The Law of an Adult Who Became a Minor at the Purim Feast (Column 551)
Our Sages, of blessed memory (see Pesachim 93a), toiled mightily over that weighty halachic lady—“a minor who became an adult between two Passovers.” Yet we have never merited a ruling about “an adult who became a minor between two Purims.” In exile, to be sure, such a case would not arise, for there are no “two Purims.” Still and all, I trembled and wondered that we have not heard at the Purim feast that grand ruling concerning an adult who became a minor.
However, in due course I did find this wondrous matter in the composition of our master, the humble and awe-inspiring author of “To the Thousands,” who expounded it from the words of Ben Zoma. Since then this pearl has lain with me, sealed in my treasuries. It pertains to a “triple Purim” that falls in the sabbatical year—most marvelous! The city is great, a place where the satraps are sent by name (may its inhabitants live in goodness), and there humility and dreamlike wisdom are endowed from Above.
He pressed me again and again—for it is a merit to honor the honored—and he rightly did so, for one does not refuse a great man. Therefore I send these words, base as I am, to present them before you. He wrote an approbation as follows, for one does not withhold a favor from those who go barefoot—the giver strengthens the unshod—so that the listeners may run with it, and the readers may see and judge, and many chairs be added for the nobles; and those who give honor will themselves receive honor. These are pearls.
Letter of Approbation (in a florid style)
To the honored great Rabbi, a pillar of strength and a tower of might,
Ben Zoma—man of illustrious lineage—
[here follows an elaborate, poetic panegyric in rabbinic hyperbole: “From the days of Samuel we have not seen such… his mastery bends Mishnah and Baraita as he wishes; his heart does not shrink from the mud between the troughs; he herds flocks by the thousands; butter he churns without end; his inner self matches his words; he is like the High Priest in his splendor; he gathers the words of the decisors like sheaves to the threshing floor; he hews at the strongest sugyot; none preceded him in this; fortunate is he and his portion…” etc.]
Food is plentiful in his honor, and in honor of his mother, in his honor—
Yet it rose in my heart, God forbid, not to leave this page blank,
Lest I withhold a drop of pilpul from his holy words,
All of which are sweet, more desirable than fine gold.
As for me, I am naked and bare; the sun is ashamed and the moon confounded.
Blessed is He who clothes the naked and helps the poor,
Who upholds the simple and rescues from vanities.
For me the measuring lines have fallen in pleasant places.
A. Opening the Discussion
Our master brings letters in §119: regarding an adult whose status is concealed among the hidden Baraitot found in the genizot, and he analyzes whether an adult who became a minor can fulfill the Purim feast’s obligation of drinking until one does not know (ad d’lo yada) or at least the drinking that constitutes the essence of the mitzvah.
He argues that this is subject to rebuttal: a minor is like a deaf-mute or a fool—he has no halachic da’at (cognitive capacity). Hence even if he drinks excellently, he cannot be deemed to have “lost his knowledge” such that he cannot distinguish between “cursed is Haman” and “blessed is Mordechai”—for he has no knowledge at all; how can he “lose” that which he does not possess? Just as one who says, “I did not repay,” is as one who admits he owes—so too here.
The matter is sharpened if, as many of our Rabbis maintain, the essence is the discrimination itself: to be able to distinguish between cursed and blessed, and add wine accordingly. The decisors debated whether the lack of discrimination invalidates the mitzvah of Purim drinking—or whether it is a desirable condition but not indispensable. The view of the author of Suso shel Tidhar (who wrote a wondrous commentary on the holy Tiferet Mordechai) is that ad d’lo yada is a law in the intoxication itself; accordingly, one may ask whether a minor’s intoxication counts in this regard as well.
These words are like cool waters upon a weary soul; seeing the severity of this sugya, I dug with my strong arm and outstretched hand, in my great humility—and perhaps in one-sixtieth of prophecy, and one-sixtieth of that one-sixtieth.
B. Laying Out the Case
In my humble opinion, it seems that this hinges on whether the intoxication follows the present state (basar hashta azlinan) or its sequence. If he became intoxicated before his reversion to minority, then certainly—if at that time he was an adult—he could be within the category of one who “does not know between cursed Haman and blessed Mordechai.” But if, already in his current state he is a minor, then at that time he had no da’at, and it is as if he had always been a minor; one cannot be a “minor after a minor,” only a “minor after an adult,” and simple it is.
There is also to discuss whether this is a case of dechuyah (rejected) in mitzvot: a minor is rejected from the outset (he is not obligated), whereas an adult who became a minor might be viewed as an adult whose obligation was later pushed aside. Yet if the Purim feast continues, perhaps the obligation of ad d’lo yada continues as well. Better to maintain that in such an hour he is like “a nursing child who has grown wise” (yanuk v’chakim—see Kiddushin 32b): not truly wise due to intoxication, but nonetheless no longer a simple infant. And indeed, a spirit of holiness descended in our study hall, and I saw that we must consider him a “nursing child who has grown wise”—that through the intoxication he becomes wiser, and thus qualifies as “an adult who became a minor” (i.e., his status toggles), and this is straightforward to the discerning.
Still, we must compare this to one seized by sleep or kordyakus (a stupor)—see the sugyot in Gittin—where he is not considered a full “fool.” One can say that a person who is very intoxicated also lacks functional da’at until he sobers. If, once sober, he can distinguish again between cursed and blessed, then ex post facto he fulfilled the ideal of intoxication. Yet then returns the difficulty: if he is yanuk v’chakim, is he wise or not? For once he sobers, he reverts—does that prove he was never truly in the category of “wise”? Therefore, we are forced to say that our case is after he became a minor; his wisdom remains yet he is “nursing and wise,” and now we can ask whether he fulfills ad d’lo yada.
To be lenient: there are two doubts—(1) whether discrimination is indispensable; and even if it is (2) whether we follow his adulthood or his wisdom. On this basis he can drink and be merry.
C. How Could an Adult “Become a Minor”?
A great Torah scholar of our city of Chelm (may it be built and established), a beloved axe, asked astutely: how is there any scenario of an adult who became a minor—even for an hour?! Astonished am I that none have stood upon this until now.
First, from wisdom we know that if a minor can become an adult, why can an adult not become a minor? The sages of physics teach—and there is nothing not alluded to in the Torah—that physical processes are reversible. If so, a fortiori: if a minor can grow up, an adult can shrink back; and if not, then neither could the minor have grown. Yet we indeed find explicitly the case of a minor who grew up between two Passovers—thus, by analogy, an adult can become a minor.
Moreover, Scripture speaks of “the greater light and the lesser light” in Genesis; we learn there that the moon was first great and the Holy One, blessed be He, made it small—deriving it from “the moon will be confounded and the sun ashamed.” Thus even from the plain sense we see that the great can become small. Happy is he who labors in Torah.
Still we must ask how this applies in practice to halachah. The wisdom of physics shows that an adult can become a minor; but it is curious that we have never observed this in Chelm, and the matter is bewildering.
One scenario: a person born on 1 Adar becomes bar mitzvah after 13 years. Later the court intercalates the year and turns Adar into Adar II, or retroactively adjusts the months—thus “making him small” by calendrical act. Or another: Reuven became bar mitzvah on 1 Nisan; then, on the 14th of the month, the court declared the year intercalated and turned Nisan into Adar II—he becomes a “minor” this month. True, intercalation is done at the new moon; but in pressing need perhaps they declared it on the eve of Passover, transforming things in a stroke—“These are the appointed times of the Lord, which you shall proclaim”—even if in error or under duress. Purim is rabbinic, but Passover is biblical. Can a calendrical act that shifts Passover to Purim also transform the status? It depends if we follow the original or the current state.
Yet all this is wind and chatter of the unlearned—for if he became “small” into Adar II, after two weeks, it is Purim; and then we can ask whether intoxication applies.
I reflected again: even if the adult became minor thus, he has not lost his da’at; he remains in reality thirteen years of age. If there is da’at, there is discrimination. However, our master the Shach (Yoreh De’ah §189:13) teaches from the Yerushalmi concerning a three-year-old girl that if the year is intercalated, her virginity returns (a legal construct of “returning to return”). If so, a fortiori here: when the year is intercalated and the adult becomes a minor, his da’at returns and is lost—and thus the terrifying verse “wisdom has perished from the wise” is resolved. In our city of Chelm, where all are very wise indeed, we must beware lest the verse be fulfilled in us if the court overuses the 14th-day intercalation!
D. Of “Adding” and “Subtracting” Months
By the way, it appears that just as the court can add a month (intercalate), they can also remove a month, for intercalation makes one “small,” so removing a month makes one “big.” Intercalation is like placing a fetus (an extra month) into the “womb” of the year, and removal is like extracting a fetus. (And as is known, a “month” is fewer than thirty days; up to forty days, removal is not considered “murder”—and the law of removal is juxtaposed to that of intercalation.)
Thus perhaps the court can “miscarry” the year: can they only turn Adar into Nisan, or even make Shevat leap? Likely this concerns Adar alone, for Adar is not counted from the outset; just as they can add it, they can omit it. Can they omit a regular Adar, or only Adar II after intercalation? This too calls for analysis.
