Introduction
In Chapter 17 of Mishlei, we encounter a series of verses dealing with interpersonal conduct: how to preserve love and not lose it, and what the correct way is to correct a person - through rebuke or through blows. Here we will examine three verses: "He who conceals a transgression seeks love," "Rebuke penetrates deeper into an understanding person," and "Only rebellion does an evil person seek," with the Malbim connecting the latter two into a single theme.
"He Who Conceals a Transgression Seeks Love" - Rashi: The Master of the World
מְכַסֶּה־פֶּשַׁע מְבַקֵּשׁ אַהֲבָה וְשֹׁנֶה בְדָבָר מַפְרִיד אַלּוּף׃ (משלי יז, ט) - "He who conceals a transgression seeks love, but one who repeats a matter alienates a close friend." (Mishlei 17:9)
Rashi explains: If someone wrongs his fellow, and the victim covers it up - not mentioning the deed to him and not showing him an angry countenance - he is "seeking love," causing love to flourish between them. But "one who repeats a matter," a person who harbors a grudge and repeatedly brings it up: "Do you remember what you did to me?" - "alienates a close friend [aluf]." And who is the aluf who is alienated from him, according to Rashi? The Master [Aluf] of the World. For through this conduct, one causes the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, to despise him, since He warned, "You shall not take vengeance nor bear a grudge," and by nursing a grudge, one alienates the Master of the World from himself.
Rabbeinu Yonah: One Who Is Particular Even Over Words
Rabbeinu Yonah follows a similar direction, but with a nuance. One who wishes to acquire beloved friends should conceal the transgressions and sins of his companions, overlook offenses, and through this he "seeks love," multiplying his friends and loved ones. Rabbeinu Yonah examines the precise wording: "He who conceals a transgression [pesha]" - a pesha is an actual misdeed. Even if you committed an actual offense against me, I am willing to cover it up and let it pass, and thereby love increases. But "one who repeats a matter [davar]" - davar derives from dibbur, speech. This refers to someone who is meticulous even about speech: "You said such and such about me." He takes offense not only from an action but even from a remark, and if his friend did not speak in a way that was entirely pleasing to him, he holds a grudge.
According to Rabbeinu Yonah, "aluf" does not refer to the Holy One, blessed be He, but rather to a loyal friend and ally. Such an oversensitive person will never have a loyal friend. And why? "For there is no person who does not err in speech." It is impossible for a person never to say an inappropriate word or inadvertently hurt someone, especially among close friends - and the prime example is a husband and wife. In his words: "For man's intellectual grasp and attentiveness are not complete enough to weigh all his words" - to monitor every single word that leaves his mouth. "And since he takes offense at his fellow's words if they deviate from the line of his honor and desire, the companionship of a friend and the love of a comrade will not endure with him."
We all recognize this reality: there are people who are extremely sensitive, and around them one cannot act naturally. One is constantly worried - perhaps I said something, perhaps I turned my head slightly and he misinterpreted it. One lives in constant anxiety, literally walking on eggshells. Who wants to associate with such a person? This is "one who repeats a matter alienates a close friend" - no close friend, companion, or ally will be able to bond with him.
The Vilna Gaon: Alienation Between Husband and Wife
The Vilna Gaon explains that one who seeks love will always conceal a transgression, whereas one who repeatedly harps on the offense - bringing it up time and again - becomes one who "alienates a close friend." Here he adopts an approach seen previously: "aluf" refers to the relationship between husband and wife, as in the verse, "You are the companion [aluf] of my youth" - the wife calling her husband the companion of her youth.
A person who repeats a matter and constantly dredges up past events will cause alienation even between husband and wife. Even if their bond is strong and not easily broken, the moment one constantly brings up faults - what the wife did not do properly and where she fell short, or the wife constantly reminding him, "You did this to me here and you did that to me there" - alienation is created. In one counseling session to foster shalom bayis between a couple, the wife took out a notebook and began reading from it. She was told: "Are you keeping an accounting ledger? It will never work that way." This is "one who repeats a matter alienates a close friend" - even between husband and wife, when people constantly search for and point out things done or said improperly.
The Vilna Gaon's Allusion: Between Man and God
In greater depth, the Vilna Gaon explains this verse regarding the relationship between man and the Holy One, blessed be He. One who desires to love Hashem, blessed be He, and to return to Him with all his heart and might, is one who "covers transgression," as Scripture says: "and love covers all transgressions." This does not mean that he commits transgressions and hides them; rather, the opposite: he does not commit transgressions at all. Sin is covered and kept far from him - and such a person merits attaining the trait of love of Hashem.
However, regarding "one who repeats a matter" - not only did he sin, but he repeats the sin again. Concerning this it is said: one who says, "I will sin and repent," is not granted the opportunity to repent. From such a person, the Master of the World is alienated. How wonderful this is according to the Vilna Gaon, that here "repeats a matter" is understood in its literal sense: he repeats and reiterates that very sin; "a matter" refers to the matter mentioned before, the transgression. The first person, who covered the transgression and distanced himself from it, attained the love of Hashem; while the second, who repeats the matter of transgression, alienates his Master, for he is not granted the opportunity to repent.
The Malbim: Two-Way Love, and the Incident of Avner and Ish-Boshet
The Malbim notes that we find a similar verse: "and love covers all transgressions," whereas here it seems to state the reverse - that whoever covers a transgression seeks love, meaning he also generates love from the other party. In truth, the same idea works in both directions. On the one hand, because I love you, I am willing to cover your transgressions - like a mother who sees no fault in her son, always covering and minimizing his misdeeds out of love. On the other hand, it can start from the opposite direction: someone did something wrong, and by covering the transgression and not exposing it, love between you increases. For when a person constantly exposes another's faults and looks for his mistakes, he cultivates hatred toward him.
In contrast, regarding "one who repeats a matter," the Malbim brings an example from Ish-Boshet, who challenged Avner: "Why have you gone in to my father's concubine?" When David began to reign, Avner aligned himself with Ish-Boshet, the son of Saul, since Avner was from Saul's camp and assumed David would not accept him, having previously incited Saul against David. He therefore preferred to side with Ish-Boshet, even though Ish-Boshet was not the ideal leader. At a certain point, Avner took liberties and went in to Saul's concubine, as he was the real strongman in power, and Ish-Boshet rebuked him for it. Avner was furious: "Am I a dog's head?" Ish-Boshet should have understood his position - that he was not an absolute king in control of everything, but rather a puppet in the hands of Avner, who ran the kingdom. He should have remained silent, yet he exposed the offense and publicized it: "I know what you did." This is "repeats a matter" - and as a result, Avner rebelled against him and transferred the kingdom to David. "One who repeats a matter alienates a close friend [aluf]" - in this case, aluf in its literal sense of a chieftain or commander, meaning he alienated him and turned him into an enemy.
"A Rebuke Enters Deeper into an Understanding Person" - How to Read the Word
תֵּחַת גְּעָרָה בְמֵבִין מֵהַכּוֹת כְּסִיל מֵאָה׃ (משלי יז, י) - A rebuke enters deeper into an understanding person than striking a fool a hundred times. (Mishlei 17:10)
Rashi notes: "Techat" - its cantillation mark is placed on top, meaning it is stressed on the penultimate syllable (mil'el), whereas if the mark were placed below, it would be stressed on the final syllable (milra). This is an important rule in reading Tanach: to know how to pronounce a word, one must observe where the cantillation mark is situated. A mark at the beginning of the word indicates mil'el; a mark at the end indicates milra. Although there are exceptions, such as the segolta, for most cantillation marks this rule holds true: the position of the mark determines whether the word is mil'el or milra.
