Masorah v'Torah

Torah Education and its Pivotal Role within Chinuch

by Rabbi Moshe Taragin

            The Gemara in Kidushin (29a) asserts "A person possesses five paternal responsibilities toward his son: to circumcise him, to redeem him (in the case of a male first-born), to teach him Torah, to marry him off, and finally, to teach him a professional skill." The Gemara further informs us that the paternal responsibility to instruct a son in Torah is derived from the pasuk in Devarim[1] "v'shenantum l'vanecha v'dibarta bam". The Sifri in Parshat V'etchanan[2] expands this responsibility to include all students - even those who aren't biological children. The Sifri writes:

V'shenantam l'vanecha (you shall teach your 'children') - this refers to students, as, in general, students are referred to as children - as it is written "You are children to God". Likewise, it is written "The 'children' of the nevi'im" departed - referring to the pupils of the prophets.

Hence, according to the Sifri, the mizvah to teach Torah is not limited only to children but applies to the general population - 'children' in the broader sense. The Rambam in his Sefer HaMizvot (positive commandments, number 11) cites the pasuk of the Sifri and employs it as the source for teaching actual children, as well as general students. Evidently, he saw little difference between a parent's responsibility vis-a-vis his own child, and his obligation to the overall community.

            However, in Mishnah Torah Hilkhot Talmud Torah Perek 1 Halakha 1 the Rambam writes

A father must teach his son Torah, as it is written 'v'limadtem otam et b'naychem l'daber bam' ... just as a father is obligated to teach his son, so is a grandfather required to teach his grandson as it says 'v'hodatam livanecha v'livnei vanecha'- and not only parents or grandparents but any and every scholar is obligated to teach Torah to students at large as it is written 'v'shinantam l'vanecha'. Chazal translate this as referring to students, who are likened to children, as it is written 'The children of the prophets departed.' If this is true [that a general responsibility exists alongside the specific obligation to one's own family] why does the Torah include a specific mizvah for children and grandchildren? To establish the particular obligations as higher priorities - a child takes priority to a grandchild while a grandchild is prior to a student.

One might infer from the Rambam's hierarchy that the obligation to teach children is qualitatively different from the responsibility of teaching students, and thus is granted priority. Alternatively, we might conclude that there is no inherent difference between the two obligations - they are cut from the same cloth. The priority of children's education over general education stems from a universal principle that local social welfare projects - be they educational or charitable - take precedence over non-local opportunities, based upon the principle of "aniyay ircha kodem (the people of your city come first)". Of course, by extension, members of one's family are most proximate and demand highest priority. Such a pecking order is established with regard to charity distribution, redeeming captives and other mizvot and might similarly be in place regarding Torah education. Such a claim is lodged by the Chatam Sofer in his commentary to Nedarim (37a) and the consequence is, that despite its priority, the mizvah of teaching one's children is intrinsically similar to that of teaching the general population.

            There is, however, additional evidence that the Rambam discriminated qualitatively, between the education of one's child and that of general pupils. In the ensuing Halakha the Rambam writes "One is obligated to hire a teacher for his son in the event that he cannot personally teach Torah; however, although one must teach his friend's son Torah he is not obligated to lease a teacher." To this statement of the Rambam we might pose two questions: What is the Rambam's source that if one is incapable of personally teaching he must hire a teacher? Why do we not apply the principle of "ones rachmana patrey (if you are technically incapable of performing a mizvah you are excused)"? If a father is ignorant he should be excused of his obligation in the same manner that a prisoner who cannot acquire matzo is excused from that mizvah. Alternatively, once we establish this responsibility why doesn't it apply to your friend's son? If one is indeed required to teach students in the same manner as a child, one should be obligated to hire a teacher for that student as well (within reason, based upon available funds etc.)?

            The first part of this question was already addressed by the Lechem Mishnah (ad locus) who inquires as to the Rambam's source for this requirement to hire a teacher. He suggests that this requirement is only d'rabanan and not Biblically mandated. He quotes, in addition, the position of the Maharik who advanced that the Rambam merely intuited this law without drawing upon an exact source. The Lechem Mishnah does not, however, address the second question - why is this responsibility limited only to one's own child and not to general students. If the responsibility to teach 'biological' children is identical with the mizvah to teach 'intellectual' children why don't the same rules apply, in terms of hiring a replacement teacher? Indeed, the simple reading of the Rambam supports the case for qualitatively discriminating between the chiyuv to teach children and that of teaching students. Evidently, the two experiences do not stem from the same mizvah and aren't identical.

            To clarify this issue it becomes necessary to fully examine the parental obligation to teach Torah to children. One of the pesukim cited earlier by Rambam for teaching grandchildren is the verse in Devarim "v'hodatam l'vanecha v'livnei vanecha"[3]. This pasuk is evaluated by the Ramban in his Hasagot to the Sefer HaMizvot of the Rambam. In his list of negative commandments which the Rambam omitted[4], the Ramban lists, as part of taryag, the mizvah to transmit the memory of the Sinaitic experience and bases his decision upon this verse in Devarim. He raises, however, one objection; this very Pasuk is interpreted by the Gemara[5] as requiring, not the transmission of the Sinai experience, but the teaching of Torah itself. The Ramban's answer is not merely illuminating for our purposes, but critical from an overall ideological standpoint. He writes "limud emunat haTorah hi limud haTorah (the study of the belief in Torah - the events of Sinai, overall theology - is identical to studying the knowledge of Torah itself)". According to the Ramban, transmitting the masorah - the epochal moment of Har Sinai and overall Jewish tradition - necessitates the educating of Torah. The Torah isn't merely a legal or historical production but comprises the central and essential part of all Jewish theology, or is considered, as the Rambam refers to it, the "ikkar hagadol shehacol taluw bo"[6]. Without knowledge of Torah we cannot appreciate the metahistorical import of Har Sinai, nor can we properly absorb its full theological implications. Torah knowledge is incorporated as a built-in component of a more general obligation to dispatch the masorah from one generation to the next; a complete and thorough masorah mandates the knowledge of Torah.

            The aforementioned Ramban incorporates the instruction of Torah as part of the parental responsibility to transmit the record of Sinai and the masorah which issued in its wake. One might add that the obligation to eternalize the masorah includes, not merely its theological components, but its halakhic elements as well. Just as a father must furnish his son with the basic tenets of Jewish ideology, so must he train him in the performance of mizvot which form the foundation of masorah. Belief in Torah and training in mizvot - the obligation of chinuch - walk hand in hand. In this vein, just as Jewish 'belief' which is ignorant of Torah knowledge is lacking, a thorough training in the performance of mizvot without an appreciation of Torah as its source is deficient. Torah knowledge is critical for the transmission of a complete masorah - theological as well as halakhic.

            In light of the association drawn by the Ramban between transmitting the masorah and teaching Torah, it is possible to view the father's obligation to teach his son Torah, not as an independent responsibility but as part of his overall mizvah to direct the chinuch of his child and impart to him our masorah. Without instructing Torah to his son, he can not properly train him for mizvot nor can he inculcate the masorah in its full and proper proportion. In this regard, a father's obligation toward his child is qualitatively different from his charge toward others. Indeed, a Jewish person must teach Torah to the best of his capability to all potential students. Halakha compares the Rebbi-talmid relationship to that of father and son; "l'vanecha - alu talmidecha". However, to his actual biological child a father has an additional and unique imperative, to train him in Torah and mizvot and impart to him an appreciation of, and familiarity with our masorah. While the formal responsibility to teach Torah is of a more universal nature, the latter obligation of chinuch applies only to one's actual child.

            This position suggests that the pasuk in V'etchanan which urges us to convey the memory of Sinai along with a knowledge of Torah, is the source of the parental obligation of chinuch. The question as to the source for chinuch has long been controversial. Rashi[7] asserts that the entire mizvah of chinuch is merely Rabbinic in nature. Alternatively, the Neziv in his commentary entitled Ha'amek Davar[8] insists that chinuch, per se, was already instituted in the days of Moshe (takanat Moshe Rabenu). The Turei Even in Chagigah advances that it was a Takanah of the Nevi'im. This approach adduces that chinuch is very much a Biblical ordinance and stems from the pasuk in V'etchanan which requires the parent to impart knowledge of Sinai along with training in Torah and mizvot.

            Understanding the parental responsibility to teach Torah as a subset of their general obligation of chinuch might help clarify several issues regarding the scope and definition of this obligation. The Gemara in Kidushin (30a) remarks "until when must the father teach his children... Scripture alone suffices". The Gemara concludes that a father must only teach his children Torah Shebichtav. In general, such a statement might be startling and even unthinkable. Teaching Torah entails merely the imparting of Tanakh - to the exclusion of Torah Sheb'al Peh? Based upon our earlier position, however, this law might be justified. The Gemara in Kidushin isn't addressing the universal responsibility to teach Torah but rather the father's specific obligation to train his children in the performance of mizvot and teach them Torah, to vitalize this performance and training. To help facilitate chinuch it isn't necessary to teach the entirety of Torah Shebichtav. A detailed and thorough instruction of Torah Shebichtav - including the relevant mizvot and the manner in which they are derived - would clearly suffice to foster proper chinuch. The Me'iri in his commentary to Kidushin comments upon this Halakha, that the father must teach his son Torah Shebichtav "ad sheyaidah inyan ha'mizvot v'yikayem otam kara'uy (until he understands the essence of the mizvot and fulfills them properly)". He designates the purpose of teaching a son Torah as that of conveying a sweeping comprehension of mizvot so that they may be properly fulfilled - in short the obligation of chinuch. For such a goal, instruction of Torah Shebichtav would seem sufficient.

            Regarding the age at which a father should begin teaching his son Torah the Gemara in Succah (42a) concludes that "when a child begins to speak his father must teach him Torah and K'riat Shema. Rav Hamnunah explains that 'Torah' refers to the verse 'Torah tzivah lanu Moshe' while 'Kriat Shema' refers to the first pasuk of Kriat Shema. Tosafot[9] questions this in light of the schedule presented by the Mishnah in Avot: "At five years old a child should be taught Torah, at ten years of age Mishnah and at fifteen years of age Gemara." The Gemara in Succah would seem to present an alternate educational program!! Quite possibly, the Gemara and the Mishnah are referring to decidedly different facets of Torah. The Mishnah in Avot addresses the study of Torah per se, and establishes a reasonable schedule which might allow the entire Torah to be reviewed. However, the Gemara in Succah accents the parental mizvah of 'chinuch'. The aforementioned are embedded within a beraita which mandates that a father train his son in all mizvot such as: lulav, tzizit and teffilin. Part of this mizvah of chinuch is teaching elementary verses of the Torah. Particularly relevant to chinuch is the pasuk "Torah tzivah lanu Moshe morasha khilot Ya'akov", which underscores the concept of masorah. This particular mizvah, to teach Torah as part of the child's overall chinuch begins well before the age of five.

            Returning to the Rambam and his formulation of the parental mizvah, one notices a peculiar association. In Halakha 3, after he affirms a father's obligation to teach his son, the Rambam writes:

Similarly Talmud must come before ma'aseh since it leads to ma'aseh. The reverse however, is not true; ma'aseh will not necessarily prompt Talmud.

It is surprising that specifically in this context, at the outset of Hilkhot Talmud Torah the Rambam chooses to affiliate Talmud Torah with the performance of mizvot!!! The only reason we study Torah is to facilitate a more informed and complete observance of the mizvot?! What about Torah Lishmah??!

