Year: 2022

העיקר הוא הרצון לעבוד את השם

ספר דברי סופרים לרבי צדוק מלובלין סי’ כ”א:

עיקר זכות השתדלות אדם בעולם הזה הוא רק החשק שיש לו לעשות רצונו ית’, אבל גמר המעשה הוא מהשם יתברך כמה שכתוב גם כן מעשינו פעלת לנו, ומה ד’ אלקיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה שהוא בלב כמה שכתוב ביומא [ע”ב ב’] על פסוק ולב אין, אבל המעשים הוא בכלל הכל בידי שמים, ואפילו חושב לעשות מצוה ונאנס ולא עשה מעלה עליו הכתוב כעשאה כמה שכתוב [שבת ס”ג א’] לפי שהוא עשה את שלו במחשבתו וחשקו, ורבותא דאפילו, דס”ד דלא מהני מחשבתו ורצונו אלא כשעלה בידו בפעל והצטרפות אל המעשה, וא’ [נדרים ס”ב א’] עשה דברים לשם פעלן, קרי בזה להשם יתברך פעלן ועיין שם בהרא”ש והר”ן, אבל הכונה כי השם יתברך הוא הפועל באמת ואין לאדם אלא הרצון וכח הבחירה שלו שהוא בוחר וחפץ במעשה זו, וע”כ העיקר להיות עושה לשמה שיהיה כונתו ומחשבתו לשם שמים דאם עושה מעשה גולמת מה בידו כלום שהרי המעשה מהשם יתברך והוא הפועל, ומכל גמילות חסדים של אברהם אבינו ע והכנסת אורחים שלו לא נזכר בתורה לשבח אלא מה שעשה למלאכים שלא היה בזה שום מעשה של גמ”ח על האמת כלל שהם לא הוצרכו לכל זה כלל ורק לכבודו הוכרחו להיות כאוכלים, ואין בזה אלא המחשבה והרצון הטוב של אברהם אבינו ע להודיע שזה העיקר מכל המעשים בהשתדלות ועבודת האדם שלא להשגיח על גמר מעשה, וע”כ העוסק בתורת קרבנות כאלו הקריב (מנחות ק’.) על ידי החשק שיש לו בלימוד מתי יבוא לידו ויקיימנו דזהו עיקר הלימוד ועסק בתורה על מנת לעשות, ועל זה נאמר ולך ד’ החסד כי אתה תשלם לאיש כמעשהו, שזה להשם יתברך ברוב רחמיו דנותן שכר גם בעד מעשה לבד כאלו אדם הפועל, ולמאן דאמר מצחת אין צריכות כונה אפילו כפוהו ואכל מצה יצא (ראש השנה כ”ח.) ולדברי הכל האומר סלע זו לצדקה בשביל שיחי’ וכו’ הרי זה צדיק גמור (פסחים ח’.) אף דלהנאת עצמו מתכוין כל דדעתו למצוה הוי לי’ כונה המועילה גם למאן דאמר מצות צריכות כונה וסגי בהכי להיות צדיק גמור, ופירוש בראש השנה [ד’ א’] דהוא רק בישראל עיין שם ברש”י שלבן לשמים וכו’, והוא על דרך שנאמר רמב”מ [פ”ב מהלכות גירושין] בטעם כופין עד שיאמר רוצה אני דבמעמקי לב כל אחד רוצה לשמוע דברי חכמים רק השאור שבעיסה מעכב ומשהוכה ותשש כח יצרו עד שאומר בפה גם כן רוצה אני סגי ע”ש, וה”נ המחשבה שלא לשמה בישראל אינו אלא מצד היצר המרגילו לבקש בכל דבר הנאת עצמו אבל מעמקי לב דבני ישראל אינו אלא לשם שמים בלבד, וכמה שכתוב [ברכות י”ז רע”א] גלוי וידוע שרצונינו לעשות רצונך וכו’, וכשיש מעשה בפעל גם כן סגי בהכי להצטרף לרצון שבמעמקי הלב ואין משגיחין למחשבת שאור שבעיסה המערבבת, ונראה עוד דגם בחישב לעשות מצוה שלא לשמה ונאנס גם כן מעלה עליו הכתוב כעשאה, אף על גב דמהחשבה היה שלא לשמה זהו מצד השאור המבלבלו ועומק מחשבתו ורצונו לא כן, [והגם דילפינן התם זה מקרא דלחושבי שמו דמשמע לשמו ית’, מכל מקום מאחר דאר”י לעולם כו’ דמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה ומשמע בערכין [ט”ז ב’] דכהדדי לגמרי נינהו מטעם זה יעוין שם, ה”נ במחשבת מצוה שלא לשמה מתוך וכו’ ונחשב כלשמו] ומכל מקום כל זה הכל מצד חסדי השם יתברך, אבל מצד האדם צ”ל כל השתדלותו על הכונה ומחשבה לשם שמים בכל דבר ואל תהיו כעבדים המשמשים וכו’.

