📖 Chapter 18: Mosdos Chinuch – Talmud Torah’s, Yeshiva’s and Beis Yaakov

Chapter 18: Mosdos Chinuch – Talmud Torah’s, Yeshiva’s and Beis Yaakov [1]

 

Introduction:

This chapter is a natural continuation of the previous chapter. Originally, the material contained in both chapters was arranged together, as both deal with the Torah education of children. However, due to the breadth and importance of the subject, it was decided to divide the discussion into two separate chapters.

 

The previous chapter focused on the parent’s responsibility for the Torah education of the child, including such topics as the obligation to teach Torah, sending a child to a melamed or Talmud Torah, the father’s personal obligation to learn with his child, payment of tuition, educational philosophy, dealing with struggling students, and other foundational elements of Torah education.

 

This chapter, by contrast, focuses on the institutions of Torah education themselves (Mosdos Chinuch), including schools, yeshivos, teachers, educational policies, classroom conduct, discipline, and the various practical issues that arise within the educational framework.

 

Accordingly, although each chapter can be studied independently, they are designed to complement one another. It is therefore recommended that the reader first study Chapter 17, which lays the foundation for understanding the parent’s role and obligations in Torah education, and only thereafter proceed to Chapter 18, which addresses the educational institutions and systems through which much of that Torah education is implemented in practice.

 

Together, these two chapters provide a comprehensive overview of the Torah’s approach to educating the next generation and transmitting the eternal values of Torah and mitzvos to our children.

 

1. Cheder, Talmud Torah, and Yeshiva
2. The Obligation to Send Children to Cheder and Talmud Torah:^[2]

Although the primary mitzvah of Torah study obligates a father to teach his son Torah, nonetheless, he even initially fulfills this obligation by arranging for qualified teachers to educate his child, and is not even initially required to teach his child himself.^[3] [Some Poskim^[4] even hold that regarding this Mitzvah we do not apply the rule of Mitzvah Bo Yoser Mibeshlucho.] Accordingly, from the earliest generations it has been customary for parents to hire a melamed or send their children to a cheder, Talmud Torah, or other Torah educational institution where they can receive proper Torah instruction. In today’s times, a father generally fulfills this obligation by enrolling his child in a Torah school and ensuring that he receives a proper Torah education appropriate for his age and abilities.

Compelling a Parent to Educate His Child:^[5] The obligation to provide a Torah education is so important that Chazal instituted communal measures to ensure that children receive proper instruction. A parent may not simply neglect his child’s Torah education. Rather, every effort must be made to ensure that the child is enrolled in an appropriate Torah institution and receives consistent Torah instruction.

 

1. Paying Tuition:

Paying Tuition Is Part of the Mitzvah:^[6] The obligation to provide a child with a Torah education includes the financial responsibility associated with that education. Tuition, educational expenses, books, transportation, and other necessary expenses involved in a child’s Torah education are all included within the father’s obligation to teach his child Torah. Just as one is obligated to spend money in fulfillment of other mitzvos, so too one is obligated to invest financially in the Torah education of his children. This is not merely a matter of preference or communal custom, but part of the mitzvah of “V’limadtem osam es beneichem”—”You shall teach them to your children.”

Not to seek discounts:^[7] A parent should not seek excuses or technicalities to minimize, avoid, or reduce the cost of providing his child with a proper Torah education. Rather, he should be prepared to devote significant effort, resources, and sacrifice towards this goal. The spiritual future of the child, and often that of future generations, depends upon it.

Tuition Expenses Are Not Included in a Person’s Fixed Income:^[8] Chazal teach that the expenses a person incurs for his children’s Torah education are not included in the ordinary financial allotment decreed for the year. Accordingly, money spent on tuition should never be viewed as a loss. Rather, whatever one spends for Torah education is repaid by Hashem. Accordingly, one should pay tuition with a generous eye and trust that Hashem will provide the means.

Pay Tuition Promptly:^[9] Parents should be careful to pay tuition on time whenever possible. Teachers and educational institutions devote themselves to the sacred task of educating Jewish children and should not be forced to struggle unnecessarily due to delayed payments.

The Source of Tuition Money Should Be Pure:^[10] Special care should be taken that both a child’s tuition and the food upon which he is nourished come from honest and lawful sources. Money acquired through theft, dishonesty, fraud, or other improper means should never be used to support a child’s Torah education. Torah education must be built upon a foundation of integrity and honesty.

 

Using Maaser money to pay tuition for school/Yeshiva/seminary or another Torah education:^[11] One may only use Maaser/Chomesh money to pay for a child’s Torah education if the following is fulfilled:

1. One cannot afford to pay otherwise, [unless he cuts back on expenses].^[12]
2. The child is above age six.^[13]
3. By a son:^[14] One does not pay the part of tuition that goes to pay the salary of the teachers from Maaser.

By a daughter:^[15] One may even pay the part of tuition that goes to pay the salary of the teachers from Maaser.

4. One who is poor:^[16] One who is poor and cannot afford to pay tuition even if he cuts back on all possible expenses, may use Maaser money to pay the entire tuition.

 

1. A Father’s Personal Torah Learning With His Child^[17]

Although a father fulfills his obligation of Torah education by enrolling his son in a cheder, Talmud Torah, or other Torah institution, he does not thereby completely discharge his responsibility. The primary obligation remains upon the father himself to learn Torah with his child whenever possible and according to the child’s age and ability. The learning that takes place between a father and son in the home possesses a unique quality that cannot be fully replaced by schools and teachers. Aside from the Torah knowledge gained, it strengthens the child’s love of Torah and creates a personal bond between the father, the child, and the Torah itself. Parents should therefore make every effort to set aside regular time to learn with their children. Even a small amount of consistent learning can have a profound impact on a child’s growth and success in Torah. A child who sees that his father personally invests time in his Torah education receives a powerful message regarding the importance of Torah. The child understands that Torah is not merely something learned in school, but the center of Jewish life. Some Torah scholars mistakenly refrain from learning with their young children because they feel that the time could be used more productively for their own advanced Torah study. While personal Torah study is certainly important, one should never underestimate the value of teaching his child.

 

The Primary Responsibility for a Child’s Education Rests with the Parents^[18]

Unfortunately, there are parents who are meticulous in providing for all of their children’s physical needs, such as food, clothing, toys, and other necessities, yet pay far less attention to their spiritual and educational development. They assume that matters of character, values, faith, and personal growth, including the most fundamental goal of raising a child to become a decent and upright person, will be taken care of by the school. Often this attitude stems from the pressures of earning a livelihood and the many demands of daily life. The Torah, however, teaches that the primary responsibility for a child’s education rests not with the school but with the parents. Schools and teachers serve only as the parents’ agents in fulfilling this obligation. Therefore, even when a child attends the finest educational institution, the ultimate responsibility for his upbringing remains upon his parents’ shoulders. While the guidance and instruction provided by the school are essential, parents cannot absolve themselves by relying entirely upon others. Rather, they must personally invest time, attention, and effort in directing, inspiring, and educating their children. Indeed, both common sense and Jewish tradition recognize that parents are uniquely responsible for guiding those whom they have brought into the world. For this reason, when a couple once wrote that they had been offered a significant public position that would consume much of their time and prevent them from properly dedicating themselves to the education of their children, the Rebbe emphasized the paramount importance of parental involvement in the upbringing and guidance of their family.

 

1. At what age is the child to be taken to Cheder:^[19]

Talmudic times – Age 6-7: In previous times, the son would not be brought to Cheder until he was six-seven years of age. He would be homeschooled by his father until this age. From when he can talk he would be taught verses of Torah by heart until age four. [Immediately^[20]] after turning three, he would be taught the letters of the Alphabet.^[21] At age four he would be taught how to read and he would continue to practice reading the written Torah until age 6-7, when he would be brought to the Milameid.^[22] In today’s time’s, however, this system has changed, and the custom is for a son to be brought to Cheder at a much earlier age, as explained next.

Previous Generations – Age 3-5: Starting several generations ago, the common practice became for the son to be taken to a Milameid and enter Cheder prior to age 6.^[23] In Russia and France, the common practice amongst Chabad was for the child to enter Cheder starting from age 4 or 5.^[24] In Poland the common practice was for the child to enter cheder starting from age 3.^[25] This was also the general directive of the Chabad Rabbeim to enter the child into Cheder beginning from age three.^[26] On one occasion, the Rebbe responded that a set age cannot be given as to when the child is to be entered into the Cheder being that this is dependent on the child’s maturity and general health.^[27] On another occasion, the Rebbe responded that the matter is dependent on community custom, and each community is to follow his custom.^[28] Whatever the case, it traditionally does not take place before age three.^[29] Nonetheless, certainly if the child does not have a religious upbringing, then the earlier he enters Cheder the better, even prior to age three.^[30]

Today’s times – Age 3: Practically, in today’s times, children are already sent to child care and kindergarten prior to age 3, and are already taught Torah related matters prior to age three. For all intents and purposes, this is considered as if the child has already entered Cheder on some level. Accordingly, it is customary to perform the Hachnasas Lacheder ceremony on the third birthday, or shortly after, as explained next, while the child is still in kindergarten even though he will only enter an official Talmud Torah at a later age.^[31]

 

1. The Importance of Choosing the Proper School:^[32]

Parents should make every reasonable effort to place their children in a Torah environment that is healthy, positive, and spiritually uplifting. The school should not only impart Torah knowledge, but also cultivate Yiras Shamayim, good character, love of Torah, and commitment to mitzvah observance. The purpose of a Torah education is not simply to produce knowledgeable students, but to raise committed Jews whose lives are guided by Torah values.

 

1. The Rebbe’s Opposition to Public Schools^[33]

The importance of providing children with a thoroughly Jewish education cannot be overstated. A child must receive a kosher chinuch, an education rooted completely in Torah, Yiras Shamayim, and authentic Jewish values. For this reason, it has been strongly emphasized that Jewish children should not attend public schools or schools shared with non-Jewish students. He warned that parents bear serious responsibility for the spiritual consequences that may result from exposing their children to an educational environment that is not founded upon Torah, Yiras Shamayim, and authentic Jewish values. Accordingly, parents are urged to recognize the seriousness of exposing children to environments and influences that may undermine their commitment to Torah and mitzvos.

 

1. Parents Are Custodians, Not Owners, of Their Children^[34]

Some parents mistakenly think that they are the absolute owners of their children and may do with them as they please. If they wish, they will educate them according to the spirit of Torah and Judaism, and if they wish, they may choose another path. The truth, however, is that parents are not owners of their children. Rather, Hashem has entrusted children to them as a precious deposit, charging them with the responsibility to raise and educate them in the proper manner, through Torah and authentic Jewish values. When parents fulfill this mission, they are carrying out the trust placed in them by the Creator. Conversely, when children are educated in ways that are inconsistent with Torah and Judaism, the harmful consequences can unfortunately be seen all too clearly. This fundamental principle must be explained to parents until they fully appreciate the vital necessity of providing their children with an education grounded in Torah, mitzvos, and Yiras Shamayim, recognizing that this is not merely a personal preference but a sacred responsibility entrusted to them by Hashem.

 

2. Yeshiva Gedola and Ketana
3. The Seder Limud:^[35]

Sending a child to Yeshivah Ketanah and later to Yeshivah Gedolah is not merely about placing him in a Torah environment. It is also essential that the curriculum and learning schedule provide him with the knowledge and skills necessary to become a complete Torah Jew.

While the study of Gemara has traditionally occupied a central place within the yeshivah curriculum, it should not come at the expense of other fundamental areas of Torah. In particular, the Rebbe repeatedly emphasized the importance of learning practical Halachah and expressed concern that many students developed considerable proficiency in Talmudic analysis while remaining unfamiliar with the practical laws that govern daily Jewish life. As will be discussed in detail in Chapter 19, Halachah 14, every yeshivah student should devote regular time to the study of practical Halachah so that he grows into a true “Shulchan Aruch Yid,” whose daily conduct is guided by Torah law.

Likewise, as discussed in Chapter 17, Halachah 6, children should develop familiarity with all parts of Torah, including Tanach. Although many educational institutions focus primarily on Chumash and Gemara, the obligation of Torah study includes knowledge of Nevi’im and Kesuvim as well. Indeed, the Rebbe Rayatz sharply criticized the phenomenon of yeshivah students who possessed little knowledge of Tanach and were unable to explain basic verses or events recorded in the Prophets and Writings. A complete Torah education should therefore ensure that students acquire at least a basic familiarity with the entirety of Tanach.

A proper yeshivah education should therefore strive to produce a well-rounded ben Torah. The goal is not only to develop analytical abilities in Gemara, but also to cultivate broad Torah knowledge, practical halachic competence, familiarity with Tanach, proficiency in Chassidus, refined character traits, and a living connection to Yiras Shamayim. Only through such a balanced approach can a yeshivah successfully prepare its students for a lifetime of Torah observance, Torah study, and service of Hashem.

 

1. Yeshivah Ketanah and Yeshivah Gedolah: The Role of Parents

One of the most important decisions in a child’s education is the choice to send him to a Yeshivah Ketanah and later to a Yeshivah Gedolah. This system has been the traditional model of Torah education for generations and has produced countless Torah scholars, Chassidim, and G-d-fearing Jews. Immersion in a yeshivah environment allows a student to live Torah around the clock, surround himself with positive influences, and develop habits of Torah study, avodas Hashem, and refined character. For this reason, the value of yeshivah education cannot be overstated.

At the same time, parents should not view a yeshivah as an “autopilot” system in which they have fulfilled their responsibility by sending their child away and can now leave everything in the hands of the institution. On the contrary, in many respects, sending a child away to yeshivah requires even greater parental involvement than when the child lives at home.

When a child is away from home, parents no longer see him on a daily basis. They do not observe his moods, friendships, struggles, successes, or spiritual state firsthand. It is therefore much easier for a child to silently struggle within the system without anyone noticing. This is not necessarily due to negligence or fault on the part of parents or educators. Rather, it is simply the reality of large educational systems. Every year, students fall through the cracks despite everyone’s good intentions.

Accordingly, parents must remain actively involved in their child’s development. They should maintain regular communication with their child, inquire about his learning, his teachers, his friends, his emotional wellbeing, and his feelings towards yeshivah life. A parent should not assume that because a child rarely complains, everything is necessarily going well.

Likewise, it is imperative for parents to remain in contact with the yeshivah staff, particularly with the mashpia and those responsible for the student’s spiritual and emotional development. A mashpia often sees aspects of a student’s life that parents cannot see, while parents possess insights that educators may lack. When parents and mechanchim work together, the child benefits tremendously. As discussed earlier in Chapter 6 regarding the importance of maintaining contact with the mashpia, a healthy relationship between home and yeshivah is often one of the greatest safeguards for a child’s success.

There is another consideration that must not be overlooked. As discussed at length in the chapters dealing with the parent-child relationship (Chapters 4-5), healthy chinuch depends heavily upon a strong emotional bond between parent and child. Sending a child away from home at a young age can sometimes weaken that relationship if deliberate effort is not made to preserve it. Parents must therefore invest extra energy into maintaining warmth, communication, connection, and trust. The goal is that the child should feel that although he is physically in yeshivah, he remains emotionally connected to his home and parents.

This consideration is particularly relevant when deciding whether a child should attend a yeshivah located far from home. As discussed previously in Chapter 6 Halacha 3 regarding boarding schools and distant educational institutions, every situation must be evaluated individually. The benefits of a particular institution must be weighed against the challenges of physical distance, limited family interaction, and the potential impact on the parent-child relationship. Not every child is affected in the same way, and what may be beneficial for one student may be counterproductive for another.

Thus, while the traditional yeshivah system remains one of the greatest tools for producing Torah-observant and G-d-fearing Jews, parents should remember that sending a child to yeshivah does not lessen their responsibility. Rather, it changes the form that responsibility takes. The parent remains the primary parent, the primary source of love and guidance, and one of the most important influences in the child’s life. Success is greatest when the yeshivah and the parents work together as partners in the sacred task of chinuch.

 

3. Mosdos Chinuch for girls^[36]

The subject of girls’ Torah education, its halachic basis, historical development, curriculum, institutions, and the directives of the Rebbe regarding the education of Jewish daughters is vast and extends beyond the scope of this chapter. In this Halacha we focus on the evolution of formal Torah education for girls from earlier generations through the Bais Yaakov movement and its influence on contemporary Orthodox and Chassidic education deserves fuller treatment.

For a detailed discussion of the halachic parameters of teaching Torah to girls, including the differing approaches of the Rishonim, Acharonim, and contemporary Poskim, see Chapter 17, Halacha 3: “Who Is Obligated to Be Taught – Sons versus Daughters.”

For a comprehensive review of the Rebbe’s directives regarding girls’ education, girls’ schools, seminary study, the teaching of Chassidus to girls, and the role of Jewish women as future educators and builders of Torah homes, see Chapter 19, Halacha 26: “Education of Girls.”

 

1. From Tradition to Transformation

One of the most remarkable developments in modern Jewish history has been the growth of Torah education for girls. While today it is taken for granted that Jewish girls attend schools, study Torah subjects, learn Chumash, Tanach, Halachah, Jewish philosophy, and Chassidus, this was not always the case. For most of Jewish history, formal Torah education was directed primarily toward boys, while girls received their Jewish education within the home and through practical observance.

The Talmudic sages taught that the formal obligation of Torah study rests upon men, and therefore the Biblical obligation of a father to teach Torah applies specifically to his sons and not his daughters. Furthermore, Chazal expressed reservations regarding formally teaching women the Oral Torah, fearing that without the proper framework it could lead to misunderstanding rather than genuine comprehension. As a result, for many centuries formal Torah academies and yeshivos were established almost exclusively for boys.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that this never meant that women were unlearned or uninvolved in Torah. Throughout Jewish history we find exceptional women who possessed extraordinary Torah knowledge and scholarship. Among the most famous examples is the wife of the Maharal of Prague, who was renowned for her Torah knowledge. Likewise, Yalta, the daughter of the Exilarch and wife of Rav Nachman, demonstrated profound Torah understanding throughout the Talmud. Bruriah, the wife of Rabbi Meir, was perhaps the most famous female Torah scholar of the Talmudic era and is cited numerous times in the Gemara for her wisdom and scholarship. There are many other examples throughout the generations of women who achieved remarkable levels of Torah knowledge and spiritual greatness. However, these women were viewed as exceptional individuals rather than the norm. Their scholarship was admired precisely because it was uncommon.

The traditional system functioned successfully for many centuries because Jewish life was centered around close-knit Torah communities. Jewish homes were observant, family life revolved around Torah, and children naturally absorbed Jewish beliefs and practices through their surroundings. Mothers played a central role in transmitting Jewish values, customs, faith, and practical observance to their children, even if they had not received the type of formal education available to boys.

 

1. The Challenges of Modern Times

The modern era brought dramatic changes to Jewish life. Emancipation, secular education, assimilation, urbanization, and new cultural influences weakened the traditional framework through which Judaism had been transmitted from generation to generation. No longer could communities assume that daughters would naturally absorb all the knowledge, faith, and commitment needed to sustain Jewish life.

Recognizing this growing challenge, leading Torah authorities concluded that the needs of the generation had fundamentally changed. While in earlier generations Jewish girls naturally acquired their religious identity through the home environment, modern conditions required a far more structured educational response. The goal was not to change Torah, but to preserve Torah under radically different circumstances.

Indeed, a number of earlier authorities had already emphasized that daughters must be taught the laws relevant to their religious obligations. How can a girl properly keep Shabbos, Kashrus, family purity, blessings, and other mitzvos if she is never taught them? More recently, great Torah leaders stressed the need for girls to learn not only practical halachah but also Chumash, Tanach, Jewish thought, ethics, and the foundations of emunah in order to strengthen their commitment to Torah and mitzvos.

 

The Bais Yaakov Revolution

Perhaps no single individual had a greater impact on girls’ Jewish education than Sarah Schenirer, founder of the Bais Yaakov movement. Witnessing the spiritual decline of many Jewish girls in early twentieth-century Europe, she understood that the old educational model could no longer meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world.

With the encouragement and support of leading Torah authorities, she established schools dedicated to providing girls with a strong Torah education. What began as a small and modest initiative quickly grew into an international movement that transformed Jewish education. For the first time in history, large numbers of Orthodox Jewish girls received systematic and structured Torah instruction on a broad scale. Through Bais Yaakov, countless girls developed strong Jewish identities, deep religious commitment, and a genuine love of Torah. This revolution helped preserve entire generations of Jewish families.

 

1. The Rebbe’s Vision for Girls’ Education

The educational revolution initiated by Bais Yaakov eventually spread throughout virtually all Orthodox communities, including Chabad. The Rebbe placed extraordinary emphasis on girls’ education and repeatedly stressed that institutions for girls should receive no less attention than institutions for boys. He taught that girls face the challenges of the modern world no less than boys and therefore require strong Torah education and spiritual guidance.

The Rebbe emphasized that girls’ schools should not be viewed as secondary institutions, but as essential pillars of Jewish continuity. He encouraged communities to establish and strengthen educational frameworks for girls and stressed that every possible effort should be made to reach as many students as possible. Even helping a single Jewish girl was considered a matter of tremendous significance.

According to the Rebbe, the importance of educating girls extends far beyond the individual student. Jewish women ultimately shape the atmosphere of the Jewish home and exert enormous influence upon their families and communities. The spiritual growth of one girl can impact her siblings, her future husband, her children, and countless descendants. For this reason, strengthening girls’ education strengthens the entire Jewish future.

The Rebbe further encouraged girls to study the Torah subjects necessary for proper Jewish living, including practical halachah, emunah, Jewish values, and Chassidus. He stressed that girls should develop love of Hashem, love of Torah, and love of every fellow Jew. Girls’ education should not merely produce observant young women, but future mothers, educators, leaders, and role models capable of inspiring future generations.

 

1. A Revolution That Changed Jewish History

Looking back, it is difficult to overstate the impact that girls’ Torah education has had upon the Jewish people. Institutions founded to educate girls have transformed entire communities and helped preserve Torah observance during an era of unprecedented social and cultural change.

What was once viewed as an innovation became an accepted reality across virtually the entire Orthodox world. Today, the idea that Jewish girls deserve a serious Torah education is universally recognized. This development represents not a departure from tradition but one of the most successful efforts in modern Jewish history to preserve tradition under new circumstances.

The lesson is clear. If educating one child can influence an entire family, then educating one girl can influence generations. Through the Torah education of Jewish daughters, homes are strengthened, communities are uplifted, and the chain of Jewish continuity is secured for the future.

 

4. Coed Schools^[37]
5. The Torah Foundation: Distance from the Opposite Gender

The Shulchan Aruch rules that a person is required to distance himself from the opposite gender “very, very much.”^[38] Unnecessary interaction between males and females is discouraged, and that flirtatious interaction falls under the Biblical prohibition of Lo Sikravu. The Poskim^[39] describe casual familiarity and unnecessary socialization as the beginning of relationships that can eventually lead to prohibited conduct.  For this reason, Gedolei Yisrael across the entire spectrum have repeatedly emphasized that the separation between boys and girls is not something that begins only at Bar or Bas Mitzvah. Rather, it is a value that must be maintained from the youngest ages whenever possible, as part of building a life of kedushah and taharah. At the same time, from the age of puberty—when boys and girls naturally begin to develop interest in one another—this matter becomes an absolute and total prohibition, well‑known to all.^[40] The Torah’s issurim in these areas are among the most severe: gilui arayos, issur kareis, and numerous related prohibitions that safeguard the sanctity of Klal Yisrael. We do not need to look far to understand the consequences of ignoring these boundaries. These are not abstract dangers; they are visible, painful realities.

