The Rambam paskens (Hil Brachos ch 5) that a child as an obligation in birchas hamazon based on the din of chinuch. A child can be motzi an adult who ate less than k'dei sevi'a (i.e. the adult's chiyuv is also only derabannan) because the child's obligation is parallel to that of the adult. Yet, in Hil Chanukah (ch 3) the Rambam states unequivocally that a child cannot be motzi an adult in kri'as hallel even through the Rambam holds that kri'as hallel is only a chiyuv derabbanan.
Once upon a time we discussed the machlokes Rishonim whether chinuch is an obligation on the father to train his son, or whether it makes the child chayav m'derabbanan in mitzvos. It's beyond what I have time now to get into, but it seems the Rambam formulates it different ways in different places, sometimes writing "mechanchin es ha'katan" (or other such terminology), indicating the obligation rests on the parent, other times, like with respect to bentching, indicating that the katan himself is obligated in the mitzvah. Whether there is any distinction in this regard between bentching and mikra megillah is something worth looking into.
Rav Wahrman z"l in his sefer She'eiris Yosef (vol 7) offers a different distinction, one that we discussed before as well. R' Shternbruch (see full post here) is mechadesh that chinuch only obligates a child in mikra megillah but not in the seudah of Purim. The difference between the two is that mikra megillah is a mechanical act; the reading is an end in and of itself. The seudah of Purim is a means to fulfill the mitzvah of simcha, which is an emotional state. The kiyum b'lev is the essential component of the mitzvah. A child may not understand fully what he/she is doing, but he/she can perform a behavior; however, when the emotions and thoughts are themselves part and parcel of the definition of the mitzvah, the katan has no way to do the mitzvah properly.
Hallel, suggests R' Wahrman, is by definition a reflection and expression of simcha. Without that kiyum b'lev, it's just words. That's why on Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur, where, as the gemara says, "the books of life and death are open," we are exempt from hallel. The recitation would be devoid of the joy that makes the reading into hallel. A child cannot empathize and feel the same emotional response as an adult; therefore, there is no chinuch on the mitzvah of hallel.
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
mitzvah of chinuch for hallel
Posted by Chaim B. at 9:04 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
And yet the Torah is mechayev a father to be mesame'ach his children on the chagim.ReplyDelete
I ask the same question as you from simchas Y"T in the original post I did with R' Shternbruch's chiddush. Also, there is a chiyuv chinuch in tefilah as well.Delete
Rav Wahrman's idea can perhaps also explain the shitos that a child is not obligated in Krias Shma, even if he is of chinuch age - since the essence of K"S is not saying the words, but Kabollas Ol Malchus Shamayim.ReplyDelete
Another view on the Rambam and his opinion on Hallel. Please read the following:ReplyDelete
Is a women obligated to say Hallel on Chanukah?
There seems to be a machlokes Rishonim. The Rambam (Chanukah 3/14) says that women are exempt from saying Hallel. Other Poskim argue and bring Tosafos (Sukkah 38 D’H Mi) who says that women are obligated because they too partook in the miracle (Af hein b'oso ha'nes).
Rav Sternbuch (Moadim uzmanim chelek beis, 146) explains the Rambam, that whatever was decreed as a memorial for the miracle of Chanukah, is incumbent on women as well as men since women also partook in the miracle (Af heim b'oso ha'nes). However, hallel is a general obligation to give thanks, and praise on any miracle from which we were saved. Therefore, women are not obligated in its recital since it is a Mitzvas Aseh She'hazman Grama.
It is difficult to understand the reasoning of Rav Sternbuch because even if he is right that Hallel is a more general obligation, and therefore it qualifies as a Mitzvos Aseh She’hazman Grama, why cant we say that a specific Chanukah obligation which arises out of women’s unique role in the successful outcome of Chanukah can obligate women in the Hallel of Chanukah. So, just as women are obligated to light menorah despite lighting being a zman Grama, so too they should have to say hallel because of their unique role in the victory of Chanukah despite its status as a Mitzvos Aseh She’hazman Grama? Any ideas would be appreciated.
Isn't this how all Brisker torah works -- you have your boxes and put the Rambam in box A and Tosfos in box B and shalom al yisrael. Why the Rambam thought something goes in box A as opposed to box B is not something they ask. All that matters is that the two possibilities are logically possible.Delete
I read few articles on this site and I think that your web blog is real interesting Cara Mengobati Jengger Ayam dengan obat herbal de natureReplyDelete