- Who is obligated to educate the child – Father, Mother, Rabbi, School, Teacher, Legal Guardian:[1]
Important note: The halachic discussion regarding who is obligated to educate a child refers specifically to the unique mitzvah of chinuch, which applies only so long as the child is below the age of bar mitzvah, as will be explained in Chapter 2 Halacha 6. Once, however, the child reaches bar mitzvah, the mitzvah of chinuch naturally falls away, and the Torah‑level obligation of Tochacha begins to apply. The Mitzvah of Tochacha applies to every Jew; father, mother, sibling, or even innocent bystander. Accordingly, the entire discussion below is to be taken in the context of it discussing a child who is below the age of Mitzvos. Likewise, all the above discussion is in regard to stopping and reprimanding the child from doing a prohibition. However, it is biblically forbidden for any Jew to feed or imbed a prohibition for her son or daughter, regardless of the child’s age, as will be explained in Halacha 8.
- Father – The obligation of a father to educate and reprimand his children:[2]
The obligation to educate a child in Torah and mitzvah’s is specifically upon the father of the child. He is obligated to educate both his son and daughter in the negative and positive commands, and is likewise required to reprimand his child and stop him from performing any transgression, even Rabbinical.
If the father does not reprimand his child:[3] If the father does not reprimand his child from transgressing a Biblical command, then the father himself is to be reprimanded by the Beis Din. However, for not stopping his children from transgressing Rabbinical commands the father does not need to be chastised.
- ⚖️ Mother – Is a mother obligated to educate or reprimand her children?[4]
See the Compilation at the end of this Halacha for a more thorough discussion on this topic!
A mother is not obligated at all to educate her child, whether her son or daughter, in neither positive or negative commands [when they are below the age of Mitzvos]. [Some Poskim[5] rule that this applies even if the father of the child is not able to educate him.] However, she does receive reward for encouraging her son to study Torah.[6] [Furthermore, although she is not formally obligated to do so, it is certainly a mitzvah for her to be involved in her child’s education.[7] Indeed, the quality and extent of a child’s education often derive more from the mother than from the father, since she is generally present with the child to a greater degree.[8] Consequently, the primary responsibility for education frequently rests upon her shoulders.[9] Moreover, education imparted by the mother is often more effective, as a woman’s manner of speech is typically gentler and more refined, which has a greater impact on the child—particularly in contemporary times, when harsh rebuke is less effective.[10] As for the absence of a formal obligation placed upon the mother, this is because it is natural and self‑evident that a mother educates her child, and therefore no explicit commandment was deemed necessary.[11] Indeed, we find that BatSheva, the mother of Shlomo Hamelech took a proactive stance on his education and admonished him to swerve away from life’s pleasures and focus on wisdom and G-d.[12]]
Girls as Partners in Building the Jewish Home[13]
Jewish girls also have a direct connection to the concept of building a Jewish home and participating in the education of children. Even before marriage, they should begin preparing for their future role in establishing and guiding a Jewish household, where they will be responsible for nurturing a home infused with Torah, faith, and Jewish values. This preparation begins long before adulthood through assisting their mothers in the home and learning how to influence others positively. Moreover, even young girls have a meaningful share in the task of binyan habayis by helping their mothers care for and educate younger brothers and sisters. Through this involvement they become active partners in the spiritual growth of their family and gain practical experience in the responsibilities of nurturing and guiding others. In this way, the values of Jewish motherhood, education, and devotion to the family are cultivated from an early age, preparing them for their future role in building strong Jewish homes founded upon Torah and Yiddishkeit.
- Legal Guardians – Melameid, Grandparents, Dorm, Foster home, Boarding house:[14]
All individuals and institutions who act in the capacity of a legal guardian or educator of a child, bear responsibility for the child’s religious and moral education. They are obligated to guide, instruct, and ensure that the child is raised according to the principles of Torah and mitzvot, fulfilling the educational duties typically incumbent on a parent. [Seemingly, however, this obligation is only upon male legal guardians, however, regarding female legal guardians, then they are no different than the status of a mother of which some Poskim[15] rule that a mother is never obligated in the education of her children even if her husband is not around, as explained above in B.]
- Beis Din – Rabbinical Leaders of city:[16]
Even if a Beis Din sees a child under the age of Bar or Bas Mitzva[17] transgressing a prohibition they do not need to reprimand or stop[18] the child from doing so, if the child is doing so for his own benefit, such as eating Treif foods or desecrating Shabbos for his own needs [or is defiling himself to the dead if he is a Kohen[19]]. They are however required to reprimand the child if the child is transgressing a prohibition for the sake of another Jew or if the transgression will become public knowledge as will be explained later on.
- ✍️ Bystanders – Must a person other than a child’s father stop a child from sinning?[20]
A bystander who is neither the father [nor legal guardian] observing a child under the age of Bar or Bas Mitzva violating a prohibition is not obligated to intervene or issue a reprimand, provided the child’s actions are for their own benefit, such as consuming non-kosher food or desecrating Shabbat for personal needs. They are however required to reprimand the child if the child is transgressing a prohibition for the sake of another Jew or if the transgression will become public knowledge as will be explained later on. [However, if the child is acting for his own sake, then even though an adult Jew also derives benefit from his actions, there is nevertheless no obligation to protest those actions.[21]]
✍️ From The Rav’s Desk
Question:
I saw someone’s child washing a stain off their pants on Shabbos. I did not say anything to them, although am wondering if I have a responsibility to educate them in matters that are forbidden on Shabbos, or is this only upon the father of the child? The child was certainly above the age of Chinuch.
Answer:
According to some Poskim, including Admur, you are not required to inform him or stop him, as this obligation is only on the father, until the age of Bar Mitzvah. Nonetheless, it is proper to tell him anyways.
Sources: See Admur 343:1; Michaber and Rama 343:1; M”B 343:7; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2
- A child who is transgressing for the sake of another Jew:[22]
If a child [of any age[23]] is committing a transgression for the benefit of any other Jew[24] who is already Bar Mitzvah[25]—for example, extinguishing a fire in that Jew’s home when there is no danger to human life—then every Jew[26] is [Rabbinically[27]] obligated to stop the child or reprimand him. This responsibility is not restricted solely to the child’s father or legal guardian. [This obligation to protest a child’s actions applies even if the child performed the act privately and inconspicuously, with no one else present. In such a case once it becomes known that the act was performed on behalf of an adult, one is then obligated to protest and object to the child’s conduct.[28]]
A Rabbinical prohibition: See Halacha 8D regarding if one must protest a child who is performing a Rabbinical prohibition on behalf of an adult.
- A public transgression that may lead others to sin:[29]
If a child’s transgression is likely to become public knowledge and there is concern that it may lead others to believe such conduct is permissible due to the absence of protest, the Beis Din[30] [and others[31]] are required to formally object to the actions, regardless of whether the child is acting in their own interest.[32] [Thus, for example, if one sees a child turning a light on or off, or otherwise playing with electricity on Shabbos in public, he is required to protest even if the child is doing so for his own sake.[33] This, however, applies only once the child has reached the age of education, which is an age of comprehension and understanding. If, however, the child has not yet reached the age of education, there is no obligation to protest his actions, even if he does so in public.[34]]
- Bein Adam Lechaveiro – Universal Responsibility to Correct a Child’s Societal Misconduct[35]
When a child steals, causes damage, injury, humiliation, or other harm between people, it is appropriate for a Beis Din, and for every individual to reprimand the child and prevent such behavior.
- Matters of Modesty and immorality[36]
If one sees a child performing an immoral and immodest act then it is fitting for anyone to intervene and separate the child from wrongdoing.
- Non-Kosher food:[37]
If one sees a child eating forbidden foods, it is fitting for anyone to intervene and separate the child from wrongdoing.
|
Summary: A person other than the child’s father is not obligated to reprimand or stop a child from sinning, unless the child is doing so on behalf of an adult or there is suspicion that people may be misled to think that what the child is doing is Halachically valid.
