- Chinuch in Mitzvos – The Mitzvah to educate one’s children in Mitzvah performance and not to perform transgressions:[1]
- The Mitzvah of Chinuch & Whether its Biblical or Rabbinical:[2]
[Unlike the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah[3] which is a Biblical obligation upon the father to teach his son, as will be explained in Halacha 5, the Mitzvah of Chinuch of Mitzvos is not a Biblical obligation upon the father. Rather] it is a Rabbinical command for a father to educate his son and daughter in both the negative and positive commands, beginning from when the child reaches the age of education [to be defined in Chapter 2]. It goes without saying[4] that a father is Rabbinically obligated to reprimand and stop his child who has reached the age of education from transgressing a negative command, even if it is only a Rabbinical prohibition.[5] [This is unlike the Mitzvah of Tochacha which is a Biblical obligation applicable to every Jew to protest the forbidden actions of another Jew, as this Mitzvah only begins once the Jew in question becomes an adult, as will be explained in Chapter 2 Halacha 6D. However, all the above is only with regards to education and reprimanding, however, it is a Biblical prohibition for any individual to actively cause a child of any age to transgress a prohibition, as will be explained in Halacha 8.]
Why the Mitzvah of Chinuch is not Biblical?[6] The Rebbe elaborates on this question and explains:[7] While the Torah clearly commands a parent to teach Torah to one’s child, the obligation to educate a child in the practical fulfillment of mitzvot is understood to be Rabbinical. This distinction leads to the question of why the Torah does not mandate formal mitzvah training prior to a child becoming obligated at Bar or Bat Mitzvah. The Rebbe considers various explanations, including the view that the Biblical obligation focuses on knowledge rather than practice, and another that sees practical education as a preparatory act given independent value through Rabbinic enactment. Ultimately, these approaches are insufficient, leading to the conclusion that the Torah does not demand immediate perfection in mitzvah observance upon reaching maturity. Rather, the Torah recognizes mitzvah fulfillment as a gradual process, allowing for continued learning and habituation even after obligation begins. This is illustrated by the analogy of removing chametz, where one is not considered in violation while actively engaged in fulfilling the commandment. Similarly, a child who has reached Bar or Bat Mitzvah is viewed as being in an ongoing process of fulfillment, rather than failing due to imperfection, underscoring that education and growth are intrinsic components of religious obligation. For a more detailed discussion of this matter and to appreciate its full scope, please refer to the concluding section of this chapter in which the Sicha has been brought in full.
| Mitzvah | Obligation Type | Who is Obligated | Who is Educated | Scope | Notes |
| Talmud Torah | Biblical | Father | Son | Teaching Torah | Explained in Halacha 5 |
| Chinuch of Mitzvos | Rabbinical | Father | Son and daughter | Negative and positive commands | Begins from age of education |
| Reprimanding child from transgressing | Rabbinical | Father | Child who reached age of education | Negative commands, even Rabbinical prohibitions | Father must stop child from transgressing |
| Causing a child to transgress | Biblical | Any individual | Child of any age | Any prohibition | Explained in Halacha 7?? |
- The reason for the Mitzvah of Chinuch:[8]
The reason for the rabbinical obligation to educate one’s children in mitzvah performance is so by the time they reach the age of Bar or Bat Mitzvah, they not only know how to perform the mitzvot properly, but have already become accustomed to observing them as a natural part of their lives.
|
The start of the entrance of the G-dly soul into the body:[9] The start of the entrance of the G-dly soul into a child’s body matches the age of maturity in which the Sages obligated the child to be educated in Torah and Mitzvos. It is for this reason that they now become Rabbinically obligated to be educated in keeping Mitzvos, as they now have a partially installed G-dly soul.
|
- Scriptural sources for the Mitzvah of Chinuch:[10]
The mitzvah of chinuch can be derived from several verses in Scripture, as noted by Mefarshim and Poskim. These verses collectively establish that although a child is not yet personally obligated in mitzvot, there is a responsibility placed upon parents to teach, guide, and habituate their children from a young age.
