TO HIT A CHILD: FORBIDDEN, UNNECESSARY, AND INEFFECTIVE

Nowadays, it is much less prevalent to hit children as an educational tool. Why is hitting a bad idea in chinuch? What should be done when you want to instill fear or authority? * We spoke with R’ Yossi Goldstein, a teacher, a psycho-dramatist, group trainer and director of Merkaz Tipulim – Chabad

Many explanations have been given for the verse in Mishlei which says, “One who withholds his stick, hates his son.” Many have tried to prove from here that we are allowed, and it is desirable, to hit children who don’t toe the line. In the distant past, many parents and teachers hit their children and students. Some even insisted on occasionally hitting good students so they would not be transgressing this verse. In recent years, boruch Hashem, the approach has changed. Fewer parents are using hitting as a punishment or as an educational message, and teachers are implementing positive and effective disciplinary methods so as not to resort to hitting.

What does the above-cited verse mean? Is it advocating hitting or not? When a parent quotes this verse to me as a justification for hitting, I open the book of Mishlei and ask him to read the verse inside. The end of the verse states, “and the one who loves him, chastises him early.” The one who loves his son uses musar and explains to the child what his mistake is. “Do you love your son?” I will ask the parent. And when he inevitably responds in the affirmative, I will ask him to adopt the second half of the verse, to speak words of musar.

I found an interesting explanation for the first half of the verse. In B’Reishis Raba it says, “There is not a single blade of grass that does not have its mazal in heaven which strikes it and tells it to grow.” That means, every blade of grass has a force that causes it to grow, and this action is described as striking. Perhaps this is what Shlomo HaMelech meant when he said, “One who withholds his stick, hates his son.” He does not mean physically striking the child but directing his growth in good ways.

Some quote the prophet Zecharia, “And I took for Myself two staffs; one I called Pleasantness, and one I called Destroyers,” from which can be understood that there is a stick of pleasantness, of praising a child for the good thing that he did, a smile, a good word. This is a stick which encourages him to continue with his good behavior. In our generation, this stick is more effective than the one called “Destroyers.”

There is an additional explanation as to why hitting is undesirable, given by the halachic authorities of our times, based on what it says that it is forbidden to hit children if it is feared, that as a result of the hitting, they will hit or talk back. For this reason, parents and teachers refrain from hitting children and students nowadays, because they might react with inappropriate words or actions, and this would mean that the parent or teacher transgressed “don’t place a stumbling block before the blind.”

As I said, there are many explanations, but we want to know what the Rebbe said about hitting. Upon examining many letters and horaos that were given over the years, there doesn’t seem to be any room for equivocation. The Rebbe is opposed to hitting and is in favor of using positive methods.

In a letter printed in the Igros Kodesh, volume 12, p. 266, the Rebbe responds to a teacher:

 … You are right in that this is not the way, to use the stick for punishment in chinuch, because too often the positive benefits that one benefits thereby is outweighed by the loss v’dai l’maven, and we see that firmness clothed in ways of pleasantness are more effective.”

The Rebbe writes similarly in volume 13, letter #4276:

“Regarding students … that they deal with them with reprimands etc. to the point of hitting … obviously this behavior is out of the question for the older students, and if I were not afraid I would say that this is so even for those that are not older.

Along with negating hitting, the Rebbe suggests alternative, positive methods. In a letter printed in volume 21, p. 260, letter #8017, the Rebbe writes:

“It is already known what is written in the Rambam’s commentary on Mishnayos and brought in Chassidus, that a child is drawn to learn not by being ordered, and all the more so not with sticks, but by giving him sweets, etc. And such [prizes] that he has an appreciation for in the state that he is in and not for the future, even though a child is generally receptive to matters of kabbalas ol and enforcement etc. And all the more so in this case, that is how it should be.”

In an astonishing letter, the Rebbe gives another practical suggestion which he took from the sichos of the Rebbe Rayatz. The letter is printed in volume 21, page 195:

“Rebuke by hitting is more negative than positive … and you need to seek other means of punishment, and like … brought in the sichos of the Rebbe, my father-in-law, not to allow them to be present when stories of tzaddikim are told and the like, which they enjoy.” This punishment is brought in Seifer HaSichos 5700, p. 161: “One of the severe punishments … was when a teacher told a story and they had to stand behind him.”

GUEST EXPERT

Our guest this week is R’ Yossi Goldstein, a teacher, psycho-dramatist, group trainer and director of Merkaz Tipulim – Chabad. We asked him how to punish and discipline in a positive way, how to set up appropriate boundaries, whether prizes are an effective chinuch tool, and how to compliment a child.

Perhaps, before anything else, tell us about psychodrama and how the tools that this method uses are effective in chinuch.

“Psych” refers to the soul, mind or spirit, and “drama” refers to action. The basis of the psychodrama method is, don’t talk, do. In traditional therapy, in which the person sits down and says what’s on his mind, defenses can often hide the real story because we want to keep the important and deepest things to ourselves. So it can happen that even when a person goes for therapy and wants to explore himself, his defenses get to work, and he hides his greatest vulnerabilities. Psychodrama is less about talking and more about action.

Please give us an example.

When someone says he has problems with his boss, I ask him, “Don’t tell me, show me.” And we role play the situation there in the room, first as he plays the role of the boss and then as himself. This enables him to express his real feelings. It all becomes more tangible and real and with relatively greater speed we are able to get to very sensitive and deep places in the psyche.

Then the therapist helps him carefully uncover the root of the problem. For example, that he feels hurt and like a nothing because of his boss may be directly connected to the way he was treated when he was a child.

FEAR OF AWE OR FEAR OF PUNISHMENT?

In the past parents punished by hitting. Why doesn’t this work today?

In the past, and unfortunately in some homes nowadays too, the carrot and stick method was used. But while the stick was used, i.e., patching, the “carrot” was not always there. On the surface it appears like hitting is effective, because it achieves immediate results. But this method is not effective in the long run.

I would divide physical punishment into two types: cautious and premeditated punishment and impulsive punishment in which the parent can’t restrain himself. With both types of punishment there is a helpless and humiliating feeling that the child is made to feel by the adult.

If we go back to the psychodrama method which emphasizes action over speech, with the chinuch of a child too, along with the importance of speech in chinuch (“and you shall relate to your child”) there is also the importance of action in chinuch.

If I speak to a child about chinuch and values but when it comes to it, and the child crosses the line then I hit him, what I’m telling him in effect is, “Sweetie, the real way to solve problems in life is by force.”

Parents will ask, what then are the tools that we can use to instill fear in children? After all, the Torah itself commands, “a man must fear their mother and father.”

Rashi says, as the simple meaning of the words, what is fear – not to sit in his place, not to speak in his stead and not to contradict him. That means that the mitzva of fearing parents is not the fear of punishment, but a reverence for them; children are commanded to honor parents the way you honor a king (as Rav Ovadia Seforno says, “His respect for them should be as he would honor those who are awesome to him due to their elevated status over him”).

By the way, on this verse, the holy Ohr HaChayim brings the idea we spoke of, about the impact of parents’ actions on the chinuch of their children. He asks, why does the verse start in the singular (“man”) and end in the plural (“their”). He explains that the Torah is hinting that when the father himself fulfills the mitzva of awe of a father, his son sees his behavior and will also fear him, so we have two (plural) sons who fear. (“When the son sees that his father treats his own father’s honor disdainfully, then the crown of his fear will fall from him. And when a person shows fear to his father the son will take heed. This will also instill in the child the aspect of positive behavior, and that is how one fulfills two fears in the plural.”)

Unfortunately, there are parents who think that their children need to be afraid of them. I have a question for these parents: Why should we make our children fearful? How is it possible to live under a shadow of fear? What kind of adult will result from a childhood like this? It is easy to get a child to fear us, but will this help the child grow or hurt him? 

By punishing in this way, we convey the message of “Only I know what is good for you. You don’t know what is right for you and if you don’t listen to me, you will have what to be afraid of.” It is very hard, or perhaps impossible, to raise confident children by such childrearing methods.

How do you recommend parents set boundaries?

I noticed that nearly every night I had to ask my children to go to sleep on time, and nearly had to beg them to put their clothing in the hamper, put their toys away and throw their garbage in the garbage can. But I could not recall ever asking them not to mix meat and milk or have to remind them more than once not to turn the light on, on Shabbos.

Why is that?

Because Shabbos and Treif are clear and that is how it gets conveyed to them. But it’s not even clear to me what the ideal time for them to go to sleep is and I myself don’t always clean up after myself. The lack of clarity is transmitted to them. When the boundaries are clear to us, there is a good chance that this will be conveyed to our children, although it is not a given, and there are many other factors that have an influence on their behavior. This is why prayer is always necessary for the success of the chinuch of our children.

In addition to this, we know that the clearer the boundaries, the greater the freedom within those boundaries. For example, when I play ball in a gym, I can throw the ball more freely than if I play outdoors where there are no walls. Outdoors I have to be more careful; otherwise, I will lose the ball. The same is true with the soul. If the boundary does not exist, or it keeps on changing, there is uncertainty, insecurity – did I do the right thing or not? Is it still within the boundaries or did it go outside? In the same way, a child with no boundaries will only do what he must but will prefer not to take chances and will refrain from playing the “game of life.”

On the other hand, even when the boundaries are very clear, but are harsh and pressurizing, this is like a game of ball in an enclosed space that is tiny. Obviously, you can’t play there either because there is no room to breathe and there is no freedom of movement, and the results will be commensurate. The “game of life” is not made possible. Therefore, we need to give children enough space but with clear boundaries and expectations, as much as possible. This is the balance required of us as parents and educators when it comes to setting boundaries.

STOP NOW AND THEN AND CHECK: MAYBE WE MADE A MISTAKE?

It seems to me that parents are divided between the two extremes. There are parents who operate out of g’vura and parents who do everything positively, with compliments and prizes. Which is more correct and how do you balance the two?

Obviously, there isn’t one correct answer because all of life we are in the process of learning how to achieve the right balance. But in general we can say that these two types of parents are conveying a similar message to a child, albeit in different ways. The message is, “You don’t have the ability or desire to be a good boy and so, I will help you, because you can’t do it on your own.” The firm parent does this by employing external force to get the child to do what the adult sees fit. The positive parent does this with external support and prizes, because the child can’t and does not want to behave properly of his own volition and he will be good only with the help we supply him with.

In both cases, we are raising a child who cannot rely on himself. He will always be dependent on externals, whether a tough environment or a giving environment, but he won’t be able to find within himself the desire and ability to think and act on his own. Since this is not a way of thinking that he is familiar with, we can assume that when he grows up he will also raise his children this way. 

Fortunately, Hashem gave us parents the sense of what is proper for a child and when we don’t do the right thing for an extended period of time, we usually realize it. That is when we have the responsibility to stop everything and examine ourselves to see where we went wrong and mainly, how to improve.

A child is sometimes sent to me and the parents say, “He has a problem. He always …” As I work with the child, I also check to see, “What did the parents contribute to make the child behave in this way?” Because it is likely that the child learned how to behave from somewhere, in addition, of course, to the personality that he was born with. There are parents who say, “But we always tell him that …” And that is when we review and repeat the first rule in psychodrama – “It’s not just what we say; it’s what we do!”

THERE IS NOTHING LIKE PERSONAL EXAMPLE

Still, how can we work with a child with the method of compliments and prizes in the right way so that it does not exacerbate all the negative points you mentioned?

I can tell you how we do things at my house. I developed a method based on the idea of “the reward for a mitzva is a mitzva.” As it is explained in Tanya, the real reward for a mitzva is the mitzva itself and the same is true in life.

For example, instead of saying, “If you finish eating you will get a treat,” I say, “If you finish eating, you will be satisfied and happy.” Instead of, “If you brush your teeth you will get a prize,” which conveys the message that brushing teeth is important to the parent and the prize to the child, you can say, “If you brush your teeth you will have clean and healthy teeth and gums.”

I use prizes and incentives too, but the question is where the emphasis is placed. In addition, we’ve already learned that what is important is, “what I do, and not just what I say.” Educational statements need corresponding educational behaviors.

So along with telling a child, “I love you,” you need to show him that, so he feels it, not just hears the words. Certainly don’t say one thing and do the opposite. When you tell him, “You are the sweetest kid in the world,” while yapping on the phone, your child knows that what you are doing is more important than what you are saying and what he “got” is probably, “My dear son, you are sweet indeed, but my phone is a bit sweeter.” That is in the best case, and let that suffice without specifying possibly worse messages the child is getting.

When I drop everything to be involved with my children when I put them to sleep, I say Shma with them and even tell them a short story, then even if I did not say, “You are important to me,” they get that message.

CRITICIZING WITHOUT OFFENDING

Sometimes a child’s behavior needs correcting. How should we criticize and punish properly?

That’s a good question that I struggle with every day anew. As far as criticism I have found that criticism aimed at a child does not always achieve the goal. For example, telling a child who is rude, “If you are rude, nobody will like you,” or “A rude child is a bad child,” is ineffective because sometimes, from the child’s perspective, the opposite is true.

For the first statement he can say to himself, or even to you, “I have a friend in class who is chutzpadik, and everyone likes him” (that’s how he sees it). As for the second statement, a child is sometimes rude when he thinks that an injustice occurred or something is not proper, and he sees the chutzpah as something proper and even good because his goal was to stand up for what is right.

I have seen that when I speak honestly about myself, the child is receptive. A teacher can take a child aside for a talk and tell him straight, “Moishy, when you speak to me with chutzpah in front of the class, it makes me uncomfortable and I feel there isn’t much I can do about it.” A parent can also tell his child, “When you come home late without letting me know you’ll be late, I get scared. I worry a lot about you.” The child accepts that far more than, “You are irresponsible and don’t care about your parents!”

Sometimes, acknowledging our weaknesses is the most courageous thing we can do for our children.

During s’fira we need to do even more to instill values like Ahavas Yisroel in our children. How can we do so successfully?

Simply by our trying to be Ohavei Yisroel. If I want him to help others, I will take him with me when I go and help someone or on mivtzaim. If I still need work in these areas, then I should first ask myself these questions.

I once saw a father say to his son, “It is hard for me to help others because, due to my sins, I mostly love myself, but I want to improve and work on this. So come with me and we will do Mivtza Chanuka and even though I really want to be home, let us go and bring simcha to people as the Rebbe said to do.”