Thought provoking - but not frum: What's Divine About Divine Law by Prof Christine Hayes

We periodically get into discussion - sometimes heated - about man's rationality being subordinate to the Torah. I just came across a new book (publish 2015 ) which discusses these issues in great deal. The author is not frum - in fact she is a non-Jewish professor. She discusses this issuwe in her chapters on natural law.

However I think she has something to contribute to the discussion and clarify what the issues are. Obviously whatever conclusions reached are subordinate to halacha and our mesora. So I would recommend this book only for those who are secure in their Yiddishkeit and would like to gain a greater conceptual understanding of what the issues are and possible solutions.

here is one page of the book

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

The present chapter searches for evidence of a moral theory of natural law, distinct
from the Mosaic Law, in rabbinic texts.

Some scholars argue that a conception of natural law distinct from the Mo­sai Law appears in rabbinic literature in sources that deal with norms that pre­date Sinai. In this chapter, we consider this claim by examining texts that deal with pre-Sinaitic normativity in general and the seven Noahide laws in partic­ular. Our goal is to determine whether the rabbinic sources dealing with these topics provide evidence of a rabbinic natural law theory. There is no question that post-talmudic thinkers drew upon the notion of seven Noahide laws as a basis for the construction of aJewish natural law theory, but is such a theory in­ herent in the talmudic conception of the Noahide laws, or of pre-Sinaitic norms in general?

By the Middle Ages, Jewish philosophers were explicitly engaged by the no­tion of natural law and its relation to the revealed law of Jewish tradition. The first jewish thinker to apply the term "natural law" in a Jewish context was Jo­seph Albo (fifteenth century) who divided law into natural, conventional, and divine categories (Novak 1998, 124-25). Nevertheless, David Novak has ar­gued that Albo was not the first Jewish thinker to conceive of natural law in the Jewish context (124) and that "natural law theory, using a variety of different terms for itself throughout the ages, has been a constant element in Jewish thought." In recent years, a number of scholars and constructive Jewish theo­logians have argued that a notion of natural law is compatible with Jewish tra­dition (as a supplement to the revealed Written Law and the Oral Law), while others have argued that the concept of natural law is incompatible with the doctrine of a divine revelation of law.' To be clear, it is not our purpose to de­termine whether Judaism-as a multimillenium religious culture-has devel­oped or incorporated a conception of natural law as distinct from the Mosaic Law at any time in its long history, or whether it can draw upon the concept of Noahide law for the construction of such a view today.' Our question is rather lin I 'I und distinctly historical: do the classical rabbinic sources of late antiquity (i.e., prior to the rise of medieval Jewish philosophy when Greek cat­egories are more clearly adopted and adapted to Jewish tradition) evince a con­ception of natural law that matches and reflects natural law discourse in antiq­uity? This is not a philosophical or theological question about the compatibility of natural law theories and the abstract entity "Judaism:' It is a historical ques­tion about the presence or absence of Greco-Roman natural law discourse and conceptions in the literature of rabbinic Jews from the second to the seventh century CEo Any candidate for the title of "rabbinic natural law theory" will 

No More Statutes of Limitations for Rape

NY Times   THIS week, Bill Cosby was charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault. The felony charges stemmed from an incident more than a decade ago, in which Andrea Constand says Mr. Cosby drugged and assaulted her in his home. Mr. Cosby says he intends to fight the charges, and no court has found him liable for sexual misconduct.

The timing of the criminal charges was not arbitrary. The date of the alleged assault was Jan. 15, 2004, and Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for rape and sexual assault is 12 years: If prosecutors had delayed two and a half weeks, the limit would have tolled.

Mr. Cosby’s public fall in the wake of dozens of accusations has been an education in the reality of sexual assault, especially concerning the long conspiracy of silence, and the weight of shame victims are made to carry, when the suspect is powerful and famous. “I was a teenager from Denver acting in McDonald’s commercials,” wrote Barbara Bowman, another of his accusers, in The Washington Post in 2014. “He was Bill Cosby.”

After decades of unsettling claims and quietly settled lawsuits, Mr. Cosby’s public reputation has gone from America’s dad to America’s creepy uncle. But Mr. Cosby finally faces prosecution only because of a deposition made public in July: If that testimony had been revealed just a few months later, it could have been too late for prosecutors to try this case.

The charging of Mr. Cosby, just under the wire, raises a key question: Why is there a statute of limitations for rape and sexual assault at all? Across the country, 34 states have statutes of limitations on rape, sexual assault or both, ranging from as little as three years up to 30. (A few states also have reporting deadlines tied to statutes of limitations; and a number of states provide for an exemption from statutes of limitations if a DNA match is later made on a reported rape or sexual assault.)

Restrictions on how long charges can be brought after the alleged commission of a crime exist primarily to prevent the deterioration of evidence, but also to promote public order, protect criminal defendants who may have a harder time guarding themselves against long-ago accusations, and encourage plaintiffs to bring cases or report crimes swiftly.

Those are laudable goals that make sense in theory. But in practice, they undermine justice for survivors.[...]

Steipler : Yaavetz' cure for severe depression and suicidal impulses - more love and affection with spouse

Steipler (Letters #10): Question: Concerning a person who suffers from severe depression who has tried to commit suicide. Answer. Perhaps it would be helpful to teach his wife to speak to him words of endearment and affection. Perhaps he is one who takes a very ascetic approach to marital relations. In truth that is what he needs for a cure as the Yaavetz states in his Siddur, "There is someone I know who fell into a severe depression and it became apparent from what he said that it is the result of studying Musar books. Because of these pietistic studies he only has marital relations once a week and that only happens after he makes many religious preparations and he only does it exactly at midnight...I told him that he should increase the frequency of marital relations even having them 3 or 4 times a week – or more. And he should be involved in showing affection and hugging and kissing..." Thank G-d he recovered completely from his depression and thus we see clear proof that the advice of the Yaavetz is very helpful....
===============================================

David Sedley 

Rabbi Eidensohn, as a psychologist who recognizes that there is such a thing as depression (which is not always cured by more frequent marital relations) why do you publicise this kind of teshuva? It may lead people to lose their faith in the Gedolim of the previous generation, or conversely it may lead to an increase in suicides.

Also, as an aside, what cure does the Steipler offer for single men? And what about for women?
l----------------------------

Daas Torah

Rabbi Sedley - as one who appreciates your genuine intelligence, commonsense and sensitivity - I am troubled by your question.The Steipler did not say that sexual frustration is the source of all depression or that a general cure for depression involves sexuality. Not all the details are included in this letter but it is reasonable to assume that a person with a history of depression and suicidal thoughts has been to therapists. Has already been prescribed medication and psychotherapy - but it isn't working. He is dealing with a person who he presumes to be obsessed with mussar and asceticism and as a result has a very unhealthy relationship with his wife. Such are not unusual in the yeshiva world and people who suffered from inappropriate spiritual endeavors [i.e. too much Mussar] were often referred to the Steipler.The point of the letter and the reason it is given out to chasanim - is not to tell yeshiva avreichim to avoid medical or psychological treatment for depression. It is not to say there is no halachically acceptable cure for depression for single men or women.It is simply to say that an unhealthy focus in spirituality can produce depression. An unhealthy attitude towards sexuality can produce depression. That depression resulting from a warped understanding of yiddishkeit and one's human needs - is not a badge of honor.A person needs to know what the Torah expects of him and what his or her genuine human needs and obligations are - and not try deny them by being a "tzadik".i

 .קהלת ז (טז) אַל תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה וְאַל תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר לָמָּה תִּשּׁוֹמֵם

Lesson in true modesty

Tzfas Get: Use of Zichoi for Vegetative Husband: Collection of Views

  update: Received permission to allow downloads. There will be a new corrected version that will be available in a few days.   
בעז"ה בימים הקרובים תצא מהדו' מתוקנת עם כמה הוספות, אשלח אותה בעז"ה, ותוכל להכניסה להורדה.

Tzfas Get by Zichoi for vegetative husband 

Marc Gafni:A Spiritual Leader Gains Stature, Trailed by a Troubled Past

NY Times

 SEE Tablet Mag Part II

In his home office overlooking Monterey Bay, Marc Gafni is trying to remake American spirituality. He reads, he writes, and he works to bring a little-known philosophy called integral theory into the mainstream of New Age.

Integral theory “is based on the understanding that evolution itself is an expression of a spiritual universal force of creation embodied in each one of us as us, as unique selves,” said the futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard, who described Mr. Gafni as a leader of the movement.[...]

“We take the best of all the major disciplines of wisdom from the premodern period, the modern period and postmodern period,” Mr. Gafni said. “And we integrate them in a kind of renaissance project.”[...]

But the growing prominence of Mr. Gafni, 55, and his think tank has alarmed many Jewish leaders who know him as a former rabbi who was accused of sexually exploiting a high school freshman and who then moved to Israel to start a mystical community, only to lose it after having affairs with multiple followers.

Mr. Gafni, who talked about his past during several interviews, and his supporters say he has put all of that behind him. He said that old claims against him were all exaggerated, the result of professional resentment, and that he had been the victim of pseudofeminist witch hunts. (He handed this columnist a copy of “Sexual McCarthyism,” by Alan M. Dershowitz.)[...]

Mr. Gafni was born Mordechai Winiarz to an Orthodox family in Pittsfield, Mass., in 1960. His family moved to Ohio, and he attended an Orthodox Jewish high school in New York City. “He was one of the most brilliant students I have ever taught,” said Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, who ordained Mr. Gafni but later rescinded the ordination. [...]

Should approving adult-child sexual relations prevent a person from being a teacher?

CBS News

The University of Hawaii didn't violate First Amendment rights when it denied a teaching certificate for a Caltech-educated aspiring high school teacher who expressed views condoning adults having sex with minors, a panel of federal appeals court judges ruled Tuesday. [...]

"Oyama's statements concerning sexual relationships between adults and children were of central concern to the faculty," according to a ruling by the panel of judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a class assignment he wrote: "Personally I think that online child predation should be legal, and find it ridiculous that one could be arrested for comments they make on the Internet."

He went on to write that "real life child predation should be legal" as long as it's consensual and that the age of consent should be "either 0, or whatever age a child is when puberty begins."

When a professor discussed the statements with Oyama, he said it would be fine for a 12-year-old student to have a consensual relationship with a teacher, but that he would obey the law and report the relationship, according to the ruling.

Oyama made other comments his professors found concerning, such as disabled students being "fakers."

The comments were relevant in determining whether he should be allowed to work as a public school teacher, the panel concluded, and the university's decision was "directly related to defined and established professional standards" at state and national levels.

"Therefore, the university's decision was, by necessity, prospective in nature," the ruling said. "Oyama stood in the doorway of the teaching profession; he was not at liberty to step inside and break the rules. But that does not mean that the university was obligated to invite him in. Rather, the university could look to what Oyama said as an indication of what he would do once certified." [...]

Ultra-Orthodox Lawmakers Boycott Swearing-in Ceremony of New Gay Likud Knesset Member

Haaretz

Ultra-Orthodox Knesset members Monday boycotted the swearing-in ceremony of new Likud MK Amir Ohana, the party's first openly gay parliamentarian.

Ohana has entered parliament after Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

“I am here with all of who I am and what I am, what I’ve chosen and what I haven’t, and am proud of this: Jewish, Israeli, Mizrahi, gay, Likudnik, security-ist, liberal and a free-market-economy man,” Ohana said.

He said that as a Likud member he was sometimes considered a settler, and he was sometimes considered a Mizrahi, a Jew with roots in Muslim countries. [...]

ln an unusual step, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attended the ceremony and gave his blessing from the Knesset podium.

“I want to make a clear point that may not be clear. Amir is the first clear, candid representative of the gay community who was elected in an open primary when he was completely out [of the closet]. He was elected by thousands of voters in the Likud primary,” Netanyahu said.

“Amir represents very well our view of liberal nationalism. He believes in the rights of the Jewish people in their land, in protecting the country’s security, civil rights, capitalist economics and a free market.” [...]

A source in United Torah Judaism said the party was not as enthused. “The UTJ Knesset members did not leave the Knesset hall demonstrably, they simply were not enthusiastic to enter,” he said. “There is no decision not to cooperate with him. A few [ultra-Orthodox] MKs went up to Ohana after the swearing-in and congratulated him.”

Israeli Women’s Groups Decry Lenient Rape Sentence of Community Service

Haaretz

A Tel Aviv court’s decision Monday to sentence a convicted rapist to community service rather than jail has sparked a storm of protest among rape victims’ groups and a Facebook page calling for the resignation of one of the judges.

However, some legal experts say that the lenient verdict is not unreasonable given the circumstances. 

Yaniv Nahman was originally indicted on three charges of rape, attempted rape two counts of indecent acts and dozens of instances of invasion of privacy. Police also suspect Nahman drugged the women, but because this could not be proven by lab testing, it was not included in the indictment.

Before the evidentiary phase of the trial, Nahman reached a plea bargain with the prosecution in which the indictment was significantly changed, and included only one count of a forced indecent act and one count of rape. Nahman pleaded guilty to carrying out forced sexual acts on a woman with whom he had been in a sexual relationship for years before the incident.

One complainant refused to testify in court and problems with the evidence emerged with regard to another woman’s complaint. [...]

Dr. Dana Hadar Danzig Rosenberg of Bar-Ilan University agreed. “Any case of rape is very serious. But when one reads the verdict, one must understand that it has to relate to the specific case…If I were the judge I would have given a harsher sentence, but this is not an extreme case, considering that the offender was in jail for six months and underwent rehabilitation. From the perspective of the victims I actually think that jail is not the solution. Sometimes an apology and compensation are more significant.”

The prosecution said it would appeal the sentence.

Rav Shlomo Miller strongly denies the Kaminetskys allegations that he retracted his protest letter

Demonstration Tuesday 6 p.m. at Binyanei HaUma against the Kaminetsky Heter for Tamar Epstein

I was asked to post this notice about the demonstration. Have no idea at present who is organizing it or who is endorsing it. Hope to have more details Tuesday morning

Tamar Epstein's heter: An invitation to Rabbi Bechhofer to defend the heter as valid or possibly so

 Update: One of the solid questions addressed to Rabbi Bechhofer is that in view of his extreme concern with being fair to Tamar, the Kaminetskys and Rav Greenblatt - he is willing to ignore the very consistent and strong evidence against them because maybe maybe - there is another explanation in their favor. The problem is that his extreme avoidance of making judgments only applies to Tamar and her supporters - he does not apply this approach to Aharon Friedman but has called repeatedly called him a rasha and makes no attempt to find circumstances that might justify his actions. Why the double standard?
 =========================

Rabbi Bechhofer - you are probably the only person in the world who is aware of the outrage about the heter given to Tamar Epstein - and yet claims not to have yet made up his mind about whether the heter is valid. 

You have made a number of inaccurate statements in your comments defending the Kaminetskys and Rav Greenblatt - such as that everyone agrees that the facts presented to Rabbi Greenblatt by Rav Shalom Kaminetsky are true and the only issue is whether they justify the heter. You also claimed that the Baltimore Beis Din did not say that Aharon did not have mental health issues. You have claimed that the rabbis signed letters without any independent knowledge of the facts. That Aharon Friedman did not have his child taken away from him. And finally that this heter is none of our business - contrary to what is clear from all the letters.

Here are some of your comments

Whoa! They did not dispute the facts, they disputed the conclusion. A psychologist who dealt with Aharon directly related his assessment to a frum psychiatrist who gathered additional data and came to a conclusion. That is what R' Shalom said and that is what happened.

AF did not have his kid "taken away." He has her every other Shabbos, half the Yomim Tovim and half the summer. This is the biggest single piece of disinformation that has been put out there.

1. It's your word against the psychiatrist's. No more, no less.

2. I did not see that the Balto. BD said that. In any event, they are not experts in mental health.

3. So long as she was pursuing a get that she thought could be obtained, it was not necessary to reveal the mental health issues.

4. Again, your word against the psychiatrist's.

5. RNG is certainly entitled to his own opinion - much as you may resent it.

6. Mekach ta'us does not require "total craziness." I did not see RSK assert he was a lunatic.

To reiterate: "No one was tricked. The facts as set out by Reb Shalom are accurate. Reb Shmuel and Reb Nota based their heter on those facts. You can dispute the heter - as I have said numerous times, I am not taking a position on it - but the facts were and are correct."

I just received the following letter and I think it is a good idea. I would like to publish a cogent post from you defending the Epstein Heter - or at least showing why an intelligent person would have trouble deciding whether it is valid

Shalom Rabbi Eidensohn,

First, let me begin by saying thank you for your excellent and diligent posts regarding the Epstein situation. It has really allowed people such as myself to engage this situation with a level of access and scrutiny that would have been impossible just a few short years ago.

I am, as I assume you are as well, growing somewhat tired with Rabbi Bechhofer's attempts to justify the circumstances. I find that his comments are obfuscatory and only serve to dodge the issue with an unfortunately condescending undertone.

If I could make a suggestion which is why not publicly offer him a chance to present a coherent and cogent defense with a guest post?In that way we could understand exactly what he intends clearly on the record and hopefully have a more meaningful conversation. I suspect it would also expose just how flimsy his stance really is, especially if he were to refuse to engage.

Kol tuv and hatzlacha rabba with the important work,

 ----------------- Here are some comments Rabbi Bechhofer recently made in response--


This and a number of other his statements are found in the comments section to this post:

I am not sure how to defend my views if in the end I have my own doubts as to the validity of the heter! How about this summation:

1. The Haifa teshuva and others provide basis for the applicability of mekach ta'us. There is room to argue whether they apply to this case or not.

2. I do not believe anyone is lying or distorting anything. There is enough material for halachic uncertainty even if we assume everyone is telling the truth.
2a. There has been far too much twisting and extruding of the facts to the detriment of honest disagreement. This is unfortunate and demoralizing.

3. I disagree with several of the a priori assertions made here, in posts and more so in comments. I have noted these disagreements individually, and do not feel that it is necessary to collect them into a guest post.

4. I became involved in commenting on this issue here because I see it as directly linked to the last time my picture (the same one!) graced the masthead of this blog: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/...

============================
Perhaps Rabbi Bechhofer's most important claim - and one that I feel is totally unreasonable - is that the reason that Tamar did not make any claims of severe personality disorders either to the Beis Din of Baltimore, the secular court during the hearing regarding custody and visitation or even in the privacy of her own diary - is because she felt that she would receive a Get, obtain custody and proper visitation without having to mention that Aharon suffered from severe mental health problems.  This is his point #2 concerning the major discrepancies between Tamar's statements about Aharon while she was seeking a Get versus the claims about Aharon made when she decided she didn't need a Get.

Rav Gedalia Schwartz: Status as a married woman canceled without a get - by disqualifying a witness

We have discussed the annulment of a marriage by declaring that it was a mistake - mekach ta'us. We have also mentioned that the Krauss Beis Din annulled a marriage because a witness was disqualified because he wasn't Shomer Shabbos. Rav Gedilia Schwartz also does that. The question is if there are other people at the chasuna who are religious - the marriage would still be valid. In the following letter Rav Schwartz says he annulled the marriage because he has two witnesses that one of the two official witnesses was and is not Shomer Shabbos. However he doesn't say that he has established that there were no frum men at that wedding who also witnessed the marriage. Can it be assumed that he went through the wedding photos and established that there were no frum men there?

Here is the letter declaring  that the marriage was invalid and she does not require a Get to marry.

======================Here is a second case - details unknown ===

Vayechi 76 - R' David Pelcovitz - Balanced Parenting , a response by Allan Katz

Guest Post by Allan Katz

Here is a response to R' David Pelcovitz's views on parenting -' Balanced Parenting ' gleaned from the 3 keys of parenting talk - not the book. So the response is very much about what is stressed and emphasized in talks and what is missing. R' David Pelcovitz talks about the 3 keys of parenting. (1) Balanced Parenting – the balance between limit setting and love, (2) Perspective taking and (3) nurturing the Uniqueness of your child.

.

I will start with nurturing the uniqueness of your child as this is alluded in our Parasha. Jacob blesses his sons in a way that seems to be more about describing their personalities and sometimes being very critical when their inherent natures were used in an inappropriate way – like that of Shimon who with his brother attacked the city of Shechem. In fact, the city of Shechem is inscribed on the flag of Shimon, the flag representing the essence of the tribe. Rabbeinu Yeruchum explains that the blessing was a stimulus for personality growth based on the unique strengths and natures of Jacob sons'. Developing their inherent uniqueness would not only lead to character actualization and perfection but also have a ripple effect on other lesser dominant traits. 'So hoping that your kid will realize your dreams for yourself or a 'one- size fits all ' approach with the same parental expectations for all kids - everyone to Ivy League or Lakewood etc. Is not the way to go and certainly will not help the child to achieve his uniqueness.' Your wishes and blessings for your kid must relate to his innate talent and character , something for which you are also grateful - DP

I suggest it is not only about focusing on a child's strengths and sending a kid to a school that fits the kid, we need to also support his autonomy in order to help him realize his potential and give expression to his uniqueness. Kids should feel that they are the authors of their actions, 'self –determined - endorsing their actions on the highest level of reflection and connected to their inner –beings, souls and core values. When we support their autonomy, we enhance the uniqueness of the children.

'Perspective taking is a key skill and value needed to be successful in human relations like marriage and in the work place. When kids see parents treating each other with respect and parents being able to see the perspective of others with whom they disagree, kids internalize this value better than being told how to behave. ' - DP

R' David Pelcovitz advocates a balance between Love and limits, that a child's behavior is contained with limits but there is always love no matter what the kid does. He suggests that we are love specialists and weak on limit setting. To give context to his words and dramatic effect he refers to a book by Jean Twenge on how kids are becoming ever more narcissistic and this is due to permissive parenting and the fear to set limits and enforce them with consequences. He uses anecdotal evidence of silly parents from dysfunctional families , in the same way as many articles on today's parents show that instead of disciplining kids they coddle them and shield them from frustration and what we get is a generation of narcissists with a sense of entitlement . He quotes Twenge who says that the sign of the times is that ' obedience ' - to be obedient children is no longer a goal that parents have for their children.

I want to suggest that if we focus on one key - being responsive to a child's needs and particular supporting a child's autonomy, we have an integrated system and don't have to balance between love and limits and we promote perspective taking and the uniqueness of the child.

. DP talks about for a need for a balance between limits and loves and he says that if one does not have a good relationship with a kid, imposing limits will lead to rebellion. And this reminds me of the ADHD specialist who told parents that if they have a good relationship with kids, it will make your consequences and punishments more effective. And this is where I disagree. A good and loving relationship is our goal, relationship is also a skill kids need to learn and it depends on how we set limits and why we set limits while still supporting their autonomy. Relationship isn't for helping you make limit setting more effective. Everyone agrees that people and especially children need limits but the question is how you set limits, the parent or teacher alone, unilaterality or together with the child and how do we deal with problems and infractions focusing on CPS – collaborative problem solving and teshuva or with consequences. Is it a' working with' approach or a 'doing to' approach? When the parent's concerns are being addressed by the solution, a limit is being set, and the limit is also something which the child has participated in creating. If we are really interested in a child's moral development we need to help them to grapple with the issues at hand and try figure out the limits and boundaries needed and generate choices and solutions. We want kids to learn to set limit themselves, limits that are intrinsic to situations, limits that are decreed from the situation itself and this is done grappling with the underlying values of how to behave in the context of different situations. This is not about imposing rules and limits but rather helping kids to live according to principles and values.

