Hitting kids is wrong because it causes emotional damage?!

One of the strange things that I realized in investigating abuse is the reason that it is considered wrong. Even though we clearly have classic sources that view hitting as permissible and even a desirable way of teaching respect, submission or stopping them from sin - the word is out - no more hitting. I came across a article by Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz from 2008 where he explains why corporal punishment should not be used. I am curious to note whether anybody notices the contradiction between his sources and his conclusion? Read this citation and then read my final comment. Don't read this as a criticism of Rabbi Horowitz because I think he reflects current thinking and I agree with him.

update 4/16/13: See review article on corporal punishment by R Nuriel Guttel

Update: this is the old time religion - Michtav M’Eliyahu (3:361): My nephew told me that he saw in a sefer that even if the child obeys his parents it is still proper to find an excuse in order to hit him at least a small amount. … the Ibn Ezra (Shemos 20:14) has written that it is not relevant to talk about the love of a peasant to the king’s daughter. Also when the king punishes the peasant with a beating the peasant never thinks about taking revenge against the king and the only lesson he learns from being punished is to be more submissive. That is because it is obvious that he is totally subordinate to the king and the king has the right to punish - but not him. Similar when it is ingrained in a child’s heart the idea that the father is the ruler and total master over him and that he is subservient to his father then because of this subservience he will never learn to hit others just because his father hits him. However our education has become corrupted because the teachers now think that they need to be friends of their students and parents also think this and everything centers on the independence of the children. Because of this, when a father beats his son, the son will retaliate and hit his father or his small brothers… However the secular researchers in their search for new understanding and their desire to destroy the principle of education which were known even by non‑Jews and whose source is in G‑d’s Torah and Prophets - produce things which bring about a reversal of all these basic principles. They are educating future Nazis and brazen people. From this we see to what degree it is necessary to be careful with all aspects of innovation of the secular researchers concerning psychology and education and it is necessary to evaluate and ascertain whether their approach contradicts the words of Chazal and the Rishonim or Jewish practice which itself is Torah. If contradictions are found it is necessary to reject complete all their filthy innovations and not accept anything from them without first examining it with sharp examination and to evaluate it in the light of Torah and Chazal and the words of the gedolim of the Rishonim and Achronim.

Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 2:2): A child is enrolled in school at that age of 6 or 7 depending upon his level of understanding and physical strength. He should not be placed in school if he is younger than 6. The teacher should hit him in order to create proper awe and fear of the teacher. However the teacher should not hit them with angry violent blows. Consequently he should not hit them with a whip or a rod but rather with a small strap…

Makkos(8a): Although the son is already taught [replied Raba], it is still obligatory on the father to chasten, because it is written, Correct thy son and he will give thee rest, yea he will give delight to thy soul.

==================================

Rabbi Horowitz wrote in an article called Spare the "Potch" - Protect the Child

[...] For the record, there are other quotes from our chazal (sages) that support potching children, and many contemporary poskim concur with that approach. But our great rebbi, Rav Avrohom Pam, z’tl would often comment that this is an instance of “Halacha v’ain morin cain" – [even though] halacha may support potching, we do not ‘paskin’ or apply this method nowadays. Our rebbi explained, that due to the enhanced sense of personal freedom and individual rights nowadays (and this was a generation ago), hitting children is unwise and counterproductive. 

Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe, z’tl as well, was known to advise parents, that if they are considering hitting their children, they should be aware that their children will ‘hit them back’ for each and every potch when they grow older, by rebelling against their authority and teachings. (See Peleh Yoetz – under ‘Hakoah’.)

There is a timeless Ritva commenting on the gemara (Moed Koton 17a; see Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah 240:19-20) which says that it is forbidden to hit a grown child, since it violates the prohibition of lifnei iveir lo setain michshol (causing another individual to sin), as is entirely possible that the adult child will sin, by striking or cursing his father in response to being hit. 

More than 650 years ago, the Ritva (1250-1330) noted that the gemara prohibits hitting a grown child [only] since it is more likely that an adult would strike back. However, he says, that if even a young child (yeled) is of the temperament to lash out verbally or physically when hit, the prohibition is extended to him as well. I would suggest that in our current society and culture, where corporal punishment is frowned upon and often viewed as abuse, it would stand to reason that the practice of potching children be categorically suspended across the board.
--------[notice the shift] ----

Aside from the halachic ramifications, there are quite a few reasons why I thing hitting children nowadays is wrong, counterproductive, and harmful to your children, and I may address them in a future column. But for now, please allow me to leave you with a sobering thought that may not make me popular in certain circles but needs to be said nonetheless. Here goes:

It is my strong and growing feeling that hitting your children and/or placing them in settings where they can be hit with impunity, dramatically increases the risk that they will be abused or molested.

Think about it. The very foundation of abuse prevention (See Safe and Secure , a column I wrote on this subject) is predicated on the notion that children need to be taught that they have the right to privacy and security, and no one has the right to invade that space. With that in mind; if you hit your own children or allow them to be hit by others, how can you possibly teach them that they have the sacred right to privacy and security? Isn’t it a huge invasion of their space when you hit them? Worded differently, how can you try and protect them from having other people invade their private space if you do so yourself?

I have been saying for years now that the greatest danger your children face is not the Internet, cell phones, or bad friends. It is by far and away molestation that is the #1 cause of drug abuse and kids leaving the derech(see The Monster Inside) . With that in mind, I feel that it is of paramount importance that we learn to parent and educate our children, without resorting to the corporal punishment that damages their self-esteem and makes them far more vulnerable to the ravages of abuse and molestation.

All the sources he quotes from including Rav Pam and Rav Wolbe - say that the reason that hitting is wrong is because the child will strike back. He will hit parents or teachers who try to hit him. It is a case of lifnei ivair. However in apparrent contradiction to these sources, Rabbi Horowitz says that the reason not to hit kids today is that it causes emotional damage and vulnerablity to sexual abuse. This is a critical shift because I think most  people who are aware of the nature of kids today -  assume that his position is the reason and not the view that children have so much self-esteem and chutzpah that they will hit back. As Rav Pam is quoted, "Due to the enhanced sense of personal freedom and individual rights nowadays (and this was a generation ago), hitting children is unwise and counterproductive."  

Or do you want to argue that there is no contradiction and say that because kids have high self-esteem and sense of entitlement - as indicated by their hitting back - that they are vulnerable to emotional damage that will lead to sexual abuse?