1

As mentioned in a previous question, the Shulkhan Aruch, O''C 551:18 writes:

צריך ליזהר מי"ז בתמוז עד ט' באב שלא לילך יחידי מד' שעות עד ט' שעות (משום שבהם קטב מרירי שולט) ; ולא יכו התלמידים בימים ההם.‏

From the Seventeenth of Tamuz until the Ninth of Av one needs to be careful not to walk alone from the fourth hour of the day until the ninth hour (because during these days [the demon] ketev meriri has control); and one should not beat students during those days.

Why would anyone beat their students to begin with? Can someone explain the rationale behind this halakha as it relates to the rest of the year? Does the halakha sanction corporal punishment in the classroom?

Community
  • 1
Aryeh
  • 11,600
  • 1
  • 48
  • 90
  • isnt there in masecheth barochoth(i think) where 1 amoro kept hitting another amoro for some reason i forgot, and i think they put their case to Shamuel(i think) and he said to stop hitting him...lol i know i am bad at remembering things from long long ago. – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Jul 07 '13 at 20:11
  • 1
    Would such sanctioning be surprising? – Double AA Jul 07 '13 at 20:19
  • @DoubleAA: Yes, I think for many people a Shulkhan Aruch about demons and beaters would be surprising, to say the least. – Aryeh Jul 07 '13 at 20:28
  • I referred to corporal punishment in the classroom (where you used the word 'sanction') – Double AA Jul 07 '13 at 20:46
  • The issue is not about being surprised. The question is if corporal punishment is permissible, and if so, trying to understand more about that. – Aryeh Jul 07 '13 at 21:38
  • Another question on the same passage: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/29793 – msh210 Jul 07 '13 at 23:18
  • This may be a nuance that's not there in the original language, but to me "beating" is rather more severe than, say, paddling or slapping. So seeing a reference to not beating one's students during this period, implying that it's ok otherwise, surprises and puzzles me. – Monica Cellio Jul 08 '13 at 00:53
  • @MonicaCellio, the verb used is hika, l'hakot, to strike. I don't think there's any connotation of severity beyond what any strike has ipso facto. – msh210 Jul 08 '13 at 03:56
  • Jastrow cf. hakaa: striking, beating, assault. i.e., "a strike for which no P'ruta can be claimed as damages" (Macc. 8); "a fatal blow" (Yer. Bava Kama 4:4); "to suffer blows" (Tanh. Thazr 9). These all sound like severe connotations to me. – Aryeh Jul 08 '13 at 06:54
  • I imagine as well, @MonicaCellio, that it's much like makkat mardut, in that the one administering the "beatings" also determines their severity. – Shimon bM Jul 08 '13 at 06:54
  • @Aryeh - if you look up the verb נכי in Jastrow, you will see more usages listed under the Hiphil, which are of a more benign nature than the ones that he lists under הכאה. – Shimon bM Jul 08 '13 at 07:02
  • Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/40195 – msh210 Jun 11 '14 at 05:45

1 Answers1

3

See SA YD Siman 245:10, The teacher should not strike him (the student) harshly only lightly. Also see the Mishna (Makkos 8) and the Gemara on it (8b). Also see here and here.

Community
  • 1
Meir Zirkind
  • 5,101
  • 21
  • 25
  • Thanks, so that everyone understands the halakha, the SA you noted says: לא יכה אותו המלמד מכת אויב, מוסר אכזרי, לא בשוטים ולא במקל, אלא ברצועה קטנה. The teacher should not strike him an enemy's blow, as a cruel lesson, or with a whip or a cane, but only with a small strip. – Aryeh Jul 08 '13 at 07:04