Introduction
Chapter 29 of the Book of Mishlei opens with three major focal points: the person who refuses to accept rebuke and refuses to accept suffering, the distinction between the rule of the righteous and the rule of the wicked, and the contrast between the love of wisdom and the love of base desire. We will follow the order of the verses, accompanied by the explanations of the Vilna Gaon, the Ralbag, and the Malbim, and through them delve into the teachings of Chazal and the ethical insights derived from them.
Verse 1: A Man of Rebukes Who Stiffens His Neck
אִישׁ תּוֹכָחוֹת מַקְשֶׁה־עֹרֶף, פֶּתַע יִשָּׁבֵר וְאֵין מַרְפֵּא. - A man of rebukes who stiffens his neck shall suddenly be broken, and there is no healing.
The Vilna Gaon explains: "A man of rebukes" is someone who is repeatedly rebuked, yet not only is he unmoved by the rebuke, he further stiffens his neck and continues on his way. Why is this called stiff-neckedness? When a person is walking along a certain path and someone calls out from behind him, "Hey, you are mistaken!" a flexible person turns his head to see who is calling and what they want. The stiff-necked person does not turn his head at all; his neck lacks the flexibility to look to the sides and re-examine his path, but instead he marches straight ahead, what we would call today banging his head against a wall.
Corresponding to this, the verse states: "He shall suddenly be broken." What does "suddenly" mean? A sudden fracture. And the Vilna Gaon notes: a break that does not come at the hands of an enemy, and therefore has no cure. These concepts correspond directly: because you are unwilling to listen, your downfall will arrive suddenly. Had he listened to rebuke, he would have guarded himself, taken precautions, and examined his way, and people would have warned him: "Watch out, you are facing an obstacle, you are about to fall." But since he does not listen, he marches on and suddenly collapses. And corresponding to the stiffened neck, it is said: "And there is no healing" - an affliction that does not turn right or left, remaining in its diseased state permanently.
The Ralbag adds that there is a measure-for-measure dynamic here: he did not wish to be healed - meaning, to rectify his actions - and the more he was struck, the further he rebelled. Therefore, an evil will befall him from which he will never be able to recover.
Two Paths of Rectification According to the Malbim
The Malbim elaborates further. A person returns from sin in one of two ways: either through rebuke or through suffering. Rebuke is an intellectual debate, in which it is logically demonstrated to him that his path is erroneous and his direction is wrong, and by force of reason he repents. But there is a person who is an "ish tochachot" - an argumentative man. One of those people who, whatever you tell them, will always respond, "Yes, but on the other hand..." He always has a counterargument, he is always disputing, you cannot make any headway with him, and it is impossible to convince him or talk to him. Whether his claims have substance or not, he will refute any proof you bring. For such a person, rebuke is entirely ineffective.
Even so, the Malbim explains, he still has a remedy: through the power of suffering. Afflictions will come upon him, he will witness the punishment, and he will repent. Just as the body is healed through bitter remedies, so the soul is healed through suffering. But what happens if he is also "stiffening his neck"? Suffering comes and has no effect on him; he is struck and yet persists in his stubbornness. It turns out that he cannot be convinced by intellectual argument, nor can he be chastised into repenting. Of such an individual it is said, "He shall suddenly be broken, and there is no healing" - there is no longer any purpose in continuing to afflict him, and therefore Heaven takes him away, and his soul finds no remedy.
A Little Stomachache
Rav Yaakov Galinsky related: I once lived next door to a heretic, a defiant one. The kind of person who always acted out of spite, raising objections and asking questions: "Why are you religious people like this?" and "Why do you do that?" Everything I tried to convince him of was useless, until at a certain point I gave up on him, thinking: "That's it, he is thoroughly corrupt; there is nothing to be done with him and nothing to discuss." One day I returned from prayers, glanced through the window, and saw this very same heretic draped in a tallit and wearing tefillin. It was unbelievable. I met him and asked: "Tell me, is what I saw real? Maybe it was a mirage? What exactly happened here?" He told me: "Listen, I went to the doctor because of a stomachache, and the doctor said there is concern of something more serious, sent me to the hospital for tests, and told me it would be wise to pray. So I put on tefillin." Rav Galinsky remarked: "Then I understood. There is no need for debates, no need for proofs, no arguments and no logical explanations. A little stomachache solves all the problems." That is to say, heresy has no genuine intellectual logic; rather, a person simply wishes to follow the desires of his heart, and the moment he realizes the enterprise is failing, he changes his course. For that heretic, rebuke was useless, but suffering was effective. But one who is also stiff-necked, upon whom even suffering has no effect, of him it is said - Rachmana litzlan, may Heaven spare us: "He shall suddenly be broken, and there is no healing."
Verse 2: When the Righteous Increase, the People Rejoice
בִּרְבוֹת צַדִּיקִים יִשְׂמַח הָעָם, וּבִמְשֹׁל רָשָׁע יֵאָנַח עָם. - When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when a wicked man rules, a people groans.
Our Sages expound this verse in reference to Mordechai contrasted with Haman. "When the righteous increase, the people rejoice" refers to "and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad" (Esther 8:15), while "when a wicked man rules, a people groans" refers to the period of Haman's rule, when "the city of Shushan was bewildered" (Esther 3:15). When the righteous person leads there is joy, and when the wicked person rules there is groaning.
The Vilna Gaon notes an interesting linguistic nuance: "the people rejoice" (ha'am) with the definite article, contrasted with "a people groans" (am) without the definite article. He explains: when the righteous person leads, the joy is open and public - "and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad" - everyone rejoices openly, and so it says "the people," meaning everyone together. But when the wicked man rules, people are afraid even to groan. Therefore it says "a people groans": each individual groans to himself, but not the people as a unified whole, for they fear groaning in public.
There is a well-known story about a Jew who immigrated from Soviet Russia. They asked him: "How was the food over there?" He replied: "One cannot complain." "And how was work?" "One cannot complain." "And how were the schools?" "One cannot complain." They asked: "And how is it here in Israel?" He replied: "Here, one can complain!" Over there, woe to you if you complained; you would be summoned immediately to the KGB offices: "Is it true that you complained?" And suddenly you are no longer complaining. Everything is fine, Boruch Hashem, everything is wonderful. When there is a wicked ruler, a person is terrified even to complain, because complaining itself is dangerous. Therefore, "a people groans," but never openly in public.
The Malbim explains: "When the righteous increase, the people rejoice," because righteous leaders govern with justice and righteousness, lightening the burden upon the populace, bringing tranquility to their palaces, and drawing Hashem's blessing upon them. By contrast, "when a wicked man rules, a people groans," because the tyrannical, wicked king makes the burden heavier, does not execute true justice, and the curse of Hashem rests upon their home.
The Malbim further notes another distinction: regarding the righteous it says "when they increase" (bi'rvot) rather than "when they rule" (bi'mshol), whereas regarding the wicked it says "when he rules" (bi'mshol). Why? Because a righteous person does not domineer. The term memshalah denotes dominion with a heavy hand, and a righteous leader does not rule with a heavy hand. Furthermore, he does not govern alone: he includes advisors and colleagues, seventy elders, the Sanhedrin, and sages, never making decisions entirely on his own. The wicked ruler, by contrast, rules with an iron fist and consults no one, for he trusts nobody and demands that all power remain solely in his own hands. Therefore, "when the righteous increase" - they are many and they do not domineer - but "when a wicked man rules," his dominion is oppressive and harsh, and he stands entirely alone.
Notice how this is true in all totalitarian regimes: Assad ruled alone, Saddam Hussein ruled alone, and so on. And if you might argue that there was a parliament, that was strictly for show. These are leaders re-elected every term with 98 percent of the vote, and the remaining two percent are hunted down and never seen again. These are sham elections, creating the illusion of democracy as if the people had spoken. The moment the people genuinely do not want him, they face brutal suppression, no one asks their opinion, and anyone who dissents is eliminated. This is "when a wicked man rules": he rules entirely alone, and anyone who dares to cross him loses his head.
Verse 3: A Lover of Wisdom Versus a Companion of Harlots
אִישׁ־אֹהֵב חָכְמָה יְשַׂמַּח אָבִיו, וְרֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת יְאַבֶּד־הוֹן. - A man who loves wisdom gladdens his father, but a companion of harlots squanders wealth.
First, according to its simple meaning (peshat): when a person has a wise, discerning son who loves wisdom, this brings great joy to his father. And what is a "companion of harlots" (ro'eh zonot)? Rashi explains: one who joins with harlots, from the root of re'ut (companionship), as in "your father's friend" (ve-re'eh avikha) - meaning he associates with them. And what is "squanders wealth" (ye'abed hon)? Targum Yonatan translates: "one who joins with harlotry destroys his fortune (movad mazlei)." And as is known, the acronym of MaZaL can represent motzi zera le-vatalah (wasting seed). When a person attaches himself, Heaven forbid, to harlots, he loses his fortune and vitality.
Our Sages, however, offer a homiletical reading, cited by Rashi: Who is a "companion of harlots" (ro'eh zonot)? One who says, "This teaching is pleasant, so I will study it; that teaching is not pleasant, so I will not study it." The word zonot is read homiletically as zo na'ot ("this is pleasant"). It turns out that such a person ranks the Torah: this part is appealing, and that part is not. One must never make such distinctions, as if certain parts of the Torah were somehow deficient or unpleasant. Why did our Sages make this specific drash here, when the word zonot appears many times throughout Tanakh? Rashi explains: because here the word is spelled uniquely in the entire Tanakh, with an extra letter vav: זוֹנוֹת. Therefore, our Sages divided the word, finding in it zo na'ot - some teachings are pleasant and others are not.
Ibn Ezra explains ro'eh as being related to re'ut, companionship, meaning one who associates with them. Alternatively, it is like Ro'eh Yisrael ("Shepherd of Israel"), meaning a provider, since shepherds are a term used for leaders. According to this, ro'eh zonot means one who provides for and sustains harlots, and then "destroys wealth" is understood literally: since he spends his money and gold on this pursuit, he inevitably loses his wealth, aside from the spiritual consequence involved here.
The Kli Yakar: From Tithes to the Kohen
This brings to mind a wonderful insight from the Kli Yakar. Chazal expound that whoever does not bring his terumot and tithes to the Kohen will ultimately end up coming to the Kohen anyway: to bring his suspected adulteress wife (sotah), as it says, "Any man whose wife goes astray." If you come to the Kohen under pleasant circumstances, all the better; but if you refuse to go to him because you are stingy with the gifts due to him, you will ultimately find yourself coming to him under far less pleasant circumstances. The Kli Yakar asks: What is the connection between the two? And he explains the matter along natural lines as well.
Regarding the giving of tithes, it is written, "For on account of this thing the Lord your God will bless you." One who gives terumot and tithes merits blessing and abundance, whereas one who does not, on the contrary, suffers loss. This is like the famous story cited in Tosafot and the Midrash about a man whose father used to tithe and whose field produced a thousand kor; the son began skimping and reducing what he gave, until in the end he was left with only a tenth of the original yield. It turns out that by withholding tithes, a person loses his money.
