Introduction: Between Rebuke and Flattery
The two pesukim before us in Chapter 28 deal with a single theme: the difference between one who speaks the truth to his fellow, even when it is unpleasant, and one who uses a "flattering tongue," telling everyone whatever they find pleasant to hear. The first pasuk establishes the rule, while the second pasuk - as the Malbim will explain - provides its most incisive parable.
מוֹכִיחַ אָדָם אַחֲרַי חֵן יִמְצָא מִמַּחֲלִיק לָשׁוֹן׃ (כח, כג) - "He who rebukes a man will afterward find favor, more than one with a flattering tongue."
Two Textual Variants in the Pasuk
Before delving into the explanation, we must note that here, too, there are two textual variants, as cited by the Minchat Shai. Some read acharai with a patach under the resh ("after Me"), while others read acharei with a tzeirei under the resh ("afterward"). Indeed, we find that the commentators offer explanations according to both approaches, indicating that one commentator had this version while another had the other. The Minchat Shai notes that in the large Tanach editions it appears as acharei with a tzeirei, and in ancient manuscripts from Spain it was originally written this way as well, though later the tzeirei was changed to a patach - and who can know which is correct, the earlier or the later text.
Rashi: Rebuke Finds Favor Over Time
From Rashi's commentary, it is evident that he read acharei. One who rebukes a person for sins in his hand and steers him away from wrongdoing - "afterward," with the passage of time, he will find favor in his eyes far more than someone who flatters him. The Vilna Gaon (Gra) elaborates on this: one who rebukes his fellow creates, at first, a semblance of friction. "You are not acting lawfully, you are not acting properly, what you are doing is a sin" - this creates confrontation. To be sure, one must rebuke in an upright and proper manner, in a way that can be accepted; yet in the initial moment, it feels as though you have come to criticize him, to seek faults, to wish him ill. However, "afterward" - in the long run - he will find favor. Instead of causing hatred, this rebuke will ultimately foster greater love, because in time he will realize that what was told to him was for his own good. He will see that those who did the opposite, who seemingly had an easier time, were ultimately harmed. He will then say: how fortunate that so-and-so rebuked me; how fortunate that so-and-so told me the truth.
The Classic Example: Our Children
Perhaps the clearest example of this is children. A child is called a na'ar (youth), which relates to mitna'er - seeking to shake off all responsibility (and at times like a braying donkey, no'er, though simply speaking it means shaking off restraint). It always seems to him that his father, his parents, his teachers, the mashgiach in yeshiva - everyone wants to restrict him. Here they tell him not to go out, there not to travel, there you cannot. He lives with the feeling that they are constricting him and not allowing him to do whatever he pleases, and sometimes he develops resentment and hostility from this, and at times, tragically, even strays from the path. Yet when he matures, he says: how fortunate that my father said no back then; how fortunate that the yeshiva did not agree; how fortunate that the mashgiach prevented it entirely. In the moment it is unpleasant, because he is being restricted - but "he who rebukes a man will afterward find favor."
In contrast, the "flatterer" is the exact opposite: the one who tells you, "Everything is fine, you can do whatever you like, just go with the flow," presenting himself as open-minded and understanding. Then the person experiences downfalls and deterioration, and later searches for a way out and how to break free of bad habits - because there was no one to set boundaries for him in time. Often, the very person who seemed good to him, who did not restrict him, who was understanding and indulged him - is the one he curses in the end: "It is solely because of him that I am suffering now; had he put me in my place back then, had he warned me of the dangers, had he told me what I was heading into - I never would have approached it." Thus we find that the rebuke, though unpleasant in the moment, "afterward" finds favor, while the flatterer who was pleasant back then proves to have caused immense damage.
The Midrash: Moshe Versus Bil'am
Rashi cites another homiletical teaching from Bereishit Rabbah. Chazal establish a rule: wherever acharei is used, it denotes a distant time, whereas achar denotes proximity. "And it came to pass after (achar) these things" implies immediately adjacent, whereas acharei indicates a substantial distance. The Midrash expounds: "He who rebukes a man after Me" - this refers to Moshe, who rebuked Israel after the Holy One, Blessed be He; and Israel are called adam (man), as it says, "You are called adam." And what is written concerning Moshe? "For you have found favor in My sight." "More than one with a flattering tongue" - this refers to Bil'am, who spoke pleasing words to Israel: "How goodly are your tents, Yaakov, your dwelling places, Yisrael" - how wonderful, how beautiful! In contrast, Moshe Rabbeinu tells us, "Take heed to yourselves lest your heart be enticed," "And the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will shut up the heavens," "You shall surely perish" - harsh words, sharp rebuke. And yet, he is the one who finds favor.
This is the concept of "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but profuse are the kisses of an enemy" - the Midrash says: It was concerning them that Shlomo cried out, regarding Moshe versus Bil'am, lehavdil. Moshe spoke to us words as harsh as sinews, and these are the wounds of a friend; whereas Bil'am spoke pleasant and sweet words - and what was their ultimate outcome? Chazal tell us that all those blessings Bil'am spoke were overturned into a curse against Israel, because they were uttered with an evil heart and malicious intent. Even though he used smooth speech and flattered us, we see that his words caused damage.
The Ibn Ezra: "Acharaï" - Following My Commandments
The Ibn Ezra vocalized the word as acharaï (with a patach, meaning "after Me"), and explained: One who rebukes a person to follow My commandments - that is, rebuking people to walk after Me - "will find favor," finding favor in the eyes of all who behold him.
The Gra: People Respect a Person of Truth
The Gra explains: One who rebukes a person, even if he enters into conflict with him, will ultimately find favor. Why? Because the truth is that even when people dislike having harsh truths spoken to them, they respect a person of truth. When someone sees that your words stem from genuine truth, rather than from a desire to criticize or from double standards - where you act that way yourself yet rebuke him for it, making him feel you are merely "out to get him" - then in the end, you will find favor.
By contrast, when people recognize that someone is speaking not from truth but from flattery, it is repulsive, and people are disgusted by it. Why? Because you see a person who is constantly trying to curry favor with you, always searching for words that will be pleasant to your ears. What do we call such a person? A politician - the craft of falsehood. What will he say? Whatever you want to hear. If he appears on an Arabic radio station, he will practically put on a keffiyeh, and if he speaks on a Charedi station, you can be sure he talks as if he wears a shtreimel - going by words alone; and since talk is cheap, he dispenses it freely. Yet if he appears before an audience with an entirely opposite agenda, suddenly he turns hawkish and aggressive. Who is he really? A chameleon, constantly changing colors. Does anyone respect such a person? On the contrary, he is despised.
Notice an interesting phenomenon: one who constantly seeks our approval is naturally disdained, whereas one who stands by his truth is respected. When someone is constantly begging for approval and seeking to ingratiate himself, it gives the impression that he lacks a backbone: he has no truth of his own, no consistent principle, no defined path in life. He does everything merely to be appreciated or praised, and has no problem taking contradictory stances so long as he hears a flattering word. This breeds contempt. In contrast, when dealing with a person of genuine conviction - even if he occasionally steps on our toes, even if something about him rubs us the wrong way - we respect him, because what he does stems from an inner truth.
There are people, including quite a few journalists, who write about Satmar with respect - not because they have become religious, but because they recognize: these people have a principle, and they follow it to the end. "I do not recognize the State" - and therefore, they take not a single shekel from it, permit no interference in their curricula, and allow no state regulation. One may disagree with that position, but one cannot help but respect it, because respect is given to someone who holds a conviction, follows it through to the end, and is willing to sacrifice for it. But if someone were to say, "I do not recognize the State, so I will not pay taxes," yet when it comes to taking government stipends he suddenly recognizes it - decide: do you recognize it or not? When a person acts with such contradictions, it breeds a lack of respect toward him.
This is what the Gra means: One who rebukes his fellow, even if he clashes with him, will ultimately find favor and be loved, because he guides him along an upright path. For people love a person who speaks the truth from his heart far more than a smooth-talker who flatters everyone. The flatterer earns no respect; no one trusts him and no one loves him, for people say of him: he is spineless, an opportunist, a person who always tries to appease everyone. Surely that is neither a valid path nor proper leadership.
A Caveat: Words That Will Not Be Heeded
It should be noted: Shlomo HaMelech certainly did not mean that one should go and rebuke someone who will not accept rebuke. When dealing with someone who refuses to accept rebuke, reproof will often only cause harm, stirring up antagonism, hatred, and resentment. Shlomo does not come to override the fundamental rule that just as it is a mitzvah to say that which will be heeded, so too is it a mitzvah to refrain from saying that which will not be heeded. This is why the example was given regarding children, whose upbringing is entrusted to us, where this conflict is vividly seen: on the one hand, a parent wants what is best for the child, wanting him to love his parents and his home and feel good; on the other hand, there are times when one must set boundaries, halt, and say no to the child - because giving in will only cause harm and ruin.
The child comes and says: "Abba, I want an iPhone." And you know that this can be spiritual ruin. "But everyone has one!" First of all, the problem begins with the parent: why send him to a place where everyone has one? Send him to a place where they do not, and he will not come with such complaints. And even if he was already sent to such a place, where it is hard for a child not to stumble - beyond that, merely because he is already there, should a parent feed his child poison? It may be very hard for him right now, but when he matures a bit and looks around at the addiction - and it is truly a terrible addiction - he will understand. It has already been noted that some 70% of teenagers surveyed said they would rather lose a finger than have their smartphone taken away; in truth, it is likely closer to 90%, for the moment you come to take the device away, the teenager might say: "Take four fingers, just leave me the phone and one finger to scroll!" The reality is that people fall into terrible addictions; and when he matures and gains better judgment, he will understand how good it was that his father spared him from that addiction. If someone cannot grasp this regarding a smartphone, would he understand it regarding drugs? There are people for whom one bears responsibility, and one must apply the brakes wherever necessary, even when it is unpleasant. Moshe Rabbeinu, too, spoke very harsh words, but "afterward" - in the end, he found favor, because everyone ultimately recognized that whatever he rebuked and whatever he said was purely for their own good.
The Malbim: The Young Scholar, Yirmeyahu, and the False Prophets
The Malbim explains that it is human nature not to be fond of someone who rebukes them. People much prefer someone who constantly tells them how good they are, how decent they are, and how upright their actions are. Yet this in itself is a negative sign, as Chazal said: "If a young Torah scholar is loved by the people of his town, it is because he does not rebuke them regarding matters of Heaven" - a talmid chacham whom all the townspeople love is likely beloved because he does not admonish them in spiritual matters. That is, when anyone approaches you and you tell him, "That is fine, that is good, no problem, excellent" - like the rabbi to whom a man came with a claim, and the rabbi said, "You are right," and then another man came and argued the exact opposite, and the rabbi said, "You are also right," and the rabbi's wife said, "How can that be? You told this one he is right, and you told that one he is right!" and he replied, "You are also right." Baruch Hashem, "and Your people are all righteous." Such a person merely seeks to curry favor with everyone.
It turns out, therefore, that the flatterer finds favor in the eyes of people more than the one who rebukes - but that is only at the beginning. Later, when calamity strikes and the damage is done, people realize that Yirmeyahu, who spoke the harshest words and delivered dreadful prophecies, was actually the one who loved us and sought our good. Meanwhile, the false prophets, who constantly said, "We have a wonderful nation, our youth are amazing, and do not worry, the Holy One, blessed be He, will not destroy the Beit HaMikdash - it is His house, why would He destroy it? Nor will He exile Israel; just as Nevuchadnezzar came, so will he leave, and the vessels taken from the Beit HaMikdash will return" - all of this was vanity. They always preferred to tell the people only pleasant, reassuring things, like the media that constantly reports how everything is fine, urging people not to rock the boat or stir up trouble. At first this finds favor, but later, when left facing ruin, when exile and tragedy arrive, one curses the person who soothed him and led him to this state. For had he given warning in advance and sounded the alarm properly, one would have been vigilant and guarded oneself. And this is the meaning of "afterward" - at the conclusion of the matter, in the end, the one who rebukes will find more favor than the flatterer.
גּוֹזֵל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְאֹמֵר אֵין־פָּשַׁע חָבֵר הוּא לְאִישׁ מַשְׁחִית׃ (כח, כד) - One who robs his father or his mother and says, "There is no transgression," is a companion to a destructive man. (28:24)
Rashi: Robbing the Holy One, Blessed be He, and the Congregation of Israel
Rashi cites the homiletic teaching of Chazal: "One who robs his father" - this refers to the Holy One, blessed be He; "and his mother" - this refers to the Congregation of Israel (Knesset Yisrael). How does he rob them? By causing the public to sin; for then he robs the Holy One, blessed be He, and also robs His children. For the Holy One, blessed be He, granted man what is in the world only after a blessing: before the blessing, everything in heaven and on earth belongs to Hashem, and after the blessing, "The heavens are the heavens of Hashem, but the earth He gave to the children of men." Thus, one who takes and eats without a berachah robs the Holy One, blessed be He, and also Knesset Yisrael, by withholding abundance from them. However, Rashi does not interpret this regarding a berachah, but regarding one who causes the public to sin: he robs the Holy One, blessed be He, and separates His children from Him. And who is the "destructive man"? Rashi says: this is Yarov'am, who acted this way - he caused the public to sin, robbed the Holy One, blessed be He, of His children, and robbed the Jewish people of the goodness of connection to the Holy One, blessed be He, and ultimately this robbery led to exile.
The Gra: "From Whom Did I Take? From My Father"
The Gra asks: Why does he say, "There is no transgression"? Because he says to himself: "From whom did I take? From my father and mother. It will all be mine eventually anyway, so there is no sin here." He feels like the master of the house already, inheriting them during their lifetime, and assumes he is entitled to take. This is an awful attitude. One might recall a childhood experience of innocence and surprise: visiting a friend who wanted to go buy ice cream. When asked, "No problem, but where is the money coming from?" the friend replied, "No problem." He went right into his mother's purse and took out - in today's terms, say, twenty or thirty shekels - without her seeing, and walked out. The shock felt at that moment is unforgettable: how can someone simply open his mother's purse and take money without permission? Later, as one grows up and loses that innocence, one realizes that such things happen, and worse. But in any case, this is the mentality of "there is no transgression": he would never enter a neighbor's house to steal twenty shekels, but from his mother's purse - "It is my mother's, it belongs to the house, it is ours"; I took from my father, so there is no wrong in my hands.
The Gra: What Is a "Destructive Man"?
And what is the meaning of "he is a companion to a destructive man"? We find this expression in connection with an adulterer: "He who commits adultery with a woman lacks heart; he who destroys his own soul does so." Thus, who is defined as destructive? One who commits adultery. And what is the connection between one who robs his father and mother and an adulterer? The Gra explains: The Gemara says that anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing is as if he robbed his father and mother. And note: "A bride without a blessing is forbidden like a niddah." Being with a niddah is a sin punishable by karet, Heaven spare us, and one who violates a prohibition carrying karet destroys his soul - his soul is severed from its supernal roots. This is the meaning of the verse: one who robs his father and mother and says there is no transgression, this person who eats without a berachah, is a companion to a destructive man, just like one who sleeps with an unmarried woman outside of wedlock.
And what is meant by one who lies with an unmarried woman? It is without a blessing - there is no marriage blessing, and he did not bring her under the chuppah. Yet he says to himself: "What did I do? After all, she is not a married woman, but unmarried!" Concerning such a person, Scripture says he "lacks heart," and he is a "destructive man" - for a bride without a blessing is forbidden to her husband like a niddah, and one who has relations with a niddah destroys his soul and is severed from his supernal root. It turns out that one who has relations with a woman without a berachah is literally a destructive man. Therefore, one who robs his father and mother, who is like one who eats without a blessing, is likened to one who lies with an unmarried woman without a berachah, and is defined as destroying his soul. According to the Gra, it is very possible that the entire verse is speaking about a bride without a blessing; for from the fact that it is said, "Anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing," it implies that the Gra interprets even this Gemara not regarding eating fruit without a berachah, but regarding marrying a woman: one who is with her without a berachah - without the Sheva Berachot - is regarded as a companion to a destructive man, destroying his own soul as if he had relations with a niddah.
A Companion to Yarov'am ben Nevat
Our Sages say: He is a companion to Yeravam ben Nevat, who also robbed his father and his mother. The Holy One, blessed be He, is called Father - and what happened to the Father? His children were exiled. And Knesset Yisrael, the holy Shechinah, is called Mother, as it is stated, "and through your transgressions was your mother sent away."
