Did the Mussar Movement fight Haskala by being a frum Haskala or by focusing on developing greater yiras shamayaim and character perfection?

 update May 13: I sent this post to Dr. Marc Shapiro who is one of the world's greatest expert on the Seridei Aish. His reponse totally knocked the air  out my question. He said that  I was reading too much into the words of the Seridei Aish. He said that what the Seridei Aish claimed that Rav Salanter meant by Hebrew Haskala that would be a defense against the maskilim was simply "moral perfection, nobility of soul, and lofty ideals"

I replied with: "You are right I read too much into this. He is defining his haskala as moral perfection, nobility of soul and lofty ideals. Don't know what that has to do with enlightenment. Why not call the kabbala or chasidus enlightenment. In fact why not just say that Yiddishkeit is enlightenment? How did the students who were leaving the yeshivas for the haskala view what he was offering them and why would they think it was a valid alternative form of enlightenment?  Apparently the maskilim of his day also understood him the way I did. Did he mislead them or did he simply nod his head at everything they said? In essence he seemed to be forming what we call a cult  in modern terms.

 =========================================
 I recently posted a discussion of the Seridei Aish regarding the nature of the Mussar Movement. I had been looking for the process that psychology and modern ideas entered the frum world. I thought I found it in the Seridei Aish's description of the Mussar Movement. 

The Seridei Aish clearly states that Rav Salanter in his battle against the Haskala - decided to co-opt the goals and means that were attractive to the frum population and that taking people out of yeshivas and religious observance. Instead of  locking the doors of the yeshiva tighter against the Haskala - he decded to make a frum haskala. That would mean a greater openness to the world and secular studies, a concern with improving the world and  being nice to others. However Rav Trebitz asserted that once the students were safely back in Yeshiva with the aid of a mashgiach and a mussar program - the movement change to an internal one of piety and the  secular studies, tikun olam was dropped and even the  sensitivity to others became secondary to piety and fear of heaven.

The only problem with this view of the Seridei Aish is I can't find anybody who agrees or even cites his views about the Mussar movement. For example Prof Etkes' major biography of Rav Salanter does not mention this view and in fact does not cite the Seridei Aish except for minor historical facts. I looked at several other books dealing with the Mussar Movement and they also do not mention either the Seridei Aish or the idea of a frum haskala. Below I cite the summary of the Encyclopedia Judaica which is similar to the view held by the other references I looked at. They works assert that the Musar movement was focused on increasing fear of G-d and perfection of character. It thus also would serve to inoculate people against interest in the Haskala and the outside world. It was not a frum Haskala or even primarily concerned with the Haskala! Now  the question is why did the Seridei Aish make such a claim? According to this mainstream view Rav Yisroel Salanter does in fact have a major legacy today.

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

Rabbi Yisroel Salanter (Encyclopaedia Judaica Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 13. 2^nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. p64-66. COPYRIGHT 2007 Keter Publishing House Ltd. Itzhak Alfassi and David Derovan)... [...] The central issue that concerned him was the gap between an individual's professed beliefs and his actions. Searching for the causes of this phenomenon, Lipkin discovered that there was no direct relationship between a person's piety and his knowledge of Torah. Knowledge attained through the standard yeshivah curriculum did not necessarily produce moral behavior, but knowledge of divine retribution, knowing that no one escapes the consequences of his actions, does affect behavior. This insight, coupled with another one, formed the basis for Lipkin's musar campaign. The second insight relates to the difference between a person's appetites and desires and knowledge. Contrary to one's desires, which are innate in a person, knowledge is acquired. For this reason, attaining even the right knowledge is rarely enough to control one's appetites. To solve this problem, Lipkin developed behavioral mechanisms, i.e., the habitual repetition of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral stimuli, "to fortify the intellectual fear of God that the latter eventually achieves the level of distinct instinct capable of combating less worthy desires or even uprooting them totally" (Ross, Immanuel, 1983/84, 70). Later on in his career, Lipkin proposed a different solution based on improving character traits, thus changing one's personality. All of these teachings were Lipkin's means to achieve a particular end: an improvement in piety and religious observance. Lipkin dealt with a number of philosophical issues peripherally in his sermons and writings. These included the paradox of divine knowledge and free will, miracles vs. natural law, the relative ability or inability of the human intellect to grasp objective truth in general or Torah in particular, and emunat hakhamim (blind faith in rabbinic dicta). This aspect of his teachings was developed by his students into "yeshivah ideology" (ibid.). Thus, Lipkin's disciples abandoned his musar methods and began to emphasize his philosophical ideas. Ironically, their musar technique became the identification with a set of proper ideas and opinions.

