Chinuch • חינוך

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.”

…Minors are exempt from sukka. A minor who does not need his mother is obligated in sukka…

For people say: a ewe [recheila] goes after a ewe. Like the deeds of her mother, so are the deeds of a daughter…

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.

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.

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.

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….

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].

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….

The minor is exempt, for he has not reached inclusion in mitzvot.

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.

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.

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].

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:

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.

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.

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…

…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.”

”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…

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.

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.”

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.

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…

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.

On behalf of – since it is incumbent upon him to educate his son and his daughter.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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].

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…

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.

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…

The woman is also obligated to educate her son through reproof…

For every mitzva that he [the child] is obligated in, the father is not obligated to educate him (le-chancho) in it.

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.

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…

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.

…The times of education which are already at five, already at six [years]…

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….

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…