Parshas Vayeira
1. Concerning the obligation of chinuch, training children [in the mitzvos], it is stated in many places that "chinuch is Rabbinic," but that by Torah law there is no obligation of chinuch. This requires explanation:
Since by Torah law, the moment a minor becomes an adult he is immediately obligated to fulfill all the mitzvos of the Torah, then if there is no Torah obligation to prepare him for the time of his adulthood, he will transgress the mitzvos of the Torah through lack of knowledge and lack of preparation!
The simple answer would be that this is included in the general mitzvah of Torah study: "It is a positive mitzvah of the Torah for a father to teach his young son Torah . . . as it says, 'And you shall teach them to your children, to speak of them.'" As the Ramban explains on the verse "And you shall teach them diligently to your children": "Since He commanded the mitzvos as an eternal statute for your generations . . . we are thus commanded that our children should know the mitzvos, and how will they know them if we do not teach them?" Accordingly, there is a Torah obligation of chinuch as a preparation for fulfilling the mitzvos in adulthood. On the contrary, this is the very foundation of the general mitzvah of teaching Torah to one's children, as mentioned above.
However, by Torah law the mitzvah is "that our children should know the mitzvos"; the Sages then came and instituted that there is also a mitzvah to train the child in the actual performance of the mitzvos. As the Rishonim write, this is in order "to accustom the child to the mitzvah . . . so that he will be trained and accustomed to mitzvos," "to lead him so that he will be drawn after his habit when he grows up," as it says, "Train a child according to his way; even when he grows old he will not depart from it."
But seemingly this is not sufficient. For knowledge of the mitzvos itself is not enough to ensure that he will actually fulfill them when he grows up — as is proven from the very fact that the Sages obligated training him in the actual performance of the mitzvos so that he become accustomed to them. Thus, by Torah law, when the minor grows up and reaches the age of thirteen years and one day, he lacks the complete preparation and readiness needed to actually fulfill all the mitzvos properly as an adult. For if the child has grown accustomed to behaving without observing Torah and mitzvos, then even if he knows (in his intellect and thought) the laws of all the mitzvos, it is impossible that in an instant he will begin to fulfill them all properly in practice (contrary to his nature and his previous habits).
2. It could seemingly be said that there is indeed a Torah obligation of chinuch [and not only in knowledge of the mitzvos]. To preface:
When the Torah obligates the fulfillment of a mitzvah — for example, putting on tefillin — it is obvious that the obligation does not apply only to someone who has a pair of tefillin in front of him which he is obligated to put on. Rather, the mitzvah obligates him to do everything necessary to obtain tefillin, and if he did not make the effort, and as a result did not put them on, he has neglected a positive mitzvah. The same applies to a number of mitzvos: one is obligated by Torah law to do everything necessary so that he will be able to fulfill the mitzvah. In the words of the Rambam: "There are positive mitzvos which a person is obligated to strive after and pursue until he performs them, such as tefillin, sukkah, lulav and shofar." And although the obligation itself is only a particular act, such as putting on tefillin or taking the lulav, nevertheless this obligation itself obligates him in all the preparations necessary so that he will be able to fulfill (the act of) the mitzvah. Moreover, if he did not make the effort to learn and know how to fulfill the mitzvah, and therefore did not fulfill it as required by halachah, this too is considered neglecting a positive mitzvah.
If so, regarding a minor who becomes an adult, who is then immediately obligated by Torah law to fulfill the entire Torah — since it is impossible for him to fulfill everything incumbent upon him without prior preparation, both learning and knowing the mitzvos, and also preparing and training himself to become accustomed to fulfilling them in practice (which is similar to the effort to obtain tefillin or a lulav and the like) — this preparation too is seemingly a Torah obligation. And since there is an obligation upon the minor to prepare himself for his adulthood, but a minor is not subject to obligations, there is room to say that this obligation passes to the father [similar to what the Rivash writes regarding pidyon haben, that "the essence of the mitzvah is upon himself, but in his childhood it is impossible," and it is therefore placed upon the father].
Nevertheless, this obligation does not have the status of a mitzvah, but only that of an enabling act and preparation, along the lines of and similar to cutting wood to make charcoal to make iron (a knife for circumcision). And this is what was added in the mitzvah of chinuch by the Sages: that it has the status of an obligation of the mitzvah itself. It may be said that from the standpoint of the Torah obligation, the child's act is not in the category of fulfilling a mitzvah, but an act done so that he become accustomed; whereas by Rabbinic law the child's act is in the category of a mitzvah. Therefore, by Torah law, the mitzvah performed by the child need not be complete in all its details and fully valid, because from the standpoint of preparation the manner in which it is done does not make much difference; whereas from the standpoint of the Rabbinic mitzvah of chinuch, the child must fulfill the mitzvos in all their details, like an adult.
3. We indeed find something like this in the commentary of Rabbeinu Manoach on what the Rambam writes in the Laws of Resting on the Tenth [Yom Kippur]: "A child of nine or ten years is trained [to fast] for hours. How so? If he was accustomed to eat at the second hour of the day, he is fed at the third; if he was accustomed to eat at the third, he is fed at the fourth. According to the strength of the child, the hours of his affliction are increased. At eleven years, whether male or female, he fasts and completes [the fast] by Rabbinic law, in order to train him in mitzvos."
On this Rabbeinu Manoach writes: "What the Rav wrote here, 'in order to train him in mitzvos,' and also above wrote 'he is trained for hours,' comes to inform us that there are two kinds of training, as we say in the Gemara: Rabbah said, there are two trainings, one for affliction and one for completion. The training for hours is not an obligation of the Sages, but an obligation incumbent upon every person on his own, to teach and accustom his children to walk in the ways of uprightness, as it is written, 'Train a child according to his way,' etc., and in order to bring them under the wings of the Shechinah. . . But in the second training, that is, when they are eleven years old, when they are obligated by Rabbinic law to complete the fast, boy and girl are equal. . . And this is what the Rav wrote here, 'he fasts and completes by Rabbinic law,' whereas above he wrote 'he is trained' and did not write 'he is trained for hours by Rabbinic law,' since the training for hours is not Rabbinic at all, for by Rabbinic law there is no obligation of training without completion, that is, that he perform the mitzvah properly and according to its law, in completeness." End of quote.
From his words it appears that there is a general obligation (which we learn from the verse "Train a child") to train one's children to walk in the path of Torah and mitzvos. Since this obligation is only to accustom them to mitzvos, it does not require that the mitzvos be fulfilled properly and according to halachah. In addition to this, the Sages obligated that the child perform each and every mitzvah according to its law and in all its details, like the act of an adult.
It may be said that Rabbeinu Manoach's statement there, that "the training for hours is not an obligation of the Sages but an obligation incumbent upon every person on his own, etc.," means that the father's responsibility to train his son (in a general way) is proven by reason, and a person is obligated in it on his own, without there being an explicit command and obligation about it.
That is to say: since by Torah law everyone is obligated, from when he reaches the age of thirteen years and one day, to fulfill the entire Torah and mitzvos, it is understood and obvious that every Jew will train and accustom his children "to walk in the ways of uprightness," the path of Torah and mitzvah — just as it is obvious that every upright person guides and trains his children in the good and upright path without being commanded to do so, since this is the nature of a father. In the words of the verse regarding Avraham: "He will command his children and his household after him, to do righteousness and justice."
Accordingly, it may be said that this has the status of a Torah law, as explained in many places in the Talmud that something proven by reason is Torah law [and the verse in the Writings, "Train a child," etc., merely reveals the matter].
4. However, it would seemingly be a great novelty to say that there is a Torah obligation of chinuch; this is not mentioned in the halachic authorities. Rather, all of them hold that the obligation of chinuch is only Rabbinic, as stated explicitly by the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch at the beginning of the Laws of Torah Study cited above: "The child is exempt from all the mitzvos, and his father too is not obligated to train him in the mitzvos by Torah law, but only by Rabbinic law, etc."
Accordingly, since by Torah law, the moment a minor becomes an adult he is immediately obligated to fulfill the entire Torah, and if he was not previously trained and accustomed to mitzvos it is impossible for him to be properly careful about every positive and negative mitzvah immediately when he grows up — how is it possible to say that there is no Torah obligation to prepare and ready him for the time of his adulthood, so that he will not transgress the mitzvos of the Torah through (lack of knowledge and) lack of preparation? Furthermore, according to what was explained above, because of the obligation of the mitzvos which will take effect as soon as he grows up, there is an obligation of preparation so that the moment he grows up he will be able to fulfill them. This obligation exists; it is only that it cannot take effect upon a minor who lacks understanding. Why, then, did the Torah not transfer the obligation to the father or to the beis din, as mentioned above?