- Chanoch Lanar: חֲנֹךְ לַנַּעַר עַל־פִּי דַרְכּוֹ גַּם כִּי־יַזְקִין לֹא־יָסוּר מִמֶּנָּה “Train a child according to his way; even when he grows old, he will not depart from it”: This most famous verse from Mishlei[11] teaches that education is meant to instill lasting patterns through early training. Some Poskim[12] learn that this verse served as the scriptural source for the Rabbinical decree of Chinuch. Some Poskim[13] learn based on this that the mitzvah of chinuch carries the status of Divrei Kabbalah—a binding obligation rooted in the words of Scripture as transmitted through the Prophets and Writings. According to this view, the Mitzvah of Chinuch is a Mitzvas Asei of Divrei Kabalah.
- Yitzaveh Es Banav: כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת־בָּנָיו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ ה׳ “For I have known him, so that he will command his children and his household after him to keep the way of Hashem.” This verse from Bereishis[14] praises Avraham for commanding his children and household to follow the way of Hashem. Some Mefarshim[15] derive the Mitzvah of Chinuch from this verse.
- Torah study: וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶם לְדַבֵּר בָּם “You shall teach them to your children, to speak of them.” This commandment in Devarim is understood by some Poskim[16] not merely as teaching information, but as accustoming children to constant engagement with Torah.
- Hakhel:[17] הַקְהֵל אֶת־הָעָם… וּבְנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ יִשְׁמְעוּ וְלָמְדוּ “Assemble the people… and their children who do not yet know, so that they may hear and learn.” The mitzvah of Hakhel includes the bringing of children who have yet to reach a maturity of comprehension. Some Mefarshim[18] learn that the purpose of this Mitzvah is so even children who are not yet capable of full understanding be exposed to mitzvot and Torah experiences, as through hearing, this leads to questioning, which then leads to them being educated by their parents.
- Chukas Olam:[19] חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם “An eternal statute for your generations.” The Torah’s repeated emphasis on transmitting mitzvot across generations underscores that children must be taught and trained, for without deliberate education they could not come to know or live by the commandments. [20]
- The history of the decree:[21]
As is often the case with rabbinical enactments or decrees, the historical circumstances surrounding their original institution are not always fully recorded or documented. Nevertheless, some Poskim[22] suggest that the decree to educate one’s children in Mitzvos dates back to the time of Shmuel HaNavi. Other Poskim[23] maintain that it was originally instituted by Moshe Rabbeinu for his own generation, serving as the initial enactment, and that it was only later extended and formally decreed on behalf of the entire Jewish people.
- Geder Hachiyuv – The Nature of the Obligation of Chinuch: Upon the Child or the Father[24]
A central question regarding the mitzvah of chinuch concerns the locus of its obligation: does it rest upon the child himself, or solely upon the father or other adult figure? Some Poskim[25] maintain that the obligation of chinuch is entirely incumbent upon the father (or responsible adult), and not upon the child at all. According to this view, the child bears no personal obligation—even on a rabbinic level—to observe mitzvos, as a child is exempt from all Mitzvos[26]; rather, the responsibility lies exclusively with those charged with his education. Other Poskim[27], however, contend that there exists a rabbinic obligation intrinsic to the child himself, requiring him to fulfill mitzvos by virtue of chinuch, independent of the parental duty to educate. [Regarding the opinion of Admur, in one area[28] he seems to conclude like the former opinion that there is no personal obligation of Chinuch on a child, and the obligation remains only upon his father. However, elsewhere he seems to conclude like the latter approach.[29] Vetzaruch Iyun!]
[1] See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 1 and 10:1-4; Shaareiy Chinuch p. 29-47
[2] Admur 343:2 “All this applies to others, but a father—since he is obligated by rabbinic decree to educate his son or daughter even in positive commandments once they reach the age of education—how much more so is he obligated by rabbinic law to rebuke them and prevent them from transgressing prohibitions.”; Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:1 “Even though a minor is exempt from all mitzvos, and his father is not obligated to educate him in mitzvos on a Torah level but only by rabbinic decree, nevertheless Talmud Torah is a positive commandment from the Torah upon the father to teach his young son Torah, even though the minor himself is not obligated. As it is stated, “And you shall teach them to your sons, to speak of them.”; Basra 4:2; Admur 39:1 “A minor, even though he is subject—by rabbinic law—to the obligation of tying Tefillin, he is not subject to this prohibition by Torah law. (And even according to rabbinic law, the warning applies only to his father, as explained in Siman 343.)”; 266:10; Shut Admur 41; Rambam Machalos Assuros 17:28; Tzitzis 3:9; Chagiga 4a; Nazir 29b; Sukkah 28b; Chayeh Adam 66:1; See Likkutei Sichos 35 p. 61; Igros Kodesh 8:92; 95; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 162; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 1:1-6
Opinion of Admur in Tanya: In Tanya, in the Hakdama to Shaar Hayichud Vihemuna, Admur writes in parentheses that “The Mitzvah of Chinuch is also with a positive command, as written in chapter 343” The intent of this statement is not to say that the Mitzvah of Chinuch is a positive command, but rather that the Rabbinical command of Chinuch also obligates one to train one’s child in following the Biblical positive commands. [Lessons in Tanya]
[3] And the Mitzvah of Vehigadeta Lebincha on Pesach night, as will be explained in Chapter ??
[4] Meaning if he is even obligated to educate the child in positive commands then certainly he must stop him from transgressing.
[5] A father regarding Issurei Shabbos: Some Poskim rule that regarding Shabbos a father is Biblically obligated to prevent his son from transgressing on his behalf, as the verse states Lo Saseh Kol Melacha, Ata Ubincha Ubitecha. [See Shaar Hatziyon 343:54; Biur Halacha 266:6; Ketzos Hashulchan 141 footnote 28; Mishkanos Yaakov O.C. 118; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:3 and 5 footnotes 32, 61 and 67-70] Practically, Admur and other Poskim do not agree with this opinion and hence the obligation remains Rabbinical. [See Admur 266:10; and so is Setimas Admur throughout 343; Poskim in Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 70]
[6] See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 35 Parshas Vayeira
[7] See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 35 Parshas Vayeira
[8] Rashi Sukkah 2b “Mechunach Veragil Bemitzvos”; See Rashi Chagiga 6a; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 162; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 1:2
[9] Admur Basra 4:2; See Kaf Hachaim 225:11
[10] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 162; Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 1:3 and 7
[11] Mishlei 22:6
[12] Shut Admur 41 “For there, the discussion concerns a positive commandment that is incumbent upon the father to educate his son in, so that he will fulfill it on his own when he grows up—this is the mitzvah of education (chinuch), as it is written: “Train a child according to his way; even when he grows old, he will not depart from it.”; Chayeh Adam 66:1; Rashba Megillah 19b; Ritva Sukkah 2b; See Turei Even Chagiga 6a
[13] Chayeh Adam ibid
[14] Bereishis 18:19
[15] Meshech Chochma on Bereishis ibid; See Shelah Hakadosh Shaar Hosiyos Os Derech Eretz
[16] Pirush Rabbeinu Meyuchas
[17] Devarim 31:13
[18] Ramban on Devarim ibid
[19] Vayikra 3:17
[20] Ramban Devarim 6:7
[21] Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 162 footnote 9; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 1:1
[22] Turei Even Chagiga 6a
[23] Haemek Davar Devarim 11a
[24] See Sdei Chemed Kelalim Mareches Ches; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 162; Likkutei Sichos Vol. 17 p. 233; Mishnas Rebbe Aaron 4:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 4; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 1:9 and 9:1-12; [The Rebbe ibid understands that this debate is dependent on the separate question of whether a minor can be motzi an adult in the fulfillment of a mitzvah that is rabbinic in nature. According to this understanding, the issue of a child’s personal obligation would directly impact his ability to discharge the obligation of others. However, in the Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid, the two disputes are in fact explained to be unrelated. Even according to those Poskim who maintain that a minor possesses a certain personal rabbinic obligation, that obligation is nevertheless on a lower level than that of an adult. As a result, the minor still lacks the capacity to be motzi an adult. Accordingly, according to the Rebbe’s approach, there would appear to be a contradiction in the rulings of the Alter Rebbe, as will be demonstrated later—reflecting a tension between the former and latter approaches. According to the explanation of the Encyclopedia Talmudit, however, no contradiction exists at all, since the minor’s inability to be Motzi an adult does not depend on whether his obligation is personal or derivative, but rather on the inherent disparity between his level of obligation and that of an adult. Vetzaruch Iyun]
[25] Admur 39:1 in parentheses “A minor, even though he is subject—by rabbinic law—to the obligation of tying Tefillin, he is not subject to this prohibition by Torah law. (And even according to rabbinic law, the warning applies only to his father, as explained in Siman 343.)”; Implication of Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:1 “Even though a minor is exempt from all mitzvos, and even his father is not obligated to educate him in mitzvos on a Torah level but only by rabbinic decree”; Admur 640:4 in parenthesis “The warning is only on his father”; 37:3 [Father is obligated to purchase him Tefillin for Chinuch] [Unlike Admur 186:3; See Likkutei Sichos ibid footnote 26]; Rashi Brachos 48a; Ramban Milchamos Brachos 20b and Chidushim on Kiddushin 31a; Rashba Sukkah 38a; Teshuvas Maharam Bava Basra 4:200; Ritva Megillah 19b; Teshuvos 97; Meiri Brachos 20a and Megillah 19b; Ran Kiddushin 31a and Megillah 19b; Shut Harosh 4:21; Kesef Mishneh Chametz Umatzah 6:10; See Rambam Brachos 5:7; Nechalos 11:10
[26] See Mishneh Avos end of chapter 5; Mishneh Nida 52a; Chagiga 2b; Rambam Chagiga 2:4; Admur Basra 4:2
[27] Implication of wording of Admur 39:1 outside of parentheses “A minor, even though he is subject—by rabbinic law—to the obligation of tying Tefillin, he is not subject to this prohibition by Torah law.” [However, in the parentheses Admur writes the opposite that the obligation is only on the father]; Admur 186:3 [The child is obligated in Birchas Hamazon like the adult]; 479:6 [The child is only Rabbinically obligated in order to educate him in Mitzvos]; 640:3-4 [The child is obligated in Sukkah]; [See Likkutei Sichos ibid footnote 26]; Kesef Mishneh Chametz Umatzah 5:10 in opinion of Ran Megillah ibid and Tosafus Megillah ibid and Brachos 15a; 48a [However, see also Kesef Mishneh Barchos 5:7 and Brachos 5:15-16]; Chikreiy Lev O.C. 70; Kelilas Shmuel 8:8; See Likkutei Sichos ibid that so is implied from the wording in Rambam Brachos 5:1 and 15; Tzitzis 3:9; Sukkah 6:1; Lulav 7:19
[28] See Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah ibid; Admur 640:4 in parenthesis; 37:3
[29] See Admur 186:3 “The child is obligated like the adult”; Admur 39:1; 186:3; 479:6; 640:3-4; Likkutei Sichos ibid footnote 26 in which the Rebbe concludes that the opinion of the Alter Rebbe follows this approach despite his ruling in the previous source “And so too this is implied in the opinion of the Alter Rebbe: although he writes at the beginning of the laws of Talmud Torah that even though a minor is exempt from all mitzvos, and his father is not obligated to educate him in mitzvos on a Torah level (but only by rabbinic enactment), nevertheless he writes in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim סימן קפ״ו סעיף ג׳ that a minor, even if he did not eat to the point of satiation, can discharge the obligation of an adult in Birkat HaMazon. From his precise wording there it is clear that, nonetheless, the minor is obligated by rabbinic law just like the adult. This wording (“כמותו” – like him) appears in the first printing of the Shulchan Aruch, whereas in our later printings the word “כמותו” does not appear. See Chikrei Halachos, volume 1, where the author explains the view of the Alter Rebbe according to the version that includes the word “כמותו,” in the same manner as explained here.”; Chikrei Halachos on 186:3; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid