Question: Must a father teach his young child to refrain from eating in part on Yom Kippur?
Short Answer: Yes. According to the Rambam, there is a chinuch obligation to teach a child to refrain from violating prohibitions, even if the child will not fully refrain from violating the prohibition.
Explanation:
I. The Source
The Mishnah (Yoma 82a), according to Rashi, rules that a child does not fast on Yom Kippur but is taught to fast for a few hours one or two years before bar or bas mitzvah. The Gemara clarifies that the exact age when a child begins partially fasting depends upon the strength of each individual child.
The Rambam (Peirush HaMishnayos, Yoma 8:3) cites a source for this obligation to teach children to fast. The law is based on the pasuk in Mishlei (22:6): “Chanoch la’naar al pi darko” – that a child should be trained according to his ability.
II. Rav Soloveitchik’s Questions
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt”l (cited in the new Batei Yosef, Yamim Nora’im, pp. 98-99), asks two questions on the Rambam.
First, the Rambam in numerous places – such as Hilchos K’rias Sh’ma (4:1), T’filin (4:13), Tzitzis (3:9), Chametz U’Matzah (6:10), Sukkah (6:1), and Lulav (7:19) – codifies the obligation on a father to be m’chaneich (teach) his children. Yet in none of these sources does the Rambam cite the pasuk of “Chanoch la’naar…” Rather, the Rambam cites that pasuk only in Hilchos Maachalos Asuros (17:28) with respect to a father’s obligation to make his child holy by preventing the child from performing an aveirah. Asks Rav Soloveitchik: Why does the Rambam not cite “Chanoch la’naar…” by the other references to the father’s obligation to teach his children to perform mitzvos?
Second, the Gemara (Sukkah 42a) writes that a father is obligated to teach his son to shake lulav only from the age that the son knows how to shake lulav. In other words, a father has a mitzvah of chinuch only if the child is fully able to fulfill the mitzvah with all its halachic requirements and intricacies. Asks Rav Soloveitchik: Since an adult must completely refrain from eating on Yom Kippur, why is a father obligated to teach his child to only partially refrain from eating on Yom Kippur? Because this does not teach the child to fulfill the mitzvah with all its halachic requirements and intricacies, how can this fulfill chinuch?
III. Two Dinim in Chinuch
Rav Soloveitchik answers that the Rambam understands there are two separate obligations within the mitzvah of chinuch. First, the father is obligated to teach his child all positive commandments (mitzvos asei). This obligation is not learned from “Chanoch la’naar…,” but rather is rabbinic in nature. To fulfill this obligation, the child must fulfill the mitzvah with all its halachic requirements and intricacies. Second, “Chanoch la’naar…” teaches that the father is obligated to prevent his child from transgressing a lo saaseh (prohibition) in order to infuse k’dushah into his child. For this obligation, the father need not completely prevent the child from performing the prohibition; partial prevention is sufficient.
Thus, explains Rav Soloveitchik, the Rambam brings “Chanoch la’naar…” only regarding the obligation on the father to teach his child to refrain from the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur. This obligation exists regardless of whether the child will be taught to fully or partially refrain from eating. However, the Rambam does not cite “Chanoch la’naar…” by the positive commandments.
IV. Two Opinions in Tosafos
Rav Soloveitchik continues that the Rambam’s idea – that there is a chinuch obligation (from “Chanoch la’naar…”) on a father to prevent his son from partially eating on Yom Kippur – is actually a dispute between two opinions of Tosafos Y’shanim.
Tosafos Y’shanim (Yoma 82a) asks: What is the point of chinuch to prevent a son from partially eating on Yom Kippur? Don’t we have a rule that Beis Din does not prevent a child from performing an aveirah? Tosafos Y’shanim cites Rabbi Eliezer miMitz, who answers that the chinuch here is not to prevent the child from violating the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur; rather, it is chinuch for the child to fulfill the positive commandment of “V’inisem es nafshoseichem,” afflicting oneself on Yom Kippur. Thus, according to Rabbi Eliezer miMitz, there is no mitzvah of chinuch for a father to prevent his child from violating a prohibition.
Tosafos Y’shanim also cites “Rabbeinu,” who answers differently: Even though there is no obligation on Beis Din to prevent a child from violating an aveirah such as eating on Yom Kippur, there is a chinuch obligation on a father to prevent his child from violating an aveirah. Thus, according to Rabbeinu, there is a mitzvah of chinuch for a father to prevent his child from violating a prohibition.
As explained above, the Rambam agrees with the second opinion of Tosafos (Rabbeinu): There is a mitzvah of chinuch for a father to prevent his child from violating a prohibition. This mitzvah is likely derived from “Chanoch la’naar…” and is fulfilled even if the son is only partially prevented from violating the prohibition. See Beis Yosef (Orach Chayim 343), who understands the Rambam this way, as well.
Rav Soloveitchik further suggests that the Rambam possibly agrees with Rabbi Eliezer miMitz (the first opinion cited in Tosafos): While there is no regular mitzvah of chinuch on prohibitions, it is possible that Rabbi Eliezer miMitz agrees with the Rambam that the second obligation of chinuch, learned from “Chanoch la’naar…,” does apply and requires the father to prevent his child from violating a prohibition.
V. Whose Obligation?
There is a machlokes between Rashi and Tosafos, generally, whether the mitzvah of chinuch is the father’s obligation (i.e., to teach his child) or the child’s obligation (i.e., to be taught). Rashi (B’rachos 48a) holds that a child is not obligated in bentching, even rabbinically, as the obligation of chinuch is on the father. Tosafos (ibid.) disagrees and holds that the mitzvah of chinuch is incumbent on the child; i.e., he is obligated rabbinically to ensure that he is taught the mitzvos.
Rav Soloveitchik concludes that this machlokes is essentially a restatement of the two chinuch obligations according to the Rambam. The chinuch obligation to teach positive commandments to the child is incumbent on the child, while the chinuch obligation (from “Chanoch la’naar…”) to teach refraining from violating prohibitions is incumbent on the father.
Rabbi Ephraim Glatt, Esq. is the Associate Rabbi at the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills, and he is a Partner at McGrail & Bensinger LLP, specializing in commercial litigation. Questions? Comments? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
