The Talmud prohibits spanking an older child

[ArmsOfLove]

because it may cause him to become angry and in his anger he may rebel and strike the parent back and sin by not honoring his father or mother. Rabbi's seem to argue over what makes a child "older" and whether or not this means all children should not be spanked, but they agree with Paul when presenting the Talmudic argument that parents are not to provoke their children to anger :tu I would suggest that his statement is actually, as the Talmud argues, an anti-spanking/striking sentiment~~~

[mamame]

Yep - no spanking but stoning is OK.

Actually, I don't think that the argument to not provoke them to anger is enough. Heck, ANY time you say 'no' to your child, it makes them angry, don't you think? I don't think that's a good measuring stick as to whether or not we should do something. I think if you do, you'll end up on Super Nanny......or Jerry Springer. :laughtears

[milkmommy]

Heck, ANY time you say 'no' to your child, it makes them angry, don't you think?
Well no. :shrug IF I tell my DD she can't watch more than one cartoon its not to make her angry . She might not like it but I'm not making her angry I'm simpily enforcing what to me is a healthy boundry encouraging to play and move instead. If I spank my entire purpose is to inflict pain to make her upset its truly provoking her to anger.

Deanna

[ArmsOfLove]

Yep - no spanking but stoning is OK.

Actually, I don't think that the argument to not provoke them to anger is enough. Heck, ANY time you say 'no' to your child, it makes them angry, don't you think? I don't think that's a good measuring stick as to whether or not we should do something. I think if you do, you'll end up on Super Nanny......or Jerry Springer. :laughtears
:scratch

I don't understand your response :scratch

I'm pointing out that Paul was stating something found already in Talmud and that the understanding of what is found in Talmud is not to spank so, in a sense, you could argue that Paul is saying don't spank.

[canadiyank]

I think she's saying lots of things (not just spanking), but any kind of discipline might provoke them to anger.

Van Vonderen talks about that...yes, it's anger, but it's a specific kind...I think it's literally translated "seething anger." So, not everything would provoke the child to *that* type of anger...

:think

[mamame]

Yep - no spanking but stoning is OK.

Actually, I don't think that the argument to not provoke them to anger is enough. Heck, ANY time you say 'no' to your child, it makes them angry, don't you think? I don't think that's a good measuring stick as to whether or not we should do something. I think if you do, you'll end up on Super Nanny......or Jerry Springer. :laughtears
:scratch

I don't understand your response :scratch

I'm pointing out that Paul was stating something found already in Talmud and that the understanding of what is found in Talmud is not to spank so, in a sense, you could argue that Paul is saying don't spank.


Sorry - I'm in a very weird mood tonight. I'm still recovering but I AM feeling better, thank heavens!

What I was saying though, was that saying that we're not to provoke our children to anger - thus not spanking can also be used to say that we're not to do ANYTHING to cause them to be angry. I don't know about your kids but usually if I say "No", my kids are angry about that response (heck, *I'M* angry if someone says "no" to me too). If I'm NOT going to do something because it might make my kids angry would make me NEVER say "no" to them and then end up with those kind of kids you see on TV (LOL). You know - the kids who get everything they want, are spoiled and are impossible to be around.

[ArmsOfLove]

well in what I've been reading "the sin" would be more specifically striking the parent back in revenge. I definately agree that anything you do that provokes anger in a child may result in them doing like for revenge (saying 'no' to everything, ignoring/isolating, etc.) but striking someone is identified as such a violation of the child and the adult they may strike back.

:think In recent years as people have tried to figure out how to punish without hitting I do believe there are more things that would violate this instruction, but I can't think of any from before the big advancement of logical consequences *as* punishments. Can anyone? This is an interesting thread to what I'm unraveling :giggle

spanking does something that, outside of creepy "logical consequences" like Welchel's "Creative Corrections" advocates for, strikes a child at their core--often bringing shame and embarrassment . . . :think

Ann, you posted while I was typing. Glad you're feeling better :hug

If I'm NOT going to do something because it might make my kids angry would make me NEVER say "no" to them and then end up with those kind of kids you see on TV (LOL). You know - the kids who get everything they want, are spoiled and are impossible to be around. I actually believe that children who act spoiled are "angry" because they feel unsafe and no one is setting healthy boundaries for them ;) But I try to avoid arbitrary no's--those are the ones that upset me :shifty

[mamame]

I've seen lots of kids angry with natural consequences. LOL - a great example would be right now - my 14 year old is supposed to clean out her bunny tonight and she hasn't. DH said that if she can't take care of the bunny, we'd have to get rid of him (we have a family begging to take him). If we DID get rid of him, believe me, THAT would provoke anger! She loves this little guy! (I know she's going to clean him once I remind her one more time). That would be a perfect, natural consequence but she'd be P.O.ed for sure!

[ArmsOfLove]

I've seen lots of kids angry with natural consequences. LOL - a great example would be right now - my 14 year old is supposed to clean out her bunny tonight and she hasn't. DH said that if she can't take care of the bunny, we'd have to get rid of him (we have a family begging to take him). If we DID get rid of him, believe me, THAT would provoke anger! She loves this little guy! (I know she's going to clean him once I remind her one more time). That would be a perfect, natural consequence but she'd be P.O.ed for sure!


Technically, that is a logical consequence--it didn't happen without someone making it happen. And natural consequences aren't done by anyone so they wouldn't provoke someone to anger

[euromom]

What about a younger child, for example my ds is 22mo and he gets angry with me and hits, or at least tries to hit me, when he can't have his way sometimes. It's not seething angry but it does turn into tantrums and there are sometimes lots of strikes towards me which in turn make me angry and I think and wonder to myself sometimes "what about when your child provokes you, the parent, to anger" because sometimes that's how I feel, that his actions of hitting me provokes me to anger and I try oh so hard to stay calm and be patient but when someone hits you it does really do something to you, it makes me upset. I do catch his arm when I can, empathize with whatever it is he couldn't have, tell him hitting hurts etc... but he still does this quite often. :shrug

[ArmsOfLove]

that definately needs to be stopped (in the moment--hurting me brings on a Bear Hug) but little ones being frustrated is not the same thing I don't think==though I think it might apply if you were, for some reason, setting him up to be upset :shrug

[bliss]

I actually believe that children who act spoiled are "angry" because they feel unsafe and no one is setting healthy boundaries for them ;)
I second that - Booger's best friend in the neighborhood is illuminating me to this fact - she is spoiled rotten (to use the phrase as a descriptive modifyer) and quite poorly behaved. She has a live-in nanny and her single mother works long hours, and goes out after work late into the night. It breaks my heart to see this kid CRY OUT for boundaries, for someone to make it not ok for her to just do whatever she wants to all the time. Everyone walks on eggshells with her, I think because they feel badly that her home life is not ideal, and she gets "stuff" and permissive parenting in place of loving boundaries - and it is creating an unattractive, unhappy, difficult to be around little person. :(

[euromom]

that definately needs to be stopped (in the moment--hurting me brings on a Bear Hug) but little ones being frustrated is not the same thing I don't think==though I think it might apply if you were, for some reason, setting him up to be upset :shrug


No, I'm definitly not setting him up to be upset. :( It happens mainly at naptime, which is not an option because he is oh so tired, but does not want to stop playing and has a hard time calming himself for sleep...most days now he ends up taking a swing at me at least a few times while I am trying to rock him to sleep. Also happens with things like he's smart enough to figure out that the bowl on top of the fridge that is suppose to be hidden from him has chocolate in it (somehow he remembers seeing chocolate in this bowl days ago and knows it's in there without seeing the chocolate, only the bowl) and he wants a piece but I won't give him one because that would mean much more hitting and aggresive behavior from him later. He gets upset, doesn't want anything else, just the chocolate, and takes a swing at me. Or I open the freezer to see what to cook for dinner and he is on my hip since he is a velcro toddler and he happens to see the popsicles in the back of the fridge and wants that for dinner, mommy say no popsicle for dinner and because he is hungry he takes a swing at me. :shrug

[Chris3jam]

"seething anger" - - -wouldn't that be like stuff that would happen over time? It takes time and things happening over and over, with no respite, that evokes that kind of response, usually. I mean, "seething anger" means anger that's been simmering and cooking for a while. . . . . :think :shrug

Or, anger that's deeply personal, out of outrage.

[CelticJourney]

I do believe there are different kinds of anger and for different reasons. Anger over the bunny, should you choose to do that, would be an anger brought on by loss, anger at herself for not fulfilling her responsibilities; toddler anger is often from frustration, etc.

I think that what Paul is talking about is the anger that comes from parents who set out to dominate and break a child down. The righteous anger that comes from true injustice, not frustration, inconvenience or delayed gratification.