From here we see not only that a minor can become an adult and an adult a minor, but also that a minor can be accelerated—hence, “his growth in a month was in an instant.” As Israel said at the Sea: “The steeds of his mighty ones he made to gallop,” and so on—words as sweet as at Sinai; they run and rejoice and dance.
Still, a difficulty: if the court intercalated or consecrated the month, the time is altered retroactively. It is revealed that yesterday was truly 14 Nisan, or 14 Adar, and so forth. If so, was he really an adult or a minor? Perhaps he celebrated bar mitzvah in error. Yet there is a supporting argument: every newborn is presumed a minor, a presumption subject to change, and we follow presumption—like the presumption of life in the laws of a leprous house (see Chullin 10).
Alternatively, as a smooth solution: consider davar she-yesh lo matirin (an item that will become permitted). Usually a permitted thing (like milk) becomes forbidden when mixed with meat; yet there are cases (like chametz after Passover, muktzeh after Shabbat) where it later becomes permitted again. Our case is like an adult who became a minor and later becomes adult again.
In Nedarim 59a there is a doubt whether a vow released by a sage is like a case of davar she-yesh lo matirin. The Rosh (6:3) cites the Yerushalmi: is annulment uprooting the vow from the outset (so that it was never forbidden), or only from now on? He concludes: although we say “uprooted from the outset,” functionally the prohibition stood until the moment of release—hence it counts as something that was forbidden and became permitted.
So too here: when an adult became a minor through intercalation or sanctification of the month, it is not that retroactively he was a minor; rather, from that moment and onward he is deemed a minor. Thus our sugya stands upright and firm.
One could still object from the hava amina (initial thought) of the Yerushalmi—if annulment is retroactive, perhaps here too the adult is retroactively a minor. This is a strong question requiring a carpenter’s saw and a master craftsman to resolve.
E. An Interlude: On Changing Sex (a satirical aside)
To strengthen the difficulty, girding my loins like a man (with a gartel, as they say), I went out and found a solution—beloved is one whom the Lord reproves.
Consider those who are meshunim (changed): a male who becomes female (a transgender operation), and likewise the reverse (though our forefathers did not dream of such things). All is in the Torah; thus, what is the law of a woman over twelve and a half who goes to the surgeon and—heaven forfend—makes her into a male? She becomes, as it were, like a minor male—on the cusp of adulthood. Particularly with vows, she moves from the law of a woman to that of a man.
Hence, we have a case of an adult who became a minor: a woman (adult) who became a man (minor). Yet we must ask: is the operation merely revealing what she “always was” (retroactively), which would not help us (for retroactivity alone does not create our case), or does it establish a new status from now on? According to the Shach above, if a man becomes a woman he “loses his wisdom” (for “a woman shall surround a man”), while a transgender woman who was a small male that became a grown woman now receives much da’at. What manifold works are Yours, O Lord! Europe entire without wisdom; the world full of vanity.
From here perhaps the operation works “from now on,” and from the hava amina of the Yerushalmi it appears as such; thus it is indeed possible to have an adult who became a minor.
I have elaborated further in my wondrous treatise on the foundational trans-Atlantic initiative in transgenderism, concerning women who drink coffee in Machiavellian fashion as seen in Middle-earth (to be published by Resling, may it be built), which I composed when I was newly near to manhood, and a sage was asked about it and nullified it from the root like the dust of the earth; I rendered it a book written and vanished—worlds destroyed and rebuilt and destroyed—which is the very essence of an adult who became a minor. There is much more to say, but this suffices.
[End]
—
If you want this in a Word/Google-Docs layout with the original line breaks and any Hebrew footnotes mirrored one-to-one, say the word and I’ll generate it.
Contents of the Article
With God’s help. Concerning the law of an adult who became a minor at the Purim meal, we find that our rabbis debated at great length the mighty legal question of a minor who came of age between the two Passovers (see Pesachim 93a). And I have always marveled exceedingly why we were never privileged to the law of an adult who became a minor between the two Passovers, and this requires very careful inquiry. Admittedly, an adult who became a minor between two Purims is obviously impossible, for there are no two Purims, even in the Diaspora—though this too requires much analysis, and this is not the place. Yet this I did find, before which I trembled and feared: the law of an adult who became a minor during the Purim meal, a subject upon which no elder advanced in years had the privilege to speak until Ben Zoma expounded it to the multitudes in his wondrous composition, The Law of an Adult Who Became a Minor in a Three-Day Purim that Falls in the Sabbatical Year, which has since remained hidden with me, sealed in my treasuries. His abundant humility moved him to send it by the satraps to my place—namely the great city unto God called Chelm, may it be rebuilt and established—and he urged me greatly to come with my staff and satchel and serve as a worthy endorser of his words. And he did well, for it is surely an honor for him to receive select words from me and my like. And although, in my smallness, I am unworthy of this—a crawling worm and not a man, not bold as a leopard—still, striking the hammer, I said to myself that I would venture forth, for one does not refuse a great man. Therefore I sent to his place a letter of approbation as set forth below, and I now present it before you, gentlemen, so that the readers may run with it, and the hearers may see and judge. With the help of Him who gives brains to the barefoot and multiplies soles for those without shoes—thus speak the Pearls.