ועיין מ”ש כאן.

Take Torah Seriously, But Not Always LITERALLY

Empty Exaggerations

Moses said that when the Ten Spies reported back to the Jewish People about the Land of Canaan, they claimed to have seen: “great and fortified cities in the Heavens” (Deut. 1:28). The Talmud (Tamid 29a, Chullin 90b) explains that in this verse, the Torah speak hyperbolically, because the Spies did not literally see that the Canaanite cities reached the Heavens. As Rabbi Ami put it, in this case, the Torah speaks in “words of havai.” Rabbi Ami further explains that the prophets of the Bible, and even the rabbis, are also wont to speak in hyperbolic exaggerations. The Talmud (there) uses two different terms to refer to such “exaggerations” — havai and guzma. Because the Talmud ostensibly uses these two terms interchangeability, they seem to be synonymous. But when we explore the etymologies of these two different terms, we will see that their origins differ from one another.

As mentioned above, the Talmud states that the not only does the Bible sometimes speak in hyperbole, but so do the rabbis. They offer various examples of this in the Mishnah: The Mishnah (Tamid 3:4) states that the animal sacrificed in the Daily Offering would drink from a golden cup. The Mishnah (Tamid 2:2) also states that sometimes the pile of ashes upon the Temple’s altar would reach three-hundred kor. Another Mishnah (Middot 3:8) describes a Golden Vine in the Temple, upon which people who wanted to denote gold can affix an additional golden grape or cluster. The Mishnah concludes by noting that this golden vine was so enormous, that it took three-hundred Kohanim to move it. A fourth Mishnah (Shekalim 8:5) states that the parochet in the Temple was so heavy that it took it required three-hundred Kohanim to lift it to immerse it into a mikveh. The Talmud says about some or all of these cases that the rabbis spoke “words of havai,” or offered a guzma. As Rabbi Yissachar Ber Eilenberg (1550–1623) clarifies, these examples are just a sampling of the instances in which the rabbis exaggerated in the Mishnah, but is not an exhaustive list of all rabbinic hyperboles.

Going back to the passage about the “cities in the Heavens,” Rabbi Meir Pozna of London posits that the exaggeration in that passage was not the spies exaggerating about the enormity of the Canaanite cities, but was rather Moses exaggerating the spies’ rhetoric. He notes that when the Bible speaks about what the spies themselves actually said, it quotes them as saying: “and the cities are great and fortified” (Num. 13:28). It was Moses who exaggerated the spies’ report as though they said that the cities were “in the Heavens” (a phrase Moses himself repeats later in Deut. 9:1).

In explaining what a guzma is, Rashi (to Bava Metzia 38a, Chullin 90b) writes that it is merely  extraneous words, or “simply words,” that do not reflect the actual reality (see also Rashi to Erachin 11a). Similarly, Rashi (to Chullin 90b) explains that “words of havai” refers to speech spoken by common people, who often speak in vulgar ways that exaggerate the matter at hand. He notes that even though such people are not trying to lie, per se, nor are they careful to speak the exact truth.

The Talmud (Beitzah 4a) asks why there was a Baraita that explicitly taught that one is allowed to do two things which are obviously permitted, and the Talmud answered that this Baraita was simply a guzma. Rashi (there) explains that guzma refers to a sort of rhetorical device whereby one attempts to stress a specific idea by adding to it. In this case, neither rulings taught by the Baraita were untrue, yet they are still branded a guzma because the way these rulings were presented implied that they were novel, even though in truth they were utterly obvious.

After citing the Talmudic sources above that talk about guzma and havai in the Bible and in Rabbinic works, Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur (1469–1549) in Sefer HaTishbi declares that guzma and havai mean the exact same thing—i.e., the act of overstating something in a way that it is not literally true. HaBachur claims that guzma is actually a Greek loanword, an assertion also made by Rabbi Binyamin Mussafia (1606-1675) in Mussaf HaAruch. Nevertheless, after some searching, I have been unable to pin down a specific Greek word from which guzma may have been borrowed or even derived. Because of that, I prefer to assume that guzma is of Semitic origin.

In Biblical Hebrew, the root GIMMEL-ZAYIN-MEM appears only five times: Three times in the word gazam, which is a type of grasshopper (Joel 1:4, 2:25, and Amos 4:9) and twice in the proper name Gazam, whose family were among the Nethinim who came to the Holy Land with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:48, Neh. 7:51). In Rabbinic Aramaic, this root took on the additional meaning of “threatening” (see Targum to Ps. 8:3, Prov. 15:30, Job 30:21, and Shavuot 46a).

Rabbi Yaakov Emden (1697–1776) posits that guzma in the sense of “exaggeration” is based on this last meaning of the root. He explains that just as most threats are simply “empty threats” aimed at intimidating somebody, even though, in truth, the threatener has no intention of actually carrying out his threat, so too is a guzma a hyperbole that does not line up with the actual truth.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Gen. 11:6, Lev. 26:4, and Deut. 18:10) connects the Rabbinic Hebrew term guzma to the Biblical term gazam by explaining that just as locust tend to travel in swarms — with an inordinate amount of grasshoppers joining together — so too does a guzma imply a hyperbolic rendition of something true, yet whose numbers are likewise inflated.

Fascinatingly, Rabbi Hirsch also connects this root to the words yazam (“planning/enterprising”) and kasam (“magic”) via the interchangeability of GIMMEL, YOD, and KUF: yazam denotes the ability to create something more out of something less, and kasam denotes the ability to circumvent the limitations of nature to yield something more than usual (or because the magician purports to have access to more knowledge than the average person). Rabbi Hirsch also connects gazam to geshem (via the interchangeability of ZAYIN and SHIN), explaining that a geshem is a solid mass comprised of a hyperbolic amount of parts.

Because guzma is not a Biblical Hebrew word, Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim (1740–1814) does not discuss its etymology, yet his explanation of the root GIMMEL-ZAYIN may prove helpful for understanding the word guzma. Rabbi Pappenheim understands the core meaning of the biliteral root GIMMEL-ZAYIN to be: “shaving/trimming something in a way that leaves some parts attached and some parts detached.” Other words derived from this root include: geiz (Ps. 72:6), grass that remains after trimming; gozez (Gen. 38:12, 31:19), shearing wool from sheep; gazam, a type of grasshopper which eats some produce and leaves the rest; geza, a tree whose top is truncated; and gazit, shaven/hewn stone.

Moreover, the root GIMMEL-ZAYIN-MEM (gozem) in Rabbinic Hebrew has another meaning which is similar to that of GIMMEL-ZAYIN — “to clip, prune” (see Avodah Zarah 50b). This is done when one trims a plant for the benefit of the plant itself, i.e., so that it will continue growing properly. In light of this, I would like to suggest that guzma is conceptually similar to this idea, because it denotes an exaggeration which is not completely detached from reality, but is rooted in some sort of truth (albeit in an overstated and excessive fashion).

Interestingly, Rabbi Shmuel Jaffa-Ashkenazi of Istanbul (1525–1595) writes in his commentary Yefeh Mareh (end of Jerusalemic Talmud Shekalim) that the word guzma is a portmanteau of egoz (“nut”) and meah (“one-hundred”), as the term denotes the sort of exaggerating whereby when speaking about a single nut, one would refer to it as though there were one-hundred nuts. Unfortunately, he does not explain why egozim in specific were chosen to illustrate this idea. (See also Eruvin 2b regarding guzma and the number one-hundred).

While the word guzma appears neither in the Bible nor in the Mishnah, the term havai already appears in the Mishnah. The Mishnah (Nedarim 3:1–2) rules that if one takes a vow in the style of havai, then the vow does not come into effect. For example, if a person vows to forbid something to himself on condition that “I did not see [as many people] on this road as [the number of people] who exited Egypt” or “I did not see a snake [that was as long] as the beam of an olive press,” then even if he did not literally see 600,000 people on the road or did not literally see a snake that was as long as a beam used for pressing olives, the vow does not come into effect. This is because the fellow who undertook the vow simply intended to accentuate — by way of exaggeration — the large amount of people that he saw on the road, or the length of the snake that he saw; but, he never really intended to undertake a serious vow that was tied to the literal meaning of his own words. The Mishnah brands such invalid vows “nidrei havai.”

The word havai can be spelled in two different ways: HEY-VAV-ALEPH -YOD and HEY-BET-ALEPH-YOD. If we follow the first spelling, then it seems that havai is a form of the verb “is/to be.” In that sense, havai refers to an exaggeration as something that “just is,” i.e., it simply reflects the way that people talk, but otherwise there is not much to it.

If we follow the second spelling, then havai seems to derive from the biliteral root HEY-BET. Rabbi Aryeh Leib Feinstein of Brisk (1821–1903) understands the core meaning of that root to be “raising one’s voice” (see Prov. 30:15), with havai as “exaggeration” being a way of figuratively raising one’s voice to make oneself heard. Rabbi Pappenheim similar sees HEY-BET as referring to “calling/commanding others to prepare something,” although he does not explicitly deal with the post-Biblical word havai.

Putting a different spin on it, HaBachur suggests that the word havai is derived from the Aramaic term hovai (“thorn”), found in Targum (to Isa. 7:25, 32:13, Job 30:4). He understands the connection by explaining that just as thorns are considered unimportant vis-à-vis the rest of a plant, so too are words of havai considered unimportant and untrue when compared to other rhetorical or literary devices. This explanation is actually first cited by Rabbeinu Nissim (to Nedarim 20b), when explaining the Mishnaic term nidrei havai. It also bears some thematic resemblance to Dr. Alexander Kohut’s explanation which compares the word havai to a similar Persian word that means ” breath/air/nothingness/futile.”

Rabbeinu Tam (1100–1171) and Rabbi Eliezer of Metz (1115–1198) are quoted as explaining that the word havai relates to the Biblical word habaim – “engaging in stupidities” (see Targum to Ezek. 20:29), presumably because if a hyperbole does not fully reflect the reality that it purports to describe, then it is nothing but mere stupidity (see also Tosafot Yeshanim to Nedarim 20b).

Earlier, we cited the Talmudic passage that says that the Mishnah’s reports about the massiveness of the Golden Vine in the Temple was merely hyperbolic. Rabbi Yaakov Emden explains that this does not mean that the Mishnah was lying about how many Kohanim it took to move the Golden Vine. Rather, it means that what the Mishnah says should not be literally taken as true exactly the way it sounds, but that it is still true if properly interpreted.

In other words, Rabbi Emden explains that the Golden Vine really did require 300 Kohanim in order to move it, but the Mishanh exaggerated in implying that all 300 Kohanim were needed to carry the golden ornament all at once. In truth, Rabbi Emden assumes, it took 300 Kohanim to carry the vine because it was so heavy that when some Kohanim became tired from carrying it, others had to take their place. Thus, the Mishnah means that all together there were 300 Kohanim involved in moving the Golden Vine, but not that all of them were needed at the same time as the Mishnah’s wording implies.

Thus, Rabbi Emden maintains that even when the rabbis state that something is a guzma or reflects “words of havai,” this does not mean that what is stated is not literally true, but rather that only the prima facia implications of what is stated is inaccurate, but what is actually stated is still literally true.

In the same vein, Rabbi Eliyahu HaKohen of Izmir (1659–1729) explains that the Canaanite cities were said to reach the Heavens because when one looks upon something that is very tall, it appears as though it reaches the Heavens. Thus, the literal meaning of that verse is not totally false, even though it is not “factually true.”

A similar sentiment is expressed by the Italian Kabbalist Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Fano (1548–1620), who writes that the word havai does not imply that something is totally null and void. Rather, it implies something that still needs to be understood and studied. He finds an allusion to this in the fact that havai can be understood as an acronym for the verse hinei barchu et Hashem, “behold they are blessing G-d” (Ps. 134:1). In this way, he intimates that “words of havai” should be taken seriously but not necessarily literally.

