In the concluding verses of Chapter 13, King Solomon addresses two topics that seem distant from one another, but are actually two sides of the same coin: raising a child with discipline, and being content with what one has. Both are built on the same premise: what feels pleasant to a person at this moment is not necessarily what is good for him, and one who truly loves - loves for the long term.
Even a Perfect Child Needs Boundaries
A beautiful insight on this matter is cited in the name of Rav Dessler. Even if a child is perfect, truly the kind every parent prays for, even then - says Rav Dessler - the father must find a reason, once a month, to put him in his place. Why, seemingly? After all, everything with him is fine! The answer is that if not, the boundary between father and son becomes blurred. The father is meant to be the educator, and if the child feels he is so well-behaved and so perfect, he feels that he and his father are walking side by side as peers, that there is no one here giving instructions and someone receiving them. After all, there was never any need - he always did everything on his own. That is not sound education. Proper chinuch requires that there be the figure of a father and the figure of a son. Therefore, one sometimes needs to find reasons - not invent reasons, but find, even over a small matter - to put him in his place. With most of our children there is no need to search; they make sure to supply us with plenty of reasons. But even in the hypothetical scenario of a perfect son, this rule still applies.
חוֹשֵׂךְ שִׁבְטוֹ שׂוֹנֵא בְנוֹ, וְאֹהֲבוֹ שִׁחֲרוֹ מוּסָר. (כד) - "He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him early." (24)
"His Rod" - A Rod of Discipline
It is important to emphasize: Chazal already pointed out that there is an age at which one may strike a child and an age at which one may not. Beyond a certain age, when the son becomes more independent and discerning, the moment you strike him - Chazal say - you transgress "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind," referring to one who strikes his grown son. And how old is "grown"? There is no single age; it depends on every generation and every child individually. There is a child who already has self-respect at age four or five, and you see that if you hit him, you will break his spirit. It is far more effective to reason with him intellectually, or to impose a different consequence.
And often, consequences are necessary; there is no getting around it. One must withhold a treat, or something he looks forward to enjoying; sometimes a child must be put in his place. But this is far more effective and beneficial than physical striking. For example: you agreed with him that he would return from his friends at seven, and he arrives at eight. You tell him: "Tomorrow you are not going out," or "Tomorrow you will go out for an hour less." This is incomparably more effective than a slap. What did you accomplish with a slap?
Not only that, but the nature of striking is that the child becomes immune to it. Another hit and another hit, and at a certain point he says to himself: "Fine, I have to go home and get two slaps" - and it no longer affects him. And what happens then? The parent says: "Oh, this doesn't bother you anymore? I'll show you!" And he strikes him until he cries. "Now is it okay? Now do you understand?" What did you gain? You turned a child who could have been full of the joy of life into a miserable, battered child. You are raising an abused child at home, and the dose keeps escalating, because yesterday's hit no longer has an effect, so you have to increase the severity. And then one hears shocking things: one puts out cigarettes, another uses an iron, another a belt. How does one arrive at such abuse? These are people who did not stop at yellow, and ended up running a screaming red light.
Therefore, physical discipline must be at the absolute minimum dosage. Hitting, by its very nature, is a humiliating thing. Therefore, do not think about the severity of the strike, but about the fact that the child was struck at all. The mere fact of being struck is already supposed to put him in his place; it is already meant to be a humbling experience. If the child says, "It doesn't hurt," tell him: "I did not intend to hurt you; I only wanted you to realize how upset and serious I am about what you did."
Neither Slaps nor Kicks
Second: neither slaps nor punches. A seventeen-year-old young man once shared that he harbored a very heavy resentment toward his father. What happened? "My father used to kick me." That was years earlier, and he was still so hurt and so humiliated. Even a backhanded slap is humiliating; as for kicking or punching - that should go without saying. If physical restraint is ever necessary, one holds the child's hand a bit firmly - and even here, careful not to tear his arm off - a pinch, holding the ear when he must be stopped. And even that applies only to small children. Once he has grown - one does not communicate with hands at all.