 

1. Younger Children – Elementary school

The more nuanced question on the above subject concerns younger children who have not yet reached an age at which they possess romantic or emotional feelings toward one another. From the letter of the law, Yichud does not apply to children who are below the age of Bar and Bas Mitzvah and hence one can argue in favor of allowance of coed education prior to this age.^[41] Nonetheless, practically, even regarding younger children, the preferred Torah approach is separate education from the outset. This was repeatedly emphasized by the Rebbe and other Gedolei Yisrael^[42], who advocated maintaining separation not only for older students but beginning from young ages as well. The Rebbe encouraged separate classrooms and, where possible, separate buildings and facilities.  Nonetheless, the reality is that not every community is able to implement the ideal. There are small towns where maintaining separate schools would lead to the closure of the institution entirely. There are communities in which the number of students is insufficient to sustain separate classes. In such cases, many Poskim^[43] have allowed boys and girls to learn together during the younger years, generally prior to the age at which attraction and social interest between boys and girls typically begin to develop.

Thus, while separation remains the ideal even for younger children, necessity may justify temporary leniencies when there is no realistic alternative.

 

1. Coed Nursery and Pre-Kindergarten^[44]

When discussing coeducational education, it is important to distinguish between very young children and older children. While the Torah ideal is to educate boys and girls separately whenever feasible, the common custom has not been to be particularly stringent regarding nursery and preschool-aged children, especially before the age of three.

At these ages, children have not yet developed the social and emotional dynamics that later create both halachic and educational concerns. Accordingly, in many communities mixed nursery and kindergarten programs have traditionally existed without objection.

 

1. Hashkafa – Why Separation Matters Educationally

The issue is not only halachic. Even from a purely educational and psychological perspective, there are powerful reasons for maintaining separate educational settings. Boys and girls develop differently, mature differently, learn differently, and often flourish under different educational approaches. Separate schools allow educators to focus on the unique developmental needs of each group without the distractions that naturally arise in mixed environments.

Furthermore, once children begin approaching adolescence and develop an interest in the opposite gender, the educational consequences of a coeducational environment can become significant. Students who should be concentrating on learning may instead become preoccupied with appearance, social acceptance, relationships, and peer pressures. Such concerns often generate emotional stress, anxiety, insecurity, competition, and countless other distractions from the actual purpose of education.

Indeed, many of the social and emotional difficulties commonly observed within the public-school system stem from these very dynamics. Parents who simply care about the wellbeing of their children should carefully consider whether exposing a child to these pressures is beneficial.

 

1. The Rebbe’s Position

The Rebbe consistently encouraged schools to move toward increased separation rather than decreased separation. Even where complete separation could not immediately be achieved, efforts were to be made to maintain it at least among older students and to gradually implement greater separation whenever possible. The Rebbe also strongly discouraged creating mixed educational institutions for older children and teenagers.

For a comprehensive presentation of the Rebbe’s position regarding separate schools for boys and girls, including his directives that separation should ideally begin from the youngest ages, his opposition to mixed educational frameworks, and his guidance regarding situations in which full separation could not yet be implemented, see Chapter 19, Halacha 29: Separation of Boys and Girls.

 

1. Exceptional Cases of Girls Learning in the Boys’ Cheder^[45]

It should be noted that throughout Jewish history there were occasional exceptional cases in which unusually gifted girls received a level of Torah education not generally available to other girls. One famous example is found in the family history of Rav Moshe Feinstein. Rav Moshe related that his grandmother, Rebbetzin Rachel of Liadi, was recognized from a young age for her extraordinary intellectual abilities and love of Torah. Her father sought guidance regarding her education, and it was arranged that she study in the local cheder alongside the most outstanding boys of the town, while seated separately at the rear of the classroom.

Among the students learning in that cheder was the young Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. Many years later, when Rabbanim from Chabad approached Rav Moshe and his brother, Rav Mordechai Feinstein, regarding participation in a rabbinic gathering, they informed them of this remarkable family connection.

This story highlights an important point. Throughout the generations there were rare and exceptional girls whose talents warranted unique educational arrangements. However, these cases were extraordinary exceptions and not the norm. The traditional educational model remained separate tracks of education for boys and girls, appropriate to their respective obligations and roles. Exceptional individuals do not establish the general rule, but they do demonstrate that Jewish history occasionally made room for unique circumstances when extraordinary abilities were present.

 

5. Home Schooling
6. Halacha – Personally, teaching versus sending to Cheder:^[46]

By Torah law, the father is obligated either to teach his son himself or to secure a teacher who will instruct him in the entirety of the Torah. If such instruction cannot be obtained without payment, then—even if the father himself is incapable of teaching, and even if he lacks any ability to study at all—he remains obligated by Torah law to hire a qualified teacher to educate his son properly, so that he will acquire knowledge of the entire Written and Oral Torah. [Although the primary mitzvah of Torah study obligates a father to teach his son Torah, nonetheless, he even initially fulfills this obligation by arranging for qualified teachers to educate his child, and is not even initially required to teach his child himself.^[47] Some Poskim^[48] even hold that regarding this Mitzvah we do not apply the rule of Mitzvah Bo Yoser Mibeshlucho.]

 

1. Hashkafa – Home Schooling Versus Sending a Child to School or Yeshivah

As explained above, a father fulfills his obligation of Torah education either by teaching his child himself or by arranging qualified teachers to do so. Thus, from a purely halachic perspective, homeschooling can certainly fulfill the obligation of Talmud Torah when done properly.

There are also situations in which homeschooling may be the only realistic option. This can occur when a child is unable to adapt to the regular school system, when suitable institutions are unavailable, when financial circumstances make tuition impossible, when a family lives in a remote location or on shlichus where no Torah school exists, or for various other legitimate reasons. In such cases, parents must make the best of the circumstances and ensure that their child receives the strongest Torah education possible. The discussion below is therefore directed towards situations in which parents have a genuine choice between homeschooling and sending their child to a Torah educational institution.

From both a Torah and psychological perspective, there are many advantages to a child being educated within a school or yeshivah environment. A child’s education consists of much more than acquiring information. Children learn through their surroundings, friendships, social interactions, role models, and participation in a community of peers. One of the great strengths of a school or yeshivah is that it provides an environment in which Torah and mitzvos are lived and experienced collectively.

Chazal already teach of the importance of dikduk chaverim, the growth and refinement that comes through interaction with fellow students. Torah is not only learned from teachers but also from one’s peers. Through studying, discussing, and living together with other students, a child develops socially, emotionally, and spiritually in ways that are difficult to fully replicate in an isolated educational setting.

From a psychological standpoint, children generally benefit from healthy peer relationships. Friendships help children develop communication skills, emotional intelligence, teamwork, resilience, social confidence, and a sense of belonging. A child who grows up largely separated from peers may sometimes find it more difficult to navigate later social environments, communal life, marriage, and professional settings.

Furthermore, schools and yeshivos provide children with exposure to multiple mentors and role models. The influence of teachers, mashpi’im, rabbanim, and fellow students can often inspire a child in ways that parents alone cannot accomplish.

At the same time, this should not be understood as an absolute rule. Throughout Jewish history there have been notable individuals who did not receive a conventional yeshivah education. Indeed, our own Rebbe did not pass through the standard yeshivah framework that later became common. Various Gedolim throughout the generations were educated privately, through tutors, or under unique circumstances. Thus, homeschooling cannot be categorically dismissed as ineffective or incapable of producing exceptional results.

Nevertheless, such individuals generally represent exceptions rather than the norm. For the overwhelming majority of children, the combination of Torah learning, positive peer influence, social development, mentorship, and communal experience that a school or yeshivah provides offers significant educational advantages.

Accordingly, when a suitable Torah institution is available and a child is capable of benefiting from it, there is much to be gained from participating in that environment. At the same time, parents who homeschool due to necessity should not view themselves as incapable of providing successful chinuch. Rather, they should recognize both the strengths and challenges of the path they have chosen and make every effort to compensate for areas that a traditional school environment naturally provides. Ultimately, the success of any educational approach depends on the commitment, wisdom, and involvement of the parents and educators entrusted with the child’s growth.

 

6. Secular Studies Education:^[49]

In approaching the question of secular studies within a Torah educational framework, a number of distinct halachic issues must be carefully analyzed before reaching practical conclusions. First, it is necessary to address the general concept of studying secular knowledge itself, independent of any discussion relating to children. We must examine whether the study of secular subjects is permitted, restricted, or potentially included in the prohibitions discussed by the Poskim regarding engagement in non-Torah wisdom. Following that, attention must be given to the father’s obligation to teach his child a trade and whether providing a secular education for the purpose of future employment is included within that obligation. Even if such studies are not formally encompassed by the mitzvah of teaching a trade, it remains necessary to determine whether they are nevertheless permitted on the basis of the principles governing secular study in general. Finally, after clarifying these foundational questions, we must examine the practical implementation of secular education, including the nature of the curriculum, the subjects being taught, the educational environment, and any additional halachic considerations that may arise. Only after addressing each of these areas can a balanced and comprehensive assessment of secular studies in Torah education be reached.

 

 

 

1. General law of Learning secular studies for adults:^[50]

The general law in Hilchos Talmud Torah states that it is forbidden for a Jew to occupy himself with secular wisdom. A Jew’s primary obligation is continual Torah study, and hence one may not abandon Torah in favor of secular wisdom, even after mastering the entire Torah. Nonetheless, accomplished Torah scholars may occasionally study other disciplines when doing so helps them gain a deeper understanding of Torah, strengthen their fear of Heaven, or improve their character. However, this permission is limited to Torah scholars and does not generally apply to others. A much stricter prohibition applies to heretical and philosophical works that deny fundamental principles of Judaism, such as Divine Providence and prophecy, which may not be studied even for the purpose of extracting ethical teachings. Although some great sages of earlier generations engaged with such writings, they did so only to refute their arguments and defend the Jewish faith in response to the intellectual challenges of their times. [Having clarified the general halachic principles governing the study of secular subjects, we must now examine how those principles apply when such studies are pursued for the purpose of acquiring a trade or profession. The discussion is no longer limited to the abstract question of whether secular knowledge may be studied, but rather whether the need to earn a livelihood creates a different halachic framework. In particular, we must analyze the obligation incumbent upon a father to teach his son a trade and determine whether providing a secular education that enables future employment falls within that obligation. Furthermore, even if secular studies are not formally included in the mitzvah of teaching a trade, it remains necessary to consider whether they are nevertheless permitted, or perhaps even encouraged, when they serve as a practical means of obtaining the skills necessary for earning a living. We therefore turn from the general question of secular studies to the more specific issue of secular education as preparation for a vocation and financial self-sufficiency.]

 

1. A Fathers Obligation To Teach Child a Trade:^[51]

The Gemara states that a father is obligated to teach his son a profession, and one who fails to do so is considered as if he taught him robbery, for a person who has no means of earning a livelihood may ultimately come to improper conduct.

From what Age? However, the Poskim^[52] explain that this does not mean that a child should devote his formative years to learning a profession. On the contrary, a child’s youth, which is the most precious period of life, should primarily be dedicated to Torah study and fear of Heaven. Accordingly, the obligation to teach a profession applies at a later stage, when a child reaches an age at which preparation for earning a livelihood becomes appropriate. The primary focus of a child’s education should be Torah, as Rabbi Nehorai declared:^[53] “I leave aside all professions and teach my son only Torah.” Torah protects a person throughout both his youth and old age and remains with him forever.

 

1. Teaching Secular Studies to children:

Is it an Obligation on the father? With regards to whether teaching one’s child secular studies is included in the fathers obligation to teach his child a livelihood, and would apply once the child is older, the Poskim^[54] rule as follows: A father can decide to teach the child any trade that he can support himself with, and hence although many trades require prior secular education, the father is not obligated to teach his son specifically these types of trades. Accordingly, secular studies is not an intrinsic obligation of study. Furthermore, the study of secular subjects presents an additional challenge.

Is it Permitted to study?^[55] Historically, as a result of the above Halacha in A, Torah leaders^[56] strongly opposed immersing children in secular studies, foreign philosophies and ideologies that could weaken faith, diminish spiritual sensitivity, or distract from Torah study. Throughout the generations, Jewish communities fought vigorously to preserve the purity of Torah education and to prevent outside influences from entering the curriculum of their educational institutions. The Chabad Chassidim in Russia as led by the Rebbe Rayatz, as well as other sects of Jewry, were Moser Nefesh to prevent secular education from infiltrating the Yeshiva’s and Cheder’s.^[57]

Reasons for leniency: Despite the above strict approach, it has always been accepted that children should learn those practical skills that are necessary for Torah life and daily functioning. Accordingly, children may be taught subjects such as writing, language skills, grammar, arithmetic, and other practical knowledge needed for the proper study of Torah and for responsible living.^[58] Furthermore, in today’s generation, a further leniency has been advocated. Teaching secular studies in the Talmud Torah or Yeshiva is often vital for the institute’s survival, as otherwise parents will not send their children there, or the government will shut down the institution due to the compulsory education act. It is thus better to have them learn in a Torah environment that contains secular studies, than to have them learn in public school.^[59] However, once the child has reached an age where compulsory secular education is not required, one is not to teach any secular subjects in the institutions.^[60]

 

1. Curriculum – The Prohibition of Studying Heretical Literature^[61]

The Poskim emphasize the severe prohibition against reading books written by heretics or those that promote beliefs contrary to Torah. Such study is included in the prohibition of “Lo Sasuru Acharei Levavchem” and is viewed as spiritually dangerous because it can mislead a person away from Torah and mitzvah observance. The prohibition applies even when one seeks to extract worthwhile ideas or Torah thoughts from such works, and caution is required even when their teachings are cited in Jewish books. The prohibition is so serious that it is not set aside for financial gain, and one is expected to exercise great self-sacrifice to avoid such material. Included in this category are books that promote heretical ideologies, works written to lead Jews toward false beliefs, and, according to these authorities, certain philosophical, psychological, and educational writings whose outlook conflicts with fundamental Torah principles. The overarching principle is that a Jew must guard his faith and avoid intellectual influences that undermine Torah, emunah, and commitment to the observance of mitzvos.

 

1. Curriculum – Teaching English, reading and writing:^[62]

It is permitted to teach in a Talmud Torah or Shul the countries language, and to read and write, being that learning these subjects is a Mitzvah, as without it a child cannot get a job in the future. Some Poskim^[63] however rule that if available, a special room is to be designated for learning these subjects and it is not to be taught in the same room that the children are taught Torah.

 

The Importance of Learning the Language of One’s Country

A question that occasionally arises is whether Torah students should devote time to learning the language of the country in which they live. Some may feel that such study detracts from Torah learning, while others view it as a practical necessity. In a letter, the Frierdiker Rebbe addressed this issue directly and expressed a positive view regarding students acquiring proficiency in the local language when used for proper purposes. He wrote that students who are natives of a country should know its language well and utilize it for the dissemination of Torah and Yiras Shamayim. This demonstrates that language acquisition can itself become a tool in the service of Torah.

Indeed, throughout Jewish history, the greatest Torah leaders often possessed the ability to communicate effectively with the societies in which they lived. Whether through writing, teaching, public advocacy, outreach, communal affairs, or defending Jewish interests, knowledge of the local language allowed them to influence a far broader audience.

This is especially true in modern times. A person who can communicate clearly in the language of his country is far better equipped to spread Torah values, engage in kiruv, defend Judaism against misconceptions, publish Torah literature, and positively influence fellow Jews who may not understand Hebrew or Yiddish. Language becomes not merely a practical skill but a vehicle for fulfilling the mission of spreading Torah and Yiddishkeit.

Naturally, this must always remain secondary to Torah itself. The purpose of learning the language is not to absorb foreign values or culture, but rather to enable one to function effectively in society and to use that ability for holy purposes. As the Frierdiker Rebbe emphasized, the language should be used”for the dissemination of Torah and fear of Heaven.”

Accordingly, while Torah remains the primary focus of a Jewish student’s education, there can be significant value in mastering the language of one’s country when doing so enables him to become a more effective servant of Hashem, a better representative of Torah values, and a greater influence upon the world around him.

 

 

The Importance of Learning How to Write Properly

In addition to knowing how to speak the language of one’s country, it is important for students to know how to write properly and express their thoughts clearly in writing. The Frierdiker Rebbe sharply criticized a situation in which students could not compose a coherent letter and lacked basic writing skills. He noted that some students were unable to summarize a discussion in writing or explain clearly what they had learned and understood.

The ability to write is not merely an academic skill. Clear writing reflects clear thinking. When a student can organize his ideas on paper, accurately summarize what he has learned, and communicate effectively with others, it demonstrates that he has properly understood the subject matter. Conversely, weak writing skills often reveal weak comprehension and difficulty organizing one’s thoughts.

Accordingly, part of a student’s education should include developing the ability to write clearly, summarize ideas, compose letters, and communicate Torah concepts in an organized manner. These skills are invaluable not only for personal growth but also for the future dissemination of Torah and Yiddishkeit. A person who can write well is far better equipped to teach others, influence his surroundings, publish Torah insights, and contribute to the strengthening of Jewish life.

Thus, just as students should learn the language of their country in order to spread Torah and Yiras Shamayim, they should likewise develop strong writing skills so that they can effectively communicate the Torah knowledge and values that they have acquired.

 

1. When in the day to study the secular studies:^[64]

When required, secular studies are to be taught towards the end of the day and only for the most minimum amount required.

 

1. Choosing Suitable Teachers – Who should teach the secular subjects?^[65]

When secular or practical studies are taught, great care should be taken regarding who teaches them. The secular subjects are to be taught by G-d fearing individuals, and is to be supervised by Torah scholars. If such teachers are unavailable, some authorities preferred even a non-Jewish instructor over a Jewish instructor who is hostile to Torah values, in order to protect the child’s faith and spiritual development.

 

1. Trade school:^[66]

If there are students who are unable to learn in a regular Yeshiva environment, one may establish a Yeshiva that involves teaching the students a trade, and secular studies associated with that trade. However, one is not to teach other secular studies in the Yeshiva, more than is necessary according to law, or to learn the trade.

Teaching a trade in a regular Yeshiva:^[67] One is not to teach a trade in a regular Yeshiva that is made for students who learn Torah throughout the day, in accordance to the schedule established by the Rebbe Rashab, and rather a separate institution is to be established for students who have such a need.

 

1. College:

Many colleges teach matters of heresy and promote an environment that is contrary to Torah and Mitzvos, and hence it is forbidden to send one’s child there.^[68] Nevertheless, it is certainly Mitzvah for the father to send his child to learn some kind of profession at a Kosher institution.^[69] There is however no obligation to teach the child a sophisticated trade that takes many years to learn in [even a Kosher] college and university, and on the contrary, doing so is discouraged as it removes the person from his main job of learning Torah. It is possible learn a quick and easy trade and support oneself with it.^[70]

 

The Rebbe’s perspective on secular education: As stated above, the Rebbe viewed that secular education is only to be taught in schools if it is compulsory by the government, and only to the most minimal level, and at the end of the day. The vast majority of the studies are to be Torah related. The Rebbe did promote opening a Yeshiva trade school for students who are unable to sit in a Yeshiva environment.

 

 

 

7. Rules relating to Teachers and Milamdim:^[71]

Teaching Torah to children is considered the work of Hashem and must therefore be carried out with the utmost diligence, integrity, and dedication.

Leaving Students Unattended: A teacher is entrusted with the education and spiritual growth of his students. Therefore, he may not abandon his class or leave the students unsupervised during the time designated for learning. Doing so constitutes a breach of the trust placed in him and causes a loss of Torah learning.

Engaging in Other Activities During Teaching Hours: The prohibition extends beyond physically leaving the classroom. Even when present, a teacher may not devote himself to other work or personal matters while the students are supposed to be learning. Time set aside for teaching must be dedicated fully to that purpose.

Negligence in Teaching: The Shulchan Aruch also includes a teacher who is careless or lazy in his instruction. A teacher is expected to prepare, teach, review, and guide his students to the best of his ability. Failure to invest the necessary effort in educating students properly is a serious matter.

Qualifications of a Teacher:^[72] Because of the importance of this responsibility, it is not proper to appoint a teacher unless he is:

• A God-fearing individual (ba’al yirah). [The Rebbe repeatedly stressed that the primary qualification of a teacher is not talent, knowledge, or pedagogical skill, but genuine Yiras Shamayim. A teacher’s personal observance and commitment to Torah and mitzvos are essential, because students are influenced by who the teacher is, not only by what he teaches.^[73]]
• Fluent and accurate in reading.
• Careful and precise in his instruction.
• Capable of teaching students correctly and thoroughly.

See Chapter 19 Halacha 6 for the full extent of the Rebbe’s Directives on this subject!

Accuracy Versus Quantity:^[74] When choosing between two teachers in which one teacher is highly meticulous, ensuring that students read correctly, avoid mistakes, and properly understand the meaning of the words and texts while the other covers a greater quantity of material but is less careful and precise. The preferred choice is the teacher who is more exacting and careful in his instruction. [Particularly in contemporary education, where students often learn both the text and its meaning, accuracy and proper understanding are considered more valuable than merely covering a larger volume of material.]

Maintaining Physical Readiness for Teaching:^[75] A teacher must conduct his personal life in a manner that enables him to teach effectively. Therefore, he should not stay awake excessively late at night, causing fatigue during the day; overindulge in eating or drinking; afflict himself through excessive fasting or other forms of self-denial. All of these practices can weaken a teacher and impair his ability to teach properly.

The Standard of Accountability:^[76] Since these obligations are fundamental to the position, a teacher who neglects them is considered responsible for his own shortcomings. The Shulchan Aruch states that if a teacher persists in such conduct, he may be removed from his position even without prior warning, because he is already regarded as having been warned by the halachah itself.

Firing a teacher:^[77] A teacher may be replaced only when another teacher is clearly superior in both quantity and quality of instruction. The Shulchan Aruch rules that if a teacher is already teaching children and a second teacher arrives who is better than him, the first teacher may be removed in favor of the second. This applies when the new teacher excels both in the amount of material covered (mikra) and in the precision and quality of teaching (dikduk). If he is superior in only one area, the first teacher is generally not removed, although some authorities maintain that greater precision alone is sufficient grounds for replacement. However, all of this applies only when there was no fixed employment agreement. If the teacher was hired for a specified term, a formal commitment was made, or he has already begun teaching, he cannot be dismissed simply because a better teacher has been found. If he is replaced nevertheless, he must be paid for the entire agreed-upon term. Therefore, a Talmud Torah administrator who hires a teacher cannot remove him in the middle of the school year merely because a more qualified teacher later becomes available, and even at the end of the year there is significant doubt whether he may be dismissed if no fault or negligence has been found in his performance. Furthermore, while a parent or school administrator may replace a teacher in the circumstances permitted by halachah, the second teacher himself may not approach them and encourage them to remove the first teacher in order to obtain the position.

An Unmarried Man Serving as a Teacher of Children:^[78] A man who does not have a wife should generally not serve as a teacher of young children, since the children’s mothers regularly bring them to school, creating concerns about excessive familiarity with women. This restriction applies even where there is no issue of yichud, and many authorities extend it not only to a bachelor but also to a widower or divorcee who is presently unmarried. However, others are lenient regarding someone who was previously married. Most later authorities permit a married teacher to teach even if his wife is living temporarily in another city. Several situations allow for further leniency, such as where mothers do not regularly accompany the children, where the students are old enough to come on their own, where the teaching is only temporary, or where there is a shortage of teachers and the children’s Torah study would otherwise suffer. Some authorities also permit this in cases of financial necessity. In modern times, many communities have adopted a more lenient approach, arguing that the social realities underlying the original concern have changed. Some additionally permit an unmarried man to teach in a larger Talmud Torah setting where many teachers and staff are present, reducing the concern of inappropriate familiarity.

A Woman Teaching Children:^[79] A woman should not teach young children, because their fathers regularly bring them to and from school. Unlike the case of a male teacher, it makes no difference whether she is married or unmarried, since the concern is not based on her marital status but on the possibility of inappropriate seclusion with the fathers. Since a woman typically teaches in her own home, this concern is more significant. Therefore, if she teaches not in her home but in a daycare facility, nursery, or Talmud Torah where there is no concern of seclusion, she may teach. Nevertheless, with older boys, approximately nine years old and above, it is preferable that a woman not teach them even in a school setting unless there is a great necessity. Even with younger children, it is considered preferable that a woman teach only where there is a particular need. Most later authorities rule that teaching in her home remains prohibited even if her husband is in the city, because although there may be no formal prohibition of yichud, the fathers come daily and become familiar with her. However, common practice is to be lenient regarding women who operate preschools or daycare programs in their homes despite parents regularly bringing their children. The authorities also mention several circumstances in which a woman may teach in her home, such as where fathers do not bring the children, where there is no concern of seclusion with the students themselves, or where the teaching is only temporary rather than permanent. It also appears that even if she teaches on a regular basis, if she does not have a fixed group of students who come specifically to learn from her, there is room for leniency. Also, if a woman is teaching in her home while her husband is present in the house, most later authorities (Acharonim) rule leniently and permit her to teach. Since her husband is present, the concern of inappropriate seclusion with the fathers who bring their children is greatly reduced, and many authorities therefore do not apply the prohibition in such a case. Accordingly, where a woman teaches from her home and her husband is regularly present during teaching hours, there is substantial basis for leniency according to the majority of later halachic authorities.

 

8. Number of Students per Teacher^[80]

The Basic Ruling of the Shulchan Aruch:^[81] The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 245:15) rules that twenty-five students may be taught by one teacher. If the class contains more than twenty-five students, up to forty, an assistant should be appointed to help with the instruction. If there are more than forty students, two teachers must be appointed.

The Qualifications of Later Authorities:^[82] A number of Acharonim write that these numerical guidelines were established in the times of Chazal. In later generations, as people’s capacities have diminished and educational challenges have increased, it is often difficult to provide proper instruction and guidance even with fewer than twenty-five students. Some go so far as to write that one would be fortunate to fulfill his educational responsibilities adequately with only ten or twelve students in a class. Likewise, some authorities^[83] suggest that the entire discussion was directed toward earlier generations, when a single teacher was often responsible for students of various ages and levels simultaneously. In contrast, modern schools generally assign a separate teacher to each age group or grade. Under such circumstances, there is room to be more lenient, and even classes containing more than twenty-five students may be considered acceptable according to all opinions.

Practical Principle: The ultimate goal of these guidelines is to ensure effective Torah education. Class size should be structured in a way that allows the teacher to teach properly and enables every student to receive the attention and guidance necessary for successful Torah learning and personal growth.

 

9. Discipline and Punishments^[84]

Maintaining discipline, order, and proper classroom decorum is among the most difficult responsibilities placed upon a teacher. A successful classroom requires far more than an educator who knows how to teach. It requires a teacher who knows how to motivate, inspire, guide, redirect, and at times correct students with wisdom and balance.

Throughout history, educators have wrestled with the challenge of creating an environment conducive to learning while simultaneously preserving the dignity, confidence, and emotional wellbeing of each student. On the one hand, a classroom without discipline quickly deteriorates into disorder, making meaningful learning nearly impossible. On the other hand, excessive discipline can damage students, create resentment, and undermine the very educational goals the teacher seeks to achieve.

The challenge has become even greater in the modern era. Today’s teachers operate under intense scrutiny from parents, administrators, government agencies, and society at large. Actions that may have been commonplace in classrooms a century ago are often no longer legally, socially, or educationally acceptable. Furthermore, contemporary educational research, together with practical experience, has demonstrated that many disciplinary techniques once commonly employed are often ineffective and even harmful.

Accordingly, the contemporary educator must navigate a delicate balance. He must maintain authority without authoritarianism, establish discipline without humiliation, enforce standards without creating fear, and inspire respect without demanding unquestioning submission. Achieving this balance is one of the greatest arts of chinuch.

The following section discusses the Torah perspective on classroom discipline and student conduct. It explores both the classical halachic framework and the practical realities of modern education, with the goal of helping educators create classrooms that are orderly, productive, respectful, and conducive to genuine Torah growth. Above all, the teacher must remember that discipline is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to help students become better learners, better people, and better servants of Hashem. As Chazal teach, the ideal educational model is one of “the left hand pushes away while the right hand draws close”: firmness where necessary, but always accompanied by love, patience, encouragement, and genuine concern for the child’s success.

 

For a more comprehensive treatment of practical teaching techniques and educational methods, the reader is strongly encouraged to study Matzdikei HaRabim KeKochavim Chapters 12-14 by Rabbi Bukiet, who has done an outstanding and remarkable job compiling a wide range of approaches, strategies, and practical guidance for successful teaching and chinuch.

 

1. Rules of Punishment and Discipline

Do Not Use Punishments That Cause Bitul Torah:^[85] Even when discipline is necessary, a teacher should avoid punishments that result in a child wasting Torah-study time. Accordingly, one should not routinely send a student out of the classroom to sit idle, as the spiritual loss is certain while the educational benefit is often uncertain. If a student is seriously disrupting the class and no other option exists, he may be removed temporarily, but care should be taken that he not spend the time wandering aimlessly or engaging in unproductive behavior.

Do Not Threaten Future Punishments^[86] A teacher should avoid threatening a student with punishments that will be administered later for something wrong that he already did. Chazal warn that prolonged fear and anxiety can be harmful to a child. If discipline is necessary, it should be handled appropriately and promptly rather than leaving the child in a state of constant apprehension.

Confiscating Items:^[87] When necessary for educational purposes, a teacher may temporarily confiscate a student’s belongings and return them at a later time. However, a teacher may not take the item for personal use or permanently destroy it. Since even a minor’s property remains his property, it must ultimately be returned.

The Proper Way to Give Rebuke:^[88] When correcting students, a teacher should avoid speaking in a degrading or insulting manner. Rather than labeling a child as bad or deficient, the teacher should emphasize that such conduct is beneath the student’s potential and dignity. Rebuke delivered with respect is far more likely to enter a student’s heart and produce positive change. Likewise, teachers should be exceedingly careful not to give students derogatory nicknames or labels. A child who is constantly identified by his shortcomings often begins to believe them.

Investigating Misconduct: When trying to determine who committed an improper act, educators should proceed with sensitivity. Some Poskim^[89] caution against encouraging children to report on one another due to concerns of fostering negative speech, while other Poskim^[90] permit and even encouraged doing so when necessary for the proper functioning of the classroom and the educational wellbeing of the students. In practice, when information is needed for a constructive educational purpose, the students should first be taught that such communication is not considered prohibited speech, as its purpose is solely for education and correction.

Using Torah as a Punishment:^[91] A common mistake in chinuch is to use Torah learning as a punishment. Students may be told that because they misbehaved they must memorize a perek of Mishnah, learn extra Gemara, or commit a section of Tanya to memory. While this may appear educational, it can often backfire. The goal of chinuch is to create a love of Torah. When Gemara, Tanya, or any area of Torah study becomes associated with punishment, the child may subconsciously begin associating Torah with negative emotions such as frustration, embarrassment, or failure. Instead of viewing Torah as a privilege and source of joy, he may come to see it as a burden imposed upon him when he does something wrong. Psychologists have long recognized that people naturally form emotional associations. Just as positive experiences can increase a person’s love for an activity, negative experiences can create lasting resentment. A child who repeatedly experiences Torah as a punishment may eventually develop negative feelings toward the very subject we want him to cherish. This concern is especially relevant regarding Tanya and Chassidus. It is recorded that strong objection was raised when Tanya memorization was used as a punishment, as holy Torah teachings should be presented as treasures and privileges, not penalties.

Certainly, students may be required to complete missed assignments or make up learning time that was wasted. However, this is very different from using Torah itself as the punishment for unrelated misconduct. The purpose of Torah education is not merely to make children learn Torah, but to make them love Torah. Educators should therefore be careful that Gemara, Mishnah, Tanya, and Chassidus remain associated with achievement, inspiration, growth, and joy, rather than discipline and punishment.

 

1. The Teachers ruler – Corporal Punishment in Education^[92]

The subject of corporal punishment in education occupies a unique place in Torah literature. Classical halachic sources discuss circumstances in which a teacher was permitted to use limited physical discipline as part of the educational process and set strict boundaries regarding when, how, and to what extent it could be used. Accordingly, the discussion below is included primarily for the purpose of halachic documentation and study, and to accurately record the rulings found in the classical sources. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that educational standards and societal realities have changed significantly. In virtually all developed countries today, it is no longer socially acceptable, educationally recommended, or legally permitted for a teacher to strike a student, except in cases of immediate self-defense or protecting others from harm. Furthermore, many contemporary Torah authorities and educators have concluded that physical punishment is generally ineffective and often counterproductive, leading to resentment, rebellion, emotional harm, and a weakening of the teacher-student relationship. Accordingly, the accepted practice today in the overwhelming majority of Torah institutions is not to use physical discipline at all. Therefore, while the halachic parameters recorded below remain relevant from a scholarly and legal perspective, they should not be understood as an endorsement of corporal punishment in modern educational settings.

When Is Physical Discipline Technically Permitted? According to Halacha a teacher may, in limited circumstances, administer disciplinary punishment to a student as part of the educational process.^[93] This permission exists only when the discipline is genuinely necessary for the child’s education or to correct inappropriate behavior.^[94] The purpose must be entirely educational and for the benefit of the child, not an expression of anger or frustration. Furthermore, the teacher should only punish a student when he knows with certainty that the student engaged in conduct that warrants discipline, and not based merely on suspicion or assumption.^[95] Furthermore, one is to always first try to discipline the child through other methods prior to hitting him, and only if these methods do not work may the child be hit.^[96] There are many disciplinary philosophies in practice today which substitute hitting for other more useful and harmless methods.^[97] It is incumbent upon teachers to train themselves to become effective disciplinarians so their children are disciplined, but not in an abusive manner.

When Is It Forbidden?^[98] Jewish law strictly forbids striking a child unnecessarily and a teacher who does so transgresses a negative command.^[99] [Thus, a teacher may never hit a student simply out of anger, impatience, humiliation, revenge, or emotional frustration. Furthermore, even when justified he should not hit when he is in a state of anger.^[100]] If he does so, he is to be removed from his position.^[101] Likewise, excessive punishment is forbidden, even when some form of discipline may have been warranted.^[102] The Poskim emphasize that a child is not considered to have waived personal injury, and therefore a teacher who strikes a student without legitimate educational justification is classified as striking a fellow Jew without permission.

How to hit:^[103] Even when a child may be hit for disciplinary reasons, he is not to be hit with cruelty as do to the fools. Every parent must do so with wisdom.^[104] When necessary, the child may be hit either with a hand, or with a small belt.^[105] However, one may not hit him with a rod or bat.^[106]

The Preferred Approach Today:^[107] While we stated above that classical halachah discusses limited situations in which physical discipline may be permissible, the accepted educational approach today is that teachers should not hit students at all. Experience has shown that physical punishment is generally ineffective and often counterproductive. Particularly in contemporary generations, physical punishment may lead to resentment, rebellion, emotional injury, loss of respect for teachers, and even rejection of Torah and mitzvos altogether. Rather than building the child, it frequently damages the very relationship upon which successful education depends. Accordingly, Gedolei Yisrael^[108] agree that for our generation educators are encouraged to rely on encouragement, positive reinforcement, patience, firm boundaries, consequences, and emotional connection rather than physical discipline.

Discipline With Love:^[109] The guiding principle of Torah education is the teaching of Chazal that one should relate to a child with “the left hand pushing away and the right hand drawing close.” Even when rebuke or discipline is necessary, it must be accompanied by warmth, love, and genuine concern for the child’s wellbeing. A student should always leave an interaction knowing that the teacher disapproves of the behavior, not of the child. The goal of discipline is not punishment, but growth.

