Often it’s not our words per se, but the inner character of our own desires that changes the character of those words – especially when it comes to conciliatory conversations with our own children. What are we really thinking about them? And can they read our minds?
This column is a somewhat delayed response to the enlightening remarks of a first-rate educator Rabbi Shneur Aisenstark and to the reflections of my friend Rabbi Yonason Rosenblum on those remarks. Both touched upon one of the most sensitive issues facing our society today: youth at risk. And while both clearly recognize the illness each prescribes a different treatment.
Rabbi Aisenstark argues that unconditional love has its limits; a parent’s love for HaKadosh Baruch Hu must take precedence over his love for a wayward child. That means that when conflicts arise between the two loves it is obvious who must come first. Rabbi Rosenblum on the other hand argues against any form of estrangement or banishment of such children citing the advice of Rabbi Uri Zohar who in his new book counsels parents to be extremely patient.
Yet neither Rabbi Aisenstark nor Rabbi Rosenblum has offered a cure for this rampant illness. Treating local symptoms yes — but no more than that; for as much as one can formulate general rules for an approach towards a rebellious son or daughter one can never assume that one case is like another and that there is ever a similar particular parent-child dynamic.
A prominent non-Jewish educator who as a teenager was sent to a boarding school wrote about how he followed in his mentor’s footsteps eventually entering the field of education and becoming principal of a boarding school himself. One day some students revolted and remembering how his own mentor – his principal – handled the situation he implemented the same measures to suppress the rebellion and restore calm. But the result was a miserable failure. In fact his response only aggravated the situation.
Create a free account to keep reading.