Special Cases Where Everyone Must Intervene
|
| Role | Obligation to Educate/Reprimand | Details/Exceptions |
| Father | Obligated to educate and reprimand | Must educate son and daughter in positive/negative commands; must stop child from transgressing; Beis Din reprimands father if he fails to stop Biblical transgression; not chastised for Rabbinical commands |
| Mother | Not obligated | Receives reward for encouraging Torah study; mitzvah to be involved; education often derives more from mother; no formal obligation due to natural role |
| Legal Guardians (Melameid, Grandparents, Dorm, Foster home, Boarding house) | Obligated to educate | Obligation mainly on male guardians; female guardians same as mother (not obligated) |
| Beis Din (Rabbinical Leaders) | Not obligated unless public or for another Jew | Must reprimand if transgression for another Jew or public; not obligated if child acts for own benefit |
| Bystanders | Not obligated unless public or for another Jew | Must reprimand if transgression for another Jew or public; not obligated if child acts for own benefit |
| Child transgressing for another Jew | Obligation for every Jew to stop/reprimand | Example: extinguishing fire for Bar Mitzvah Jew; not restricted to father/legal guardian |
| Public transgression | Beis Din and others must object | If may lead others to sin; regardless of child’s interest |
| Bein Adam Lechaveiro (Societal Misconduct) | Appropriate for Beis Din and individuals to reprimand | Stealing, damage, injury, humiliation, harm between people |
| Matters of Modesty and Immorality | Fitting for anyone to intervene | Separate child from wrongdoing |
| Non-Kosher food | Fitting for anyone to intervene | Separate child from wrongdoing |
| From The Rav’s Desk (Bystander question) | Not required to inform/stop | Obligation only on father until Bar Mitzvah; proper to tell him anyways |
[1] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 165; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 7; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 12:1-19; regarding the amount of money a parent must spend for the sake of Chinuch
[2] Admur 343:2; 343:6 in parentheses regarding Rabbinical; Admur 616:4 “All of this applies to a minor who has not yet reached the age of education for the mitzvah of affliction. However, if he has reached the age of education, it is permitted to feed him, give him drink, anoint him, and wash him directly, in the manner explained above. If the minor performs any of these acts on his own, there is no need to protest, except for his father, who is required to protest and to educate his son in the mitzvot. His mother, however, is not obligated in this. Nevertheless, it is forbidden for her to place food before him, since doing so is considered as if she were feeding him directly.”; Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:1; Michaber 343:1; 37:3; Rambam Tzitzis 3:9; Chagiga 4a; Nazir 29a; Sukkah 42a; Erechin 2b; Bach 17; Biur Halacha 39; See Likkutei Sichos 35 p. 61; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 165 footnotes 47-48; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1
[3] Admur ibid; M”A 343:2; Taz 343:1; Beis Yosef 343 in opinion of Rambam Shabbos 24:11 and in name of his father in-law; Radbaz 1432; 1563 Olas Shabbos 343:2; Tosefes Shabbos 343:2; Kaf Hachaim 343:10, 12, and 28; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 16 p. 196 footnote 532; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 3
[4] Admur 343:4 “However, with regard to his mother, there is no obligation upon him at all—neither a positive commandment nor a negative prohibition.”; Admur 616:4 “All of this applies to a minor who has not yet reached the age of education for the mitzvah of affliction. However, if he has reached the age of education, it is permitted to feed him, give him drink, anoint him, and wash him directly, in the manner explained above. If the minor performs any of these acts on his own, there is no need to protest, except for his father, who is required to protest and to educate his son in the mitzvot. His mother, however, is not obligated in this. Nevertheless, it is forbidden for her to place food before him, since doing so is considered as if she were feeding him directly.”; [See also Admur 640:4]; M”A 343:1; 616:2; 640:3; Terumas Hadeshen 94; Nazir 29a; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a; Maharam Ben Baruch 200; Ritva Eiruvin 82a; Birkeiy Yosef 343:7; Machatzis Hashekel 343:2; 200:4; M”B 343:2; Sdei Chemed Ches 59; Kaf Hachaim 343:9; Ketzos Hashulchan 147 footnote 2; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 165 footnotes 49-69, 197 footnote 534; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 9; Shaareiy Chinuch pp. 113-122; Hisvadyus 5750 3:171, brought in Shaareiy Chinuch p. 113 “The obligation of chinuch (religious education), according to the strict letter of the law, rests upon the father. The father is obligated by rabbinic law to educate his son or daughter even in positive commandments, and all the more so to prevent them from transgressing prohibitions. This is not the case with the mother, who is not obligated in this responsibility at all—neither regarding positive commandments nor prohibitions.; Likkutei Sichos 2:580; Toras Menachem 31:138; Sichos Kodesh 5733 2:264; 5737 2:2; Hisvadyus 5746 3:617; Heichal Menachem 2:103; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 7:1-12; 14:15-17; Shaareiy Chinuch p. 113-120
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that there is a complete obligation on the mother to educate her children. [Rebbe Yochanon in Nazir 29 according to Rav Avraham Min Hahar; Hilni Hamalka Sukkah 2b; Chiddushei Rabbeinu Peretz Nazir ibid; Rashi Chagiga 2b; Meiri Yuma 78a; Opinions in Birkeiy Yosef 343:7; Shalah Hakadosh Shaar Haosiyos Daled Derech Eretz, brought in Kuntrus Chanoch Lenar and Toras Menachem 5743 2:1085; Orach Mishor Nazir ibid; Tosefes Shabbos 343:1, brought in Machatzis Hashekel 343:1; Elya Raba 640:4, brought in Shaareiy Teshuvah 640:2; Chayeh Adam 66:2; Aruch Laner Sukkah 2b; Bikurei Yaakov 640:5; Chikrei Lev O.C. 70; Sdei Chemed Ches 59; Daas Torah 343; Shevet Halevi 1:67; See Kaf Hachaim 343:9; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 16 p. 196 footnote 533;] Furthermore, some Poskim rule that the obligation of the mother is even more than on the father. [Shalah Hakadosh Shaar Haosiyos Daled, brought in Kuntrus Chanoch Lenar and Toras Menachem 5743 2:1085; Menoras Hamaor Abuhav 168; Migdal Oz of Yaavetz 3:25] Other Poskim rule that so long as the father is alive, the mother is obligated to educate her children as an emissary of their father. [Chasam Sofer Sugyos 24]
[5] Implication of Admur ibid [perhaps one can deduce from Admur which writes “at all” that there is no obligation on the mother even after the child has passed away]; Terumas Hadeshen 94 in opinion of Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that there is a complete obligation on the mother to educate her children if the father is unable to do so, such as if he passed away or is out of town. [Terumas Hadeshen 94 in his own opinion; Meiri Nazir ibid; Tosafus Eruvin ibid; Imrei Yosher 3; Shaareiy Teshuvah 640:1 in name of Poskim; M”B 640:5; Hagahos Imreoi David on 343; Pesach Hadvir 343:4; Kaf Hachaim 343:9 in his conclusion; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 10 that so applies according to all; See Sdei Chemed Ches 59]
[6] Admur in Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:14 “Nevertheless, if she helps her son or her husband with her body and very much encourages him to engage in Torah study, she shares in their reward, and her reward is great—since they are commanded [to learn] and they do so through her.”; Hisvadyus 5750 3:171, brought in Shaareiy Chinuch ibid
[7] Peri Megadim Pesicha Koleles 2:10 rules that according to all there is a Mitzva; Mateh Efraim 616 in Alef Lamateh 5; Machatzis Hashekel 343:1; M”B 343:2; See also Hilchos Talmud Torah Kuntrus Achron 1:1; Ketzos Hashulchan 147 footnote 3
[8] Hisvadyus 5750 3:171, brought in Shaareiy Chinuch ibid “However, beyond this, since the actual education and guidance of sons and daughters—especially young boys and girls—depends to a great extent, and primarily in practice, on the direction of the mother, the mainstay of the home, and consequently the essence of education is carried out through her; it is therefore well known what the Shelah writes: that women are obligated in rebuking and guiding their children just like the father, and even more so than he, because they are more available and are found in the home more frequently.”; Sichos Kodesh 5737 2:2
[9] Shalah Hakadosh Shaar Haosiyos Daled, brought in Kuntrus Chanoch Lenar p. 34 and Toras Menachem 5743 2:1085 and Hisvadyus ibid, “Women are obligated to admonish and guide their sons no less than the father—and even more so—since they are more available and more frequently present in the home.”
