The Responsibility of Parenting

Thank you, and bizchus Admor d'Atra. My opening line that I prepared for tonight's presentation was about the timeliness of tonight's topic. I'm not sure whether or not, given what time we're getting started, whether or not I can still sell that line. But be that as it may, in the time now as we prepare for Kabbolas HaTorah, the truth is that there is no topic more germane or more timely than that of parenting. The Torah says in Parshas Va'eschanan:

רק השמר לך ושמר נפשך מאד פן תשכח את הדברים אשר ראו עיניך ופן יסורו מלבבך כל ימי חייך והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך.

The Torah says: רק השמר לך ושמר נפשך. Chazal tell us that whenever the Torah uses this type of phraseology of hishamer lecha, that it indicates a mitzvas lo sa'asei. So the Torah says it's a mitzvas lo sa'asei to forget Ma'amad Har Sinai. To forget the giving of the Torah at Har Sinai constitutes in the opinion of the Ramban one of the 613 mitzvos. And the Ramban criticizes the Rambam, why didn't the Rambam include this in his enumeration of Taryag? Now that pasuk which mandates remembering the event and the experience of Kabbolas HaTorah concludes והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך. That the purpose of memory is to transmit memory to future generations and in particular most directly to one's children and grandchildren. והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך the next pasuk continues יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלקיך בחורב, the day when we stood before Hakadosh Baruch Hu at Har Sinai. The reason for this is that Kabbolas HaTorah where Hakadosh Baruch Hu established a bris with us, that bris, that covenant was not established with individuals. Hakadosh Baruch Hu offered the Torah and bestowed the Torah to a people, to a nation. ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש. Hakadosh Baruch Hu didn't give the Torah to 600,000 plus individuals. Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave it to Klal Yisrael. Klal Yisrael only continues to exist, there's only a continuity to Klal Yisrael when each generation transmits to the next generation the experience of Har Sinai as well as the content of Torah. So reflecting on parenting is very, very timely. Moreover, the Torah says in Parshas Vayeira when Hakadosh Baruch Hu is about to destroy Sodom v'Amorah, so Hakadosh Baruch Hu says I can't proceed with the destruction of Sodom v'Amorah with any part of Eretz Yisrael without first giving Avraham Avinu advance notice. Why is it, why does Hakadosh Baruch Hu feel obligated to inform Avraham Avinu of the pending destruction of Sodom v'Amorah? So the pasuk says: ki yedativ, this is Hakadosh Baruch Hu speaking,

כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו ושמרו דרך ה'.

What does ki yedativ mean? So we generally translate ki yedativ as I know, I know him. Rashi says that in this context it's a lashon chibbah, I love him, I cherish him, I treasure him. The Ramban disagrees, the Ramban says that he thinks that the real p'shat in ki yedativ is that I exercise a special hashgacha pratis. I exercise a special measure of divine providence over Avraham Avinu, and why is that? Whether the pasuk continues, whether we understand the initial words according to Rashi or according to the Ramban, the pasuk continues למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו. Here again there's a dispute between Rashi and Onkelos whether lema'an is because or whether lema'an is in order that. Is it referring to what Avraham Avinu's conduct in the past? Because Avraham Avinu transmits, he charges, that not only does he serve me, not only does he affirm belief in me, but Avraham Avinu takes it upon himself to transmit that, to charge, to give a tzava'ah to his children, to his household, that they will continue in his footsteps after him. Or Hakadosh Baruch Hu says the reason I have this special relationship in Avraham Avinu is not necessarily by virtue of things in the past but looking forward, because I know in order that, lema'an, in order that that he will do it. Either way, Avraham Avinu enjoyed. enjoys this special, unique status because he assumes, basically what it boils down to is because Avraham Avinu assumed the responsibility of parenthood. Ki yedativ. That the Meshech Chochma, Rav Meir Simcha, the famous gaon of Dvinsk, who lived the end of the 19th, the beginning of the 20th century, says that this pasuk, which is basically the source in the Torah for the mitzvah of chinuch. Chazal refer to the formal obligation, if now it's time to davven, to tell your child right now it's time to davven Shacharis, it's time to davven Mincha, that narrow application is only a derabbanan-dik obligation. It's only a rabbinic obligation. But the general thrust of chinuch, to raise children that they should continue in the way of Torah, in the way of Yiddishkeit, is a mitzvah de'oraissa. And the Meshech Chochma, Rav Meir Simcha says the source for that mitzvah de'oraissa is from this pasuk of כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה. The Mishna in Gittin tells us that the mitzvah of pirya v'rivya, the mitzvah of procreation, is a mitzvah rabba. That it stands out, even though generally we don't really rank mitzvos, but the mitzvah of pirya v'rivya is singled out. That it's a mitzvah rabba. It's a mitzvah of tremendous importance. For instance, if one owns a sefer Torah, so the Gemara in Megilla says that a sefer Torah can only be sold for one of two reasons: either it's lilmod Torah, either it's to facilitate Talmud Torah. If a person needs to be able to support himself while learning Torah, or to pay, to pay tuition or something, lilmod Torah and lissa isha. And also to facilitate his getting married for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvah of pirya v'rivya. Now the Gemara at the end of the third perek in Bava Basra tells us that in the time of the Roman persecution, so the Tanna'im said that

דין הוא שנגזור על עצמנו מיום שפשטה מלכות הרשעה על ישראל,

from the time that the Roman empire has spread its tentacles and has Bnei Yisrael in its iron grip,

דין הוא שנגזור על עצמנו שלא לישא אשה ושלא להוליד בנים ונמצא זרעו של אברהם אבינו כלה,

that really because of, due to Roman persecution and the inability to raise our children properly, they don't even allow us to mol the boys, they certainly don't allow us to educate them properly, so din hu, really the proper response would have been, Chazal should have made a takkana, Chazal should have instituted that we not, that we not get married and not have children. So Tosafos raises the question: what do you mean? There's a mitzvah in the Torah of pirya v'rivya. There's a mitzvah de'oraissa of pirya v'rivya. Tosafos says shema, maybe what the Gemara means is that after having had, having fulfilled the minimal obligation of pirya v'rivya, after having a son and a daughter, so that the most basic obligation of pirya v'rivya is fulfilled. Maybe that's what the Gemara means. But Tosafos says shema, it doesn't really sound like that because what the, because the wording of the Gemara says is had we introduced such a takkana, so then the Jewish people would have gone into oblivion, ונמצא זרעו של אברהם אבינו כלה, the seed of Avraham Avinu would have come to an end. So it doesn't sound like the Gemara would have made an exception. The Gemara says the only reason such a gezeira was not introduced was because it was אין רוב הציבור יכולין לעמוד בה. That Chazal only introduce gezeiras, Chazal only make decrees that they estimate that the majority of the Jewish people can adhere to. Chazal don't introduce decrees which are just untenable, which we won't be able to live up to. And that's the only reason they didn't introduce it. But how could they have interfered with the mitzvah of pirya v'rivya? So the alternative to Tosafos's answer, and this must be what Tosafos is considering, this is the alternative to the shema is that we're not going to fulfill the mitzvah of pirya v'rivya anyway. To have children and let the children be hefker, to have children and not raise them properly, so we wouldn't be mekayem the mitzvah of pirya v'rivya anyway. So that's what Tosafos is saying. That's why the Gemara can be taken at face value. That under circumstances where one anticipates that one isn't going to be able to raise the children properly, so you can't ask 'Ay, but isn't there a mitzvah of pirya v'rivya?' No, the mitzvah of pirya v'rivya is not, doesn't just refer to something biological. Ultimately it's something spiritual. It means to bring the children into the world, but then to raise them, to set them on a certain path, to transmit a messorah to them. That's part of the mitzvah. The gemara in Brachos tells a story which it reconstructs from the psukim in Navi that Chizkiyahu HaMelech the righteous king Chizkiya was given a took sick he was very sick on his deathbed Yeshayahu comes and delivers a nevuah to him and tells him that he's going to die and he intimates to him that not only is he going to die in olam hazeh he's gonna die in olam habah as well he's not going to have a chelek in olam habah Chizkiya says what did I do to deserve such a harsh decree such a harsh fate so the answer is משום דלא עסקת בפרי ורביה because you didn't make an attempt to have children so Chizkiya says well the only reason I abstained from trying to have children is because mishum d'chazai I saw with Ruach Hakodesh דנפקי מינאי בנין דלא מעלי I saw with Ruach Hakodesh that I was going to have descendants Menashe who would be reshaim so that's why I abstained from pru urvu so Yeshayahu answered him

בהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לך מאי דאפקדת איבעי לך למיעבד ומאי דניחא קמי קודשא בריך הוא ליעבד

so Yeshayahu answers Chizkiyahu that you can't decide things based on Ruach Hakodesh Ruach Hakodesh that type of inside information you can't trade on you're not supposed to be making decisions based on Ruach Hakodesh you have a mitzvah of pru urvu you have to fulfill that mitzvah of pru urvu if you'll do your utmost to raise your children and see to it that your future generations go on the right path and it won't work that's not your responsibility but it seems clear that what Chizkiyahu is saying I wasn't neglecting pru urvu because there is no mitzvah of pru urvu just to have children without raising the children without steering them on the right path and Yeshayahu didn't dispute that halachic point what Yeshayahu disputed is that you can't integrate into a halachic discussion what you know based on Ruach Hakodesh that's not pertinent to a halachic discussion and that's why Chizkiyahu was faulted for not engaging in pru urvu ultimately Chizkiyahu hears the nevuah so then he chozer b'teshuva he has children but you see again that the mitzvah of pru urvu again is not simply to have the children not simply to bring the children into the world but to raise the children as well it's against that background that that's why there are some the Otzar HaPoskim in Even HaEzer quotes that there are some achronim who take very literally the gemara in Sanhedrin the gemara in Sanhedrin Rashi quotes it in the beginning of parshas Bamidbar the Torah says ואלה תולדות משה ואהרן the Torah says that we're about to give you a list of the children of Aharon and Moshe and then the Torah only lists the children of Aharon so the gemara in Sanhedrin says what so then how can you introduce the list as saying these are the children of Moshe and Aharon so the gemara derives from here that

כל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו

that one who teaches his friend's son Torah so it's considered as if he had fathered this child if you teach a child Torah so then the Torah considers it as if you fathered the child not only his biological father but it's as if the teacher it's as if the Rebbe fathered the child as well some poskim take this very literally they see it not just as an aggadic statement underscoring the importance and the significance of teaching Torah but even halachically they say that that would constitute a fulfillment of the mitzvah of pru urvu and rachmana litzlan one who is unable to have children would be able to fulfill the mitzvah through this medium how is that even possible to consider that this statement should be understood even as something with halachic importance as well well it can occur to someone again it remains certainly very debatable but it can only occur to someone against the background that the mitzvah of pru urvu isn't just defined in terms of having the children but the mitzvah of pru urvu is defined in terms of raising the children in terms of transmitting a mesorah to the children so clearly what we're talking about the mitzvah of parenting whether we look to the pasuk of והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך whether we look to the pasuk of l'maan asher yitzaveh whether we look to the fact that stands out as such an important mitzvah, parenting is one of the most central and seminal obligations that a Jew has. Agav, parenthetically, even within the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם, so Rav Chaim infers from the Rambam, when you open up the Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah, you see something very interesting. You see that the things seem to be inverted. The Rambam opens Hilchos Talmud Torah not describing the mitzvah of learning Torah, but the Rambam describes teaching Torah. The first seven halachos basically concentrate on the mitzvah of teaching Torah, and then only afterwards does the Rambam talk about learning Torah. Now obviously chronologically it doesn't work that way. First a person learns and only then is he in a position to teach. So why did the Rambam invert what would seem to be the natural sequence? So Rav Chaim answers because the Rambam wants to emphasize that the main fulfillment of Talmud Torah is through teaching. That's the main and ultimate fulfillment of Talmud Torah is to teach and to transmit. Secondary to that is the mitzvah of learning, but the main obligation, the primary obligation, is to teach and transmit. Now within that primary obligation to teach and transmit, so what's the primary obligation? The primary obligation begins at home, v'shinantam l'vanecha. So also within Talmud Torah again we see this emphasis on parenting. If you ask any successful person, successful person let's say in the business world, in any area, how he manages to accomplish so much, so the answer to the formula is that one has to use one's time efficiently. And probably the yesod hayesodos, the most basic principle in terms of using one's time efficiently, is that one has to prioritize. Things which are more important have to occupy more of our time, and things which are of secondary importance should only be accorded less time. If Talmud Torah, excuse me, if parenting as we've seen is so basic and so seminal to Klal Yisrael, to our obligation, so then clearly common sense dictates that parenting makes a demand of real time, that parenting demands not only quality time but in terms of quantity as well, that we have to devote significant time and energy to parenting. Now spending time on parenting doesn't only mean, of course it means on its most basic level, that parents, not necessarily both at all times, but parents need to be home. The children shouldn't raise themselves as latchkey children, that they shouldn't be raised by babysitters. Children need to be raised by parents. We can't be mechanech our children if we're not at home and we're not interacting with them. But spending time with children isn't automatically accomplished just if we're at home. A person can be at home, can be in the same, under the same roof with one's children, and still be an absentee parent. Let's take an example, a case in point. Let's say Shabbos. So Shabbos often is a time when we socialize, we'll have another family, another couple over to share the Shabbos dinner. And often the conversation is not of any interest to the children. So what happens is so while the parents, while the adults are sitting at the table and enjoying each other's company and conversing about subjects of mutual interest, so the children sort of, they drift, they drift from the Shabbos table. So are we home for Shabbos? We're home for Shabbos. Is our being home for Shabbos in such a scenario, is it achieving the goal of spending Shabbos with one's children? Are we taking advantage of the opportunity to be mechanech our children for an appreciation of Shabbos, or have we managed to somehow or other be The primary audience shouldn't be the parents' friends with whom we're socializing at the Shabbos table. The Shabbos table should be geared to our children at whatever age they are. When they're very young, okay, so then obviously it has to be gauged and geared accordingly. But the Shabbos table should center and should be conducted in a way that the children find interest, that the children want to be there as opposed to just obviously and naturally drifting away because the whole tone and tenor and substance of the conversation is totally irrelevant to them and in no way relates to them. Clearly financial realities impinge and it's often the case nowadays that families need two salaries to get by. But even then, even then, the Rav Zichrono L'vracha used to say in a different, well, almost exactly this context, in taka talking about chinuch. And he used to taka talk about the daunting task of being mechanech children in schools, that even though our schools carry a double program, but nevertheless we have to find serious time to teach limudei kodesh, to teach Torah, to imbue them with emunah. And the Rav used to say, I remember hearing this, it resonates in my mind. He used to say, I don't know if it's possible. Could be that it's impossible. But I know that we'll do it because we have to do it. Whether it's possible to do, I can't tell you. Maybe logically it's not possible. But I know that we have to do it, there's no alternative. So somehow or other, somehow or other when we sit down and we plan our family finances, so again often, often austere realities dictate that yes, we need two salaries to get by. But somehow or other we can't solve, we can't solve our financial problems at the cost of being mechanech our children. So what are we supporting them for if it's at the cost of being there in order to be mechanech them? So is it possible? I don't know if it's possible, but somehow or other we have to do it. Maybe the solution is we need to think creatively. Maybe the solution is that the parents have staggered work schedules. Maybe one parent works from seven to three and the other parent works from 11 to seven, from 12 to eight, so one's home in the morning for the kids, one is home at night for the kids. Maybe we have to make a cheshbon hanefesh, we have to engage in some introspection in terms of our lifestyle. Can we pare expenses? Do we really need as much money as we think we need in order to get along? The solution may be a different one, will be a different one depending upon the individual case, but we have to find the solution. There's no point in working hard to support our children financially and giving them good clothes to wear and good food to eat if it's at the expense of nourishing their neshamos. I'd like to read to you a couple of lines from the Vilna Gaon, his commentary on Mishlei. By way of introduction, the Vilna Gaon's words here are very strong, very strong and very sobering. However, sometimes there is a tendency in our society, in American society, a very pronounced tendency to try to avoid sobering realities. Let's say the American culture in which we live doesn't focus at all on death. Is in denial about mortality. We glorify and we idolize youth and we ignore mortality. We don't talk about mortality. Intellectually we know it, but experientially it's not on the radar screen. Why? Because for too many people it's too uncomfortable a reality to think about. So we react like an ostrich and we stick our heads in the sand. Clearly that doesn't change reality; it makes the reality worse. If a person focuses on the reality, so then a person is ready to deal with it, and a person is ready, a person is ready to encounter the reality. If a person ignores it, so then in the long run he makes things bad for himself because he's not going to be prepared to deal with it. So what the Vilna Gaon says is very strong and very sobering. But if we know it and we live accordingly, so then there's nothing to be scared about, there's nothing to be worried about. The danger is if we don't know it and we don't live accordingly. The pasuk in Mishlei in Kapital Chaf Tes says as follows: יסר בנך ויניחך ויתן מעדנים לנפשך. Chastise your son, give him mussar. Give him mussar. Chastise your son, vinyichecha, and then he'll let you be tranquil. You'll have tranquility if you give your son mussar, and what's more, v'yiten ma'adanim l'nafshecha, he'll even bring delights to your soul. So what does the pasuk mean? So the Vilna Gaon says as follows: כאשר הבן הוא רשע if the son, one can substitute daughter in this context obviously, there's no gender distinction being drawn here, כאשר הבן הוא רשע אז ידאג האב ולא ינוח. Then the father is going to have endless worry. אבל כאשר ייסר בנו, but if he chastises his son, he educates his son, he draws lines, אז יהיה מנוחה לו. Then he'll have rest, he'll have tranquility. ולא עוד שגם יתן מעדנים. And more says the Vilna Gaon, the vinyichecha, the tranquility that a person will feel if he educates his child properly is not just a question of tranquility in this world,

ועוד ויניחך מן הגיהנום ויתן מעדנים לנפשך. כמו מעשה דרבי עקיבא,

the Gemara tells a story, דרבי עקיבא למד תורה עם בן רשע. Rabbi Akiva taught Torah to the child, to the son of a wicked individual, v'hitzilo min hagehennom. And in the merit of what, of the life that his son was living in this world, the father was spared, was spared Gehennom ultimately and he was taken out of Gehennom. ועוד שהביאו לגן עדן. In the merit of the son, so the parent even entered Gan Eden. Says the Gaon, כי אפילו צדיק אם לא ועזב בן רשע. If a person is a tzaddik but neglected his child, again we're not talking about someone who did the utmost and אף על פי כן rachmana litzlan the child didn't accept and the child went his own way. We're not talking about that. But we're talking about a parent who didn't do the utmost. Ki afilu tzaddik, he's a tzaddik, im lo v'azav, if he has a ben rasha, says the Gaon, אזי נוטלין אותו מגן עדן לגיהנום. His rightful place which seems to be in Gan Eden, he's taken from there to Gehennom למען יראה יסורי בנו. Because it can't be that the son is going to be punished and that the father is going to sit in the comfort of Gan Eden. We're talking about an awesome, awesome sense of accountability. And if there's an awesome sense of accountability, clearly that has to be matched on our part by an awesome sense of responsibility. A sense of responsibility for our children. What does that sense of responsibility entail? It entails knowing where our children are, it entails knowing what our children are doing. We don't live, and Mr. Rosenthal is going to enlighten us on this at some length shortly, we don't live in an age of innocence. There's a lot that our children could be doing that they shouldn't be doing. As parents, we have a responsibility to know what our children are doing, where they are, under whose supervision. I once, a parent once told me that when he comes to parent teacher conferences to ask about how his son, he was talking about a son in... In this instance about how his son is doing in yeshiva, he says he never asked the rebbe how his son is learning. He never asked the rebbe whether his son is getting a hundred in the bechinos, whether his son is showing signs of flourishing, signs of great ability. He says the one question that he wants answered is who are my son's friends? Who is he hanging out with? And if the rebbe tells him that his son's friends are good and solid, so then he knows that his son's on the right path. And if the rebbe tells him that the friends are not the best of friends, so then all the hundreds on the bechinos doesn't mean anything. I heard another very insightful comment from someone once. This was actually in a hesped. A rav was delivering a hesped. And he was talking about how the niftar had devoted great energy to chinuch, to educating his children. And he had said, you know, in America, he says, people don't buy a car without test driving the car, which is reasonable. It's a major expense. So of course you're not going to put down so much money without doing the most we can to ascertain whether or not we're getting a quality product. He says, but how many of us first go to consumer reports and we read up on the car? Then we go down to the car place and we take it on a test drive. How many of us do the same when it comes to sending our children to yeshivas? Or how many—no, we just, okay, this is the closest yeshiva or this is the yeshiva where most people send, but without having any firsthand knowledge about the yeshivas which our children attend. Like what kind of yeshiva is it? What kind of problems exist in the yeshiva? If it's a high school with drinking and with drugs, is that really the best option for my child? Is that the environment or the atmosphere in which I want my child to spend four years when he's so susceptible to peer influence and to peer pressure? How many of us know the inner workings of the yeshivas to which we send our children? Our children's our netzachus, our children is there isn't a more sacred or more important mitzvah that we have. And yet we take a car on a test drive and our children go: this is the local yeshiva, everyone sends there, so I'll send there also. The pasuk we mentioned before, למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו, so that or because Avraham Avinu trains, he instructs his children and his household acharav. What does acharav mean? So the simple meaning is that acharav means that after him, meaning that the next generation should also continue veshamru derech Hashem to observe the path of Hashem. But acharav has a second meaning as well. acharav means following him in the sense that Avraham Avinu more than anything taught by example. Avraham Avinu didn't preach, but he taught by example. We have to teach by example, not to preach. That's what it means. acharav, למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו. Avraham Avinu didn't sit and tell Yitzchak Avinu, "Listen, you gotta study Torah. Listen, Yitzchak, you gotta daven. Listen, you have to be machshiv Shabbos." Avraham Avinu more than anything taught acharav, למען אשר יצוה was acharav. Chazal tell us in many contexts, the famous Gemara in Yevamos, Medrash Rabbah in Parshas Noach also about Ben Azzai who extolled the importance of the mitzvah of piryah verivyah and his colleagues said to him, "A very nice, naeh doreish but you're not naeh mekayem." All the preaching in the world can't yield results, is not likely to yield results, unless it's matched by being naeh mekayem, unless a person models the lesson, unless a person is himself a source of inspiration for the values and the lifestyle that he's trying to impart. So if we want to raise our children to learn Torah, they have to see that we learn Torah. If we want to raise our children to be machshiv Torah, to value Torah, כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו that that is the, not that it's a value in our life, but it's the defining value, it is the value in our life, then they have to see it in us. They have to see it in us, because if they hear it from us and they... from us Rachmana litzlan, so that just breeds cynicism. They need to see, they need to see, we need to model for them, we need v'shinantam

