Nazir 29a - Chinuch

The gemara tries to explain why the father has a right to impose nezirus on his son. R"Y says that it is a halacha l'moshe misinai, and Reish Lakish says that it is because the father has an obligation of chinuch. The answer of Reish Lakish seems difficult because chinuch would explain why the father is obligated to enforce the commitment of nezirus, but does not explain why the father has the right to impose the nezirus in the first place. If the assumption is that either the father or the mother can impose the nezirus, just that the father has a chinuch obligation to enforce it, then even if the mother imposes the nezirus on the child the father should be obligated to enforce it, and that doesn't seems to be correct from the implication of the mishna.

The maharatz chiyus assumes that the nature of the mitzvah of chinuch is to prevent the shock factor when the child turns 13 to going from nothing to everything, therefore we get him accustomed to doing mitzvos - chinuch. Based on this he assumes that chinuch should only be applicable to mitzvos that the child will definitely be obligated in as an adult. He is therefore very bothered by the application of chinuch to the acceptance of nezirus, since there is no reason to assume this child will ever be a nazir? He answers based on the Rosh (although he quotes the shita, it is really printed in the Rosh) - כדי לחנכו במצות דנזיר סייג לפרישות - why is the rosh adding a mussar shmooze that nazir is a fence for prishus? Maharat Chiyus explains that there is certainly a chinuch obligation to train children in middos, which included prishus. Since nazir is a method of teaching prishus, that is the rationale for chinuch applying to nezirus.

I am hesitant to agree with the mahartz chiyus on two accounts. 1. His assumption that chinuch is to prevent the shock factor - To me it seems more logical to assume that it is part of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah (that would explain the position of reish lakish why it only applies between father and son as oppposed to mother and to daughter). There is the education that is done in the beis midrash with books and then there is the practical education done in real life by showing him how to do mitzvos. Based on this approach that it is for educational purposes, so that he has a better understanding of mitzvos, the concept of chinuch can certainly be applied to mitzvos that he won't necessarily become obligated in such as nezirus, which would answer the question of the maharatz chiyus. 2. I think that the Rosh is not coming to answer the question of the maharatz chiyus but rather coming to answer the question that i began with. How does chinuch give the father the right to impose nezirus? The Rosh answers that nezirus is an important step in teaching the child the middah of prishus, therefore the rabbonon empower the father with the ability to impose nezirus so that he can successfully teach the mida of prishus.

As an aside, we learn from this Rosh an important lesson. We often focus the attention of our chinuch on the specific mitzvos and ignore the general attitude and middos. From the Rosh we see that the midos also qualify as mitzvos (see ohr sameiach hilchos talmud torah), and therefore we have as parents an obligation to be mechanech our children with proper middos, not just to wear tzitzis and daven.