            To be sure, the Rambam himself accepts the concept of Torah Lishmah as his comments in Halakha 8-10 indicate: "Every Jew is obligated to learn Torah whether rich or poor whether healthy or infirm... he must establish set hours in which he will study Torah - both during the day and at night... he must continue his study of Torah until the day he dies." In this instance the Rambam clearly articulates the value of Torah study 'Lishmah' - for its own sake. However, in the beginning of the perek he refers, not to formal Torah study, but rather to the parental obligation to transmit the masorah and to teach Torah as the bedrock of that masorah. Indeed, this dimension of Torah study is intended to facilitate observance of mizvot. Talmud Torah in this context - as it is taught from parent to child as an integrated part of the chinuch experience - is indeed meaningful, inasmuch as it fosters fulfillment of mizvot.

            Having established that Torah knowledge forms the foundation of both Jewish theology as well as proper training in actual mizvot, and that a father's responsibility to educate and indoctrinate children extends to the actual teaching of Torah, we might now reexamine his obligation to hire a Rebbi if he himself is incapable of properly instructing. If his obligation were to teach Torah per se, he might be discharged in a case of ignorance; he finds himself utterly incapable of performing this mizvah and is thereby absolved. However, the general responsibility to transmit our masorah and offer chinuch to children is universal and within the grasp of any and every parent. A simple transmission of the basic tenets of faith along with a sense of our religious heritage can be conveyed by all parents. No one can excuse himself from this responsibility due to lack of erudition. Once he is obligated in this essential task he must also insure that Torah is being studied to animate and invigorate that masorah. If he cannot personally attend to this need he must delegate it to another - hence, the responsibility to hire a mechanech. The ignorant father cannot be excused since, with regard to the overall aim and process of the mizvah - raising children in our tradition - he is fully capable. This particular component of the mizvah is beyond his ken, but he must locate a substitute for this aspect as well. It is also logical that the obligation to hire a teacher applies only to his biolchild for whom he has a chiyuv of chinuch. Regarding students in general he is only obligated to teach them Torah knowledge per se and is excused if he is unlearned.

            In this vein, we might expect that the father's obligation to hire a teacher applies only with regard to that Torah study which facilitates chinuch and performance of the mizvot. For Torah study per se, the father must teach if he is capable but isn't responsible to hire a teacher in his place. The Rambam in Halakha 7 indicates as much when he writes "a father must hire a Rebbi to teach his son Torah Shebichtav". Indeed, we are all are chayav to learn the entire corpus of Torah, both oral and written. However, the parental responsibility to teach Torah vis-a-vis chinuch is limited to Torah Shebichtav. He therefore, is only obligated to hire a teacher to teach his son Torah Shebichtav.

            Finally, we can justify the priority given to children over general students. Indeed, in terms of the mizvah to teach Torah in a formal sense - as it is derived from the pasuk of "v'shinantam l'vanecha" - there is no distinction between children and students; they are all subsumed under the title "banecha" - literally and figuratively. However, regarding one's child a parent embraces an additional mizvah - to be mechanech in mizvot, masorah and Torah. Certainly then, given limited time and resources, one must give priority to his child for whom he is twice obligated.

            Indeed, if the two mizvot - teaching formal Torah and teaching Torah in the context of chinuch - are truly disparate, one might have expected they be counted as separate mizvot in the list of taryag. Though the Behag[10] does discriminate, the Rambam lists them as one mizvah indicating, that despite their distinction, they do not warrant separate classification within the list of 613.

Summary :

            Although the formal mizvah to instruct in Torah applies equally to biological as well as intellectual children, a father incurs a distinct obligation toward his actual child - the mizvah of chinuch, and Torah knowledge as part of that chinuch. Given limited resources he must prioritize his child, and if incapable must hire a teacher. The ultimate aim of the mizvah is to insure proper transmission of our masorah and for this task each and every father is qualified despite his lack of erudition. If he cannot confer proper Torah knowledge he must hire a teacher to complete the process.