Vayeitzei 75 - Collaborative Problem Solving CPS and Non-Violent Communication NVC

At an opportune moment while Lavan and his sons were out shearing their flocks, Ya'akov=Jacob   being very much aware of Lavan and his family's resentment to his success, escapes Lavan's attention and leaves without saying goodbye.  After 3 days Lavan hears about Ya'akov unannounced departure and pursues him. When they meet Lavan acts like the aggrieved father and accuses Ya'akov of deception, trickery and embarrassing him by fleeing with his daughters like ' prisoners of the sword' and also taking his gods. Ya'akov answers that he was afraid that Lavan would steal his daughters. After cursing anybody who stole the gods, Ya'akov invited Lavan to do a search.  When Lavan turns up nothing, Ya'akov feeling angry about the search confronts Lavan. The sages of the Medrash praise Jacob's words, preferring the' kapda'nut = taking to task and rebuke' of Jacob to the words of humility of David. Instead of attacking Lavan and using aggressive language Jacob   tries to appease Lavan and just defend and justify himself.  He asks – 'what is my transgression, what is my sin that you pursue me'. Lavan in fact wanted to kill Ya'akov, but he uses understatement and non-violent communication. He says - what is my sin that you ' pursue me and does not say    'kill me'. David in his humility asks Jonathan- what I have done, what is my sin before your father that he seeks my life. David talks about 'bloodshed' in his attempt at appeasing and being conciliatory.

Although Ya'akov is praised for not openly attacking Lavan and  using  instead  NVC  - Non –violent  communication, the Alter from Slabodka, Rabbi Finkel  brings to our attention that the Torah introduces Ya'akov's with the language of argument and confrontation and the sages call it 'kapda'nut ' = taking to task and confrontation . Aggressive and confrontational language may be hidden or concealed but it is implied. When a person is accused of doing something wrong and then in an apologetic way defends himself, he implies that he is the ' righteous ' man and the other person is lacking. A better response would be as the Talmud – Shabbat 88b says that a person should be  one who is disgraced and insulted and yet remains silent and does not respond with insults. But it is not enough to remain silent. Even if one is an innocent party with no interest in a having an argument or conflict one has to make every effort to try and make peace with the other party.  We learn this from Moses who asked Da'tan and Aviram - leaders of a group who joined Korach's rebellion against Moses - to come and speak to him to try and reconcile differences and make peace. They refused to come and said that Moses and Aaron were unfit for the leadership role, in fact a disaster bringing the Israelites from a land of milk and honey to die in the desert.  Moses disregarded his own honor and dignity and went over to the rebels to try and end the quarrel and make peace. If Moses wouldn't have gone over to the rebels , he would have violated a negative commandment of being like Korach and his assembly. The Talmud Sanhedrin 110a learns from Moses that one who does not make an effort to make peace is called somebody who supports and contributes to a quarrel and violates the negative commandment of being like Korach and his assembly.

If Ya'akov was on a higher level, of a greater stature he could have directly dealt with Lavan's concerns and returned to the land of Canaan with his consent. Ya'akov's stature is being judged, not his actions. But still after they met, Ya'akov could have acknowledged Lavan's sentiments and explained in a more neutral and non-judgmental way that in his humble opinion the way he left was the best for all parties concerned under the circumstances. He could address Lavan's concerns for contact with his daughters and grandchildren by saying that he has an open invitation to come and visit them whenever he wants to visit. However, we can see the positive in Ya'akov's ' kapda'nut ' – confrontational stance, as it did get Lavan to think of the safety of his descendants   and ask for a peace treaty to be  made between them. Most of our interactions don't require confrontation, but the pursuit of peace.

Instead of quarrels, argument, criticism and conflict parents and teachers can focus on being less judgmental about their own and others' actions as being for eg. Manipulative, wrong, bad, inappropriate or even good and focus instead on the concerns, feelings, and needs. Being attentive to the needs of others and understanding their concerns will help to solve problems in a mutually satisfying way and promote trusting relationships. Non- violent communication NVC or compassionate communication helps us avoid ' doing to' or even hurtful words and create a ' working with ' relationship. When we first try to understand the concerns of others , the concerns of our kids and students before presenting our expectations and concerns , kids will feel understood , that we care about them and meeting their needs and will more likely be  open to taking our perspective, hearing our concerns and being empathic. Kids then start to think how their actions impact on others and how they can make a contribution and not just what's in it for me. Peace is not just the absence of conflict, but people being interdependent caring human beings.

