Chapter 26 in Mishlei is the chapter of the fool (kesil). King Solomon repeatedly depicts the figure of the fool from every possible angle: how to respond to him, how to relate to him, and why he cannot be trusted. In this lesson, we will examine four verses in which the text continues this theme: how to be cautious of the fool, and why there is no point in investing wisdom, honor, or debate in him.
כִּצְרוֹר אֶבֶן בְּמַרְגֵּמָה כֵּן נוֹתֵן לִכְסִיל כָּבוֹד׃ - Like a pebble bound in a sling, so is one who gives honor to a fool.
Here, the commentators seek an explanation: in what way is a pebble bound in a sling similar to a person who gives honor to a fool? To understand this, let us first clarify what a margemah is. A margemah is a sling used for hurling stones: a cord with a piece of cloth or leather pouch at the end, inside which a stone is placed. One whirls it around and around and then releases it, sending the stone flying toward its target. This is a margemah.
The Malbim explains that this verse provides the rationale for what we learned earlier. The Malbim explained that when you respond to a fool, you must not answer him in a manner that makes him appear wise in his own eyes, nor should you respond merely to showcase your own brilliance. Rather, answer with simple points and briefly, in a way that diminishes him rather than honors him. He comes to ask heretical questions, he comes to provoke - do not give him an answer that makes him feel important.
The analogy is "like a pebble bound in a sling." When someone wants to hurl a stone, what does he do first? He takes the stone and places it inside the pouch, inside the cloth. But what is this pouch? It is the pouch of a sling, from which the stone will be hurled at others. So it is with you: when you give honor to a fool and offer him a wise, elaborate response - not briefly just to silence him, but at length, displaying your wisdom with sharp arguments - what does the fool do? He flings your words in his sling to harm upright and innocent people. He twists your answers into destructive stones of heresy.
In other words: outwardly, you placed something of value inside a bundle - you gave an important, detailed, and elaborate answer to a heretic. But he will not treat it as a bundle wrapping something precious; he will treat it like a sling, using it to launch a projectile and harm others. He will extract statements from what you said, twist them as he pleases, and present them as if you yourself endorsed them. This is like Yerovam ben Nevat, who claimed to have the signature of Achiyah HaShiloni permitting idolatry. Achiyah had intended a task unfamiliar to him, but Yerovam twisted his words to claim that people must obey whatever the king decrees, even bowing down to the golden calves.
It is told of the Chazon Ish that someone once sent him a question in a letter, and the Chazon Ish did not reply. He sent it again, and still he did not reply. The man decided to travel to Bnei Brak. These were Jews from abroad who had a dispute in their community and wished to consult the Chazon Ish. The man arrived and wanted to hand over the letter, but the Chazon Ish refused to accept it. The man sat and spoke with him, placed the letter on the table, and while talking slid it toward the Chazon Ish - and the Chazon Ish slid it right back. He slid it toward him once more, and once more it was returned. The third time, the Chazon Ish said to him, "If you continue, we will not be able to go on speaking." The man took the hint, put the letter in his pocket, concluded his conversation, and left.
One of the household members who witnessed this did not understand what had happened. The Chazon Ish said to him: "These people are from a certain community abroad, and I suspect they want to ask me about such-and-such an issue. I have no wish to express an opinion on the matter, because whatever I say - they will distort my words and publicize that the Chazon Ish ruled it permissible, or agreed, or said yes under some scenario. Therefore, I did not want to utter a single word, nor even read the letter. For if I read it, they would later say, 'The Chazon Ish read the letter and did not object.' There is no end to the ways someone can twist the words of a sage, so I did not want to address the matter at all."
That attendant related that a few days later, he ran into that same activist in Tel Aviv and recounted the story to him. The man was thoroughly amazed by the Chazon Ish's wisdom and said: Indeed, we had such-and-such a plan. We wanted to hear something from the Rav, telling ourselves that if he uttered just a sentence here or there, we could already claim that the Chazon Ish said one cannot entirely dismiss the matter, and we would find something to read into his words. The attendant told him: Everything you just said - the Chazon Ish knew all of it, and that is precisely why he acted as he did.
How many such cases are there, where each time people get burned and stung anew, failing to realize that this has happened time and again throughout history. If only they learned from the mistakes of others, they would never find themselves in such a situation. A prestigious weekly magazine offers to interview someone - about his activities, his work, his views. He comes happily, relishing the broad exposure. Suddenly, he is horrified to see the headline: "I do not accept So-and-So's view," or a sharp statement like "The Torah is not always a binding document." The person is in shock: Did I say such a thing? "Yes, sir, it's on record." "What I actually meant was..." - "Fine, your job is to be interviewed, and my job is to deliver scoops." Then quotes and sentence fragments are pulled completely out of context, sounding terrible. "I did not mean that, that is not what I said!" - go prove you don't have a sister; nothing will help now.
A sensible person would have the journalist sign a legal agreement before the interview: that the article must be submitted to him for review, and if anything is altered - font, size, letter, or formatting - the journalist will be obligated to pay a specified penalty. Of course, they would then tell him: In that case, we cannot interview you. But publicity goes to a person's head; the craving for exposure and the desire to be heard take over, only for him to realize that they did not bring him on to praise him, but to humiliate him. This is "As a stone bound in a sling": the fool will use your own words to prove the exact opposite, putting things in your mouth that you never said.
Rashi explains that a stone bound in a sling is not meant for safekeeping, but for slinging. When one ties up an ordinary bundle, its purpose is to protect the coins inside; but the stone bound in a sling is not meant to be preserved - quite the contrary, it is poised to be hurled away. According to Rashi, there is an additional lesson here, unrelated to "Answer a fool according to his folly" in the manner of the Malbim: Do not honor a fool. Know that the honor you bestow upon him will not endure; the fool will quickly cast it aside and discard it from himself.
Sometimes a person wishes to honor a fool. He says: Perhaps we should give him some status, and by virtue of that status people will respect him. They tell him: Sir, he is a fool. Very quickly he will commit his first foolish act, and then, rather than gaining honor, he will suffer disgrace. What, then, have you accomplished? It is as though you took something valuable and bundled it up for safekeeping, only to be told: You have placed a stone in a sling. Is a stone in a sling meant for safekeeping? It is destined to be thrown.
Rashi cites the homiletic teaching of Chazal: This is an analogy for one who teaches Torah to an unworthy student, who is like someone throwing a stone at a Markulis (Mercury). Markulis is a type of idolatry whose worship consists of throwing stones. Some say that in Mecca, at the Kaaba, it was also customary in the past to throw stones, and only in more recent times did they begin showing honor to the Kaaba; for this reason, some wished to categorize Islam as a form of idolatrous practice, since they engaged in the rite of Markulis.
To return to our subject: One who teaches Torah to an unworthy student is like one who throws a stone at a Markulis. And that is what is written here: "As a stone bound in a sling, so is he who gives honor to a fool" - and honor refers solely to Torah, as it says, "The wise shall inherit honor." Therefore, it is forbidden to teach an unworthy student, lest he go out and ruin his reputation through sin, and the Torah, which was meant to refine him, will instead corrupt him even further.
"Who is honored? He who honors his fellow human beings." Rabbeinu Yonah explains: One who honors his fellow actually honors himself, not his fellow. Whoever honors others acquires honor for himself, and whoever disparages others essentially disparages himself. And what benefit is there to a person when others show him honor? If he is truly distinguished, what does that honor add to his stature? He is already honorable in his own right. And if he is ignoble, being honored will not make him distinguished - he is base, and base he will remain.
And if one honors an unworthy person, says Rabbeinu Yonah, this brings disgrace upon the one who honors him rather than honor to the unworthy one, for his standing is in no way elevated. This is what Shlomo meant: "As a stone bound in a sling, so is he who gives honor to a fool." One who binds a stone in a sling has acted foolishly, and he has certainly not honored the stone, for it is not elevated by this in any way. So too, one who gives honor to a fool commits utter folly, and the foolishness belongs to the one showing the honor.
The Vilna Gaon explains: It is like someone who binds a stone in a sling to hurl it, and at times he does not intend for it to land in that specific place, yet it lands there anyway. A sling is not a rifle; and even with a rifle one cannot aim with one hundred percent certainty, all the more so when swinging a stone in a slingshot and releasing it - where will it land? It is very likely to land in a completely different place from where one aimed. So it is with a fool when one honors him and studies Torah with him: the Torah you teach him will not necessarily achieve the goals for which you intended the study; rather, this person will cast it off in a completely different direction. You may have honored him hoping he would grow into a talmid chacham, but instead he turns into a "doctor of Talmud." And as Rav Kahaneman once quipped: The Talmud is not sick; it does not need a doctor! You shot in this direction - and the stone flew off in that one.
The Vilna Gaon provides another explanation: Just as one who binds a stone in a sling certainly does not intend for it to remain bound there forever - unlike precious stones bound in fabric, but rather in order to shoot it outward - so is one who teaches Torah to a fool and honors him. Just as the Torah went in, so it will go out, never coming to rest in his heart. Just as the stone in the pouch of the sling is not meant to stay there, so the Torah will swiftly depart from him, for his entire preoccupation is nothing but idle trivialities.
חוֹחַ עָלָה בְיַד שִׁכּוֹר וּמָשָׁל בְּפִי כְסִילִים׃ - As a thorn that comes into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools.
The Vilna Gaon explains: A cho'ach is a thorn stuck in a drunkard's hand. Everyone sees the thorn, but it is impossible to remove it, because the drunkard cannot sit still; he is constantly swaying and unsteady, making it impossible to steady his hand and pull out the thorn. So is a parable in the mouth of fools: everyone hears the parable, but it is impossible to extract its true intent. One cannot comprehend what the parable is trying to say, what it expresses, or what its lesson is. This connects to what was discussed earlier, that with a fool we cannot understand the parables he offers, because he tells a parable whose lesson is completely unclear.
Ralbag explains: Just as a thorn sticks into a drunkard's hand and causes him pain, yet because of his intoxication he does nothing to remove it and heal himself, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. When you tell a story or cite a parable, there are positive lessons that everyone understands and ought to learn from it. But the fool has a knack for extracting specifically the negative elements from what you said, drawing twisted conclusions. You tell a story, everyone grasps the message - but the fool comes away with his own "unique insights." Out of the entire story, the only thing he remembers is the joke; out of the entire moral, the only thing he absorbs is the least constructive detail.
There is a famous story about Reb Eizik Reb Yekeles, recounted in the book Bemishnat HaChalomot. A man dreamed that there was a treasure in Prague under a bridge. His wife said to him: "Where are you traveling? Have you lost your mind? Over a dream?" He replied: "This is what I dreamed, and I am going." He arrived at the bridge and saw guards and patrols, for it was royal grounds with a military encampment nearby. They saw him wandering about and grew suspicious. A sentry stopped him and asked: "What are you doing here? For two days now I have seen you looking for a way to get under the bridge and dig!" He said to him: "I will tell you the truth. I have traveled from a distant city; I dreamed that there is a treasure here under the bridge."
Hearing this, the sentry burst out laughing. He said: "Are you serious? You came from so far away because of a dream? Who pays attention to dreams? I had a dream that there is someone named Eizik living in such-and-such a place, and beneath the oven in his home lies a buried treasure. Do you think I am crazy enough to leave my post and take days off just to go there and dig under his oven?" Hearing this, the man could hardly believe his ears. He thanked him profusely and hurried home. His wife asked: "Well, what about the treasure?" He told her: "Wait, just wait." He began taking apart the oven. She thought: "He has completely lost his mind - first traveling all the way there, and now tearing the house apart!" When he finished dismantling it, he dug down and found a magnificent treasure. With this treasure he built the synagogue in Krakow known as the "Eizik Shul," which stands to this day, and the full story is inscribed upon a marble plaque on the synagogue wall.
A certain rabbi who lectured to secular audiences and soldiers related that he used to tell this story before Rosh Hashanah and ask: What is your conclusion from this story? Indeed, many conclusions can be drawn from it: that the treasure is in your own home and you do not need to seek it outside; that if a person would only look, he would see that all the treasure is within his reach; that happiness is not external to you, but inside yourself. That speaker recounted: I asked the question, and one soldier stood up and said, "The conclusion is that you should never listen to your wife." Out of the entire story, that was the conclusion he reached! Everyone speaks from the narrowness of their own heart, but this is precisely what the Ralbag says: "For out of all the possible intentions that could be understood from it, fools bring out only that which will cause harm." Out of all possible understandings, he takes only what is harmful, negative, and meaningless. This is like a thorn that comes into the hand of a drunkard: he has a thorn in his hand, and instead of taking the positive elements to extract it, he is left with the thorn. So too is a parable in the mouth of fools - he is left with the thorns, never taking the cure, only the distorted conclusions.
According to the Ralbag and the Vilna Gaon, this is a standalone verse; but according to Rashi and the Malbim, the verse serves as an introduction to the next one. Scripture says: Just as a thorn sticks to the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of a fool - and what is this parable? "A master produces all, and hires a fool, and hires transgressors."
The Malbim adds that the verse also continues the preceding verses. The fool is like a drunkard, for as we explained, a fool can be a very clever person whose only problem is that he follows the desires of his heart. And we saw above that the fool's legs have already been cut off - "The legs of the lame hang limp, and a proverb in the mouth of fools" - and since his legs were cut off, he walks stooped over, leaning with his hands on the ground. Then, "A thorn goes up into the hand of a drunkard": a thorn rises into his hands, sticking to his palms, since he is crawling with his hands on the ground. Yet even so, these fools have a proverb by which they sever the legs that are the pillars of wisdom. And what is that proverb? "A master produces all."
רַב מְחוֹלֵל כֹּל וְשֹׂכֵר כְּסִיל וְשֹׂכֵר עֹבְרִים׃ - A master produces all, yet he rewards a fool and rewards transgressors.
Here, the Malbim and Rashi offer more or less the same explanation. "Rav" refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, and He produces all: He created and formed everything - the righteous and the wicked, the one who walks in the paths of wisdom and the one who pursues the desires of his heart; everything is from Hashem. From this, the fool deduces that man has no free will whatsoever, as everything is dictated by the Almighty.
The parable continues: "And rewards a fool and rewards transgressors." "Socheir" does not mean hiring a worker for a job, but rather giving a reward (sechar). The Holy One, blessed be He, gives reward to the fool and also gives reward to those who transgress His commandments. Righteous or wicked - they all receive reward from Him, for He is the One Who created them and instilled within them their desires and natures, and therefore man has no free will and is compelled in his actions. And since Hashem is the great Master Who brings about both the wicked and the righteous, He naturally rewards the fool just as He rewards the transgressors, so let no one tell you tales of reward for the righteous in the World to Come and punishment for the wicked. This is precisely the "parable in the mouth of fools" mentioned in the previous verse.
Rashi cites from Midrash Aggadah that "socheir" is related to secher, a dam or barrier, as in "The fountains of the deep were stopped up (vayisachru)" and "makes a dam (secher) for the ponds of soul." A dam is a barrier that prevents water from flowing onward. According to this, "socheir kesil" means that the Holy One, blessed be He, blocks Kesil. And what is Kesil? Kesil (Orion) and Kimah (the Pleiades), celestial constellations. This constellation, Kesil, holds sway during the summer months, and thereafter the Holy One, blessed be He, closes it off and prevents all who cross the sea from voyaging until Pesach. Since Kesil is no longer active, a barrier is likewise placed before "overim" - those who traverse the sea in ships, who cannot cross seas and rivers. For they knew that when a certain constellation held sway, navigation was possible, and when another constellation ruled, travel was impossible.
Rashi cites another explanation in the name of Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan, an innovative interpretation: "A master produces all" - a wealthy man who undertakes many projects. If this wealthy man hires a fool for his work, he effectively hires all the passersby along with him. How so? Suppose you hired a fool to haul cinder blocks up to the fifth floor. He tries to rig up a pulley with a rope and a makeshift hoist, but out of his foolishness, it is obvious that everything is about to collapse on top of him along with the whole building. People walking past say to him: "No, sir, that won't hold; you have to move it away from the wall; you can't load so much; you have to attach a safety hook." It turns out that while you hired one fool for the job, you effectively hired all the passersby, as they all become advisors and assistants in the work. In simple terms: it is far better to hire one wise man than to hire a fool along with all the passersby who must advise him what to do.
However, Rashi does not favor this explanation, stating: "It is an empty interpretation and has no bearing here." According to his approach, the entire verse "Rav mecholiel kol" is the parable spoken by fools; if so, how does one arrive at the topic of hiring passersby? Therefore, Rashi does not accept it, even though on its own merits it is a fine explanation.
The Gra explains "rav" as an expression of riv (strife). A quarrelsome person, one who pursues contention, constantly seeking reasons and always finding someone to rebuke, someone to fight with, and something to argue about - he is "mecholiel kol," wounding everyone with his quarreling and causing trouble wherever he goes. This is the reality of such people, and the most unfortunate ones are they themselves, for wherever they go, they leave scorched earth behind: here he fights with this person, there he clashes with that one, at home his wife does not speak to him, and the children have long since left. He is a person impossible to get along with, a man of strife.
"And hires a fool, and hires passersby" - he has a dispute with one person, a score to settle with another, and he has already promised a third that he will show him what for. And what does he need? Minions to do his bidding. Therefore, he hires fools and hires overim - in the sense of evrah (wrath and fury), as in "becomes furious (mitaber) over a quarrel not his own" - because both of these are destructive forces. He hires fools and angry people to serve as his henchmen and fight his battles.
כְּכֶלֶב שָׁב עַל קֵאוֹ כְּסִיל שׁוֹנֶה בְאִוַּלְתּוֹ׃ - As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.
Rabbeinu Yonah explains: A dog eats repulsive things, and when it vomits them up, they become even more repulsive. So too is the fool: he performs a shameful act, and then goes back and repeats it. From the very beginning, when you ate it, it was vile - and after you have vomited it up, you go and lick it again? So too is the fool: he engaged in a corrupt act from the outset, and after seeing the destructive consequences, he still repeats it. Incidentally, this behavior can actually be observed in reality: seeing a dog that vomited and then sat and licked it - not to say it ate everything, but it licked it. Anyone familiar with this verse would be simply astonished to see it unfold before their very eyes.
