Is a mother obligated to educate or reprimand her children in Torah and Mitzvos?
- The letter of the law:
Teaching him to do Mitzvos and stopping him from transgression:[1] A mother is not obligated at all to educate her child, whether her son or daughter [who is below Bar and Bas Mitzvah], in neither positive or negative commands. Thus, she is not obligated to reprimand him or her for doing something against Jewish law, such as eating on Yom Kippur when he is able to fast, or eating outside of a Sukkah after reaching the age of Chinuch.
If the father is not around: Some Poskim[2] rule that a mother is not obligated at all to educate her child even if the father of the child is not able to educate him. However, other Poskim[3] rule that there is a complete obligation on the mother to educate her children if the father is unable to do so, such as if he passed away or is out of town.
Providing a prohibition:[4] All the above discussion is in regard to stopping and reprimanding the child. However, it is biblically forbidden for a mother to feed or imbed a prohibition for her son or daughter, regardless of the child’s age; this prohibition applies equally to every Jew.
After Bar and Bas Mitzvah:[5] Once a child reaches the age of bar or bat mitzvah, the mother is obligated to reprimand the child for wrongdoing, based on the mitzvah of tochacha, which applies universally. [Accordingly, the exemption mentioned above applies only when the child is below the age of bar or bat mitzvah, and only with respect to instructing the child to perform a mitzvah or preventing the child from committing a transgression for which the child is not yet personally obligated, as the responsibility in such cases rests upon the father.]
- The Practical Application:
A Mitzvah to educate:[6] Although a mother is not formally obligated to educate her children in Torah and Mitzvos, it is certainly a mitzvah for her to be involved in her child’s education.
Reward for encouraging his study of Torah:[7] A mother receives reward for encouraging her son to study Torah.
Primary responsibility is on the mother more than the father: Indeed, the quality and extent of a child’s education often derive more from the mother than from the father, since she is generally present with the child to a greater degree.[8] Consequently, the primary responsibility for education frequently rests upon her shoulders.[9]
A more effective education:[10] Moreover, education imparted by the mother is often more effective, as a woman’s manner of speech is typically gentler and more refined, which has a greater impact on the child—particularly in contemporary times, when harsh rebuke is less effective.
Why the Sages did not explicitly obligate the mother:[11] As for the absence of a formal obligation placed upon the mother, this is because it is natural and self‑evident that a mother educates her child, and therefore no explicit commandment was deemed necessary.
An example from Batsheva the mother of Shlomo Hamelech:[12] Indeed, we find that BatSheva, the mother of Shlomo Hamelech took a proactive stance on his education and admonished him to swerve away from life’s pleasures and focus on wisdom and G-d.
Talmud Sanhedrin 70b
“The words of King Lemuel, the prophecy with which his mother admonished him.” (Proverbs 31:1)
Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: This teaches that his mother bound him to a pillar and said to him:
“What, my son? And what, son of my womb? And what, son of my vows?”
“What, my son?” — Everyone knows that your father was a God‑fearing man. Now they might say: His mother caused him [to go astray].
“And what, son of my womb?” — All the women of your father’s household, once they became pregnant, no longer saw the face of the king. But I pushed my way in and entered, so that I would have a son who is energetic and refined.
“And what, son of my vows?” — All the women of your father’s household would vow: May I have a son fit for the kingdom. But I vowed and said: May I have a son who is diligent, filled with Torah, and worthy of prophecy.
“Not for kings, Lemuel; not for kings is wine” (Proverbs 31:4). She said to him: What do you have to do with kings who drink wine, get drunk, and then say: ‘Why do we need God?’
“And for rulers, strong drink?” — Should one to whom all the secrets of the world are revealed drink wine and become drunk?
Others say: Should one before whose door all the princes of the world rise early drink wine and become drunk?
