Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses an incident when Rav Ashi burned another person's promissory note, and Rafram required him to pay the full amount. In this instance, the destruction of this key evidence prevented the debt from being collected.  Even though the loss was not direct, as a mere few pennies worth of parchment was destroyed, but since it caused an immediate and prompt consequential loss, it is treated as if he actually destroyed the value of the debt and not the paper it was written on.

Rashi adds that Rav Ashi burnt this contract in his youth. Presumably, Rashi could not imagine that Rav Ashi could possibly have been so careless as an adult, thus he was forced to assume that Rav Ashi did this when he was young.

This Rashi sparked a debate amongst poskim regarding whether a minor must make restitution as an adult for damage he perpetrated when he was a minor. Rashi seems to hold yes, but this contradicts a Mishna (87a) that declares minors as exempt from paying, even in adulthood, specifically in contradistinction to a separate case in that Mishna that discusses persons who are in a state where they have no control over personal assets (such as a slave), and therefore do not pay damages.  They aren't really exempt, they just aren't expected to make payment. Yet once the slave is freed, and has full control over his assets, he will have to make payment, unlike the minor.

Some try to answer that Rashi was referring to an extra-legal obligation that Rafram was holding Rav Ashi accountable for, given his high moral standards and stature.  However, in a responsum of the Maharam Padua (90) he suggests a more subtle answer. Rashi was not stating that Rav Ashi committed this offense as a minor, because indeed then he would be exempt, as this Mishna ruled.  Instead Rashi was suggesting that Rav Ashi committed these careless acts during his youth, but past bar mitzvah age. In essence, he is saying that he can be excused due to the impulsiveness of youth. He brings linguistic proof that even a teenager can be called a “yeled”, as we see Reuven refers to Yosef as the “yeled”, when Yosef was 17, and that is what Rashi meant here.

Maharam Padua is basically saying that Rav Ashi was a teenager, and teenagers make mistakes.  It is interesting that the Maharam Padua brought only linguistic proof from Yosef. There also is psychological proof, as the verse describes him as a “Na’ar” (Bereishis 37:2). Bereishis Rabbah (84:7) describes it as youthful, vain behavior; “He would style his eyes, measure his steps in a strutting fashion, and comb his hair.” 

It is interesting that the Midrash makes this observation without much commentary or moralizing.  It gives an impression of resigned acceptance that adolescents don’t always do what they are supposed to do, and they are still learning to control their impulses. Yosef, Rav Ashi and every other teenager needs time to learn how to manage, even though they have halachic status of adults in many ways. We even see that Bar Mitzvah age is only a demarcation for certain obligations, but the rabbis allowed certain abilities to children of much younger age, such as acquisitions of certain objects, and nullified the validity of certain sales until the age of 20 (see Bava Basra 155b.)

Social scientists and psychologists used to consider adolescence as a construct, brought about by the complexity of industrial and urban society, but not an innate developmental stage. The requirements to develop a profession and to navigate the social and legal demands of modern society automatically leads to a protracted young adulthood. To be a full adult in our culture, one needs to know how to drive a car, file taxes, and obtain credibility via education or work experience. However subsequent research has shown adolescence to be a distinct developmental stage that transcends culture and society (Chen, C. S., & Farruggia, S. (2002). Culture and Adolescent Development. Online Readings in

Psychology and Culture, 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1113)

As religious parents and educators, who feel the imperative of modeling and guiding children to internalize the complex beliefs and requirements of our tradition, we must keep in mind that even though a child is past Bar or Bas Mitzvah it doesn’t mean they are fully equipped to comply with all the dictates of an intricate religious and cultural system. They are at an age that they must begin to assume moral responsibility, and also need our patience and respect as they work out their identity, their choices, and how to be independent but also a cooperative member of society. Our tradition supports the idea that sometimes they still should get a free pass.