(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Makos 008a: Hitting one's son
Samuel Kosofsky asked:
The Gemara said that it's good to strike a child as a punishment if he's
not learning. Then it seemed to indicate that it's ok to hit the child even
if he is learning?! How can that be? Shouldn't there a difference
between positive behavior and negative behavior? Should someone punish his
child for no reason?
Sam Kosofsky
----------------------------------------------
Rav Joseph Pearlman replies:
First, it must be made clear that it is not necessarily an intrinsic
Mitzvah of Limud Torah that the child must be hit. It is not a condition of
satisfactory performance of the Mitzvah. Indeed, there are those who say
that in today's climate it is much more rare that hitting will be
appropriate than in olden times. What is meant is discipline, in respect of
which there are many methods at one's disposal. The root "YaSaR" means
verbal, spiritual, or moral pressure to constrict the behavior, akin to the
root "ASaR" which refers to actual physical restriction or imprisonment.
For example, "Shema Beni Musar Avicha" (Mishlei 1:8), or "Ka'asher Yeyaser
Ish Es Beno..." (Devarim 8:5). See also Melachim I 1:6, "v'Lo Atzavo Aviv
mi'Yamav," and see Rashi there who explains that "Lo Atavo" means "he did
not anger him," and this is "to teach you that one who refrains from
reprimanding his child brings him to his death."
In the Midrash (Shemos Rabah) it says that this is an example of one who is
"Chosech Shivto, Sonei Veno" -- "One who holds back his stick hates his
child, and he who loves him disciplines him early" (Mishlei 13:24), on
which the Midrash comments, "To teach you that one who refrains from
punishing his son, his son will eventually turn to evil ways and will hate
him (his father). We find that David did this with Adoniyah -- he did not
punish him corporally and did not castigate him, and thus he turned to evil
ways."
If the boy is not learning properly, he may need guidance correction and/or
discipline, one of whose facets might be the stick, either figuratively or
in reality.
The verse quoted by the Gemara, however, confirms that even if he has
learned, he still needs a firm hand to keep him on the correct path. This
is beautifully explained by the Vilna Ga'on on Mishlei 13:24, who writes:
"'One who holds back the stick' -- that is, when it is appropriate; 'And he
who loves him disciplines him early' -- not that he disciplines him for
that which is fitting, but rather he 'disciplines him early' by discerning
whether he has done any small trace of evil, and for that he disciplines
him. It is analogous to a woman who gazes in a mirror when she adorns
herself, and she sees that the mirror is dirty; she chooses a nicer mirror
which will show her small marks.... Likewise, one who loves his son
searches more for the bad things that he does, and he disciplines him for
them so that he not do them further, even the small one. Therefore, they
said in Makos that even if he has learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him
-- that is, *so that there not be in him any trace of evil whatsoever."
In other words, the highest imaginable standards are required from the best
quality pupils, and they have to be treated stricter than the average. It
is comparable to a star athlete whose trainer will provide an enormously
punishing schedule to get the very best out of him.
>From this explanation of the Vilna Ga'on, the question is well-answered,
and also the Gemara's proof from the verse quoted is understood. From the
verse itself there would appear to be no indication that it refers to one
who has already learned. It could just as well refer to one who has not yet
done so. See Ritva, who asks this, and whose answer is difficult to follow,
and it seems to me that there may have been a manuscript error. The Vilna
Ga'on, however, implies that one who has not learned is dealt with in
13:24, so this verse in 29:17 must refer to someone else -- i.e. one who
has learned.
Others suggest that the former is already covered in the same chapter
(29:15): "Shevet v'Sochachas Yiten Chochmah" -- "The rod and rebuke give
wisdom." The Ben Yehoyada derives the lesson from the repetition in verse
17 itself, for "Ma'adanim l'Nafshecha" is apparently synonymous with
"vi'Ynichecha," so it must be mean that even a good boy who is giving
Ma'adanim and Nachas to his parents still needs Musar and discipline.
The language of the Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 2:2) is very instructive
for our purposes:
"We bring the children to be taught.... And the teacher hits them in order
to place upon them awe, but he does not hit them with an enemy's cruel
blow, and therefore he should not hit... except with a small strap...."
The purpose of the strap is to control the class and instill proper respect
and discipline. This is well-known to experienced teachers.
Indeed, very often the best boys become too full of themselves and begin to
feel arrogant, and above correction and discipline. The Gemara teaches us
that they too need cutting down to size by way of a short, sharp (but not
too sharp) reminder.
Of course, positive reinforcement (as encouragement is now called) is
generally far more effective that negative enforcement, but it is a mistake
to abandon the latter altogether. IT is needed when appropriate in
accordance with Chazal's dictum (Sanhedrin 107b), "l'Olam Tehei Semol
Docheh, v'Yamin Mekareves" -- "always, the left [hand] should push away
while the right [hand] brings close."
Kol Tuv,
Joseph Pearlman
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss
