Direct PDF link >>

Click here to view an updated version of this shiur with additional features on the Deracheha website.

Did you know there’s more to Deracheha than our shiurim? Sign up for our newsletter here and get all our content!

Have some feedback for us? Please click here!

By Laurie Novick

Rav Ezra Bick, Ilana Elzufon, Shayna Goldberg, eds.

Primary Chinuch

We can broadly define chinuch as an extended initiation into how to live in service of God.  In his commentary on a verse that mentions Avraham's disciples (chanichav), Rashi clarifies this essential meaning of the term:

Rashi Bereishit 14:14

Chanichav [Avraham’s disciples] – it is written “chanicho” [his disciple]; this is Eliezer, whom he educated in mitzvot. This term [root chet-nun-chaf] denotes the initial entry of a person or vessel to the craft which in which it will ultimately be established, thus (Mishlei 22:6) “educate the youth,” (Bamidbar 7:11) “the dedication of the altar), (Tehillim 30:1) the dedication of the house, and in French we call this “initier.”

For Jews, Torah values and mitzvot naturally play a central role in chinuch, on a few different levels:

Religious education can be deliberate and ritually-oriented—a parent putting children to bed with Shema or washing their hands in the morning.

Religious education also occurs more organically when children observe their parents living their religious commitments. Day-to-day moments, like children seeing their parents pray or accompanying them to bring food to an ill neighbor, can have a deep impact on their religious development. The Lubavitcher Rebbe describes this type of education:

"Success in Education," in At Alit: Collection of Sichot from the Lubavitcher Rebbe to Women and Girls, ed. Moshe Shilat (Kfar Chabad, 2014), chapter 20.

The influence on another is primarily through being a living example. For thus, even those who are not occupied with the field of chinuch (at least officially, and even unofficially), they also must certainly occupy themselves with chinuch. And similarly with the chinuch through the “air” that is in the room and in the home in which they live, so that it is permeated with true goodness and sanctity and Judaism.

Beyond setting a personal example, the Rebbe speaks of active engagement in education and creating a certain atmosphere through which a child imbibes Yiddishkeit mimetically, imitatively. Educator Slovie Jungreis-Wolff expresses this very concretely:[1]

Slovie Jungreis-Wolf, "Make a Good Child Great," Yated Ne'eman, November 5,2014.

Children are sponges. They absorb every action, every conversation, and every word exchanged between parents. Even the smallest toddler will take a parent’s phone and mimic the interactions he’s seen and heard. We, parents, are our children’s most effective role models. Greater than any speech about honesty is the moment a child witnesses his parent disclosing the truth about his children’s ages when paying the admission for a Chol Hamoed outing. More powerful than any lecture about kindness is the way a child observes his parents helping one another and giving an extra hand. If we want our children to feel connected to the words in their siddurim and place them in their hearts, it is certainly not enough to say, “Shaah!” and point to the page. Our children need to observe us taking our davening seriously, not allowing others to distract us, and showing that we truly believe in the power of tefillah. Our homes are the most potent classrooms….When we parent our children, we parent ourselves. We are forced to look at the way we speak, dress, interact with others, converse at our Shabbos table, greet Yomim Tovim, and deal with daily challenges. Even the way we wake up in the morning and go to sleep at night becomes a lesson for our children.

We’ve discussed transmitting Jewish tradition mimetically elsewhere in more general terms.

There’s another aspect of chinuch, that goes beyond modelling and molding, and follows from the unique nature of each child. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein explains:[2]

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “On Raising Children,” sicha delivered at Yeshivat Har Etzion, July 1, 2007.

There is a second, more relational aspect of the broad sense of chinukh. This entails developing what the Greeks called paideia, eliciting from the personality of the child that which is already there; moreover, this means developing not powers, but rather attitudes, relationships, commitments, involvement, and engagement.…You cannot start being an involved parent too early….who works at parenting out of the depth of his love and commitment: the love of the child, the love of the family, and the love of God.

This type of chinuch relates to a parent’s ongoing, loving attention to a child’s growth, from the very beginning of life.

Mothers

Mothers have long been assumed to be primary caregivers, especially in a child’s first years.  In its discussion of minors and the mitzva of sukka, the mishna recognizes that at certain stages in life, children simply need their mothers, and that such a need can be of halachic consequence:

Mishna Sukka 2:8

…Minors are exempt from sukka. A minor who does not need his mother is obligated in sukka…

In the Middle Ages, Rabbeinu Yona argues that a mother is chiefly responsible for all children’s connection to Torah and fear of Heaven:[3]

Rabbeinu Yona, Iggeret Ha-teshuva, Day 6 Rule 1:2

…For they [mothers] send their sons to school, and keep an eye on their sons that they occupy themselves with Torah, and care for them when they come from school, and attract them with good things that they be desirous of Torah, and watch out that they do not desist from Torah, and teach them fear of sin in their childhood. For it is said “Educate the youth according to his way; even when he grows old, he will not stray from it.” And hence,  refined women bring about Torah and awe…

In formulating this argument, centered on mother and son, Rabbeinu Yona lists both a mother’s prodding to study Torah formally and her more affective acts of care. Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch makes a similar argument in the nineteenth century:

Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch, “Educational Talks I,” in Judaism Eternal, ed. & trans. Dayan Dr. I Grunfeld (London: Soncino, 1956), 224, 231.

Eim is the term for mother in the Divine tongue…But “eim” is also “im”, the “if”, the sine qua non, the indispensable, primary “condition” for the physical and spiritual nature of the child. ….For already when yisa ha-omen et ha-yonek, at the time when the nurse takes up the infant, does the business of upbringing begin.

Education is implicit in even the most basic acts of caring for a child, as the child picks up on a parent’s speech, behaviors, outlook, and attributes over time. Modern theologian Dr. Mara Benjamin elaborates on how nurturing an infant can be seen as the foundation of Torah study:[4]

Dr. Mara Benjamin, "On Teachers, Rabbinic and Maternal,” in Mothers in the Jewish Cultural Imagination, eds. Jane L. Kanarek, Marjorie Lehman, and Simon J. Bronner (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2017), 371.

…Imagine that parents’ bodies, actions, and movements are the Torah that their children absorb. The parent—engaged in ordinary, quotidian duties of care and responsibility, whom we can speak of historically, but not normatively, as ‘the mother’—then becomes the sage, the ‘living scroll’ whose embodied Torah is precisely what the child learns to ‘read’. This parental teaching is not, as in the historical model of the sage, to be superseded by the teaching of the sage, but is rather the teaching itself, and simultaneously the foundation upon which all later learning builds.

The significance of caretaking imbued with educational value is often left implicit in our sources, though there is some acknowledgement that an apple often doesn’t fall far from the tree. That, for example is how Rabbi Akiva’s wife, Rachel, and her daughter are described:

Ketubot 63a

For people say: a ewe [recheila] goes after a ewe. Like the deeds of her mother, so are the deeds of a daughter…

As children grow, mothers pass on traditions and impart advice and wisdom. Abbaye cites his foster mother's medical lore. He also quotes her statements on children's Torah study and initiation into mitzvot. (We'll address her topic of age-appropriate chinuch later.)

Ketubot 50a

Abbaye said: Mother said to me, a six-year-old [should begin to study] Scripture, a ten-year-old [should begin to study] Mishna, a thirteen-year-old [should begin to observe] a 24-hour fast, and for a girl, a twelve-year-old.

Dedication to children’s religious and moral education can be a decisive factor in their growth. The Talmud ascribes Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s moral development to his mother’s intervention:

Shabbat 156b

From Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak also, [we learn that] astrology does not apply to Israel. For Chaldean [astrologers] said to the mother of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, your son will be a thief. She did not allow him to uncover his head. She said to him, cover your head in order that fear of Heaven should be upon you, and pray for mercy. He did not know why she said this to him. One day, he was sitting and studying under a palm tree and the cloak fell off his head. He raised his eyes and saw the palm tree. His impulse overcame him, and he climbed up and cut off a bunch of dates with his teeth.

Now that we've seen how the sources emphasize the importance of a parent's nurturing guidance throughout childhood, let's examine the formal halachic parameters for education.

The Obligation

Halachic discussion of education focuses primarily on clearly defined mitzvot and not on more informal, but formative, parent-child interactions. To start with, the formal, Torah-level mitzva of Talmud Torah is understood as obligating a father to teach Torah to his sons, and exempting mothers and daughters. (See more here.)

Kiddushin 29b

She [a woman], whence [do we know] that she is not obligated [to teach Torah to her child]? As it is written "and you will teach" [in this spelling, looking like] "and you will learn." Anyone who is commanded to learn, is commanded to teach. And anyone who is not commanded to learn, is not commanded to teach. She [a woman], whence [do we know] that she is not obligated to learn herself? As it is written "and you will teach" [in this spelling, looking like] "and you will learn." Anyone whom others are commanded to teach, is commanded to teach himself. And anyone whom others are not commanded to teach, is not commanded to teach himself. Whence [do we know] that others are not commanded to teach her? As the verse says, "And you shall teach them to your sons" and not your daughters.

Elsewhere, we’ve discussed ways in which women can and should take part in learning and teaching Torah, and a woman’s obligation to learn the halachot relevant to her.

Rema YD 246

In any case, the woman is obligated to learn laws that apply to a woman.

Since text study is only one aspect of internalizing what it takes to serve God as a Jew, there is more to Jewish education than textual Talmud Torah. Our discussion of women’s role in transmitting Jewish tradition in the Introduction to Deracheha, elaborates on Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik’s description of the mother as setting the tone for the experiential aspects of Judaism in the home.

To be sure, there are also halachic recognitions of a mother’s role in chinuch in a broader sense. For example, eight hundred years ago, Rav Yoseph Migash ruled that a mother who had cared for her young daughter in her ex-husband’s absence should be awarded custody, because a mother has a unique role to play in transmitting tradition to her daughter:

Responsa Ri Migash 71

For the mother in any case takes care of her [the daughter] more than the father, and she teaches her and guides her in what girls need to learn and to become accustomed to, like spinning and supervising the needs of the home and the like, and to teach her the way of women and their customs….

Even so, formal halachic definitions of chinuch are more narrow. Only a subset of educational activities is formalized as the obligation of chinuch, initiation into performing mitzvot.

The Talmud, in its discussion of a katan (minor) going up to Yerushalayim on the three regalim (pilgrimage festivals), refers to chinuch as a rabbinic-level obligation:

Chagiga 4a

Master said: “All of your males” (Shemot 23:17 et al.)—to include the minors [in pilgrimage to Yerushalayim]…a minor who has reached the age of chinuch is a [matter of] rabbinic law! Granted, and the verse is a mere mnemonic device [linking the idea to the Torah text].

Sources

The passage above finds a hint at the rabbinic-level obligation of chinuch in the Torah’s discussion of the three regalim. [5] Several other Biblical verses emphasize the significance of chinuch.

A number of authorities, including Rashba, cite Mishlei 22:6, which exhorts us to take children's dispositions into account when educating them. (Rashba here calls chinuch a chumra, a stringency, a point to which we’ll return.)

Rashba Megilla 19b

…A minor who has reached the age of chinuch, which is a stringency to accustom him ahead of time so that he will be accustomed to mitzvot when the time comes, and as the matter that is written: “Educate [chanoch] the youth according to his way; even when he grows old he will not stray from it (Mishlei 22:6).

More recently, in the mid-nineteenth century, Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk suggests that the fundamental obligation of chinuch for performing mitzvot is derived from the Torah, specifically, from God’s praise of Avraham training his children and household in God’s ways.

Bereishit 18:19

For I have known him, that he will command his children and his household after him and they will keep the way of God to perform tzedaka and law….

Meshech Chochma, Bereishit 18:19

…The source of the mitzva of chinuch for positive commandments, its source is in this verse from Avraham Avinu, who commanded his children in their youth about mitzvot. The verse of "educate the youth according to his way” (Mishlei 22:6)…is [on the level] of divrei kabbala [a type of rabbinic law anchored in the Prophets or Writings], but the essence is from Avraham…

Even if chinuch isn't formally commanded in any verse in the Torah, it is impossible to imagine a Jewish family or community without chinuch. The Jewish people exist only because the patriarchs and matriarchs and their descendants took care to educate their children, even before the Torah was given.

Who is Obligated?

Chinuch is a rabbinic-level obligation. Is it incumbent solely on the parents, who must educate their children? Or also on minor children, who must observe mitzvot from which the Torah exempts them?

The verses that we've seen give the strong impression that the obligation of chinuch falls on the parents. This stands to reason, because the minor (katan or ketana) is considered exempt on a Torah level from mitzvot. A mishna invokes this principle, employing it to explain that a katan is not old enough to be considered a ben sorer u-moreh (rebellious son):

Mishna Sanhedrin 8:1

The minor is exempt, for he has not reached inclusion in mitzvot.

Children lack maturity and thus cannot be held fully responsible for their actions. That’s part of why chinuch is necessary to begin with!

Nevertheless, when rabbinic literature refers to chinuch obligations, it's not always clear who is obligated. Take, for example, the following passage:

Chagiga 6a

Abbaye said: wherever an adult is obligated on a Torah level, we also educate a minor on a rabbinic level. Wherever an adult is exempt on a Torah level, a minor is also exempt on a rabbinic level.

This passage conveys an essential message about chinuch: we educate children for those mitzvot that will apply to them when older. This is a sort of halachic version of the adage, ‘start as one means to go on.’ It also means that one is not obligated in chinuch for mitzvot that one performs as an adult voluntarily, though it is customary to train minors in such mitzvot. So, for example, it is customary for girls to receive chinuch in mitzvot such as hearing shofar, which women are careful to fulfill despite exemption from the obligation.

Though the Talmud’s message here is clear, its language is not. At first, it tells us that “we” provide chinuch to the minor, but then it refers to the minor being exempt from mitzvot that won’t apply in adulthood. One is left wondering on whom the obligation of chinuch falls, the parent alone or also the child? This question is subject to halachic debate.

Parent and Child  A simple reading of this Talmudic statement seems to indicate that an obligation falls on the child.

A child does not have the full da’at, cognizance or agency, required to be subject to mitzvot on a Torah level, and a parent bears responsibility for a child. Nevertheless, this passage seems to recognize some degree of agency as a child develops. Perhaps for this reason, many early halachic authorities understand chinuch as including a rabbinic-level obligation on the child to perform certain mitzvot.

A mishna raises the possibility that a minor can discharge an adult's obligation in megilla, implying that chinuch imposes an obligation on the minor:

Mishna Megilla 2:4

All are fit to read the megilla, except for a deaf person, one with impaired cognition, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda considers a minor fit.

Tosafot explain that chinuch is a rabbinic-level obligation on the minor that can, in some cases, enable a minor to discharge an adult's obligation.  However, in cases such as megilla, a minor may not be able to discharge an adult's obligation, because the minor’s chinuch obligation is not equivalent to an adult’s rabbinic-level obligation in a standard mitzva.

Whereas a standard rabbinic-level mitzva entails one rabbinic decree when performed by an adult, it entails two when performed by a minor—the base mitzva and the obligation of chinuch for it—further distancing it from Torah law:

Tosafot Berachot 15a s.v. Ve-Rabbi Yehuda

We say that a minor who has reached the age of rabbinic-level chinuch is like an adult, and can discharge a rabbinic obligation… But here, where regarding a minor there are two rabbinic [factors], for [reading] megilla is rabbinic and the minor [performing mitzvot] is on a rabbinic level, he cannot discharge [the obligation of the adult], where there is only one rabbinic [factor].

Some of those who understand performative chinuch obligations as incumbent on a minor describe this level of obligation as less than that of a standard rabbinic-level commandment. We saw earlier that Rashba considers the obligation of chinuch to be a stringency. He argues that this is why a minor cannot discharge an adult’s standard rabbinic-level obligations.[6]

Rashba Megilla 19b

For whenever the essence of a mitzva is rabbinic, like megilla and Hallel, it is stringent and the mitzva of chinuch is more lenient and therefore he [the minor] does not discharge [the adult's obligation].

According to the view that chinuch obligations, whatever their halachic weight, are incumbent upon a child, the parent would still presumably have to guide or instruct the child in such obligations.

Only the Parent  Alternatively, the obligation of chinuch may fall squarely on the parent. According to this understanding, mentions of rabbinic obligations pertaining to a minor should be read as shorthand for parental obligation. A statement in the Talmud Yerushalmi makes this point succinctly:

Yerushalmi Berachot 3:3

Rav Acha said in the name of Rabbi Yossei son of Nehorai: whatever they said regarding a minor is in order to educate him.

A number of early authorities, including Ramban and Rashi,[7] follow suit and view chinuch obligations as exclusive to the parent. Here is Ramban’s explanation:

Ramban Kiddushin 31a

I say that the reason that [the obligation regarding] a minor is rabbinic is because chinuch  is a mitzva of a father and our sages obligated him in chinuch. But a minor is not subject to performing a mitzva, and this matter is correct and its rationale is good.

Gender in Chinuch

We've seen that the formal mitzva of Talmud Torah applies only to father and son, but not to mother and daughter. What about the rabbinic requirement of chinuch? Is there an obligation to educate daughters? Are mothers obligated in children’s chinuch?

A few Tannaitic passages mention daughters or mothers in contexts directly relevant to chinuch. On a simple reading, they support the view that females are obligated in chinuch, as would seem to maximize initiation into a life of mitzvot. 

Daughters

Let’s look at some Tannaitic examples of chinuch of daughters:

I. Berachot  Ordinarily, a person may recite ha-motzi for others only if the reciter will also partake of the meal. However, an adult who isn't partaking in a meal may recite ha-motzi for the purpose of chinuch:

Rosh Ha-shana 29b

Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: A person should not break up a piece of bread [i.e., recite ha-motzi] for his guests unless he eats with them, but he breaks it for his sons and for the members of his household in order to train them [le-chanchan] in mitzvot:

The phrase "members of his household" in addition to “sons” implies that chinuch is relevant for both male and female family members.

II. The Pesach  According to the Mishna, a father can have his children race to acquire a portion in the Pesach offering. Rabbi Yochanan explains that this is a device to inspire zealousness for mitzvot, a sort of chinuch. A baraita then notes that girls would sometimes participate in this competition (and win it).

Pesachim 89a

Mishna: One who says to his children: I am slaughtering the Pesach on behalf of whoever among you goes up to Yerushalayim first—As soon as the first one has brought in his head and majority [of his body], he acquires his portion and acquires for his siblings along with him. Gemara:…Rabbi Yochanan said: He said it in order to spur them on to mitzvot  …A baraita also teaches thus: A story where the daughters came before the sons, and it was found that the daughters were speedy and the sons were inferior.

III. Fasting on Yom Kippur  Rav Huna describes a multi-year sequence for educating male and female children in the positive commandment to afflict themselves on Yom Kippur by fasting.[8] Though much of this selection is phrased in the masculine, it is understood to refer to females:[9]

Yoma 82a

Rav Huna said: An eight-year-old and a nine-year-old, we educate in hours [of fasting]. A ten-year-old and an eleven-year-old, complete [the fast] [as a matter of] rabbinic law. A twelve-year-old completes the fast on a Torah level—[the above] with respect to female children…Rabbi Yochanan said: There is no completing the fast rabbinically. A ten-year-old, an eleven-year-old, we educate in hours. A twelve-year-old completes it on a Torah level.

Mothers

Let’s turn now to examples of Tannaitic mentions of mothers engaging in chinuch:

I. Establishing an Eiruv  In a tosefta, Rabbi Meir states that mothers would educate their young sons and daughters in mitzvot by enlisting their help in establishing an eiruv.[10]

Tosefta Eiruvin 2:11

Rabbi Meir said: The daughters of Israel did not keep themselves from sending their [foods to establish an] eiruv in the hand of their minor sons and daughters in order to educate them in mitzvot…

II. Sukka  As we saw in the mishna above, a katan who no longer needs his mother is obligated to dwell in the sukka. The Talmud describes this as chinuch.[11] The Talmud thus seems to view the sukka of Queen Heleni as an effort on her part to facilitate the chinuch of her sons:

Sukka 2b

…Rabbi Yehuda said: A story of Queen Heleni in Lud, whose sukka was taller than 20 cubits, and the elders would come in and out of there and did not say anything to her. They said to him: From there is a proof [regarding a sukka’s height]? She was a woman and exempt from sukka! He [Rabbi Yehuda] said to them: And did she not have seven sons? And further, she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages. Why should I teach “And further she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages”? Thus he said to them: If you say they were little children and minors are exempt from sukka, since there were seven, it is impossible that there wasn’t one among them who “did not need his mother.” And if you say a minor who does not need a mother is obligated rabbinically, and she [Queen Heleni] did not pay heed to rabbinic law, come and learn, “And further she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages.”

Ritva derives an important principle of chinuch from this discussion of Queen Heleni, that a parent is obligated to enable a child to perform a mitzva correctly, down to its details:

Ritva Sukka 2b

”Rabbi Yehuda said: A story of Queen Heleni” etc…until “she only did all of her deeds in accordance with the sages.” From this we learn that a minor whom we educate in mitzvot [one needs] to make the mitzva in full fitness for him as with an adult, for we bring a proof in our Talmudic passage from the sukka of Queen Heleni, since it is impossible that there would not be among her sons one who had reached educability, which would require a fully fit sukka. Scripture states a full verse  [on this]: educate the youth according to his way…

From Talmud to Practice

Based on what we’ve seen and on the obvious importance both of educating girls in mitzvot and of a mother’s role in child-rearing, we might assume that chinuch obligations would apply irrespective of gender. Another Talmudic passage, however, complicates matters:

Nazir 28b-29a

Mishna: A man makes a nazirite vow for his son, but a woman does not make a nazirite vow for her son…Gemara: A man yes, but a woman no. What is the reason? Rabbi Yochanan said: it is a halacha [transmitted to Moshe from Sinai] of nazir. And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina [said] Reish Lakish said: In order to educate him in mitzvot. If so, even a woman as well! He thought that a man is obligated to educate his son in mitzvot and a woman is not obligated to educate her son. This [mishna] makes sense [according to the opinion] of Rabbi Yochanan, who said this is a halacha [transmitted to Moshe from Sinai] of nazir, it brings him to [conclude] thus, his son yes, his daughter no. But according to Reish Lakish: [Shouldn’t a father be able to make the vow] even [for] his daughter? He thought that one is obligated to educate his son, one is not obligated to educate his daughter.

The mishna here states that a mother cannot vow to make her minor son a nazirite (nazir), and Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree as to why that should be the case. Rabbi Yochanan seems to read this as a law unique to nazir, perhaps because nazir is a voluntary ascetic practice, outside the parameters of chinuch.[12] Reish Lakish, though, explains this halacha as reflecting a general principle of chinuch, that the obligation of chinuch does not apply to mothers or daughters.

According to this understanding of the passage, since Halacha typically follows Rabbi Yochanan over Reish Lakish,[13] we would conclude that chinuch obligations apply fully to mothers and daughters.[14]

It is theoretically possible, however, that Rabbi Yochanan would agree that chinuch does not apply to mothers, or even to daughters, in cases other than nazir.

Early halachic authorities attempt to reconcile the discussion of nazir with the other sources, in different ways.

I. Daughters Exempt  Some halachic authorities, including Rabbeinu Nissim, draw on this passage to mitigate the obligation of chinuch for daughters in general:[15]

Ran Yoma 3b (Rif pagination)

For the essence of chinuch for a child is as we said in Nazir (29a): “His son, he is obligated to educate him in mitzvot; his daughter, he is not obligated to educate her."

II. Mothers Exempt Others accept that chinuch applies to daughters, but question its application to mothers. For instance, Tosafot Yeshanim (prepared by Rav Moshe of Coucy under the tutelage of Rav Yehuda Sirleon) treat nazir as a special case in which chinuch does not apply to daughters, and accept the obligation to educate daughters in other cases. At the same time, Tosafot Yeshanim quote the position of Ri, who considers a father to have a unique obligatory role in chinuch, distinct from a mother’s:

Tosafot Yeshanim Yoma 82a s.v. An eight or nine year old we train but with children…

This presents a difficulty for him, for we say in Nazir…A man makes a nazirite vow for his son. According to Resh Lakish, who said [this is] in order to educate him in mitzvot, his son yes, his daughter no, for he is not obligated to educate his daughter. And one can say that there it only applies specifically regarding nazir, but certainly regarding the rest of the mitzvot he [the father] is obligated to educate her…And Rav [Yitzchak (Ri Ha-zaken)] says that chinuch only applies to a father, but doesn't apply for another person …And the story of Queen Heleni who dwelled with her seven sons in the sukka, perhaps they had a father and he educated them in this, and even if they did not have a father, she educated them as a mere mitzva. [Reviewed] from the mouth of my teacher.

Tosafot Yeshanim present two explanations for how the case of Queen Heleni can fit with Ri’s view of a father as uniquely obligated. Either her sukka was built at the behest of the children’s father or “she educated them [her children] as a mere mitzva.”

The phrase "a mere mitzva" is subject to varying interpretations, and might mean “stringency.”[16]

III. Fathers Primary  Me’iri presents a different interpretation of how the discussion of the nazir affects our understanding of who is obligated in chinuch. He suggests that the nazir discussion, though it uses the term “chinuch,” does not really refer to standard chinuch obligations, because becoming a nazir is fully optional.

He thus views both mothers and daughters as subject to chinuch (a point that we’ll see more explicitly below in our discussion of prohibitions). However, he sees a father as having primary responsibility for a child’s chinuch in positive commandments when he is available:

Meiri Nazir 29a

Just as a man is obligated to educate his son in mitzvot,… so with his daughter he is obligated to educate her in what is appropriate for her as well, as was stated explicitly regarding fasting on Yom Kippur regarding their [children's] education for hours [fasting for part of the day]. And similarly, if they don’t have a father, the mother is obligated in this. And the intention is only to habituate the children in the mitzvot and to establish the matter of mitzvot in their hearts, each one according to what is suitable for them….And in any case, these matters are all regarding  mitzvot  that entail an obligation, but regarding mitzvot  that depend on a person’s desire and generosity of his heart, such as nazir,  there is no obligation of chinuch upon him. Rather, if he wants, he should act in the way that we explained and our mishna [about nazir, which is volitional] is not on account of chinuch…

IV. All Fully Obligated  Rav Avraham of Montpelier rules that both mothers and daughters are fully obligated in chinuch, without differentiating between them and fathers and sons:

Rav Avraham Min Ha-har Nazir 29b

…For Rabbi Yochanan thought that both a father and a mother are obligated to educate in mitzvot both a son and a daughter.

