LF:
I am sure that you have reviewed the references I mentioned above. Rav Wolbe clearly translates ???? as guidance, not punishment. He is not the first to do so, and far from the only one. In fact, I have yet to see who translates it as discipline. That ???? is certainly ??????, and is first choice. The discussion of ???? refers to when it was done and inflicted damage, whether there is responsibility.
I am not preaching the Dr. Spock permissiveness or similar garbage. One must teach children boundaries and limits. Values are a main goal in chinuch, not the downloading of data, as is reflected in today’s yeshiva academics. Nothing here is a ?????. It would be foolish to reward a child for everything, and even dumber for misbehavior. In fact, my position is that learning by “consequence”, whether reward or punishment, is primitive, and only manipulates behavior. That is far from the main goal in chinuch. The main goal is more connected with transmitting Torah from the chain that began with ??? ??? ???? ????? and continues with this rebbi-talmid relationship. If this talmid is rejected, he will disconnect from that chain. “Oops, missed another one!” Every moment in yeshiva is an education moment, including those related to behavior. Don’t modify behavior, teach it.
Putting the kid in charge is foolish. We agree. But bullying a kid into submission cannot be considered chinuch. One does not need to push for power to have the authority. The respect can be earned by being the loving teacher. Behavior is seldom a problem with a rebbi who has sucha relationship with his talmidim. Think back to your own yeshiva experience. That is universally true.
Lastly, the child who exhibits is no better than the rebbi who does so. And, yes, a rebbi can be a ????? as well. The latter is not just degrading to the ????? himself, but it becomes a negative model for the children who see it, and the evil perpetuates ?”?. No part of me justifies the child who answers back to a rebbi. I would not reward it, nor put the kid in charge. Insinuating that is unfair and dishonest. I am simply noting that master mechanchim have spoken and written plenty, and none of them are obsessed with the need to punish (attributing such an approach to ???? ????). There are effective ways to intervene, and these involve some combination of the rebbi accepting responsibility for his own actions, and making clear gestures to embrace the child and have a loving relationship. The Chazon Ish ZT”L (niftar 1953) stated that the guidance of Chazal who stated that one should follow the derech of ???? ???? ????? ????? is not effective in today’s chinuch (the 1950’s), but that we now need to be ???? ????? as well. He understood quite well the children of his generation. Many of those are already great grandparents today. Times have not gotten better.
One additional point. We assume that the discipline provided in yeshivos is fulfillment if the mitzvah of ???? ????? ?? ?????. That is a myth. The ???? ????? is extremely clear (Perek 20) that this mitzvah is contingent on the positive outcome. If the transgressor will not shape up, and might even reject, there is no mitzvah of tochacha, and the mitzvah is to remain silent. Not every behavior needs to be doled a consequence. What ultimately works for the child is the criteria for intervention, not what makes the rebbi’s life easier. Now, let’s just recall the Midrash where HKB”H asked Bnai Yisroel before ??? ???? for guarantors. The ???? and the ?????? were offered and rejected. When they suggested ????? ????? ?????, Hashem accepted the offer with expressions of enthusiasm. Learning/teaching is a task that has its value determined by the effectiveness for the children, not the rebbi. Our Gedolei Yisroel of the generations recognized that. They addressed it specifically. Check out their writings, instead of debating me. They spoke quite eloquently, and they bring more body to the message than I ever can.