Chapter 29 of Sefer Mishlei continues King Solomon's approach of presenting contrasts: between the giver and the receiver, between a king who judges truthfully and a king who perverts justice, between an educated youth and one left undisciplined, and between the proliferation of the wicked and the eternity of the righteous. In this lesson, we will examine four verses at the heart of the chapter and draw from them profound fundamentals regarding giving to others, the conduct of justice, and the upbringing of children.
רָשׁ וְאִישׁ תְּכָכִים נִפְגָּשׁוּ מֵאִיר עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם יְהֹוָה׃ (יג) - The poor man and the man of schemes meet; the Lord enlightens the eyes of them both. (13)
A rash is a poor person. "A man of schemes" (ish techachim) - here we need to understand the phrase. In common usage, this is a negative expression, and indeed some commentators explain it that way, as we will see. But Rashi, following the homiletic exposition of Chazal, explains it favorably: an ish techachim is a master of design who possesses Torah knowledge. Techachim means stratagems or calculated thoughts - meaning a person who devises and reflects, who has a clear plan and course of action. Yet a scheme is not necessarily for bad: it can describe a person who constantly meditates on Torah, always developing structured analyses and deep insights in Torah, and that is a positive "man of schemes."
What does this refer to? Rashi cites the teaching of Chazal: a student who says to his teacher, "Teach me one chapter." A student approaches the rabbi and asks him to teach him this matter, to review this particular topic with him. If they meet and the rabbi indeed teaches him - "the Lord enlightens the eyes of them both." For the rabbi might think he has wasted his time: during that same time he could have engaged in an in-depth, complex topic, yet instead he sat and explained a simple matter to the student, an issue suited to the student's elementary level. The verse tells him: not so. Know that the Lord enlightens the eyes of both of them. Not only are the student's eyes illuminated, but the Holy One, blessed be He, will enlighten your eyes as well.
And so it is well known that yeshiva mashgichim always say: when a yeshiva student feels that helping another student advance comes at his own expense, know that the Holy One, blessed be He, rewards him twofold. You will see divine assistance in your learning, you will experience greater clarity and depth in your studies, and you will see that this very act builds you up. The reality is that whatever a person does solely for himself remains limited, but whatever a person gives to another - he is truly giving to himself. It may seem that you gave to someone else, but what did Ruth say to Naomi? "The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz." She was the one who received charity, and yet she said, "I worked with him," because more than the giver provides to the poor, he actually receives from him. And from Heaven, one is rewarded twofold. Even if a person thinks, "I invested and wasted my time," know that you did not waste your time at all, and you will be rewarded far beyond what you imagine.
An example of this can be seen in Rav Ovadia Yosef. Here was an individual whose every moment was dedicated to Torah, with his time devoted to writing, in-depth halachic analysis, and rendering halachic rulings, while the entire Jewish world eagerly awaited his ruling on every matter. Despite all this, for decades he traveled tirelessly to deliver Torah classes, giving a regular shiur in Ein Yaakov for working laymen (in his final years he was elderly and no longer able to do so). Seemingly, for someone of his stature, this was an unparalleled loss of time, for in that same hour he could have written another responsum in Yabia Omer or another section in his other works. Yet he did not spare his time.
Indeed, it is evident that the person who merited the most in that generation in terms of disseminating Torah and prolific halachic writing was Rav Ovadia Yosef. One can find other great rabbis - and Heaven forbid that this should be seen as criticism - who did not act this way, but rather dedicated every moment to their own study in order to elevate themselves in Torah, yet they did not attain what he did. It was precisely because he gave a substantial portion of his time to the public - precious, invaluable time during which he could have delved into another subject, while pressing questions awaited him and numerous matters required study, resolution, and writing - and despite all this gave of his time to the community, that the Holy One, blessed be He, rewarded him twofold, more than any other Torah giant in the generation. No one in that generation merited to write so extensively, and to have his halachic rulings accepted so unconditionally across so many diverse communities.
From here one learns a fundamental principle: when you give and share with others, the Holy One, blessed be He, will grant you twofold in return. And if you should say, "But I could have accomplished so much during that time," the Holy One, blessed be He, says: Time belongs to Me. I will ensure that during the time you do study, you will cover more ground, understand more deeply, and write more prolifically. This is what King Solomon conveys here: "The poor man and the man of schemes meet" - when the Torah scholar, the master of intellectual stratagems, meets the one who is poor in Torah knowledge, "the Lord enlightens the eyes of them both." Both will experience illumination in their Torah study. For the poor student this is obvious, but the scholar too will see that through this he merits divine enlightenment in Torah.
The Vilna Gaon explains that a rash is a person who has been poor from the day he was born, in contrast to a dal. A dal is someone who once had wealth and became impoverished, whereas a rash is someone born into poverty, meaning poor from the outset, from the day of his birth. And an ish techachim, says the Vilna Gaon, is a person who was once wealthy and lost his fortune. How is the word techachim applied to someone who was rich and became poor? Where is that indicated in the phrase? The Vilna Gaon follows the approach of the Ibn Ezra, who explains techachim as someone crushed by poverty, from the same root as "from oppression (mitoch) and violence," and like "they were crushed (tuku) at Your feet" - meaning broken, related to striking. Thus, an ish techachim is a person who suffered a financial blow and has now become poor.
According to this: the rash is someone poor from the start, while the ish techachim is a person who was crushed and suffered financial ruin, and is now impoverished. And when they meet, says the Vilna Gaon, each cries out over his own plight, and the Lord enlightens the eyes of them both. The Holy One, blessed be He, brings salvation to them both - to the one who was poor from the outset and to the one who lost his wealth.
And to what does this apply? Why would one have thought otherwise? It is the approach of the Vilna Gaon to explain all of Mishlei in spiritual terms, and therefore he explains: this applies in Torah as well. There is a person who is impoverished (rash) in Torah, who never possessed Torah - an unlearned person (am ha'aretz) from the outset. And there is a person who forgot his learning due to circumstances beyond his control, and this is the "man of deceit" (ish techachim) - a downfall, not financial but in his Torah knowledge, for his interior has been emptied. The am ha'aretz comes and says to him, "Teach me one chapter," and the ish techachim, the one who forgot his learning, replies: "I too have forgotten, and I cannot teach you." But he tells him: "Learn whatever you can." Then both cry out over their distress to Hashem, and Hashem enlightens the eyes of both of them - both the impoverished one who inherently lacks Torah, and the one who forgot his learning.
There is a message here that one must never despair. Sometimes a person says: "What are you talking about? I never learned Torah, I was never engaged in this, it's not for me." They tell you: even if you are impoverished from the start, cry out to Hashem and Hashem will enlighten your eyes. And there is the opposite situation, someone who became impoverished in Torah, and he says: "That person never learned, but me - do you know what I once knew? Do you know what it means to start learning anew?" "And reviewing old learning is harder than learning something new" (ve-kashya atika me-chadta); it is harder to review something you already learned than to begin something entirely fresh. Therefore, he is specifically the one who breaks, saying: "How can you compare us? Do you know what I used to have?" And because of this, he does not start learning anew. We are told: both of you, cry out to Hashem and Hashem will enlighten your eyes. In every situation you can merit this enlightenment, if only you ask and cry out from your distress to Hashem.
There are situations where a person pulls off a scheme, cuts a few corners, and makes three thousand shekels in the snap of a finger. He thinks he gained, and it seems to him: "What is there to argue about? It is cash in hand." Later, it turns out that what he thought he gained was ultimately swallowed by loss. Waste and poverty took it all.