This concept also appears in Kabbalah. We refer to the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shechinah in terms of male and female aspects (decura and nukva) - not that, Heaven forbid, such physical concepts exist in the Divine, but rather this refers to the levels of the Sefirot, as previously explained at length. "The Holy One, blessed be He" corresponds in the Sefirot to the Partzuf of Ze'eir Anpin, the dimension of the six Sefirot: Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, and Yesod - this is the male aspect. "And His Shechinah" is the nukva, the female aspect, the Sefirah of Malchut, which is the holy Shechinah. When we say "Leshem Yichud" (for the sake of unity), the intention is union, meaning the flow of divine influence from the higher attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He (the male aspect), to the nukva (Malchut), and this divine flow brings forth results, channeling abundance into our lower world. Thus, he is a companion to Yeravam ben Nevat, who robbed the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shechinah - the Holy One, blessed be He, who is called our Father, and the holy Shechinah, who is called our Mother.
Ralbag: The Habit of Theft
The Ralbag explains: This person, who steals thinking that everything will be his eventually anyway, is a companion to a destructive person - because he will become accustomed to stealing, and that is the most terrible outcome of all. When a person becomes accustomed to committing a sin, boundaries disappear; you cannot say, "That was my parents, but this is a stranger." Once you become accustomed to stealing, tomorrow it will be someone else, not only one's parents. Then "he is a companion to a destructive man," meaning that this person will corrupt others through his actions and rob them; and by the very act of robbing them, he ruins them.
The Malbim: The Verse as a Continuation of the Flatterer
The Malbim explains that this verse is a continuation of the previous one. There we saw, "He who rebukes a man will afterward find more favor than he who flatters with the tongue," and here a parable is given for the flatterer. What is the parable? A person who robs his father and mother, which is the most abominable act: it involves robbery, which is inherently wrongful, and moreover, it is taken from his father and mother, toward whom he should have felt gratitude, and whom he should have honored and protected their property - yet he went and robbed them. Robbery in itself is severe, and robbing one's parents is seven times more severe. And the Malbim says: know that this is the nature of the flatterer - even regarding one who robs his father and mother, he says, "There is no sin."
This is truly profound, as it directly continues the previous verse. What is a smooth-tongued flatterer? Someone who, with smooth speech, tells you: "No, it is fine; whatever you do is fine, it is permissible, there is no issue with it." Such a person is capable of saying "There is no sin" even about someone who robs his father and mother. He speaks smoothly, glossing over even the most severe transgressions, telling you: "There is no crime, it is fine, what you did is not so terrible." And this smooth-tongued flatterer - he is a companion to a destructive man. He is a partner to the robber who has corrupted his way, because by encouraging you, he becomes your partner; by offering praise and smooth words, he encourages you to persist in these deeds, thereby becoming a full partner in everything you have done.
The Malbim further adds: He is a companion to the destroyer that comes to destroy the sinner and exact his punishment. That is, not only are you a companion to this sinner, but you are also linked to the destroying angel that will come to exact retribution from him - that same destroying angel will pay you a visit as well. Simply put: whoever exacts retribution from the robber will also exact retribution from the one who flatters him and tells him, "Your deeds are proper," and will punish him as well. For this person caused his fellow to incur punishment, so how could he possibly go free without retribution?
In summary:
The two verses teach us a single truth from different angles. "He who rebukes a man will afterward find more favor than he who flatters with the tongue" - rebuke is difficult at first and may appear hostile, but in time it becomes clear that the one who rebukes is the true friend: so it was with Moshe compared to Bil'am, with Yirmeyahu compared to the false prophets, and with a parent who sets boundaries for their child. People ultimately respect a person of truth who stays faithful to his path to the end, while holding in contempt the smooth-tongued flatterer who always seeks to curry favor. And "Whoever robs his father or his mother and says, 'It is no transgression'" is the concluding parable: this is the sinner who justifies his own wrongdoing, and it is also the flatterer who declares "There is no sin" even regarding the gravest of offenses - and in the end, he is a companion and partner to a destructive man, and retribution will be exacted from the flatterer just as it is exacted from the sinner himself.