We say that it's a proof to R' Yashiya because Queen Hiliny sat in a succah. R' Yehudah also adds that "all the deeds she did were like the rabbanan." Why does he say that? Because even though she was patur from chinuch she did what the rabbanan said. But even Miderabbanan she was patur from chinuch also?! So how is this a proof?
Manes Blumenfrucht, Brooklyn, New York
This question is one that has bothered the Rishonim and Achronim. The Gemara in Nazir 29a says a woman is not responsible for the Chinuch of her children. The Aruch la'Ner on the Gemara in Sucah says that the Gemara in Nazir only says that a woman is not obligated in Chinuch according to Reish Lakish in the Sugya there, but according to Rebbi Yochanan in Nazir, we need not say this, and the Gemara in Sucah is going according to Rebbi Yochanan. See also Rabbeinu Avraham Min ha'Har in Nazir along these lines. According to this answer we hold like Rebbi Yochanan that a woman is not exempt from Mitzvas Chinuch. This may be the opinion of Rashi (Chagigah 2a) who says that a woman is included in Mitzvas Chinuch.
Tosfos Yeshanim Yoma 82a says that the children of Hilni had a father who was Mechanech them or that Hilni was Machmir on herself. The Achronim question how this answer fits in with the Gemara in Sucah that is Mashma that the duty was on her and that it was a Chiyuv. The Meiri in Nazir says that a woman is Chaiyav in Chinuch when the child's father has died. We can say that the Gemara in Sucah knew that these children had no father.
Dov Freedman
Rebbe,
Is it possible that a woman who is a single mother or whose husband doesn't care can exempt herself from giving her children a proper Jewish education? Could she say: "I'm not mechuyevet in the chinuch of my children so I won't send them to yeshiva or get them a Rebbe?" It seems counter intuitive and not fitting for a Bas Yisrael to have such an attitude.
Sam Kosofsky
You mean to ask according to the Tosfos Yeshanim in Yoma 82a or according to the Meiri in Nazir. Your question is also valid on the first P'shat, according to Reish Lakish.
Some Achronim (see Machtzis ha'Shekel 343:1) say that even if the mother is not obligated with the Mitzvah of Chinuch, she still gets a Mitzvah for doing it.
The Shelah (Sha'ar ha'Osiyos Os Derech Eretz) says that even if women are not Chaiyav in Chinuch, nevertheless, the main Mitzvah of rebuking the child lies on the mother. We see, for example that Shlomo ha'Melech mentions his mother's castigation, not his father's (Mishlei 31, Sanhedrin 70b).
If the father was not in contact with his children, or had died then the mother would assume the responsibilities of an Apotropus, who is deemed responsible for the children's Chinuch (Rambam Nachlos 11:10 Shulchan Aruch CM 290).
The problem you raise, is however, mentioned in the Gemara Bava Basra 21a, where the Gemara relates that originally someone who did not have a father, generally was not Zocheh to learn Torah until Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Gamla instituted that every city must have Melamdim for its youth. This is because even if a woman is obligated for the aforementioned reasons to be Mechanech her children, there is a specific exemption for women to excuse them from teaching their sons Torah (Kidushin 29b).
Needless to mention that anyone who is Mezakeh someone with a Mitzvah receives reward for doing so, and a mother is no exception. All this relates only to the mother's responsibility to teach her son Torah and Mitzvos, and not to what her responsibilities are as regards to seperating him from Issurim.
Dov Freedman