- This topic has 183 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
klugeryid,
“WERE WOMEN TO DO THE THINGS THAT THE TORAH DEMANDS DIVORCE FOR WITH THE FREQUENCY THAT CHILDREN DO THE THINGS FOR WHICH DISCIPLINE IS DEMANDED FOR , THEN ABSOLUTELY DIVORCE WOULD BE RAMPANT.
is that a clear enough answer?”Quite revealing, yes. It’s why I asked you if your scenario earlier in the thread was hypothetical. When we have a child, we are being entrusted with a child of Hashem. Created in His image, and dearly beloved by Him. That child is NOT some sort of demon who desires only to break rules and must be punished, nor some sort of animal who only desires satisfaction of his wants, and must be coerced. To parent with those underlying assumptions is damaging and dangerous, and an insult to his Parent in Shomayim, CV”S. You know what the first thing to do with a child who absolutely refuses to get up for school? ASK HIM WHY HE’S NOT GETTING UP! Is that a clear enough answer? You know why you don’t know what to do with your hypothetical child other than to beat him? Because you don’t know him.
Joseph:
My excuse for דע מה שתשיב here is that it is an honor to review what the poskim of our generation and a few previous ones stated. Here are quotes:
ריבוי עונשים – נכון שאין להרבות להכות, רק לעתים רחוקות, שאל”כ מאבד בזה את כל ההשפעה של המכות…….וכן אין להכותו חזק וכמ”ש (ב”ב כא.) כי מחית לינוקא לא תימחי אלא בערקתא דמסנא וכו’ (לחנך בשמחה – הרב יצחק זילברשטיין שליט”א – ממשנתו של מרן הגר”ח קניבסקי שליט”א)
העונש אינו מחנך – מכה, חזקה ככל שתהיה, תשמש אולי כגורם הרתעה לעתיד, אך אין בה כדי להחדיר ערכים בתודעתו של ילד ( כבדהו וחנכהו – הרב אהרן פרידמן שליט”א)
בענין הכאת התלמידים בזמננו – כתוב חנוך לנער על פי דרכו, צריך לחנך בדרך הטובה ושלא יהיה ח”ו לרועץ, ובדור שלנו, למעשה, המציאות שבדרך כלל ההכאה גורמת למציאות הפוכה. פעם הילד היה כפוף למבוגרים, היום הילד הוא עצמאי, ופעמים שגם ההורים אינם מבינים את הדבר ואף פועלים נגד הת”ת ויכול להגרם חילול ה’ ח”ו, לכן יש למצוא את הדרך הנכונה. (תשובתו של מרן הגאון רבי יוסף שלום אלישיב זצ”ל – מובא בספר מלאכת ה’ הלכות מלמדים להורים ולמחנכים – הרב ישראל יוסף ברונשטיין שליט”א)
ה’מקל’ של זמננו – “מקל נועם” – והנה אמרנו לפרש בזה וגם הצענו הדברים לפני גדולים וטובים, כי אם מלפנים זאת בישראל היה דרך ההורים והמורים לייסר הבנים והתלמידים במקל ובשבט חובלים. אולם בזמננו שנתמעטו הלבבות והכוחות, נשתנה אופן ייסור הבנים וחינוכם. ואין להשתמש אלא במקל שונה הוא “מקל נועם” כדכתיב (זכריה יא, ז’) ואקח לי שני מקלות לאחד קראתי נועם ולאחד קראתי חובלים. (ארחות אהרן – הרב אהרן הכהן אדמו”ר מפינסק קארלין זצ”ל)
שכר והענשה בחינוך – כל הספר – בפרט פרק שישי – סוגי ענשים (הרב אליהו הכהן מונק שליט”א)
דרכיה דרכי נועם – בפרט בימינו שהילדים מפותחים, אם האב ירים את ידיו עליהם יתריסו כנגדו וידברו עליו, ובכך גורם להם שילכדו בארור, שנאמר ארור מקלה אביו ואמו ואמר כל העם אמן, כל עם ישראל נידו את המקלה אביו ואמו, כדתנא ארור – בו נדוי, בו קללה, בו שבועה, ששים רבוא מישראל ענו אמן אחר ארור זה. והאב שנהג עם ילדיו בחוזק יד גרם לכבודו שירד בעיניהם. לכן ילטף אותם, יקח אותם בטובות בלשון רכה, יאהב ויחבב אותם, כבר בגיל שמונה ותשע הילדים מפותחים בעלי שכל, ואין להתנהג עמם בעריצות וביד חזקה. (מעדני המלך חינוך ילדים – מרן הראשון לציון הרב עובדיה יוסף זצ”ל)
Just a few and small sample. I must say that they were (or are) certainly aware of the alternative explanations for psukim that you are pushing to support your agenda of hitting children. None of these Gedolim are incarnations of Dr. Spock, nor do any represent the counter culture of political correctness or other moral deviations. All of these seforim include lavish haskamos of the greats of our generation and their predecessors. If you would just consult with sources such as these without having drawn your conclusion in advance, you would see that they said it all, and I have added nothing.
STANDING OVATION!!!!!!!!
You know what the first thing to do with a child who absolutely refuses to get up for school? ASK HIM WHY HE’S NOT GETTING UP! Is that a clear enough answer? You know why you don’t know what to do with your hypothetical child other than to beat him? Because you don’t know him.
Needs to be said again.
TLIK, would you say that your recommended method of chinuch was always the preferred way, or that our generation is weaker than past generations, so things have changed?
DY:
There is no one-size-fits-all. Shlomo Hamelech stated that very openly – חנוך לנער על פי דרכו. Many of the seforim that I consult specify that the same disciplinary tactics that are effective for one talmid might be deadly for another. Being mechanech children is not about following a recipe printed on a package. The use of greater force was once okay, but even then there were kids that could not be victim to such practices. What changed is the resilience of children, and we have an absolute chiyuv to adjust our interventions accordingly. That’s what Joseph doesn’t want to hear. Let him start his car by looking for the crank under the front bumper.
I noted that I was not re-interpreting anything, nor was I looking to be innovative. I am just interested in seeing the strategies applied to chinuch being focused on producing an adult who will have a passion and thirst for Torah and mitzvos. Creating someone in constant fear of punishment is not a Torah goal. This message permeates Sifrei Mussar and Chassidus, and is universal to Klal Yisroel and the Torah world. To distort it and paint another picture is dishonest, and borders on the creation of a custom religion. Phooey.
My apologies
The quote was from אגרת הגרא printed in the back of ספר אבן שלמה“נֶאֱמָנִים פִּצְעֵי אוֹהֵב, וְנַעְתָּרוֹת נְשִׁיקוֹת שׂוֹנֵא.”
תרגום מצודות: האוהב הפוצע לאהובו למען יישר לכת, הנה הפצעים הם נאמנים, כי עשו שליחותם והועילו לזה, כי בעבורם ייטיב דרכו; אבל מן השונא, אפילו הנשיקות הן נעתרות (מרובות), והנן למשא, הואיל ואין בהם תועלת
Avram
No reason to get testy
Know why your last post is not germane?
Because my hypothetical situation was specifically asking what do you do when all else has failed.
If your way works then by all means do so but then by definition, all else HAS NOT FAILED!!! Get it?
There are certain children who will not comply with anything you do.
And there are certain situation when that child may need to be forced to do certain things.
That was the question
I am aware of most of the suggestions presented, and as I noted many are super
The question being discussed was is it ever proper to hit a child.
As usual the given didn’t really answer the question
IMHO the answer is
Yes
But not often
Look In אבן שלמה גר”א
ועל קללה ושבועה וכזב –תכה אותם ולא תרחם עליהם כלל–כי ח”ו
בקלקול הבנים יענשו אב ואם מאד. ע”שShocking. Isn’t it?
he is telling you to beat them so they won’t sin because if they do the parent will suffer. According to most posters here that is totally not chinuch.
That’s self preservation.
And yet that is from the גר”א מווילנא.
Basically the greatest in the litvish world in the last few hundred years!!As I said before
It’s fairly clear that hitting used to be a normal part of חינוך
When and why exactly it changed can be discussed
But Josef is correct that in all the earlier sources it is very clear that it was a common part of the chinuch procedure.
As an aside
It is fairly common knowledge that the brisker rav said that in brisk they hit children for not being careful about shabbos FROM THE AGE OF 3
so yes as the sources quoted earlier seem to say, kids today won’t react properly to smacks so one should hold back but all the flowery rhetoric about it not being chinuch or being too young would seem to be on weak groundAvram,
You know what the first thing to do with a child who absolutely refuses to get up for school? ASK HIM WHY HE’S NOT GETTING UP!
Really? News flash.
In real life I do have children. They have many disparate temperaments.
Some of them will never tell you what is bothering them, you need to guess and sometimes if you get it right they will tell you sometimes not. They are that way since they were old enough to shake their heads to a yes or no question.
So asking is not always the answer.
And sometimes you may know why they don’t want to get up.
Cause they went to sleep at two o’clock so the morning. For a whole week. Cause they were reading in bed. Cause all the make nice , rewards, charts ,soft speak was not as strong as the pull of reading.
(by the way those two qualities, taciturn and book worm, often in together very much. Notice I said qualities, as most personality types, are qualities just needing to be properly channeled)
So back to the hypothetical child, who is constantly a challenge to get us in the morning,
Nothing has worked, does there ever come a time when you hit them? Or do you continue just making charts, taking away their books which they wait till you finally go to sleep so they can take it back only causing them to go to sleep later, so HE will grow up knowing that the only negative of his behavior is mild reproach or what he considers soft punishment. And then In five years when he is 14 and never goes to Minyan ,you start running to experts for help?Avram
That child is NOT some sort of demon who desires only to break rules and must be punished, nor some sort of animal who only desires satisfaction of his wants, and must be coerced
Really?
Let me introduce you to something called
חומש בראשית
פרשת בראשית
”לפתח חטאת רובץ”
רש”י על הפסוק בקהלת על הפסוק טוב ילד מסכן וחכם
שהיצר טוב אינו נכנס בו עד יג היצר הרע משנולד
איוב יא-יב ועיר פרא אדם יולד ע’רמב”ן
האדם בהולדו ילך ויזיק בתולדתו
There are numerous more sources all the way down to today’s day and age.
I believe r Dessler pointed out that a baby is born with a closed fist indicating the nature of not giving, it’s all about me and his life’s work is to grow out of thatklug:
You wrote: “Nothing has worked, does there ever come a time when you hit them? ”
I do not have the specific answer for what to do that gets the kid to school. But the question that some here fail to address is whether the potch works. It is likely to allow the parent to feel as if he/she did something. But is it really effective? It might even get the kid out of bed, and perhaps he will enter the school building. But is it actually bringing the child along the direction of becoming a true shomer mitzvos? Or is it giving him a negative, painful association with yeshiva? You have to know the kid. No, I am not saying to never potch. But I am drawing attention to whether it accomplishes anything more than pleasing the parent. If that is the case, it is flagrant violation of חנוך לנער על פי דרכו. It represents chinuch according to the derech of the parent, not that of the child. And Shlomo Hamelech was a whole lot smarter here.
Often, parents and mechanchim seek to intervene with discipline because “you have to do something”. NO! You intervene with discipline because that is what the child needs to proceed along the way to responsible adulthood as an Oveid Hashem. The rebbe or parent that uses discipline to gratify themselves is irresponsible. The rebbe who potches out of anger is referred to, in several of the references I provided earlier, as a בעל עבירה.
It is all about the net result. And compliance without passion in Yiddishkeit is not the result we want.
And to all those posters who so vehemently state that intimidation and fear are not part of chinuch
How many times does the פסוק need to say, In slightly varying forms וכל העם ישמעו וייראו ולא יוסיפו לעשות // ולא יזידון עוד… which the commentaries clearly explain means that the punishment should be carried out publicly perhaps even in the presence of the entire Jewish population in order that everyone should see and therefore the ACT will not be repeated
So it seems pretty clear that in the eyes of hashem instilling fear is a valid chinuch methodology
That doesn’t mean that it should be done daily it doesn’t even mean it has to be done often nor that it should be done however what it definitely means is that it exists in the Arsenal of chinuch tools
One of the ראשונים
רש”י I think , says the reason the Torah tells it to us by מסית and not by נביא שקר is because מסית is a common problem so it needs such strong reaction whereas נביא שקר is not very common with all its intricacysSo as I said before, it would seem that Josef is on solid ground that In the classic Torah methodology, corporeal punishment has a very clear place.
All of the sources brought by ”the little that I know ” are from this or last generation. Exactly what I postulated earlier, that something seems to have changed where today’s rabbinical consensus seems to be to place it out of favor.
But to claim that it never was part of a Torah methodology is equal parts lunacy and ignoranceklugeryid,
“Because my hypothetical situation was specifically asking what do you do when all else has failed.
If your way works then by all means do so but then by definition, all else HAS NOT FAILED!!! Get it?”Yes, I got it the first time, stupid as it is. You demonstrated the “all else has failed” scenario by listing a series of coercive and bribing tactics that have not worked, leading to the conclusion that it is not that all else has failed, but that you do not realize that there are other options.
“There are certain children who will not comply with anything you do.”
False. You are labeling the child as wayward, and he is dutifully and obediently living up to your expectations.
“And there are certain situation when that child may need to be forced to do certain things.”
True. Those these absolute type situations are perhaps rarer than some think.
klugeryid,
“Really? News flash.”
Not so testy there yourself 🙂
“Some of them will never tell you what is bothering them, you need to guess and sometimes if you get it right they will tell you sometimes not.”
I think this mentality is unfortunate. Sure some children are more reticent than others, and other children will state a whole bunch of random things that are bothering them while the actual thing that is really bothering them in that moment remains hidden. Sometimes a child doesn’t even consciously know or can’t articulate what is bothering him. But to say that a child will never share with his parent what is bothering him speaks not to temperament, but a breakdown in the parent chil relationship.
“They are that way since they were old enough to shake their heads to a yes or no question.”
If a toddler cannot come to his parent and say, “hurt”, that’s a warning sign that something is wrong and should not be ignored. It’s not just a temperament issue.
“So asking is not always the answer.”
Asking is a shorthand way of saying that the first step is to try and connect with the child.
“And sometimes you may know why they don’t want to get up.
Cause they went to sleep at two o’clock so the morning. For a whole week. Cause they were reading in bed. Cause all the make nice , rewards, charts ,soft speak was not as strong as the pull of reading.”Unless you have a highly gifted preschooler who is capable of reading for hours, I’m assuming you are talking about a school aged child. In that case, I agree. Rewards and charts aren’t very motivating. That’s baby stuff.
“So back to the hypothetical child, who is constantly a challenge to get us in the morning,
Nothing has worked, does there ever come a time when you hit them?”Again, it seems that you have exhausted the coercive and transactional tactics short of hitting, and based on your mocking of the relational path I’m guessing you have not tried that. So for now I continue to dispute your “nothing has worked” assertion. And you can’t say, “oh, but in this hypothetical let’s pretend that we have tried all the relational things!” because I’m not sure that you are aware of what they are. It’s not all soft talk and la la dee da honey like you seem to think it is. So at the end of the day, it’s not that nothing is worked, it’s that everything you know to try hasn’t worked.
“Or do you continue just making charts, taking away their books which they wait till you finally go to sleep so they can take it back only causing them to go to sleep later, so HE will grow up knowing that the only negative of his behavior is mild reproach or what he considers soft punishment. And then In five years when he is 14 and never goes to Minyan ,you start running to experts for help?”
If a school aged child is waiting for the parent to fall asleep, and then steals books that they have taken and said not to take, then they CANNOT wait to get expert help until the child is 14 and skipping davening. They should be getting help right away. Those actions should definitely be discussed with a rav or family counselor.
klug:
Your use of the posul ולא יזידון עוד is wrong. There is no trace in that posuk of the word or concept of chinuch, and it is your own concoction to put it there. I stated it earlier. Discipline produces compliance, not chinuch. It is incorrect and irresponsible to confuse them. That posuk was addressing compliance, and that was the dire need at that moment.
Everyone today recognizes that hitting is a tool in the arsenal. None of the contemporaries say it has no place. But if we allow it to be something it isn’t, we produce destruction, and it is impossible to say that this is a Torah value or direction. There is wide recognition, as per some of the quotes I shared, that today’s children are not the same ones as earlier generations. Applying the tools that were effective then that backfire now is foolish. I don’t think that shomer peso’im Hashem matters here.
My premise about what chinuch is stands tall, proud, and valid. Go back and study that posuk again.
You know what the first thing to do with a child who absolutely refuses to get up for school? ASK HIM WHY HE’S NOT GETTING UP!
Really? News flash.
In real life I do have children. They have many disparate temperaments.
Some of them will never tell you what is bothering them, you need to guess and sometimes if you get it right they will tell you sometimes not. They are that way since they were old enough to shake their heads to a yes or no question.thank you for this. at least it gives me perspective.
So you are 100% right on this. I have the same kid. But you are not necessarily asking them because you don’t know the answer, or because you need them to say it. You ask them for the sake of chinuch.When you ask your child a question you are teaching them that you want to hear them. You are teaching them that there is a cause and effect for behaviors. You are teaching them that you believe they have something to say and you want to know what it is. You are teaching them that they have responsibility for some of their behaviors. You are teaching them that we ask people about themselves instead of making judgements. You are teaching them that they are valid and to validate others. You also may find out that you are sometimes wrong on what you thought they were thinking. That is a handful of reasons why we ask.
Nothing has worked, does there ever come a time when you hit them?
I find this confusing. It sounds like you think hitting works, so will I do it or not. If hitting is appropriate, it is appropriate because it is, not because nothing else has worked. You are mistakenly confusing that with it being the one thing that works that you save til the end.
Or do you continue just making charts, taking away their books which they wait till you finally go to sleep so they can take it back only causing them to go to sleep later, so HE will grow up knowing that the only negative of his behavior is mild reproach or what he considers soft punishment.
again confused. I never made charts, don’t believe in them actually. But why do you think that it’s charts and mild reproach, or hitting? If you have kids in real life, you have to know that there are a million things in between. I really don’t understand how you came to this.
And then In five years when he is 14 and never goes to Minyan ,you start running to experts for help?
I think we were pretty clear that we would be working with him from day one. Not asking politely, and then smacking. Are you implying that if things don’t work and you start smacking him, he will suddenly be compliant? If you can’t get him out of bed and you beat him til he gets up, are you thinking you achieved your goal?
I don’t see how your premise makes sense because hitting isn’t a “last resort,’ fix all. It is as specific as bed time charts, rewards, schmoozes and everything else. Choosing random disciplinary options instead of appropriate to the situation disciplinary options isn’t going to get you anywhere.
I
Avram
How many times do I need to post that all of the beautifully laid out disciplinary measures laid out I agree with and should always be the preferred method.
Why you keep assuming I don’t know them nor tried them, is beyond me.
But yes there are children who are more stubborn then all that.
דברים לא יוסר עבד
The gemorah says at first Hashem tries softly if a person shrugs it off he says, I don’t really want to do this but you leave me no choice. Now I’ll hit you and let’s see you shrug that off.
Look at the פסוק לץ תכה ופתי יעריםSyag
Of course hitting works. Depend on how you define.works.
As long as you are stronger it accomplishes the current goal.
You want to know if it will lead to better behavior in the future? If done properly yes. So say chazal. And the פסוק.Tltik
Quote
There is no trace in that posuk of the word or concept of chinuch, and it is your own concoction to put it there. I stated it earlier. Discipline produces compliance, not chinuch. It is incorrect and irresponsible to confuse them. That posuk was addressing compliance, and that was the dire need at that moment.
Sorry. Not exactly
We are killing the mom compliant one here
We are WAITING TILL YOM TOV to do it so EVERYONE ELSE WILL SEE AND BE SCARED AND NOT DO IT THEMSELVES!!!
Aka training the rest of the Jews not to do so.
That is chinuch. Training another to act properly.So that the will hear / seed and be afraid and will no longer willfully transgress. How much clearer can the Torah get???? Instill in them fear so they will no longer do this improper act.
What exactly do you think it means????
kluger- your last post is really frightening. You are so wrong in the way you are misunderstanding the text. It really scares me to think you would approach a real kid like that. If you need to hit a child when it is halachically warranted, you would actually say those words? I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to get it. Not the parent child relationship, not the child, not the Torah’s view of hitting. Which is why Avram has to keep repeating himself. Because from your responses to him it is very clear that you did not understand what he, nor I, nor some others are telling you.
Syag
I have many posts up not sure which you are referring to .
Please repostAdditionally
you would actually say those words?
Which words?
I don’t see where I said to say anything specific to a child (except way back about a conversation opener which we dealt with already)Syag
”I don’t see how your premise makes sense because hitting isn’t a “last resort,’ fix all. It is as specific as bed time charts, rewards, schmoozes and everything else. Choosing random disciplinary options instead of appropriate to the situation disciplinary options isn’t going to get you anywhere.Yes hitting is a last resort
Yes hitting works
In the words of Conan Doyle, it may be cracking the nut with a triphammer but it gets the job done.
It’s a last resort for a few reasons not listed in order
Firstly if done often it will no longer work either
Secondly if done out of anger it will breed permanent and ultimately create probably the opposite effect of what you want. A parent who has tried all the wonderful suggestions and methodologies listed in this conversation, and has gotten to a point where they feel justified in hitting is probably not doing it in anger.The difference between hitting and the other methods is simple
The other methods need to be tailored to each child
What excites one won’t talk to the next
Hitting is a universal language understood fairly quicklyKlugeryid,
Perhaps the real issue here is not about hitting or not hitting, but that you cannot be mechanech your children with faith, compassion and integrity if you are fundamentally lacking there.
And, through no fault of your own, you obviously are.
