Who is obligated to educate the child – Father, Mother, School, Teacher, Legal Guardian:[1]

7. Father – The obligation of a father to educate and reprimand his children:[2]

The obligation to educate a child in Torah and mitzvah’s is specifically upon the father of the child. He is obligated to educate both his son and daughter in the negative and positive commands, and is likewise required to reprimand his child and stop him from performing any transgression.

If the father does not reprimand his child:[3] If the father does not reprimand his child from transgressing a Biblical command, then the father himself is to be reprimanded by the Beis Din. However, for not stopping his children from transgressing Rabbinical commands the father does not need to be chastised.

1. Mother – Is a mother obligated to educate or reprimand her children?[4]

A mother is not obligated at all to educate her child, whether her son or daughter, in neither positive or negative commands. [Some Poskim[5] rule that this applies even if the father of the child is not able to educate him.] However, she does receive reward for encouraging her son to study Torah.[6] [Furthermore, although she is not formally obligated to do so, it is certainly a mitzvah for her to be involved in her child’s education.[7] 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] 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.[10] 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.[11] 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.[12]]

C. Legal Guardians – Melameid, Grandparents, Dorm, Foster home, Boarding house:[13]

All individuals and institutions who act in the capacity of a legal guardian or educator of a child, bear responsibility for the child’s religious and moral education. They are obligated to guide, instruct, and ensure that the child is raised according to the principles of Torah and mitzvot, fulfilling the educational duties typically incumbent on a parent. [Seemingly, however, this obligation is only upon male legal guardians, however, regarding female legal guardians, then they are no different than the status of a mother of which some Poskim[14] rule that a mother is never obligated in the education of her children even if her husband is not around, as explained above in B.]

D. Beis Din – Rabbinical Leaders of city:[15]

Even if a Beis Din sees a child under the age of Bar or Bas Mitzva[16] transgressing a prohibition they do not need to reprimand or stop[17] the child from doing so, if the child is doing so for his own benefit, such as eating Treif foods or desecrating Shabbos for his own needs. They are however required to reprimand the child if the child is transgressing a prohibition for the sake of another Jew or if the transgression will become public knowledge as will be explained later on.

1. Bystanders – Must a person other than a child’s father stop a child from sinning?[18]

A bystander who is neither the father [nor legal guardian] observing a child under the age of Bar or Bas Mitzva violating a prohibition is not obligated to intervene or issue a reprimand, provided the child’s actions are for their own benefit, such as consuming non-kosher food or desecrating Shabbat for personal needs. They are however required to reprimand the child if the child is transgressing a prohibition for the sake of another Jew or if the transgression will become public knowledge as will be explained later on.

From The Rav’s Desk

Question:

I saw someone’s child washing a stain off their pants on Shabbos. I did not say anything to them, although am wondering if I have a responsibility to educate them in matters that are forbidden on Shabbos, or is this only upon the father of the child? The child was certainly above the age of Chinuch.

Answer:

According to some Poskim, including Admur, you are not required to inform him or stop him, as this obligation is only on the father, until the age of Bar Mitzvah. Nonetheless, it is proper to tell him anyways.

Sources: See Admur 343:1; Michaber and Rama 343:1; M”B 343:7; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2

F. A child who is transgressing for the sake of another Jew:[19]

If a child is committing a transgression for the benefit of any other Jew[20] who is already Bar Mitzvah[21]—for example, extinguishing a fire in that Jew’s home when there is no danger to human life—then every Jew[22] is [Rabbinically] obligated to stop the child or reprimand him. This responsibility is not restricted solely to the child’s father or legal guardian.

G. A public transgression that may lead others to sin:[23]

If a child’s transgression is likely to become public knowledge and there is concern that it may lead others to believe such conduct is permissible due to the absence of protest, the Beis Din[24] [and others[25]]  are required to formally object to the actions, regardless of whether the child is acting in their own interest.[26]

H. Bein Adam Lechaveiro – Universal Responsibility to Correct a Child’s Societal Misconduct[27]

When a child steals, causes damage, injury, humiliation, or other harm between people, it is appropriate for a Beis Din, and for every individual to reprimand the child and prevent such behavior.

I. Matters of Modesty and immorality[28]

If one sees a child performing an immoral and immodest act then it is fitting for anyone to intervene and separate the child from wrongdoing.

J. Non-Kosher food:[29]

If one sees a child eating forbidden foods, it is fitting for anyone to intervene and separate the child from wrongdoing.

[1] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 165

[2] Admur 343:2; Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:1; Rambam Tzitzis 3:9; Chagiga 4a; Nazir 29a; Sukkah 42a; Erechin 2b; Bach 17; Biur Halacha 39; See Likkutei Sichos 35 p. 61; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 165 footnotes 47-48

[3] Admur ibid; M”A 343:2; Beis Yosef 343 in opinion of Rambam Shabbos 24:11

[4] 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.”; [See also Admur 616:4; 640:4]; M”A 343:1; 616:2; 640:3; Nazir 29a; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a; Maharam Ben Baruch  200; Ritva Eiruvin 82a; Birkeiy Yosef 343:7; See Terumas Hadeshen 94; Machtzis Hashekel 343:1; M”B 343:2; Sdei Chemed Ches 59; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 165 footnotes 49-69; 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; 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, 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] 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]

[5] 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

Other opinions: Some Poskim 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. [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; Kaf Hachaim 343:9; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 10 that so applies according to all; See Sdei Chemed Ches 59]

[6] 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.”; Hisvadyus 5750 3:171, brought in Shaareiy Chinuch ibid

[7] 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

[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; Menoras Hamaor ibid

[13] See Admur 167:23 “And all this is regarding an adult who does not know how to bless. But to train children, one is obligated to bless on every blessing of enjoyment in order to educate them in the mitzvos. And even if there is no obligation of chinuch (education) upon him, such as one who is not from his household.”; Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 290:30 regarding an Aputrapis; Imrei Yosher 3; Yad David Pesachim 88a; Sdei Chemed Mareches Ches Kelal Get; Betzel Hachochma 5:3; Shevet Halevi 8:95; Chanoch Lanar 2:7 footnote 15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 12; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 166 footnotes 70-75; See regarding the Chiyuv of an Aputrapis to provide the children with Mitzvah objects: Tosefta Terumos 1; Gittin 52a; Pesachim 88a; Rambam Nechalos 11:10; Michaber C.M. 290:15; Admur 434:16; Chok Yaakov 434:15

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule there is no obligation upon any legal guarding other than the father to educate children under his care. [Rashi Pesachim 88a regarding a master of a slave; Mishneh Halachos 3:26 See Chikrei Lev O.C. 70, Pesach Hadvir 343:3, and Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 75 that according to those who hold a mother is exempt actually exempt all legal guardians, whether male or female.]

[14] See Chikrei Lev O.C. 70; Pesach Hadvir 343:3; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 75

[15] Admur 343:1 “A minor who transgresses the words of the Torah for his own enjoyment—for example, if he eats non‑kosher food or desecrates Shabbat for his own needs—the Beit Din is not commanded to separate him [from the transgression]. However, if he does so on behalf of an adult, one must protest and stop him, by rabbinic law, as explained in סימן של״ד. Furthermore, if it is a matter that becomes public and there is concern that those who hear about it may err and say that such a thing is permitted, one must protest even if the minor is acting on his own initiative. For example, if he blows the shofar on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat, since the sound is heard publicly and people may come to err and say that one may blow [the shofar] even when it falls on Shabbat.”; Admur 301:21; 334:26; 362:17; Michaber 343:1; 2^nd opinion in Rama 343:1; Tur 343; Rambam Machalos Assuros 17:27; Sefer Hateruma 215; Semag L.S. 65; Hagahos Maimanis Shevisas Assur 2; Teshuvas Maharam Ben Baruch 200; Tosafus Nazir 29; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82; Rebbe Padas Yevamos 114a; M”B 343:8; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 167 footnotes 76-82

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that if one sees a child who has reached the age of education transgressing a prohibition, then anyone who sees this, including and especially a Beis Din, must reprimand and stop the child. [1^st opinion in Rama 343:1; M”A 640:3; Elya Raba 640:4; P”M 640 A”A 4; Tosafus Nazir 28b; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a in name of Yereim; Terumas Hadeshen 94; Rashi Eruvin 96b; Chayeh Adam 66:3] Some Poskim conclude based on this opinion that by a Biblical transgression one is to be stringent and reprimand a child which has reached the age of education even if the child is not his son. [Chayeh Adam ibid; Mishneh Berura 343:7]

[16] Even if the child is over the age of Chinuch [Admur 343:1-2; 2^nd opinion in Rama ibid]

[17] Here the wording of Admur is “separate” or stop while in the other two cases to be brought next he uses the term reprimand or protests, while in the next halacha regarding a father’s obligation the term “reprimand and stop” is used. vetzaruch Iyun on the difference.

[18] Admur 343:1 regarding a Beis Din, and all the more so a bystander; Michaber 343:1; 2^nd opinion in Rama 343:1; Rambam Hilchos Machalos Assuros 17:27; Ketzos Hashulchan 147:1

Background: In the Talmud Yevamos 114a and Shulchan Aruch 343 the entire discussion is with regards to a Beis Din reprimanding the child and not regarding an ordinary bystander.  The Ketzos Hashulchan 147:1 writes that if even a Beis Din is not obligated to reprimand a child, then certainly other people are not obligated. Perhaps the reason for why no mention of this was made in Shulchan Aruch is because there is not even an inkling of a thought that a bystander is obligated to educate someone else’s child. However, a Beis Din which is responsible for the education of all the towns folk, including the child’s father, perhaps one would think is obligated to reprimand the child, hence the ruling that they too have no obligation.

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that anyone who sees a child who has reached the age of education transgressing a prohibition, then he must reprimand and stop the child. [Bikurei Yaakov 640:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2 in opinion of Rama ibid, based on Yevamos 114a that Beis Din is Lav Davka and the same applies to any person; So rule regarding a Beis Din: 1^st opinion in Rama 343:1; M”A 640:3; Elya Raba 640:4; P”M 640 A”A 4; Tosafus Nazir 28b; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a in name of Yereim; Terumas Hadeshen 94; Rashi Eruvin 96b; Chayeh Adam 66:3] Some Poskim conclude based on this opinion that by a Biblical transgression one is to be stringent and reprimand a child which has reached the age of education even if the child is not his son. However, by Rabbinical prohibitions there is no need to be stringent. [Chayeh Adam ibid; Mishneh Berura 343:7]

[19] Admur 343:1 “If he does so on behalf of an adult, one must protest and stop him, by rabbinic law, as explained in סימן של״ד.”; Admur 334:26 in parentheses; Beis Yosef 334; Rosh 1:1; Rabbeinu Yerucham 1:13; Piskeiy Teshvuos 343:13

[20] Admur 343:1 “Bishvil Gadol”; 334:26 “on behalf of his father (or another Jew)”; M”B 334:65 in name of P”M; Ketzos Hashulchan 147 footnote 11

Father versus other person: So rules also Admur in 334:26 that if the child is going to extinguish the fire even on behalf of a person other than his father, he must be reprimanded. Vetzaruch Iyun why Admur in 334:26 stated this addition (another person) in parentheses. To note however that in the Gemara [Yevamos 104a] explains that the reason the child must be reprimanded is because he is doing so on behalf of his father, and thus perhaps here Admur novelizes that even when done on behalf of others he must be reprimanded. [Ketzos Hashulchan 147 footnote 11] This is also explicitly implied in Rashi there which equates this case to the case brought earlier in the Gemara regarding having children carry keys in a public domain on behalf of another person, of which there it was allowed because they were not doing so on behalf of that person. Nevertheless, tzaruch Iyun why the need to place this addition in parentheses. The Mishneh Berurah [334:65] rules in the name of the Peri Megadim as above that the child is to be reprimanded even when he goes to extinguish another person’s fire.

[21] See Chanoch Lanaar 7:3 in name of Sefer Malei Haroim that if a child is doing so on behalf of another child he does not need to be protested. So is also implied from Admur ibid which states “Bishvil Gadol”

[22] See Admur 343:2 [This obligation to reprimand and correct improper behavior is not limited to the Beit Din, even though they are the primary subject discussed in this halacha. Rather, this obligation applies to every individual. This is made explicit by the wording in the beginning of the next halacha, where Admur states that all of the above applies when dealing with “other people”, clearly indicating that the responsibility is not confined to judicial authorities alone.]

[23] Admur 343:1 “Admur 343:1 “Furthermore, if it is a matter that becomes public and there is concern that those who hear about it may err and say that such a thing is permitted, one must protest even if the minor is acting on his own initiative. For example, if he blows the shofar on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat, since the sound is heard publicly and people may come to err and say that one may blow [the shofar] even when it falls on Shabbat.”;.”; Admur 588:6; M”A 343:1; Ran 9b; Beir Heiytiv 343:1; Piskeiy Teshvuos 343:2

[24] Implication of Admur ibid; Admur 588:6; Vetzaruch Iyun regarding if others excluding the father re obligated to protest the child’s actions. See sources in next footnote

[25] Implication of Admur 343:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2 [This obligation to reprimand and correct improper public behavior is not limited to the Beit Din, even though they are the primary subject discussed in this halacha. Rather, this obligation applies to every individual. This is made explicit by the wording in the beginning of the next halacha, where Admur states that all of the above applies when dealing with “other people”, clearly indicating that the responsibility is not confined to judicial authorities alone.]

[26] Such as for example if the child was blowing Shofar on Shabbos Rosh Hashana then since people hearing the Shofar may think that one is indeed meant to blow even on Shabbos Rosh Hashana, therefore the child is to be reprimanded. [Admur ibid and 588:6]

[27] M”B 343:9 in name of P”M and other Achronim; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2

[28] Shoel Umeishiv Basra 4:44; Or Sameiach on Rambam Rotzieach 1:13; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2

[29] Chanoch Lanaar 7 footnote 5 in name of Malei Haroim; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2; See Shach Y.D. 81:26