Rope and the well #5: פרוש המשל

I will dedicate this post to explaining the משל side of the "rope and the well". We will move on to the נמשל next. We left the previous post with a series of questions on the משל :

1) Given our new intuition, why would any "hero" arise, who would dare engage "the deep"?
2) What would differentiate this person?
3) What is the significance of the great number of ropes used by the "hero"?
4) What is the significance of the villagers imitating the hero and also drinking ?

Answering these questions will require a definition of the "hero". Before giving my own thought on this matter, I will first comment on Carolyn's approach.

Carolyn

My first thought was that such a hero would be driven by honor. I pictured him sitting around, planning a way to finally prove to all how truly great he
is. But, then I realized that such a person would probably be too scared to dare try something like this. To break free of this fearful perspective, I think the person would need to be the kind of person who isn't involved primarily in this social/mythical frame of mind. He is more of an eccentric kind of person, who doesn't care that much about these things and, instead, is involved in his own thoughts about how things work. He may have all kinds of strange inventions and contraptions scattered about his house. The mythical creatures some say lurk in those depths have no reality to him. He is curious about the nature of the deep water. It occurs to him that, just as workers sometimes tie 2 ropes together for certain unusual building projects, perhaps many ropes could be joined to access this deep water. He has the patience to tie together many ropes, one after the other, for this project, as a means to seeing and drinking this water. (Perhaps relevant to the nimshal: Each rope was already produced and seen as useful by the people. His job is to connect them to each other, one by one.)Perhaps, once the rest of the people see that this man accessed the water and drank from it, with only positive results, they no longer feared it. Instead, they, too, drank, using this man's long rope.

The category of person that Carolyn seems to be suggesting is a "scientist" type, identified by his independence of mind -eccentric kind of person who isn't involved primarily in this social/mythical frame of mind, and an ability to make to tools- "He may have all kinds of strange inventions and contraptions scattered about his house". I agree with Carolyn's intuition, the description of the person she gives is just incomplete. While the "scientist" is surely an intuitive notion, it is not yet one that immediately suggests the causal basis of the hero's characteristics (eccentric, independent minded, inventive). The most important issue in the mashal, as I see it, is the ability of the hero to engage the deep with an instrument, the many ropes, that is taken from the world all villagers occupy. Why exactly does the hero see the opportunity in the ropes, while the villagers do not? For this I will suggest a new example to serve as the instrument of induction- the sippur or mishna from which the hero will be defined.

The Hero-Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes serves as the example I find most useful. He supplies the data we need to answer our questions about the משל. It is the relative commitment of Holmes to the derech hashem that differentiates him. This is not a merely academic interest where Chochma is "near in their mouth, and far from their heart" (Jer. xii. 2)". Rather, it is Holmes' commitment to justice- methodically remaking his personal manner of interaction with the environment. It is this application of the belief in justice to a practical method of utilizing the powers of the self as instruments of Chochma that is the key.

"From a drop of water," said the writer, "a logician
could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it. Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it. Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the enquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems. Let him, on meeting a fellow-mortal, learn at a glance to distinguish the history of the man, and the trade or profession to which he belongs. Puerile as such an exercise may seem, it sharpens the faculties of observation, and teaches one where to look and what to look for. By a man's finger nails, by his coat-sleeve, by his boot, by his trouser knees, by the callosities of his forefinger and thumb, by his expression, by his shirt cuffs -- by each of these things a man's calling is plainly revealed. That all united should fail to enlighten the competent enquirer in any case is almost inconceivable.

"Mitzvat anashim melumada vs derech hashem

Most people, never reflect directly on the "great chain" of causality. Rather, they have a domain of experience in which certain tools and techniques "work". This domain could be a relatively simple activity, as in hewing wood, or more complicated, as in a doctor who memorizes patterns of disease. Nonetheless, both of these are fundamentally lacking as "mitzvat anashim melumada" - an arbitrary way of life, disconnected from "the great chain of life"-theoretical causation. The boundary between mitzvat anashim melumada and true avoda, is explicit awareness of theoretical causality as the basis of practical action- justice.
It is this realization about justice, that practical action is but a special case or application, of theoretical knowledge, that explains all of the characteristics of our Hero.

The Dimayon or "imagination".

To understand the true challenge of justice, ie seeing practical action as an application of theoretical principles, we must consider the powers we use in engaging the environment. Specifically we must understand the role of the dimayon, or imagination.

As its name implies, the dimayon affords us the ability to see a character which is "domeh" or similar in things, what in modern language is called "pattern recognition". This power is crucial for survival as we learned in the post about mshalim (Dec 29).

No creature, however primitive, can survive very long unless it can deal with issues such as: 'Is this the kind of situation where I eat this, escape from it, mate with it, look after it, ignore it … ?'.

Since situations don't come with neat labels that say 'Eat me!' or 'Escape from me!', this implies some kind of pattern recognition, and hence some kind of comparison: 'Is this new situation that is emerging just now more like an 'edible' situation, like a 'dangerous' situation …' or whatever.

It is crucial to note, as the article does, that this pattern recognition is an animal survival mechanism, rather than a feature of theoretical mind. This animal power limits itself to the universal as a pattern useful or "good" in the sense of material tangible benefit. This is, once again, since it is a survival mechanism. Similarly the dimayon operates through the mesorah of the what herd experience finds as a pattern of benefit, rather than through deep theoretical reflection

Another kind of 'comparison' that begins to appear in more complex animals is mimicry - e.g. young animals learn by mimicking older animals. There is growing evidence of brain mechanisms specifically concerned with 'mirroring' what others are doing (indeed it has been suggested that such mechanisms may be involved in human 'empathy').

The obstacle to justice is now obvious- such knowledge is going to have to emerge from an animal mechanism of pattern recognition that is dedicated to survival of the self, rather than to universal knowledge that, among other things, can be applied to the self.

It is this dedication to survival that causes the zoom to break down at personal space. We find it difficult to see our practical environment as a special case of causality, because of interference of our survival mechanism of pattern recognition or dimayon. While the theoretical mind seeks universal definitive abstract knowledge, also including that with the accident of applying to the self, the dimayon exclusively seeks descriptive sensory patterns useful to the self.

The hero represents the just man who as mind, has broken through the dimayon barrier independently. The villager represents the man who needs the hero in order to transcend the same barrier- ie attain justice.

This idea of the justice of the human theoretical mind vs the egocentrism of the animal dimayon is the basis of answering all our questions. anyone care to try?

The Chain Of Life

"From a drop of water," said the writer, "a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it. Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it. Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the enquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems. Let him, on meeting a fellow-mortal, learn at a glance to distinguish the history of the man, and the trade or profession to which he belongs. Puerile as such an exercise may seem, it sharpens the faculties of observation, and teaches one where to look and what to look for. By a man's finger nails, by his coat-sleeve, by his boot, by his trouser knees, by the callosities of his forefinger and thumb, by his expression, by his shirt cuffs -- by each of these things a man's calling is plainly revealed. That all united should fail to enlighten the competent enquirer in any case is almost inconceivable."

Obama friend of my enemy

In the reactions to the previous post, I realize that I created a false impression that I want to rectify. It seems that my language caused people to zoom into a sort of Hitlerian framework of understanding Obama. Much as we should distrust this man, this was not the impression I meant to convey. Neither is it necessary for a "Hitler" to arise as the leader of the U.S., in order for Israel, and by extension Jews everywhere, to be in very deep trouble indeed.

For Israel to be in trouble, all that is required is that the U.S. shift in its basis of security, moving away from classic approaches, towards those more common in Europe and the third world.

The classic basis of American security is American "exceptionalism", the notion that the U.S. is singularly blessed by God, among all nations on Earth, because of its unique form of government. The essence of this notion can be reduced to this - a justice logically based upon the chochma of the G of the universe is superior to any merely human form of government. It is this exceptionalism that is at the core of identification with Jews and Israel. It is also this exceptionalism that has allowed a unilateralism that shielded us from world opinion. US Public opinion could be summarized something like this. "What matter if Europeans and Arabs don't like our economic system or foreign policy supporting Israel? They are a rather unimpressive, cowardly lot that depend upon us anyway". This view, while widely shared, is most prevalent in the Conservative community.

What we need to understand, is that our long involvement in inconclusive wars, topped off by an unprecedented failure of our economic system, has opened the door to systemic change regarding exceptionalism itself. It is not accidental that Mccain was making headway laughing at Obama's flowery, meaningless rhetoric a few short months ago, while today- no one is laughing. Talking in terms of reinterpreting ikrim sounds laughable in normal times, but as a "change" that could "restore hope" in times of deep crisis. This was what allowed the "new deal" a generation ago, the "patriot act" after 9/11 and what will allow a virtual nationalizing of our economy now. The essential point here is- exceptionlism is dead, security through fitting in with the world is in.

It is not necessary for a U.S. government to transform into an Arab society for disaster to occur to Israel. Was it necessary for America to become Hitlerian for millions to die at the hands of Germany or Vietnam? All that was needed was an excuse to remove the support that had held the genocidal forces from acting before.

The Europeans and third world are united in their inability to understand the basis of American exceptionalism. Europeans are far to materialistic to understand the American idea of natural justice. Europeans don't believe in God- they don't believe in one nation under God, but rather in one nation under Man. This belief in Man causes hatred for American's as believers in God, as well as a deep hatred for Jews.

As one might expect, if we explore the European democracies, we will see, not Hitlerian anti Semitism, but very real Jew hatred nonetheless. While there is obviously some guilt at this hypocrisy of hating a fellow Man, Jew hatred redeems itself through the excuse of the image of "injustice" to the native Palestinian by the colonial Jew. But this is not the real issue. The article showing Europeans viewing Israel as the #1 threat to world peace attests to that. The #1 danger to world peace? The #1 Czechoslovakia opportunity to appease Arabs and third world tyrants would be more like it. If we explore Arab society, we get much closer to Hitlerian hatred and imagery, as we have all seen innumerable times on T.V. and the U.N. The Muslim hatred comes from a competing notion of God, rather than the absence of one.

The European, Arab / third world partnership is Genocidal to Israel. Their concept of "justice" allows for nothing less than the dismantling of "colonial" Israel and the liberation of the "victimized" Palestinian. While the passionate Arab does the killing in the name of his God, the European watches eagerly on B.B.C. enjoying the murder of Jews while he self righteously "tut tuts" at the foolish Jew who brought this on himself through his own greed and injustice to Man. The only natural force that holds this back, is massive American force of aid and military, diplomatic support.

This religious, exceptionalist "unilateral" approach that identification with Jews and Israel depends upon, is not consistent with the secular, consensus approach with Europe and the third world that democrats and Obama advocate. Any move therefore toward such consensus, is a revolutionary change in America and a danger to Israel and Jews.

If we take into account the extreme financial crisis we are in, as well as the fact that Iran is about to go Nuclear, the danger to Israel becomes mortal. A Mccain exceptionalist would have viewed it as the right, honorable and necessary thing to use military force to prevent Iran as an enemy of Democracy from acquiring nuclear weapons. If need be, this would have been done unilaterally.

An Obama will be far too equivocal to act decisively. His complex conflict about "liberation theology" will not allow for a unilateral action. Such action would imply a real break with tribalism, something Obama cannot do as we saw with Wright. We must remember, an important part of Obama, the part that happily listened to Wright in church for all these years, sympathizes with hatred of America and wants "victims" like Iran to have nuclear weapons. This equivocation will mask itself as "diplomacy", "soft power" multilateralism or the like. What it really is, is a break with the notion of natural justice and American exceptionalism that promotes identification with Jews. In its stead comes a sympathy with Muslims as fellow tribal "victims".

Without defeating Iran, we are going to have to be make a deal the Arabs. The oil rich states will have to be propped up, and that propping up will demand tangible progress on the Israel front. Nothing less than tangible progress on the Israel front will allow the Oil states to remain in the Western alliance. Tangible progress means indefensible borders for Israel, especially as aid and weapons begin to wane from an America equivocating about itself and Israel.

Rabbi Joshua Maroof asks

In what sense do you believe that the founding fathers of America believe in a natural justice of chochma?

Answer Justice is commitment to realizing the innate potentia of things. This potentia is external to us, a reflection of of the natural law or Chochma of the Creator.

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States

Obama - Coward or hypocrite?

I would just like to take a short break from the mashal, to deal with inyanei dyoma- our new President. As rational people we must base ourselves on facts, not magical thinking. Painful as it is, I think we must take two facts into account: 1) Obama's commitment to Global politics and 2) His decades long association with Rev. Wright and other extreme leftists.

At one time, these facts were at the top of our minds, now in the rush of boorish excitement all around us, a baseless Shichecha has set in. Eyes we have, but we see not, ears we have but we hear not. Are we to believe that there is no underlying cause to these facts? Are we to believe that some flowery inauguration speech will wash away a lifetime and mesorah of liberation theology?

If we honestly consider the fact of Obama's decades long association with liberation theology and the Antisemitic Rev. Wright we must conclude that America, Israel and Jews are in deep trouble. Obama is clearly either a hypocrite or both a hypocrite and a coward.

In the more likely scenario, that Obama has deep felt liberation Theology beliefs, he is a hypocrite for distorting this for political gain. We can be assured this restraint will not last long, as Rev Wright predicted, his old friend will arise once more.

Even if we take the absurdly charitable view, that Obama's stay in the anti Semitic church reflected no underlying agreement with liberation theology, but was purely for political access to a voting group, we must be profoundly troubled. What a coward and hypocrite this man must be! Is it rational to rely on the commitments of such an opportunist?

If Obama's stand on principle was too weak to prevent associating with the profoundly anti Semitic Rev. Wright when it was advantageous to advance the beginning steps of his career, what preventive power will his principles have when they stand in the way of realizing his life dream of Global policy? Surely the temptation to push Israel into disadvantage to curry favor in international standing, will be overwhelming. Is the cowardly hypocritical Obama going the take a principled stand on the global stage, when he could not even muster the nerve to do so in the warm comfort of his own Church when the stakes were infinitely smaller?

What kind of peace is such a person going to pursue? Are we to believe that the man who chose expediency over principle throughout his career, will take the principled stand with Israel, or rather the beneficial position that appeals to world liberation theology? Who exactly will Obama emotionally see as the one in need of "liberation"- the Jews or perhaps the darling "victim" of leftists everywhere- the Palestinians. I think we all know the answer...

Consider three articles:

Article #1

Poll: Israel and US Biggest Threats to World Peace

by Andrew Beatty

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Over half of Europeans think that Israel now presents the biggest threat to world peace according to a controversial poll requested by the European Commission.

According to the same survey, Europeans believe the United States contributes the most to world instability along with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. . . .

The European Commission is coming under fire for publishing the results of a number of questions - relating to Iraqi reconstruction - while failing to publish the results which revealed the extent of mistrust of Israel and the United States in Europe, according to Spanish daily El Pais. . . .

The poll, conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres/ EOS Gallup Europe, was conducted between 8 and 16 of October.

Article #2

March 22, 2007

Barack Obama and Israel

By Ed Lasky

[editor's note: a substantially new and more complete article on the subject by Ed Lasky can be found here.]

Senator Barack Obama has become the rarest of politicians: a man who has seemingly come out of nowhere to ascend to the top rank of Democratic Presidential candidates. He has parlayed a unique life story, capitalizing on personal scandals that have destroyed his opponents, with an inspiring speaking style and heartwarming platitudes, to generate a great deal of support among Democratic partisans and independents.

His success is even more impressive when one considers that he has very little record to run on. He has been a United States Senator for only two years and much of that time has been spent promoting his books and his candidacy. However minimal, the fact is that he does have a record; not an easy one to uncover, yet a record nevertheless and one that should give pause to those who support the American-Israel alliance.

Obama's spiritual mentor

Obama has given a great deal of credit to the influence his church and his minister have had upon him. While his campaign has called his church the United Church of Christ and thus characterized it as just one of many mainstream churches within that denomination, it is in fact the Trinity United Church of Christ and follows a particularly Afro-centric view of Christianity, emphasizing a Black Work Ethic, commitment to a Black Value System, and an allegiance to all Black Leadership that follows the Black Value System. A brief review of its philosophy shows that this is not your everyday Christian parish and perhaps accounts for his campaign's dropping of the name "Trinity" when discussing his church membership.

This racialist belief system stands in stark contrast to Obama's rhetoric regarding the need and desirability of racial and religious inclusiveness. The church's principles seem to belie Obama's platitudes about the need for all people - of whatever race or religion - to come together as one. Recall this excerpt from his now legendary 2004 Democratic National Convention speech:

"There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America"

Given the anti-Semitism that is sadly so often associated with other leaders and groups that have emphasized black separatism and empowerment (think Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton) perhaps some qualms might be warranted, particularly given some of the actions and statements of the Church's minister.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. is the long-time Pastor of Obama's church, and Obama has credited him as being an inspiration and guiding light for him. He is a spiritual mentor to Obama and coined the term the "audacity of hope" that Obama has essentially made a theme of his campaign as well as the title of a book. He also has, in the words of the Chicago Tribune, a militant past.

Moreover, Pastor Wright has beliefs that might disturb some of Obama's supporters. He is a believer in "liberation theology," which makes the liberation of the oppressed a paramount virtue. The language of liberation all too often veers off into anti-Jewish rants. For example, one of the founders of the movement, Gustavo Gutierrez, has stated that the infidelities of the Jewish people made the Old Covenant [between the Jews and God] invalid." Pastor Wright is also a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in 1984 traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi, an archenemy of Israel's and America and a firm supporter of terror groups.

Wright has also been a severe critic of Israel. In his own words,

The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.

Article #3

Obama vows he'll 'aggressively' seek Middle East peace

Jan. 22, 2009
hilary leila krieger, jpost correspondent in washington , THE JERUSALEM POST

Calling for border crossings into Gaza to be opened with "appropriate monitoring" to alleviate the humanitarian problems following Operation Cast Lead, US President Barack Obama declared on Thursday his intention to pursue peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

To that end, he announced during his first visit to the State Department that new envoy George Mitchell would soon be dispatched to the region to help ensure the cease-fire holds and to move forward on working with Israelis and Palestinians.

"Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats," Obama said. "No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves."

He praised Egypt's role in helping to end the violence, and indicated that America would be committed to ending arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip.

"Just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians," he then added. "Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care."

To that end he called on Israel to open the border crossings and on the Palestinian Authority - helped with funds and support through an international donors conference - to a play a role along with the international community in monitoring the access points.

"It will be the policy of my administration to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as between Israel and its Arab neighbors," he said.

Rope and the well #4: the deep

Restoring intuition with zoom

The elements of the משל as formulated in abstract terms or d'varim of "human domain" are remote, without the sense of intuition the particulars of the story-like משל originally had. How are we, as moderns, to understand the experience of inaccessible water, outside of our domain? Our domain is vast, encompassing the whole Earth and encroaching on space! We bring oil from great depths, from all kinds of environments ranging from jungles to deep seas. Water is not something remote, that we strive to get, it comes from pipes, who even needs to think about it?

What we need to do to restore intuition, is to zoom in on a particular case, in which water is naturally seen as outside the human domain. To do so let us journey to a tiny village in Africa, where an ancient well, legend says was made long ago by the Ancients, lies dusty and unused. Bold children come over, peer into the depths, throw in a rock and await. After a seemingly endless time an eerie "plunk" reaches their ears, coming from a faraway world, remote and utterly disconnected from their village. The children run away, fear overcoming their natural curiosity and boldness at the encounter with "the deep". No one in the village knows how the Ancients drew water from the well, it is a mystery. How could anyone from the village dare even try to access water from the deep? Who knows what lives in that other world? Perhaps magical fish or a troll? It is not for simple villagers to deal with distant worlds, is there not enough work to do tending the cows and goats? Why waste time imagining drawing water from the deep?

The questions

1) Given our new intuition, why would any "hero" arise, who would dare engage "the deep"?

2) What would differentiate this person?

3) What is the significance of the great number of ropes used by the "hero"?

4) What is the significance of the villagers imitating the hero, also drinking water from "the deep"?

The rope and the well #3: the elements

This Mashal about water, needs to be broken down into two parts. Mashal and Nimshal. Essentially the structure is the same in both the Mashal and Nimshal .

Element #1: a valued "water" is of no benefit - it is outside the human domain

Element #2 The wise man derives benefit from the water through extending the human domain through inventive combination of existing tools

Element #3 Common people are able to derive benefit from the water through imitating the wise man

Mashal: Physical water

Element 1: There once was once a deep well, full of water that was cold, sweet and good. But there was no one who could drink from it.

Element 2: A person came along who connected many ropes one to another and drew water from the well and

Element 3: Imitating the wise man, everyone else began drawing water as well.


In the same way,


Nimshal:Metaphysical "water"

Element 1 (implied):There once was once a deep well, full of "water of Torah" that was cold, sweet and good. But there was no one who could "drink" from it.

Element 2: by moving from one principle to another and from one metaphor to another Shlomo arrived at the "water" / secrets (hidden first principles) of Torah. This is what is meant by the statement: "The metaphors of Shlomo son of David"- by means of his metaphors he arrived at the principles of Torah.

Element 3 (implied): Imitating the wise man, everyone else began drawing "water" as well..


Feel free to ask questions on this lay out or the mashal itself. I will try to get to formulating my own questions in the next blogpost tomorrow.

Rope and the well #2

גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך:
דוד מלך ישראל: תהלים קיט, יח

א בְּנִי אִם-תִּקַּח אֲמָרָי וּמִצְוֹתַי תִּצְפֹּן אִתָּךְ:
ב לְהַקְשִׁיב לַחָכְמָה אָזְנֶךָ תַּטֶּה לִבְּךָ לַתְּבוּנָה:
ג כִּי אִם לַבִּינָה תִקְרָא לַתְּבוּנָה תִּתֵּן קוֹלֶךָ:
ד אִם-תְּבַקְשֶׁנָּה כַכָּסֶף וְכַמַּטְמוֹנִים תַּחְפְּשֶׂנָּה:
ה אָז תָּבִין יִרְאַת יְהֹוָה וְדַעַת אֱלֹהִים תִּמְצָא:
ו כִּי-יְהֹוָה יִתֵּן חָכְמָה מִפִּיו דַּעַת וּתְבוּנָה:
שלמה בן דוד מלך ישראל: משלי ב

In the last post, I said we would identify the obstacle to education, explained by the Midrash in Shir ha-shirim Raba. In order to do so, we must see the mashal of the "rope and the well" in its proper context in the larger Midrash framework. Let us then begin to interpret the context of the Midrash through the principles we learned from Rambam's mashal about the hewer of wood. I will give the whole context, as it is found in Shir ha-shirim Raba . Then I will give my edited version, with titles and translation. The key lies in seeing the difference between the teaching of Shlomo Baal Mishlei, from that of all before him, most clearly in David his father, Baal Tehillim. This difference can be observed in the focus of their narration. David, narrates desire in his world,through his request to G to help him see the wonders of the Torah visible as one already in the world of Chochma of the palace. Shlomo speaks not to Hashem but to his son, the hewer of wood, locked in a world of sensational desire from which there is not yet a clear path to the palace. At that point we will be on the verge of seeing the educational challenge confronting the Golem in the next post, "Rope and the well #3".

שיר השירים רבה פרשה א

The "Rav's" narration empowers the "deaf" hewer of wood student

ח ד"א "שיר השירים" זהו שאמר הכתוב (קהלת יב) "ויותר שהיה קהלת חכם" אלו אדם אחר אמרן היית צריך לכוף אזניך ולשמוע הדברים האלה ויותר שאמרן שלמה. ואילו מדעתו אמרן היית צריך לכוף אזניך ולשמעם ויותר שאמרן ברוח הקודש. "ויותר שהיה קהלת חכם עוד למד דעת את העם ואזן וחקר תקן משלים הרבה". "ואזן" דברי תורה "וחקר" דברי תורה, עשה אזנים לתורה. ואת מוצא שעד שלא עמד שלמה לא היתה דוגמא.

The "song of songs", this is the intent of the text when it says: "moreover, because Kohelet was wise, he went on to teach the people daat (observed knowledge). He scrutinized, organized, composing many M'shalim". Even if Shlomo were merely a regular person, you would do well to listen to these ,dvarim. How much more is this the case that it was, in fact, Shlomo who said them. Similarly, even if Shlomo composed these M'shalim based upon his own intuition, it would be incumbent upon you to bend one's ear and listen, how much more so since they were composed based upon intuition guided by Ruach ha-kodesh. "Moreover, because Kohelet was wise, he went on to teach the people daat (observed knowledge). He scrutinized, organized, composing many M'shalim" "he scrutinized" means he formulated divrei Torah, "organized" means he made the torah user friendly. We see that before Shlomo, there was no previous example (of this method).

The hewer of wood student absorbs the narration and sees his place in relation to "the palace"

רב נחמן אמר לפלטין גדולה שהיו בה פתחים הרבה וכל שהיה נכנס בתוכה היה טועה מדרך הפתח, בא פקח א' ונטל הפקעת ותלאה דרך הפתח היו הכל נכנסים ויוצאין דרך הפקעת, כך עד שלא עמד שלמה לא היה אדם יכול להשכיל דברי תורה וכיון שעמד שלמה התחילו הכל סוברין תורה.
רב נחמן לישנא חורי לחורשא של קנים ולא היה אדם יכול להכנס בה ובא פקח א' ונטל את המגל וכסח התחילו הכל נכנסין דרך הכסוח ויוצאין, כך שלמה.

R. Nachman said, (Mishlei Shlomo are similar) to a great palace with a tremendous number of doors, so many, that all who entered lost their way. One clever person came along and took a ball of string, placing it at the first door to the palace, so that all who entered guide themselves along the way. In the same way, until Shlomo, no one could reduce the Torah to principles. Once Shlomo came along, everyone began theorizing about phenomenon through Torah.

The nature of the "path" to the palace

א"ר יוסי לקופה גדולה מלאה פירות ולא היה לה אזן ולא היתה יכולה להטלטל ובא פקח א' ועשה לה אזנים והתחילה להטלטל ע"י אזנים, כך עד שלא עמד שלמה לא היה אדם יכול להשכיל דברי תורה וכיון שעמד שלמה התחילו הכל סוברין תורה, א"ר שילא לקיתון גדול שהוא מלא רותחין ולא היה לו אזן להטלטל ובא א' ועשה לו אזן והתחיל להטלטל ע"י אזנו, א"ר חנינא לבאר עמוקה מלאה מים והיו מימיה צוננין ומתוקים וטובים ולא היתה בריה יכולה לשתות ממנה, בא אדם א' וספק לה חבל בחבל משיחא במשיחא ודלה ממנה ושתה התחילו הכל דולין ושותין, כך מדבר לדבר ממשל למשל עמד שלמה על סודה של תורה דכתיב (משלי א) משלי שלמה בן דוד מלך ישראל ע"י משלותיו של שלמה עמד על ד"ת

There once was once a deep well, full of water that was cold, sweet and good. But there was no one who could drink from it. A person came along who connected many ropes one to another and drew water from the well and everyone else began drawing water as well. In the same way, by moving from one principle to another and from one metaphor to another Shlomo arrived at the secrets (hidden first principles) of Torah. This is what is meant by the statement: "The metaphors of Shlomo son of David"- by means of his metaphors he arrived at the principles of Torah.

Explanation of the Mashal #1

Intro to explanation- the audience

I very much agree with R Rosenthal's understanding of the Mashal. I would like to build upon his approach. In the previous post, I stated that the mashal of the "deep well and the ropes" is the most fundamental one for the Golem. What is my basis for this opinion that the "deep well and the ropes": 1) has the Golem as its intended audience? and 2) is the most fundamental Mashal for this Golem audience.

The "Golem" is a kind of immature Nefesh:

To answer these questions we must define what, in essence, a Golem is. In general, a Golem is an immature Nefesh, which is to say a Nefesh that has become mind in part only. What we must more carefully scrutinize then is: what part of development has the Golem attained, and what part does the Golem lack?

To be sure, the Golem has a real understanding of the Shem Hashem, which is to say, an intuitive God concept rooted in a unified Chochma permeating all of Shamayim Va-aretz, most importantly for development, including the human part.

What the Golem lacks is the formulation of the God concept with the clarity needed to apply the concept as a causal principal in the mechanisms of Shamayim Va-aretz. Rather, the intuition of the God concept can only be applied via mashal (yesodei ha-torah 1:9):

ט אִם כֵּן מַה הוּא זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר בַּתּוֹרָה "וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו" (שמות כד,י), "כְּתֻבִים בְּאֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים" (שמות לא,יח; דברים ט,י), "יַד-ה'" (שמות ט,ג; במדבר יא,כג; דברים ב,טו), "עֵינֵי ה'" (דברים יא,יב), "אָזְנֵי ה'" (במדבר יא,א; במדבר יא,יח), וְכַיּוֹצֶא בִּדְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ--הַכֹּל לְפִי דַּעְתָּן שֶׁלִּבְנֵי אָדָם הוּא, שְׁאֵינָן מַכִּירִין אֵלָא הַגּוּפוֹת; וְדִבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם. וְהַכֹּל כִּנּוּיִים הֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "אִם-שַׁנּוֹתִי בְּרַק חַרְבִּי" (דברים לב,מא), וְכִי חֶרֶב יֵשׁ לוֹ וּבְחֶרֶב הוּא הוֹרֵג; אֵלָא מָשָׁל, וְהַכֹּל מָשָׁל.

9) If so, what does the Torah mean when it says things like, "under His feet" (Exodus 31:18), "written with the finger of God" (ibid), "the hand of the Lord" (Exodus 9:3), "the eyes of the Lord" (Genesis 38:7), "the ears of the Lord" (Numbers 11:1), etc? These phrases are in line with the level of understanding of people, who can only comprehend physical entities, and the Torah speaks in the language of man. All examples of this nature are merely metaphors. For example, when it says, "If I whet My glittering sword" - does God really have a sword and does He really kill with one?! This is merely a metaphor and all such phrases are metaphors.

Needless to say, no man can know Hashem as He really is. However, there is a qualitative difference in the need for Mashal, some need one mashal, Golems need a string of connected m'shalim. How does this string work?

The string of M'shalim

To understand the string, we must understand the source of the gap between man and the God concept. This is answered by Rambam הַכֹּל לְפִי דַּעְתָּן שֶׁלִּבְנֵי אָדָם הוּא, שְׁאֵינָן מַכִּירִין אֵלָא הַגּוּפוֹת we
know via development of abstractions derived from our interpretation (הכרה) of structure manifest (ניכר) in material particulars.

טו [יא] אַרְבָּעָה גּוּפוֹת הָאֵלּוּ--אֵינָם בַּעֲלֵי נֶפֶשׁ וְאֵינָם יוֹדְעִין וְלֹא מַכִּירִין, אֵלָא כְּגוּפִים מֵתִים; וְיֵשׁ לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶם, מִנְהָג שְׁאֵינוּ יוֹדְעוֹ וְלֹא מַשִּׂיגוֹ וְאֵינוּ יָכוֹל לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ. וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַר דָּוִיד "הַלְלוּ אֶת-ה', מִן-הָאָרֶץ--תַּנִּינִים, וְכָל-תְּהֹמוֹת. אֵשׁ וּבָרָד" (תהילים קמח,ז-ח)--עִנְיַן הַדְּבָרִים, הַלְּלוּהוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם מִגְּבוּרוֹתָיו שֶׁתִּרְאוּ בְּאֵשׁ וּבָרָד וּבִשְׁאָר בְּרוּאִים שֶׁתִּרְאוּ לְמַטָּה מִן הָרָקִיעַ, שֶׁגְּבוּרָתָם תָּמִיד נִכֶּרֶת, לַקָּטָן וְלַגָּדוֹל.

15) These four bodies do not possess souls, and do not know or recognise God, but they are like non-living matter. Each body has its own nature, which it does not know or understand, and cannot change. David said, "Praise the Lord from the earth, O monsters, and all deeps: fire, and hail, snow and vapors", meaning that those that are found on the earth should praise the Lord for His might that you will see in the fire and hail and in all the other creations that you will see beneath the firmament, just as their might is always manifest to the great and small (among men).

As mentioned in the post to Sean, we sense this unity in the systems around us. The farmer sees the interconnection in the weather and environment, the hunter in the animals, each craftsman in his own domain. What we lack is the ability to translate that intuition of unity into d'varim- clear abstract principles that allow us to apply our intuition in real time to our domain. What the Golem has is a combination of d'varim and m'shalim. To be more precise a series of d'varim that are interpretations of m'shalim.

יא וּמְצֻוִּין אָנוּ לָלֶכֶת בִּדְרָכִים אֵלּוּ הַבֵּינוֹנִיִּים, וְהֶם הַדְּרָכִים הַטּוֹבִים וְהַיְּשָׁרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "וְהָלַכְתָּ, בִּדְרָכָיו" (דברים כח,ט). [ו] כָּךְ לִמְּדוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ מִצְוָה זוֹ: מַה הוּא נִקְרָא חַנּוּן, אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה חַנּוּן; מַה הוּא נִקְרָא רַחוּם, אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה רַחוּם; מַה הוּא נִקְרָא קָדוֹשׁ, אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה קָדוֹשׁ. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ קָרְאוּ הַנְּבִיאִים לָאֵל בְּכָל אוֹתָן הַכִּנּוּיִין, אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד צַדִּיק וְיָשָׁר תָּמִים גִּבּוֹר וְחָזָק וְכַיּוֹצֶא בָּהֶן--לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁאֵלּוּ דְּרָכִים טוֹבִים וִישָׁרִים הֶם, וְחַיָּב אָדָם לְהַנְהִיג עַצְמוֹ בָּהֶן וּלְהִדַּמּוֹת כְּפִי כּוֹחוֹ.

11) We are commanded to go in these middle paths, the good and upright paths, as it is written, "And walk in His ways, et cetera". As an explanation of this commandment, we have learnt that just as God is called merciful so also should we be merciful, , and that just as God is called holy so also should we be holy. It was with this in mind that the first Prophets called the Almighty with the Attributes of: long-suffering, magnanimous, righteous, upright, faultless, mighty, strong, etc, in order to make it known that these are good and upright ways, and that one is obligated to accustom oneself to them, and to imitate them as much as possible.

There is a process of education, an unfolding of the m'shalim, until they are "seen" in ones own environment, not as abstractions said by Rambam, but rather living metaphors instructive and redemptive of me as I see myself making decisions in the real world.

There is however one fundamental block to the process of education, this block is dealt with by Shlomo ha-melech and is the focus of the midrash. We will explain this obstacle in the next post.