ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף משלי 22:15

...In this verse, King Solomon, of blessed memory, teaches the virtue of accepting reproof and criticism. Torah depends on one’s ability to accept reproof. The highest virtue is found in the one who accepts criticism and listens to the one who rebukes him. It is the basis for the fulfillment of the Torah. One who rejects reproof is marked by a repulsive virtue containing the worst evils. To reject criticism causes one to reject the yoke of the commandments. Regarding this, Solomon wrote: "Discipline is worse than the one who abandons God's way; he who hates rebuke will die." (Prov. 15:10) This means that one who rejects reproof is worse than the person who abandons the observance of Torah since such a person is guilty of denying the yoke of commandments. A person who abandons the path of Torah may face punishment but he is not condemned to death. One who rejects reproof is not pardoned through suffering but is sentenced to death. This is what King Solomon meant when he said, "He who hates rebuke will die." It is not enough for him to face painful suffering as a judgment…Conversely, Solomon explains that reproof is like a thing of beauty just as earrings are adornments to the body. When a wise person presents criticism to a person who is receptive to the criticism, the criticism is compared to an earring or an adornment which beautifies the soul of the individual. There are two types of people with regard to reproof: those whom we are obligated to criticize and those whom we should avoid criticizing. There are three types of people whom one is obligated to criticize: the wise, the simple and the youth. There are three types of people to whom one should avoid offering reproof: scoffers, fools and the wicked. Regarding scoffers, we are taught, "Do not rebuke the scoffer for he will hate you." (Prov. 9:8) … Regarding fools, it is written, "Do not speak to the fool for he will disdain your sensible words." (Prov. 23:9) The scoffer hates the person who criticizes him while the fool makes light of the words of reproof and mocks the person who is wiser than they are. Regarding the wicked, it is stated, "…to rebuke the wicked person for his blemish is to call down abuse on oneself." (Prov. 9:7) This means that when one criticizes the wicked and points out his blemish, the wicked responds by casting his own blemish back on the one who rebuked him. The people to whom one should offer reproof include the wise. It is written, "Reprove the wise person and he will love you." (Prov. 9:8) Sometimes a wise person needs to be criticized when he accidently sins or does so by chance. Regarding the simple, it is written, "Endow the simple with shrewdness." (Prov. 1:4) Regarding the young, Scripture states "(He endows) the young with knowledge and foresight." (ibid) The most important type of reproof is the criticism offered to the young since their intellect is not fully developed and they lived under the domination of the evil inclination for the thirteen years when their thoughts and understanding were completely focused on worldly pleasures of the body. While they are still adolescents and their nature is malleable, young people are in need of criticism to rein in their behavior and to help them come under the control of their good inclination. They gain this by listening to the person who reproves them and by paying attention to words of Torah which is entirely reproof. It is written, "The way to life is the rebuke that disciplines." (Prov. 6:23) If a person was allowed to follow his basic nature, whether good or bad, he would not be able to separate himself from his youthful behavior when he reached the full maturity, as it is written, "Train a lad in the way he ought to go; he will not swerve from it even in his old age." (Prov. 22:6) Thus, a person acquires great benefit and merit for himself (by accepting criticism when he is young.) Because of this Solomon advises us to offer reproof to a young person with 'the rod of discipline,' "if folly settles in the heart of a lad, the rod of discipline will remove it." (Prov. 22:15) This means that even if the folly has attached itself to his heart and he has become accustomed to acting in this fashion for many years, do not despair and say, 'There is no way to make him improve,' for as long as he is a lad and the rod of discipline is used, he can remove it. By disciplining him little by little, the reproof will eventually enter his heart. When the word of the disciplinarian is soft so and offered with constancy it will eventually make an impression on the one who is disciplined just as drops of water which are soft and pleasing eventually leave a hole in a rock (upon which the water drips). But if a person despairs and does not try to offer a young person reproof, it is as if he hates him, as it is stated: "He who spares the rod, hates his son; but he who loves him disciplines him early," (Prov. 14:23) The Midrash interprets this verse: "He who spares the rod, hates his son," refers to King David, while "He who loves him, disciplines him early," refers to Jacob, teaching that one who withholds discipline in the end will cause his children to follow evil company. We find this to be the case with Abraham who spoiled Ishmael and eventually he followed evil company…similarly Isaac spoiled Esau so that he left his father to follow evil company… David spoiled Adoniyah and Abshalom causing them to follow evil company… "He who loves him disciplines him early" refers to Abraham in the case of Isaac and Isaac in the case of Jacob. Similarly because Jacob disciplined his sons, there was no unworthy sons among them. Because he was a wise disciplinarian and the sons were attentive to him they became like refined gold made into earrings and they were truly the children of their father's legacy.

IF A MAN SMITE HIS BONDMAN. Our Sages have already perforce derived from the expression, for he is his money,¹³⁷Verse 21. that this verse speaks of a Canaanite bondman, and the plain meaning of Scripture is indeed as they say, for his countryman, a Hebrew man or woman, is not called plain eved or amah without any further qualifications.¹³⁸See also Ramban above Verse 7, and Note 67. Scripture states ‘basheivet’ [with a patach under the beth, which indicates the definite article, thus meaning] “with the rod”: [And if a man smite his bondman, or his bondwoman, with the rod], because it is the custom of a ruler or master to keep in his hand a rod, and G-d therefore warned him that even if it be a rod of correction¹³⁹Proverbs 22:15. and not a wooden cane, he should be careful with it and should not use it to hit even a Ganaanite bondman with a persecution that none restrained.¹⁴⁰Isaiah 14:6. This is the purport of the expression, and he die under his hand, meaning that he kept striking him until he died. It was not necessary for Scripture to state the punishment which he is liable to, but it just stated that he is not to go free merely because the bondman is his money, but he shall surely be punished, as is the punishment of anyone who strikes another person so that he dies, where Scripture has said, he shall surely be put to death.¹⁴¹Above, Verse 12.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture the intention of: Notwithstanding, if a day or two ‘ya’amod’,¹³⁷Verse 21. [generally translated “he continues”], is that the bondman literally gets up “and stands” on his feet. This is why it was necessary for Scripture to say a day or two, the meaning thereof being that if on that day or on the following day the bondman will stand up on his feet, he [i.e., the master] shall not be punished. And the verse is to be understood as if it said: “notwithstanding, [if he stands up] ‘bayom’ or ‘bayomayim’ (in a day or in two) or ‘l’yom’ or ‘l’yomayim’ (to a day or to two).¹⁴²The verse has it: yom o yomayim [literally: “a day or two”]. This fits in with the translation of ya’amod as “he continues,” thus: if he continues [living] a day or two. Ramban who interprets ya’amod in its literal sense — “he stands up” — therefore concludes that the sense of the verse is: “notwithstanding, if he stands up in a day or in two etc.” The opinion of the Rabbis mentioned further on will explain sufficiently why the Torah did write here yom o yomayim. There are many such cases [where the prefix beth or lamed is missing as it is assumed in the meaning of the word]. Thus, at first He had said, and he die under his hand, which might be taken to have meant that the bondman died immediately at the time he struck him; therefore He referred back and explained that if on the day he struck him he stood up on his feet, or even if he could not stand at all on that day, but did so on the next day, the master is free from punishment. But if he did not stand up at all, the master is liable to punishment, even though the bondman only died on the second day, for that too is considered as if he died under his hand. It did not mention a case where he stood up on the third day, for if the bondman lived three days, the master is free from the death penalty, since this is no longer considered a case of he die under his hand.
In the opinion of our Rabbis¹³⁶Mechilta here on the Verse. Scripture mentioned yom o yomayim [“a day or two,” and not bayom o bayomayim, “in a day or in two”], in order to teach us that [for the master to go free] the bondman must have survived twenty-four hours, and the meaning of the expression used is: “a complete day [consisting, as it does, of twenty-four hours]; or two days, neither of which consists of a complete day, [but instead the period of twenty-four hours is made up of the parts of two separate days].” Had it said just “a day,” the bondman would have had to continue living for a night first and then the following day, as is the “day” of the Torah mentioned at the creation¹⁴³And there was evening and there was morning, one day (Genesis 1:5). and in connection with the Sabbaths and festivals; [but now that it said, a day or two it means any period of twenty-four hours, as explained above]. The word ya’amod [in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis] then means that “he continues to live.” Similarly, that they may ‘ya’amdu’ many days,¹⁴⁴Jeremiah 32:14. means “continue to exist.” And this is the correct and true interpretation of the verse.

Nachmanides writes that the word בשבט with the vowel patach under the letter ב which is equivalent to a definitive article indicates that the master is normally walking around with such a stick as a sign of his authority. The Torah warns that although it is common knowledge that such a staff is used to discipline with, the master is not allowed to do this. The words תחת ידו, indicate that he has been hitting the slave incessantly until the slave died as a result. The Torah writes simply נקום יוקם that such a deed will be avenged without spelling out the details. The principal message of the verse is that just because the master “owns” the body of the slave he is not at liberty to abuse it, much less to kill it. The wording “he will surely be avenged” means that just a the master would be held responsible for murder, i.e. killing with lethal force, any other human being not owned by him, so he is liable when he causes death with a lethal instrument to his slave. Seeing the standard death penalty for killing with intent is by the sword the same death penalty is applicable in our case also. This is spelled out more clearly in Leviticus 26,2: והבאתי עליכם חרב נוקמת, “I will bring upon you an avenging sword,” a verse in which the close association of vengeance and the sword is clearly demonstrated.