Making of a Godol: Corporal Punishment & Gedolim

Making of a Godol (Page 143): note 64 When asked about corporal punishment for children, my father declared that unless a parent is absolutely sure that the child deserves to be punished, he must stay his hand, lest the child bear a lifetime grudge against him. As was his wont, he used his own experience as a point of proof. He related that after his teacher had given him permission to leave the classroom for the outhouse, the teacher caught other children who had falsely claimed they had to leave for the outhouse as an excuse for going outside to play. The teacher then spanked them all, including him, whose need for the outhouse was genuine. My father declared that to him "that teacher is loathsome till this day". At that occasion, my father told the story of how R' Baruch-Ber Leibowitz treated his errant child, as recorded in Ch. 3, n. 141: also see there about how R' Yosheh-Laib Bloch and our protagonist punished their children.

Making of a Godol (Pages 744):  (R' Uri Ascher related ° that after his father, R' Shimon Ascher, had concluded six years of study in the Telz Yeshiva in 5691 [1931], he called on the Rogachover before returning home to Switzerland. Knowing that the gaon did not study Aharonim, the visitor asked a question that R' Aqiva Eiger raises. The Rogachover gave R' Shimon an answer unlike that of R' Eiger and administered an unceremonious slap to the 25-year-old's cheek for asking such a weak question!)

Making of a Godol (page 754-755): My father often related an episode that occurred one time at 'Arvith following the session: "R' Baruch-Ber's young child lit a candle in the midst of the brakhoth following the reading of Shma' in order to read from the siddur. After the davenen was over, the rosh yeshiva turned to him and said, 'My dear child, long may you live, you transgressed a rabbinic prohibition [to do work before reciting Havdalah] and you deserve a slap and went ahead and slapped him." (R' Laibel Perlstein/reported that my father told him, "What he gave the child was a slight pat on the cheek. This was his slap." R' Shlomo Ashkenazi reported in our protagonist's name  that before the slap, R' Baruch-Ber told the boy that in order to show his love he had to punish him, "as it is written, [He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him chastises him often].) R' Mordkhai Shain said that my father narrated the tale (and the one recorded in Ch. 1, n. 64) when responding to a question regarding corporal punishment of misbehaving children. My father concluded that corporal punishment is permissible as long as one strikes his child with the same love and composure that R' Baruch-Ber displayed. [On August 8, 1991, my son R' Yoseph related that during my father's 5741 (1981) visit to Israel - when he added to the story that R' Baruch-Ber also kissed the child, presumably to convey to the boy that despite his sin he was still loved - R' Simhah-Zissel Broida, who was paying a call on our protagonist at the time, remarked that the child deserved the kiss for making the room light for everyone] Heinemann Notations records the following story: Before R' Yosheh-Laib Bloch, Rav of Telz, would hit his child, he called all the family together and delivered a talk about the impropriety of what the youth had done. R' Yosheh-Laib would then turn to the child and say, "For that you get three spanks " My father stressed that this procedure ensured that R' Bloch never struck his child out of anger.[...]

Shevus Yaakov: Teacher beats student from anger at his inattention - must he pay damages?

 Shevus Yaakov (3:140): Question: A teacher became angry at his student and he strongly beat him because of the student was not paying attention to his learning. Is the teacher required to pay for the 4 types of damages he inflicted or is he exempt? Answer: It would seem obvious that the teacher is exempt from having to pay any compensation. We see in the gemora Makkos that a father who kills his son unintentionally or a teacher who kills a student unintentionally or a messenger of beis din - are not punished with exile. This gemora explicity states that the exemption is because they are exempt because the unintended killing took place while they were involved in a mitzva. There is no basis of saying that one can't generalize from the exemption from exile to an exemption of the 4 types of damages - because it is a statute of the Torah.  Don't argue that you can't reason  that if they are exempt from capital punishment and exile then surely they are exempt from the 4 types of payment because we find in a number of places in the gemora that even though a person is exempt from exile he is obligated to pay. That is because this case is different since the gemora which provides an exemption is only when they were involved in doing a mitza as we see in Makkos (8a-b).Therefore that is the reason we should exempt the teacher from payment since he was involved in a mitzva as we see when a person is running erev Shabbos and causes damage since he was involved in a mitzva. So surely in the case of the teacher. Furthermore the gemora compares the three cases with each other and the messenger of the court is exempt even if he damages someone as we see in Choshen Mishpat in the Beis Yosef at the end of simon 8 and is brought in the Rema in Shulchan Aruch without any dissent...A teacher who is discipline a student because of this studies is exempt from all payments of damage. This is stated explicitly in the Termas HaDeshen (#218) that it is not only a person allowed to hit his son or his student but everyone person is allowed to hit anyone under his control if there is justification for hitting him to stop him from sinning. Furthermore he says there is no need to bring the sinner to beis din before hitting him. He learns this out from Bava Kama (28) he a freed slave can be beaten by his former master because he doesn't want to leave the woman he was given as a slave who is not prohibited to him. So if it is permitted to beat another person for this reason then surely it is permitted because the student is wasting time from Torah study. So even though the halacha is that a teacher can only hit a student with a small strap which doesn't cause serious harm - nevertheless bedieved the teacher should not be punished because he didn't comply with that condition. 

Don't think that I am not fully aware of what the Ranach (1:111) wrote concerning an agent of beis din who hit someone out of anger and he was required to pay. The case of a teacher is different since the gemora in Taanis (4a) says that a talmid chachom becomes angry because of the Torah. In particular it causes him greater anguish when he learns with a student who doesn't pay attention to his studies. Therefore the teacher should be exempt from all payment. However in order that the teacher should not become accustomed to beating his student because it is not nice for a talmid chachom to become enraged or to lack patience - for the sake of improving the situation (migder milsa) and to make sure he doesn't violate the halacha of not hitting with more than a small strap - I rule that he must pay for the docotr to cure the student...
 =============================
update 4/18/13 Aruch HaShulchan (C.M. 424:17): There are those who say that a teacher who beats his students is exempt from paying for the damage done by the beating if it was done for the sake of teaching. A proof for this is that our Sages say that a person is exempt from exile when he kills unintentionally [Makkos 8a] while doing a mitza... such as a father who hits his son and a teacher who disciplines his student and an agent of beis din. According to this the case where the father is obligated to pay for beating his son or daughter is only when it is done without any intent for educating them - however if it is done for the welfare of the child then the father is exempt from payment. However there are those who disagree because a person is not allowed to give blows that cause bruises. This that the Torah exempts from exile in Makkos 8a is a statute of the Torah and it appears that the person died because of Heavenly Decree.  Since it is a dispute in the poskim the actual ruling depends on the details of each case according to the understanding of beis din.

פתחי תשובה חושן משפט סימן תכד:ד

(החובל בבניו כו' - עיין בתשובת שבות יעקב ח"ג סימן ק"מ אודות מלמד שכעס על תלמידו והכה אותו בשביל לימודו עד שחבל בו, אם חייב בד' דברים או פטור. והשיב, נראה פשוט דפטור מכולם כדאיתא במסכת מכות [ח' ע"א] מה חטיבת עצים רשות יצא האב המכה את בנו והרב הרודה את תלמידו ושליח ב"ד, ואין לומר דהיינו דפטור מגלות מגזה"כ אבל חייב בד' דברים, זה אינו, דהא מבואר שם בגמרא דאילו פטורים משום דמצוה קעביד, א"כ מה"ט יש לפטור מכולם כדאמרינן גבי רץ בערב שבת בין השמשות [ב"ק ל"ב ע"א]. ועוד, דהא הני תלתא מדמה הש"ס להדדי, ובשליח ב"ד פטור אפילו אם הזיקו כמבואר בב"י סוף סימן ח' ובהגהת שו"ע שם בלי חולק כו', וכן מבואר בתרומת הדשן סי' רי"ח [הובא לעיל סימן תכ"א סעיף י"ג בהגה] דלאו דוקא בנו ותלמידו אלא אפילו לכל אדם שכפוף תחת ידו ראוי להכותו להפרישו מן העבירה כו', וכ"ש בשביל ביטול תורה, אף על גב דקיי"ל דיש להכותו בערקתא דמסאני ולא באכזריות [כדאיתא בשו"ע יו"ד סימן רמ"ה סעיף י'], מ"מ דיעבד אין לקנסו בשביל כך. ואף דבתשובת הראנ"ח ח"א סי' קי"א כתב דבשליח ב"ד שהכה מפני כעס וחימה חייב [הביאו הכנה"ג לעיל סימן ח' [הגב"י סק"ג]], מ"מ בת"ח דאורייתא מרתחא ליה, בפרט שהוא צער גדול כשלומד עם התלמיד ואינו משים לב על לימודו, יש לפוטרו מכל, אבל מ"מ כדי שלא יהא רגיל לעשות כן ולמיגדר מילתא פסקתי שישלם שכר הרופא, עכ"ד ע"ש. ולדבריו צ"ל דאלו הדינים שבסעיף זה בחובל בבניו מיירי שלא הכהו ליסרו, אולם בתשובת קרית חנה סי' כ"ב לא כתב כן [הבאתיו בקצרה בפ"ת ליו"ד סימן רמ"ה שם [סק"ד]], אלא דהכא מיירי אפילו במכהו ליסרו, ומה דאמרו יצא האב המכה את בנו כו' הוא רק דפטור מגלות, משא"כ לענין ד' דברים דאיתרבו שוגג כמזיד כו', והאריך בזה ע"ש וצ"ע:

Rav Yisroel Salanter poskened: "It is prohibited to desecrate Shabbos to save my life."

Tonight I went to be menachem avel Rav Nosson Kaminetsky who is sitting shiva for his sister Reb Shurin. He told over many stories. One of them was about Rav Yisroel Salanter-which he also has in Making of a Godol. Below is the story as it appears in Making of a Godol.

[page 1144] In the Salanter Interview my father introduced the following tale with the words: "This is a story that one should know." He related, "R' Fishel Behr told me that R' Yisrael, in his last months of life, had stayed for a while in R' Fishel's parents' home in Memel before going on to K6nigsberg [where he died]. R' Yisrael told him and his brother Naphtali, both teenagers then, that he feared suddenly becoming unable to care for himself." In BIS Talk, when my father also shared this story, he added that R' Yisrael had had this fear ever since he had suffered the paralytic episode discussed above. (Cf. Katz I , which states, "One morning [in the spring of 5642 (1882)] he arose, packed his belongings and left Paris, telling his astonished acquaintances, 'It is not good to die in Paris, & as if his heart had told him that his days were numbered." This does not contradict my father's report that his fear of becoming incapacitated started with his neurological episode. His concern must have intensified in "his last months of life" because he felt his days were ending.) "R' Yisrael then said to the Behr boys," my father continued, "'Children, if something happens to me, one is not permitted to desecrate the Sabbath to save my life. Why not? The gemara says that Shepherds are not to be brought up (from a pit they have fallen into, although) they may not be thrown in (either)] because they make their livelihood by grazing their sheep on other people's property [subsisting on stolen goods] . My livelihood is likewise acquired by stealing: I have no money - people support me, thinking I am a tzaddiq; if they knew the truth that I am not, they would not provide the support. Therefore, I live off stolen goods and I may not be saved from mortal danger.'

[page 1151] "Because of this sister," my father continued, "R' Fishel's father, R' Elya BehrL was familiar in the home of the Kovner Ray, and the next time [R' Elya] came to Kovno he repeated to R' Yitzhaq-Elhanan what R' Yisrael Salanter had ruled. [R' Spector] did not laugh. He listened to what his mekhuton had to say and gave it thought; then he said, 'Tell R' Yisrael that the Kovner Rav rules that one may . I am ruling for you that you may desecrate the Sabbath for him.'"

Rav Sternbuch(Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 3:357):

ובשולי הדברים אזכיר מעשה נורא מה ששמעתי על הגאון וצדיק רבי ישראל סלנטר זצ"ל, שבחליו האחרון היה תקופה קצרה אצל דודי זקני המופלא ה"ה הרב ברוך זלדויץ זצ"ל, והביע חשש לגבי עצמו, שמצינו שרועה בהמה דקה כיון שאינו נזהר באיסור גזל, הדין הוא שאין מעלין אותו להצילו, וכ"ש בשבת אסור לחלל שבת עבורו, ולדעת רבי ישראל זצ"ל אינו מדובר רק בבעלי בתים סוחרים שאין נזהרין באיסור גזל, שהופקר אצלם לרמות יהודים ועכו"ם שאסור, ודינם כרועה בהמה דקה, אלא גם רבנים או עסקנים שמקבלים כסף, ועושים מלאכת ה' רמייה ולא חוששין ,נעשה הפקר אצלם איסור גזל ואסור להצילם, ובבכי טען שנפשו בשאלתו וחושש באמת שדינו כרועה בהמה דקה שאין מצילין ויגרום חילול שבת, ודרש מדוד"ז זצ"ל הבטחה, שאם יצטרכו לחלל שבת עבורו, לא יחלל אלא אחר שאלת גדול בהוראה, וישמע דעתו שהחשש רציני, ודוד"ז זצ"ל הנ"ל הוכרח להסכים, אבל בזמן קצר הוחמר חליו, וייעצו לו לנסוע מיד לקניגסברג, ונסע שמה ונפטר, הרי ברוב ענותנותו ויראת חטאו חשש בסוף ימיו שאסור לחלל שבת עבורו, אף שבבית ישראל רבבות החזיקו אותו למורם ורבם, ומה נענה אנן היום בעו"ה !

Mother is main disciplinarian & should not show mercy when hitting kids

Shaloh (Shaar Osiyos Derech Eretz #17):Women are commanded to reprimand their children as the father is and in fact even more than the father. The reason for this is because woman are available and are more commonly in the home than the father. If the father is a talmid chachom then he is very much preoccupied with his studies. He simply is not able to keep a watchful eye at all times of what his children are doing. And if he is preoccupied with business and traveling from place to place – then obviously he is not going to be home.  It is stated in Berachos (17a), Greater is that which G‑d promised to the women more than what He promised to the men.... Rav asked Rav Chiya – what is the source of their merit? Rav Chiya answered, They takes their children to the synagogue and they accompany their husbands to yeshiva and wait for them there. Therefore despite the fact that the nature of women is more gentle than that of man they are required to act as men and be as insensitive as men and chastise their children for misbehaving and to hit their with solid blows. They should not listen to the cries of their reprimanded children but rather continue reprimanding them until they turn from their bad ways and go in the good path. This is alluded to by (Eicha 4:10), The hands of the merciful women boiled their own children.That is referring to those woman who show too much mercy to their children and refuse to hit them. By this inappropriate show of mercy they are killing them. It is as if they are slaughtering them and boiling them like they were the flesh of animals and birds.

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?

Is a person tested with a task beyond his ability? Two opposing views

The question has been raised as to whether G-d gives us tasks that we can't succeed and that failure is inevitable. There seem to be two different views.

Obligations are given only if it is possible to succeed - one cannot fail a task

Kesubos(67a): According to the camel is the load.[A camel is given a burden according to how strong it is- Rashi]

Bereishis Rabbah (32:3): A potter does not test defective vessels because he cannot even give them even a single blow without breaking them. Similarly G‑d does not test the wicked but only the righteous. When a flax worker knows that his flax is good then he knows that the more he beats it the more it improves. In contrast when he knows that it is poor quality he doesn’t bother beating it because he knows it will simply split. Similarly G‑d does not test the wicked but only the righteous. When a person has two cows one of which is strong and the other weak, obviously he puts the yoke on the strong one? Similarly G‑d does not test the wicked but only the righteous.

Rav Saadiya Gaon(Emuna V’De’os 5:3): The righteous suffer for two reasons. The first reason is that it is for the few sins they have committed… The second reason is that it a trial. G‑d tests them when He knows that they will be able to endure the suffering. Afterwards he will reward them to compensate them for the undeserved suffering. G‑d does not test a person who cannot endure it - because then it serves no purpose. The purpose in afflicting the righteous is in order that mankind should know that G‑d did not choose them for nothing. Job and his suffering is an example of this second type of suffering. If the suffering is the result of sin then typically G‑d will acknowledge that this is the reason - if He is asked. On the other hand if the suffering is because it is a trial - G‑d typically does not acknowledge it. This we see from the response to Moshe’s complaint “Why are you making it worse for this people.” Similarly Job was not answered when he asked why he was suffering. This lack of explanation is necessary so that the suffering of the righteous should not be simply dismissed by the average man as merely a means for the tzadik of getting additional reward. And I say that even the completely innocent person is sometimes afflicted in order that he gets reward for it. This is obviously the case for the infant who suffers. I have no doubt that they will be compensated for their suffering. A wise person views suffering as the chastisement of a father by means of a beating or detention to keep his son from harm. It is comparable to the disgusting bitter medicine that a person takes to be cured. A person might ask why is this suffering necessary because G‑d can give the good without the suffering? We answer him that good deservedly given as reward is better than receiving it out of kindness.

Impossible tasks are given which cannot be accomplished - we must fail sometimes in life

