon constriction, concealment upon concealment.
By contrast, the title Navi (prophet) - derived from niv sefatayim, the fruit of the lips, the produce yielded by the lips - is a single term with no duplicate counterpart. Here we have the principle: regarding sight, there are two expressions, ro'eh and chozeh, corresponding to "the eyes of the wise" and "the eyes of the astute"; whereas regarding speech - "the words of the righteous" - there is only one, without any duplication.
Therefore, explains the Gra, a sage possesses three levels: "the eyes of the wise" - in Torah; "the eyes of the astute" - in practical action, recognizing when someone attempts to deceive him; and he also has a mouth to speak Torah - "the words of the righteous." Yet know that bribery distorts it all. One might think: "What are you talking about? I have eyes that see into the Torah, eyes that detect fraud, and a holy mouth that speaks words of Torah!" Yet bribery subverts them all: the eyes of the wise, the eyes of the astute, and the words of the righteous.
And This Is What Is Written: "The Eyes of Hashem Guard Knowledge"
However, one who does not take bribery - even though there is no absolute guarantee that every ruling he issues will be correct, for "who can discern errors?" - the Holy One, blessed be He, protects him so that he arrives at the truth and is not ensnared by his wisdom or astuteness into perverting justice and judgment. And how? By the Holy One, blessed be He, granting a person da'at (knowledge and discernment). This is the meaning of "The eyes of Hashem guard knowledge": "eyes" (einei) in the plural, corresponding to the eyes of the wise and the eyes of the astute, and corresponding to the seer and the visionary - so that both aspects are safeguarded, ensuring that one does not stumble either in legal analysis from the Torah or in the examination of witnesses.
And corresponding to the mouth, through which bribery perverts the words of the righteous, the verse continues: "and He subverts the words of the deceitful." When a judge takes care not to accept bribery, the Holy One, blessed be He, ensures that he does not fall for the smooth tongue of the deceitful person, subverting that person's words so that the judge does not falter. Thus, one who refrains from taking bribery merits two things: the eyes of Hashem guard his discernment in both realms so that he will not stumble, and on the other hand, the swindler will not succeed in deceiving - for the Holy One, blessed be He, subverts the words of the deceitful, enabling the righteous judge to perceive from his very words that his claims are false, thereby rendering a judgment of absolute truth.
The Malbim: Da'at - First Principles of Reason
The Malbim explains "The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge" in his own way. We have already learned several times above: regarding the laws of wisdom (*chochmah*), we have no accepted empirical standard, no definitive demonstration or proof, but only what we have received from previous generations and from the holy Torah. Wisdom essentially addresses what is decent, what is upright, what is proper, what is moral - and in this realm we have no exact science, and everyone is certain that decency and uprightness are on his side. For this reason, the fool (*evil*) despises the laws of wisdom; for *evil* is related to the word *ulai* ("perhaps") - he is the skeptic, the doubter, who always casts doubts and challenges: who says so, what is the proof, and how can anyone know?
And understanding (*tevunah*) and intellect, although they come through research, contemplation, and analysis - not many people will contemplate, nor can many contemplate. To contemplate and delve deeply into a subject, one needs premises, one needs fundamentals. If one comes to investigate without the basic premises, he cannot begin to investigate at all. For example, a person wants to research: this pottery shard found in an archaeological excavation, from which era does it originate? I have no tools to evaluate the question, since I do not know the historical periods, nor do I know what styles of dress, clothing, and vessels existed in each era - I have no premises and no foundational knowledge with which to begin an investigation.
And there is only one field where people speak without foundations - the Torah. Only there do you see every unqualified amateur taking the airwaves, opening his mouth, babbling, and spewing vile nonsense without understanding anything and without knowing a thing; an absolute *am ha'aretz* (ignoramus) biblically and rabbinically according to all halachic authorities, an *am ha'aretz* by the exacting measure of the Chazon Ish - and you see him talking as if he understands, as if he knows, as if he is an expert. In any other field, one would not dare open his mouth: in quantum theory one would say, "This is not my field, this is not my expertise," and keep quiet. Only with Torah does everyone suddenly know - an ignoramus who never observed or kept anything suddenly offers opinions. Anywhere else in the world, in order to speak you must be knowledgeable in the subject; you must have the foundations and premises upon which the investigation is based.