Ki Tavoh -74 Being grateful is not easy

Our portion-parasha   Ki Tavo starts of the mitzvah – commandment to dedicate the first fruits of our labors to God by bringing them to the Beit Ha'mikdash – Temple in Jerusalem – Deuteronomy/ Devarim 26:1-11. . The bringing of the ' Bikkurim' took place mainly from Shavuot to Succot and was accompanied by a moving declaration of gratitude to God for ' redeeming us   from the hardships of Laban and Egypt and bringing us to the land of Israel. '

Being grateful is a challenge as we tend to ascribe success to our own doing and forget God's crucial support, without which we could not succeed.  We also tend to forget people who have helped us along the way. From this mitzvah we learn to be grateful to God and express gratitude to all those who have helped us when we reflect and speak about the milestones we have reached and success we have achieved.

But more challenging is when we are faced with a crop that has 'failed'. Even from the little that there is, we have to take and dedicate our 'Bikkurim' – the first fruits. Because  the Mishnah says -  Bikkurim don't have a ' sh'iur' , a minimum quantity,  you have to dedicate something .  Even if the fruits of our labors are miserable, we have to make our declaration and as the verse states – rejoice with all the goodness that Hashem, your God, has given you and your household together with the poor of your community.   וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְכָל-הַטּוֹב, אֲשֶׁר נָתַן-לְךָ ה'    .Celebrating and being grateful for success and sharing your success with others is not so challenging as the celebrating and being grateful for a miserable crop yield. Also the declaration is only said if the first fruits are brought between Shavuot and Succot and not after Succot. This is because the period after Succot, is  after the harvest has been gathered and therefore  is not called a time for rejoicing.

The verse says that we should rejoice and be glad with ALL the goodness that Hashem, your God has given you.  And this means searching within ourselves and discovering  what we can be grateful about. Being grateful does not depend on something ' external to us ' or being the receptacles of someone else's goodness. It is a characteristic, it is a need within us to feel grateful and express it.  We are grateful for life, our relationship with God, the Torah  and the opportunities to do good and  mitzvoth. We are not only grateful for the first fruit but more so for the opportunity to perform the mitzvah-commandment  of ' Bikkurim ', to dedicate the first fruits of our labors to God, in fact to dedicate our labor to God. In our declaration of gratitude to God, we do not thank God for the fruit, but we thank God for gift of  the land. The bringing of the fruit is just a way we express our gratitude for having a holy home close to God. . And the best time are the festivals of Shavuot until the end of Succot , a season full of opportunities to make a contribution and do mitzvoth

As parents and teachers we can model being   people who are happy, grateful and always see the glass half full. When kids don't meet our expectations or make mistakes, our disappointment, or even anger can get in the way of how we view the whole  child. Suddenly we are no longer grateful for the gift of this child , we don't see the whole picture – a child with wonderful attributes who has now made a mistake. When kids make mistakes or experience failure we can still see the positive and say they are doing their best as the CPS - collaborative solving mantra tells us ' children do well if they can . We don't need to be critical , just collaborate with them to solve the problem. Mistakes and failure are windows for new opportunities for growth and improvement. Being grateful is not just  being happy with what we have been given, but being grateful for opportunities to make a contribution and grow despite the challenges we face.

Ki Teitze 74 - A United Family or a United Front

Many parenting experts cite a verse from our weekly parasha-portion in order to encourage parents to keep a ' united front' against their' ben sorer u'moreh' - rebellious and challenging child. The verses Devarim 21:18-21 speak of parents who report their son to the elders of the city - that despite attempts to discipline him, he does not listen to the voice of his father or mother. The parents claim that their parenting is not the problem because they do not convey contradicting and mix messages to the kid, but it is the kid who is at fault as he does not listen to their  ' singular' voice.

Everyone agrees that parental and marital harmony is crucial for raising kids in a peaceful, loving and cooperative environment.  And children do better when there is some degree of consistency and predictability. But the overriding question is what are we being consistent about and whether we can overdo or misapply the consistency by following the widespread parenting advice of ' keeping a united front'.

A problem with the advice of having an united front against your challenging child is that it describes the 'parent-child ' dynamic a 'war'  against the kid where parents are ' doing to ' the child , imposing parental will using power  and authority. In a war, you may win the battle, but lose the war and your child. This advice blinds and deafens parents to asking important questions – what kind of relationship do I have with my child and/or is my child's lagging skills causing his challenging behaviors. A parent cannot report a rebellious or wayward son if they are' blind ', as they are also blind to the needs of their kid.  I often hear how a kid runs away from home, at best to his grandparents, after having an argument with one of his parents. Instead of maintaining the ' united front ' and backing up the father for eg , the mother who  has not been involved emotively in the argument and confrontation can step in as a third party and try to reconcile the parties by using Collaborative problem solving techniques. The concerns of the father and the child are put on the table and attempts are made to find mutually satisfying solutions or at least an attempt to try and compensate the child. When reasons are given for decisions and the concerns of kids are taken into account, kids are more likely to trust parents' decisions even when they are not so happy about them. A United front can cause even more damage. So  often with a challenging kid or  even with  a typical kid ,a spouse and it is usually the father  is more demanding, strict , critical and very confrontational with a child. The kid becomes more reactive, defiant, oppositional, explosive or implosive. The wife who disagrees with this approach is given the advice to maintain the united front and back the husband. This is the perfect 'recipe' for continued abuse and trauma. Constant confrontation, criticism and put downs is abuse and traumatic even if it is low level. Kids will either leave the home or be kicked out, drop religious practices and their emotional connection with their parents. Instead the other spouse or mother should see her role as primarily protecting her child and not sticking with her husband. The wife can show the husband that they are 'losing' and ' hurting ' their child and that the husband's concerns can be addressed by ' working with the child 'and solving problems in a collaborative way.  And if he continues, she should leave the home with the kids if he is not willing to follow her lead, instead of kicking out the kid.

The verse talks about the kid not listening to the parents' voice', not just the words. This implies that the unified message must be honest and authentic. Although parents may easily share the same values, beliefs and dreams for their children, being human with different personalities they may have different perspective of the abilities of their children and interventions appropriate to the child. When parents feel compelled to take the same position on every issue in front of kids, they are being dishonest with themselves and certainly not authentic. Kids see through this, so it is better for kids to see that adults sometimes disagree and yet resolve their disagreements in a respectful way or even in some cases learn to tolerate differences. Instead of a ' unified front' parents should aim for a' unified family', where the kids participate with parents to form a family mission statement and problems are solved in a collaborative way taking into account the concerns of all. When parents ' concerns are addressed, the solutions not only address the kids concerns but also set limits. In this way parents can still be honest to themselves  and authentic and work together for the unity of the family and not just keep a united front against their children.

Ki Tisa 74 - Avoid saying NO

The portion-parasha of Ki Tissa deals with the sin of the golden calf.  The people miscalculate the day Moses is supposed to return- a day earlier- because they included the day of his ascent of Mount Sinai in the   40 days and nights that Moses would spend with God.  When Moses did not yet return  on the day he was supposed to according to their calculation , the people perceived that  that they had lost their leader, and their  intermediary between God and themselves. They  asked Aaron to do something about it. The sin of the Golden Calf was that there were people, even a minority who mistakenly saw in the Golden Calf an expression of idolatry with independent powers and people stood by complacently watching this organized idolatry.

God tells Moses what is happening in the camp and that He wants to start a new nation from Moses. Moses'   prayers to God asking God  to use his attribute of mercy, are answered. Moses then begins his descent with the 2 tablets – the 10 commandments - in his hands. When Yehoshuah and Moses came closer to the camp, they saw  the  golden calf and the dances. Moses response was to throw  the  tablets and shatter them at the foot of the mountain.

The obvious question -  did not Moses believe what God had told him, he already knew that the nation was involved with idolatry. And despite this fact, his intention was to give them the Torah. What made Moses change his mind. Moses despaired of changing and helping the nation repentwhen  he saw the 'dances' – that they were enjoying their blasphemous and immoral behavior. It was not a sign of a desperate nation who felt they had no leader.

The Talmud – Shabbat 87a   shares with us Moses' thinking.  Moses reasoned- if a heretic is forbidden to do even one mitvah -  to eat from the' pesach offering'- korban pesach  ,surely a nation of heretics cannot be given the entire Torah. It is   suggested  that  Moses' reasoning is faulty because a heretic is only forbidden to eat from the pesach offering but is obligated to observe all the other commandments. And in any event , he should have given them the Torah so that they could repent.  Rabbi David Lapin answers that the kal va'chomer , the reasoning - was not intellectual and so open to questions  but an aesthetic kal va'chomer -  reasoning.  A heretic is forbidden to eat from the korban pesach =pesach sacrifice because it is incongruent that a person who denies God should participate in eating   from  the  pesach sacrifice a symbol of   God's providence and his commitment to serving Him. The 2 – the heretic and the pesach  sacrifice  just don't fit together , or as they say in Yiddish –' des pashst  nishtzs ' So how much more incongruent is giving the whole Torah to a nation of heretics. – 'Des pashts nishtzs ' the Torah and the children of Israel in their present situation just don't fit.

