Transcript

Take a look a little bit in Hilchos Talmud Torah.

נשים ועבדים פטורים מתלמוד תורה אבל קטן אביו חייב ללמדו תורה שנאמר ולמדתם אותם את בניכם לדבר בם ואין אשה חייבת ללמד את בנה שכל החייב ללמוד חייב ללמד.

So a father has a chiyuv d'oraisa to teach his son, katan, to teach him Torah. So itachen a sevara's the Mishna says in Nazir on כ"ח עמוד ב' that האיש מדיר את בנו נזיר that a father can impose a neder neziros on his son, on bno katan. The Gemara has a machlokes Rabbi Yochanan ve-Reish Lakish what the basis of האיש מדיר את בנו נזיר is. Rabbi Yochanan says הלכה למשה מסיני. Reish Lakish says it's chinuch, mitam chinuch. So according to Rabbi Yochanan the Gemara says it's good. So that's what the הלכה למשה מסיני said that האיש מדיר את בנו. But if it's, you can't ask any kashas, why it's bno, why it's ha-ish and not האישה מדירה את בנה. That's what the הלכה למשה מסיני said. But according to Reish Lakish that it's, that it's chinuch, so האיש מדיר את בנו ולא האישה מדירה את בנה, so why is that? The Gemara says because the chiyuv chinuch is al ha-av, not al ha-eim. So itachen that the pshat is, it's tmueh me-od first of all, tmueh me-od. But itachen the pshat is that Chazal were mesaken k'ein d'oraisa of talmud torah, that just as by talmud torah is

אביו חייב ללמדו תורה ואין האישה חייבת ללמד את בנה.

So that was the model that Chazal used for chiyuv chinuch. The emes is that the Meshech Chochma I think says the vort already.

הנה חינוך מצוה לבנים במצות עשה לא נזכר רק עשה דולמדתם את בניכם הוא בתלמוד תורה ואמרו בנזיר דף כ"ט דהאב חייב לחנך בנו במצות ואין האישה חייבת לחנך בנה במצות.

Lichora that's what he means.

פירוש דהוה כמו מצות עשה של תלמוד תורה דאשה פטורה.

