📖 Chapter 5: The Method of Chinuch – How to Educate and Discipline – Authority, Consequences, and Boundaries

Disclaimer – A Note to the Reader

Before entering this chapter, it is important to clarify the intent of the material presented here. If, as you read through these pages, you find yourself feeling discomfort, or even moments of guilt—if you feel as though you are being judged—please pause and understand clearly: no one is judging you. This is not the purpose of what is written here. This discussion is not written, chas v’shalom, as a form of criticism or judgment of parents. Parenting is one of the most demanding responsibilities a person can undertake, and it is both natural and expected that even the most devoted and loving parents will at times struggle, react emotionally, or make mistakes. The Torah itself does not expect perfection; rather, it guides us toward growth.

It is important to add a personal note. This chapter was written not from a place of personal perfection, but from within the struggle itself and from within the very challenges being discussed. As a father of many children, I am well aware how often one can fall short of the ideals of chinuch that are so clear in theory and so challenging in practice. As a parent of a large family, there have certainly been many instances where the standards described in this chapter were not upheld as they should have been. Yet this does not diminish the obligation to know the truth and work and strive to live by it. On the contrary, it strengthens it. The goal of chinuch is not perfection, but direction. The main point is to know what the correct path is, and to continually strive toward it—to recognize mistakes, to grow, and to begin again. In this itself lies one of the greatest lessons we give our children.

This chapter is likewise not intended as mussar directed at others, but as a guiding hand—to bring clarity to ideas in chinuch that many may not have previously encountered, particularly as understood through a Torah perspective. Very often, behaviors that are common or taken for granted are simply the result of what one has seen or experienced, rather than a deliberate choice. Becoming aware of a different approach is already the beginning of change.

It is also important to emphasize that one does not need to be a “perfect parent” in order to raise healthy and successful children. Children grow not from perfection, but from consistent love, stability, and a sincere willingness on the part of the parent to learn, reflect, and improve.

Accordingly, the purpose of this chapter is not to focus on the past, but on the future. Whatever has been done until now is part of one’s journey; yet at every moment, a parent has the ability to refine, to rebuild, and to move forward with greater awareness and intention. In this lies the true power of chinuch: not in perfection, but in growth.

 

Introduction

Discipline is one of the most complex—and emotionally charged—elements of chinuch. It sits at the intersection of love and authority, patience and firmness, compassion and accountability. Nearly every parent and educator agrees that discipline is necessary, yet there is far less agreement about how it should be implemented, what methods are appropriate, and where the line lies between healthy guidance and harmful control. This chapter seeks to explore discipline not as a single technique, but as a multi‑layered educational relationship.

At its core, discipline is not about punishment. It is about education. The word chinuch itself implies guidance toward inner growth, responsibility, and self‑regulation. Consequences, boundaries, incentives, and authority are not goals in themselves; they are tools meant to help the child internalize values and develop maturity. When used wisely, discipline teaches a child how the world works—that actions have consequences, that limits exist, and that responsibility is a fundamental part of freedom. When used poorly, discipline can engender fear, resentment, rebellion, or emotional withdrawal.

Jewish tradition presents a nuanced and balanced approach. On the one hand, the Torah is built upon the principle of sachar va’onesh—reward and consequence—underscoring that behavior matters and that accountability is real. In fact, reward and punishment are so central to the Jewish faith that denying them constitutes a violation of one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith.[1] Without reward and punishment, there would be no compelling framework to guide human behavior. Accordingly, these concepts occupy a foundational place in Torah philosophy. The same principle applies to education: the process of raising and educating a child both reflects and should consciously mirror this fundamental Torah idea.

A central theme that will emerge throughout this chapter is that discipline educates far beyond the moment itself. Every consequence, every promise kept or broken, every boundary enforced—or ignored—teaches a child something about trust, authority, and values. Children do not learn only from what adults say; they learn from how adults act. For this reason, discipline begins not with the child, but with the caregiver. A parent or educator must first model the very qualities they seek to instill: self‑control, emotional regulation, honesty, patience, and following through with necessary disciplinary actions. A caregiver who disciplines while angry, inconsistent, or reactive undermines their own message, regardless of how correct the rule may be. True authority is not conveyed through volume or force, but through consistency, integrity, and emotional presence.

This chapter will therefore examine discipline from multiple perspectives:
the use of incentives and prizes, the role of consequences, the limits and dangers of punishment, the importance of keeping one’s word, the necessity of listening before judging, and the balance between firmness and empathy. We will explore classical Torah sources alongside Chassidic teachings and contemporary insights, demonstrating that authentic chinuch demands both structure and sensitivity.

Throughout, one guiding principle will remain constant: discipline must never communicate rejection, humiliation, or emotional abandonment. Even when boundaries are firm and consequences are real, the child must feel held within a relationship of care and concern. Just as Hashem’s left hand of severity is always accompanied—and ultimately surpassed—by His right hand of closeness, so too must human discipline be framed within an enduring message of love.

In the pages that follow, we will see that effective discipline is neither the rigidity of the drill sergeant nor the permissiveness of unchecked kindness, but the strength of a loving disciplinarian—one who sets boundaries, enforces consequences, listens deeply, and always keeps sight of the deeper goal: raising a child who is responsible, mature, caring, non self centered, respectful, apologetic when necessary, knows and understands boundaries, is emotionally healthy, is aware of his parents unconditional love, and who is engrained with an inner desire to keep Torah and Mitzvas.

 

 

1. How to discipline – Between the Drill Sergeant and the Helicopter Parent — Finding the Balance Between Love and Leniency, Rules and Structure

Few areas of parenting generate as much confusion and emotional tension as discipline. Nearly every parent wants to raise a child who is responsible, respectful, and emotionally healthy, yet many struggle to find the right balance between firmness and compassion. In practice, parents often drift toward one of two extremes. Some become overly controlling and rigid, acting like drill sergeants who demand obedience and enforce rules through fear and punishment. Others move in the opposite direction, hovering protectively over their children, rescuing them from discomfort, frustration, or consequences—the well‑intentioned but often damaging helicopter parent. Although these approaches appear very different, both frequently miss the deeper goal of chinuch: developing internal responsibility rather than external compliance or dependence.

The Cons of Drill Seargent Parenting: Over the years, many parenting and discipline systems have emerged, each emphasizing a particular aspect of child development. Traditional authoritarian models focus heavily on obedience, hierarchy, and consequences imposed by authority. These approaches are often found in older behavioral systems and rigid reward‑and‑punishment frameworks. While such methods can produce short‑term compliance and clear structure, they often come at a cost. Children raised primarily through control may obey when authority is present, yet struggle with self‑regulation, honest communication, and emotional security once that authority is removed. Fear may replace understanding, and resentment may quietly develop beneath the surface.[2] An additional risk emerges when discipline and consequences are disproportionate or poorly matched to the individual child. In these situations, the child is less likely to reflect on what they did wrong or to mature through the experience. Instead of learning from their behavior, their attention shifts outward—toward the perceived unfairness or harshness of the parent’s response. The internal focus moves from “I made a mistake and can grow from it” to “My parents are mean” or “This isn’t justified.” As a result, responsibility is displaced, accountability is weakened, and blame transfers from the child’s actions to the parent’s authority. Over time, this dynamic can undermine moral development, distort a child’s sense of justice, and further erode trust in the parent‑child relationship.

The Cons of Helicopter Parenting: At the opposite end of the spectrum are permissive, emotionally driven approaches that emphasize empathy almost exclusively. In these systems, parents work hard to protect their children from distress, disappointment, and failure. Emotional validation becomes so central that boundaries fade, and accountability is often postponed or softened. Popular parenting blogs and social media movements that stress constant gentleness can sometimes slide into this territory when limits are unclear. While these approaches often promote closeness and emotional safety, they risk leaving children insufficiently prepared for frustration, responsibility, and the ordinary stresses of adult life. This concern is amplified in homes shaped by helicopter parenting, where parents closely monitor children’s emotions, intervene quickly to protect them from discomfort, and avoid meaningful consequences. Research suggests that such overprotection, though well‑intentioned, is associated with higher dependency, reduced self‑regulation, and increased feelings of entitlement, making it harder for children and young adults to cope when life fails to conform to their expectations. Without meaningful boundaries, children can become entitled, anxious, or dependent, struggling when the world does not adapt itself to their needs.

Academic Analysis – Helicopter Parenting, Dependency, and Entitlement in Youth Development:[3]

Over the past two decades, psychologists and sociologists have observed a measurable rise in overparenting practices, particularly among middle‑class families in Western societies. Multiple studies of adolescents and young adults show that higher levels of helicopter parenting are correlated with lower academic self‑efficacy, poorer emotional regulation, higher anxiety and depression, and weaker coping skills, especially in college‑age populations expected to function independently. More recent research also highlights entitlement as a mediating factor: young adults who grew up with high parental intervention are more likely to externalize responsibility, expect special accommodations, and struggle with setbacks—patterns that directly impair resilience and real‑world functioning. Importantly, these findings do not claim that warmth or responsiveness is harmful; rather, they indicate that warmth without boundaries is associated with poorer adjustment over time. Large‑scale surveys and institutional reports further show that today’s adolescents and young adults report historically high levels of anxiety, low tolerance for distress, and increased reliance on external support systems for everyday challenges. Many scholars argue that these trends reflect, in part, a cultural shift toward protective parenting that limits children’s exposure to failure, thereby reducing opportunities to develop independence and resilience.

The Balanced Approach: Between these extremes lies a more balanced approach—one that is neither harsh nor indulgent, neither controlling nor permissive—one that avoids both harsh control and unchecked permissiveness. Many contemporary parenting frameworks attempt to articulate such a middle path, emphasizing the need for children to experience warmth, emotional security, and empathy, while also learning responsibility, accountability, and how to face the consequences of their choices. The specific framework matters less than the underlying principle: children thrive best when love and emotional support are paired with clear expectations and consistent boundaries.

Different families may find different systems that successfully strike this balance. Among the various approaches that exist, I have personally found one particular framework helpful and practical, and it is the one I use in my own parenting. I will be presenting its basic ideas as an example of how this balance can be implemented in real life. That said, it is not the only viable option. Other structured approaches—such as authoritative parenting models, Positive Discipline, or values‑based parenting systems—also aim to integrate warmth with structure. The essential goal is not to adopt any single branded method, but to intentionally choose a framework that avoids the rigidity of a drill‑sergeant style while also steering clear of overprotection. Every parent should seek out a system that fits their family, values, and children, and that teaches warmth without indulgence and responsibility without fear.

Love and Logic: One of the clearest modern articulations of this middle path is the Love and Logic system, developed by Dr. Foster Cline and Jim Fay and presented in books such as Parenting with Love and Logic. While the system itself is secular in origin[4], its core principles align closely with healthy chinuch and, when used thoughtfully, with Torah values as well. Love and Logic rests on the idea that children learn best when they are allowed to experience the natural and logical consequences of their choices within an environment of warmth, empathy, and respect. The defining feature of Love and Logic is that discipline is not imposed as punishment, but emerges naturally from a child’s own decisions. Rather than the parent becoming the enforcer or the rescuer, the parent becomes a calm guide who allows reality to be the teacher. A crucial component of this approach is that empathy always precedes consequences. When a child makes a poor choice, the parent first acknowledges the child’s feelings—“That’s really upsetting” or “I can see how hard this is for you”—without removing responsibility. Empathy communicates care, not exemption. It tells the child, “I care about you,” while the consequence teaches, “Your choices matter.”

• Illustrative Example: A brief personal incident may help clarify how this balanced approach can look in practice. When my two eldest children—then four and five years old—found a box of crayons and, lacking paper, decided to decorate our freshly painted white wall, the result was understandably frustrating. Walking out of my home office to see large crayon circles covering the wall, my initial emotional reaction was one many parents would recognize: anger, disappointment, and the impulse to respond with punishment. A more reactive response might have included yelling, confiscating the crayons indefinitely, or imposing consequences disconnected from the behavior itself. Instead, I made a conscious effort to remain calm and respond intentionally. I acknowledged their interest in drawing and expressed appreciation for their creativity, while also clarifying that walls are not meant for artwork and are supposed to remain white. Rather than imposing an arbitrary punishment, I asked them what they thought could be done to restore the wall to its original condition. Caught off guard and clearly expecting a harsher reaction, they paused and began to think. One child eventually suggested that the wall should be cleaned. We provided them with appropriate cleaning materials and gave them the responsibility of removing the markings. They spent over an hour carefully scrubbing the wall until most of the crayon was gone. While the wall was not restored perfectly, the experience proved educational. The children learned that actions have consequences and that mistakes can be repaired through effort and responsibility. At the same time, the interaction preserved emotional safety and trust. From my perspective as a parent, this approach avoided the cycle of anger, regret, and emotional fallout that often follows reactive discipline, allowing the lesson to be taught without damaging the relationship.

The Torah source: After all that has been said, a thoughtful and entirely justified question may still remain: What is the Torah basis for the approach we have been describing? This is an important question, and one that deserves careful clarification. While we will explore this matter more deeply in the coming Halachas, the most fundamental source can already be found in an explicit teaching of the Sages in the Talmud. Chazal^[5] teach that there are three areas in which a person must act with a careful balance—“ the left hand pushes away while the right hand draws close.” They identify these areas as education (chinuch), children, and one’s spouse. In other words, the Torah itself recognizes that effective guidance and healthy relationships require a dual approach: love, warmth, and closeness on the one hand, alongside firmness, boundaries, and discipline on the other. This model explicitly rejects both extremes. It does not endorse an overprotective, indulgent approach that shields a child from all discomfort, nor does it support a harsh, authoritarian style that relies on fear and control. Instead, it calls for a measured balance—one that combines compassion with accountability, empathy with responsibility.

In this sense, the balanced parenting frameworks discussed earlier are not novel inventions, but contemporary expressions of an ancient Torah principle. While different systems may articulate this balance in different ways, the underlying idea is deeply rooted in our mesorah: effective chinuch is neither softness nor severity alone, but the thoughtful integration of both.

The Sages^[6] stated that three matters are to be dealt with sternness of ones left hand and love of one’s right hand.

The evil inclination, Children, Women

Entitlement in Children: A Growing Challenge in Chinuch Today

One of the most serious challenges facing chinuch in today’s world is not rebellion, nor even disobedience—but something far more subtle and far more dangerous: a deep and growing sense of entitlement. A child who feels entitled does not merely want—he believes he is owed. He does not experience what he receives as a gift, but as a right. Over time, this attitude reshapes how he views his parents, his responsibilities, and ultimately the world itself. This has become increasingly prevalent in modern Western society. Children are often raised in environments where their desires are quickly fulfilled, where discomfort is minimized, and where expectations are adjusted to accommodate their preferences. As a result, many children grow up without a clear sense of boundaries or an understanding that actions carry consequences. They come to believe:

• That their needs must always be met. That others exist to serve them
• That limitations are unfair
• That resistance is injustice

The Cons of Entitlement: Such a mindset erodes one of the most essential foundations of human development: הכרת הטוב – gratitude. When everything is expected, nothing is appreciated. A child who does not recognize what he is given as a gift cannot develop true appreciation for his parents or for those who help him. Instead of seeing kindness, he sees obligation. Instead of expressing thanks, he expresses complaint. Over time, this damages not only his character, but also his relationships.

This lack of gratitude leads to further consequences. When life inevitably does not go according to his expectations, the entitled child struggles deeply. He lacks the internal tools to cope with disappointment, frustration, and limitation. Because he believes he is owed a certain outcome, any deviation feels like injustice. This affects every area of life:

• In relationships, he struggles when others do not accommodate him.
• In authority structures, he resists rules and expectations.
• In personal growth, he avoids responsibility and accountability.
• In adversity, he becomes frustrated rather than resilient.

Such a child may enter adulthood expecting the world to bend to his will—and when it does not, he experiences anger, instability, and dissatisfaction.

How to Fix Entitlement: Chinuch is not only about right and wrong—it is about obligation and responsibility. Discipline is not about punishment—it is about education. A central goal of chinuch is to teach a child that the world operates with structure: actions have consequences, and responsibility is not optional—it is fundamental to freedom. A child must learn not only what is permitted and prohibited, but also:

• That he is not the center of the world.
• That others are not obligated to satisfy his desires.
• That privileges are not rights.
• That effort, responsibility, and gratitude are the proper response to what he receives.

If a parent fails to teach this, the child will naturally absorb the values of the surrounding culture, which increasingly promotes self-centeredness and entitlement.

Teaching “No One Owes Me Anything”: A cornerstone of proper chinuch is instilling in a child the understanding that: no one owes him anything. This does not mean a lack of love or provision. On the contrary, a parent gives constantly. But the child must understand that what he receives is an act of care, kindness, and responsibility—not a debt being repaid. Without this clarity, love is reinterpreted as obligation. With this clarity, the child develops humility and gratitude.

Example – The Request for Shoes: Consider a common situation. A sixteen-year-old daughter approaches her mother and says: “I need you to buy me these shoes.” The mother responds, “I just bought you shoes a few months ago. You don’t really need them.” The daughter replies: “You have to buy them for me. All my friends have multiple pairs. It’s not fair for you to put this pressure on me. You have to pay for it.” At this moment, the issue is no longer about shoes. It is about worldview. A parent influenced by the surrounding culture may respond: “You’re right. I’m sorry,” and purchase the shoes. In doing so, the parent has taught something very powerful—and very damaging: That the child is entitled to demand, and the parent is obligated to comply. But a parent grounded in proper chinuch responds differently: “My dear daughter, I am not obligated to buy you these shoes. If I choose to give them to you, it will be מתוך אהבה—but the moment it becomes something you claim I owe you, the answer is no.” This response does not reject the child—it corrects the belief. It teaches:

• There is no entitlement.
• Giving is an act of kindness, not obligation.
• Attitude matters as much as the request itself.

This is chinuch—not merely deciding what to buy, but shaping how the child perceives reality.

Entitlement Begins in the Home – The Absence of Responsibility: Another major cause of entitlement is the removal of responsibility from a child’s life. When children grow up in homes where:

• They are not expected to contribute.
• Their needs are met without effort.
• Others constantly clean up after them.
• Household help replaces personal responsibility.

They internalize a silent but powerful message: “The world exists to serve me.” A child who never participates in responsibility cannot understand effort. A child who never contributes cannot understand appreciation. Assigning chores is not about maintaining the home—it is about building the child. Through responsibility, a child learns:

• That he is capable.
• That he is part of something larger.
• That effort is norma.
• That contribution is expected.

Without this, entitlement fills the void.

Consequences – The Antidote to Entitlement: A critical component of chinuch is teaching that actions have consequences. The Torah itself is built upon the principle of שכר ועונש – reward and consequence, instilling the reality that behavior matters and accountability is inherent to existence. When children are shielded from consequences, entitlement grows. When consequences are consistent and measured, entitlement weakens.

A child must experience:

• That failure has results.
• That choices matter.
• That boundaries are real.

This is not harshness—it is preparation for life. A parent must be able to say “no” without guilt—and love without hesitation. The balance is critical: Without boundaries → entitlement. Without warmth → resentment. The goal is disciplined love.

The Long-Term Goal – Building a Mensch: Ultimately, the purpose of chinuch is not to produce a child who gets what he wants. It is to produce a child who becomes a mensch:

• Grateful, not demanding.
• Responsible, not entitled.
• Resilient, not fragile.
• Appreciative, not expectant.

In a world that increasingly tells the child, “You deserve everything,” the parent must teach him a deeper truth: “You are not owed—but you are blessed. And because of that, you must grow, give, and take responsibility.”

 

From a Mamar of the Alter Rebbe[7] The Alter Rebbe in a Mamar in Likkutei Torah explains what can be seen as the framework of the above article regarding entitlement. He writes as follows: When a father rebukes his son and restrains him from improper conduct, though externally this is an act of severity and judgment, its inner root is kindness. For the entire intention is for the good of the child—that he should grow to become upright in his character and service of God. Thus, the external expression is Gevurah, but its inner essence is Chesed. However, when one yields to a child and grants him all his desires, overlooking behavior that is unfit, although this appears outwardly as kindness, its root is in Gevurah. For by acting in this manner, the child is prevented from attaining a far greater good—that he should be properly refined in his character and habits. Through indulgence, he becomes accustomed to improper ways and is distanced from the path of uprightness. It is therefore found that there is a reversal: That which appears as Gevurah may truly be Chesed, And that which appears as Chesed may stem from Gevurah. From this it is understood that true kindness is not defined by immediate comfort, but by that which brings a person to true completeness and proper conduct. From this teaching it is understood that when a society defines kindness as giving a person whatever he desires, without גבולות or restraint, it is not true kindness but a concealed form of severity. For it deprives the individual of the greater good—proper character, discipline, and a sense of responsibility. This is the root of what is seen today as “entitlement,” where a person grows accustomed to receiving without effort or correction. Although it appears compassionate, it ultimately weakens the person, preventing him from developing inner strength and moral direction. Thus, the increase of entitlement in modern society reflects a confusion between true Chesed and false Chesed: mistaking indulgence for kindness, and thereby causing a loss of the deeper good for the individual and for society as a whole.

The Torah requires one to be a loving disciplinarian: The Sages[8] state that three matters are to be dealt with love of one’s right hand and sternness with ones left hand: 1) The evil inclination; 2) Children; c) Women. This means that one must balance a proper measure of revealed love and care to a child together with discipline. If a child is only shown disciplinary measures from his parents it can make him rebel. It can potentially damage his emotional health and relationship with the parent, and cause long term effects down the road of his life such as in his relationships with his parents, siblings, spouse and own children. On the other hand, if the parent is not a disciplinarian it teaches the child bad character traits, and can also lead to damaging effects down the road of his life. It is therefore incumbent on a parent to show a child both love and discipline in order to properly balance the child’s emotional health with a good character. On this Chazal stated use a right hand [i.e. love] and a left hand [i.e. discipline], but using just one is counterproductive and potentially damaging.

 

2. Discipline Through Consequences – Semol Docheh[9]
3. Torah Sources:

Discipline has always relied on consequences as one of its most fundamental and effective tools. Across virtually every system—social, legal, and religious—consequences are used to shape behavior, reinforce expectations, and instill responsibility. Judaism is no exception. At its very core, Judaism is built upon the principle of reward and punishment (שכר ועונש), to the extent that denial of punishment is considered heretical, as it undermines a foundational belief of the Torah, as explained in the introduction to this chapter. The certainty that actions carry consequences is what gives meaning to commandments and moral choice. Throughout our tradition, consequences were deliberately employed by our sages not out of cruelty, but to encourage compliance, seriousness, and internalization of values. The following are a list of statements from Chazal that emphasize this approach. These teachings negate the opposite extreme, namely the helicopter‑parenting approach, in which parents shield their children excessively, avoid setting firm boundaries, and refrain from correction out of fear of causing discomfort, perceiving their child as too delicate or fragile to withstand discipline:

Mishlei – One who withholds his rod hates his son: One of the primary sources of the virtue of discipline through consequences is an early biblical verse in Mishlei[10] which states חוֹשֵֹךְ שִׁבְטוֹ שֹוֹנֵא בְנוֹ וְאֹהֲבוֹ שִׁחֲרוֹ מוּסָר “One who withholds his rod hates his son, but one who loves him disciplines him diligently.”  [The “rod” (shevet) is not necessarily to be understood as physical aggression, but as a symbol of authority, boundaries, and moral guidance. To “withhold the rod” means to avoid setting limits or providing correction altogether, a neglect that ultimately harms a child’s development and is therefore described metaphorically as “hatred.” For in the end, the child may go astray and adopt negative behavior. This is the meaning of “withholds his rod”—he withholds that which is fitting and necessary for the child’s proper development.[11] By contrast, genuine love is expressed through musar—consistent, intentional ethical instruction that begins early and is tailored to the child’s nature. This discipline is not meant to instill fear, but to foster responsibility, self‑control, and internal growth.[12] In this light, the verse teaches that love requires the courage to guide, correct, and set boundaries in a way that serves the child’s long‑term wellbeing, rather than prioritizing short‑term comfort or parental avoidance. A parent who allows their child to act without limits, structure, or regulation is, in effect, failing the child. While such permissiveness may appear compassionate or gentle in the moment, it ultimately leaves the child without the tools needed to navigate responsibility, authority, and frustration. By refusing to set boundaries or offer corrective guidance, the parent sets the child up for confusion, entitlement, and repeated failure later in life. In this sense, Chazal’s language is sharp but intentional: love that avoids all discomfort is not love at all, but a form of neglect that undermines a child’s capacity for growth, resilience, and moral development.]

Talmud: As stated previous, in the Talmud[13], Chazal teach that discipline of children must be applied with the left hand which pushes away while the right hand draws close. Hence, we see that firm, loving, and appropriately balanced discipline—often referred to as “tough love”—is not only justified, but necessary for a child’s healthy development.

Shulchan Aruch: The concept of discipline through meaningful consequences is explicit throughout the Poskim. The Shulchan Aruch[14] recognizes that, in certain limited circumstances, a parent may physically discipline a child for genuine educational and corrective purposes, and that doing so does not violate the biblical prohibition against striking a fellow Jew. While the precise parameters of when, how, and if physical force may be used in education require careful analysis—and will be addressed in a separate discussion—the very fact that such cases exist underscores a central principle: discipline, including consequences, is an essential component of proper child‑rearing.

The Alter Rebbe: A striking example of above can be found in the conduct of the Alter Rebbe.^[15] He did not merely teach the importance of proper conduct during prayer; he made it clear that failure to follow these directives would carry serious repercussions, including banishment from his presence with both hands. To ensure that these standards were upheld, a system of oversight was even established to observe households that were suspected of engaging improperly in avodah. This illustrates that in authentic Jewish chinuch and leadership, expectations were backed by real consequences—because without consequences, directives lose their force, discipline collapses, and ideals remain theoretical rather than lived realities.

 

1. Methods of Consequences – Consequences versus Punishments and Avoiding conflict:

This article will focus on general strategies of discipline and the use of consequences as alternatives to physical punishment for a child. It will explore positive and effective approaches that guide behavior without the need for causing physical pain. God willing, in a future halacha, we will address the concept of physical punishment that involves causing pain to a child—when it may be permitted, how it may be carried out, and whether it should be practiced at all.

Consequences Rather Than Punishment: As stated above in Halacha 1, one of the most effective forms of discipline is allowing a child to experience a meaningful consequence that is directly connected to the behavior itself. This helps the child connect actions with outcomes and learn personal responsibility. Unlike arbitrary punishment, a fitting consequence teaches cause and effect, encourages reflection, and makes it more likely that the child will internalize the lesson rather than merely resent the parent.

For example:

• If a child carelessly leaves a toy outside and it becomes damaged, the consequence may be that the toy is not replaced.
• If a child refuses to do homework on time, the natural consequence may be dealing with the teacher’s response or making up the work during free time.
• If a child makes a mess, the consequence is cleaning it up.

Reducing Conflict Through Appropriate Choices: One of the most effective approaches to discipline is to minimize the need for it in the first place. When potential struggles are prevented, much of the tension between parent and child is avoided altogether. Accordingly, as emphasized by the Love and Logic approach, one of the simplest and most powerful ways to achieve this is by reducing situations of conflict through offering children limited, appropriate choices—options that the parent is fully comfortable with. A primary source of conflict with children is when parents give commands instead of choices; children often resist when they feel pushed or controlled, but when given a choice, they feel a sense of ownership and are more likely to cooperate as if they are the ones deciding. Providing such choices allows children to experience a sense of control and independence within clear and healthy boundaries. This reduces power struggles and resistance, while at the same time helping children feel respected and heard. When children are given a voice in small, appropriate decisions, they are far more likely to cooperate with the outcome. In this way, parental authority is preserved while also fostering responsibility, confidence, and independence.

For example:

• Instead of insisting, “Put on your shoes now,” a parent might say, “Do you want to wear your black shoes or your blue shoes?”

• At bedtime, instead of saying, “Brush your teeth now,” a parent can say, “Would you like to brush your teeth before or after putting on your pajamas?”
• For homework time, instead of saying, “Start your homework now,” a parent can say, “Do you want to start with reading or math first?”

In each of these cases, the parent maintains control over the overall expectation, while giving the child a sense of ownership within those boundaries—thereby reducing conflict and encouraging cooperation.

 

3. Discipline Through Love – The Balance of Correction and Closeness (Yemin Mekareves): [16]

As we have already mentioned previously, Chazal instruct us that when it comes to raising a child, one must follow the principle of “smol docheh v’yemin mekareves”—the left hand pushes away while the right hand draws close. This teaching carries two essential messages. First, even at the time of discipline or punishment, it must be carried out with a foundation of love and care, not out of anger or a desire to hurt. Second, there must be a separate and independent expression of love toward the child, one that actively balances and outweighs the moments of discipline.

One of the most fundamental principles in proper discipline is that even when a parent must correct or distance a child (smol docheh), it must never be done out of anger or a desire to inflict pain. Rather, it must always stem from genuine love and a desire to guide the child toward growth and proper behavior. Discipline that comes from anger risks damaging the child emotionally and weakening the parent-child relationship, whereas discipline rooted in love strengthens both the child and the bond between them. A parent must remember that moments of correction are not expressions of rejection, but opportunities for education and development. When a child senses that discipline is given calmly, thoughtfully, and for their benefit, they are far more likely to internalize the lesson. However, when a child feels that discipline is driven by frustration or anger, they are likely to respond with resistance, resentment, or emotional withdrawal.

The Necessity of Yemin Mekareves – Drawing Close with Love: At the same time, discipline alone is never sufficient. There must always be a strong and visible emphasis on yemin mekareves—actively expressing warmth, closeness, and love as outlined in Chapter 4. A child who grows up in an environment where the dominant tone is correction—even if the discipline is mild, and age-appropriate—may come to perceive the parent not as a loving guide, but as a strict authority figure, similar to a drill sergeant. This perception can have serious consequences. It may weaken the emotional bond between parent and child, reduce trust, and ultimately impact the child’s emotional well-being and future relationships. A child needs to feel deeply and consistently that they are loved, valued, and accepted—not only when they succeed, but even when they make mistakes.

The Balance: The More Discipline, the More Love: A key principle that emerges is that the need for discipline must always be balanced—and even outweighed—by expressions of love and closeness. The more a parent finds it necessary to discipline a child, the more they must actively increase their demonstrations of care, warmth, and affection.

This can be expressed in many ways:

• Spending quality time with the child after a difficult moment
• Speaking warmly and reassuringly once the situation has passed
• Showing physical affection (where appropriate) such as a hug
• Verbally affirming love: “I care about you very much, and that’s why I want to help you do better”

These actions help the child understand that the discipline was not a rejection, but part of a larger relationship of love and support.

Discipline as Part of Relationship, Not a Replacement for It: As has already been explained in earlier discussions regarding the importance of love and relationship in raising children, the foundation of all effective discipline is a strong emotional connection. Discipline cannot replace that relationship—it can only function properly within it. When a child feels secure in their parent’s love, discipline is experienced as guidance. Without that foundation, the same discipline may be experienced as harshness or rejection. Therefore, proper discipline is not simply about correcting behavior—it is about maintaining and strengthening the relationship even during moments of correction. A parent must constantly ensure that the child feels that love is the underlying and consistent force in the home.

A Teaching of the Alter Rebbe: Simolo Tachas Leroshi:

After demotion comes elevation, and after punishment for sin comes comforting:^[17]

Meaning of Simolo Tachas Leroshi Uyimino Tichabkeini: It states in scripture that “Simolo Tachas Leroshi Uyimino Tichabkeini/And the left hand is under my head and the right hand embraces me.” Although this verse refers to the upper world, and how G-d’s acts with them, in truth there is also a deep inner message behind this statement with regards to how Hashem acts with the Jewish people, His chosen nation. Whenever the Jewish people are treated with G-d’s left hand, which is Gevura/severity and is expressed as punishment due to the actions of the lower beings, then afterwards G-d raises His right hand to help save them and elevates them even higher then where they were before.

Meaning of Ki Sisa Es Rosh Bnei Yisrael Lipikudeihem: This is the inner meaning behind the verse “Ki Sisa Es Rosh Bnei Yisrael Lipikudeihem.” The word Lipikudeihem derives from the word Pekida which means occurrence, and in this context refers to bad occurrences which are punishments or retribution which may happen to the Jewish people as a result of their sins G-d forbid. This relation between the word Pekida and punishment can be found in the statement of our sages who say that “There is no Pekida [i.e. punishment for bad behavior], which does not occur also as a result of the sin of the golden calf.” With this understanding of the term Lipikudeihem we can now understand the message behind the above verse, following the same theme that we explained above. Even after bad occurrences, Lipikudeihem, happen to the Jewish people, Hashem promises us that He will raise and elevate us. This is hinted to in the opening words of Ki Sisa Es Rosh Bnei Yisrael which literally means that He will raise our heads. The reason that G-d acts in this manner to always comfort and elevate and raise the individual after punishment is because to begin with the punishment was never intrinsically for the sake of punishing and hurting the person causing the pain, heading forbid. In truth, even G-d’s left hand of punishment and bad occurrences that happen to a person are part of His general goal of Yemin Mikareves, hugging the Jew and bringing him close to Him. The pushing away of the Jew with the left hand is not a complete pushing away.

• The Divine lesson #1: There are so many lessons that can be learned from the above teaching both personally in our service of G-d and as parents and educators. First and foremost is the core of the message which is that we have to stop looking at G-d, as some mistakenly portray Him, as a vengeful and angry father and master who will not stand for any disobedience amongst his subjects and will give them fierce and painful punishment for their deeds in order to exact vengeance against them. G-d forbid to think of G-d in such a manner. While it is true that there are dictators who use persecution and torture to exact revenge against their enemies and those who disobey them, and it is likewise unfortunately true that there are parents who hit their children out of sheer anger and desire to inflict pain on them, this is not G-d! Aside for Hashem being merciful and compassionate to His creations and having much patience before exacting punishment on them, furthermore, the punishments that eventually are given are never done out of vengeance and anger, to quench His thirst of payback and revenge. Rather, they are part of a general rehabilitation program for the individual which requires some pain, and then some gain. Some tough love [i.e. the left-hand] which will cause the Jew to wake up and repent from his ways, to then be followed by real love of embrace and comfort [i.e. the right hand]. The entire purpose of the punishment is for the eventual embracing. Having this correct perspective will allow us to see our challenges and difficult times in a much different light, and view them as G-d stretching out His hand to bring us close, rather than as G-d distancing Himself from us. Furthermore, perhaps having this perspective can help hasten the ceasing of G-d’s left-hand and bring the use of G-d’s right hand which is an embrace from G-d.
• After fire comes wealth: In light of the above teaching, we find a most interesting teaching by the Tzemach Tzedek^[18], quoting from the Alter Rebbe in the name of previous Tzadikim, that after a fire [or any other calamity^[19]] comes wealth. [In fact, the numerical value of burnt/Saraf in Hebrew is the same numerical value as the word wealth/Ashir in Hebrew, as both equal 580.^[20]] Meaning, that if G-d forbid a person’s property was destroyed due to a fire he should not lose hope, as G-d will bless him with wealth afterwards. The reason for this, he explains according to Kabbalah, is because in the order of the divine attributes, Tiferes which is mercy and compassion follow Gevura/severity, and hence after a person received a revelation of the attribute of severity he will then receive a revelation of the attribute of compassion. Furthermore, this revelation will be much greater than the revelation he originally received from the attribute of kindness, as the attribute of compassion is much greater than the attribute of kindness as is known that our forefather Yaakov corresponds to Tiferes, and his level has no limit.
• The Divine lesson #2: The second lesson that we can learn from the above relates to parents and educators in disciplining children and students. We are only human and are susceptible to normal human emotions of anger, fury, and desire for vengeance, that become triggered as a result of mischievous, rebellious, or financially damaging behavior of a child or student. This of course does not mean that we should act out on it, and on the contrary one must try to abstain from disciplining the child until the emotion of anger and revenge dissipates. Only then can we guarantee that the disciplinary action will be appropriately measured to the action and not cause more damage than harm. Now, from the above teaching we can learn two important points when it comes to discipline: Number one is that the initial disciplinary measure that is chosen which often causes some degree of pain to the child, whether mentally [i.e. scolding him], emotionally [i.e. grounded], or physically [i.e. a Petch], should only be done out of love for the child to help discipline and educate him. Number two and most importantly, one should not just discipline the child and view his job as done. An act of discipline, which to the child is viewed as a punishment, should eventually be followed by an act of closeness and love with the child, to try to rebuild and rejuvenate the relationship to an even better place than it was before. This especially applies if one disciplined the child in a disproportionate measure due to having administered the discipline when still in a state of anger and vengefulness. Every act of discipline which causes the child pain should likewise pain the parent and should not be done out of revenge.^[21] When discipline is given in this manner it is much easier to love the child afterwards, and follow the path of G-d as whenever He gives a person punishment of Smol Docheh it is followed by closeness of Yemin Mikareves. The child must never remain with a feeling that the punishment is an intrinsic message of distance and hate from his parent.

Regulations and Guidance to Discipline

4. The “Patch” Dilemma – Hitting and Spanking one’s children – Halacha & Hashkafa:

Striking or “giving a patch” (smacking, spanking, or hitting a child) has historically been one of the oldest and most commonly used forms of discipline available to parents. For many, it has been viewed as a quick and straightforward response to misbehavior—seemingly effective in immediately stopping an undesirable action. It is often perceived as one of the easiest methods of discipline, requiring little explanation and producing instant results. However, despite its long history and continued use, this method raises significant questions and concerns. Parents and educators increasingly struggle with the dilemma: Is physical discipline truly effective in the long term? Does it achieve the goal of proper education and character development, or does it risk creating fear, resentment, or emotional distance instead? Beyond its apparent simplicity, the issue is far more complex. Discipline is not merely about stopping behavior in the moment—it is about teaching, guiding, and building a child’s internal sense of responsibility. As such, it requires careful thought about both the method used and the message it conveys.

In this Halacha, we will primarily explore the halachic parameters of giving a “patch.” After all, the Torah prohibits striking a fellow Jew, and it is certainly a biblical prohibition to hit another Jew—especially one’s own relative, and all the more so one’s own child—without proper justification and valid cause.[22] The severity of striking another person is underscored by the fact that one who hits another unjustifiably may be subject to cherem (excommunication).[23] Accordingly, before considering this method of discipline, it is essential to first examine its halachic allowances: under what circumstances, if any, such an action may be permitted, and what limitations and conditions apply to its use.

It is important to clarify that in this article we are not coming to instruct parents what to do or which specific methods of discipline they must or must not use. Every family is unique, every child is different, and parents have the responsibility and right to make thoughtful decisions regarding how to raise and guide their children.

What is clear, however, is that there are defined boundaries within halacha. Certain actions are prohibited according to Jewish law, and child abuse is considered a most severe prohibition. Furthermore, even beyond clear cases of abuse, any use of physical discipline that lacks proper justification and halachic basis may fall under a serious prohibition, as we will discuss.

Accordingly, our goal is not to prescribe, but to clarify: to understand the halachic parameters of physical consequences, what is permitted, what is prohibited, and the seriousness with which such actions must be approached.

 

A. The Halachic Permissibility: [24]

Although, as stated above, it is a biblical prohibition to strike a fellow Jew, nonetheless the Talmud and the Poskim explicitly rule that it is permitted for one to hit his minor child for the sake of proper discipline and education. This allowance extends not only to one’s biological children, but even to other children under one’s care and responsibility, such as an adopted child or a foster child who is part of one’s household.^[25] [Nonetheless, as we will explore throughout the coming discussion, this allowance is not blanket or unrestricted. Rather, it is governed by clear conditions, limitations, and intent, all of which must be carefully understood to ensure that any form of discipline remains within the bounds of halacha and is used appropriately and responsibly. Furthermore, we will see that there is also a strong imperative to avoid resorting to physical discipline altogether whenever possible, and instead to utilize alternative methods of guidance and correction. In this context, we will likewise examine, in a general sense, the perspectives of contemporary child development professionals and psychologists, weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks of physical discipline and how it may impact a child’s emotional and psychological well-being. In addition, we will address the question of age, as it is self-understood that this allowance does not apply at all stages of development. Clearly, striking an infant who lacks understanding, or an older child or adult who is beyond the stage of such discipline, is entirely inappropriate. Rather, there are specific stages in which such methods were discussed, and outside of those parameters they are invalid. We will also explore the underlying reasons for the allowance as discussed in halacha—emphasizing that any act of discipline must be for the purpose of education and benefit to the child. Acting out of anger, frustration, or emotional reaction is never permitted. Alongside this, we will discuss the manner in which discipline may be administered, including its severity and limitations, ensuring that it does not cross into harm or excess. Finally, we will address related areas, such as the parameters of threatening physical discipline, the laws relevant to discipline during specific times of the year (such as the Three Weeks), and the status of other forms of physical consequences. Through this comprehensive overview, the goal is to provide a clear understanding of the seriousness and responsibility involved in this subject, and to ensure that any approach taken is thoughtful, measured, and fully aligned with halachic principles.]

 

B. The civil legal permissibility – Is It Legal Under Secular Law to Hit a Child? [26]

United States Law: In addition to the halachic discussion, it is important to understand the perspective of civil law regarding this issue. According to United States law, all 50 states recognize a parent’s limited right to use physical force for the purpose of disciplining a child. Generally, what is permitted is defined as “reasonable force” used for corrective and educational purposes. However, the definition of what qualifies as “reasonable” is not identical in every jurisdiction. Certain states and legal authorities place stricter limits, such as permitting only the use of an open hand, while others may technically allow broader forms of corporal discipline. At the same time, all jurisdictions maintain clear boundaries: any use of excessive force, or any action that causes injury, marks, or emotional harm to the child, can be classified as abuse and is subject to criminal prosecution. Furthermore, both secular law and halacha are aligned in a critical point: physical force used out of anger, frustration, revenge, or any non-disciplinary motive is strictly prohibited. Even a single act of striking that exceeds what is considered reasonable or justified may be deemed unlawful and can expose a parent to serious legal consequences, including arrest and charges of child abuse. It is also important to note that the legal system evaluates not only the act itself, but the surrounding circumstances—such as the age of the child, the force used, the intent of the parent, and the resulting impact on the child. What may be considered acceptable in one situation may be deemed abusive in another, depending on these factors. Accordingly, aside from the halachic considerations, one must exercise great caution and awareness of the applicable civil laws. Any form of physical discipline must be approached with responsibility, restraint, and sensitivity to both legal and ethical boundaries.

Israeli Law: In contrast to the more lenient approach found in some other jurisdictions, the law in the State of Israel takes a far stricter position regarding physical discipline of children. According to Israeli law, corporal punishment of children is generally prohibited, even when performed by parents for what they believe to be educational or disciplinary purposes. This reflects a significant legal development that took place in the late 20th century. In a landmark ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Israel in the year 2000 (the Plonit case), the Court firmly rejected the long-standing notion that parents may use physical force as a form of discipline. The Court ruled that corporal punishment, even when intended as “educational,” is not a legitimate method and is to be considered unlawful. The Court emphasized that a child is not the property of his parents and is entitled to protection of his body, dignity, and emotional well-being. It further stated that physical punishment not only fails to properly educate the child, but can also cause both physical and psychological harm, and therefore cannot be justified as a disciplinary tool. Following this ruling, the previous legal defenses that once allowed “reasonable” corporal punishment were effectively abolished, and Israeli law today no longer recognizes parental authority as a justification for striking a child. Moreover, the relevant provisions of the Penal Law treat acts of violence toward a minor or a dependent as serious criminal offenses. Hitting a child can fall under the categories of assault or even abuse, depending on the severity and circumstances, and may carry significant legal consequences, including investigation, criminal charges, and potential imprisonment. Accordingly, unlike in some countries where limited physical discipline may still be legally tolerated, in Israel even a single act of physical punishment—especially if it causes pain, humiliation, or distress—can be viewed as unlawful. At minimum, such conduct may trigger intervention by educational or welfare authorities, and at worst, may lead to criminal proceedings.

It should be noted that, in practice, not every minor instance of physical discipline is necessarily prosecuted in Israel, and in many cases authorities may exercise discretion depending on the circumstances. However, one must act with great caution regarding both how and where such actions are done. Performing any form of physical discipline in a public setting in particular can make a parent especially vulnerable to legal consequences, as it may draw attention, concern, or reporting by others. Indeed, there have been numerous cases in which actions that a parent may have considered minor or disciplinary led to investigation or legal involvement. Therefore, aside from the halachic considerations, one must remain mindful of the practical realities of the law and the environment, and recognize the potential ramifications that can arise even from a single incident.

 

C. Midas Chassidus “A Chassid does not hit” – Avoiding Hitting even when allowed:

The Rebbe Rayatz once related:^[27]  A father who hits his child may indeed be a tzaddik—righteous and compassionate in his intentions—but a chassid he is not, for a true chassid does not strike his child. [This powerful statement introduces a deeper dimension to the above discussion. While there may exist a halachic allowance for physical discipline under certain restricted conditions, the path of midas chassidus—the higher and more refined approach—goes beyond what is merely permitted. It calls upon a parent to refrain from hitting altogether, and to seek more elevated methods of education and guidance. The reason for this is that true education is not achieved through striking. A chassidic approach understands that growth, internalization, and character development come from connection, understanding, and thoughtful guidance—not from physical force. While hitting may at times produce immediate compliance, it does not necessarily produce lasting understanding or positive internal change. Accordingly, one should strive to utilize alternative methods of discipline—methods that educate and build, rather than coerce. As discussed earlier in this chapter, these include systems of natural and logical consequences, setting clear boundaries, and offering appropriate choices within those boundaries. Approaches such as the Love and Logic framework, and similar educational models, emphasize helping a child take responsibility for their actions in a way that promotes reflection and growth, rather than fear or resentment. This does not mean that discipline should be abandoned. On the contrary, clear guidance, structure, and consequences are essential. However, the manner in which they are expressed should align with a higher ideal—one that reflects patience, wisdom, and genuine care for the child’s development. Therefore, even in those limited cases where halacha may technically allow physical discipline, it should be viewed only as a last resort, to be avoided whenever possible. A parent who aspires to midas chassidus will make every effort to find more constructive and effective means of guiding their child. In doing so, the parent not only educates the child more successfully, but also strengthens the bond of love and trust between them—ensuring that discipline becomes a tool of growth, rather than a source of distance.]

 

D. The view of Modern child Psychologists

In addition to the halachic perspective, it is worthwhile to briefly review the view of modern child psychologists and clinicians regarding physical discipline, such as hitting or spanking. While this topic has been widely debated, the general trend of contemporary research has moved strongly in one direction, though some limited points are still discussed.

Perceived Advantages (Short-Term Effects): Some proponents of physical discipline argue that it can have certain immediate benefits. These include:

• Immediate compliance: A child may quickly stop the misbehavior due to the pain or fear associated with the act.
• Clarity of boundaries: A strong physical reaction can signal to the child that a behavior is unacceptable.
• Efficiency: It may be seen by some as a quick and simple response, especially when other methods have failed.

However, even those who note these points generally emphasize that such effects are short-term, and do not necessarily reflect true education or internal change.

Major Concerns and Drawbacks: The overwhelming body of modern psychological research highlights significant concerns and risks associated with physical discipline:

• Lack of true education: Studies show that hitting does not teach children responsibility, self-control, or internal moral understanding. A child may comply temporarily, but does not internalize the lesson.
• Increase in negative behavior: Physical punishment has been consistently linked to increased aggression, defiance, and behavioral problems over time.
• Damage to the parent-child relationship: It can reduce trust and emotional closeness, leading to resentment or fear rather than respect.
• Modeling of violence: Children learn from their parents, and hitting may teach them that physical force is an acceptable way to solve problems.
• Mental and emotional harm: Research links physical discipline to anxiety, depression, lower self-esteem, and emotional instability.
• Long-term developmental effects: It has been associated with impaired cognitive and social development, and even changes in how children process threats.
• Risk of escalation: Even mild hitting carries an inherent danger of becoming more severe over time.

A Critical Practical Concern – Acting Out of Anger: A key concern emphasized both in psychology and clearly aligned with halachic principles is that physical discipline is often administered out of anger or frustration.

• When a parent is angry, their judgment becomes impaired.
• This can lead to hitting harder than intended, or more than is appropriate.
• The discipline may no longer be measured or educational, but rather a reaction.

Research notes that physical punishment can escalate into more severe harm, especially when emotional control is compromised. In practical terms, this is a serious concern. There are unfortunately documented situations in which children have been struck with excessive force, resulting in real injury or lasting harm. Even when the original intent was “discipline,” acting in anger can quickly cross the line into harm. This directly relates to a central halachic requirement: that any disciplinary measure must be measured, justified, and for the benefit of the child. When it is done out of anger, it may not only be ineffective, but also prohibited.

The Overall Conclusion of Modern Research: The general consensus of contemporary child psychology is that:

• Physical punishment has no proven long-term benefits in education or behavior improvement.
• It is associated with a wide range of negative emotional, behavioral, and developmental outcomes.
• There is a significant risk of escalation and harm, especially when done in anger.

Accordingly, modern clinicians strongly encourage the use of alternative methods of discipline, such as clear boundaries, logical consequences, and calm guidance—many of which we have already discussed earlier in this chapter.

Balanced Perspective: At the same time, it should be noted that some researchers have argued that, when used very rarely, calmly, and in a highly controlled manner, limited forms of physical discipline may not necessarily produce harm. However, even these views generally emphasize that:

• It must never be done in anger
• It must be rare and measured
• It should only be considered when other methods have failed

And even according to these views, alternative methods are still considered preferable.

E. The Rebbe’s View on Hitting today: [28]

From various letters of the Rebbe, it emerges clearly that in the Rebbe’s view, the use of physical punishment in education is not only ineffective, but fundamentally misguided. The Rebbe strongly rejects striking students, noting that it often produces more harm than benefit and can lead to negative emotional and social consequences, including the spread of harmful attitudes among peers. Even more, such methods contradict the proper path of education, which should be grounded in firmness expressed through pleasantness and respect. Alternative approaches—such as measured distancing, withholding privileges, and increased supervision—are encouraged as more constructive means of guidance. Furthermore, harsh practices like isolating a child in darkness are described as frightening and wholly inappropriate. The overall view is that true education must nurture the child with care, wisdom, and a deep sensitivity to their well‑being, guiding them toward growth in Torah, character, and good deeds.

 

F. Hitting one’s child should bring him pain:

Even when one is forced into reprimanding his child through physically hitting him, this should cause him much pain to the point he feels like crying. A story is told of Rav Yitzchak Shaul, a dear colleague of Reb Baruch, the father of the Alter Rebbe, that his father wept bitterly after smiting his child for cruel behavior.^[29]

 

G. The Age of permissibility For Spanking according to Halacha and Hashkafa:

Halacha – From what age and until what age may a child get hit? It is forbidden for one to hit his adult children.^[30] One who hit his adult children would [in previous times] be placed in excommunication as he transgresses the prohibition of “Lifnei Iver Lo Sitein Michshol.”^[31] A child is considered an adult in this regard from age 24 years old.^[32] The main time of educating a child is from age 16-24.^[33] Prior to age 16 the child does not have enough maturity to fully receive reproof from his parent, and one is thus not to chastise him and give him too heavy of a punishment. After 24 years old however there is worry that perhaps the child will rebel and fight back.^[34] [If however the child is already married, then he may no longer be hit by his father even if he is below the above age.^[35] Likewise, if the child is already looked upon as an adult by society, he may no longer be hit, irrelevant of age.^[36] Likewise, if the child is of age and/or of temperament that he would retaliate for being hit, such as by hitting his parent back or cursing him, then he is considered an adult in this matter and is forbidden to be hit.^[37]]

Hashkafa: Although the halacha above has outlined limited parameters regarding discipline even into the later adult years, the underlying hashkafic direction—especially in light of previous teachings—is clear for our times. From age sixteen and onward, a young person already possesses a developed sense of self, dignity, and independence, and physical punishment at this stage is far more likely to lead to resentment, rebellion, and emotional distance than to genuine growth. As emphasized in the letters of the Rebbe brought above, even where discipline may have once been considered, striking a student is described as producing more harm than benefit, undermining the very goal of chinuch. Furthermore, in today’s context, where sensitivity to emotional well‑being is heightened and societal norms recognize the damage caused by such measures, physical discipline of older youth runs contrary not only to effective education but to the spirit of Torah guidance itself. True chinuch at this stage requires engagement, respect, and clear boundaries conveyed through words, example, and thoughtful consequences—refining the young adult’s inner sense of responsibility rather than attempting to impose it through force.

 

H. Halacha – For what disciplinary reasons may a child be hit? [38]

Benefit of child: One’s small children may be hit for their personal benefit. For example, they may be hit for disciplinary measures to educate them in Torah and Mitzvos.

Derech Eretz: They may also be hit in order to teach them Derech Eretz [proper manners and Midos, or for their personal safety].^[39]

Obedience: Furthermore, if one’s children are disobedient and do not listen to his instructions, he may hit them even for his own benefit, so they become obedient and listen to instructions.^[40]

No justifiable reason: If, however, the children are obedient and listen to his instructions, it is forbidden to hit them when it is not for their benefit just as it is forbidden to hit any other person.^[41] One who does so transgresses a negative command of hitting a fellow Jew.^[42]

Only as last resort: One is to always first try to discipline the child through other methods prior to hitting him, and only if these methods do not work may the child be hit.^[43] There are many disciplinary philosophies in practice today which substitute hitting for other more useful and harmless methods.^[44] It is incumbent upon parents to train themselves to become effective disciplinarians so their children are disciplined, but not in an abusive manner.

 

 

 

I. Halacha – Hitting out of anger – May one hit a child out of anger?

It is Biblically forbidden to hit a child for non-disciplinary reasons. Thus, if one hits out of anger simply in order to pain the child and quench one’s fury, he transgresses a Biblical command. Even if one is also doing so in order to educate the child in one of the above-mentioned matters of which it is permitted for the child to be hit, nevertheless, it is not legally or Halachically advisable to hit one’s child when angry. The reason for this is because it a) Leads to excessive use of force, beyond that necessary; b) Causes one to misjudge the child’s guilt and the proper measure of discipline deserved by the child. Thus, one is to first calm down and only then cool headedly hand over the necessary measures of discipline. Many a times a parent is already agitated about other issues when he comes to hit the child, and in truth that hit contains previous anger and frustrations which are now being unjustifiably released on the child. Such a hit may carry a Biblical prohibition, even though its purpose is also for disciplinary measures. As a word of advice: Calm down, have a drink, eat something, set a time to think over the child’s behavior, investigate the child’s side of the story, and give a proper and effective disciplinary action. Don’t hit just so you feel better, hit with a purpose that benefits the child.

 

J. Halacha – How to hit:

Even when a child needs to be hit for disciplinary reasons, he is not to be hit with cruelty as do to the fools. Every parent must do so with wisdom.^[45] When necessary, the child may be hit either with a hand, or with a belt or rod.^[46]

 

K. Not to threaten a child by saying he will get hit later on: [47]

If a child needs reprimanding, one is not to threaten the child that he will hit him later on, but is rather to either hit him immediately upon him doing the action, or is not to do anything at all.^[48]

 

L. During the three weeks: [49]

From the 17^th of Tamuz until the 9^th of Av one is to avoid hitting the students [or children^[50]] during these days [even with a belt^[51], and certainly not with a stick or rod^[52].] [Some Poskim^[53] however rule one may hit a child using hands. Other Poskim^[54] rule that even using one’s hands to hit is included in the prohibition. Some Poskim^[55] rule that this restriction does not apply in a room with a Mezuzah. Some Poskim^[56] rule that there is no restriction to hit on the outer limbs such as the hand and leg, and the restriction is only with regards to areas of the inner limbs. Some Poskim^[57] rule that the above restriction only applies between the 4^th and 9^th hour [of the day]. Other Poskim^[58] rule that one is to be stringent through the entire period of time.]

 

Summary: It is Biblically forbidden to hit one’s child for non-disciplinary reasons or unjustifiably. Even hitting for disciplinary reasons is permitted only when the child is still young enough to absorb the hit and become disciplined. Such a child may be hit to educate him in Torah, Mitzvos, Derech Eretz, safety, or obedience to parents. In all cases one must first try to discipline the child in other measures and may not use excessive force.

 

5. Alternative disciplinary methods and punishments:

A. Hot Saucing – Is hot saucing a permitted and legal form of disciplinary action?

Halacha: According to Halacha, using hot sauce would seemingly have the same status as hitting a child, and may be used for disciplinary measures, although is forbidden to be used out of anger and without justifiable reasons. Nonetheless, its use must be measured in appropriation to the child’s age, offense, and standing health of the child.

Health concerns: Some pediatricians caution strongly against the practice of hot saucing due to potential physical risks. A child may experience allergic reactions, even if they have not previously shown sensitivity to certain foods. In addition, placing a concentrated irritant such as hot sauce in the mouth can cause burning and inflammation of sensitive tissues, including the tongue, throat, and esophagus. In more severe cases, this irritation can lead to swelling that may interfere with breathing or swallowing, especially in younger children or those with underlying conditions. Beyond the immediate effects, repeated exposure to such painful experiences may also create negative associations with food or eating, compounding both physical and emotional concerns.

Secular law:^[59]  While there is no explicit federal law in the United States that specifically prohibits hot saucing as a disciplinary practice, its legality is not without complexity. Child welfare standards in many jurisdictions are broadly defined, meaning that disciplinary methods which cause significant pain, distress, or potential harm can come under scrutiny. In certain cases, such actions may be interpreted by authorities as inappropriate or excessive discipline, potentially leading to intervention by child protective services. As such, even if not clearly legislated against, the practice exists in a gray area where legal risks may depend on local interpretation, context, and the perceived harm to the child.

What parents say:^[60] Many parents strongly advocate against hot saucing while others claim it is a painful but harmless and effective disciplinary measure.

 

B. Soap in the Mouth – Is it a permitted and appropriate form of disciplinary action?

Halacha: According to halacha, placing soap in a child’s mouth would seemingly carry a similar status to hitting a child, and in theory may be used as a disciplinary measure. However, it is forbidden to be done out of anger or without justifiable reason. Furthermore, its use must be carefully measured in proportion to the child’s age, the severity of the offense, and the child’s physical condition.

Health concerns: Soap is not meant to be ingested and can irritate the mouth, throat, and stomach, causing burning, nausea, or vomiting. In some cases, especially with stronger products, it may lead to more serious reactions such as swelling or breathing difficulty.

Secular law: While not explicitly illegal on a federal level, forcing a child to ingest soap may be viewed as unreasonable or harmful discipline and could lead to investigation, depending on the circumstances. In some settings, it is explicitly prohibited and considered inappropriate discipline.

What parents say: Some view it as an effective deterrent, but many parents today oppose it, seeing it as harmful, humiliating, and damaging to trust rather than truly educational.

 

C. Locking a Child in a Room – Is it a permitted and appropriate form of disciplinary action?

Halacha:
According to halacha, locking a child in a room is far more severe than ordinary forms of discipline and may be forbidden in many circumstances. If the child is of an age, nature, or sensitivity that he may become frightened, distressed, or panicked by being locked in a room—especially in darkness—then it is prohibited to do so, as it can pose real emotional and even physical danger.[61] Indeed, such a situation could reach a level where one would be required to intervene even on Shabbos due to the potential harm involved. Furthermore, as seen from the Rebbe’s strong objection to such practices, even the suggestion of confining a child in a dark room is considered shocking and inappropriate.[62] Therefore, any form of isolation must be approached with extreme caution, ensuring it does not cause fear or harm, and in most cases should be avoided entirely.

Health concerns: Locking a child alone in a room, especially in a dark or isolated setting, can cause significant emotional distress, including fear, anxiety, and feelings of abandonment. In some cases, it may lead to longer-term trust or behavioral issues, particularly if used repeatedly or harshly.

Secular law: In many jurisdictions, isolating a child in a locked or confined space—especially in a way that causes fear or restricts movement—may be viewed as inappropriate discipline and could trigger legal concern or intervention, depending on the circumstances and severity.

What parents say: Many parents strongly oppose this practice, viewing it as frightening and harmful to a child’s emotional well-being. Others may see limited forms of separation as necessary for calming behavior, though generally without locking or force. The prevailing view today favors supervision and guided calming rather than isolation.

 

D. Time-Out – Is it a permitted and appropriate form of disciplinary action?

Halacha: According to halacha, a form of temporary separation—such as a time-out—would be more comparable to constructive disciplinary methods (e.g., distancing from certain privileges) and may be used appropriately. However, it must not be done out of anger or in a degrading manner, and must be suited to the child’s age and understanding, with the intention of guiding rather than punishing.

Health concerns: When used appropriately and calmly, time-outs are generally considered safe and can help a child regulate emotions. However, if overused, excessively long, or done in a harsh or isolating way, they may lead to feelings of rejection or emotional distress.

Secular law: Time-outs are generally accepted within legal standards of reasonable discipline, provided they do not involve confinement, excessive duration, or harmful conditions.

What parents say: Many parents view time-outs as a useful and effective tool when applied correctly, helping children calm down and reflect on their actions. Others criticize improper use, stressing that time-outs should be brief, explained, and followed by reconnection, rather than used as a form of isolation or punishment.

 

E. Removing Privileges – Is it a permitted and appropriate form of disciplinary action?

Halacha: Removing privileges (such as toys, activities, or privileges the child values) is comparable to the concept of distancing a child from something he desires for educational purposes, and is generally permitted when done calmly and with proper intent.

Health concerns: There are no direct physical concerns. However, if done excessively or unfairly, it may lead to frustration or feelings of resentment.

Secular law: This is widely accepted as a form of reasonable and appropriate discipline.

What parents say: Many parents view this as one of the most effective methods, as it teaches consequences while preserving the child’s dignity.

 

F. Extra Responsibilities / Consequences – Is it a permitted and appropriate form of disciplinary action?

Using extra chores or responsibilities as a form of discipline is generally viewed as a constructive approach when applied thoughtfully. The idea behind this method is not to punish, but to help the child develop a sense of responsibility and accountability for their actions. When the consequence is directly related to the behavior—for example, cleaning up a mess they made—it reinforces an understanding of cause and effect in a healthy way. However, if used excessively, assigned unfairly, or given in a way that feels like a burden rather than a lesson, it can lead to resentment and frustration. The effectiveness of this method depends greatly on tone and intent: when presented calmly and as an opportunity for growth, it can build character and responsibility, but when imposed harshly, it risks turning into a negative experience rather than a meaningful lesson.

 

G. Not to threaten a child with an impure animal: [63]

A father and mother is to never threaten or instill fear into a child with an impure animal, such as to say that a cat or dog will come and take you.^[64]

 

6. Yelling, Shouting, and Verbal Humiliation and Abuse in Chinuch [65]

One of the most overlooked forms of harmful discipline is not the hand, but the tongue. Because no bruise is left on the skin, many assume that yelling, screaming, berating, mocking, insulting, or calling a child names is somehow less serious than physical punishment. In truth, however, verbal aggression can cut more deeply precisely because it enters the child’s inner world: his sense of self, his dignity, his emotional security, and his trust in the parent who is meant to guide him. A child who is struck may feel pain; a child who is repeatedly shamed may begin to feel that he himself is the problem. That inner wound is often quiet, but it can shape a lifetime. Discipline must never communicate rejection, humiliation, or emotional abandonment, and true authority is not conveyed through volume or force, but through consistency, integrity, and emotional presence.

 

A. The Torah’s Perspective – A Rejection of Yelling and Offensive Speech:

The Issur of Onas Devarim: From a Torah perspective, even before discussing modern psychology, there is strong reason to object to a mode of parenting which involves yelling and shouting and insulting, demeaning and verbally oppressing one’s children. Just as there is a Biblical prohibition against oppressing another in business by cheating him so too there is a Biblical prohibition against oppressing [i.e. insulting, offending, etc] someone with words.[66] This prohibition is listed as part of the 365 negative commands.[67] In fact, oppressing another with words is even worse than oppressing him monetarily [through cheating him].^[68]

Its application to children: The Sefer Hachinuch^[69] writes that the prohibition of Onas Devarim applies even against insulting or verbally oppressing one’s children, more than necessary for the sake of Chinuch. Accordingly, the prohibition of onaas devarim forbids speech intended to hurt, frighten, anger, embarrass, or humiliate a child. Derogatory nicknames and verbal put-downs fall under this prohibition, and rebuke may not be delivered in a way that embarrasses or wounds. Nowhere is this more relevant than in chinuch. This is especially relevant in the home, where a parent’s words are not random sounds but identity-forming messages. If the Torah forbids hurting another with words in ordinary interpersonal life, then how much more so in chinuch, where the child is emotionally dependent on the speaker and absorbs those words with unusual force. A parent’s words are not spoken into empty space. They are absorbed, internalized, and often become the child’s inner voice. When a parent speaks harshly—through yelling, belittling, sarcasm, or name-calling—the child does not merely hear criticism; he hears a definition of who he is. What was intended as correction of behavior becomes, in the child’s mind, a statement of identity. This stands in direct opposition to the fundamental principle of chinuch: that discipline must never communicate rejection, humiliation, or emotional abandonment. A parent is charged not only with guiding behavior, but with preserving and nurturing the child’s dignity (kavod habriyos) and emotional security.

Modeling behavior you want to see reflected in your children: In Chapter three we wrote that parents must actively prevent children from becoming accustomed to lying, quarreling, mockery, vulgar or inappropriate language, and that proper speech is a central pillar of chinuch. A home that seeks to instill refined conduct, good middos, and proper speech cannot do so through coarse or explosive communication. One cannot teach refined speech and character through yelling. One cannot teach respect through humiliation. A child learns far more from how his parents speak than from what they say.

Speaking Softly:[70] Aside from the prohibition of אונאת דברים, which applies when one belittles, humiliates, or insults another, even simple yelling and shouting—without any degrading content—can itself be highly detrimental. Raising one’s voice in an emotional or harsh manner often reflects loss of control and creates an atmosphere of fear rather than growth, and thus already undermines the entire process of education. From a Torah perspective, the proper method of speaking to children is not merely a matter of effectiveness, but a fundamental principle of chinuch itself. Rashi famously explains in Parshas Yisro that when conveying Torah, one must use different modes of speech; to the “house of Yaakov” (women and children) one speaks in a gentle and pleasant manner, while to others one may speak more firmly—yet even there, the emphasis remains on communicating in a way that can be received. Extending this principle to chinuch, Rav Moshe Feinstein explains that children are best educated through softness, calm words, and pleasant speech, because in such an environment the child recognizes that the parent seeks his good and therefore accepts instruction willingly and even with joy. When a child feels safe and respected, the words penetrate; when he feels attacked, they are rejected. Based on this, a clear distinction emerges between firm instruction given calmly and yelling or shouting. A parent may need to be authoritative and set limits, but once the method shifts to raised voices and emotional intensity, the effect changes entirely. The Torah teaches that words spoken gently are heard and accepted, whereas harsh speech places the child on the defensive, making true education nearly impossible. Indeed, guidance from Torah sources emphasizes that shouting generally fails as a method of chinuch—even if it achieves immediate compliance—because it does not cultivate internal acceptance or growth.

Yelling Is Not Chinuch — It Is Emotional Discharge: There is another point, perhaps the most important one for parents that must be recognized. Very often, yelling is not truly about the child—it is about the parent. Yelling is often less about education and more about adult dysregulation. This cuts to the heart of the matter. Much yelling is not strategic chinuch at all; it is the parent’s frustration escaping through the child. When a parent yells, it is often a moment of כעס – anger, frustration, or emotional overflow. The reaction is not measured; it is impulsive. The child becomes the container for the adult’s exhaustion, shame, disappointment, or helplessness. In such moments, the child becomes the outlet for feelings that may have accumulated from many different sources.

When that happens, the issue is no longer the child’s misbehavior but the parent’s loss of self-mastery. Torah demands more of the mechanech. A parent is not only teaching mitzvos and middos; he is modeling what it means to govern oneself.

 

B. Psychological and Academic Perspective

The Ineffectiveness of Shouting: The American Academy of Pediatrics states that aversive disciplinary strategies — including yelling at or shaming children — are only minimally effective in the short term and ineffective in the long term, and that adults should avoid verbal abuse of children. Its public-facing guidance instead recommends calm words, clear limits, measured consequences, listening, and constructive follow-through. In other words, even on purely practical grounds, yelling is poor chinuch: it may silence a child for the moment, but it does not reliably teach self-control, responsibility, or inner conviction. The long-term concern is even more serious when yelling crosses into humiliation, threats, belittling, or name-calling.

The long-term detriment to the child: A public-health page from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines emotional abuse as behaviors that harm a child’s self-worth or emotional well-being, explicitly listing name-calling, shaming, rejecting, and withholding love as examples. A review discussed in multiple summaries of the 2023 literature on childhood verbal abuse reported that regular verbal abuse — including shouting, threatening, belittling, humiliating, and name-calling — was associated with depression, aggression, anger, conduct problems, delinquent behavior, and substance use. Even without entering technical diagnostic language, the message is plain: words can become a form of maltreatment when they repeatedly attack the child’s worth rather than guide his behavior. This point is especially relevant to things many adults dismiss as “just words”: “You’re impossible,” “What’s wrong with you?” “You’re lazy,” “You never do anything right,” or “Why can’t you be like your sibling,” or “Your brother is better than you,” or public sarcasm meant to make the child feel small. These are not expressions of discipline—they are expressions of degradation. Such language does not merely protest an act; it stamps an identity onto the child. That is precisely why it is so destructive. A consequence tells a child, “That behavior was wrong.” A scream or insult often communicates, “You are wrong.” Once discipline shifts from correcting behavior to degrading the child, it ceases to be chinuch and becomes emotional injury. It is no longer about protecting the child—it is about controlling him. Over time, it shifts from addressing behavior to impacting the child’s sense of self. Here lies a critical distinction in chinuch:
A parent must say, “This behavior is unacceptable,” but must never communicate, “You are unacceptable.”

Occasional shouting: It is important to distinguish between an occasional raised voice for immediate safety and a pattern of yelling as discipline. There are moments when a parent may shout to stop a child from danger — for example, to prevent him from running into the street. Even child-advocacy material acknowledges that there are times when yelling may occur for safety or to get a child’s attention at a distance. But that is very different from using shouting as the normal tool of correction, control, or emotional release. Materials on child verbal abuse specifically identify calling a child names, swearing at him, insulting him, and repeatedly yelling at him as harmful forms of verbal aggression. The difference is profound: a safety shout is directed at the danger; habitual yelling is directed at the child’s personhood. Contemporary child-health guidance strongly supports this distinction.

 

C. The proper Torah approach – Consistent and Calm Boundaries in a Composed Environment

What, then, is the proper Torah alternative? Not permissiveness, and not passivity. Chinuch requires boundaries, consequences, consistency, and accountability. But those must be delivered in a way that preserves the child’s dignity and emotional security. Listening before judging, hearing both sides, validating the child’s pain before moving to correction, and ensuring that discipline is followed by visible closeness and love. This is a far more demanding form of authority than yelling, because it requires the adult to remain composed. It is easier to explode than to teach. It is easier to shame than to guide. But the harder path is the one that builds rather than breaks. A healthy model of verbal discipline therefore looks very different from shouting. It speaks to the deed, not the child’s essence. It is firm without being degrading. It may say, “That was not acceptable,” but not, “You are disgusting.” It may impose a real consequence, but not with contempt. It listens before ruling. It does not turn the child’s mistake into the parent’s emotional theater. And after correction, it restores connection, so that the child understands that discipline was not a withdrawal of love. This approach aligns with the Torah principle of smol docheh v’yemin mekareves which is at the center of all education: the left hand may set limits, but the right hand must draw close. Accordingly, for our times, yelling and shouting at children should not be viewed as a harmless parenting style or as “normal old-school discipline.” When it becomes a regular mode of correction — and especially when it includes berating, humiliation, insults, threats, or name-calling — it stands in tension with both effective education and basic Torah ethics. It violates the spirit of refined speech, undermines dignity, damages trust, and often functions more as an outlet for anger than as genuine chinuch. The proper path is not weakness, but calm strength: clear expectations, measured consequences, honest listening, and speech that remains disciplined even when the child is not. The true mechanech does not merely control a child’s behavior — he sanctifies the atmosphere in which that child grows.

 

 

 

D. The Generational Cycle of Yelling and the Obligation to Break It

Very often, shouting and yelling in the home does not begin with the current generation at all, but is part of a deeply ingrained and systemic cycle that is passed from parent to child. A parent who was himself raised in an environment of raised voices, harsh tone, and verbal intensity will naturally internalize that as “normal” communication. Without conscious awareness, he repeats the same patterns with his own children, believing that this is simply how discipline is expressed. In this way, the behavior perpetuates itself across generations, with each one handing down not only words, but a tone and emotional atmosphere. Because of this, breaking the cycle requires more than good intentions—it requires deliberate effort, learning, and often the humility to recognize that one must change what feels natural. Parents who were raised in such homes must actively acquire new skills of communication, self‑control, and emotional awareness, whether through study, guidance, or even professional training when necessary. In doing so, they are not merely improving their parenting; they are interrupting a generational pattern of harm and establishing a new model of calm, respectful, and healthy communication for their children, thereby ensuring that the cycle ends with them rather than continuing further.

A Letter of Rav Moshe Feinstein on Chinuch[71]

Regarding success in the education of children—there is no single fixed rule for how to conduct oneself, as it depends on the nature and temperament with which Hashem has endowed each son and daughter. There are children for whom it is better to act with firmness, and others for whom it is more effective to act with gentleness and pleasantness. However, in most cases, gentleness and softness are preferable.

See Rashi in his commentary on the Torah, Parshas Yisro, that with women one should speak gently, and with children—even male children—in a pleasant manner. For in this way, whatever is told to the child is accepted with joy, and he recognizes that his father and mother desire what is good for him, even with his limited understanding. When told what to do and what not to do, he complies willingly. As the child grows and begins to understand reasoning, one should also explain the rationale in a way that fits his level of understanding. The primary foundation of education is to instill in the child faith in Hashem and in His Torah, and to teach him that everything he receives is a gift from Hashem. In this way, he will develop love for Hashem, as well as for his father and mother, who are His messengers to provide for him.

Then, he will fulfill what he is told out of love, recognizing that this is the will of Hashem, and there will be little need for punishment. Only on rare occasions will punishment be necessary, and when he is punished, he will understand that it was for his benefit and for his good.”

 

And it is also beneficial for the sake of proper education that the father and mother be of one mind and united in their approach. Additionally, one should live in a place that upholds Torah observance—as explained by the Rambam at the beginning of Chapter 6 of Hilchos De’os—even regarding adults, and certainly regarding children.

And after all these efforts, one must pray to Hashem that He grant success in the education of the children. When one acts for the sake of Heaven, certainly Hashem will assist him.

The times and stages of education, in practice, are as established by our Sages for each matter. However, regarding educating a child in faith (emunah), there is no specific starting point. For at times, even before a child can speak, one must already begin educating him in faith—if he has the understanding to recognize his father and mother and those who regularly attend to him.

Your friend,

Moshe Feinstein”

 

7. Before Discipline Prerequisites: Listening, Validation & Sympathy Before Judgment and Advice^[72]

One of the most common—and most painful—failures in discipline occurs before the punishment itself has even begun: the child is judged before he is heard. From the child’s perspective, few experiences feel as unfair as being corrected, blamed, or punished without first being given the chance to explain what happened. In earlier parts of this chapter, we emphasized that discipline is only effective when it is administered in the proper form—calmly, thoughtfully, proportionately, and with the true goal of education rather than emotional reaction. That same principle applies here with special force. A parent may be correct that some response is needed, yet if the child feels that no one cared to hear his side, much of the educational value can be lost. Instead of focusing on his own behavior and what he needs to correct, the child often becomes preoccupied with the perceived unfairness of the process itself. The issue in his mind shifts from “What did I do?” to “Why didn’t they even listen to me?”

This mistake is especially common in the pressures of daily family life. Parents are often tired, busy, distracted, or already carrying their own stress and frustration. A complaint is reported, a mess is discovered, a rule appears to have been broken, and the parent—already emotionally taxed—may react too quickly. At times there is simply no patience left to investigate carefully. At other times the parent feels upset enough that he assumes he already understands the situation and moves straight to rebuke or consequence. Yet proper discipline requires more than reacting to appearances. Before giving punishment, one must first determine what actually happened, whether the child in fact did what he is accused of, and if so, why he did it. Was it intentional, impulsive, misunderstood, provoked, developmentally immature, or the result of some distress the parent has not yet seen? A punishment given without that understanding may miss the mark entirely, and even when the child was wrong, the response may not fit the reality of the situation.