Rabbi Yitzchak said: From where do we know that Solomon repented and acknowledged his mother? As it is written: “And Noah, the man of the land, began…” —
| A personal note and lesson: Perhaps we can suggest the following explanation for why the Sages did not formally obligate the mother in the mitzvah of educating her children in Torah and mitzvot. It is well known that a child’s emotional health depends greatly on being raised in an environment of love and acceptance. If both parents—the father and the mother—were equally rabbinically obligated to rebuke and discipline the child, this could easily result in constant confrontation, leading the child to perceive his value and self‑worth as being based solely on his actions and achievements. In their great wisdom, the Sages therefore divided parental responsibilities. The father was assigned the primary role of discipline and formal education, providing structure, direction, and correction. The mother, by contrast, was exempt—not because she should never educate her child, but so that she may exercise discretion regarding when and how to do so, expressing guidance primarily through love and emotional support. If she senses that addressing a particular issue at a given moment would be counterproductive, the Torah and the Sages exempt her from the obligation to intervene, unlike the father, who remains duty‑bound. This division ensures that one parent is responsible for directing the child toward proper conduct, while the other serves as a constant source of unconditional love and emotional security. |
[1] Admur 343:4 “However, with regard to his mother, there is no obligation upon him at all—neither a positive commandment nor a negative prohibition.”; Admur 616:4 “All of this applies to a minor who has not yet reached the age of education for the mitzvah of affliction. However, if he has reached the age of education, it is permitted to feed him, give him drink, anoint him, and wash him directly, in the manner explained above. If the minor performs any of these acts on his own, there is no need to protest, except for his father, who is required to protest and to educate his son in the mitzvot. His mother, however, is not obligated in this. Nevertheless, it is forbidden for her to place food before him, since doing so is considered as if she were feeding him directly.”; Admur 640:4 regarding Sukkah; Nazir 29a; M”A 343:1; 616:2; 640:3; Terumas Hadeshen 94; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a; Maharam Ben Baruch 200; Ritva Eiruvin 82a; Birkeiy Yosef 343:7; Machatzis Hashekel 343:2; 200:4; M”B 343:2; Sdei Chemed Ches 59; Kaf Hachaim 343:9; Ketzos Hashulchan 147 footnote 2; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 165 footnotes 49-69, 197 footnote 534; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 9; Shaareiy Chinuch pp. 113-122; Hisvadyus 5750 3:171, brought in Shaareiy Chinuch ibid “The obligation of chinuch (religious education), according to the strict letter of the law, rests upon the father. The father is obligated by rabbinic law to educate his son or daughter even in positive commandments, and all the more so to prevent them from transgressing prohibitions. This is not the case with the mother, who is not obligated in this responsibility at all—neither regarding positive commandments nor prohibitions.
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that there is a complete obligation on the mother to educate her children. [Rebbe Yochanon in Nazir 29 according to Rav Avraham Min Hahar; Hilni Hamalka Sukkah 2b; Chiddushei Rabbeinu Peretz Nazir ibid; Rashi Chagiga 2b; Meiri Yuma 78a; Opinions in Birkeiy Yosef 343:7; Shalah Hakadosh Shaar Haosiyos Daled Derech Eretz, brought in Kuntrus Chanoch Lenar and Toras Menachem 5743 2:1085; Orach Mishor Nazir ibid; Tosefes Shabbos 343:1, brought in Machatzis Hashekel 343:1; Elya Raba 640:4, brought in Shaareiy Teshuvah 640:2; Chayeh Adam 66:2; Aruch Laner Sukkah 2b; Bikurei Yaakov 640:5; Chikrei Lev O.C. 70; Sdei Chemed Ches 59; Daas Torah 343; Shevet Halevi 1:67; See Kaf Hachaim 343:9; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 16 p. 196 footnote 533;] Furthermore, some Poskim rule that the obligation of the mother is even more than on the father. [Shalah Hakadosh Shaar Haosiyos Daled, brought in Kuntrus Chanoch Lenar and Toras Menachem 5743 2:1085; Menoras Hamaor Abuhav 168; Migdal Oz of Yaavetz 3:25] Other Poskim rule that so long as the father is alive, the mother is obligated to educate her children as an emissary of their father. [Chasam Sofer Sugyos 24]
[2] Implication of Admur ibid [perhaps one can deduce from Admur which writes “at all” that there is no obligation on the mother even after the child has passed away]; Terumas Hadeshen 94 in opinion of Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid
[3] Terumas Hadeshen 94 in his own opinion; Meiri Nazir ibid; Tosafus Eruvin ibid; Imrei Yosher 3; Shaareiy Teshuvah 640:1 in name of Poskim; M”B 640:5; Hagahos Imreoi David on 343; Pesach Hadvir 343:4; Kaf Hachaim 343:9 in his conclusion; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 10 that so applies according to all; See Sdei Chemed Ches 59
[4] Admur 343:5 “All of the above applies only with regard to the obligation to separate a child from a transgression. However, to actively feed a child a prohibited item with one’s own hands is Biblically forbidden for every person, even if the child is not at all capable of understanding, as it is stated: “Do not eat them”—which the Sages expounded to mean: “Do not feed them to minors.” This prohibition applies even to matters prohibited only by Rabbinic law. It is forbidden to feed a child such items even if the child needs them, and even if the child is ill, so long as there is no danger to life, just as it is forbidden to do so for an adult. Similarly, it is forbidden to accustom a child to desecration of Shabbat or Festivals, even through acts prohibited only due to shevut (Rabbinic prohibitions).”; Admur 266:10; Admur 616:1 “This applies even if the water was heated before Yom Kippur, since bathing in hot water is not prohibited solely because of the mitzvah of affliction. After all, throughout the year on Shabbat it is permitted to wash with hot water. Rather, there is also a rabbinic decree concerning bathhouses—meaning that bath attendants are suspected of heating water on Shabbat. For this reason, entering a bathhouse on Shabbat was prohibited, as explained in the relevant section. Therefore, these acts may be done for the minor directly by hand, just as one feeds him directly, in all matters prohibited by rabbinic law, as explained in סימן שמ״ג.”; 616:2 “Likewise, it is forbidden for an adult to put sandals on the minor, since this does not constitute affliction for the minor, who does not feel the deprivation as strongly. However, if the minor puts them on himself, whether one is required to protest is explained in סימן שמ״ג—see there.”; Shut Rabbeinu 41; Michaber 343:1; Rambam Machalos Assuros 17:27; Yevamos 114a; Terumos Hadeshen 62; M”A 616:2; M”B 343:4 “As for forbidden food—everyone is prohibited from it, and if the infant eats it, the infant has no understanding at all. And this matter is prohibited by the Torah, for we derive it from what is written regarding creeping creatures: “You shall not eat them” (lo tochelum), and the verse is read thus, and the Sages received it as an exposition to mean: “You shall not feed them to minors.” And likewise regarding blood it is written: “Any soul among you shall not eat blood,” and the Sages received this as an exposition to mean: “Do not feed [blood] to minors.” And likewise regarding the impurity of priests it is written: “Say and you shall say,” and the Sages said: “Say”—to the adults, that they should say [it] to the minors. And behold, from these three commandments we learn for the entire Torah that with respect to all Torah prohibitions, it is forbidden to feed them [to minors] or to command them to transgress. Therefore, it is forbidden to give a child any food that is forbidden, or to give it to him to play with, lest he come to eat it, for this is considered as though one feeds him directly by hand. [This is the ruling of the Magen Avraham], even [in such a case], etc., and [one may not avoid this] by saying [to do so] to a non‑Jew.”; Kaf Hachaim 343:6; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 194 and 187; Likkutei Sichos Vol. 7 Sicha 1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:4 and 7
[5] See Admur 156:7 “One who sees his friend sinning or following a path that is not good, it is a mitzvah to return him to the right path and to inform him that he is sinning against himself through his wicked actions, as it says (Vayikra 19:17), ‘You shall surely rebuke your fellow.’ If he does not accept [the rebuke], he must rebuke him again and again, even up to a hundred times, as it says, ‘You shall surely rebuke. And one must rebuke only his friend, not anyone else as if the person will not listen to him, he is not obligated to rebuke him.”; Admur 608:5 “However, when the prohibition is explicitly stated in the Torah, even if it is known to us that this sinner will not accept the rebuke—even if we inform him of the prohibition—nevertheless one is still required to protest and object to his actions. This is because all of Israel are guarantors for one another, and by protesting, one removes himself from that responsibility. Nevertheless, one should not rebuke him publicly more than once, and one should not repeatedly rebuke him in public, once it is clear he will not accept the rebuke. Regarding this the Sages said: “Just as it is a mitzvah to say something that will be heard, so too it is a mitzvah not to say something that will not be heard.” Nonetheless, one is obligated to rebuke him privately, even one hundred times, until the sinner rebukes him back and rejects the rebuke. Since the prohibition has been made known to him and he persists in transgressing it deliberately, every individual Jew is obligated to rebuke him, as it is stated: “You shall surely rebuke”—even one hundred times. If the sin is committed in private, he should initially be rebuked in private; if he does not abandon his ways, one embarrasses him publicly until he repents. However, if the sin is committed openly and publicly, he is rebuked immediately, so that the Name of Heaven not be desecrated.”; Rama 608:2; Rambam Mishneh Torah Mada Hilchos Deios 6:7 “One who sees his friend sinning or following a path that is not good, it is a mitzvah to return him to the right path and to inform him that he is sinning against himself through his wicked actions, as it says (Vayikra 19:17), ‘You shall surely rebuke your fellow.”; M”B 343:7; Shabbos 54b; 55a; Shavuos 39a; Erechin 16b; Rambam Teshuvah 4:2; Semag Asei 11; Kedoshim 19:17; Hagahos Maimanis on Rambam ibid letter Gimel; Tanya Chapter 32; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 169; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 17
Background: The halachic discussion regarding until what age a father is obligated to educate his child refers specifically to the unique mitzvah of chinuch, which applies only so long as the child is below the age of bar mitzvah. Since the child is not yet independently obligated in Torah mitzvot, the Torah assigns the primary responsibility for his mitzvah observance to the father through the mitzvah of chinuch. Once, however, the child reaches bar mitzvah, the mitzvah of Chinuch naturally falls away, because the child now becomes personally obligated in all Torah prohibitions and commandments in his own right. At that point, the father’s role does not diminish—rather, it changes category. From this stage onward, the father is no longer acting under the special framework of chinuch, but instead becomes subject to the broader, Torah‑level obligation that applies to every Jew: namely, the mitzvah to rebuke and protest wrongdoing when witnessing another Jew transgressing a prohibition. This applies for all ages. This mitzvah, which takes effect once the sinner is of mitzvah age, is known as the mitzvah of tochachah. Accordingly, once a child reaches bar mitzvah, the father joins the general obligation incumbent upon all Jews to intervene when witnessing sin. Far from being exempt, parents—who observe their children’s behavior more closely than anyone else—are in fact among those most responsible and best positioned to fulfill this mitzvah. In fact, this explains the Sages’ teaching that one who has the ability to protest the wrongdoing of members of his household and fails to do so is held responsible for their sins. This liability does not stem from the mitzvah of chinuch, which no longer applies once a person reaches the age of mitzvot, but rather from the independent biblical obligation of tochachah—the duty to rebuke and protest sin when one is able to do so. Thus, the termination of the mitzvah of chinuch at age thirteen does not mean that a parent may now ignore misconduct. On the contrary, the obligation is elevated: what was previously a rabbinic duty of training is now replaced by a biblical mandate of protest and moral correction, carrying significantly greater halachic weight.
