Need to chastise children

Igros Moshe (E.H. IV #68): You and your wife have such great stress from raising your children that you beat them. However it is obvious to everyone that there is absolutely no beneficial purpose in beating them – in fact it makes raising them much more difficult. Therefore it is an irrational behavior caused by nerves and because of this you cannot handle the stress and you do this crazy behavior of viciously beating your small children without any rationale. You are fully aware that you are transgressing a Torah prohibition every time you hit them because it is clearly not justified educationally. Furthermore these beating from rage are without any limit and are just an attempt to dominate them. It is also possibly dangerous because you don’t avoid hitting them on places of the body which are very dangerous to the child. Consequently I give you have permission to use birth control …for two years…This permission also is granted because of the danger to the mother. It is obvious that she is sick with nerves and all this is very stressful to her. Therefore the difficulty of raising children is possibly dangerous not only to the children but also to her life.

Igros Moshe (Y.D. II #103): Concerning the matter of a teacher who wants to punish a student that he has warned (Makkos 8b)… Certainly a teacher needs to punish a student for that which he clearly did - but not for mere suspicions. This is also true even if the teacher thinks that there is clearly circumstantial evidence that the student committed the prohibited act. It is not permitted for any person in the world to rely on his own opinion in order to punish even the slightest – unless he has clear knowledge and witnesses. Even for a matter which is only worth pennies (peruta) it is necessary to have witnesses and surely for corporal punishment which is worth more than money. In fact the teacher’s right to punish is not any different than a beis din for which mere suspicion is irrelevant to punish. However there is an apparent contradiction found in Makkos (8b) that even though a student has learned his lesson it is still permitted to punish him? But that is only if according to the student’s ability he is able to learn more Torah than he does because he is lazy and doesn’t work hard. In such a case he can be punished even though the student in fact had learned his lesson and doesn’t waste his time. But if the student does not look deeply into the matter because of his laziness then it is appropriate to punish him. This action is based only on the evaluation of the teacher because his expertise makes this something obvious to him and it is within his competence to judge these matters and it is impossible to go to beis din to judge this matter. There are obviously other matters that occur regularly to either a rav or a teacher and his students that they judge according to their understanding without bringing in witnesses and judges. These judgments that a rav or a teacher make without testimony of witnesses before a beis din is similar to what we find in Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 35:14) that in circumstances where men don’t typically go – there is an ancient decree to believe women. And similarly a rav or a teacher and his students, it is a very common that he is forced to rely on his expert opinion alone in deciding what actions to take. Nevertheless this knowledge has to be something that is clear to him and not mere suspicions. Furthermore if there are any doubt or suspicions concerning one of his students in a matter that is improper, it is necessary to first speak to him in a way that draws him closer to Torah and keeps him away from the suspected behavior. However if it clearly known to the teacher that it is necessary for the student to be punished, then it is proper to punish him calmly and not with anger or upset….

Rav Dessler (Michtav M’Eliyahu 3:360): Education of children regarding corporal punishment. Question: You have written that the latest scientific research has a fundamental problem with the use of corporal punishment. They say that it is natural that children imitate what their parents do. Consequently if they are given corporal punishment then they will learn the improper lesson that they should hit those who act against their wishes... Answer: The secular researchers are mistaken because of two fallacies in their reasoning which cause them to misunderstand the true nature of the matter. 1) The first mistake is that they think  that man is born without any characteristics at all [tabla rosa] and therefore a person’s nature is totally determined by what he learns from his environment. In other words they mistakenly believe that a man acquires his personality entirely from his surroundings. This is not true. The Torah says “At the door sin crouches”. That means that even before a child is born that there is an instinctive attraction to evil. Our Sages note that when Rivkah was pregnant with Yaakov and Esav  - when she passed the temples of idolatry that Esav pushed to be born. See what the Maharal writes on this. That means that there is an aspect of instinct without conscious awareness or thought at all which are part of a person’s nature that he is born with which he has to fight against. It is obvious of course that the social environment can strengthen characteristics and that he can in fact learn from others. However the primary characteristics do not have to be learned from others because they are innate. 2) The second mistake is that they think that it is necessary to develop independence in children. This is an incredible error. In fact not only do they no need to learn independence but they need to learn submission and humility. They will in fact learn by themselves pride and murder. But to teach them “there is no one like me” is the approach of Edom  and the approach of murder and theft.

Rav Dessler(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.

Pardes Yosef (Shemos 15:26): Just as we find that medical treatment used in previous generations are not applicable today because they are harmful, so too we find with psychological and educational programs. We are no longer able to utilize corporal punishment and abusive treatment as they did in the past. That is because we find that instead of producing improvements they actually weaken Jewish society. So if previous generation were not burned even with boiling water, we find danger even in using lukewarm water. Therefore treatment and education needs to be mild and patient because the words of the sages are heard when presented pleasantly (Koheles 9:17).

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 explicitly 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 mitzva 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 Taranis (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 doctor to cure the student...

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 mitzva... 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.

Shemos Raba (2:1) NOW THESE ARE THE NAMES OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL, WHO CAME INTO EGYPT WITH JACOB; EVERY MAN CAME WITH HIS HOUSEHOLD: Thus we read: He that spares his rod hates his son; but he that loves him chastens him at times. Ordinarily, if a man's friend says to him: ' So-and-so, smite your son, he is ready even to deprive him of his livelihood. Then why He that spares his rod hates his son? To teach you that anyone who refrains from chastising his son causes him to fall into evil ways and thus comes to hate him. This is what we find in the case of Ishmael who behaved wickedly before Abraham his father, but he did not chastise him, with the result that he fell into evil ways, so that he despised him and cast him forth empty-handed from his house. What did Ishmael do? When he was fifteen years old, he commenced to bring idols from the street, toyed with them and worshipped them as he had seen others do. So when Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham, making sport she immediately said unto Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son lest my son learn of his ways. Hence And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight on account of his son, because he had become depraved. And God said unto Abraham: Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad a proof that Abraham was subsidiary to Sarah in the matter of prophecy. Presently we read: And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water... and sent her away, to teach you that he hated Ishmael because of his evil ways and sent him together with his mother Hagar away emptyhanded and expelled him from his house on this account. For otherwise, do you really think that Abraham, of whom it is written: And Abram was very rich in cattle, could send away his wife and son from his house empty-handed without clothes or means of livelihood? But this is to teach you that when Ishmael became depraved he ceased to think about him. What became of him in the end? After he had driven him out, he sat at the cross-roads, and robbed and molested passers-by, as it is said: And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man.