One must realize: our generation is an era where "insolence will increase," and a child throws off his father's yoke far more quickly. If thirty years ago a parent who struck his son saw him rebel at age fifteen, today an eight-year-old does so. Already at age eight, he becomes a troubled child whom you cannot talk to; he ignores you completely and does nothing of what you say. Why? Because instead of drawing him close and showing him things with warmth and love, you treated him with hostility and physical striking.
Furthermore, everything we have discussed applies only to preventing him from a negative action. But woe to the parent who strikes his son or pinches him - even when at times such measures might seem called for - in order to compel him to do something positive. You didn't pray, you didn't learn - and for this you pinch and hit? Master of the Universe, what are you accomplishing by this! You are making prayer hateful to him, making learning hateful to him, causing him to understand that learning is the most terrible thing in the world and that one must always look for a way to escape it.
Look at the previous generation, those who came from abroad, particularly from Middle Eastern and North African lands, where this was customary. That entire generation threw off the yoke of observance. Why? Because that was how the parents had been raised; they knew no other way. If a child acted improperly, that was how they reacted. But there, the child had nowhere to run: Iraq, Yemen, Morocco - where could he go, to the gentiles? Today, at a very young age, he has somewhere to go; he joins the crowd on the street, and there is no longer anyone to talk to. Certainly, this is not the way. Therefore, all that is meant by "spares his rod" is a rod of reproof, and not an actual stick, Heaven forbid, or worse things of that nature.
The Ralbag: The Failure of Upbringing in the House of David
An example of the opposite side of the equation can be found in the case of Adonijah the son of Chaggis, where the Ralbag writes something startling. He says: We find that King David did not succeed in the upbringing of his sons - Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah. This was a colossal failure. And why? Because he did not discipline or grieve his sons, in the words of the verse, "His father had never grieved him." They grew up in the royal palace, he appointed them to noble and prominent positions, and he never made demands of them or held them accountable - and see what resulted.
From here we learn - and certainly one does not say this lightly regarding King David, but rather as a general principle - that parents often err: I will give to him and provide for him, it is fine, do not be strict with him, he wants this too - give it to him, he did something wrong - let it slide. Why? Because the parent wants to find favor in the child's eyes, lest the child say to him, "I hate you." How terrible it is to hear such an expression come out of a child's mouth toward his mother! Such a thing must never be uttered, and one must make it unequivocally clear to the child that such speech will not be tolerated. Think whatever you want in your heart, but do not speak insolently. The father must put the child in his place: You will not speak like that to Mother, period. And if I hear such language from you again, you will not leave the house for a week. A child needs boundaries.
Yet the parent wants to curry favor with the child, and therefore sets no boundaries, causing the child to deteriorate further and further. Then, instead of loving your son, distance and near hatred develop, to the point where parents can no longer stand their children: let him leave the house, let him sit in his room; they buy him a computer and buy him whatever they can, just so long as he does not disturb them. Why? Because the parent suffers on account of this child.
"He Who Loves Him Chastises Him Early" - And the Nachas Born of Boundaries
By contrast, "He who loves him chastises him early" - and then see how much nachas you will have from the child. Precisely when you set boundaries for a child, you derive true satisfaction from him; when you set no boundaries, you suffer bitterly from him. Yielding brings only momentary relief: the child throws a tantrum in the supermarket, "Mommy, buy it for me," stomps, screams, embarrasses her - fine, fine, here is a snack. Did you surrender? Wonderful, you have prepared yourself for the next battle. The child grasped that Mommy gets stressed, and that public embarrassment is what bothers her. The next time they arrive at the supermarket, he begins to scream - and she buys. A child learns quickly. But if you hold back once or twice, there may be an argument and perhaps some embarrassment, but the child realizes that there are no tricks, screaming will not help, and if he screams, he will lose even the things he was supposed to receive. That is how a child learns boundaries.
