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]

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).