An inclusive approach also emerges from comments by Rashi. A baraita teaches that a man may slaughter the Pesach offering on behalf of his minor sons and daughters, which Rashi explains as a function of his obligation in chinuch for them:

Pesachim 88a

Our rabbis taught in a baraita: “A lamb for each home,” teaches that a person brings and slaughters on behalf of his minor son and daughter.

Rashi ad loc.

On behalf of - since it is incumbent upon him to educate his son and his daughter.

Elsewhere, Rashi writes that the obligation of chinuch falls on both mothers and fathers:

Rashi Chagiga 2a

Even though he [the minor] isn’t obligated on a Torah level - The sages placed [responsibility] upon his father and upon his mother to educate him in mitzvot.

In Practice

A number of authorities follow the view that obligation for chinuch does not fall on the mother, but that daughters may be subject to chinuch:[17]

Magen Avraham 343:1

His father is obligated. But his mother is not obligated, and so it is in Nazir 29 and in Terumat Ha-deshen 94. And the story of Heleni in Sukka 2, that she sat her sons in the sukka (see there), she was stringent upon herself (Responsa Maharam 200), see 616. And it implies in Nazir that he is not obligated to educate his daughter (see there). And in Tosafot Nazir they raised the difficulty of how is this different from Yom Kippur, that he is obligated to educate his daughter (see there) and it is possible that all mitzvot are similar to Yom Kippur and one must educate them…

Others follow the view that the mother is obligated in chinuch specifically when the father cannot fulfill chinuch obligations:

Eliya Rabba 640:4

He is obligated etc. And if he does not have a father, his mother is obligated to educate him, and if he also doesn’t have a mother, the beit din is obligated to educate him, and so regarding every positive commandment.

Mishna Berura follows the view that daughters are included, and takes care to cite the view that mothers are also obligated in chinuch:

Mishna Berura 343:2

But his father… - For even to educate his sons and daughters is incumbent upon him, as is written “educate the youth according to his way” and how much more so to separate them from a prohibition, which is incumbent on the father. And there are later authorities who maintain that the mitzva of chinuch is incumbent also on the mother.

Berachot

Chinuch for mitzvot includes chinuch for reciting berachot,[18] including birchot ha-mitzva, berachot recited prior to mitzva performance. Earlier, we mentioned that it is customary to educate girls in mitzvot that women of their communities perform voluntarily.

In many communities, women recite a beracha over voluntary mitzva performance. In these communities, it is customary to educate girls to recite the beracha when performing such mitzvot in the context of chinuch:

Rav David Auerbach, Halichot Bat Yisrael, 27:6

For those whose practice is in accordance with Rema’s view that a woman is permitted to recite a beracha over positive time-bound commandments [from which she is exempt]—it is correct to educate girls, too, to recite a beracha over the mitzvot, and so is the custom. Note 12: But the fundamental law is that there is no obligation to educate them [in berachot over voluntary mitzva performance], since even when they grow up. they will not be obligated in these mitzvot.

Negative Commandments

Until now, we've discussed chinuch for positive mitzvot, initiating children into reciting berachot, dwelling in the sukka, and so on. We also educate our children to refrain from prohibited activities, like eating non-kosher food or performing labor on Shabbat. In general, keeping children from doing something wrong, and inculcating what is off limits, can seem different from—and often more urgent than—introducing positive courses of action.

Indeed, an adult is not permitted to actively cause or instruct any child of any age to violate a prohibition:

Yevamot 114a

Come and learn: “Don’t eat them because they are detestable.” [I.e.] Don’t feed them, to warn adults regarding minors. Isn’t this that he [an adult] say to them [children]: “Don’t eat"? No, that they [adults] not feed him [a minor] directly. Come and learn: “Every soul among you shall not eat blood.” To warn the adults about minors. Isn’t this that they say to them: “Don’t eat”? No, that they not feed them directly. Come and learn: “Say and you shall say.” To warn adults about minors. Isn’t this that he says to them: “Don’t become impure”? No, that they not render them impure directly.

It makes intuitive sense that one should not willfully induct anyone’s children into behavior that will be prohibited to them. What about preventing children from violating a negative commandment of their own volition? Is this technically an aspect of chinuch? If so, is it unique to the parent, or also incumbent on the beit din (who represent the general public)?

In the passage from Tosafot Yeshanim that we excerpted above, Rav Eliezer of Metz is cited as maintaining that the specific mitzva of chinuch does not extend to teaching a child to refrain from prohibitions, and thus, that the processes of learning about positive and negative mitzvot are distinct.

However, Tosafot Yeshanim and Tosafot disagree with that position. Tosafot Yeshanim take the view that training a child about prohibitions is incumbent as a matter of chinuch, though incumbent only on the father:

Tosafot Yeshanim Yoma 82a

If you say, that which we say in every place, ‘a minor eating neveilot [meat that wasn’t ritually slaughtered], the beit din is not commanded to separate him.’ Now, we certainly educate him—is separating him from prohibitions in question? And Rav Eliezer of Metz says that chinuch is only applicable for performing a mitzva and not to separate [minors] from prohibition. And that which we call it chinuch in that we afflict him [a minor] on Yom Kippur is not separating from prohibition, that we separate him from eating, but rather it is chinuch that we educate him in the [positive] mitzva of “and you will afflict yourselves.” And Ri says that chinuch only applies to the father, but chinuch is not relevant for another person. Therefore they [the public] are not enjoined to separate him [the minor from prohibition].

Tosafot in Tractate Shabbat agree that training a child to desist from prohibition is a matter of chinuch. However, they maintain that non-family members are obligated in some aspects of chinuch along with the father, and thus in preventing another’s child from violating prohibitions:

Tosafot Shabbat 221a

For regarding a rabbinic prohibition, it is proven in ch. 14 of Yevamot (114a) that a beit din is not commanded to separate him [a minor from prohibition] and it seems that it is dealing with a minor who has not reached educability. For when he has reached educability, since one is obligated to educate him, how much more so that one must separate him [from prohibition] that he not perform a transgression…

The phrase “how much more so” here suggests that it is clear to Tosafot that the imperative to keep a child from transgressing is stronger than that of training him in positive mitzvot.

In practice, as above, halachic consensus is that no one may actively cause a child to act counter to a prohibition. Shulchan Aruch rules that only the father is further obligated to separate a child from prohibitions, as part of the obligation in chinuch. But Rema cites the more stringent view that once the minors reach educability, others, too, are obligated to prevent them from violating prohibitions. Mishna Berura adds that in his view the obligation of others only applies to Torah-level mitzvot, and not to rabbinic level mitzvot.[19]

Shulchan Aruch OC 343:1

A minor eating neveilot, a beit din is not commanded to separate him, but his father is commanded to castigate him to separate him (Rema: from Torah prohibitions), and to feed him directly is prohibited even in matters that are rabbinically prohibited. And thus it is prohibited to accustom him to violate Shabbat and holidays, and even regarding matters that are rabbinically prohibited. Rema: And there are those who say that all of this applies to a minor who has not reached educability, but if he has reached educability, we need to separate him (Tosafot Shabbat, Ch. 16). And there are those who say chinuch does not apply to a beit din, but rather to the father alone.

Those who follow the view that a mother is not obligated in chinuch would obligate her as one would the general public. Those who follow the view that she is obligated only when the father is unavailable would usually put the onus on the father. Those who follow the view that a mother is fully obligated in chinuch would obligate her here as well. Me’iri, for example, says this:

Meiri Nazir 29a

That which they [the sages] said, “a minor eating neveilot, a beit din is not commanded to separate him,” a father and mother are nevertheless commanded in this as part of the law of chinuch…

It is common practice for mothers to be no less scrupulous than fathers in preventing their children from violating prohibitions.

Another, related mitzva is that of reproof, in which a mother is considered obligated.

Kaf Ha-chayyim 225:14

The woman is also obligated to educate her son through reproof…

Stages

As we’ll discuss further in our upcoming piece on Bat Mitzva, the chinuch relationship changes when the child reaches maturity. Rosh rules that the technical obligation in chinuch for a given mitzva ends when the child’s full obligation in it begins:

Rosh (Talmudic commentary), Nazir 29b

For every mitzva that he [the child] is obligated in, the father is not obligated to educate him (le-chancho) in it.

Even so, as long as a parent exerts control over a child, there are Talmudic grounds for maintaining that some extra parental responsibility for rebuke persists:

Kiddushin 30a

Rava said to Rav Natan bar Ami [regarding the age at which parents should marry off a son]: While your hand is on the neck of your son, from sixteen until twenty-two. And some say: From eighteen to twenty-four. This is like the Tannaitic argument [regarding] ”educate a youth according to his way.” Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya [disagreed]. One said: From sixteen to twenty-two and one said: from eighteen to twenty-four.

Up to this point, we’ve seen the verse in Mishlei applied to minors. Here, it is used in a looser sense to indicate that some aspect of chinuch, even if not the formal obligation, remains in place through the teenage years and young adulthood, as an extension of the general obligation to reprove others.[20]

Beginning

At what point, though, does the obligation in chinuch begin? A baraita indicates that the age varies from mitzva to mitzva and from child to child:

Sukka 42a-b

Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: 'A minor who knows how to shake, is obligated in lulav. To wrap himself, is obligated in tzitzit. To care for tefillin, his father purchases him tefillin. He knows how to speak, his father teaches him Torah and Shema.' What is Torah? Rav Himnuna said: “Moshe commanded us in Torah, an inheritance of the community of Ya’akov” (Devarim 33:4). What is reciting Shema? The first verse…If he can eat an olive’s worth of roasted [meat], we slaughter the Pesach sacrifice on his behalf…

The timing of chinuch in these examples depends on a variety of factors, each related to the nature of the specific mitzva involved: motor skills, verbal abilities, eating skills, or discernment. Earlier, we saw that a boy’s need for his mother was a factor in determining the parameters of chinuch for sukka. Drawing on this baraita, Tosafot explain that the onset of chinuch depends on the child’s developmental readiness to learn about a given mitzva.

Tosafot Sukka 28b s.v. Kan be-katan she-higi'a le-chinuch

Now reaching educability, which we refer to everywhere, not all [cases] are equal. Rather each [mitzva] as appropriate, for here we say [regarding sukka] it’s when he does not need his mother, and regarding chagiga—when he is able to go up [to Yerushalayim], and in the end of Sukka ch. 3 (42a) regarding lulav, when he knows how to shake it. And regarding tzitzit when he knows how to wrap himself, and regarding Torah when he knows how to speak.

Mishna Berura typically considers a child from the age of five or six to be considered educable to the extent that chinuch obligations would apply: 

Mishna Berura 128:123

…The times of education which are already at five, already at six [years]…

In practice, we tend to begin chinuch for many positive mitzvot much earlier to foster children’s religious development as soon as we can. Rav Yeshaya Horovitz writes that we should begin educating children from when they can speak, though he does not suggest that this is obligatory:

Shelah, Sha’ar Ha-otiyot, Dalet: Derech Eretz

One must accustom and educate him [a minor] in good and righteous attributes from when he can speak…and should begin with him from age two or three years, to guide him in everything. And he should begin to guide him from when he is little for two reasons: First, because our sages said: “Youth is a crown of roses” (Shabbat 152a). What a child acquires in his soul in his youth remains thus in his nature all his days…Second, for when a father begins to reprove his son…then he [the son] will always be used to having awe of the father….

Some mitzvot, however, require an extra level of understanding so that the obligation of chinuch begins later than six years. Chinuch regarding negative mitzvot is usually obligatory even earlier than five years, from the stage at which the child can understand that something is off limits:

Mishna Berura 343:3

Know that the measure of chinuch in positive mitzvot is for every child according to his acuity and knowledge, with every matter as appropriate, such as [a minor] who knows of the matter of Shabbat, one should accustom him to hear kiddush and havdala. [A minor] who knows to wrap himself in accordance with Halacha is obligated in tzitzit and as above in 17. And similarly with every such thing, whether a positive mitzva on a Torah level or rabbinically. But chinuch in negative mitzvot, whether on a Torah level or rabbinic, is for every child with understanding, who understands when we say to him that this is prohibited to do or to eat. But a child who lacks any understanding, his father is not obligated to forcibly prevent him from eating prohibited foods or from violating Shabbat even regarding a Torah level prohibition, since he doesn’t understand the matter, from which he is preventing and keeping him, at all. And so if he is a kohen he does not need to take him [his minor son] out of a house with impurity inside it unless he has understanding, then it is a mitzva on his father to take him out in order to separate him from prohibition on account of the mitzva of chinuch. But to bring him into a house with impurity within it, and similarly to present him with other prohibitions, is prohibited, even with a child who does not yet have understanding…

Parents often ask when it is correct to begin different aspects of chinuch, from reciting berachot, to tzitzit, to dressing in line with dat yehudit. While taking into account the above rules of thumb and common custom, Halacha invites a parent to look carefully at the interaction between a given mitzva and the developmental readiness of a specific child.

To have the insight to educate our children optimally, we need to develop our own wisdom and fear of God. In the beginning of the seventeenth century, Torah teacher Rivka bat Meir published a work of derashot and prayers, including extensive discussions of chinuch. In this excerpt, she reminds us of this point.

Rivkah bat Meir, Meneket Rivkah, Frauke von Rhoden ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2008), 179-182.

"...[E]very woman should make sure that she herself guides her daughter to perform good deeds...We also learn of our mother Rebekah that Eliezer saw in her many good deeds that he did not see in the other young women. He praised God, blessed be His name, that he led him on the right path, and sent him a good match who had the virtues of our Patriarch Abraham, among them, charity and hospitality...We can learn from this how one should raise a daughter...[A] woman, who merited raising her children in her household to Torah and good deeds, and proper conduct, and who wishes to fulfill her obligations to God, blessed be his name, and to all people--such a woman requires fear of God and wisdom."

What should we keep in mind when engaged in chinuch regarding women and mitzvot?

Just as with other aspects of chinuch, learning about women and mitzvot is a mix of the formal mitzva, care with prohibitions when a child can understand them, and developmentally appropriate introductions to obligations.

A few points to keep in mind:

I. Learning about women’s halachic obligations is important for children of any gender. For example, it is no less important to help shape a boy’s understanding of the language of the beracha of “she-lo asani isha” than a girl’s. As we see in so many places on Deracheha, a community’s attitudes and knowledge can have an important effect on how religiously engaged its women and girls are and in what ways. This starts with boys and girls being taught carefully about women’s mitzva obligations and practices.

II. Children learn by example from an early age, and not just when we have in mind that we are teaching them. Children notice all kinds of subtle cues about our priorities, such as whether female family members make an effort to answer or make a zimmun, or whether the men of a family wait for women to return to the table before they recite it; whether women of the family make an effort to daven when possible, or whether men of the family speak quietly when a female family member is davening nearby.

III. As kids get older, they are bound to have questions. This is healthy and positive. Adults don’t need to have all the answers, but can teach children to be life-long learners by taking their questions, thoughts, and feelings seriously, treating them with respect, and exploring them together. To facilitate this, adults can avail themselves of educational resources (like this site). It is most effective for an adult to mix textual sources with personal perspectives in a developmentally appropriate manner.

The more we can build awareness of our own knowledge and feelings on sensitive subjects, and the more we can enhance them where we perceive them lacking, the more spiritual influence we can have. Educating children on these topics begins with educating ourselves.