Last post I mentioned the view of BaHa"G who distinguishes between the chiyuv of men and the chiyuv of women in megillah. Men are obligated to actually *read* the text; women are only obligated to *hear* it being read by someone else.
One would expect that a male katan is chayav to *read* megillah -- he becomes obligated m'derabbanan based on the din of chinuch as a male adult. Yet the Hagahos Maimoni in hill megillah equates the chiyuv of a katan with that of women - to listen, but not to read!
It would appear that the chiyuv of a katan in megillah does not stem from the general chiyuv of chinuch, but rather is a specific chiyuv mi'dina in hilchos megillah. Just like women are included because of af hein, so too children ate also included because they were potential victims of Haman's decree.
The mishna (Meg 19) quotes a machlokes tanaim as to whether a katan can be motzi a gadol in mikra megillah. Tos struggles to explain why not. Based on the Hagahos Maimoni one could suggest that the issue is whether a katan is chayav in keriah m'din chinuch like any other male adult, or whether he is obligated only like a woman based on this unique din in megillah. (See R Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi' s Birchas Mordechai siman 15).
זה בירושלמי וכן בפסחים ד כוסות
ReplyDeleteSee Tosfos Brachos 48a-b about kid who ate kbeitza to be motzi adult who ate only kzayis. First he says sometimes Chinuch is a mitzvah on the child and sometimes it is on the father (See Gram Halevi [ben Reb Chaim] in Kol Brisk p 160-161 about this). The Tosfos says a katan's bentching is qualitatively different than an adult who ate kzayis. That answer can apply here
ReplyDelete