Have We Put Our Children Before G-d? Women Be'haloscha 5786 Class

Summary

Rabbi YY Jacobson addresses a tension raised in an email from a mother who worried that contemporary advice to show struggling children unconditional love puts children ahead of G-d and abandons Jewish standards. She cited examples of parents accommodating children’s behavior and asked whether discipline, rebuke, and firm limits still have a place.

Jacobson argues that this is a false choice. Caring for a child does not mean approving every behavior or abandoning religious commitments. But putting G-d first does not mean reacting harshly, expelling a child, or enforcing rules without regard for what the child needs. The central question, he says, should be: What response is most likely to help this person?

Rebuke Is Meant to Help, Not to Vent

Jacobson focuses on the Rambam’s explanation of the mitzvah of tochachah—rebuking someone who is doing wrong. The Rambam describes its purpose as helping the person return to goodness, rather than simply telling them that they are wrong.

• Correcting someone is not a personal release of anger or a way to complete a religious “checklist.”
• A rebuke should be judged by whether it can reach and help the person.
• The Talmud’s discussion of when to stop rebuking someone supports this purpose: if the person rejects the rebuke, continuing may no longer help.
• Before speaking, a parent, teacher, or friend should consider whether their words will increase understanding and connection—or create more distance.

Jacobson also discusses the Torah’s account of Miriam’s punishment. The Torah says that Miriam’s father might have “spat” in her face; Onkelos renders this as rebuke, and Rashi describes a disapproving or saddened expression. Jacobson uses these interpretations to illustrate that correction need not mean explosive anger or physical punishment.

Firm Limits Should Be Grounded in Connection

The lecture does not advocate a home without standards, rules, or discipline. Instead, Jacobson distinguishes between setting limits in a relationship of trust and using rules to force compliance when a child is already disconnected or in crisis.

Before responding, he recommends asking:

• What is driving this behavior? Could the child be experiencing pain, confusion, trauma, anxiety, or a lack of connection?
• What does this child need from me right now?
• Will my next words or actions make the relationship closer or more distant?
• Can I maintain a boundary while still communicating that the child is loved and belongs?
• Am I responding to help the child, or mainly to express my frustration, protect my reputation, or restore a picture-perfect family image?

Jacobson argues that when a young person is in crisis, intensifying rules without first restoring connection can worsen the rupture. In some circumstances, a child may need a different living or support arrangement, but Jacobson says this should be handled with continued care and attachment—not as rejection.

Biblical Examples Should Not Be Applied Mechanically

The email writer points to Sarah’s demand that Abraham send away Hagar and Ishmael, and to G-d’s instruction that Abraham listen to Sarah. Jacobson cautions against treating this episode as a general rule to expel children who behave badly.

• The biblical story involved particular circumstances, including concern for Isaac’s safety; it cannot automatically be generalized to every parent-child conflict.
• Jacobson contrasts it with Isaac’s relationship with Esau. Although Isaac was troubled by Esau’s conduct, he continued to love him and wanted to bless him.
• He also notes that Abraham continued visiting Ishmael after the separation and that Ishmael later appeared at Abraham’s burial. In Jacobson’s reading, separation did not mean severing the relationship.

The lesson, he says, is not that parents must always permit a child to remain at home or accept every behavior. It is that a dramatic biblical episode should not be used as a ready-made justification for rejecting one’s own child.

Religious Life Should Not Be Reduced to Appearances

Jacobson challenges an approach to Judaism in which success is measured by outward compliance: children behaving correctly, a harmonious Shabbat table, or a family that looks exemplary to others. When parents’ self-worth depends on their children’s visible religious performance, children may feel responsible for validating their parents.

He shares a story told by Rabbi Shimon Russell. Russell described a Shabbat table that felt miserable because some of his children were absent or not observing Shabbat. One of his daughters pointed out that Judaism did not seem to be bringing her father joy. Russell took this as a challenge to examine whether he had a genuine relationship with Shabbat and G-d, or whether he was focused on performing the role of a successful father.

Jacobson presents the story as an example of how a parent’s own spiritual and emotional life matters. Children should not be made responsible for supplying their parents’ sense of worth.

The Child’s Inherent Holiness and the Role of Attachment

Jacobson’s underlying theological claim is that children are not outsiders who must be forced into holiness. Each person has a divine soul, and religious connection is most lasting when a person can reconnect with that inner self. He describes emotional attunement and attachment as crucial to helping a struggling child heal and grow.

He therefore rejects the idea that compassionate parenting necessarily puts children before G-d. Properly understood, he says, attending to a child’s needs can be a way of honoring the divine soul within that child. He also warns that parents can mistake their own unresolved pain, fear, shame, or need for control for religious principle.

Stories Illustrating Welcome Without Endorsing Behavior

Jacobson recounts a story about a young man who had left religious observance but attended a Vizhnitzer Rebbe’s Shabbat gathering. The young man admitted that he had driven there on Shabbat. Rather than reject him, the Rebbe embraced him and told him he could come whenever and however he wished.

Jacobson explains that the young man later said he had expected to be told he did not belong. The Rebbe’s welcome preserved the young man’s connection, and the young man eventually returned to religious observance. Jacobson does not present this as indifference to Shabbat law. Rather, he argues that the Rebbe’s response addressed the young man’s immediate need for belonging, which made future growth possible.

Main Takeaways

• Love and boundaries are not opposites. Parents can uphold standards without humiliating or abandoning a child.
• The purpose of correction is the other person’s growth. Rebuke that only vents anger or protects appearances misses its purpose.
• Assess the situation before choosing a response. Consider safety, the child’s emotional state, and what is likely to preserve trust.
• Connection can make change possible. A child who feels that they still belong may be more able to grow than one who feels rejected.
• Do not use a single biblical episode as a universal formula. Context matters, and maintaining a relationship can remain important even when separation is necessary.
• Parents should examine their own motives and needs. A child’s behavior should not be made responsible for a parent’s self-esteem or public image.
• Putting G-d first is not the same as enforcing appearances. Jacobson frames it as recognizing the child’s divine worth and responding in a way that supports genuine connection and growth.

Speakers and Sources Featured or Cited

• Rabbi YY Jacobson — the lecturer and primary speaker.
• An unnamed woman — the author of the email that raises the central concern.
• An unnamed host or organizer — welcomes attendees and announces the class dedications.
• Rabbi Shimon Russell — cited by Jacobson for a story about his Shabbat table and a daughter’s observation.
• The Belzer Rebbe — cited in an anecdote about physical punishment and education; the subtitles identify him as Rabbi Dov Rokeach.
• The Vizhnitzer Rebbe in Haifa — cited in the story of welcoming a young man who had driven on Shabbat; the subtitles do not clearly identify him by name.
• Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky — cited for an explanation of the Talmud’s limits on repeated rebuke.
• The Rambam (Maimonides) — cited on the purpose of rebuke.
• The Torah, Targum Onkelos, and Rashi — cited in the discussion of Miriam’s punishment and the meaning of the passage about a father’s response.
• The Talmud and Midrash — cited on rebuke and on Abraham’s continued visits to Ishmael.
• Proverbs — cited for the teaching about sparing the rod and correcting a child.