Berachos (63b) Abbahu said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Now they will say, The Master is angry and the disciple is angry, what will happen to Israel? If thou wilt restore the tent to its place, well and goods but if not, Joshua son of Nun, the disciple, will minister in thy place. Therefore it is written, ‘And he would return to the camp’.
The concern with this is that the parents must be consistent - if the child has done something wrong enough to enrage my wife then I must also be angry or the child will get the sense that I don't care about my wife's feelings.
ReplyDeletegood point could not find any commentary on this section perhaps because the principle is incorrect
ReplyDeleteNo, a child learns pretty quickly which parent to will be more lenient in a specific situation. They are more concerned on self preservation than on their parents' feelings for each other at that point.
ReplyDeleteThe principle is a very good one! The Gemara was ahead of its time.
ReplyDeleteso why isn't this widely cited in Musar works.
ReplyDeleteIn fact the opposite is stated that both parents should be consistent (Ben Sorrer)
The Gemara is talking about a leader and Hashem, not about two parents. There may be a similarity but there are also many differences.
ReplyDeleteThe message is not relevant nowadays because modern Jewish leaders do not generally have a hot line to heaven.
ReplyDeleteMusar is rubbish. Only Rav Salanter had insight into human psychology. Since then it's morphed into a mehadrin Scientology.
ReplyDeleteAnything that is in mussar books is highly suspect.
Anger at a child is not a good thing, if both parents show it, it could cause emotional harm.
ReplyDeleteJust as we push away with the left hand, so should discipline be done softly.
but that doesn't address the issue of parental consistency
ReplyDeleteWow!
ReplyDeletea calm and rational analysis
apparently he failed as a parent
ReplyDeleteThere are varying opinions within the Talmud, and across the two talmuds.
ReplyDeleteThis is just intuitively true.
It is suggesting another mechanism whereby a child can be damaged. Parental consistency is a technicality to minimize the application of ben sorrer u morreh.
It could be something that inculcates chessed in the child , or rachmanus. It is building an adult with an innate Torah set of middos.
it seems similar to the disagreement between Ramban and Rambam as to whether a siege should remain open on one side.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditing_(Scientology)
ReplyDeletethey clearly disagree with you
ReplyDeletewhy is this garbage relevant?
ReplyDeleteI've seen people doing this kind of auditing / cheshbon on scribbled graphs on paper. They called it "mussar".
ReplyDeleteThen there is the robotization of masses of people. 1 man makes a joke about loving fish, then everyone repeats it as gospel, without taking into consideration anything else. Yes , love is giving, and nothing else. Just because one man (full of hatred ) said it.
Yes Scientology is garbage, but so is it's close cult relative, "mussar".
your proof is a joke!
ReplyDeleteIs that because you previously wanted sources for love in the Torah but couldn't find any?
ReplyDeletenope!
ReplyDeleteBen sorrer is only in a limited age group at around barmitzvah.
ReplyDeleteChildhood has several stages, so first 10 years is different from, say teen years.
Teens can potentially be very difficult. It's harder to discipline and requires more discussion, and responding to good arguments brought by the teen.
Bottom line, the gemara ,taken at face value is very wise and intuitively correct.
ReplyDeleteA solution which suggests it is misprinted is no solution at all.
no one suggested it is a misprint!
ReplyDeleteno indication the gemora was directed to a limited age group
ReplyDeleteTrue - what you said is even more radical - that the principle is incorrect. !
ReplyDeleteRambam wrote in his Guide that his astronomical observations were not supporting his concept of a geocentric universe. But he wasn't able to bridge the gap I.e. that his Aristotelian concept was incorrect, or does not conform to experimental data.
If this gemara is a chazaka, that is one thing. It seems to be moral guidance.
Mussar is a modernish concept, and was opposed by many rabbonim, including rav Haim Volozhiner.
See, today I'm the fundamentalist!
Where does this passage refer to parents? Is a mother considered the disciple of her husband? Is there a source which suggests this passage is interpreted as referring to parenting?
ReplyDeleteIn addition, didn't women not learn back then? Why WOULD a mother be framed as a disciple (if in fact that was happening in this passage)?
Ben sorrer applies to limited age group in culpability (according to the famous opinion).
ReplyDeleteThis is more general.
Perhaps it is even questioning discipline.
Where did chazal get all their insights? Was every aggadah given in the package at Sinai or were some statements observations of the sages?
On what basis are you suggesting it's a taut or false? That there is no commentary on it? Biggest joke I've heard from you in ages!
ReplyDeleteIt doesnt but it is obviously relevant in principle.. G-d is often described as a father and we are his children
ReplyDeleteno one has said or suggested-it is a mistake - aside from you!
ReplyDelete"good point could not find any commentary on this section perhaps because the principle is incorrect"
ReplyDeleteAnd you old chap!
that is not an indication of mistake but a view not widely accepted
ReplyDeleteyou are speaking in riddles.
ReplyDeleteLet's try to get to the bottom of this:
1) A statement is made in the Gemara, which you report as referring to parents vis a vis their children. Is this your own udnerstanding or also anyone else's?
2) The principle headlined is a very good pedagogic instruction - yet you seem to disagree.
3) First you suggest it might be incorrect, but then claim it is not widely accepted. Have individual statements in the Talmud got to be widely accepted in order to be valid? What if it is the other way around - an error is widely accepted - does that make it true?
And is rejection OK if you have a majority , or can it also be done as a yachid?
Wait, what? Upthread, you said this: "good point could not find any commentary on this section perhaps because the principle is incorrect"
ReplyDeleteWhich principle were you referring to?
consistency among all those at the top.
ReplyDeleteThere is a solution to the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe halacha requires both parents to have spoken with the same voice in order for the son to be considered a sorrer.
This is providing a get out for such a situation. When the parents don't get angry together, then the son is no longer culpable, and escapes punishment. A bit like when yeshiva bochers were told not to be witnesses at non drum weddings - to get out of later mamzerut /aguna problems.