In the passage before us, King Solomon continues to establish the proper hierarchy of priorities between the fear of Heaven and the fear of the king, to warn against mingling with those who seek to overturn the social order, and finally, to transition to the sayings of the wise collected within the book, which deal with perversion of justice and showing favoritism in judgment. We will follow the order of the verses, beginning with the explanation of the Malbim alongside the teachings of Rashi and the Vilna Gaon.
יְרָא אֶת יְהֹוָה בְּנִי וָמֶלֶךְ, עִם שׁוֹנִים אַל תִּתְעָרָב׃ - Fear Hashem, my son, and the king; do not mingle with those who seek change.
First, regarding the textual variant. Some read "עִם שׁוֹנִים אַל תִּתְעָרָב" without a vav, which is the reading in most printed editions, as well as in Shorashim, Meir Nativ, and the Masorah. On the other hand, there is a variant reading "וְעִם שׁוֹנִים" with a vav, found in an accurate manuscript, the Soncino edition, Masechet Sotah, Bemidbar Rabbah, and Tanchuma, as well as in the Targum and many commentators.
The core principle of the verse is: fear the king, provided this does not conflict with the fear of Hashem. Therefore, the order is "Fear Hashem, my son" first, and only afterward "and the king." The king is on a secondary level. If the king demands something that prevents a person from the fear of Heaven - "Fear Hashem, my son," for the king is merely secondary.
This is akin to what Chazal taught regarding the verse: "These are the generations of Noach; Noach was a righteous man... Noach walked with God." Why was his name repeated? He was pleasing to the Omnipresent and pleasing to people. Yet when a conflict arises - when what is pleasing to the Omnipresent is not pleasing to people, or what is pleasing to people is not pleasing to the Omnipresent - "Noach walked with God"; Noach knew which to choose. Initially, however, one is expected to fulfill both: to be pleasing to the Omnipresent and pleasing to people. So too here: one must fear Hashem and also fear the king, but the fear of Hashem takes precedence.
Rashi explains "shonim" as stemming from the word *shenayim* (two) - referring to those who claim there are two sovereign domains: one authority that is the evil power in creation, and a second authority that is, as it were, the good deity. With these - do not mingle, meaning do not become associated with their ideas.
The Malbim explains: "Fear Hashem" applies to matters of religion and divine service; "and the king" applies to matters of law and governance of the people, as it is written: "A king by justice establishes the land." A person is obligated to have awe of the government, for were it not for the fear of the government, people would swallow one another alive. Even when Moshe and Aharon approached Pharaoh, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moshe to show respect to royalty. The significance of this is that there is immense value in the existence of a government, even an evil regime - for government is always preferable to anarchy. Anyone who harbored doubts about this need only look at what has occurred in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. When a government exists, even if the ruler is a tyrant and a despot, someone is still holding the reins; but when there is no government - "every beast of the forest creeps forth," all the wild beasts emerge from their dens, and the land descends into chaos.
Based on this, the Malbim explains "do not mingle with *shonim*": do not associate with those who seek to change (*leshanot*) the government, to topple the monarchy, to rebel against the king, and to institute in its place an alternative regime different from the first. Why? Because doing so contradicts "Fear Hashem." It is Hashem who commanded you to fear the king, and when you seek to overthrow the monarchy, you are effectively lacking fear of Hashem, since you are disobeying His command.
An additional explanation may be offered: Rabbeinu Yonah writes that there is a person who stumbles into sin, and afterward humbles himself and repents, regretting his deeds and resolving not to return to his foolishness - his sin is before his eyes and he does not repeat it, knowing that it is a pit into which he has already fallen and into which he will not fall again. Fortunate are they, and fortunate is their portion! In contrast, there are those who stumble into sin, and continue on carelessly and fall once again, in the manner of "I have eaten, and I will eat again" spoken by Adam HaRishon. Such people are deeply problematic, for they entrench themselves in sin; once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes to him as if permitted, and afterward it will be exceptionally difficult for him to overcome it. According to this: the verse did not tell you to distance yourself from people who stumbled into sin, for we too are not righteous and sometimes stumble; but "with repeaters" - those who repeat their sin - do not mingle, and keep your distance from them, for they are entrenched in sin and their chances of rectifying are slim.
Another explanation: there are people who retract their words. A person says one thing, and then says another; there is no consistency in them and no loyalty. Such a person comes and asks you to co-sign a loan for him - and tomorrow, when a problem arises, he will suddenly hold a different stance, and you will be the one required to pay. "Do not mingle with those who change" - do not become a guarantor for his loan, for today he is one way and tomorrow he changes his spots.
כִּי פִתְאֹם יָקוּם אֵידָם, וּפִיד שְׁנֵיהֶם מִי יוֹדֵעַ׃ - For suddenly their calamity will arise, and who knows the ruin of them both?
This is a continuation of the preceding verse. Why should one not associate with those seeking to change the monarchy? The Malbim explains: "For suddenly their calamity will arise." The rebels' conspiracy will be exposed - and a conspiracy is almost always exposed - and then their ruin will come suddenly. The word eid denotes ruin, as in "gloating over one's downfall" (same'ach le-eido), over his ruin. In a single moment, you will see how they are all eliminated. So it was in the days of Stalin, who, whenever he suspected a conspiracy against him, conducted purges of hundreds of thousands.
Furthermore: even if the rebellion succeeds and the leadership changes - "and who knows the ruin of them both," who knows what the outcome of the upheaval will be and what destruction will follow in its wake. How many cases do we know where people were convinced that changing the leadership would solve everything? So it was in the Palestinian Authority: they grew sick of the PLO and brought in Hamas - bringing upon themselves a Gaza that remains shattered to this day, having never recovered from Operation Protective Edge. So it was in Lebanon: there was a pre-Nasrallah leader whom the State of Israel eliminated because he was problematic and caused trouble, and in his place, instead of a poodle we received a Rottweiler - a biting, screaming Nasrallah with whom, to this day, no one knows how to cope. Time and again leadership was replaced under the impression that everything would now be fine, only for the new leadership to prove far worse. So it was in the days of Lenin and Stalin: they were convinced of the brotherhood of nations, that the workers of the world would unite, heralding communism and equality and ending the rule of the Tsar - and afterward people began to yearn for the Tsar's reign, while the new regime racked up fifty million dead. A revolution does not necessarily produce good things. And the Malbim adds: they will establish leadership as they see fit, to oppress, plunder, and crush the people - for now they have a mandate, and with that mandate they will squeeze the very life out of the nation.
Rashi likewise interprets pid as an expression of destruction. And according to his approach - that "do not mingle with those who change" refers to those who claim there are two divine authorities, namely idolatry - the reason is that you do not know when their calamity will suddenly arise, and "who knows the ruin of them both," the destruction of both the idol and those who worship it, as this destruction is swift.
The Vilna Gaon adds an important point: do not say, "I will go along with them, and when I see the ship rocking I will jump off; when I see the plane sputtering I will parachute out." That is not how it works. Know that their calamity will strike suddenly - you will not have time to abandon ship before finding yourself drowning with them, and you will not have time to jump from the plane before finding yourself exploding with them. Therefore, do not associate with corrupt people, for there is no guarantee that when you wish to leave, an exit will be available to you, as their ruin may arrive in an instant.
גַּם אֵלֶּה לַחֲכָמִים, הַכֵּר פָּנִים בְּמִשְׁפָּט בַּל טוֹב׃ - These also belong to the wise: To show partiality in judgment is not good.
There are two interpretations here. Rashi explains: all the matters you will see in the section that follows are addressed to the sages who sit in judgment, serving as warnings to them - not to show partiality in judgment, for showing partiality in judgment is not good.
However, the Vilna Gaon, followed along this line by the Malbim, offers an original explanation. The Men of the Great Assembly arranged the Tanach. In Tehillim, most of which was composed by King David through Ruach HaKodesh, they also arranged psalms composed by other poets, noting at the head of each chapter who authored it: "A Psalm of Asaph," "A Prayer of Moshe," "A Maskil of Eitan HaEzrachi," and the like. So too in Mishlei: they gathered within it all matters of wisdom and mussar pertaining to the service of Hashem, and at the end of the book they also included teachings from other sages - "The words of Agur the son of Yakeh," "The words of Lemuel." While Chazal taught that Agur and Lemuel are names for Shlomo, according to the plain meaning this is not necessarily so; according to the Vilna Gaon, these were other sages whose words were compiled within a book dedicated to words of wisdom - a book whose primary core and distinction is Shlomo, yet alongside it the words of other sages were added. Therefore, here as well, when introducing teachings not authored by Shlomo, the text prefaces: "These also belong to the wise" - sages composed them through Ruach HaKodesh; and later it resumes with "These also are the proverbs of Shlomo," returning to Shlomo's words after the interlude.
The Vilna Gaon asks: Seemingly, there is no special wisdom here at all. You announced, "These also belong to the wise," so we listened to hear the words of the sages - and what did they say? That it is not good to show partiality in judgment, meaning to judge not according to the truth but based on personal familiarity and interests. Is this profound wisdom? Even young schoolchildren know that the Torah explicitly states, "You shall not show partiality in judgment." Where, then, is their wisdom?
Another difficulty: the phrasing "is not good" (*bal tov*) seems far too understated. Someone who shows partiality in judgment perverts justice; he is wicked, and the harshest terms could be used to describe him. It is like saying that being a member of the mafia and murdering people "is not good." Is the entire severity of showing partiality in judgment merely that it is not good?
The Gra answers: The sages did not come to teach us that this act is negative or forbidden - that is already written explicitly in the Torah. Rather, they came to teach us that one who shows partiality in judgment brings negative repercussions upon the entire world: all the divine abundance and goodness meant to descend into the world - he blocks them. This is the meaning of "not good" (*bal tov*) - goodness will cease to exist in the world. As the Gemara states: Once those who showed partiality in judgment multiplied, the yoke of Heaven was cast off, and the yoke of earthly kings was placed upon them. Goodness departed from the world. A judge might think he committed a private misdeed, a personal transgression between himself and Hashem - but that is not so: through your actions, you withhold good from the entire world. Indeed, this is how foreign nations gained dominion and the Jewish people suffered - from what? From partiality being shown in judgment. This insight adds immense depth to what is written in the Torah.
אֹמֵר לְרָשָׁע צַדִּיק אָתָּה, יִקְּבֻהוּ עַמִּים יִזְעָמוּהוּ לְאֻמִּים׃ - "He who says to the wicked, 'You are righteous,' peoples will curse him, nations will despise him."
The Malbim connects this verse to the preceding one, grappling with the same difficulties raised by the Gra. Therefore, he explains: "Showing partiality in judgment is not good" is not referring to favoring a wicked person. That a judge would see a wicked person before him, show him favor, and acquit the guilty party - heaven forbid, no proper judge does such things. Rather, it speaks of someone who says: "I know this litigant personally; he is decent and upright." For example, if they had lived in the same generation - to make an extreme contrast - imagine Al Capone taking the Chofetz Chaim to court. Who is telling the truth? Regarding the factual details of the case, I have no clear proofs, but I show partiality in judgment and say: "Al Capone versus the Chofetz Chaim? Be serious! Here is someone who spent his entire life being meticulous never to utter a lie and never to speak lashon hara about anyone, observing every minute detail - surely he is the one speaking the truth, not his opponent." I do not investigate the matter thoroughly, I do not examine the evidence - I simply vindicate the tzaddik. It is not that Al Capone bribed me; I vindicated the Chofetz Chaim simply because I already know he is a righteous, upright man.
Regarding this, the sages declare: even such partiality, justifying the tzaddik merely based on his presumed righteousness, "is not good." Why? Because we have an established rule: "When litigants stand before you, let them be in your eyes like wicked people." Even the Chofetz Chaim - the moment he stands before you in a din Torah, from your perspective as a judge he must be viewed as suspect, and capable of wrongdoing; and the same applies to his opponent.
It is told that two prominent philanthropists once came before one of the great Torah leaders. Whenever they visited him in the past, he would accord them great honor and treat them with deep respect - just as the Gemara says that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi would honor the wealthy, and it is fitting to honor them, for Hashem made them vessels for abundance and blessing. One day, they scheduled a time with him for a din Torah. They entered, and the Rav was wrapped in his tallis, showing them no special favor at all. He said sternly, "Yaakov, stand and present your case." No *shalom aleichem*, no handshake, no demonstration of honor. When Yaakov finished, the Rav said, "Yitzchak, stand and present your case." Both men, accustomed to being treated with great reverence by the Rav, felt somewhat hurt: why was the Rav suddenly treating them so coldly? When the hearing concluded, the Rav issued his ruling and asked, "Do you accept the verdict upon yourselves?" They replied, "Yes, whatever the Rav says, we accept." They signed, and the matter was finalized. Immediately, the Rav pushed his tallis back, rose before Yaakov, shook his hand warmly, and said, "Shalom, Yaakov! How are you?" He did the same with Yitzchak, conversing with them with great affection and warmth. They asked him, "Rebbe, what changed?" He answered, "Did you not learn the Mishnah in Avos? 'When litigants stand before you, let them be in your eyes like wicked people.' Is that how one greets a wicked person, with a warm *shalom aleichem* and pleasantries? A wicked person is received coldly, which is why I acted that way toward you. But now that the judgment is over, the Mishnah continues: 'And when they depart from before you, let them be in your eyes like righteous people,' for they have accepted the judgment, and both of you are righteous."
This is what the sages meant by "Showing partiality in judgment is not good" - it is not good to show favor in judgment even if the person is known to be a tzaddik, because you are obligated to view the litigants as wicked. All the more so does this apply to the next verse: if showing partiality to a tzaddik, who is ninety-nine point nine percent likely in the right, is considered "not good," then "He who says to the wicked, 'You are righteous'" is an outrage beyond words. Such a person, "Peoples will curse him, nations will despise him."
The Malbim explains, as we have already seen several times: "Peoples shall curse him" - for destroying the foundations of justice and law; "nations shall revile him" - for erasing and undermining religion. For a le'om (faith-nation) is distinguished by a specific religion, whereas an am (nation) is distinguished by a specific legal system. A group of people united by common laws is called an am; a group distinguished by a particular faith and the worship of a particular deity is called a le'om. This is the meaning of "and one nation shall be stronger than the other" (Bereishis 25:23) - that each was distinct in its faith, one becoming Christian and the other Jewish.
Accordingly, when we speak of le'umim, we speak of the Christian world, the Muslim nations, the peoples of the Far East, and so forth. But when we speak of amim, we speak of groups united under a single legal system: Europe can be divided into dozens of countries - Poland, Germany, Turkey, and the other nations of the European Union - each with its own laws. In terms of faith, Turkey is not grouped with the others, as they are Muslim, especially in the era of Erdogan who seeks to restore Islam to prominence; but the other nations of Europe, which are considered Christian, have no religious division between them, and only their legal systems differentiate them.
Therefore, "peoples shall curse him" - nations will curse him because he destroys the rule of law. A judge who adjudicates a case and tells the wicked person that he is righteous perverts the law and justice. How can a state governed by the rule of law exist when its justice system is perverted and crooked? That is not a state of law, but a laughingstock. This reality is familiar to us as well: we have the High Court of Justice, where everything is deemed "justiciable," and miraculously, almost all rulings turn out against religion. People speak of how "a judge has only the law before him" and "there are judges in Jerusalem," as Menachem Begin famously declared - though he surely never envisioned judges such as these. When reviewing the rulings, one finds unfathomable verdicts, distortion and falsehood that are difficult to witness indifferently. Someone once remarked about the High Court of Justice that the only *tzedek* (justice / Jupiter) there is the planet Jupiter. Their true leanings become apparent shortly thereafter: the decisions of Mr. Aharon Barak were consistently in favor of the Reform movement and against Orthodox Judaism, and somehow, at the conclusion of his tenure, he was granted an award of honor from the Reform movement - as one affiliated with it, who values its work and supports it. This is the meaning of "and our enemies are judges" (Devarim 32:31): in Arabic, a palil is a judge - who has become our judges? Our enemies, the adversaries of Judaism, are the ones deciding matters in which the fate of Judaism hangs in the balance. Today, one could add an additional meaning: that they themselves face criminal accusations (*pelilim*), as all the rot in the State Attorney's Office and the police, all the various scandals, all the mire is beginning to float to the surface.
"Nations shall revile him" - because the perversion of justice brings about the destruction of religion, for no religion permits distortion, falsehood, and injustice. The Malbim explains that za'am (wrath) refers to the punishment that follows the curse: the articulation (*nekivah*) is the curse itself - the root *nokev* meaning to specify or articulate, as in *nokev shem Hashem* (one who pronounces the Divine Name) - while *za'am* is the punishment that follows it. Similarly, "How shall I curse whom God has not cursed, and how shall I defy whom the Lord has not defied?" (Bamidbar 23:8) - *ekov* refers to articulating and detailing the curse, while *ez'om* is the actual consequence of that curse, the fury and wrath with which one is stricken in its wake.
We have learned that fear of Hashem precedes fear of the king, yet one must not treat respect for authority lightly, for any government is preferable to anarchy. Hence the warning not to associate with dissenters (*shonim*) - those who seek to overthrow the leadership, those who repeat their sins, and those who lack stability and loyalty - for "their calamity will rise suddenly," and ruin strikes all at once leaving no time to escape; and even if the change succeeds, "who knows the ruin of both of them," who knows what devastation it will leave behind. In the second part of the passage, we learned from the words of the Sages that "to show favoritism in judgment is not good" - not only is this an explicit biblical prohibition, but it also withholds good from the entire world. Even showing favoritism to a righteous person is forbidden, for the litigants must appear as wicked in the eyes of the judge while standing before him, and as righteous once they have departed. How much more so does this apply to one who says to the wicked, "You are righteous," who destroys the foundations of law and undermines the pillars of religion; therefore, peoples will curse him, and nations will revile him.