A casual remark by my sister gave me the food for thought for this post. She commented that her daughter of 0 years of age was with the babysitter and did not get the chinuch of listening to the shofar. Obviously, her daughter has not yet reached the age of chinuch so she would not have a chinuch obligation but I was wondering is there a din of chinuch of girls for מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. I did a search on Ozter Hachama and found some results discussing this question but I did not see many very early sources on the topic. I will try to explain some of the issues behind the question.
Before getting to the issue of מעשהז"ג specifically, there is a debate over whether one has an obligation of chinuch for one's daughter at all. The simple read of the Gemarah Nazir (29a) according to Resh Lakish is that there is no obligation of chinuch for one's daughter (see Tosfos there and Magen Avraham siman 343.) However, the conclusion of most poskim is not this way (M.A. ibid, see Machatsis Hashekel's citation of Tosfos Yoma, Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah volume 2 #113.)
Is there chinuch for something where the child will never become obligated? The Gemarah Chagigah (6a) is clear that there is no din of chinuch when one will never come to become obligated in the matter. In that case we can say since a girl never becomes obligated in מעשהז"ג there is no din of chinuch. On the other hand, one might say that the Gemarah is referring to when it is not even a maaseh mitzvah as in the case of the Gemarah a blind or lame child who would not be obligated in עלייה לרגל even as an adult. However, a woman's kium of a מעשהז"ג is a maaseh mitzvah and perhaps there would be chinuch for such a mitzvah.
If one is obligated in chinuch only if it is an obligation why must one be מחנך their son to wear tzitzit (Sukkah 42a) if tzitzit is not an obligation, it is only if one wears a four-cornered garment that they must wear tzitzit? That would seem to be akin to the woman performing a מעשהז"ג? It would seem that case is different for although it is not incumbent upon one to wear tzitzit, if one does wear a four-cornered garment, they must wear tzitzit. The obligation of chinuch is to train the child for that eventual, likely, possibility. On the other hand, the girl will never come to an obligation for a מעשהז"ג.
Another issue raised by the Kozhiglover (Eretz Tzvi Moadim Sukkah pg. 215) is how can a girl say a beracha on a מעשהז"ג? Presumably, if there is a din of chinuch, they would be able to say a beracha just like a woman (according to minhag Ashkenaz.) However, if there is no obligation of chinuch, how can they say a beracha, a woman says it due to her kium mitzvah but a minor does not have that? He assumes the only reason to say a beracha is for the mitzvah of chinuch. However, we also can add to the scale that a minor does not have the issur of lo sesa and possibly can say the beracha even without the mitzvah of chinuch, or maybe even witjout the din of chinuch the mitzvah of a minor still counts to say a beracha, וצ"ע.
There is an article by R' Tzvi Ryzman going through some sources and sevarot on the topic here.
It is also noteworthy that I saw cited in a kovetz בית ועד לחכמים in a piece by ר' יחזקאל וינבך who discusses this topic cites a Raavad on the Torah Kohanim parsha 2 (cited in Kuntrasi Shiurim siman 20 oas 5, according to Rav Gustman's emendation of the Raavad,) he proves form the obligation of chinuch for a katan that so too according to R' Yehuda who holds blind people are patur from mitzvot, there would still be a Rabbinic obligation. The blind person will never become obligated according to R' Yehuda, yet he still derives from chinuch an obligation. Presumably he would hold the same for girls for מעשהז"ג.
No comments:
Post a Comment