From this emerges Hashem's kindness, says the Malbim, in planting *da'at* (knowledge) within man. *Da'at* consists of primary axioms (first principles of the intellect) and the deduction from effect to cause (from later to earlier) through the senses. This means: we try to understand what happened here five thousand years ago (scientists go further and try to understand what happened fifty million years ago, but let us stay with our framework). Inevitably, we do this by observing present-day reality and drawing conclusions from later to earlier, for we have no documentation of what existed back then - no recordings and no films. What can we do? Estimate. But is it merely an estimate? No. Often, these are deductions that go beyond mere estimation, reaching near certainty. If I observe a certain behavior over the past several years, I can deduce that so many years ago the phenomenon behaved the same way, and consequently, based on the number of rings, I know how old a tree is. Were you there? No, but I deduce it from its structure. And if I see that an inner ring is deeply charred or subjected to extreme heat, I deduce that during that period a catastrophe befell the tree; and if this corresponds to the era of the Great Flood, I understand that this tree existed during the Flood, and its surroundings underwent an intense boiling process. This is drawing conclusions from the later to the earlier.
And by virtue of what do I do this? By virtue of the first principles of the intellect - foundations of *da'at* that the Holy One, blessed be He, planted in the human heart. This is sound logic, the common sense inherent in every person through which he draws correct logical conclusions - what is universally accepted and known as plain, clear reasoning. Incidentally, not in everyone: there are people you see doing senseless things, and they explain their "logic" to you, leaving you wondering where such twisted thinking came from and how they ever reached such a conclusion. But through Hashem's kindness, this is not the case for most people, and the world operates and functions according to the basic logic that the Holy One, blessed be He, planted in the human heart.
And on top of *da'at* comes the power of *binah* - the capacity for contemplation, deducing one matter from another. *Da'at* is the clear knowledge derived from what is observed; but regarding what is not directly observed - that is where *binah* is required: if this behaves in such a manner, I understand that under different conditions it will behave otherwise. Today we can know about the behavior of things in creation that we have never directly observed - the behavior of celestial bodies we have never seen; based on the trail a star left behind, I deduce which minerals compose it, what its mass is, and at what speed it travels. Did you see it? No, but I see its effect and the gravitational pull it left behind, how it acts upon other stars - and from this I deduce. This is the power of *binah*: concerning something I have never seen, I can provide information based on general contemplation of what I observe in nature.
"And Overthrows the Words of the Faithless"
And by what power does all this happen? Says the Malbim - by virtue of Divine Providence. "The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge": the Holy One, blessed be He, watches over *da'at* so that it remains preserved in the human heart. And through this - "and overthrows the words of the faithless": for if I possess *da'at* through the first principles of the intellect that the Creator planted within me, then when the faithless comes to utter words of heresy and sow doubt, I can demonstrate to him from reality and nature that his claims are false, and thereby the words of the faithless are overthrown and subverted.
And as we see in our own day: what was once considered an outdated religious concept - that the universe had a beginning at a single, distinct moment - behold, with recent theories, such as those of Stephen Hawking (an unwilling confirmation from an adversary), they speak of the Big Bang, which means we have returned to the Creation of the world: that the world was created at a specific moment. They claim it was so many billions of years ago? That is merely an argument over the timeline, and over time the numbers will shrink until the truth is reached. But before that, the debate was fundamental: Was the world created, or was it an eternal, slow development? Suddenly it became clear that at a single moment the universe came into being. It turns out that *da'at*, human reason, inevitably leads man to draw the correct conclusions, and through this "he overthrows the words of the faithless" - one can refute the words of deniers and traitors who seek to distort the truth.
And know that the only place where Darwin's theory of evolution, the theory of the development of species, is taught as dogma rather than as a flawed theory, is the State of Israel. Only here is the theory of evolution taught as established science; elsewhere in the world it is presented merely as a theory, with challenges raised that undermine its validity. But here there is great fear: that if Darwin's theory is not presented as settled science, Heaven forbid people might lean toward religion and the truths written in the Torah. Therefore, those holding the steering wheel of secularist education continue to cling to a hollow theory, even though leading scientists have already determined that not one stone remains atop another of its original claims.
In Summary:
"The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge, and He overthrows the words of the faithless." According to the Vilna Gaon, this refers to a judge: the Creator planted two eyes in him - one for the wisdom of the Torah and one for sharp astuteness in the ways of the world - and one mouth for the words of the righteous; and bribery blinds and perverts all three. But for one who refuses bribery, Hashem's eyes preserve his understanding in both realms, and the Holy One, blessed be He, subverts the words of the faithless so that his deception is exposed - and the judgment emerges as absolute truth, precluding a fraudulent ruling (*din merumah*). This is alluded to in the Torah's words, "And you shall inquire, investigate, and interrogate thoroughly, and behold, it is true, the matter is certain," and as our Sages taught: "as clear to you as your sister" regarding Torah knowledge, and "as clear to you as morning" regarding worldly matters. And the Malbim elaborates: *da'at* represents the first principles of the intellect that the Creator planted in man, the sound logic through which he investigates from effect to cause and arrives at the truth through the power of *binah*. This is Divine Providence - "The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge" - and through it we overthrow the words of heretics and the faithless who come to distort the truth.