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

[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.