Parents often use the argument  -'  des pashts nishts ' with kids – it is not appropriate or our family does not do this type of thing. Generally, if parents show a passionate belief in what they say and offer explanations it might help, but sometimes the parents are forbidding something which is allowed according to the halacha – law ,but they hold by higher standards and the kid is not there with them.  And here Ha'rav Osher Weiss in an answer to a question from an  overseas  'anglo-saxon'  audience concerning certain  English literature for kids said -  sometimes saying NO has a worse impact than allowing a kid his request . It is not the message we teach - …..  , but the message kids learn is that their concerns are not taken seriously by us and ignored. This is the down side to the advice parents are given -  tell your kids NO a few times a day so they get used to hearing NO.

I prefer to avoid saying No . Saying No is essentially only one solution to a concern . Because the solution only addresses the parents concern we are using Plan A. – imposing Adult will.  I recommend 'Don’t stick your no’s in unnecessarily, try to say yes and don’t be rigid.'

I like the phrase - ' I am not saying No '

Of course this does not mean I am saying yes , it means ' I just want to hear your concerns , can you tell me more ?' Our purpose is to get a conversation going with the child mainly speaking and  we  listening. We need to gather information about the child's  concerns.

When our concerns are put on the table, we are in fact setting a limit, because our concerns will be addressed by the mutually satisfying solution.

Any solution must be mutually satisfactory addressing both concerns of the parent and child. Of course there will be times that a parent will insist on his way but the kid who has had his concerns taken seriously in the past is more likely to trust his parents when they insist on  their solution.

Try to talk things through and help your child connect with his true inner core so that the mutually satisfying solution is one that he feels is his own, meets his needs and an expression of who he is. The CPS - collaborative problem solving process Cp builds relationship , promotes life skills that will be needed when he goes out into the world and especially help with important relationships including marriage. The process also  supports his autonomy in a healthy way.

Terumah 74 - The Shulchan - table and Collaborative Living

The parasha- portion reading of Terumah deals mainly with the Mishkan-tabernacle and its components.  The table – shulchan was placed near the north wall of the Tabernacle's outer chamber, had 12 specially baked loaves of ' show-bread' on it at all times, in 2 columns of 6 each. Frankincense was placed on the loaves. They were baked on Friday and put on the   table on the Sabbath. The old loaves miraculously remained fresh, were divided amongst the priests- cohanim.

 Like the Ark, the table had a crown – the rim. The crown of the table symbolized the ' crown of kingship'. God's material blessings   flowed through the table and its loaves topped up with fragrant frankincense, to the people and ensured material well- being and abundance which came with ease and comfort.  The table had some complete measurements indicating that people can be ' complete' as far as their material needs are concerned and their ' inwards' be blessed so a little satisfies a lot. But the height of the table- shulchan was a broken measure 1.5 cubits warning against haughtiness and encouraging continuous spiritual growth. The table was made out of wood depicting the dynamic nature of economic growth and blessing. The wooden table was plated with gold to remind us that our intentions in striving for material success must be holy and pure and for the good of people. The protective rim or crown was a barrier reminding us to keep out baser motives and that our material success stands upon purity and holiness. The 12  loaves , representing the 12 tribes , were shaped like a letter ' U'- a flat bottom  and ends turned upward  with a slight fold on the tops, so that the' arms' of each loaf seemed to support the loaf above it. Each individual loaf was supported by metal tubes so that their 'outstretched arms' would be able to bear the burden of the other loaves. This paints a picture of material success based on a commitment to the well- being of the community as a whole as well as ourselves and other individuals. This means attending to the needs of others, but at the same time making sure that our own economic concerns and needs are being met.

The table is symbolic of material well- being and abundance based on our commitment to ourselves and also the family, classroom or community.  But when we look around we witness family fights about who is going to sit where and when it comes to food – either it looks like that some kids have never seen food in their lives or some kids are such ' picky' eaters that can never be satisfied.

We can use the CPS – collaborative problem solving approach to ensure that the spirit of the table – meeting the concerns of the group as a whole and its individuals – can be expressed by our families.

