Continuing in the chapter, following the call, "Give your heart to Me, my son, and let your eyes observe My ways," King Solomon comes to warn of two types of downfall: a downfall stemming from lust, and a downfall stemming from corrupted beliefs. These two are likened to two different traps, and within the distinction between them lies a fundamental principle in man's spiritual service.
כִּי־שׁוּחָה עֲמֻקָּה זוֹנָה וּבְאֵר צָרָה נׇכְרִיָּה׃ - For a harlot is a deep ditch, and a foreign woman is a narrow well.
The Malbim explains: Corresponding to "and let your eyes observe My ways," it says "for a harlot is a deep ditch" - the harlot represents the drive of lust in man, that inclination which pursues transgression. It resembles a deep pit: one who is trapped in it finds it extremely difficult to get out. And corresponding to "Give your heart to Me, my son," it says "and a foreign woman is a narrow well" - the foreign woman represents thoughts of heresy, that is, denial of faith.
And why specifically a narrow well rather than a deep pit? The Malbim explains: In a narrow well, one who falls drowns immediately in the water and dies. Similarly, one who is submerged in heresy suffers spiritual death and does not return to see the light of life. In contrast, in a deep pit there is still space, room to move, and the possibility of recovering and climbing out. It is very difficult, but possible.
And how true these words are. A person who fell into lust - one can see him return in teshuvah. A person who fell into heresy - you will hardly ever see him return. Concerning this our Sages said that one who learned and turned away is the hardest of all. When a person has gone and adopted all kinds of corrupted opinions and false ideologies, try to bring him back in teshuvah: perhaps one in a thousand, or one in a million, if at all. Only isolated individuals can be found throughout history - people speak of Doctor Ben Dahan, and of another, the one who coined the term Zionism, who also returned in teshuvah. From all those scholars of the Enlightenment - did anyone return in teshuvah? Not a single one.
The explanation is that when something stems from ideology, the distortion becomes embedded in the soul itself. But when it comes to lust - the nature of lust is "at times sane, at times insane"; it comes and goes. A person who is fine today has no guarantee for two days from now, for lust may suddenly overpower him and he will do things you would never have believed. Yet, his state two days from now says nothing about his state two weeks from now, because you see how a person, after satisfying his desire, suddenly catches himself and says: "Where am I? What am I doing?" - and tries to rise again. Lust is external, not in the soul. Ideology is in the soul, and from the soul it is extremely difficult to break free.
Based on this, it has been explained why Avraham Avinu was so strongly opposed to his son taking a wife from the daughters of Canaan: the daughters of Canaan were flawed in their souls. And if you should ask, in Egypt and by Lavan there were also terrible lusts, and it is written of Betuel that every virgin had to submit to the ruler first - to this the answer is: lusts, even terrible ones, can be overcome; but a corruption in the soul, which stems from ideology, is extremely difficult to alter.
This also explains the Exodus from Egypt. The Holy One, blessed is He, brought the Jewish people there to be refined, yet Egypt was the nakedness of the land, a place of forty-nine gates of defilement - what kind of refinement is it that thrusts them into impurity? Rather, the refinement was from corrupted beliefs. The defilement was external, a matter of lusts, and from lusts one can emerge; but from corrupted beliefs it is extraordinarily difficult. And this is what the verse means by "and a foreign woman is a narrow well" - one who drowns in heresy dies the death of the soul and will not return to see the light of life.
אַף־הִיא כְּחֶתֶף תֶּאֱרֹב וּבוֹגְדִים בְּאָדָם תּוֹסִף׃ - She too lies in wait as for prey, and increases the treacherous among men.
“*Kechetef*” - like *bechetef*, suddenly. Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the verse refers back to the foreign woman (*nokriyah*): even though she is not overtly corrupt like a harlot - for a foreign woman might simply be an outsider, an unfamiliar woman, rather than a prostitute - she too is “like a predator” (*kechetef*). “*Chetef*” evokes a predatory beast that pounces, snatching suddenly like a lion that leaps, seizes its prey, and flees. It is an ambushing beast, leaving a person unaware of how he suddenly fell and how it captured him.
And this is the novel insight: when dealing with a harlot, a person knows there is danger and is on guard. We are not speaking of the wicked, but of a God-fearing person. Yet when dealing with a “foreign woman” - she may well be a modest woman, dressed modestly, married, and a mother of children. Does all this guarantee that nothing will happen? “There is no guardian against forbidden relations (*ein apotropus l’arayot*).” Therefore, “she lies in ambush like a predator” - not that she is actively scheming to ensnare him, for we do not assume she is hunting victims, but rather that the sin and the downfall can strike suddenly (*bechetef*), leaving a person stunned at how he reached such a state and descended into such a reality.
“And increases the treacherous among men” - a person who is upright by nature becomes treacherous because of her, as passion overpowers the innate integrity within him. How true this is: when a person faces a sinful temptation, does it cross his mind, “You are betraying your wife”? Our Sages taught: In the moment of the evil inclination, no one remembers the good inclination (*b’idana d’yetzer hara leit d’madkar lei l’yetzer hatov*). When a man is about to scoop fire into hot coals with a married woman - an exceedingly severe prohibition punishable by strangulation (*chenek*) - does the betrayal concern him? And even with an unmarried woman, nearly all of whom are *niddot* who do not immerse in a mikveh, which carries the penalty of *karet* - do thoughts cross his mind like, “You are betraying the wife of your youth? What if your wife did the same, what would you think?” In the heat of the moment, a person forgets that a *yetzer hatov* even exists. This is “and increases the treacherous among men”: his natural uprightness turns into treachery because of the trial and temptation into which he was swept.
The Malbim, however, understands that “she lies in ambush like a predator” does not refer back to the foreign woman, but to the harlot, of whom it was said, “a deep pit.” The harlot lies in wait like a predator - suddenly seizing the one whose heart is swept by lust and ensnaring him in her net. Had he reflected, he would have guarded against her, but she snatches him unawares. Meanwhile, “and increases the treacherous among men” refers to the foreign woman, symbolizing heresy and infidelity: she fosters treachery within a person, providing arguments, proofs, and evidence to deepen his betrayal of Hashem’s Torah, the path of truth, and the path of uprightness.
לְמִי אוֹי לְמִי אֲבוֹי לְמִי מִדְיָנִים לְמִי שִׂיחַ לְמִי פְּצָעִים חִנָּם לְמִי חַכְלִלוּת עֵינָיִם׃ - Who has woe? Who has alas? Who has strife? Who has babbling? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
לַמְאַחֲרִים עַל־הַיָּיִן לַבָּאִים לַחְקֹר מִמְסָךְ׃ - Those who linger long over wine, those who go to search out mixed wine.
Through the first verse, Shlomo only poses questions, and only then does the answer follow. Here we enter the topic of those drawn after wine. Rashi explains: “*Oy*” and “*avoy*” are cries of anguish and wailing; “*midyanim*” is from the language of contention and strife (*madon*), as in “a contentious woman (*eshet midyanim*)”; “*si’ach*” denotes complaint or excessive speech, as in “he pours out his complaint (*yishpoch sicho*)”; “wounds without cause” refers to blows struck against him for no reason; “redness of eyes” (*chachlilut einayim*) means bloodshot, red eyes.
Rabbeinu Yonah explains: “Who has woe? Who has alas?” - for his iniquity and his sin, because wine leads to licentiousness. Here the connection to the preceding verses becomes clear: until now the text spoke of the harlot and the foreign woman, and suddenly shifts to wine - what is the connection? Wine brings about immorality. This is simple and evident: every person has an inner wall when it comes to licentiousness, inhibitions, a moral fence that says, “This is inappropriate; one cannot speak this way to a woman; this is immodest.” And once again, we are not speaking of the wicked, but of people walking in the way of Hashem. Yet when a person drinks wine, all the fences, barriers, and brakes are released. Wine makes a person loose; he goes with the flow, he chuckles, she giggles - and one can understand where that leads. Thus there is a direct link between immorality and wine, just as the verse teaches that wine draws one toward promiscuity.
“Who has strife?” - wine breeds anger and quarrels. “Who has babbling?” - it leads to endless chatter, as it says, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is boisterous.” How true this is. Consider what can happen at a Shabbat Chatan, where someone sits and drinks without limits. There are people who do not indulge when on their own, since wine and spirits cost money; but when they arrive at a Shabbat Chatan or similar gatherings with free-flowing vodka, arak, beer, and wine, they drink and drink. One might have assumed he could handle his drink, but then he opens his mouth. He may not speak coarsely, but he simply will not stop - talking nonstop for an hour and a half, speaking to one person and then another, as if he had swallowed a tape recorder. In goes the wine, out comes the secret. What is more, he keeps urging everyone else to drink, declaring: People are afraid to drink lest they get drunk, but as for me - no matter how much I drink, it has no effect on me at all. The crowd is amused, pouring him more and more, and he is completely oblivious. In his mind everything is fine, and only others have a problem. An absolute disgrace. Similarly, in another setting, a rabbi was invited to speak when he was already unsteady on his feet - it was thoroughly unseemly. This is “who has babbling”: wine causes a person to talk endlessly, “beer is boisterous,” and in the wake of the liquor comes the clamor, with no one able to stop him or quiet him.