To the great rabbi, fortress and tower, warm and faithful, of distinguished lineage, Rav ben Woman Zoma, a great man upon whom every blessing falls (Ketubot 10a), and since Samuel we have found none like him, expert in inclination (ibid. 6b): therefore, by the force of his vast learning, he bends with his mighty arm and holy spirit every Mishnah and baraita wherever he wishes. For that reason his name shall be called Disseminator, and his Torah shall not leap away from us. He does not set his heart on mud-slinging; between the sheepfolds he crouches like a donkey, a shepherd who gathers flocks by the thousand, churns butter, and does not stop until it curdles. I shall add a little more of his praise, and let the praise of its author be spoken: his inside is like his outside; like the bull of the High Priest, the whole earth is filled with his splendor, and his book is a support to all who sit in judgment. He is the man raised up on high, who gathered like sheaves on the threshing floor all the words of the legal decisors on this severe issue, and hewed pale marble stones from Pardes Rimonim in a way no one had ever done before him. He enters polished and leaves polished in his cloak; happy is he and happy his lot, and may my lot be with him. And may it be God’s will that from now on his mouth and heart be stopped up,
and that he set an ambush within himself and cease troubling us with his sixty-myriad vapors. Of him it may be said: happy is every prophet and his style, although a sage is preferable when he speaks in his master’s tongue. And in honor of him, whose honor is great, and in honor of his mother, the food-seller, may she live long and well, it occurred to me—with death at my window—that it would not be fitting to leave the page blank. Far be it from Abba bar Abba to refrain from disputing a little over his holy and pleasant words, more desirable than gold and fine gold, whose every statement is for me like adornments. As for me, naked and bare, the sun is ashamed and the moon abashed. Hallelujah. And this is my beginning, with the help of the One who aids the poor, clothes the naked, supports the simple, and strengthens the hearts of those who emit nonsense. Pleasant cords have fallen to me. A. For behold, in section 119 the master brought letters discovered in the genizot, a hidden baraita regarding an adult who became a minor at the Purim meal, and he discussed whether the fulfillment of drinking wine until one does not know applies to such a person, or perhaps he is excluded from it. The explanation, as I have understood it, is that a minor has no legal understanding and is regarded like one deaf-mute and mentally incompetent. Consequently, even if he becomes very intoxicated, he cannot lose his understanding and cannot fail to distinguish between “cursed is Haman” and “blessed is Mordechai,” for he has no understanding at all; and how can he lose what he does not possess? For whoever says “I did not borrow” is like one who says “I did not repay.” More difficult still, our rabbis of blessed memory taught us that without understanding there can be no distinction between cursed and blessed—so from where would the commandment arise at all? And with his mighty hand he further trod upon the question why the decisors debated whether the absence of such distinction is indispensable in the law of intoxication on Purim, or whether it is merely a condition and does not prevent fulfillment. He overlooked the view of the author of Haman’s Horse, a wondrous commentary on the holy book Tiferet Mordechai.
He holds that the law of intoxication requires one to reach the state of “until one does not know”; according to his view, it is entirely proper to ask whether a minor too falls under this law. Thus end the golden words of the master, whose wondrous statements revive the soul and came upon me like cold water upon a weary spirit. And I saw fit to dig into this grave topic from many angles, with my mighty hand and outstretched arm and my immense and famous humility, an eighth of an eighth of which is like one-sixtieth of prophecy.
B. I shall preface what appears to my lofty judgment—through my many sins and the force of my humility I forgot this title in the above list, in the manner of gleanings, forgotten sheaf, and the corner; may the Merciful One forgive—that this law depends on whether he became intoxicated after becoming a minor or beforehand. In simple terms, the master speaks only where he became intoxicated after his becoming a minor, for otherwise there is nothing to discuss. For if he became intoxicated before becoming a minor, then obviously the law of an adult applies to him, and he can indeed fall into the category of one who does not know between “cursed is Haman” and “blessed is Mordechai.” True, if already in his adulthood he did not know between “cursed is Haman,” etc., then the law of a minor already applied to him at that time, for he lacked understanding then and is therefore considered a minor. Consequently, one cannot say that he became a minor afterward, for he was already a minor then, and there is no minor after minor except by way of inclusion. And if he is considered a minor, he lacks understanding and is no longer subject to intoxication; this is obvious. True, one may still discuss him under the law of rejection in commandments: while he was a minor, he was rejected from the outset, and such original rejection does not operate regarding commandments; but in the case of an adult who became a minor, he is like one who was fit and then rejected, so that even if he later becomes an adult again, he is never obligated in the Purim meal, for he has been rejected from it forever, and the law of “until one does not know” no longer applies to him. This is so even if we were to posit a precocious child, in which case the law of an adult might apply to him (see Kiddushin 32b), except that at that moment, because of his intoxication, he is not so wise, and thus he is only a child. Then the holy spirit appeared in our study hall, and I saw that the case can instead be established with a child and a fool—and as is well known, in our place, the great city of Chelm, we deal only with fools—in which case, through intoxication, he becomes wiser, and thus he is indeed an adult who became a minor. This is as plain as an egg in yogurt, for those who understand. True, one may also discuss this from the law of one seized by delirium, for in the tractate Gittin 70b we find that a sleeping person, or one whose condition is in our hands to cure, does not have the status of a madman. According to this, one may indeed say that even a person who becomes very drunk is not considered lacking understanding, since one can simply wait until he sobers up and his wine departs from him, whereupon he certainly possesses the distinction between cursed and blessed. Consequently, if at present he does not know the difference between them, he has fulfilled the obligation of intoxication in exemplary fashion.
But then the difficulty returns, for even if he is a child and a fool, once he becomes so intoxicated he is no longer in the category of wise, for again his remedy is in our hands—since after he sobers up he will once more return and become foolish. We are therefore forced to say that he became intoxicated after becoming a minor, but that he is a precocious child, whose wisdom remained with him from the time he was an adult until now, when he has become a minor. And now we may properly ask whether he presently fulfills the obligation of intoxication on Purim; for if he truly counts as a minor, then he is not subject to intoxication, whereas if we follow his wisdom, he is. Below I shall prove from the words of our master the Shakh that this is not his view. Nevertheless, as a matter of practical law, it seems to my humble opinion that one may be lenient on the basis of a double doubt: first, whether intoxication is indispensable at all; and even if it is indispensable, there remains the doubt whether we follow his adulthood or his wisdom. Accordingly, it would seem that he may indeed drink and become intoxicated. C. Yet while this one was speaking, another came and alerted me—a certain sage, one of the great Torah scholars of our city Chelm, may it be rebuilt and established—and struck at it with a costly axe: how is the very possibility of an adult who became a minor conceivable at all? I stood astonished for an hour, for this is a vast and sharpened question, and it is wondrous in my eyes that no one has ever raised it. And I said to myself that in a place where there are no men, even a worm like me may be counted as a man.
For behold, the beginning of wisdom is to prove from the case of a minor who becomes an adult that such a reality certainly exists. And plainly, if a minor can become an adult, why should an adult not be able to become a minor? For the sages of physics have taught us—believe wisdom among the nations, and there is nothing not hinted at in the Torah—that all processes of physics are reversible. We must therefore reason as follows: if a minor can become an adult, then an adult can also become a minor, for growth has been equated with diminution. And if he cannot become an adult, then neither can an adult become a minor, and we are privileged to a new law, namely that a person cannot change his age at all. According to this side, a person is born alive and dies at that very same age; and regarding this it is said, “Do not rejoice, O Israel, unto exultation like the peoples” (Hos. 9:1), and our rabbis expounded: among the nations age applies, but Israel stands above age—for the main thing is the exercise. But this side too troubled me greatly, for we explicitly find in the aforementioned baraita that it speaks of a minor who became an adult between the two Passovers; and if a minor cannot become an adult, what is the baraita speaking about? And it is further written in the Scroll, “After these things King Ahasuerus promoted…” (Est. 3:1), from which it is proven that a small person can indeed grow. It is therefore clear that a minor can become an adult. Consequently, growth has been equated with diminution, and the master rightly discussed the case of an adult who became a minor—for why should this differ from that? They also brought support from “the greater light and the lesser light” (Gen. 1:16), which proves there that the two were compared to one another. Especially since we find that the lesser light was originally great and the Holy One, blessed be He, diminished it, and this is expounded from “the moon shall be abashed and the sun ashamed” (Isa. 24:23), we see even from the plain sense of Scripture that the great can become small. Happy is he whose toil is in Torah. Therefore concerning me it may be said, “A man’s wisdom lights up his face” (Eccles. 8:1), and the abundance of my humility lights up my face and hangs as a thread around my neck. True, one may still ask how this law could ever occur in practice. Granted, the analogy and the wisdom of physics prove that an adult can become a minor, and this is clear and simple; but it still requires inquiry why we have never actually seen such a case. And the matter was wondrous, and the city of Chelm was perplexed.