[10] Hisvadyus 5750 3:171, brought in Shaareiy Chinuch ibid “Moreover, women have an added advantage in education and rebuke over men, since by the very nature of women their influence in education is carried out with gentle speech and through a feeling of closeness, love, and affection more than is the case with men. And we see this clearly—especially in recent generations—that specifically through a path of closeness and love, ‘educate the child according to his way’, the success of education is far greater.”
[11] Rebbe in Shaar Halacha Uminhag 3:63 and 80.
[12] See Sanhedrin 70b; Menoras Hamaor ibid
[13] Hisvadyus 5748 4:341
[14] See Admur 167:23 “And all this is regarding an adult who does not know how to bless. But to train children, one is obligated to bless on every blessing of enjoyment in order to educate them in the mitzvos. And even if there is no obligation of chinuch (education) upon him, such as one who is not from his household.”; Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 290:30 regarding an Aputrapis; Imrei Yosher 3; Yad David Pesachim 88a; Sdei Chemed Mareches Ches Kelal Get; Betzel Hachochma 5:3; Shevet Halevi 8:95; Chanoch Lanar 2:7 footnote 15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:1 footnote 12; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 166 footnotes 70-75; See regarding the Chiyuv of an Aputrapis to provide the children with Mitzvah objects: Tosefta Terumos 1; Gittin 52a; Pesachim 88a; Rambam Nechalos 11:10; Michaber C.M. 290:15; Admur 434:16; Chok Yaakov 434:15; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 7:13-27 See regarding the Chiyuv of a master to educate his slave: Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Chinuch Volume 16 p. 167 footnotes 83-84; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 7:28 regarding a Ger if he is liable to be Michanech his converted children
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule there is no obligation upon any legal guarding other than the father to educate children under his care. [Rashi Pesachim 88a regarding a master of a slave; Mishneh Halachos 3:26 See Chikrei Lev O.C. 70, Pesach Hadvir 343:3, and Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 75 that according to those who hold a mother is exempt actually exempt all legal guardians, whether male or female.]
[15] See Chikrei Lev O.C. 70; Pesach Hadvir 343:3; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 75
[16] Admur 343:1 “A minor who transgresses the words of the Torah for his own enjoyment—for example, if he eats non‑kosher food or desecrates Shabbat for his own needs—the Beit Din is not commanded to separate him [from the transgression].”; Admur 301:21; 334:26; 362:17; Michaber 343:1 regarding eating Niveilos and Beis Yosef 343 that this includes all Issurim; 2nd opinion in Rama 343:1; Rama Y.D. 373:1; M”A 343:1; Tur 343; Rambam Machalos Assuros 17:27; Shabbos 12:7; Avel 3:12; Rebbe Padas Yevamos 114a; Sefer Hateruma 215; Semag L.S. 65; Rashba and Ritva Yevamos 114a; Hagahos Maimanis Shevisas Assur 2; Teshuvas Maharam Ben Baruch 200; Tosafus Nazir 29; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82; Birkeiy Yosef 343:7; M”B 343:8; Kaf Hachaim 343:1 and 3 and 29; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 167 footnotes 76-82; 195 footnotes 512; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 8:1-16; Chapter 29-30
Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that if one sees a child who has reached the age of education transgressing a prohibition, then anyone who sees this, including and especially a Beis Din, must reprimand and stop the child. [1st opinion in Rama 343:1; M”A 640:3; Shach Y.D. 373:1; Elya Raba 640:4; P”M 640 A”A 4; Tosafus Nazir 28b; Gittin 55a; Shabbos 121a; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a in name of Yereim; Terumas Hadeshen 94; Tosafus Yisheinim Yuma 82a in name of Yireim; Rashba and Ritva on Yevamos 114a; Rashi Eruvin 96b; Chayeh Adam 66:3; See Kaf Hachaim 343:2 and 28; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 196 footnote 526] Some Poskim conclude based on this opinion that by a Biblical transgression one is to be stringent and reprimand a child which has reached the age of education even if the child is not his son. [Chayeh Adam ibid; Mishneh Berura 343:7] Other Poskim rule that if the father is not present, then even by Rabbinical prohibitions one is obligated to reprimand the child. [Kaf Hachaim 343:28] Some Poskim learn that by the three prohibitions of blood insects and impurity, not only is it forbidden for an adult to cause a child to transgress them, but furthermore if he sees a child transgressing them then he must reprimand the child, even if he is below the age of Chinuch. [Bach 343; Beis Yosef 343; Kaf Hachaim 343:3; See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 7 Sicha 1]
[17] Even if the child is over the age of Chinuch [Admur 343:1-2; 2nd opinion in Rama ibid]
[18] Here the wording of Admur is “separate” or stop while in the other two cases to be brought next he uses the term reprimand or protests, while in the next halacha regarding a father’s obligation the term “reprimand and stop” is used. vetzaruch Iyun on the difference.
[19] Setimas Admur and all Poskim ibid; Rama Y.D. 373:1; M”A 343:2; Kaf Hachaim 343:3 that so rule most Poskim and so is Setimas Hegemara
Other Opinions: Some Poskim learn that by the three prohibitions of blood insects and impurity, if one sees a child transgressing them then he must reprimand the child, even if he is below the age of Chinuch. [Bach 343; Beis Yosef 343; See Kaf Hachaim 343:3; Likkutei Sichos Vol. 7 Sicha 1]
[20] Admur 343:1 regarding a Beis Din, and 343:2 that this applies to all bystanders; 167:23; 362:17; 596:2; Admur 616:4 “All of this applies to a minor who has not yet reached the age of education for the mitzvah of affliction. However, if he has reached the age of education, it is permitted to feed him, give him drink, anoint him, and wash him directly, in the manner explained above. If the minor performs any of these acts on his own, there is no need to protest, except for his father, who is required to protest and to educate his son in the mitzvot. His mother, however, is not obligated in this. Nevertheless, it is forbidden for her to place food before him, since doing so is considered as if she were feeding him directly.”; Michaber 343:1; 2nd opinion in Rama 343:1; Rambam Hilchos Machalos Assuros 17:28; Tosafus Nazir 28b; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a; Besi Yosef end of 343; Ketzos Hashulchan 147:1; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 8:1-16
Background: In the Talmud Yevamos 114a and Shulchan Aruch 343 the entire discussion is with regards to a Beis Din reprimanding the child and not regarding an ordinary bystander. The Ketzos Hashulchan 147:1 writes that if even a Beis Din is not obligated to reprimand a child, then certainly other people are not obligated. Perhaps the reason for why no mention of this was made in Shulchan Aruch is because there is not even an inkling of a thought that a bystander is obligated to educate someone else’s child. However, a Beis Din which is responsible for the education of all the towns folk, including the child’s father, perhaps one would think is obligated to reprimand the child, hence the ruling that they too have no obligation.
Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that anyone who sees a child who has reached the age of education transgressing a prohibition, then he must reprimand and stop the child. [Chayeh Adam 66:3; Bikurei Yaakov 640:5; Kaf Hachaim 343:28; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 16 p. 196 footnote 528; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2 footnote 19 in opinion of Rama ibid, based on Yevamos 114a that Beis Din is Lav Davka and the same applies to any person; So rule regarding a Beis Din: 1st opinion in Rama 343:1; M”A 640:3; Elya Raba 640:4; P”M 640 A”A 4; Tosafus Nazir 28b; Tosafus Yesheinim Yuma 82a in name of Yereim; Terumas Hadeshen 94; Rashi Eruvin 96b;] Some Poskim conclude based on this opinion that by a Biblical transgression one is to be stringent and reprimand a child which has reached the age of education even if the child is not his son. However, by Rabbinical prohibitions there is no need to be stringent. [Chayeh Adam ibid; Mishneh Berura 343:7] Other Poskim rule that if the father is not present, then even by Rabbinical prohibitions one is obligated to reprimand the child. [Kaf Hachaim 343:28] Some Poskim learn that by the three prohibitions of blood insects and impurity, not only is it forbidden for an adult to cause a child to transgress them, but furthermore if he sees a child transgressing them then he must reprimand the child. [Beis Yosef 343; Bach 343; See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 7 Sicha 1]
[21] Chanoch Lanar 7:3 based on Rama and M”B 362:7; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2
[22] Admur 343:1 “If he does so on behalf of an adult, one must protest and stop him, by rabbinic law, as explained in סימן של״ד.”; Admur 334:26 in parentheses “A child, however, who comes to extinguish a fire must be stopped, even if he has not yet reached the age of chinuch and even if his father is not present. This is because a child does not possess the independent judgment necessary to act for his own benefit. Rather, since he knows that the fire is causing a loss to his father (or to another Jew), we assume that he is extinguishing it on the Jew’s behalf in order to please him.”; Admur 362:17 “One should not create a human partition (mechitzah shel bnei adam) except in a time of need and pressing circumstances. If one forgot an item in a public domain, it is preferable to bring young children there and allow them to pick up the item on their own and bring it into the house than to construct a human partition and have an adult bring it in. This applies only when the child does not know that the object belongs to his father. In that case, the child is acting for his own benefit, thinking that he has found an object in the public domain. However, if the child knows that the object belongs to his father, then he is presumably bringing it for his father’s benefit, and every person is obligated to stop the child from bringing it, as explained in Siman 334. Certainly, one may not bring the child there in order that he retrieve the object. The same law applies if the object belongs to another person and the child recognizes it and intends to bring it to that individual. All of the above applies to other people. However, a father is obligated to educate his child, rebuke him, and prevent him from desecrating Shabbos whenever he sees him doing so, even when the child is acting for his own benefit and even regarding rabbinic prohibitions, as explained in Siman 343. Certainly, a father may not bring the child to the location in order that he retrieve the object, even if the object does not belong to the father.”; Michaber 334:25; Beis Yosef 334; Rosh 1:1; Rabbeinu Yerucham 1:13; Chayeh Adam 66:4; Kaf Hachaim 343:1; Piskeiy Teshvuos 343:5, 13; 343:2 footnote 22; Toras Hakatan Chapter 31; Chinuch Habanim Kehilchaso Chapter 45:20-40
[23] Admur 334:26 “Even if he has not reached the age of Chinuch”; Bach 334 “This child is prior to the age of Chinuch , such as a four or five year old and we are not certain as to whether this Katan is performing the action on behalf of his father”; Tosafus Shabbos 121a
A child below the age of comprehension: This obligation applies only to a child who has reached a level of mental maturity such that he is capable of acting on behalf of others. In such a case, when it is determined that the child performed the act for the benefit of an adult, there is an obligation to protest his actions even if he is officially below the age of Chinuch. However, if the child is so young that he lacks the comprehension to act on behalf of others, then even if it appears outwardly that he is doing so, there is no obligation to object. Thus, for example, if a two‑year‑old plays with a light and turns it on or off—even if the adults had been discussing whether they wanted the light on or off—there is no requirement to protest. Since a child of that age does not possess sufficient understanding to perform actions on behalf of others, his conduct is not treated as such. [See Michaber 334:25; Rishonim on Shabbos 121a; Chikrei lev 63; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:5 footnote 74]
[24] Admur 343:1 “Bishvil Gadol”; 334:26 “on behalf of his father (or another Jew)”; 362:17”; M”B 334:65 in name of P”M; Ketzos Hashulchan 147 footnote 11
Father versus other person: So rules also Admur in 334:26 that if the child is going to extinguish the fire even on behalf of a person other than his father, he must be reprimanded. Vetzaruch Iyun why Admur in 334:26 stated this addition (another person) in parentheses. To note however that in the Gemara [Yevamos 104a] explains that the reason the child must be reprimanded is because he is doing so on behalf of his father, and thus perhaps here Admur novelizes that even when done on behalf of others he must be reprimanded. [Ketzos Hashulchan 147 footnote 11] This is also explicitly implied in Rashi there which equates this case to the case brought earlier in the Gemara regarding having children carry keys in a public domain on behalf of another person, of which there it was allowed because they were not doing so on behalf of that person. Nevertheless, tzaruch Iyun why the need to place this addition in parentheses. The Mishneh Berurah [334:65] rules in the name of the Peri Megadim as above that the child is to be reprimanded even when he goes to extinguish another person’s fire.
Other Opinions: See Chinuch Habanim Kehilchaso Chapter 45:20-40
[25] See Chanoch Lanaar 7:3 in name of Sefer Malei Haroim that if a child is doing so on behalf of another child he does not need to be protested. So is also implied from Admur ibid which states “Bishvil Gadol”; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2 footnote 22
[26] Implication of Admur 343:1-2 and 334:26 “even if his father is not there” and in parentheses “or for another Jew”; See Admur 343:2 that this obligation to reprimand and correct improper behavior is not limited to the Beit Din, even though they are the primary subject discussed in this halacha. Rather, this obligation applies to every individual. This is made explicit by the wording in the beginning of the next halacha, where Admur states that all of the above applies when dealing with “other people”, clearly indicating that the responsibility is not confined to judicial authorities alone.
[27] A father regarding 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. [See Admur 266:10; and so is Setimas Admur throughout 343; Poskim in Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 70]
[28] See Admur 334:26 “Even if his father is not there”; Beis Yosef 334 based on Rashi Shabbos 121a; M”B 334:65; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:5 footnote 72
[29] Admur 343:1 “Admur 343:1 “Furthermore, if it is a matter that becomes public and there is concern that those who hear about it may err and say that such a thing is permitted, one must protest even if the minor is acting on his own initiative. For example, if he blows the shofar on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat, since the sound is heard publicly and people may come to err and say that one may blow [the shofar] even when it falls on Shabbat.”; Admur 588:6; M”A 343:1; Ran 9b; Beir Heiytiv 343:1; Kaf Hachaim 343:2; Piskeiy Teshvuos 343:2; Toras Hakatan 30:14
[30] Implication of Admur ibid; Admur 588:6; Vetzaruch Iyun regarding if others excluding the father re obligated to protest the child’s actions. See sources in next footnote
[31] Implication of Admur 343:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2 [This obligation to reprimand and correct improper public behavior is not limited to the Beit Din, even though they are the primary subject discussed in this halacha. Rather, this obligation applies to every individual. This is made explicit by the wording in the beginning of the next halacha, where Admur states that all of the above applies when dealing with “other people”, clearly indicating that the responsibility is not confined to judicial authorities alone.]
[32] Such as for example if the child was blowing Shofar on Shabbos Rosh Hashana then since people hearing the Shofar may think that one is indeed meant to blow even on Shabbos Rosh Hashana, therefore the child is to be reprimanded. [Admur ibid and 588:6; Kaf Hachaim 343:1]
[33] Piskeiy Teshvuos 343:2
[34] See Mateh Efraim 589:5 Alef Lamagen 6; Piskeiy Teshvuos 343:2 footnote 30
[35] Rambam Geneiva 1:10; Maggid Mishneh Geneiva 1:10 in name of Rambam; Bach 343 in end; Beir Hagoleh C.M. 349:5; Chayeh Adam 66:5; P”M 343 M”Z 2; M”B 343:9 in name of P”M and other Achronim; Kaf Hachaim 343:26; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2 and 6; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 200
[36] Shoel Umeishiv Basra 4:44; Or Sameiach on Rambam Rotzieach 1:13; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2
[37] Chanoch Lanaar 7 footnote 5 in name of Malei Haroim; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:2; See Shach Y.D. 81:26