by Rabbi Shlomo Goldberg

Which of the following two signs do you think will be more carefully heeded? "Don't Drink and Drive," or "Danger! Extremely High Voltage!" I think that everyone will agree that although both warn against life-threatening activities, many more people will drink and drive than will dare to get close to that electrified fence.

It seems that HaShem uses the "electrified fence theory" in His warnings as well. At the beginning of Parashas Acharei-Mos, the Torah connects the warning issued to the Cohanim against entering the Sanctuary whenever they desire, to the death of Aharon's two sons back in Parashas Shemini.

To explain the connection, Rashi brings the words of Rebbe Elazar (a leading rabbi of the Talmudic period), who compared the situation to that of an ill person who sought treatment from a doctor. The doctor told him to refrain from eating cold foods and sleeping in cold and damp places. Another doctor came and gave the patient the same medical advice. However, the second doctor added a warning to the prescription: "Stay away from cold food and damp places because if you don't you could die, G-d forbid, like Mr. X, may he rest in peace. He had the same illness you have, but unfortunately, he chose not to follow my advice."

What it is about the statement of doctor #2 and warnings about high voltage that make then so much more effective than the warnings of doctor #1 and advertisements against drunk driving? To answer this question, we will need to examine some of the key elements of effective consequences.

First of all, to be effective, consequence must be communicated through enforceable statements. If we examine many of the statements we use to set limits for our children, we will find that most of them fall into the category of expressing a wish rather than of setting a limit. "Don't you ever talk in such a chutzpadik way to me again!" "I can't stand your constant whining. Talk to me in a normal tone of voice right now!" "This is the last time I'm telling you to get out of bed and get dressed for school!" "You had better get started on your homework right away!"

The problem with all of the above statements is that they involve telling the child what to do, and we have no way of enforcing that except through power or coercion. An effective consequence sidesteps the confrontation born of ordering children around, and focuses instead on what we as parents are going to do. For example, a better response to whining and chutzpah is, "I'll be willing to listen to you as soon as you use a more appropriate tone of voice." (And when the tone of voice changes, parents must then give the child their absolute full attention.) Morning tardiness is best handled with an alarm clock, followed by the statement, "The car is leaving for school at 7:30 AM." Homework can be motivated by an offer of a game played, book read or cookie served to all those who finish their homework with time enough to spare before bedtime.

Secondly, even when consequences are established through enforceable statements, they are still not all created equal. Consequences can be classified into three different categories. First, is the consequence a positive reward or a negative punishment? Second, are the consequences immediate, or will they come sometime in the future? Third, are they certain to come or only probable? As might be expected, research shows that the most effective consequences are positive, immediate and certain.

If we go back to our two signs, we can now see why "High Voltage" wins out over "Don't Drink and Drive." Concerning drinking and driving, the positive consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol (I do not have to hire a cab, I can leave now, etc.) are immediate and certain. The negative consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol (death and destruction, G-d forbid) are future and uncertain. The positive consequences of not driving (less chance of death or injury) are future and uncertain while the negative consequences of compliance (cab fees and wasted time) are immediate and certain.

In terms of high voltage, however, the consequence of touching the fence (receiving the shock of one's life), while negative, is most definitely immediate and certain. Hence, the odds of compliance are excellent.

If we look now at the statement of the first doctor mentioned by Rashi, it seems that his prescription is definitely in the realm of stating a wish, and not of setting a limit. Therefore, he is at the whim of what the patient decides to do. In addition, the consequences are negative, future, and uncertain.

By pointing out what happened to poor Mr. X, z"l, Dr. #2 is trying to improve the quality of the consequence. If Mr. X died because of ignoring the doctor's advice, then the effect is in the realm of natural consequences, similar to putting one's hand on an electrified wire. Although still relegated to the future, it appears much more certain to come. Concerning enforceability, although the doctor cannot enforce the consequence himself, since it is natural, G-d becomes the enforcer, and He is highly qualified with an excellent reputation for consistency.

It is interesting to see how much of current psychological research is contained within a few lines of Rashi! The only improvements we could make to doctor #2's advice would be to add an element of the positive. Perhaps the patient's insurance company would be willing to give him a 50-cent reduction on his premium for every bowl of hot soup he eats. In addition, they could partially underwrite the cost of a new heating system like the Gas Company does for installing more efficient systems. It would certainly be cheaper than paying for heroic efforts at the emergency room or a prolonged hospital stay in the ICU. (My guess is that the insurance companies will never give such incentives since the consequences of preventive medicine are future and uncertain vs. saving money now which is immediate and certain!)

Research and practical experience both show that establishing and enforcing consequences will help to control the behavior of a child. But they will not win his heart. Therefore, in addition to the technical aspects of communicating consequences found in Parashas Acharei Mos, we also need a lesson of love found in Parashas Kedoshim, next week's parasha. (Note: in non-leap years, Parashos Arachei Mos and Kedoshim are read on the same Shabbos)

Perek 19, pasukim 18-19 contain some of the most difficult commandments in the Torah. We are warned not to hate our brother in our heart, even if we never express the hatred in our speech and actions. Instead, we must reprove those whom we feel have wronged us in a way that will be heard and will not cause them embarrassment. We are not allowed to take revenge, nor may we hold a grudge. Finally, we must love our fellow Jews like we love our own selves, desiring for others all that we want for ourselves, and then some.

Although the verses list the commandments of not hating, taking revenge, or holding a grudge, and that of giving reproof before the commandment of loving one's neighbor, the Rambam enumerates and explains the commandment of loving one's fellow Jew first. The reason for listing them in reverse order is obvious. Until, as the Ramban states, we feel a limitless sense of love toward another, we cannot begin to remove petty jealousy and hatred from our hearts, nor can we hope to effectively give reproof. The Maharal of Prague writes that those commandments or behaviors that the Torah or our sages place at the end of a list are often like a knot at the end of a string of pearls, serving to secure that which is above it. Similarly, heartfelt love serves to overcome hatred and to make reproof capable of being heard.

With carrots and sticks, payments and punishments, we can control the behavior and time of our children. But we can only hope to elicit loyalty, commitment and inner change when they know and feel that we love them. Children are not machines to be manipulated and managed. They are human beings who need to be loved and led. Therefore, as we set limits and enforce consequences, we must also find ways to let our children know that we do so out of love.

Part of this is to be sure that we are never angry of upset when we set the limit. If we are, then the child will think that the consequence is meant for our benefit and not for his. This is called missionizing, and no one likes a missionary. Secondly, we must be willing to wait and think things through before we establish the consequence. This will help insure that the punishment fits the crime and prevents us from having to back down from improvident statements.

Most importantly, we must look for intangible ways to convey to our kids that ultimately, we are always on their side. Rav Reuvain Feinstein, shlita, says that his father, Rav Moshe, did three things that made him know that he was loved. First, Rav Moshe always had Reuvain sit next to him at the Shabbos table, no matter who the guests were. Second, in the winter he would put Reuvain's pants on the furnace so they would be warm when he got dressed. Third, while on summer vacation in the mountains, Rav Moshe would allow him to end their learning session early so as not to miss the daily hayride into the city. When such a father establishes a consequence, his child feels loved, not manipulated.

Ultimately, as the popular saying goes, a child will not care how much we know, until he knows how much we care. The tragic events in Columbine High School a year ago show what can happen when parents and family "hide their eyes while a child is given over to idols." (Vayikra 20,5) If we care about our kids, then we must have the courage to effectively intervene with limits and consequences, even when they are uncomfortable or unwanted, and we should intervene sooner rather than later. And above all, we must practice the preventive medicine of finding ways every day to let our kids know just how much we really love them.

Parsha-Parenting, Copyright (c) 2000 by Rabbi Shlomo Goldberg and Project Genesis, Inc. Rabbi Goldberg is the menahel (spiritual advisor) of Yeshivas Ohr Eliyahu, and a highly acclaimed and popular speaker in Los Angeles.