Question: I am a single mother of young children. Their father has shirked all responsibilities to the children. I do my best for my children, and am doing that which is not really my responsibility. Isn’t the father in serious violation of the Torah by neglecting his children and not making any effort to provide them an education?
Name Withheld
Via E-mail
Answer: It is a tragedy that your children’s father is not involved in their lives. Due to his lack of interest in them, you are left carrying the complete responsibility. You mention that this is beyond what is required of you. Clearly you are intimating that you view educating one’s young children as the sole province of the father. The question is how does halacha view this matter.
The Mishna (Kiddushin 29a) states: “All mitzvot of the son upon the father, men are bound but women are exempt. All mitzvot of the father upon the son, both men and women are bound. The Gemara seeks to clarify: Surely this can’t be that only a son is duty-bound in the mitzvah of kibbud av va’em but a daughter would be exempt. Therefore, the Gemara explains that what is meant is that regarding mitzvot that are incumbent upon the father to do for his son, men are bound but women are exempt.”
The Gemara then lists the responsibilities of the father that are implied in our Mishna: “The father is obligated to circumcise his son, to redeem his [firstborn] son [from the kohen – pidyon haben], to teach him Torah, to marry him off, to teach him a trade [that would lead to gainful employment], and some even say to teach him how to swim. R. Yehuda adds, one who fails to teach his son a trade, teaches him thievery.” The Gemara asks: “Do you really mean thievery? Rather it is as if he taught him thievery.”
The Mechaber (Yoreh De’ah 245:1-6) rules accordingly that it is a Biblical requirement for the father to educate his son in the study [and ways] of Torah, at the point when the son begins to talk. When he reaches age six or seven, [if he is unable to teach him himself] he is required to engage a teacher to school him and pay the teacher’s wages where such is the local custom.
It would thus seem clear that the father bears the sole obligation to educate his children from the standpoint of halacha. Yet there are authorities that opine otherwise.
Meiri (Nazir 29) asserts that from the Gemara (Nazir28b-29a) we can imply, at least according to R. Yochanan in his dispute with Resh Lakish in relation to the father’s right in designating his child a nazir [one consecrated for a given time, requiring him to refrain from cutting his hair, abstain from wine and avoid coming in contact with a corpse for the period of his nezirut – Numbers 6:1-6], as to whether it is a rabbinic-based requirement or a Biblical decree. R. Yochanan would be of the view that only designating a son’s nezirut [is a tradition – that] has the force of a Biblical law; thus, in all other matters [of childrearing] a woman also has a share in the obligation, including the education of her child.
In fact, Shita Mekubbetzes (Nazir ad loc) cites the Gemara (Sukkah 2b) that relates that Queen Helena trained her minor children to eat in the sukkah, thus indicating that a mother is also obligated to educate her children in the performance of mitzvot.
(To be continued)