Kol Tuv,

Reuven Chaim Klein

Beitar Illit, Israel

Author of: God versus Gods & Lashon HaKodesh

Reprinted with permission from Ohr Somayach here.

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014) became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com

Abolish Teenagerhood Now!

Trashing Teens

Psychologist Robert Epstein argues in a provocative book, “The Case Against Adolescence,” that teens are far more competent than we assume, and most of their problems stem from restrictions placed on them.

By Hara Estroff Marano published March 1, 2007 – last reviewed on June 9, 2016

Psychologist Robert Epstein spoke to Psychology Today’s Hara Estroff Marano about the legal and emotional constraints on American youth.

HEM: Why do you believe that adolescence is an artificial extension of childhood?

RE: In every mammalian species, immediately upon reaching puberty, animals function as adults, often having offspring. We call our offspring “children” well past puberty. The trend started a hundred years ago and now extends childhood well into the 20s. The age at which Americans reach adulthood is increasing—30 is the new 20—and most Americans now believe a person isn’t an adult until age 26.

The whole culture collaborates in artificially extending childhood, primarily through the school system and restrictions on labor. The two systems evolved together in the late 19th-century; the advocates of compulsory-education laws also pushed for child-labor laws, restricting the ways young people could work, in part to protect them from the abuses of the new factories. The juvenile justice system came into being at the same time. All of these systems isolate teens from adults, often in problematic ways.

Our current education system was created in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was modeled after the new factories of the industrial revolution. Public schools, set up to supply the factories with a skilled labor force, crammed education into a relatively small number of years. We have tried to pack more and more in while extending schooling up to age 24 or 25, for some segments of the population. In general, such an approach still reflects factory thinking—get your education now and get it efficiently, in classrooms in lockstep fashion. Unfortunately, most people learn in those classrooms to hate education for the rest of their lives.

The factory system doesn’t work in the modern world, because two years after graduation, whatever you learned is out of date. We need education spread over a lifetime, not jammed into the early years—except for such basics as reading, writing, and perhaps citizenship. Past puberty, education needs to be combined in interesting and creative ways with work. The factory school system no longer makes sense.

What are some likely consequences of extending one’s childhood?

Imagine what it would feel like—or think back to what it felt like—when your body and mind are telling you you’re an adult while the adults around you keep insisting you’re a child. This infantilization makes many young people angry or depressed, with their distress carrying over into their families and contributing to our high divorce rate. It’s hard to keep a marriage together when there is constant conflict with teens.

We have completely isolated young people from adults and created a peer culture. We stick them in school and keep them from working in any meaningful way, and if they do something wrong we put them in a pen with other “children.” In most nonindustrialized societies, young people are integrated into adult society as soon as they are capable, and there is no sign of teen turmoil. Many cultures do not even have a term for adolescence. But we not only created this stage of life: We declared it inevitable. In 1904, American psychologist G. Stanley Hall said it was programmed by evolution. He was wrong.

How is adolescent behavior shaped by societal strictures?

One effect is the creation of a new segment of society just waiting to consume, especially if given money to spend. There are now massive industries—music, clothing, makeup—that revolve around this artificial segment of society and keep it going, with teens spending upward of $200 billion a year almost entirely on trivia.

Ironically, because minors have only limited property rights, they don’t have complete control over what they have bought. Think how bizarre that is. If you, as an adult, spend money and bring home a toy, it’s your toy and no one can take it away from you. But with a 14-year-old, it’s not really his or her toy. Young people can’t own things, can’t sign contracts, and they can’t do anything meaningful without parental permission—permission that can be withdrawn at any time. They can’t marry, can’t have sex, can’t legally drink. The list goes on. They are restricted and infantilized to an extraordinary extent.

In recent surveys I’ve found that American teens are subjected to more than 10 times as many restrictions as mainstream adults, twice as many restrictions as active-duty U.S. Marines, and even twice as many as incarcerated felons. Psychologist Diane Dumas and I also found a correlation between infantilization and psychological dysfunction. The more young people are infantilized, the more psychopathology they show.

What’s more, since 1960, restrictions on teens have been accelerating. Young people are restricted in ways no adult would be—for example, in some states they are prohibited from entering tanning salons or getting tattoos.

You believe in the inherent competence of teens. What’s your evidence?

Dumas and I worked out what makes an adult an adult. We came up with 14 areas of competency—such as interpersonal skills, handling responsibility, leadership—and administered tests to adults and teens in several cities around the country. We found that teens were as competent or nearly as competent as adults in all 14 areas. But when adults estimate how teens will score, their estimates are dramatically below what the teens actually score.

Other long-standing data show that teens are at least as competent as adults. IQ is a quotient that indicates where you stand relative to other people your age; that stays stable. But raw scores of intelligence peak around age 14-15 and shrink thereafter. Scores on virtually all tests of memory peak between ages 13 and 15. Perceptual abilities all peak at that age. Brain size peaks at 14. Incidental memory—what you remember by accident, and not due to mnemonics—is remarkably good in early to mid teens and practically nonexistent by the ’50s and ’60s.

If teens are so competent, why do they not show it?

What teens do is a small fraction of what they are capable of doing. If you mistreat or restrict them, performance suffers and is extremely misleading. The teens put before us as examples by, say, the music industry tend to be highly incompetent. Teens encourage each other to perform incompetently. One of the anthems of modern pop, “Smells Like Teen Spirit” by Nirvana, is all about how we need to behave like we’re stupid.

Teens in America are in touch with their peers on average 65 hours a week, compared to about four hours a week in preindustrial cultures. In this country, teens learn virtually everything they know from other teens, who are in turn highly influenced by certain aggressive industries. This makes no sense. Teens should be learning from the people they are about to become. When young people exit the education system and are dumped into the real world, which is not the world of Britney Spears, they have no idea what’s going on and have to spend considerable time figuring it out.

There are at least 20 million young people between 13 and 17, and if they are as competent as I think they are, we are just throwing them away.

Do you believe that young people are capable of maintaining long-term relationships and capable of moral reasoning?

Everyone who has looked at the issue has found that teens can experience the love that adults experience. The only difference is that they change partners more, because they are warehoused together, told it’s puppy love and not real, and are unable to marry without permission. The assumption is they are not capable. But many distinguished couples today—Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, George and Barbara Bush—married young and have very successful long-term relationships.

According to census data, the divorce rate of males marrying in their teens is lower than that of males marrying in their 20s. Overall the divorce rate of people marrying in their teens is a little higher. Does that mean we should prohibit them from marrying? That’s absurd. We should aim to reverse that, telling young people the truth: that they are capable of creating long-term stable relationships. They might fail—but adults do every day, too.

The “friends with benefits” phenomenon is a by-product of isolating adolescents, warehousing them together, and delivering messages that they are incapable of long-term relationships. Obviously they have strong sexual urges and act on them in ways that are irresponsible. We can change that by letting them know they are capable of having more than a hookup.

Studies show that we reach the highest levels of moral reasoning while we’re still in our teens. Those capabilities parallel higher-order cognitive reasoning abilities, which peak fairly early. Across the board, teens are far more capable than we think they are.

What’s the worst part of the current way we treat teens?

The adversarial relationship between parents and offspring is terrible; it hurts both parents and young people. It tears some people to shreds; they don’t understand why it is happening and can’t get out of it. They don’t realize they are caught in a machine that’s driving them apart from their offspring—and it’s unnecessary.

What can be done?

I believe that young people should have more options—the option to work, marry, own property, sign contracts, start businesses, make decisions about health care and abortions, live on their own—every right, privilege, or responsibility an adult has. I advocate a competency-based system that focuses on the abilities of the individual. For some it will mean more time in school combined with work, for others it will mean that at age 13 or 15 they can set up an Internet business. Others will enter the workforce and become some sort of apprentice. The exploitative factories are long gone; competent young people deserve the chance to compete where it counts, and many will surprise us.

It’s a simple matter to develop competency tests to determine what rights a young person should be given, just as we now have competency tests for driving. When you offer significant rights for passing such a test, it’s highly motivating; people who can’t pass a high-school history test will never give up trying to pass the written test at the DMV, and they’ll virtually always succeed. We need to offer a variety of tests, including a comprehensive test to allow someone to become emancipated without the need for court action. When we dangle significant rewards in front of our young people—including the right to be treated like an adult—many will set aside the trivia of teen culture and work hard to join the adult world.

Are you saying that teens should have more freedom?

No, they already have too much freedom—they are free to spend, to be disrespectful, to stay out all night, to have sex and take drugs. But they’re not free to join the adult world, and that’s what needs to change.

Unfortunately, the current systems are so entrenched that parents can do little to counter infantilization. No one parent can confer property rights, even though they would be highly motivating. Too often, giving children more responsibility translates into giving them household chores, which just causes more tension and conflict. We have to think beyond chores to meaningful responsibility—responsibility tied to significant rights.

With a competency-based system in place, our focus will start to change. We’ll become more conscious of the remarkable things teens can do rather than on culture-driven misbehavior. With luck, we might even be able to abolish adolescence.

The Adolescent Squeeze

Before 1850, laws restricting the behavior of teens were few and far between. Compulsory education laws evolved in tandem with laws restricting labor by young people. Beginning in 1960, the number of laws infantilizing adolescents accelerated dramatically. You may have had a paper route when you were 12, but your children can’t.

1600s

  • 1641 Massachusetts law prohibits people under 16 from “smiting” their parents

1800s

  • 1836 Massachusetts passes first law requiring minimal schooling for people under 15 working in factories
  • 1848 Pennsylvania sets 12 as minimum work age for some jobs
  • 1852 Massachusetts passes first universal compulsory education law in U.S., requires three months of schooling for all young people ages 8-14
  • 1880s Some states pass laws restricting various behaviors by young people: smoking, singing on the streets, prostitution, “incorrigible” behavior
  • 1881 American Federation of Labor calls on states to ban people under 14 from working
  • 1898 World’s first juvenile court established in Illinois—constitutional rights of minors effectively taken away

1900s

  • 1903 Illinois requires school attendance and restricts youth labor
  • 1918 All states have compulsory education laws in place
  • 1933 First federal law restricting drinking by young people
  • 1936 & 1938 First successful federal laws restricting labor by young people, establishing 16 and 18 as minimum ages for work; still in effect
  • 1940 Most states have laws in place restricting driving by people under 16
  • 1968 Supreme Court upholds states’ right to prohibit sale of obscene materials to minors
  • 1968 Movie rating system established to restrict young people from certain films
  • 1970s Supreme Court upholds laws restricting young women’s right to abortion
  • 1970s Dramatic increase in involuntary electroshock therapy (ECT) of teens
  • 1980s Many cities and states pass laws restricting teens’ access to arcades and other places of amusement; Supreme Court upholds such laws in 1989
  • 1980s Courts uphold states’ right to prohibit sale of lottery tickets to minors
  • 1980 to 1998 Rate of involuntary commitment of minors to mental institutions increases 300-400 percent
  • 1984 First national law effectively raising drinking age to 21
  • 1988 Supreme Court denies freedom of press to school newspapers
  • 1989 Missouri court upholds schools’ right to prohibit dancing
  • 1989 Court rules school in Florida can ban salacious works by Chaucer and Aristophanes
  • 1990s Curfew laws for young people sweep cities and states
  • 1990s Dramatic increase in use of security systems in schools
  • 1992 Federal law prohibits sale of tobacco products to minors
  • 1997 New federal law makes easier involuntary commitment of teens

2000s

  • 2000+ New laws restricting minors’ rights to get tattoos, piercings, and to enter tanning salons spread through U.S.
  • 2000+ Tougher driving laws sweeping through states: full driving rights obtained gradually over a period of years
  • 2000+ Dramatic increase in zero-tolerance laws in schools, resulting in suspensions or dismissals for throwing spitballs, making gun gestures with hand, etc.
  • 2000+ New procedures and laws making it easier to prosecute minors as adults

Currently spreading nationwide:

  • New rules prohibiting cell phones in schools or use of cell phones by minors while driving
  • Libraries and schools block access to Internet material by minors
  • New dress code rules in schools
  • New rules restricting wearing of potentially offensive clothing or accessories in schools
  • New laws prohibiting teens from attending parties where alcohol is served (even if they’re not drinking)
  • New laws restricting teens’ access to shopping malls
  • Tracking devices routinely installed in cell phones and cars of teens
  • New availability of home drug tests for teens
  • New laws prohibiting minors from driving with any alcohol in bloodstream (zero-tolerance)
  • Proposals for longer school days, longer school year, and addition of grades 13 and 14 to school curriculum under discussion

From Psychology Today, here.