Does it make a
difference whether the child is about to do an issur for my benefit or
for his?
We
find a very interesting halacha. The Shulchan Aruch
teaches us that if chas v’sholom a fire is raging in a Jew’s
property, and a gentile, on his own accord offers to extinguish the
fire, one may permit him to extinguish the fire and he need not be
prevented. The reason is because the gentile has remuneration in mind
and it is therefore considered as if the gentile is doing it for his own
benefit.
In
contrast, a child is not of an age to realize that extinguishing a fire
will bring him personal benefit, rather his sole intent and purpose is
to make his senior happy and therefore it is considered as if he is
doing it for the parent’s or adult’s sake.
Does that mean that I must actually prevent him
from extinguishing the fire?
Yes it does, because it is as if you told him to extinguish the fire,
which is obviously forbidden to do.
Are we talking about ages of chinuch
(education) or all ages?
The Mishna Berura
says that this is not a matter of chinuch, rather it is a problem
that a child is doing something for an adult and he realizes that this
will please the adult.
Does this apply to other cases as well?
It
certainly does. Whenever a child is about to do an issur in order
to benefit an adult, that adult must prevent him from doing so. This is
true with regards to turning on a light, turning on the air conditioner
etc.
Is there not a case in the gemora where someone
dropped keys in the street in order for children to carry them?
Indeed the gemora in Yevamos 114a
talks about a case where someone found the keys to the shul in the
street on Shabbos, and he was told to tell children to play in
the vicinity of the keys and hopefully they would spot the keys and take
them home. However, the Mishna Berura
explicitly explains that the children must not think that the keys are
someone’s they know and one may only permit them (i.e. not interfere)
when they take them home thinking that they found keys to play with etc.
but if they intend bringing to the person who lost them they must be
prevented from carrying them home.
The father, adds the Mishna Berura, must prevent him
whatever happens because of the obligation to educate one’s child not to
violate the Shabbos even with an issur d’rabanan.
The bottom line is that one may not allow a child to violate an issur
for an adult. If the child is doing it for his own benefit, and it is an
issur d’rabanan, and you are not the parent, there is much more
leeway.
Does the obligation to educate only apply to
Hilchos Shabbos?
Not at all. The obligation to educate one’s child applies to all types
of laws. The Mishna Berura says
that if a parent hears his child speaking lashon hara, unclean
language etc. he must prevent and educate him from an early age that it
is wrong and forbidden. He adds that if the child is permitted to speak
whatever he wants at a young age it is very difficult to train him to
guard his mouth at a later stage.
This applies to
eating non-kosher foods, as mentioned in the last sheet, seeing things
he is not supposed to, and everything else that a Jew must adhere to.
The younger one starts to educate one’s child the more inbred it is. On
the whole, one should teach other children as well yet the main role of
education is up to the parents.
