Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses an exemption for the punishment of exile for involuntary manslaughter. Even though there was still enough negligence that ordinarily would incur exile, if the person was involved in a mitzvah, he receives a special dispensation. The Gemara says this includes a father who disciplines his son via corporal punishment. Should his son die as a result of these blows, since he was performing a mitzvah, the father is exempt from exile. (We presumably are discussing an unfortunate abreaction that had some negligence but not outright murderous rage and intent, as such a perpetrator might be subject to punishment as we discussed in the previous Daf.) The Gemara on Amud Beis even further asserts that it is a mitzvah for a father to strike his son, even when behaving studiously, so as to keep him in line, so to speak.

Such ideas are quite difficult to understand from a modern perspective. It is one thing to advocate corporal punishment. Many parents and experts might disagree and not find it helpful, but it is an old and venerable parenting practice, and in most states absolutely legal, so long as it is not cruel and unusual. However, to consider it a mitzvah to hit even a child who is obedient sounds outrageous, yet our revered Talmud states exactly that, and we who believe in the divinity of the Oral Law cannot ignore this. Let us study the matter further.

Rav Moshe Feinstein interprets our Gemara differently. The Talmud was suggesting it is a mitzvah to hit a child who previously disobeyed and now is compliant, as that is still necessary to enforce future obedience. But it would not be a mitzvah to hit a child who has not been disobedient at all. (See Igros Moshe YD 1:140, which, interestingly, is addressed to his son Rav Dovid Feinstein ZT’L.) Rav Moshe also forbade striking in a cruel manner, such as with a stick, or even threatening to do so (Igros Moshe YD 4:30:4), as this would cause excessive fright. This certainly reduces the severity if our Gemara’s directives.

There are instances in the Gemara where, though corporal punishment is accepted as a practice, when it is done unfairly or excessively, there is a disapproving response:

“There was a teacher who Rabbi Acha made a public vow that he should no longer teach because he was negligent (according to Rashi, ‘He hit excessively’).”

(Gittin 36a. Oddly, the Talmud goes on to tell us that this same teacher was reinstated, because they could not find a suitable replacement. While surely the teacher was in some way chastised and less likely to abuse his charges again, the fact that they allowed him to return suggests that they were not too scandalized by his actions.)

The great Amora Shmuel, who became Rosh Yeshiva of Nehardea, as a youngster had a run-in with a teacher who was overly zealous with his rod:

“Shmuel’s father found him crying. He asked him, ‘Why are you crying?’ Shmuel answered, ‘My teacher hit me for not observing the washing ritual’ [as it turns out, Shmuel was correct about the halacha, and the particular situation described did not require washing]. Shmuel’s father exclaimed, ‘It is not enough that the teacher does not know the halacha, but he also has to hit?!’” (Chulin 107b.)

Notwithstanding that it was accepted to discipline children via hitting them, Maimonides warns:

“Whoever hits a Jewish person of good standing, whether he be a minor or an adult… in a quarrelsome manner violates a negative commandment” (Mishne Torah Chovel Umazik 5:1).

Rav Moshe Feinstein interprets the term “quarrelsome manner” (nitzayon, Shemos 2:13) as hitting for a past misdeed. He explains that the purpose of hitting in the mitzvah of chinuch is to train future behavior, not to punish or avenge past deeds. (Igros Moshe C.M. 4:3). Also see Igros Moshe E.H. 4:68, where a petitioner asks for permission to use birth control because they have many children, and his wife is hitting them excessively. Rav Feinstein grants them the heter and also comments that the excessive hitting is due to the disease of “nerven” (anxiety? stress?). He also warns that hitting children wildly without any kind of plan or intent for the child’s betterment would be a violation of a Biblical prohibition against hitting a fellow Jew. (Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:103.)

This is an important distinction because now, according to this, the term corporal punishment in Judaism is actually a misnomer. It is no longer a punishment but rather an inducement or disciplinary action to affect future behavior and must be performed by a parent with that intention. If not, such action may violate a Torah prohibition against hitting a fellow Jew, as described by Maimonides above.

Maimonides also warns against even feeling anger when disciplining a child; instead, he must only appear angry to instill discipline while still remaining calm inside (Deos 2:3). Similarly, Rav Feinstein rules that in order to mete out corporal rebuke, the parent or teacher must be thoroughly convinced that it will be helpful and justified, and it must be done in a state of calm thoughtfulness, without any anger. Rav Feinstein compares it to an act of a rabbinical court, and therefore it requires due process and valid evidence. (Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:103.)

There are opinions that, on the surface, seem to take a more strict and punishing approach. For example, Orchos Tzadikim states:

“One must hit his son with the rod of rebuke, even with cruelty, because this kind of cruelty is actually merciful [on his soul]” (The Gate of Mercy, Gate 7).

While the Orchos Tzadikim is not in actuality contradicting the Rambam, as he can be referring to outward behavior and not inner mental states, one is still left with an overall impression of encouraging harsher responses than Rav Feinstein, Maimonides, and some other sources.

There are other instances that the Gemara discussed in which hitting a child would be forbidden:

“It was taught in a beraita, ‘Do not place a stumbling block in front of a blind man’ (Vayikra 19:14). This verse refers to one who hits his big son (‘beno ha-godol’).” (Moed Kattan 17a).

The Talmud rules that since a “big” son might be induced to retaliate against his father’s violence toward him, the mere act of hitting him is forbidden because it is considered a provocation to sin.

While ordinarily the word “godol” in reference to a son means age 13, in this context, it is difficult to know. It could possibly mean an even older child because it is difficult to ascertain at what age the Talmud considered the child’s sense of self to be strong enough that we should fear retaliation against his father. Indeed, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch rules:

“This aspect of being big (‘gadlus’) is not dependent on his age. Rather, it is determined based on the nature of each child, at whatever age there is a concern that he will defy and fight back… and this can be even younger than bar mitzvah age” (143:18. Similar sentiments are echoed by Rav Shlomo Wolbe in the first chapter of Zeriya Ubinyan Bechinuch).

There are poskim who spoke about child-rearing and made it clear that they were indeed following the guidance of modern psychologists. For example, Rav Yaakov Yechiel Weinberg responds to a question regarding a teenage boy who had a hobby that involved practices which were problematic halachically. He instructs the petitioner as follows:

“For pedagogical reasons, it is proper to abstain from control tactics with a child who is straying from the path. You already mentioned that the prohibition of hitting an older son in Moed Kattan (17a) is not just referring to hitting but any means of force that might bring about an opposite reaction. The modern pedagogical experts have already proven that forcing… evokes in the young man, who is at the age of adolescence, oppositional behavior and rebellion.” (Responsa Seredei Eish 3:95).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, we find Rav Eliyahu Dessler explicitly rejecting modern psychological concerns about the damage of corporal punishment as ideas alien to the Torah and condoning hitting children as an important part of chinuch (Michtav M’Eliyahu vol. 3, p. 360).

I will add a chiddush of my own. There is a verse in the beginning of Melachim (I:1:6) that criticizes King David for not disciplining his son Adoniyah that seems to indicate that a moderate, non-corporal approach was normative as well. The verse states, “And his father had not grieved him ever, saying to him, ‘Why have you done so?’” It would seem that King David was held accountable for not having given his son verbal rebuke, which indicates that had he done so, this may have been sufficient.

I will conclude with this thought. Regardless of how we interpret this Gemara and the various sources that guide us in a practical Halachic manner today, this Gemara remains one of the more difficult ones to understand from a modern mentality. The typical God-fearing approach would be to say to oneself, “Obviously our sensibilities have been distorted by secular values.” Indeed, this may be so. However, recently a powerful quote was brought to my attention via Marc Shapiro’s new book on Rav Kook, Renewing the Old, Sanctifying the New: The Unique Vision of Rav Kook. In Shemoneh Kevatzim (I:75), Rav Kook speaks strongly regarding the importance of not ignoring a natural sense of what feels moral:

A person [must] not allow the fear of heaven to push aside his natural [sense of] ethics, because then that is no longer a pure fear of heaven.

The sign of a pure fear of heaven is that a person’s natural [sense of] ethics, planted in his upright nature, rises in accordance with [his fear of heaven] to higher levels than it would reach without [the fear of heaven].

But if there may be imagined a fear of heaven of such a type that, without its influence on a person’s life, his life would tend to bring about more goodness and bring about matters useful for the individual and the whole, [whereas] in accordance with its influence the power of such activity would diminish, such a fear of heaven is an invalid fear.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.

Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com