Midrasch zu Könige I 1:6

And these are the names of the Sons of Israel that came into Egypt with Yaakov, every man came with his household – There it is written (Mishlei 13, 24): “He who spares the rod hates his son; but he who loves him disciplines him in his youth.” Ordinarily in the world, if a person says to his friend: “So-and-so hit your son”, he would be ready to reduce his livelihood. And why is it taught “ He who spares the rod hates his son”?! In order to teach you, that anyone who refrains from disciplining his son in the end causes him to fall into evil ways and will hate him. This is what we have found with Yishmael, who behaved wickedly on Avraham his father but did not rebuke him, with the result that he fell into evil ways and he hated him and he left from his house with nothing. What did Yishmael do when he was fifteen years old? He started to bring idols from the market and he would play with them and worship them as he had seen others do, immediately (Bereishit 21, 9) “And Sarah saw the son of the Egyptian Hagar that she had given birth for Avraham was fooling around etc…” And there is no fooling except for idol worship, like that it says (Shemot 32,6): And they rose up to fool around. Immediately (Bereishit 21,10): And she said to Avraham , Send out this maid-servant and her son, perhaps my son will learn from him. Immediately, (Bereishit 21,11) And this thing was very bad in the eyes of Avraham etc...on account of his son because he had become evil. (Bereshit 21,12) And G-d said to Avraham, do not let it be evil in your eyes etc... From here you can learn, that Avraham was secondary to Sarah in prophecy, following on, (Bereishit 21,14): And Avraham got up in the morning and he took bread and a bottle of water, to teach you, that he hated Yishmael because of his evil ways, and sent him and his mother Hagar empty-handed and expelled them from his house because of this. Do you really think that Avraham, of whom it is written (Bereishit 13,2): And Avraham was very rich in cattle etc... that he would send his wife and his son from his house empty-handed, without clothes or means of a livelihood?! Rather, this is to teach you, since he turned evil, he stopped thinking about him. What was his end? After he had been expelled, he sat at the cross-roads and was a bandit, as it says (Bereishit 16,12): And he was a wild man. And similar to this (Bereishit 25,28): And Yitzchak loved Esav, therefore he turned to evil ways, because he was not rebuked, like we were taught: Five transgressions the evil Esav transgressed on that day: He seduced an engaged lady, and killed a man, denied resurrection, and rejected the fundamentals of religion and spurned his birthright, that he desired the death of his father, and sought to kill his brother, as it says (Bereishit 27,41):May the days of mourning for my father be brought close etc.. And he forced Ya'acov to flee from his father. And he even went with Yishmael, to learn from his evil ways and to add to his wives, as it says (Bereshit 28,9): And Esav went to Yishmael. Similarly with David, that he did not rebuke or chastise his son Avshalom, he turned to evil ways and sought to kill his father, and he lay with concubines, and becoming the cause if his wandering, bare-footed and crying, and many thousands and myriads of Israelites were slaughtered, and he caused much suffering upon them which did not end. As it is written (Psalms 3,1): A song of David, when he fled from Avshalom his son, just as it was written after (Psalms 3,2) How great in number have my enemies become etc. And cultural evil is harsher on one's home than the war of Gog and Magog, for regarding the war of Gog and Magog it says: (Tehilim 2:1) "Why do the nations stir?" and later it is written: (Tehilim 3:2) "God, how many my enemies are!" And similarly David behaved with Adoniyah, he did not beat him in punishment, and did not get angry at him, and therefore he left to cultural evil, as is written: (Kings 1 1:6) "And his father never scolded him...and she bore him after Avshalom." Wasn't Avshalom the son of Maacha, while Adoniyahu was the son of Chagit? What does it mean, "she bore him after Avshalom"? Instead- since he [Avshalom] left to cultural evil, and his father never beat him, and it is written about Adoniyahu "his father never scolded him," he too left to cultural evil, and therefore it is written: "and she bore him after Avshalom." (Proverbs 13:24) "But he who loves him disciplines him in his youth" refers to the Holy Blessed One, who loves Israel, as it is written (Malachi 1:2) "I have loved you, says God," who increases their suffering. One can find three good gifts that the Holy Blessed One gave to Israel, and they were each given only by means of suffering: the Torah, the Land of Israel, and life in the World to Come. The Torah, as it is written: (Psalms 94:12) "How lucky is the man who You discipline, God, and to whom You teach Your Torah." The Land of Israel, as it is written: (Deuteronomy 8:5) "Bear in mind that the LORD your God disciplines you just as a man disciplines his son." What is written next? (Deuteronomy 8:7) "For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land..." The World to Come, as it is written: (Proverbs 6:23) "For the commandment is a lamp, the teaching is a light, and the way to life is the rebuke that disciplines." And when anyone rebukes his son, the son increases his love for his father, and he honors him, as it is said: (Proverbs 29:17) "Discipline your son and he will give you peace." And it says: (Proverbs 19:18) "Discipline your son while there is still hope." And he increases his love for him, as it says: "But he who loves him disciplines him early," meaning because he disciplines him early, therefore he loves him. You find that Abraham disciplined Isaac his son and taught him Torah and guided him in his ways, as is written about Avraham: (Genesis 26:5) "In return for Avraham's obedience to my voice" and it is written: (Genesis 25:19) "These are the descendants of Isaac, son of Abraham," which teaches you that he was similar to his father in all ways- in beauty, in wisdom, in wealth, and in good deeds. You should know that he [Isaac] was thirty-seven years old when his he was bound by his father, and it is written: (Genesis 24:1) "And Abraham was old, advanced in age" and yet he bound him and positioned him like a lamb, and he did not refuse. Therefore: (Genesis 25:5) "Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac," Which is to say, "he who loves him disciplines him early." In the same manner, Isaac would discipline Jacob early, for Isaac taught him Torah and disciplined him in his house of study, as it says: (Genesis 25:27) "but Jacob was a mild man who stayed home." And he learned what his father taught him, and then he separated from his father and hid in the house of Ever to study Torah. Therefore he merited blessing and inherited the land, as it says: (Genesis 27:1) "Jacob lived in the land of his father's residence, in the land of Canaan." And even our Patriarch Jacob disciplined his sons, and beat them and taught them his ways, so that none of them would be disposable, as it is written: (Exodus 1:1) "These are the names of the sons of Israel who arrived to Egypt..." The verse equates them all to Jacob, for they were all righteous as he had been. This resolves: "But he who loves him disciplines him early."

David behaved similarly toward Adonijah. Because he did not reproach him or punish him he went astray, as it is written: And his father had not grieved him all his life in saying: “Why hast thou done so?” … and he was born after Absalom (I Kings 1:6). Was not Absalom actually the son of Micah, and Adonijah the son of Haggith? Why, then, does it say: And he was born after Absalom?²The verse gives the impression that they were born of the same mother. To teach us that just as Absalom went astray because his father failed to chastise him, so did Adonijah, concerning whom it is written: And his father had not grieved him all his life (I Kings 1:2) by asking: “Why have you done such-and-such?” He went astray for the same reason. Hence Scripture states: He that spareth his rod hateth his son.

“Anger is better than laughter, as with a cross countenance the heart will be bettered” (Ecclesiastes 7:3).
“Anger is better than laughter.” Solomon said: Had [my] father been a little angry at Adoniya, it would have been better for him than the laughter with which the attribute of justice mocked him. Why? It is because “with a cross countenance the heart will be bettered.” Had he shown him a cross countenance, he would have caused him to better his ways. Instead, “his father had never aggrieved him” (I Kings 1:6).³⁸Ultimately, this lead to Adoniya’s attempt to sieze power, and his eventual death. See I Kings chapters 1–2. Likewise regarding Amnon, had David his father been a little angry with him, it would have been better for him than the laughter which which the attribute of justice mocked him. Why? It is because “with a cross countenance the heart will be bettered.” Instead, “Amnon alone is dead” (II Samuel 13:32).
Another matter, “anger is better than laughter” – had the Holy One blessed be He been angry at the generation of the Flood, it would have been better than the laughter with which the attribute of justice mocked them, as it is stated: “Their offspring are established before them” (Job 21:8).³⁹Had the Holy One blessed be He shown them anger, they would have improved their ways, and died in peace with their offspring surrounding them. Another matter, “anger is better than laughter” – had the Holy One blessed be He been angry at the Sodomites, it would have been better than the laughter with which the attribute of justice mocked them, as it is stated: “Their houses are safe, without fear” (Job 21:9).⁴⁰That would have been their plight.

(Fol. 109 b) But is not the name of the mother's side also mentioned [in the record]? Behold! it is written (Jud. 17, 7) And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-Judah of the family of Judah, but he was a Levite, and sojourned there. Now, does not this passage contradict itself? It says of the family of Judah, from which it is to be inferred that they came from the tribe of Juda; and then it says he is a Levite, which means that he was of the tribe of Levi. We must conclude that his father was from Levi and his mother from Juda, and nevertheless it is said of the family of Juda, Raba b. Chanan said: "The passage reads, and he is Levi, which does not mean that he was a Levite, but that his name was Levi." If so, how is the following to be understood (Ib. 17) I have obtained a Levite for a priest. There it is understood that he happened to get a man by the name of Levi? Was not his name Jonathan, as it is written (Ib. 18, 30) And Jonathan the son of Gershom… . were priests, etc. And according to your theory, was he then the son of Menashe? Behold, he was the son of Moses, as it is written (I Chron. 23, 15) The sons of Moses were Gershom and Eliczer. But you will have to explain this that it is written Menashe, because he acted (idolatrous) like Menashe, therefore he is called Menashe. In this instance you could explain likewise that the phrase of Juda is employed because Menashe came from Juda. R. Jochanan, in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai, said: "From this it is to be inferred that every corruption is fastened to the corrupt (who originally started it)." You may infer the same from the following (I Kings 1, 6) And his mother had borne him after Abshalom the son of Maacha? We must say that because he acted like Abshalom, who also rebelled against the kingdom, the verse conjoined him with Abshalom.