- The Mitzvah of Chinuch & Whether its Biblical or Rabbinical:[1]
[Unlike the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah[2] which is a Biblical obligation upon the father to teach his son, as will be explained in Halacha 5, the Mitzvah of Chinuch of Mitzvos is not a Biblical obligation upon the father. Rather] it is a Rabbinical command for a father to educate his son and daughter in both the negative and positive commands, beginning from when the child reaches the age of education [to be defined in Chapter 2]. It goes without saying[3] that a father is Rabbinically obligated to reprimand and stop his child who has reached the age of education from transgressing a negative command, even if it is only a Rabbinical prohibition.[4] [This is unlike the Mitzvah of Tochacha which is a Biblical obligation applicable to every Jew to protest the forbidden actions of another Jew, as this Mitzvah only begins once the Jew in question becomes an adult, as will be explained in Chapter 2 Halacha 6D. However, all the above is only with regards to education and reprimanding, however, it is a Biblical prohibition for any individual to actively cause a child of any age to transgress a prohibition, as will be explained in Halacha 8.]
Why the Mitzvah of Chinuch is not Biblical?[5] The Rebbe elaborates on this question and explains:[6] While the Torah clearly commands a parent to teach Torah to one’s child, the obligation to educate a child in the practical fulfillment of mitzvot is understood to be Rabbinical. This distinction leads to the question of why the Torah does not mandate formal mitzvah training prior to a child becoming obligated at Bar or Bat Mitzvah. The Rebbe considers various explanations, including the view that the Biblical obligation focuses on knowledge rather than practice, and another that sees practical education as a preparatory act given independent value through Rabbinic enactment. Ultimately, these approaches are insufficient, leading to the conclusion that the Torah does not demand immediate perfection in mitzvah observance upon reaching maturity. Rather, the Torah recognizes mitzvah fulfillment as a gradual process, allowing for continued learning and habituation even after obligation begins. This is illustrated by the analogy of removing chametz, where one is not considered in violation while actively engaged in fulfilling the commandment. Similarly, a child who has reached Bar or Bat Mitzvah is viewed as being in an ongoing process of fulfillment, rather than failing due to imperfection, underscoring that education and growth are intrinsic components of religious obligation. For a more detailed discussion of this matter and to appreciate its full scope, please refer to the concluding section of this chapter in which the Sicha has been brought in full.
| Mitzvah | Obligation Type | Who is Obligated | Who is Educated | Scope | Notes |
| Talmud Torah | Biblical | Father | Son | Teaching Torah | Explained in Halacha 5 |
| Chinuch of Mitzvos | Rabbinical | Father | Son and daughter | Negative and positive commands | Begins from age of education |
| Reprimanding child from transgressing | Rabbinical | Father | Child who reached age of education | Negative commands, even Rabbinical prohibitions | Father must stop child from transgressing |
| Causing a child to transgress | Biblical | Any individual | Child of any age | Any prohibition | Explained in Halacha 7?? |
[1] Admur 343:2 “All this applies to others, but a father—since he is obligated by rabbinic decree to educate his son or daughter even in positive commandments once they reach the age of education—how much more so is he obligated by rabbinic law to rebuke them and prevent them from transgressing prohibitions.”; Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:1 “Even though a minor is exempt from all mitzvos, and his father is not obligated to educate him in mitzvos on a Torah level but only by rabbinic decree, nevertheless Talmud Torah is a positive commandment from the Torah upon the father to teach his young son Torah, even though the minor himself is not obligated. As it is stated, “And you shall teach them to your sons, to speak of them.”; Basra 4:2; Admur 39:1 “A minor, even though he is subject—by rabbinic law—to the obligation of tying Tefillin, he is not subject to this prohibition by Torah law. (And even according to rabbinic law, the warning applies only to his father, as explained in Siman 343.)”; 266:10; Shut Admur 41; Rambam Machalos Assuros 17:28; Tzitzis 3:9; Chagiga 4a; Nazir 29b; Sukkah 28b; Chayeh Adam 66:1; See Likkutei Sichos 35 p. 61; Igros Kodesh 8:92; 95; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 162; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 1:1-6
Opinion of Admur in Tanya: In Tanya, in the Hakdama to Shaar Hayichud Vihemuna, Admur writes in parentheses that “The Mitzvah of Chinuch is also with a positive command, as written in chapter 343” The intent of this statement is not to say that the Mitzvah of Chinuch is a positive command, but rather that the Rabbinical command of Chinuch also obligates one to train one’s child in following the Biblical positive commands. [Lessons in Tanya]
[2] And the Mitzvah of Vehigadeta Lebincha on Pesach night, as will be explained in Chapter ??
[3] Meaning if he is even obligated to educate the child in positive commands then certainly he must stop him from transgressing.
[4] A father regarding Issurei Shabbos: Some Poskim rule that regarding Shabbos a father is Biblically obligated to prevent his son from transgressing on his behalf, as the verse states Lo Saseh Kol Melacha, Ata Ubincha Ubitecha. [See Shaar Hatziyon 343:54; Biur Halacha 266:6; Ketzos Hashulchan 141 footnote 28; Mishkanos Yaakov O.C. 118; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:3 and 5 footnotes 32, 61 and 67-70] Practically, Admur and other Poskim do not agree with this opinion and hence the obligation remains Rabbinical. [See Admur 266:10; and so is Setimas Admur throughout 343; Poskim in Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 70]
[5] See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 35 Parshas Vayeira
[6] See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 35 Parshas Vayeira