A story was told of a man from at least ten or fifteen years ago. He had a car that was involved in a minor traffic accident. He spoke with a body-shop mechanic, who told him: "Insurance will not cover damage like this, and it is not worth filing a claim because there is a deductible; but if you had major damage, the insurance would cover everything without a deductible." The man said: "Major damage? No problem." As he himself later recounted: "I got into the car, found a solid concrete post, and scraped the entire side. I went back to the mechanic and asked him: Is it big enough now? He said: Yes." He filed the claim, and the insurance took care of everything that was needed - they replaced doors and replaced everything. In other words, this man committed outright theft and robbery.
And the story continues: A day or two later, he was driving to Ariel. In the middle of the drive his phone rang. He picked it up, and suddenly saw a police cruiser on the shoulder with an officer signaling him to pull over. The officer caught him holding the phone and issued him a fine on the spot of 750 shekels. He realized: those 750 shekels were the exact amount he had saved by intentionally crashing his car to avoid the deductible he would have had to pay had he handled the damage himself. Exactly the same amount, the very next day. This exemplifies what Chazal taught explicitly - what deceit brings in, loss takes out. Poverty extracts it, and loss carries it away.
And this is what the Malbim explains: corresponding to this idiom, Shlomo says, "The poor man and the man of deceit have met." "The poor man" (rash) is poverty, and "the man of deceit" (ish techachim) is fraud, from the expression toch u-mirmah (deceit and fraud). And they "met." And what comes after a meeting? Another meeting and another meeting, then an agreement, then an engagement, and then a wedding. "They have met" means they married one another. And the moment they are wed, as explained, whatever deceit brings in, poverty takes away.
And who learns a moral lesson from this? People. "Hashem enlightens the eyes of both" refers to people at large, who see from this what happens when a person acts fraudulently and what happens when one acts with integrity. In the end, waste and loss arrive and take everything. And through the fact that "the poor man and the man of deceit have met," Hashem enlightens people's eyes and opens their sight so that they will no longer practice deceit, and poverty and want are averted. This is the purpose of their meeting and union: to teach you that the Holy One, Blessed be He, ultimately collects from people for frauds and falsehoods, and for everything, one will pay.
מֶלֶךְ שׁוֹפֵט בֶּאֱמֶת דַּלִּים כִּסְאוֹ לָעַד יִכּוֹן׃ (יד) - "A king who judges the destitute with truth, his throne will be established forever." (14)
The Vilna Gaon discerns three qualities in this king. First, he "judges" - constantly administering justice. Second, he does so "with truth," meaning his judgment is genuine and he does not pervert the law. Third, he watches over the destitute (dalim). This means that a destitute person typically has far fewer advocates and friends, and fewer people with an interest in helping him, since the immediate question is, "What will I get out of him?" Generally, those at the top favor the tycoons, the prominent figures possessing wealth and influence, from whom there is a chance of gaining something. If you are friends with a wealthy man, you might receive a small check; but if you are friends with a simple woman like Mrs. Masuda from Beersheba, what will you get? Perhaps merits in Heaven, but beyond that, nothing.
And this is what is stated here: a king who judges in truth is one who judges the destitute and looks after the poor. Looking after the destitute is not easy, and it always comes at the expense of the wealthy and powerful. Then those who once felt comfortable with the king suddenly distance themselves: "What, you levied a tax on us? Now you demand this of us? Now you place restrictions on us?" Yes, sir, because I am not looking out for you; I am looking out for the simple people, looking out for the unfortunate.
As people may recall, in the past a person would pay one or two hundred shekels for a landline and cellphone bill, and sometimes much more. Today a person can have a phone for ten shekels a month. In other words, when you seek the benefit of the tycoon, it inevitably comes at the expense of thousands of struggling people who pay the price. But when you tell a person: it makes no sense for you to grow rich and become a multi-billionaire at the expense of millions collapsing under the burden - then you truly care for the destitute. This is a king who judges truthfully: one who judges in truth cares for the poor.
And then, "his throne will be established forever." The Gra explains that this person merits two things: first, "his throne will be established" - his throne is firm; second, "forever" - its strength is eternal, not temporary but permanent. We can also view this in an earthly sense, though our primary explanation is in a spiritual sense. Let us look at politics as well: when you cater to tycoons, you forget that each tycoon has only one vote at the ballot box. But when you care for the general public, each individual is a potential voter, and when you benefit a million people, there is a good chance that tens of thousands of them will show gratitude. In other words, you yourself will see the benefit right here, even before the reward of the World to Come. Whereas when you cater to the elite, it might position you better financially, but in practice, "his throne will not be established forever," and you will not remain a permanent ruler here.
The Malbim explains: a king's throne is established upon justice, "behold, a king shall reign in righteousness." When a king judges justly, his throne is established, standing upon a stable base; but when a king does not judge justly, he causes the deterioration of the kingdom.
As recalled from our study of Sefer Melachim regarding Izevel (Jezebel), who hired scoundrels (anshei beliya'al) to testify that Navot HaYizre'eli (Naboth) cursed God and the king, the question was raised there: why did she need all of this? Why stage a show trial when the king holds totalitarian power? If his rule is totalitarian, let him simply seize the man, cast him away, march into the vineyard, and do as he pleases! Why go through the effort of fabricating a facade of a just trial? The Malbim explained there that even a king could not act in ways perceived by the populace as blatant, absolute injustice, for such acts would destabilize the kingdom, foment unrest, and spark an uprising. A point comes when people will not simply endure blows all day; they will revolt. We saw the same with Rechavam the son of Shlomo: one cannot endlessly crush the people with taxes, because the moment arrives when Adoniram, the tax collector you send, will be killed by the mob. No matter how monarchical and totalitarian his rule, a king still had to recognize the limits of power, and even when seizing property, at least give it the appearance of law and justice. Therefore, she staged a trial, arranged witnesses, and claimed that he had blasphemed God and cursed the king - for does such a person not deserve the death penalty? At the very least, it maintained an external semblance of righteousness and integrity.
The Malbim further adds: sometimes a court faces a "din merumeh" (a fraudulent case). Chazal define this as a situation where litigants manipulate the judge, fabricating a narrative and presenting false pretenses calculated to deceive him into ruling in their favor. In such cases, far more interrogation, deliberate composure, and deep discernment are required to expose the deceit and uncover the lie. "A king who faithfully judges the poor" pursues the truth; he does not allow himself to be misled or duped, nor does he accept stories at face value. Therefore, "his throne will be established forever," because truth stands forever and is eternal. If you establish your throne and kingdom upon truth, your throne too will endure forever.
This calls to mind an episode in history where a righteous king accepted false testimony without investigating it properly, and it ultimately harmed his own kingdom. Tziva came before David and testified that he had come to assist David during his son's rebellion, while claiming that Mefivoshet, the son of Shaul, had said, "When will the monarchy be restored to me?" Tziva was a wicked servant, the servant of Mefivoshet, who went and slandered his master, after having fled from Mefivoshet, who was disabled and unable to walk. Mefivoshet could not go out to greet David, but Tziva went and fabricated a story out of whole cloth. David said: If so, you shall receive all of Mefivoshet's estate.
Later, Mefivoshet arrived and recounted the matter as it truly happened: that his servant had deserted him, that he had asked Tziva to saddle his donkey and take him along, and that he had never said he expected the kingdom to revert to him or rejected David's reign. David replied, "I have spoken: you and Tziva shall divide the land." In other words, David retracted his initial decree only partially and ruled that they split it - half for you and half for your servant - since the matter remained in doubt and unresolved. And what was the ultimate consequence? At that very moment, a heavenly voice (bas kol) went forth and proclaimed: David, Rechavam and Yarov'am shall divide the kingdom! Dreadful beyond measure. David did not judge with righteousness, he did not judge with integrity, and he accepted false testimony; therefore, his throne was not firmly established in righteousness. The throne was shaken, his son's kingdom was torn in two, and he did not retain undisputed sovereignty. This illustrates our point: at times there is a fraudulent case, and the king must probe for the truth so that his throne may be established forever; but if he issues a ruling that is not truthful, it will ultimately undermine his own throne.
שֵׁבֶט וְתוֹכַחַת יִתֵּן חָכְמָה וְנַעַר מְשֻׁלָּח מֵבִישׁ אִמּוֹ׃ (טו) - The rod and reproof impart wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. (15)
"Shevet" is a rod, as in the verse, "Your rod (shivtecha) and Your staff, they comfort me." A man who used to beat his wife was once brought before a beis din, and the judges demanded an explanation. He replied: "It is an explicit verse - 'He did not create it a waste, He formed it to be inhabited (lasheves)' - read it 'for the rod (leshevet)'! 'Your rod and Your staff' - a shevet is a rod." One sees how absurdly people can distort verses! There was another incident where a man who beat his wife, Heaven protect us, was summoned before a beis din, and when questioned, he claimed to have learned that a woman embodies strict judgment (dinim) while a man embodies kindness (chasadim), and since kindness must overpower judgment, he was overpowering her with all his might. May Hashem protect us.
The Ralbag explains: the rod and reproof instill wisdom in a youth. The rod represents discipline and reproof is verbal admonition; through these he acquires perfection of character, for without them, how could he ever attain wisdom? By contrast, "a child left to himself" (na'ar meshullach) is a youth who is cast off and unguided, doing whatever he pleases, with no boundaries and no authority figure to direct him. Abandoned to his own desires, he grows up devoid of mussar and wisdom.
Why does the verse specify that he "brings shame to his mother"? The Ralbag explains that much of the corruption of his character will be attributed to her. When people search for the source of his flaws, they will blame the mother, saying that she caused this by failing to discipline him properly with mussar during his early childhood. Throughout his youth, a child spends most of his time at home with his mother; the father goes out to earn a livelihood, while the child is primarily under his mother's care. Had she guided him along the path of discipline - "Listen, my son, to the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the instruction of your mother" - he would have grown up upright and worthy.
Metzudat David adds that she withheld rebuke from him, for it is the way of women to dote upon their sons. A mother dotes on her child, pities him, spares him, and says: "He is so unfortunate, it is hard for him, understand him, he cannot manage." It is already written, "Compassionate women have cooked their own children": a woman sometimes thinks she is taking pity on her child, but in practice she is "cooking" him, destroying him, and ruining him. On the contrary, when a mother demands of a child and expects of him - not beyond his abilities, but what he is indeed capable of - and encourages him, saying, "You can do it, you are capable; look, you succeeded there, you managed here, and on this test you scored one hundred" - this is wonderful, and one sees that he is capable.
However, if the mother constantly serves as his defense attorney, and comes to the classroom every time saying, "The other children are picking on him" - picking on him? Your child is a troublemaker, and you have no idea what he is doing here to the entire class! "No, you should know that someone else corrupted him, and I tell you, he has a good soul, my boy...". Yes, but he does not study at all. "No, you must understand, he has cognitive difficulties, it really is not his fault and he tries so hard." Tries so hard? Come now, Madam, see what is actually happening. Someone once remarked that it is very difficult for a mother to see her child's faults. When this was once said to a mother, she replied: "I do not think that is true; I think that if my child had any faults, I would surely see them." You see the point?
On whom, then, is all this blamed? On the mother, because it is the nature of women to dote on their sons. Therefore, he causes his mother disgrace, for people will say it is due to his mother's fault: who spoiled him like this? But when you have a mother like Shlomo's mother, you get a son like Shlomo. And when one day he did not wake up on time - "which his mother admonished him" - his mother woke him and rebuked him, and the result is a son like Shlomo, of whom it was said at the age of twelve, "and Hashem loved him," calling him Yedidyah. Such stature, greatness, and holiness - who can fathom it? But when a mother constantly shields her child - "It is hard for him, not now, do not demand of him, never mind, I already did it for him" - why do it for him? What have you taught him? Be a parasite, eat and leave your dirty dishes behind, you do not need to contribute to the household because mother will wash the dishes after you, you never need to help because it is always too difficult for him, he cannot manage, and he really dislikes it. What kind of attitude is this? Are you raising a child made of cotton candy? Where is his strength? Where are the expectations placed upon him? Where is his backbone? As mentioned, one certainly should not demand too much or overload a child, but what he is capable of and able to do - allow him to express his abilities and strengths, and expect it of him. When you set expectations, you see that the child is capable. But when the child knows that at home his mother will always protect her darling son, why should he make an effort? The mother will excuse him no matter what.
Rashi explains "a youth left to himself" (na'ar meshulach) - that his father sent him off to follow the ways of his heart. That is, the father cast him off and effectively said to him: go and do whatever you wish. And in the end, he shames his mother. Consider Yishmael: because he was wicked, he caused Sarah to say to Avraham, "Drive out this maidservant." Yishmael was wicked, and what did that cause? The banishment of both mother and son: "Drive out this maidservant and her son." Why? Because here was an instance of "shaming his mother" - upbringing stems from the mother, and Sarah saw that the root of the problem lay with the mother. Therefore, she did not say, "Banish only the son" - does the son corrupt my son? Far from it: drive out the maidservant and her son, for the one who causes shame shames his mother.
The Malbim explains: Shevet (rod) refers to rebuke through the rod, while tochechah (reproof) refers to verbal rebuke. In the Malbim's view, tochechah always relates to proof and reasoned argument, that is, through words, and it always appeals to the intellect: demonstrating something through rational proofs, evidence, and logical demonstration. The rod is the stick. Together, both "give wisdom," enabling him to accept the laws of wisdom. Why? Because verbal reproof alone will not affect the heart of a youth whose internal conceptions are corrupt. That is, when a youth's natural imaginations, desires, and thoughts are drawn toward evil, reproof alone will not suffice; a rod is also necessary.
We have already discussed that these words do not apply to our times, since in our day it has been proven beyond all doubt that physical punishment is harmful, at times extremely so, and even when not extreme, it is undeniably damaging. We also noted that the concept of physical chastisement mentioned in earlier sources does not mean actual beatings: with a two- or three-year-old toddler doing something dangerous, one might firmly grasp his hand in a way that causes slight discomfort to pull him away, or perhaps administer a gentle tap on the hand, but under no circumstances beatings or anything of the sort, and certainly not at an older age. In earlier generations they spoke of age fourteen or fifteen; today even at five or six, this is not an age where physical hands should ever be part of the equation.
This generation is brazen, and a child of five or six can speak with impudence in a way that shocks you. The Gemara states that one who strikes his grown son causes him to become insolent, and Heaven will hold the father accountable. In the past, insolence emerged at age fourteen or fifteen, but today a child of five or six already reacts with defiance and chutzpah. Therefore, it is far more effective to give him a different consequence: you will not go play with friends, you will not ride your bicycle, you will not receive something you were supposed to receive. This is vastly more constructive than using a stick. Reality has shown that parents who resorted to physical punishment quickly lost their children. You see ten- or twelve-year-old boys on the street with dyed hair, having become street kids. Where did that come from? Examine how his father treated him, how his parents treated him. Therefore, in our generation, such methods are completely out of the question, as they are simply devastating, inflicting a searing burn upon the child's soul from which he may not recover for years.
In any case, in the times of Chazal, a child had nowhere to run, and beyond that, there was a natural deference. An eighteen-year-old youth, when speaking to his father, would lower his eyes - and we are speaking of sixty years ago, not hundreds of years back. Today, by contrast, we live in an era of such audacity and chutzpah that a child can sit comfortably and send his father to fetch him something. A father should get up and bring it to you? "Yes, of course, Abba, go get me that." What is this, is a father your errand boy? This is forbidden according to Halachah; it is forbidden to ask one's father or mother to go fetch things for him. And that is setting aside the halachic issue: consider the sheer brazenness. If the father refuses, the child even criticizes him, argues, and dictates terms. We are in an era where immense caution is needed in raising children, especially regarding physical punishment, which is purely destructive. On the one hand, a parent must hold standards, educate properly, and demand of children; on the other hand, one must recognize that physical punishment is not the appropriate method for this generation. Shlomo already said, "Train a child according to his way": one must identify the way of each and every generation, and educate accordingly.
And one must realize: some think, "I will hit him, and then he will learn." But children develop immunity. When a parent yells at a child over everything, the child becomes desensitized. If a mother is constantly screaming at home, the child is no longer affected, because screaming has become mother's default mode, and when she speaks softly, he barely registers it. A child who is struck is a child completely unmoved by being struck. There are extreme cases where a boy would stand with his hands forward and say to his father: "Go ahead, slap me. You can give me another slap, it doesn't bother me." And then the father begins... But the father is being entirely foolish, because the original objective was never merely to make it "bother you," but to guide you and set you straight. If it does not affect him, what then? Should a parent turn into a beast and vent all his frustrations on the child?
Consider the story of a man, now forty years old, who shared: "I cannot forgive my father. My father used to kick me." He was hurt by this to an extent beyond imagination. One must know that this is entirely the wrong path. Not only that, but today children also possess a sense of dignity. Once, a child was submissive, but today a child has self-respect, and a slap is, as noted, a searing burn.
A couple once came to a rav. The father argued that one must use physical discipline, saying, "That is how we were raised," while his wife argued the opposite. The rav told him that this was a complete mistake. The father began quoting pesukim: "He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him early", "The rod and reproof give wisdom", and various other verses. The rav said to him: "I will not even begin to debate the verses with you. I am telling you the reality on the ground, and the reality on the ground is that people who raised a hand against their children lost them very quickly. This is a case of 'go out and see' (puk chazi). If you do not know enough, ask educators. They see all the casualties; all the shattered vessels end up at their doors, and all those wounded souls ultimately come to them, leaving them to try and piece them back together. Ask, and you will see that in our generation, whoever raised a hand against his child lost him very quickly."
This does not mean dropping the reins, nor does it mean letting the child do whatever he wants; "a child left to himself brings shame to his mother" - we are certainly not advocating that. There are many other ways to discipline a child while preserving his dignity, disciplining him without him receiving a slap, and one can give a consequence that impacts him far more. Here, too, one must be very careful, for there are people who do not strike physically, but strike emotionally: "You are just a zero." That is an emotional blow that often causes far more damage than a physical blow. Or one humiliates the child with words, and that is terrible, sometimes sevenfold worse than hitting, because an emotional scar lingers for a very long time.
Even when rebuking a child, it must be done respectfully, letting him realize that he brought this upon himself. Let the child understand: "I really did not want to punish you, but you leave me no choice. Therefore, I am forced to restrict you from such-and-such until I see a change in your behavior." Then the child realizes on his own that he did something wrong, and strives on his own to do what is right. But when a blow is struck, it is over: the child has already taken the hit, so why should he strive to improve now? Why make an effort to do better? Only out of fear of the next blow, which means that the moment the strict, hitting parent is not beside him, he does whatever he wants. The goal of chinuch is not animal training; the goal of chinuch is to inspire within the student the motivation to do good on his own.
Therefore, when one teaches and explains, and when having no choice also gives a consequence, that consequence should be accompanied by an explanation. One does not need to justify every single thing, nor get drawn into debates if the child argues - we have discussed elsewhere at length that arguing is not the right path. Rather, give him a brief explanation and state what his consequence is. Furthermore, punishments must be reasonable. One should not tell a child for a minor offense, "You cannot ride your bicycle for a month," for what will you do for the next offense - a year? A person must maintain a sense of proportion. Punishment is like ammunition: if at the very start of the battlefield you throw all the grenades and exhaust your supply, in the real battle you will find yourself unarmed. When someone uses consequences in the wrong dosage, he is ultimately left with no tools at all. Therefore, even when there is no choice and punishment is necessary - and it should not be the standard approach, but only a last resort - let it be proportionate, not exceeding what is sensible for that deed.
בִּרְבוֹת רְשָׁעִים יִרְבֶּה פָּשַׁע וְצַדִּיקִים בְּמַפַּלְתָּם יִרְאוּ׃ (טז) - "When the wicked multiply, transgression increases, but the righteous will see their downfall" (verse 16).
The Ralbag explains: when the wicked multiply, transgression increases in the world. Beyond the fact that each of them is personally wicked and individually harmful, when they multiply, a few who act cannot be compared to many who act; "each helps his fellow, and says to his brother, 'Be strong!'" A lone criminal becomes a gang, which grows into an organized crime syndicate, until crime is coordinated on a large scale. That is to say, when the wicked multiply, transgression increases out of all proportion.
And even though the wicked hate the righteous - as we have seen, "an upright man is an abomination to the wicked" - and persecute them, nevertheless it says: "but the righteous will see their downfall." They will not be able to destroy the righteous; the righteous will escape their grasp and witness their downfall, for the ultimate end of the wicked is ruin. Thus, the proliferation of crime will not ultimately lead to the righteous falling before the wicked; rather, the righteous will prevail over the wicked.
The Malbim explains that "when the wicked multiply" includes both an increase in quantity and an increase in quality - that is, in prominence and success. It is possible that the actual number of wicked people has not grown, but they have attained high offices; one becomes the minister of education, another the minister of finance, and they begin to wield power. When the wicked increase, whether numerically or qualitatively, "transgression increases," and they continue to sin and perpetrate evil. But the Malbim adds: there is a limit to wickedness and an end to darkness. If they multiply transgression beyond measure and the cup becomes full, wickedness will be destroyed.
And "the righteous will see their downfall" - the Malbim explains that the righteous see this even while the wicked are actively multiplying their transgressions. Through the eyes of his intellect and his spirit, the righteous person already envisions the downfall of the wicked; he does not need to wait until the end to perceive it, for with his mind's eye he already anticipates their collapse, until they eventually see it with their physical eyes as well. Therefore, the righteous person is not fazed or intimidated by the triumph of the wicked, knowing that wickedness is like grass: it springs up quickly and withers quickly. Historically, all who oppressed Israel have ceased to exist. In contrast, "the righteous shall flourish like the palm tree"; a date palm takes time to grow, but once established, it endures for many years. Thus, "the righteous will see their downfall" - the righteous will witness their collapse and remain steadfast on their true path.
The four verses we studied teach four fundamental principles. "The poor man and the man of deceit meet together": one who gives of his time and Torah knowledge to others loses nothing, but receives doubly in return; and one who lacks Torah, whether he was poor in knowledge from the start or forgot his learning, if he cries out to Hashem, Hashem will enlighten his eyes. Homiletically, whatever deceit brings in, poverty extracts, and through this Hashem opens people's eyes so they will not continue to deceive. "A king who judges the poor with truth": a king who cares for the vulnerable and investigates the truth even in a deceitful case, his throne is established forever, whereas one who perverts justice shakes his throne, as seen with David and Tziva. "The rod and reproof give wisdom": one must demand standards from a child, for a child left to himself shames his mother, yet in our generation chinuch is not accomplished through hitting, but through explanation, encouragement, and proportionate consequences - "educate the youth according to his way." "When the wicked multiply, transgression increases": even when the wicked multiply in number and prestige, there is a boundary to wickedness and an end to darkness, and the righteous perceives their downfall in his mind's eye even before it physically arrives, for the wicked are like grass while the righteous flourishes like a palm tree.