The Tosafot (Pesachim 88a, s.v. seh) maintain that even though it is forbidden to actively feed a minor prohibited foods (Yevamot 114a), it can be permitted in an instance where the motivation is the education (chinukh) of the child (the subject is feeding from the korban Pesach outside of its counted members). The ramifications of this idea, which is cited by the Magen Avraham (O.C. 343), are discussed widely by Poskim. R. Yitzchak Blazer (Resp. Pri Yitzchak, II, 13; see also I, 11) emphasizes that this license is extended only because the action is beneficial to the child; an action meant to service an adult would not be covered by this principle. R. Tzvi Pesach Frank (Resp. Har Tzvi, Y.D. 234) discusses this Tosafot in considering whether it is appropriate for a teacher of children to write the letters indicating “b’ezrat Hashem” on a blackboard, which would later be erased, due to the educational value. He begins the discussion by noting that strictly speaking, there is no prohibition to erase those letters, and avoiding doing so would be only an extra act of piety (hiddur). In light of Tosafot allowing a biblical violation for the purposes of education, this would certainly be permitted. However, he goes on to note two differences between the situation in Tosafot and the subject he is discussing: a) in Tosafot, the transgression is performed by the child, while in the latter case the undesirable act is perfomed by the teacher; b) in the case of Tosafot, the act itself is also the instrument of education, while the erasing provides no educational value. [Distinction a), however, seems somewhat difficult to understand, in light of the fact that Tosafot’s initial question was not based on the child’s transgression but on the separate transgression of feeding a child prohibited substances. Further, as that prohibition itself is presumably connected to the obligation of proper education, it may be that it is only that prohibition that is suspended for educational needs, as opposed to others. That, however, may be R. Frank’s point: that only a prohibition committed by the child, thus creating a related prohibition of “feeding” upon the adult, is subject to this license.] R. Frank continues to note what he feels is a more relevant source, the halakhah that a child is taught berakhot in their complete text, even though by reciting them a berakhah l’vatalah is created (Rambam, Hil. Berakhot 1:15, and Shulchan Arukh, O.C. 215:3). The Mishnah Berurah (#14, and Sha’ar HaTziyyun, 13) notes that even the adult teacher is permitted to pronounce the berakhah. However, as he points out, the second difference mentioned above would appear to apply here as well. R. Natan Gestetner (Resp. L’Horot Natan, XII, 49) builds on the idea in Tosafot to allow a child to recite a berakhah on lighting Chanukah candles, even though it would technically be a berakhah l’vatalah, as the child would fulfill the actual obligation through the father’s lighting. See also Resp. Chatam Sofer, VI, 13, and Resp. L’Horot Natan, VI, 21. R. Shlomo Fisher (Beit Yishai, 34) brings a different perspective to the statement of Tosafot by noting that the education involved would seem to be counterproductive, as there is no mitzvah involved in feeding from the korban Pesach outside of its counted members. He explains that the obligation of chinukh in regards to Korban Pesach is fundamentally different than with other mitzvot. In the case of other mitzvot, the notion of chinukh causes a child to be included within an obligation from which he would normally be exempt. In the case of Korban Pesach, however, the nature of the chinukh is that the father is obligated to extend the minui to the child as well, who normally could eat without minui (see Nedarim 36a, and Ran; see also, for another perspective, Moadim U’Zmanim, III, 237).