Enfants dans le minyan !

J'ai également demandé [dans mon rêve] s'il était permis [dans le décompte du minyan] d'inclure deux ajouts d'enfants plus âgés, c'est-à-dire des enfants de dix ou onze ans, puisqu'ils sont déjà rabbiniquement tenus d'être éduqués, ou s'il était interdit de faire une telle chose, même s'il n'y avait pas de minyan sans eux.

Ils ont répondu : "Les jeunes avec les vieux : "Les jeunes avec les vieux, que Dieu augmente votre nombre !". (Psaumes 115:13)

We also learned in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun. Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a zimmun. The Gemara objects: Didn’t we learn in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a zimmun, one may make him an adjunct to complete an assembly of ten people, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a zimmun. On the subject of completing a zimmun, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine Jews and a slave join together to form a zimmun of ten. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find a quorum of ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the quorum of ten. From this we may infer that if he freed his slave, yes, he may join the quorum of ten, but if he did not free him, no, he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, two were required to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer freed one and fulfilled his obligation with another one, who completed the quorum of ten without being freed. With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his Canaanite slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of a mitzva is different. The Gemara asks: It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: A mitzva that benefits the many is different, and one may free his slave for that purpose. In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early to go to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten to complete the quorum, as even if one hundred people arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all, as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: Does it enter your mind that he receives the reward of them all? Why should he take away their reward? Rather, emend the statement and say: He receives a reward equivalent to the reward of them all. With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark in which the Torah scrolls are stored join to form a quorum of ten. Rav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man, that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together. There was disagreement over this: Some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are gathered. And some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are scattered, the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals. Similarly, Rav Ami said: Two people and Shabbat join to form a zimmun. Rav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person, that it may be counted in a zimmun? Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect in halakhic discourse join together and are considered three. The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda pointed to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: For example, me and Rav Sheshet. Similarly, Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda. With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a zimmun, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A mature minor, i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, is included in a zimmun. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: A minor who grew two pubic hairs, a sign of puberty, is included in a zimmun; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a zimmun. And one is not exacting with regard to a minor. The Gemara comments: This baraita itself is difficult. You said that a minor who grew two hairs, yes, he is included, one who did not grow two hairs, no, he is not included, and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What does this last clause come to include? Is it not to include a mature minor? Explain the baraita as follows: A minor who grew two hairs is included in a zimmun, and we are not exacting with regard to a minor to ascertain whether or not he has reached the age of majority. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with all of these statements. Rather, the halakha is in accordance with this statement that Rav Naḥman said: A minor who knows to Whom one recites a blessing is included in a zimmun. The Gemara relates that Abaye and Rava, when they were children, were seated before Rabba. Rabba said to them: To whom does one recite blessings? They said to him: To God, the All-Merciful. Rabba asked them: And where does the All-Merciful reside? Rava pointed to the ceiling. Abaye went outside and pointed toward the heaven. Rabba said to them: You will both become Sages. It is as the popular saying goes: A cucumber can be recognized from its blossoming stage. Similarly, a great person can be recognized even from a young age.

THE HALAKHA IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OF THESE STATEMENTS, RATHER WITH A MINOR WHO KNOWS. Tosfos will clarify which of the previous teachings about the leniencies for forming a zimun or a minyon R’ Nachmon is rejecting. It appears that this statement that the halochoh is not in accordance with all the previously mentioned teachings also refers to R’ Yochonon’s ruling about a minor who has sprouted pubic hairs, and is saying that we do not rule as R’ Yochonon does. And this is not clear, for it is not the way of the Gemara to reject the words of amoroim and the Braiso that was brought as proof to R’ Yochonon without any reason for the rejection.
And we can answer: That it does refer to the minor who has sprouted pubic hairs, but the R’ Nachmon is not rejecting R’ Yochonon’s ruling, rather, he is modifying it. It means to say R’ Yochonon’s teaching that a minor who sprouts may be included in the zimun, is exclusively when he knows to whom he is reciting the b’rochoh, and both, sprouting and knowledge of to whom the b’rochoh is addressed are required.
And according to our explanation we must say that the Gemara did not cite the story of Abaye and Rovo as far as uniting with them for the zimun, but to clarify the concept of a minor who knows to whom the b’rochoh is addressed. For most probably they, Abaye and Rovo, were not sprouting at that time. For if they were sprouting, which places them at about thirteen years of age, wherein is their greatness that they knew to whom the b’rochoh is addressed when they were already thirteen years old? And Raboh also who asked them this question, that was to show that they had understanding even though they were quite young and not to unite with them for a zimun since they had not sprouted as of yet.
Rabainu Tam will now prove that the Gemara’s statement that the halochoh is not in accordance with all the previous teachings does not refer to the teaching of R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee who said that a minor in his crib can be used as the tenth for a zimun of ten. And Rabainu Tam says that although the halochoh is not like all the Gemara’s previously mentioned teachings, however the halochoh is in accordance with R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee who said that an actual minor may be used as an accessory to be counted as a tenth so that the name of Hashem may be recited in the zimun. And here, where the Gemara requires that the minor be sprouting, that is when we are using him as the third in order to recite the zimun.
And the statement the halochoh is not in accordance with all these teachings does not refer to R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee. And this can also be deduced from the fact that the Gemara interrupts its list of leniencies about uniting for a zimun after teaching us R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee’s ruling about using a child in a crib as a tenth with the story about R’ Eliezer who freed his slave so that they would have a minyon, and with another teaching of R’ Y’B’L’ that says that one should always awaken early to come to the synagogue and with the Braiso that teaches as he did.
If it does not refer to the teaching of R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee, to which teachings does it refer? Rather, it refers to those teachings that follow the Braiso that supports him, R’ Yehosua ben Laivee, that one should awaken early etc. For example, nine men and an ark, or Shabos and two men, or nine that appear as ten, or two scholars who sharpen each other’s learning, or a minor who is sprouting. Even though we learned that in a Braiso, to include the minor who sprouts, Rav Nachmon will set up that Braiso that it is speaking of when the minor does not know to whom the b’rochoh is addressed.
And that is also in agreement with R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee who says earlier that we cannot unite with a minor for zimun, the meaning is that the minor is laying in a crib, and obviously is unaware of to whom the b’rochoh is addressed until he knows to whom the b’rochoh is addressed, but even while lying in a crib he can be used as an accessory to ten. That means for birchas hamozon. And the same is true for a tenth for prayer, for in this matter R’ Nachmon does not argue with R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee. For when does R’ Nachmon require that the minor knows to whom the b’rochoh is addressed, and that he is sprouting as we explained, at the very beginning of this Tosfos, that is only as far as a zimun of three, but as an accessory for ten he agrees with R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee that he can be an accessory for ten, in order to recite Hashem’s name in the birchas hazimun.
And the same is true for prayer that a minor can combine with nine men as a minyon. And this can be deduced from the Gemara that challenges R’ Yehosua ben Laivee from the story of R’ Eliezer who freed his slave so that they could have a quorum for prayer and presented this as a challenge to R” Yehoshua ben Laivee who is discussing birchas hamozon. It is evident that the Gemara is equating the quorum required for prayer with the quorum required for birchas hamozon.
Rabainu Tam finds a clear contradiction to his position that we see from our Gemara that the minyon required for prayer is the same as the minyon for birchas hamozon. However, this is bewildering, for in B’raishis Rabo (Chapter 91) the Midrosh says about the teaching of R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee, that it was said for birchas hamozon only, but not for a quorum for prayer. This obviously contradicts the way Rabainu Tam understands our Gemara.
Rabainu Tam acknowledges that the Midrosh contradicts him, however the Midrosh is also contradicting our Gemara and therefore the Halochoh is not like the Midrosh. And Rabainu Tam used to say about the Midrosh that contradicts his explanation of the Gemara, that the halochoh is not like the Midrosh because it argues on our Gemara. For certainly R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee who says that we can use a minor as an accessory for a tenth said it for prayer as well, since we see that the Gemara challenges him from the story of R’ Eliezer that is speaking about prayer. Our Gemara definitely equates prayer with birchas hamozon as far as the quorum required is concerned and does not agree with the Midrosh.
Tosfos deals with what was a custom in his time and in some circles even used today. And there are those who say that we may unite with a minor for prayer, with the stipulation that he must have a chumosh in his hand. And Rabainu Tam says that it is a nonsensical custom. For just as the Gemara argues, is the ark a person when the Gemara said that nine men and an ark unite to form a quorum, so too, we can argue, is the chumosh a person who can unite for a quorum? And furthermore, the Gemara that says, a minor can combine with nine men to create a quorum, that is even without a chumosh. Our Gemara, which discusses the issue, never mentions that the minor must be holding a chumosh.
And furthermore, we do not see in any place that a chumosh would help for a quorum, it is mentioned only in the story of when they made a leap year when they went up to the attic as is mentioned in the Chapters of R” Eliezer (Chapter 8) where it says: With three sages we declare a leap year. R’ Eliezer says with ten, and if they were less than ten, we bring a sefer Torah and we make a circle etc.
This may be the source of the concept of using a sefer Torah with a minor, but Tosfos is far from convinced. And it is not mentioned there in the Chapters of R’ Eliezer, that the minor should hold the sefer Torah. And there it says only that a sefer Torah that is made to be rolled can be used when there is a shortage of a person but our chumoshim that are not rolled up as a sefer Torah could not be used in place of a person.
Tosfos introduces another Yerushalmee. Rabainu Tam interprets it in accordance with his position. However R’I disagrees. However, it says in Yerushalmee: R’ Yosee said there were times that I ate with R’ Chalafto, my father, and R’ Chanino bar Sarsee, my uncle, and they did not count me for the zimun until I grew two hairs. And from there it appears that to unite for zimun we do not act until the minor grows two hairs, but for combining for a quorum for prayer we do act even though the tenth person is a minor, as Rabainu Tam says.
R’I disagrees with Rabainu Tam. He uses this Yerushalmee as his source. And from this Yerushalmee, R’I says that we do not use a minor as an accessory neither for prayer nor for birchas hamozon. And the R’I says that even Rabainu Tam himself did not custmarily do that, to use a minor as an accessory for ten. And he did not actually do that. And therefore, even with a chumosh in the minor’s hand it does not facilitate the matter as we explained. Since the minor himself is ineffective as far as a quorum is concerned, even with a chumosh in his hand, he is ineffective.
Rav Nachmon’s own ruling of leniency is still in effect. However, a minor who is sprouting and knows to whom the b’rochoh is addressed it appears that we may recite bircas zimun on account of him even if he is a third member of the zimun and it is certainly true if he is the tenth for a zimun to say Hashem’s name as it says in the Braiso, and there is no one who argues about this.
In conclusion, Tosfos rejects Rabainu Tam’s conclusion that a minor can be used as a tent member of a minyon. And this is the text of our Master who rules in conclusion of this matter: We do not make a minor an accessory for ten for a zimun of ten and for prayer and for three, a zimun, until he grows two hairs as is indicated in the story about R’ Yosee bar Chalafto in Yerushalmee.
And that which we say in Yerushalmee: That a minor and a sefer Torah are made an accessory which seems to imply that a minor with a sefer Torah can be used as a tenth to complete a quorum, says R’I that the correct text is “a minor to a sefer Torah” and the meaning is that the minor is an accessory to the reading of the Torah. And specifically there, for the reading of the Torah, as the Gemara says there in M’giloh (23a) that a minor counts toward the count of seven readers of the Torah, even a minor, even a woman if not for the honor of the congregation, but for other matters such as a quorum for prayer and birchas hamozon a minor or a woman cannot be used.
And even if we should find in some place that a minor and a chumosh combine to be used as a tenth even for prayer, that leniency would apply specifically to a chumosh that is made to be rolled up just as a sefer Torah is rolled but not to our chomoshim. And according to the explanation of Rabainu Tam, a chumosh in the hand of a minor accomplishes nothing at all, but a minor alone is an accessory as a tenth to form a minyon, but two minors cannot be used, as we see here in the story of R’ Eliezer, who allowed the use of one slave as an accessory to a minyon, but not two. And Rabainu Tam explained the Yerushalmee about R’ Yosee bar Chalafto, who said that his father and uncle would not include him in the zimun till he grew two hairs, that was said specifically about using him as a third for the zimun, but he could be used as a tenth both for prayer and birchas hamozon.