- This topic has 81 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I struggle yearly to understand the instructions given in the Haggadah pertaining the Wicked Son, and out expected reaction. “הקהה את שיניו” – be it metaphorical or literal, this response is difficult to understand.
Is this reaction not antithetical with our attitude towards Kiruv? Don’t we strive to be like Hillel – patient, warm and welcoming, even in face of what seems to be hate and mockery? To show that there is always a space for even the worst sinners?
Is our modern day Kiruv model congruous with the advice given in the Haggadah, or is our technique wrong?
A really great question, with so many answers. So many seforim and books talk about it.
To start – the Torah truths and principles do not change. לא תהא תורה אחרת, מוחלפת. They are the absolute truths. It’s about how to reconcile our actions, approach, direction to be in line with the Torah, not the other way around.
Let me begin with a “vort” I read somewhere – הקהה את שיניו – soften his bite! So prevalent, useful for today’s rebellious, defiant youths. Try to soften him/her up. There’s a מגפה out there, and it’s not necessarily the kid’s fault – do anything to get him back.
Another approach: Where the subject is far gone, we want to at least save the rest… we set a distance… we’ll have to deal with this kid later.. we need to salvage what we could. Think of an amputation ר”ל, it’s painful, awfully painful, but it’s needed to save the rest.. It IS DIFFERENT because לבל ידח ממנו נדח, eventually everyone will return.. question is when.
There is a tremendous difference between the Kiruv movement which is focused on Tinokes Shnisbu
and the way to deal with someone who grew frum but is now mocking Yiddiskeit.I don’t remember the vort exactly but it is something to the effect of take the gimatria of rasha and subtract from it shinav and you get the gimatria of tzadik. What the hagadah is telling us is that sometimes you have to be blunt to get the point out and the results that are necessary. It depends on how the question is being asked.
Rav Tzadok M’Lublin and The Lubavitcher Rebbe both make the following inference. We tell the wicked son “If you had been in Egypt you would not have been redeemed” but, since the Jewish people were redeemed and received the Torah, now you are a Jew and will always be a Jew and are never too far gone to do teshuva.
If a child shmadded or intermarried, the halacha is to sit shiva for him.
I always envisioned the rasha of the Haggadah as somebody who is li’hachis, out to attack and mock the yiddishkeit that they have rejected. For somebody in that frame of mind, no kiruv will help. As the Brisker Rav famously said, one can only respond with answers to a question, but you can’t answer an answer/justification.
It should also be noted that the Haggadah specifically says to knock out the rasha’s teeth, which is taken to mean his ability to spread his poisonous attitude to others. We don’t issue a sharp retort at the rasha to punish him, but to dissuade the other children from following down his poisonous path.
yekke2
I know this unpopular to say but if a son who was FFB then left the folds and is now mocking Yiddishkeit it depends on the circumstances how he should be treated but thing is certain: he should NOT be given unconditional love. I think the whole concept of unconditional love is a morally bankrupt one.
<i>This is against the advice of all the big chinuch experts these days</i>
I’ve never heard any Godal B’Torah say that someone who went OTD and is currently mocking Yidiskeit deserves unconditional love.
<i>Because it’s not effective? Or do you think that even though it is effective, it is wrong to show חניפה to Oivrei Aveirah? </I>
Actually both. I think it’s not effective and it is wrong to show חניפה to Oivrei Aveirah.
I’ve heard people say that had they grown up today with all the acceptance, validation, understanding etc shown to the OTD crowd and rebellious children they would not have remained frum.
I’ve also heard someone who did grew up today (recently) comment that she would have went off had not a certain person told her inter alia “No one will blame you and everyone will sympathize with you if you go off. But it is you will receive the reward if you don’t and the punishment if you do”
Love that is conditional is not love, it’s approval.
Chazon Ish says in the era after prophecy, our era, approach people with chords of love. The Wicked son instruction applied more for the 1000s of years of prophecy.
Yekke, see Chazon Ish YD 2, 16(http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&st=&pgnum=21) and 28 (http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&st=&pgnum=25). Rav Kook compared the spirit of the times to a seductress (see Sanhedrin 26b Tosafot d”h hechashud) and advised a rav whose sons became communists to continue to love them and help them financially. He further stated that secularists are not fully knowledgeable about Judaism and thus oppose a mistaken idea of it (see Tzitz Eliezer 8,15 that they do not understand the seriousness of chillul Shabbat). See also Meshech Chochma on Devarim 22,4:
לא תראה חמור אחיך כו’ ובמשפטים כתיב אויבך משום דבערבי פסחים אמר מי שרי לשנויי הא כתיב לא תשנא אחיך בלבבך, ומוקי בראה בו שעבר עבירה, וזה היה קודם העגל אשר היו כולם ממלכת גוי קדוש, אז הוה שרי לשנויי אם ראה בו עבירה, לא כן אחרי כל המסות אשר נכשלו בעונות, אם יראה אדם בחבירו חטא אם יפשפש במעשיו ימצא כמה מכשולים ופקפוקים, זה בפרט זה וזה בפרט זה, לכן אסור לשנוא איש כזה, רק מי שהוא בעצמו סר מרע וצדיק תמים בדרכיו, אבל קשה למצא כמותו וע”ז אמרו ראיתי ב”ע והמה מועטים, לכן כתיב אחיך.
As for the murderer, there is a major difference between someone who is over on chukkim and someone who is over on mishpatim. What about someone wo does not keep Shabbat but is honest, gives tzedakka and refrains form lashon hara vs. someone who keeps Shabbat but is over on the others?
yekke2: I have heard a number of tirutzim. One is from The Lubavitcher Rebbe TZTZAL notes that the Baal Haggadah refers to them as ARBAAH BONIM (the 4 sons). Even though he is a “rasha” he is still part of “BONIM ATEM L’ASHEM and is still a “ben”.
Another teretz I heard is that the the Torah tells us the question (Shemos Yud Beis passuk Chav Vav) וְהָיָה כִּי יֹאמְרוּ אֲלֵיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם מָה הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹּאת לָכֶם and the answer (Shemos Yud Beis passuk Chav Zayin): וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח פֶּסַח הוּא לַיהֹוָה. While the Baal Haggadah did not write the second passuk he does write the reaction: “Lachem Vlo Lo”. The Rasha is saying: Lachem? to you? You owe something to Hashem and you are bringing a korban Shelamim which you enjoy eating? If it’s is to Hashem you should bring a Korban Olah which totally goes to Hashem and not a Shelamim?
The Rasha doesn’t want to understand that a davar gashmi (mundane) can be transformed into a davar ruchni (spiritual) and is willing to spread that message. This is why the Baal Haggadah’s reaction is so harsh.
I know it does not totally answer your question. I think only those who are experts in Kiruv Rechokim can really answer your question.
BTW, if my choice is between your interpretation and the Rebbe, I choose the Rebbe (and I am not Lubavitch)
Yekke2: are you saying that I am misquoting the Lubavitcher Rebbe? The Rebbe is explaining the term Arbaah Bonim. Are you saying that the Baal Haggadah didn’t say that?
yekke2: I am open to hearing different peshatim. I do not know how or if the Rebbe reconciles his peshat with the Rambam.
YW, Yekke. My point was that people are complex. At one time a person stopped keeping mitzvot, in particular Shabbat, because he wanted out of the Jewish people (in fact, the only other option was to join the majority religion). That has not been true for two hundred years. Moreover, as Rav Kook pointed out, there are Jews who are violate mitzvot in their private sides but are tzaddikim in their public sides and vice versa. In fact, the word “rasha” has different meanings in different contexts. For eidut it is sufficient for him to have knowingly violated one prohibition (Choshen Mishpat 34:2-3). However, Rambam says (Hilchot Teshuva 3:1-2) that for his general status he is someone who has more aveirot than mitzvot by weight – and only Hashem knows the weights.
As for the wicked son, the fact of the matter is that he is present at the seder ( Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb points out this fact and says that he is not irretrievably lost). This shows that his kefira is actually l’teiavon (and Rambam says in his intro. to Perek Chelek that those who violate mitzvot l’teiavon will merit Olam HaBa after being punished) – Rav Asher Weiss says that he is simply hungry and wishes that Maggid will end already so he can eat. Many say that today there is a fifth son who is not even present because he has assimilated.
I have two answers to the op:
1. Two people can ask the exact same question but be asking entirely different questions. In other words, the words may be the same but they are coming from two entirely different places, and a good mechanech understands what the person’s real question really is.
My mother is bt and one of the main hashpaos on her (both for becoming Frum and for making aliyah) was her 7th grade sunday school teacher. She happened to see him at the Kosel several years ago, and he was shocked to discover that she had become Frum and made aliya. She asked him why he was surprised, and he said, “because you used to ask so many questions.”. She was like, “Why do you think I was asking questions?”
The moral of the story is that sometimes someone could be asking questions in a way that sounds like the Rasha in the Haggadah but that isn’t really where they are coming from. Many of today’s at-risk kids could be asking questions that sound like attacks but are really coming from a place of pain and confusion and a desire to be part of things (as opposed to the Rasha who did not want to be part of things).
The Rasha was deliberately attacking. He had nothing in common with most kids at risk of today. The words may sound the same, but they are coming from a completely different place. Before you can decide how to respond to each son, you have to know which son he is. You can only do that if you look into his heart, into what is behind his words, and not merely the words themselves. (I don’t have a Hagadda in front of me, but don’t two of the sons actually use the same words?)
Answer #2: Sometimes, there are people who need a sharp response. That doesn’t take away from the “ahavas chinam”. Being sharp or strict does not have to be a contradiction to love. I knew a girl who was learning in a certain program in Israel. She was from a modern background and had a strong personality and used to phrase her questions/statements in ways that were less than appropriate. Her teacher/head of the program understood that she was someone who needed a “hakheh es shinav” approach. This was despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that she really was sincere.
He understood that this was the approach that she needed (because of the way she expressed herself) and that this is what would work for her. And he was right. She very much appreciated his approach and she grew from it, and at the end of the year, he was the teacher whom she had the hardest time saying goodbye to.
Point #3: I think that the difference between today and the time when the Hagadda was written is that today most people are very emotionally fragile and that’s why for many people today, the strong approach doesn’t work.
But that doesn’t mean c”v that the Torah changed and that what it says in the Hagada doesn’t apply today. Then and now, there were different types of people who needed different responses. Today, there may be less people who need the strong approach, but there is still a place for it, if one knows when and how to do it.
For example, many people do use it when dealing with adult political leaders who are trying to uproot the Torah, and it seems to me that at least in some of those cases, it is the right approach.
lilmod, very well said. The whole point of the arba banim passage is to show us that there are different kind of kids/people who require different kinds of chinuch approaches.
There are few kids OTD today who are doing it because they are consciously denying ikrei emuna and don’t believe it Hashem. Rather they stop doing mitzvos out of pain (for whatever reason), as a reaction to feeling hurt by people/society who are frum, and/or out of taava. Far from being kofrim.Has this discussion of unconditional love broached the fact that the Torah, directly, and Shulchan Aruch, al pi halacha, tell us we are required to hit our children?
There are also situations where the halachah is clear that it’s assur to hit your child, even for discipline. Probably, most situations today fall under that category.
Undoubtedly most of the time it is assur to hit our children. That doesn’t change the fact that sometimes we are required to hit our children.
R’ Shteinman told a Rebbe a few years ago that times have changed, and we can’t hit children anymore.
Lilmod Ulelamaid,
What an excellent post!
yekke2,
Is the only reason they are more fragile simply because we have changed the way we deal with our kids? Is it a direct consequence of our forgiving patient model of Chinuch?
No, the fragility comes from the fact that we are in golus, and we have not offered a korban on the mizbeach for almost 2000 years. That hurts us and weakens us, even if we’ve never known differently.
Of course you can love a kid and still be sharp. But this isn’t the conventional “Unconditional Love”, where you are told not to react negatively to anything, but show a constant outpouring of love and support, simply ignoring the bad.
If that’s what you think unconditional love is, then you have misread a lot of parenting books. Unconditional love is about maintaining a constant awareness of why I am a parent and what my goal as a parent is: to raise good, healthy Jewish children, and to maintain that awareness even during frustrating situations. There is a big difference between healthy discipline and reacting with little thought out of frustration, anger, or wanting to seem like a tough with-it parent in front of others. Or going to the other extreme and being a pushover because you want your kid to like you.
I think some of you confuse the ideas of unconditional love and unconditional acceptance. You can love someone unconditionally but say “What you are doing is wrong, I do not accept it, and you need to change your evil ways.”
Joseph,
Undoubtedly most of the time it is assur to hit our children. That doesn’t change the fact that sometimes we are required to hit our children.
Do you eat grasshoppers?
Two points I’ll make in regard to the OP’s question:
1) R’ Mattisyahu Solomon, in his book on chinuch, says that many times, chinuch is simply about having common sense. So use your common sense. If the kid will clearly not respond well to “blunting his teeth”, don’t do it.
2) As bad as this Rasha in the Hagaddah might be, he’s still at the seder. And he’s asking you a question. Which means, you can still engage him in firm debate. If he doesn’t care enough to ask you a question, or he’s not even at your seder, the firm approach won’t work. That’s where you just need to show love.
Joseph,
Has this discussion of unconditional love broached the fact that the Torah, directly, and Shulchan Aruch, al pi halacha, tell us we are required to hit our children?
Out of curiosity, was the purpose of writing this an attempt to further Torah knowledge, or was it using our holy Torah as a spade for your personal quest to troll those you consider “libs”? Given the complexity of the issue and the flippant, distorted way in which you brought it up, I have a hard time seeing the former.
I never used the term “libs” (neither here nor elsewhere), so you’re confusing me with someone else or with your imagination, Avram. What I said was pure Torah and it was said because it is pure Torah. If you have a “hard time” with something the best course of action is to request help not sputter falsehoods.
Joseph,
It seems that neither of us have any problems with blunting teeth 🙂
I never used the term “libs” (neither here nor elsewhere)
I’m glad that your level of discourse is so high; however, you have used “liberals” as a pejorative, so your response is essentially a quibble. But that’s fine. I retract my association of you with the slang term “libs”.
What I said was pure Torah and it was said because it is pure Torah.
Pure Torah is given over in proper context. As an extreme example, we don’t utter some excerpts from Maseches Nidda or other sensitive sections in halacha randomly in the office or on the bus (or even here in the CR, as trolls have tried to do in the past). To do so, even if what is said is word-for-word accurate, is not respectful of Torah. Additionally, when statements are made out of context, they can be misleading.
If you have a “hard time” with something the best course of action is to request help not sputter falsehoods.
So help me understand how your comment furthers this discussion.
Avram in MD: “Lilmod Ulelamaid, What an excellent post!”
Avram in MD, thanks so much for the compliment.
Yekke: That’s a pretty good summary of my points. Thank you! I would just correct the end of the last sentence: “they can’t take anything negative”. Since I did say that there is a time and place for “hakheh es shinav” even today, I obviously didn’t mean that no one can ever take anything negative, but that in general, most people can’t handle too much criticism.
“Is the only reason they are more fragile simply because we have changed the way we deal with our kids? Is it a direct consequence of our forgiving patient model of Chinuch?”
I don’t know. I think there is truth to Avram’s answer, but there may be other reasons as well, and what you write about may or may not be part of it.
But I’m also not sure how relevant it is. For one thing, once a kid is already older and already overly sensitive and fragile and can’t handle criticism, it is irrelevant if this was caused by a lack of firmness when he was younger.
On the other hand (and this is where there is some relevance to your point) it might be kidai for parents to be more firm when their kids are young so that they don’t get to that point (which perhaps was your point). I do think that (at least to some degree) parents should exercise more firmness when their kids are young and less firmness once their kids are adolescents and older. Often, parents do things the other way around, but I think that is backwards (although I’ve never been a parent, so I may be wrong).
Part of the problem though is that a parent can’t be strict unless he knows how to do it with love. And many people today don’t know how to do that. I have a friend who is super-nice and does not know how to discipline her kids. Once when one of her boys got in trouble in Yeshiva for being chutzpakid or something, she explained to the Rosh Yeshiva that it’s her fault because she is too lenient with her kids. He told her that he has seen both ways (parents who are too lenient and parents who are too strict) and the first way is better. L’maaseh, her kids seem to be turning out pretty good, so he is probably right.
There is another reason your point might not be as relevant as one would think (although it does have some relevance as stated above). That is that to some degree this may just be the reality of our generation. We are an emotionally fragile generation (and I am talking about the entire generation, not just Jews or Frum Jews). We are products of the world around us, and while we have to try not to be influenced by certain things, we also have to deal with the reality that we are products of time and places that we live in to a large extent. We have to take that reality and figure out what the Torah response is to that reality, but to a certain extent we have to accept that that is our reality.
In other words, even if the cause of our emotional weakness is the fact that parents are too lenient, that doesn’t necessarily mean that that is something that can be completely changed. The parents at this point are themselves too emotionally weak to know how to discipline. I guess what I’m saying is that: 1. There isn’t one simple reason for our emotionally weak state. It is based on many factors inclucing the galus, and the goyish influence, etc, etc. and 2. At this point, it is the reality of our generation, and I don’t think it can be changed. Every generation has its own identity and this is ours. I’m not sure how much the cause matters.
I didn’t respond to all your points yet, but this post is long enough. Feel free to summarize it for me. You seem to be pretty good at that!
Avram, there’s absolutely nothing disrespectful nor out of context in pointing out that the Torah and Shulchan Aruch tell us we must hit our children when necessary to discipline them. Period. If one wishes to make the argument that today’s generation needs to be dealt with using kid’s gloves, and thus physical discipline is verboten, fine – state the case effectively. But don’t be dismissive of when someone points out what clearly and unambiguously is told to us by the Torah and Halacha. And was practiced throughout Jewish history uncontroversially.
a fundemantal difference between the rasha [those we sit shiva on] and todays OTD kids. we have yet to find a functional OTD kid. once upon atime people went off the derech thinking they had discovered a better life based on idialogocal changes. today kids get pushed off the derech usually due to some form of trauma. this OTD kids are fully dysfunctional. this clearly demonstrates that they are Kids In Pain [KIPS] suffering from PTSD. having worked with hundreds of cases and 15 years I have not yet found the exception. when we HEAL the OTD KIPS they automatically get back on track [they usually ask for soe help along the way to deal with thier trauma]. these KIPS need to be understood and held. daven for them in refoenu not hashivenu!!
this is hinted to in the Hagadah too. the answer we give the Rosho is actually taken stright from the sheno yodeah lishol. he is AT HOME not kicked out chas vesholom, and is so badly hurt that his brain cannot even focus on ansking a straight question. have pity on him and help him back with kind words. we must sit shiva on the KIPS whose parents have been misguided and have been thrown onto the streets – in the name of religion. Nebach. I could write hundreds of pages on the topic but for now – lets start to focus on hatzolah rather then chinuch! [don’t forget we lost over 100 KIPS last year – thats not ROSHO thats PAIN].B”H more than a thousand parents who have been trained with the sweetness of the “Le’ehov Oso B’yoser” approach to OTD children, by R’ Avi Fishoff with his Twisted Parenting M’halach, with the blessings of Gdolim worldwide, have seen huge miracles and have not experienced even ONE fatal drug overdose or suicide.
Can this be a coincidence? Doubtful.
Its a matter of whether one aims for success or failure.
Joseph,
there’s absolutely nothing disrespectful nor out of context in pointing out that the Torah and Shulchan Aruch tell us we must hit our children when necessary to discipline them. Period.
Saying something emphatically does not make it so. The thread up to your post was not addressing corporal punishment. Additionally, you provided no context, guidelines, reasons, or sources for your statement, so readers have no idea in what context the Torah addresses corporal punishment. What value does that add to the discussion?
If one wishes to make the argument that today’s generation needs to be dealt with using kid’s gloves, and thus physical discipline is verboten, fine – state the case effectively.
What does the Torah say about someone who acts violently (e.g., breaks things) or irrationally (e.g., scatters his money) out of anger? The vast majority of hitting occurs due to impulsive anger, not a well thought out action plan. Put the tough parent vs permissive parent red herring argument aside for a minute. Hitting is a tremendous spiritual danger for a parent.
But don’t be dismissive of when someone points out what clearly and unambiguously is told to us by the Torah and Halacha.
I’ll stop being dismissive when you actually clearly and unambiguously state what’s in the Torah as taught by our teachers of this generation. Right now you just threw out a statement with no context.
And was practiced throughout Jewish history uncontroversially.
I’ll take the guidance of our Torah authorities over some guess as to how our fathers parented any day.
yekke2,
The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether: (A) Should you be expressing your love, or should your reactions be stronger to the point of anger, and suppress the love you feel towards your son;
Anger and love are not mutually exclusive. It is totally appropriate to let your child know in no uncertain terms that you feel angry about a choice s/he made, and doing that is not a suppression of love. When anger overcomes our ability to make proper decisions or is used to intimidate a child, however, it blocks any constructive message from going through.
(B) Are you supposed to be feeling the love at all; if we would consider him a Rasha, may you love your son who is a Rasha.
Ask Avraham Aveinu about Yishmael.
but I’m wondering what the Torah position is when we think about it rationally, leaving our emotions aside.
Why would we cast aside our emotions when we are dealing with an emotional question?
yes-its-me:
we have yet to find a functional OTD kidI happen to know several myself.
Sure, there are plenty of kids who go OTD due to some abuse/trauma/issues. But plenty also go off just because the outside world is more enticing. I personally know more than one.
Yekke2:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether: (A) Should you be expressing your love, or should your reactions be stronger to the point of anger, and suppress the love you feel towards your son; (B) Are you supposed to be feeling the love at all; if we would consider him a Rasha, may you love your son who is a Rasha.
I know this sounds very cold and unfeeling, and I’m sure most parents here will say that this post can only be written by someone who has never been a parent, but I’m wondering what the Torah position is when we think about it rationally, leaving our emotions aside.
As I attempted to explain in my previous post, I believe that there is a difference in how we are supposed to treat a מומר לתיאבון and a מומר להכעיס. I think the Haggadah is referring to a מומר להכעיס, who is out to scorn and attack Yiddishkeit. Him we must respond sharply to, so as to blunt the influence that he may have on others. But I don’t think this applies to a מומר לתיאבון. To him we should make it clear that while we do not support or condone his actions, we do love him dearly, and therefore we hope that he returns to the lifestyle that we believe is truly best for him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.