- Must a Child Fulfill a Mitzvah in the Same Valid Manner as an Adult?
The question is whether the form of a mitzvah performed by a child must be identical to the way an adult fulfills it in order to count as proper fulfillment. In other words, must the mitzvah be performed in a manner that would fully discharge the obligation were the child an adult, or is it sufficient for the child to fulfill the mitzvah with certain deficiencies, so long as the general command is observed?
The Poskim[1] rule is that the obligation of chinuch requires more than exposure to the general idea or spirit of the mitzvah. Rather, one must train the child to perform the mitzvah with all of its essential, validating details, to the extent that if the same act were performed by the child as an adult, it would fully satisfy the obligation. It is not sufficient to fulfill the mitzvah in a way that contains an element of invalidation, even if the general concept of the mitzvah is present.
- For example, with respect to the mitzvah of chinuch in shaking the lulav, one may not give a child an invalid lulav set that does not meet the proper halachic standards. Since such a performance would not fulfill the mitzvah for an adult, it likewise fails to satisfy the requirement of chinuch.
[1] See Ritva Sukkah 2b that even a child may not dwell in the sukkah that is over 20 cubits tall; Ran Yuma 82a; Rabbeinu Manoach on Rambam Shevisas Assur 2:10; Biur Halacha end of 657 [however, see M”B 658:28] See regarding Daled Minim being owned by the Katan: M”A 658:8; P”M 658 A”A 8; Bikurei Yaakov 658:18; Chayeh Adam 152:11; See Even Yisrael 7:3; Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:224; 2:104; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 106; Likkutei Sichos Vol. 35 Parshas Vayeira; Piskeiy Teshuvos 343:8; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 3:1-9
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if one does not have another Lulav available to give the children then he may give the children his personal Lulav as a borrowed item, and not as a present. The reason for this is because one fulfills the Mitzvah of Chinuch even if the child does not fulfill the Biblical Mitzvah. [Opinions brought in M”B 658:28; Ashel Avraham Butchach Tinyana 658; Orchos Rabbeinu 2:297; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:10; See Toras Hakatan [Rubinovitch] Chapter 3:1-8]
Chiddush of Rabbeinu Manoach and Rebbe in Likkutei Sichos: One may suggest that there exists a Biblical obligation of educating the child in Mitzvos for the sake of preparation for the future, although that this obligation carries with it the leniency that the child is not obligated to be educated to perform the Mitzvah with all of its validating details. Since the main purpose of the Biblical command is for preparation and contains no intrinsic value, therefore, it is not so crucial if the fulfillment of the Mitzvah is lacking some details, so long as the child receives the general concept of the command and knows how to fulfill it. However, once the sages made the Rabbinical decree of educating a child, the Mitzvah now carries intrinsic value and therefore must be fulfilled properly with all the details. [See Rabbeinu Manoach on Rambam Shevisas Assur 2:10 from whom the Rebbe learns to be making this explicit distinction. Rabbeinu Manoach on Rambam Shevisas Assur 2:10 explains based on the Rambam, that there are two different levels of obligation of educating a child to fast on Yom Kippur. The obligation to educate a child below the age of 11 to fast for a few hours is not a rabbinical command of Chinuch but is due to the general obligation of a father to educate a child which obligates the father to educate the child in the general concept of the mitzvah, while the obligation for the child to fast from age 11 is an actual rabbinical obligation and therefore the child must fast the entire day] Practically, however, the Rebbe rejects this explanation that Chinuch is Biblical from any level. [See Likkutei Sichos ibid]