Dear Rabbi Horowitz:

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on "potching" (hitting) children. I am a regular reader of yours and I don’t remember you ever writing about this subject.

Judging from your columns and parenting tapes, I assume that you would not be in favor of hitting children. If that is the case, how do you respond to people who quote Shlomo Hamelech’s words in Mishlei (13:24), “Chosech shivto sonei b’noi – that one who withholds his stick (does not hit his child) is his child’s enemy,” (since the child will grow up without proper guidance).

Thank you.

Chaim

Rabbi Horowitz Responds

Dear Chaim:

You are most certainly correct when you wrote that I am not in favor of potching children. In fact, as time goes on, I am becoming more and more opposed to corporal punishment of any shape or form.

As for the quote from the wisest of all men, Shlomo Hamelech; throughout out Torah we find countless examples of phrases and words that are allegorical in nature and never intended to be taken literally. And while the phrase “chosech shivto” could certainly be interpreted to condone and even praise physical punishment (Ralbag concurs with that opinion), it can equally be understood allegorically with the words “shevet” (lit. stick) denoting discipline (Metzudos Dovid). In that context, “Chosech shivto sonei b’noi” would inform us that one who allows his child to grow up without parental guidance, discipline, and constructive criticism is doing him a terrible disservice. (Click here for links to 8 columns I’ve written on the subject of giving constructive criticism.)

I would like to suggest that this pasuk itself is proof positive that the Torah often uses metaphors; for it is difficult to translate sonei to mean that the father quite literally ‘hates’ his son. Rather, it means that the father is causing his son material harm (and it is as if he hates him) by withholding guidance from him.

Additionally, I think there is compelling proof from the second half of the pasuk that the word shivto is translated allegorically and not literally. As is the case with many of the pesukim in Mishlei, the first part of the pasuk is presented in contrast with the second in order to highlight the point Shlomo Hamelech is making. The full text of the pasuk is “Chosech shivto sonei b’noi; v’ohavo shecharo mussar" – one who withholds his stick hates his son; but one who loves [his son] disciplines him in his youth.” I suggest that if “shivto” translates as physically hitting his son; then the second part of the pasuk should say that “One who loves his son strikes him with a stick!” The fact that the pasuk uses the word “mussar” (verbal discipline) seems to indicate that the first half is also noting that the father withholds verbal discipline.

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.