Baruch Hashem I have never been on a Vaad Hachinuch, where I would have to make this kind of decision. But all of us have families, and sometimes this happens at home.
The issue: you have an environment (a school or a family) in which there is a child that is righteous by conscious choice and proclivity. In that environment, you have a troublemaker, who is, again by conscious choice and proclivity, a rebel and sinner. If you keep both, chances are that the good child will be negatively influenced to some extent. It is extremely hard to avoid the influence of one's environment. The hypothetical bad child will probably also be influenced to the good, and be less bad, or more good. But righteous is unlikely to the extreme. What do you do? Do you sacrifice the rasha, who will probably go letarbus raah, in order to protect the tzadik? Or do you sacrifice the perfection of the tzadik so you can have two nice baalei battim?
Don't tell me that kids don't influence each other. You don't need the Rambam to tell you that every human being is influenced by his environment. From personal experience, there were six boys in my class in Day School, three of whom were spiritually mephitic, and three of which were tzadikim, and I am sure that each group changed the lives of other, more average, boys in the class.
One can bring innumerable and contradictory proofs from Tanach and Chazal. We would immediately say that this week's parsha, where Sara insisted that Yismael be sent away proves that you protect the tzadik. Was Hashem's instruction to listen to her a lesson for all time, or was it specific to the need to create Klal Yisrael bikedusha ve'tahara? Also, nobody sent away Eisav, who seems to have been equally dangerous, and as far as we know, never did teshuva. And even if you do send away the bad child, you are still obligated to see to it that he is in a good environment, as Avraham maintained a relationship with Yishmael. You might define the bad child as a mazik and discuss this from the perspective of nezikin or shcheinim, and say that even Reb Yossi that על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו, does not say his din by גירי דיליה . This is obviously a question that requires consultation with a great talmid chacham that has siyata dishmaya and deals with a rabbim.
But it's interesting to see the question addressed in the sefarim. The following is attributed to Reb Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, both in the Tallelei Oros and in a sefer written by his great grandson, Ish Al HaChomah.
Tallelei Oros Vol 1 P 95.
The issue: you have an environment (a school or a family) in which there is a child that is righteous by conscious choice and proclivity. In that environment, you have a troublemaker, who is, again by conscious choice and proclivity, a rebel and sinner. If you keep both, chances are that the good child will be negatively influenced to some extent. It is extremely hard to avoid the influence of one's environment. The hypothetical bad child will probably also be influenced to the good, and be less bad, or more good. But righteous is unlikely to the extreme. What do you do? Do you sacrifice the rasha, who will probably go letarbus raah, in order to protect the tzadik? Or do you sacrifice the perfection of the tzadik so you can have two nice baalei battim?
Don't tell me that kids don't influence each other. You don't need the Rambam to tell you that every human being is influenced by his environment. From personal experience, there were six boys in my class in Day School, three of whom were spiritually mephitic, and three of which were tzadikim, and I am sure that each group changed the lives of other, more average, boys in the class.
One can bring innumerable and contradictory proofs from Tanach and Chazal. We would immediately say that this week's parsha, where Sara insisted that Yismael be sent away proves that you protect the tzadik. Was Hashem's instruction to listen to her a lesson for all time, or was it specific to the need to create Klal Yisrael bikedusha ve'tahara? Also, nobody sent away Eisav, who seems to have been equally dangerous, and as far as we know, never did teshuva. And even if you do send away the bad child, you are still obligated to see to it that he is in a good environment, as Avraham maintained a relationship with Yishmael. You might define the bad child as a mazik and discuss this from the perspective of nezikin or shcheinim, and say that even Reb Yossi that על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו, does not say his din by גירי דיליה . This is obviously a question that requires consultation with a great talmid chacham that has siyata dishmaya and deals with a rabbim.
But it's interesting to see the question addressed in the sefarim. The following is attributed to Reb Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, both in the Tallelei Oros and in a sefer written by his great grandson, Ish Al HaChomah.
Tallelei Oros Vol 1 P 95.
כא יב ויאמר א' אל אברהם אל ירע בעיניך על הנער ועל אמתך כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקלה כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע
וכי לא ראה אברהם אבינו את אשר לפניו או ח"ו לא חשש לטהרתו ולתומתו של יצחק בנו כמו שרה
אמנם אברהם אבינו חשש מלשלוח את ישמעאל מביתו שכן עי"ז עלול הוא להדרדר לעברי פי פחת ולרדת לשאול תחתיה לכן חפץ אברהם להתנהג בדרך הקירוב על אף שאפשר והדבר יהיה במקצת על חשבונו של יצחק שכן בדרך זו יוכל להשפיע על ישמעאל ותהיה לו מקצת קירבה אל הטוב והישר
אולם שרה אמנו לא כך היתה דעתה היא סברה כי אף בכדי להציל את נפשו של ישמעאל אעפ"כ אין הדבר כדאי אם הדבר יפגום ולו אף במקצת בנפשו של יצחק
אם עומד החינוך הטהור והמקודש של יצחק בסכנה כלשהי מפני חינוכו של ישמעאל הרי שיש לוותר על ישמעאל עם הכאב הכרוך באובדנה של נפש אשר יתכן והיתה טובה יותר במחיצתו של אברהם אבינו
בויכוח זה שתי שיטות חינוך חובקות עולם הכריע הקב"ה כדעתה של שרה ואמר לאברהם כי אל לו להצטער על שילוח הנער והאמה כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע אם אתה רוצה אמנם שיהיה שמך נקרא על יצחק שיוכר במעשיו שהוא זרעך בנם של קדושים הרי שאין לך ברירה כי אם לשמוע בקולה של שרה
רבי יוסף חיים זוננפלד
Ish al Hachomah, written by a great grandson, Shlomo Zalman Zonnenfeld, p. 394
והנה יש להוסיף ולהבין על מה היה נטוש הויכוח בין אברהם לשרה כלום לא חש אברהם ולא ראה את מעלליו של ישמעאל ומשחקיו המסוכנים האם לא חש בסכנה שיצחק יימצא בחברתו של ישמעאל וילמד ממעשיו הרעים ומה היה צורך כאן בהתערבות ה' שיכריע בין אברהם לשרה כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה הלא מזה משמע שאמנם היתה חרדתה של שרה מוצדקת ואיך לא הרגיש בכך גם אברהם
אלא אמנם כן אין כל ספק שאברהם הבין היטב כי חברתו של ישמעאל מסוכנת ליצחק אבל טען אברהם אם אגרש את בן האמה וארחיקו מביתי הרי יצא לגמרי לתרבות רעה כי עי"ז שהוא נמצא בביתי ובחברתו של יצחק הריהו מרוסן במעט ואינו מתפקר לגמרי לא כן אם אגרשהו והוא ירד למצרים יפול לגמרי לבאר שחת והלא גם ישמעאל בני הוא ואילו שרה טענה לעומתו יותר ממה שישמעאל יושפע ממדותיו של יצחק עלול ישמעאל להוריד את יצחק מהדרך הישרה בתעלולי הצחוק שלו כי ילפינן מקלקלתא עד שבא הקב"ה והכריע ביניהם
ויאמר אלקים אל אברהם אל ירע בעיניך על הנער ועל אמתך כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע
אם ברצונך שביצחק יקרא לך זרע כלומר שיצחק יקרא זרע ש ל ך ועל שמך וימשיך את דרכך אז אין לך ברירה אחרת אלא להפריד ביניהם ולהרחיק את הרע מעל הטוב ואל ירע בעיניך על הנער ועל אמתך על מה שהוא עלול לצאת לתרבות רעה כי בכך אתה מציל לפחות את יצחק ואת דורותיו אחריו אבל אם תהסס ותרצה לקרב את ישמעאל ולהציל כביכול מה שניתן להציל אז אתה עלול לאבד את שניהם גם את ישמעאל וגם את יצחק
והכרעה זו מפי הגבורה לא לשעה בלבד היתה אלא גם לדורות הבאים אם רצונכם שיצחק םאר בנו של אברהם הפרידוהו מישמעאל וגרושו את בני האמה העורכים משחקים שסופם הסרה מדרך האמונה
I think that I know some truths about how this issue should be approached, and they're not truisms or cliches.
1. If the tzadik is your child, then the right answer is to demand that the rasha be thrown out. That was the case by Sara.
2. If the rasha is your child, then the right answer is to demand that he be allowed to stay in the hope that he will improve by exposure to the good child.
3. If they are both yours, or equally yours, then you have a problem. That was the case by Avraham with Yitzchak and Yishmael, and the case by Yitzchak with Yaakov and Eisav. Where Sara demanded that Yishmael be thrown out, and Avraham was mesupak, they needed the Ribono shel Olam's hachra'a to do as Sara said. But in the case of Yaakov and Eisav, they were both mesupak, so sheiv al taaseh.
4. However, I still believe that the good child is entitled to protection from harm, and that right outweighs the hope that the bad child will benefit from their association.
5. It is vitally important to apply my rule of "Makom kavu'ah." My rule of Makom Kavuah is that when a guest takes your seat in shul, and you walk in, you are 100% entitled to tell him that it is your seat and to ask him to sit elsewhere, no differently than if someone parks in your driveway. HOWEVER, you are then obligated to find him a place to sit where he will not be disturbed. (Doesn't apply to driveways.) Similarly, when a decision is made to throw the bad influence out, it does not absolve the parent/school from all obligations. On the contrary. Their achrayus is greater. That means that they have to create and maintain a new kind of relationship with the boy that was sent away, just as Avraham Avinu vigilantly kept track of Yishmael and visited him and ultimately brought him home, as we see from the story of the akeida and the Medrashim that Ketura was Haggar.
Rav Yaaqov Kamencki z"l pasqened that this was the only permissible reason for a school to expel a student or ask them not to return the next year. A child can be whatever tirkha they are to the teacher. That's the teacher's job and chiyuv to deal with. You can only send away one who drags other students down, and only because the hischayvus to other students is greater in quantity.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what he would say in your opening situation, where you phrased it as 1 talmid vs only 1 other talmid. (Don't think that would really come up to often anyway.)
But since R' Yaaqov's petirah, going OTD became far more common. Throwing a kid out of school is a serious risk of losing them to yiddishkeit altogether.
It’s definitely not the standard explanation, but Rav Avigdor Miller explains that Yishmael’s expulsion was intended for his good. Sarah realized that since lo yirash ben ha’amah hazos im beni, their juxtaposition would only serve to make Yishmael increasingly bitter and angry. She therefore had Avraham send him away, but not to the decadent and idolatrous circulations that existed then, but specifically to the midbar, where he would be under the influence only of her prized disciple, Hagar. This resulted in Yishmael’s ultimately doing teshuvah, as Chazal teach us.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting, and very different than the pashut pshat in the passuk, where it seems that Sara was utterly indifferent to what would happen to Hagar and Yishmael, as was the case the first time she sent Hagar away. I wonder why their living together would frustrate Yishmeal. Would Avraham have shown favoritism to Yitzchak? Something to think about.
DeleteSuch a difficult subject! I would like to point out a few things that I think bear mentioning:
ReplyDelete1) In some situations (and you can find many such well-documented cases today, sadly), kicking out an OTD child can lead to completely destroying (not just spiritually but also mentally, emotionally, and even physically) that child, which can also break apart the family and ruin the other children (yes, also including the tzaddik whom the parents were trying to protect) as well as friends, family and wider community too, some of whom may spend a lifetime trying to recover from the trauma that they experienced/observed happening to this child as a result of being kicked out. I'm not saying that therefore a child should never be kicked out, only that there must be a recognition that the decision is not just about his benefit versus that of the sibling "tzaddik" - whatever happens to the OTD child has very serious consequences for the entire family/community.
2) This brings me to the next point. The story with Yishmael took place before Mattan Torah. The concept of arvus (the way it applies after Mattan Torah) was not applicable at that time. Therefore, the very idea of weighing up the consideration of the "OTD" child versus that of the "tzaddik" child has to be seen in a very different light in the post-Mattan Torah period.
3) Yishmael wasn't a run of the mill teenager going OTD. He was engaged in avodah zarah, gilui arayos, and shfichus damim. Sara wasn't just afraid that he would negatively affect Yitzchok, she was afraid that he would murder him!
4) Which also brings us to the next point, which seems to be quite conclusive. Clearly, Avraham was hoping that Yishmael would turn around for the better, and that's why he preferred to keep him at home. Yet Hashem told him that Sara's perspective would prevail, and Yishmael would have to go. Why? On the possuk "שמע בקולה" Rashi explains "לקול רוח הקודש שבה". This seems to imply quite clearly that from Avraham's perspective, his attitude was correct - the hope that Yishmael would turn around did indeed warrant keeping him at home. It was only because Sara had ruach hakodesh that she prophetically perceived that Yishmael needed to be sent away. Therefore, it would seem that unless we were to possess a degree of ruach hakodesh similar to Sara's, the lesson we should derive from the story is to follow Avraham's approach.
All of what your saying highlights the surprise I felt when I read the words attributed to R Y C Z. I think that such things should not be written so so, because every case is singular, and you can not be dan dinei nefashos with a vort in a sefer.
Delete