To Potch or Not to Potch

If we say about any issue that times have changed and the Torah therefore means something different, than there is absolutely nothing absolute in the Torah. Why can we not say that Kashrus, Shabbos or any other mitzvah is irrelevant today (or means something totally different than what Judaism traditionally explains it to mean,) since times have changed? The only true response to that is that the Torah transcends time and was written to all generations.

You do understand the difference betweeen keeping kosher which involves the fulfillment of actual Mitzvos and disciplining children which is a means to an end…

I know a couple that when they first got married took an example from a very chashuv family that using petch as a form of discpline was the excepted norm. Now, these very special people are the epitome of Torah and Chessed. I don’t think I ever saw the father raise his voice or so much as lose his calm. There approach was right for them. To make a long story short The newly married couple should never have adopted this approach. They do not have the same midos. As it has already been pointed out above, hitting another yid when a constructive chinuch purpose is not being served is a Torah prohibition. It’s an act of violence. A person who has not successfully overcome the mida of anger and is not able to remain totally calm in a stressful situations should not potch.

But to say that “it’s NEVER ok to hit a child” and to consider petch as categorically abusive is just adopting current Western ideologies. Nebach.

Joseph:

You cannot create a mitzvah as you are about tying the left shoe first. There are many practices that are in the category of minhag, not mitzvah. It is problematic, perhaps assur, to give them mitzvah status.

Next – your quotes from Rambam and Shulchan Aruch Harav must be understood in context. If the potch is an expression of revenge at a child for having disobeyed, it is ossur. No one ever, ever gave any leniency for that. If it emanates from anger, it is ossur. The Brisker Rov ZT”L stated clearly that the first potch, under specific conditions might be able to be considered muttar. But the second one was never permitted, and was ossur min haTorah. Any discussion of discipline must be able to teach the talmid, not punish. In fact, the concept of עונש does not exist in הלכות חינוך. That includes the potch. If the child learns to associate the misbehavior with negative consequences, that can be educational. If the child learns to consider the one administering the punishment as bad or hateful, that is not chinuch, and the potch was not muttar at all.

When a potch is administered as chinuch (qualifies as such), and there is an unfortunate result, he is definitely pottur. If the potch was not chinuch, but rage or revenge, the father is chayav. That is halacha lemaaseh.

the gemara says about a father that kills his son from petch……
its the yidishe mesorah…. petch is a good thing for kids