And what happens at home then? His wife sees: he works, earns twenty thousand shekels, yet there is no livelihood and the money is nowhere to be seen. She says to herself: My husband must be one who "keeps company with harlots and loses his wealth." He claims he was delayed at work, but who knows where he goes and with whom he associates, and that is why he is losing his money! Then, as the Gemara says, "he is among the gourds and she is among the squashes" - when the husband strays, she strays too. Why should she alone remain modest and holy? She begins to deviate from the proper path. In truth, the husband is pure and holy; he merely neglected to give tithes, but she suspected him groundlessly. He then begins noticing strange behavior in his wife, starts tracking her, checks her WhatsApp messages, and eventually discovers she secluded herself with someone, warns her, she secludes herself again, and he brings her to the Kohen. Says the Kli Yakar: Now you understand where it all began. You did not give tithes, consequently your wealth diminished, which aroused your wife's suspicions, leading her to do what she did, and ultimately you were forced to come to the Kohen. Wouldn't it be better to come to him with a basket of first fruits than to bring him your wife? Thus, there is a natural cause-and-effect relationship between them as well.
The Malbim: Where to Direct the Trait of Love
The Malbim explains: The capacity for love is planted within the human soul, and the question is where one directs it. If he channels it toward positive pursuits - the love of wisdom, the love of goodness, and the love of righteousness - his father rejoices, for his son walks in the upright path and has channeled his love into constructive avenues. Through this, wisdom takes root in his heart and he becomes a wise son, bringing genuine joy to a father blessed with such a child. But one who uses the capacity for love for lusts and worldly pursuits, and all the more so to love harlots, will squander his father's wealth, since he expends his father's substance on those cravings and desires.
It is not by chance that the verse contrasts "wisdom" (which is Torah) with "harlots" (which represent forbidden relations, arayot). For the holy Zohar states that when the evil inclination for illicit relations was nullified, the joy of Torah study (chedvata deshemata) ceased as well. Why? Deep down, desire finds expression in the element of water. Water always symbolizes desire: the generation of the Flood corrupted themselves with water and were punished with water. Fire is certainly the burning of passion, but the realm of forbidden relations is called water - being drawn after sweet waters or after foul waters. A full lecture was once given on the Laver in the Mishkan and how it rectifies the element of water, and the sotah is made to drink the bitter water. Torah, too, is compared to water: "Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the water." Therefore, the Rambam states: Thoughts of forbidden relations are found only in a heart devoid of wisdom. They are directly opposed. If there is no wisdom, there are forbidden relations; there is no vacuum. Either you come to a shiur and occupy yourself with Torah, or illicit thoughts take over - you cannot choose neither. And therefore, when the inclination for forbidden relations was suppressed, that tremendous drive that had been channeled into the great joy of Torah ceased as well, for both stem from the very same source and are intrinsically connected.
The Strange Woman: External Wisdom
The Malbim explains another point regarding the allegorical level: external philosophies are termed a "strange woman." We have seen several times that Shlomo warns to guard one's feet from the strange woman and the foreign woman, meaning that one must be cautious regarding alien philosophies.
It is cited in the name of the Rebbe Rashab of Chabad, who wrote that one who studies secular wisdom cannot achieve true perception in Torah. Furthermore, he relates regarding Rabbi Yisrael Salanter that he had two outstanding, towering disciples whom he sent and guided to study secular disciplines, specifically medicine. One apostatized and the other abandoned religion completely, and the Rashab writes: and that individual I know personally - meaning, I know exactly who it was. Disciples of Rabbi Yisrael Salanter whom he personally guided, yet from the moment they turned to secular philosophies, nothing of their Torah remained.
Thus, the warning to keep distant from external wisdom is itself "one who keeps company with harlots destroys wealth": one who loves the strange woman, which represents external philosophies, destroys his wealth. Which wealth? That of which it is said, "A man who loves wisdom gladdens his father" - the wealth of Torah and the spiritual perceptions he acquired. When he associates with secular philosophies, he loses all the attainments he had achieved in Torah.
"This Teaching Is Pleasant": Critique Instead of Submission
The Malbim further explains "will lose his wealth" in light of Chazal's exposition regarding one who says, "This teaching is pleasant, but this one is not pleasant." This means that he does not accept the laws of the Torah in humble submission; rather, he says: "True, the Torah says so, but this must be investigated; it cannot simply be accepted at face value." Such a person, the Malbim explains, investigates them with his own intellect and dictates what finds favor in his mind and what does not: "This is logical, but that is illogical; what Chazal said here is unacceptable to my intellect."
Do you understand what kind of study this is? This is academic, university-style study. There is critique regarding this view of Chazal; claims that "their words reflect the mindset that was prevalent at the time," or "these passages were apparently added at a later period due to the pressures that existed then." Yet these are words of Torah, the Holy of Holies, and the true path is to submit oneself completely to the word of God.
I once mentioned the story of Rav Kahaneman, who was told about a certain rabbi that he was not merely a doctor, but "the Rabbi-Doctor." He asked: "What is a doctor?" They replied: "Rabbi, he is a doctor of Talmud." He answered them: "The Talmud is not sick; it does not need a doctor." It is also told of another sage who was informed that a certain individual was a "Rabbi-Doctor," and he remarked: "If the rabbi is standing next to the doctor, it is a sign that the rabbi is unwell." The immediate question that must be asked whenever someone mentions a "Rabbi-Doctor" is: where did he acquire his secular disciplines? Was it in an institution that all the Torah luminaries forbade entering? With whom did he sit in those places - with pious, righteous, and modest women? From whom did he hear lectures - from God-fearing individuals, or from people whose words are blasphemy and heresy? Who permitted him to listen to words of heresy? There is no such thing as a "Rabbi-Doctor," there is no permission to enter such places or listen to those ideas, and there is no dispensation to go there to acquire those disciplines. This is the meaning of "will lose his wealth": he loses the spiritual wealth of the Torah as a consequence of pursuing external disciplines.
What About the Rambam?
If one should ask you about the Rambam, know that the Rambam reached immense, profound spiritual heights, and for him secular disciplines were merely in the category of "perfumers and cooks" serving the Torah. Rav Pincus once explained: in a grand palace there are grand reception halls, guest rooms, servants' quarters, lower levels, and cellars. There is also a place one prefers not to enter, which is the kitchen: it is not particularly clean, there are flies and cooking odors. That is how the Rambam viewed external disciplines - as perfumers and cooks. After all, a palace also requires a kitchen, but that is strictly its place: neither a parlor, nor a sanctuary, nor a drawing room. The Rambam related to those disciplines strictly as perfumers and cooks serving the study of Torah.
Nevertheless, come and see what the Vilna Gaon wrote concerning him in Yoreh De'ah, section 179: that accursed philosophy misled him through its persuasive rhetoric. Consider what harsh terms these are! This was because the Rambam treated the subject of demons, necromancy, and divination as mere figments of imagination, as matters of no substance that do not exist in reality, whereas in the words of Chazal there are explicit descriptions of these phenomena. From this you can understand how immense the danger is in dealing with anything connected to external disciplines.
In Summary:
The first three verses of the chapter teach us three fundamental principles. First: man has been granted two paths of rectification - rebuke and suffering. Whoever seals himself against both, shutting out both intellectual admonition and the painful blow, is left without a way back, and concerning him it is said that he will be broken suddenly beyond remedy. Second: the rule of the righteous brings open rejoicing, because the righteous are numerous and do not govern with a heavy hand, but rather consult counselors; whereas the wicked ruler governs alone and with iron force, to the point that one cannot even sigh in public. Third: the capacity for love in a person's heart is a single force, and the only question is where it is directed. One who directs it toward wisdom and the Torah gladdens his Father and acquires a wealth of spiritual attainments; but one who directs it toward physical desires or external disciplines, or who sets his intellect up as a judge over the words of Chazal, loses all that wealth. There is no vacuum: unchaste thoughts reside only in a heart that is vacant of wisdom.