And it seems to me that an adult can become a minor if he was born on the first of Adar and, when thirteen years have passed, he becomes bar-mitzvah, but then the court intercalates the month and turns the first of Adar back into Shevat. The adult thereby reverts and becomes a minor. Yet this case is not really applicable to Purim, which is on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Adar—even when it falls in the Sabbatical year, as is known—and so we do not find here a case of an adult who became a minor. But when the spirit of the Lord rested upon me between a hornet and a frozen schnitzel, I thought perhaps the case concerns the court’s intercalating the year, and this indeed can apply even to Purim. For behold, if Reuven becomes bar-mitzvah on the first of Nisan, and now the court intercalates the year and turns Nisan into Adar II, then he has become a minor for that month. Yet at first glance even this is not applicable to Purim, for the intercalation of the year is done only at the beginning of the month. Perhaps, however, it was a time of pressing need, and the court intercalated the year on the eve of Passover and instantly turned it into the Purim of unwalled towns; regarding this it is said, “These are the appointed times of the Lord which you shall proclaim” (Lev. 23:2)—even in error and even deliberately. True, Purim is not among the Lord’s appointed times, since it is rabbinic, but Passover is. And it still requires careful inquiry whether an intercalation that turns Passover into Purim can operate under this rule. And this depends on whether we follow the original status or the present one. But all this is nothing but empty chatter and the speech of an ignoramus, for if he became a minor on the first of Adar II, then after two weeks have passed—as is well known, there is a commandment to count days and weeks—Purim arrives once again on the fourteenth of the month, and we may then discuss whether intoxication applies to him or not.
E. But upon reconsideration I found a flaw in my words. For if the adult became a minor in this way, he did not lose his understanding and did not become one lacking the capacity to distinguish between “cursed is Haman” and “blessed is Mordechai.” After all, in reality he is indeed thirteen years old; if so, even if he is not bar-mitzvah, he still possesses understanding, and where there is understanding there is distinction, and so forth. True, however, our master the Shakh taught us (Yoreh De’ah 189:13), by virtue of his great erudition, from the Jerusalem Talmud regarding a girl of three whose virginity returns, that even if the court intercalates the year, her virginity returns to being returned, and this is derived from the verse “to the God who bestows upon me”—a lovely and incisive point.
If so, then obviously the same applies to our case: if the court intercalates the year, his understanding returns and is lost, and he becomes a minor even with respect to understanding. Thus was resolved for me the immense difficulty in the verse “the wisdom of its wise men shall perish” (Isa. 29:14), over which the world has wearied itself in explanation; it is now simple. And indeed, in our city of Chelm, where everyone is wise and clever, we truly must be careful lest the court intercalate the year and the verse “the wisdom of its wise men shall perish” be fulfilled in us in an unnatural manner—Heaven spare us from such an hour. And in passing I shall add a further novelty: according to our approach, the court can also abort a month from the year, just as it can add one. For we saw above that growth has been equated with diminution; and if intercalating the year can make a person smaller, then aborting the year can make him larger. For intercalation is the insertion of an additional month, like a fetus into the belly of the year, whereas abortion is the removal of the fetal month from the year. And as is known, a month is fewer than thirty days, and before forty days abortion does not involve the prohibition of homicide. Since abortion has been equated with intercalation, we are privileged to the law that the court can abort the year. But one may still ask whether they are permitted only to turn Adar into Nisan, or whether they may also turn Shevat into Adar. It seems that all this applies only to turning Adar into Nisan, because the month of Adar does not belong to the count; and just as they can intercalate it, so can they omit it and abort it. One may also discuss whether an ordinary Adar can be aborted, or only Adar II after the year has already been intercalated. From all this it is clarified that not only can a minor become an adult and an adult become a minor, but a minor can even accelerate his growth by a month in the blink of an eye. This is what is meant by “his mighty ones galloped wildly,” and also by what Israel sang at the sea: “Run, son of my horse, run and gallop,” and the words rejoice and dance and run as on the day they were given at Sinai.
G. Yet all this is worth nothing to me, as I behold a mighty difficulty like a storm and my heavens fall upon me. For if the court intercalates the year or sanctifies the month, then time changes retroactively. Thus, from the moment they intercalated the year on the eve of Passover—that is, the fourteenth of Nisan—it becomes revealed retroactively that that day was in fact the Purim of unwalled towns, the fourteenth of Adar II. If so, this youth is no longer an adult who became a minor; rather, it is revealed that he had been a minor all along. True, he himself erred and thought that he was an adult, but once the court intercalated the year it became revealed retroactively that he had always been a minor, and he is like one who celebrated his bar-mitzvah by mistake and whose error was later exposed. There is further support for the matter, even from a verse: every child is born with the presumption of being a minor, and although this is a presumption destined to change, we still follow it, just as we find regarding the presumption of life that, although it is destined to change, it remains a legal presumption. Consequently, even if there is a doubt whether he became a minor or not, we maintain his prior status, as we learn from the afflicted house (Hullin 10a). H. True, I have seen how to resolve the matter elegantly, and the words of my mouth will be as pleasant oil to every hearing ear and understanding heart. For we find a similar issue in the law of an item that will later become permitted. Usually, it is a permitted item that became forbidden, as with milk mixed into meat and the like. But in our holy Torah we also find the wondrous phenomenon of a forbidden item that later becomes permitted, such as leaven on Passover after the festival, or set-aside items after the Sabbath, and the like. And that is exactly like an adult who became a minor. Therefore I shall bring my bread from afar in order to resolve our grave inquiry from there.
For behold, in tractate Nedarim 59a it is stated that konamot are treated like an item that will later become permitted, since one can go to a sage for release, and all the stringencies of such an item apply to them. And our master the Rosh, in his rulings there (Piskei HaRosh, ch. 6, no. 3), cites the Jerusalem Talmud, which greatly wondered at this law, as follows: “As for vows, how are we to regard them—as an item that will later become permitted, or as an item that will not? If you say as an item that will later become permitted, was it not taught there (Ketubot 74b) that the sage uproots the vow from its very origin? That is, since he uproots it from its origin, it turns out that it was never forbidden, and therefore it is not an item that will later become permitted. They answered: he uproots it only from now onward. That is, the essence of the uprooting is from now onward, for it was forbidden until now; and even though he uproots it from its origin, in any case it was forbidden until today. Therefore it is considered an item that will later become permitted.” End of the pure quotation. Thus we see that the question of the Jerusalem Talmud proceeds as follows: if he goes to the sage and the vow is released, then it is as though he never vowed at all; and if he does not go to the sage, then the vow remains in force forever, established in truth and uprightness. If so, in either case it is not an item that will later become permitted, for such an item is precisely something that was forbidden and was afterward permitted. These matters are simple to those who understand the times. In explaining the answer of the Jerusalem Talmud, the Rosh clarified that with release by a sage through opening and regret, we do not say, in the plain sense, that it was retroactively revealed that the vow had never been made. Rather, it is from now onward retroactively, in the manner of our master Rabbi Shimon Shkop of Grodno. The vow really was forbidden until the time of its release arrived, and at that moment it was uprooted retroactively. It therefore truly counts as an item that will later become permitted, namely something that was forbidden and then became permitted.
If so, the same law and the same reasoning apply to our case: an adult who became a minor by reason of the intercalation of the year or the sanctification of the month does not become a minor merely by retroactive disclosure. Rather, he was an adult and became a minor from now onward retroactively, and thus he is indeed an adult who became a minor, not a minor from the outset. And so our discussion has risen and stands upright, and praise befits the upright. Yet we still face a difficulty according to the initial assumption of the Jerusalem Talmud: how were we ever able to find our hands and feet in the study hall? For according to its initial assumption, an adult who became a minor counts as a minor from the outset, just as, according to their initial assumption, the release of vows would count as mere retroactive disclosure and thus not as an item that will later become permitted. If so, the same should apply to an adult who became a minor. This is an enormous difficulty, and we need a master craftsman and the son of a craftsman to untie it.
I. In view of the severity of the difficulty, I girded up my loins like a man—and my waist as well, which in the vernacular is called a gartel—and I went out and found a solution to this grave difficulty. Whomever the Lord loves He rebukes, and happy is he who comes here with his vapor and his beating in his hand. For behold, one must discuss those peculiar persons called transgender people: a man who becomes a woman, and a woman who becomes a man—things our fathers never imagined. And one might also discuss here the law of a man’s garment upon a woman who is in fact a man: whether that too is forbidden, or whether it is entirely permissible; but this is not the place. And behold, every matter is contained in the holy Torah, and there is nothing not hinted at within it. We must therefore discuss the case of a woman of twelve and a half years, who is legally an adult, and who now goes to a surgeon and is made into a male—Heaven preserve us from such an idea. If so, she becomes the handiwork of that craftsman who fashioned her into a male body of twelve and a half years, who is still a minor—though he is indeed one near adulthood and wondrous enough for vows, and that suffices. It follows that the great fool here became a minor, except with respect to vows, where such a wondrous one is treated like an adult. Thus we obtain the law of an adult who became a minor in the case of a woman—who, as is known, is an object—that became a legal subject. But then again one must ask whether this woman was in truth a man from the outset and the operation merely reveals it retroactively; and we already saw above that retroactive disclosure does not suffice to create a true case of an adult who became a minor. Or perhaps until now she was nothing but a woman in male clothing, as the progressives maintain, in which case she remains an adult and did not become a minor at all. According to our approach, a transgender male differs from a transgender female. For the first case is one who turned from an adult woman into a minor man, and according to the aforementioned Shakh, based on “to the God who completes for me,” the wisdom of her understanding thereby perished, for she lost her understanding—in the manner of “a woman surrounds a man,” causing him to lose his mind. But a transgender female, by contrast, was a minor man who matured and became an adult woman; and according to the aforementioned Shakh, much understanding has now entered into her. This is no wonder, for nowadays she has changed from object to subject. How manifold are Your works, O European Union; You have made them all without wisdom; the earth is full of your vapors. True, it is possible that the operation works from now onward retroactively, and from the initial assumption of the Jerusalem Talmud above this indeed appears to be the case. Accordingly, it does yield a proper case of an adult who became a minor. Blessed is He who chose them and their teaching. See all this at length in my wondrous composition, On the Principle of the Transatlantic Transgender, the Machiavellian Entrepreneur, in Light of Women’s Coffee Drinking in the Middle East (published by Resling, may it be rebuilt and established, of blessed memory), which I composed when I was near adulthood. Since then I have already gone to a sage regarding it and annulled it from its root like the dust of the earth, turning it into a book that was written and evaporated, like a world destroyed and built and destroyed, which is itself a case of an adult who became a minor. And I shall not lengthen further on this.
Discussion
And the words are clear, luminous, and fresh as on the day they were given from Mount Sinai (which is “ts’eyneh” in the vernacular); happy is He who gave His wisdom to onion and blood!
More power to the master, and call him the mara de-atra, and may his Master permit him; and, like Judah, let me further read and add a difficulty: in the law of three who ate together, what is the law of one who ate like three? And such an incident happened to me on the holy day of Purim, when I ate like three and drank like ten, and from my own flesh I perceived that my clothes had become too small for me; and we see that there is diminution according to the theories of the belly after its growth. And I have more to debate about his words according to his own folly, but what can I do, for all my bones say, saying: to the destroyer, desist! and to healing, apply! and He is merciful, He will atone for iniquity, etc.
Nice link.
And of this it was said: one who feels it in his bones should occupy himself with Purim Torah, and it will enter his bones like oil, and thus shall be fulfilled in him: “the later troubles make one forget the earlier ones.” And perhaps one who ate like three as well—for him it is enough that they be like other troubles that make one forget the earlier ones; examine this well.
And as to the substance of his remarks: let the master dare even more boldly before me, and if I erred let them pin the matter on me as they did on Geviha ben Pesisa. And it occurred to me that regarding whether one who ate like three may lead the zimmun, it depends on the dispute among the great authorities whether we follow the majority in quantity or the majority in quality. But one must still discuss what “quantity” means for this purpose: the quantity of kilograms, or the quantity of people—and this is not the place to elaborate.
The master was precise to write “gave” and not “apportioned,” since we have a tradition that the apportioning of the onion brings tears to the eyes of the one who portions it, as it is said: “and Moses writes in tears.”
And what is the law regarding an adult, like Pappa bar Abba, who relied on his father’s table and broke it? Behold, he is an adult who relies on the broken pieces of his father’s table; and it requires investigation whether he is considered an adult or a minor. Examine this carefully, for I have been brief.
It occurred to me to discuss the law of a misleading migo from a good claim to a poor claim. By reasoning, the initial assumption would be that it is effective, for how is a migo of “why should I lie?” different from a migo of “why should I tell the truth”?! Happy am I that such a thought occurred to me, and may it be His will that healing come to a driven leaf, in the merit of dust and ashes.
It seems to me that the question of an adult who became smaller is a great, mighty, important, and truly serious question for the whole Torah—except for the laws of Purim,
for only concerning them did the Gemara expound “according to their writing and according to their time,”
and only in them does there apply a situation of an adult who became smaller.
Therefore it would be proper for the rabbi to raise this question during the rest of the year, such as in honor of the night of the Seder,
in honor of the Ninth of Av,
in honor of Independence Day,
and not in honor of Purim, concerning which the Gemara introduced the strange rule of “according to their writing and according to their time.”
My son Yehuda, may his lamp shine, agrees with me; he is now learning with me in Avot U’Vanim and will soon grow up, God willing.
An adult who relies on his father’s table is like a minor. For indeed we have found this!
An adult who forgot his learning—it should be considered under the law of the broken tablets.