During the three weeks:^[110] From the 17^th of Tamuz until the 9^th of Av one is to avoid hitting the students [or children^[111]] during these days [even with a belt^[112], and certainly not with a stick or rod^[113].] [Some Poskim^[114] however rule one may hit a child using hands. Other Poskim^[115] rule that even using one’s hands to hit is included in the prohibition. Some Poskim^[116] rule that this restriction does not apply in a room with a Mezuzah. Some Poskim^[117] rule that there is no restriction to hit on the outer limbs such as the hand and leg, and the restriction is only with regards to areas of the inner limbs. Some Poskim^[118] rule that the above restriction only applies between the 4^th and 9^th hour [of the day]. Other Poskim^[119] rule that one is to be stringent through the entire period of time.]

 

10. Yeshiva rejection and expulsion – A Child Who Struggles Academically or Behaviorally^[120]

See Chapter 19 Halacha 20 for the full extent of the Rebbe’s Directives on this subject!

Never Remove a Child Simply Because He Struggles: The Shulchan Aruch^[121] rules that even a child who is unable to understand the material properly should not be removed from the classroom. Rather, he should remain together with the other students, with the hope that he will eventually understand and succeed. This ruling applies not only to a child who struggles due to weaker intellectual abilities, but even to a child who is resistant to learning or lacks motivation. The general approach of Torah education is to draw a child closer, not to push him away.

The Danger of Rejecting a Child: ^[122]This principle is especially critical in our times. Removing a child from a Torah educational environment can have devastating consequences. A child who is pushed away may easily fall into improper influences, and therefore educators and parents carry a tremendous responsibility to avoid distancing a struggling student whenever possible. Rather than rejecting him, efforts should be made to encourage him, guide him, and draw him close with patience, warmth, and genuine concern. Often, love and acceptance accomplish far more than criticism and punishment.

When Removal May Be Necessary:^[123] There are, however, exceptional situations in which a student’s continued presence may seriously harm other students. For example, if a child consistently disrupts the learning of others, or if he is involved in harmful or inappropriate behavior that endangers other students, stronger measures may be required. Even in such situations, every possible effort should first be exhausted to help and rehabilitate the student. A child should not be removed until other approaches have been attempted and careful guidance has been sought from experienced Torah authorities and educational professionals. Such decisions should never be made hastily, as their ramifications may affect the child for years to come.

Encouraging Struggling Students: One of the primary responsibilities of a teacher is to strengthen and encourage students who have difficulty learning. Such students should be repeatedly reminded that they too can grow in Torah and achieve greatness according to their abilities. Many of the greatest Torah leaders were not recognized as exceptional scholars during their youth. Through perseverance, diligence, and hard work, they ultimately illuminated the world with their Torah. A struggling child should therefore never be made to feel that success in Torah is beyond his reach.

Patience Is Essential: A teacher must develop extraordinary patience. The Shulchan Aruch^[124] rules that when students do not understand, the teacher should not become angry. Rather, he should repeat the material as many times as necessary until the students comprehend it. A warm smile, encouragement, and a positive relationship between teacher and student can dramatically increase a child’s ability and desire to learn. Chazal^[125] teach that sometimes a student’s difficulty stems not from his own limitations, but from the fact that his teacher does not show him sufficient warmth and encouragement.

Adapting the Curriculum:^[126] At times, educators should adjust the pace or content of study for students who are struggling. Not every child learns in the same way or at the same speed. A successful teacher recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of each student and teaches accordingly.

When Firmness Is Appropriate:^[127] Nevertheless, when a teacher recognizes that students are capable of understanding but are simply being lazy or careless, a different approach may be required. Chazal^[128] teach that there are times when a teacher must display firmness and rebuke students in order to sharpen their minds and motivate them to apply themselves. However, this should only be done after sincere efforts have already been made through warmth, encouragement, and positive reinforcement. Firmness should be used as a tool for growth, never as an expression of frustration or anger. The overall goal must always remain the same: to help every child develop a lifelong love and connection to Torah.

 

11. Teachers strike and taking vacations:^[129]

The Shulchan Aruch states that children should not be interrupted from their Torah study under any circumstances, even to build the Beis Hamikdash! From this we can understand the gravity of interrupting students from their learning. Every effort must be made to protect and preserve their study time. A teacher should be extremely careful not to arrive late or miss teaching sessions at the Talmud Torah unless a suitable substitute has been arranged in advance. Even when a teacher has not received his salary, he may not suspend Torah instruction as a means of pressuring those responsible to pay him. [There may be rare circumstances in which a teacher has gone without payment for a prolonged period and is unable to teach properly due to the stress and anxiety of financial hardship. In such cases, the matter requires careful evaluation. The Rebbe however stated that reducing instructional hours in order to pressure an institution over unpaid wages harms students and damages their educational worldview. Students should not become the victims of administrative disputes.^[130]]

 

12. Bein Hazmanim:^[131]

Throughout the generations, many of the greatest Torah authorities strongly criticized the custom that developed of having an annual Bein HaZemanim period during which there is no organized Torah learning for schoolchildren (Tinokot Shel Beit Rabban).^[132] The Maharal concludes that the proper and upright path before God is to study Torah every day without interruption. As the verse states:

The Reality of Our Times:^[133] Nevertheless, in our generation many institutions observe a Bein HaZemanim period due to practical necessity and for a variety of legitimate reasons. The primary purpose is to provide students with physical rest and renewed strength so that they will be able to increase their efforts in Torah study afterward. In this sense, the temporary interruption serves the preservation and continuation of Torah learning. What appears to be a cessation is, in reality, a means of strengthening future growth in Torah.

[1] See Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:1-30

[2] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:4 “By Torah law, the father is obligated to teach his son himself, or to find a teacher who will teach him the entire Torah. And if he cannot find one for free—even if he himself is unable to teach him, and even if he does not know how to study at all—he is nevertheless obligated by the Torah to hire a teacher to instruct him properly, so that he will know the entire Written and Oral Torah.” and 9; Kuntrus Achron 1:1; Michaber and Rama 245:4; Nitei Gavriel 17:7; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:8

[3] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1 Kuntrus Achron 1; Sefer Chassidim 942; Maharach or Zarua 11

[4] Maharach or Zarua 121; Yad Hamelech Shabbos 30:6; Shnos Chaim 33; See Pischei Teshuvah E.H. 35:2; M”A 250:2

[5] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:4; Rama 245:4

[6] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:7; Mishneh halachos 10:159

[7] Tzavah Rabbeinu Yonah 16

[8] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:7; Tur O.C. 419; Beitza 16a

[9] Minchas Yitzchak 10:84

[10] Igara Diparka 126

[11] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:7; See Glosses of Rav Ashkenazi volume 2 p. 482-506; Tzedaka Umishpat 6:14; Hilchos Maaser Kesafim chapter 16

[12] So writes Admur in 1:7 based on Shach 249:3 in name of Maharam regarding using Maaser money for a Mitzvah that it may only be used if one cannot afford it otherwise, however, no mention of this condition is made in Admur 3:4 or Michaber 251:3 or Rambam ibid, and on the contrary, from Shach 251:5 it is clearly evident that one may pay for their education even if he can afford it. See Chasam Sofer Y.D. 231; Glosses of Rav Ashkenazi ibid 46a and 49a

[13] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:7; 3:4; Michaber 251:3; Shach 251:5; Rambam Hilchos Matanos Aniyim 10:16; Peas Sadcha 118; Tzedaka Umishpat 6:14

[14] Admur ibid “All the expenses of the education of his older son, in contrast to the tuition paid for the actual learning” [To note however that in the new printing of the Shulchan Aruch there is a “Lamed” in parentheses added to the word “Atzmo” which word completely change the understanding of this statement of Admur, and it would be interpreted to mean that he cannot deduct from Maaser/Chomesh tuition for his personal Torah education, however for his older son, he may deduct the entire tuition, including the money’s given to the teachers. This extra Lamed can be found in the printing of Hilchos Talmud Torah in the year 1799 in Levov, which was one of the earliest editions. Rav Mordechai Ashkenazi learns like the former approach and does not include the extra Lamed in his Nussach of Admur. See Hilchos Talmud Torah of Rav Ashkenazi ibid p. 497] Beir Sheva 41; Elya Raba 156:2; Tuv Taam Vadaas Telisa 2:96; Ahavas Chesed 2:19; See Orchos Rabbeinu 1:301; Tzedaka Umishpat 6:14 footnote 36

The reason: As one is obligated to teach his son the entire Torah, both the written and oral [Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:4 and Kuntrus Achron 1:1], and any matter which is an obligation may not be deducted from Maaser. [Poskim ibid] Furthermore, some Poskim rule it is forbidden, being one may not use Maaser money towards Mitzvos. [Rama Y.D. 249:1]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one may deduct even the salary of the Rebbe from Maaser. [Leket Yosheer Y.D. p. 76; Rishon Letziyon 249; Meishiv Devarim Y.D. 137 in name of Sefer Hagan; Peri Yitzchak 2:27; Tzedaka Umishpat 6:14; Yabia Omer Y.D. 58:1; See Orchos Rabbeinu 1:298; Shevet Halevi 5:133 permits in a time of need; See Divrei Malkiel 5:115] The reason for this is because one is only obligated to teach his child the written Torah and not the oral Torah. [Michaber Y.D. 245:6; Poskim ibid]

[15] Minchas Yitzchak 10:85

The reason: As one is not obligated to teach his daughter Torah. [ibid]

[16] Rama 251:3 “Supporting himself comes prior to supporting others”; Hilchos Maaser Kesafim 16:16

[17] Pela Yoeitz Erech Torah; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:9

[18] Hisvadyus 5744 3 p. 1434; Shaareiy Chinuch p. 102

[19] Rokeiach 296; Seder Chinuch Hayiladim of Rabbeinu Efraim Mibuna; Seder Chinuch Hayeladim Sefer Hasufos 282; Shevach Habris p. 138; Shulchan Menachem 5:34; Hearos Ubiurim Ohalei Torah 1019 p. 44; Hiskashrus 904 p. 13; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:14

[20] Rama Y.D. 245:8; Igros Kodesh 12:288

[21] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:1; See Rama 245:8 “Immediately after reaching age three, he is to be taught the letters of the Torah”; See Igros Kodesh 12:288; 14:39, printed in Shulchan Menachem 5:33; Nitei Gavriel 19:1

[22] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:1; Michaber 245:5

[23] See Michaber Y.D. 245:8 that the child would be brought to the Milameid after age 5, and not prior.

[24] Shevach Habris ibid in name of Rav Zalman Shimon Dworkin regarding Russia; Footnote 4 regarding France and that there exists several letters of blessing which the Rebbe sent to parents from France who would enter the children to Cheder at age 5. See Igros Kodesh 3:407; 6:120; 7:55 [regarding going to Cheder before age 5 and that this depends on a) maturity of child and b) age difference between other children in class]; See Shevach Habris Footnote 5 that the Rebbe instructed Rabbi Groner regarding his twin boys that he could do the Hachnasas Lecheder ceremony on the third birthday itself, although he should only enter them into the Talmud Torah at age 5; See Nitei Gavriel 19:1 footnote 3

[25] Shevach Habris ibid in name of Rav Zalman Shimon Dworkin

[26] Sichos Kodesh 5752 1 p. 343; Heichal Menachem 3:247; Sefer Hasichos 5700 p. 67 regarding the Tzemach Tzedek that his Hachnasas Lecheder was after Yom Kippur, after he turned three on Erev Rosh Hashanah; Likkutei Sichos 5:86 footnote 4 that the Rebbe Rashab began Cheder at age 3, although he only began fully going at age 3.5; Sefer Hamamrim 5711 p. 168 that the Rebbe Rayatz entered Cheder in the year 5644, after having turn three in the year 5543

[27] Heichal Menachem 3:247 that so responded the Rebbe to Rav Yurislavsky; See also Igros Kodesh 6:120; 7:55

[28] Yagdil Torah Yerushalayim 26:11

[29] Arugas Habosem 210; Afrasakta Deanya 161; Nitei Gavriel 19:1 footnote 2; Igros Kodesh 14:39 and Igros Kodesh 7:55, printed in Shulchan Menachem 5:34; See however footnote 4 for the other opinions; To note that the Tzemach Tzedek entered Cheder before age three. [Sefer Hasichos 5701 p. 65; Igros Kodesh 7:55 that this is not a directive to the public]

[30] Igros Kodesh 14:39, printed in Shulchan Menachem 5:34

[31] See Shevach Habris ibid footnote 5 that so directed the Rebbe to Rav Levi Goldstein; Footnote 5 that the Rebbe instructed Rabbi Groner regarding his twin boys that he could do the Hachnasas Lecheder ceremony on the third birthday itself, although he should only enter them into the Talmud Torah at age 5; See Nitei Gavriel 19:13-14 that he does not have to go daily to Cheder, and may do the ceremony on the 3^rd birthday in kindergarten and then eventually go to Cheder when he is mature enough; However, see Hiskashrus 874 p. 15 that the ceremony should only be done when the child enters the Talmud Torah on a set basis.