5. It appears that what was said above (section 2) — that since immediately upon growing up the minor becomes obligated in all the mitzvos, therefore if he did not fulfill them or transgressed them through lack of knowledge and prior preparation he is considered as neglecting a positive mitzvah and transgressing a negative mitzvah — is not compelling. To preface:
When the Torah obligates a mitzvah, it is obvious that the obligation applies only in a way that it can be fulfilled naturally, for "the Torah was not given to the ministering angels." If fulfilling it requires a lapse of time, one does not transgress the obligation during that entire time. For example, in the mitzvah of removing chametz, as long as one is occupied with removing it, until it has actually been removed, he does not transgress the mitzvah of "you shall remove [it]." For this is the definition of the mitzvah — to do what is in his power to remove the chametz; and if he is occupied with this, he is engaged in fulfilling the mitzvah. In the words of the Alter Rebbe: "From the beginning of the seventh hour . . . every single moment that chametz is found in his possession and he is not occupied with removing it, he transgresses a positive mitzvah of the Torah." Whereas when he is occupied with removing it, the occupation is part of fulfilling the mitzvah (that is, being occupied with preparing the removal, and not only being occupied with the removal itself). This does not belong to the law of "the Merciful One exempts one who is compelled" (that is, that from the moment the chametz is found he transgresses the mitzvah of removal, but that all the time needed to remove it is considered compulsion, and "the Merciful One exempts him"). For that applies only where the obligation has already taken effect and he was prevented by some external factor that hinders its fulfillment. But if, by the very nature of things, it is impossible to fulfill the obligation without a lapse of time or prior preparation and readiness, this is part of the obligation.
Now, regarding mitzvos which are fulfilled at specific times, if fulfilling the mitzvah requires preparation and readiness — such as blowing the shofar, where one must practice and become accustomed so that he will be able to blow, or if prior effort is needed to obtain the articles of the mitzvah, such as the Four Kinds and the like — it is seemingly understood that the obligation of preparation begins before the time of fulfilling the mitzvah, so that when its time comes he will be able to fulfill it properly. It should be noted that the obligation to fulfill the entire Torah is a constant obligation; and even mitzvos which must actually be fulfilled at a specific time, the obligation that they be fulfilled in their time is constant. Therefore, someone who was lazy about obtaining the Four Kinds before the festival, and as a result could not fulfill the mitzvah of taking them in its time, is considered as neglecting a positive mitzvah.
However, regarding a minor who has grown up: since a minor is exempt from the entire Torah, and no trace of a Torah obligation applies to him (while he is a minor), and the very existence of any obligation begins only from when he grows up — therefore, if by the nature of things time for learning and preparation is needed until he is able to fulfill all the mitzvos, the time of this preparation (by Torah law) begins only after he has grown up. It cannot then be said that he transgresses any mitzvah until the time of the preparation needed for fulfilling that mitzvah has passed.
And although this is a great novelty in halachah, it nevertheless appears to be compelled by reason. For how could an obligation take effect in a way that by its very nature it cannot be fulfilled? Since the possibility of fulfilling the mitzvah properly comes only through a preceding period of learning and training that requires a certain amount of time, it must be said that all this is included in the obligation itself. Therefore there is no reason to say that the Torah would obligate training him while he is still a minor so that he will be able to fulfill all the mitzvos when he grows up. On the contrary: the obligation first takes effect only at the moment he has grown up, and if time for training and readiness is needed, this is included in the very taking effect of the obligations that apply after he has grown up.
6. A proof for this reasoning can be brought from a convert who comes to convert. The halachah is that we inform him of (only) some of the lighter mitzvos and some of the more stringent mitzvos [and even this only so that he may withdraw, as stated in the Gemara]. The Rambam adds: "And we inform him of the fundamentals of the faith, which is the unity of G‑d and the prohibition of idolatry, and we elaborate on this matter; and we inform him of some of the mitzvos . . . and we do not elaborate on this matter." Now it is obvious that if he was not taught and trained in performing all the mitzvos before his conversion, he will not be able to fulfill them immediately after the conversion. If so, why do we not teach him all the mitzvos with all their details? On the contrary — "we do not elaborate on this matter"! It must be said, as explained above regarding the minor, that since the entire obligation of Torah and mitzvos takes effect only after the conversion, the obligation of preparation and learning likewise begins only then. If time for preparation and habituation is required until he is able to fulfill certain mitzvos according to halachah, then during all that time he does not transgress those mitzvos.
Similar to a minor who has grown up (and a convert who has converted) is what happened to our forefathers at the time of the Giving of the Torah, when they became obligated in Torah and mitzvos for the first time. Certainly time was needed for learning and preparation until they were able to fulfill the mitzvos, and likewise until they were able to prepare the articles of the mitzvos, such as tzitzis and tefillin.
And obviously it cannot be said that all the time they were occupied with preparation they were neglecting positive mitzvos (and were exempt only because "the Merciful One exempts one who is compelled"). Rather, since the entire obligation began then, it took effect in a way that they would be able to fulfill them — that is, preceded by all the necessary preparations, including training and habituation as well.
So it is with every minor who has grown up (and likewise a convert who has converted): since his entire obligation in Torah and mitzvos begins only upon reaching adulthood, all the time he needs to be occupied with learning, preparation and training until he can fulfill a certain mitzvah according to halachah, or guard himself from a certain transgression, he is not neglecting that positive mitzvah and is not transgressing that negative mitzvah. On the contrary, he is engaged in fulfilling them. And therefore there is no Torah obligation of chinuch while he is a minor.
7. According to the above, a puzzling matter regarding Avraham Avinu can be explained:
On the verse "And Avraham was old, advanced in days," our Sages say that Avraham Avinu carried out his service throughout all the days of his life, so that all his days were "complete days." This seemingly requires explanation: how can it be said that all of Avraham's days were complete, when his service lacked his first three years? As our Sages say, "Avraham recognized his Creator at the age of three, as it says, 'Because (eikev) Avraham hearkened to My voice' — the numerical value [of eikev] is one hundred and seventy-two years." All the more so according to the opinions that he recognized his Creator at forty, or at forty-eight: it requires explanation how it can be said of him "advanced in days," that not even one day was lacking for him — to the point that our Sages said (regarding Sarah, from which it is seemingly understood that the same is true of Avraham) "they were all equally good."
According to the above, that preparation and readiness for a mitzvah is a consequence and a detail of the obligation itself, the same may be said regarding Avraham Avinu:
That Avraham recognized his Creator at the age of three came about through his preparation and readiness in the time before, investigating and seeking G‑d. In the words of the Rambam: "He began to roam in his mind . . . and he wondered how it is possible that this sphere should always revolve without a director, and who causes it to revolve . . . and his heart roamed and understood until he attained the way of truth, etc." Since throughout those three years he was occupied with readiness and preparation to recognize his Creator, it can be said that they were "complete days" — also in the years before he recognized his Creator, and also regarding the first three years.
Nevertheless, this is not included in "Avraham hearkened to My voice" as long as he had not actually recognized his Creator. Yet there is no deficiency at all in the fact that he had not yet recognized his Creator then, for this is necessitated by the nature of things, which required time for preparation and readiness.
[Similar to the above: that one who is thirteen years and one day cannot immediately begin to fulfill the mitzvah in its completeness does not mean that he has a deficiency in fulfilling the mitzvah and is merely not punished because he is in the category of "compelled," whom "the Merciful One exempts." Rather, from the outset this is a condition built into the obligation itself: that first he is occupied with preparation and readiness, etc., and afterwards he fulfills it in practice and in completeness, etc.]
8. All the above is by Torah law. But by Rabbinic law there is a full command and obligation of training a child; and on the contrary — the words of the Sages are more stringent and more beloved than the words of Torah.
It may be added that the entire matter of fulfilling the mitzvos in the time of exile is a matter of "chinuch," training, in relation to fulfilling the mitzvos after the Redemption. As stated in the Sifri: "Although I am exiling you from the Land to outside the Land, be distinguished in mitzvos, so that when you return they will not be new to you . . . 'Set up road markers for yourself.'" For "the essence of all the mitzvos is for those who dwell in the land of G‑d."
And through fulfilling the mitzvos in the time of exile, we hasten and speed the time of fulfilling the mitzvos in utmost perfection, "in accordance with the command of Your will," in the true and complete Redemption through our righteous Moshiach, speedily in our days, literally.
(From the talks of Acharon shel Pesach and Shabbos Parshas Shemini 5747; Shabbos Parshas Vayeira 5748)
Key Lesson
When the Torah obligates a mitzvah, it also obligates whatever preparation is needed to carry it out properly, and time spent preparing in earnest is itself part of the mitzvah, not a failing. This is why Avraham's years of searching before he recognized his Creator still counted as "complete days." Our own observance of the mitzvos in exile is likewise a training for fulfilling them perfectly in the Redemption, and doing so earnestly now hastens that time.