An illustrative incident occurred when a young student corrected her teacher, who had pronounced the name Boaz with the stress on the final syllable (Bo'áz). She explained that it should be pronounced with the stress on the first syllable (Bó'az). The teacher asked how she knew, and she replied that her father teaches Tanach. The teacher responded, "Tell him to bring me proof!" It is astonishing that one would even need proof for such a thing: simply look at where the cantillation mark is placed. If the mark were on the letter ayin, it would be read Bo'áz; but since the mark is on the letter beit, it is read Bó'az. However, because most biblical names are indeed stressed on the final syllable - Moshe, David, Shlomo, Chaim - people assume that milra sounds more "biblical." Grammatically, however, this is incorrect, and there are names that are read mil'el.
Therefore, Rashi explains that "techat" here is a noun, like "chitat" (dread). There is a difference between a verb and a noun: páchad is a noun, the concept of fear, whereas pachád is a verb, "he feared." Similarly, an iron (maghez) is an object, while ironing (m'gahez) is an action. So too here: it is not a verb but a noun, and the meaning of the verse is that the subduing effect of rebuke penetrates an understanding person far more than striking a fool a hundred blows.
Rabbeinu Yonah: Who Is an "Understanding Person" and Who Is a "Fool"?
Rabbeinu Yonah explains that tachat ("penetrates") comes from the root nachat, meaning descent - that the rebuke descends and settles within the heart of the mevin (understanding person), so that the rebuke is accepted by his mind. And what is a mevin? Do not be confused: a mevin is not in the category of a navon (discerning person). A mevin is one who is open to receiving - ready to hear about his mistakes, ready to change. And second, that he possesses an understanding heart: not only that he agrees to listen, but that he also grasps what is being said to him and understands what is wrong with his conduct. Rabbeinu Yonah says: if either of these two is lacking in him, he cannot be called a mevin. This is also the meaning in the expressions "Wisdom is before the face of an understanding person (*mevin*)" (Mishlei 17:24) and "A poor man who is understanding (*mevin*) investigates him" (Mishlei 28:11) - these are all descriptions of a person who is ready to listen, sees the truth in your words, and is also willing to accept them.
But a navon is something else entirely. Navon is an adjective for a person who has already attained the level of binah (deep discernment), and such a person needs neither reproof nor rebuke. For would it make sense to say "A rebuke penetrates a navon"? A navon already deduces one thing from another (mevin davar mitoch davar) - that is already stage two; not only has he gained wisdom, but he has become like an overflowing spring on his own. The verse here is not speaking of a navon. A mevin is someone who, when things are explained to him, is receptive to accepting them and also understands that what is being said to him is correct.
"More than striking a fool a hundred times" - the fool (kesil) is the exact opposite of the mevin. If the mevin is willing to accept, the kesil is the stubborn one who refuses to accept. You prove to him that his path is mistaken; you tell him: "If you think what I said is unproven, that it is not one hundred percent true, ask, raise objections, investigate and see for yourself." But he does not want to, because he simply does not feel like it. He evades: "There are other views, there are other schools of thought." And why is he unwilling to accept? Because of his desires, as it is written, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding" (Mishlei 18:2) - the kesil does not want to understand; there is nothing wrong with his intellect, he simply does not want to.
What, then, is his remedy? Rebuke will not help him, for rebuke only works for an understanding person. What is appropriate for him? Striking him. A person stands in the middle of the road; you shout at him and he does not understand what you want from him. If a car comes and knocks him twenty meters away, perhaps then he will understand. The kesil needs to take blows, and when he takes blows, he understands. Like that story of the Jewish contractor who told a worker to bring the cinder blocks up to the third floor, and the worker dragged his feet; he told him again, and he still hesitated. An Arab contractor who worked under him came over, gave the worker two slaps across the face, and said to him: "Bring the blocks up right now." He carried them up immediately. The first man asked him: "I told you to do it, so why didn't you listen to me?" He replied: "Because you spoke, but he explained." Sometimes a person needs an "explanation" - that is the kesil; a fool needs "explanations."
Rabbeinu Yonah cites a statement from the early masters of Mussar: "There is no remedy for scoundrels except through subjugation and humiliation." A scoundrel will not turn back from his way until he experiences subjugation and until he faces humiliation; therefore, he must be struck, and only then will he understand.
The Vilna Gaon: Rebuke vs. Afflictions
The Vilna Gaon explains that rebuking an understanding person is better than striking a fool a hundred times, and there are two dimensions here: there is tochachah (reproof) - which is speech; and there is mussar (discipline or chastisement) - which is physical affliction. Mussar comes from the root of yisurim (chastisement). We commonly refer to whatever chastens a person toward self-improvement through words as "mussar" as well, as in "learning Mussar," but in truth, the essence of mussar is to chastise a person. One can chastise with a rod, and one can chastise with the rod of one's mouth - to rebuke with sharp words, and thereby chasten him.
Like that sage who said to his friend: "Someone just gave me slaps across the face, and I even kissed him." His friend asked: "Who was it?" He replied: "I just opened Mesillat Yesharim, and it demonstrated to me how lacking I am and how far I am from the service of Hashem - it dealt me harsh slaps across the face. And when I finished learning, I closed the book and kissed it." This is the purpose of Mussar: to chasten a person, giving him a sense of distress over his conduct so that he will change it, so that he will feel pangs of conscience over corrupt deeds.
Thus, the aspect conveyed through speech is called tochachah, while the aspect truly deserving the name mussar in its strict sense is affliction; by extension, we also refer to verbal reproof as mussar. And reproof is far better for an understanding person than striking a fool a hundred times, as Chazal say: "Better is one internal pang of remorse in a person's heart than a thousand lashes" (Berachot 7a). What is an internal pang of remorse (mardut balev)? It is when a person rebukes himself, feeling pangs of conscience over what he did; he rebels in his heart against the evil inclination and says to himself: "Why did I do such a thing?" A single pang of internal remorse like this is better than a thousand blows.
And why? Because there are cases where blows do not eliminate the fault, but rather harden the person. There are times when blows do not break him, but on the contrary - you embolden his heart to become even more stubborn against you. That is why in our generation, the Gedolei Yisrael say that one must not raise a hand against children at all. Once a child has grown a little, by age six, one must certainly never raise a hand against him. This is something that can cause severe damage: it leads to rebellion, to insolence, to the child acting out of spite, and to deep humiliation for him. This is simply not the way in our generation.
It follows, then, that if you offer him reproof so that he understands on his own that his action was improper - that is good, "a rebuke penetrates an understanding person," far better than giving him a thousand lashes, for sometimes lashes only harden him and make him more stubborn. He thinks, "He wants to break me," smiles at you, and says, "That didn't hurt." Then the foolish parent strikes even harder until the child cries - folly piled upon folly. Therefore, far better is a rebuke to an understanding person than striking a fool a hundred times.
Metzudat Tzion: The Language of Shattering and Fear
The Metzudat Tzion explains that tachat is an expression of brokenness and fear, as in "Do not be terrified and do not be broken (al techat)." In other words, the brokenness and fear with which you instill fear in a discerning person are more effective for him than actual blows to a fool. With a discerning person, it is enough to instill fear: I want to tell you how harmful this is, and I tell you - so-and-so did this and was harmed, someone else did that and suffered such grief and illness. This is the definition of rebuke: instilling fear and showing how dangerous it is. The fool, by contrast, does not listen to what happened to others; he wants to experience it on his own flesh, he must try it himself - and ultimately it harms him as well. Therefore, it is more effective to instill fear in a discerning person than to deliver actual blows to a fool.
The Malbim: One Lacking Sense versus the Fool
The Malbim explains that physical beating is effective only for someone who lacks sense (chaser lev), as it says, "And a rod for the back of one who lacks sense." That is, he does not rebel from the core of his soul; rather, he lacks understanding and does not comprehend. And who does not understand? An animal, and one communicates with an animal through blows. So too with a person who lacks sense and does not understand - this is the way to steer him onto the upright path.
The fool (kesil), by contrast, as we have explained many times, has no problem with comprehension. The fool is very sharp; his problem is desire - the fool craves evil. If so, what will striking him accomplish? After all, he has desires. It is like criminals who are put in prison: it removes them from society, but does it prevent them from later returning to their ways? After all, he has a craving for money or other desires, and he has no intellectual deficit - therefore, blows do not break him.
