The Mishneh in Megilla (19a) quotes a Machloket between R Yehudah and the Chachomim regarding whether or not a Katan

can read the Megilla for a Gadol. The Chachomim argue a Katan can not, while R Yehudah is of the opinion that a Katan can indeed read for a Gadol. Tosfot challenge the Chachomim quoting a Gemara in Brachot 20b that implies a Katan can recite Berchat HaMazon for his father assuming the Katan ate Kday Sveah (the amount to require him to Bench on a Deorayta level) while the Gadol didnt (and is responsible to bench on a Dirabanan level). It is clear why a Katan cant be Motzey a Gadol in a Mitzvah Deorayta; the Katan is not Chayuv in Mitzvot on a Deorayta level. Yet, from the Gemara is Brachot, one can conclude that a Katan can be Motzey a Gadol in Mitzvot Dirabanan. If that is the case, according to the Chachomim, why cant a Katan read the Megilla for a Gadol? Tosfot furthers his questioning by quoting a Gemara Sukkah 38b saying a Katan cant be Motzey a Gadol in Hallel, which is similar to Megilla, yet like the Megilla case, it seems to contradict the Gemara about Berchat HaMazon (which is presumable a Mitzvah Dirabanan)? In other words there is a contradiction between the Halachot of Hallel and Megilla, where a Katan cant read for a Gadol, and Benching, where a Katan can bench for a Gadol. Tosfot answers for the Chachomim by explaining that a Katan is Chayuv in Chinuch, which is Dirabanan1, and therefore in Megilla. There are two steps here, or in the words of Tosfot, two Mitzvot Dirabanan2, and the Katans Cheyuv is indirect. The Gadol, on the other hand, is directly Chayuv in Megilla. A Gadol is directly Chayuv in Hallel too. A Katan, in contrast, is Chayuv in Chinuch and therefore Chayuv is Hallel. The Benching case differs from the other two, because the father is only Chayuv Dirabanan. He didnt eat Kday Sveah. The Katan is Chayuv in one Dirabanan as well: Chinuch. That triggers a Cheyuv to bench on a Deorayta level. Because both the father and son are Chayuv in only one Dirabanan, even thought its a different Mitzvah, the Katan can be Motzey his father. One can break down the Chachomims opinion into its two basic assumptions. Firstly they argue that there are indeed two Mitzvot Dirabanan or two levels. Although, at first glance this point seems pretty strait forward, it is not as black and white as it seems to be. There is however a second assumption to this opinion. They argue further that this lowers a Katans Chayuv. Because the Katan is Chayuv in two Mitzvot Dirabanan, Halacha does not allow him to be Motzey someone Chayuv in only one3. Tosfot on 19b doesnt deal with R Yehudahs response. However R Yehudah can argue with either of the two stated assumptions. R Yehudah can respond that there arent two Mitzvot Dirabanan here, rather there is only one. A Katan is not Chayuv in

Tosfos in Brachot 20b also believes Hallel is a Mitzvah Dirabanan. It actually is subject to a Machloket between the Rambam and Ramban in the Sefer HaMitzvot. 2 There are those who believe the Megilla is Divray Kabalah and may have a Deorayta status. Tosfot doesnt seem to recognize that here. Tosfot may reject the concept that the Megilla is Divray Kabalah. Alternatively, he may accept the notion, but believe it is not the reason a Katan can not read the Megilla for a Gadol. 3 Methodologically speaking it is common to break a Shitah into these two components. The concept and its application. Here the concept is that there are two Mitzvot Dirabanan. The concept is why it matters, here it matters because it lowers the Megilla reading of the Katan.

Chinuch and therefore Megilla creating two Mitzvot Dirabanan. Rather the Katan is directly Chayuv in the Megilla like any other person. Alternatively, R Yehudah can respond there are indeed two levels or two Mitzvot, yet it is insignificant. Its irrelevant that there are two Mitzvot Dirabanan and a Katan can be Motzey a Gadol none the less. To further our analysis R Yehudahs view, we can look at a Sugya in Megilla 24a4. There the Mishneh states a Katan should not be Porase Al Shema, being that he cant be Motzey anyone. Tosfot there points out R Yehudah would agree to this Halacha even though it is Dirabanan. Tosfot continues to explain that R Yehudah limits a Katans ability to be Motzey a Gadol to Megilla where the Katan is included in the Cheyuv, literally made like a Gadol. Tosfot found precedence for this din from womens obligation, which is rooted in Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. The Katans Cheyuv seemingly stems out of Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis as well, which would serve to obligate him as any other Gadol. According to this reasoning, the Katan, who is made like a Gadol is directly Chayuv in Megilla, there is only one Dirabanan, not two, and he can be Motzey a Gadol in Megilla. Although Tosfot 19b is not clear as to how R Yehudah responds, Tosfot 24a is clear that R Yehudah argues on the number of Mitzvot Dirabanan that are found. The Chachomim say two, while R Yehudah says one. (The logic for each opinion, the Chachomim and R Yehudahs will discusses after the analysis of the Ran) The Ran (Dapay HaRiff 3b) may take a different approach to understanding R Yehudahs response. The Ran quotes the Ramban, who explains the Machloket between the Chachomim and R Yehudah in a different manner (we will return to the Rambans approach towards the end of the shiur). The Ramban thinks the Chachomim dont allow a Katan to read for a Gadol because a Katan has no Mitzvah of Chinuch. Chinuch is a Mitzvah placed on the father, to educate his son. The Katan himself has no mitzvah and can not be Motzey anyone. R Yehudah responds that a Katan is directly Chayuv in Megilla, as Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis serves as a direct obligation. The Ran5 rejects the Ramban because Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis can not serve as a Cheyuv for a Katan. It can obligate someone who is a generally Chayuv in Mitzvot, for example a woman, but a Katan, who generally isnt Chayuv in Mitzvot, cant be obligated with Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. The upshot of this Ran is that no opinion would obligate a Katan in Megilla with Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. Presumable the Ran would reject Tosfot in Megilla for the same reason. Because R Yehudah cant argue that the Katan is directly Chayuv in Megilla via Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis, he must argue there is no difference between one Dirabanan and two. The difference between the Ran and Tosfots understanding of R Yehudah is profound. Any other Mitzvah Dirabanan would fall subject to debate as to whether R Yehudah would allow a Katan to be Motzey a Gadol.

Methodologically, seeing the scope and range of a shitah is useful in determining its nature. In our context, whether or not R Yehudah allows a Katan to be Motzey a Gadol by other things besides Megilla will help us understand why he allows a Katan to read the Megilla for a Gadol. 5 I am not sure why the Ran had to reject the Rambans understanding of the Chachomim. His attack is only of the Rambans understanding of R Yehudah.

For example, can a Katan read Hallel for a Gadol according to R Yehudah? Tosfot 24a would say no. R Yehudah allowed a Katan to read the Megilla only for he was considered a Gadol for Megilla. The Ran, however, thinks R Yehudah would allow a Katan to read for Hallel for a Gadol. After all, they are both Mitzvot Dirabanan. Even though Hallel is obligatory because of Chinuch and it is considered two Mitzvot, that fact has no impact, and a Katan can read Hallel for a Gadol. The same would be true about a Katan being Porase Al Shema. According to the Ran, R Yehudah would allow a Katan to do this. After all it is a Mitzvah Dirabanan, and, again, a Katan can do this like a Gadol. Why doesnt either the Gemara in Sukkah about Hallel or in Brachot Porase Al Shema mention anything about R Yehudah? Although, this question isnt directly asked, the answers can be inferred. The Ran would posit, R Yehudah disagrees on all Mitzvot Dirabanan. The Mishneh only needs to mention it once. Tosfot in Megilla 24a would answer that R Yehudah doesnt argue. The only one time R Yehudah disagreed was by Megilla, that why it was taught there6. Before explaining further the two possible approaches to the Machloket R Yehudah and the Chachomim, it pays to briefly review them first. Tosfot 24a approach seems to place the point of debate on whether or not there is one or two Mitzvot Dirabanan. The Ran, on the other hand, thinks both shitot agree there are two Mitzvot. The Machloket is whether or not that prevents a Katan from enabling a Gadol to fulfill his obligation. Again, according to Tosfot 24a, the Machloket seems to be whether or not Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis, can apply to a Katan. R Yehudah argues yes, while the Chachomim argue no. What is the logic for each opinion? Why do the Chachomim refuse to apply Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis, while R Yehudah accepts this application? To understand whether or not Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis should serve a Cheyuv for a Katan, one must analysis Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. It can not be determined whether or not Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis can MiChayuv a Katan without first understanding well what Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is7. Tosfot in Megilla 4a (as well as Pesachim 108b and Shabbat) quote two possible translations of Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. The Rashbam says it means Al Yadam, meaning the Neis of Purim was via Ester, Chanukah via Yehudit and Pesach via the Nashim Tzidkaneyot. Tosfot, rejects this opinion textually, (Af seems to include them in the Cheyuv, not present as primary sources of the miracle). In stead of Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis presenting them as active roles in the Neis, Tosfot says they were beneficiaries of that Neis8. There may be several ramifications to this Machloket. The Bet Yosef9 posits that whether an Eved (slave) is Cheyuv in the Megilla may depend on this Machloket. The
6

Classically when something isnt taught, its either because it obvious and doesnt need to be taught (in this case the Ran), or it isnt true and cant be taught (in this case Tosfot). 7 Methodologically, to understand the scope or application of a concept, one must first define that concept. The definition of that concept should determine its scope. In our context, whether or not Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis will or wont apply to a Katan depends on what Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is. 8 Rashi himself seems to contradict himself in different places in Shas. 9 The Griz thought this question depended on whether Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is a new Cheyuv, in which case an Eved would not be Cheyuv, or just a manner in determining the scope of the particular Mitzvah, in which case they would be Patur. We will return to this Griz later in the shiur.

Rashbam would argue they arent, for they were no active participants, while Tosfos might argue yes, for they would have been saved as well. Another possible Halachik different might be whether a Katan can fall under this category. According to the Rashbams definition, a Katan wouldnt be Chayuv in Megilla. Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is designed for women only. This might serve as the basis for the Chachomim. However, R Yehudah may accept Tosfots understanding of Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis which can serve to include all children. Before moving on the how the Ran would analyze this Machloket, there may be a second way for Tosfot do explain the core issue behind this debate. It stems from another central question as to how Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis operates. It is debatable as to whether Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis can serve to obligate someone in a Mitzvot Deorayta. It most likely falls subject to different opinions in Tosfot, one in Pesachim and one in Megilla. Tosfot in Pesachim 108b ask why women arent Chayuv in Sukkah10. Shouldnt Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis apply and serve as a basis for women to sit in a Sukkah? Tosfot answers that Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis can only operate for Mitzvot Dirabanan. Tosfot in Megilla 4a wonder why the Gemara uses a Hekesh from Chomaytz (anyone who cant eat Chomaytz is Cheyuv in Matzah) as a source that woman are Chayuv in Matzah. Why not suggest Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis? There Tosfot quotes two answers. Firstly, Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis can only create a Cheyuv Dirabanan while the Hekesh creates a Cheyuv Deorayta. Secondly, R Yosef Yerushalayim explains, that if Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis alone would serve as the source, an independent Gezarah Shava of Tu Tu 11 would override Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. Therefore the Hekesh is needed. Either way, Tosfot in Megilla certainly didnt say what Tosfot did in Pesachim, that Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is restricted to Mitzvot Dirabanan. Either answer assumes Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis applies to Mitzvot Deorayta. What is the logic for either opinion of Tosfot? Why do Tosfot in Megilla think Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis extends to all Mitzvot, Deorayta and Dirabanan, while Tosfot in Pesachim believe Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is limited to Mitzvot Dirabanan only? The easier opinion to understand is Tosfot in Megilla12. There is no reason to limit Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. It operates by Mitzvot Deorayta and Dirabanan alike. The more difficult opinion to understand is that of Tosfot in Pesachim. Why limit Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis to Mitzvot Dirabanan? Why not include Mitzvot Deorayta? This Machloket may depend on two possible definitions the Griz13 in Eruchin offers as to what Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is? The classic understanding of Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is that it is an independent concept that can create a Halachik obligation. Alternatively, Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is a factor considered in determining the scope of Mitzvot Dirabanan. Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis merely is a
10

Rav Moshe Soloveitchik answered that Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis applies to Mitzvot that involve Persumay Nisa only. Sukkah and Matzah are not Persumay Nisa and therefore are not subject to Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. 11 The Gemara makes a Gezarah Shava between Sukkot and Pesach which both use the date of the 15th. 12 When trying to determine a Nikudat HaMachloket, it often helps to articulate the logic for the easier opinion to understand. The next step would be to figure out why the other opinion disagrees. 13 This is the same Griz in the footnote above.

reason the Rabanan decided to include women in Megilla. Being that Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is a Rabinic principle, it is limited to Mitzvot Dirabanan. In other words, does Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis create a new Cheyuv or does it operate as a MiChayuv within the Mitzvah being dealt with. For this reason the Ran may have rejected the Rambans approach to understanding the Machloket between R Yehudah and the Chachomim. The Ran was convinced that Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is merely a mechanism used to include women in several Mitzvot Dirabanan. It follows that it cant serve as a source of obligation for a Katan14. These two approaches to Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis may lie behind the Machloket between R Yehudah and the Chachomim. R Yehudah thinks Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis in an independent source of Cheyuv and therefore it obligates a Katan. The Chachomim, view Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis differently. It can be used to determine someones Cheyuv but not create it. It follows that a Katan is Patur. As mentioned before, the Ran is intolerant of anyone believing that Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis can obligate a Katan. He must learn the Machloket R Yehudah and the Chachomim to revolve around the significance of two Mitzvot Dirabanan. The point of debate between them is whether two Mitzvot Dirabanan lowers ones ability to read the Megilla for someone only once removed. Our scenario was whether a Katan, Chayuv in Chinuch and therefore in the Megilla, because of his double Cheyuv, is lowered and can not discharge a Gadol in Megilla. What might this Machloket depend upon? Why would or wouldnt a Katan being Chayuv in Chinuch lower his level of Cheyuv in a manner that would effect whether or not he can me Motzey a Gadol? Seemingly this question would depend on the nature of Chinuch. Knowing how Chinuch operates should determine if it is a significant enough step to lower the Katan. In other words, whether or not Halacha cares there is an extra step should depend on what that step is. Since that step is Chinuch, it pays to investigate Chinuch. There is a Machloket as to when the Mitzvah of Chinuch begins. Rashi in Eruchin (2b) quotes a Machloket as to the exact age. Although debated, there is one set age where Chinuch us triggered. Tosfot, in contrast, (Eruchin 2b, Sukkah 28a) argues it depends on the situation. When the kid is mature enough to perform the Mitzvah, he is Chayuv in Chinuch. Chinuch can be viewed in one of two ways. It can be an independent Mitzvah called Chinuch. Alternatively, it can be a stage where a Katan begins to perform Mitzvot. When a Katan lifts a Luluv, for example, he can fulfill a Mitzvah called Luluv or Chinuch. One difference may be when Chinuch begins. Assuming Rashi is correct and Chinuch begins at one specific age, most likely Chinuch is an independent Mitzvah, called Chinuch. If, However, Tosfot is correct and Chinuch begins at different ages,
14

The Behag (quoted in Tosfot in Megilla 4a) who says women are Chayiv in Shemya and not Kreyah and therefore cant read the Megilla for men, must believe that Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is an new Cheyuv. If it were merely a mechanism is determining that women were Chayuv in Megilla, their Cheyuv would parallel mens and they would be able to be Motzey men. Rashi (Eruchin 3a) who believes women can be Motzey men in Megilla might accept the notion that Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis is merely a mechanism determining who is Chayuv in the Mitzvah. It is also worthwhile to note that there is a discussion if a Katan can read Megilla for a woman.

depending on the Mitzvah, it would seem that Chinuch is not a separate specific Mitzvah, but rather an age where a Katan should begin performing the real Mitzvot. It follows that the Katan starts each Mitzvah when he is ready. These two approached may be yet a new way used to explain the Machloket between R Yehudah and the Chachomim. Potentially, the Chachomim argue Chinuch in an independent Mitzvah. When a Katan reads the Megilla, he isnt Chayuv in Megilla. He is Chayuv in Chinuch which translates into the necessity to read the Megilla. If R Yehudah accepts the alternate approach to Chinuch, it may be understood why he ignores the fact that there are two Mitzvot and allow a Katan to read the Megilla for a Gadol. The Mitzvah of Chinuch is ignored here because it doesnt have its own independence; its merely a mechanism in obligating the Katan. The Ramban, as mentioned before, explains the Chachomims opinion of why a Katan can read the Megilla for a Gadol to be simple. A Katan has no Mitzvot placed on him ever. Chinuch is a Mitzvah placed on his father. R Yehudah here disagrees and thinks Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis can obligate a Katan. Presumably the Chachomim would reject Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis in such a context. This rejection can be for either of the reasons mentioned above. They may think Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis means via the women, as understood by the Rashbam. This is one reason they may exclude a Katan from Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. Alternatively, they may argue Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis cannot create a Cheyuv. It can only be used as a way of determining the scope of a Halacha, as the Ran had stated. This too would preclude a Katan from Af Hayn Hayu Boto HaNeis. Before analyzing the Machloket between Tosfot and the Ramban, it pays to interpret the Gemara in Brachot according to the Ramban. The Gemara there had concluded a Ben (son) can bench for his father when he ate Kday Sveah and is Chayuv in Chinuch to bench Deorayta and the father ate less than Kday Sveah and is also Chayuv Dirabanan. This is Gemara seems to be difficult for the Ramban to accept, because it clear that a Katan can Bench for his father. Yet according to the Ramban, this should be impossible because all of Chinuch falls on the father and a Katan cant ever be Motzey anyone in anything. The Ramban himself answers this question by saying the Ben (son) the Gemara describes is really a Gadol. This boy is of the age of Bar Mitzvah and is benching for his father. This suggestion is somewhat difficult to read into the Gemara in Brachot, yet it is the Rambans defense. The point worth noting is the Machloket between Tosfos and the Ramban15. The Ramban places the Cheyuv of Chinuch of the father. Tosfot seems to disagree with that point. According to Tosfot, the son is responsible in Chinuch himself16. This Machloket is actually found in Brachot 48a. There Rashi says that Chinuch is a Mitzvah for the father, while Tosfot, Lshitato, argues its placed on the son.

15

It is worthwhile to note the Rambam in several places seems to place the Mitzvah on Chinuch the father and in other places on the son. 16 How can the Mitzvah of Chinuch be placed on a Katan if Lo Tasur, the Mitzvah obligating one to listen to the Rabanan isnt binging on a Katan? Rav Elchanon Wasserman in Kuntres Divray Sofrim Siman 1 deals with this issue.