3 removed useless caveat
source | link

Disclaimer: I am not a posek, not do I have any Rabbinic training.

I am assuming here that you're not talking about a child raised among idol worshippers (תינוק שנשבה), as that's a different conversation entirely.

For a quick answer of no, see here. For some explanation, as I understand it:

A minor is not liable for transgressions. The Rema in OC 343:1 says (translation mine):

וקטן שהכה אביו או עבר שאר עברות בקטנותו אע״פ שאינו צריך תשובה כשיגדל מ״מ טוב לו שיקבל על עזמו איזה דבר לתשובה ולכפרה אע״פ שעבר קדם שנעשה בר ענשין

A minor who struck his father, or performed other transgressions while a minor, even though he doesn't have to do repentence when he grows up, even still it is good for him to take upon himself some measure of repentance and atonement, even though he transgressed before he was subject to punishment.

The language of the Rema implies that although it is in many (all?) cases incumbent on the father (and mother, according to some; and the Beit Din, in some cases) to rebuke him, the minor himself is not liable. This is, the Mishna Berura mentions, only when the minor is able to understand what it means to transgress a particular commandment (when the minor is בר הבנה - Bar Havana). The Mishna Berura uses the language (ad loc. s.v. tzrichim l'hafrisho):

דכיון דהגיע לחנוך מטל על כל אדם להפרישו מאסורא כמו על אביו והא דקימא לן דאין מצוין להפרישו בשלא הגיע לחנוך

When a minor reaches the age of teaching, it is incumbent on every person to separate [the minor] from forbidden things, just as [it is incumbent] on the father, and that which we established that we are not commanded to separate [the minor] is a case of when the minor has not reached the age of teaching.

We see that to rebuke the child is incumbent upon the father, mother, beit din, ... but there is nothing on the child himself.

Disclaimer: I am not a posek, not do I have any Rabbinic training.

I am assuming here that you're not talking about a child raised among idol worshippers (תינוק שנשבה), as that's a different conversation entirely.

For a quick answer of no, see here. For some explanation, as I understand it:

A minor is not liable for transgressions. The Rema in OC 343:1 says (translation mine):

וקטן שהכה אביו או עבר שאר עברות בקטנותו אע״פ שאינו צריך תשובה כשיגדל מ״מ טוב לו שיקבל על עזמו איזה דבר לתשובה ולכפרה אע״פ שעבר קדם שנעשה בר ענשין

A minor who struck his father, or performed other transgressions while a minor, even though he doesn't have to do repentence when he grows up, even still it is good for him to take upon himself some measure of repentance and atonement, even though he transgressed before he was subject to punishment.

The language of the Rema implies that although it is in many (all?) cases incumbent on the father (and mother, according to some; and the Beit Din, in some cases) to rebuke him, the minor himself is not liable. This is, the Mishna Berura mentions, only when the minor is able to understand what it means to transgress a particular commandment (when the minor is בר הבנה - Bar Havana). The Mishna Berura uses the language (ad loc. s.v. tzrichim l'hafrisho):

דכיון דהגיע לחנוך מטל על כל אדם להפרישו מאסורא כמו על אביו והא דקימא לן דאין מצוין להפרישו בשלא הגיע לחנוך

When a minor reaches the age of teaching, it is incumbent on every person to separate [the minor] from forbidden things, just as [it is incumbent] on the father, and that which we established that we are not commanded to separate [the minor] is a case of when the minor has not reached the age of teaching.

We see that to rebuke the child is incumbent upon the father, mother, beit din, ... but there is nothing on the child himself.

I am assuming here that you're not talking about a child raised among idol worshippers (תינוק שנשבה), as that's a different conversation entirely.

For a quick answer of no, see here. For some explanation, as I understand it:

A minor is not liable for transgressions. The Rema in OC 343:1 says (translation mine):

וקטן שהכה אביו או עבר שאר עברות בקטנותו אע״פ שאינו צריך תשובה כשיגדל מ״מ טוב לו שיקבל על עזמו איזה דבר לתשובה ולכפרה אע״פ שעבר קדם שנעשה בר ענשין

A minor who struck his father, or performed other transgressions while a minor, even though he doesn't have to do repentence when he grows up, even still it is good for him to take upon himself some measure of repentance and atonement, even though he transgressed before he was subject to punishment.

The language of the Rema implies that although it is in many (all?) cases incumbent on the father (and mother, according to some; and the Beit Din, in some cases) to rebuke him, the minor himself is not liable. This is, the Mishna Berura mentions, only when the minor is able to understand what it means to transgress a particular commandment (when the minor is בר הבנה - Bar Havana). The Mishna Berura uses the language (ad loc. s.v. tzrichim l'hafrisho):

דכיון דהגיע לחנוך מטל על כל אדם להפרישו מאסורא כמו על אביו והא דקימא לן דאין מצוין להפרישו בשלא הגיע לחנוך

When a minor reaches the age of teaching, it is incumbent on every person to separate [the minor] from forbidden things, just as [it is incumbent] on the father, and that which we established that we are not commanded to separate [the minor] is a case of when the minor has not reached the age of teaching.

We see that to rebuke the child is incumbent upon the father, mother, beit din, ... but there is nothing on the child himself.

2 added 301 characters in body
source | link

Disclaimer: I am not a posek, not do I have any Rabbinic training.

My understanding isI am assuming here that you're not talking about a child raised among idol worshippers (תינוק שנשבה), as that's a different conversation entirely.

For a quick answer of no, see here. For some explanation, as I understand it:

A minor is not liable for transgressions. The Rema in OC 343:1 says (translation mine):

וקטן שהכה אביו או עבר שאר עברות בקטנותו אע״פ שאינו צריך תשובה כשיגדל מ״מ טוב לו שיקבל על עזמו איזה דבר לתשובה ולכפרה אע״פ שעבר קדם שנעשה בר ענשין

A minor who struck his father, or performed other transgressions while a minor, even though he doesn't have to do repentence when he grows up, even still it is good for him to take upon himself some measure of repentance and atonement, even though he transgressed before he was subject to punishment.

The language of the Rema implies that although it is in many (all?) cases incumbent on the father (and mother, according to some; and the Beit Din, in some cases) to rebuke him, the minor himself is not liable. This is, the Mishna Berura mentions, only when the minor is able to understand what it means to transgress a particular commandment (when the minor is בר הבנה - Bar Havana). The Mishna Berura uses the language (ad loc. s.v. tzrichim l'hafrisho):

דכיון דהגיע לחנוך מטל על כל אדם להפרישו מאסורא כמו על אביו והא דקימא לן דאין מצוין להפרישו בשלא הגיע לחנוך

When a minor reaches the age of teaching, it is incumbent on every person to separate [the minor] from forbidden things, just as [it is incumbent] on the father, and that which we established that we are not commanded to separate [the minor] is a case of when the minor has not reached the age of teaching.

We see that to rebuke the child is incumbent upon the father, mother, beit din, ... but there is nothing on the child himself.

Disclaimer: I am not a posek, not do I have any Rabbinic training.

My understanding is that a minor is not liable for transgressions. The Rema in OC 343:1 says (translation mine):

וקטן שהכה אביו או עבר שאר עברות בקטנותו אע״פ שאינו צריך תשובה כשיגדל מ״מ טוב לו שיקבל על עזמו איזה דבר לתשובה ולכפרה אע״פ שעבר קדם שנעשה בר ענשין

A minor who struck his father, or performed other transgressions while a minor, even though he doesn't have to do repentence when he grows up, even still it is good for him to take upon himself some measure of repentance and atonement, even though he transgressed before he was subject to punishment.

The language of the Rema implies that although it is in many (all?) cases incumbent on the father (and mother, according to some; and the Beit Din, in some cases) to rebuke him, the minor himself is not liable. This is, the Mishna Berura mentions, only when the minor is able to understand what it means to transgress a particular commandment (when the minor is בר הבנה - Bar Havana). The Mishna Berura uses the language (ad loc. s.v. tzrichim l'hafrisho):

דכיון דהגיע לחנוך מטל על כל אדם להפרישו מאסורא כמו על אביו והא דקימא לן דאין מצוין להפרישו בשלא הגיע לחנוך

When a minor reaches the age of teaching, it is incumbent on every person to separate [the minor] from forbidden things, just as [it is incumbent] on the father, and that which we established that we are not commanded to separate [the minor] is a case of when the minor has not reached the age of teaching.

We see that to rebuke the child is incumbent upon the father, mother, beit din, ... but there is nothing on the child himself.

Disclaimer: I am not a posek, not do I have any Rabbinic training.

I am assuming here that you're not talking about a child raised among idol worshippers (תינוק שנשבה), as that's a different conversation entirely.

For a quick answer of no, see here. For some explanation, as I understand it:

A minor is not liable for transgressions. The Rema in OC 343:1 says (translation mine):

וקטן שהכה אביו או עבר שאר עברות בקטנותו אע״פ שאינו צריך תשובה כשיגדל מ״מ טוב לו שיקבל על עזמו איזה דבר לתשובה ולכפרה אע״פ שעבר קדם שנעשה בר ענשין

A minor who struck his father, or performed other transgressions while a minor, even though he doesn't have to do repentence when he grows up, even still it is good for him to take upon himself some measure of repentance and atonement, even though he transgressed before he was subject to punishment.

The language of the Rema implies that although it is in many (all?) cases incumbent on the father (and mother, according to some; and the Beit Din, in some cases) to rebuke him, the minor himself is not liable. This is, the Mishna Berura mentions, only when the minor is able to understand what it means to transgress a particular commandment (when the minor is בר הבנה - Bar Havana). The Mishna Berura uses the language (ad loc. s.v. tzrichim l'hafrisho):

דכיון דהגיע לחנוך מטל על כל אדם להפרישו מאסורא כמו על אביו והא דקימא לן דאין מצוין להפרישו בשלא הגיע לחנוך

When a minor reaches the age of teaching, it is incumbent on every person to separate [the minor] from forbidden things, just as [it is incumbent] on the father, and that which we established that we are not commanded to separate [the minor] is a case of when the minor has not reached the age of teaching.

We see that to rebuke the child is incumbent upon the father, mother, beit din, ... but there is nothing on the child himself.

1
source | link

Disclaimer: I am not a posek, not do I have any Rabbinic training.

My understanding is that a minor is not liable for transgressions. The Rema in OC 343:1 says (translation mine):

וקטן שהכה אביו או עבר שאר עברות בקטנותו אע״פ שאינו צריך תשובה כשיגדל מ״מ טוב לו שיקבל על עזמו איזה דבר לתשובה ולכפרה אע״פ שעבר קדם שנעשה בר ענשין

A minor who struck his father, or performed other transgressions while a minor, even though he doesn't have to do repentence when he grows up, even still it is good for him to take upon himself some measure of repentance and atonement, even though he transgressed before he was subject to punishment.

The language of the Rema implies that although it is in many (all?) cases incumbent on the father (and mother, according to some; and the Beit Din, in some cases) to rebuke him, the minor himself is not liable. This is, the Mishna Berura mentions, only when the minor is able to understand what it means to transgress a particular commandment (when the minor is בר הבנה - Bar Havana). The Mishna Berura uses the language (ad loc. s.v. tzrichim l'hafrisho):

דכיון דהגיע לחנוך מטל על כל אדם להפרישו מאסורא כמו על אביו והא דקימא לן דאין מצוין להפרישו בשלא הגיע לחנוך

When a minor reaches the age of teaching, it is incumbent on every person to separate [the minor] from forbidden things, just as [it is incumbent] on the father, and that which we established that we are not commanded to separate [the minor] is a case of when the minor has not reached the age of teaching.

We see that to rebuke the child is incumbent upon the father, mother, beit din, ... but there is nothing on the child himself.