Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Chinuch with all the Pitchevkes

There is an argument regarding a sukkah that is more than twenty amos high. The sages hold that it is invalid and Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is kosher. The Gemora proceeds to bring a proof by relating a story where the sages went to visit Hilni the Queen. Her sukkah was more than twenty cubits high. The Gemora could not bring a proof from her for a woman is exempt from the obligation of sitting in a sukkah. However, there is a proof nonetheless, for Hilni had seven sons and certainly one of them was of the age of chinuch and hence Hilni had an obligation to ensure that her son was sitting in a kosher sukkah. The Gemora states that Hilni was extremely conscientious to heed all the words of the sages and hence it must be a proof that a sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid.

The Ritva proves from this, that regarding the obligation of training one's child in mitzvos, he must perfprm the mitzva now in a kosher manner, for this will properly train him. However, if a father would allow the child to perform a mitzva as a child in a manner that would not be fulfilling the mitzva, that is not chinuch. The proof is, for our Gemora proves from Hilni that a sukkah higher than twenty is valid for she was concerned about her son's mitzva. If chinuch can be accomplished without all the technicalities of the mitzva, perhaps she was training him in the mitzva of sukkah even though it was not a valid sukkah.

The Raavan disagrees and maintains that there is an obligation for a father to train his child in a mitzva even if it will not be completely valid. He proves this from the fact that we would allow the child to take the lulav on the first day after the adults have finished using it. The first day of Sukkos, the lulav must be yours as is learned from the passuk 'lachem.' We are loaning it to the child and not giving it to him.

There are those who distinguish between where the specific of the mitzva is an integral portion and a defining part of the mitzva or is it just a technicality. One can argue that a sukkah higher than twenty cubits is not a sukkah with a psul but rather it is not a sukkah at all. One cannot train his son in the mitzva of sukkah in that manner. However, a lulav that is not yours is a kosher lulav - it is lacking a specific in the mitzva. Obviously an adult will not fulfill his mitzva with a borrowed lulav, but one can fulfill his mitzva of chinuch by giving his son a lulav which will not be his.

A proof to this distinction can be brought from the Mishna Berura. In one siman he brings the argument if one can fulfill his mitzva of chinuch by giving his child a lulav which has a psul in it that will invalidate the lulav. However in the siman prior to this, he states that one can give a borrowed lulav to his son and he doesn't bring a dissenting opinion.