Dedicated in Loving Memory of Tova Rhein
What is chinuch for mitzvot? Who is obligated? At what stage?
In Brief
How is chinuch defined?
- Broadly, as an initiation into a life of Torah and mitzvot, from a child’s earliest stages of growth, a process in which mothers have often taken the lead. (Learn more about women’s roles in transmitting Jewish tradition here.)
- Formally, as a rabbinic-level obligation of education in performing mitzvot, as described in Mishlei 22:6, “Educate the youth according to his way…”
Who is obligated?
- A parent is obligated in a minor’s chinuch.
- According to some opinions, an educable minor also has some degree of obligation to perform mitzvot, though not on the level of an adult’s rabbinic obligations. On this view, a parent’s obligation is to facilitate the minor’s chinuch.
Are daughters and mothers obligated?
While a number of passages in rabbinic literature seem to include daughters and mothers in chinuch, a Talmudic passage about nazirites calls this into question.
In practice, daughters are widely understood to be subject to chinuch. There is some disagreement as to whether mothers are exempt, fully obligated, or obligated only when a father is unavailable.
To which mitzvot does chinuch apply?
To mitzvot in which the minor will be obligated upon reaching bar or bat mitzvah. However, it is customary to educate girls in mitzvot that women of their community perform voluntarily, including the berachot over those mitzvot where women customarily recite them.
Some maintain that negative commandments are not technically included in the obligation of chinuch. In any case, it is prohibited for anyone to help a minor violate a prohibition. Parents educate about prohibitions from an early age. Once minors reach educability, other adults may also be obligated to prevent them from violating prohibitions.
When does the obligation of chinuch take effect?
In practice, we tend to start as early as we can, but the obligation in chinuch begins when a specific child is developmentally ready for a given mitzva. This is typically age five or six for positive mitzvot and earlier for negative mitzvot, from when the child can understand that something is prohibited.
In Depth
Rav Ezra Bick, Ilana Elzufon, and Shayna Goldberg, eds.
Primary Chinuch
We can broadly define chinuch as an extended initiation into how to live in service of God. In his commentary on a verse that mentions Avraham’s disciples (chanichav), Rashi clarifies this essential meaning of the term “chinuch“:
רש”י בראשית יד:יד
חניכיו – חנכו כתיב זה אליעזר שחנכו למצות והוא לשון התחלת כניסת האדם או כלי לאומנות שהוא עתיד לעמוד בה, וכן (משלי כב ו) חנוך לנער, (במדבר ז יא) חנכת המזבח, (תהלים ל א) חנכת הבית ובלע”ז קורין לו איניציי”ר [לחנוך]:
Rashi Bereishit 14:14
Chanichav [Avraham’s disciples] – it is written “chanicho” [his disciple]; this is Eliezer, whom he educated in mitzvot. This term [root chet–nun–chaf] denotes the initial entry of a person or vessel to the craft which in which it will ultimately be established, thus (Mishlei 22:6) “educate the youth,” (Bemidbar 7:11) “the dedication of the altar), (Tehillim 30:1) the dedication of the house, and in French we call this “initier.”
For Jews, Torah values and mitzvot naturally play a central role in chinuch, on a few different levels:
Religious education can be deliberate and ritually-oriented—a parent putting children to bed with Shema or washing their hands in the morning.
Religious education also occurs more organically when children observe their parents living their religious commitments. Day-to-day moments, like children seeing their parents pray or accompanying them to bring food to an ill neighbor, can have a deep impact on their religious development. The Lubavitcher Rebbe describes this type of education:
הצלחה בחינוך, “את עלית: אוצר שיחות מהרבי מליובאוויטש לנשים ונערות” פרק כ.
ההשפעה על הזולת היא, לכל לראש, על ידי היותו דוגמא חיה, שכן, גם אלו אשר (באופן רשמי על-כל-פנים, וגם שלא באופן רשמי) אינם עוסקים בשטח החינוך, מכל מקום, בודאי מוכרחים גם הם לעסוק בחינוך עצמם, וכמו כן בחינוך ה”אויר” שבחדר ובבית בו הם דרים, שיהיה חדור בטוב וקדושה ויהדות אמיתיים.
'Success in Education,' in At Alit: Collection of Sichot from the Lubavitcher Rebbe to Women and Girls, ed. Moshe Shilat (Kfar Chabad, 2014), chapter 20.
The influence on another is primarily through being a living example. For thus, even those who are not occupied with the field of chinuch (at least officially, and even unofficially), they also must certainly occupy themselves with chinuch. And similarly with the chinuch through the “air” that is in the room and in the home in which they live, so that it is permeated with true goodness and sanctity and Judaism.
Beyond setting a personal example, the Rebbe speaks of active engagement in education and creating a certain atmosphere through which a child imbibes Yiddishkeit mimetically, imitatively. Educator Slovie Jungreis-Wolff expresses this very concretely:1
Slovie Jungreis-Wolf, 'Make a Good Child Great,' Yated Ne'eman, November 5,2014.
Children are sponges. They absorb every action, every conversation, and every word exchanged between parents. Even the smallest toddler will take a parent’s phone and mimic the interactions he’s seen and heard. We, parents, are our children’s most effective role models. Greater than any speech about honesty is the moment a child witnesses his parent disclosing the truth about his children’s ages when paying the admission for a Chol Hamoed outing. More powerful than any lecture about kindness is the way a child observes his parents helping one another and giving an extra hand. If we want our children to feel connected to the words in their siddurim and place them in their hearts, it is certainly not enough to say, “Shaah!” and point to the page. Our children need to observe us taking our davening seriously, not allowing others to distract us, and showing that we truly believe in the power of tefillah. Our homes are the most potent classrooms….When we parent our children, we parent ourselves. We are forced to look at the way we speak, dress, interact with others, converse at our Shabbos table, greet Yomim Tovim, and deal with daily challenges. Even the way we wake up in the morning and go to sleep at night becomes a lesson for our children.
We’ve discussed transmitting Jewish tradition mimetically here in more general terms.
There’s another aspect of chinuch, that goes beyond modelling and molding, and follows from the unique nature of each child. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein explains:2
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “On Raising Children,” sicha delivered at Yeshivat Har Etzion, July 1, 2007.
There is a second, more relational aspect of the broad sense of chinukh. This entails developing what the Greeks called paideia, eliciting from the personality of the child that which is already there; moreover, this means developing not powers, but rather attitudes, relationships, commitments, involvement, and engagement.…You cannot start being an involved parent too early….who works at parenting out of the depth of his love and commitment: the love of the child, the love of the family, and the love of God.
This type of chinuch relates to a parent’s ongoing, loving attention to a child’s growth, from the very beginning of life.
Mothers
Mothers have long been assumed to be primary caregivers, especially in a child’s first years. In its discussion of minors and the mitzva ofsukka, the mishna recognizes that at certain stages in life, children simply need their mothers, and that such a need can be of halachic consequence:
משנה סוכה ב:ח
…וקטנים פטורים מן הסוכה קטן שאינו צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה…
Mishna Sukka 2:8
…Minors are exempt from sukka. A minor who does not need his mother is obligated in sukka…
In the Middle Ages, Rabbeinu Yona argues that a mother is chiefly responsible for all children’s connection to Torah and fear of Heaven:3
רבנו יונה, אגרת התשובה, יום ו כלל א:ב
…שהן שולחות בניהם לבית הספר, ומשימין עיניהן על בניהם שיתעסקו בתורה, ומרחמות עליהם בבואם מבית הספר, ומושכים לבם בדברים טובים שיהא חפצם בתורה, ושומרים אותם שלא יבטלו מן התורה, ומלמדים אותם יראת חטא בילדותם. שנאמר חנוך לנער על פי דרכו גם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנו, ונמצא לפי זה הנשים הצנועות מסבבות התורה והיראה…
Rabbeinu Yona, Iggeret Ha-teshuva, Day 6 Rule 1:2
…For they [mothers] send their sons to school, and keep an eye on their sons that they occupy themselves with Torah, and care for them when they come from school, and attract them with good things that they be desirous of Torah, and watch out that they do not desist from Torah, and teach them fear of sin in their childhood. For it is said “Educate the youth according to his way; even when he grows old, he will not stray from it.” And hence, refined women bring about Torah and awe…
In formulating this argument, centered on mother and son, Rabbeinu Yona lists both a mother’s prodding to study Torah formally and her more affective acts of care. Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch makes a similar argument in the nineteenth century:
Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch, “Educational Talks I,” in Judaism Eternal, ed. & trans. Dayan Dr. I Grunfeld (London: Soncino, 1956), 224, 231.
Eim is the term for mother in the Divine tongue…But “eim” is also “im”, the “if”, the sine qua non, the indispensable, primary “condition” for the physical and spiritual nature of the child. ….For already when yisa ha-omen et ha-yonek, at the time when the nurse takes up the infant, does the business of upbringing begin.
Education is implicit in even the most basic acts of caring for a child, as the child picks up on a parent’s speech, behaviors, outlook, and attributes over time. Modern theologian Dr. Mara Benjamin elaborates on how nurturing an infant can be seen as the foundation of Torah study:4
Dr. Mara Benjamin, 'On Teachers, Rabbinic and Maternal,' in Mothers in the Jewish Cultural Imagination, eds. Jane L. Kanarek, Marjorie Lehman, and Simon J. Bronner (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2017), 371.
…Imagine that parents’ bodies, actions, and movements are the Torah that their children absorb. The parent—engaged in ordinary, quotidian duties of care and responsibility, whom we can speak of historically, but not normatively, as ‘the mother’—then becomes the sage, the ‘living scroll’ whose embodied Torah is precisely what the child learns to ‘read’. This parental teaching is not, as in the historical model of the sage, to be superseded by the teaching of the sage, but is rather the teaching itself, and simultaneously the foundation upon which all later learning builds.
The significance of caretaking imbued with educational value is often left implicit in our sources, though there is some acknowledgement that an apple often doesn’t fall far from the tree. That, for example is how Rabbi Akiva’s wife, Rachel, and her daughter are described:
כתובות סג.
דאמרי אינשי רחילא בתר רחילא אזלא כעובדי אמה כך עובדי ברתא…
Ketubot 63a
For people say: a ewe [recheila] goes after a ewe. Like the deeds of her mother, so are the deeds of a daughter…
As children grow, mothers pass on traditions and impart advice and wisdom. Abbaye cites his foster mother’s medical lore. He also quotes her statements on children’s Torah study and initiation into mitzvot. (We’ll address her topic of age-appropriate chinuch later.)
כתובות נ.
דאמר אביי אמרה לי אם בר שית למקרא בר עשר למשנה בר תליסר לתעניתא מעת לעת ובתינוקת בת תריסר
Ketubot 50a
Abbaye said: Mother said to me, a six-year-old [should begin to study] Scripture, a ten-year-old [should begin to study] Mishna, a thirteen-year-old [should begin to observe] a 24-hour fast, and for a girl, a twelve-year-old.
Dedication to children’s religious and moral education can be a decisive factor in their growth. The Talmud ascribes Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s moral development to his mother’s intervention:
שבת קנו:
ומדרב נחמן בר יצחק נמי אין מזל לישראל דאימיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק אמרי לה כלדאי בריך גנבא הוה לא שבקתיה גלויי רישיה אמרה ליה כסי רישיך כי היכי דתיהוי עלך אימתא דשמיא ובעי רחמי לא הוה ידע אמאי קאמרה ליה יומא חד יתיב קא גריס תותי דיקלא נפל גלימא מעילויה רישיה דלי עיניה חזא לדיקלא אלמיה יצריה סליק פסקיה לקיבורא בשיניה:
Shabbat 156b
From Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak also, [we learn that] astrology does not apply to Israel. For Chaldean [astrologers] said to the mother of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, your son will be a thief. She did not allow him to uncover his head. She said to him, cover your head in order that fear of Heaven should be upon you, and pray for mercy. He did not know why she said this to him. One day, he was sitting and studying under a palm tree and the cloak fell off his head. He raised his eyes and saw the palm tree. His impulse overcame him, and he climbed up and cut off a bunch of dates with his teeth.
Now that we’ve seen how the sources emphasize the importance of a parent’s nurturing guidance throughout childhood, let’s examine the formal halachic parameters for mitzva education.
The Obligation
Halachic discussion of education focuses primarily on clearly defined mitzvot and not on more informal, but formative, parent-child interactions. To start with, the formal, Torah-level mitzva of Talmud Torah is understood as obligating a father to teach Torah to his sons, and exempting mothers and daughters. (See more here.)
קידושין כט:
איהי מנלן דלא מיחייבא דכתיב ‘ולימדתם’-“ולמדתם”, כל שמצווה ללמוד מצווה ללמד, וכל שאינו מצווה ללמוד אינו מצווה ללמד. ואיהי מנלן דלא מיחייבה למילף נפשה דכתיב “ולימדתם”-“ולמדתם” כל שאחרים מצווין ללמדו מצווה ללמד את עצמו וכל שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדו אין מצווה ללמד את עצמו ומנין שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדה דאמר קרא “ולמדתם אותם את בניכם” ולא בנותיכם.
Kiddushin 29b
She [a woman], whence [do we know] that she is not obligated [to teach Torah to her child]? As it is written “and you will teach” [in this spelling, looking like] “and you will learn.” Anyone who is commanded to learn, is commanded to teach. And anyone who is not commanded to learn, is not commanded to teach. She [a woman], whence [do we know] that she is not obligated to learn herself? As it is written “and you will teach” [in this spelling, looking like] “and you will learn.” Anyone whom others are commanded to teach, is commanded to teach himself. And anyone whom others are not commanded to teach, is not commanded to teach himself. Whence [do we know] that others are not commanded to teach her? As the verse says, “And you shall teach them to your sons” and not your daughters.
Elsewhere, we’ve discussed ways in which women can and should take part in learning and teaching Torah, and a woman’s obligation to learn the halachot relevant to her.
רמ”א יו”ד רמו
ומ”מ [=ומכל מקום] חייבת האשה ללמוד דינים השייכים לאשה.
Rema YD 246
In any case, the woman is obligated to learn laws that apply to a woman.
Since text study is only one aspect of internalizing what it takes to serve God as a Jew, there is more to Jewish education than textual Talmud Torah. In the Introduction to Deracheha, we also discussed women’s role in transmitting Jewish tradition, taking a cue from Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik’s description of the mother as setting the tone for the experiential aspects of Judaism in the home.
To be sure, there are also halachic recognitions of a mother’s role in chinuch in a broader sense. For example, eight hundred years ago, Rav Yoseph Migash ruled that a mother who had cared for her young daughter in her ex-husband’s absence should be awarded custody, because a mother has a unique role to play in transmitting tradition to her daughter:
שו”ת הר”י מיגאש עא
שהאם ע”כ [=על כל] פנים יותר משמרתה מהאב והיא המלמדת אותה ומדריכתה במה שיצטרכו הבנות להתלמד ולהרגיל בו כמו הטוי[ה] והפקו'[דה] בצרכי הבית וכל יוצא בזה וללמד אותה דרך הנשים ומנהגם…
Responsa Ri Migash 71
For the mother in any case takes care of her [the daughter] more than the father, and she teaches her and guides her in what girls need to learn and to become accustomed to, like spinning and supervising the needs of the home and the like, and to teach her the way of women and their customs….
Even so, formal halachic definitions of chinuch are usually more narrow. Only a subset of educational activities is formalized as the obligation of chinuch, initiation into performing mitzvot.
The Talmud, in its discussion of a katan (minor) going up to Yerushalayim on the three regalim (pilgrimage festivals), refers to chinuch as a rabbinic -level obligation:
חגיגה ד.
אמר מר: “כל זכורך”—לרבות את הקטנים…קטן שהגיע לחינוך דרבנן היא! אין הכי נמי, וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא.
Chagiga 4a
Master said: “All of your males” (Shemot 23:17 et al.)—to include the minors [in pilgrimage to Yerushalayim]…a minor who has reached the age of chinuch is a [matter of] rabbinic law! Granted, and the verse is a mere mnemonic device [linking the idea to the Torah text].
Sources
The passage above finds a hint at the rabbinic-level obligation of chinuch in the Torah’s discussion of the three regalim. 5 Several other Biblical verses emphasize the significance of chinuch.
A number of authorities, including Rashba, cite Mishlei 22:6, which exhorts us to take children’s dispositions into account when educating them. (Rashba here calls chinuch a chumra, a stringency, a point to which we’ll return.)
רשב”א מגילה יט:
קטן שהגיע לחנוך שהוא לחומרא להרגילו קודם זמנו כדי שיהא רגיל במצוות כשיגיע זמנו וכענין שכתוב חנוך לנער ע”פ [=על פי] דרכו גם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנה (משלי כב:ו).
Rashba Megilla 19b
…A minor who has reached the age of chinuch, which is a stringency to accustom him ahead of time so that he will be accustomed to mitzvot when the time comes, and as the matter that is written: “Educate [chanoch] the youth according to his way; even when he grows old he will not stray from it (Mishlei 22:6).
More recently, in the mid-nineteenth century, Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk suggests that the fundamental obligation of chinuch for performing mitzvot is derived from the Torah, specifically, from God’s praise of Avraham training his children and household in God’s ways.
בראשית יח:יט
כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַעַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ ה֔’ לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט…:
Bereishit 18:19
For I have known him, that he will command his children and his household after him and they will keep the way of God to perform tzedaka and law….
משך חכמה בראשית יח:יט
…ומקור מצות חינוך במצות עשה, מקורו בזה הפסוק מאברהם אבינו שצוה את בניו בקטנם על המצוות. קרא ד”חנוך לנער על פי דרכו” (משלי כב, ו)…הוי מדברי קבלה, אבל העיקר מאברהם…
Meshech Chochma, Bereishit 18:19
…The source of the mitzva of chinuch for positive commandments, its source is in this verse from Avraham Avinu, who commanded his children in their youth about mitzvot. The verse of “educate the youth according to his way” (Mishlei 22:6)…is [on the level] of divrei kabbala [a type of rabbinic law anchored in the Prophets or Writings], but the essence is from Avraham…
Even if chinuch isn’t formally commanded in any verse in the Torah, it is impossible to imagine a Jewish family or community without chinuch. The Jewish people exist only because the patriarchs and matriarchs and their descendants took care to educate their children, even before the Torah was given. Rav Asher Weiss describes chinuch in a broader sense as the will of the Torah, fulfillment of which is on a Torah level:
מנחת אשר, וירא, עמ’ 134
…דאף במצוות שאין בהן לא לאו ולא עשה, מ”מ חיובן דאוריתא לפי דרצון התורה הן…וא”כ פשוט וברור דאף מצוות חינוך דאורייתא היא…
Minchat Asher, Vayera p. 134
…For even with mitzvot that have no clear positive or negative command, in any case their obligation is on a Torah level because they are the will of the Torah…and if so, it is simple and clear that even the mitzva of chinuch is from the Torah.
Who is Obligated?
Chinuch more formally defined is considered as a rabbinic-level obligation. Is this obligation incumbent solely on the parents, who must educate their children? Or also on minor children, who must observe mitzvot from which the Torah exempts them?
The verses that we’ve seen give the strong impression that the obligation of chinuch falls on the parents. This stands to reason, because the minor (katan or ketana) is considered exempt on a Torah level from mitzvot. A mishna invokes this principle, employing it to explain that a katan is not old enough to be considered a ben sorer u-moreh (rebellious son):
משנה סנהדרין ח:א
הקטן פטור שלא בא לכלל מצות:
Mishna Sanhedrin 8:1
The minor is exempt, for he has not reached inclusion in mitzvot.
Children lack maturity and thus cannot be held fully responsible for their actions. That’s part of why chinuch is necessary to begin with!
Nevertheless, when rabbinic literature refers to chinuch obligations, it’s not always clear who is obligated. Take, for example, the following passage:
חגיגה ו.
אמר אביי: כל היכא דגדול מיחייב מדאורייתא, קטן נמי מחנכינן ליה מדרבנן. כל היכא דגדול פטור מדאורייתא, מדרבנן קטן נמי פטור:
Chagiga 6a
Abbaye said: wherever an adult is obligated on a Torah level, we also educate a minor on a rabbinic level. Wherever an adult is exempt on a Torah level, a minor is also exempt on a rabbinic level.
This passage conveys an essential message about chinuch: we educate children for those mitzvot that will apply to them when older. This is a sort of halachic version of the adage, ‘start as one means to go on.’ It also means that one is not obligated in chinuch for mitzvot that one performs as an adult voluntarily, though it is customary to train minors in such mitzvot. So, for example, it is customary for girls to receive chinuch in mitzvot such as hearing shofar, which women are careful to fulfill despite exemption from the obligation.
Though the Talmud’s message here is clear, its language is not. At first, it tells us that “we” provide chinuch to the minor, but then it refers to the minor being exempt from mitzvot that won’t apply in adulthood. One is left wondering on whom the obligation of chinuch falls, the parent alone or also the child? This question is subject to halachic debate.
Parent and Child A simple reading of this Talmudic statement seems to indicate that an obligation falls on the child.
A child does not have the full da’at, cognizance or agency, required to be subject to mitzvot on a Torah level, and a parent bears responsibility for a child. Nevertheless, this passage seems to recognize some degree of agency as a child develops. Perhaps for this reason, many early halachic authorities understand chinuch as including a rabbinic-level obligation on the child to perform certain mitzvot.
A mishna raises the possibility that a minor can discharge an adult’s obligation in megilla, implying that chinuch imposes an obligation on the minor:
משנה מגילה ב: ד
הכל כשרין לקרות את המגילה חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן
Mishna Megilla 2:4
All are fit to read the megilla, except for a deaf person, one with impaired cognition, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda considers a minor fit.
Tosafot explain that chinuchis a rabbinic-level obligation on the minor that can, in some cases, enable a minor to discharge an adult’s obligation. However, in cases such as megilla, a minor maynot be able to discharge an adult’s obligation, because the minor’s chinuch obligation is not equivalent to an adult’s rabbinic-level obligation in a standard mitzva.
Whereas a standard rabbinic-level mitzva entails one rabbinic decree when performed by an adult, it entails two when performed by a minor—the base mitzva and the obligation of chinuch for it—further distancing it from Torah law:
תוספות ברכות טו. ד”ה ורבי יהודה
…ואמרי[נן] קטן שהגיע לחנוך מדרבנן כגדול ופוטר דרבנן…אבל הכא דגבי קטן איכא תרתי דרבנן דהמגילה דרבנן והקטן דרבנן אינו יכול להוציא היכא דליכא אלא חד דרבנן.
Tosafot Berachot 15a s.v. Ve-Rabbi Yehuda
We say that a minor who has reached the age of rabbinic-level chinuch is like an adult, and can discharge a rabbinic obligation… But here, where regarding a minor there are two rabbinic [factors], for [reading] megilla is rabbinic and the minor [performing mitzvot] is on a rabbinic level, he cannot discharge [the obligation of the adult], where there is only one rabbinic [factor].
Some of those who understand performative chinuch obligations as incumbent on a minor describe this level of obligation as less than that of a standard rabbinic-level commandment. We saw earlier that Rashba considers the obligation of chinuch to be a stringency. He argues that this is why a minor cannot discharge an adult’s standard rabbinic-level obligations.6
חדושי הרשב”א מגלה יט:
דכל שעיקר המצוה מדרבנן כמגילה והלל חמירא ומצות חנוך קילא טפי והלכך לא מפיק
Rashba Megilla 19b
For whenever the essence of a mitzva is rabbinic, like megilla and Hallel, it is stringent and the mitzva of chinuch is more lenient and therefore he [the minor] does not discharge [the adult’s obligation].
According to the view that chinuch obligations, whatever their halachic weight, are incumbent upon a child, the parent would still presumably have to guide or instruct the child in such obligations.
Only the Parent Alternatively, the obligation of chinuch may fall squarely on the parent. According to this understanding, mentions of rabbinic obligations pertaining to a minor should be read as shorthand for parental obligation. A statement in the Talmud Yerushalmi makes this point succinctly:
ירושלמי ברכות ג:ג
א”ר [=אמר רב] אחא בשם ר’ יוסי בי ר’ נהוראי כל שאמרו בקטן כדי לחנכו
Yerushalmi Berachot 3:3
Rav Acha said in the name of Rabbi Yossei son of Nehorai: whatever they said regarding a minor is in order to educate him.
A number of early authorities, including Ramban and Rashi,7 follow suit and view chinuch obligations as exclusive to the parent. Here is Ramban’s explanation:
חדושי הרמב”ן קידושין לא.
ואני אומר דטעמא דקטן דרבנן משום דחינוך מצוה דאב היא ולדידיה חייבו רבנן בחינוך, וקטן לאו בר מיעבד מצוה הוא, וזה דבר נכון וטעם יפה.
Ramban Kiddushin 31a
I say that the reason that [the obligation regarding] a minor is rabbinic is because chinuch is a mitzva of a father and our sages obligated him in chinuch. But a minor is not subject to performing a mitzva, and this matter is correct and its rationale is good.
Gender in Chinuch
We’ve seen that the formal mitzva of Talmud Torah applies only to father and son, but not to mother and daughter. What about the rabbinic requirement of chinuch? Is there an obligation to educate daughters? Are mothers obligated in children’s chinuch?
A few Tannaitic passages mention daughters or mothers in contexts directly relevant to chinuch. On a simple reading, they support the view that females are obligated in chinuch, as would seem to maximize initiation into a life of mitzvot.
Daughters
Let’s look at some Tannaitic examples of chinuch of daughters:
I. Berachot Ordinarily, a person may recite ha-motzi for others only if the reciter will also partake of the meal. However, an adult who isn’t partaking in a meal may recite ha-motzi for the purpose of chinuch:
ראש השנה כט:
תנו רבנן לא יפרוס אדם פרוסה לאורחין אלא אם כן אוכל עמהם אבל פורס הוא לבניו ולבני ביתו כדי לחנכן במצות:
Rosh Ha-shana 29b
Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: A person should not break up a piece of bread [i.e., recite ha-motzi] for his guests unless he eats with them, but he breaks it for his sons and for the members of his household in order to train them [le-chanchan] in mitzvot:
The phrase “members of his household” in addition to “sons” implies that chinuch is relevant for both male and female family members.
II. The Pesach According to the Mishna, a father can have his children race to acquire a portion in the Pesach offering. Rabbi Yochanan explains that this is a device to inspire zealousness for mitzvot, a sort of chinuch. A baraita then notes that girls would sometimes participate in this competition (and win it).
פסחים פט.
משנה: האומר לבניו הריני שוחט את הפסח על מי שיעלה מכם ראשון לירושלים כיון שהכניס הראשון ראשו ורובו זכה בחלקו ומזכה את אחיו עמו: גמרא:…אמר רבי יוחנן כדי לזרזן במצות קאמר…תניא נמי הכי מעשה וקדמו בנות לבנים ונמצא בנות זריזות ובנים שפלים:
Pesachim 89a
Mishna: One who says to his children: I am slaughtering the Pesach on behalf of whoever among you goes up to Yerushalayim first—As soon as the first one has brought in his head and majority [of his body], he acquires his portion and acquires for his siblings along with him. Gemara:…Rabbi Yochanan said: He said it in order to spur them on to mitzvot …A baraita also teaches thus: A story where the daughters came before the sons, and it was found that the daughters were speedy and the sons were inferior.
III. Fasting on Yom Kippur Rav Huna describes a multi-year sequence for educating male and female children in the positive commandment to afflict themselves on Yom Kippur byfasting.8 Though much of this selection is phrased in the masculine, it is understood to refer to females:9
יומא פב.
אמר רב הונא: בן שמונה ובן תשע מחנכין אותו לשעות בן עשר ובן אחת עשרה משלימין מדרבנן בן שתים עשרה משלימין מדאורייתא–בתינוקת [=מה שכתוב לעיל]…ורבי יוחנן אמר השלמה דרבנן ליכא בן עשר בן אחת עשרה מחנכין אותו לשעות בן שתים עשרה משלימין מדאורייתא.
Yoma 82a
Rav Huna said: An eight-year-old and a nine-year-old, we educate in hours [of fasting]. A ten-year-old and an eleven-year-old, complete [the fast] [as a matter of] rabbinic law. A twelve-year-old completes the fast on a Torah level—[the above] with respect to female children…Rabbi Yochanan said: There is no completing the fast rabbinically. A ten-year-old, an eleven-year-old, we educate in hours. A twelve-year-old completes it on a Torah level.
Mothers
Let’s turn now to examples of Tannaitic mentions of mothers engaging in chinuch:
I. Establishing an Eiruv In a tosefta, Rabbi Meir states that mothers would educate their young sons and daughters in mitzvot by enlisting their help in establishing an eiruv.10
תוספתא עירובין ב:יא
אמ[ר] ר[בי] מאיר לא נמנעו בנות ישראל מלשלח עירוביהן ביד בניהן וביד בנותיהן הקטנים כדי לחנכן במצות
Tosefta Eiruvin 2:11
Rabbi Meir said: The daughters of Israel did not keep themselves from sending their [foods to establish an] eiruv in the hand of their minor sons and daughters in order to educate them in mitzvot…
II. Sukka As we saw in the mishna above, a katan who no longer needs his mother is obligated to dwell in the sukka. The Talmud describes this as chinuch.11 The Talmud thus seems to view the sukka of Queen Heleni as an effort on her part to facilitate the chinuch of her sons:
סוכה ב:
…אמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בהילני המלכה בלוד שהיתה סוכתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה והיו זקנים נכנסין ויוצאין לשם ולא אמרו לה דבר. אמרו לו: משם ראייה [=ביחס לגובה סוכה]? אשה היתה ופטורה מן הסוכה! אמר להן: והלא שבעה בנים הוו לה? ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים. למה לי למיתני “ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים”? הכי קאמר להו: כי תאמרו בנים קטנים היו וקטנים פטורין מן הסוכה, כיון דשבעה הוו ,אי אפשר דלא הוי בהו חד ש”אינו צריך לאמו”. וכי תימרו קטן שאינו צריך לאמו מדרבנן הוא דמיחייב, ואיהי בדרבנן לא משגחה, תא שמע: “ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים”.
Sukka 2b
…Rabbi Yehuda said: A story of Queen Heleni in Lud, whose sukka was taller than 20 cubits, and the elders would come in and out of there and did not say anything to her. They said to him: From there is a proof [regarding a sukka’s height]? She was a woman and exempt from sukka! He [Rabbi Yehuda] said to them: And did she not have seven sons? And further, she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages. Why should I teach “And further she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages”? Thus he said to them: If you say they were little children and minors are exempt from sukka, since there were seven, it is impossible that there wasn’t one among them who “did not need his mother.” And if you say a minor who does not need a mother is obligated rabbinically, and she [Queen Heleni] did not pay heed to rabbinic law, come and learn, “And further she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages.”
Ritva derives an important principle of chinuch from this discussion of Queen Heleni, that a parent is obligated to enable a child to perform a mitzva correctly, down to its details:
ריטב”א סוכה ב:
אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בהילני וכו’ עד כל מעשיה לא היתה עושה אלא ע”פ [=על פי] חכמים. מהא שמעינן דקטן שמחנכין אותו במצות [צריך] לעשות לו מצוה בהכשר גמור כגדול דהא מייתינן ראיה בשמעתין מסוכה של הילני משום דלא סגיא דליכא בבניה חד שהגיע לחינוך דבעי סוכה מעלייתא, מקרא מלא דבר הכתוב חנוך לנער על פי דרכו….
Ritva Sukka 2b
”Rabbi Yehuda said: A story of Queen Heleni” etc…until “she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages.” From this we learn that a minor whom we educate in mitzvot [one needs] to make the mitzva in full fitness for him as with an adult, for we bring a proof in our Talmudic passage from the sukka of Queen Heleni, since it is impossible that there would not be among her sons one who had reached educability, which would require a fully fit sukka. Scripture states a full verse [on this]: educate the youth according to his way…
From Talmud to Practice
Based on what we’ve seen and on the obvious importance both of educating girls in mitzvot and of a mother’s role in child-rearing, we might assume that chinuch obligations would apply irrespective of gender. Another Talmudic passage, however, complicates matters:
נזיר כח:-כט.
מתני’ האיש מדיר את בנו בנזיר ואין האשה מדרת את בנה בנזיר…גמ’ איש אין, אבל אשה לא. מאי טעמא? ר’ יוחנן אמר: הלכה היא בנזיר. ורבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר ריש לקיש: כדי לחנכו במצות. אי הכי, אפי[לו] אשה נמי! קסבר איש חייב לחנך בנו במצות ואין האשה חייבת לחנך את בנה. בשלמא לרבי יוחנן דאמר הלכה היא בנזיר אמטו להכי—בנו אין, בתו לא. אלא לריש לקיש, אפילו בתו [=ידיר אביה]? קסבר בנו חייב לחנכו, בתו אינו חייב לחנכה.
Nazir 28b-29a
Mishna: A man makes a nazirite vow for his son, but a woman does not make a nazirite vow for her son…Gemara: A man yes, but a woman no. What is the reason? Rabbi Yochanan said: it is a halacha [transmitted to Moshe from Sinai] of nazir. And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina [said] Reish Lakish said: In order to educate him in mitzvot. If so, even a woman as well! He thought that a man is obligated to educate his son in mitzvot and a woman is not obligated to educate her son. This [mishna] makes sense [according to the opinion] of Rabbi Yochanan, who said this is a halacha [transmitted to Moshe from Sinai] of nazir, it brings him to [conclude] thus, his son yes, his daughter no. But according to Reish Lakish: [Shouldn’t a father be able to make the vow] even [for] his daughter? He thought that one is obligated to educate his son, one is not obligated to educate his daughter.
The mishna here states that a mother cannot vow to make her minor son a nazirite (nazir), and Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree as to why that should be the case. Rabbi Yochanan seems to read this as a law unique to nazir, perhaps because nazir is a voluntary ascetic practice, outside the parameters of chinuch.12 Reish Lakish, though, explains this halacha as reflecting a general principle of chinuch, that the obligation of chinuch does not apply to mothers or daughters.
According to this understanding of the passage, since Halacha typically follows Rabbi Yochanan over Reish Lakish,13 we would conclude that chinuch obligations apply fully to mothers and daughters.14
It is theoretically possible, however, that Rabbi Yochanan would agree that chinuch does not apply to mothers, or even to daughters, in cases other than nazir.
Early halachic authorities attempt to reconcile the discussion of nazir with the other sources, in different ways.
I. Daughters Exempt Some halachic authorities, including Rabbeinu Nissim, draw on this passage to mitigate the obligation of chinuch for daughters in general:15
ר”ן יומא ג: (בדפי הרי”ף)
דעיקר חינוך לתינוק הוא כדאמרינן במסכת נזיר (דף כט א) בנו חייב לחנכו במצות בתו אינו חייב לחנכה:
Ran Yoma 3b (Rif pagination)
For the essence of chinuch for a child is as we said in Nazir (29a): “His son, he is obligated to educate him in mitzvot; his daughter, he is not obligated to educate her.”
II. Mothers Exempt Others accept that chinuch applies to daughters, but question its application to mothers. For instance, Tosafot Yeshanim (prepared by Rav Moshe of Coucy under the tutelage of Rav Yehuda Sirleon) treat nazir as a special case in which chinuch does not apply to daughters, and accept the obligation to educate daughters in other cases. At the same time, Tosafot Yeshanim quote the position of Ri, who considers a father to have a unique obligatory role in chinuch, distinct from a mother’s:
תוספות ישנים יומא פב. ד”ה בן שמונה בן תשע מחנכין ובתינוקת.
ק”ל [=קשיא ליה] דאמרי[נן] בנזיר…האיש מדיר את בנו בנזיר כדר”ל [=כדריש לקיש] דאמר כדי לחנכו במצות בנו אין בתו לא דבתו אין חייב לחנכה וי”ל [=ויש לומר] דהתם לא איירי אלא דוקא לענין נזירות אבל ודאי לענין שאר מצות חייב לחנכה…ור’ [=ר”י הזקן] אומר דחינוך לא שייך אלא באב אבל באדם אחר לא שייך ביה חינוך…ומעשה דהילני המלכה שישבה היא ושבעה בניה בסוכה שמא הוה להם אב וחנכם בכך ואפילו לא היה להם אב היתה מחנכם למצוה בעלמא. מ”ר:
Tosafot Yeshanim Yoma 82a s.v. An eight or nine year old we train but with children…
This presents a difficulty for him, for we say in Nazir…A man makes a nazirite vow for his son. According to Resh Lakish, who said [this is] in order to educate him in mitzvot, his son yes, his daughter no, for he is not obligated to educate his daughter. And one can say that there it only applies specifically regarding nazir, but certainly regarding the rest of the mitzvot he [the father] is obligated to educate her…And Rav [Yitzchak (Ri Ha-zaken)] says that chinuch only applies to a father, but doesn’t apply for another person …And the story of Queen Heleni who dwelled with her seven sons in the sukka, perhaps they had a father and he educated them in this, and even if they did not have a father, she educated them as a mere mitzva. [Reviewed] from the mouth of my teacher.
Tosafot Yeshanim present two explanations for how the case of Queen Heleni can fit with Ri’s view of a father as uniquely obligated. Either her sukka was built at the behest of the children’s father or “she educated them [her children] as a mere mitzva.”
The phrase “a mere mitzva” is subject to varying interpretations, and might mean “stringency.”16
III. Fathers Primary Me’iri presents a different interpretation of how the discussion of the nazir affects our understanding of who is obligated in chinuch. He suggests that the nazir discussion, though it uses the term “chinuch,” does not really refer to standard chinuch obligations, because becoming a nazir is fully optional.
He thus views both mothers and daughters as subject to chinuch (a point that we’ll see more explicitly below in our discussion of prohibitions). However, he sees a father as having primary responsibility for a child’s chinuch in positive commandments when he is available:
בית הבחירה למאירי נזר כט.
כשם שהאיש חייב לחנך את בנו במצות…אף בבתו חייב לחנכה במה שראוי לה גם כן ועל הדרך שנאמרה בהדיא בתענית יום הכפורים בחנוך שעות שבהם וכן אם אין להם אב האם חייבת בכך ואין הכונה אלא להרגיל התינוקות במצות ולקבוע ענין המצות בלבותיהם כל אחד לפי מה שראוי לו…ומ”מ [=ומכל מקום] דברים אלו כלם במצות שיש בהן חיוב אבל במצות התלויות ברצונו של אדם ובנדבת לבו כגון נזירות אין חובת חנוך עליו אלא אם ירצה יעשה על הדרך שביארנו ומשנתנו לא משום חנוך היא…
Meiri Nazir 29a
Just as a man is obligated to educate his son in mitzvot,… so with his daughter he is obligated to educate her in what is appropriate for her as well, as was stated explicitly regarding fasting on Yom Kippur regarding their [children’s] education for hours [fasting for part of the day]. And similarly, if they don’t have a father, the mother is obligated in this. And the intention is only to habituate the children in the mitzvot and to establish the matter of mitzvot in their hearts, each one according to what is suitable for them….And in any case, these matters are all regarding mitzvot that entail an obligation, but regarding mitzvot that depend on a person’s desire and generosity of his heart, such as nazir, there is no obligation of chinuch upon him. Rather, if he wants, he should act in the way that we explained and our mishna [about nazir, which is volitional] is not on account of chinuch…
IV. All Fully Obligated Rav Avraham of Montpelier rules that both mothers and daughters are fully obligated in chinuch, without differentiating between them and fathers and sons:
ר’ אברהם מן ההר נזיר כט:
…דר’ יוחנן סבר דבין אב בין אם חייבין לחנך במצוות אחד בן ואחד בת
Rav Avraham Min Ha-har Nazir 29b
…For Rabbi Yochanan thought that both a father and a mother are obligated to educate in mitzvot both a son and a daughter.
An inclusive approach also emerges from comments by Rashi. A baraita teaches that a man may slaughter the Pesach offering on behalf of his minor sons and daughters, which Rashi explains as a function of his obligation in chinuch for them:
פסחים פח.
תנו רבנן: “שה לבית” מלמד שאדם מביא ושוחט על ידי בנו ובתו הקטנים.
Pesachim 88a
Our rabbis taught in a baraita: “A lamb for each home,” teaches that a person brings and slaughters on behalf of his minor son and daughter.
רש”י שם
על ידי – בשביל שבנו ובתו הקטנים עליו לחנכן
Rashi ad loc.
On behalf of – since it is incumbent upon him to educate his son and his daughter.
Elsewhere, Rashi writes that the obligation of chinuch falls on both mothers and fathers:
רש”י חגיגה ב.
אף על פי שאינו חייב מן התורה – הטילו חכמים על אביו ועל אמו לחנכו במצות.
Rashi Chagiga 2a
Even though he [the minor] isn’t obligated on a Torah level – The sages placed [responsibility] upon his father and upon his mother to educate him in mitzvot.
In Practice
A number of authorities follow the view that obligation for chinuch does not fall on the mother, but that daughters may be subject to chinuch:17
מגן אברהם שמג:א
אביו מצווה. אבל אמו אינה מצווה וכ”ה [=וכך הוא] בנזיר דף כ”ט ובת”ה [=ןבתרומת הדשן] סי’ צ”ד ומעשה דהילני בסוכה דף ב’ שהושיבה בניה בסוכה ע”ש [=עיין שם] היא החמירה על עצמה (תשו’ מהר”מ ד”ק סי’ ר’) עסי’ [=עיין סימן] תרי”ו ומשמע בנזיר דאין מחויב לחנך בתו ע”ש [=עיין שם] ובתו[ספות] בנזיר הקשו מ”ש דבי”ה [=מאי שנא דביום הכיפורים] מחויב לחנך בתו ע”ש [=עיין שם] ואפשר דכל המצות דמי לי”ה [=ליום הכיפורים] וצריך לחנכם…
Magen Avraham 343:1
His father is obligated. But his mother is not obligated, and so it is in Nazir 29 and in Terumat Ha-deshen 94. And the story of Heleni in Sukka 2, that she sat her sons in the sukka (see there), she was stringent upon herself (Responsa Maharam 200), see 616. And it implies in Nazir that he is not obligated to educate his daughter (see there). And in Tosafot Nazir they raised the difficulty of how is this different from Yom Kippur, that he is obligated to educate his daughter (see there) and it is possible that all mitzvot are similar to Yom Kippur and one must educate them…
Others follow the view that the mother is obligated in chinuch specifically when the father cannot fulfill chinuch obligations:
אליה רבה תרמ:ד
חייב וכו’. ואם אין לו אב, אמו חייב[ת] לחנכו, ואם גם אם אין לו מחויבין ב”ד [=בית דין] לחנכו, וכן בכל מצות עשה.
Eliya Rabba 640:4
He is obligated etc. And if he does not have a father, his mother is obligated to educate him, and if he also doesn’t have a mother, the beit din is obligated to educate him, and so regarding every positive commandment.
Mishna Berura follows the view that daughters are included, and takes care to cite the view that mothers are also obligated in chinuch:
משנה ברורה שמג:ב
אבל אביו וכו’ – דאפילו לחנך בניו ובנותיו במצות הוטל עליו כדכתיב חנוך לנער על פי דרכו וכ”ש [=וכל שכן] להפרישם מאיסור דמוטל על האב ויש מאחרונים שסוברין דמצות חינוך מוטל גם על האם:
Mishna Berura 343:2
But his father… – For even to educate his sons and daughters is incumbent upon him, as is written “educate the youth according to his way” and how much more so to separate them from a prohibition, which is incumbent on the father. And there are later authorities who maintain that the mitzva of chinuch is incumbent also on the mother.
מנחת אשר, וירא, עמ’ 133
… דאין חובת האם במצווה זו כחובת האב, לפי דחובת האם אינה אלא חוב כללי לחנך בניה אחריה לתורה וליראה, משא”כ [=מה שאין כן] חיוב אב, דגדר מסוים יש בו, ודכמבואר דחיוב הגדול מדאורייתא…
Minchat Asher, Vayera p. 133
…For the mother’s obligation in this mitzva is not like the father’s obligtion, for the mother’s obligation is only the general obligation to educate her children to follow her in Torah and fear [of Heaven], which is not the case with the [additional] obligation of the father, for it has a particular definition. And as was explained, the broad obligation is on a Torah level…
Berachot
Chinuch for mitzvot includes chinuch for reciting berachot, 18 including birchot ha-mitzva, berachotrecited prior to mitzva performance. Earlier, we mentioned that it is customary to educate girls inmitzvot that women of their communities perform voluntarily.
In many communities, women recite a beracha over voluntary mitzva performance. In these communities, it is customary to educate girls to recite the beracha when performing such mitzvot in the context of chinuch:
רב דוד אויערבאך, הלכות בת ישראל כז:ו
לנוהגין כדעת הרמ”א שאשה רשאית לברך על מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמן—נכון לחנך גם את הקטנות לברך על המצוות, וכן המנהג. הערה יב: אבל מעיקר הדין אין שום חיוב לחנכן כיון דאף לכשיגדלו לא יתחייבו במצוות אלו.
