Like Father Like Son
‘A Man Is Obligated To Train His Son’
(Nazir 29a)
The Mishna (29b) states that a father can impose the nazirite vow on his son by declaring him a nazir, but a mother is not empowered to declare her son a nazir.
R. Yochanan says that the Mishna’s ruling is not based on a verse or on logic but is rather Halacha leMoshe miSinai.
Resh Lakish (29a) asserts that the Mishna’s ruling is based on the Rabbinic mitzvah of chinuch (training one’s child to perform commandments). The Rosh indicates that imposing the nazirite vow on one’s son is considered preparatory education because it fosters self-discipline and abstinence.
A Mother’s Obligation as Well
The Meiri (ad loc.) asserts that a mother is exempt from the mitzvah of chinuch only according to the opinion of Resh Lakish. The halacha, however, follows R. Yochanan, who does not draw a distinction between a father’s and a mother’s mitzvah of chinuch but rather bases the Mishna’s distinction on Halacha leMoshe miSinai which, by Divine decree, gives the power of imposing the nazirite vow on a son only to a father (the view of Rabbeinu Avraham min Hahar).
The Shita Mekubbetzes cites a 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 commandments.
To explain the difficulty, many commentators (Meromei Sadeh, Keren Orah and Birkas Rosh ad loc.) distinguish between obligatory precepts and discretionary precepts. They note that a mother too, indeed, is obligated to train her children to fulfill commandments, but only in the performance of precepts (such as sukkah) which they will be obligated to perform when they reach adulthood. The nazirite vow, however, is not an obligatory mitzvah, as there is no obligation for a person to become a nazirite. Rather, it is an optional mitzvah, an exercise in abstinence and self-discipline for someone who wishes to live a life of purity and holiness. The training in such commandments is incumbent only on the father.
Responsibility for Transgressions
Alternatively, Chiddushei R. Reuven explains that a father is not obligated to train his children in the performance of commandments although he is personally responsible for their transgressions. A father incurs punishment for his children’s transgressions because they are considered his own transgressions [as indicated by the recital of the blessing, “Baruch she’petarani me’onsho shelazeh – Blessed is He who has absolved me from the punishment due this one,” which the father recites as his son reaches bar mitzvah.
A mother, however, while obligated to educate and train her children in the performance of precepts, does not bear personal responsibility for their transgressions. Chiddushei R. Reuven explains that a mother lacks the authority to declare a nazirite vow for her son because one cannot impose a vow on another person. A father, however, is capable of imposing such a vow on his son because only he is responsible for his son’s transgressions. Thus, the son is deemed an extension of the father in this regard and the father is not considered a separate person.
