Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Avi K,
“then for what?”
I’m not opposed to the death penalty per se; my concern is that the U.S. system is too flawed.
Joseph,
“Do you oppose the death penalty for murder in the US?”
Yes.
“If so, could the law regarding capital punishment be enacted in any way that you’d support it (for murder or other crimes)?”
Not with jury trials, nor with the government serving simultaneously as witness (e.g., police), prosecutor, and judge.
ubiquitin,
“so in weighing the risks and benefits of both: on abortion the Government should stay out, and on battery make it illegal”
I’m not sure that we agree on what the risks and benefits are, nor what weights to apply to them.
Joseph,
“Now, of course, I’d support imprisonment (as the 21 U.S. states who currently outlaw adultery mostly prescribe in their penal codes) and capital punishment (as some states historically prescribed) as the penalty for that crime. I also think others here will agree with my position as such.”
Agree with prison, but I’m opposed to the death penalty as done in the U.S.
ubiquitin,
“Is your argument that:
a. No such cases exist
b. That is not enough to allow all abortions. So we should ban abortions (except where life threatening) and even those women who get a heter should be forced to carry to term
c. something else”The closest to my position (other than me trying to write out a C) is B. I think there’s a big difference between “risk to mother’s health and safety” and “life threatening”, so there can be way more nuance than the allow everything or allow nothing but death prevention dilemma that you’re presenting. As far as A, I don’t know that I’ve said no such cases exist, only that I think they are quite rare.
“As for recalcitrant husbands.
first of all, it isn’t clear that hitting is allowed. “And, per Rav Moshe ZT”L, it isn’t clear that the abortions we are discussing are allowed. So for consistency’s sake, if that’s a “first of all” on the recalcitrant husbands, it should also be a “first of all” on the abortions.
“what is the risk of allowing abortions? geheniom for people who practice without Rabbinic approval.”
No, it’s the loss of potential life. And the potential for outright murder in cases where the abortion fails and life is taken outside of the womb.
ubiquitin,
“This was YOUR quote : “have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water”
you said that in response to my comment “for a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy there is (generally) no medical reason not to fast , worst case she goes into pre-term labor. no big deal””
Yes, but so what? I can give you the reasons, and you or your doctor cohorts can laugh at my doctor and assert your superior medical prowess or whatever you want to do. But I am not a medical professional. Who do I trust? The doctors we saw in exam rooms and our own rav, or the out-of-sight colleagues of a person on the Internet I’m having a conversation with? I don’t need to be an arbiter of what is medical Truth. You claimed that medical opinion is more stringent than rabbis. My own real life experience has told me otherwise. I stated thus, and I have no more to add.
“you are. My position is quite simple. The government should not enforce religion, at the same time they should allow woman who have a heter to have an abortion.”
Ergo enforcing or allowing for religion, as you perceive it.
“your last paragraph is confusing. IF there was a law banning eruvim I would oppose it, I’m not sure wh yyou think otherwise.”
Now you’re putting words into my mouth. A law banning eruvim would be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws. But neighborhoods and towns can set zoning laws intended to preserve a certain look and feel that happen to infringe on where and how an eruv can be constructed. Or they can build a superhighway right in the middle of an existing eruv, rendering it invalid. Would you support Jews being allowed to construct lechis and fences wherever they want, and having veto ability on any construction projects?
“that’s a lot of ifs.”
That’s why lawyers make big bucks and work long hours.
“I’m not bothered at all. I said from the get go, if a law could be passed that a woman who felt she needed an abortion had to have rabbinic approval I could get behind that.”
It’s easy to get behind a theoretical ideal that you know has no chance of passing in our current legal system.
“your one good point was regarding recalcitrant husbands.
That’s a good one it deserves its own response.”Well, I consider it an example of my primary point, so by all means let’s pursue that. It might be more fruitful than a talking-past-each-other fest. I don’t want to challenge the legendary ubiquitin/Health debates.
ubiquitin,
“do you think adultery should be ilegal?”
Absolutely. If the government is going to be involved in regulating marriage, than it has a responsibility to protect the rights of the spouses. Inasmuch as marriage is a contractual agreement that includes fidelity, there should be consequences for breach of contract. But even beyond that, adultery can cause psychological and even physical damage. To do that to another person should certainly be illegal. And note that I haven’t yet appealed to religion.
ubiquitin,
“Define “ok””
I’m not a doctor.
“nope, not my response at all.”
It certainly was here.
“you are confusing two aspects.”
No, I’m not confusing anything. You are creating an artificial distinction with the purpose of submitting abortion to a double standard.
“to illustrate: I would oppose The government regulating wear and when eruv can be built, which shita can be followed , should we require actual mechitzos etc etc. The Government should not be legislating religion.”
But I’m sure you support the government having laws forbidding assault and battery, even though it hamstrings beis din from taking halachically approved measures to enforce a recalcitrant husband to give a get. And laws certainly do regulate where and how eruvim can be built, your silly example of civil law butting into eruv shittos notwithstanding. Laws impact our religious observance all the time, and inasmuch as they foster public welfare, don’t create undue burdens, and aren’t unfairly targeting religious groups, we accept that this is the case. Yet suddenly you get all bothered by this when it comes to abortion. Why? Your protestations that you are actually more stringent on abortion than the rabbis ring hollow.
ubiquitin,
“If it was black and white ie Mothers life is at risk then halacha is Faaaaaar more “lenient” than halacha.”
I’m assuming your second “halacha” was intended to read “medical opinion.”
“I face this often when patients ask if they should fast yom kippur, I tell them if you want a heter you are better off talking to a Rav. Especially pregnant patients (though I’m not an OB ) for a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy there is (generally) no medical reason not to fast , worst case she goes into pre-term labor. no big deal.””
I have witnessed different medical opinions, and have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water. And since we’ve had this discussion before, I’ll just save time and anticipate your response: “I asked my OB friend, and she said puk chazi.” But that doesn’t work, because apparently the rabbis give plenty of heterim, so how can we really see the impacts of 26 hours sans food and water when the weaker pregnant women are fasting in measures?
ubiquitin,
“Not quite, I mean Religion should have no bearing on law.”
Yet you are declaring religion (not wanting to impinge on the supposed rabbi-patient relationship) as your reasoning for supporting unlimited abortion on demand? Seems like cognitive dissonance.
ubiquitin,
“I’m sorry but you lost me a little bit. what tangent?”
Whether “allowed” and “should” are aligned or not. Obviously an extremely sensitive and complex topic.
“Who should decide if a Frum woman wants (or needs) an abortion: The government or her/her Rabbi and her Dr.”
If the law had a medical exemption, then it would still be the rabbi (for frum Jews) and doctor involved in the decision, no?
.“If halacha would allow (but not require) an abortion, do you support the government stopping them ?”
Leaving the current culture unchanged and given the mental health angle, I still find it hard to see a situation where the medical opinion (and hence the government) would be more stringent than the halachic opinion. And if it were so, then yes I think there should be a pause to figure things out.
My personal opinion, however, is that most pushes to “overturn” Roe v. Wade are more an attempt to garner votes than they are to truly stop abortions. It’s tilting at a windmill and unlikely to be successful. The problem is cultural at its root.
It’s a long shot, but I’d check with local natural/organic markets. They will cater to large Jewish populations in the area, and I have been pleasantly surprised to find gluten free or organic baked goods with reliable hashgochos in those types of stores, including hamentaschen. At the end of the day though, baking some yourself might be less of a hassle than calling and driving to numerous stores.
ubiquitin,
“So I’m not talking about where they would “require” per se, but rather where they would ALLOW
” That specific scenario, which is the linchpin of your pro-choice is consistent with Torah argument, seems incredibly unlikely to me.”
It might seem that way but I know of several, and colleagues who deal with this say it is “routine” (of course routine is relative a colleague estimates 1 in 2-3 weeks (that he encounters) .”
Well, not exactly. Because you just said that you were talking about ALLOW, which is a tangent that is probably not a good idea for us to get into, whereas I was talking about REQUIRE. What would these colleagues of yours say about the number of times halacha would require an abortion, but the medical establishment deems it unnecessary?
jackk,
“I debate this issue with strong minded , women’s lib oriented people they are astonished that anyone could even think of such a situation. They are amazed that someone can compare a fetus in a woman’s body to a baby outside it.”
What happens when a fetus survives an abortion attempt?
“Non pro lifers are further amazed at the callousness that pro lifers show to adult humans who are living but they are refugees, immigrants or of a lower financial status.”
Why are you pigeonholing me into a political stereotype? I believe in upholding life and human dignity at all stages.
jackk,
“You are only referring to abortion and not to the other aveira that was being talked about. What would you do with that avaira?”
I am admittedly less knowledgeable about the nuances and ramifications of that debate, so this question may seem naive, but why are the states and Federal government involved with marriage at all, when it is primarily a religiously defined status (holy matrimony)? Why not do away with marriage licenses and laws completely, and allow people to choose whoever they want to be their beneficiaries, power of attorney, etc? People can do that now; legal marriage just sets the spouse as the default.
Regarding abortion – I will argue with you because the debate of when life starts is at the crux of the abortion issue. Only in the Torah do we find a fetus is a human life.
Nah. Go to the library and check out any secular week-by-week style pregnancy book. They all refer to the baby with the language of personhood. The only time a baby becomes a non-human, non-living fetus is when discussing abortion.
Every non-jew living in America does not need to be restricted based on the Torah’s definition of when life starts.”
Pardon the slippery slope argument, but would you hold the same way if America decided that “life” starts at 4 months of age? For the first three months of life, in many ways, babies act more like fetuses than “sentient” beings. This is not a purely hypothetical question – there are “intellectuals” out there who make arguments such as this.
ubiquitin,
“Extremely unlikely???? It isn’t my field but I know of several such cases. I have spoken to those who are directly in the field and they say “extremely likely” is an understatement. “routine” is a better descriptor”
I’m not sure we’re referring to the same thing. I’m not referring to pregnancy complications where the medical establishment would advise abortion, R”L. I’m referring to an intersectional case where Torah authorities would require abortion, but the medical establishment (psychological and medical) deems it unnecessary. That specific scenario, which is the linchpin of your pro-choice is consistent with Torah argument, seems incredibly unlikely to me.
jackk,
“When are you going to stop demanding that American law be in complete agreement with the Torah ?”
I think laws geared towards protecting human life fit in with American ideals, such as the unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.
ubiquitin,
“In practice in the US (aside for that being impractical) would set a bad precedent and thus I support the next best thing
namely allowing the woman to choose”Is it really the next best thing? The notion that we must support unlimited, unfettered access to abortion on demand (as opposed to limits that account for medical issues) because we are concerned about an extremely unlikely scenario where expert medical opinion would hold that an abortion is unnecessary whereas halacha holds that it is necessary seems like a cop-out. An excuse to be full-throatedly pro-choice while making it look like a Torah position.
I am much more concerned about the opposite: families being strongly pressured to abort their babies due to expert medical opinion that is contrary to halachic guidelines. This type of pressure is already commonplace, and I think for Torah observant Jews, the greater concern is the prospect for laws that require abortion in these cases R”L, especially as “death with dignity” gains legal and cultural traction.
Fake Yeshiva Bachur,
“Is it possible that it’s against halacha to consider yourself a liberal, or to vote liberal? As we know, liberals are EXTREMELY pro-abortion, which is against halacha.”
Democratic voters skew more pro life than the elected officials. Unfortunately, pro life Democratic elected officials face double trouble: getting challenged on the left in primaries, and getting challenged on the right by Republicans in general elections. But some exist. There is even an advocacy group, Democrats for Life of America.
Both political parties are essentially conglomerations of special interest groups, and neither one is the voice of the Jewish people or the Torah. I think putting all of your eggs into just one basket is unwise, and it closes down opportunities. For example, the majority of elective abortions are done because of economic stress. Solutions that attack this financial insecurity will save more babies than base-riling rhetoric, tilting at policy windmills, and making abortion a wedge issue to get elected. With some flexibility, so-called “liberal” goals can be harnessed to aid pro life goals.
K… So?
zahavasdad,
“Getting a “Rechnitz” to pay is a bad plan … however that isnt going to work for alot of reasons … How are you going to force them?”
You demonstrate an excellent ability to poke holes in people’s ideas. I’m really curious to know what ideas you may have to improve the situation. I’m being serious.
Many perfumes have artificial fragrances which can and do trigger migraines and other reactions in sensitive people.
Just for you, LOTR92
Three mods through new threads plod, nothing new under the sky,
Seven for the ranting threads wherein the OP picks a bone,
Nine for the vaccine thread doomed never to die,
One just for Joseph, wherever he may roam
On The Yeshiva World, where the troll posts lie.
One mod to seek them all, one mod to find them,
One mod to bring them all and in the trash bin bind them,
On The Yeshiva World, where the troll posts lie.Joseph,
“What do you do about the guy who answers his phone in shul during minyan?”
On Shabbos? What kind of shul are you going to?
klugeryid,
“That I was unclear, is obviously possible though hard to accept as I spelled it out many times.”
No, you were quite clear. You just want to move the goalposts and pretend that the conversation is about something different than it was. I have not once in this thread disputed that halacha permits hitting in certain circumstances. You set up a scenario and asked if hitting were appropriate in that scenario, to which I and multiple other posters said no. You dug further into that specific scenario, so I did too. So the conversation became about why you continued to think that hitting would be appropriate in that scenario, rather than the halachic discussion you now claim you wanted.
MRS PLONY,
“Uh, Jules Verne…? Huh?”
Explain?
If you are fine with your son reading non-Jewish fiction, then The Hobbit is an excellent novel. It is funny, witty, completely clean, and packed with adventure. The Lord of the Rings is more suitable for teenagers or adults due to darker and scarier content and a much more complex plot, but it is also clean. I personally would not recommend The Silmarillion or other posthumously published works of Tolkein that deals with the “First Age” Legendarium, because he does create a fictional theology there. That religious part of the Legendarium is almost completely absent in The Hobbit (the first edition of the book was a standalone world, and he only later folded it into his larger world of Middle Earth), and primarily appears in The Lord of the Rings as textual ruins, so they are fairly easy to miss or ignore. Disclaimer: I am a big fan of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Joseph,
“Why do folks want kibbudim for themselves in shul?”
I don’t think it’s about the kibbudim. It’s about feeling welcome, noticed, and a part of the shul.
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.
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.
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.
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.
klugeryid,
“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.
Rare and well done.
1,
“I hardly get aliyos anyway. The only times I’ve gotten was when I bought for myself.”
“What bothers me is I get treated like a fly on the wall, but when it comes to giving money, people all of a sudden send me emails and WhatsApp.”
My shul has more than one minyan on both weekdays and Shabbos. There was one particular gabbai, who for whatever reason, did not make eye contact with me, did not respond to my greetings of good morning or good Shabbos, and it was quite rare for me to be called up for an aliya at his minyan other than an occasional gelila (let’s see if that triggers popa to post). For reasons unrelated to this, I switched to a different minyan in the same shul, and the gabbai at that minyan greets me every time I see him, and makes sure that every regular member gets called up for aliyos on a regular basis. I wonder if there were some way for you to break the ice with the gabbai at your shul, or switch minyans, it might alter how you are treated when it comes time for kibbudim.
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.
klugeryid,
“avram your second half is on topic and possibly true
your first half though completely missed the mark”Translation: You don’t want to answer either?
“i said anecdotally it was common, ive heard it from many old timers and even when i was a child parents routinely slapped their children for all sorts of things, teachers hit and sometimes paddled even in non Jewish society
i just checked my drivers license, seems i cant honestly remember 150 years back
yet that which i wrote is from my own recollection”Yes, and I am saying that the knee-jerk paddle culture with a focus solely on behavior and not what’s happening in the child’s world that you are recollecting was NOT the long term norm. If Joseph wants to bring Mishlei, I’ll bring Nach (regarding Adoniyahu): וְלֹֽא־עֲצָב֨וֹ אָבִ֚יו מִיָּמָיו֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר מַדּ֖וּעַ כָּ֣כָה עָשִֹ֑יתָ
You’ll note that it doesn’t say he wasn’t beat up enough. He was never questioned about the reasons behind his actions – a relational defect.klugeryid,
“Anecdotally speaking, corporal punishment seems to have been the standard method of discipline throughout the ages across all spectrum of Judaism.”
This again is a distortion. Something being permitted in certain circumstances is NOT the same thing as it being standard, or implored, or preferred, or whatever. I’ll ask you the same question I asked Joseph who conveniently ignored it: the Torah permits divorce, and sometimes obligates it. Are you ready to say that divorce is standard for Jews, or that the Torah implores us to divorce?
“What needs explanation is what and why has that changed.”
I think things have changed, but it wasn’t in the last 30 years. It was the last 150. Due to societal changes, parents have become more distant from their children, more tired, and more stressed. And therefore unfortunately many resort more quickly to anger and reactionary responses to children’s behaviors than in previous generations. Hence the increased calls to spare the rod. Don’t confuse 1950s America with the Torah’s ideal society. It was NOT normal or ok for parents to be so distant from their children.
Joseph,
“You should be at least as scared of his Mechallel Shabbos R”L as you are scared by that act of his.”
Who says that I am not? These are not equivalent situations. First of all, Shabbos is taught via chinuch – a child’s obligations aren’t even fully upon him until bar/bas mitzvah age, so it’s like training matches that don’t catch things on fire. And if a post bar mitzva child is mechallel Shabbos, R”L, then it’s way too late for slapping the matches out of his hand. The house is already ablaze.
“The same can be said regarding a child being mechallel Shabbos.”
No, again, see above. Shabbos is an issue of chinuch, which is a gradual process, and so Hashem built in a way to do it safely.
“A child should be as fearful of Mechallel Shabbos as he is fearful of playing with matches.”
I agree – but by the matches a parent keeps them away from the child until he is old enough to use them safely. By Shabbos our children participate from infancy. Due to that, the “fear” tactic is ineffective.
“We’re discussing older children, not two year olds.”
No, up to this point we’ve been discussing young children. Hence the running in the street and matches examples.
