Mishlei 19:18 - Childish Parenting (and a Teaching Tip)

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Childish Parenting (and a Teaching Tip)

משלי יט:יח

יַסֵּר בִּנְךָ כִּי יֵשׁ תִּקְוָה, וְאֶל הֲמִיתוֹ אַל תִּשָּׂא נַפְשֶׁךָ:

Mishlei 19:18

Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not let yourself be swayed by his protest. 

This pasuk and its questions are fairly straightforward:

(1) Why does the reader of this pasuk need to be told "for there is hope"? Why would he or she think that there is no hope?  

(2) Similarly, why does this parent need to be told "do not let yourself be swayed by his protest"? Why would he or she be swayed by the child's protest? 

(3) What is the unifying idea of this pasuk? It is clear that the subject of our pasuk has something to do with the reasons why parents are reluctant to discipline their children. But are these to be understood as two "random" reasons why a parent might refrain from disciplining his or her child, or is there a more specific subject which dictates Shlomo ha'Melech's selection of specifically these two reasons? 

[Thinking time! There's a unique challenge presented by pesukim which seem obvious. It takes a certain amount of intellectual dexterity to see past the simplistic, surface-level message of the pasuk to uncover the deeper idea.]

Here's my four-sentence summary of the main idea:

There are only two reasons why parents who desire to discipline their children refrain from doing so: (1) the feeling that the child is already set in his or her ways, and there is no hope that he or she will change; (2) the negative feelings triggered by the prospect of causing pain and suffering to the child - especially when the protests and cries. Both deterrents stem from an extremely short-sighted – and therefore, childish – perspective. In truth, a young child is not set in his or her ways, and there is still hope that he or she can change, although things might seem hopeless at the present; the child’s behavior and personality can still be influenced in the long-run by the parent’s discipline or lack thereof, for better or for worse. The parent’s decision to discipline or not discipline the child should be based on the long-term benefits and consequences – not on the emotional state or reactions of the child at the present, since children are, by nature, immature, shortsighted, and resistant to any form of discipline which involves immediate pain and conflict; to cater to the child’s short-term perspective will only hinder his or her development and emotional maturation.

I am convinced of the truth of this interpretation, with the exception of one word: "only." If I omitted that word from my summary (i.e. "Two of the reasons why parents refrain from disciplining their children are etc."), I don't see how anyone could object to the idea. That being said, why did I choose to jeopardize my explanation by qualifying it with the word "only"?

I have two responses to this question. The first is that I was compelled to add the qualifier of "only" by Question #3. To my mind, if there were many reasons why a well-meaning parent would refrain from disciplining his or her child, then why would Shlomo ha'Melech focus only on these two? I find it intuitively dissatisfying to say, "He just chose these two as examples out of many candidates" or even "He thinks these are the two major reasons, but he would agree that there are others" To my mind, this type of explanation would dilute the chidush (novelty) quality of the main idea.

The second reason why I prefer the riskier "only" interpretation over the "safer," more open-ended explanation has more to do with my approach as a teacher of Mishlei than as a student of Mishlei. Consider how these two possible explanations of this pasuk would play out in a Mishlei class. If I taught my students that Shlomo ha'Melech was giving us two out of many rationalizations that parents use to justify their decision to not discipline their children, then it would be very easy for my students to nod their heads, accept this interpretation, and move on.

By qualifying my explanation with the word "only," this transforms my interpretation of the pasuk into a challenge. Now my students will be driven to debate the merits of the universal theory that I am claiming Shlomo ha'Melech held - something they couldn't do if we assumed that Shlomo ha'Melech was just giving us an idea about particulars. Now a student might object to my explanation, saying, "Wait a minute. What if a mother refrains from disciplining her son because her mother objects to this discipline! That doesn't fit into either of your two categories!" Another student might defend this by saying, "Maybe the 'do not let yourself be swayed by his protest' is actually a broader category, which includes anyone's protest - not just the child's." A third student might ask: "But what about a case in which a father is afraid to discipline his daughter because he has a meek, non-confrontational personality in general? That doesn't fit into either of your two categories either!" to which a fourth student might point out: "In that case, the obstacle is not the parent's belief that the child can't change, but rather, it is the parent's belief that his own personality can't be changed. Both stem from a stubborn view of the immutability of human nature."

As you can see, this type of discussion would lead to a deeper analysis of the subject than we would have reached through the more conservative explanation. Is it possible that my interpretation is wrong? Yes. And am I increasing my chances of being disproven by my students? Certainly. But will the students learn more if I give my more tentative explanation? OH YEAH!

I picked up this teaching tip from my Gemara rebbi. He once told us that he would prefer to give an inferior sevara (conceptual theory) in shiur (class) if that sevara would yield a greater benefit to his students in terms of methodology - even if he would have to retract that sevara later on. The same is true in my Mishlei class: sometimes I will take an approach that is more speculative and less certain if I know that it will lead to more depth, more discussion, more methodology, or more benefit of any kind. And sometimes I won't take such an approach due to the downsides of teaching a less-than-perfect idea to my students. Each situation is different.

Anyway, I thought this pasuk would be a good opportunity to share this methodology point.