“Who has wounds without cause?” - One might have thought that contention leads to brawls, and brawls lead to wounds. Rabbeinu Yonah, however, explains: wine breeds illnesses in the human body, and these are the “wounds.” An alcoholic, Heaven spare us, destroys his liver and ravages his entire body. “Who has redness of eyes?” - as Rashi explains, bloodshot redness in his eyes.
The Vilna Gaon analyzes the verse, for King Solomon does not speak superfluous words, and when he writes things that seemingly repeat themselves - woe, sorrow, contentions, babbling, wounds, redness - an explanation must be found. The Gaon explains: There are six things here, three corresponding to three. When a person turns from the good path, is drawn after wine, and pursues his lusts, three groups are harmed by him.
The first group is his household, and they suffer the most. It is well known that among the nations, payday was a day when the wife braced for impact: the husband receives his wages, goes to the tavern, drinks heavily, and comes home with money in his pocket, and she already knows what is in store for her - beating after beating without blessing. There is a story about an ignorant man who did not know how to conduct the Seder night. He told his wife: 'Go and see what the neighbor, who knows better, is doing, and whatever he does, we will do too.' The wife went and peeked into the neighbor's home, and suddenly saw the husband there getting angry with his wife - he too, apparently, was no less ignorant - and beginning to beat her. The woman returned home, and her husband asked her: 'Well, how do we conduct the Seder?' She kept silent, for what could she say to him - should she cause him to start making 'order' at home as well? He insisted: 'Well, are you speaking or not?' and began beating her. She said to him: 'I see you already know how it is done, so why did you send me?'
The second group is his relatives - brothers, sisters, parents. They are not part of his immediate household, but they also suffer: it is deeply unpleasant to know that you have a drunkard grandson or a drunkard brother. The third group is the rest of humanity, people who are not related to him, who, if they have contact and interaction with him, also find it very unpleasant to endure someone walking around intoxicated.
And King Solomon speaks in reference to these three groups. 'Who has woe (oy)?' - these are the household members who cry out 'woe!' against him, for pursuing wine instead of working for his livelihood, while at home there is nothing to eat, and every penny he has he takes to the tavern. 'Who has sorrow (avoy)?' - these are those who say, 'Woe to us that we have nothing to eat and nothing for household needs,' because he spends everything in his house on wine. 'Who has contentions (medanim)?' - these are the relatives who quarrel with him: 'What shame you bring upon us, what disgrace! People tell me: I saw your brother, I saw your uncle!' 'Who has babbling (si'ach)?' - this too refers to the relatives, who speak in their homes out of his presence: 'It cannot continue like this, this uncle cannot bring shame upon us all the time, we cannot bear suffering on his account.' They constantly converse and hold discussions about the harm he causes them. 'Who has wounds (petza'im)?' - these are the strangers; when a person gets drunk, he loses all inhibitions, hits this one and that one with no self-control, and they hit him back. 'Who has redness of eyes (chachlilut einayim)?' - these are the onlookers who gather around him, mock him, and ridicule his behavior.
The Malbim offers an original explanation. Until now, we understood 'woe' (oy) and 'sorrow' (avoy) as two expressions of grief, but the Malbim reads the verse as a question and an answer. 'Avoy' stems from the root avah (to desire), as in 'he did not desire (lo avah) to let them go,' denoting will and lust, and like aviyonah (desire), which expresses lust. Thus: Who has woe (oy)? He who has desire (avoy) - whoever is drawn after lust. One who spends all day lusting is the one who constantly cries out in woe.
And likewise: 'Who has contentions' - who is always caught in complaints, disputes, and quarrels? 'He who has idle talk (si'ach).' The Malbim clarifies the difference between dibur (measured speech) and si'ach: dibur is deliberate and intelligent, whereas si'ach is like 'speaking innocently without intent' (mesiah lefi tumo), speech without thought or intellect, an outpouring of one's imaginations. And this is precisely the nature of the drunkard, who endlessly prattles. One who opens his mouth and speaks without reason or logic is the one who stirs up strife: he spoke against this person, that person took offense, and thus erupted a quarrel that would never have started had he remained silent.
The same applies to the conclusion: 'Who has wounds without cause?' 'He who has redness of eyes.' One who drinks and becomes intoxicated until his eyes are red from excess wine should not be surprised when he also receives blows without cause. You could have avoided going there, avoided entering that argument - but your eyes are red with wine.
What is mimsach (mixed wine)? Rashi explains: It denotes diluting and mixing, as in 'she has mixed her wine (masecha yeinah)' - she blended it. The wine in their time was unfit to drink undiluted because of its potency and concentration, so they would mix it with water, and this is termed the blending of wine. (Incidentally, in modern Hebrew the usage has become corrupted: people say 'pour (mezog) me a cup of tea,' but this is imprecise - tea is poured out, not blended. Mezigah is the blending of two things, as in mixing milk into coffee, or water into wine. In modern Hebrew people also say that two corporate companies have 'merged' (hitmazgu), meaning united. Two things that blend and unite into one - that is mezigah, and that is mimsach.)
According to Rashi, 'to seek out mixed wine' means that they investigate where good wine can be found and where fine wine is sold. In their days, the winemaker produced his own wine and sold it himself; there was no organized commercial distribution. Therefore, whoever wanted exceptional wine had to inquire and investigate: Where, from whom, which vintner's harvest this year turned out extraordinary? And so he goes about making inquiries and investigating just to discover where the finest wine is sold.
Today there is almost no need for this, and that itself shows how far we have fallen: in the past there were hardly any wine and liquor stores, but today everywhere boutique shops "for connoisseurs" are opening, with tastings, like a hotel lobby. Once there were "wine warehouses" - a person with a store resembling a warehouse full of bottles. And whoever reads what is written on the label will be stunned: someone took grapes, made wine out of them, and composed a poem of praise for them. "Grapes of medium astringency, nurtured and grown with love in the lush green valleys of the northern Golan Heights," "A full-bodied wine, sweet astringency, with subtle hints of rosemary." Come on, just let me drink wine - what did you turn this into? People took food and elevated it to the level of divinity, began singing hymns and praises to it, and in the end, it is twenty-shekel grape juice.
Rabbeinu Yonah explains differently, and from a linguistic standpoint this is also more plausible: "to search for mixed wine" does not mean to search for where good wine is sold, but rather to investigate the proper ratio of the mixture. The Gemara teaches that pouring and diluting wine was a nuanced art, not like a bartender who merely throws two things together; they knew precisely how much water to add and in what proportion, in exact measurements. And this is what they come to investigate: how much to add, how much to subtract, what the exact standard is. We find in the Gemara regarding a certain sage who was served mixed wine and said: "This mixture seems to me like the pour of so-and-so" - and they told him that indeed that very person had just arrived and poured for the Rav instead of the one who normally poured for him. The Rav recognized the pourer from a subtle nuance in taste, in the ratio of water to wine. This demonstrates that there were genuine, meticulous investigations involved in this.
The Vilna Gaon cites the verse in Yeshayahu: "Woe to those who rise early in the morning to pursue strong drink, who linger into the night until wine inflames them." Notice the distinction: those who rise early in the morning pursue strong drink, whereas those who linger into the night - wine inflames them. On the face of it, what provides more fuel, wine or strong drink? Without doubt, other alcoholic beverages: wine has thirteen or fourteen percent alcohol, whereas arak has forty percent or more, even fifty percent. It is something far stronger and more potent.
The Vilna Gaon explains: one who rises in the morning and rushes to his work does not have the leisure to linger over wine until he is satisfied; therefore, he must do it quickly and takes the stronger drink - a shot of arak does what four glasses of wine do. Thus it says of him, "Those who rise early in the morning to pursue strong drink"; in his haste to run to his work, he pursues strong drink. In the language of Chazal, shechar is not what we call beer or spirits today, but very old, potent wine. That is why it says regarding a Nazir, "Wine and strong drink he shall not drink" - was he forbidden whiskey or vodka, which do not come from grapes? Rather, it refers to old, potent wine called shechar because it is highly intoxicating, and the same principle applies to spirits.
In the evening, however, when he returns home and has finished his day, he specifically prefers wine. Why? Because a strong drink hits you immediately with a punch and that is the end of the story; after two decent shots of arak, a person is knocked out and there is nothing left to do. But with wine, he stretches out the pleasure: another cup and another cup, until it begins to take effect, and in the meantime, he enjoys himself. Therefore, "who linger into the night" - the evening - they sit and drink all night until "wine inflames them," and this requires stamina, to be capable of drinking a great deal without growing weary.
According to this, the verse is explained: "Those who linger over wine" - these are those who linger late into the night drinking wine, since wine is not so potent; "those who come to search for mixed drink" - and afterward they come to search and inquire where there is strong drink, so that they may drink that as well. And strong drink is so potent that one cannot drink it until it is diluted with water, which is the meaning of mimsach - strong drink that requires dilution and mixing. Do not think, then, that he stops at wine alone: it begins with wine, and as the late hours of the night approach, he moves on to more potent substances, also seeking the proper mixture of strong drink, never satisfied with what he already has.