The senseless person, on the other hand, does not rebel from the core of his soul like the fool; rather, he lacks guidance - since the heart directs the person. Such a person is like an animal that does not know how to direct itself, and needs to be struck so that it behaves properly. And the discerning person, says the Malbim, does not need blows at all - a rebuke is sufficient for him, and this rebuke accomplishes more for him than striking the fool a hundred times.
An Evil Person Seeks Only Rebellion
אַךְ־מְרִי יְבַקֶּשׁ־רָע וּמַלְאָךְ אַכְזָרִי יְשֻׁלַּח־בּוֹ׃ (משלי יז, יא) - A rebellious person seeks only evil, and a cruel messenger will be sent against him.
The Malbim connects this verse to the preceding one: a person who rebels willfully out of defiance and rebellion, and seeks evil - because desire forces him to defy the counsel of wisdom. He knows it is wrong, he knows he is harming himself, but "I feel like having a cigarette." The desire overpowers him even though he knows his path is corrupted. Such a person will pursue evil even if a cruel messenger is sent against him: he sees that he is harming himself, sees that it brings him only harm, and nevertheless continues on his path - because rebellion is in his heart; he knows what is good and rebels against it. Not out of malice, but out of a desire to do evil. Therefore, no beating will help him, and even sending an evil angel against him will not alter his course.
Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the wicked person is malicious at heart, and when you rebuke him, he only becomes more stubborn and digs in his heels. This is comparable to the war against the Palestinians: we imagine that delivering stronger blows will help - yet they arm themselves with more powerful missiles. A stronger blow does not solve the problem. This does not mean one should not strike them or that there is no need to defend ourselves and hit them, but thinking that this is a solution to the problem - it is no solution. Hit them harder, and they grow stronger. And that is reality: the more they were struck, the more extremist forces arose among them. Seemingly, after all the blows, they should have realized that it does not pay, and seen what the extremist factions brought upon them - but precisely the opposite occurred: they brought Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to power, groups that by any logical measure only brought them ruin and repeated devastation with no ability to recover. Hezbollah gained seats in the Lebanese parliament, in Egypt the most extreme became leaders, and so too in Syria and elsewhere.
According to Rabbeinu Yonah, the verse is interpreted in the opposite direction from the Malbim: "A rebellious person seeks only evil" - for such a person, even striking him a hundred blows will not help. What will help? Only that "a cruel messenger will be sent against him" - from Heaven. Only if a harsh angel is sent against him from Heaven will it have an effect. According to the Malbim, as mentioned, not even a cruel angel will help such a person. Evidently, the two commentators are addressing two different degrees of rebellion.
The Metzudat David explains that the verse addresses both this world and the World to Come: "A rebellious person seeks only evil" - one whose sole concern is to defy the word of Hashem seeks harm for himself in this world; "and a cruel messenger will be sent against him" - this refers to the World to Come, where a cruel angel awaits to repay him for his deeds here in this world.
In summary:
These three verses teach us how love is preserved and how a person is reformed. "He who covers a transgression seeks love" - covering over another person's faults fosters love, whether out of existing affection or as a means to generate it. In contrast, "one who repeats a matter" - someone who brings it up again and scrutinizes even mere words - alienates himself from the Master of the World (Rashi), separates from his loyal companions (Rabbeinu Yonah), and drives a wedge between husband and wife (the Gra); by way of allusion, it even prevents him from doing teshuvah when he repeats his sin. "A rebuke penetrates deeper into an understanding person" - for someone willing to accept and understand, a spoken rebuke and admonition is sufficient, and a single pang of self-reproach in a person's heart is better than a thousand lashes; physical blows, on the other hand, belong to the senseless person who lacks understanding. "A rebellious person seeks only evil" - the stubborn individual whose lust overpowers him is not broken by blows, but only hardened by them, and he has no remedy except at the hand of Heaven or through the honest soul-searching he conducts with himself.