And these are the children who are closely bonded to their parents. There is an interesting study: children whose parents set boundaries were far more connected to their parents than children whose parents gave them everything. This is a reality, as evidenced by real-life experience, and anyone can attest to it from cases they know. The reason is simple: a child wants boundaries. He wants a father; he is not looking for a friend - he has fifty friends. He wants a father and mother who will guide him and give him boundaries, not cater to his every whim. For a fleeting moment it may be convenient for him to do whatever he pleases, but deep down he has no father, no mother, no one to set boundaries for him.
The Malbim: Whom Do You Love More?
The Malbim offers an intriguing analysis of the verse. Why, in truth, does a person "spare his rod" and withhold the necessary reproof from his son? Because he loves the boy: He is such a child, I love him so much, I cannot bring myself to do such a thing to him! It turns out, explains the Malbim, that this love - where you cannot bear to see his distress - is greater than your love for the son himself. And if we analyze it: you love yourself more than you love the child.
To explain: you know that if you discipline the child, deny him some of his desires, and provide everything within proper boundaries - the child will not like it, and you cannot bear to see him upset. But think long-term: it is obvious that when you educate and discipline the child, you give him the very best; you grant him the ability to overcome and withstand future trials, building his character far more than if you gave him everything and shielded him constantly. If you do not do so, it means that you do not truly care whether your son is better equipped for the future; you only care about your own heartache, being unable to watch him in pain. The inability to witness another's distress often stems from self-love - the pain is mine, it is difficult for me to discipline him. Thus, your own distress, which is self-love, outweighs your love for your son.
For example: your child needs to have a tooth extracted. He cries out, and you say, "I cannot bear to watch such a thing," take him off the doctor's chair, and take him home. Whom does this person love? Himself. For if you had even a little compassion for the child, you would think about what will happen in two years or in several years, when he will need a root canal and suffer severe pain. You would think about him a bit. But you are not thinking about him - you are thinking about yourself: I cannot take it, I cannot take it. Thus, you pity yourself more than you pity your son. Whereas "one who loves him" - one who truly loves his son says: despite how difficult it is for me to see my child suffer, I know that this is for his own good, and my love for the child is stronger than my love for myself. This is "seeks him with discipline."
"Shicharo" - From the Word for Dawn
And what is the meaning of "shicharo"? The Malbim explains: it is related to shachar, the dawn or early morning - he disciplines him in his dawn, already when the child is in his youth, in order to do good for him in his latter end. And in this, the Malbim adds, lies also the answer to the question we asked earlier: why does the Holy One, blessed be He, bring suffering upon the righteous, and why is there "one who is swept away without judgment"?
רָב אֹכֶל נִיר רָאשִׁים, וְיֵשׁ נִסְפֶּה בְּלֹא מִשְׁפָּט. (כג) - Abundant food is in the tillage of the poor, but there is one who is swept away without judgment. (23)
The answer is: "seeks him with discipline." The Holy One, blessed be He, brings suffering upon a person here, in the sense of "just as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you" - He disciplines you here to benefit you in your ultimate end. What would you prefer, that Hashem bestow and pour down endless bounty upon you? Who would be the great loser from that? You, for ultimately you will have to give an accounting for everything. Are not these afflictions, which set us upon the upright path and bring us to a good end, far better than having everything good here, and there, Heaven forbid, severe suffering?
צַדִּיק אֹכֵל לְשֹׂבַע נַפְשׁוֹ, וּבֶטֶן רְשָׁעִים תֶּחְסָר. (כה) - A righteous man eats to the satisfaction of his soul, but the belly of the wicked shall lack. (25)
The Vilna Gaon: "Lacks a Belly"
The Vilna Gaon explains: the righteous person eats only to his satiety, as much as he needs to satisfy his soul. In contrast, "the belly of the wicked shall lack" - and the Gaon explains this with an original interpretation: he lacks a belly. When the wicked person eats, he says: what a shame that I do not have an extra belly. Why? Because his belly is too small to contain and satisfy all his lust for eating, and he wants to eat more. And what would they do? It is known that in ancient Greece, outside the banquet halls, there was a kind of trough, and there - forgive the indelicacy - each person would vomit up all he had eaten in order to go back inside and continue eating. This is gorging oneself, and this is "the belly of the wicked shall lack": his belly is lacking, too small, and in his view ends too soon.
Trust in Tomorrow's Sustenance
Another explanation: the righteous person "shall live by his faith"; he trusts in Hashem, and therefore does not need to starve himself. The wicked person, on the other hand, does starve himself, for he says: do not finish eating today, eat only one slice and save a slice for tomorrow, because you do not know whether you will have anything tomorrow. And this is "the belly of the wicked shall lack" - this person suffers from a lack of faith, and because of this he does not eat properly today. But the righteous person says, "Day by day He bears our burden" - the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him his sustenance today and will give him his sustenance tomorrow.
It is known that according to the holy Zohar, a person should not leave over food from today for tomorrow. We are not on this level, nor does it apply to our circumstances - we buy quantities of food for an entire month, not out of fear of war, but simply so as not to have to go to the supermarket every two days. But according to the Zohar, there is an ideal that one should not leave over from his food from today for tomorrow, for one who leaves it over demonstrates, as it were, a deficiency in faith and trust: I am not sure that Hashem will send to me tomorrow as well, so I will leave something for myself. This is "the belly of the wicked shall lack" - he does not eat properly because he leaves food for tomorrow; while the righteous person eats to the satisfaction of his soul, eating without worry.
A Story Involving the Brisker Rav
It is well known that for the Brisker Rav, finding bread was no simple matter at all, because he was exceptionally meticulous regarding the concern of chadash, even outside the Land of Israel, and he would eat only grain that was definitely free from any suspicion of chadash. During World War II, food remained for only that single day, and the Brisker Rav was always careful never to leave over food for the next day. However, the following day was Erev Yom Kippur. His household said to him: "Rebbe, there is no food for tomorrow, and tomorrow there is a mitzvah to eat. Although it is the Rebbe's way not to leave over for tomorrow, what will we do tomorrow?" He said to them: "Fine, if you want to leave it over - leave it over."
The Brisker Rav possessed tremendous trust in Hashem, a truly astounding level of bitachon. He maintained a kollel of dozens of avreichim, and every month, on time and on the exact date, he paid them. If you had asked him the day before where the money was coming from, he would say: "I do not know." Yet at the very last moments, things always worked out, from here and from there, someone gave - it was unbelievable. Once, someone came and offered to support his kollel on a permanent basis. He told him: "Even for a million dollars, I would not sell my trait of bitachon. Every month I face a test of trust in Hashem, and you come and tell me to take a sum and remove the worry - so what will become of my monthly test? And Hashem has never let me down."
The next morning, the local baker arrived and said to the Rav: "I have brought fresh, warm challahs so the Rav will have what to eat; I know the Rav is careful about chadash, and this is from yashan grain, baked especially for the Rav." He added: "And you should know, Rebbe, that I also brought fish with me, fish in sauce, but during the bombardment I got frightened and ran, the pot fell and spilled, and it was entirely ruined." The Brisker Rav said to his family: "Do you see the effect of a lack of bitachon? Had we trusted in Hashem, we would have had fish as well. But the fish we have already lost. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: You rely on Me - I provide you with bread, I provide you with fish, I provide you with everything; but if you worry and save for yourself, you will not receive even what I had prepared for you." This is "A righteous person eats to satisfy his soul": he eats what is given to him today and is satisfied, and as for tomorrow - Hashem will provide. Whereas "the belly of the wicked will suffer want" - he skimps on his food in order to leave some for tomorrow, which reflects a lack of trust.
Satisfaction of the Soul in Torah Study
The Vilna Gaon explains that this applies to Torah study as well. "A righteous person eats to satisfy his soul" - a righteous person learns so that his soul may be satisfied. He is not fixated on whether he covered a little or a lot; the main thing for him is to understand the material properly, to know it thoroughly, so that his soul is satisfied with it. "We did not cover much today, we clarified only one Tosafot" - could we have covered ten blatt and instead we sat over a single Tosafot? Yes, but we clarified this Tosafot and understood it in depth. That is what it means "to satisfy his soul."
However, "the belly of the wicked will suffer want": The wicked person's entire objective is to aggrandize himself in the eyes of others, and therefore he learns a great amount, in order to show everyone - look, I know the Gemara in this tractate and on this page. His entire goal is to show off his knowledge, and through this, his belly remains lacking. And what is a full belly? That the Torah is preserved within him, as it says, "For it is pleasant that you keep them within your belly." You learned a great deal, rushed, covered much ground - for the sake of an impression; but it will not stay with you, it will not be Torah learning that is firmly established within you, and nothing of it will remain. It is far better to learn less, understand, and delve deeply, for what a person understands and delves into stays with him for a long time and he remembers it afterward.
Metzudat David: "There Is Always Room for Delicacies"
The Metzudat David explains the verse according to its plain meaning: The righteous person does not seek delicacies. He does not seek entrecôte, ribeye steak, or beef tongue; he seeks only that which satisfies the soul. As the Mesillat Yesharim states, a person is equally satisfied whether he eats fattened geese or coarse bread - in the end, both are satisfied to the exact same degree. But as for the wicked person - offer him something and he says: "This is not for me, I need something stylish, I do not eat simple food."
Notice how wonderful this is: The Gemara says that when a person is full it is difficult for him to eat more, but if they serve him delicacies, sweets, and fine desserts, he can eat a substantial amount. This is what Chazal call "room is always found for sweet things" (revacha levasumei shechiach) - for fragrant and special treats there is always room in the stomach; there is a niche that has not yet been filled. For example: A person finishes a meal, and they offer him another portion of chicken or another roll - "No, I can't." They bring out cake, ice cream, nuts - suddenly he can. The tzaddik, who does not seek delicacies but rather basic, healthy food, becomes full and is done. But the wicked person who eats delicacies, where room is always found for sweet treats, his belly is always lacking; he constantly wants more and more, because for delicacies there is always a craving, and there is always room for them in the stomach.
The Malbim: Satisfaction of the Soul, Not of the Belly
The Malbim notes a precision: The righteous person does not eat to fill his belly, but only enough for sustenance, "to satisfy his soul," and he does not eat luxuries. Another nuance: "his soul" and not "his body" - only as much as is needed to sustain his soul. What is essential for the soul so that it does not separate from the body - that is the satisfaction of the soul. For if you give the body as much as it desires, the body will eat and eat to overflowing; but as for the soul, even if one eats two or three slices of bread, it sustains the person and the soul is satisfied; that is sufficient for it.
In contrast, "the belly of the wicked will suffer want," for the wicked person does not eat to satisfy the soul, but rather to satisfy the belly, which is the body. And the body - "one who has a hundred desires two hundred"; one who has a hundred wants more. This is also a physiological reality, that appetite comes with eating: the more a person eats, the more his body demands. Someone accustomed to eating two slices of bread at a meal - that is what his stomach demands and he feels full with that. But if he decides to eat four slices, at first it will be difficult for him, and afterward he will not be able to manage without them; and not only will he feel he must have them, but his stomach expands, and once it expands, it takes much longer for him to feel full, since he has not yet filled it. Therefore, the belly of the wicked is always lacking; he continually increases his intake and always craves more. But the righteous person does not eat to satisfy his belly, but to satisfy his soul, and in terms of sustaining the soul, even very little suffices.
Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa and the Kav of Carobs
With this, the Malbim explains, we also receive an answer to the question asked earlier: Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa, for whom a kav of carobs sufficed from one Friday to the next - why? After all, "The entire world is sustained on account of My son Chanina"; everyone is nourished in his merit, yet he does not even receive proper sustenance? The answer is: the tzaddik does not seek more than a kav of carobs, and it is enough for him, because the tzaddik is truly interested in satisfying his soul. You look at him and say: Fortunate would he be if they gave him more - but the tzaddik does not want it. He is content to live in self-denial, content to live with frugality, content in a reality where he derives no pleasure from this world, because for him, the primary delight is the World to Come, and therefore he does not seek the pleasures of this world.
People came to Rav Shteinman and suggested: "Rebbe, let us replace the flooring in the house." He would not agree under any circumstances. "A bit of paint on the wall?" Absolutely not. Whoever entered his home saw a house that looked as it did sixty years earlier, with an Amcor refrigerator with the rounded door, for those who remember. He was not interested in anything more than that. Once, a pipe burst in the bathroom, and everything had to be dismantled and repaired. They said to him: "Rebbe, they are already replacing everything, and the bathroom looks rusty, so let them replace the ceramic tiles as well." He told them: "I do not want luxuries." They said to him: "It is not a luxury, there is no choice. They are already replacing the plumbing and dismantling everything, and once it is dismantled it must be replaced, and in the process they can do the whole wall; it is not even an added cost." He said: "Fine, so be it." The gabbai told the contractor: "Tomorrow at five or six in the morning you must be here and start working." Why? Because the Rav would return from the synagogue, and knowing him, he would say: "Leave it, there is no need; let him only replace the pipe, put on some plaster, and that is it." And indeed, the worker came at six, and by ten in the morning the tiles were already up. When Rav Shteinman arrived, he said: "What a pity, you have already done it. I thought about it and said it was unnecessary; let him just replace the pipe and do nothing more, it is a luxury." Exactly as the gabbai had anticipated.
A person who is a tzaddik does not desire more. And you come along and say: "Poor man, look how he lives." Fool, he is happy with what he has! He actually looks at someone living lavishly and gazes upon him with pity: "Look at what this person is immersed in, look at what bothers him, look at what he spends his days on." He pities you - and you come to pity him?
A story was once told about a husband and wife who were debating an issue. The man came to Rav Shteinman and said: "Rebbe, my wife says we should upgrade to a newer car. Baruch Hashem, I have the money, and she wants me to buy a luxury car, but I told her that I am concerned about arousing jealousy. What does the Rebbe say?" Rav Shteinman asked him: "Tell me, have you finished Shas?" He replied: "No." "Have you completed one tractate that you know thoroughly?" "No." "Have you mastered a single siman in Shulchan Aruch?" "No." He said to him: "If so, what reason is there for anyone to be jealous of you? Why do you think people would envy you - because you have a shiny piece of sheet metal? If a wagon driver has sheet metal shinier than his neighbor's wagon, what reason is there to envy him?" Such is the world of values of the tzaddik.
Therefore, the tzaddik does not look at himself and say, "I am pitiable, living a life of hunger and distress." That is not his reality at all, because "A righteous man eats to satisfy his soul" - he is satisfied with what he has and rejoices in it. This is why a kav of carobs was sufficient for Rabbi Chanina, and one should not view him with pity. On the contrary, this is the tzaddik's wish: to take nothing from this world, leaving everything to await him in the World to Come; and he feels no lack whatsoever in what he has here.
In summary:
The two pesukim that conclude the chapter teach the same fundamental principle: true love measures the ultimate outcome, not the fleeting moment. "He who spares his rod hates his son" - a parent who refrains from setting boundaries is merely pitying his own heartache rather than caring for his child's future, while one who shapes his child in his "morning" benefits him in his "end" - and likewise, the Holy One, blessed be He, brings chastisement upon a person in this world in order to benefit him in the end. This is on the condition that the rod is a rod of discipline and guidance, administered in the minimal necessary measure, within clear boundaries and with affection, and never as a means of humiliation or of coercing mitzvos. And "A righteous man eats to satisfy his soul" - the tzaddik measures his needs according to the soul rather than the stomach: not delicacies, not luxuries, not stinginess stemming from a lack of trust, nor Torah study merely for external impression, but a genuine satisfaction of body and soul. Whereas "the belly of the wicked will suffer want" - one who measures according to the physical body finds that his belly is too small to contain his desires, and he will forever feel a void.