Seating at the table. -  Problems should be solved in a pro-active way and not in the moment – in the heat of the moment. We can arrange a family meeting to discuss the issue. The focus must be first on ' concerns' - where I want to sit is a solution to a concern. Possible concerns – the need to sit next to somebody who would offer help , feel left out of the conversation because of the seating , need access to the kitchen , bathroom etc. We should try to speak in the plural – we and us. This helps kid see themselves as part of the family and that individual choice per se may be limited , but not choice itself , as there are so many more opportunities when we work as a family .

Picky or gluttonous eating habits – We should try and encourage Mindful Eating   where the focus is on tasting food rather than filling one's stomach and cleaning the plate. Kids are asked just to taste the food , they don't have to finish and clean their plates. It helps to have small quantities but plenty of variety.  The taste of food is considered the spiritual part of food. Mindful eating helps kids focus on the process of eating, and this has enormous benefits for the digestive system and obesity . Kids also develop a taste for different foods. It is also helps people to practice mindful eating when there is no talking while people are eating.Mindful eating thus facilitates God's blessing - our insides are blessed so a little goes a long way.

When the holy temple existed , the altar would be an atonement for the people of Israel. Today , as the temple and the altar no longer exist , our tables atone for us. They atone for us when we use our tables to feed the poor or needy , and for families to connect in a way , that shows caring and dialogue which is filled with words of Torah.

Mishpatim 74-Unloading the burden and Collaborative Problem solving

Verse 23:5 from the book of Exodus – Mishpatim says that if you see the donkey of someone you hate / an enemy crouching underneath its burden , would you refrain from giving help TO him ?- you should  help repeatedly  WITH him.

When we come across a person who needs help with his suffering animal, even if we have problems with the person, we have to subdue our evil inclinations that encourages one to let an enemy suffer and lend a hand. The donkey can also be seen as a metaphor for a person's materialistic side  – donkey in Hebrew is a chamor -  which has the same root as the word 'materialism '  and the person is  carrying the burden of his sins or a pile of unsolved problems. We can lend a hand and work with the person to unload  his problems.

We may be justified in 'hating' the person in an objective way as he is a ' sinner' that refuses to repent or we have personal issues with the person. The way we subdue   our evil inclinations that encourages one to let an enemy suffer is not with pure willpower or grit but by changing our mindset.

We can relate and connect to his divine spark rather than to his actions, which we cannot condone.

We can emulate God's ways – the Tomer Devorah describes God's attribute as one who is patient with us, bears insults and despite our sinning against him, he never withdraws any love or support from us.

We can look at ourselves in the mirror and see that we ourselves are not saints and in fact not much better than the sinner. The Mesach Hachmah notices that when a similar teaching of this law is repeated in book of Deuteronomy , the Torah says 22:4 –you shall not see the donkey of your BROTHER falling on the road…….., you shall surely with him stand him up – the one you hate became your brother . What happened in the time between the book of Exodus and Deuteronomy that your enemy, the owner of your donkey now became your brother?   There was the sin of the Golden Calf and other sins in the desert, which meant that people could no longer look down on others. They were now all brothers in sin. The Mesach Chachmah adds that he does not know anyone on the level who is permitted to ' hate a sinner'.

In family situations challenging kids can be rather mean and when their  limbic brain activates the emotional rush, we hear  words like – you are the worst mom or meanest mom in the world , I hate you , I wish you …… etc . So when  there is plenty of emotional baggage , it is easy to justify that giving love and of ourselves should be made contingent and conditional on good and respectful behavior on their part. The CPS – collaborative problem solving approach mantra is ' children do well if they can and not children do well if they want to '. I believe the same goes for adults. This mindset helps us avoid' doing to' kids and trying to motivate them to ' wanna behave appropriately '. Instead we ask what is getting in their way, what they need from us, so we can engage in 'working with' kids in a collaborative way.

The Kli Yakar in his commentary on the verse focuses on the differences in ' doing to ' someone or ' working with ' someone. He says we should not give help TO a person as this would be 'enabling' him and he would never solve his problems. One should help WITH the person. As he is part of the problem, he should be part of the solution.

 The CPS approach says that without the participation and input of the kid we cannot get a clear understanding of the underlying problems and his concerns which sets the stage for finding solutions for his problems. The verse says that one should offer help as many times as is needed.  In real life situations, the first solution is rarely the final and durable solution. Education is a process. The beauty of CPS is that there is learning taking place all the time and we are promoting relationship between parent and child which is one of the main goals of our interventions.

Shemot 74 Empathy improves learning and thinking skills

Moses- Moshe is raised as a prince in Pharaoh's   palace. He matures, grows in stature and becomes the head of Pharaoh's palace. Although raised as an Egyptian prince, he remains a loyal Jew. His leadership qualities which made him fit to be the redeemer of the children of Israel began to show when he toured the slave camps. He wanted to  observe  the burdens of the children of Israel, identify with the suffering of his brothers and grieve with them. 'If only I could be in their place and bear their suffering. 'Pretending that he was assisting the Egyptian task masters he would help his brothers carry their burdens. He then convinced Pharaoh that his slaves would be more productive having a day of rest. Moses then chose  the 7^th day as the Sabbath. Moses' concern for the 'klal', the whole community was unique in that he focused also on the needs of individuals.  Divine providence meant that being a prince he did not have a 'slave mentality' and he had the confidence and courage to intervene on behalf of the oppressed and downtrodden. He intervened on behalf a Jew who was receiving death blows from a taskmaster and killed him. He intervened to stop   two  fellow Jews  quarreling. Finally the Torah says that as a complete stranger in a foreign country, Moses   had no problem rescuing Yitro's = Jethro's daughters from the hands of violent shepherds.

The personality trait  and  virtue  of 'nosei  b'ol  im chaveiro' – sharing a fellow's burden is expressed when a person feels and empathizes with  the emotional , physical and financial stress and pain of his friend. He should try to find out more about his needs and see if he can support him with friendship. Learning with a person and giving him spiritual support is very important as well. He should do everything that he can to alleviate the pain and stress. He should be there for him, not only in the tough times, but also be happy for him and share in his simchos at happier moments and in good   times.

The character trait of 'nosei b'ol im chaveiro' – sharing a fellow's burden displayed by Moses meant that he was not only qualified to become the redeemer of the children of Israel but he would be able to ' receive the Torah' on their behalf and ' pass it on' to them. Sharing a fellow's burden is one of the 48 personality qualities needed for someone to acquire the crown of Torah.  One needs   to be a 'fit and refined ' kli '– receptacle to receive the Torah and arrive at the truth. Learning Torah is not just about ' academic study ' but also involves observing others, learning from people in an informal way, especially from wise sages = shimush Talmidei chachamim, and   watching how they conduct themselves.  We learn from life itself and give expression to  our   learning by putting it into practice.

 Social interactions are the arena where lots of socio-moral learning takes place. In order to share  in   a fellow's burden we need to use the same learning skills as we do in learning Torah or Talmud. People are not open books and we have to notice the ' cues' people give with their body and facial language. There is a lot of missing information and we have to notice the inconsistencies in a person's behavior to recognize that something is going on. We need to learn to ' drill down ' with questions to find out a person's concerns and their   perspectives.  People, especially kids are not so articulate when it comes to expressing their concerns and what is bothering them. When we observe   how a wise man conducts himself, we need to be able to recognize and to be aware of the sensitive way he is acting and understand the reasons behind his behavior.

  The research actually shows that kids who had some social skills training improved their academic performances. Social Skills rest on ' empathy ' and altruism. It means  going   beyond one's self , exploring ideas , trying to understand the other person's ideas or what he needs  first, rather than trying to prove oneself to be right or look after one's own needs . Beit Hillel taught us to try and understand the other person first before we try to explain our position. The CPS – collaborative problem solving approach tells us to first to get a clear understanding of the kid's or other   person's perspective and concern before we put our concerns on the table.

How we view kids' behavior and other peoples ' challenges can impact on our responses or interventions. If we view kids inappropriate behavior as being 'defiant, aggressive, lazy, manipulative, controlling, and testing limits' we tend to be more punitive and  use consequences to get them to ' wanna behave'.  But if we are more compassionate and want to share with the child his burden, we would   ascribe his challenges to lagging skills etc. The CPS – collaborative problem solving approach 'mantra' is that kids do well if they can and not children do well if they want to. I think the same applies to adults. Sharing a fellow's burden really understands   what is getting in his way of the kid and trying to help him.

Edward de Bono ,l the creator of the word ' lateral thinking' and programs to ' teach thinking ', recommends his PMI tool to help people be less critical and try to see the positive in what  others are  saying. We are naturally critical thinkers -   it is either a yes or no – we agree or disagree if the idea fits in what we believe or not. It is much easier to be critical than look for the positives in other people and their ideas. Intelligent people have more of a problem of not being exploratory and creative in their thinking, because they are good at defending their positions. So Edward de Bono suggests we  should explore a person's   idea using his PMI tool, looking first for the Positives and only afterwards the Minuses. And then we can note other Interesting observations.