Why don’t you suggest limiting the parental response to playing with fire or playing on the road to that as well?”
Because a young child will not set the house on fire due to mistakes with Shabbos. And as I said above, by an older child, the damage is already done, and the goal now is a rebuild.
Joseph,
“Avram , the posek in Mishlei that I quoted falls pretty much in line with imploring. Otherwise the parent must hate his child according to Mishlei. You can nitpick the verbiage but that is a fair way to put it.”
Nah, that’s a distortion, just like you are accusing The little I know of with דרכיה דרכי נועם.
“You also didn’t respond to my responses to your long comment.”
I’ll get right on it.
“Now back to our 21 year old, please. I eagerly await y’all responses about that emancipated child who may legally purchase alcohol.”
There is no “back” to the 21 year old. This discussion was about small children, and you brought this in tangentially. But I’ll answer. One example is a case like that mother in Baltimore during the riots a few years ago who physically stopped her teenager from participating after seeing him in news footage.
So Joseph, what do you make of the fact that the Torah permits a man to divorce his wife? In some circumstances, a man is required to divorce. And a perusal of the sources reveals some pretty small reasons that can justify a divorce. Based on your logic, therefore, would you say that the Torah IMPLORES us to divorce, cv”s?
Joseph,
You have failed to demonstrate with your sources that we are IMPLORED to hit.
And, do you have a response to my latest post?
Joseph,
Where in Tanakh, Dovid HaMelech, Chazal, and the Shulchan Aruch are we IMPLORED to use corporal discipline?
Joseph,
“So you’re not in the slightest worried that providing a child with corporal discipline for playing with fire may result in negative feelings leading him to become an arsonist but you are worried that providing a child with corporal discipline for being mechallel Shabbos may result in negative feelings leading him to become a mechallel Shabbos?”
You’re like a carpenter with a toolbox that only has a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail to you. The purpose of the extreme reaction by the matches is to convey, palpably, how scared you are by the act. If a young child tries to touch a hot pot and the parent says in a singsong voice, “oh honey, let’s not touch that pot, it’s hot”, there is no sense of danger, and the child’s curiosity will push him to test the limit. But if the parent lets loose a primal scream, slaps the child’s hand away, and yells, “HOT! DON’T EVER TOUCH POTS ON THE STOVE!”, the child will associate a fearful experience with the stove. It’s then up to the parent to help the child process that experience, telling him how scary it was, and that he yelled not because he was angry, but because he was scared for the child.
Shabbos is very different. First of all, young children have no understanding of melachos or muktze, and they have to be gradually taught what to do. You wouldn’t punish a 2 year old for not knowing how to drive a car, right? Because it’s a gradual process, children already know from experience that they won’t be injured if they play with an electronic toy, draw a picture, or flip on a light. So trying to make it into a scary experience or spanking them is counterproductive. If you want to utilize a strong reaction to demonstrate the seriousness of chillul Shabbos for a child who is old enough to know, burst into tears.
The little I know,
“Translating this into the vocabulary I chose, there are times when compliance is so critical that teaching is secondary to compliance. This doesn’t teach the child safety, which still needs to be done.”
I agree with this 100%.
“Bottom line is that discipline rarely teaches. It controls. And in instances of safety risks, that is appropriate.”
I think you and I have very different definitions of “discipline”, which we’ve hashed out in another thread before.
klugeryid,
“Hypothetical”
Whew. Because it seems that the assumption in your hypothetical is that a parent child relationship is purely transactional, and that is not healthy.
klugeryid,
“We both agree, we’re just haggling over price.
So now the question is what’s worse
A child playing with matches or a child being מחלל שבת?”Nope. I agree with WinnieThePooh, but couldn’t disagree with you more.
The use of physical force in each scenario WinnieThePooh described is intended to stop the dangerous act as quickly as possible, not to provide chinuch. Smacking the hand away is the quickest way to prevent it from getting burned on the stove. Yanking the kid away from the street is intended purely for protection, and physically separating fighting siblings is to prevent injury.
klugeryid,
How old is this child, or are you writing about a hypothetical situation?
1,
“I don’t think we were put here for a 9-5 job and to commute.”
We have so much to be thankful for to live in this generation, where technology has eased so many dangers and burdens in our lives. However, I agree with you that the model of a far from home daily job that has prevailed since the Industrial Revolution is far from optimal for family life. Family farmers and shopkeepers with a downstairs storefront had way more access to their wives and children than people do today, where full time workers leave when their children are waking up, and come home close to their bedtime. I hate it, but that’s the way the world is currently set up, and we have to do the best we can with what we have.