Accordingly, the proper order is critical. The first step is to listen—to allow the child to speak, to hear his version, and to understand as fully as possible what happened and what motivated his behavior. The second step is to validate and sympathize with the child’s predicament where appropriate. Validation does not mean agreement, nor does sympathy remove accountability. It simply means recognizing that the child’s inner experience is real and worthy of acknowledgment. Only after the child has been heard and his experience recognized can the parent move to judgment, guidance, or consequence in a way that feels just and educational. This is true not only in parenting but in human relationships generally: people are far more able to accept correction when they feel understood first. In chinuch, however, this principle is especially vital, because the child must feel that the parent truly tried to understand him and did his best to respond correctly. When that happens, even discipline that is difficult can be received very differently. The child feels heard, respected, and cared for, and the discipline is far more likely to be accepted as fair, thoughtful, and for his benefit rather than as an act of impatience or emotional dismissal. The following then are the proper steps to be taken in response to a child’s behavior or negative actions:

• Step 1: Learning to Listen The first and most essential step is to allow the child to explain himself fully. He must be given the space to articulate his perspective without interruption. This is not the moment to correct facts, offer solutions, or evaluate the maturity of his response. It is simply the moment to listen. By hearing him out, we communicate that his voice matters and that his experience is worthy of attention.
• Step 2: Showing Sympathy The second step is sympathy. After listening, it is critical to acknowledge and empathize with the pain being expressed. Even if, as adults or parents, we recognize that the child’s distress stems from immaturity, heightened sensitivity, or an incomplete understanding of the broader circumstances, the pain itself is still real. While the reaction may be disproportionate, the emotional experience is genuine. Dismissing it as trivial does not make it disappear; it only teaches the child that his feelings are unwelcome or invalid. Sympathy, therefore, requires explicitly recognizing the discomfort: “I’m really sorry that this is bothering you,” or “I can hear how painful this feels for you.” Such statements do not mean that we agree with the child’s interpretation of events, nor do they imply that the grievance is justified. They simply acknowledge the reality of the emotional experience.
• Step 3: Respond and Guide Only after these two steps—listening and empathizing—can meaningful guidance take place. At this point, trust has been established. The child feels heard and understood, which opens the door to collaboration rather than resistance. From this place of connection, the adult can gently introduce additional perspectives, help the child see factors he may have overlooked, and guide him toward a more balanced understanding of the situation. If the matter involves a dispute or requires a final decision, that ruling may still be disappointing to the child. However, the outcome is far more likely to be accepted when the process has been fair and compassionate. The child has been given his “day in court.” His feelings have been validated, even if his conclusion was not adopted.

 

Example 1: The Group Project That “Wasn’t Fair”

Twelve-year-old Eli came home from school visibly upset. He dropped his backpack by the door and announced that his teacher was unfair and that he hated group projects. His father, who had heard similar complaints before, was tempted to immediately explain that learning to work with others is part of life and that complaining would not change anything.

Instead, he paused and followed the proper order. First, he let Eli speak without interruption. Eli explained that he had done most of the work on a science project while his partner barely contributed, yet both of them received the same grade. As Eli spoke, his frustration poured out—not just about the grade, but about feeling taken advantage of and unrecognized.

Only after Eli finished did his father respond, not with instruction, but with sympathy. “That sounds really frustrating,” he said. “I can hear how upsetting it is to put in so much effort and feel like it didn’t matter. I’m really sorry you went through that.” At that moment, Eli relaxed. He was no longer fighting to be understood. Once the emotional tension had eased, his father gently broadened the conversation. Together, they discussed possible reasons the teacher graded the project as she did, and what skills group projects are meant to develop beyond academic knowledge. Finally, his father helped Eli think through constructive options for the future—how to communicate expectations early, how to document his contributions, and how to advocate for himself respectfully if a similar situation arises again. The outcome did not change the grade, but it changed Eli’s experience. He felt heard, respected, and guided rather than dismissed or lectured.

 

Example 2: “She Always Gets More Than Me”

Nine-year-old Mushka burst into tears when she saw that her older sister Leah had been allowed to stay up later. To Mushka, this felt deeply unfair. From an adult perspective, the explanation was obvious: Leah was older, had different responsibilities, and had earned additional privileges. Still, Mushka’s pain was immediate and real. Rather than correcting her right away, her mother invited her to sit down and talk. “Tell me what’s bothering you,” she said. Mushka explained through tears that it felt like Leah was always favored, that she tried just as hard, and that no one noticed. Her mother listened fully, resisting the urge to interrupt with logic or reassurance. When Mushka finished, her mother responded with empathy.

“I’m really sorry this hurts so much,” she said. “I can see how painful it feels to think things aren’t fair. That’s a hard feeling to sit with.” Only after validating Mushka’s emotions did her mother move on to guidance. She explained, calmly and respectfully, that different ages come with different expectations and privileges—not because one child is loved more, but because each child is growing and learning at a different pace. She reassured Mushka of her unique strengths and pointed out areas where Mushka herself had privileges that her younger cousin, for example, did not yet have. The final decision remained the same: bedtime would not change. But the process mattered. Mushka felt acknowledged rather than brushed aside. Even though she did not get the outcome she wanted, she received something just as important—a sense that her feelings were taken seriously.

 

Case Study: An Accusation at School

Thirteen-year-old David Kaplan is accused by another student, Noah Brooks, of damaging school property. There were no witnesses. David strongly denies the accusation.

• Scenario 1: Judgment Without Hearing The principal calls David into the office and says, “You’re being punished for what you did. This behavior won’t be tolerated.” David tries to explain, but he is cut off. The decision has already been made. David leaves feeling powerless, angry, and unfairly judged.
• Scenario 2: Hearing Without Sympathy The teacher listens to David’s explanation and expresses how mad he is that he was falsely accused. The teacher sees that he is innocent but responds, “I hear what you’re saying, but you shouldn’t be so upset. These things happen, people get falsely accused all the time.” Although David was allowed to speak, his feelings were dismissed. He leaves feeling unheard and emotionally invalidated.
• Scenario 3: The Correct Approach The principal listens to David’s full account without interruption. Then she says, “I’m really sorry you’re going through this. Being accused of something serious is upsetting, especially when you say you didn’t do it.”
  Only after acknowledging his distress does she investigate further, explain the process, and offer guidance. Even if David dislikes the final outcome, he leaves feeling respected and treated fairly.

True authority begins with listening, is strengthened by empathy, and is completed with thoughtful judgment.

8. Preventing injustices: Hearing both sides – Giving every child their time in court

In continuation of the previous halacha—regarding the importance of patience and fully listening to one’s child before rendering judgment—we may add an additional vital principle in preventing injustice. This pertains to the necessity of hearing both sides when one child lodges a complaint against another, prior to reaching any conclusion.

Halachic requirement for a judge to hear the claims of each side in the presence of the other side:^[73] It is a יסוד גדול in Torah law that a judge may not hear the claims of one party without the presence of the other.^[74] Not only is the judge forbidden to listen to one side alone, but even the litigant himself is prohibited from presenting his claims unless the opposing side stands before him.^[75] For true justice requires not only that both sides be heard, but that they be heard together, each one in the presence of the other. [The Zohar states that one who hears one side without the other is considered as if he has accepted upon himself a foreign G-d.^[76]]

The reason:[77] The reason for this is clear: when one side is heard alone, its words make an impression upon the heart and mind of the judge before the second side has an opportunity to respond. Furthermore, the presence of the other party restrains exaggeration and falsehood, and allows for immediate clarification. In this way, the judgment becomes one of אמת, properly weighed and balanced.

The Chinuch Lesson: From the above law we derive a powerful lesson in chinuch: In an altercation between two children, it is not sufficient for a parent or educator to hear one child, even if he listens attentively and sympathizes with his pain. As long as the second child has not yet been heard, the picture remains incomplete, and there is a natural tendency to form a judgment prematurely. Rather, one must ensure that both children stand present, and each is given his “time in court” to express what occurred. In the presence of the other, their words are often more measured and more accurate, allowing the parent to hear the matter in its proper form. Through this, not only is justice served, but the children themselves are educated in the ways of fairness. They learn that every voice matters, and that truth is not determined by who speaks first or louder, but through careful and balanced hearing. When the above is not followed, it is common for a parent to rush to judgment. Frequently, one child approaches in the midst of the parent being occupied—whether a mother in the middle of cooking or a father engaged in work—presenting a complaint, often with crying, shouting, and strong claims of injustice. In such moments, due to limited patience or competing demands, a parent may issue a quick ruling and even administer an overly harsh or unjustified punishment simply to quiet the situation. This, however, is often a great injustice, as most conflicts are not one-sided, and there are always two perspectives to be heard. While the matter may be silenced more quickly, the child who is punished may feel wronged and victimized. Accordingly, the proper approach is that whenever reasonably possible, a parent should defer judgment and tell the children that this is not the appropriate time to resolve the matter. Instead, a set time should be established—such as after dinner—when both parties will be present and each will be heard. In this way, the parent can properly understand the situation and render a fair judgment. From personal experience, especially in a large family where sibling rivalry and disputes are inevitable, constantly addressing every complaint as it arises can become overwhelming. Therefore, it is beneficial to establish clear guidelines: just as courts are not open at all times, so too parents designate specific times to hear complaints between children. Additionally, both parties must be present in order for the matter to be heard. Not only does this lead to more just and balanced resolutions, but it also often encourages the children to resolve their differences on their own, without escalating every issue.

 

Example

Moshe, a five-year-old, came running into the kitchen, crying loudly and screaming, “It’s not fair! Chani hit me! She took my toy and won’t give it back!” He is beside himself, shouting and demanding justice. Chani, his older sister of eight, is not present, and the parent hears only Moshe’s version, filled with emotion and urgency.

The mother, in the middle of cooking and already overwhelmed, reacts immediately. Without pausing to investigate, she calls out, “Chani! Come here right now!” When Chani arrives, confused and trying to explain, the mother cuts her off and says, “Why are you always bothering your brother? Go to your room—no dessert tonight!” The house quiets down quickly, but Chani leaves upset and hurt, feeling wrongly accused, while Moshe feels temporarily validated—though the actual conflict was never truly understood.

Later, the parent adopts the proper approach.

That evening, after dinner, the mother calmly calls both Moshe and Chani to sit together. “Now we’re going to go through what happened,” she says. “Each of you will speak, and I will listen.” Moshe explains his side. Then Chani explains that Moshe had first taken her toy and broke part of it, and she reacted by grabbing it back. As they speak in front of each other, their words become more measured and clearer, and the full picture begins to emerge.

The parent listens carefully and then responds in a balanced way: “It seems both of you didn’t act properly. Moshe, you can’t take something that isn’t yours, and Chani, you shouldn’t hit or grab. Next time, you both need to speak calmly or come ask for help.”

Instead of a quick and harsh reaction, the situation is now resolved fairly. Both children feel heard, and both are taught appropriate behavior.

Over time, the parent sets a rule: unless something urgent is happening, complaints will be addressed at a set time when both children are present. This not only leads to fairer outcomes, but often encourages Moshe and Chani to work things out themselves, knowing they will both have to stand and explain their actions together.

 

9. Asking Mechila from One’s Child When He Has Been Wronged By the Parent:

At this point, after reviewing the above, an esteemed reader may find himself thinking with a sense of heaviness or even despair. He may reflect and feel that he has, at times, fallen short—that he has raised his voice, acted out of anger, or responded in ways that do not align with the ideals described here. Perhaps these reactions came out of instinct, habit, or pressure, and now the question arises: What can be done? Is the situation already lost? The answer is a clear and resounding no. There remains a powerful path forward. One of the most transformative steps a parent can take is to go back to the child and ask for forgiveness. By acknowledging the mistake—calmly and sincerely—and saying, “What I did was not right; I should not have acted that way, and I ask your forgiveness,” a parent not only repairs the moment, but turns it into one of the greatest opportunities for growth. Rather than weakening the relationship, this act strengthens it, transforming past error into a source of connection, trust, and true chinuch.

Negating a misconception: A common misconception among parents is that a parent should never admit wrongdoing to a child. Some believe that showing remorse will weaken their authority, cause them to “lose control,” or diminish their standing in the child’s eyes. They fear that maintaining absolute authority requires projecting infallibility. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is this approach mistaken from a practical standpoint—it is contrary to both halacha and the very foundations of chinuch.

The Halacha: From a halachic perspective, when a person harms another—whether physically, emotionally, or verbally—there exists an obligation to seek forgiveness from the one who was wronged. One does not achieve full atonement through regret alone; rather, he must go to the individual and request forgiveness, acknowledging the wrongdoing and attempting to repair the harm.[78] This obligation applies universally, without distinction between adult and child.[79] A child who has been hurt is not exempt from this principle; on the contrary, halacha explicitly recognizes that causing pain to a child is included in the prohibition of אונאת דברים, and one must therefore be mindful to avoid hurting even a child’s feelings.

Parents are not meant to be perfect: It is unrealistic to expect any parent to be perfect. Parenting is demanding, emotional, and at times overwhelming. There will inevitably be moments when a parent reacts impulsively, speaks too harshly, or acts in a way that, upon reflection, was inappropriate. This is part of the human condition. The measure of a parent is not whether he never errs, but whether he knows how to respond when he does. True chinuch requires the ability to acknowledge one’s mistakes.

How to apologize: When a parent recognizes that he has acted improperly—whether by yelling, speaking harshly, or acting out of anger—he should approach the child and say, calmly and sincerely: “I should not have spoken to you that way. I should not have gotten angry. What I did was wrong. I am sorry. Please forgive me.” This is not weakness. It is strength.

What it accomplishes: By apologizing, the parent accomplishes several critical goals at once. He fulfills his halachic responsibility to seek forgiveness. He models the process of teshuvah, demonstrating to the child what it means to take responsibility, admit error, and repair harm. And perhaps most importantly, he restores trust and emotional safety within the relationship.

What not apologizing causes: Ignoring the wrongdoing, by contrast, leaves the child carrying unresolved pain. The child senses the injustice, but sees that it is neither acknowledged nor corrected. Over time, this can build resentment, distance, and emotional withdrawal. What could have been a moment of growth becomes a source of silent injury. When a parent apologizes, however, the opposite occurs. The child experiences that he matters, that his feelings are recognized, and that even authority figures are accountable. This does not weaken the parent’s authority—it deepens it. Authority based on fear may control behavior, but authority grounded in trust and integrity shapes the child’s inner world.

Not a Negation of the Childs responsibility: The apology is not meant to not negate the child’s responsibility for his own actions. A parent can—and should—still hold the child accountable. A proper approach would be: acknowledging one’s own mistake, and then guiding the child to recognize his own. In this way, both sides engage in growth, each taking responsibility appropriate to their role. In fact, such moments often create the strongest bonds. A child who sees that his parent is honest, self-aware, and committed to doing what is right develops a deep sense of respect—not based on fear, but on admiration. He learns that making mistakes is part of life, but that what defines a person is the ability to correct them.

Final Word: Ultimately, the goal of chinuch is not to produce a home where the parent is always “right,” but to create an environment of אמת – truth, אחריות – responsibility, and קשר – connection. A parent who can say “I was wrong” teaches more than any lecture ever could. Such a parent is not diminishing his authority—he is elevating it.

 

10. Incentives, Prizes, and Educational Motivation

In continuation of the theme introduced at the beginning of this chapter where we discussed various forms of discipline, we now turn to one of the most powerful and effective forms of discipline: positive reinforcement through incentives and rewards. This approach represents an expression of yemin mekareves, drawing the child closer through encouragement, recognition, and positivity, rather than through reprimand alone. The use of prizes and incentives is often one of the best tools that can be used to encourage desirable behavior in children and students—whether it be diligence in learning, academic achievement, religious observance, or general behavior. Parents and educators alike seek to understand whether such incentives help cultivate growth or whether they risk redirecting motivation away from its proper foundation. Below we will offer several perspectives on this matter offered by our Rabbeim:

The Alter Rebbe: In Torah Ohr (p. 32), the Alter Rebbe describes a familiar educational practice: when a young child is first introduced to school, gifts are given so that he will desire to go. He explains that every beginning is difficult, and therefore the inauguration of any process requires an added measure beyond the ordinary course. Once the child becomes accustomed and the routine is established, the external encouragement is no longer needed, and the child continues of his own accord. [In this framework, incentives are not presented as the goal of education, but as a temporary aid that helps a child cross the initial barrier of resistance. The gift does not replace the value of learning; rather, it supports the child until habit, familiarity, and inner satisfaction can take root. This perspective aligns with observations in child development. Young children often lack the capacity for abstract or long‑term motivation. Concrete reinforcement can reduce anxiety, ease transitions, and help establish routines. When such incentives are withdrawn gradually and intentionally, they may support rather than replace intrinsic motivation.]

The Rebbe Rayatz: At the same time, in a letter to Yeshivas Toras Emes, the Rebbe Rayatz^[80] expresses grave concern over the use of prizes—particularly in advanced educational settings—for academic success or examination performance. According to this view, when learning becomes linked to external reward, its purpose is subtly altered. Persistence and effort may come to be directed toward recognition rather than toward Torah itself. In the letter, the Rebbe Rayatz further questions whether excellence should be defined primarily by intellectual achievement—by mastery, sharpness, or examination results. While diligence in study and growth in knowledge are unquestionably important, this approach insists that they are not the ultimate measure of distinction. Rather, yirat shamayim, inner refinement, and sincere avodah are central. When public rewards emphasize academic success alone, the educational message conveyed may be that intellectual brilliance is valued more highly than inner spiritual development. [From this perspective, incentives do more than motivate individuals; they shape the value system of an institution. Excessive focus on external achievement is seen as encouraging outward brilliance at the expense of internal work, a tendency viewed as incompatible with the path of חסידות, which emphasizes inner avodah, humility, and intention. Even when encouragement is warranted, it is argued that it must be given in ways consistent with these deeper values and with sensitivity to their long‑term impact.]

The Rebbe’s Approach:^[81] The Rebbe addressed the subject of competitions and prizes directly and presented a clear and balanced approach. He stated that organizing contests and distributing prizes among students can be very positive. Drawing on the Torah principle that “the jealousy of scholars increases wisdom,” the Rebbe affirmed that healthy competition can serve as a motivating force in learning. He also pointed to the Rambam’s teaching that education must follow the individual path of the child, indicating that external encouragement may at times be an appropriate educational tool. At the same time, the Rebbe emphasized that careful attention must be given to the nature of the prizes themselves. He repeatedly made clear that rewards in educational settings should align with Torah values and convey the proper message. Torah books, or items clearly connected to Torah and holiness, were recommended as appropriate prizes. Even when other small incentives are used, they should remain consistent with the spirit of Chassidus and the goals of chinuch. The Rebbe strongly objected to offering prizes that reflect foreign or recreational values unrelated to Torah learning. His concern was not with motivation itself, but with what students are being trained to desire. Incentives, he taught, do more than encourage effort — they educate priorities. For this reason, prizes must reinforce spiritual and educational goals rather than distract from them.

Modern Educational Wisdom: Contemporary educational research mirrors aspects of both positions. Studies suggest that external rewards can be helpful at early or transitional stages, yet caution that frequent or ongoing incentives may weaken intrinsic motivation once foundational habits are formed. Overemphasis on performance metrics can also increase anxiety and narrow a learner’s focus. At the same time, carefully framed, limited incentives—used sparingly and accompanied by explicit emphasis on higher goals—do not necessarily undermine internal motivation. What emerges is a layered picture rather than a binary conclusion. Traditional sources and modern research alike recognize that beginnings often require additional support, yet warn of the dangers of allowing that support to become the defining motive. Incentives may serve as a bridge when used with restraint and clarity, but they become problematic when they replace purpose, distort values, or persist beyond their appropriate stage. In chinuch, methods are never neutral. Whether incentives are given or withheld, children learn not only behaviors, but hierarchies of importance. The enduring task of parents and educators is to ensure that techniques employed for encouragement advance the deeper aims of education, rather than quietly supplanting them.

Table: Prizes and Incentives in Chinuch — Expanded Perspectives

Potential Benefits (Pros)	Potential Difficulties (Cons)
Helps with difficult beginnings – Incentives can ease a child’s	May redirect intention – When learning or observance is tied to prizes, effort may become oriented toward reward rather than toward Torah, mitzvot, or inner growth.
Supports early developmental needs – Young children often require concrete reinforcement,	Weakens intrinsic motivation if prolonged – Continued or expected rewards can reduce inner drive once incentives are removed.
Encourages persistence during transitions	Creates transactional attitudes – Learning and religious behavior may be perceived as something done “in exchange” rather than for its own inherent value.
Can assist habit formation –	Overemphasis on external achievement – Rewarding exams or performance alone may imply that intellectual success is the primary value.
Allows individualized motivation – Different children respond differently; incentives can be tailored where needed	Overshadows inner avodah – Emphasis on prizes may minimize yirat shamayim, character, and פנימיות העבודה.
Can promote healthy competition –	Risk of external “flash” – Public prizes may magnify outer brilliance at the expense of humility and inward spiritual work.
May be appropriate when aligned with values –	Choice of prize matters – Rewards inconsistent with the spirit of Torah and חסידות can distort values, even if the intention was positive.

Free Translation of the Letters

Letter of the Rebbe Rayatz^[82]

In response to your letter dated the 24th of Iyar of the previous year, I must express my astonishment regarding the arrangement of examinations for the purpose of awarding prizes. On what basis was introduced into the yeshiva Torat Emet the custom of establishing prizes for those who excel? Is this truly the proper path of education for avreichim, that the goal of their diligence in learning should be to excel in an examination upon which receipt of a prize depends?

And even if one were to find merit in the very idea of awarding prizes to outstanding students, should the excellence of yeshiva students be expressed solely through their breadth of knowledge and sharp analytical ability? Certainly, great care must be taken that students apply themselves diligently to their studies, and with Divine assistance ascend ever higher in Torah knowledge. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, study is not the primary objective, but rather fear of Heaven is primary. One who excels in fear of Heaven is the one worthy of closeness.

Even then, that closeness must be expressed in the ways of the chassidim and chassidus. I am deeply distressed by the exceedingly repugnant conduct of amplifying detestable external brilliance while suppressing the inner devotional work that was chosen, established, and founded by our holy forefathers and rebbes, leaders of the Chabad community, from generation to generation.

I hope that each and every member of the administration and the rabbanim will read this letter with attention and serious thought, and I await their response.

 

Letter of the Rebbe^[83]

Competition and the distribution of prizes among students is extremely proper. Regarding the contests that were organized and the awarding of prizes, it is already well known the ruling of our Torah, the Torah of life, that “the jealousy of scholars increases wisdom.” One should also examine the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah at the beginning of Perek Chelek concerning the principle of educating a youth according to his path specifically. A similar idea is cited as halachic guidance in his work Hilchot Teshuvah, chapter 10.

(Igrot Kodesh, Vol. 18, p. 225)

 

As for the nature of the prizes, I have pointed out many times that in all such cases there should be a lottery of sacred books. It is self‑evident.

 

What compelled them to introduce this specifically [i.e. a soccer ball as a prize]—are there no other things available in the Holy Land? Did not even one of those who discussed this consider that for a Chabad campaign connected with the Alter Rebbe, it would be possible to give sweets or similar items, but certainly not a soccer ball.

 

11. Keeping ones Promises:^[84]

Hashkafa:  Rabbi Zeira stated that one should never tell a child that he will give him something and then fail to do so, because in doing so he teaches the child to lie. As Scripture^[85] states, “They have taught their tongue to speak falsehood.” [From this teaching we learn that a parent must be exceedingly careful never to make a promise to a child that he does not intend to keep. Beyond the intrinsic moral inconsistency involved in such behavior, it conveys to the child the dangerous message that lying and making false promises are acceptable. Proper chinuch therefore requires that parents serve as models of integrity, ensuring that their words are truthful and reliable, so that honesty becomes ingrained in the child’s character from an early age. In the Rebbe’s words:[86] “When one promises to give a child a reward if he learns, he must fulfill the promise. It is mentioned in sefarim that one should be careful not to make a promise to a little child and then not follow through. One should be especially careful with the very youngest ones, since with older children one can sometimes not fulfill one’s word when it is necessary to promote peace; however, little ones do not understand compromise. When a child is promised something and the promise is not kept, he loses all trust in his caregiver, for he sees dishonesty.”]

• Example: Reb Moshe tells his young son, Yankel, “If you finish learning your Chumash nicely this afternoon, I will take you later to the makolet to buy you a treat.” Yankel puts in the effort, completes his learning, and waits with excitement. Later in the evening, Reb Moshe becomes busy or tired and tells Yankel, “Not tonight—maybe another time,” or dismisses it altogether. Although Reb Moshe may see this as a small matter, to Yankel it sends a powerful lesson: that promises do not have to be kept and that saying something does not necessarily mean it is true. Over time, Yankel may learn that words are flexible and that commitments are optional—a lesson that can easily carry over into his own behavior with others.

Halacha – Michsurei Emuna – Retracting from a pledge to a child:^[87] An individual who backs out from a finalized^[88] agreement [whether the buyer or seller^[89]] is considered a dishonest person [i.e. Michisurei Emuna]^[90], and the Sages were not happy with such an individual [i.e. Ein Ruach Chachamim Noach Heymenu]^[91], as it is proper for a person to keep to his word.^[92] Thus, one who tells his friend that he will give him a small gift, [then although he retains the legal right to retract from his pledge if the recipient is wealthy, nevertheless,] if he does not end up giving it to him, then such a person is considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna].^[93] Some Poskim^[94] rule that the above concept of being considered untrustworthy if one retracts from his pledge applies even if one made a pledge to a child. Other Poskim^[95], however, rule that it does not apply towards a child recipient, and hence one may retract from his word and is not considered untrustworthy. Nonetheless, according to all, it is improper for one to promise a child an item and not fulfill it, as this educates the child to lie.^[96] [Likewise, it causes the child to lose trust in authority.^[97] Some learn that regarding a child, this applies even in those cases that one is not considered untrustworthy if he does not fulfill his word, such as by a large gift, or the child is Mochel, or the market value has rose.^[98]]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Rambam Pirush Hamishnayos Sanhedrin “And the eleventh principle is that the Holy One, blessed be He, grants reward to one who fulfills the commandments of the Torah and punishes one who transgresses its prohibitions; that the great reward is the World to Come, and the severe punishment is karet (spiritual excision). We have already stated in this matter what is sufficient. The verse that demonstrates this principle is what is said (Exodus 32): ‘And now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, erase me from Your book.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, replied to him: ‘Whoever has sinned against Me, him will I erase from My book.’ This is proof that He knows the transgressor and the sinner, to give reward to one and punishment to another.”; See also Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah Chapter 8; See also Likkutei Sichos Vol. 37 p. 79

[2] Development of resentment toward the parent: When discipline is experienced as excessively harsh, punitive, or emotionally distant, children may comply outwardly while harboring internal resentment. Over time, the parent may be perceived not as a source of guidance or safety, but as an authority to be feared or resisted, weakening the emotional bond necessary for effective chinuch.

Fear of the parent outweighs fear of wrongdoing: In rigid, authoritarian environments, children often become more focused on avoiding punishment than on understanding why a behavior is wrong. Moral decision‑making becomes externally driven by fear of the parent rather than internally guided by values, conscience, or responsibility, limiting the development of genuine ethical maturity.

[3] https://www.mdpi.com/2673-995X/4/1/18 ; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10826-025-03069-0 ;https://wvutoday.wvu.edu/files/d/382379c3-ed27-45b5-b9cc-eb09619f26cf/helicopter-parenting-study-1.pdf;https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10218547/;https://neurosciencenews.com/parental-overprotection-anxiety-22988/

[4] The fact that these ideas are written by Christians is irrelevant. In general, Chazal [Eicha Raba 2:13; See Toras Menachem 5:205; 14:120; Likkutei Sichos 2:551] teach us that Chochmah Bagoyiom Taamin, which means that one can also learn from the wisdom of secular people. Thus, there is nothing wrong with reading secular books on nonreligion related subjects for the sake of gaining technical wisdom and advice, assuming the book does not contain heresy or other forms of forbidden language and material. The love and logic series is a great Chinuch book despite being written by Christians.

[5] Sotah 47a “Rebbe Shimon the son of Elazar taught: Yetzer, Tinok, and Wife, one should be Semol Doche and Yemin Mikareves”;p Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:7

[6] Sotah 47a “Rebbe Shimon the son of Elazar taught: Yetzer, Tinok, and Wife, one should be Semol Doche and Yemin Mikareves”;p Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:7

[7] Likkutei Torah Parshas Tazria

[8] Sotah 47a; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:7

[9] See Sefer Hanhagas Hachinuch chapters 21-24 for a collection of many Maamrei Chazal on this subject!

[10] Proverbs 13:24

[11] Biur HaGra on Mishlei 13:24

[12] Biur HaGra on Mishlei 13:24

[13] Sotah 47a “Rebbe Shimon the son of Elazar taught: Yetzer, Tinok, and Wife, one should be Semol Doche and Yemin Mikareves”;p Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:7

[14] Admur Hilchos Nizkei Guf Vanefesh 4; Admur 156:9; Michaber Y.D. 240:20; O.C. 551:18; Rama Y.D. 233:1 regarding a child who makes vows; Rambam Rotzeiach 5:5; Makos 8b; Moed Katan 17a; Taz 240:1 Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:18; 165:1; 184:2

[15] Tanya Igros Hakodesh 1

[16] See Sefer Hanhagas Hachinuch chapters 21-24 for a collection of many Maamrei Chazal on this subject!

[17] Torah or p. 85a-86b

[18] Derech Mitzvosecha 198b; Letter printed in Meiah Shearim p. 36; Beis Rebbe p. 150; Igros Kodesh Admur Hazakein p. 189; Yahal Or p. 97; Igros Kodesh Tzemach Tzedek p. 362; Or Hatorah Nach 2:907; Likkutei Sichos 6:356

[19] Rebbe in Hearos on Derech Mitzvosecha p. 210b; See Beis Rebbe ibid where this similar statement was made by the Alter Rebbe to a Hasid who had his ship sunk

[20] Rebbe in Hearos on Derech Mitzvosecha p. 210b

[21] A story is told of Rav Yitzchak Shaul, a dear colleague of Reb Baruch, the father of the Alter Rebbe, that his father wept bitterly after smiting his child for cruel behavior. [Memoirs Vol. 1 p. 334 [English edition]]

[22] Admur Hilchos Nizkeiy Haguf Vihanefesh 1; Michaber C.M. 420:1; Rambam Chovel 5

The reason: As the verse [Devarim 25/2-3] states “Im Ben Hakos Harasha…Arbaim Yakenu Lo Yosif Pen Yoseif.” Now, if the Torah was particular against one hitting a Rasha more than he deserves then certainly it is particular regarding hitting a Tzaddik. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; See Smeh 420/1 for the various opinions in Rishonim for the exact wording of this verse which serves as the source of the Lav]

[23] Admur ibid; Rama ibid in name of Yeish Omrim; Maharam Merizburg brought in Mahariy Viyal

[24] Admur Hilchos Nizkei Guf Vanefesh 4; Admur 156:9; Michaber Y.D. 240:20; O.C. 551:18; Rama Y.D. 233:1 regarding a child who makes vows; Rambam Rotzeiach 5:5; Makos 8b; Moed Katan 17a; Taz 240:1 Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:18; 165:1; 184:2

[25] Admur Hilchos Nizkei Guf Vanefesh 4 in parentheses; Admur 156:9; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 184:2

[26] See here: http:::blogs.findlaw.com:blotter:2014:06:is-it-legal-to-hit-your-kids.html

[27] Sefer Hasichas 5704 p. 15

[28] See Shaareiy Chinuch pp. 76 and 244 regarding students, and the same arguments can be applied to children Shaarei Halacha u’Minhag, 3:192 “…regarding students — he is correct that this is not the proper approach to use corporal punishment as a method of education. For very often it turns out that its supposed benefit results instead in loss, and this is self‑understood. In practice, we clearly see that firmness when clothed in pleasant ways is more effective.”

Igrot Kodesh, Part 13, p. 4: The main point of my writing concerns students whom people treat with rebuke and similar measures, even to the point of physical striking. It is obvious that such conduct is entirely inappropriate with older students, and if I were not hesitant, I would say the same also applies to students who are not yet older.

Igrot Kodesh, Part 21, p. 195: In matters of punishment, one may stumble into serious issues, especially considering defamatory interpretations relating to prohibitions punishable by stoning—Heaven forbid—that might be used to justify striking. It is clear, however, that within the walls of the yeshiva such behavior is entirely unacceptable. Aside from the fact that rebuke through physical punishment is more negative than positive, it will certainly become public knowledge—both the punishment and, more importantly, its cause—among parents, and even more so among the students. This raises concern that even those who were previously unaware may become curious and interested. And it is known from the matter of the Tree of Knowledge that things drawn through awareness have an internal effect. Therefore one must seek alternative methods of discipline, such as temporary distancing from the school—either partial or complete—or, as cited in the talks of my revered father‑in‑law the Rebbe, not allowing them to be present during stories of righteous individuals and similar matters that they desire. Above all, increased supervision over the students is essential, and it is to be hoped that the situation will gradually diminish until it ceases entirely.

From a copy of the letter, Tzaddik Yesod Olam, p. 105: “I was shaken to read in your letter that someone advised you to place a small child and keep him in a dark room, etc., because in your view he is too active. And I was glad to see later in your letter that you did not accept this frightening advice.”

[29] Memoirs Vol. 1 p. 334 [English edition]

[30] Michaber Y.D. 240:20; Admur ibid “small children”; Moed Katan 17a

[31] Michaber ibid; Moed Katan ibid; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:18

[32] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:6; second opinion in Rama 240:20 as explained in Shach 240:21; opinion in beis Yosef 334

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule it is forbidden to hit a child from age 22. [Rama 240:20 says “22 or 24” and Shach 240:21 explains that this is a dispute in Poskim, some say 22 and some say 24; Rashal Kiddushin 68, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:16; Opinion in Kiddushin 30a and so rules Rashi ibid] Some Poskim rule the prohibition applies at age 22 although excommunication is only given from age 24. [Rashal ibid]

[33] Admur ibid based on merge of the two opinions in Kiddushin ibid; See Igros Kodesh 2:168

[34] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:6; Rashi Kiddushin ibid

[35] Rashal Kiddushin 68, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:16

[36] See Rashal ibid

[37] Ritva Moed Katan, brought in Birkeiy Yosef 240; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:18; This does not contradict the Rama:Admur ibid as they mentioned the average age regarding this matter, although in truth the determining factor is whetehr the child will become obedient or retaliate back. [Ritva ibid]

[38] Admur Hilchos Nizkei Guf Vanefesh 4 in parentheses; Rambam Rotzeiach 5:5; Makos 8b

[39] The reason: As this kind of hitting is intended for their own benefit, and the parent is responsible in benefiting the children that are within his authority. [Admur ibid in parentheses]

[40] Admur Hilchos Nizkei Guf Vanefesh 4 in parentheses; Taz 240:1 based on Yerushalmi and Ramban that Beis Din may choose to hit children so they perform the Mitzvah of Kibbud Av.

The reason: As it is permitted for a parent to force his children to listen to him, as is commanded of them [in the Torah “Honor your father and mother”]. [Admur ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule it is forbidden to hit a child so he perform the Mitzvah of Kibud Av. [Smeh C.M. 107:2, based on Rama 240:1, brought in Taz ibid; Opinion of Rosh who argues on Ramban ibid]

[41] Admur Hilchos Nizkei Guf Vanefesh 4 in parentheses; Braisa Bava Kama 87b

[42] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13 regarding Melameid who hits without Reshus

[43] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:1; See Sefer Hasichas 5704 p. 15 that a Chassid never hits and rather uses other measures

[44] See https:::www.loveandlogic.com: for a wonderful disciplinary philosophy which is both harmless, and effective, and almost completely avoids the need to ever hit a child out of discipline.

[45] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:1

[46] See Taz 551:18; M”B 551:103

[47] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:7

[48] This is due to a story which occurred that a child which was threatened to be hit went and committed suicide out of fear. [Kitzur SHU”A ibid]

[49] Michaber 551:18

[50] Levush 551; Kaf Hachayim 551:230

[51] Taz 551:18; M”B 551:103

[52] Piskeiy Teshuvos 551:57

[53] Ashel Avraham of Butshetch 551

[54] Peri Megadim 551 M”Z 18

[55] Ashel Avraham of Butshetch 551

[56] Ashel Avraham of Butshetch 551

[57] Peri Megadim 551 M”Z 18; Levush 551; Siddur Yaavetz

[58] Tosefes Chaim Chayei Adam 133:17

[59] See here: http:::www.washingtonpost.com:wp-dyn:articles:A52909-2004Aug9.html; and here https:::en.wikipedia.org:wiki:Hotsaucing

[60] See here: http:::www.washingtonpost.com:wp-dyn:articles:A52899-2004Aug9.html

[61] See Admur 328:15 “If a child has gotten locked in a room one may break down the door and take him out, because there is chance that the baby will get frightened and die.”

[62] From a copy of the letter, Tzaddik Yesod Olam, p. 105: “I was shaken to read in your letter that someone advised you to place a small child and keep him in a dark room, etc., because in your view he is too active. And I was glad to see later in your letter that you did not accept this frightening advice.”

[63] Admur Shemiras Haguf Venefesh 12; Shelah Shaar Haosyos Derech Eretz 67b; Olas Tamid 340:8; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:7; Kaf Hachaim 340:93

[64] The reason: As there are demons that share names with these impure animals and they can cause damage to the child in his body or soul, as a covenant is made with the tongue. [Admur ibid; Shelah ibid]

[65] See Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:76; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:6

[66] Admur Hilchos Onah 27; Michaber C.M. 228:1; Bava Metzia 58b

The reason: As the verse [Vayikra 25:17] states “Velo Sonu Ish Es Amiso Vayareisa Meielokecha”, this verse refers to oppressive words. [Admur ibid; See Smeh 228:1; Bava Metzai ibid]

[67] Sefer Hamitzvos of Rambam Mitzvah L.S. 251; Chinuch Mitzvah 338; Semag Lavin 171

[68] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 58b

The reason: As when one cheats another he can pay him back and hence undo the damage done however oppressive words can never be equalized or be undone. Likewise, [one cannot compare] an oppression to one’s money to an oppression to one’s body. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rebbe Yochanon ibid]

[69] Chinuch Mitzvah 338

[70] Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:76

[71] Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:76

[72]

[73] Michaber 17:5; Sanhedrin 7b; Shavuos 31a

[74] Biblical or Rabbinical: Some Poskim rule it is a Biblical prohibition for the judge to hear one side without the other being present. [Kneses Hagedola 17:13, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 17:8] See Pischeiy Teshuvah ibid

[75] The reason: As the verse states “Lo Sisa Sheima Shav” and can be read as “Lo Sasi.” [Smeh 17:12; Sanhedrin ibid]

[76] Zohar Vayeishev p. 149, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah ibid; Aruch Hashuclhan 17:7

[77] Smeh 17:10; Beir Hagoleh ibid; Rav Kahana in Sanhedrin ibid; Aruch Hashulchan 17:7

[78] Admur 606:1

[79] See Sefer Yad Kohen p. 72

[80] Igros Kodesh Rayatz Vol. 19 p. 204

[81] Shaareiy Chinuch p. 238

[82] Igros Kodesh Rayatz Vol. 19 p. 204

[83] Shaareiy Chinuch p. 238

[84] Sukkah 46b; Pela Hayoeitz “Sheker”; Kaf Hachaim 343:25

[85] Yeremiah 9:4

[86] Sichos Kodesh 5736, vol. 2, p. 278

[87] See Minchas Pitim 204:8; Mishpitei Chaim 6;  Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 297 footnotes 139-141; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:8 Shaar Hatziyon 33-35

[88] See Tzemach Tzedek Y.D. 345:15, brought in Encyclopedia Talmudit p. 293 footnotes 108-110, that so long as they are still talking about the agreement, then it is not considered final, and either party may retract from previous statements without regulation; See also Encyclopedia Talmudit p. 298-299

The type of agreement: One is considered Michisurei Emuna whether he backs out from a fully closed agreement between the buyer and seller to the point that they even agreed on a price and closed the sale with witnesses, or if the buyer simply agreed to buy it from the seller and the seller simply agreed to sell it to the buyer, in either case, one who backtracks from the deal is considered untrustworthy. [Implication of Admur ibid regarding Machshava; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Hachozer”]

If the buyer said he is leaving to get money, may the seller sell to another client: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Hachozer” in length

[89] Rama 204:11; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:3 Shaar Hatziyon 20

[90] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michisurei Emuna” Vol. 44 p. 281

The reason: As the verse [Tzefanya 3:13] states “Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yaasu Avla Velo Yidabru Chazav.” [Admur C.M. Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1; Rashi Bava Metzia ibid; Mordecai Bava Metzia 4 Remez 312 in name of Maharam of Rotehnberg; Darkei Moshe 243:20; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 74-76]; Alternatively, this is learned from the verse [Kedoshim 19:36] which states, “Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach,” which is interpreted to mean that one’s “yes” and “no” should be justified. [Admur O.C. 156:2; Braisa in Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Smeh 204:12; Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah; Minchas Chinuch 259; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 67-73] This means that when a person speaks and says yes or no to something, then one must try to fulfill his word and justify them. [Admur O.C. 156:2; Rashi ibid] Regarding the apparent contradiction in Admur O.C. ibid versus Admur C.M. ibid as to the source in Scripture for this requirement, see: Imrei Yaakov Biurim “Eiyn”; Yagdil Torah 68:36; Pischeiy Choshen Halva 1:38

Other opinion of Admur: Elsewhere, Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2 interprets this verse of Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach to refer to the concept that there is a Biblical prohibition against one making a promise without intent to follow through at the time the one is making it. In his words: To speak one way in one’s mouth and one way in one’s heart is Biblically forbidden as the verse [Vayikra 19:36] which discusses the obligation for one to have honest and justified weights in commerce states, “Eifas Tzedek Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh.” Now, why does the verse repeat the term weights using the word “Hin,” as was this term not already included in the word “Eifas?” Why the redundancy? Rather, it is coming to teach us that one’s yes and no should be justified. [Admur ibid; Rambam Deios 2:6; Abayey in Bava Metzia 49a in his interpretation of Braisa ibid; Rebbe Yaakov Ben Zavdi in Yerushalmi Shevi’is 10:4; Rosh Bava Metiza 4:12; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a and Hamaor Hagadol in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon [However, see Minchas Pitim 204:11 that this applies only according to Rav]; Yerushalmi end of Shevi’is; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 62-66]

Biblical, Rabbinical, or Midas Chasisdus: Biblical: Some Poskim rule that the above obligation is Biblical as it is based on an explicit verse in Scripture. [Possible understanding of Admur 156:2 who brings Pasuk of Hin Tzedek as source; Braisa Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Shelah ibid; Minchas Chinuch 259; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Smeh ibid, Rashi Kesubos 86a, Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah] Rabbinical: Other Poskim, however, rule that it is merely Rabbinical. [Implication of Admur Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1 who brings Pasuk of Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yasu; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a “Eino Over Al Esei Deoraiysa”; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Rif, Rosh, Ramban in Milchamos, Admur ibid, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; See Hamaor Hagdol on Rif ibid; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:9 Shaar Hatziyon 36 and Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”] Whatever the case, there is a prohibition to change one’s word. [See Rama “Assur Lachzor”; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a “Sheiyn Mutar Lachzor”; Mordechai Gittin 3:363; Implication of Admur 156:2 from Sanhedrin 92a that whoever does not keep to his word and swerves from his promises is considered as if he has served idolatry; See Beis Yosef end of 204; Rashbam Bava Basra 133b; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnote 54 and 79-80, and Vol. 1 footnote 17; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:4 Shaar Hatziyon 21-25] Midas Chassidus: However, from other sources it is evident that this is a mere act of properness or of piety and not an obligation at all. [Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber C.M. 204:7 who use the term “Rauiy”; Shita Mekubetzes Bava Metzia 49a in name of Raavad that he is not called a Rasha; See Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13 “The business transactions of a Torah scholar are done with truth and honesty. He answers honestly to yes and no questions. He obligates himself to a business agreement in areas that the Torah did not obligate him, in order so he can keep his word and not change from it.” However, see Kesef Mishneh ibid for a second version in which it states that he does not obligate himself, which simply means that he does not give his word to agreements in order to prevent a situation that he must go back on it.] See Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnotes 131-136; See Mishpitei Chaim 6; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”

Other opinions in Talmud: Some are of the opinion that one always retain the right to retract from a promise of giving a gift or business agreement, whether the agreement and gift to small or large, and doing so does not consider one as not trustworthy, as so is the way of business for people to change their mind due to a variety of factors. [Rav Bava Metzai 49a, brought in Admur ibid Kuntrus Achron 1]

[91] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rama ibid; Rambam Mechira 7:8; Bava Metzia 48a; Mishneh Shevi’is 10 [See Mefarshim on Mishneh on Rash]; See Tzemach Tzedek C.M. 82:1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 286-287 and Erech “Ein Ruach Chachamim” Vol. 1 p. 716-717

The meaning of this statement: This means that the sages of Israel do not receive satisfaction from the actions of this individual and they are not pleased with him. [Smeh C.M. 204:13; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:5 Shaareiy Tziyon 26]

The scriptural source for this statement: The above statement of that the sages are not happy with one who changes his mind is based on the previous statement of the Talmud, which is based on the verse of Hin Tzedek. [Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10]

[92] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rama ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Poskim brought in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 44

The law if one sold it and received money from someone else after the agreement: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:1 Mekoros 3; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid regarding Mi Shepara versus Michsurei Emuna

[93] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Michaber 204:8; Rama 204:11; Tur 204:8; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 7:9; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a as explained by Rav Papa; Rif 80a rules like Rebbe Yochanon; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 45

The reason: As the recipient had truly believe the promise and had assumed that he would receive it. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Rav Papa in Bava Metzia ibid in explanation of opinion of Rebbe Yochanon and Rashi ibid]

[94] Minchas Pitim 204:8 in name of Kehilas Yaakov Erech Zechiya; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 140

[95] Minchas Pitim ibid according to all Poskim who rule that one needs Daas Hamikabel; Salmas Chaim 2:79; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 141

[96] Rebbe Zeira in Sukkah 46b; Yirmiyah 9:4; See Ranbam Shavuos 12:8; Taz C.M. 249; Mishpitei Chaim 6; Sichos Kodesh 5736, vol. 2, p. 278

[97] See Sichos Kodesh 5736, vol. 2, p. 278 “When one promises to give a child a reward if he learns, he must fulfill the promise. It is mentioned in sefarim that one should be careful not to make a promise to a little child and then not follow through. One should be especially careful with the very youngest ones, since with older children one can sometimes not fulfill one’s word when it is necessary to promote peace;1 however, little ones do not understand compromise. When a child is promised something and the promise is not kept, he loses all trust in his caregiver, for he sees dishonesty.”

[98] See Mishpitei Chaim 6; See Hisorerus Teshuvah 1:16; Salmas Chaim 2:79; See Sichos Kodesh 5736, vol. 2, p. 278