Sharing a fellow's burden means changing one's thinking – less critical thinking and more exploratory and creative thinking so you have  a 'empathic and  compassionate view ' of peoples' struggles , understanding first their  concerns and perspectives and trying to see the positive in them and their  ideas. This makes you a better, creative and explorative   thinker, so you become better at learning what the Torah teaches and have more of a chance to acquire the crown of the Torah.

Vayeitzei 74-Should Parents be friends with their kids ?

Lots of parenting articles and books admonish parents - Be a parent, don't be your kid's friend. And when I see this I recall the following Biblical sources usually cited when discussing the parent –child relationship.

In this week's Parasha-portion Genesis 31:46, we read how Jacob- Ya'akov instructs his BROTHERS to gather stones and form a mound. This mound   was to be a monument and a witness to the treaty between and Laban and Jacob. The obvious question is that he had only one brother   Esau and he was not around. Rashi answers that Jacob referred to his sons as ' brothers' because they identified with his struggle and were committed to him. The relationship between Jacob and his sons could be described as an older brother-sibling relationship.

Further on in the Book of Genesis 45:8 , Joseph reveals himself to his brothers and he says that G-d has placed him as an Av= father to Pharaoh.  Rashi explains that the word Av=father as being a friend and a patron = from the Latin/greek  'pater'.  The word patron means a benefactor and protector.

Traditionally kids show respect to their parents by addressing them with the words my father- mother, my teacher. So from these sources the relationship could be described as one of an older brother, friend or mentor.

It is pretty obvious that a parent should not make her kid her confidant and burden her child emotionally with all her troubles and that she doesn't share everything. But being a friend of your kid helps the parent to be a ' real, genuine   and authentic person'. Alfie Kohn Alfie Kohn  reminds us that your child needs a human being – flawed, caring and vulnerable – more than he or she needs someone pretending to be a crisply competent Perfect Parent. If parents don't share with kids things they enjoy or hate, or their needs that they have, kids will never be able to empathy with parents, and see that they are real people who also have needs. Real people are not perfect, screw up and make mistakes. Apologizing to kids not only models how that should be done, but shows that it is possible to acknowledge to ourselves and others that we make mistakes and that things are sometimes our fault, without  losing face or feeling hopelessly inadequate. But apologizing exposes our fallibility and vulnerability and makes us feel a little unsafe when we stand on the perfect parent pedestal, a position of ultimate and unquestionable authority. Even saying thank you to your child in a sincere and genuine way, that without their help you would have been lost exposes your vulnerability. There is nothing to fear because it is when we expose our vulnerability, we create connection and facilitate learning   opportunities.  Brene Brown teaches that it is vulnerability that creates great business leaders and when you shut off vulnerability, you shut off opportunity. If vulnerability is good for business leaders, how much more is it so for parents!

 Another reason why parents fear developing a genuine and warm relationship with kids is that it will compromise their ability to set limits , impose their authority and control them.

In fact the opposite is true. Do you ever wonder why parents and teachers are the last to know when kids screw up or act in an inappropriate way? When kids feel that they are unconditionally accepted and loved by their parents for who they are , and trust them to be their guides and help, kids will come to parents for help. It is our healthy attachments with kids that allow us to be their guides and mentors.

We can set limits in a unilateral way and demand compliance or we can let kids participate in setting limits using the CPS – collaborative problem solving approach. When our concerns and expectations are addressed by the agreed solutions, we are in fact setting a limit together with the child.

As parents and educators we really want our kids to learn to set limits. Instead of giving a list of rules and consequences we can offer them principles and guidelines to help them navigate the world. We want kids to derive limits and guidelines on how to act from the situation itself and what other people need .If so, then our coming up with   limits, and especially specific behavioral limits and imposing them on kids makes it less likely that kids will become moral people who say that the situation decrees a kind of a boundary for appropriate ways to act.

Parents should be friends with their kids, but it is not a friendship of equals but similar to the trust, respect and caring that a mentor shows for his student.

Barbara Coloroso was once asked to help parents with their young teenager. When he was a pre-teen he was such a good kid, he always listened to us. Now he no longer listens to us, just to his teenage friends. She answered the parents that nothing has changed – he used to listen to you, now he is listening to them. When a parent is a friend and a mentor the child is not being compliant but self determined and acts in an autonomous way giving expression to the values he acquired from parents and teachers and has made his own.

