The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos aseh # 53 writes that the mitzvah of aliya la'regel includes bringing along one's sons who can walk.
This seems to be a strange formulation, as bringing one's sons along is not part of this mitzvah d'oraysa but rather is simply a kiyum of the mitzvah of chinuch. The Rambam doesn't include the side kiyum of chinuch when he speaks about other mitzvos, so why mention it here?
See Ner Mitzvah in Chemdas Yisrael (R Meir Dan Plotzki) who leaves this b'tzarich iyun.
Could it be that “yeira’eh kol zekhurkha”, written in the passive, gives a chiyuv to fathers to bring their sons? Not alst chinukh, but as part of their maximizing how many lames are present.
ReplyDeletethe aruch hashulchan ha-asid brings that the yerushalmi holds that the chiyuv of ketanim is deoraysa, from the pasuk כל זכורך -- to include all males, even ketanim (the bavli explicitly rejects this however...)
ReplyDeleteWhere is the ירושלמי?
DeleteRambam Hil Chagiga 2:3 writes that the chiyuv is m'din chinuch.
ReplyDeleteYou could say he switched his position from what he wrote in Sh"M if you want, but that is still a dochak.
Actually the rambam's language there is fascinating. He says mdin chinuch, but then the next words are שנאמר יראה כל זכורך. So it's a chinuch deoraysa for reiyah?
Deleteירושלמי יליף מצות ראיה מהקהל אפשר לומר כמו הקהל יש מצוה להביא בנו כמו כן מצות ראיה
ReplyDelete"so why mention it here?"
ReplyDeleteshalosh regalim alluded to in Bereishis 22:2, es-been'chah es-y'chidchah asher-ahavta*? (on the other hand, Devarim 22:10, not to plow with an ox and a donkey together-- the longer strides of the father may weary his young son[s])
there's no demarcation by age in Devarim 16:16 kol-zechurcha, as in Bamidbar 1:3** (from age 20 and up) of kol-zachar 1:2; only "la'regel" qualifies the males due to ascend...
*and only then es-Yitzchak
**or as in 3:15, from one-month and up