[euromom]

Very well put. Thanks! :tu

[Atarah]

Crystal - what's the specific Talmudic reference? My dh and I are processing through the whole punitive/non-punitive paradigm, and it might be helpful to have this. :) thanks!

[Katherine]

wow... lots of thoughts...

In recent years as people have tried to figure out how to punish without hitting I do believe there are more things that would violate this instruction, but I can't think of any from before the big advancement of logical consequences *as* punishments. Can anyone? This is an interesting thread to what I'm unraveling

Maybe I'm being thick, but can you ask that question in a different way? :scratch I really want to "get" what you're asking so I can think it over.. :O

spanking does something that, outside of creepy "logical consequences" like Welchel's "Creative Corrections" advocates for, strikes a child at their core--often bringing shame and embarrassment . . .

yes. I've posted before about the invasive and tremendously personal nature of spanking. It violates the rules that most well-meaning parents try to teach their children about privacy, modesty, and self-defense. It reminds me of those sci-fi or action plots where someone is "programmed" to do a dastardly deed that violates the very core of their being. There's so much icky power play in it. The authority figure who teaches these important principles is the same person who is allowed to violate all of them whenever they deem it appropriate.

"This is a private part of your body. No one should touch you here."

becomes... "Bend over your bed." or "Grab your ankles" or "Stop putting your hands back" (to protect yourself) :sick

Principles of modesty and keeping covered are tossed aside when a parent feels that the spanking ought to be on bare skin so it will hurt more. :td

Self-defense is unacceptable and viewed as flat-out rebellion--deserving of even more severe punishment.

Also... it's striking someone from behind (from a defenseless position, as opposed to face-to-face... ) and I think that is significant and really contributes to the horrible dynamic. The child is forced into a vulnerable, defenseless, and undignified position before the striking even begins.

As for the Talmudic reference, I do think that it's almost instinctual on some level to strike back at a person who is hitting you. And advocates of "bend over" type spanking might use that to say "See, we are helping our children not to strike back at us by doing it this way." But the way they do it leans toward torture techniques in both the physical and psychological aspects. :sick2 :mad

I think the idea of *provoking* is important b/c it speaks to intent. It doesn't say... "don't ever do anything that makes your child FEEL angry"

It's about provoking... inciting, stirring up, arousing... it's when we're doing something that we *want* them to react to. It all goes back to the idea that a punishment is not a punishment unless it makes the child feel BAD. If he isn't crying, you haven't spanked him enough. If he doesn't care, the punishment needs to be harsher... See what I'm saying...? When we're doing something for the purpose of making our kids feel upset/angry/bad (to "teach them a lesson"), then we're provoking them to wrath.

Setting a boundary is different b/c it doesn't matter how the other person feels about it.

[cklewis]

Actually, I don't think that the argument to not provoke them to anger is enough. Heck, ANY time you say 'no' to your child, it makes them angry, don't you think? I don't think that's a good measuring stick as to whether or not we should do something.

:scratch And yet . . . Paul says not to. :scratch

C

[Maggie]

That's neat and interesting, Crystal! Thanks for sharing.

Paula, very powerful and thought-provoking post!

[euromom]

It's about provoking... inciting, stirring up, arousing... it's when we're doing something that we *want* them to react to. It all goes back to the idea that a punishment is not a punishment unless it makes the child feel BAD. If he isn't crying, you haven't spanked him enough. If he doesn't care, the punishment needs to be harsher... See what I'm saying...? When we're doing something for the purpose of making our kids feel upset/angry/bad (to "teach them a lesson"), then we're provoking them to wrath.

Setting a boundary is different b/c it doesn't matter how the other person feels about it.



This is good! :tu Thanks!

[Savmom]

:amen

to Crystal & Paula!

[ArmsOfLove]

Here is a section from THIS (http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2003/moadim/rwil_vhigadta.html) article. The article is not anti-spanking but it's very thought provoking

A word on spanking. The Talmud (8)prohibits spanking an older child, b'no gadol, based on v'lifnei iver lo sitein michshol." Rashi explains that the child may rebel and sin, and the parent is responsible for that sin. (9)

The Shulchan Aruch (10)quotes this halacha. The Rama, (11) based on a different passage in the Talmud (12), defines an older child as older than 22 or 24 years of age. This certainly strikes us as counterintuitive.

In fact, the Ritva (13)interprets gadol to mean 13, bar mitzvah, after which it is common that a youth will respond to a spanking by cursing or striking his parents, both capital offenses.

Rav Wolbe claims that today, striking a three-year old causes a michshol, a stumbling block, and is prohibited. In previous generations, children were more tolerant and had a more positive self-image, and were not damaged by spanking. Today, many children are damaged for life by spanking, especially since rebellion fills the air.

While this is a far-reaching and novel approach adopted in, and for, our times, a precedent exists in the words of the Ritva: "Lo gadol gadol mamash, elah hakol l'fi tiv'o she'yeish lachoosh sheyatris k'negdo b'dibur oh b'ma'asav, ki afilu lo y'hai bar mitzvah ein ra'ooy l'havi'o lidei makeh oh mekalel aviv, elah yishtadlenu bid'varim." (14)

Even if a child is not bar mitzvah, if, because of his nature, there is a reasonable chance that he will rebel with words or deeds, and ultimately curse or strike his parent, it is prohibited to hit him. Rather, one must persuade him with words. Thirteen is simply an average age beyond which spanking may lead to rebellion and is, therefore, forbidden. If today the age is three, then that is the cutoff, as Rav Wolbe, says.

[Atarah]

Thanks for the link. :)

[mamame]

I've seen lots of kids angry with natural consequences. LOL - a great example would be right now - my 14 year old is supposed to clean out her bunny tonight and she hasn't. DH said that if she can't take care of the bunny, we'd have to get rid of him (we have a family begging to take him). If we DID get rid of him, believe me, THAT would provoke anger! She loves this little guy! (I know she's going to clean him once I remind her one more time). That would be a perfect, natural consequence but she'd be P.O.ed for sure!


Technically, that is a logical consequence--it didn't happen without someone making it happen. And natural consequences aren't done by anyone so they wouldn't provoke someone to anger


LOL - I guess you haven't seen my daughter run down the hall, slip and fall (after I told her NOT to run on the slate with just socks on) and get mad at the door for hitting her in the head! :banghead

[Katherine]

Technically, that is a logical consequence--it didn't happen without someone making it happen. And natural consequences aren't done by anyone so they wouldn't provoke someone to anger
LOL - I guess you haven't seen my daughter run down the hall, slip and fall (after I told her NOT to run on the slate with just socks on) and get mad at the door for hitting her in the head!

:lol that's actually an example of the distinction I was trying to make. She felt angry at... whatever/whoever... but nothing provoked her.

If Mom had come up and added something on in an I-told-you-so or you-got-what-you-deserved kind of way, then that would have been provoking, IMO... trying to elicit negative feelings in a child's mind and heart.

[mumw/lov]

Thank you for all those who shared. I am sitting here reading allowed so DH can hear and we can talk about it. THis information was much needed. :popcorn I have a son who also has much anger and hits kicks and bites. I do two things I walk away and make it a point to tell him he hurt my feelings. I don't like it when he hurts me. I also use the bare hug learned about on this board. When I do the bear hug I count from ten to one. I slowly relase him. Either one can break into a melt down. Am I provoking him by doing these things? I do know something is working because he is now able to say I am angry, sad, mad, he has even said you hurt my feelings. For a little guy with so much pain and anger. This is really mile stones. I am open to advice and comments if anyone has any.
mumw/lov

[Katherine]

I do know something is working because he is now able to say I am angry, sad, mad, he has even said you hurt my feelings. For a little guy with so much pain and anger. This is really mile stones.

:tu :highfive That is really important. Kids (or adults for that matter) can't effectively deal with their feelings until they've acknowledged them.

I'm not an expert, and still struggle to handle my boys' big feelings sometimes, too. My goal is to help them identify and properly express--on an age appropriate level. Some examples: Earlier today, my 4yo was upset about something and told me so quiet vehemently, and I just nodded and said "ok. I understand." and then just waited for another minute to see what else he would say. He seemed finished, so we just moved on to what we needed to do next. Being acknowledged was all he needed that time. Tonight, I had to literally pry him off the computer when his game time was over (he has a new game--VERY hard to stop playing in the middle of it). He was furious and crying and upset... lashed out and pushed my hands away. He wasn't lashing out at me b/c I had provoked him, but out of fatigue and frustration b/c I was enforcing a limit he already knew about. My first instinct was to say, "Fine. If you can't stop playing when it's time, then you don't get to play anymore." (and I think that could be an appropriate response in some situations... if it's a chronic behavior problem and if it's presented outside the heat of the moment AND after efforts have been made to teach the child how to wrap up and successfully disconnect for himself) But for my situation, saying it *right then* would have been all about me trying to suppress his big feelings by holding something over his head... making him scared and upset at the thought of losing computer time in the hopes that he would reign in his outburst. I think *that* would have been provoking him to anger. Instead, I picked him up, carried him to another room, sat him up on the washer, and talked softly to him, telling him I wanted to help him calm down. When he did, we talked about something hanging on the wall, then about a burn on his finger... and THEN we talked about how we can help him stop when it's time. (We're going to buy a big timer and sit it by the computer so he can SEE how much time he's got left and know what to expect). And he was happy about the idea, apologized to me without my asking him to, and we moved on. :heart

It takes time, and a lot of effort,... and I have plenty of less successful moments that I would not want to share. :blush :shifty But it's not about being perfect. We as parents are growing, too. :hug

[ArmsOfLove]

Thank you for all those who shared. I am sitting here reading allowed so DH can hear and we can talk about it. THis information was much needed. :popcorn I have a son who also has much anger and hits kicks and bites. I do two things I walk away and make it a point to tell him he hurt my feelings. I don't like it when he hurts me. I also use the bare hug learned about on this board. When I do the bear hug I count from ten to one. I slowly relase him. Either one can break into a melt down. Am I provoking him by doing these things? I do know something is working because he is now able to say I am angry, sad, mad, he has even said you hurt my feelings. For a little guy with so much pain and anger. This is really mile stones. I am open to advice and comments if anyone has any.
mumw/lov
:hug2

sounds like you are doing some great things to help him and I'm so glad it's working!

I have two suggestions--the first is to stop saying when he is hurting your feelings. Your body--yes! But angry children tend to be very emotional and feeling children and if he feels he has hurt you then he may beat himself up and feel it as shame. Also, in order for him to take responsibility for his feelings he needs to see you model taking responsibility for yours--you can point out when something he says is "hurt*ful*" but if you can react without the hurt it will help him to be calm.

Also, what is hurting your feelings? Is he calling names? Insulting? Being rude? This may actually be a way to push you away or test you to see if you can handle his big feelings. If he perceives you can't handle his little feelings he won't be able to trust you with his big ones. I have even gone so far as to pull my children into a bear hug and drop into a chair with them in my lap and held them while calmly telling them, "Get your big feelings out. I'm bigger than your big feelings. I can take it! If I can handle my big feelings I can handle yours. I will know you are ready to go when you calm down." It ends in me being held and tears while they release really built up tension. This has happened a total of 3 times in my parenting. One time it lasted 45 minutes :jawdrop but it ended with a different child sitting in my lap :tu

My second suggestion is Dr. Greenspan's "The Challenging Child" :tu

[RubySlippers]

I've posted before about the invasive and tremendously personal nature of spanking. It violates the rules that most well-meaning parents try to teach their children about privacy, modesty, and self-defense. It reminds me of those sci-fi or action plots where someone is "programmed" to do a dastardly deed that violates the very core of their being. There's so much icky power play in it. The authority figure who teaches these important principles is the same person who is allowed to violate all of them whenever they deem it appropriate.
Paula, I haven't read your pp's about the nature of spanking, but your entire post (not just this quote) spoke to me. It also brought up some really bad memories :sick, so I know what you have said is true. You further clarified my commitment to not spank. Thanks! :hug

[Katherine]

Paula, I haven't read your pp's about the nature of spanking, but your entire post (not just this quote) spoke to me. It also brought up some really bad memories , so I know what you have said is true. You further clarified my commitment to not spank. Thanks!

It's hard to get real honest about what spanking actually IS--espcially for those of us who were spanked by well-meaning and sincere parents whom we still love and respect, and only want to honor. :hug2 But we need to start saying this out loud until people *hear* it. When I speak bluntly or descriptively about it like that, it's never with the intent of shocking people or dredging up bad memories. :blush (sorry! :hugheart) Truth is powerful, and my hope is that speaking the truth will shine some light on a practice that has become both a blind spot (Christians won't admit to the sexual/abusive implications of repeatedly violating a child's body boundaries, in violence no less) and a doctrine unto itself within Christian communities. :(

I'm glad your decision has been reinforced. :tu :hug!