We are continuing in siman 3, where the Chayei Adam discusses mitzvos lo saasei.
The Chayei Adam mentioned an opinion that adults other than a child’s parents may be obligated to stop a child from transgressing a mitzvas lo saasei. This question is a machlokes between the Shulchan Aruch and Rema. The Shulchan Aruch paskens that there is no chiyuv chinuch regarding a mitzvas lo saasei on anyone other than the father, but the Rema brings an opinion that once a child has reached the age of chinuch, there is a chiyuv on others as well.
To explain the Rema’s opinion, we learned in the previous shiur that chinuch for mitzvos lo saasei begins when a child is able to understand the concept of the word no. When a child reaches that age, the chiyuv chinuch for mitzvos lo saasei only applies to the father and not to others. However, once a child reaches the age of six or seven, which is the general age for many mitzvos of chinuch, the Rema understands that the child is now considered a functioning member of Klal Yisroel, so there is a chiyuv chinuch upon others in addition to the father.
This opinion of the Rema originates from Tosfos in Shabbos, daf 121a. The Shulchan Aruch does not pasken in accordance with this opinion. The Chayei Adam quotes both opinions, and does not write in accordance with whom he paskens, but it will be clear from what he writes later that he follows the Rema regarding mitzvos lo saasei on a deoraysa level, and this is the accepted psak.
The Chayei Adam brings another opinion regarding this question. He writes that some hold that the father is the only one responsible to be mechaneich the child; however, if the father is not taking action against the child transgressing a mitzvas lo saasei on a deoraysa level, others should protest against the father’s inaction. However, they do not need to protest against the father’s inaction on a child’s transgression of a mitzvas lo saasei on a derabanan level.
The Chayei Adam brings yet another opinion. This opinion holds that others are chayav to protest against even a mitzvas asei that the child is not fulfilling. We will discuss this opinion further in the next shiur, be’ezras Hashem.
Summary
The Chayei Adam holds that once a child reaches the age of six or seven, the chiyuv chinuch extends beyond the father to other members of Klal Yisroel if the child is transgressing a mitzvas lo saasei on a deoraysa level. However, the chiyuv chinuch does not extend beyond the father in any other circumstance
We are beginning siman 3, where the Chayei Adam discusses mitzvos lo saasei. There are two differences between mitzvos asei and lo saasei as they apply to chinuch. The first is that the age of chinuch begins much earlier than it does for mitzvos asei. (Feeding a child issur directly is a different discussion.) the second difference is the possibility that the chiyuv chinuch does not just apply to the father, but to other adults as well. This opinion is a machlokes, which we will see more about later. The machlokes is centered around the assumption that transgressing a mitzvah lo saasei is worse than neglecting to fulfil a mitzvas asei.
The Chayei Adam begins siman 3 by writing that the first two simanim regarded mitzvos asei. The Chayei Adam defines that chinuch for mitzvos lo saasei begins when a child is able to comprehend that when a parent says no to a certain action, the parent does not mean to say no to just the present moment, but no to performing the action in the future as well. However, until a child is able to comprehend such a concept, there is no chiyuv chinuch on mitzvos lo saasei.
The Magen Avraham brings a proof to this age of chinuch. In the parentheses, the Chayei Adam writes that he disagrees with the proof of the Magen Avraham, but agrees practically with the halachic definition. The Chayei Adam writes that, in his opinion, there is no possible proof to this definition, but it is a sevara that concept of chanoch lana’ar al pi darko necessitates that chinuch be implemented at logical times in the child’s life where they will be able to assimilate what they are being told..
The Chayei Adam adds that the chiyuv to prevent a child from transgressing a lo saasei applies even on mitzvos derabanan, including chol hamoed.
However, according to the first opinion, only the parents have a chiyuv to stop them. According to the second opinion, there may be others obligated to stop them. We will discuss this opinion further in the next shiur, be’ezras Hashem.
Summary
The chiyuv chinuch for mitzvos lo saasei begins when a child is able to remember that if a parent says no to a specific action, they cannot do it in the future either. This definition applies to mitzvos deoraysa and derabanan alike..
We have finished siman 2, in which the Chayei Adam listed some examples of the proper age to begin chinuch in specific mitzvos. We have discussed the examples of lulav, talmud torah, birchas hamazon, brachos in general, kiddush, shema, tefillah and netilas yadayim. Today, we will discuss havdala.
The same way there is a chiyuv chinuch to be mechaneich a child in kiddush when they reach the age of chinuch, there is a chiyuv chinuch for havalah as well. Although generally, the halacha is that one may not eat or drink before havdala, Chazal did not institute that element to a katan, as we learned regarding kiddush (shiur 1279).
If the katan is making havdala themselves, they make a bracha on besamim and ner, the same way an adult does. The question arises regarding shabbasos which end late, way past a child’s bedtime. There are two options. The halacha is that technically, even an adult can make havdala from plag hamincha and onwards. They cannot light a candle, but they recite borei pri hagefen and the bracha of hamavdil. Alternatively, the halacha is that if an adult forgot to make havdala on motzei shabbos, they can still recite havdala until Tuesday afternoon before shkia. Similarly, in such a situation, one only recites borei pri hagefen and the bracha of hamavdil.
The poskim assume that the latter option is preferable. Although the first option is sourced in a Gemara in maseches Brachos, it is something looked upon as strange by the general population, because it seems to be a contradiction to shabbos, and may lead people to mistakenly do melacha when they are still unable to. Therefore, one should wait until Sunday morning. Similarly, a child should wait until Sunday morning rather than make havdala early.
Regarding a child, if the child waits until morning, presumably all of the adults will have made havdala on motzei shabbos, so the child will need to make havdala on their own. If the child is unable to drink the cup, there is a concept of chamar medina, that a drink which replaces wine as a primary drink can be used for havdala. Rav Moshe understands that people drink wine not only due to thirst, but because of the element of kavod and social connection inherent in wine. Therefore, in order for a drink to qualify as chamar medina, it must meet those criteria; in other words, it must be a drink over which people get together. For example, people get together for a cup of tea or a cup of coffee. However, people do not get together to drink coke, but rather it is drunk for thirst or out of taavah. Although some poskim suggest that a child who is unable to drink a cup of tea or coffee could use a cup of milk, Rabbi Reingold does not see the heter based on the teshuva of Rav Moshe.
Summary
From the age of chinuch (six or seven) a child has a chiyuv to say or hear havdala.
He or she may eat before havdala.
If a child is unable to stay up on motzei shabbos for havdala, they should make their own havdala the next day, skipping the besamim and ner. If they are unable to drink a cup of wine or grape juice, they can use chamar medina, which includes tea or coffee.
We have finished siman 2, in which the Chayei Adam listed some examples of the proper age to begin chinuch in specific mitzvos. We have discussed the examples of lulav, talmud torah, birchas hamazon, brachos in general, kiddush, shema and tefillah. Today, we will discuss netilas yadayim; specifically what we know as negel vasser.
We left off with a question regarding the chiyuv chinuch for ketanim to wash netilas yadayim. The Shulchan Aruch discusses the halachos of netilas yadayim in siman 4, where he mentions the concept of ruach raah, and the opinions of the Rosh and Rashba. In his mahadura tinyana, the Shulchan Aruch Harav discusses ketanim. He mentions the concerns of Chazal, as brought in the Shulchan Aruch. He adds that when someone has ruach raah on their hands, it is a problem for them to touch an opening on their body and to touch food, as found in the Gemara.
However, the Shulchan Aruch Harav writes that one does not need to be concerned about non-Jews who have not washed their hands touching food, because ruach raah only rests on a place where there was kedusha which departed and created a vacuum. The body of a Jew, which merits a nishmas yisroel, has a high level of kedusha, and is therefore more attractive to the ruach raah when the neshama leaves (to a certain extent) overnight. When the neshama returns in its full form in the morning, the tumah leaves but remains on the fingers. A non-Jew, who does not have the same level of kedusha, does not receive any ruach raah from the void of its neshama overnight, so, inherently, there are no remainders on their fingers when they awake.
The Shulchan Aruch Harav continues, and adds that for the above reason, we are lenient on a katan who has not yet reached chinuch. When a child is under the age of chinuch, they do not have the same level of kedusha as even a katan who has reached the age of chinuch. He explains that the primary point at which the neshama joins the guf, and infuses it with its special kedusha, is bar or bas mitzvah, when a child becomes chayav in mitzvos. It follows, therefore, that when a child becomes chayav in chinuch, they receive some level of kedusha as well. In other words, chinuch begins the process of the neshama further attaching itself to the guf in a way which brings more kedusha into the guf. Therefore, before the age of chinuch, we are not concerned about a child who has not washed netilas yadayim
The Shulchan Aruch Harav points out that at the time of the bris milah, the child also receives an increase in kedusha. Therefore, if one wishes to be makpid to wash their child’s hands from their bris milah, it would be incredibly praiseworthy and pious, but it is not a chiyuv.
This is the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav, and the poskim follow it as halacha.
Summary
One does not have to wash their child’s hands in the morning until they are of the age of chinuch. If one wishes to do so even before the age of chinuch, it is praiseworthy, but one does not need to be careful about doing it as soon as the child wakes up.
We have finished siman 2, in which the Chayei Adam listed some examples of the proper age to begin chinuch in specific mitzvos. We have discussed the examples of lulav, talmud torah, birchas hamazon, brachos in general, kiddush, shema and tefillah. Today, we will discuss netilas yadayim; specifically what we know as negel vasser.
There are two and a half reasons why we wash our hands in the morning. The Gemara mentions a concept of tumah on the body which is created due to the neshama leaving the body during sleep. When the neshama returns in the morning, the tumah leaves, but leaves a residue in the fingers known as ruach raah. It is not bona fide tumas meis, but it is akin to it.
Another reason why we wash is because Chazal instituted that one should wash their hands in the morning. The Rosh understands that this washing is a part of the process of tefillah. The Rashba disagrees, and understands it as akin to the kohenim washing their hands and feet in the morning before entering the beis hamikdash, as a part of preparing themselves for another day of serving their creator. Similarly, we wash our hands in the morning to signify that we dedicate the day to the service of Hashem. This is only a half different reason, as that everyone agrees that the washing is done for preparation for avodas Hashem, but just with different understandings of which avodas Hashem (either tefila(Rosh), or the general service of a day(Rashba)).
Parenthetically, the practical difference between the Rosh and Rashba is mincha and maariv. According to the Rashba, this process is unique to the beginning of the day and would not apply to mincha or maariv (unless one knows their hands are dirty). According to the Rosh, this process would apply to every tefillah. Also, according to the Rosh, one would never need to use a kli, nor do they need to wash three times, because the washing is for cleansing. According to the Rashba, one needs a kli to approximate the way it was done in the beis hamikdash. (although one needs a kli one does not necessarily need to wash three times.) However, according to both opinions, the first reason, for removing the ruach raah, will automatically necessitate washing three times in the morning with a kli .’
Regarding a katan, there are two questions to discuss. First, we need to discuss whether there is a chiyuv chinuch based on the reasons of the Rosh and Rashba. Even if there is no chiyuv chinuch based on their reasons, we need to discuss whether there is a chiyuv chinuch regarding the ruach raah.
Regarding the Rosh and Rashba, one can argue that since this washing is associated with tefillah (more loosely according to the Rashba but nevertheless connected), the chiyuv chinuch only starts once the child has reached the age of chinuch.
Regarding the removal of ruach raah, we will need to learn a part of the Shulchan Aruch Harav, written by the Baal Hatanya. The Baal Hatanya wrote on all four parts of halacha. He then began a mahadura tinyana (second edition), but we only have the first four simanim of Orach Chayim extant. Interestingly enough, it is now published in front of his first edition, even though it is really the second edition of his peirush. Be’ezras Hashem, tomorrow we will learn what he writes regarding this question.
Summary
Netilas yadayim in the morning is performed
- due to the ruach raah which remains on our hands from the night.
- Additionally, according to the Rosh, it is performed as a preparation for tefillah, and according to the Rashba, it is performed as a preparation for a day of avodas Hashem.