The difference between the Mitzvah of Chinuch versus Tochacha that is upon the father: One may therefore justifiably ask: what, then, is the substantive difference between the mitzvah of chinuch and the mitzvah of tochachah, and why does the father recite the blessing of Baruch she‑petarani once the child reaches bar mitzvah, if he nevertheless remains obligated to rebuke his child on a biblical level? The answer is that the mitzvah of tochachah applies only when the person being rebuked is halachically capable of responsibility and potentially receptive to correction—that is, when there is a reasonable expectation that the rebuke may lead him to change his behavior. Where the individual will certainly not listen, the obligation to rebuke no longer applies, and one is not commanded to continue reprimanding him. This limitation is inherent to the mitzvah of tochachah. This stands in sharp contrast to the mitzvah of chinuch. In the case of chinuch, a parent cannot excuse himself by claiming that the child “will not listen.” Rather, so long as the child is below the age of mitzvot, the parent remains obligated to actively educate, guide, and, where necessary, enforce mitzvah observance, employing age‑appropriate methods to ensure compliance. Accordingly, when a child reaches bar mitzvah, the father’s obligation of chinuch—which is a unique, parental, and rabbinic duty—comes to an end, and the father therefore recites Baruch she‑petarani. From that point forward, the father’s continued responsibility operates within the framework of tochachah, which is a general, biblical obligation shared with all Jews and subject to its own conditions and limitations.
[6] Peri Megadim Pesicha Koleles 2:10 rules that according to all there is a Mitzva; Mateh Efraim 616 in Alef Lamateh 5; Machatzis Hashekel 343:1; M”B 343:2; See also Hilchos Talmud Torah Kuntrus Achron 1:1; Ketzos Hashulchan 147 footnote 3
[7] Admur in Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:14 “Nevertheless, if she helps her son or her husband with her body and very much encourages him to engage in Torah study, she shares in their reward, and her reward is great—since they are commanded [to learn] and they do so through her.”; Sotah; Hisvadyus 5750 3:171, brought in Shaareiy Chinuch ibid
[8] Hisvadyus 5750 3:171, brought in Shaareiy Chinuch ibid “However, beyond this, since the actual education and guidance of sons and daughters—especially young boys and girls—depends to a great extent, and primarily in practice, on the direction of the mother, the mainstay of the home, and consequently the essence of education is carried out through her; it is therefore well known what the Shelah writes: that women are obligated in rebuking and guiding their children just like the father, and even more so than he, because they are more available and are found in the home more frequently.”; Sichos Kodesh 5737 2:2
[9] Shalah Hakadosh Shaar Haosiyos Daled, brought in Kuntrus Chanoch Lenar p. 34 and Toras Menachem 5743 2:1085 and Hisvadyus ibid, “Women are obligated to admonish and guide their sons no less than the father—and even more so—since they are more available and more frequently present in the home.”
[10] Hisvadyus 5750 3:171, brought in Shaareiy Chinuch ibid “Moreover, women have an added advantage in education and rebuke over men, since by the very nature of women their influence in education is carried out with gentle speech and through a feeling of closeness, love, and affection more than is the case with men. And we see this clearly—especially in recent generations—that specifically through a path of closeness and love, ‘educate the child according to his way’, the success of education is far greater.”
[11] Rebbe in Shaar Halacha Uminhag 3:63 and 80.
[12] See Sanhedrin 70b “The words of Lemuel, king of Massa, which his mother taught him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai that this teaches that his mother forced him to stand upon a pillar and said to him: ‘What, my son, and what, son of my womb, and what, son of my vows?’—‘What, my son’: everyone knows that your father was God‑fearing; now they will say that his mother caused him to sin. ‘And what, son of my womb’: all the women of your father’s household, once they became pregnant, no longer appeared before the king, but I pushed my way in so that I might have a son who was energetic and refined. ‘And what, son of my vows’: all the women of your father’s household would vow, “May I have a son fit for kingship,” but I vowed, “May I have a son who is diligent, filled with Torah, and worthy of prophecy.” ‘Not for kings, Lemuel, not for kings to drink wine’: she said to him, “What have you to do with kings who drink wine and become drunk and say, ‘Why do we need God?’ And for princes, strong drink: one for whom all the secrets of the world are revealed—shall he drink wine and become drunk?” Others say: one before whom all the princes of the world rise early—shall he drink wine and become drunk? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where do we know that Solomon later acknowledged his mother’s words? As it is written, ‘And Noah began to be a man of the soil,.”; Menoras Hamaor ibid