Ksav Sofer (Vayikra 10:1): And they offered before G‑d an unauthorized fire which He had not commanded them. Question: The Tanchuma (Achrei Mos #8) says that Aaron’s sons died because they didn’t get married and didn’t have children. Furthermore it says that they walked behind Moshe and Aaron and said, “When are these old men going to die so that we can take over the leadership of the community?” It is necessary to understand this medrash since it does not seem to fit in with the Torah which gives the explicit reason for their death as being punishment for offering an unauthorized fire before G‑d?  It is also astounding that these righteous men - who were in fact greater than Moshe and Aaron according to Rashi (10:3) – should transgress G‑d’s command and not fulfill the mitzva of having children and also that they would speak in such an arrogant manner – “when are these old men going to die?” Answer: It appears to me that the reason that they didn’t get married is that they saw that Moshe’s children did not turn out properly as is well known. If Moshe’s sons were not fit then they felt that a lesson could be learned that surely would apply to the masses. They ascribed the failure of Moshe’s children to the fact that Moshe was constantly preoccupied with the problems of the community and therefore he didn’t have the ability to properly supervise his children. (We see a similar judgment of Chazal regarding the children of Shmuel who did not go in his righteous path because he was constantly involved with community problems.) In contrast Aaron’s sons were great tzadikim because Aaron was not so much preoccupied with the community and thus was successfully able to supervise his children. On the other hand Aaron himself never reached Moshe’s spiritual level because his energy was devoted to his family. Being aware of this they decided that the best solution to the inherent contradiction between serving the needs of the community and the needs of the family - was not to get married. They were fully aware that with the death of Moshe and Aaron they would become the leaders of the community. They reasoned that if they had children they would not be able to supervise them properly and they would end up going in the wrong path. Or if they took the path of Aaron and properly supervised their children – then they would not be able to devote the needed time to leading the community. Consequently they decided the best way to serve G‑d and His people was not to get married. We need to add two other aspects from the medrash regarding their following after Moshe and Aaron and saying “When are they going to die?” It doesn’t mean chas v’shalom that they were looking forward to their deaths or that they were discussing between themselves that when they would die they would become the leaders. The medrash means to describe that they were concerned with understanding what Moshe and Aaron lacked. Moshe was very concerned with the needs of the community and therefore he had children who were not good. Aaron who supervised his children did not have so much time for the community and therefore he did not have the merit of serving the masses so much. Therefore Aaron’s sons concluded that they should get married. In truth they erred in this conclusion. Because “what business did they have with G-d’s secrets.” Their job was not to second guess what G-d wanted. Their job was to fulfill His mitzvos which clearly commanded them to have children. (We find a similar mistaken understanding described in Berachos (10a) concerning King Chezkiyahu. He also didn’t have children because he knew through the power of prophesy that his children would be wicked. However this was a mistake and his father-in-law, the prophet Yeshayahu, was sent to him with the message,”You will die now in this world and you will not have any portion in the next world because you didn’t have children.” Yeshayahu rejected Chezkiyahu’s justification that his children would be wicked people by saying, “What business do you have with G-d’s secrets?”). Thus we see that Aaron’s had a strong passion for loving G‑d and His people and therefore they decided that to be successful as leaders and serving G-d it was best not to have children. This in fact was the “unauthorized fire” which they had not received from G-d. They in fact had not been commanded to lead the people in a manner that differed from Moshe – but they were required to fulfill G‑d’s commandments and get married and have children. Thus this mistaken idea was the “unauthorized fire” and it was the reason why they died. So even though their motivation was for the sake of Heaven it was a mistake. This is my explanation and I think it is very correct.

Rav Tzadok(Tzedkas HaTzadik 43): There are times when a person is presented with such a great test that it is impossible that he should not sin. This is described in Berachos (32a): “How could the son not sin?” This is considered an overwhelming force and the Torah says he is exempt. Also there are times when the yetzer harah seduces with such overwhelming force that it can’t be defeated. This is also described as beyond free‑will (onas). If G‑d twists a person’s heart so that he sins - that is not considered a sin at all since it was G‑d’s will. Look at what it says in Kesubos (51b) in reference to a woman being raped and she protests strongly but at the end she says that the experience was so pleasurable she would have even paid for it. Nonetheless the gemora says she is still permitted to her husband because her lust was aroused so strongly she had no free will. She is not punished even though it is prohibited – because she was forced. However a person cannot testify on himself that he didn’t have free‑will. That is because it is still possible that he did have the power to control his desires. I heard this in regard to the incident with Zimri who erred in this matter.

Stereotypic thinking:Intelligent opening-minded chareidim is not an oxymoron

The comments to my  previous post regarding Rav Sternbuch brought to mind two incidents. 

One happened 10 years ago in Bayit V'Gan. I was waiting for a bus back to Har Hof. There were two long haired young men sporting kipas - that clearly were not used too often - waiting also. One asked the other  - "We've been in this kiruv program for 2 weeks - what did you get out of it?" The reply was something that stuck me hard and revealed a new world. "I don't think I got too much out of the speeches about Science and Bible. I really didn't understand most of what they said about Torah. However I learned one important new fact, it is possible to be an Orthodox Jew and be intelligent and open-minded. Usually when someone mentions Orthodox or ultra Orthodox Jews, I picture a rather brutish person screaming Shabbos. A person who has no manners and views me with utter contempt. After all that is how they are described in the newspapers. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Orthodox Jews are really nice people."

The other happened 40 years ago while I was waiting for a subway in Midtown Manhattan. A tough character with leather vest, spiked bracelets and tatoos up and down his arm approached me. He snarled at me, "You know who I am? I am an Nazis and I hate Jews." I smiled and said hello. He apparently expected me to be frightened and disgusted with him - but I just politely listened to his rages about Jews and the world conspiracy against him.  The monologue continued for about 5 minutes. Suddenly he stopped and said, "This is really disgusting. People - even my friends - rarely have the patience to listen to me. I can't believe that a Jew is more understanding and considerate of me than my own kind." Fortunately at that moment the train arrived and I quickly jumped on. 

Lo Sasur: Rabbinic authority today?

Mike W wrote:

The Sefer Hachinuch is explicit that Lo Sasur applies even nowadays (without a sanhedrin). So perhaps yes, one could claim that it applies to the gadol hador telling you something(The Rambam seems to argue, in hilchos melachim, , the Chinuch is definitely explicit, though)...

There is a very intelligent summary of the different positions in HaTakanos b'Yisroel Prof Yisroel Stefansky published by Mosad Rav Kook.

He states that there are 4 major positions regarding lo sassur as a doreissa prohibition

1) Limited to Beis Din HaGadol when they were in their proper chambers in the Temple - Rambam according to Margenisa Tova, Yereim. Ramban for things learned from the 13 midos,explanations of the Torah and Halacha L'Moshe.

2) Limited to Beis Din HaGadol but applies even when not in proper chambers - Rambam according to Lev Someach, Maharetz Chajes, Ran, Rashba, Rabbeinu Yonah, Ralbach. This is also relevant to the dispute between Rambam and Ramban in Sefer HaMitzvos #153. Ramban asserts Sanhedrin ended with cessation of capital punishment and destruction of Temple. Rambam asserts that every beis din hagadol has the status of Sanhedrin. Thus Rambam holds that Sanhedrin existed until Abaye and Rava - the fourth generation of Amoraim.

3) Applied to the end of the Talmud in the days of Ravina and Rav Ashi - Rambam's view according to Ramban and Chinuch, Rashbatz, Mabit, Lechem Mishna etc.

4) Applies in all generations even today concerning to the chochmim of the generation - Chinuch as understood by Minchas Chinuch. Rav Perlow holds that the Chinuch is a daas yachid

Lo sassur as rabbinic or asmachta

1) Ramban concerning halacha stated in the gemora. - Ramban in Sefer HaMitzvos. Ramban holds that rabbinic laws which are not founded on Torah laws - are not obligated by lo sassur even on the level of asmachta - even if these takanos were from the Sanhedrin. 2) Ran holds that as asmachta applies in all generations and even to takanos made by contemporary poskim.

He also notes that there a number of sources in the gemora which state that there is Torah obligation to listen to divrei chachomim and rishonim (Rosh Horius 2 2/Rashba Rosh HaShanna 16a) assert this is because of lo sassur

A seeker of truth must be rude ( "navel")

Mishlei (30:32): If you have done foolishly in lifting up yourself, or if you have thought evil, lay your hand on your mouth.

ספר משלי (ל:לב) אִם נָבַלְתָּ בְהִתְנַשֵּׂא וְאִם זַמּוֹתָ יָד לְפֶה

While researching the issue of the necessity of being a nice person, I did a search regarding being a navel b'reshus HaTorah. This is the famous Ramban (Vayikra 19:2) which says that one needs to restrict even that which is halachically permitted -  in order not to be a disgusting person within a Torah framework. For example, he says one should not devote oneself to pleasure - even if permitted - in eating or sexual activity. Sanctity comes from restricting that which is permitted to you.

I discovered that in fact there is apparently a counter principle which praises being disrespectful (navel). If one is concerned about being pushy, rude and insensitive, it seriously interferes with being a genuine talmid chachom. In fact the Baal haMeor says that social sensitivities are a major impediment to anyone's pursuit of truth - whether Torah or secular.

A simple example is that if a person is not aggressive he will not get the answers he needs.

Avos(2:5): ...A shy person (bayshan) has trouble learning and an impatient person can not be a good teacher...

However the gemora utilizing the verse in Mishlei (30:32) states it even stronger. Success in Torah requires being a "navel" i.e., rude or disrespectful. 

Berachos(63b): Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmoni asked the meaning of Mishlei (30:32), If you have been foolish in uplifting yourself and if you have thought evil – put your hand on your mouth? That means that if you act as an unrefined person regarding Torah knowledge – then you ultimately will be successful. However  if you don’t then out of embarrassment of being ignorant you will cover your mouth with your hand.

Rashi(Mishlei 30:33): Our teachers have explained that if you make yourself rude and inconsiderate for the sake of learning Torah in discussing explanations and clarifying doubts with your teacher – then even if you appear to him as an idiot without any understanding – in the end you will be successful. However if you keep quiet and don’t ask him questions, then when they ask you questions regarding halachic matters – you will be forced to cover your mouth and be silent because you won’t know how to answer anything.

In fact this verse in Mishlei is used to explain Avos (2:5) by many Rishonim.

Semag(Positive mitzvos #12): It teaches in Avos (2:5) that a shy person can not learn nor can a rigid  person be a teacher. It says in Mishlei (30:32), If you have foolishly elevated yourself and if you have had evil thoughts put your hand over your mouth. This is explained in Berachos (63b), One who makes himself rude and disrespectful for the sake of Torah - will in the end be successful.

The Baal HaMeor expands this into a necessary approach for all seekers of truth.

בעל המאור על הרי"ף (ברכות א:א): וחכמי המחקר קראו כסא הכבוד גלגל השכל ואמרו כי בזרוח אורו והוא אור החיים על הנפש החיה הזכה אשר לקחה ממנו תזהיר כזוהר הרקיע ומצדיקי הרבים כככבים לעולם ועד על כן מלא חשק לב כל חכם לב לדרוש ולתור בחכמה להבין ולהשכיל אם להימין אם להשמאיל בין האמת ובין השקר להורות ולהבדיל. ויש אשר יגבר החשק הזה על לבו עד שיראה כחושק היוצא מדרך הצניעות והמוסר בהסירו מסוה הבשת מעל פניו לבחון האמת כענין שנאמר ואדברה בעדותיך נגד מלכים ולא אבוש ויש רמז לדבר הזה במסוה שהיה משה מסיר מעל פניו בבואו לדבר עם אדוניו לקבל זוהר ההוד וקרני הכבוד מלפני מלך הכבוד ישתבח שמו ועל הענין הזה היו מרבותינו החסידים והקדושים ז"ל כאותה שאמר רבינו הקדוש ילדות היתה בי והעזתי פני בנתן הבבלי אע"פ שהיה ידוע במדת הענוה ורב אחדבוי קמיה דרב ששת הוה מהדר ליה בבדיחותא ואמר רב פפא כל כי האי מילתא נימא איניש קמיה רביה ולא לשתוק דכתיב אם נבלת בהתנשא ואם זמות יד לפה ואמרו עוד מנין לתלמיד היושב לפני רבו ורואה זכות לעני וחובה לעשיר מניין שלא ישתוק ת"ל מדבר שקר תרחק וזה המנהג נהגו כל חכמי העולם כמו שכתב החכם המורה אבן גנא"ח בהשיבו על המורה הגדול בעל הדקדוק רבי יהודה ז"ל הזכיר דברי הפילוסוף שהשיב על רבו ואמר ריב לאמת עם אפלטון ושניהם אוהבנו אך האמת אהוב יותר ואמר עוד אני לא באתי לגרוע מעלת האיש הזה ולהשפילה אך להפליאה ולהגדילה כי כלנו משדי חכמתו הניקנו ומעושר תבונתו העניקנו ומפרי פי שכלו אנחנו לוקטים ובים דעתו אנחנו שטים והוא אשר פקח עינינו ולמדנו והועילנו וגדלנו והשכילנו בחכמה הזאת ובאשר למדנו מפיו אנחנו משיבים מדבריו על דבריו וכדברים האלה ויותר מהמה כל שיש להוסיף אני הצעיר אומר על רבינו הרב הגדול המובהק ר' יצחק ב"ר יעקב בעל ההלכות המכונה אבן אלפסי. ואינו צריך להאריך בגדולתו ובחכמתו כי היא גלויה לכל בעלי עינים. כשמש בחצי השמים. וכנפי צדקותיו. בחבור הלכותיו. פרושות על דורותיו. ועל כל דורות הבאים אחריו. כי לא נעשה חבור יפה כמוהו בתלמוד מאחרי סתימתו וע"כ חובה עלינו בכל דבר נכבד ומפואר לכבדו ולפארו ולקדשו ולטהרו ולהלבינו ולבררו כפי כחנו

The same word - נבל is used by the Rambam and the verse in Mishlei. This assertion about the desirability of being a navel is cited by many authorities - so it is clearly not a daas yachid. How to resolve the apparent contraction between these two concepts - avoiding being a navel in order to be holy and being a navel in order to be able to discover the truth?

Another clear example:

Berachos (62a): It has been taught: R. Akiba said: Once I went in after R. Joshua to a privy, and I learnt from him three things. I learnt that one does not sit east and west but north and south; I learnt that one evacuates not standing but sitting; and I learnt that it is proper to wipe with the left hand and not with the right. Said Ben Azzai to him: Did you dare to take such liberties with your master? He replied: It was a matter of Torah, and I required to learn. It has been taught: Ben ‘Azzai said: Once I went in after R. Akiba to a privy, and I learnt from him three things. I learnt that one does not evacuate east and west but north and south. I also learnt that one evacuates sitting and not standing. I also learnt it is proper to wipe with the left hand and not with the right. Said R. Judah to him: Did you dare to take such liberties with your master? — He replied: It was a matter of Torah, and I required to learn. R. Kahana once went in and hid under Rab's bed. He heard him chatting [with his wife] and joking and doing what he required. He said to him: One would think that Abba's mouth had never sipped the dish before! He said to him: Kahana, are you here? Go out, because it is rude.1 He replied: It is a matter of Torah, and I require to learn.