Chapter 29 in Mishlei addresses a series of contrasts between the righteous and the wicked, between the wise and the fool, between the just ruler and the corrupt ruler. In this lesson, we will focus on two verses: verse 10 - the attitude of men of injustice toward the wholesome man, and verse 11 - the difference between the fool who pours out all his spirit and the wise person who knows how to soothe it. These two verses touch upon a very practical question: how an upright person conducts himself in a world populated by bloodthirsty men and fools.
אַנְשֵׁי דָמִים יִשְׂנְאוּ תָם וִישָׁרִים יְבַקְשׁוּ נַפְשׁוֹ׃ (י) - Bloodthirsty men hate the wholesome man, but the upright seek his life. (10)
The opening clause of the verse is straightforward: bloodthirsty men, murderers and shedders of blood, hate the wholesome person and seek to kill him. The difficulty lies in the closing clause: "and the upright seek his life." Why would an upright person seek the life of the wholesome one? On the contrary, the upright should cherish the way of the wholesome, the path of the person of integrity. Throughout Tanach, the expression "to seek one's life" (mevakesh nafsho) means seeking to kill, and here that seems entirely incomprehensible.
Rashi explains that here, unlike elsewhere throughout Tanach, "seek his life" is not an expression of murder but an expression of affection: the upright seek his life in order to bestow kindness upon him. Rashi adds that this is not the only such instance in Tanach: David says to Evyatar, "He who seeks my life seeks your life." In the simple understanding, this means that whoever seeks to murder me will also seek to murder you; yet Rashi cites an additional, positive interpretation there: whoever seeks my life to save it will also seek your life to save it, "for whoever loves me will love you, and whoever protects my life will protect yours." And as proof that "seeking life" can be used positively, Rashi cites our verse: "Men of blood hate the wholesome man, and the upright seek his life."
However, the Malbim notes that this would be exceedingly rare, and nowhere else in Tanach do we find "seeking the soul" used to denote love - except here. Even regarding Evyatar, the Malbim maintains the literal sense, that David meant: whoever wants to kill me will also want to kill you, and not in any positive sense. Consequently, we must look for other explanations that satisfy the mind.
The Ibn Ezra explains: bloodthirsty men hate the wholesome person and shed his blood, but "and the upright seek his life" does not mean that they seek to kill him, but rather that the upright will seek out and demand his blood. That is, there is someone who will hold the killer accountable for taking his life; someone will come to demand justice for the wholesome person's soul and investigate who killed him.
In a second explanation, the Ibn Ezra suggests that the closing clause refers back to the man of blood, as if it said "a man of blood hates the wholesome person," and the upright will seek the life of the bloodthirsty man to take retribution from him. Either way, whether the upright demand retribution for the blood of the wholesome person or exact punishment from the bloodthirsty man, it certainly does not mean that they seek the life of the wholesome person himself, for that would make no sense.
The Vilna Gaon explains: to bloodthirsty men, "he is despised in their eyes, and upon him they sneer with their mouths" - they mock the wholesome person. This is the reality: the simple, wholesome man is not sharp and does not possess intricate intellectual ploys, and therefore bloodthirsty men scoff at him and deride him. But "and the upright seek his life" - the upright specifically seek closeness to his soul, wanting all their affairs to be handled by the wholesome person. And why? Because he will certainly not deceive them and will treat them with integrity. Anyone who experiences loyalty, integrity, and decency from the wholesome person will, on the contrary, seek his presence and desire his closeness.
In another explanation, the Gra explains: A bloodthirsty man seeks to fabricate slanders, frame others, and find flaws in every person. When he encounters an upright, innocent person (tam), he runs into a problem - there is nothing to find against him, and he has no way to fabricate accusations. Notice the precise wording: it does not say "bloodthirsty men will murder the innocent," but rather "they hate the innocent" - they hate him specifically because he is unblemished and they have nothing with which to falsely accuse him. By contrast, the upright desire only the soul of the innocent; that is, they strive to conduct themselves with wholesome integrity and seek to follow the way of the innocent soul, for the upright person views walking in integrity and simplicity as a virtue, not a flaw.
This brings to mind what has transpired here with the State Attorney's Office and the courts. It is well known that for years people have attempted to alter the narrow grip of a certain clique, where only those who fit its mold find themselves appointed to the Supreme Court. Various efforts were made to curb the doctrine of "everything is justiciable," under which individuals never elected in free elections dictate policy: whether to release terrorists or not - we will decide; whether to demolish homes or not - we will decide; whether a certain protocol is implemented or not - we will decide. And the ruling always follows one singular worldview. One of them even went so far as to declare that the court is beholden to the views of the "enlightened public." Ever since, we know where we stand on the spectrum: unenlightened primitives, what can one do; enlightenment apparently shines only there. And as the saying goes, in court, justice (Tzedek) is merely the name of a planet.
Whoever attempted to take any action to curb the court's unchecked power and its blatant interference in legislative matters found himself under criminal investigation, and at times even behind bars. This happened to Ramon, Ne'eman, Bar-On, and several others who decided to reform the judiciary, only to quickly find their own lives turned upside down by investigations. Often it was over trivialities: whoever remembers the story of Ramon knows it was over such a petty matter - but because Ramon decided to clean out the stables, they decided to clean him out.
The Prime Minister saw this and thought he was being clever. He said: I will appoint someone from academia; what will you be able to say about him? What illicit apartments will you uncover, what personal favors? A man who lived off an academic salary for decades. He appointed Friedman, and Friedman genuinely began cleaning out the stables. But when they realized they could not fabricate a case against him - examining him from every angle and finding him entirely pure - what did they do? They decided: instead of targeting the limb, let us target the head. They began opening investigation after investigation against the Prime Minister himself, who had failed to realize what a hot potato he was handling and whom he was dealing with. Today he sits behind bars for things that others did far worse, yet knew to keep a low profile; others carry not merely a basket of creeping creatures (a trail of misconduct) but an entire freight train of scandals, yet no one cares. The rule is simple: do not touch us. If you belong to the right clique, you are fine.
Those who remember will recall an entire criminal case against Oron from Meretz, and what happened? It was quietly closed for "lack of public interest." And how was "lack of public interest" determined? By asking around among their circle: Does that case interest you? Not really. Because "the public" is us. Who are those outsiders anyway, and who pays attention to them? Enlightenment is hardly their forte; the light of wisdom shines upon us alone, and the rest should not voice an opinion because they understand nothing. It is agonizing to observe, yet this is our reality - we weep over it every day, praying for deliverance. And this is precisely what the verse states: "Bloodthirsty men hate the innocent," because they wish to fabricate accusations yet find nothing against him, for he walks in integrity - and therefore they hate him. And if that is not enough, they go for the head: if I cannot fabricate accusations against you, I will fabricate them against your boss, and thereby put an end to the assault against me.
The Malbim, as mentioned, maintains that the phrase "seeks his soul" throughout Tanach always means seeking to kill him. Hence, the phrasing here seems to suggest: bloodthirsty men hate the innocent, while the upright merely seek his soul to kill him. This explanation requires clarification: how could it be that upright people, who are righteous, would seek to kill the soul of the innocent? Perhaps the Malbim means that the verse is divided differently: bloodthirsty men hate the innocent, and they also seek to kill the upright. The word "they hate" serves both halves of the verse, in the manner of the liturgical phrase, "Who has not made our portion like theirs, nor our lot like that of their multitude," where the initial negative carries over to mean "and not our lot like that of their multitude." So too here: bloodthirsty men hate the innocent, and whom else do they hate? The upright, whose lives they seek to take.
This direction emerges from the words of the Meiri, citing the Rikamach (Rabbi Yosef Kimchi), that the thought continues continuously rather than the second half contrasting the first, and "his soul" is meant in the plural as "their souls." That is: bloodthirsty men hate the innocent, and the upright are likewise hated by them to the point that they seek their lives to kill them. Everything thus refers back to the bloodthirsty men, aligning with the approach suggested in understanding the Malbim.
כָּל רוּחוֹ יוֹצִיא כְסִיל וְחָכָם בְּאָחוֹר יְשַׁבְּחֶנָּה׃ (יא) - "A fool vents all his spirit, but a wise man quiets it in the end." (11)
The Gra explains: When a fool delivers an explanation, an elaborate peshat, or a magnificent homily, the wise man comes afterward and refutes it with a single word. You built mountains upon mountains of interpretations, and the wise man comes and demonstrates that your structure does not hold up, because elsewhere a single word is written that refutes everything. And why? Because the first person was a fool, and this is the very essence of a fool: he sees only a single point, imagines he has grasped the matter, and from that lone point constructs interpretations, explanations, and theories - while the entire edifice rests on chicken legs, utterly baseless.
What is the meaning of the word "yeshabchena"? Rashi explains: he humbles it with the reply of his tongue, related to the verses, "Who stills the roaring of the seas" (mashbi'ach she'on yamim) and "when its waves rise up, You still them" (atah teshabchem) - when the waves surge, You humble them, subduing and lowering them. In the same way, the wise man humbles and silences the fool's entire edifice.
There is a joke about a man who stood up to deliver a sermon and asked a difficult question: It is written, "Judges and officers and kings you shall appoint in all your gates" - but how can one explain "kings", when two kings cannot share a single crown? Someone called out to him: Wait a moment, the verse does not say "kings"! The speaker replied: Very nice, that is one answer; now listen to another answer. Sometimes a person stands back after offering all kinds of elaborate interpretations and wonderful explanations, only to realize suddenly that the verse actually says something completely different.
The Brisker Rav was a living example of this. Many people could speak empty rhetoric into the air, and he, with his immense sharpness, could dismantle with a single word, a single letter, or a minute detail the entire grand structure you had built - and entirely through the straightforward text (peshat). It was not through convoluted debate (pilpul) or a debatable inference, but a plain reading that proved to you that everything you had said was fundamentally incorrect.
Once, his disciples were traveling with him on a train while he sat absorbed in a book. A priest was sitting there and tried to persuade the students of his faith, beginning to argue that "that man" was the Messiah sent to bring redemption, and that it is of him the books spoke when instructing us to await the coming of the Messiah. They said to him: Why are you speaking nonsense? That person was an instigator and an idolater, and the Sages of Israel determined he was liable to death. He retorted: The Sages of Israel were mistaken. They exclaimed: How can you speak that way? He answered: Obviously they made mistakes; after all, it is written that Rabbi Akiva was the armor-bearer of Bar Kochba and was convinced that "this is the King Messiah" - yet you see that the Sages of Israel were wrong! The students swallowed their tongues and did not know how to respond. The Brisker Rav lifted his eyes from his book and asked him: Who says Rabbi Akiva was mistaken? The priest replied: What do you mean? In the end, Bar Kochba died! The Rav said to him: Then you too admit that a messiah who ultimately dies is not the Messiah. And the Rav returned to his book. Right then and there, he refuted him without convoluted arguments and without debate - this is "and a wise man calms it in the end."
Once, someone asked the Brisker Rav about his methodology of distinctions, the famous yeshivah concept of "tzvei dinim" (two distinct legal principles): two matters are formulated in the exact same phrasing, yet the halachic definition of each is completely different. This term in the laws of yibbum means one thing, while the very same term in the laws of gittin means something else entirely. The man asked him: Where in Brisk did you invent this concept of tzvei dinim? If the same law is mentioned here and there using the identical words, it must be the exact same concept, so why divide them and claim that here the definition is one thing and there it is another?
The Brisker Rav said to him: Tell me, are you familiar with the concept in the laws of ritual purity where a person took a hide intending to plane it and make it into a rug, and then decided to turn it into a sandal, and there is a discussion regarding ritual impurity where the Gemara states, "panim chadashot ba'u lechan" (a new entity has arrived here) - meaning it is no longer what it was before? The man replied: Certainly. The Rav continued: And there is also a concept regarding Sheva Berachot, which are only recited if there are panim chadashot (a "new face", a new guest). Have you learned that as well? He answered: Yes. The Rav said to him: If so, what would be the halachah if we are missing panim chadashot for Sheva Berachot - can we bring in a sandal? The man exclaimed: Of course not! The Rav replied: And why not? I do not accept clever excuses: here it says panim chadashot and there it says panim chadashot! Why are you making a "tzvei dinim" for me? Right then and there, he showed him that he himself admitted his question was baseless.
Such is "and a wise man calms it in the end": when someone is truly wise, in the end he shows you that all the mounds upon mounds of interpretations, scholarship, and castles in the air you have built have no foundation to rest upon, or that they are mountains suspended by a hairsbreadth.
The Metzudat David explains the verse in reference to anger: "A fool vents all his spirit" - when something displeases the fool, he immediately erupts. He has a short fuse and no patience: What is this? Who is in charge here? What is going on? Everything is handled with shouting. In contrast, a dignified person acts with composure and preserves his self-respect. The situation bothers him too, but he waits for the volunteering fool: Why should I start shouting? There are ten other people suffering here, waiting for that frustrating clerk who is taking a coffee break for the third time in an hour - wait for the fool on duty, and he will do the screaming for all of us. The wise man sits on the side and says: Why should I soil myself with this, create a scene, and be told to quiet down? It is undignified. In contrast, "and a wise man calms it in the end" - in the end, he calms his anger.
This is a reality we often witness: someone erupts and shouts, and another person steps in and immediately cools the flames with a word or two. They tell of a mother walking with her son in the supermarket, and the child began screaming and crying, driving her to wit's end. A man came over, whispered something in the boy's ear, and he calmed down at once. People asked him: What was that magic sentence? He replied: I told him that when we get home, I will give him chocolate. It is that simple. One must know what the fool wants, understand what he is striving for and what interests him - whisper a small word in his ear, and the wise man knows how to calm him.
And someone who is not wise, what does he do? He confronts him head-on: "Why are you shouting? Quiet down!" Then the other replies: "And who are you anyway? Who are you to silence me?" The result: you have added fuel to the fire, inflaming him even more.
There was once an occasion where guests arrived at what called itself a hotel, but turned out to be far below standard. One person there began shouting and making a scene. One of the organizers came over, pulled him aside - and the man vanished. What happened? He refunded his money. He told him: "How much did you pay? Take your money and leave, but right now be quiet." Why? Because one person like that, who begins inciting everyone - "Did you see the pool? Did you see the rooms?" - will overturn the entire hotel. Take another thousand shekels, just go. This is "and a wise man calms it afterward": a wise person does not wage wars and does not make noise; he quiets matters down. But someone who does not know how to deal with fools tries to handle him using his own rationale - and with your rationale, it will not work. Operate within his rationale; and if he has no rationale, it does not matter, work with whatever he has. For with a fool one must speak in the terms of a fool, and that is the way to calm a fool.
In verse 10, we saw that bloodthirsty men hate the blameless person precisely because they have no pretext to falsely accuse him. The commentators differed regarding "and the upright seek his soul": some explained it favorably - that the upright seek his closeness and devotion, or aspire to emulate his ways; some explained that the upright demand his blood or take vengeance against the bloodthirsty man; and some explained that the entire clause refers back to the bloodthirsty men, who also hate the upright and seek their lives. In verse 11, we learned two facets of "A fool vents all his spirit": the fool who builds entire structures upon a single point while the wise man refutes them with a single word, and the fool who vents all his fury versus the wise man who quenches the flames. What both have in common: the greatness of the wise person lies not in noise and outbursts, but in precision, patience, and knowing how and when to say the right word.