The Malbim explains that this is a continuation of what we saw earlier. Scripture instructed us that when answering a fool, one should not respond with sharp, sophisticated words of wisdom, but rather with brief words and in a dismissive manner, so he does not think you are according him importance - not through debate, proofs, and evidence. Why? Because a fool repeats his folly. He is like a dog returning to swallow what it vomited: the food was so sickening to its stomach that the stomach rejected it, meaning that it was already intolerable inside - yet it still goes back and swallows it again.
Harbor no illusions: it is impossible to convince a fool. The concepts themselves are things his stomach cannot tolerate, yet he will still go back and repeat them. You think: I will bring him proof. You bring it - and you have not shaken him in the slightest. He repeats the very same claims. You say to him: We talked for two hours, I brought you evidence and proofs, and you just go back to your rehearsed lines? And he proceeds to chant the exact same mantras. You thought you had convinced him, and suddenly you realize that everything remains exactly as before.
The reason for this, says the Malbim, is based on what was explained earlier: the fool knows that his arguments lack substance. A fool (kesil) is an intelligent person, whose foolishness lies in following his desires. All his arguments are nothing more than excuses to justify his conduct and the lusts to which he clings. Therefore, when you come and refute his logic - he never really cared about the proof; he merely enlisted it because he wanted to follow the desires of his heart and needed a justification. You demolished his proof? His issue was never the proof, but the desire. You took away his alibi, you removed his excuse - and you wonder why he stubbornly refuses to accept your refutation. There is no issue of reason or logic here; on the contrary, he enlists logic to justify the corrupt desires in his heart. If you contradict his logic, you have merely ruined his excuse, and he will continue to dig in his heels even though your words are far more sensible and correct. From this you learn not to answer him with arguments of wisdom and reasoned thought, for you will only come away frustrated. He will "repeat his folly a second time" - and what will the debate accomplish? After all your proofs, he will simply recite his folly time and again.
The Gra explains: Just as a dog vomits up the food it ate, and then eats what it vomited - so the fool commits folly, and when rebuked he retracts, but afterwards returns to his folly and repeats it. And how familiar this is with students and children: you tell a child that this is not done and that it is forbidden, the child understands, and once or twice you see that he refrains - but then he reverts to his old ways, returning to his habit, his misconduct, and his flawed path.
This is also the way of the fool: at first he repents, and then returns to his vomit and his corrupt deeds. The Gemara says that one who committed a sin, repented, and then repeated the sin - regarding him it is said, "like a dog." Thus, according to the Gra, this does not refer merely to someone who sins and sins again, but to a cycle of wrongdoing, rectification, and a return to wrongdoing, over and over. And where is this found in the parable itself? When a dog eats spoiled food and vomits it up - the very act of vomiting is the rectification, which represents teshuvah; and afterwards, he returns to his vomit and corrupts himself once more. We see, therefore, that the parable does not describe simple repetitive wrongdoing, but someone who has already expelled the corruption and then returns to consume it a second time. This is why Chazal taught: One who committed a sin, repented, and repeated the sin - he is considered "like a dog that returns to its vomit."
The four verses we studied combine into a single warning: Do not invest in a fool. One who gives him honor or provides him with a wise and detailed answer is like one who binds a stone in a sling - the honor will not remain with him, and the answer itself will turn in his hands into a stone that injures others, through distorting words and taking them out of context, just as Yeravam ben Nevat did, and as the Chazon Ish feared when he refused even to open the letter. The parable in his mouth is like a thorn in the hand of a drunkard: it is impossible to draw the moral out of him, and he himself extracts from every parable precisely the distorted and harmful conclusion. His great parable is "a master produces all" - the denial of free will and reward and punishment, aimed at chopping down the pillars of wisdom. And why is there no point in arguing with him? Because he is "like a dog returning to its vomit": his problem is not a matter of logic but of lust, and therefore, even if you refute his claims, he will simply repeat them again, and even if he backs down temporarily - he will return to his destructive ways. Hence the practical lesson: respond to him briefly and dismissively, and do not show him honor, which neither benefits him nor reflects well on the one who honors him.
Along the way, we also drew practical lessons for ourselves: the honor we give to others is honor we acquire for ourselves, and the disgrace we inflict is disgrace upon ourselves; furthermore, one who is unwilling to learn from the mistakes of others will be burned again and again by the exact same flame, whether in a newspaper interview or in any situation where the words of the wise fall into the hands of someone whose sole interest is to twist them.