ושיננתם לבניך ודברת בם בשבתך בביתך ובלכתך בדרך ובשכבך ובקומך

we need to lead and teach by example. They need to see that we koveia ittim l'Torah. They need to see that we run to daven b'tzibbur three times a day if at all possible. They need to see that we practice chesed. They need to see how we revere Shabbos, how we don't, how we don't wait to the last minute to get home one minute before Shabbos. On one's wedding day, so one doesn't time things well if the traffic patterns are not unusual, if there's no tie up on the Cross Bronx, on the Turnpike, so I'll make it to the wedding hall a minute before the kabbalas panim is supposed to start? No! A wedding day, it's such a momentous day, such a special occasion, we're there four hours beforehand. So Shabbos Hamalkah, Shabbos Hamalkah is also the equivalent of a wedding day, also of a wedding day, Klal Yisrael and Hakadosh Baruch Hu. And yet here, if we want our children to be machshiv Shabbos, they have to see how much we're machshiv Shabbos. If we want our children to spend their motzaei Shabbosos, their Saturday nights, in a healthy, productive, spiritually uplifting way, then they have to see what we do on motzaei Shabbos. If motzaei Shabbos is always a night out for us, so then that sends a message, a message which is stronger than anything else, anything else, it cannot, it's not going to be offset by other words. But that example speaks volumes. The melaveh malkah is such a beautiful mitzvah. All mitzvos are beautiful, but sometimes it's easier to appreciate, it's easier to tap into. Melaveh malkah is such a beautiful mitzvah. There's so many stories about the Vilna Gaon, about how much he stressed the importance of the mitzvah of melaveh malkah. So what a beautiful, beautiful family activity for motzaei Shabbos. Sit down with our children to melaveh malkah, sing the zemiros of the melaveh malkah. What a beautiful way to spend a motzaei Shabbos and a beautiful way to mechanech our children into what that time of motzaei Shabbos is intended for. Teaching by example also allows us to communicate to our children not a dry and academic form or understanding of Yiddishkeit, but a live and vibrant experience of Yiddishkeit. If the teaching is done more through preaching, so then Yiddishkeit comes across Rachmana litzlan as something dry and academic. It's a subject in school, you have Gemara and you have tests. It's a subject in school and it's rules. School has rules, so Shabbos at home has rules. It's dry. It's academic. When a person teaches by example, if we teach by example rather than preaching, so then we draw them into an experience of Yiddishkeit. They see, they see, they see how the parent is focused on Shabbos at the table. They see how the parent is experiencing kedushas Shabbos and they're drawn into that experience. Rav Shach is reported to have said, he was contrasting, I mean he actually said it with names, but maybe in that context it was more important to mention the names. He was contrasting two gedolim, one of whom his son turned out the way he wanted his son to turn out, and the other one did not. And Rav Shach said the difference between the two gedolim is that one sang zemiros at the Shabbos table and the other didn't. Yeah, he sat there with a sefer and he had his nose in the sefer the whole time, but he didn't sing zemiros at the table. His son, he didn't have nachas from. His son didn't turn out the way he wanted. The other adam gadol, he also learned at the table, though also divrei Torah at the table, but he sang zemiros at the Shabbos table. There was an experience, there was an experience of Shabbos, of Torah, of Yiddishkeit, to which the children were exposed and which made an indelible imprint upon their neshamos. American society seriously underestimates what one can expect of children. It's interesting if you ask any any psychologist to sort of delineate stages of development, so everyone will will mention that there's a stage of adolescence, stage of adolescence, a very turbulent stage, there's a lot of turmoil, and and you don't really become an adult until, well some people have delayed adolescence, so when do you become an adult, I don't know, 20 or whenever it is. To the best of my knowledge, if you sort of comb the literature of Chazal looking for stages of life that Chazal delineated, I don't think you find adolescence. You certainly find, you find that there's a certain break. When when does a a boy have to be instructed in mitzvas sukkah? The Gemara says when he's eino tzarich l'imo. And and the Gemara tells us that's when he's around six or seven years old. There's a certain shift there. There's a certain independence. He's not as as tied and dependent upon his mother as he was until that point. So there's a certain shift there at age six, at age seven. Of course bar bas mitzvah, so then there's a a major major major transition. But the Torah recognizes that a young woman at age 12, a young man at age 13, is an adult. Is an adult. He's not not a pre-teen or a young teen that we can't expect anything of, that we can't set reasonable standards for. He's an adult. An adult. Just to give maybe, certainly not the most important example of it, you know when one comes to shul Shabbos and often sees that that even when even when the the father has an appreciation for how he should be dressed in bigdei Shabbos, he's wearing a nice a nice Shabbos suit, a nice Shabbos jacket with a tie, he's outfitted the way he should be for Shabbos. But the teens, often one will see, so they'll be there in in shirt sleeves, okay maybe if it's winter time with a sweater, with casual dress. Why can't we ask? The child is 13 years old. He has no less of a mitzvah of kavod v'oneg Shabbos than the parents do. My sons have and daughters have no less of a mitzvah of kavod v'oneg Shabbos, part of which is to wear proper bigdei Shabbos. What? We think it's too onerous? It's too onerous to educate our children? That that the boy should be wearing a suit and a tie on Shabbos and and that the girl should be wearing a Shabbos dress? And it's too onerous that they should remain in the bigdei Shabbos for all of Shabbos? American society doesn't give any responsibility to to children or what the halacha would consider young adults, and the price that we pay for not having expectations and not giving responsibility is that it inhibits maturity. The reason we mature so, we hear stories about how our grandmothers, great-grandmothers, how they got married at young ages, at ages that we can't imagine imagine getting getting, we can't imagine assuming any adult responsibility for anything, and they were getting married. How's that possible? It wasn't that long ago either. So the answer is that when society doesn't have any expectations from children, so that inhibits maturity. And because of that, we mature at a much later age, because in our society doesn't have any expectations from us. We consider it too onerous to to tell our 13-year-old son to to come to shul Shabbos wearing a suit the same way the same way his father is. And the mitzvas chinuch says that you can't expect to flip a switch at the bar mitzvah. You can't expect to flip a switch at the bas mitzvah. If we want our children to know upon reaching bar bas mitzvah how you dress on Shabbos, so then the boy's got to be wearing a suit before he's 13 also. It's not so onerous, but we have no sense of what we can ask of children. It's not taxing them, it's not placing a crushing burden on our children. On the contrary, we retard their their development and we retard the maturation process by not having expectations. And by not setting standards high. If you walk into a class and your expectations are very low, so then you're limiting what the children are going to be able to learn. If you set high, of course you can't set unreal expectations. You can't be unrealistic, but they can be realistically high. And we're afraid to set any goals. No, he's only 13, 14 years old. We can't put him in a Shabbos suit. But the pasuk says at the beginning of Sefer Melachim when it describes Adoniyahu's rebellion against his father Dovid HaMelech, so the pasuk tells us ולא עצבו אביו מימיו ולאמר מדוע עשית ככה. In a remarkable, remarkable indictment, the way the Radak understands the pasuk, the pasuk indicts Dovid HaMelech that Dovid HaMelech spoiled Adoniyahu. Adoniyahu was a spoiled brat. That's what according to the Radak where the pasuk is saying, and it was Dovid HaMelech's fault that Adoniyahu turned against his father and rebelled against him. The pasuk says according to the Radak's understanding was Dovid HaMelech's fault. Why? Because lo atzavo, his father never angered him by confronting him and saying why did you do that? His father didn't draw any lines. Whatever Adoniyahu wanted to do, he did, and got the same response from his father. There was never any indication of displeasure when Adoniyahu did something wrong. So ultimately what that resulted in was Adoniyahu said, okay, I can do whatever I want. He rebels against Dovid HaMelech. It's part of our obligation as parents that we need to draw lines. Given the fact that parents are wiser and more mature than their children, so the children won't always appreciate it. In retrospect they will, but at the time bishas maaseh they don't necessarily appreciate it. So the general thrust in parenting is positive reinforcement. The general thrust in parenting is loving and nurturing. Definitely that's the case. But it's virtually, virtually impossible never to encounter a situation where we need to draw lines and where we need to say no to our children. Again, the no to our children can be if there's an outing which we think is inappropriate, so we have to say no. The child's going to be upset. ולא עצבו אביו מימיו ולאמר. Sometimes the no can be we go shopping. We go shopping and the child wants to buy a certain clothing item, but it's very expensive. Doesn't matter whether the money is available in the bank. There's a certain message, there's a certain chinuch which we impart by saying it's too expensive. It's inappropriate to spend that much money. Is the child going to be upset at not getting that pair of shoes? Most probably. Most probably. In the long run, there's no question that the child will be grateful. So again, the general thrust of course has to be positive reinforcement, love and nurturing, but we can't make the same mistake for which the Navi indicts Dovid HaMelech. One final point and then to conclude, the Gemara in a few places, but at least in one place in Masechet Kesubos comes to mind, talks about the danger of idleness. The Gemara in the Mishnayos and the Gemara in the middle part of Kesubos detail the mutual obligations that a husband has to a wife and that a wife has to a husband. And then the Gemara says in that context that even if a woman comes from an affluent family and when they get married, so she has all kinds of maids that she brings in who can take care of all of her domestic responsibilities, she can't just be idle. She has to be productively occupied. Even if all the familial obligations are being attended to because she comes with a dowry, which אפילו הכניסה לו עבדים ושפחות. Even though, again, she has enough domestic help that she doesn't have to do anything. No, every person, man, woman, and child has to be productively engaged. Chazal were very, very concerned about the danger of idleness. It's very important not only in our own lives, but in our children's lives. Children need time to be children, they need time to play, they need time to relax, just as adults do. But there's a line, there's a gvul between relaxation and between downtime which is very, very important for mental health. It's very, very important to maintain. That that line never gets blurred. Just in conclusion, we all remember the famous Medrash, it's a Medrash in Mishlei when Rabbi Meir is in shul on Shabbos giving the shiur, giving the drasha, and his two sons die. And when he comes home and says to Berurya, his wife, where are the boys? So she says, let's make Havdalah. They make Havdalah. He says, nu so where are they? She says, ma first let's eat something. They eat something. Finally he won't be distracted anymore. So where are they? So she says, well first I have a shaylah to ask you. What happens if someone deposits something with you and asks you to be in charge of it as a trust, and then the person comes and asks for the trust? So what are you supposed to do? Rabbi Meir says, you return it because it belongs to him. So then she says, well Hakadosh Baruch Hu, children are a trust. Hakadosh Baruch Hu entrusts children to us. And Berurya tells him that Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted them back. Children are a trust. It's not for us to rank Hakadosh Baruch Hu's brachos. Hakadosh Baruch Hu's brachos are countless and we can't rank them. But certainly in terms of our experience, there's not too much that equals the bracha of children. It's such a wonderful bracha, but it's also a sacred trust. It's a sacred trust that we can, that we can fulfill, but only, only if we're focused on it and only if we appreciate how sacred that trust is.