So this is the k'ein d'oraisa for chinuch. The emes is that itachen it's even more than that. It's more than just stam that it's k'ein d'oraisa. It's like this. Kimdumei that Reb Chaim said that we make a mistake in understanding what it means that chinuch is mi-derabbanan. We think that means more than it really does. Min ha-torah a father has to teach his son. A father has to teach his son. Chiyuv talmud torah whenever a person, let's say a person is just lomed himself, so we know from Pirkei Avos that a person has to be לומד על מנת לעשות that it's lacking in the limmud if it's not al m'nas la-asos. So says Reb Chaim, so הוא הדין למלמד. Ve-la-melamed also has to be al m'nas la-asos. It's one mitzvah according to the Rambam. Limmud u'melamed the Rambam counts as one mitzvah. Keshem that a person has to be לומד על מנת לעשות, he also has to be מלמד על מנת לעשות. So if that's the case, so the emes is that within the d'oraisa of חייב אדם ללמד את בנו תורה there is a chiyuv chinuch there, hayos that the chiyuv lelamed has to be al m'nas la-asos. So lemaise practically, so what do you call it, what's the word that ללמד את בנו תורה על מנת לעשות is lechanech, is lechanech? So what does it mean that chinuch is only miderabbanan? Ein hachi nami, so it comes out that an awful lot of chinuch is de'oraysa according to this vort. What it means is chinuch miderabbanan. So the fact that it's the father's, the fact that it's the father's chiyuv to stand over the son and see to it that he davens before sof daled shaos and that he davens minchah in the afternoon, that day by day, the חיוב ללמד על מנת לעשות is more general. And the chiyuv chinuch is again that mideyom beyomo. Maybe the ללמד על מנת לעשות wouldn't require the father to buy tefillin, maybe he could tell his son to go mow a few lawns and shovel a few paths and buy tefillin himself, and the chiyuv tefillin is that אביו לוקח לו תפילין. But the chinuch miderabbanan in the emes is just being mashlim, it's just a hosafah on the de'oraysa. So then it certainly makes sense that the de'oraysa model for chinuch is going to be the chiyuv talmud torah because the emes is a lot of chinuch already is contained in the de'oraysa of חייב ללמד את בנו תורה. With this, yitachen, the shaylah is like this, this mahalach again that the model antecedent, whatever the right word is, the background to what chazal tell us in Nazir that ha'ish chayav lechanech but ha'ishah not, is this din by talmud torah. So lichora, does that depend upon the following: Tosafos in Nazir, so again the Gemara in Nazir has two diyukim in the Mishnah. It says האיש מדיר את בנו, ha'ish velo ha'ishah, and beno velo bito. So according to Reish Lakish that האיש מדיר את בנו is chiyuv chinuch, so then it seems like the Gemara in Nazir is telling us that there's no חיוב לחנך את בתו. That's what it seems like in the Gemara. So Tosafos asks a kasha from the Mishnah in Yoma about tinokos mechanchen le'shaos, it's clear that it's not only boys under bar mitzvah, but it's also girls under bas mitzvah. So Tosafos says yesh lachalek. Yesh lachalek. Apparently it must have been 12:15 or something, or 2:30, and then they had to make 2:33 Minchah, and Tosafos does not spell out what the chillek is. So the Magen Avraham seems to be mesuppek whether the chillek is that Nazir is the exception and that the rule, the norm is that האב חייב לחנך את בתו in every other context but not Nazir, or whether Yom Kippur is the exception. To argue that Yom Kippur should be the exception, the emes is that forgetting the kasha from Nazir, there's a different kasha on the Mishnah in Yoma, on the din in Yoma about mechanchen lishaos. And that kasha is the following: The beraisa at the end of Lulav Hagazul, when it talks about the shiur chinuch for different mitzvos, says that קטן היודע לנענע חייב בלולב. So Rav Chaim is medayek that the Gemara says in Pesachim the first perek that by lulav is mida'agbei nafik bei, that ni'nu'im are not me'akev the mitzvas lulav. Just ulakachtem lachem, if a person picks up the lulav, he's already yotzei ulakachtem lachem. The ni'nu'im are not me'akev. Mida'agbei nafik bei. So if that's the case. Clearly yodei'a lenanea is going to be a somewhat later stage than יודע ליטול את הלולב. So why do we hold off with the chinuch until he's yodei'a lenanea? It should be from once he's yodeia litol. So Rav Chaim says you see from the Gemara that there's no chiyuv chinuch until a person can be