The chapter before us continues the series of parables on the son, on education and on character traits. In this section we will deal with three verses: "He who robs his father and drives away his mother," "Cease, my son, to hear instruction," and "A worthless witness scorns justice" - and in each of them we will see several facets of interpretation: from the homiletic meaning in the words of the Vilna Gaon regarding the destruction of the Temples, through the practical plain meaning of the Ralbag and the Metzudat David concerning the raising of children, and to the sharp words of ethical instruction of Rabbeinu Yonah regarding one who is willing to hear rebuke and one who is not.
מְשַׁדֶּד־אָב יַבְרִיחַ אֵם בֵּן מֵבִישׁ וּמַחְפִּיר׃ (משלי יט, כו) - He who robs his father and drives away his mother is a son who causes shame and disgrace. (Mishlei 19:26)
The Vilna Gaon offers a further explanation: "He who robs his father" relates to the destruction of the First Temple, and "drives away his mother" - to the destruction of the Second Temple. And why specifically in this way? It seems we may say that in the First Temple there was a resting of the Divine Presence that was not present in the Second. All those miracles that the Sages enumerated - that no fly was seen in the slaughterhouse, that the wind never dispersed the column of smoke from the altar, that the fire never extinguished the wood of the arrangement, and the like - are brought as having occurred in the First Temple, and not in the Second. It turns out that the First Temple was mighty and strong, and in terms of its spiritual level it was in the category of "father," whereas the Second Temple was weaker, in the category of "mother."
And there is proof of this: those who returned from the exile of the captivity and saw the Second Temple - wept. The young rejoiced: behold, a Temple! But the elders said: we saw what the Temple looked like, we saw the house of Shlomo, all overlaid with gold, an awesome and wondrous thing. You see this and rejoice, but had you known how the First Temple looked - you would not rejoice in what is here. We see from this that the Second Temple was weak compared to the First, and it is therefore understandable why Scripture calls it in the category of "mother."
And why is he called "a son who causes shame"? We have explained that shame relates to what is hidden. The Vilna Gaon says: because the earlier generations, at the time when the Temple was destroyed, their sin was in secret. And he brings the language of the holy Zohar: "they crossed the sealed paths that are hidden" - that is, they caused damage in the upper worlds, in the hidden pathways.
And ostensibly the Sages say the opposite: in the First Temple their sin was revealed - idolatry, forbidden relations and bloodshed openly for all to see - and therefore its end was revealed, seventy years. But in the Second Temple, where their sin was not revealed, their end was not revealed, and they were not informed when the story would conclude. Rather, the intent of the Zohar is that the revealed sins that you saw in the First Temple were only what was revealed to the eye, and beneath them were hidden sins and damages in the upper worlds, those "sealed paths that are hidden." By contrast, in the Second Temple the damage in the upper worlds was open, as the Vilna Gaon brings that they sinned against the thirty-two pathways of wisdom, corresponding to the thirty-two verses in the passage of rebuke of the Second Temple. For the passages of rebuke are divided into two: the rebuke at the end of Parashat Bechukotai corresponding to the First Temple, and the rebuke in Parashat Ki Tavo corresponding to the Second Temple, and there are thirty-two verses there corresponding to the thirty-two pathways of wisdom.
The end of the verse is thereby explained: "a son who causes shame" refers back to "he who robs his father," which is the First Temple, in which the damage was hidden - and shame relates to what is hidden. "And disgrace" refers back to "drives away his mother," which is the Second Temple, in the category of the weaker mother, and there the damage was open - and to disgrace relates to open shame.
The Ralbag explains the verse according to its plain meaning: the shameful son disgraces his parents, pursues his desires, and causes people to come and rob his father. This reality we recognize today very clearly. They arrested him - who signs the bail? The parents. He did not meet the conditions - to whom will the bail be forfeited? To the parents, and they will lose the money. People come and say to them: your son caused damage here, caused damage there; the parents grind their teeth, take out a checkbook and pay - just so that there be no commotion, no embarrassment, that it not be heard or known. That is in the first stage. In the second stage, after everyone already knows, they say to the injured party: sir, you are right, he pained you? He pained me far more. There is nothing I can do, I can only share in your grief.
Or the son goes and takes out loans. People come and say to the father: your son took a loan, I gave him the money that was set aside to buy an apartment, now I bought an apartment and I have nothing with which to pay, they want to throw me out of the house. What will the man do? He has no choice, he pays on behalf of his son. This is indeed "he who robs his father" - the son takes out loans without coverage and without reckoning and squanders his father's money. And for that same reason, "drives away his mother": the creditors come, the claimants come, all those he harmed come and bang on the door - and the mother can no longer bear it, and she flees from the house.
Therefore the Ralbag says: it is fitting for a father and a mother to discipline him in his youth, so that this ruin will not come from them. In simple terms: you do not want damages? Think carefully while you are raising the child, to educate him in a proper and good way, because in the end the one who will eat all the straw from this whole matter is you. And we see this openly today among people who do not know how to educate, who have no concept of education. Then they say: I gave the child everything, I do not know why he does such things, we bought him everything, we granted him everything. And she does not understand that she has in fact stated the answer herself: this is exactly the problem, that you always bought him everything and gave him everything. How did Adoniyah ben Chagit turn out for David? "His father never grieved him, saying, why have you done so." If he was never grieved with the words "why have you done so," do not be surprised that he will do things that later cause much heartache.
The Metzudat David offers an original explanation: a person who plunders his father, who shames and disgraces him, thereby causes the father to divorce the mother. That is, "drives away the mother" means that the son, through all the grief he caused his father, brings the father to divorce the wife who guided the son in such a corrupt path.
And many times we see such things, that problems arise in the peace of the home as a result of the education of the children: the father is angry at the mother, why does she not give the child rebuke, why does she always fulfill his wishes without setting limits for him. And through this the son also causes the father to spend money, for if he divorces, he must pay the ketubah. It turns out that the son robs his father of the ketubah money, causes him extra expense, and drives away his mother from his father. Both "drives away the mother" and "plunders the father," who must now pay for this divorce.
And today, though for the most part the ketubah is not paid, the "plundering of the father" involved in divorce is far greater than the ketubah. Ask people who are afterward licking their wounds, and they will tell you that divorce is an expensive affair. And those who make a living from this whole matter are the lawyers on both sides, who say: why should you give in? And how could she possibly get anything? Then they reach the stage of ego, and "neither I nor you will have it," and I will gouge out your eyes and your soul, and in the end the lawyers eat all the money, as long as the other side does not get anything. This is "plunders the father," who causes enormous damage to his father, who is forced to divorce his mother and incur many expenses.
חֲדַל־בְּנִי לִשְׁמֹעַ מוּסָר לִשְׁגוֹת מֵאִמְרֵי־דָעַת׃ (משלי יט, כז) - Cease, my son, to hear discipline, to stray from words of knowledge. (Mishlei 19:27)
This verse is very difficult according to its plain meaning, and therefore all the commentators rearrange its order. "Cease, my son, to hear discipline"?! But all the verses say "Hear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the teaching of your mother," "Hold fast to discipline, do not let go", and suddenly "Cease, my son, to hear discipline"? And what is "to stray from words of knowledge"?
Therefore Rabbeinu Yonah says that it is a transposed verse, meaning that one must change the order of the words in order to grasp its intent: "Cease, my son, from straying from words of knowledge, in order to hear discipline." Cease from your corrupt deeds, do not stray from the words of knowledge, so that you will be able to hear discipline. "To stray from words of knowledge" means to stray and not to walk in the straight path of the words of knowledge, the things that are reasonable and sensible. Cease from this path, and rather hear discipline, accept the rebuke that is told to you and straighten your path.
And the explanation of the matter is: if you want to learn discipline and to accept rebuke, first cease from straying from words of knowledge, for then a person will have a hearing heart. Hearing means that the person accepts the words. But one who strays in his deeds is not prepared to accept discipline. Why? Because when I walk in an incorrect path and you shine a light on this for me, it troubles me and pricks me. And consequently, when you come to tell me things that are not pleasant to my ears, I do not pay attention to what you say and I do not want to listen, because it will not be pleasant to me, for my deeds contradict your words. And even if I listen, I will not delve to the depth of their truth, because I know that I am not in order.
Someone once defined it for me: do you know what the trouble with the modesty conferences is? They hold a conference for women, they speak about strengthening matters of modesty, about distancing from iPhones and the internet and all the rest of the matters, important and wonderful things. But who comes to these conferences? Is it those who go about in tight and short clothing, those who have iPhones, those whose wigs reach down to the slit? No. The ones who come are the righteous and God-fearing women, those who anyway have no iPhones, whose skirts reach to their shoes, who go about with a head covering precisely according to halachah. And there is no disparagement in this: it is very important to also strengthen the strong, without a doubt. But precisely those whom we would want to see there, for whom it is important that they hear how much severity there is in going about without modesty, how much damage there is in it, how much suffering she will pay for it, and how much corruption in her children will be caused by it, they are precisely the ones who do not come. It turns out that those for whom the words are intended do not hear. This is exactly what the verse tells us: the one who needs to straighten his ways finds it unpleasant to hear words of rebuke. Therefore, if you truly want to hear discipline, do not stray from words of knowledge, do not walk in corrupt paths, and then when people come to tell you discipline it will be easier for you to accept it. But if you stray in corrupt paths, when they come to rebuke you the words are not pleasant to your ears and you reject them in advance, and how will you correct yourself? Therefore, one who desires to hear discipline, let him not stray from words of knowledge.
Rabbeinu Yonah offers another explanation: this pasuk is a continuation of the previous one, the pasuk about the son who shames and disgraces, who robs his father and drives away his mother. Now the verse comes to rebuke that very son: "One who robs his father drives away his mother, a son who shames and disgraces - cease, my son!" Cease from all these deeds, stop being a son who shames and disgraces - "from hearing mussar," so that you will be able to hear mussar; and cease "straying from the words of knowledge," stop erring in corrupt ways, and instead walk in the proper path.
Rabbeinu Yonah offers a further, novel explanation: "Cease, my son, from hearing mussar" - the mussar with which they discipline you so that you will stray and distance yourself from the straight path. Just as an upright and honest person disciplines his son so that he will walk the straight path - and I say again, "disciplines" does not necessarily mean blows or a violent approach, but very often speaking words of mussar and reproving the son - so too the crooked and wicked person reproves his son for not walking in the path of wickedness.
And if you ask: you are exaggerating, where do we see such things? Let me tell you where. The child comes home and reports that the teacher said such and such to him and hurt his feelings. And there are foolish parents - admittedly on the fringes, but there are such people - who say: what, he said that to you? Why didn't you answer him back? You should have told him such and such! Why did you stay silent? You should have given it right back to him! Is this how you accustom your son, to be brazen and lacking in derech eretz? Or the son relates: Dad, a friend did such and such to me. And the father: what are you talking about?! I would have given him two punches on the spot! What a fool you are, what a wimp, why didn't you show him? Or he tells of an opportunity he could have seized, and the father asks: why didn't you take it? What are you worried about? They have plenty, it's not robbery and it's not theft, take it! Next time you see something like that, bring it home! And the son says: but I thought it belonged to someone. And the parent reproves him: what do you mean it belongs? Is that your problem? Next time don't forget, bring it! I am not talking about a father who tells his son to go and murder - those are extreme examples; but you see that there is a reality in which a senseless parent reproves his son for not doing negative things, because in his outlook this is the proper response and the proper deed.
According to this, the pasuk is explained in its most literal sense, without distorting or twisting it: "Cease, my son, from hearing mussar" - such mussar as your father gives you and such mussar as your mother gives you, why didn't you give it back to him, why didn't you do such and such to him - such mussar do not heed. And what mussar is being spoken of? "straying from the words of knowledge" - mussar whose entire content is reproof for your not having strayed from the words of knowledge, for your not having done flawed and corrupt things. Such mussar do not accept.
This is what Rabbeinu Yonah meant: there are wicked people who cling to evil and to victory and to brazenness, and these are the praiseworthy traits in their eyes. This is precisely what we said: don't give in to him, why did you give in, what a fool, don't be a sucker, you should have shown him. This is a person who clings to victory - a need to always win. And needing to always win means: you will not have the last word, I will have the last word. This is a very negative and very destructive trait, even at home, when a person always lives with a love of winning arguments, loves to argue, and accustoms his son "give it back to him, tell him off, don't give in to him." And likewise brazenness: why did you stay silent to him? You should have told him! And what are you teaching him - to be brazen-faced? Yes, this is praiseworthy in their eyes, and they raise their children on those traits. And it is written "men of bloodshed hate the innocent" - they hate an innocent and upright person, and therefore: don't be a dolt, give it back to him, show him. And it is written "the abomination of the wicked is the upright of way" - the wicked person loathes those who walk in an honest and upright path.
It emerges that the innocent person is regarded in his eyes as a sucker, as one who only loses when he gives in to others. But it is not so. Accustom your son to have within him the trait of shame, the trait of modesty, the trait of humility - this is far better than his standing his ground in that same situation, but acquiring through it a bad trait. Concerning such mussar it is said "cease, my son, from hearing mussar," mussar whose entire purpose is to make you stray from the words of knowledge and to distance you from the proper and straight path. This is corrupt mussar, and such mussar do not accept from your parents.
The Vilna Gaon explains in a different way. We learned in the previous pasuk "strike the scoffer and the simpleton becomes clever" - the simpleton learns by seeing the blows of the scoffer and not wanting to receive such blows. The wise man, however, suffices with words and reproof; he does not need to see blows in order to accept mussar, and he does not need to see people getting hurt in order to understand that the path is not correct.
And this is "cease, my son, from hearing mussar": cease, my son, from waiting and watching what happens to the scoffer, how he receives afflictions, and only then learning from it. Reproof is enough for you! Why do you need to see that fellow get beaten in order to straighten your ways? Do not wait to see the evil that comes upon the scoffer in order to draw conclusions from it - there is a better way: listen to reproof, and when someone speaks to you, accept it. "Cease, my son, from hearing mussar" - the mussar of the scoffer, from which you learn only so as not "to stray from the words of knowledge." Rather, walk in the proper and straight path even when they merely speak to you and reprove you, without needing to see someone stricken in order to distance yourself from his way.
עֵד בְּלִיַּעַל יָלִיץ מִשְׁפָּט וּפִי רְשָׁעִים יְבַלַּע־אָוֶן׃ (משלי יט, כח) - A worthless witness mocks justice, and the mouth of the wicked swallows iniquity. (Mishlei 19:28)
Rabbeinu Yonah explains that "yalitz mishpat" means teaching guilt in judgment. Now, we are accustomed to think that a maylitz in judgment means one who argues in favor, as in "if there be for him an angel, an advocate," but this is not necessarily so, for we find "yalitz asham." That is, a person who testifies in a judgment is called "yalitz mishpat," and here it refers to one who testifies against his fellow to his detriment.
Rabbeinu Yonah explains that there are two types of people. There is a person who always seeks to condemn every man, judging everyone unfavorably. Whatever you tell him: "No, he surely meant it this way," "Don't be naive." In every story he looks to find the negative in a person and his disgrace. Such a person always "yalitz mishpat," always speaks harsh words of judgment against all people. And from this evil trait he will come to be an "eid beliyaal," a wicked witness. Why? Because he is always looking for how to testify and how to say something bad about people, and here he has a platform, a witness stand, and even exposure. Such a person would have no problem coming to court and telling of things that never happened and inventing fabrications, out of his evil nature to find fault in people.
In contrast, there is another person, a wicked man, of whom it is said "u'fi resha'im yevala aven." "Yevala" means he conceals, as it is written "and they shall not come to see when the holy things are covered (ke'vala)" - when they would cover the holy vessels during the travels, it was forbidden to come and be present. So too we once explained, according to the Tur and the Rosh and other commentators, the verse "and the thin ears swallowed up (va'tivlanah)." Can ears of grain swallow other ears? Do they have a mouth? Rather, "va'tivlanah" means they grew and covered them. The thin ones covered over the plump and healthy ones. "Bela" is a term of covering.
Now this wicked man, the one who actually commits transgressions because his inclination overpowers him, will not testify falsely against his brother nor speak evil of others - but not out of a good trait; on the contrary, this attests to a negative trait within him. Since he is a man of iniquity and a man of wicked deeds, when you come and tell him that so-and-so does such and such, he replies: No, sir, do not interfere in what people do, do not make comments to people, do not tell them where they fall short. And you are impressed: what a righteous man, he loves to see the good in others. But this is "the mouth of the wicked": he thinks to himself, today he criticizes this one, tomorrow he will criticize me too. And therefore: let each man live by his own faith, let everyone live as he understands, and do not criticize anyone. Where does this stem from? From the fact that he wants to swallow up his own iniquity, to conceal his own iniquity, and therefore he also conceals the iniquity of others - not out of righteousness, and not because he has suddenly become a disciple of Rebbe Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev. That is not the line at all.
I remember from my childhood, some twenty-eight years ago, that it was a Shemittah year. In our synagogue a learned Jew stood up and said: Gentlemen, we are in a Shemittah year, and here in Netanya there is a store that sells to those who keep Shemittah, in such and such a place, and anyone who wishes to buy without concern for sefichin can go to such and such a store. Immediately one of the talkers in the synagogue rose and said: Excuse me, I ask your pardon, this is a synagogue, we do not do advertising here, let each person buy where he understands, you need not tell people where to buy; tomorrow one person will advertise this store and another will advertise a different one. Even then, as a child, I understood, and it was clear and even jarring to a discerning ear, to see how that man was essentially saying: you are telling us about a Shemittah store - tomorrow I too will be forced to go and buy there. Leave it, don't say it, I don't want to hear and I don't want to know that there is a Shemittah store; I go and buy in the market, and if you tell me there is such a store, that would obligate me to go. Therefore: do not rebuke people, do not tell people that what they do is improper, because if you tell them, you are telling me too, so let each person live as he understands. Not out of righteousness, and not out of the sanctity of the synagogue and all sorts of foolish claims of this kind. The intent is clear: do not make comments to people, because afterward you will comment to me as well.
This is "u'fi resha'im yevala aven" - he conceals the iniquity. And he is the complete opposite of the person who "yalitz mishpat," who speaks disparagingly of everyone and seeks out the disgrace of every man. This one is exactly the reverse: he does not seek disgrace, everyone is righteous in his eyes, everyone is upright and everyone is honest - so long as they do not find the disgrace within himself.
In these verses we saw three perspectives. "Meshaded av yavri'ach eim": by way of allusion, the destruction of the First Temple and the Second Temple, hidden sin and open sin; and by way of the plain meaning, a corrupt son who squanders his father's money and drives his mother from the home, and at times even causes a rift between his parents, and from here the obligation to chastise a son in his youth and not give him "everything" without limit. "Chadal beni lishmoa musar": either that one should first cease from straying from words of knowledge, and then you will have a listening heart; or a rebuke to that shameful son; or a warning not to accept corrupt discipline of contentiousness and insolence; or, as the Gra says, that you should not wait to see the scoffer's blows but rather suffice with rebuke by words. And finally, "eid beliyaal yalitz mishpat u'fi resha'im yevala aven": two opposite evil traits - the one who always seeks the disgrace of people and comes from this to false testimony, and the one who covers over everything not out of righteousness but so that his own iniquity not be discovered.