a talmudic puzzler

[cellio]

A discussion in talmud tries to determine who is and is not permitted to do the public reading of the megillah for Purim, and three cases are raised: a deranged man, a deaf man, and a child. Everyone's clear that the deranged man is out. There's a lot of argument about the deaf man (who can speak but can't hear his own words), and then there's an aside by Rashi -- surprisingly not supported in text -- about the child. He says it depends on whether the child has reached the "age of training" -- that is, the age at which he can be trained to perform mitzvot. (While one is not obligated until the age of 13, you've got to learn and practice before then so you'll be ready.) The argument is mostly focusing on ex-post-facto cases (b'diaved) -- that is, someone questionable has gone and done a megillah reading; does it count?

Check me on this: we are having a discussion of whether the child who just read the megillah is of an age where he can be trained to do so? I am obviously missing something.

My guess -- also not supported in text -- is that this hinges on the typical age of training, not any individual case; if custom is that you can't learn to do this until you're 10, a 9-year-old prodigy is disqualified.

(B'rachot 15b, if you're curious.)

Comments

[geekosaur]

I'm not actually sure of that. One below the formal age of bar mitzvah cannot read Torah in public or count toward a minyan, but IIRC for some other things an adult may judge if a child understands enough to participate and have it count, providing he (we're talking Talmud, after all...) has reached the age of training (typically around age 5 IIRC). Something like the Purim reading, which is d'rabbanan to begin with, would then be a gray area for a child between the ages of 5 and 13 — hence the discussion.

[geekosaur]

FWIW this was the subject of one of Yeshiva Har Etzion's Purim shiurim, and it was concluded that the discussion was not merely whether the child had reached age 5 or not but whether the child was old enough and whether there was reason to believe that it could be considered a mitzvah d'oraita (which would mandate the bar mitzvah). There was a related discussion regarding whether a woman was allowed to read for a group, which hinged on the same question and also whether women were considered obligated in Purim m'gillah reading or not (inconclusive, I think).

[cellio]

Right, the Purim reading is d'rabbanan; we're not talking torah-reading. (Some of the arguments here are actually brought from the commandment to recite the sh'ma, which of course is d'oraita.) I wonder if the age of training varies with the difficulty of the mitzvah; learning to say (and mean) motzi might be different from reading the megillah, for instance.

[geekosaur]

"Age of training" just means that below that age, don't even bother trying; what happens at and above it is up to the parents' and teacher's judgement.