[32] Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:12

[33] Igros Kodesh 27:364 “Certainly and without doubt, his son, may he live, and all Jewish children, may they live, must receive a proper Jewish education. Therefore, they have absolutely no place in a public school.”; From a letter of the Rebbe, 11 Menachem Av, 5740 / 1980 “They should ask additional women or men to speak with the aforementioned person and explain to her that if, Heaven forbid, she sends her daughter to a school that is mixed with non-Jewish students, she is taking upon herself full responsibility before the Holy One, blessed be He, for whatever may, Heaven forbid, result from this. This message may also be conveyed in my name.”

[34] Hisvadyus 5747 1:504; Shaareiy Chinuch p. 99

[35] Pesakim Uteshuvos 246:18-20

[36] Pesakim Uteshuvos 246:23-27

[37] See Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:137; Shevet Halevi 1:29; 5:210; 10:178; Yechaveh Daas 4:46; Igros Kodesh 6:33; 11:27; 14:433; 15:28; 17:347; 18:154; 19:261; Shaareiy Chinuch p. 301-305; Ohel Yaakov p. 207

[38] Michaber 21:1; Rambam Issurei Biya 21

[39] Beis Shmuel E.H. 115:12; Bach 115; Maggid Mishneh Issurei Biyah 21/2 “One who talks excessively receives Makas Mardus”; Pirkeiy Avos 1/5 “Do not talk excessively with a woman, certainly not with another man’s wife”; See also Maharal Nedarim 20a that talking with a woman is the beginning of an intimate connection that can lead to sin; See Shabbos 140b and Rashi there; See Derech Pikudecha Lo Sasei 35-8 that ideally it is forbidden to talk even one word more than necessary, although the custom is to be lenient being that in today’s society, men are used to seeing woman and talking to them, and it hence does not lead to forbidden thought. Nonetheless, he concludes, it is best to turn one’s head slightly during the conversation.

[40] Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:137;

[41] Rashal Kedushin 22 in name of Smag and implication of Rambam “The Smag states that the Sages only decreed Yichud if the man is 13 years of age and the girl is three…one must thereby conclude that the Yichud prohibition only applies when at least one of the genders is the age of Mitzvos”; Bach 22 “And so is the Halacha like the Rambam, that [only] a child who is of age of Mitzvos if forbidden in Yichud with a child above age 3 for a female and 9 for a male”; Dvar Halacha 2:8; Shraga Hameir 8:126; Halichos Bas Yisrael 8:2; The Laws of Yichud [Dubov] 1:8

[42] Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:137; Shevet Halevi 1:29

[43] Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:137; Shevet Halevi 1:29;

[44] Ohel Yaakov p. 207

[45] Hakdama of Igros moshe Vol. 8 p. 5

[46] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:4 “By Torah law, the father is obligated to teach his son himself, or to find a teacher who will teach him the entire Torah. And if he cannot find one for free—even if he himself is unable to teach him, and even if he does not know how to study at all—he is nevertheless obligated by the Torah to hire a teacher to instruct him properly, so that he will know the entire Written and Oral Torah.” and 9; Kuntrus Achron 1:1; Nitei Gavriel 17:7

[47] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1 Kuntrus Achron 1; Sefer Chassidim 942; Maharach or Zarua 11

[48] Maharach or Zarua 121; Yad Hamelech Shabbos 30:6; Shnos Chaim 33; See Pischei Teshuvah E.H. 35:2; M”A 250:2

[49] See Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:19; 246:21

[50] Admur Hilchos Tamud Torah 3:7 “Not only is it forbidden to engage in idle talk, but it is even forbidden to occupy oneself with worldly wisdoms (chochmot ha’olam), as it is stated: “And you shall speak of them” (vedibarta bam), meaning that one should not mix Torah study with other matters. Even one who has already learned the entire Torah may not say, “I have studied the wisdom of Israel; now I will go and study the wisdom of the nations.” For the verse states: “You shall keep My statutes and walk in them.” One has no permission to exempt himself from them. Needless to say, a Torah scholar, who is obligated to fulfill the verse “You shall meditate upon it day and night” literally, should first find a time that is neither day nor night and then engage in such studies. Nevertheless, it is permissible for a Torah scholar, on an occasional basis, to study other wisdoms if he can derive from them insights into Torah, fear of Heaven, or proper conduct. This permission does not apply to the general public. This is only with the condition that these are not the books of heretics, namely the works of philosophers from among the nations who denied Divine Providence and prophecy. It is forbidden to read or examine such works altogether, even occasionally and even if one seeks to learn from them some ethical teaching or fear of Heaven. Therefore, even when their teachings are quoted in Jewish works, caution is required regarding them. Concerning such books, the Sages said that “one who reads external books has no share in the World to Come.” Some sages of earlier generations occupied themselves with these writings only in order to refute them and strengthen the Jewish faith. Their times required such efforts, because the sectarians and philosophers of the nations debated with the Jewish people in their generations. This is not the case in later generations.”; Tanya Chapter 8; Rama Y.D. 246:4; Rashba 1:414; Rivash 45

[51] Admur 156:2; 306:13; M”A 156:2; 306:13; Kiddushin 29a and 30b; Shabbos 150a; Koheles Raba 9:1; Sifra Emore Parsah 1; Mechilta Rebbe Yishmael Bo 18; Biur Halacha 306 “Ulilamdo”; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:19; Omitted from Rambam, Michaber, Rama

Other opinions: The Mishneh Kiddushin 82a brings the opinion of Rav Nehoraiy who says “I leave all the occupations of the world, and teach my son only Torah, as only Torah will truly protect one in all situations.” Seemingly this statement of Rav Nehoraiy disputes the earlier statement of the Gemara. [See Biur Halacha ibid] However the Mefarshim offer several explanations in attempt to reconcile this statement with the previous statement of the Gemara. These are as follows: 1) Rebbe Nehoraiy agrees that one must teach his son a trade, however he is saying that the trade should be the temporary activity of the child while Torah learning the primary occupation. [Maharsha Chidushei Agados Kiddushin ibid] 2) Rebbe Nehoraiy is discussing a specific scenario where the child is of exceptional genius and will become a great Torah scholar who will be supported by the public. [Pnei Yehoshua Kiddushin ibid; See also Sefer Habris 2:12-10; Hamakneh Keddushin ibid; Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 245:9; Tzitz Eliezer 12:33; Mishneh Halachos 16:96; Yechaveh Daas 5:56] 3) The Mitzvah to teach the child a trade mainly applies in Eretz Yisrael, due to the Mitzvah of Yishuv Haretz. Rebbe Nehoraiy was speaking of the diaspora. [Chasam Sofer Sukkah 36a]

Opinion of Rambam: The Rambam, as well as the Shulchan Aruch, omit the above obligation mentioned in Kiddushin. Various explanations have been given as to the reason for this omission and if in truth the Rmabam disregards this obligation or not. See Binyan Tziyon 125; Igros Moshe O.C. 2:111

[52] See Rabbeinu Bechayeh Parshas Maseiy; Chasam Sofer Bava Basra 21a; Drashos 1:112; Igros Kodesh 9:188; 213; Likkutei Sichos 16:145; Meishiv Davar 1:44; Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:81; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:19 footnote 157

[53] Kiddushin 82a

[54] See Igros Moshe Y.D. 4:36

[55] See Rama Y.D. 246:4; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:19 footnote 165 for a long list of Poskim

[56] Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Igros Rabbi Akiva Eiger, letters 56-57); the Chasam Sofer (Shu”t Chasam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat §197, and Introduction to Chasam Sofer Al HaTorah, Bamidbar); Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (Likkutei Tefillos 90); The Tzemach Tzedek in Sefer Hachakira; the Rebbes of Belz, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yissachar Dov of Belz (Admorei Belz, p. 266); Rabbi Hillel of Kolomyia (Shirei Maskil); Mahari Asad (Igros Soferim); Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik and the Netziv of Volozhin (Kovetz Michtavim Meraboseinu Gedolei Yisrael); Rabbi Baruch Ber Leibowitz (Birkas Shmuel, Kiddushin); Rabbi Shlomo Brevda (introduction to Bavos Al Bonim); Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzensky (Kovetz Igros R. Chaim Ozer, letters 76 and 297); the Chafetz Chaim; the Imrei Binah; Rabbi Shmuel Salant; Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld and the Jerusalem Beis Din in their public proclamations; the Chazon Ish (Igros Chazon Ish, vol. 2); the Satmar Rebbe (Vayoel Moshe and other writings); Rabbi Aharon Roth, author of Shomer Emunim; the Beis Yisrael of Gur; Rabbi Yechezkel Levenstein; Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 3:82); Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky (the Steipler Gaon); The Rebbe in many talks and letters including Igros Kodesh 9:188; 213; Likkutei Sichos 16:145; and many other Gedolim who spoke or wrote against altering the traditional Torah curriculum.

[57] Igros Kodesh ibid; Likkutei Sichos 16:145; Igros Moshe ibid

[58] Zera Emes Y.D. 107 p. 119a “Now that we are in exile, we must teach our children how to read and write the language of the country at a young age as otherwise they will be unable to get a job”; Shaareiy Rachamim 2 Y.D. 23 and Hod Yosef 1; Nachals Yisrael Sheiris Hanachala p. 10; Sefer Haitim p. 175 in name of Rav Haiy Gaon regarding teaching Arabic and math; Yabia Omer 7:21

[59] Igros Kodesh ibid; Likkutei Sichos 16:145; Igros Moshe ibid

[60] Igros Kodesh ibid

[61] Admur Hilchos Tamud Torah 3:7 “This is only with the condition that these are not the books of heretics, namely the works of philosophers from among the nations who denied Divine Providence and prophecy. It is forbidden to read or examine such works altogether, even occasionally and even if one seeks to learn from them some ethical teaching or fear of Heaven. Therefore, even when their teachings are quoted in Jewish works, caution is required regarding them. Concerning such books, the Sages said that “one who reads external books has no share in the World to Come.” Some sages of earlier generations occupied themselves with these writings only in order to refute them and strengthen the Jewish faith. Their times required such efforts, because the sectarians and philosophers of the nations debated with the Jewish people in their generations. This is not the case in later generations.”; Rama Y.D. 246:4; Rivash 45; Ovadia Bartenura Sanhedrin 11:1; Igros Kodesh 18:46; 19:222; Shaareiy Chinuch pp. 327-328; Pesakim Uteshuvos 246:22

[62] See Rama Y.D. 246:4; Shaareiy Rachamim 2 Y.D. 23 and Hod Yosef 1; Nachals Yisrael Sheiris Hanachala p. 10; Sefer Haitim p. 175 in name of Rav Haiy Gaon regarding teaching Arabic and math; Yabia Omer 7:21

[63] Shaareiy Rachamim ibid in his conclusion

[64] Likkutei Sichos 16:145; Sichas and letters printed in Shaareiy Chinuch p. 295-299

[65] Zera Emes Y.D. 107 p. 119a; See Rama Y.D. 153:1; Pesakim Uteshuvos ibid

[66] Igros Kodesh 5:297 and 9:188; The Rebbe established a trade school in Kefar Chabad in 1955 for such students. See here for more information: http:::beismoshiachmagazine.org:katavot:2016:5:21:379539933510.html

[67] Igros Kodesh 5:297

[68] Mishneh Halachos 16:96

[69] Mishneh Halachos ibid

[70] Igros Moshe Y.D. 4:36 that it is possible learn a quick and easy trade and support oneself with it, and those who want to learn professions that take lots of preparation and study, such as a doctor or lawyer rather than learn in Yeshiva, are certainly following the advice of the Yetzer Hara.

[71] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:11 “And every teacher of children who leaves the children and goes out, or who does other work during the time of his learning with them, or who is negligent in their learning, behold he is included in the verse: “Cursed is he who does the work of Hashem deceitfully.” (Jeremiah 48:10) Therefore, it is not proper to appoint as a teacher except one who possesses fear of Heaven, is quick and proficient in reading, and is careful in precision.”; Michaber 245:17; Bava Basra 21b; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:29-34; See Matzdikei Harabim Kikochavim [Bucket] Chapters 3-8

[72] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:11 “Therefore, it is not proper to appoint as a teacher except one who possesses fear of Heaven, is quick and proficient in reading, and is careful in precision.”; Sefer Chassidim 155; Chasam Sofer Bava Basra 21A; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:34

[73] Igros Kodesh Vol. 14 p. 434; Heichal Menachem Vol. 1 p. 124; Toras Menachem Vol. 26 p. 97.

[74] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:11 “Nevertheless, if there are two teachers: One is very meticulous that the children read without error or distortion, and is careful to explain to them correctly the meaning of the words (in our times, when Scripture is learned together with the explanation of the words), but he does not cover much material because he is somewhat slow; And the other covers much material, but is not as meticulous; one appoints the teacher who is more meticulous.”

[75] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:12 “Likewise, it is not proper for a teacher to stay awake excessively at night, lest he be sluggish during the day in teaching. Nor should he overindulge in eating and drinking, and certainly not afflict himself through fasting, because all these things cause him to be unable to teach properly.”; Rama 245:17

[76] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:12 “And anyone who acts differently, his position is weakened, and he is removed from his post without prior warning, for he is already considered warned and standing warned by Torah law.”; Michaber C.M. 306:8; However, see Rama there that he must first be warned

[77] See Michaber Y.D. 245:18; C.M. 237:2; Beis Yosef 333:5; Smeh C.M. 333:16; Pischeiy Tehsuvah 245:10; Aruch Hashulchan 245:17; Igros Moshe C.M. 1:76-77; Minchas Shlomo 1:87; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:32

[78] See Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13 “A man who does not have a wife, or whose wife is living in another city, should not teach young children, because the mothers bring their children to school and his inclination may be aroused. This is not the case when his wife is with him in the same city, for he has “bread in his basket” (i.e., his wife is available to him). If an improper thought should arise and his inclination becomes strong to the point that he cannot divert his mind from it, he is able to go to his wife. There are, however, authorities who permit a man who is married to teach children even if his wife is in another city. Therefore, one should not protest against those who follow this lenient opinion.”; Michaber Y.D. 245:20; E.H. 22:20; Beis Shmuel 22:19-21; Taz 245:7; Aruch Hashulchan 245:20; Shevet Halevi 5:206; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:33

[79] Michaber Y.D. 245:21; E.H. 22:20; Rambam Issurei Biyah 22:13; Beis Yosef E.H. 22; Beis Shmuel 22:22; Taz 245:7 and E.H. 22:11; Chelkas Mechokeik 22:21; Shach 237:31; 267:31; Bach Y.D. 245; E.H. 22; Aruch Hashulchan 245:20; Tzitz Eliezer 14:97; Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:73; ; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:34

[80] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:3; Michaber 245:28; Tashbeitz 2:64; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:28

[81] The Opinion of Other Rishonim: Several Rishonim disagree and maintain that up to forty students may be taught by one teacher. From forty to fifty students, an assistant is required. More than fifty students require two teachers. [Tosafus Bava Basra 21a]

[82] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1 Kuntrus Achron 3; Pischeiy Teshuvah 245:8; Emunas Shmuel 26; Gilyon Maharsha; The Shach 245:10 writes: It appears that the matter depends on both the teacher and the students, whether they learn little or much, and everything must be judged according to the circumstances. Accordingly, the appropriate class size is not determined solely by a fixed number. The abilities of the teacher, the nature of the students, and the level of learning expected all play a role; Igros Moshe Y.D. 4:29

[83] Vayeshev Moshe 2:3-7

[84] See Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:21-24

[85] Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:103; Shraga Hameir 6:101

[86] Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 240:20; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:7; Miseches Semachos 2:4; Rashi Sotah 47a; Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 345:3; Vayeishev moshe 2:7; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 10:18

[87] Mishneh Halachos 6:284; Pischeiy Choshen [Bloy] 4 Geneiva 1:17; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245 footnote 198

[88] See Shelah Parshas Devarim 19; Yosef Omnetz Giful Banim

[89] Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:103

[90] Teshuvos Vehanhagos 1:839; Vayeishev Moshe 2:7

[91] Matzdikei Harabim Kikochavim Vol. 4 p. 182 [Bucket]

[92] See Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13 “”A child who does not wish to read should not be struck by the teacher with cruel blows. Therefore, the teacher should not hit him with whips or sticks, but only with a small strap. If he begins to read, he reads; and if he does not respond even to such discipline, he should remain sitting together with his classmates as their companion, and perhaps in the end he will apply his heart and learn. A teacher of children who strikes his students excessively is removed from his position. He also transgresses a prohibition, for once he strikes without authorization, he is considered like one who strikes any other Jew.””; Michaber Y.D. 245:10; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:21,

[93] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13; Admur Hilchos Nizkei Guf Vanefesh 4; Admur 156:9; Michaber Y.D. 240:20; 245:10; O.C. 551:18; Rama Y.D. 233:1 regarding a child who makes vows; Rambam Rotzeiach 5:5; Makos 8b; Moed Katan 17a; Taz 240:1 Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:18; 165:1; 184:2; Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:103; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 10:15-16

[94] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13 “”He also transgresses a prohibition, for once he strikes without authorization, he is considered like one who strikes any other Jew. Accordingly, a teacher must be careful not to administer more punishment than is necessary for educational purposes. “”;Admur Hilchos Nizkei Guf Vanefesh 4 in parentheses; Rambam Rotzeiach 5:5; Makos 8b; Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:103

[95] Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:103

[96] See Halachos Ketanos 1:125; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:1; See Sefer Hasichas 5704 p. 15 that a Chassid never hits and rather uses other measures

[97] See https:::www.loveandlogic.com: for a wonderful disciplinary philosophy which is both harmless, and effective, and almost completely avoids the need to ever hit a child out of discipline.

[98] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13 “A teacher of children who strikes his students excessively is removed from his position. He also transgresses a prohibition, for once he strikes without authorization, he is considered like one who strikes any other Jew.” Admur Hilchos Nizkei Guf Vanefesh 4 in parentheses; Braisa Bava Kama 87b; Pela Yoeitz Erech Hakah; Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:103

[99] Admur ibid; Rambam Chivel Umazik 5:1; Rashi Bava Kama  87b

[100] Sefer Chassidim 636; Shvus Yaakov 3:140;

[101] Admur ibid; Rashi Gittin 36a; Nimukei Yosef Bava Netzia 66a

[102] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13; Michaber Y.D. 245:10; Sefer Cahssidim 155; Levush 245

[103] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13; Michaber Y.D. 245:10

[104] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 165:1

[105] See Taz 551:18; M”B 551:103

[106] Michaber Y.D. 245:10

[107] See Shaareiy Chinuch pp. 76 and 244 regarding students, and the same arguments can be applied to children Shaarei Halacha u’Minhag, 3:192 “…regarding students — he is correct that this is not the proper approach to use corporal punishment as a method of education. For very often it turns out that its supposed benefit results instead in loss, and this is self‑understood. In practice, we clearly see that firmness when clothed in pleasant ways is more effective.”

Igrot Kodesh, Part 13, p. 4: The main point of my writing concerns students whom people treat with rebuke and similar measures, even to the point of physical striking. It is obvious that such conduct is entirely inappropriate with older students, and if I were not hesitant, I would say the same also applies to students who are not yet older.

Igrot Kodesh, Part 21, p. 195: In matters of punishment, one may stumble into serious issues, especially considering defamatory interpretations relating to prohibitions punishable by stoning—Heaven forbid—that might be used to justify striking. It is clear, however, that within the walls of the yeshiva such behavior is entirely unacceptable. Aside from the fact that rebuke through physical punishment is more negative than positive, it will certainly become public knowledge—both the punishment and, more importantly, its cause—among parents, and even more so among the students. This raises concern that even those who were previously unaware may become curious and interested. And it is known from the matter of the Tree of Knowledge that things drawn through awareness have an internal effect. Therefore one must seek alternative methods of discipline, such as temporary distancing from the school—either partial or complete—or, as cited in the talks of my revered father‑in‑law the Rebbe, not allowing them to be present during stories of righteous individuals and similar matters that they desire. Above all, increased supervision over the students is essential, and it is to be hoped that the situation will gradually diminish until it ceases entirely.

From a copy of the letter, Tzaddik Yesod Olam, p. 105: “I was shaken to read in your letter that someone advised you to place a small child and keep him in a dark room, etc., because in your view he is too active. And I was glad to see later in your letter that you did not accept this frightening advice.”

[108] The Rebbe ibid; Sefer Mileches Hashem p. 125 in name of Rav Elyashiv

[109] Sotah 47a

[110] Michaber 551:18; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:23

[111] Levush 551; Kaf Hachayim 551:230

[112] Taz 551:18; M”B 551:103

[113] Piskeiy Teshuvos 551:57

[114] Ashel Avraham of Butshetch 551

[115] Peri Megadim 551 M”Z 18

[116] Ashel Avraham of Butshetch 551

[117] Ashel Avraham of Butshetch 551

[118] Peri Megadim 551 M”Z 18; Levush 551; Siddur Yaavetz

[119] Tosefes Chaim Chayei Adam 133:17

[120] Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:20; See Matzdikei Harabim Kikochavim [Bucket] Chapter 14

[121] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13; Kuntrus Achron 1; Michaber 245:9; Bava Basra 21a

[122] Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah, Vol. 2, Siman 57; Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah, Vol. 3, Siman 71; Teshuvos V’Hanhagos, Vol. 3, Siman 280

[123] Sefer Chassidim 189; 988; 990

[124] Michaber 246:10; Story of Rebbe Preida in Eruvin 54b

[125] Taanis 8a

[126] Sefer Chassidim 308

[127] Shevet Halevi 10:162 – 4

[128] Michaber 245:11

[129] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:10 “Children are not interrupted from their Torah studies for any mitzvah in the world, not even for the building of the Beis Hamikdash.”; Michaber 245:12; Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:74; Minchas Shlomo 1:87; Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:25

[130] Igros Kodesh 10:55

[131] Pesakim Uteshuvos 245:26

[132] Maharal of Prague, in his Derush Al HaTorah (s.v. “Ve’od Yavo”), where he writes: Afterwards they proclaim liberty in the land and call this period Bein HaZemanim. Each person follows the dictates of his own inclinations, as though this were not a time for Torah study. In truth, this serves only to remove oneself from Torah, fulfilling the statement of Chazal: “If you abandon Me for one day, I will abandon you for two.” Through this interruption, people become accustomed to frivolity, lightheadedness, and other improper behaviors.” The Shelah HaKadosh (Masechet Shavuot, §24) writes: The most comprehensive remedy would be to uproot and completely eradicate from the world the very term “Bein HaZemanim.” It should neither be mentioned nor remembered. Rather, all times should be equally devoted to good, conducted with the same commitment to Torah, as it is written: “You shall meditate upon it day and night.” Similar sentiments are expressed by the Maharsha (Shabbat 119b) and the Mateh Ephraim (Orach Chaim 603:6).

[133] Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:84