Lech Lecha 74 – Abraham and Lot – a Collaborative Problem Solving perspective

Parashat Lech Lecha speaks about Abraham's initiative to separate from Lot. This decision was sparked by the dishonest behavior of Lot's shepherds who grazed their flocks on other peoples' pastures. They were rebuked by Abraham's shepherds and a quarrel ensued. Lot's shepherds justified their actions by claiming   that the land was theirs. It was given by God to Abraham and since he was childless, Lot was his heir. The association with Lot meant that Abraham's family was involved in robbery and theft and this situation could not be tolerated. It would not be the first or last time that business partners or family members would decide to go each their own way. In this case, business ethics and morality demanded this separation.

The Medrash commentary however thinks differently and says that God was very critical of Abraham's decision to separate from Lot.

Rabbi Dessler suggests 2 answers.

Man is judged and made accountable to God on two levels. We are judged for our actions and we are judged for the 'level' on which we operate. So on Abraham's level, his action of ' separation ' was not only legitimate but in a sense the only option available for him to maintain his honesty and integrity. Separation was also something that Lot was thinking about for some time as he had his eyes on the more prosperous areas of Sodom. But if Abraham was on a higher and greater level he could have influenced Lot and his men to act differently. The claim against Abraham is not for the action he did – the act of separation- but for the 'level ' he operated on.

This is an important concept to internalize. People can carry on and do the right things in the context of where they are holding or in the context of their communities and think that they doing OK .  No'ach and Lot were considered righteous within their respective communities, but very ordinary in a community where people were working on themselves. We need to reflect on where we are holding, on what levels we are operating, on who we are and not simply reflect on our actions.

Abraham's shepherds and so indirectly Abraham also have a certain responsibility for the separation. The Sifri commentary on Ki Teitze says that no peace can come out of quarrels and conflict. The way Abraham's shepherds approached the Lot's men was very antagonistic and involved a top-down rebuke. Rav Dessler says that Abraham's shepherds should not have started a quarrel and conflict. If Abraham's shepherds would have done acts of chesed and loving kindness towards the shepherds of Lot, they would have had a bigger impact and influence on Lot's shepherds because of the good relationship. Abraham had to take responsibility for not educating his shepherds to be attractive personalities who build relationships.

People who are in good relationships sometimes also quarrel and have conflicts. Being able to solve problems in a collaborative way and find realistic and mutually satisfying solutions is important. I want to suggest that if Abraham's shepherds would have attempted CPS – collaborative problem solving, things might have played out differently and there would not have been a separation.

In CPS we don't start with our concerns or expectations. We start with the child's or the other parties concerns. Once they feel heard and understood we have a much better chance of our concerns and expectations being heard. Once we have a clear understanding of  their  concerns we can look for various alternative solutions. People often present their concerns as solutions. We have to take a step back and ask 'what is the concern that this solution is addressing. We can't assume that we know the concerns and so we need to rely on the other party or child to give us this information.

Abraham's shepherds = As - we have noticed that your flocks graze on other peoples' lands, what's up!

Lot's shepherds=LS-  It is too costly to graze the flocks on ownerless land and in any case the land belongs to Lot as he is Abraham's heir and God gave the land to Abraham.

AS-   We understand that your concerns are financial - the cost of feeding your flocks

LS- yes, we are also concerned about the time and effort involved in grazing on ownerless land.

AS- Our concerns are that the locals – the Canaanites and Prezites are very much in control of the land and they rightly consider your actions as theft and robbery. And we by association are party to your actions.

As – let's brainstorm a solution to think of a way which addresses your concerns = the cost of grazing the flocks and our concerns that grazing on other peoples' lands is problematic.

Abraham can give Lot financial assistance or offer a profitable joint venture in order to address Lot's shepherds concerns. They could also decide to move on together to a more user-friendly economic environment. The process is also helpful in getting Lot's shepherds to 'hear' Abraham's concerns.

Sometimes the best solution is to separate. However we should still try to find some common ground where we can still cooperate.  Despite the separation Abraham did promise his commitment to Lot's well being and in fact went to war to free him from captivity. However they did not decide on what matters they could cooperate.

The Sages criticism of Abraham's action to separate from Lot  is a reminder to us that our actions might seem legitimate in the context of where we are holding. But if we were on a higher level, display more chesed, loving kindness  and better collaborative problem solving skills we could become more powerful people and influence people to the better and help  create a better and caring society.