When we parents and kids solve problems in a collaborative way, perspective taking and understanding the concerns of both parties is crucial to the problem solving process. Here, the parent not only models perspective taking by addressing the child's perspective and concerns, but the child acquires the skill as well, as he learns to articulate his concerns and take into account the concerns and the perspectives of the parent. CPS – collaborative problem solving is very different from a parent or teacher telling a kid how to behave, or even a parent making decisions taking into account the perspectives of the child. It is a collaborative dynamic where we support the kid's autonomy, his competence - as he learns to articulate his concerns, address both concerns by generating solutions that are mutually satisfactory to both parent and child. And in the process, the relationship is enhanced. So the obvious question is why not promote ' perspective taking and empathy' by the way you directly interact with your child instead of just relying for an indirect way of teaching this value?

For sure, there will times where we have to insist on a limit, thwart kids autonomy and kids will be unhappy about it, but the more we solve problems in a collaborative way , be open to discussion, they will begin to trust that our judgment takes into account their concerns and is in their best interests. This is a rather different take on limits from that of Twenge and DP who say that if we don't set limits and cause frustration and discomfort to children they will grow into narcissistic people with a sense of entitlement who won't be able to cope in the outside world. The question is are we using a 'doing to' approach ,imposing limits to contain children's behavior or are we ' working with them ' so that they grapple with ideas and figure out how the limits they need to set. 

I take issue with the idea that we are love specialists. The question is not whether we love our kids but how we love our kids. Is it with strings attached? – do we love them more when they behave themselves or do well at school and use love to leverage behavior. Even more important is how our kids experience our love, do they feel just as loved when they 'screw up and fall short.' In fact many – SDT researchers, and in the frum world R' Benzion Sorotzkin hold that ' conditional regard and acceptance ' is one of the main problems in parenting or teaching. When a kid's need for respect, love and unconditional acceptance etc. are not being met, kids compensate by becoming more materialistic but when parents are responsive to kids needs spoiling a kid never becomes a problem. Unconditional acceptance and love is not about being a permissive parent. In an illuminating passage from her book Learning to Trust (2003), Marilyn Watson explained that ' a teacher can make it clear to students that certain actions are unacceptable while still providing “a very deep kind of reassurance – the reassurance that she still care[s] about them and [is] not going to punish or desert them, even [if they do] something very bad.' Unconditional parenting means solving problems and dealing with a teacher or parent's unmet expectations using collaborative problem solving and enabling the child in an autonomous way to do Teshuva and engage in the moral act of restitution. This is rather different from imposing consequences if rules or limits are broken as suggested by DP and Twenge.

It is not the place to discuss Twenge's writings and the validity of her ideas and research Imho, difficulties with kids have to do the ever increasing demands placed on kids that outstrip their skills and development stage, a regime of high stakes testing, and an educational system that is driven by grades, the learning itself has no inherent value alienating kids from learning. I would like to comment on the negative way she and David Pelcovitz see the fact that ' obedience is no longer a goal that parents have for children. The fact is that hardly anyone would want their kids to grow up as obedient people and for sure kids themselves place no value on being obedient. Parents long –term goals for kids are usually more about being decent human being, kind people, happy and being concerned about the happiness of others, independent, critical thinkers, altruistic, fulfilled, self-reliant, inquisitive, responsible, competent, etc. Obedience and compliance are more about a parent's need for control rather than being responsive to the needs of kids. And the tools of gaining obedience and compliance are imposing limits and enforcing them with rewards, consequences and punishments which teach kids to ask what's in it for me – thus we promote the most primitive of moral behavior.

Imho it is not a balance between 2 opposing forces - loves and limits. A respectful and loving relationship with kids, nurturing their uniqueness and moral development, perspective talking and empathy is dependent on how we support their autonomy,love them, how we set limits - together and helping them grapple with issues involved, and solving problems and unmet expectations using CPS – collaborative problem solving with a focus on Teshuva - engaging in an autonomous way in the moral act of restitution.