Rav David Auerbach, Halichot Bat Yisrael, 27:6
For those whose practice is in accordance with Rema’s view that a woman is permitted to recite a beracha over positive time-bound commandments [from which she is exempt]—it is correct to educate girls, too, to recite a beracha over the mitzvot, and so is the custom. Note 12: But the fundamental law is that there is no obligation to educate them [in berachot over voluntary mitzva performance], since even when they grow up. they will not be obligated in these mitzvot.
Negative Commandments
Until now, we’ve discussed chinuch for positive mitzvot, initiating children into reciting berachot, dwelling in the sukka, and so on. We also educate our children to refrain from prohibited activities, like eating non-kosher food or performing labor on Shabbat. In general, keeping children from doing something wrong, and inculcating what is off limits, can seem different from—and often more urgent than—introducing positive courses of action.
Indeed, an adult is not permitted to actively cause or instruct any child of any age to violate a prohibition:
יבמות קיד.
ת”ש [=תא שמע] “לא תאכלום כי שקץ הם” לא תאכילום להזהיר הגדולים על הקטנים מאי לאו דאמר להו לא תאכלו לא דלא ליספו ליה בידים תא שמע כל נפש מכם לא תאכל דם להזהיר הגדולים על הקטנים מאי לאו דאמרי להו לא תאכלו לא דלא ליספו להו בידים ת”ש אמור ואמרת להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים מאי לאו דאמר להו לא תיטמו לא דלא ליטמו להו בידים
Yevamot 114a
Come and learn: “Don’t eat them because they are detestable.” [I.e.] Don’t feed them, to warn adults regarding minors. Isn’t this that he [an adult] say to them [children]: “Don’t eat”? No, that they [adults] not feed him [a minor] directly. Come and learn: “Every soul among you shall not eat blood.” To warn the adults about minors. Isn’t this that they say to them: “Don’t eat”? No, that they not feed them directly. Come and learn: “Say and you shall say.” To warn adults about minors. Isn’t this that he says to them: “Don’t become impure”? No, that they not render them impure directly.
It makes intuitive sense that one should not willfully induct anyone’s children into behavior that will be prohibited to them. What about preventing children from violating a negative commandment of their own volition? Is this technically an aspect of chinuch? If so, is it unique to the parent, or also incumbent on the beit din (who represent the general public)?
In the passage from Tosafot Yeshanim that we excerpted above, Rav Eliezer of Metz is cited as maintaining that the specific mitzva of chinuch does not extend to teaching a child to refrain from prohibitions, and thus, that the processes of learning about positive and negative mitzvot are distinct.
However, Tosafot Yeshanim and Tosafot disagree with that position. Tosafot Yeshanim take the view that training a child about prohibitions is incumbent as a matter of chinuch, though incumbent only on the father:
תוספות ישנים יומא פב.
וא”ת [=ואם תאמר] הא דאמרינן בכל דוכתא קטן אוכל נבילות אין ב”ד [=בית דין] מצווין להפרישו השתא חנוכי מחנכינן אפרושי מאיסורא מיבעי ואומר ה”ר אליעזר ממיץ דחינוך לא שייך אלא שיעשה מצוה ולא פרושי מאיסורא והא (דמוזהרין) [דקרינן] הכא [חינוך] במה שמענין אותו ביוה”כ [=ביום הכיפורים] אין זה אפרושי מאיסורא שמפרישין אותו מלאכול אלא הוא חינוך שמחנכין אותו במצות ועניתם את נפשותיכם ור’ אומר דחינוך לא שייך אלא באב אבל באדם אחר לא שייך ביה חינוך הלכך נמי אין נזהרין להפרישו
Tosafot Yeshanim Yoma 82a
If you say, that which we say in every place, ‘a minor eating neveilot [meat that wasn’t ritually slaughtered], the beit din is not commanded to separate him.’ Now, we certainly educate him—is separating him from prohibitions in question? And Rav Eliezer of Metz says that chinuch is only applicable for performing a mitzva and not to separate [minors] from prohibition. And that which we call it chinuch in that we afflict him [a minor] on Yom Kippur is not separating from prohibition, that we separate him from eating, but rather it is chinuch that we educate him in the [positive] mitzva of “and you will afflict yourselves.” And Ri says that chinuch only applies to the father, but chinuch is not relevant for another person. Therefore they [the public] are not enjoined to separate him [the minor from prohibition].
Tosafot in Tractate Shabbat agree that training a child to desist from prohibition is a matter of chinuch. However, they maintain that non-family members are obligated in some aspects of chinuch along with the father, and thus in preventing another’s child from violating prohibitions:
תוספות שבת קכא.
דבאיסורא דרבנן מוכח בפרק חרש (יבמות קיד.) דאין ב”ד [=בית דין] מצווין להפרישו ונראה דמיירי בקטן שלא הגיע לחינוך דבהגיע לחינוך כיון שחייב לחנכו כ”ש [=כל שכן] דצריך להפרישו שלא יעשה עבירה…
Tosafot Shabbat 221a
For regarding a rabbinic prohibition, it is proven in ch. 14 of Yevamot (114a) that a beit din is not commanded to separate him [a minor from prohibition] and it seems that it is dealing with a minor who has not reached educability. For when he has reached educability, since one is obligated to educate him, how much more so that one must separate him [from prohibition] that he not perform a transgression…
The phrase “how much more so” here suggests that it is clear to Tosafot that the imperative to keep a child from transgressing is stronger than that of training him in positive mitzvot.
In practice, as above, halachic consensus is that no one may actively cause a child to act counter to a prohibition. Shulchan Aruch rules that only the father is further obligated to separate a child from prohibitions, as part of the obligation in chinuch. But Rema cites the more stringent view that once the minors reach educability, others, too, are obligated to prevent them from violating prohibitions. Mishna Berura adds that in his view the obligation of others only applies to Torah-level mitzvot, and not to rabbinic level mitzvot.19
שולחן ערוך או”ח שמג:א
קטן אוכל נבלות אין ב”ד [=בית דין] מצווין להפרישו, אבל אביו מצווה לגעור בו להפרישו (רמ”א: מאיסור דאורייתא); ולהאכילו בידים, אסור אפילו דברים שאסורים מדברי סופרים; וכן אסור להרגילו בחילול שבת ומועד ואפי[לו] בדברים שהם משום שבות. הגה: וי”א [=ויש אומרים] דכל זה בקטן דלא הגיע לחינוך, אבל הגיע לחינוך צריכים להפרישו (תוס’ פרק כ”כ). וי”א [=ויש אומרים] דלא שייך חינוך לבית דין, אלא לאב בלבד (ב”י)
Shulchan Aruch OC 343:1
A minor eating neveilot, a beit din is not commanded to separate him, but his father is commanded to castigate him to separate him (Rema: from Torah prohibitions), and to feed him directly is prohibited even in matters that are rabbinically prohibited. And thus it is prohibited to accustom him to violate Shabbat and holidays, and even regarding matters that are rabbinically prohibited. Rema: And there are those who say that all of this applies to a minor who has not reached educability, but if he has reached educability, we need to separate him (Tosafot Shabbat, Ch. 16). And there are those who say chinuch does not apply to a beit din, but rather to the father alone.
Those who follow the view that a mother is not obligated in chinuch would obligate her as one would the general public. Those who follow the view that she is obligated only when the father is unavailable would usually put the onus on the father. Those who follow the view that a mother is fully obligated in chinuch would obligate her here as well. Me’iri, for example, says this:
בית הבחירה למאירי נזר כט.
…ומה שאמרו “קטן אוכל נבלות אין בית דין מצווין להפרישו” אב ואם מיהא מצווין בכך מתורת חנוך…
Meiri Nazir 29a
That which they [the sages] said, “a minor eating neveilot, a beit din is not commanded to separate him,” a father and mother are nevertheless commanded in this as part of the law of chinuch…
It is common practice for mothers to be no less scrupulous than fathers in preventing their children from violating prohibitions.
Another, related mitzva is that of reproof, in which a mother is considered obligated.
כף החיים רכה:יד
וגם האשה חייבת לחנך את בנה לייסרו…
Kaf Ha-chayyim 225:14
The woman is also obligated to educate her son through reproof…
Stages
As we’ll discuss further in our upcoming piece on Bat Mitzva, the chinuch relationship changes when the child reaches maturity. Rosh rules that the technical obligation in chinuch for a given mitzva ends when the child’s full obligation in it begins:
רא”ש (פירוש לש”ס) נזיר כט:
דכל מצוה שהוא מחויב בה אין אביו מחויב לחנכו בה:
Rosh (Talmudic commentary), Nazir 29b
For every mitzva that he [the child] is obligated in, the father is not obligated to educate him (le-chancho) in it.
Even so, as long as a parent exerts control over a child, there are Talmudic grounds for maintaining that some extra parental responsibility for rebuke persists:
קידושין ל.
א”ל [=אמר ליה] רבא לר’ נתן בר אמי אדידך על צוארי דבריך משיתסר ועד עשרים ותרתי ואמרי לה מתמני סרי עד עשרים וארבעה כתנאי חנוך לנער על פי דרכו ר’ יהודה ורבי נחמיה חד אמר משיתסר ועד עשרים ותרתין וחד אמר מתמני סרי ועד עשרים וארבעה…
Kiddushin 30a
Rava said to Rav Natan bar Ami [regarding the age at which parents should marry off a son]: While your hand is on the neck of your son, from sixteen until twenty-two. And some say: From eighteen to twenty-four. This is like the Tannaitic argument [regarding] ”educate a youth according to his way.” Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya [disagreed]. One said: From sixteen to twenty-two and one said: from eighteen to twenty-four.
Up to this point, we’ve seen the verse in Mishlei applied to minors. Here, it is used in a looser sense to indicate that some aspect of chinuch, even if not the formal obligation, remains in place through the teenage years and young adulthood, as an extension of the general obligation to reprove others.20
Beginning
At what point, though, does the obligation in chinuch begin? A baraita indicates that the age varies from mitzva to mitzva and from child to child:
סוכה מב.-מב:
תנו רבנן: ‘קטן היודע לנענע-חייב בלולב, להתעטף-חייב בציצית, לשמור תפילין-אביו לוקח לו תפילין, יודע לדבר-אביו לומדו תורה וקריאת שמע.’ תורה מאי היא? אמר רב המנונא: תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב [דברים לג:ד]. קריאת שמע מאי היא? פסוק ראשון…יכול לאכול כזית צלי, שוחטין עליו את הפסח…
Sukka 42a-b
Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: ‘A minor who knows how to shake, is obligated in lulav. To wrap himself, is obligated in tzitzit. To care for tefillin, his father purchases him tefillin. He knows how to speak, his father teaches him Torah and Shema.’ What is Torah? Rav Himnuna said: “Moshe commanded us in Torah, an inheritance of the community of Ya’akov” (Devarim 33:4). What is reciting Shema? The first verse…If he can eat an olive’s worth of roasted [meat], we slaughter the Pesach sacrifice on his behalf…
The timing of chinuch in these examples depends on a variety of factors, each related to the nature of the specific mitzva involved: motor skills, verbal abilities, eating skills, or discernment. Earlier, we saw that a boy’s need for his mother was a factor in determining the parameters of chinuch for sukka. Drawing on this baraita, Tosafot explain that the onset of chinuch depends on the child’s developmental readiness to learn about a given mitzva.
תוספות סוכה כח: ד”ה כאן בקטן שהגיע לחינוך
והשתא הגיע לחינוך דאמרינן בכל דוכתא אין כולן שוים אלא כל אחד לפי עניינו דהכא אמרי[נן] באין צריך לאמו וגבי חגיגה שיכול לעלות ובסוף לולב הגזול (לקמן דף מב.) גבי לולב ביודע לנענע וגבי ציצית ביודע להתעטף וגבי תורה ביודע לדבר.
Tosafot Sukka 28b s.v. Kan be-katan she-higi'a le-chinuch
Now reaching educability, which we refer to everywhere, not all [cases] are equal. Rather each [mitzva] as appropriate, for here we say [regarding sukka] it’s when he does not need his mother, and regarding chagiga—when he is able to go up [to Yerushalayim], and in the end of Sukka ch. 3 (42a) regarding lulav, when he knows how to shake it. And regarding tzitzit when he knows how to wrap himself, and regarding Torah when he knows how to speak.
Mishna Berura typically considers a child from the age of five or six to be considered educable to the extent that chinuch obligations would apply:
משנה ברורה קכח:קכג
…זמני החנוך שהוא כבר חמש כבר שית…
Mishna Berura 128:123
…The times of education which are already at five, already at six [years]…
In practice, we tend to begin chinuch for many positive mitzvot much earlier to foster children’s religious development as soon as we can. Rav Yeshaya Horovitz writes that we should begin educating children from when they can speak, though he does not suggest that this is obligatory:
של”ה שער האותיות אות דל”ת – דרך ארץ
צריך להרגילו ולחנכו במדות טובות וישרות מעת שיוכל לדבר…ויתחיל בו מבן שתים או שלש שנים, להדריכו בכל, ויתחיל להדריכו מקטנותו מצד שני טעמים, האחד, כי אמרו רבותינו ז”ל (שבת קנב א) ינקותא כלילא דוורדא, כל מה שקונה בנפשו בילדותו, נשאר כן בטבע קיים כל ימיו…השני, כי כשמתחיל האב בבנו להוכיחו…אז יהיה לעולם מורגל במורא האב…
Shelah, Sha’ar Ha-otiyot, Dalet: Derech Eretz
One must accustom and educate him [a minor] in good and righteous attributes from when he can speak…and should begin with him from age two or three years, to guide him in everything. And he should begin to guide him from when he is little for two reasons: First, because our sages said: “Youth is a crown of roses” (Shabbat 152a). What a child acquires in his soul in his youth remains thus in his nature all his days…Second, for when a father begins to reprove his son…then he [the son] will always be used to having awe of the father….
Some mitzvot, however, require an extra level of understanding so that the obligation of chinuch begins later than six years. Chinuch regarding negative mitzvot is usually obligatory even earlier than five years, from the stage at which the child can understand that something is off limits:
משנה ברורה שמג:ג
ודע דשעור החינוך במ”ע [=במצוות עשה] הוא בכל תינוק לפי חריפותו וידיעתו בכל דבר לפי ענינו כגון היודע מענין שבת חייב להרגילו לשמוע קידוש והבדלה היודע להתעטף כהלכה חייב בציצית וכנ”ל בסימן י”ז וכן כל כיו”ב [=כיוצא בזה] בין במ”ע [=במצוות עשה] של תורה בין בשל ד”ס [=דברי סופרים] אבל החינוך בל”ת [=בלא תעשה] בין של תורה בין של דבריהם הוא בכל תינוק שהוא בר הבנה שמבין כשאומרים לו שזה אסור לעשות או לאכול אבל תינוק שאינו בר הבנה כלל אין אביו מצווה למנעו בע”כ [בעל כורחו] מלאכול מאכלות אסורות או מלחלל שבת אפילו באיסור של תורה כיון שאינו מבין כלל הענין מה שמונעו ומפרישו וכן אם הוא כהן אין צריך להוציאו מבית שהטומאה בתוכו אא”כ [=אלא אם כן] הוא בר הבנה אזי מצוה על אביו להוציאו כדי להפרישו מן האיסור מחמת מצות חינוך. ולהכניסו בבית שטומאה בתוכו וכן לספות לו בשאר איסורים אסור אפילו בתינוק שאינו בר הבנה עדיין
Mishna Berura 343:3
Know that the measure of chinuch in positive mitzvot is for every child according to his acuity and knowledge, with every matter as appropriate, such as [a minor] who knows of the matter of Shabbat, one should accustom him to hear kiddush and havdala. [A minor] who knows to wrap himself in accordance with Halacha is obligated in tzitzit and as above in 17. And similarly with every such thing, whether a positive mitzva on a Torah level or rabbinically. But chinuch in negative mitzvot, whether on a Torah level or rabbinic, is for every child with understanding, who understands when we say to him that this is prohibited to do or to eat. But a child who lacks any understanding, his father is not obligated to forcibly prevent him from eating prohibited foods or from violating Shabbat even regarding a Torah level prohibition, since he doesn’t understand the matter, from which he is preventing and keeping him, at all. And so if he is a kohen he does not need to take him [his minor son] out of a house with impurity inside it unless he has understanding, then it is a mitzva on his father to take him out in order to separate him from prohibition on account of the mitzva of chinuch. But to bring him into a house with impurity within it, and similarly to present him with other prohibitions, is prohibited, even with a child who does not yet have understanding…
Parents often ask when it is correct to begin different aspects of chinuch, from reciting berachot, to tzitzit, to dressing in line with dat yehudit. While taking into account the above rules of thumb and common custom, Halacha invites a parent to look carefully at the interaction between a given mitzva and the developmental readiness of a specific child.
To have the insight to educate our children optimally, we need to develop our own wisdom and fear of God. In the beginning of the seventeenth century, Torah teacher Rivka bat Meir published a work of derashot and prayers, including extensive discussions of chinuch. In this excerpt, she reminds us of this point.
Rivkah bat Meir, Meneket Rivkah, Frauke von Rhoden ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2008), 179-182.
“…[E]very woman should make sure that she herself guides her daughter to perform good deeds…We also learn of our mother Rebekah that Eliezer saw in her many good deeds that he did not see in the other young women. He praised God, blessed be His name, that he led him on the right path, and sent him a good match who had the virtues of our Patriarch Abraham, among them, charity and hospitality…We can learn from this how one should raise a daughter…[A] woman, who merited raising her children in her household to Torah and good deeds, and proper conduct, and who wishes to fulfill her obligations to God, blessed be his name, and to all people–such a woman requires fear of God and wisdom.”
What should we keep in mind when engaged in chinuch regarding women and mitzvot?
Just as with other aspects of chinuch, learning about women and mitzvot is a mix of the formal mitzva, care with prohibitions when a child can understand them, and developmentally appropriate introductions to obligations.
A few points to keep in mind:
I. Learning about women’s halachic obligations is important for children of any gender. For example, it is no less important to help shape a boy’s understanding of the language of the beracha of “she-lo asani isha” than a girl’s. As we see in so many places on Deracheha, a community’s attitudes and knowledge can have an important effect on how religiously engaged its women and girls are and in what ways. This starts with boys and girls being taught carefully about women’s mitzva obligations and practices.
II. Children learn by example from an early age, and not just when we have in mind that we are teaching them. Children notice all kinds of subtle cues about our priorities, such as whether female family members make an effort to answer or make a zimmun, or whether the men of a family wait for women to return to the table before they recite it; whether women of the family make an effort to daven when possible, or whether men of the family speak quietly when a female family member is davening nearby.
III. As kids get older, they are bound to have questions. This is healthy and positive. Adults don’t need to have all the answers, but can teach children to be life-long learners by taking their questions, thoughts, and feelings seriously, treating them with respect, and exploring them together. To facilitate this, adults can avail themselves of educational resources (like this site). It is most effective for an adult to mix textual sources with personal perspectives in a developmentally appropriate manner.
The more we can build awareness of our own knowledge and feelings on sensitive subjects, and the more we can enhance them where we perceive them lacking, the more spiritual influence we can have. Educating children on these topics begins with educating ourselves.
Notes
3. This piece is loosely based on this midrash:
שמות רבה כח:
כה תאמר לבית יעקב, אלו הנשים… למה לנשים תחלה?…כדי שיהו מנהיגות את בניהן לתורה…
Shemot Rabba 28b
“So shall you say to the house of Ya’akov,” These are the women…Why to the women first?…In order that they lead their children to Torah.
6. This idea is also implied by Tosafot, referring to a discussion of a child discharging an adult’s obligation in birkat ha-mazon:
ברכות כ:
…באמת אמרו: בן מברך לאביו… ולטעמיך, קטן בר חיובא הוא? – אלא, הכא במאי עסקינן – כגון שאכל שיעורא דרבנן, דאתי דרבנן ומפיק דרבנן.
Berachot 20b
…In reality, they said: a son recites birkat ha-mazon on behalf of his father… and according to your reasoning, a minor is subject to obligation? Rather, what are we dealing with here? [A case] such as when [the adult] ate a measure [of food that obligates him in birkat ha-mazon] on a rabbinic level, so a rabbinic obligation [of chinuch] comes and discharges a rabbinic obligation.
תוספות ברכות טו. ד”ה ורבי יהודה
וי”ל [=ויש לומר] שאני ברכת המזון שהיא חומרא יתירתא יותר מדאורייתא ובקל נפטרים…
Tosafot Berachot 15a s.v. Ve-Rabbi Yehuda
One can say that birkat ha-mazon is different, for it is a great stringency beyond the Torah-level [mitzva to recite it over a smaller amount] and it is easy to discharge it…
רש”י נדה מו:
דקטן לאו בר קבולי עליה תקנתא דרבנן הוא.
Rashi Nidda 46b
For a minor is not subject to accepting rabbinic enactments upon himself.
רש”י ברכות מח.
בקטן שהגיע לחינוך…ההוא אפילו מדרבנן לא מיחייב, דעליה דאבוה הוא דרמי לחנוכיה…
Rashi Berachot 48a
Regarding a minor who has reached educability…he is not obligated even rabbinically, for it is cast upon his father to educate him….
8. In practice, chinuch for fasting part of the day on Yom Kippur typically becomes obligatory from age nine or ten, but children are not expected to complete the fast before reaching bar or bat mitzva:
שולחן ערוך או”ח תרטז:ב
קטן (הבריא) בן ט’ שנים שלימות ובן י’ שנים שלימות, מחנכין אותו לשעות…
Shulchan Aruch OC 616:2
A (Rema: healthy) child of age nine or ten, we educate them for hours [of fasting]…
משנה ברורה תרטז:ט
ומה שאין מדקדקין בזה”ז [=בזמן הזה] להתענות שום תינוק בשנת י”ב משום דבזה”ז [=דבזמן הזה] ירדה חולשה לעולם ומן הסתם כל קטן אינו נחשב כבריא לזה אא”כ [=אלא אם כן] ידוע שהוא בריא וחזק לסבול. ומדברי הא”ר [=האליה רבה] משמע דאפילו בשנת י”ג אין נוהגין להתענות כל זמן שלא השלים שנת י”ג:
Mishna Berura 616:9
That which we are not particular nowadays to have any child fast in the twelfth year is because nowadays weakness has come into the world and presumably a minor is not considered healthy in this respect unless it is known that he is healthy and strong enough to bear it. And the words of Eliya Rabba imply that even in the thirteenth year we do not have the custom of making him [a male] fast as long as he has not completed the thirteenth year.
10. Tosafot view another case in Eiruvin as potentially an example of a mother’s engagement in chinuch:
תוספות עירובין פב.
קטן בן שש יוצא בעירוב אמו – אף על גב דאין מערבין אלא לדבר מצוה מכל מקום…בקטן נמי איכא מצוה לחנכו.
Tosafot Eiruvin 82a
A minor aged six is discharged through the eiruv of his mother-even though we only make an eiruv for a matter of mitzva, in any case…with a minor there is also the mitzva to educate him.
סוכה כח:
אמר מר כל לרבות את הקטנים והתנן נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורין מן הסוכה לא קשיא כאן בקטן שהגיע לחינוך שם בקטן שלא הגיע לחינוך. קטן שהגיע לחינוך מדרבנן הוא מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא הוא
Sukka 28b
Master said: “all” includes minors. But we learned in a mishna, “Women, and bondsmen, and minors are exempt from sukka!” This is not difficult, Here, [the one included] is the minor who has reached educability. There with a minor who has not reached educability. A minor who has reached educability is rabbinic[ally obligated]. It is rabbinic, and the verse is a mere mnemonic.
משנה אבות ג:יג
רבי עקיבא אומר…נדרים סייג לפרישות…
Mishna Avot 3:13
Rabbi Akiva says:…Vows are a fence [to ensure] asceticism…
רא”ש על הש”ס, נזיר כט.
כדי לחנכו במצות דנזי[ר] סייג לפרישות.:
Rosh on the Talmud, Nazir 29a
In order to educate him in the mitzva of nazir, which is a fence [to ensure] asceticism…
יבמות לו.
אמר רבא הלכתא כוותיה דר”ל [=דריש לקיש] בהני תלת…
Yevamot 36a
Rava said: the halacha is like Reish Lakish [only] in these three [matters]…
ספר הלכות גדולות לא
דקיימא לן כל היכא דפליגי רבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש הלכה כרבי יוחנן לבר מהני תלת כרבי שמעון בן לקיש.
Halachot Gedolot 31
For we rule that wherever Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagree, the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan, aside from these three which are in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.
ברכי יוסף או”ח שמג:ז
וא”כ [=ואם כן] הני שינויי אליבא דר”ל [=דריש לקיש] הוכרחו. אבל לר’ יוחנן דסבר דהוי הלכה, מצינן למימר דאשה נמי חייבת לחנך בנה, ואחד הבן ואחד הבת איתנהו בחינוך. .. דמלשון התלמוד … מורה דר”ל [=דריש לקיש] קסבר הכי, ולית הלכתא כוותיה…
Birkei Yosef OC 343:7
If so, these teachings were decided in accordance with Resh Lakish. But for Rabbi Yochanan, who thought that this is halacha [transmitted to Moshe from Sinai], we found grounds to say that a woman is also obligated to educate her son, and both son and daughter are included in chinuch.…For the language of the gemara … indicates that Reish Lakish thought thus, and the halacha is not in accordance with him.…
מלחמת ה’ יומא ד.
ואין להחמיר על הנקבות יותר בחנוך דעיקר חנוך לנער הוא
Milchemet Hashem Yoma 4a
One should not be more stringent with the females in chinuch, for the essence of chinuch is for the lad.
16. Maharam seems to understand it as indicating that Heleni simply acted out of stringency, since a mother is exempt from chinuch, much as she is exempt from other mitzvot that fall on the father (such as teaching Torah):See also Terumat Ha-deshen:
שו”ת מהר”ם מרוטנבורג (קרימונה) ר
לעניין אמו דלא מיחייבה לחנוכי ולאפרושי ראייה גדולה היא…כיון דלא מיפקדה למולו ולפדותו וללמדו תורה ובכל מצות בן על האב, כל דתקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקון. וההיא דהילני המלכה בפרק קמא דסוכה [ב, ב] דהיתה יושבת ושבעת בניה בסוכה, מחמרת על עצמה היתה. אי נמי היה להן אב.
Responsa Maharam of Rothenberg (Cremona) 200
Regarding his mother, that she is not obligated to educate and to separate [from sin], there is a great proof…since she [a mother] is not commanded to circumcise him [her son] or to redeem him or to teach him Torah and in all the mitzvotfor a son incumbent on a father, whatever our sages enacted was enacted along the lines of the Torah law. And this [story] of Queen Heleni in the first chapter ofSukka, that she would dwell [in the sukka] with her seven sons, she was being stringent on herself. Alternatively, they had a father.
תרומת הדשן צד
ותוספות דלעיל בשינוי דר”י קאמר ושמא היה להם אב, סתמא קאמר. אלמא דדוקא האב עצמו צריך לחנך…
Terumat Ha-deshen 94
Tosafot above spoke regarding the teaching of Ri [Ha-zaken]. But ‘perhaps they had a father’ is said without attribution. Therefore, specifically the father himself needs to educate…
משך חכמה בראשית יח:יט
ואמרו בנזיר דף כט, א דהאב חייב לחנך בנו במצוות, ואין האשה חייבת לחנך בנה במצוות, פירוש דהוה כמו מצות עשה של תלמוד תורה, דהאשה פטורה. ויעוין אורח חיים סימן שמ”ג בביאורי הגר”א ובמגן אברהם. ומקור מצות חינוך במצות עשה, מקורו בזה הפסוק מאברהם אבינו שצוה את בניו בקטנם על המצוות. קרא ד”חנוך לנער על פי דרכו” (משלי כב, ו) שהביא הרמב”ם בסוף הלכות מאכלות אסורות [ושם לענין איסורים] הוי מדברי קבלה, אבל העיקר מאברהם. וכאן משמע שאף לבנות מצוה על האב. ויעוין מגן אברהם, דרק בנזיר אין מצוה על בתו, וכן משמע בגמרא שם, ואין מקום להאריך:
Meshech Chochma Bereishit 18:19
And they said in Nazir 29a that the father is obligated to educate his son in mitzvot, and the woman is not obligated to educate her son in mitzvot. This means that it is like the positive mitzva of Talmud Torah, from which a woman is exempt. And see OC 343 in the Bei’urei Ha-Gera and Magen Avraham. And the source of the mitzva of chinuch for positive mitzvot, its source is in this verse from Avraham Avinu who commanded his children in their youth about mitzvot. The verse of “educate a youth according to his way” Mishlei 22:6), which Rambam brings at the end of the laws of forbidden foods [and there regarding prohibitions] is [on the level] of divrei kabbala [a strong type of rabbinic law anchored in the Prophets or Writings], but the essence is from Avraham. And here it implies that there is a mitzva upon the father even for daughters. And see Magen Avraham, that only regarding nazir there is no mitzva for his daughter, and the gemara implies there, and this is not the place to go on at length.
18. For example, Shulchan Aruch rules this way regarding birkat ha-motzi:
שולחן ערוך או”ח קסז:יט
לקטנים יכול לברך אף על פי שאינו אוכל עמהם, כדי לחנכם במצות.
Shulchan Aruch OC 167:19
…One may recite a beracha for minors even though he does not eat with them, in order to educate them for mitzvot.
משנה ברורה קסז :צג
אבל לקטנים וכו’ – ואפילו קטנים דעלמא שאין חנוכם מוטל עליו מדינא ג”כ [=גם כן] מותר לברך עמהם כשרוצים ליהנות ואין יודעים לברך בעצמן
Mishna Berura 167:93
But for minors – and even minors in general, whose chinuch does not fall upon one according to Halacha, it is also permissible to recite a beracha with them when they wish to take pleasure [e.g., in food] and don’t know how to recite a beracha for themselves.
משנה ברורה שמג:ג
דבאיסור דרבנן אם לא הפרישו האב אין ב”ד מוחין בידו אבל באיסור דאורייתא ב”ד מוחין ביד האב להפרישו
Mishna Berura 343:3
For with a rabbinic prohibition, if his father did not separate him [a minor from it], the beit din does not protest, but with a Torah-level prohibition, the beit din protests so that the father separates him [the minor, from it].
ויקרא יט:יז
לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא:
Vayikra 19:17
Don’t hate your brother in your heart; reprove your fellow and don’t bear sin regarding him.
Sources
To see these sources in context on Sefaria, click here!
Primary Chinuch
רש”י בראשית יד:יד
חניכיו – חנכו כתיב זה אליעזר שחנכו למצות והוא לשון התחלת כניסת האדם או כלי לאומנות שהוא עתיד לעמוד בה, וכן (משלי כב ו) חנוך לנער, (במדבר ז יא) חנכת המזבח, (תהלים ל א) חנכת הבית ובלע”ז קורין לו איניציי”ר [לחנוך]:
Rashi Bereishit 14:14
Chanichav [Avraham’s disciples] – it is written “chanicho” [his disciple]; this is Eliezer, whom he educated in mitzvot. This term [root chet–nun–chaf] denotes the initial entry of a person or vessel to the craft which in which it will ultimately be established, thus (Mishlei 22:6) “educate the youth,” (Bemidbar 7:11) “the dedication of the altar), (Tehillim 30:1) the dedication of the house, and in French we call this “initier.”
הצלחה בחינוך, “את עלית: אוצר שיחות מהרבי מליובאוויטש לנשים ונערות” פרק כ.
ההשפעה על הזולת היא, לכל לראש, על ידי היותו דוגמא חיה, שכן, גם אלו אשר (באופן רשמי על-כל-פנים, וגם שלא באופן רשמי) אינם עוסקים בשטח החינוך, מכל מקום, בודאי מוכרחים גם הם לעסוק בחינוך עצמם, וכמו כן בחינוך ה”אויר” שבחדר ובבית בו הם דרים, שיהיה חדור בטוב וקדושה ויהדות אמיתיים.
'Success in Education,' in At Alit: Collection of Sichot from the Lubavitcher Rebbe to Women and Girls, ed. Moshe Shilat (Kfar Chabad, 2014), chapter 20.
The influence on another is primarily through being a living example. For thus, even those who are not occupied with the field of chinuch (at least officially, and even unofficially), they also must certainly occupy themselves with chinuch. And similarly with the chinuch through the “air” that is in the room and in the home in which they live, so that it is permeated with true goodness and sanctity and Judaism.
Slovie Jungreis-Wolf, 'Make a Good Child Great,' Yated Ne'eman, November 5,2014.
Children are sponges. They absorb every action, every conversation, and every word exchanged between parents. Even the smallest toddler will take a parent’s phone and mimic the interactions he’s seen and heard. We, parents, are our children’s most effective role models. Greater than any speech about honesty is the moment a child witnesses his parent disclosing the truth about his children’s ages when paying the admission for a Chol Hamoed outing. More powerful than any lecture about kindness is the way a child observes his parents helping one another and giving an extra hand. If we want our children to feel connected to the words in their siddurim and place them in their hearts, it is certainly not enough to say, “Shaah!” and point to the page. Our children need to observe us taking our davening seriously, not allowing others to distract us, and showing that we truly believe in the power of tefillah. Our homes are the most potent classrooms….When we parent our children, we parent ourselves. We are forced to look at the way we speak, dress, interact with others, converse at our Shabbos table, greet Yomim Tovim, and deal with daily challenges. Even the way we wake up in the morning and go to sleep at night becomes a lesson for our children.
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “On Raising Children,” sicha delivered at Yeshivat Har Etzion, July 1, 2007.
There is a second, more relational aspect of the broad sense of chinukh. This entails developing what the Greeks called paideia, eliciting from the personality of the child that which is already there; moreover, this means developing not powers, but rather attitudes, relationships, commitments, involvement, and engagement.…You cannot start being an involved parent too early….who works at parenting out of the depth of his love and commitment: the love of the child, the love of the family, and the love of God.
משנה סוכה ב:ח
…וקטנים פטורים מן הסוכה קטן שאינו צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה…
Mishna Sukka 2:8
…Minors are exempt from sukka. A minor who does not need his mother is obligated in sukka…
רבנו יונה, אגרת התשובה, יום ו כלל א:ב
…שהן שולחות בניהם לבית הספר, ומשימין עיניהן על בניהם שיתעסקו בתורה, ומרחמות עליהם בבואם מבית הספר, ומושכים לבם בדברים טובים שיהא חפצם בתורה, ושומרים אותם שלא יבטלו מן התורה, ומלמדים אותם יראת חטא בילדותם. שנאמר חנוך לנער על פי דרכו גם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנו, ונמצא לפי זה הנשים הצנועות מסבבות התורה והיראה…
Rabbeinu Yona, Iggeret Ha-teshuva, Day 6 Rule 1:2
…For they [mothers] send their sons to school, and keep an eye on their sons that they occupy themselves with Torah, and care for them when they come from school, and attract them with good things that they be desirous of Torah, and watch out that they do not desist from Torah, and teach them fear of sin in their childhood. For it is said “Educate the youth according to his way; even when he grows old, he will not stray from it.” And hence, refined women bring about Torah and awe…
Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch, “Educational Talks I,” in Judaism Eternal, ed. & trans. Dayan Dr. I Grunfeld (London: Soncino, 1956), 224, 231.
Eim is the term for mother in the Divine tongue…But “eim” is also “im”, the “if”, the sine qua non, the indispensable, primary “condition” for the physical and spiritual nature of the child. ….For already when yisa ha-omen et ha-yonek, at the time when the nurse takes up the infant, does the business of upbringing begin.
Dr. Mara Benjamin, 'On Teachers, Rabbinic and Maternal,' in Mothers in the Jewish Cultural Imagination, eds. Jane L. Kanarek, Marjorie Lehman, and Simon J. Bronner (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2017), 371.
…Imagine that parents’ bodies, actions, and movements are the Torah that their children absorb. The parent—engaged in ordinary, quotidian duties of care and responsibility, whom we can speak of historically, but not normatively, as ‘the mother’—then becomes the sage, the ‘living scroll’ whose embodied Torah is precisely what the child learns to ‘read’. This parental teaching is not, as in the historical model of the sage, to be superseded by the teaching of the sage, but is rather the teaching itself, and simultaneously the foundation upon which all later learning builds.
כתובות סג.
דאמרי אינשי רחילא בתר רחילא אזלא כעובדי אמה כך עובדי ברתא…
Ketubot 63a
For people say: a ewe [recheila] goes after a ewe. Like the deeds of her mother, so are the deeds of a daughter…
כתובות נ.
דאמר אביי אמרה לי אם בר שית למקרא בר עשר למשנה בר תליסר לתעניתא מעת לעת ובתינוקת בת תריסר
Ketubot 50a
Abbaye said: Mother said to me, a six-year-old [should begin to study] Scripture, a ten-year-old [should begin to study] Mishna, a thirteen-year-old [should begin to observe] a 24-hour fast, and for a girl, a twelve-year-old.
שבת קנו:
ומדרב נחמן בר יצחק נמי אין מזל לישראל דאימיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק אמרי לה כלדאי בריך גנבא הוה לא שבקתיה גלויי רישיה אמרה ליה כסי רישיך כי היכי דתיהוי עלך אימתא דשמיא ובעי רחמי לא הוה ידע אמאי קאמרה ליה יומא חד יתיב קא גריס תותי דיקלא נפל גלימא מעילויה רישיה דלי עיניה חזא לדיקלא אלמיה יצריה סליק פסקיה לקיבורא בשיניה:
Shabbat 156b
From Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak also, [we learn that] astrology does not apply to Israel. For Chaldean [astrologers] said to the mother of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, your son will be a thief. She did not allow him to uncover his head. She said to him, cover your head in order that fear of Heaven should be upon you, and pray for mercy. He did not know why she said this to him. One day, he was sitting and studying under a palm tree and the cloak fell off his head. He raised his eyes and saw the palm tree. His impulse overcame him, and he climbed up and cut off a bunch of dates with his teeth.
The Obligation
קידושין כט:
איהי מנלן דלא מיחייבא דכתיב ‘ולימדתם’-“ולמדתם”, כל שמצווה ללמוד מצווה ללמד, וכל שאינו מצווה ללמוד אינו מצווה ללמד. ואיהי מנלן דלא מיחייבה למילף נפשה דכתיב “ולימדתם”-“ולמדתם” כל שאחרים מצווין ללמדו מצווה ללמד את עצמו וכל שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדו אין מצווה ללמד את עצמו ומנין שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדה דאמר קרא “ולמדתם אותם את בניכם” ולא בנותיכם.
Kiddushin 29b
She [a woman], whence [do we know] that she is not obligated [to teach Torah to her child]? As it is written “and you will teach” [in this spelling, looking like] “and you will learn.” Anyone who is commanded to learn, is commanded to teach. And anyone who is not commanded to learn, is not commanded to teach. She [a woman], whence [do we know] that she is not obligated to learn herself? As it is written “and you will teach” [in this spelling, looking like] “and you will learn.” Anyone whom others are commanded to teach, is commanded to teach himself. And anyone whom others are not commanded to teach, is not commanded to teach himself. Whence [do we know] that others are not commanded to teach her? As the verse says, “And you shall teach them to your sons” and not your daughters.
רמ”א יו”ד רמו
ומ”מ [=ומכל מקום] חייבת האשה ללמוד דינים השייכים לאשה.
Rema YD 246
In any case, the woman is obligated to learn laws that apply to a woman.
שו”ת הר”י מיגאש עא
שהאם ע”כ [=על כל] פנים יותר משמרתה מהאב והיא המלמדת אותה ומדריכתה במה שיצטרכו הבנות להתלמד ולהרגיל בו כמו הטוי[ה] והפקו'[דה] בצרכי הבית וכל יוצא בזה וללמד אותה דרך הנשים ומנהגם…
Responsa Ri Migash 71
For the mother in any case takes care of her [the daughter] more than the father, and she teaches her and guides her in what girls need to learn and to become accustomed to, like spinning and supervising the needs of the home and the like, and to teach her the way of women and their customs….
חגיגה ד.
אמר מר: “כל זכורך”—לרבות את הקטנים…קטן שהגיע לחינוך דרבנן היא! אין הכי נמי, וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא.
Chagiga 4a
Master said: “All of your males” (Shemot 23:17 et al.)—to include the minors [in pilgrimage to Yerushalayim]…a minor who has reached the age of chinuch is a [matter of] rabbinic law! Granted, and the verse is a mere mnemonic device [linking the idea to the Torah text].
רשב”א מגילה יט:
קטן שהגיע לחנוך שהוא לחומרא להרגילו קודם זמנו כדי שיהא רגיל במצוות כשיגיע זמנו וכענין שכתוב חנוך לנער ע”פ [=על פי] דרכו גם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנה (משלי כב:ו).
Rashba Megilla 19b
…A minor who has reached the age of chinuch, which is a stringency to accustom him ahead of time so that he will be accustomed to mitzvot when the time comes, and as the matter that is written: “Educate [chanoch] the youth according to his way; even when he grows old he will not stray from it (Mishlei 22:6).
בראשית יח:יט
כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַעַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ ה֔’ לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט…:
Bereishit 18:19
For I have known him, that he will command his children and his household after him and they will keep the way of God to perform tzedaka and law….
משך חכמה בראשית יח:יט
…ומקור מצות חינוך במצות עשה, מקורו בזה הפסוק מאברהם אבינו שצוה את בניו בקטנם על המצוות. קרא ד”חנוך לנער על פי דרכו” (משלי כב, ו)…הוי מדברי קבלה, אבל העיקר מאברהם…
Meshech Chochma, Bereishit 18:19
…The source of the mitzva of chinuch for positive commandments, its source is in this verse from Avraham Avinu, who commanded his children in their youth about mitzvot. The verse of “educate the youth according to his way” (Mishlei 22:6)…is [on the level] of divrei kabbala [a type of rabbinic law anchored in the Prophets or Writings], but the essence is from Avraham…
מנחת אשר, וירא, עמ’ 134
…דאף במצוות שאין בהן לא לאו ולא עשה, מ”מ חיובן דאוריתא לפי דרצון התורה הן…וא”כ פשוט וברור דאף מצוות חינוך דאורייתא היא…
Minchat Asher, Vayera p. 134
…For even with mitzvot that have no clear positive or negative command, in any case their obligation is on a Torah level because they are the will of the Torah…and if so, it is simple and clear that even the mitzva of chinuch is from the Torah.
משנה סנהדרין ח:א
הקטן פטור שלא בא לכלל מצות:
Mishna Sanhedrin 8:1
The minor is exempt, for he has not reached inclusion in mitzvot.
חגיגה ו.
אמר אביי: כל היכא דגדול מיחייב מדאורייתא, קטן נמי מחנכינן ליה מדרבנן. כל היכא דגדול פטור מדאורייתא, מדרבנן קטן נמי פטור:
Chagiga 6a
Abbaye said: wherever an adult is obligated on a Torah level, we also educate a minor on a rabbinic level. Wherever an adult is exempt on a Torah level, a minor is also exempt on a rabbinic level.
משנה מגילה ב: ד
הכל כשרין לקרות את המגילה חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן
Mishna Megilla 2:4
All are fit to read the megilla, except for a deaf person, one with impaired cognition, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda considers a minor fit.
תוספות ברכות טו. ד”ה ורבי יהודה
…ואמרי[נן] קטן שהגיע לחנוך מדרבנן כגדול ופוטר דרבנן…אבל הכא דגבי קטן איכא תרתי דרבנן דהמגילה דרבנן והקטן דרבנן אינו יכול להוציא היכא דליכא אלא חד דרבנן.
Tosafot Berachot 15a s.v. Ve-Rabbi Yehuda
We say that a minor who has reached the age of rabbinic-level chinuch is like an adult, and can discharge a rabbinic obligation… But here, where regarding a minor there are two rabbinic [factors], for [reading] megilla is rabbinic and the minor [performing mitzvot] is on a rabbinic level, he cannot discharge [the obligation of the adult], where there is only one rabbinic [factor].
חדושי הרשב”א מגלה יט:
דכל שעיקר המצוה מדרבנן כמגילה והלל חמירא ומצות חנוך קילא טפי והלכך לא מפיק
Rashba Megilla 19b
For whenever the essence of a mitzva is rabbinic, like megilla and Hallel, it is stringent and the mitzva of chinuch is more lenient and therefore he [the minor] does not discharge [the adult’s obligation].
ירושלמי ברכות ג:ג
א”ר [=אמר רב] אחא בשם ר’ יוסי בי ר’ נהוראי כל שאמרו בקטן כדי לחנכו
Yerushalmi Berachot 3:3
Rav Acha said in the name of Rabbi Yossei son of Nehorai: whatever they said regarding a minor is in order to educate him.
חדושי הרמב”ן קידושין לא.
ואני אומר דטעמא דקטן דרבנן משום דחינוך מצוה דאב היא ולדידיה חייבו רבנן בחינוך, וקטן לאו בר מיעבד מצוה הוא, וזה דבר נכון וטעם יפה.
Ramban Kiddushin 31a
I say that the reason that [the obligation regarding] a minor is rabbinic is because chinuch is a mitzva of a father and our sages obligated him in chinuch. But a minor is not subject to performing a mitzva, and this matter is correct and its rationale is good.
Gender in Chinuch
ראש השנה כט:
תנו רבנן לא יפרוס אדם פרוסה לאורחין אלא אם כן אוכל עמהם אבל פורס הוא לבניו ולבני ביתו כדי לחנכן במצות:
Rosh Ha-shana 29b
Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: A person should not break up a piece of bread [i.e., recite ha-motzi] for his guests unless he eats with them, but he breaks it for his sons and for the members of his household in order to train them [le-chanchan] in mitzvot:
פסחים פט.
משנה: האומר לבניו הריני שוחט את הפסח על מי שיעלה מכם ראשון לירושלים כיון שהכניס הראשון ראשו ורובו זכה בחלקו ומזכה את אחיו עמו: גמרא:…אמר רבי יוחנן כדי לזרזן במצות קאמר…תניא נמי הכי מעשה וקדמו בנות לבנים ונמצא בנות זריזות ובנים שפלים:
Pesachim 89a
Mishna: One who says to his children: I am slaughtering the Pesach on behalf of whoever among you goes up to Yerushalayim first—As soon as the first one has brought in his head and majority [of his body], he acquires his portion and acquires for his siblings along with him. Gemara:…Rabbi Yochanan said: He said it in order to spur them on to mitzvot …A baraita also teaches thus: A story where the daughters came before the sons, and it was found that the daughters were speedy and the sons were inferior.
יומא פב.
אמר רב הונא: בן שמונה ובן תשע מחנכין אותו לשעות בן עשר ובן אחת עשרה משלימין מדרבנן בן שתים עשרה משלימין מדאורייתא–בתינוקת [=מה שכתוב לעיל]…ורבי יוחנן אמר השלמה דרבנן ליכא בן עשר בן אחת עשרה מחנכין אותו לשעות בן שתים עשרה משלימין מדאורייתא.
Yoma 82a
Rav Huna said: An eight-year-old and a nine-year-old, we educate in hours [of fasting]. A ten-year-old and an eleven-year-old, complete [the fast] [as a matter of] rabbinic law. A twelve-year-old completes the fast on a Torah level—[the above] with respect to female children…Rabbi Yochanan said: There is no completing the fast rabbinically. A ten-year-old, an eleven-year-old, we educate in hours. A twelve-year-old completes it on a Torah level.
תוספתא עירובין ב:יא
אמ[ר] ר[בי] מאיר לא נמנעו בנות ישראל מלשלח עירוביהן ביד בניהן וביד בנותיהן הקטנים כדי לחנכן במצות
Tosefta Eiruvin 2:11
Rabbi Meir said: The daughters of Israel did not keep themselves from sending their [foods to establish an] eiruv in the hand of their minor sons and daughters in order to educate them in mitzvot…
סוכה ב:
…אמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בהילני המלכה בלוד שהיתה סוכתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה והיו זקנים נכנסין ויוצאין לשם ולא אמרו לה דבר. אמרו לו: משם ראייה [=ביחס לגובה סוכה]? אשה היתה ופטורה מן הסוכה! אמר להן: והלא שבעה בנים הוו לה? ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים. למה לי למיתני “ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים”? הכי קאמר להו: כי תאמרו בנים קטנים היו וקטנים פטורין מן הסוכה, כיון דשבעה הוו ,אי אפשר דלא הוי בהו חד ש”אינו צריך לאמו”. וכי תימרו קטן שאינו צריך לאמו מדרבנן הוא דמיחייב, ואיהי בדרבנן לא משגחה, תא שמע: “ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים”.
Sukka 2b
…Rabbi Yehuda said: A story of Queen Heleni in Lud, whose sukka was taller than 20 cubits, and the elders would come in and out of there and did not say anything to her. They said to him: From there is a proof [regarding a sukka’s height]? She was a woman and exempt from sukka! He [Rabbi Yehuda] said to them: And did she not have seven sons? And further, she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages. Why should I teach “And further she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages”? Thus he said to them: If you say they were little children and minors are exempt from sukka, since there were seven, it is impossible that there wasn’t one among them who “did not need his mother.” And if you say a minor who does not need a mother is obligated rabbinically, and she [Queen Heleni] did not pay heed to rabbinic law, come and learn, “And further she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages.”
ריטב”א סוכה ב:
אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בהילני וכו’ עד כל מעשיה לא היתה עושה אלא ע”פ [=על פי] חכמים. מהא שמעינן דקטן שמחנכין אותו במצות [צריך] לעשות לו מצוה בהכשר גמור כגדול דהא מייתינן ראיה בשמעתין מסוכה של הילני משום דלא סגיא דליכא בבניה חד שהגיע לחינוך דבעי סוכה מעלייתא, מקרא מלא דבר הכתוב חנוך לנער על פי דרכו….
Ritva Sukka 2b
”Rabbi Yehuda said: A story of Queen Heleni” etc…until “she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages.” From this we learn that a minor whom we educate in mitzvot [one needs] to make the mitzva in full fitness for him as with an adult, for we bring a proof in our Talmudic passage from the sukka of Queen Heleni, since it is impossible that there would not be among her sons one who had reached educability, which would require a fully fit sukka. Scripture states a full verse [on this]: educate the youth according to his way…
From Talmud to Practice
נזיר כח:-כט.
מתני’ האיש מדיר את בנו בנזיר ואין האשה מדרת את בנה בנזיר…גמ’ איש אין, אבל אשה לא. מאי טעמא? ר’ יוחנן אמר: הלכה היא בנזיר. ורבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר ריש לקיש: כדי לחנכו במצות. אי הכי, אפי[לו] אשה נמי! קסבר איש חייב לחנך בנו במצות ואין האשה חייבת לחנך את בנה. בשלמא לרבי יוחנן דאמר הלכה היא בנזיר אמטו להכי—בנו אין, בתו לא. אלא לריש לקיש, אפילו בתו [=ידיר אביה]? קסבר בנו חייב לחנכו, בתו אינו חייב לחנכה.
Nazir 28b-29a
Mishna: A man makes a nazirite vow for his son, but a woman does not make a nazirite vow for her son…Gemara: A man yes, but a woman no. What is the reason? Rabbi Yochanan said: it is a halacha [transmitted to Moshe from Sinai] of nazir. And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina [said] Reish Lakish said: In order to educate him in mitzvot. If so, even a woman as well! He thought that a man is obligated to educate his son in mitzvot and a woman is not obligated to educate her son. This [mishna] makes sense [according to the opinion] of Rabbi Yochanan, who said this is a halacha [transmitted to Moshe from Sinai] of nazir, it brings him to [conclude] thus, his son yes, his daughter no. But according to Reish Lakish: [Shouldn’t a father be able to make the vow] even [for] his daughter? He thought that one is obligated to educate his son, one is not obligated to educate his daughter.
ר”ן יומא ג: (בדפי הרי”ף)
דעיקר חינוך לתינוק הוא כדאמרינן במסכת נזיר (דף כט א) בנו חייב לחנכו במצות בתו אינו חייב לחנכה:
Ran Yoma 3b (Rif pagination)
For the essence of chinuch for a child is as we said in Nazir (29a): “His son, he is obligated to educate him in mitzvot; his daughter, he is not obligated to educate her.”
תוספות ישנים יומא פב. ד”ה בן שמונה בן תשע מחנכין ובתינוקת.
ק”ל [=קשיא ליה] דאמרי[נן] בנזיר…האיש מדיר את בנו בנזיר כדר”ל [=כדריש לקיש] דאמר כדי לחנכו במצות בנו אין בתו לא דבתו אין חייב לחנכה וי”ל [=ויש לומר] דהתם לא איירי אלא דוקא לענין נזירות אבל ודאי לענין שאר מצות חייב לחנכה…ור’ [=ר”י הזקן] אומר דחינוך לא שייך אלא באב אבל באדם אחר לא שייך ביה חינוך…ומעשה דהילני המלכה שישבה היא ושבעה בניה בסוכה שמא הוה להם אב וחנכם בכך ואפילו לא היה להם אב היתה מחנכם למצוה בעלמא. מ”ר:
Tosafot Yeshanim Yoma 82a s.v. An eight or nine year old we train but with children…
This presents a difficulty for him, for we say in Nazir…A man makes a nazirite vow for his son. According to Resh Lakish, who said [this is] in order to educate him in mitzvot, his son yes, his daughter no, for he is not obligated to educate his daughter. And one can say that there it only applies specifically regarding nazir, but certainly regarding the rest of the mitzvot he [the father] is obligated to educate her…And Rav [Yitzchak (Ri Ha-zaken)] says that chinuch only applies to a father, but doesn’t apply for another person …And the story of Queen Heleni who dwelled with her seven sons in the sukka, perhaps they had a father and he educated them in this, and even if they did not have a father, she educated them as a mere mitzva. [Reviewed] from the mouth of my teacher.
בית הבחירה למאירי נזר כט.
כשם שהאיש חייב לחנך את בנו במצות…אף בבתו חייב לחנכה במה שראוי לה גם כן ועל הדרך שנאמרה בהדיא בתענית יום הכפורים בחנוך שעות שבהם וכן אם אין להם אב האם חייבת בכך ואין הכונה אלא להרגיל התינוקות במצות ולקבוע ענין המצות בלבותיהם כל אחד לפי מה שראוי לו…ומ”מ [=ומכל מקום] דברים אלו כלם במצות שיש בהן חיוב אבל במצות התלויות ברצונו של אדם ובנדבת לבו כגון נזירות אין חובת חנוך עליו אלא אם ירצה יעשה על הדרך שביארנו ומשנתנו לא משום חנוך היא…
Meiri Nazir 29a
Just as a man is obligated to educate his son in mitzvot,… so with his daughter he is obligated to educate her in what is appropriate for her as well, as was stated explicitly regarding fasting on Yom Kippur regarding their [children’s] education for hours [fasting for part of the day]. And similarly, if they don’t have a father, the mother is obligated in this. And the intention is only to habituate the children in the mitzvot and to establish the matter of mitzvot in their hearts, each one according to what is suitable for them….And in any case, these matters are all regarding mitzvot that entail an obligation, but regarding mitzvot that depend on a person’s desire and generosity of his heart, such as nazir, there is no obligation of chinuch upon him. Rather, if he wants, he should act in the way that we explained and our mishna [about nazir, which is volitional] is not on account of chinuch…
ר’ אברהם מן ההר נזיר כט:
…דר’ יוחנן סבר דבין אב בין אם חייבין לחנך במצוות אחד בן ואחד בת
Rav Avraham Min Ha-har Nazir 29b
…For Rabbi Yochanan thought that both a father and a mother are obligated to educate in mitzvot both a son and a daughter.
פסחים פח.
תנו רבנן: “שה לבית” מלמד שאדם מביא ושוחט על ידי בנו ובתו הקטנים.
Pesachim 88a
Our rabbis taught in a baraita: “A lamb for each home,” teaches that a person brings and slaughters on behalf of his minor son and daughter.
רש”י שם
על ידי – בשביל שבנו ובתו הקטנים עליו לחנכן
Rashi ad loc.
On behalf of – since it is incumbent upon him to educate his son and his daughter.
רש”י חגיגה ב.
אף על פי שאינו חייב מן התורה – הטילו חכמים על אביו ועל אמו לחנכו במצות.
Rashi Chagiga 2a
Even though he [the minor] isn’t obligated on a Torah level – The sages placed [responsibility] upon his father and upon his mother to educate him in mitzvot.
מגן אברהם שמג:א
אביו מצווה. אבל אמו אינה מצווה וכ”ה [=וכך הוא] בנזיר דף כ”ט ובת”ה [=ןבתרומת הדשן] סי’ צ”ד ומעשה דהילני בסוכה דף ב’ שהושיבה בניה בסוכה ע”ש [=עיין שם] היא החמירה על עצמה (תשו’ מהר”מ ד”ק סי’ ר’) עסי’ [=עיין סימן] תרי”ו ומשמע בנזיר דאין מחויב לחנך בתו ע”ש [=עיין שם] ובתו[ספות] בנזיר הקשו מ”ש דבי”ה [=מאי שנא דביום הכיפורים] מחויב לחנך בתו ע”ש [=עיין שם] ואפשר דכל המצות דמי לי”ה [=ליום הכיפורים] וצריך לחנכם…
Magen Avraham 343:1
His father is obligated. But his mother is not obligated, and so it is in Nazir 29 and in Terumat Ha-deshen 94. And the story of Heleni in Sukka 2, that she sat her sons in the sukka (see there), she was stringent upon herself (Responsa Maharam 200), see 616. And it implies in Nazir that he is not obligated to educate his daughter (see there). And in Tosafot Nazir they raised the difficulty of how is this different from Yom Kippur, that he is obligated to educate his daughter (see there) and it is possible that all mitzvot are similar to Yom Kippur and one must educate them…
אליה רבה תרמ:ד
חייב וכו’. ואם אין לו אב, אמו חייב[ת] לחנכו, ואם גם אם אין לו מחויבין ב”ד [=בית דין] לחנכו, וכן בכל מצות עשה.
Eliya Rabba 640:4
He is obligated etc. And if he does not have a father, his mother is obligated to educate him, and if he also doesn’t have a mother, the beit din is obligated to educate him, and so regarding every positive commandment.
משנה ברורה שמג:ב
אבל אביו וכו’ – דאפילו לחנך בניו ובנותיו במצות הוטל עליו כדכתיב חנוך לנער על פי דרכו וכ”ש [=וכל שכן] להפרישם מאיסור דמוטל על האב ויש מאחרונים שסוברין דמצות חינוך מוטל גם על האם:
Mishna Berura 343:2
But his father… – For even to educate his sons and daughters is incumbent upon him, as is written “educate the youth according to his way” and how much more so to separate them from a prohibition, which is incumbent on the father. And there are later authorities who maintain that the mitzva of chinuch is incumbent also on the mother.
מנחת אשר, וירא, עמ’ 133
… דאין חובת האם במצווה זו כחובת האב, לפי דחובת האם אינה אלא חוב כללי לחנך בניה אחריה לתורה וליראה, משא”כ [=מה שאין כן] חיוב אב, דגדר מסוים יש בו, ודכמבואר דחיוב הגדול מדאורייתא…
Minchat Asher, Vayera p. 133
…For the mother’s obligation in this mitzva is not like the father’s obligtion, for the mother’s obligation is only the general obligation to educate her children to follow her in Torah and fear [of Heaven], which is not the case with the [additional] obligation of the father, for it has a particular definition. And as was explained, the broad obligation is on a Torah level…
רב דוד אויערבאך, הלכות בת ישראל כז:ו
לנוהגין כדעת הרמ”א שאשה רשאית לברך על מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמן—נכון לחנך גם את הקטנות לברך על המצוות, וכן המנהג. הערה יב: אבל מעיקר הדין אין שום חיוב לחנכן כיון דאף לכשיגדלו לא יתחייבו במצוות אלו.
Rav David Auerbach, Halichot Bat Yisrael, 27:6
For those whose practice is in accordance with Rema’s view that a woman is permitted to recite a beracha over positive time-bound commandments [from which she is exempt]—it is correct to educate girls, too, to recite a beracha over the mitzvot, and so is the custom. Note 12: But the fundamental law is that there is no obligation to educate them [in berachot over voluntary mitzva performance], since even when they grow up. they will not be obligated in these mitzvot.
Negative Commandments
יבמות קיד.
ת”ש [=תא שמע] “לא תאכלום כי שקץ הם” לא תאכילום להזהיר הגדולים על הקטנים מאי לאו דאמר להו לא תאכלו לא דלא ליספו ליה בידים תא שמע כל נפש מכם לא תאכל דם להזהיר הגדולים על הקטנים מאי לאו דאמרי להו לא תאכלו לא דלא ליספו להו בידים ת”ש אמור ואמרת להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים מאי לאו דאמר להו לא תיטמו לא דלא ליטמו להו בידים
Yevamot 114a
Come and learn: “Don’t eat them because they are detestable.” [I.e.] Don’t feed them, to warn adults regarding minors. Isn’t this that he [an adult] say to them [children]: “Don’t eat”? No, that they [adults] not feed him [a minor] directly. Come and learn: “Every soul among you shall not eat blood.” To warn the adults about minors. Isn’t this that they say to them: “Don’t eat”? No, that they not feed them directly. Come and learn: “Say and you shall say.” To warn adults about minors. Isn’t this that he says to them: “Don’t become impure”? No, that they not render them impure directly.
תוספות ישנים יומא פב.
וא”ת [=ואם תאמר] הא דאמרינן בכל דוכתא קטן אוכל נבילות אין ב”ד [=בית דין] מצווין להפרישו השתא חנוכי מחנכינן אפרושי מאיסורא מיבעי ואומר ה”ר אליעזר ממיץ דחינוך לא שייך אלא שיעשה מצוה ולא פרושי מאיסורא והא (דמוזהרין) [דקרינן] הכא [חינוך] במה שמענין אותו ביוה”כ [=ביום הכיפורים] אין זה אפרושי מאיסורא שמפרישין אותו מלאכול אלא הוא חינוך שמחנכין אותו במצות ועניתם את נפשותיכם ור’ אומר דחינוך לא שייך אלא באב אבל באדם אחר לא שייך ביה חינוך הלכך נמי אין נזהרין להפרישו
Tosafot Yeshanim Yoma 82a
If you say, that which we say in every place, ‘a minor eating neveilot [meat that wasn’t ritually slaughtered], the beit din is not commanded to separate him.’ Now, we certainly educate him—is separating him from prohibitions in question? And Rav Eliezer of Metz says that chinuch is only applicable for performing a mitzva and not to separate [minors] from prohibition. And that which we call it chinuch in that we afflict him [a minor] on Yom Kippur is not separating from prohibition, that we separate him from eating, but rather it is chinuch that we educate him in the [positive] mitzva of “and you will afflict yourselves.” And Ri says that chinuch only applies to the father, but chinuch is not relevant for another person. Therefore they [the public] are not enjoined to separate him [the minor from prohibition].
תוספות שבת קכא.
דבאיסורא דרבנן מוכח בפרק חרש (יבמות קיד.) דאין ב”ד [=בית דין] מצווין להפרישו ונראה דמיירי בקטן שלא הגיע לחינוך דבהגיע לחינוך כיון שחייב לחנכו כ”ש [=כל שכן] דצריך להפרישו שלא יעשה עבירה…
Tosafot Shabbat 221a
For regarding a rabbinic prohibition, it is proven in ch. 14 of Yevamot (114a) that a beit din is not commanded to separate him [a minor from prohibition] and it seems that it is dealing with a minor who has not reached educability. For when he has reached educability, since one is obligated to educate him, how much more so that one must separate him [from prohibition] that he not perform a transgression…
שולחן ערוך או”ח שמג:א
קטן אוכל נבלות אין ב”ד [=בית דין] מצווין להפרישו, אבל אביו מצווה לגעור בו להפרישו (רמ”א: מאיסור דאורייתא); ולהאכילו בידים, אסור אפילו דברים שאסורים מדברי סופרים; וכן אסור להרגילו בחילול שבת ומועד ואפי[לו] בדברים שהם משום שבות. הגה: וי”א [=ויש אומרים] דכל זה בקטן דלא הגיע לחינוך, אבל הגיע לחינוך צריכים להפרישו (תוס’ פרק כ”כ). וי”א [=ויש אומרים] דלא שייך חינוך לבית דין, אלא לאב בלבד (ב”י)
Shulchan Aruch OC 343:1
A minor eating neveilot, a beit din is not commanded to separate him, but his father is commanded to castigate him to separate him (Rema: from Torah prohibitions), and to feed him directly is prohibited even in matters that are rabbinically prohibited. And thus it is prohibited to accustom him to violate Shabbat and holidays, and even regarding matters that are rabbinically prohibited. Rema: And there are those who say that all of this applies to a minor who has not reached educability, but if he has reached educability, we need to separate him (Tosafot Shabbat, Ch. 16). And there are those who say chinuch does not apply to a beit din, but rather to the father alone.
בית הבחירה למאירי נזר כט.
…ומה שאמרו “קטן אוכל נבלות אין בית דין מצווין להפרישו” אב ואם מיהא מצווין בכך מתורת חנוך…
Meiri Nazir 29a
That which they [the sages] said, “a minor eating neveilot, a beit din is not commanded to separate him,” a father and mother are nevertheless commanded in this as part of the law of chinuch…
כף החיים רכה:יד
וגם האשה חייבת לחנך את בנה לייסרו…
Kaf Ha-chayyim 225:14
The woman is also obligated to educate her son through reproof…
Stages
רא”ש (פירוש לש”ס) נזיר כט:
דכל מצוה שהוא מחויב בה אין אביו מחויב לחנכו בה:
Rosh (Talmudic commentary), Nazir 29b
For every mitzva that he [the child] is obligated in, the father is not obligated to educate him (le-chancho) in it.
קידושין ל.
א”ל [=אמר ליה] רבא לר’ נתן בר אמי אדידך על צוארי דבריך משיתסר ועד עשרים ותרתי ואמרי לה מתמני סרי עד עשרים וארבעה כתנאי חנוך לנער על פי דרכו ר’ יהודה ורבי נחמיה חד אמר משיתסר ועד עשרים ותרתין וחד אמר מתמני סרי ועד עשרים וארבעה…
Kiddushin 30a
Rava said to Rav Natan bar Ami [regarding the age at which parents should marry off a son]: While your hand is on the neck of your son, from sixteen until twenty-two. And some say: From eighteen to twenty-four. This is like the Tannaitic argument [regarding] ”educate a youth according to his way.” Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya [disagreed]. One said: From sixteen to twenty-two and one said: from eighteen to twenty-four.
סוכה מב.-מב:
תנו רבנן: ‘קטן היודע לנענע-חייב בלולב, להתעטף-חייב בציצית, לשמור תפילין-אביו לוקח לו תפילין, יודע לדבר-אביו לומדו תורה וקריאת שמע.’ תורה מאי היא? אמר רב המנונא: תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב [דברים לג:ד]. קריאת שמע מאי היא? פסוק ראשון…יכול לאכול כזית צלי, שוחטין עליו את הפסח…
Sukka 42a-b
Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: ‘A minor who knows how to shake, is obligated in lulav. To wrap himself, is obligated in tzitzit. To care for tefillin, his father purchases him tefillin. He knows how to speak, his father teaches him Torah and Shema.’ What is Torah? Rav Himnuna said: “Moshe commanded us in Torah, an inheritance of the community of Ya’akov” (Devarim 33:4). What is reciting Shema? The first verse…If he can eat an olive’s worth of roasted [meat], we slaughter the Pesach sacrifice on his behalf…
תוספות סוכה כח: ד”ה כאן בקטן שהגיע לחינוך
והשתא הגיע לחינוך דאמרינן בכל דוכתא אין כולן שוים אלא כל אחד לפי עניינו דהכא אמרי[נן] באין צריך לאמו וגבי חגיגה שיכול לעלות ובסוף לולב הגזול (לקמן דף מב.) גבי לולב ביודע לנענע וגבי ציצית ביודע להתעטף וגבי תורה ביודע לדבר.
Tosafot Sukka 28b s.v. Kan be-katan she-higi'a le-chinuch
Now reaching educability, which we refer to everywhere, not all [cases] are equal. Rather each [mitzva] as appropriate, for here we say [regarding sukka] it’s when he does not need his mother, and regarding chagiga—when he is able to go up [to Yerushalayim], and in the end of Sukka ch. 3 (42a) regarding lulav, when he knows how to shake it. And regarding tzitzit when he knows how to wrap himself, and regarding Torah when he knows how to speak.
משנה ברורה קכח:קכג
…זמני החנוך שהוא כבר חמש כבר שית…
Mishna Berura 128:123
…The times of education which are already at five, already at six [years]…
של”ה שער האותיות אות דל”ת – דרך ארץ
צריך להרגילו ולחנכו במדות טובות וישרות מעת שיוכל לדבר…ויתחיל בו מבן שתים או שלש שנים, להדריכו בכל, ויתחיל להדריכו מקטנותו מצד שני טעמים, האחד, כי אמרו רבותינו ז”ל (שבת קנב א) ינקותא כלילא דוורדא, כל מה שקונה בנפשו בילדותו, נשאר כן בטבע קיים כל ימיו…השני, כי כשמתחיל האב בבנו להוכיחו…אז יהיה לעולם מורגל במורא האב…
Shelah, Sha’ar Ha-otiyot, Dalet: Derech Eretz
One must accustom and educate him [a minor] in good and righteous attributes from when he can speak…and should begin with him from age two or three years, to guide him in everything. And he should begin to guide him from when he is little for two reasons: First, because our sages said: “Youth is a crown of roses” (Shabbat 152a). What a child acquires in his soul in his youth remains thus in his nature all his days…Second, for when a father begins to reprove his son…then he [the son] will always be used to having awe of the father….
משנה ברורה שמג:ג
ודע דשעור החינוך במ”ע [=במצוות עשה] הוא בכל תינוק לפי חריפותו וידיעתו בכל דבר לפי ענינו כגון היודע מענין שבת חייב להרגילו לשמוע קידוש והבדלה היודע להתעטף כהלכה חייב בציצית וכנ”ל בסימן י”ז וכן כל כיו”ב [=כיוצא בזה] בין במ”ע [=במצוות עשה] של תורה בין בשל ד”ס [=דברי סופרים] אבל החינוך בל”ת [=בלא תעשה] בין של תורה בין של דבריהם הוא בכל תינוק שהוא בר הבנה שמבין כשאומרים לו שזה אסור לעשות או לאכול אבל תינוק שאינו בר הבנה כלל אין אביו מצווה למנעו בע”כ [בעל כורחו] מלאכול מאכלות אסורות או מלחלל שבת אפילו באיסור של תורה כיון שאינו מבין כלל הענין מה שמונעו ומפרישו וכן אם הוא כהן אין צריך להוציאו מבית שהטומאה בתוכו אא”כ [=אלא אם כן] הוא בר הבנה אזי מצוה על אביו להוציאו כדי להפרישו מן האיסור מחמת מצות חינוך. ולהכניסו בבית שטומאה בתוכו וכן לספות לו בשאר איסורים אסור אפילו בתינוק שאינו בר הבנה עדיין
Mishna Berura 343:3
Know that the measure of chinuch in positive mitzvot is for every child according to his acuity and knowledge, with every matter as appropriate, such as [a minor] who knows of the matter of Shabbat, one should accustom him to hear kiddush and havdala. [A minor] who knows to wrap himself in accordance with Halacha is obligated in tzitzit and as above in 17. And similarly with every such thing, whether a positive mitzva on a Torah level or rabbinically. But chinuch in negative mitzvot, whether on a Torah level or rabbinic, is for every child with understanding, who understands when we say to him that this is prohibited to do or to eat. But a child who lacks any understanding, his father is not obligated to forcibly prevent him from eating prohibited foods or from violating Shabbat even regarding a Torah level prohibition, since he doesn’t understand the matter, from which he is preventing and keeping him, at all. And so if he is a kohen he does not need to take him [his minor son] out of a house with impurity inside it unless he has understanding, then it is a mitzva on his father to take him out in order to separate him from prohibition on account of the mitzva of chinuch. But to bring him into a house with impurity within it, and similarly to present him with other prohibitions, is prohibited, even with a child who does not yet have understanding…
Rivkah bat Meir, Meneket Rivkah, Frauke von Rhoden ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2008), 179-182.
“…[E]very woman should make sure that she herself guides her daughter to perform good deeds…We also learn of our mother Rebekah that Eliezer saw in her many good deeds that he did not see in the other young women. He praised God, blessed be His name, that he led him on the right path, and sent him a good match who had the virtues of our Patriarch Abraham, among them, charity and hospitality…We can learn from this how one should raise a daughter…[A] woman, who merited raising her children in her household to Torah and good deeds, and proper conduct, and who wishes to fulfill her obligations to God, blessed be his name, and to all people–such a woman requires fear of God and wisdom.”
Q&A
Sometimes a quick exchange communicates more effectively, and more personally, than an article. Sometimes, just seeing that others share our questions can make us feel more connected.
Our posted questions and answers are an opportunity to learn from each other. To ask a question of your own, click here!
Hashkafic Q&A
What should we keep in mind when engaged in chinuch regarding women and mitzvot?
Just as with other aspects of chinuch, learning about women and mitzvot is a mix of the formal mitzva, care with prohibitions when a child can understand them, and developmentally appropriate introductions to obligations.
A few points to keep in mind:
I. Learning about women’s halachic obligations is important for children of any gender. For example, it is no less important to help shape a boy’s understanding of the language of the beracha of “she-lo asani isha” than a girl’s. As we see in so many places on Deracheha, a community’s attitudes and knowledge can have an important effect on how religiously engaged its women and girls are and in what ways. This starts with boys and girls being taught carefully about women’s mitzva obligations and practices.
II. Children learn by example from an early age, and not just when we have in mind that we are teaching them. Children notice all kinds of subtle cues about our priorities, such as whether female family members make an effort to answer or make a zimmun, or whether the men of a family wait for women to return to the table before they recite it; whether women of the family make an effort to daven when possible, or whether men of the family speak quietly when a female family member is davening nearby.
III. As kids get older, they are bound to have questions. This is healthy and positive. Adults don’t need to have all the answers, but can teach children to be life-long learners by taking their questions, thoughts, and feelings seriously, treating them with respect, and exploring them together. To facilitate this, adults can avail themselves of educational resources (like this site). It is most effective for an adult to mix textual sources with personal perspectives in a developmentally appropriate manner.
The more we can build awareness of our own knowledge and feelings on sensitive subjects, and the more we can enhance them where we perceive them lacking, the more spiritual influence we can have. Educating children on these topics begins with educating ourselves.
Reader Q&A