Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A Jew that is a m"chalel shabbos b'farhasia" (that they desecrate the Shabbos in public) could have a different status in regards to certain dinim -- for example handling wine that wasn't cooked and how it would affect the kashrus of it. Does this also apply to a katan (minor)? I'm asking in general could a katan have the status of a "m'chalel shabbos b'farhasia"? Although it might be difficult to find something where this would make a difference I still want to know in general if the din would apply, why or why not. Obviously we are speaking in the case of a katan who is already somewhat of a bar-das (intelligent) and is able to understand that they are not allowed to be m'challel Shabbos. (My original thought is that it should be asking in the case of a child who is 9 and above.)

The case of touching wine might not be such a good example of where we could say it makes a difference since I know the poskim say that a non-Jewish child can't make yain nesech (the particular case I saw was an Arab child which is perhaps better since they are not idol worshippers. Certainly then a Jewish child wouldn't be worse than this. However my question, like I said, is in general if they could even have the din of "m'chalel shabbos b'farhesia" applied to them.

share|improve this question
    
Realated: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/16260 –  Fred Feb 21 at 21:04
add comment

3 Answers 3

regarding keriaha and availus for a mumar minor, the remoh yd 340 5 writes that they have a halocho of mumar

share|improve this answer
add comment

Disclaimer: I am not a posek, not do I have any Rabbinic training.

I am assuming here that you're not talking about a child raised among idol worshippers (תינוק שנשבה), as that's a different conversation entirely.

For a quick answer of no, see here. For some explanation, as I understand it:

A minor is not liable for transgressions. The Rema in OC 343:1 says (translation mine):

וקטן שהכה אביו או עבר שאר עברות בקטנותו אע״פ שאינו צריך תשובה כשיגדל מ״מ טוב לו שיקבל על עזמו איזה דבר לתשובה ולכפרה אע״פ שעבר קדם שנעשה בר ענשין

A minor who struck his father, or performed other transgressions while a minor, even though he doesn't have to do repentence when he grows up, even still it is good for him to take upon himself some measure of repentance and atonement, even though he transgressed before he was subject to punishment.

The language of the Rema implies that although it is in many (all?) cases incumbent on the father (and mother, according to some; and the Beit Din, in some cases) to rebuke him, the minor himself is not liable. This is, the Mishna Berura mentions, only when the minor is able to understand what it means to transgress a particular commandment (when the minor is בר הבנה - Bar Havana). The Mishna Berura uses the language (ad loc. s.v. tzrichim l'hafrisho):

דכיון דהגיע לחנוך מטל על כל אדם להפרישו מאסורא כמו על אביו והא דקימא לן דאין מצוין להפרישו בשלא הגיע לחנוך

When a minor reaches the age of teaching, it is incumbent on every person to separate [the minor] from forbidden things, just as [it is incumbent] on the father, and that which we established that we are not commanded to separate [the minor] is a case of when the minor has not reached the age of teaching.

We see that to rebuke the child is incumbent upon the father, mother, beit din, ... but there is nothing on the child himself.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Reguardless of wether the minor is aware that it is ossur to do melacha on shabbat. since the minor isnt of an age of bar/bat mitzvah, they cant get the death penalty. However if they were to cook food they lose their trust in "eid echad ne'eman bissurin." However the difference between a minor and a halachic adult, is that if there is an eid by the minor and is watching the cooking procedure then the food is kosher, while by an adult the food is forbidden. the reason is because by the case of the minor we are only worried about the validility of the kashruth. Reguarding an adult besides the validility of the kashruth, we also don't eat the food as to show that we want him to feel rejected and repent.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.