Introduction: Chapter 30 - The Words of Agur Ben Yakeh
Chapter 30 of Sefer Mishlei is the penultimate chapter of the book. It opens with an extremely obscure verse that has elicited many interpretations: "The words of Agur the son of Yakeh, the prophecy." We will begin with the words of Rashi, who cites the derashah of Chazal, and then move on to the peshat commentators, the Gra, the Malbim, and the Ralbag, each of whom opens a different perspective on understanding this verse.
דִּבְרֵי אָגוּר בִּן יָקֶה הַמַּשָּׂא נְאֻם הַגֶּבֶר לְאִיתִיאֵל לְאִיתִיאֵל וְאֻכָל׃ - The words of Agur the son of Yakeh, the prophecy; the utterance of the man to Ithiel, to Ithiel and Uchal.
The Approach of Chazal and Rashi: Agur Ben Yakeh Is King Solomon
King Solomon authored Sefer Mishlei, and therefore Chazal understand that "Agur ben Yakeh" is one of Solomon's names or appellations. Just as he refers to himself as "Kohelet son of David," and just as he is called "Yedidyah," so the Midrash enumerates seven names for him. Thus, here too, this is an additional name for Solomon: "Agur" - for he gathered (agar) understanding, "ben Yakeh" - for he vomited it out (heki'ah). In what sense did he vomit it out? In the sense that he seemingly deviated from the way of Hashem. He gathered all understanding within himself, being the wisest of all men, but afterward acted contrary to what he had gathered, making him like one who vomited out the very understanding he had amassed.
"The prophecy" (hamasa) refers to prophecy, as we find in many places: "The prophecy of Damascus" and the like. "The utterance of the man" - this refers to Solomon, who uttered this prophecy about himself, because he had assumed, "God is with me" (iti El). Rashi explains: King Solomon relied on his wisdom, and multiplied wives for himself, multiplied horses, and multiplied silver and gold, all contrary to what the Torah commanded: "He shall not multiply for himself." Did he, God forbid, oppose what was written in the Torah? After all, it is said of him, "Yedidyah," and Hashem loved him! Rather, Solomon made a miscalculation. He thought: "Itiel ve'uchal" - I will be able (uchal) to multiply wives, horses, silver, and gold for myself, and I will not return the people to Egypt, nor will they turn my heart astray, for "God is with me" (iti El); the Holy One, Blessed be He, is constantly with me, and therefore "and I can" (ve'uchal) - I can do whatever I please without fearing failure. Rashi interprets "to Ithiel" (le'Itiel) as "concerning Ithiel": the utterance of the man regarding what I said, "God is with me," and since "God is with me, I can," I am permitted to act as I see fit without concern that any loss or harm will result.
The Metzudat David and the Alshich: Vomiting Out Prophecy
The Metzudat David follows this same approach, preceded in this explanation by the Alshich. These are the words of Solomon, who is called "Agur ben Yakeh" because he gathered wisdom and amassed it, and then vomited it out. And what did he vomit out? The Alshich says: he vomited out prophecy. He accumulated great wisdom and reached the level of prophecy, and afterward vomited it out.
As explored in the teachings on Shir HaShirim, the Malbim explains the entire progression of the book around this very theme: the instances in which Hashem revealed Himself to Solomon, and how his soul subsequently yearned for that divine revelation. The entire love song of Shir HaShirim is a song of love and longing between Solomon's soul and the Supernal Light, that divine revelation he merited in prophecy, and the soul continually strives to return to that reality, yet the coarse, material body continually pulls downward. These are the "daughters of Jerusalem" that pursue it and draw it back: they are the bodily forces that constantly return it to physical reality and do not allow it to reconnect to prophecy. We thus learn that Solomon possessed prophecy, and it ceased.
And this is what Solomon wrote here: "The utterance of the man" - this is Solomon, speaking on account of "Ithiel": the Holy One, Blessed be He, is with me, He gave me wisdom from His mouth, and therefore I thought I could do whatever my heart desired, as Chazal teach. I will be able to multiply wives and horses and nothing will happen to me, for someone as wise as I does not require safeguards; safeguards are meant for weak-willed people, for someone who lacks sufficient understanding, but I am so wise that no such thing could happen to me. I relied on my wisdom - "Agur," I gathered great wisdom, and "God is with me and I can prevail." But then see what is written: "And his wives turned away his heart," and it was he who brought the people down to Egypt in order to multiply horses, establishing a gathering place for horses in Egypt. And then: "And Hashem was angry... because his heart was turned away from Hashem... Who had appeared to him twice" - "Who had appeared to him," meaning that the appearances He made to him in the past came to an end, and He appeared to him no more. Why? Because his heart had turned away from Hashem. Thus, the amassing of wisdom and understanding was the very thing that caused him to vomit out something far more precious - prophecy. The wisdom and understanding he had gathered became his downfall, for through them he grew distant from Hashem; he said, "I will multiply and not turn aside," yet ultimately they turned his heart aside. And the precious thing he vomited out was closeness to God, the divine speech that is prophecy.
The Ibn Ezra: Agur Was an Actual Person
The Ibn Ezra, following the way of peshat commentators to explain the verses according to their plain meaning, states here: "The words of Agur" - this was a man named Agur who lived in the days of Solomon, a man of integrity, possessing knowledge, and respected in his generation. For this reason, King Solomon gathered the words of wisdom of this Agur and included them in his book. And why is he called "the man" (hagever)? From the root of strength (gevurah), for his wisdom prevailed and he was exceptionally astute. And what is meant by "to Ithiel and Uchal"? The Ibn Ezra explains this too according to the peshat: these were two individuals, one named Ithiel and one named Uchal, and Agur spoke and directed his words to them.
The Vilna Gaon: Why "To Itiel" Is Doubled
The Vilna Gaon follows this line as well, adding that the Men of the Great Assembly arranged within each book everything related to its core theme. Take Tehillim as an example: if people are asked who composed it, they will immediately say King David. Yet this is not entirely accurate, as Tehillim was composed by ten different individuals. True, its primary author was David, but the Sages of Israel gathered alongside his works additional authors who also wrote in that same vein of prayer, mussar, rebuke, song, and praise. On each psalm its author is mentioned: Heiman, Asaph, Yedutun, the sons of Korach - all were sages who shared in composing the psalms. So too in Sefer Mishlei: they arranged here all that was formulated by way of proverb and ethical teaching, and this particular portion was composed by Agur the son of Yakeh - Agur being his own name, and Yakeh the name of his father.
As for the phrase "the man declared unto Itiel, unto Itiel and Uchal": there were two great individuals who addressed questions to him concerning matters of faith and the mysteries of wisdom regarding the ways of Hashem, and from the response we can deduce what the questions were. One was named Itiel, and the other was named Uchal. If so, why is Itiel repeated twice? The Vilna Gaon offers a wonderful insight: the two were not equal in their wisdom; Itiel was far more prominent and distinguished than Uchal. Had he written only "unto Itiel," Uchal would have been hurt: Did I not ask as well? Why is he not addressing me? Yet had he written "unto Itiel and Uchal" together, Itiel would have been offended: Are you equating me with him? It would be like a Gadol HaDor writing a responsa and addressing it "To the honor of Maran Rabbeinu Ovadia Yosef, and to Yaakov Cohen from the morning minyan" - as if both stood on the exact same plane; that would hardly be fitting.
Might we suggest that it would have sufficed simply to mention the greater one first? To this the Vilna Gaon answers that this is not enough, for by necessity someone has to be named first, and mere precedence in order does not prove distinct stature. What did Agur the son of Yakeh do? He stated: "The man declared unto Itiel, unto Itiel and Uchal." First he mentioned Itiel on his own, and then he included him together with Uchal. In this way, Itiel received his rightful distinction - I have mentioned you as an esteemed figure in your own right, and then I include you with Uchal, since the inquiry came from both of you. We find a similar idea in Masechet Derech Eretz: "Peace unto all of you, and to Rabban Gamliel." Is Rabban Gamliel not included in "all of you"? Rather, by singling him out from the group, he accorded him special honor in his own right.
The Malbim: Two Questions, Two Answers
The Malbim also proceeds along this line. In his view, this chapter was transcribed by the men of Chizkiyahu. How do we know this? We saw earlier in chapter 25: "These also are the proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out" - meaning that from chapter 25 onward, these are transcriptions compiled by the men of Chizkiyahu, additional materials incorporated into the book. "The words of Agur the son of Yakeh" are likewise a continuation of that same process: what the men of Chizkiyahu transcribed from the teachings of Agur the son of Yakeh. The Malbim adds that Agur was in charge of sacred song, which is why his words are called hamasa, as massa is connected to song, as in "chief of the Levites in song [b'massa]" in Divrei HaYamim.
The response recorded here is what Agur answered to sages who had inquired of him regarding several matters: on one occasion he replied to a sage named Itiel, and on another occasion he replied to Itiel and Uchal together, who had questioned him jointly. According to this, "unto Itiel, unto Itiel and Uchal" means that at one time he was questioned by Itiel alone, and at another time by both Itiel and Uchal; therefore, he directs part of his answer to Itiel individually, and part to both of them together.
Ralbag: Gathering and Expelling as Praise
Ralbag follows the approach of Chazal, maintaining that this Agur the son of Yakeh is King Shlomo himself, who compiled his words and this book, just as he called himself "Kohelet." He too explains that "Agur the son of Yakeh" are titles referring to gathering (agira) and expelling (haka'ah), though not in the sense of the rabbinic derashah that he gathered wisdom and then vomited it out by straying from the words of Hashem, nor as the Alshich explained, that he expelled prophecy. Rather, this is part of his praise: that he gathered wisdom, contemplating and delving deeply into philosophical concepts until he was able to sift out and discard whatever was unclarified, leaving behind only the finest, purest, and most refined flour. Thus, "Agur the son of Yakeh" is spoken in his praise - that he knew how to gather and distinguish between essential matters and true insights on the one hand, and ideas that were unverified or fell short of absolute truth on the other. That which was thoroughly clarified he retained, while whatever was not absolute truth he cast out; and these words he addressed to a sage named Itiel, and to him together with his companion named Uchal.
כִּי בַעַר אָנֹכִי מֵאִישׁ וְלֹא בִינַת אָדָם לִי׃ - "For I am more boorish than any man, and I have not the understanding of a man."
Shlomo's Confession
According to Rashi, and as we explained in light of the Metzudat David and the Alshich, there is a self-indictment here: he had gathered wisdom, and that very thing caused him to expel it - expelling either his wisdom or his prophecy - and now he is rebuking himself. "For I am more boorish than any man, and I have not the understanding of a man": I relied upon my own wisdom in a matter where the Holy One, Blessed be He, cautioned lest one stumble into sin. I told myself: No, everything will be fine, I am wise enough. And what became clear? That I am boorish, devoid of wisdom, and lack the understanding of a man. The Metzudat David explains, in a manner closer to the Alshich's interpretation: Had I possessed true understanding, had I possessed true wisdom, I would have sought the far more precious gift - prophecy. But because I relied on my own wisdom, I lost that most precious gift, which was prophecy.
Midrash Mishlei: All the Praises, Yet "I am Brutish"
Midrash Mishlei (chapter 30) expounds all these terms in praise: "These are the words of Shlomo, who girded (agar) his loins for wisdom" - Agur being an expression of gathering his loins, like girding his loins. "The son of Yakeh" (ben Yakeh) - for he was clean (naki) of all sin and iniquity, yakeh being an expression of cleanliness, with a kuf. "The burden" (ha-massa) - for he bore the yoke of the Holy One, blessed be He. "The man said" (ne'um ha-gever) - for he conquered (hitgaber) his evil inclination. "To Ithiel" (le-Itiel) - for the Holy One, blessed be He, was with him (iti El). "To Ithiel and Ucal" (le-Itiel ve-ukhal) - for he took upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven in his leadership and his reign. "The man said" (ne'um ha-gever) - for the holy spirit (ruach ha-kodesh) rested upon him. "To Ithiel" (le-Itiel) - for he understood the letters of God (otiotav shel El); or one can interpret "His signs" (ototav), that he understood the hints of the Holy One, blessed be He, or was meticulous with the Torah down to its letters, like Rabbi Akiva who expounded mounds upon mounds of halachot on every single crownlet, meaning he delved deeply into the Torah. Another explanation: "To Ithiel" - that he understood the letters of the ministering angels, which can also be understood here in the sense of their signs, from the word ot. "And Ucal" (ve-ukhal) - that he was able (yakhol) to withstand them. How so? He reigned over the celestial and terrestrial realms, having discourse with the angels, as it is stated, "And Shlomo sat on the throne of the Lord as king."
And after all that kingship, wisdom, understanding, and all that lavish praise, the Midrash asks: did he need to say, "For I am more brutish than a man"?! And who is that "man" (ish) in relation to whom he feels brutish? The Midrash says: this is Noach, of whom it is said, "A righteous man (ish tzaddik), blameless in his generations." Shlomo said: I should have learned from Noach; for Noach became intoxicated with wine and was punished for it - yet I am more brutish than Noach, for Noach had no one from whom to learn, whereas I could have learned from him and seen what happens to a person who becomes intoxicated and how he is punished. "Nor do I have the understanding of a man (adam)" - this is Adam HaRishon, who had only one wife and she misled him, yet I married a thousand wives, and therefore it is said, "His wives turned his heart away," just as it is said, "To man (le-adam) belong the preparations of the heart."
Thus we find that Shlomo holds himself accountable and says: I am more brutish than Noach, for Noach relied upon himself - I spoke with Hashem, I am a person of high spiritual stature, what harm can a little wine do to me? - and he fell. I too relied upon myself, thinking what harm could come to me, and I fell. "Nor do I have the understanding of Adam" - the understanding of Adam HaRishon, who also relied upon himself, with the ministering angels marveling at his wisdom, and was certain nothing would befall him, yet a woman misled him. And I did not take one wife, but a thousand, which means I was misled a thousand times over. I should have learned from them, and it turns out that I am more brutish than Noach and lack the wisdom of Adam HaRishon.
וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי חׇכְמָה וְדַעַת קְדֹשִׁים אֵדָע׃ - "I have not learned wisdom, nor do I have knowledge of the holy ones."
The Malbim: Matters Beyond the Reach of the Intellect
The Malbim explains the two pesukim together. Agur's response was addressed to matters about which the sages questioned him regarding abstract philosophical concepts: the creation of the world, its coming into being, and the mysteries of Ma'aseh Bereishit (the Act of Creation). We know that these are the kinds of matters into which a person ought not delve - what was, what is above, and what is below. It is well known that philosophers investigated this through philosophical inquiry: what is before and what is behind, what came before the world, what is beneath the world, what is beyond the world, and proposed hypotheses based on their intellect - but came up empty-handed, for these are not things that can be reached through conjecture.
Agur says to them: How can you ask me to answer questions of this nature, concerning the creation, the mysteries of Ma'aseh Bereishit, and what is above and what is below? How can you demand that I tell you matters that are "knowledge of the holy ones"? For these exalted insights are not attained through human intellectual research, but only through Divine revelation granted to holy individuals. This is "knowledge of the holy ones" (da'at kedoshim): insights that can only be known if you are holy, and the Holy One, blessed be He, has bestowed upon you of His spirit and revealed His secret to His servant. Philosophical investigation will not lead to correct conclusions in these matters; these truths are known only through "the counsel of the Lord to those who fear Him."
The Three Levels: Chochmah, Binah, and Da'at
The Malbim explains: It is well known that the order of the levels is Chochmah, Binah, and Da'at. We have already learned countless times in Sefer Mishlei that chochmah is something for which there is no demonstrable intellectual proof; chochmah is received from God, through prophecy, or via tradition passed from teacher to student - principles received as foundational axioms. Similarly, understanding in the sense of knowing what is moral and what is immoral does not carry the definitive proof of da'at, for something that seems moral to one person may seem immoral to another.
After receiving the laws of chochmah from God, binah comes into play: one who knows how to understand one thing from another (lehavin davar mitoch davar) can contemplate and grasp the reasons behind the matter, and from there expand upon it. For if, through contemplation, I understand that the rationale and reason are such, I deduce from one thing to another that this and that matter are also inappropriate and improper, deriving conclusions about other matters from the same premise. This is binah: contemplation of a matter and deducing one concept from another.
The third stage is da'at - clear, conclusive knowledge. Da'at is like mathematics: two plus two equals four, something absolute, graspable by the mind, logical. The Malbim explains: a clear knowledge akin to how a person perceives tangible, sensory reality. I do not arrive at the conclusion that a table is here through abstract contemplation - I sense it, see it, touch it; this is absolute knowledge. In the first stage, we received chochmah as an axiom, without questioning why, how, or wherefore, received as such through prophecy. Then, after contemplating, delving deeply, and grasping the inner dimension and understanding of these deeds, I arrive at da'at - the complete comprehension of the matters, which also settles deeply in the heart, such that I now know the matter and understand its reason.
The Malbim adds: A person who has reached such a level merits an outpouring of divine abundance and a spirit of God from Heaven to impart to him the "knowledge of the holy" - this is the true inner reality of God's handiwork: Maaseh Bereishis (the Work of Creation) and Maaseh Merkavah (the Work of the Chariot), the secret of Creation, the secret of Divine Providence, and the interconnectedness of the spiritual realms. All of this is revealed to him from Heaven, exemplified by the holy Ari, zt"l. One who has attained the level of Daas is already granted an abundance from Heaven to make known to him the knowledge of the holy.
From the Highest to the Lowest
Now we can understand the phrasing of the verses. Notice that Agur says here: I possess neither Daas, nor Binah, nor even Chochmah - and he proceeds from the highest to the lowest. "For I am more boorish than any man" - a boor (ba'ar) is the opposite of one who knows, the antithesis of Daas. Furthermore: "And I do not have human understanding [Binah]" - not only do I lack Daas, which is the highest comprehension, but I also lack the level below it, which is Binah. And not only that, but even the very beginning: "Nor have I learned wisdom [Chochmah]," for Chochmah is the beginning of them all. If so, how can you expect that "I should know the knowledge of the holy," those special insights reserved only for holy individuals - what is above and what is below, the Work of Creation and the Work of the Chariot? These are sublime perceptions bestowed from Heaven upon the holy ones who are on earth, and I certainly possess none of them.
The Vilna Gaon: Corresponding to the Ancients and to Four Levels in Israel
The Vilna Gaon explains that Agur characterizes several levels here corresponding to the ancients. "Nor have I learned wisdom" corresponds to Avraham, who embodies the level of Chochmah. This is because Avraham represents the attribute of Chesed (loving-kindness), and Chesed draws its sustenance from Chochmah. As is known, the Sefiros are also arranged along three columns: the right column, the middle column, and the left column. The right column consists of ChaChaN - Chochmah, beneath it Chesed, and beneath it Netzach. The left column consists of BaGeH - Binah, Gevurah, Hod. And the middle column is DaTY or DaTYM - Daas, Tiferes, Yesod, and Malchus. The spiritual emanations generally flow along these columns, such that Chesed flows into Chesed and Gevurah into Gevurah. Therefore, Avraham Avinu, who personifies Chesed, represents the aspect of Chochmah.
"Nor do I know the knowledge of the holy" - "holy" refers to the holy Tribes, who were all holy, a generation of profound knowledge (Dor De'ah), and there is none among us like them. Likewise, "For I am more boorish than any man [ish]" refers to Yaakov, the "ish tam" (wholesome man), and none of us compares to Yaakov in knowing the ways of Hashem. "And I do not have human [adam] understanding" refers to Yitzchak, who corresponds to the level of Binah. Thus, there are four levels here: Ish, Chochmah, Binah, and Daas, which correspond to the four levels among the Jewish people: Anashim (men), Chachamim (wise men), Nevonim (understanding men), and Yedu'im (men of knowledge). "Anashim" are the righteous, as it says, "an ish tzaddik tamim" (a righteous, wholesome man); and Chachamim, Nevonim, and Yedu'im are to be understood according to their literal meanings. And from these four levels he sought to draw.
Rashi and the Metzudas David: A Confession of His Mistake
Rashi and the Metzudas David proceed along the same approach we began with: this verse addresses Shlomo's error. King Shlomo erred by multiplying for himself wives, horses, and silver and gold, saying "God is with me" (Iti-el) and I will succeed and not stumble. Consequently, all the following verses serve as Shlomo's confession of his mistake: How foolishly and thoughtlessly I acted! "For I am more boorish than any man" - for relying on my own wisdom regarding a matter about which the Holy One, blessed be He, expressed concern lest it lead to sin; how could I have done such a thing? "Nor have I learned wisdom" - the end proved that, so to speak, I had not learned wisdom at all, for had I truly learned wisdom, I would have understood that there is no wisdom, no counsel, and no understanding against Hashem. "Nor do I know the knowledge of the holy" - said as an exclamation of wonder: Do I possess the knowledge of the Holy One? Do I comprehend the mind of the Holy One, blessed be He, Who wrote in His holy Torah, "He shall not multiply wives for himself, so that his heart will not turn away"? The intention was not merely *lest* he turn away - which might allow someone to say, "Lest? It will not happen to me!" - but rather that he will *certainly* turn away, for there is no wisdom, understanding, or counsel against Hashem. Thus, I did not understand the "knowledge of the holy"; had I known the knowledge of the holy - the understanding of Moshe Rabbeinu in his Torah - I certainly would not have stumbled in this.
In Summary:
The opening of the chapter is enigmatic, and the commentators disagree on its interpretation: According to Chazal, Rashi, Metzudas David, the Alshich, and the Ralbag, "Agur bin Yakeh" is Shlomo himself - who gathered (agar) wisdom and vomited it out (heki), whether he cast off the way of Hashem or cast off prophecy, or according to the Ralbag in praise, that he knew how to purge the unrefined elements from within himself and retain only the finest flour. According to Ibn Ezra, the Vilna Gaon, and the Malbim, Agur was a wise man who answered the queries of the sages Isiel and Uchal, and the repetition "to Isiel, to Isiel and Uchal" was meant to show honor to the greatest among them or to allude to two questions he was asked. From this point forward comes the central message: "For I am more boorish than any man, and I do not have human understanding, nor have I learned wisdom" - whether as Shlomo's confession for having relied on his own wisdom where the Torah warned against it, or as Agur's reply to his questioners that the secrets of Creation cannot be attained through intellectual inquiry, but solely through divine bestowal upon the holy. In both interpretations, the very same message stands: the humility of recognizing the limitations of human intellect, and the peril of relying on one's own wisdom against the word of Hashem.