A person with emunah does not feel so threatened by a sleepy 9 year old bookworm, or so fearful of the possibility of him not going to minyan when he’s 14, to be compelled to be violent with him. So harsh with such a young child. One would think he’s skinning animals alive, the way you speak of him.
A person with emunah does not “need” his child to keep shabbos. He “needs” to do his best in his own avodas Hashem (including chinuch) and then trust that Hashem has given each person the privilege of being responsible for his own life. If you had a meaningful connection with Hashem and His torah, you would care most that your child has that real connection too, and would not prioritize hollow practice of rituals over the pinimius of them.
An honest person does not create a false dichotomy between a) continuing with a few halfhearted, failed parenting strategies (making charts, taking away books) and b) hitting. He would see that there are, in fact, an infinite array of creative options, and plenty of wise guidance, available to him.
But first and foremost, a maamin would do some deep prayer and self examination. Hashem has obviously given you this child to bring about YOUR growth, and probably healing from your own childhood. You distract yourself by demanding change in that child, but the truth is, you do not believe that you are capable of change yourself. As long as that is the case, you will fail to inspire change in anyone else. (Similarly, you likely feel self-loathing for your own struggles with self-discipline and that’s why this child’s behavior enrages you. כל הפוסל במומו פוסל)
You are not being honest with yourself or with others. You say you are worried about your child not going to minyan in 5 years, but really you are just angry about missing your train and having your will generally frustrated by this child. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s very normal, but for some reason you can’t own that this is about your anger and shame. You assert that you are discussing a hypothetical child, when in fact there is a very real 9 year old in your life who makes you feel helpless. You distract others with philosophical discussions of corporal punishment. Because if you were honest about what’s really happening, you might have to take steps toward actual change, and that makes you feel more helpless than anything else.
It’s not your fault. You were likely raised with the same attitudes that you show here and are unwittingly instilling in your own children now.
You know, a helpless person can always cry out to Hashem sincerely, over and over again, until something shifts — maybe just an insight. If only you really believed in Him, and His rachamim! Instead here you are picking fights in the coffee room, seeking permission to smack your child.
Instead of waiting until this child is 14 to run to experts for help, why not go to those experts now? If you are willing to confront yourself, an expert may help you sort through some of your very damaging beliefs about yourself and others. Either way, I hope one day you see that love and connection is not the weak choice for you, but actually the harder, more courageous choice.
Yes hitting is a last resort
Yes hitting works
In the words of Conan Doyle, it may be cracking the nut with a triphammer but it gets the job done.
It’s a last resort for a few reasons not listed in order
Firstly if done often it will no longer work either
Secondly if done out of anger it will breed permanent and ultimately create probably the opposite effect of what you want. A parent who has tried all the wonderful suggestions and methodologies listed in this conversation, and has gotten to a point where they feel justified in hitting is probably not doing it in anger.
The difference between hitting and the other methods is simple
The other methods need to be tailored to each child
What excites one won’t talk to the next
Hitting is a universal language understood fairly quicklyThat is a really sad post.
Please allow me to bow out. I am not conceding, nor am I storming out. I realize we are just functioning on totally different realities and I don’t see how that can change. Meanwhile, these last few posts are very unsettling, especially now that you have mentioned real kids being on the other end of them, and I am not comfortable in this conversation.
Hatzlacha. I wish you well.klugeryid,
“In the words of Conan Doyle, it may be cracking the nut with a triphammer but it gets the job done.”
Do you even know what the job is? A building under construction has scaffolding around it that needs to be removed. Sure a bulldozer will get the job done, but you’ll knock the building over in the process, and the bricks will fall down on your own head. During a carpentry project sometimes a board needs to be removed and replaced. Yes an axe will effectively remove the board, but then it can never be replaced again, and sharp splinters will be everywhere.
shwarmerei,
“A person with emunah does not “need” his child to keep shabbos.”
Shabbos is not a light thing like a bookworm staying up late, so I don’t think it’s a lack of emuna, or a sign of ego for a parent to do whatever it takes to prevent its desecration. But this assumption that hitting is somehow a universal power tool of parenting is dangerously incorrect. Klugeryid may think that we can dispense Hashem’s justice like Hashem does, but we are not the Master of the universe, and it’s far more likely that we’ll engender fear and hatred, not fear and awe. And what he describes in his scenario isn’t even Hashem’s way of disciplining – otherwise we’d all be dead and the world a barren wasteland.
One more thing klugeryid, if your hypothetical child is indeed so disrespectful to his parents that he would sneak into their room to take back his books, then what’s to say he won’t respond to being hit by hitting back? And once that becomes a possibility, it’s halachically forbidden to hit him.
to syag and avram
neither of you responded to my post of the words of the gra
Look In גר”א
אגרת הגרא
ועל קללה ושבועה וכזב –תכה אותם ולא תרחם עליהם כלל–כי ח”ו
those few pithy words address almost all of your shittos
to syag thanks for a pleasant discussion
to both to calm your nerves, i dont hit my children and they are quite close to me
to shwarmai wow!!
dats alotta conjecture going there. not worthy of any direct response.Klugeryid and Joseph is obviously one and the same.
Klugeryid,
DATS ALOTTA CONJECTURE GOING THERE.
Hardly. You’ve been baring your soul through your posts about parenting, religion, obsessive desire to smack children and moralize/glorify it, and G-d. Plenty of fodder for character analysis (but I can break it down further for you if you need, you’re pretty textbook. Better yet, take this thread to a professional and get some pointed feedback).
NOT WORTHY OF ANY DIRECT RESPONSE.
You mean: I’m right and it’s uncanny. Well, it got you to stop pontificating about abusing children, so I’m happy.
By the way, according to that quote from Iggeres HaGRA (did you even read it?), the GRA would have had you “potched” for כזב. Conversely, the quote does not extend to you laying a hand on your son for being a curious reader with age-appropriate impulse control, who just happens to annoy you. So maybe stop flinging that quote around everywhere; it really works against you…
If a child is not getting out of bed in the morning and you have ruled out abuse and depression as possible causes, just let the child not get out of bed. The natural consequences will become clear.
Klugeryid is a worthy adversary who has sparked, pushed, prodded and created a great deal of thoughtful and interesting discussion. No more. No less. Anything else actually IS pure conjecture.
Personally, I would like to thank him as well as all the others participating in this particular thread for giving me something both worth reading and something worth giving deeper and further thought.
Gut Shabbos everyone. Be blessed.
Avocado
”Klug, you are forgetting something. This is talking about Hashem instilling fear in grown adults, who should know better, and at that point in their lives if they are transgressing then it is their own decision and choice as educated free thinking adults.”’No, you just misunderstood where I was going with this.
It was a response to those who said instilling fear is not chinuch, it may work in the short term (read the current moment) but as training, ie chinuch, it is not a tool.
My point was to show that Hashem himself quite clearly states it should be used in order to prevent others from doing that particular misdeed in the future. Pure chinuch.
Should it be applied to chinuch for children?
That’s moving the discussion forward. First I was trying to lay down the ideal.
Once that’s clear we can move on to the application.
As my rabbeyim taught me, first get clear what it says. Whether you like it /agree /or even fully understand it. The first step is get clear exactly what it says. Then prod, ask, clarify, argue. But have a clear starting ground.Avram
”One more thing klugeryid, if your hypothetical child is indeed so disrespectful to his parents that he would sneak into their room to take back his books, then what’s to say he won’t respond to being hit by hitting back? And once that becomes a possibility, it’s halachically forbidden to hit him.”Firstly it was a random example, not an actual case so don’t sit and nitpick it.
Secondly even in my example I didn’t say the kid sneaks into your room
You put the book back into the bookcase, or he takes a new one. You have a whole family, you going to take away all their books because of one child?
I never said you smack a child for reading. The question was he is not going to daven in the morning. Does that EVER warrant giving a smack. to that I said yes. Not that your first line of parenting is to smack him. But it’s not something which can never be done.
I’m sorry if I didn’t list off the thousands of different ways of parenting besides smacking in my posts,
as you said, ”Asking is a shorthand way of saying that the first step is to try and connect with the child.”
So to I say, those parenting strategies I mentioned are a shorthand way of listing the global entirety of relationship based parenting as well as reward based parenting.
Only I didn’t ruffian myself with writing shorthand and expecting others to decode it.
No I actually spelled it out clearly multiple times.
Seems when one wants to ignore something, it makes no difference how clear it is.
Again I am approaching the question as a purely hypothetical query. Comprised of two parts.
Namely
a) is hitting a valid component of the chinuch toolbox.
And
b ) is it applicable nowadays.
There are posters on this thread who unequivocally say no to both
I say that a) is an absolute yes. Backed up by mikra ,mishna,gemorah, and psak.
B) is still a yes but majorly curtailed from previous generations as evidenced from the many quotes brought here by tlik.Is that clear enough?
I’m not advocating beating children, nor am I viewing parenting as a transactional relationship.
I’m not even commenting on my general parenting strategy (excepting one specific comment I made)
Just laying out the facts.
The application is of course where it gets tricky.ביחס להיתר ההכאה, יש להוסיף שכן דייקו כמה מגדולי ישראל מלשון הרמב”ם שכתב (חובל ומזיק ה, א): “כל המכה אדם כשר מישראל בין קטן בין גדול בין איש בין אשה דרך נציון הרי זה עובר בלא תעשה, שנאמר לא יוסיף להכותו” (כידוע גירסת חלק מן הדפוסים ‘דרך בזיון’ מוטעית). וכתב על כך בשו”ת דברי יציב (או”ח סימן קסט אות ו): “מש”כ הרמב”ם דרך נציון, הדבר פשוט דכוונתו לאפוקי הרב הרודה תלמידו”. וציין שם לדברי הסמ”ג (לא תעשה קצט): “והמכה לשם מוסר אינו עובר על בל תוסיף, כמו ששנינו מה חטיבת עצים רשות אף כל רשות, יצא האב הרודה את בנו והרב הרודה את תלמדו”, ולדברי היראים (סימן ריז [רמז]): “לא יוסיף להכותו… לפיכך צריך האדם להזהר שלא יגביה ידו על חברו להכותו, אפילו על אשתו. אבל אם מתכוון לייסרה ולהדריכה, או לייסר חבירו ולהדריכו, מותר, שנאמר שוט לסוס ומתג לחמור ושבט לגו כסילים. ותנן במכות מה יער רשות אף כל רשות, יצא האב המכה את בנו והרב הרודה את תלמידו ושליח ב”ד שהם מצוה”. וכן הוא בספר חרדים (מצות לא תעשה פרק ה אות עב): “והמכה דרך מוסר אינו עובר, דאמרינן במסכת מכות יצא האב המכה את בנו והרב הורדה את תלמידו”. וכן כתב הגרי”פ פערלא (בביאור לספר המצוות לרס”ג מצוה מז דף מה עמודה ב): “נראה ברור דהרמב”ם וסמ”ג לא באו אלא לאפוקי מכה לרפואה, או האב הרודה את בנו והרב את תלמידו, וכיו”ב”. וכ”כ בספר דרכי דוד (ב”ק צא, ב). וכן הוא בשו”ת אגרות משה (חו”מ א סימן ג) וז”ל: “ועיין ברמב”ם שכתב המכה דרך נציון, משמע דאם אינו דרך נציון לא הוי בכלל הלאו כלל… שלכן אין להחשיב זה שמכין לאפרושי מאיסורא ולקיים עשה וכן אב את בנו לחנכו להותר מכללו, שהרי אינם דרך נציון”. וכן כתב הקובץ הערות הנ”ל: “וכן בלאו דחובל כתב הרמב”ם דהאיסור הוא דוקא אם חובל דרך נציון, והיינו מדחזינן דמותר לרב להכות תלמידו”. וכתוב בחידושי הגר”ח סטנסיל (סימן שמא, בענין כפיה על המצוות): “המכה את חבירו דרך ניצה עובר בל”ת. ויש לחקור אם הוא תנאי בהחפצא של החיוב, דדוקא הכאה דרך ניצה חייבה רחמנא, ולפי”ז הכאה שמותרת כגון של בי”ד והאב המכה את בנו והרב הרודה את תלמידו נשתנה בהחפצא של ההכאה, דהכאה כזו שאינה דרך ניצה לאו הכאה דאיסור היא, או דנימא דאין כאן תנאי בהחפצא של ההכאה, אלא דהרמב”ם מפרש כן דיש אופנים דמותר להכות”. ועיין במאמרו של הרב שרמן “העושים דין לעצמם”, תורה שבעל פה גליון לא (ירושלים תש”ן) עמ’ סח-עב, ובשו”ת עטרת פז (ח”א כרך ג חו”מ סימן ז עמ’ תמה-תמז).
מאיר בראלי
* * *
הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהָרַג –
הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר:
אִם מִכְּשֶׁיָּצְאתָה הָאֶבֶן מִיָּדוֹ הוֹצִיא הַלָּז אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְקִבְּלָהּ –
הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר.
זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לַחֲצֵרוֹ וְהָרַג;
אִם יֵשׁ רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק לִכָּנֵס לְשָׁם – גּוֹלֶה,
וְאִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ גּוֹלֶה;
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט, ה) “וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ בַיַּעַר”,
מָה הַיַּעַר רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק לִכָּנֵס לְשָׁם –
יָצָא חֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת,
שֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק (וְלַמַּזִּיק) לִכָּנֵס לְשָׁם.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: מַה חֲטָבַת עֵצִים רְשׁוּת –
יָצָא הָאָב הַמַּכֶּה אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְהָרַב הָרוֹדֶה אֶת תַּלְמִידוֹ,
וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין.
ברטנורא משנה ב
זרק את האבן לרשות הרבים. ואף על גב דקרוב למזיד הוא, שהיה לו לחשוב שבני אדם מצוים ברשות הרבים תמיד, הכא עסקינן באשפה העשויה ברשות הרבים להפנות בה בלילה, ואינה עשויה להפנות בה ביום, וזמנין דמקרי דיתיב בה, ומשום הכי גולה, דלאו פושע הוא, ולא אנוס גמור הוא.
והוציא הלה את ראשו וקבלה פטור. דכתיב (דברים י”ט) “ומצא את רעהו”, פרט לממציא את עצמו.
אם יש רשות לניזק, שנתן לו בעל הבית רשות ליכנס.
מה חטיבת עצים רשות. דאי בעי עייל לחטוב ואי בעי לא עייל.
יצא האב הרודה את בנו. דמצוה קא עביד.
מתני’ דהאב גולה על ידי הבן והבן גולה ע”י האב ההכל גולין על ידי ישראל וישראל גולין על ידיהן חוץ מגר תושב ווגר תושב אינו גולה אלא על ידי גר תושב:
גמ’ האב גולה ע”י הבן והאמרת יצא האב המכה את בנו דגמיר והאמרת אע”ג דגמיר מצוה קעביד
No I actually spelled it out clearly multiple times.
Seems when one wants to ignore something, it makes no difference how clear it is.Thank you for clarifying what you were trying to do and hoping to convey. I hope you won’t mind me “clarifying” that you were neither clear in making your point, nor in your understanding of ours. I don’t have any reason to think *you* were ignoring *us*, but your comment that we were ignoring your clear as glass Torah based presentation due to disagreeing unequivocally is incorrect on all three points, your belief you were clear, your belief you were appropriately representing the Torah’s viewpoint, and your belief we said it’s always wrong.
Hope that gives you some relief.
That I was unclear, is obviously possible though hard to accept as I spelled it out many times.
Relief, I was not ”unrelieved ”so I don’t need any selfie
But that im misrepresenting the Torah viewpoint,is simply wrong
Take a look at the gemorah in makkos daf ches.it’s really on both sides.
משנה:יצא האב המכה בנו
I’ll type in English. You point out specifically where I go wrongSomeone asked rava,how do you know that the situation with chopping trees is a voluntary situation maybe he is chopping for a succah ? He responded,since if he finds cut wood he does not need to cut, it’s considered voluntary.
Asks the gemorah,
So why does the Mishna say, a father who hits his son to death is exempt from galus, since it’s a mitzvah? Why don’t we say since if the son has learned (as in learned Torah) you don’t need to hit him so even when he doesn’t learn, it’s not a mitzvah (the reason that learning is used is because the Mishna puts a father and a Rebbe together and a Rebbe only has the right to do it for learning)
Answers the gemorah
Even when the son is doing what he is supposed to be doing it’s a mitzvah to hit him like the passuk in משלי says
יַסֵּר בִּנְךָ וִינִיחֶךָ וְיִתֵּן מַעֲדַנִּים לְנַפְשֶׁךָ
So let’s put it together
The פסוק requires that in mopeds to be חייב גלות it must be a hitting that makes sense that it can kill. The Mishna says a father who does so and kills his son is exempt because it’s a mitzvah (to hit him. Not to kill him.) the gemorah clarifies that it must be so that it is a mitzvah even when the son is acting properly not only when he does something wrong otherwise the din would be different. And the gemorah proves that from a פסוק as well
Now let’s think further
what is the purpose of hitting a child who is currently doing everything right?
It can’t be to effect an immediate intervention as some posters understand the only benefit of hitting, because if is currently acting properly. So we need to look in the מפרשים who explain it’s to instill fear in him so he continues to act properly.
That sounds a lot like what chinuch is about. Training a child to act properly.
Look In the מפרשים on the פסוק that the gemorah brought. I’ll cut and paste them for you
יַסֵּ֣ר בִּ֭נְךָ וִינִיחֶ֑ךָ
וְיִתֵּ֖ן מַעֲדַנִּ֣ים לְנַפְשֶֽׁךָ׃רלב”ג (כל הפרק)
עריכה“יסר בנך”. בעודו קטן בדרך שתקנהו מוסר ויתן לך הנחה וקורת רוח מפני טוב מוסרו ויתן לנפשך מעדנים מרוב שמחתך בו עם שזה יישירהו לקנין החכמה ובה יתן לנפשך מעדנים במה שתשמע מפיו מדבריו חכמה:
מלבי”ם (כל הפרק)
עריכה“יסר בנך ויניחך”, האב שאינו מיסר את בנו לבסוף ישנא את אביו ולא יהיה לו מנוחה ממנו, וקשה תרבות רעה בתוך ביתו של אדם וכו’, וכ”ש שלא יכלכלהו לעת זקנתו, אבל ע”י “שייסר אותו” לא לבד “שינחהו” כי גם “יתן מעדנים לנפשך”, שעי”כ ילך בחקי החכמה ואח”כ יוסיף אהבה וכבוד להוריו:
מצודות (כל הפרק)
עריכהמצודת דוד
“ויניחך” – יתן לך מנוחה ולא תרגז בעבורו, ועוד יתן מעדנים לנפשך ר”ל תשמח עוד במעשיו.מצודת ציון
“מעדנים” – דברים חמודים, כמו (בראשית מט): “מעדני מלךSo not only do they clearly learn it is to train him to go on the proper path (chinuch) BUT THEY EVEN THROW IN THAT YOU WILL PERSONALLY PHYSICALLY BENEFIT From such a child in your old age.
So שלמה המלך felt it’s proper to take action in chinuch that is not only good for the child but you can ALSO take your own benefit into consideration.I’m waiting to be shown exactly where I erred, and what exactly the פסוק and גמרא mean other than what I have written.
Please don’t respond with the same tripe,
Wow I fell so bad for you.
Boy you are totally misrepresenting that.
Those are not response
They are denials.
I have presented a clear detailed position.
If I am incorrect it should be quite simple to say
Here you erred. The gemorah means this. The passuk means that.Again my point here is not to argue on the current rabbinical consensus that today one should barely hit their children
Rather it’s to show tattie original Torah methodology was actually extremely pro hitting your children.
If that doesn’t sit well with someone they need to reexamine where their sensitivities are coming from.
Are they real Torah sensitivities or western ideals which have leeched into Torah true JewsSyag
This from knaidlach
by yelling or hitting you might succeed getting your children to listen and obey, but you are causing them to have a negative attitude to that thing you wanted them to listen to. you want to educate them in a certain behaviour but by yelling and hitting or even forcing them to do something you are accomplishing the exact opposite. plus it creates a distance between parents and children. parents must learn other ways how to educate children.
Sounds to me like someone feels you should never hit
I’m not including the post from ry23 as I never believe he is seriousTlik
I am quoting this directly from Rav Wolbe ZT”L. Hitting is not chinuch, and never was. It is untrue to attribute this to שלמה המלך. He never said that.
Well perhaps you can explain the gemorah in makkos for me
And the other פסוק במשלי
יסר בנך ויניחךSyag
To your assertion that I was not as clear as I claim to have been, I just reread all my posts and you are 100% correct
However if you have the inclination and time, you can reread all my posts in this light, and you may see a different story
What I think I was clear about since way back is that I was speaking hypotheticalIf you hit your kids how do you teach them not to hit?
Effi
Cute question
If you drive a car and cross the street how do your teach your kids not to?
The answer is you don’t.
If parents are justified in sometimes hitting their children then children should know that.
Otherwise what will they think when you hit them.
Part of your chinuch would be to explain to them that a parent has a right to hit their child for chinuch but you can’t just hit because you are angry or don’t get your way.By the way, to open another whole other can of worms, if someone hits you are you allowed to hit back?
Based on my understanding of the meaning of hypothetical case: that is a case that *could* happen, but was fabricated. The fact that the child’s behavior was hypothetical does not change the fact that the hypothetical parenting techniques you presented are way off, and not demonstrating what you think they are. Whether or not the Torah requires us to hit a child in a specific scenario has no bearing at all on the scenarios you have provided, which required so many other things. And knowing you don’t hit your kids when it is not warranted does not comfort me if you authored the above exchanges based on your understanding/experience with children.
Does that help you understand the push-back you are getting from us? It’s not about Halacha, it’s about your understanding/presentation of it.
Klugeryid, you ought to apologize.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.