While modern writers translate Hinnukh simply as education, it had a much more specific meaning in halakhic sources, where it refers specifically to the obligation of parents (or just fathers according to some views) to habituate their minor children into the performance of mitzvot. Though seemingly simple, this obligation raises many questions both practical and philosophical.
Don Seeman is an anthropologist (Ph.D. Harvard 1997) who holds a joint appointment in Religion and in the Tam Institute for Jewish Studies. All of his scholarship—from his ethnography of Ethiopian-Israelis to his textual studies of Maimonides and of Hasidism during the Holocaust— is motivated by the attempt to understand and describe the existential contexts and meaning of religious experience in all its forms. Don is the founding co-chair of the Emory Forum for the Ethnographic Study of Religion. He co-edits the Contemporary Anthropology of Religion book series at Palgrave-Macmillan, and serves on the editorial boards of both Prooftexts and the new open-access Journal of Contemplative Studies. He promotes a truly interdisciplinary approach to the ethnographic and textual study of religion.
Part 1 Halakha/technical questions
- Hinnukh for Negative Commandments?
While modern writers translate Hinnukh simply as education, it had a much more specific meaning in halakhic sources, where it refers specifically to the obligation of parents (or just fathers according to some views) to habituate their minor children into the performance of mitzvot. Though seemingly simple, this obligation raises many questions both practical and philosophical. One of the most important writers on this topic, not surprisingly is Maimonides. On the level of Jewish law his view is decisive (though often misunderstood) on questions like whether parents must habituate their children into the observance of prohibitions or just positive commandments and if the latter, which positive commandments? I think it can be shown that Maimonides harmonizes his halakhic and philosophical sources to conclude (unlike the way he is often read by later interpreters) that while the rabbis required the habituation of children into certain positive commandments (tefillin, sukkah, etc.) they actually left the enforcement of prohibitions entirely to parental discretion (i.e. there is no Hinnukh obligation in mitzvot lo ta’aseh). Why would this be, and what does it teach us about the relative weight of positive and negative habituation according to the Jewish tradition? Why do so many later authorities seem to misread Maimonides on this matter even though he is in agreement with most Rishonim and with the simple reading of the Talmud? Would Maimonides’ view change the way we do Jewish education in schools, synagogues, and families?
- Hinnukh at the Passover Seder: A limit case.
The Passover Seder is often considered the educational event par excellence in Jewish life, so it may seem strange to ask about limitations on the mitzvah of Hinnukh at the seder. We do find however differences of opinion about what such limits might entail.
As a case study, the Passover Seder helps to illustrate the difference between Hinnukh as habituation to the commandments and the separate mitzvot of Talmud Torah and Haggadah. It also illustrates differences of opinion among poskim about the nature and limits of Hinnukh obligations.
Modern poskim such as Mishneh Brurah and Arukh Ha-Shulkhan suggest that children should fulfill all of the mitzvot of the seder to the extent possible. For instance, they should be given small, child sized cups of wine. This is contrasted to the view of Rambam, who mentions Hinnukh only with respect to a child who is able to eat a single kezayit of matzah (perhaps because there is Hinnukh for matzah but not korban pesah?). He does not mention anything about children receiving bitter herbs or four cups of wine or telling the story (as opposed to asking questions which seems to enable the father to perform his commandment of ‘you shall tell your child on that day’).
This case illustrates some of the ways in which Maimonides’ view differs from that of other/later poskim. For Maimonides, Hinnukh is a mitzvah imposed by the rabbis only in the case of particular positive commandments, each of which is mentioned separately in rabbinic literature and, subsequently, in the Torah. A mitzvah that a child cannot perform in the manner they should observe it as an adult (drinking a full shiur of wine for example) is exempt from Hinnukh in that mitzvah. As for bitter herbs, commentators differ as to whether Maimonides omits this because eating a large quantity of bitter herbs would be harmful to children [like fasting at too young an age] or because, in the absence of the korban, there is no independent mitzvah of bitter herbs.
As for the korban pesah this passage needs to be read carefully. Rambam holds that a boy who can walk should accompany his father to har habayit mishum Hinnukh, but otherwise never mentions Hinnukh with regard to the sacrifices. Perhaps because children do not have their own property to contribute or because the mitzvah applies to the household rather than the individual [Hannukah candles pose a similar conundrum and are not mentioned by him in the Hinnukh context].
- Marriage, Women’s Education and the Question of Delayed Mitzvot
In Hilkhot Teshuvah Maimonides writes that the love of God is dependent on knowledge and difficult to attain. Therefore he says, women, children and most men need to be habituated (Hinnukh) to serve God from fear until such time as their intellect increases so that they can serve from love.
Is this a figurative use of the term Hinnukh or does he mean it literally? I think he means it literally and this raises the question of Hinnukh for delayed mitzvot which cannot, for one reason or another, be performed as soon as a person comes of age. Such mitzvot include the love of God, the study of Torah (with which it is closely related) and, I would argue, marriage.
This view is important to understand in its own right but also helps to explain why writers like R Soloveitchik and the Lubavitcher Rebbe did not actually think there is a prohibition on women studying Talmud, as is often claimed. A close reading of Maimonides shows that their approach is less radical than has sometimes been claimed. The question of delayed mitzvot is also related to how we might think about adult education for both men and women in the modern age.
Part II: Educational Thought and Philosophy of Education
- “For man is born a wild ass”: Hinnukh and the Conditions of Creativity
Several traditional authors are concerned with the relationship between habituation to the commandments and the attainment of independent intellect or spirituality. Though they each take very different approaches, Maimonides, the Piasezcno Rebbe and the Sixth Rebbe of Lubavitch each devote considerable thought to this issue. Given the signal importance of habituation, how can children (and adults for that matter) also be ushered into their own engagements with intellect and spirituality? Are any of their ideas applicable to broader communities? How do we balance the need for continuity and change?
- Hanokh Le-No’ar al pi Darko: The secret history of a biblical phrase.
This verse from Proverbs is often treated as a self-evident teaching about the meaning of Hinnukh. However, it is only mentioned once in the Talmud and not in the context of the what the Rabbis call Hinnukh at all. It is mentioned only in the context of marrying off and influencing one’s adult children, and is also cited only once by Maimonides, in the context of optional enforcement of prohibitions. It is fascinating to note that the history of interpretation of this verse shifts radically around the time of the GRA. In earlier commentaries, the verse is almost always used to mean that children need to be habituated to do things the right way while they are young. From the GRA onwards, many readers think it means that educators need to take account of the specific abilities and interests of each individual child. What can we learn from the tension between these two meanings both of which may have relevance to contemporary educational contexts?