until the katan is capable of being mkayem hamitzvah b'shleimus. We're not being mechanech for pshurim, for b'di'eved, we're being mechanech for lechatchila. And that's gufeh part of chinuch is to be mechanech for lechatchila, not for b'di'eved. So the shaileh is so how does the mishna in Yoma? There's no obviously a person is not being mkayem hamitzvah b'shleimus by eating breakfast an hour later than normally. So itachen, itachen that according to this mahalach, leaving aside the shaileh about bito, that it's muchach minei ubei anyway that the mishna in Yoma is not the general din of chinuch of kol hatorah kula, but it's a special din, special din. Possibly smuchim l'kach, possibly trafta d'kach depending upon how you're mdayek, but possibly smuchim l'kach that the mishna in Yoma when it says the din about mechanchen osom, so then the mishna in Yoma says a lashon כדי שיהיו רגילים במצוות. So elsewhere when the din of chinuch appears in mishna and baraisa, so Chazal don't explain what the rationale is. So itachen now that according to this mahalach, again one tzad of the Magen Avraham's safek in Tosafos in Nazir, and what lichora is muchach על פי רב חיים. And the Netziv says the same vort about chinuch that it's for the mitzvah b'shleimus. So itachen that the כדי שיהיו רגילים במצוות is that the mishna is taka telling us this is a different din. This isn't the regular din of chinuch of kol hatorah kula, so there's no kashas. You can't ask a kasha ai it's not the mitzvah b'shleimus, it's a special din Chazal introduced over here. And hu hadin, hu hatam, you couldn't ask a kasha ai but doesn't it say in Nazir that a av is חייב לחנך את בנו, not חייב לחנך את בתו? So that would be al hatzad that what Tosafos means when they say yesh l'chaleik badavar is that Yom Kippur is the exception. The Nazir is the norm and Yom Kippur is the exception. The Magen Avraham's maskana is not like that tzad. The Magen Avraham is more noted to say that it's Nazir that it's Nazir which is the exception, right? Not Yom Kippur is the exception, but Nazir is the exception, and that the av is חייב לחנך את בתו. Is חייב לחנך את בתו. But ela mai Nazir is an exception. Aderaba, the whole din chinuch by Nazir is very mechudash anyway. Mechudash anyway. Elsewhere chinuch is something that a person will be chayav lich'sheyigdal. He's not he's never going to be chayav to become a nazir lich'sheyigdal. So no the din of nazir is mechudash and Yom Kippur is the norm and that the av is חייב לחנך את בתו. So the shaileh is if you say like that, which is what the Magen Avraham says, the Meshech Chochma maybe we'll maybe we'll come back to Meshech Chochma there in Parshas Vayeira also goes with that mahalach, and that obviously is what we assume l'halacha. So then does this does this vort about that Talmud Torah is the model for the fact that the chiyuv chinuch is al ha'av and not al ha'em. So does that vort still is that still cogent? Because lichora according to that model so av is חייב ללמד את בנו תורה, he's not חייב ללמד את בתו תורה. So again so hniach according to the other tzad in Tosafos and the vort certainly stands lichora. But according to the the tzad which again which we do accept l'halacha, which the Magen Avraham is more noted to that it's Nazir which is the exception, but the norm is that the father is חייב לחנך את בתו. Ela mai so the Meshech Chochma doesn't say why but he... He clearly thinks that that it is consistent. Even though he's notte again like the Magen Avraham, he still thinks that it's modeled on the chiyuv Talmud Torah. And it's not such a it's not such a it's not so shver that it requires an elaborate explanation, just to be pointed out. But beyond that, the emess is according to what we were talking about lefi Rav Chaim, it's true even if the d'Oraisa is only hove legabei b'no, but hayos that you already have chinuch contained in a mitzvah d'Oraisa, so even if again it's the even if it's mi'd'Rabbanan that it's being nischadeish that it's legabei bito as well, it still makes a lot of sense. It's still very mistaver that that remains k'ein d'Oraisa and that remains the model for chiyuv chinuch. Okay. The Meshech Chochmah has something which again practically overlaps considerably with what Rav Chaim says in terms of that when we talk about chinuch being mi'd'Rabbanan, doesn't mean the entire institution of chinuch and that min HaTorah there's no basically Or Sameach says that the pasuk of

כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו לעשות צדקה ומשפט ושמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט

he says this is the makor for chinuch in the Torah. Again, so what does it mean chinuch mi'd'Rabbanan? Again it means the detail of בכל עת ובכל שעה but that's the d'Rabbanan. But the general the general chinuch so Rav Meir Simcha says comes from the pasuk of ki yedativ and that's why he's again notte to the Magen Avraham because ve'es beiso acharov means the entire household, banim u'banos. Okay. So again we're back to halacha aleph.

נשים ועבדים פטור מתלמוד תורה אבל קטן אביו חייב ללמדו תורה שנאמר ולמדתם אותם את בניכם לדבר בם.

So there is a mashma'us here in the Rambam. The aval is seems to be a little bit imprecise, no? נשים ועבדים פטור מתלמוד תורה. The emess is a katan is also patur mi'Talmud Torah. Katan is patur from all mitzvos, Talmud Torah included. But the only thing is אביו חייב ללמדו תורה. So it's not really the contrast is not really precise, right? The contrast should be lu yehei that the katan himself was chayav, so then it would be a very clear contrast. But hayos that the katan himself is not is not chayav, so the the aval doesn't seem to be totally totally precise. Okay, it's not the not the worst kasha in the world. But yitachen Rav Shlomo Zalman has I think it's in the second cheilek of Minchas Shlomo and he bein hayeter he talks specifically directly about katan. The yesod that he's talking about the question that this is one form of the question that many raise, assuming like the Ba'alei haTosafos that the chiyuv chinuch is al hakatan, meaning that the katan is mechuyav b'davar mi'd'Rabbanan as a result of chinuch. It's not only al ha'av. It's certainly al ha'av, but but according to Tosafos it also means that the katan is mechuyav b'davar mi'd'Rabbanan against the Ramban. So dinim d'Rabbanan have their makor in what, in lo sasuru. Where does the why is the katan bound by the authority of Chazal to say that he should be chayav in a derabanan? That's a kasha that that many ask. So Rav Shlomo Zalman says that if a person knows something is retzon Hashem, so then he's mechuyav to do it. Mechuyav to do it. If a person knows that something is retzon Hashem, so there's nothing to be done. There's no reason to deliberate any further. A person is mechuyav to do it. Mimeila, heyos that the Torah says when Chazal tell us something, so the chiyuv to listen to Chazal, again, even if someone is not בכלל שאל אביך ויגדך, is not bichlal asso, but the chiyuv to do what is being revealed to us, communicated to us, taught to us is retzon Hashem, so that is its own mechayev. A person doesn't have to be bichlal asso or bichlal she'al avicha. And that's true for any bar mada, not in a technical ben yud gimmel or bas yud bais sense, but in simple understanding. And he says I think meforash there in that teshuvah that a katan who's old enough to understand that his father's being mechanech him to keep Shabbos, so he says so even if the father's not around, the shayla is like this, let's say you hold the chiyuv chinuch is al ha'av not al haben. And the father's not around. So can the katan, can he, is there anything wrong with a katan writing on Shabbos? A katan will write on Shabbos. It's the father's chiyuv, it's not my chiyuv. He's not here so I'm not being machshil him, I'm not gonna get him all all worked up. So the katan he'll write on Shabbos. Rav Shlomo Zalman says absolutely wrong. He says if a katan will come and ask, you tell him it's assur for him to do. Ai, but the chiyuv chinuch is al ha'av not al haben? He says ee nami, says so he is not a mechuyav badavar technically that he can be motzi someone else with Megillah, that he can be motzi someone else with Bircas Hamazon. But once the katan knows why is the father mechuyav in chinuch? Because bekatnuso he should be trained, he should be keeping Shabbos. So then he knows that it's retzon Hashem that he should be that he should be keeping Shabbos. And therefore even shelo bifnei aviv, שלא בפני שום אדם, so even according to the Ramban, the katan has to comply with dinei chinuch. That's what Rav Shlomo Zalman says. Every so so according to Rav Shlomo Zalman once there's a chiyuv on the father to teach his son Torah, the emes is that translates to a degree, to a degree, into a chiyuv on the so the shayla is it's the father's so what so the son is he's he's nine years old. So it's my father's headache. So if he can't find me, so that's his problem, or better yet it won't be his problem, oines rachmana patrei, and I'll go to the park and play ball. So the emes is according to Rav Shlomo Zalman once you have his yesod, so then the chiyuv al ha'av again bemida, to a degree, translates into a chiyuv on the son as well. So then the aval is takeh very precise that the חיוב על האב ללמד את בנו תורה translates again to a degree, in a certain sense to a chiyuv on the son lilmod Torah as well. Rav Chaim's he'arah about why the Rambam begins with the chiyuv lelamed Torah, why didn't he begin with halacha ches of כל איש מישראל חייב בתלמוד תורה, why not begin first with the chiyuv lilmod and then talk about lelamed? So Rav Chaim says because the ikkar of the mitzvah of lilmod u'lelamed is the lelamed. And then that's why the Rambam begins Hilkhos Talmud Torah with the chiyuv of the lelamed. So the... so it's like this. Sorry, just one minute. Until when this chiyuv ללמד את בנו תורה? So until when does it continue? So in Derech Sichah I think it says that the Steipler used to learn with Reb Chaim Kanievsky when I don't know exactly what the age difference is but the Steipler was 80 and Reb Chaim Kanievsky was 60 or something so he was still... he was still being mekayem the mitzvah of ולמדתם אותם את בניכם. Okay, that's a chiddush on... on several fronts. But lemaise the... the lashon of Rambam is אבל קטן אביו חייב ללמדו תורה. So you could say that the chiddush is afillu katan, meaning afillu beno katan. Even though again even... even at a stage when when he has no chiyuv so... so the father has the chiyuv to initiate it and... and to see that it happens. But the Rambam doesn't really say it. So itachen that the Rambam takeh means katan for one of two reasons. The halakha in halakha zayin the Rambam says

היה מנהג המדינה ליקח מלמד תינוקות שכר נותן לו שכרו וחייב ללמדו בשכר עד שיקרא תורה שבכתב כולה.

That a father's chiyuv lelamed his beno Torah means that he has to pay the melammed as well. But he has to pay the melammed to teach Torah Shebikhtav. So what about so beyond Torah Shebikhtav he has no chiyuv to pay but he has a chiyuv to teach his son or not? Maybe his chiyuv is to teach his son Torah Shebikhtav and then it's going to be the son's chiyuv on his own to go master Torah Shebe'al Peh. So that's a diyun between the Kessef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh. The Kessef Mishneh says here in halakha zayin משמע לי דמכאן ואילך אין חייב ללמדו אפילו בחינם. So the Kessef Mishneh sounds like that wherever the father has a chiyuv lelamed his beno so if he's not doing it himself for whatever reason he's getting a melammed so then he takeh has a chiyuv to pay and the reason he only has to pay for a melammed for Torah Shebikhtav is because that's all he has... that's all he has a... a chiyuv to teach his son. I don't think the Steipler held like that lichora that's... muchach not like that. But that's what it says in the... in the Kessef Mishneh. So then itachen that if a... that bederekh klal it's not going to be the case that a father will still have a chiyuv beyond if he's going to start teaching him misheyachol ledaber so then he'll... he'll have fulfilled the chiyuv bekatanuso. But be'emess says, that's sort of an ukimta pshat in the Rambam. So let's say the father was unaware of the chiyuv to teach his son Torah until his son was already bar mitzvah, and because of that he never taught his son anything, so then lichora it should be that even at this point he should have the chiyuv. And that's not really indicated in the Rambam either. So the alternative, if the Rambam taka means only katon, the alternative is the following. Is that a Gittin? Kiddushin perhaps? Thank you. Thank you. כל מצוות הבן על האב אנשים חייבים ונשים פטורות. So מצוות הבן על האב, what do מצוות הבן על האב refer to?

מאי כל מצוות הבן על האב? אילימא כל מצוות דמיחייב ברא למיעבד לאבא

- if it means the filial obligation, the obligation that the son has to the parents, nashim peturos? It says כל מצוות הבן על האב אנשים חייבים ונשים פטורות. Is that true? An isha is also chayaves in kibbud av va'eim?

אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר כל מצוות הבן המוטלות על האב לעשות לבנו.

So מצוות הבן על האב really means the mitzvos incumbent upon the father clappei haben. So a funny lashon. But it seems to mean what the Gemara's hava amina says. That seems to be the simpler lashon. Okay, so it's not a kashya. That's why you don't only learn Mishnayos, but you have to learn Gemara also. Raya ledavar. Okay. Yitachen kadelahal: the Minchas Chinuch says, so what are these מצוות הבן על האב? למולו לפדותו וללמדו תורה. The next one, it's not a trup I'm about to say, lehasiyo isha. Shaileh's like this: in each of these cases, let's say a father was not למול את בנו בקטנותו, a father was not לפדות את בנו בקטנותו. When the son becomes bar mitzvah, is it still the father's chiyuv? Or at this point it's no longer the father's chiyuv, now the chiyuv is ne'etack el haben? Would milas bno hagadol be me'akavto from korban pesach? Milas bno hakaton is me'akavto milaasos hapesach. What about milas bno? What about milas bno? So the Minchas Chinuch raises the shaileh in mitzvas milah. And I think he says that by milah it's a machlokes the Rambam and the Tosfos. He has a diyuk in Hilchos Korban Pesach that the Rambam says מילת עבדיו והזכרים ובניו הקטנים is me'akavto. And then he has a meforash Sefer Hachinuch by pidyon haben. If you say that the chiyuv of the father to be mol or be podeh his son is only bekatnuso, is only bekatnuso, and then when the son reaches bar mitzvah if for some reason it hasn't been done, the chiyuv is נעתק מן האב אל הבן, so then lichora the pshat in מצוות הבן על האב, again the Mishnah is speaking in a way that's appropriate for most of the mitzvos that are being included in this list, means that be'etzem these are mitzvos haben. Be'etzem mitzvas milah belongs to the ben. Veharraya, when he'll become bar mitzvah it's going to be his mitzvah, not the father's mitzvah. The מצוות פדיון הבן באמת ultimately will be a mitzvas haben, ultimately will be a mitzvas haben. Bekatnuso, so the Torah says, but we don't want to wait, we don't want to wait. Bekatnuso the mitzvas haben is mutales al ha'av, is mutales al ha'av. Okay, I mean either way, whether that's what the words in the Mishna mean, but either way the Minchas Chinuch says according to the Rambam that's what's true legabei milah. So yitachen that the Rambam understands again, maybe that's, maybe according to the Rambam that's how we should teitch the phrase in the Mishna, maybe not, but yitachen that there might be something similar by Talmud Torah, that the same way mitzvas milah, so the chiyuv is only al ha'av bekatnusa. It's a mitzvas haben which is mutteles al ha'av all time that he is still a katan, but when he is a gadol, so then it becomes the child's obligation himself. So yitachen that that's what I'm saying הוא הדין הוא הטעם לגבי מצות תלמוד תורה. And that's why it would be davka davka davka beno katan. Okay.