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

[miz-hatbox.livejournal.com]

Seems unfair to disqualify a prodigy.

[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.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Seems to me that there are two parts to the "age of training" -- ability and understanding.

I can imagine a child who is old enough to have the skills to read from the Megillah, but not old enough to understand why, or what they're really doing.

Let's assume that I learned to read Hebrew as soon as I learned to read English. Which I didn't, but bear with me. I would have then been able to read the Megillah at, say, three or four years old.

There is no way, at that age, that I would have been able to understand what I was doing, in terms of having anything approaching proper kavanah.

And, it seems to me, that's what the issue is. Why else would a deranged man not be qualified? If it was just the reading, then it would count. It has to be the understanding.

Which would suggest that that time that someone programmed their Macintosh's speech synthesizer to do Chapter 3 . . . oops.

[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).

[geekosaur]

Recordings definitely don't count according to YHE. Even using a microphone / loudspeaker is technically unacceptable. (Apparently there's a discussion in the Genara about whether hearing an echo of a shofar counts as hearing the shofar on Rosh HaShanah, which was used as the basis for this.)

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

Not to change subjects, but I believe most deaf people *can* hear their own voices. They hear it same way we do, via bone conduction. They just can't hear your response. Does this change things?
-- Dagonell

[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.

[cellio]

Ah, age of understanding would sure make a difference! Thanks for pointing that out.

[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.

[cellio]

I'm not sure how the rabbis consider that. (I'll try to remember to ask.) There are some areas where "hear" seems to specifically mean "hear the output of the mouth", but maybe not everywhere.

(There is also an understanding that, well, for yourself if that's all you can do then that's all you can do, but in the case of someone acting as agent for the community, there are (presumably) more options so they can be pickier.)