Was the Buddha harsh? "And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm &amp; suffering."
  
  -- Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, MN 38


There are many suttas in the canon where the Buddha admonishes monks, and the above is a notable example.

The translations, at least to my eyes, come as particularly harsh: "worthless" (in Nanamoli/Bodhi, we read "misguided" instead of "worthless". I've also read "foolish" elsewhere) -- there was another reprimand from the Buddha, almost mean as I recall how I felt while reading it, but which I could not find again. 

I've constantly felt troubled with these passages. I also look with very suspicious eyes the dribbling with "The buddha was harsh for their own good" (unless, if it is the Buddha himself justifying his harsh words, not we trying to excuse him and spare the texts). I find it troubling specially in light of:


the very explicit right speech teachings, promoting the abandonment of harsh words.
the difficulty of reconcile harsh "formations" in a mind free of defilements.


Are the other/older versions (say, chinese, pali and tibetan) of these passages evoking somewhat equivalent harsh emotions on a reader? Or is it a particularity of the english translations? (Or is it just me?)

Otherwise, were these harsh reprimands ever discussed (in books, commentaries, etc)?
This question is addressed in the Abhaya Sutta from the Buddha himself, on the topic of Right Speech.

Your question should fall under "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing &amp; disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them." (Abhaya Sutta).

From your same link on the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, you can read the commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:


  The Buddha calls Sāti into his presence, and after ascertaining that
  Sāti will not abandon his view even when reprimanded by the Buddha
  himself, he abandons Sāti as too recalcitrant to teach, and turns to
  cross-question the monks as to the relevant right view of how
  consciousness functions in the process leading to repeated birth.
  
  The Buddha's treatment of Sāti might seem harsh, but he is actually
  acting out of compassion for the monks in the assembly, in case any of
  them might be swayed by Sāti's position. Seeing Sāti as a lost cause,
  the Buddha doesn't want this lost cause to cause further losses among
  the other monks. We have to remember that during the Buddha's lifetime
  there were no written accounts of his teachings; the monks and nuns
  all had to rely on their memory of what they had heard directly from
  him or through word-of-mouth from fellow members of the Saṅgha. Thus
  the Buddha saw the need to establish orthodoxy whenever a member of
  the Saṅgha was espousing false interpretations of his teaching.


The Buddha also discusses this in the Kesi Sutta which is summarized here by Thanissaro Bhikku:


  Once, when a horse trainer came to see the Buddha, the Buddha
  asked him how he trained his horses. The trainer said that some horses
  responded to gentle training, others to harsh training, others
  required both harsh and gentle training, but if a horse didn't respond
  to either type of training, he'd kill the horse to maintain the
  reputation of his teachers' lineage. Then the trainer asked the Buddha
  how he trained his students, and the Buddha replied, "In the same
  way." Some students responded to gentle criticism, others to harsh
  criticism, others to a mixture of the two, but if a student didn't
  respond to either type of criticism, he'd kill the student. This
  shocked the horse trainer, but then the Buddha explained what he meant
  by "killing": He wouldn't train the student any further, which
  essentially killed the student's opportunity to grow in the practice.