Shabbat Parashat Bo 5786

Moreshet Shaul: Discipline in Informal Education – part II

Last time we saw how a father can sometimes discipline harshly without negative repercussions. Now we will address a youth leader.

A youth leader’s relationship with his charges is primarily in connection with the youth activity. Their relationship also resembles one of an older and a younger brother, or an older and younger friend. Although there are several years between them, and the child’s expectation is that the leader knows and understands more, they remain friends. They are, so to speak, like study partners, in a manner that the child learns from the leader, as he sees him as a person he wants to emulate. As soon as the child stops to see him in this light, but rather as one who is trying to dictate orders from above, he immediately loses his value as a youth leader. There is nothing that could damage the feelings of friendship more than the leader meting out punishment in the form of hitting the child. The punishment will not have a therapeutic effect [as it might from the father], and therefore we must reject it as an option. “One who lacks tolerance cannot teach” (Avot 2:5). An educator must employ tolerance and patience. He should use the “weapon” that is at his disposal and only at his disposal – public opinion, i.e., the opinion of the group in which the child is one of the participants.

One should remember that man is a social creature, as finds expression in the Rabbis’ observation: “Either friends or death” (Taanit 23a). A person would not do a criminal act of any sort if he did not think that his peer group will either look upon it favorably or at least be indifferent to it. If there were fierce opposition, there is no way he would do it (ed. note – this apparently refers to doing it openly). After all, this would distance him from his social group, which to him is like death. Therefore, a youth leader should try to create a group approach that rejects the problematic behavior of the child, and the improvement will come on its own.

However, while we do not view physical punishment as a legitimate approach to youth leadership from the perspective of the child, there may be times that he will need to use it. It can occur when there is a need to protect the needs of the entire group, where one of the members of the group has damaging influence, and his presence negatively influences the whole group. If the child is incorrigibly corrupted, and he introduces feelings of scorn and cynicism against the leader and the values he is trying to share, it is important for the leader to use force to lower his inflated ego and lower him in the eyes of his friends. This [highly exceptional] act of punishment will be a first step towards his social isolation and removal from the group, and only afterward can there be a formal act to remove him from its ranks.

In summary, physical punishment can be justified to the extent that it brings healing, whether it is by a father doing it to his son, or if it heals a group, as sometimes applies to a leader taking steps against a difficult student. If the discipline is not calculated according to the goals, it should not be used as a method of dealing with a child.

In the case that a leader already strayed from the advice we have given and gave a physical punishment due to a loss of control, then we should apply the rule of the Rabbis: “Do not judge your friend until you were in his predicament” (Avot 2:4). Do not look at it as a purposeful sin but as an accidental one. Considering the situation, he might be able to continue his youth work in a different atmosphere, e.g., a different group that is easier to lead.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend