א) מצאתי בצפורן שמיר למרן החיד"א (סימן ו אות עא) דער ואונן מתו בגיל ח'. ואיני יודע מקור דבריו ואם תוכלו לפקוח עיני יודה לכם מאוד.
ב) ועוד דמצאנו שעלי כ"ג רצה להעניש שמואל כשהי' בן ב' שנה. ולמרות כל זו מצאנו במפרשים על החומש דישמעאל לא הי' יכול ליענש משום דלא הגיע לכלל כ' שנה אע"ג דעבר אע"ז וג"א ושפ"ד כפירש"י על החומש על "ויצחק" . ועוד דידוע דהבנים קודם גיל י"ג מתים על עון ההורים. וא"כ כ"ז נ"ל סיבוך.
אם תוכלו לבאר לי היטב אימתי גיל העונשים בידי שמים, בידי אדם, ויוצאים מן הכלל וטעמן ונמוקן. שכמ"ה
תודה רבה,
הקטן אהרון ברכה, מילאנו איטליה
א)
שלום וברכה.
בקשר למקורו של הצפורן שמיר, בספר סדר הדורות גם מובא שער ואונן מתו בגיל ח'. זה מבוסס על הגמרא בתחילת פרק בן סורר ומורה (סנהדרין ס"ט:) שדורות הראשונים הולידו כבר בגיל שמונה שנים. אם ניקח בחשבון את השנים שבין מכירת יוסף לירידת בנ"י למצרים, היו שם בסה"כ 22 שנה. כשהם ירדו למצרים פרץ כבר הוליד את חצרון וחמול. אז יוצא:
יהודה מתחתן מיד אחרי המכירה
שנה לעיבור ער
שנה לעיבור אונן
שנה לעיבור שלה
שלה גודל בגיל ח
ואז סיפור תמר.
שנה לעיבור פרץ וזרח
שמונה שנים עד שפרץ גדל
שנה לעיבור חצרון
שנה לעיבור חמול
בדיוק 22 שנה. כלומר אין אפשרות אחרת.
מקורו של החשבון הזה הוא בילקוט שמעוני א:קמה.
בכבוד רב,
יהודה לנדי
ב)
Let's begin from the end, though I'm not clear what problem you have with that. Yes indeed, children under Bar-Mitzvah, who are not yet punishable for their own sins, are punishable for the sins of their parents. And what's more, from the Berachah that a father makes when his son turns Bar-Mitzvah ('Baruch she'Petarani ... '), it seems that even though children are not yet punishable for their own sins, their parents are punished for those 'sins'.
At the age of Bar/Bas Mitzvah, a child becomes responsible for his or her own sins, though he is only punishable at the hands of Beis-Din shel Matah. In Beis Din Shel Ma'alah, for some reason, he is only punished when he reaches the age of twenty (I assume that there is no difference between a boy and a girl in this regard). The source for this is a Gemara in Shabbos (89b), where, in a dialogue between Yitzchak and Hash-m, Yitzchak specifically stated that Hash-m does not punish until the age of twenty.
The source for the former is generally accepted as the Pasuk in Vayishlach (34:25), which refers to Shimon and Levi as "Ish" - and Levi was just thirteen at the time. The verse tells us "Ish b'Chet'o Yumas," meaning that punishment is only for an "Ish."
The opinion of the Rosh however, is that Beis-Din shel Matah punishing at thirteen is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (like all other Shi'urin). I suspect that the same applies to Beis-Din shel Ma'alah punishing at twenty.
As you yourself indicated, these are the principles. Any apparent contradiction must be considered an exception that begs an explanation.
You refer to two exceptions, 1. that of Er and Onan; 2. that of Shmuel.
1. I do not know of an answer to your question from Er and Onan but I suggest that the severity of the sin that they both committed may have had a hand in it, particularly, bearing in mind that there is no sin that creates evil spirits like that of Hotza'as Zera le'Vatalah. According to the Zohar, it is the sin for which Yisrael had to suffer in Egypt and the sin that keeps us in exile today). In addition, this was the sin that caused the annihilation of the Dor ha'Mabul and Er and Onan ought to have learned a lesson from there.
2. The Maharsha writes that although Shmuel was not yet Chayav Misah b'Dinei Adam, he was however Chayav b'Dinei Shamayim. But according to what we just wrote, someone who is not yet Chayav b'Dinei Adam is certainly not Chayav b'Dinei Shamayim (I will answer this question shortly).
The Maharsha adds however, that Shmuel is referred to in the Pasuk as "Na'ar", even though he was only a Katan (like Moshe, when Bisyah found him in the river). What I think he means is that Shmuel was punishable even at that early age, because maturity-wise, he was like a twenty-year old. And this is what the Eitz Yosef says, quoting the Tz'lach.
Another possible answer is that the issue with Shmuel was not one of being Chayav Misah bi'Dinei Shamayim. If it had been, then by what right did Eli rescind the Chiyuv?
It was a matter of Kavod ha'Rav, which lies within the power of the Rav to be Mochel, but if he is not, then it is that Hakpadah that causes the sinner to die. And it is possible that it can even overrides the minimum age barrier. In fact, it is possible that this is what the Maharsha is referring to when he explains that Eli wanted to punish Shmuel b'Dinei Shamayim and not b'Dinei Adam. He wanted Hash-m to punish him, not Beis Din.
I think that this explanation is also hinted at in the Iyun Ya'akov.
be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler.
K'vod R' Chrysler,
(a) Regarding halacha l'Moshe misinai as the source for misah bidei shamayim, you wrote, "I suspect that the same applies to Beis-Din shel Ma'alah punishing at twenty." Rashi on Shabbos (89b) quotes adas Korach (Bamidbar, 14) as the source for this. Also see Bamidbar Rabbah (Korach, 18:4). Another possible source may be the m'sei midbar, as can possibly be inferred from the "ee nami" in Tosafos to Bava Basra (121), who seems to link this concept with erchin as well (see also shitas R' Eliezer in Erchin 18a).
For some other sources on the topic, see R' Ovadia Bartenura to Avos (5:21, D"H "ben esrim lirdof"), Maharsha to Shabbos (89b, regarding the reason for not being punished until 20 as related to one's ability to serve Hashem, which potentially supports the cited understanding of the Maharsha about Shmuel), the Zohar on parshas Vayeira (118b-119a, distinguishing between specific heavenly judgement and general culpability for aveiros). Also, shu"t Chacham Tzvi (49) presents 3 different approaches to what this concept of "d'lo anshis alaihu" means ([1.] Sometimes B.D. shel ma'lah has rachamim and doesn't punish for averios committed below 20. [2.] Punishments for such aveiros are not executed in olam hazeh. [3.] Punishment is suspended until someone turns 20, when he can be punished for earlier aveiros that he hadn't repented for). Also, see Nachal Eisan to the gemara in Shabbos, who presents a fourth approach (namely that someone is never punished for sins committed below 20, even in Olam Haba).
(b) If I recall correctly, the Maharam Shik and the S'dei Chemed disagree with this whole concept, explaining that the gemara in Shabbos was only recording a request that Yitzchak made, and that he merely hoped that people wouldn't be punished below 20 years of age. It is unclear to me how they deal with the above cited Medrash ("she'beis din shel ma'lah ain konsim ela miben esrim shana ul'ma'lah") and Zohar ("d'ha bei dina dil'sasa anshin mitleisar sh'nin ul'eila, u'bei dina dil'eila mei'esrim sh'nin ul'hal'ah"). I would be grateful if you or someone else could clarify this for me.
(c) In any event, I am a bit confused regarding your comment about halacha l'Moshe misinai. Even if the adas Korach source is considered merely an allusion to "lo anshis alaihu", can halacha l'Moshe misinai be the source for something that is non-halachik (such as the heavenly judgement system)? Is there, in fact, a nafka minah from this concept of "lo anshis alaihu"? Can the term "halacha l'Moshe misinai" refer to a tradition g'reida?
Thanks in advance and chazak ve'ematz m'ode.
P.S. No need to include this postscript in a public mailing if you don't want to, but I believe that the correct pronunciation is "Beis-Din shel Ma'lah" rather than "Ma'alah" (with a sh'va (nach), rather than a patach, under the ayin). Please correct me if I'm wrong (and, if so, feel free to include this in the public mailing).
Robert Lepor
You seem to have researched the topic thoroughly. Yasher Koach! Here are my remarks...
(a) You say that Rashi in Shabbos cites Adas Korach as the source for Beis-Din shel Malah (note the change in spelling) not punishing before the age of twenty.
Actually, Rashi there refers to the Meraglim, and not Korach. This is particularly interesting, since Machzor Vitri on Pirkei Avos, after writing that he was taught this source (probably from Rashi, who was his Rebbe), goes on to query it, because if we accept that, will we also say that Beis-Din shel Malah does not punish from the age of sixty (seeing as the Gemara in Bava Basra [121b] specifically precludes the people who were over sixty from the decree of the Meraglim)?
Rashi in Parshas Korach however, does cite the Medrash (to which you referred) as the source, though I would describe it as the Medrash rather than 'Adas Korach'.
Some of the other reasons that you cited do not seem to concur with the Gemara in Shabbos, which suggests that B.D. shel Ma'alah does not punish until the age of twenty (period), at least not in this world (assuming of course, that this Gemara is a good source).
(b) You mentioned that if you recalled correctly, the Maharam Shik and the S'dei Chemed do not agree with the proof from the Gemara in Shabbos, because Yitzchak was merely expressing a hope. But his words 'Remove the first twenty years, on which You do not punish', suggest fact, and not just hope. Difficult as it is to comprehend, the Nachal Eisan's approach is the one that fits closest to those words. Why is that?
Firstly, because it transpires that a person must bring a Chatas be'Shogeg for the same Chiyuv Kareis for which he is not punishable at all be'Meizid.
Secondly, because it is hard to understand why the same person who is considered sufficiently mature to be held responsible with regard to sins that are punished at the hand of B.D. shel Matah, is considered immature when it comes to those that are punished by B.D. shel Malah.
I have seen the S'dei Chemed (1:Alef:12), who cites numerous references concerning this topic, including the Chacham Tzvi that you cited (who apparently queries a Rambam in Pirush ha'Mishnayos). What he actually says is that we cannot prove anything from the Gemara in Shabbos, since it is Agadah.
He also cites a Machlokes between the Noda bi'Yehudah and Tosfos on the Chumash, both of whom seem to agree that Hashem will punish a precocious child before the age of twenty (even before the age of thirteen) similar to the Maharsha to which you referred. Only whereas the former holds that this punishment takes place after the child dies (whenever that might be), the latter holds that he is punished here in this world (like Er and Onan).
(c) Basically, you are probably right. One cannot even argue that there is a difference with regard to Teshuvah, since it is obvious that Teshuvah is required whether one is punishable or not (as is evident from the third explanation that you cited from the Chacham Tzvi). And it is precisely because the statement has no Halachic ramifications that it is easy to make the statement that I made.
Yet on second thought, I wonder whether there is no difference regarding the extent of one's Teshuvah (e.g. fasting and the like) between a sin that is punishable and one that is not.
One final thought on the Sugya - The Machzor Vitri says something about someone under twenty not being subject to Misah (the death-penalty). Perhaps it is the death-sentence that Beis-Din shel Malah do not issue, but other punishments they do. This would mean that although Hashem does not punish a person in full before the age of twenty, He does issue him with a Kaparah, to cleanse him from his sins.
be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler.
Thank you for the response. It's true that the S'dei Chemed mentions the reasons that you bring (which a some other m'farshim find dachuk for various reasons [such as that a chiyuv chatas can be stam a chiyuv for violating anything that can cause a chiyuv kareis to most people]). However, I still don't understand how the S'dei Chemed deals with the Medrash and Zohar (perhaps he simply holds that other Talmudic sources argue on them).
>>"Actually, Rashi there refers to the Meraglim, and not Korach."<<
Indeed. Thank you for correcting my rather glaring mistake.
>>"...though I would describe it as the Medrash rather than 'Adas Korach'."<<
When I said that Rashi cites Adas Korach, I meant that he cites the incident of Adas Korach. Far be it from Rashi to hold of their shitos!
>> "One final thought on the Sugya - The Machzor Vitri says something about someone under twenty not being subject to Misah (the death-penalty). Perhaps it is the death-sentence that Beis-Din shel Malah do not issue, but other punishments they do. This would mean that although Hashem does not punish a person in full before the age of twenty, He does issue him with a Kaparah, to cleanse him from his sins."<<
This is perhaps supported by the Zohar on Vayeira, which says that a sinner below twenty becomes susceptible to harm from general punishments that descend to the world, though there is no specific judgement against him.
Thanks again and kol tuv.
Robert
Thank you Rebbe. Rav Chrysler's answer, however, makes the whole matter subjective. If the child is very mature than the rule doesn't apply. If the Rov is not willing to be mochel al kevodo than the rule doesn't apply even if the child is very young.
SK
Sam,
I suppose that is true. But then, it makes sense for a person to be held responsible based on his level of understanding. It does not seem difficult to suggest that every punishment - b'Yedei Shamayim - is meted out according to what Hashem expects from the person relative to what the person actually does. Chazal state that Hashem does stricter justice with the righteous (and nearly perfect) than with the simple folk.
As for the Rav foregoing his honor; I think that is self-evident. If a person sins to a fellow man, his punishment at the hands of heaven depends to a large extent on the reaction of the person that he slighted. As we learn, "ha'Kol Lefi ha'Mevayesh veha'Misbayesh." (Bava Kama 82).
Be well,
Mordecai Kornfeld
ועוד דמצאנו שעלי כ"ג רצה להעניש שמואל כשהי' בן ב' שנה. ולמרות כל זו מצאנו במפרשים על החומש דישמעאל לא הי' יכול ליענש משום דלא הגיע לכלל כ' שנה אע"ג דעבר אע"ז וג"א ושפ"ד כפירש"י על החומש על "ויצחק" . ועוד דידוע דהבנים קודם גיל י"ג מתים על עון ההורים. וא"כ כ"ז נ"ל סיבוך.
אם תוכלו לבאר לי היטב אימתי גיל העונשים בידי שמים, בידי אדם, ויוצאים מן הכלל וטעמן ונמוקן. שכמ"ה
The Kollel replied:
>> A possible answer is that the issue with Shmuel was not one of being Chayav Misah bi'Dinei Shamayim. If it had been, then by what right did Eli rescind the Chiyuv?
It was a matter of Kavod ha'Rav, which lies within the power of the Rav to be Mochel, but if he is not, then it is that Hakpadah that causes the sinner to die. And it is possible that it can even overrides the minimum age barrier. In fact, it is possible that this is what the Maharsha is referring to when he explains that Eli wanted to punish Shmuel b'Dinei Shamayim and not b'Dinei Adam. He wanted Hashem to punish him, not Beis Din. <<
I suspect that there is a very basic difference between bein odom lemokom an lachaveiro. Whereas one would not be punished bedinei shomayim only regarding all bein odom lamokom but bein odom lachaviero there would be punishment , Simirlaly Chazaol tell us a Choson and someone who becomes a Nosi a leader in klal yisroel Moichlin lo all kol avoinoisov , referring to all bein odom lemokom even those that of which is written one cannot repent (Zohar) but certainly not bein odom lachaveiro.
Mordechai Yoiel Friedman, Golders Green
Indeed there is. We see that when we do Teshuvah during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, Hashem forgives all our sins Bein Adam la'Makom, but He does not forgive those that are Bein Adam la'Chaveiro unless we have been forgiven by the person to whom we sinned. The same difference may apply to Hashem's waiting until we are twenty before punishing us.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler