E. The Nature of the Obligation of Chinuch: Upon the Child or the Father[1]
A central question regarding the mitzvah of chinuch concerns the locus of its obligation: does it rest upon the child himself, or solely upon the father or other adult figure? Some poskim[2] maintain that the obligation of chinuch is entirely incumbent upon the father (or responsible adult), and not upon the child at all. According to this view, the child bears no personal obligation—even on a rabbinic level—to observe mitzvos, as a child is exempt from all Mitzvos[3]; rather, the responsibility lies exclusively with those charged with his education. Other Poskim[4], however, contend that there exists a rabbinic obligation intrinsic to the child himself, requiring him to fulfill mitzvos by virtue of chinuch, independent of the parental duty to educate. [Regarding the opinion of Admur, in one area[5] he seems to conclude like the former opinion that there is no personal obligation of Chinuch on a child, and the obligation remains only upon his father. However, elsewhere he seems to concludes like the latter approach.[6] Vetzaruch Iyun!]
[1] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 162; Likkutei Sichos Vol. 17 p. 233 [The Rebbe ibid understands that this debate is dependent on the separate question of whether a minor can be motzi an adult in the fulfillment of a mitzvah that is rabbinic in nature. According to this understanding, the issue of a child’s personal obligation would directly impact his ability to discharge the obligation of others. However, in the Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid, the two disputes are in fact explained to be unrelated. Even according to those poskim who maintain that a minor possesses a certain personal rabbinic obligation, that obligation is nevertheless on a lower level than that of an adult. As a result, the minor still lacks the capacity to be motzi an adult. Accordingly, according to the Rebbe’s approach, there would appear to be a contradiction in the rulings of the Alter Rebbe, as will be demonstrated later—reflecting a tension between the former and latter approaches. According to the explanation of the Encyclopedia Talmudit, however, no contradiction exists at all, since the minor’s inability to be motzi an adult does not depend on whether his obligation is personal or derivative, but rather on the inherent disparity between his level of obligation and that of an adult. Vetzaruch Iyun]
[2] Implication of Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:1 “Even though a minor is exempt from all mitzvos, and even his father is not obligated to educate him in mitzvos on a Torah level but only by rabbinic decree”; Admur 640:4 in parenthesis “The warning is only on his father”; 37:3 [Father is obligated to purchase him Tefillin for Chinuch] [Unlike Admur 186:3; See Likkutei Sichos ibid footnote 26]; Rashi Brachos 48a; Ramban Milchamos Brachos 20b and Chidushim on Kiddushin 31a; Rashba Sukkah 38a; Teshuvas Maharam Bava Basra 4:200; Ritva Megillah 19b; Teshuvos 97; Meiri Brachos 20a and Megillah 19b; Ran Kiddushin 31a and Megillah 19b; Shut Harosh 4:21; Kesef Mishneh Chametz Umatzah 6:10; See Rambam Brachos 5:7; Nechalos 11:10
[3] See Mishneh Avos end of chapter 5; Mishneh Nida 52a; Chagiga 2b; Rambam Chagiga 2:4; Admur Basra 4:2
[4] Implication of wording if Admur 39:1 [Is Warned to tie Tefillin to Educate him in Mitzvos]; 186:3 [The child is obligated in Birchas Hamazon like the adult]; 479:6 [The child is only Rabbinically obligated in order to educate him in Mitzvos]; 640:3-4 [The child is obligated in Sukkah]; [See Likkutei Sichos ibid footnote 26]; Kesef Mishneh Chametz Umatzah 5:10 in opinion of Ran Megillah ibid and Tosafus Megillah ibid and Brachos 15a; 48a [However, see also Kesef Mishneh Barchos 5:7 and Brachos 5:15-16]; Chikreiy Lev O.C. 70; Kelilas Shmuel 8:8; See Likkutei Sichos ibid that so is implied from the wording in Rambam Brachos 5:1 and 15; Tzitzis 3:9; Sukkah 6:1; Lulav 7:19
[5] See Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah ibid; Admur 640:4 in parenthesis; 37:3
[6] See Admur 186:3 “The child is obligated like the adult”; Admur 39:1; 186:3; 479:6; 640:3-4; Likkutei Sichos ibid footnote 26 in which the Rebbe concludes that the opinion of the Alter Rebbe follows this approach despite his ruling in the previous source “And so too this is implied in the opinion of the Alter Rebbe: although he writes at the beginning of the laws of Talmud Torah that 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 enactment), nevertheless he writes in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim סימן קפ״ו סעיף ג׳ that a minor, even if he did not eat to the point of satiation, can discharge the obligation of an adult in Birkat HaMazon. From his precise wording there it is clear that, nonetheless, the minor is obligated by rabbinic law just like the adult. This wording (“כמותו” – like him) appears in the first printing of the Shulchan Aruch, whereas in our later printings the word “כמותו” does not appear. See Chikrei Halachos, volume 1, where the author explains the view of the Alter Rebbe according to the version that includes the word “כמותו,” in the same manner as explained here.”; Chikrei Halachos on 186:3; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid
