It would appear that this is a din separate from the
regular din of chinuch that a father must teach his sons the basic
building blocks of Judaism.
The Tosefta in Chagigah (1:3) says the same thing and its
cited in Sukkah (42a,) although the obligation to teach him loshon hakodesh is
omitted. However, the Gemorah cites this
obligation amongst other obligations of chinuch indicating that this is
also the din of chinuch and that approach is taken by the Ran (Sukkah
28a) and Birkay Yosef siman 37. Tosfos
(Berachos 20a) also understands this way and proves from here that there is a
mitzvah of chinuch for kerias shema. However, Rashi (ibid) holds there is no mitzvah
of chinuch for kerias shema for the father isn’t around his son
in order to train him to say shema.
How does Rashi deal with the Gemorah in Sukkah? The Pnei Yehoshua answers that there is no din
of chinuch for shema, only for Torah and the possuk of
shema is only an example of the words of Torah that one must teach their
son. He proves that is the interpretation
of the Rambam as well for he cites this din in the context of teaching
one’s son Torah; in Talmud Torah (1:6.)
The Gra (siman 37 and 70) takes this approach in the opinion of Rashi
as well. [It is noteworthy that this interpretation
of the Gemorah in Sukkah doesn’t fit well for the Gemorah gives an example of
teaching Torah asתורה
צוה לנו and shema is listed is a separate
obligation.] Rav Yitzchak Sorotzkin suggests
that the obligation to teach one’s son loshon hakodesh also is merely an
extension of the obligation of Talmud Torah.
He basis this off the Rambam in the Laws of Tefillah (12:10-11) that the
targum of the Torah is considered תורה שבעל פה. We see that only loshon hakodesh has
the status of Torah Shebksav.
Based upon this, he explains why the Rambam doesn’t mention this
obligation to teach one’s son Torah, because it’s included already in the
obligation to teach him Torah.
No comments:
Post a Comment