Today's Laws & Customs:
Today in Jewish History:
Purim of the Curtains (1623)
After a respected Jew was falsely accused of stealing the royal curtains from the governor's palace, the entire Jewish community of Prague was in mortal danger.
After miraculous intervention, the real culprit confessed to the crime, sparing the Jews of the city
To commemorate this event, "Purim of the Curtains" was instituted to thank G-d for the miraculous salvation.
For the complete story, see Purim of the Curtains.
DAILY QUOTE:
If you only knew the power of verses of Psalms and their effect in the highest Heavens, you would recite them constantly. Know that the chapters of Psalms shatter all barriers, they ascend higher and still higher with no interference; they prostrate themselves in supplication before the Master of all worlds, and they effect and accomplish with kindness and compassion[Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch ("Tzemach Tzeddek, 1789-1866)]
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:Purim of the Curtains (1623)
After a respected Jew was falsely accused of stealing the royal curtains from the governor's palace, the entire Jewish community of Prague was in mortal danger.
After miraculous intervention, the real culprit confessed to the crime, sparing the Jews of the city
To commemorate this event, "Purim of the Curtains" was instituted to thank G-d for the miraculous salvation.
For the complete story, see Purim of the Curtains.
DAILY QUOTE:
If you only knew the power of verses of Psalms and their effect in the highest Heavens, you would recite them constantly. Know that the chapters of Psalms shatter all barriers, they ascend higher and still higher with no interference; they prostrate themselves in supplication before the Master of all worlds, and they effect and accomplish with kindness and compassion[Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch ("Tzemach Tzeddek, 1789-1866)]
DAILY STUDY:
Chumash: Parshat Va'eira, 3rd Portion (Exodus 6:29-7:7) with Rashi
• Chapter 6
29. that the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "I am the Lord. Speak to Pharaoh everything that I speak to you." כט. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר אֲנִי יְהֹוָה דַּבֵּר אֶל פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי דֹּבֵר אֵלֶיךָ:
that the Lord spoke: This is the very same speech stated above, “Come, speak to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt” (verse 11), but since [Scripture] interrupted the topic in order to trace their [Moses’ and Aaron’s] lineage, it returned to it [the statement, in order] to resume with it.
וידבר ה': הוא הדבור עצמו האמור למעלה (פסוק יא) בא דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים, אלא מתוך שהפסיק הענין כדי ליחסם, חזר הענין עליו להתחיל בו:
I am the Lord: I have the power to send you and [also] to fulfill the words of My mission.
אני ה': כדאי אני לשלחך ולקיים דברי שליחותי:
30. But Moses said before the Lord, "Behold, I am of closed lips; so how will Pharaoh hearken to me?" ל. וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה הֵן אֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתַיִם וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמַע אֵלַי פַּרְעֹה:
But Moses said before the Lord: This is the statement [that Moses] stated above: “Behold, the children of Israel did not hearken to me” (verse 12). Scripture repeats it here because it had interrupted the topic [for the reasons given above], and this is customary, similar to a person who says, “Let us return to the earlier [topic].”
ויאמר משה לפני ה': היא האמירה שאמר למעלה (פסוק יב) הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, ושנה הכתוב כאן כיון שהפסיק הענין, וכך היא השיטה כאדם האומר נחזור על הראשונות:
Chapter 7
1. The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker. א. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ:
I have made you a lord over Pharaoh: Heb. אֱלֹהִים, a judge and a chastiser, to chastise him with plagues and torments. — [from Onkelos and Tanchuma, Va’era 9]
נתתיך א-להים לפרעה: שופט ורודה לרדותו במכות ויסורין:
will be your speaker: Heb. נְבִיאֶ, as the Targum renders: מְתוּרְגְמָנָ, your interpreter. Every expression of נְבוּאָה (prophecy) denotes a man who publicly announces to the people words of reproof. It is derived from the root of “I create the speech (נִיב) of the lips” (Isa. 57:19); “speaks (יָנוּב) wisdom” (Prov. 10:31); “And he (Samuel) finished prophesying (מֵהִתְנַבוּת) ” (I Sam. 10:13). In Old French this is called predi(je) ir, advocate. — [based on Onkelos]
יהיה נביאך: כתרגומו מתורגמנך, וכן כל לשון נבואה אדם המכריז ומשמיע לעם דברי תוכחות, והוא מגזרת (ישעיה נז יט) ניב שפתים, (משלי י לא) ינוב חכמה, ויכל מהתנבות דשמואל (א' י יג). ובלעז קוראין לו פרקייר"א [מליץ ומטיף]:
2. You shall speak all that I command you, and Aaron, your brother, shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel out of his land. ב. אַתָּה תְדַבֵּר אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּךָּ וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ יְדַבֵּר אֶל פַּרְעֹה וְשִׁלַּח אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְצוֹ:
You shall speak: once every message, as you have heard it from My mouth, and Aaron, your brother, will interpret it and explain it in Pharaoh’s ears. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 10]
אתה תדבר: פעם אחת כל שליחות ושליחות כפי ששמעתו מפי, ואהרן אחיך ימליצנו ויטעימנו באזני פרעה:
3. But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will increase My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. ג. וַאֲנִי אַקְשֶׁה אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת אֹתֹתַי וְאֶת מוֹפְתַי בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
But I will harden: Since he [Pharaoh] behaved wickedly and defied Me, and I know full well that there is no delight among the nations to make a wholehearted attempt to repent, it is better for Me that his heart be hardened, so that [I can] increase My signs and My wonders in him, and you will recognize My mighty deeds, and so is the custom of the Holy One, blessed be He. He brings retribution on the nations so that Israel should hear and fear, as it is said: “I have cut off nations; their towers have become desolate… I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, you will accept reproof’” (Zeph. 3:6, 7). Nevertheless, in the first five plagues, it does not say, “And the Lord strengthened Pharaoh’s heart,” but “Pharaoh’s heart remained steadfast.” -[from Exod. Rabbah 13:3, 11:6; Tanchuma Buber, Va’era 22; Yeb. 63a]
ואני אקשה: מאחר שהרשיע והתריס כנגדי, וגלוי לפני שאין נחת רוח באומות עובדי עבודה זרה לתת לב שלם לשוב, טוב לי שיתקשה לבו למען הרבות בו אותותי ותכירו אתם את גבורותי. וכן מדתו של הקב"ה מביא פורענות על האומות עובדי עבודה זרה כדי שישמעו ישראל וייראו, שנאמר (צפניה ג ו) הכרתי גוים נשמו פנותם וגו', (שם ז) אמרתי אך תיראי אותי תקחי מוסר, ואף על פי כן בחמש מכות הראשונות לא נאמר ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה, אלא ויחזק לב פרעה:
4. But Pharaoh will not hearken to you, and I will lay My hand upon the Egyptians, and I will take My legions, My people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt with great judgments. ד. וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵכֶם פַּרְעֹה וְנָתַתִּי אֶת יָדִי בְּמִצְרָיִם וְהוֹצֵאתִי אֶת צִבְאֹתַי אֶת עַמִּי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בִּשְׁפָטִים גְּדֹלִים:
5. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I stretch forth My hand over Egypt, and I will take the children of Israel out of their midst." ה. וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה בִּנְטֹתִי אֶת יָדִי עַל מִצְרָיִם וְהוֹצֵאתִי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִתּוֹכָם:
My hand: A real hand, to strike them. I
את ידי: יד ממש להכות בהם:
6. Moses and Aaron did; as the Lord commanded them, so they did. ו. וַיַּעַשׂ משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֹתָם כֵּן עָשׂוּ:
7. And Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron was eighty three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh. ז. וּמשֶׁה בֶּן שְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה וְאַהֲרֹן בֶּן שָׁלשׁ וּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה בְּדַבְּרָם אֶל פַּרְעֹה:
____________________________
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 106-107
• Chapter 106
The psalmist continues the theme of the previous psalm, praising God for performing other miracles not mentioned previously, for "who can recount the mighty acts of God?" Were we to try, we could not mention them all!
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. Who can recount the mighty acts of the Lord, or proclaim all His praises?
3. Fortunate are those who preserve justice, who perform deeds of righteousness all the time.
4. Remember me, Lord, when You find favor with Your people; be mindful of me with Your deliverance;
5. to behold the prosperity of Your chosen, to rejoice in the joy of Your nation, to glory with Your inheritance.
6. We have sinned as did our fathers, we have acted perversely and wickedly.
7. Our fathers in Egypt did not contemplate Your wonders, they did not remember Your abundant kindnesses, and they rebelled by the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.
8. Yet He delivered them for the sake of His Name, to make His strength known.
9. He roared at the Sea of Reeds and it dried up; He led them through the depths, as through a desert.
10. He saved them from the hand of the enemy, and redeemed them from the hand of the foe.
11. The waters engulfed their adversaries; not one of them remained.
12. Then they believed in His words, they sang His praise.
13. They quickly forgot His deeds, they did not wait for His counsel;
14. and they lusted a craving in the desert, they tested God in the wilderness.
15. And He gave them their request, but sent emaciation into their souls.
16. They angered Moses in the camp, and Aaron, the Lord's holy one.
17. The earth opened and swallowed Dathan, and engulfed the company of Abiram;
18. and a fire burned in their assembly, a flame set the wicked ablaze.
19. They made a calf in Horeb, and bowed down to a molten image.
20. They exchanged their Glory for the likeness of a grass-eating ox.
21. They forgot God, their savior, Who had performed great deeds in Egypt,
22. wonders in the land of Ham, awesome things at the Sea of Reeds.
23. He said that He would destroy them-had not Moses His chosen one stood in the breach before Him, to turn away His wrath from destroying.
24. They despised the desirable land, they did not believe His word.
25. And they murmured in their tents, they did not heed the voice of the Lord.
26. So He raised His hand [in oath] against them, to cast them down in the wilderness,
27. to throw down their progeny among the nations, and to scatter them among the lands.
28. They joined themselves to [the idol] Baal Peor, and ate of the sacrifices to the dead;
29. they provoked Him with their doings, and a plague broke out in their midst.
30. Then Phineas arose and executed judgement, and the plague was stayed;
31. it was accounted for him as a righteous deed, through all generations, forever.
32. They angered Him at the waters of Merivah, and Moses suffered on their account;
33. for they defied His spirit, and He pronounced [an oath] with His lips.
34. They did not destroy the nations as the Lord had instructed them;
35. rather, they mingled with the nations and learned their deeds.
36. They worshipped their idols, and they became a snare for them.
37. They sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons.
38. They spilled innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land became guilty with blood.
39. They were defiled by their deeds, and went astray by their actions.
40. And the Lord's wrath blazed against His people, and He abhorred His inheritance;
41. so He delivered them into the hands of nations, and their enemies ruled them.
42. Their enemies oppressed them, and they were subdued under their hand.
43. Many times did He save them, yet they were rebellious in their counsel and were impoverished by their sins.
44. But He saw their distress, when He heard their prayer;
45. and He remembered for them His covenant and He relented, in keeping with His abounding kindness,
46. and He caused them to be treated mercifully by all their captors.
47. Deliver us, Lord our God; gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to Your Holy Name and glory in Your praise.
48. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, forever and ever. And let all the people say, "Amen! Praise the Lord!"
Chapter 107
This psalm speaks of those who are saved from four specific perilous situations(imprisonment, sickness, desert travel, and sea travel) and must thank God, for their sins caused their troubles, and only by the kindness of God were they saved. It is therefore appropriate that they praise God and tell of their salvation to all.
1. Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. So shall say those redeemed by the Lord, those whom He redeemed from the hand of the oppressor.
3. He gathered them from the lands-from east and from west, from north and from the sea.
4. They lost their way in the wilderness, in the wasteland; they found no inhabited city.
5. Both hungry and thirsty, their soul languished within them.
6. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He delivered them from their afflictions.
7. He guided them in the right path to reach an inhabited city.
8. Let them give thanks to the Lord, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
9. for He has satiated a thirsting soul, and filled a hungry soul with goodness.
10. Those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, bound in misery and chains of iron,
11. for they defied the words of God and spurned the counsel of the Most High-
12. He humbled their heart through suffering; they stumbled and there was none to help.
13. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
14. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and sundered their bonds.
15. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
16. for He broke the brass gates and smashed the iron bars.
17. Foolish sinners are afflicted because of their sinful ways and their wrongdoings.
18. Their soul loathes all food, and they reach the gates of death.
19. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
20. He sent forth His command and healed them; He delivered them from their graves.
21. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
22. Let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and joyfully recount His deeds.
23. Those who go down to the sea in ships, who perform tasks in mighty waters;
24. they saw the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep.
25. He spoke and caused the stormy wind to rise, and it lifted up the waves.
26. They rise to the sky, plunge to the depths; their soul melts in distress.
27. They reel and stagger like a drunkard, all their skill is to no avail.
28. They cried out to the Lord in their distress, and He brought them out from their calamity.
29. He transformed the storm into stillness, and the waves were quieted.
30. They rejoiced when they were silenced, and He led them to their destination.
31. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
32. Let them exalt Him in the congregation of the people, and praise Him in the assembly of the elders.
33. He turns rivers into desert, springs of water into parched land,
34. a fruitful land into a salt-marsh, because of the wickedness of those who inhabit it.
35. He turns a desert into a lake, and parched land into springs of water.
36. He settles the hungry there, and they establish a city of habitation.
37. They sow fields and plant vineyards which yield fruit and wheat.
38. He blesses them and they multiply greatly, and He does not decrease their cattle.
39. [If they sin,] they are diminished and cast down through oppression, misery, and sorrow.
40. He pours contempt upon distinguished men, and causes them to stray in a pathless wilderness.
41. He raises the needy from distress, and makes their families [as numerous] as flocks.
42. The upright observe this and rejoice, and all the wicked close their mouth.
43. Let him who is wise bear these in mind, and then the benevolent acts of the Lord will be understood.
____________________________
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 14
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Tuesday, 22 Tevet 5775 • 13 January 2015
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 14
ובזה יובן כפל לשון השבועה: תהי צדיק ואל תהי רשע
Now we may understand the repetitious wording in the oath administered to every Jew before birth, “Be a tzaddik and be not a rasha” (as quoted from the Talmud in the opening words of Tanya).
דלכאורה תמוה, כי מאחר שמשביעים אותו: תהי צדיק, למה צריכים להשביעו עוד שלא יהיה רשע
At first glance it seems unintelligible: once he is charged to “be a tzaddik,” implying clearly that he not be a rasha, why the need to adjure him again not be a rasha?
אלא משום שאין כל אדם זוכה להיות צדיק, ואין לאדם משפט הבחירה בזה כל כך, להתענג על ה׳ באמת, ושיהיה הרע מאוס ממש באמת
The answer is that inasmuch as not everyone is privileged to become a tzaddik, nor has a person the full advantage of choice in this matter of experiencing true delight in G‑d and of actually and truly abhorring evil,
ולכן משביעים שנית: אל תהי רשע על כל פנים
[each person] is consequently adjured a second time: “You shall, at any rate, not be a rasha.”
Even if a person is not privileged to become a tzaddik he should at the very least not be a rasha, being instead a Beinoni.
שבזה משפט הבחירה והרשות נתונה לכל אדם
With regard to this (not being a rasha) the right of choice and freedom is extended to every man,
למשול ברוח תאותו שבלבו ולכבוש יצרו, שלא יהיה רשע אפילו שעה אחת כל ימיו
to control the spirit of lust in his heart and to conquer his nature, so that he shall not be wicked for even one moment throughout his life.
בין בבחינת סור מרע בין בבחינת ועשה טוב, ואין טוב אלא תורה
[This applies] both in the realm of “turning away from evil” — refraining from transgression, and in that of “doing good” — performing all the positive mitzvot in which he is obligated; and especially the mitzvah of Torah study, which is specifically termed “good”, as our Sages say,1 “There is no ‘good’ other than Torah,”
דהיינו תלמוד תורה שכנגד כולן
meaning the study of Torah, which “balances (i.e., is equal to) all [the other mitzvot combined].”
By reason of the freedom of choice granted him, one is expected to surmount even the difficulty of faithfully observing this most difficult mitzvah of Torah study.
For this reason the oath is administered a second time. Even if one does not have the opportunity to become a tzaddik, it is still possible for him — and therefore expected of him — not to be a rasha.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to state that everyone should strive to emulate the tzaddik’s service of G‑d, although he may never actually reach the rank of tzaddik. Specifically, one should train oneself to loathe worldly pleasures; and, conversely, he should try to awaken in himself a delight in the love of G‑d, which is accomplished through reflecting deeply on His greatness. Thereby one fulfills the charge, “Be a tzaddik,” to the best of his ability.
אך אף על פי כן צריך לקבוע לו עתים גם כן לשית עצות בנפשו להיות מואס ברע
Nevertheless, though it has been said that not every person can loathe evil and attain the “love of delights” characteristic of a tzaddik — and we are dealing here with a Beinoni — yet one must also set aside specific periods to seek for himself means of abhorring evil —i.e., of loathing worldly pleasures.
כגון בעצת חכמינו ז״ל: אשה חמת מלאה צואה, וכהאי גוונא
For example, [following] the advice of our Sages on overcoming a lust for women, let one reflect on their words, “Woman is a vessel full of filth,” and the like.
וכן כל מיני מטעמים ומעדנים נעשים כך חמת מלא כו׳
So, too, one may learn to despise gluttony by reflecting that all dainties and delicacies similarly become “vessels full of waste.”
וכן כל תענוגי עולם הזה: החכם רואה הנולד מהן, שסופן לרקוב ולהיות רמה ואשפה
Likewise with regard to all the pleasures of this world: the wise man foresees what becomes of them; they ultimately rot and become worms and refuse.
In this way one cultivates an abhorrence of worldly pleasures.
וההפך, להתענג ולשמוח בה׳ על ידי התבוננות בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא כפי יכולתו
Conversely, one should train himself to delight and rejoice in G‑d, by reflecting, to the best of his ability, on the greatness of the blessed Ein Sof.
אף שיודע בנפשו שלא יגיע למדרגה זו באמת לאמיתו, כי אם בדמיונות
He may well know that he will not attain this degree of loathing evil and delighting in G‑dliness with the fullest measure of truth, but will only imagine it.
He will fancy that he truly abhors evil and delights in G‑dliness; why, then, should he exert himself merely to produce a fantasy (especially in the service of G‑d, where sincerity is essential)?
אף על פי כן הוא יעשה את שלו, לקיים את השבועה שמשביעים: תהי צדיק
Nevertheless, he should do his part to uphold the oath administered to him to “Be a tzaddik,”
וה׳ יעשה הטוב בעיניו
And G‑d will do as He sees fit — whether to grant him the level of tzaddik, or not.
ועוד
Furthermore, emulating the tzaddik in loathing evil and delighting in G‑d produces another benefit for the Beinoni:
שההרגל על כל דבר שלטון, ונעשה טבע שני
Habit reigns supreme in all matters; it becomes second nature.
וכשירגיל למאס את הרע, יהיה נמאס קצת באמת
Therefore, when one accustoms himself to loathe evil, he will begin to find it truly loathsome, to some extent.
וכשירגיל לשמח נפשו בה׳ על ידי התבוננות בגדולת ה׳
And when he accustoms himself to rejoice in G‑d through reflecting on His greatness,
הרי באתערותא דלתתא אתערותא דלעילא, וכולי האי ואולי יערה עליו רוח ממרום
then, [on the principle that] “an arousal of man below brings a corresponding arousal above,” perhaps after all this effort of his, “a spirit [Ruach] from above will descend upon him,”
ויזכה לבחינת רוח משרש איזה צדיק שתתעבר בו, לעבוד ה׳ בשמחה אמיתית
and it will be granted him that the [soul-level of] Ruach, originating in the soul of some tzaddik, will be “impregnated” in him, so that he may serve G‑d with joy.
Kabbalah speaks of the soul of a tzaddik “impregnating” another’s soul with its faculties so that the latter may serve G‑d as the tzaddik does. (This concept is somewhat akin to gilgul — transmigration — where a soul is attached to some object or animal, or another human being, except that in the case of gilgul the soul is chained to and dominated by the body to which it attaches, whereas in the case of “impregnation” it is not; the soul of the tzaddik serves merely as an additional spiritual charge for the soul of the recipient.)
In our context, the “impregnation” of the Beinoni’s soul with the (Ruach originating in) the tzaddik’s soul enables the Beinoni to experience a delight in G‑d that he could not attain on his own.
כדכתיב: שמחו צדיקים בה׳
Thus is it written,2 “Rejoice, O tzaddikim, in G‑d.”
This alludes also to the idea that when two types of tzaddikim are joined together (the verse addresses tzaddikim, in the plural form), when the Beinoni — called a “lower-level tzaddik” — is impregnated with the soul of a tzaddik — a “higher-level tzaddik” — they both rejoice in G‑d, for the tzaddik imparts his delight in G‑dliness to the Beinoni.3
ותתקיים בו באמת השבועה שמשביעים: תהי צדיק
In this way, the oath charging him to “be a tzaddik” will be truly fulfilled.
FOOTNOTES
1. Berachot 5a.
2. Tehillim 97:12.
3. Yet, as the Rebbe points out, his own soul is not transformed (to the rank of the tzaddik); it is merely activated by the soul of the tzaddik. Thus, this does not contradict the statement: “You have created tzaddikim,” as explained above at length.
____________________________
Rambam:
Daily Mitzvah P14 Sefer Hamitzvot
Today's Mitzvah
Tuesday, 22 Tevet, 5775 • 13 January 2015
Positive Commandment 14 (Digest)
Tzitzit
"And they shall make for themselves tzitzit"—Numbers 15:38.
All males are required to attach tzitzit (fringes) to the corners of their four-cornered garments. One of the fringes on each corner is to be dyed with techelet (a special blue dye).
The 14th mitzvah is that we are commanded in the actions1 involving tzitzis.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "And it shall be to you as tzitzis…And they shall attach a thread of blue on the fringe of each corner."2
Although we have a basic principle,3 "The lack of blue thread does not prevent one from fulfilling the mitzvah of white thread, and the lack of white thread does not prevent one from fulfilling the mitzvah of blue thread," [and, as explained in the 11th Principle,4 this would be sufficient indication that they are independent and count as two separate mitzvos,] nevertheless, they are not counted as two mitzvos.
This is stated explicitly in the Sifri:5 "One might think that there are two mitzvos: the mitzvah of blue thread and the mitzvah of white thread. However, the Torah says, 'And it shall be to you as tzitzis. 6' This shows that it is only one mitzvah, not two."7
Women are exempt from this mitzvah, as explained in the beginning of tractate Kiddushin.8
All the details of this mitzvah have been explained in tractate Menachos.9
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.As mentioned above in P12 and P13, all aspects of the mitzvah are included; in this case, the actual spinning of the strands, tying them to the garment, and wearing the garment. See Kapach, 5731, note 65.
2.Num. 15:38.
3.Menachos 38a.
4.That elements of a single mitzvah (such as the four species — lulav, esrog, etc.) are counted as one mitzvah. When one element can be fulfilled separately, however, such as here, this Principle indicates that they should count separately.
5.Parshas Shelach.
6.Num. 15:39.
7.Therefore, since our Sages say explicitly that it is one mitzvah, we cannot count it as two (unlike, tefillin, which the Sages call two mitzvos; see P13). See Megillas Esther, end of Principle. 9.
The reason the Sages called it one mitzvah, according to this line of reasoning, is because the verse refers to the tzitzis in singular form — "it." See Kinas Sofrim, Principle 11.
8.33b. Since the mitzvah is not in effect at night, it is considered a "time-bound mitzvah," from which women are exempt.
9.38a ff.
Translation of (the unabridged text of) Sefer Hamitzvot by Rabbi Berel Bell, member of the Rabbinical Court of Montreal and director of Teacher Training for the Jewish Learning Institute.
Daily Mitzvah P14 Sefer Hamitzvot
Today's Mitzvah
Tuesday, 22 Tevet, 5775 • 13 January 2015
Positive Commandment 14 (Digest)
Tzitzit
"And they shall make for themselves tzitzit"—Numbers 15:38.
All males are required to attach tzitzit (fringes) to the corners of their four-cornered garments. One of the fringes on each corner is to be dyed with techelet (a special blue dye).
The 14th mitzvah is that we are commanded in the actions1 involving tzitzis.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "And it shall be to you as tzitzis…And they shall attach a thread of blue on the fringe of each corner."2
Although we have a basic principle,3 "The lack of blue thread does not prevent one from fulfilling the mitzvah of white thread, and the lack of white thread does not prevent one from fulfilling the mitzvah of blue thread," [and, as explained in the 11th Principle,4 this would be sufficient indication that they are independent and count as two separate mitzvos,] nevertheless, they are not counted as two mitzvos.
This is stated explicitly in the Sifri:5 "One might think that there are two mitzvos: the mitzvah of blue thread and the mitzvah of white thread. However, the Torah says, 'And it shall be to you as tzitzis. 6' This shows that it is only one mitzvah, not two."7
Women are exempt from this mitzvah, as explained in the beginning of tractate Kiddushin.8
All the details of this mitzvah have been explained in tractate Menachos.9
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.As mentioned above in P12 and P13, all aspects of the mitzvah are included; in this case, the actual spinning of the strands, tying them to the garment, and wearing the garment. See Kapach, 5731, note 65.
2.Num. 15:38.
3.Menachos 38a.
4.That elements of a single mitzvah (such as the four species — lulav, esrog, etc.) are counted as one mitzvah. When one element can be fulfilled separately, however, such as here, this Principle indicates that they should count separately.
5.Parshas Shelach.
6.Num. 15:39.
7.Therefore, since our Sages say explicitly that it is one mitzvah, we cannot count it as two (unlike, tefillin, which the Sages call two mitzvos; see P13). See Megillas Esther, end of Principle. 9.
The reason the Sages called it one mitzvah, according to this line of reasoning, is because the verse refers to the tzitzis in singular form — "it." See Kinas Sofrim, Principle 11.
8.33b. Since the mitzvah is not in effect at night, it is considered a "time-bound mitzvah," from which women are exempt.
9.38a ff.
Translation of (the unabridged text of) Sefer Hamitzvot by Rabbi Berel Bell, member of the Rabbinical Court of Montreal and director of Teacher Training for the Jewish Learning Institute.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter a Day: Talmud Torah - Chapter OneTalmud Torah - Chapter One
HILCHOT TALMUD TORAH
The Laws of Torah Study
[This text describes] two positive commandments. They are:
a) to study Torah;
b) to honor those who study it and know it.
These mitzvot are explained in the following chapters.
Halacha 1
Women, slaves, and minors are free from the obligation of Torah study. Nevertheless, a father is obligated to teach his son Torah while he is a minor, as [Deuteronomy 11:19] states: "And you shall teach them to your sons to speak about them."
A woman is not obligated to teach her son, for only those who are obligated to learn are obligated to teach.
Halacha 2
Just as a person is obligated to teach his son, so, too, is he obligated to teach his grandson, as [Deuteronomy 4:9] commands: "And you shall teach them to your sons and your grandsons."
[Furthermore, this charge is not confined] to one's children and grandchildren alone. Rather, it is a mitzvah for each and every wise man to teach all students, even though they are not his children, as [Deuteronomy 6:7] states: "And you shall teach them to your sons..." The oral tradition explains: "Your sons," these are your students, for students are also called sons, as [II Kings 2:3] states: "And the sons of the prophets went forth."
If so, why do the commandments [explicitly mention] one's son and grandson? To grant precedence to one's son over one's grandson, and one's grandson over the son of a colleague.
Halacha 3
Also, one is obligated to hire a teacher for one's son, while one is not required to undertake any expense to teach a colleague's son.
A person who was not instructed by his father is obligated to arrange for his own instruction when he can understand, as [Deuteronomy 5:1] states: "And you shall study them and take heed to perform them."
Similarly, in every place, one finds that study takes precedence over deed, for study brings about deed. However, deed does not bring about study.
Halacha 4
If a person wants to study Torah and he has a son whom he should teach Torah, his [study] takes priority over [that of] his son. If his son is wiser and a more creative thinker and thus capable of understanding what he studies more than he [himself] is, his son is given priority.
Even though his son is granted priority, he should not neglect [his own studies]. For just as he is commanded to teach his son, he is commanded to teach himself.
Halacha 5
A person should always study Torah and, afterwards, marry. If he marries first, his mind will not be free for study. However, if his natural inclination overcomes him to the extent that his mind is not free, he should marry, and then study Torah.
Halacha 6
At what age is a father obligated to teach [his son] Torah?
When he begins to speak, he should teach him Torah tzivah lanu Moshe... (Deuteronomy 33:4) and Shema Yisrael... (ibid. 6:4).
Afterwards, he should teach him [selected verses], little by little, verse by verse, until he is six or seven - depending on his health - [at which time] he should take him to a teacher of young children.
Halacha 7
If it is local custom for a teacher of young children to take payment, he should be paid. [The father] is obligated to pay for his instruction until he can read the entire written Torah.
In a place where it is customary to receive a wage for teaching the written Torah, one is permitted to do so. However, it is forbidden to take a wage for teaching the Oral Law, as [implied by Deuteronomy 4:5]: "Behold, I have taught you laws and statutes, as God commanded me." [Our Sages teach that Moses was implying:] Just as I learned at no cost, so, too, have you been taught from me at no cost. Teach the coming generations in a like manner. Teach them at no cost as you have learned from me."
[Nevertheless,] if a person cannot find someone to teach him at no cost, he must pay for his studies, as [implied by Proverbs 3:23]: "Buy truth." May he charge to teach others? We learn [ibid.]: "but do not sell." Thus, it can be derived that it is forbidden to charge to teach Torah even though one's teacher charged to instruct him.
Halacha 8
Every Jewish man is obligated to study Torah, whether he is poor or rich, whether his body is healthy and whole or afflicted by difficulties, whether he is young or an old man whose strength has diminished.
Even if he is a poor man who derives his livelihood from charity and begs from door to door, even if he is a husband and [a father of] children, he must establish a fixed time for Torah study during the day and at night, as [Joshua 1:8] commands: "You shall think about it day and night."
Halacha 9
The greater Sages of Israel included wood choppers, water drawers, and blind men. Despite these [difficulties], they were occupied with Torah study day and night and were included among those who transmitted the Torah's teachings from [master] to [student in the chain stretching back to] Moses, our teacher.
Halacha 10
Until when is a person obligated to study Torah? Until the day he dies, as [Deuteronomy 4:9] states: "Lest you remove it from your heart, all the days of your life." Whenever a person is not involved with study, he forgets.
Halacha 11
A person is obligated to divide his study time in three: one third should be devoted to the Written Law; one third to the Oral Law; and one third to understanding and conceptualizing the ultimate derivation of a concept from its roots, inferring one concept from another and comparing concepts, understanding [the Torah] based on the principles of Biblical exegesis, until one appreciates the essence of those principles and how the prohibitions and the other decisions which one received according to the oral tradition can be derived using them. The latter topic is called Gemara.
Halacha 12
How is the above expressed? A person who is a craftsman may spend three hours each day involved in his work, and [devote] nine hours to Torah study: In those nine hours, he should spend three reading the Written Law; three, the Oral Law; and three, meditating with his intellect to derive one concept from another.
The "words of the prophetic tradition" are considered part of the Written Law; and their explanation, part of the Oral Law. The matters referred to as Pardes are considered part of the Gemara.
The above applies in the early stages of a person's study. However, when a person increases his knowledge and does not have the need to read the Written Law, or occupy himself with the Oral Law constantly, he should study the Written Law and the oral tradition at designated times. Thus, he will not forget any aspect of the laws of the Torah. [However,] he should focus his attention on the Gemara alone for his entire life, according to his ambition and his ability to concentrate.
Halacha 13
A woman who studies Torah will receive reward. However, that reward will not be [as great] as a man's, since she was not commanded [in this mitzvah]. Whoever performs a deed which he is not commanded to do, does not receive as great a reward as one who performs a mitzvah that he is commanded to do.
Even though she will receive a reward, the Sages commanded that a person should not teach his daughter Torah, because most women cannot concentrate their attention on study, and thus transform the words of Torah into idle matters because of their lack of understanding.
[Thus,] our Sages declared: "Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is like one who teaches her tales and parables." This applies to the Oral Law. [With regard to] the Written Law: at the outset, one should not teach one's daughter. However, if one teaches her, it is not considered as if she was taught idle things.
Commentary Halacha 1
Women - Kiddushin 29b derives this concept from the use of the term bineichem - implying one's male offspring - in Deuteronomy 11:19, the verse which commands us to teach Torah to our children. Since others are not obligated to teach women, they are not obligated to study themselves.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:14) quotes this law, but also states that women are obligated to study the laws pertaining to all the mitzvot that they are required to fulfill. (See also Agur, Hilchot Tefillah 2; Sefer Mitzvot Katan, Introduction; and Sefer Chassidim 313.) This includes a large number of mitzvot - e.g., Shabbat, Niddah, and Kashrut - to the extent that many men would be proud if their Torah knowledge encompassed these areas. Furthermore, women are also obligated to perform "spiritual" mitzvot - e.g., to love God, fear Him, and believe in Him. Thus, they must also study those aspects of Torah which relate to these commandments. See also Halachah 13 and its commentary.
slaves - i.e., gentile slaves. The Torah obligations of women and slaves are identical. Furthermore, Ketubot 28a states that a person is forbidden to teach Torah to his slaves.
and minors - The latter are considered as lacking intellectual maturity. Hence, they are under no obligation at all according to Torah law. This concept is so clearly understood that some commentaries maintain that this word should not be included in the text of the Mishneh Torah. The authoritative Oxford manuscript of the Mishneh Torah indeed omits it.
are free from the obligation of Torah study. - The question arises: Why does the Rambam begin his discussion of this mitzvah with the mention of those who are not obligated? Why does he not begin with a discussion of the obligation the mitzvah implies?
Nevertheless, - though the son is not, himself, obligated to study
a father is obligated -Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 11) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 419) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
to teach his son Torah - Nazir 29a also mentions a Rabbinic obligation to train one's children in the performance of mitzvot. The Rambam mentions this obligation with regard to many of the particular mitzvot - e.g., Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 6:10, Hilchot Sukkah 6:1 and also with regard to the responsibilities of a guardian, Hilchot Nachalot 11:10.
while he is a minor, as [Deuteronomy 11:19] states: "And you shall teach them to your sons to speak about them." - Though this verse mentions teaching Torah only to one's children, the Rambam also maintains that the mitzvah of Torah study includes an adult's study of Torah (Sefer HaMitzvot, ibid.). Nevertheless, he begins his description of the mitzvah with the obligation to teach one's sons, since that is explicitly mentioned in the Torah.
It must be noted that Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) derives this mitzvah from a different verse, Deuteronomy 6:7, "And you shall teach them to your sons..."
[Homiletically, it is possible to explain that the reason the Torah mentions the commandment to study Torah with regard only to children is to teach us that we must apply ourselves to Torah study with the openness and simple faith of young children.]
A woman is not obligated to teach her son - However, according to some opinions (see Sh'lah, Sha'ar Ha'otiot), she is obligated to train him in the performance of mitzvot.
for only those who are obligated to learn are obligated to teach. - This is also derived by Kiddushin, ibid. However, Sefer HaChinuch (ibid.) writes:
Nevertheless, it is fitting that a woman endeavor that her children not be of the common people. Even though she is not commanded, she will receive a good reward for her efforts.
Commentary Halacha 2
Just as a person is obligated to teach his son, so, too, is he obligated to teach his grandson - More precisely, the Hebrew should be translated as "your son's son." There is a difference between the obligation one has to one's son's son and one's obligation to one's daughter's son or one's great grandson (Kessef Mishneh).
as [Deuteronomy 4:9] commands: "And you shall teach them to your sons and your grandsons." - Kiddushin 30a praises the grandfather of Zevulun ben Dan for teaching him "the written law, the Mishnah, the Talmud, halachot, and aggadot."
[Furthermore, this charge is not confined] to one's children and grandchildren alone. Rather, it is a mitzvah for each and every wise man - Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah, Kuntres Acharon 1) states that this applies only to an individual who merits this description. Even a student of Torah is not bound by this obligation until he attains a sufficient degree of knowledge himself.
to teach all students, even though they are not his children as [Deuteronomy 6:7] states: "And you shall teach them to your sons..." The oral tradition - Sifre, Va'etchanan. The Hebrew, mipi hash’mua, refers to a halachah transmitted by Moses from Mount Sinai for which an allusion can be found in the written law (Yad Malachi).
explains: "Your sons," these are your students, for students are also called sons - See also Chapter 5, Halachah 12, for a different dimension of this comparison.
as [II Kings 2:3] states: "And the sons of the prophets went forth." - to greet Elisha at Bet-El. That same narrative (ibid., 12) relates how Elisha called his teacher, Elijah, "Father, Father." Sanhedrin 68a relates that Rabbi Akiva used the same expression to refer to his teacher, Rabbi Eliezar ben Horkanus.
The Rambam's words are quoted from the Sifre. Similarly, Sanhedrin 19b relates, "Whoever teaches his colleague's son Torah is considered as if he sired him."
Note Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:5, where the Rambam defines more precisely his understanding of the term, "the sons of the prophets."
If so, why do the commandments - cited above
[explicitly mention] one's son and grandson? To grant precedence - See also the following halachah.
to one's son over one's grandson, and to one's grandson over the son of a colleague. - The Kessef Mishneh questions whether one is obligated to give precedence to one's other descendants over people at large. However, the Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 245:1) and Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:8) accept that principle.
Commentary Halacha 3
Also - i.e., another difference between one's son and others. According to some editions of the Mishneh Torah, this sentence is included in the previous halachah.
one is obligated to hire a teacher for one's son - The Lechem Mishneh questions the source for this ruling. He quotes Rav Yosef Kolon, who explains that since we find that the teachers of children are allowed to charge for their services (Halachah 7), it is obvious that the fathers are required to pay them. Others explain that since the obligation is placed upon a father's person, we may assume that it extends to his financial resources as well.
Since a person is obligated to pay for his children's studies, he cannot deduct those costs from the tithe he is required to give to charity. Nevertheless, there is no need to stint in fulfilling this obligation. Beitzah 16a relates that a person's income for the entire year is fixed, with the exception of the money he spends to prepare for the Sabbaths and festivals, and that spent in teaching his sons Torah. With regard to these matters, if he spends more, he will be granted more, and if he spends less, he will be granted less.
In addition, once children pass the age of six, the cost of their living expenses can be deducted from one's tithes if their time is being devoted to Torah study (Hilchot Matnot Ani'im 10:16).
The commentaries question whether the obligation to pay for a teacher applies to one's grandson as well. The Maharshal and the Siftei Cohen (ibid.) impose such a requirement, while the Radbaz frees one of the obligation.
while one is not required to undertake any expense to teach a colleague's son. - as part of one's obligation to teach Torah. Nevertheless, every Jew is obligated to give charity, and one of the most important priorities (particularly, at present) for charity is the education of children. (See Ramah, Choshen Mishpat 163:3; Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:3.)
A person who was not instructed by his father is obligated to arrange for his own instruction - even if it involves an expense (See Halachah 7.)
when he can understand - The Tzemach Tzedek (Piskei Dinim) notes that the Rambam does not state "when he matures and can understand," and questions whether, in this unique instance, the Torah has placed an obligation on a minor.
as [Deuteronomy 5:1] states: "And you shall study them and take heed to perform them."
Similarly, in every place, one finds that study takes precedence over deed - i.e., the performance of mitzvot. Kiddushin 40b relates that:
Rabbi Tarfon and the elders were dining in the loft of Bet Nitzah in Lod. This question was asked before them: Is study greater or is deed greater?
Rabbi Tarfon replied: "Deed is greater."
Rabbi Akiva replied: "Study is greater."
All of them replied: "Study is greater..."
for study brings about deed. - The commentaries explain that Rabbi Tarfon maintains that a Jew's ultimate goal in life is the fulfillment of God's will as revealed in the mitzvot. By performing the mitzvot, a person steps beyond his humanity and performs Godly acts, thus establishing a connection with God's essence.
Rabbi Akiva maintains that study is also a mitzvah, and thus, by doing so, one also fulfills God's will. Furthermore, through study a person can internalize his connection to Godliness and reveal the connection to Him, not only in the realm of deed, but also in thought.
The Sages maintain that a person must be complete in both deed and study. Therefore, study has an advantage, for study leads to deed. In particular, this applies to a person who has never studied (see Tosafot, Kiddushin, ibid.) for, unless he studies, he will never be able to perform the mitzvot properly.
However, deed does not bring about study. - This clause is the Rambam's own addition to the above Talmudic passage.
Commentary Halacha 4
If a person wants to study Torah and he has a son whom he should teach Torah - and his financial capability allows only one of them to study.
his [study] takes priority over [that of] his son. - Kiddushin 29b relates that Rav Acha bar Ya'akov sent his son to study under Abbaye's tutelage. When his son returned, he saw that the son had not mastered his subject matter. Rav Acha told him, "Remain here, and I will go study."
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah, Kuntres Acharon 1) limits this license, noting that a father has no right to ignore his son's Torah education entirely, regardless of his own ability for advancement. Rather, this applies after the son has gained a basis of Torah knowledge and seeks to continue his studies.
If his son is wiser and a more creative thinker and can understand what he studies more than he [himself], his son is given priority. - even though the father has not received any grounding in Torah study (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7).
Even though his son is granted priority, he should not neglect [his own studies] - Rather, he should establish fixed times for Torah study
for just as he is commanded to teach his son, he is commanded to teach himself. - i.e., though enabling one's son to study and studying by oneself are included in the same mitzvah, a person cannot fulfill his obligation solely through facilitating his son's study. Rather, he must set aside time to learn himself, because the mitzvah is twofold in nature (Kessef Mishneh).
Commentary Halacha 5
A person should always - i.e., even if he is older than seventeen (the age, which according to the Rambam's interpretation, the Mishnah, Avot 5:22, suggests for marriage, Merchevet HaMishneh)
study Torah and, afterwards, marry. - In Hilchot Ishut 15:2-3, the Rambam writes that the mitzvah of studying Torah is sufficient cause to postpone the mitzvah of having children. Furthermore, even if one's desire to study is so great that one never marries, it is not considered a sin.
If he marries first, his mind will not be free for study. - "With a millstone around his neck, will he be able to occupy himself in Torah study!" (Kiddushin 29b).
However, if his natural inclination overcomes him to the extent that his mind is not free - and he is continually preoccupied with sexual thoughts. Concerning these, Yoma 29a teaches: "The thoughts of sin are more severe than sin itself."
he should marry, and then study Torah - consoling himself with the knowledge that he will still be able to study for two or three years before his financial burden becomes great (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:1,2).
Commentary Halacha 6
At what age is a father obligated to teach [his son] Torah? - Though Avot 5:22 states: "At five, one should begin the study of Scripture," the Rambam, based on Sukkah 42a, explains that certain elements of a child's study must begin earlier.
When he - the child
begins to speak, he - the father
should teach him - how to use that potential for Torah study. Two verses are selected as being of fundamental importance.
Torah tzivah lanu Moshe... - "The Torah Moses commanded us is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." This verse emphasizes the fundamental connection a Jew has to Torah. As soon as an heir is born, he becomes the legal owner of the inheritance left to him. Thus, since the Torah is every Jew's inheritance, as soon as a child is born he acquires his full share. (See also Chapter 3, Halachah 1.)
and Shema Yisrael - "Hear Israel, God is our Lord, God is One." This verse emphasizes the fundamental unity between God and creation, teaching us, not only that there is only one God, but also that all creation is at one with Him.
The Menorat HaMaor and Rashi (Deuteronomy 11:19) emphasize that the child need not understand the verses he is reciting. The recitation of these verses refines his power of speech and makes lasting impressions on his thinking processes, even though he is unaware of their intellectual message.
Afterwards, he should teach him [selected verses] - each containing significant lessons
little by little, verse by verse, until he is six or seven - until this age, the child lacks sufficient maturity to apply himself to his studies diligently (Bava Batra 21a).
The Kessef Mishneh 2:2 explains that this decision is no contradiction to the Mishnah in Avot quoted above. The latter can be interpreted to mean "after completing five years" - i.e., at the beginning of the sixth year. However, the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (Positive Commandment 12) interprets the injunction from Avot to mean that when the child becomes five, his father teaches him to read at home, and when he becomes six or seven, he is taken to school. It is also possible to interpret the Rambam's words in this fashion.
[Indeed, that interpretation is more likely. Thought the above mentioned mishnah states: "at eighteen, one should marry," the Rambam (Hilchut Ishut 15:2) states a man is obligated to marry at the age of seventeen. Thus, we see that he interprets the different clauses of the Mishnah to mean "in his ...th year, one should..."]
depending on his health - See Tosafot, Bava Batra, ibid.
[at which time] he should take him - Kiddushin 30a relates that the Sages would physically take their children to their teachers.
to a teacher of young children. - where the child will begin the study of the written Torah in an organized fashion. Bava Batra (ibid.) relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Gamla established a fixed ruled requiring all parents to take their children to teachers at this time. (See Chapter 2, Halachot 1 and 2 for further elaboration.)
Commentary Halacha 7
If it is local custom for a teacher of young children to take payment, he should be paid. - as stated in Halachah 3.
[The father] is obligated to pay for his instruction until he can read the entire - The Kovetz and other commentaries explain that this word was added to include the works of the prophets and the holy writings (i.e., the entire T'nach). Rashi (Bava Batra, ibid.) is not of this opinion, and maintains that teaching the five books of Moses is sufficient. The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 245:5) follows the latter opinion, while Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:1) quotes the former view.
written Torah. - In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo notes that the Rambam's language implies that this constitutes the totality of a father's obligation, and he is not obligated to instruct his son in the Oral Law. In the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 245:6), he explains that a father's obligation also includes arranging for his son's instruction in the Oral Law, unless his financial situation is too pressing to allow him to do so.
In a place where it is customary to receive a wage for teaching the written Torah, one is permitted to do so. - Nedarim 37a relates that the wage a teacher receives is not for his actual tutelage, but rather for the effort involved in caring for the children. Alternatively, the money can be taken for teaching the proper cantillation notes. [At that time, there were few if any written texts, and the students were taught the entire Torah by heart.]
The difference between the two opinions is that according to the latter, one may also charge adults. Since the Rambam allows a wage to be charged without qualifying his words, one may assume that this applies even to teaching adults. This decision can also be derived from his Commentary on the Mishnah, Nedarim 4:3.
However, it is forbidden to take a wage for teaching the Oral Law - In his commentary on Nedarim, ibid., Rabbenu Nissim quotes the Jerusalem Talmud, which allows a teacher of Torah to receive compensation for the fact that were he not to teach, he could occupy himself in another profession which would yield him profit. The Hagahot Maimoniot develops this matter further, noting that Ketubot 106a relates that the Temple treasury would pay people to instruct the priests regarding the laws of ritual slaughter. He also notes that authors of works of Torah scholarship are allowed to demand pay for their services. These ideas are quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 246:5).
Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that the Rambam would accept such an opinion. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), he writes:
According to our Torah, it is in no way permitted to take a wage for teaching any one of the Torah's professions...
I am amazed at the men of stature who, aroused by desire, denied the truth and had wages designated for themselves for Torah decisions and teachings, using flimsy supports.
See also the citation from the Rambam's commentary on Avot below.
as [implied by Deuteronomy 4:5]: "Behold, I have taught you laws and statutes as God commanded me." - Nedarim, ibid., interprets that verse to mean that Moses told the people:
"Just as I [Moses] learned at no cost - when God instructed me,
so, too, have you been taught from me at no cost. - i.e., "I have taught you" at no cost, "as God commanded (i.e., taught) me" at no cost. Moses continues, commanding the people to emulate his example
Teach the coming generations in a like manner. Teach them at no cost, as you have learned from me." - Though the resulting decision is the same, the Rambam's interpretation of this passage differs slightly from Rabbenu Asher's and Rabbenu Nissim's.
[Nevertheless,] if a person cannot find someone to teach him at no cost, he must pay for his studies, as [implied by Proverbs 3:23]: "Buy truth." - i.e., Torah
May he charge to teach others? We learn [ibid.]: "but do not sell." Thus, it can be derived that it is forbidden to charge to teach Torah even though one's teacher charged to instruct him. - In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam interprets Avot 4:7, which states: 'Do not make it (the Torah) an axe to chop with...' do not consider it a medium with which to derive a livelihood." He continues elaborating on how it is both undesirable - and forbidden - to derive benefit from Torah study or its instruction:
Some people thought foolishly that it is obligatory and fitting to support the wise men and students...who occupy themselves in Torah study...This is all erroneous. No source in the Torah or in the words of the Sages can be found to...support it.
Among the Sages [of the Talmud], one does not find that they asked for money from other people. They did not receive any funding for their precious and glorious Yeshivot...
Heaven forbid to say that those generations were not generous and did not give charity. Had a poor person stretched out his hand, they would have filled it with gold and pearls. But the poor person did not do so; rather, he was satisfied with what he could earn in his profession, whether a little or a lot...
Hillel the Elder was a wood-chopper who would study before Shemayah and Avtalion and live in extreme poverty. He was so great that his students were compared to Moses and Aaron...There is no doubt that if he had taught the people to give him benefit, they would not have allowed him to continue chopping trees...
The Sages would not allow themselves to take money from people. They considered taking such funds as a desecration of God's name in public, because the people would thus consider Torah as similar to any other profession and come to scorn it.
See also Chapter 3, Halachot 10 and 11.
Commentary Halacha 8
Every Jewish man is obligated to study Torah - This represents the second aspect of the mitzvah of Torah study; studying oneself.
whether he is poor or rich - Yoma 35b declares: "Hillel obligates the poor [in Torah study], Rabbi Eleazar ben Chersom obligates the rich."
The Talmud elaborates:
Hillel would work and earn a tarp'eick [a coin of little value] daily. Half he would give to the watchman at the Hall of Study, and half he would use for his livelihood and that of his family. One day he could not find work. The watchman at the entrance did not let him enter and so he hung himself over the window to hear "the words of the living God" from Shemayah and Avtalion.
In contrast, Rabbi Eleazar ben Chersom was extremely wealthy:
His father left him one thousand villages on land and one thousand ships at sea. Each day, he would take a sack of flour on his shoulders and go from city to city to study Torah...Throughout his entire life, he did not go to see them [the villages and the ships], but rather sat and studied Torah the entire day and night.
of a healthy and complete body or afflicted by difficulties - Bava Metzia 84b relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Shimon was afflicted by severe physical difficulties. Nevertheless, he continued to persevere in his dedication to Torah study. Indeed, Eruvin 54a counsels that Torah study will help a person with health problems recover.
whether he is young - and his youthful exuberance might prevent him from concentrating on his studies;
or an old man whose strength has diminished. - See Halachah 10.
Even if he is a poor man who derives his livelihood from charity and begs from door to door, even if he is a husband and [a father of] children, - At one extreme, Eruvin 22a relates: "Who will you find possessing Torah: A person who is cruel to his wife and children" - i.e., one who gives up some of the time he would spend with his family to dedicate himself to Torah study. However, even a person who does not make such an all-encompassing commitment to Torah must find time for study despite his family responsibilities.
he must establish a fixed time for Torah study during the day and at night, as [Joshua 1:8] commands: "You shall think about it day and night." - There are two aspects to Torah study:
a) One which requires total devotion, dedicating all of one's time and effort to Torah, because "the study of Torah has no limit." Though it is fitting for each Jew to apply himself to Torah study in this fashion, such a practice cannot be required of a person. Rather, this remains a voluntary decision to be made by a person, to quote Chapter 3, Halachah 6, "whose heart inspires him to fulfill this mitzvah in a fitting manner and to become crowned with the crown of Torah."
b) The establishment of fixed times for Torah study. Regardless of the responsibilities and difficulties a person may have, he is obligated to set aside a certain portion of his day for Torah study.
On Psalms 119:126: "It is a time to act for God. They have made void Your Torah," our Sages commented: "Those who have established fixed times for Torah (i.e., "a time to act for God") have 'made void your Torah.54
The Sh'lah (Masechet Shavuot) questions that statement, noting that the establishment of fixed times for Torah is considered of fundamental importance. He resolves the contradiction by explaining that a person who is overburdened by financial responsibilities can be expected only to "establish fixed times for Torah study." However, someone who is free of financial burdens must devote himself totally to Torah study. For him, keeping to fixed times represents "making void the Torah."
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:4) mentions these concepts, but also emphasizes a person's potential for achievement. An individual who has the potential to achieve in Torah study should devote himself to this goal. In contrast, a person whose abilities are limited should establish fixed times for Torah study and devote his energies to business affairs, using that income to support Torah scholars.
The above concepts can be related to a more general discussion in Berachot 35b. The Talmud notes the apparent contradiction between Joshua 1:8, which commands "This Torah shall not depart from your mouth" and Deuteronomy 11:14, which relates how "you will collect your grain, your wine, and your oil," implying an involvement in work and commerce.
Rabbi Yishmael explains that a person should follow "the way of the world," involving himself in work and devoting only part of his energies to Torah study. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai exclaims: "If a person will plow in the plowing season, sow in the sowing season,...what will happen to the Torah! Rather, when the Jews do God's will, their work is performed by others."
The Talmud concludes: Many followed Rabbi Yishmael's advice and were successful. Many followed Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai's advice and were not successful.
Though the complete and total dedication demanded by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is beyond the reach of all at present, the passage is useful in order to appreciate two different approaches to the obligation of Torah study:
a) That of Rabbi Yishmael, who sees it as a responsibility to be considered within the context of our daily activities;
b) That of Rabbi Shimon, who sees Torah study as the paramount aspect of a person's life, to which he should be devoted without considering the demands of his financial position.
Commentary Halacha 9
The greater Sages of Israel included wood choppers - Many, including the Rambam (Commentary on the Mishnah, Avot 4:7), cite the example of Hillel. However, as of yet, there is no explicit Talmudic or Midrashic source which states that Hillel was occupied in this profession. Avot D'Rabbi Natan (Chapter 6) states that Rabbi Akiva was so employed.
water drawers - Ketubot 105a states that Rav Huna earned his livelihood in this manner
and blind men. - Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet, two of the more prominent Amoraim, were so afflicted (Pesachim 116b).
Despite these [difficulties] - See the commentary on Halachah 7, and on Chapter 3, Halachot 9-11.
they were occupied with Torah study day and night and were included among those who transmitted the Torah's teachings from [master] to [student in the chain stretching back to] Moses, our teacher. - In his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam lists the chain of teachers who transmitted Torah from generation to generation. There he mentions that Hillel received the tradition from Shemayah and Avtalion and transmitted it to Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. Rav Huna transmitted the tradition to Rabbah and Rav Yosef, who in turn, transmitted it to Abbaye and Ravva.
Commentary Halacha 10
Until when is a person obligated to study Torah? Until the day he dies - Shabbat 83b states that even when a person feels death approaching, he should not neglect his Torah studies.
as [Deuteronomy 4:9] states: "Lest you remove it from your heart all the days of your life." - The failure to study can be considered as "removing" one's previous study from one's heart because...
Whenever a person is not involved with study, he forgets. - Chaggigah 15a states: "The words of Torah are as difficult to acquire as gold vessels, and as easy to lose as glass utensils." Avot D'Rabbi Natan 24:6 elaborates on how easy it is to forget one's Torah knowledge.
Deuteronomy 4:9 states: "Be extremely careful... lest you forget these things." The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, the Sefer Mitzvot Kattan, and others consider this as one of the Torah's 613 commandments, prohibiting forgetting the Torah one has studied. (See also Menachot 99b, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura on Avot 3:10 and Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 2:4-10.) The Rambam does not include this as one of the Torah's prohibitions in Sefer HaMitzvot, nor does he explicitly mention the prohibition in our halachot. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that he considers this charge as part of the command to study Torah for one's entire life explained in this halachah.
Commentary Halacha 11
A person is obligated to divide his study time in three: - Kiddushin 30a states: "A person should always divide his years: One third should be devoted to the Written Law; one third to the Mishnah; and one third to the Talmud."
In this halachah, the Rambam defines each of the three categories mentioned. In the following halachah, he defines what it means to "divide one's years."
one third should be devoted to the Written Law - the entire T'nach, as mentioned in the following halachah.
one third to the Oral Law - i.e., Mishnah. This is not intended to mean only the Mishnah authored by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi per se, but rather "halachic decisions without being concerned with their motivating principles" (Rashi, Sotah 22a). As is obvious from his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, where he defines it as "a collection of the entire Oral Law," the Rambam desired that his Mishneh Torah serve this purpose.
According to Siftei Cohen, Choshen Mishpat 25:7, the term Mishnah applies to the halachic decisions of contemporary authorities as well. Thus, today, study of texts like the Mishnah Berurah would fulfill this goal.
and one third to understanding and conceptualizing the ultimate derivation of a concept from its roots, inferring one concept from another and comparing concepts - Each law stated in a previous source has elements which are specific to the situation described, and general principles of greater relevance. In order to understand the proper course of action to follow in a different circumstance, one must be able to differentiate between the two. In this manner, one will be able to derive new halachic principles applicable to situations that were not described previously.
Similarly, by understanding the process by which a halachic concept is developed, one can understand how similar laws could be derived.
[Note also Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 2:1, Kuntres Acharon), which contrasts the Rambam's perspective on this issue with that of Rashi and Rabbenu Asher.]
understanding [the Torah] based on the principles of Biblical exegesis - e.g., the thirteen principles of Biblical exegesis mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael (introduction to the Sifre), the 32 principles mentioned by Rabbi Eleazar ben Yosse.
until one appreciates the essence of those principles and how the prohibitions and the other decisions which one received according to the oral tradition - See the note on Halachah 2.
can be derived using them. The latter topic is called Gemara. - It must be noted that most original manuscripts and early editions of the Mishneh Torah use the word Talmud rather than Gemara in this and the following halachah. This is consistent with the composition of the text, which is almost exclusively in Hebrew, with little use of Aramaic terminology.
Commentary Halacha 12
How is the above expressed? - Kiddushin, ibid., asks this question, noting that, on the surface, it is impossible to divide one's years in three, since no one knows how long he will live.
There, the Talmud explains that one must divide "one's days." Though Rashi and other commentaries explain that directive differently, the Rambam understands it to mean...
A person who is a craftsman may spend three hours each day involved in his work, and [devote] nine hours to Torah study - Examples chosen by the Rabbis reflect common situations. Thus, these statements teach us what would be considered a commonplace division of one's time in the Rambam's age.
In those nine hours, he should spend three reading the Written Law; three, the Oral Law; and three meditating with his intellect to derive one concept from another - i.e., Gemara; dividing his daily study sessions equally among these three areas of study.
The "words of the prophetic tradition" - the remainder of the Bible - i.e., the works of the prophets and the holy writings.
are considered part of the Written Law - Berachot 5a relates that the entire T'nach has its source in the revelation at Sinai. Accordingly, though in certain regards the five books of Moses are given greater prominence, the entire Written Law is generally considered on the same footing.
and their explanation, - i.e., commentary and the explanation of the T'nach.
part of the Oral Law.
The matters referred to as Pardes - The mystic secrets describing the nature of Godliness and His creative power, which are mentioned in brief in the first four chapters of Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah. In particular, see Chapter 4, Halachah 13 there.
are considered part of the Gemara - and should be studied according to the guidelines mentioned in the halachah cited above.
The above applies in the beginning stages of a person's study. - The Lechem Mishneh explains that the Rambam offered this explanation to resolve the apparent contradiction between the commonly accepted practice of devoting most of one's time to the study of the Babylonian Talmud, and the injunction to divide one's study time in three. In response to the same question, Tosafot, Kiddushin 30a explains that the study of the Babylonian Talmud also fulfills that directive, because it combines all three areas of study in a single text.
At present, this pattern of study is not followed even in the early stages of a child's learning. Note the Maharal of Prague, Tiferet Yisrael, Chapter 56, and the Sh'lah, Masechet Shavuot, who complain that the advice given in Avot 5:22: "At five, to the study of the Written Law; at ten, to the study of the Mishnah; and at fifteen, to the study of the Gemara" is not generally followed.
The basis for this departure can be explained in terms of two differences that exist between our contemporary circumstances and the situation which prevailed in Talmudic times:
a) During the Talmudic era, written texts were rare, and it was necessary for a student to commit all his subject matter to memory. Thus, the emphasis was on teaching students by rote.
b) Hebrew was a spoken language and, therefore, it was not necessary to spend time teaching the children the meaning of the subject matter.
At present, the major emphasis is on teaching learning skills and developing a student's powers of comprehension with the understanding that once one knows how to study, since the texts are easily available, he will be able to apply himself to the actual study at his convenience. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:6, 11; Eglei Tal, Introduction.)
However, when a person increases his knowledge and does not have the need to read the Written Law, or occupy himself with the Oral Law constantly - because he has already mastered them
he should study the Written Law and the oral tradition at designated times. Thus, he will not forget any aspect of the laws of the Torah - as mentioned above, a lack of review will cause an individual to forget what he has already learned.
[However,] he should focus his attention - primarily
on the Gemara alone for his entire life - choosing the subject matter and the allocation of his time...
according to his ambition and his ability to concentrate.
Commentary Halacha 13
The first halachah of this chapter relates that women are not obligated to study Torah. However,...
A woman who studies Torah will receive reward - for her efforts.
However, that reward will not be [as great] as a man's, since she was not commanded [in this mitzvah]. Whoever performs a deed which he is not commanded to do, does not receive as great a reward as one who performs a mitzvah that he is commanded to do. - Tosafot, Kiddushin 31a explains that a person who is commanded to perform a mitzvah will be more conscious of his obligation and try to fulfill it more fastidiously than a person who performs the same act voluntarily.
Chassidic thought explains the concept differently. The Hebrew word mitzvah (commandment) shares the same root as the word tzavtah (connection). Fulfilling the commandments establishes a transcendent bond with Godliness. In contrast, a good deed that is not commanded, no matter how worthy, remains an act of man and does not establish such a connection.
Even though she will receive a reward, the Sages commanded that a person should not teach his daughter Torah - There is no explicit source for the Rambam's statements, though one may draw such a conclusion from Sotah 20a. That passage relates that one prominent sage, ben Azzai, did not share this opinion.
As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1, the Rabbis require a woman to study the laws governing the mitzvot which she is obligated to fulfill. Based on that decision, many commentaries explain that the Rambam's statements refer only to intensive study of the subject matter described as Gemara in the previous halachot.
because most women - Commentaries have mentioned that by adding the word "most," the Rambam implies that if a father sees that his daughter is capable of such study, he should afford her the opportunity.
cannot concentrate their attention on study, and thus transform the words of Torah into idle matters because of their lack of understanding. - Kin'at Eliyahu notes the contrast between the first clause, "A woman who studies," and the command the Sages gave "a father." He differentiates between study that a woman undertakes voluntarily, which is considered desirable, and a father's training his daughter in matters which are not necessarily relevant to her.
[Thus,] our Sages declared: - Sotah 21b
"Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is like one who teaches her tales and parables." - Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Sotah 3:3). From Sotah 21b, it would appear that tiflos (translated as “idle matters”) could be understood as "romance." The Meiri renders it as "vanity," explaining that a woman who has studied will boast of her achievements.
This applies to the Oral Law. [With regard to] the Written Law: at the outset, one should not teach one's daughter. However, if one teaches her, it is not considered as if she was taught idle things. - Though the Rambam's statements are quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 246:6), the source for his statements has been questioned.
Some point to the Mishnah, Nedarim 3:3, which, in passing, mentions a daughter's study of the Written Law. However, the Rambam's own text of that Mishnah lacks the words "or daughter." Others point to Chaggigah 3a (and more specifically, to the Jerusalem Talmud, ibid. 1:1), which describes the reading of the Torah by the king during the Hakhel celebration, which women were also required to attend. Nevertheless, there is a difference between study of the Written Law in its entirety and hearing the reading of a few inspirational passages. (See Taz 246:4.)
In this context, it might be noted that the Tur's text of the Rambam reverses these statements and mentioned teaching women the Oral Law as preferable to the Written Law. This can easily be reconciled with the opinions mentioned above, which require a woman to learn the laws governing the mitzvot she is obligated to fulfill. In contrast, the Written Law is a less closely defined field of study. There, a greater possibility exists that a woman who is not gifted may misinterpret the teachings.
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: Tzitzit - Chapter One, Tzitzit - Chapter Two, Tzitzit - Chapter Three
Tzitzit - Chapter One
HILCHOT TZITZIT - THE LAWS OF TZITZIT
They contain one mitzvah to make tzitzit on the corners of a garment.
This mitzvah is explained in the following chapters.
Halacha 1
The tassel that is made on the fringes of a garment from the same fabric as the garment is called tzitzit, because it resembles the locks of the head, as [Ezekiel 8:3] relates, "And he took me by the locks of my head."
This tassel is called the white [strands], because we are not commanded to dye it. The Torah did not establish a fixed number of strands for this tassel.
Halacha 2
Then we take a strand of wool that is dyed a sky-like color and wind it around this tassel. This strand is called techelet. The Torah did not establish a fixed requirement for the number of times that this strand should be wound [around the tassel].
Halacha 3
Thus, this mitzvah contains two commandments: to make a tassel on the fringe [of a garment], and to wind a strand oftechelet around the tassel. [Both these dimensions are indicated by Numbers 15:38, which] states: "And you shall make tassels... and you shall place on the tassels of the corner a strand of techelet."
Halacha 4
The [absence of] techelet does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the white strands, nor does the [absence of] the white strands prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] techelet.
What is implied? A person who does not have techelet should make [tzitzit] from white strands alone. Similarly, if [tzitzit] were made from both white strands and techelet, and afterwards, the white strands snapped and were reduced until [they did not extend beyond] the corner [of the garment], and thus only the techelet remained, it is acceptable.
Halacha 5
Although the [absence of] one does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the other, they are not considered as two mitzvot. Instead, they are a single mitzvah. Whether [the tzitzit] a person wears on his garment are white, techelet, or a combination of the two colors, he fulfills a single mitzvah.
The Sages of the early generations related: [Numbers 15:39 states:] "And they shall be tzitzit for you." This teaches that they are both one mitzvah.
The [presence of each of the] four tzitzit is necessary [for the mitzvah to be fulfilled], because all four are [elements] of a single mitzvah.
Halacha 6
How are the tzitzit made? One begins from the corner of a garment - i.e., the end of its woven portion. One ascends upward no more than three fingerbreadths from the edge, but no less than the distance from the knuckle of the thumb to its end.
[A hole is made] and four strands inserted, [causing them] to be folded in half. Thus, there will be eight strands hanging down from the corner. These eight strands must be at least four fingerbreadths long. If they are longer - even if they are a cubit or two long - it is acceptable. The term "fingerbreadth" refers to a thumbbreadth.
One of the eight strands should be techelet; the other seven should be white.
Halacha 7
Afterwards, one should take one of the white strands and wind it once around the other strands close to the edge of the garment and let it go. Then one takes the strand that was dyed techelet and winds it twice [around the other strands], next to the coil made by the white strand, and then ties the strands in a knot. These three coils are called a segment.
afterwards, one should leave a slight space, and then make a second segment using only the strand that was dyed techelet. Again, one should leave a slight space, and then make a third segment [using only the strand that was dyed techelet for this segment as well]. One should continue in this manner until the final segment, which is made of two coils of techelet and a final coil using a white strand.1 Since one began with a white strand, one concludes with it, because one should always ascend to a higher level of holiness, but never descend.2
Why should one begin using a white strand? So that [the coil that is] next to the corner of the garment should be similar to [the garment itself].
The same pattern is followed regarding all four corners.
Halacha 8
How many segments should be made at every corner? No fewer than three and no more than thirteen.3
[The above] represents the most preferable way of performing the mitzvah. If, however, one wound only one segment around the strands, it is acceptable.4 Should one wind the techelet around the majority of the [length of the] tzitzit, it is acceptable. For the techelet to be attractive, [however,] all the segments should be in the upper third of the strands, and the [remaining] two thirds should hang loose.5
One must separate the strands like the locks of one's hair.6
Halacha 9
A person who makes [tzitzit using only] white threads without using techelet7 should take one of the eight strands and wind it around the others, covering one third of [the length of] the strands and leaving two thirds hanging loose.
When winding [this strand around the others], one may create segments as one does when winding the techelet, if one desires. This is our custom. If, however, one desires to wind [the strand around the others] without creating segments, one may.8
The general principle is that one should intend that one third of the tzitzit be bound, and two thirds hang loose.9 There are those, however, who are not precise about this matter when [making tzitzit] with white threads [alone].
Should one wind a white thread around the majority [of the length] of the strands or should one make only a single segment,10 [the tzitzit] are acceptable.
Halacha 10
Both the white strands and those dyed techelet may be made out of entwined strands.11 Even a strand that is made from eight threads entwined into a single strand is considered as only a single strand in this context.
Halacha 11
Both the white strands of the tzitzit and those dyedtechelet must be spun for the sake of being used for [the mitzvah of] tzitzit.
[Tzitzit] may not be made from wool which becomes attached to thorns when sheep graze among them, nor from hairs which are pulled off the animal, and not from the leftover strands of the woof which the weaver leaves over when he completes a garment. Rather, they must be made from shorn wool or from flax.
[Tzitzit] may not be made from wool which was stolen, which came from an ir hanidachat, or which came from a consecrated animal. If such wool was used, it is unacceptable. If a person bows down to an animal, its wool is not acceptable for use for tzitzit. If, however, one bows down to flax which is planted, it is acceptable, because it has been changed.
Halacha 12
Tzitzit that were made by a gentile are not acceptable, as [implied by Numbers 15:38, which] states: "Speak to the children of Israel... and you shall make tzitzit for yourselves." If, however, a Jew made tzitzit without the intention [that they be used for the mitzvah], they are acceptable.
Tzitzit that are made from those already existing are not acceptable.
Halacha 13
What is implied? Should a person bring the corner of a garment which has tzitzit attached to it and sew it onto another garment, it is not acceptable. [This applies] even if that corner of the garment is a square cubit in size.
[This concept is derived from Numbers 15:38, which] states: "And you shall make tzitzit for yourselves" - i.e., [you should make them] and not [use those] which were made previously,since this would be as if [the mitzvah] came about on its own accord.
It is permissible to remove strands [of tzitzit] - whether white or techelet - from one garment and tie them on another.
Halacha 14
Should one suspend the strands between two corners of the garment and tie [tzitzit on] each of the corners in the proper manner, and then separate them from each other,12 it is unacceptable.
[The rationale is] that, at the time they were tied, they were unacceptable, since the two corners were connected with each other through the strands. When the strands were cut, two tzitzit were made. This is considered as making tzitzit from those which already exist.13
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply when] a person ties tzitzit over existing tzitzit: Should [he tie the second set] with the intention of nullifying the first set, if he unties or cuts off the first set,14 the tzitzit are acceptable.15
Should, however, [he have tied the second set] with the intention of adding [a second tzitzit, the tzitzit] are not acceptable even though he cuts one of them off.16 When he added the second tzitzit, he disqualified both sets17, and when he unties or cuts off the additional one, the remaining one is [disqualified because it involves] making [tzitzit] from those which are already existing, since the manner in which it existed previously was not acceptable.
Halacha 16
Similarly, all the tzitzit of a garment are unacceptable18
[in the following instance]: A person placed tzitzit on a garment that had three corners.19 afterwards, he made the garment a fourth corner and placed tzitzit on it. [This is also excluded by the commandment, Deuteronomy 22:12:]20 "Make braids," [which implies that one may not use those] which were made previously.
Halacha 17
A garment should not be folded in half, and then tzitzit hung on the four corners of the folded garment,21 unless one sews it along [one] side entirely. [It is sufficient, however, to sew it] on one side alone.22
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply] if the corner [of the garment] to which the tzitzit were attached is torn off the garment: If more than three fingerbreadths were torn, it may be sewed back in its place.23
If less than three fingerbreadths were torn off, it should not be sewn back.24
If the portion of the garment is between [the hole through which] the tzitzit [are attached] and the end of the garment, it is acceptable, even though only the smallest portion of the fabric remains.25
Similarly, if the [length of the] strands of the tzitzit was reduced,26 it is acceptable, as long as enough of the strand remains to tie a loop. Should, however, even a single strand be torn off [from the place to which it is attached to the garment], it is no longer acceptable.27
Commentary Halacha 1
The tassel that is made on the fringes of a garment - The word anaf, translated as "tassel," literally means "branch." Just as a branch is an extension of the tree, the tzitzit are extensions of the fringes.
from the same fabric as the garment - See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.
is called tzitzit - in Numbers 15:38-39. Deuteronomy 22:12 refers to these tassels as g'dilim (braids).
because it resembles the locks of the head, as [Ezekiel 8:3] relates, "And he took me by the locks of my head." - Note Halachah 8, which derives a halachic ruling from this comparison of terms.
This tassel is called the white [strands], because we are not commanded to dye it. - According to the Torah alone (מדאורייתא), we are obligated to place tzitzit only on fabrics of linen and wool (Chapter 3, Halachah 1). Both fabrics are white and need not be dyed.
The Torah did not establish a fixed number of strands for this tassel. - Though the Rabbis established a fixed practice, as explained in Halachah 6, according to the Torah alone (מדאורייתא) there is no fixed number of strands. Though there are some sources that appear to indicate that the Torah also fixed the number of strands required, Sanhedrin 88b concludes that the essence of the mitzvah of tzitzit is a Torah obligation; its explanation, however, is Rabbinic in origin.
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:12) rules that if one includes more than eight strands in tzitzit, they are unacceptable. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:1 goes further and states that by doing so, one violates the prohibition forbidding adding to a Torah commandment. Note the Mishnah Berurah 11:60, which quotes other opinions that differ.
Commentary Halacha 2
Then we take a strand of wool that is dyed a sky-like color - i.e., sky-blue. Menachot 43b relates that this color is also reminiscent of God's throne.
and wind it around this tassel. This strand is called techelet. - The Rambam discusses the nature of this dye and its preparation in Chapter 2.
The Torah did not establish a fixed requirement for the number of times that this strand should be wound [around the tassel]. - Menachot 39a requires that the strand of techelet be wound at least seven times around the tassel, as explained in Halachah 8. This is a Rabbinic ordinance.
Commentary Halacha 4
The [absence of] techelet does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the white strands, nor does the [absence of] the white strands prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] techelet. - In this aspect, they resemble the arm tefillin and the head tefillin. (See Hilchot Tefillin 4:4.) As explained in the following halachah, however, unlike tefillin, they are counted as one mitzvah and not two.
What is implied? A person who does not have techelet should make [tzitzit] from white strands alone. - This is the practice in the present age, when we do not know how to obtain techelet. Even in Talmudic times, when techelet was available, it was very expensive, and many of the common people made their tzitzit without it.
Similarly, if [tzitzit] were made from both white strands and techelet, and afterwards, the white strands snapped and were reduced until [they did not extend beyond] the corner [of the garment] - The explanation of the Rambam's statements has been debated by the commentaries. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Menachot 4:1.
and thus only the techelet remained, it is acceptable. - The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the Rambam does not accept tzitzit that were made from techelet without any white strands. Since the verse states, "and you shall place on the tassels of the corner a strand of techelet," there must be tassels of white strands around which to wind the techelet. Once this has been done, however, if the white strands are severed, one can still fulfill the mitzvah with the techelet alone.
Commentary Halacha 5
Although the [absence of] one does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the other, they are not considered as two mitzvot. - In General Principle 11 of Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam writes:
One might think that since neither is dependent on the other, they would be counted as two mitzvot.... [Nevertheless,] they are a single mitzvah... because they have a single objective, "that you remember all the mitzvot...." All the elements that bring about this remembrance are counted as a single mitzvah.
Instead, they are a single mitzvah. - See Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 14) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 386).
Whether [the tzitzit] a person wears on his garment are white, techelet, or a combination of the two colors, he fulfills a single mitzvah.
The Sages of the early generations - Sifre Zuta, Mechilta D'Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai
related: [Numbers 15:39 states:] "And they shall be tzitzit for you." This - the use of the singular form of the verb והיה
teaches that they are both one mitzvah.
The [presence of each of the] four tzitzit is necessary [for the mitzvah to be fulfilled] - i.e., although a garment has several tzitzit, the mitzvah is not fulfilled unless it has all four.
because all four are [elements] of a single mitzvah.
Commentary Halacha 6
How are the tzitzit made? One begins from the corner of a garment - i.e., the end of its woven portion. - The tzitzit must be placed at the "corners" or the "fringes" of the garment.
One ascends upward no more than three fingerbreadths from the edge - Any further distance upward would be considered part of the garment itself and not its "corner" or "fringe" (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 11:9).
but no less than the distance from the knuckle of the thumb to its end. - This is approximately two fingerbreadths. Any lower would be considered as "below the fringe" and not "on the fringe" (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:16).
Other opinions mention that these distances should also be applied in regard to the space between the hole and the side of the garment. It is customary to follow this view (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 11:10).
[A hole is made] and four strands inserted, [causing them] to be folded in half. Thus, there will be eight strands hanging down from the corner. - As mentioned in Halachah 1, the Torah does not explicitly mention the number of strands in the tzitzit. Although Menachot 39b derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:12, the Rambam considers this process of derivation to be Rabbinic in origin (מדברי סופרים).
These eight strands must be at least four fingerbreadths long. - This decision is based on the Rambam's interpretation ofMenachot 39a and 41b. Based on the same sources, Rabbenu Tam requires that the strands be at least twelve fingerbreadths long. His opinion is accepted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:4) and the later authorities.
If they are longer - even if they are a cubit or two long - it is acceptable. - It is common to make the strands slightly longer than twelve fingerbreadths, so that, even if they tear, they will still retain the desired length (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:9; Mishnah Berurah 11:21).
The term "fingerbreadth" refers to a thumbbreadth. - See Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:9. In contemporary measure, a thumbbreadth is approximately 2 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 2.4 centimeters according to Chazon Ish.
One of the eight strands should be techelet - Though the eight strands come from folding four larger strands, only half of one of these strands should be dyed. The other half should retain its natural color, white.
The Ra'avad disagrees with this point and maintains that one of the larger strands should be dyed in its entirety, thus producing two smaller strands that are dyed techelet. The Tur (Orach Chayim 10) and other Ashkenazic authorities maintain that two of the four strands were techelet and two were white.
The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's position, noting that Numbers 15:39 states, "And you shall place on the tassels of the corner a strand (singular) of techelet." Note also the commentary of the Or Sameach.
Significantly, archaeological excavations have uncovered tzitzit belonging to bar Kochba's soldiers. Only one of the eight strands was dyed techelet.
the other seven should be white. - The dyed strand should be slightly longer than the others, so that, even after it has been wound around them, it will be the same length as the others.
Commentary Halacha 11
Both the white strands of the tzitzit and those dyed techelet must be spun for the sake of being used for [the mitzvah of] tzitzit. - i.e., before one begins spinning the strands, one must state that he is doing so for the sake of use for tzitzit.
As explained in Hilchot Tefillin 1:11, any time when an activity must be carried out lishmah, it cannot be performed by a gentile. Therefore, the strands may not be spun by a gentile alone (Ramah, Orach Chayim 11:1).
[Tzitzit] may not be made from wool which becomes attached to thorns when sheep graze among them, nor from hairs which are pulled off the animal, and not from the leftover strands of the woof which the weaver leaves over when he completes a garment. - Tzitzit must be made from the same fabric as that which was used for the garment to which they are attached. Since these three sorts of wool are of an inferior quality and are not suitable for use in a garment itself, they may not be used for tzitzit either (Sefer HaMaor, Sukkah).
Rather, they must be made from shorn wool or from flax.
[Tzitzit] may not be made from wool which was stolen - Numbers 15:38 states: "And you shall make tzitzit for yourselves." The latter term implies that the tzitzit must belong to their owner and may not be stolen.
One of the principles of Jewish law is that if the form of a stolen article is altered and its original owner gives up hope of its return, it is acquired by the thief, and he is required merely to return its worth, but not the article itself. Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:12 and the Mishnah Berurah 11:30, which discuss the implications of this principle on the use of stolen wool for tzitzit.
which came from an ir hanidachat - An ir hanidachat is a city condemned to be destroyed because the majority of its inhabitants worshiped idols. All property contained within the city is condemned to be burned and is considered as if it does not exist. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, Chapter 4.)
or which came from a consecrated animal - an animal designated to be offered as a sacrifice. Tzitzit can be made only from wool that belongs "to you." Once an animal is designated for sacrificial purposes, it is no longer considered as belonging to a private individual (Sefer HaKovetz).
If such wool was used, it is unacceptable.
If a person bows down to an animal, its wool is not acceptable for use for tzitzit. - In contrast to other objects worshiped as false deities, an animal does not become condemned and may be used for other purposes (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1). Nevertheless, wool of this nature is unfit to use for a ritual purpose. (See Hilchot Issurei HaMizbe'ach 3:6.)
If, however, one bows down to flax which is planted, it is acceptable - for use as tzitzit
because it has been changed - and no longer resembles the object which was worshiped. (See Hilchot Issurei Hamizbe'ach 3:14.)
Commentary Halacha 12
Tzitzit that were made - i.e., attached to the garment and tied
by a gentile are not acceptable, as [implied by Numbers 15:38, which] states: "Speak to the children of Israel... and you shall make tzitzit for yourselves." - Menachot 42a relates that this verse serves as the source for the ruling that only a Jew may tie tzitzit.
The Hagahot Maimoniot state that since the phrase ישראל בני literally means "sons of Israel," tzitzit should not be made by women. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 14:1) does not accept this opinion. The Ramah, however, states that it is preferable for women not to tie tzitzit.
If, however, a Jew made tzitzit without the intention [that they be used for the mitzvah], they are acceptable. - This principle can be derived from the above concept. Were it necessary for the tzitzit to be tied with the intent that they be used for the mitzvah, there would be no need for a special verse from the Torah to teach that those made by a gentile are unacceptable. The concept would be self-explanatory. Whenever a deed must be performed with a specific intention, a gentile's acts are not acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ashkenazic authorities do not accept this premise and maintain that, at the very least, the strands must be attached to the garment with the intent that they be used for the mitzvah. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 14:2.)
Tzitzit that are made from those already existing are not acceptable. - This principle is explained and illustrated in detail in the following four halachot.
FOOTNOTES
1.The pattern of winding the techelet mentioned by the Rambam is based on his interpretation of Menachot 39a. As the Rambam mentions in Halachah 9, it must be followed only when the tzitzit include a strand of techelet. If they do not, as in the case of our tzitzit, different principles apply.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's approach and suggests a different manner of winding the coils of the tzitzit, which resembles the pattern we use today. The Rambam was aware of this approach and, in one of his responsa, explains that the method he mentioned has its source in the Talmud (Menachot, ibid.), while the other approach is of later origin.
2.Rashi, Menachot, ibid., states that since the white strand was used first, not ending with it would appear to detract from its importance.
The principle, "one should always ascend to a higher level of holiness, but never descend," is applied in many other contexts within Torah law - e.g., Hilchot Tefillin 3:17.
3.Menachot 39a explains that the techelet reminds one of the heavens. There are seven heavens and six spaces between them, thus resulting in a total of thirteen.
4.This law also applies at present, as mentioned in the following halachah.
5.Note the Zohar, Vol. III, p. 228b, which explains the mystical significance of the division of the tzitzit into three portions.
6.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 8:7) obligates one to separate the strands of the tzitzit before putting on one's garment. Note the Mishnah Berurah 8:18, which quotes the Ari zal as stating that the word ציצת is an acronym for the Hebrew words meaning, "A righteous person constantly separates his tzitzit."
7.As mentioned in Halachot 4-5, the absence of techelet does not prevent one from fulfilling the mitzvah of tzitzit. Indeed, this is the manner in which most people fulfill the mitzvah at present.
8.Significantly, besides the knot with which the tzitzit are attached to the garment (Halachah 7), the Rambam does not mention tying knots in the tzitzit at all. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:14) mentions the common practice in which five knots are tied on the strands, leaving four spaces, which are filled with coils in between them. There are certain authorities who combine the two opinions, tying the knots as mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, but dividing the coils into segments as the Rambam mentions (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:27-28,31).
9.If the tzitzit lack entirely strands which hang loose, they are unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
10.This principle is also accepted by the opinions that do not require that the coils be divided into segments of three. Even so, for tzitzit to be acceptable, they must possess at least three coils (Mishnah Berurah 11:63,66).
11.The Rambam leaves the use of entwined strands up to a person's choice. The Ra'avad objects, quoting a passage from the Sifre that requires that the strands of the tzitzit be made by entwining different threads together. Numbers 15:38 uses the expression, p'til techelet. The word p'til implies "twisted threads." See the Targum Yonaton to this verse. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:2) follows the Ra'avad's view and obligates the use of entwined strands. From Chapter 2, Halachah 7, it appears that the Rambam also considered this as the common practice.
11. The Rambam leaves the use of entwined strands up to a person's choice. The Ra'avad objects, quoting a passage from the Sifre that requires that the strands of the tzitzit be made by entwining different threads together. Numbers 15:38 uses the expression, p'til techelet. The word p'til implies "twisted threads." See the Targum Yonaton to this verse.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:2) follows the Ra'avad's view and obligates the use of entwined strands. From Chapter 2, Halachah 7, it appears that the Rambam also considered this as the common practice.
12.The Rambam is speaking about the following instance: The person used long strands and placed one end of them through each of the two holes. Afterwards, using the strands from each corner that was not passed through the hole, he tied both tzitzit, and then separated them from each other.
13.This law is based on the Rambam's interpretation of Sukkah 11a-b. Others (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 11:13) interpret that passage as speaking about the tzitzit of a single corner. If one inserts a single long strand in the hole several times, thus producing eight strands, ties the tzitzit, and then separates the strands from each other, the tzitzit are not acceptable. This is also considered as making tzitzit from those which are already existing.
14.See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:24, which describes the manner in which tzitzit should be removed from a garment.
15.Since he intended to remove the initial tzitzit, there is nothing wrong with attaching the second one (Menachot 40b).
16.According to the Rambam, it does not matter which tzitzit he removes. For the tzitzit to be acceptable, both sets have to be removed, and then a single set retied.
17.By adding the second set, he transgresses the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot of the Torah. Therefore, both sets of tzitzit are disqualified. The Ra'avad and the Ashkenazic authorities do not accept the Rambam's decision. They maintain that while both sets of tzitzit are hanging from the garment, their existence is not considered at all significant. It is as if they do not exist at all. Therefore, by removing the extra set, one is not making tzitzit from ones which previously exist. On the contrary, one is bringing an acceptable set of tzitzit into existence.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 10:6) accepts the Rambam's view. The Ramah, however, follows the other opinions.
18.The Rambam's statements have raised questions. Though all commentaries agree that the three tzitzit made when the garment had only three corners are unacceptable, the question revolves around the fourth corner. Why is the tzitzit made upon it disqualified? When it was made, the garment already had four corners. On this basis, the Magen Avraham (10:6) rules that, indeed, the fourth tzitzit is not disqualified and may remain.
19.Tzitzit are required only on a garment with four corners, as stated in the proof-text quoted from Deuteronomy and mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
20.There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements: In this halachah he cites the verse from Deuteronomy as a proof-text, while in Halachah 13 he cited a verse from Numbers.
21.Although in its present state, the garment has four corners, unless it is sewn it is possible that the folds will open and the position of the corners will change (Menachot 41a). Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 10:6), who quotes a difference of opinion where the tzitzit should be placed during the time the garment is folded. Because of this difference of opinion, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 10:13 suggests not wearing such a garment unless it is sewn closed.
22.Our translation follows the explanation of the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 10). Note, however, the explanation of the Be'ur Halachah 10.
23.When the torn portion is three fingerbreadths long, it is considered as the "corner" of the garment. Therefore, the tzitzit are considered to be attached to a significant portion of the garment and need not be untied before the corner can be sewn back on the garment (Nimukei Yosef, Menachot 40b). The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between this law and Halachah 13, which forbids one to sew a piece of a garment to which tzitzit are attached to another garment. The commentaries differentiate between these two laws, explaining that there is a difference between a piece of fabric from another garment (Halachah 13) and a portion of the original garment which was detached (the present halachah). The Turei Zahav 15:3 does not accept this distinction, and maintains that even attaching a piece of the original garment is unacceptable. The later authorities suggest following this stringency.
24.A portion of a garment less than three fingerbreadths long is not considered significant. Therefore, the tzitzit are no longer considered to be attached to part of the garment. Accordingly, when this fragment is sewn back to the garment, the tzitzit attached to it will be disqualified, based on the principle that one must make tzitzit and not use those existing previously. If, however, one untied the tzitzit, one may sew the detached corner back onto the garment, and then attach new tzitzit to it (Rav David Arameah).
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Amram Gaon as stating that, if such a small portion was detached from the garment, tzitzit may never be attached to the garment again. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 15:4) suggests following this more stringent view if possible.
25.Although initially the tzitzit had to be positioned a certain distance above the end of the garment, as mentioned in Halachah 6, after they were attached to the garment in the proper manner, there is greater leniency (Menachot 42a). The Ramah (Orach Chayim 11:10) suggests sewing a border around the hole through which the strands are placed so that it will not tear.
26.For example, they became torn. Based on Menachot 38b, the Rabbis have offered two interpretations of "enough to tie a loop":
a) enough to tie a loop around all the strands of the tzitzit;
b) enough to tie a loop around the strand itself.
The grammatical construction of the Rambam's statements indicates - albeit not definitely - that he favors the latter view.
(Note the Be'ur Halachah 12, which states that the measure "to tie a loop" surely does not exceed four centimeters.)
The Rambam maintains that even if the majority of all the strands of the tzitzit were cut off, as long as "enough to tie a loop remains," the tzitzit are acceptable. If, however, both ends of one long strand are cut off entirely, the tzitzit are not acceptable. Rabbenu Tam does not accept this decision and requires that at least two entire strands remain their full length. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 12:1.) The later authorities, particularly in the Ashkenazi community, suggest following Rabbenu Tam's view.
27.See Turei Zahav 12:3.
Tzitzit - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
The term techelet mentioned throughout the Torah refers to wool dyed light blue - i.e., the color of the sky which appears opposite the sun when there is a clear sky.
The term techelet when used regarding tzitzit refers to a specific dye that remains beautiful without changing. [If the techelet] is not dyed with this dye, it is unfit to be used as tzitzit even though it is sky blue in color. For example, using isatis, black dye, or other dark dyes, is unacceptable for tzitzit.
The wool of a ewe that a goat gave birth to is unacceptable for use as tzitzit.
Halacha 2
How is the techelet of tzitzit dyed? Wool is taken and soaked in lime. Afterwards, it is taken and washed until it is clean and then boiled with bleach and the like, as is the dyers' practice, to prepare it to accept the dye. A chilazon is a fish whose color is like the color of the sea and whose blood is black like ink.1 It is found in the Mediterranean Sea.2
The blood is placed in a pot together with herbs - e.g., chamomile - as is the dyers' practice. It is boiled and then the wool is inserted. [It is left there] until it becomes sky-blue. This is the manner in which the techelet of tzitzit [is made].
Halacha 3
One must dye tzitzit techelet with the intention that it be used for the mitzvah. If one did not have such an intention, it is unacceptable.
When one places some wool in the pot in which the dye was placed, to check whether the dye is good or not, the entire pot may no longer be used [for tzitzit].3 [If so,] how should one check [the dye]? He should take some dye from the pot in a small container and place the wool he uses to check in it. Afterwards, he should burn the wool used to check - for it was dyed for the purpose of checking4 - and pour out the dye used to check it, since using it for an experiment disqualified it. Afterwards, he should dye [the wool] techelet with the remainder of the dye which was not used.
Halacha 4
Techelet should only be purchased from a recognized dealer because we are concerned that perhaps it was not dyed with the intention that it be used for the mitzvah. Even though it was purchased from a recognized dealer, if it was checked,5 and it was discovered that it was dyed with another dark dye which is not of a permanent nature, it is not acceptable.6
Halacha 5
How can techelet be checked to see whether it has been dyed properly or not? One takes straw, the secretion of a snail, and urine that had been left standing for forty days and leaves thetechelet in this mixture for an entire day. If the color of thetechelet remained unchanged, without becoming weaker, it is acceptable.
If it became weaker, we place the techelet which changed color inside a dough of barley meal that was left to sour for fish brine. The dough is baked in an oven, and then the techelet is removed. If it became even weaker than it was previously, it is unacceptable. If this strengthened the color and it became darker than it was before being baked, it is acceptable.7
Halacha 6
One may purchase techelet from an outlet which has established a reputation for authenticity without question. It need not be checked. One may continue to rely [on its reputation] until a reason for suspicion arises.
Should one entrust techelet to a gentile for safekeeping, it is no longer fit for use, [because] we fear that he exchanged it. If it was in a container and closed with two seals, one seal inside the other,8 it is acceptable. If, however, it had only a single seal, it may not be used.
Halacha 7
If a person found techelet in the marketplace - even strands which were cut - it is not fit for use.9If they were twisted together, however, they are acceptable.10
[The following rules apply when] a person purchases a garment to which tzitzit are attached in the marketplace. When he purchases it from a Jew, he may presume [that it is acceptable]. If he purchases it from a gentile merchant, it is [presumed to be] acceptable;11
from a non-Jew who is a private person, it is not acceptable.
Halacha 8
When a garment is entirely red, green, or any other color [besides white], its white strands should be made from the same color as the garment itself. If it is green, they should be green. If it is red, they should be red.12
Should the garment itself be techelet, its white strands should be made from any color other than black,13
for it resembles techelet. He should wind one strand of techelet around all the strands, as one does with other tzitzit that are not colored.
Halacha 9
The punishment given someone who does not wear [tzitzit of white strands] is more severe than that given one who does not wear techelet, because the white strands are easily accessible while techelet is not available in every time and in every era, because of the [unique] dye mentioned above.14
FOOTNOTES
1.The identity of the chilazon is a matter of question. Menachot 44a states that it would be visible only once in seventy years. From Bechorot 6:2, one can infer that it was a long snakelike fish. From other sources, it appears to be a snaillike animal. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Menachot 4:1), the Rambam writes that techelet is no longer available. Similarly, Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi (who lived two generations before the Rambam) writes that "we do not have techelet."
Approximately one hundred years ago, Rabbi Gershon Henoch Langer attempted to reintroduce a dye which he determined to betechelet. Similarly, Rabbi Herzog, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, attempted to locate the chilazon. Although, from a theoretical perspective, the Torah community appreciated the value of their research, in practice, their decisions were not accepted by the majority of Torah scholars.
2.Though ים המלח generally refers to the Dead Sea, there are times when the Rambam uses this term to refer to the Mediterranean. See the conclusion of his Commentary on the Mishnah.
3.Menachot 42b interprets the phrase, "totally techelet" (Exodus 28:31), to mean that the entire dye must be intended for a ritual purpose.
4.Thus, it is unfit to be used for tzitzit. This wool should be burned lest it be discovered by someone else and unknowingly used for tzitzit.
5.Since it was purchased from a recognized dealer, there is no obligation to check it. Nevertheless, if it was checked, it can be disqualified. See Halachah 6.
6.The Rambam's statements appear to imply that the blood of the chilazon must be used for tzitzit, not because of a Torah decree, but because it was the only lasting dye they had (Kinat Eliyahu).
7.These processes are mentioned in Menachot 42b-43a.
8.The concept of two seals is explained in the laws of kashrut. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 13:8.
9.Even if it proves to be techelet, we assume that it was not dyed for the purpose of being used for tzitzit.
10.We assume that twisted strands of techelet were made to be used for tzitzit. It is unlikely that someone would go to the trouble of twisting strands of techelet for any other purpose. (See the Ra'avad.)
Our text follows the standard published versions of the Mishneh Torah, which is supported by a responsum purported to have been written by the Rambam. The original printings and many authoritative editions of the Mishneh Torah state that even twisted strands of techelet are not acceptable when found in the marketplace. This version appears to be supported by the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Shabbat 19:24, which is based on the same Talmudic passage, Eruvin 96b.
11.We assume that a merchant will not risk tarnishing his reputation by misrepresenting an article.
12.The rationale for this decision is that tzitzit must be "of the same type of fabric as the fringe of the garment." This also implies that they should share the same color as the fringe (Rashi, Menachot 43b).
This decision is not shared by Tosafot, Menachot 41b, which rules that white strands are appropriate even when the garment itself is of another color. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 9:5) mentions that those who are precise in their performance of mitzvot follow the Rambam's view. The Ramah, however, maintains that one should use white tzitziot for all garments.
13.The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's statements are not an exact quote from his source, Menachot, ibid., which substitutes the word kelah ilan instead of black. Kelah ilan is a dye which looks almost exactly the same as techelet except that it is not made from the blood of the chilazon. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the Rambam meant that any dark color is unacceptable although lighter colors would be acceptable. It is necessary that there be a contrast between the color of the strands of tzitzit, just as there is a contrast between white and techelet.
14.Even in Talmudic times, techelet was very expensive and difficult to obtain. As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1, according to most authorities, techelet is not available in the present era, nor has it been available for at least 1000 years.
144
Tzitzit - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
A garment to which the Torah obligates a person to attach tzitzit [must meet the following requirements]:
a) it must have four - or more than four - corners;
b) it must be large enough to cover both the head and the majority of the body of a child who is able to walk on his own in the marketplace without having someone else accompany him and watch him;
c) it must be made of either wool or linen alone.
Halacha 2
In contrast, a garment made of other fabrics - for example, clothes of silk, cotton, camels' wool, hares' wool, goats' wool, and the like - are required to have tzitzit only because of Rabbinic decree, in order to show regard for the mitzvah of tzitzit.
[These garments require tzitzit only] when they are four-cornered - or have more than four corners - and are of the measure mentioned above.
[The motivating principle for this law] is that all the garments mentioned in the Torah without any further explanation refer to those made of either wool or linen alone.
Halacha 3
"On the four corners of your garments" (Deuteronomy 22:12): This applies to a garment which possesses four corners, but not to one which possesses only three. Perhaps, [it comes to include] a four-cornered garment and [to exclude] a five-cornered garment? The Torah continues: "with which you cover yourself." This includes even a five- (or more) cornered garment.
Why do I obligate a garment of five corners and exempt a garment of three corners? Neither has four corners [as required by the above verse]. Because a five-cornered garment has four corners.
Accordingly, when one attaches tzitzit to a garment with five or six corners, one should attach the tzitzit only to the four corners which are farthest apart from each other from among these five or six corners, as [implied by the phrase,] "On the four corners of your garments."
Halacha 4
If a garment is made of cloth and its corners of leather, it requires tzitzit. If the garment is of leather and its corners are of cloth, it does not require tzitzit. The determining factor is the makeup of the garment itself.
A garment belonging to two partners requires [tzitzit], as [implied by Numbers 15:38]: "On the corners of their garments." The term "your garments" [(Deuteronomy 22:12), which is interpreted as an exclusion,] excludes only a borrowed garment, since a borrowed garment does not require tzitzit for thirty days. Afterwards, it does require them.
Halacha 5
For a garment of wool, the white strands should be made of wool. For a garment of linen, the white strands should be made of linen. For garments of other [fabrics], the white strands should be made from the same fabric as the garment itself. For example, silk strands should be used for a silk garment, strands of goats' wool should be used for garments of goats' wool.
If one desired to make white strands of wool or linen for [garments of] any type [of fabric], one may, because [strands of] wool and linen can fulfill the obligation [of tzitzit] for garments made of their own fabric or for garments made of other fabrics. In contrast, [strands made] from other fabrics can fulfill the obligation [of tzitzit] only for garments made of their own fabric.
Halacha 6
What is the ruling regarding making woolen strands for a garment of linen or linen strands for a garment of wool - even though we are speaking only of the white strands without techelet?
One might think that it should be permitted, because sha'atnez is permitted to be used for tzitzit, as evident from the fact that techelet is made using woolen strands, and yet it should be placed on a linen garment. Nevertheless, this is not done.
Why? Because it is possible to make the white strands from the same fabric as [the garment]. Whenever [a conflict exists] between the observance of a positive commandment and the adherence to a negative commandment, [the following rules apply]: If it is possible to observe both of them, one should. If not, the observance of the positive commandment supersedes the negative commandment. In the present instance, however, it is possible to observe both of them.
Halacha 7
Techelet should not be attached to a linen garment. Rather, one should [make the tzitzit] from white threads of linen alone. This is not because [the prohibition against] sha'atnez supersedes [the mitzvah of] tzitzit, but rather it is a Rabbinical decree [imposed] lest one wear the garment at night, when one is not required to wear tzitzit, and thus violate a negative commandment when the performance of a positive commandment is not involved.
[This is because] the obligation to wear tzitzit applies during the day, but not at night [as can be inferred from Numbers 15:39]: "And you shall see them." [The mitzvah applies only] during a time when one can see. [Nevertheless,] a blind man is obligated to wear tzitzit. Even though he does not see them, others see him [wearing them].
Halacha 8
A person is permitted to wear tzitzit at night, both during the weekdays and on the Sabbath, even though this is not the time when the mitzvah should be fulfilled, provided he does not recite a blessing.
When should the blessing over tzitzit be recited in the morning? When [the sun has risen so] that one can differentiate between the strands of techelet and those which are white.
Which blessing should be recited upon it? "Blessed are you, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to wrap ourselves with tzitzit." Whenever a person wraps himself in tzitzit during the day, he should recite the blessing before doing so.
No blessing should be recited on the tzitzit when making them, because the ultimate purpose of the mitzvah is that one should wrap oneself in [a tallit].
Halacha 9
It is permissible to enter a lavatory or a bathhouse [wearing] tzitzit. If one of the strands of white or techelet becomes torn, it may be discarded in a garbage dump, because tzitzit is a mitzvah which does not confer sanctity on the article itself.
It is forbidden to sell a garment with tzitzit to a gentile until he removes the tzitzit, not because the garment possesses a measure of holiness, but because we are concerned that he will dress in it, and [unknowingly,] a Jew will accompany him, thinking that he is a fellow Jew, and the gentile may kill him.
Women, servants, and minors are not required by the Torah to wear tzitzit. It is, however, a Rabbinical obligation for every child who knows how to dress himself to wear tzitzit in order to educate him to fulfill mitzvot.
Women and servants who wish to wrap themselves in tzitzit may do so without reciting a blessing. Similarly, regarding the other positive commandments which women are not required to fulfill, if they desire to fulfill them without reciting a blessing, they should not be prevented from doing so.
A tumtum and an androgynous are obligated in all positive commandments because of the doubt [about their status]. Therefore, they fulfill [all these positive commandments] without reciting a blessing.
Halacha 10
What is the nature of the obligation of the commandment of tzitzit? Every person who is obligated to fulfill this mitzvah, if he wears a garment requiring tzitzit, should attach tzitzit to it and then wear it. If he wears it without attaching tzitzit to it, he has negated [this] positive commandment.
There is, however, no obligation to attach tzitzit to a garment which requires tzitzit, as long as it remains folded in its place, without a person wearing it. It is not that a garment requires [tzitzit]. Rather, the requirement is incumbent on the person [wearing] the garment.
Halacha 11
Even though a person is not obligated to purchase a tallit and wrap himself in it so that he must attach tzitzit to it, it is not proper for a person to release himself from this commandment. Instead, he should always try to be wrapped in a garment which requires tzitzit so that he will fulfill this mitzvah.
In particular, care should be taken regarding this matter during prayer. It is very shameful for a Torah scholar to pray without being wrapped [in a tallit].
Halacha 12
A person should always be careful regarding the mitzvah of tzitzit, because the Torah considered it equal to all the mitzvot and considered them all as dependent on it, as [implied by Numbers 15:39]: "And you shall see them and remember all the mitzvot of God."
Commentary Halacha 1
A garment to which the Torah obligates a person to attach tzitzit - With this expression, the Rambam could be alluding to the concept that a person is not obligated to wear tzitzit. Should a person desire to wear a garment of the type that requires tzitzit, then he has the opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah. See Halachot 10-11.
[must meet the following requirements]: a) it must have four - Deuteronomy 22:12 states: "Make braids on the four corners of your garments." As explained in Halachah 3, this excludes a garment with fewer than four corners.
or more than four - corners; - See Halachah 3.
b) it must be large enough to cover both the head and the majority of the body of a child - Menachot 41a adds that the garment must be large enough for an adult to use it occasionally.
This requirement is particularly significant regarding a tallit katan. Note the Mishnah Berurah 16:4, which requires that a tallit katan be at least 0.75 of a cubit long and 0.75 of a cubit wide on each side, without including the area of the hole where one's head is inserted. Preferably, the tallit katan should be a cubit by a cubit on each side.
who is able to walk on his own in the marketplace without having someone else accompany him and watch him; - The Tur (Orach Chayim 16) defines this as referring to a child who is at least nine years old.
c) it must be made of either wool or linen alone. - as explained in the following halachah.
Commentary Halacha 2
In contrast, a garment made of other fabrics - for example, clothes of silk, cotton, camels' wool, hares' wool, goats' wool, - The term "wool" when used without any modifier refers to wool from sheep or rams alone.
and the like - are required to have tzitzit only because of Rabbinic decree - The Rambam's opinion is quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 9:1). The Ashkenazic authorities, however (see the Ramah), disagree and maintain that all four-cornered garments require tzitzit regardless of the fabric they are made of. This difference of opinion results from the interpretation of a debate between Amoraim (Menachot 39b).
Because of this difference of opinion, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 9:6) suggests that everyone wear a tallit of wool, so that he will fulfill the mitzvah as required by the Torah according to all opinions. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 9:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 9:5 suggest that a God-fearing person should have both his tallit gadol and his tallit katan made of wool. See also the commentary on Halachah 5.
in order to show regard for the mitzvah of tzitzit. - Were tzitzit not required to be attached to these garments, people might not attach them to the garments which do require them.
[These garments require tzitzit only] when they are four-cornered - or have more than four corners - and are of the measure mentioned above. - Even when extending the scope of the mitzvah, the Rabbis maintained these criteria, which are explained in the previous halachah.
[The motivating principle for this law] - as explained in Menachot, ibid.
is that all the garments mentioned in the Torah without any further explanation - This includes the garments to which tzitzit are attached, as Numbers 15:38 states: "On the corners of their garments."
refer to those made of either wool or linen alone. - Since, regarding the prohibition against mixing fabrics (sha'atnez, Hilchot Kilayim 10:1) and the laws of tzara'at (leprosy, Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 13:1), the Torah mentions garments of wool and linen, we can assume that any place in the Torah which mentions the word "garment" is referring to one made from wool or linen unless another fabric is explicitly mentioned.
Commentary Halacha 3
"On the four corners of your garments" (Deuteronomy 22:12): - In this halachah, the Rambam departs from his usual pattern of stating a law tersely without explanation, and quotes the entire passage (Menachot 43b), from which these laws are derived.
This - The Torah's command to attach tzitzit
applies to a garment which possesses four corners, but not to one which possesses only three - since the mention of a specific number of corners obviously is intended to exclude garments which do not meet this requirement.
Perhaps, [it - this phrase
comes to include] a four-cornered garment and [to exclude] a five-cornered garment? - i.e., why restrict the scope of the exclusion?
The Torah continues: "with which you cover yourself." This - extra phrase, which has no apparent purpose was added to
includes even a five- (or more) cornered garment. - One also "covers himself" with such garments.
The Talmud continues, asking
Why do I obligate a garment of five corners and exempt a garment of three corners? - Why is the inclusion applied to a five-cornered garment and the exclusion to a three-cornered garment? Perhaps they should be reversed, after all,
Neither - a three- or five-cornered garment
has four corners [as required by the above verse]. - The Talmud answers:
Because a five-cornered garment has four corners. - Therefore, it is logical to assume that the inclusion applies to it. This concludes the quotation from the Talmud.
Accordingly, - Since the reason tzitzit are placed on a five-cornered garment is that it possesses four corners
when one attaches tzitzit to a garment with five or six corners, one should attach the tzitzit only to the four corners - Indeed, if one attaches tzitzit to more than four corners of the garment, one transgresses the prohibition against adding to a Torah commandment (Magen Avraham 10:2).
which are farthest apart from each other - for, in this way, the tzitzit will be more noticeable (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 10:3).
from among these five or six corners, as [implied by the phrase,] "On the four corners of your garments." - There are other opinions, which maintain that a garment with more than four corners does not require tzitzit. In consideration of these opinions, it is preferable not to wear such garments at all (Magen Avraham 10:1).
Commentary Halacha 4
13A garment made of leather does not require tzitzit. Deuteronomy 15:38 states that tzitzit must be attached to בגדיהם, "their garments." The word בגד implies a woven garment and not one of leather (Levush, Orach Chayim 10:4). Thus, a leather garment does not require tzitzit.
If a garment is made of cloth - any cloth, not only wool or linen
and its corners of leather, it requires tzitzit. - The same law applies when not only the corners, but also a portion of the garment itself, is leather. As long as the majority of the garment is cloth, it requires tzitzit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 10:8; Mishnah Berurah 10:10).
If the garment is of leather and its corners are of cloth - In this case as well, as long as the majority of the garment is leather
it does not require tzitzit. The determining factor is the makeup of the garment itself. - This is derived from the conclusion of the verse from Deuteronomy, "with which you cover yourself." A person covers himself with the major portion of the garment (Rabbenu Manoach).
A garment belonging to two partners requires [tzitzit], as [implied by Numbers 15:38]: "On the corners of their garments." - Here, the usage of a plural term implies an inclusion of garments which belong to many owners.
In contrast,
The term "your garments" - In this verse, the singular form of the word "your" is used.
[(Deuteronomy 22:12), which is interpreted as an exclusion], excludes only a borrowed garment, since a borrowed garment does not require tzitzit for thirty days. - Nevertheless, one is allowed to attach tzitzit to the garment if one chooses. Furthermore, one is allowed to borrow a colleague's tallit and recite a blessing over it - even without his knowledge (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 14:3-4).
Afterwards, it does require them. - Note the Hagahot Maimoniot, which explain that, even after thirty days, the Torah does not require a person to attach tzitzit to a garment which is not his own. The Sages, however, imposed this obligation because the garment appears to be his.
Commentary Halacha 5
For a garment of wool, the white strands should be made of wool - alone.
For a garment of linen, the white strands should be made of linen - alone. Note the explanation in the following halachah.
For garments of other [fabrics] - As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 2, there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether garments made from fabrics other than wool or linen require tzitzit or not. According to the opinions which maintain that they do, the concepts that follow are derived from the exegesis of a Biblical verse. (See Menachot 39b.) According to the Rambam, who maintains that the requirement of tzitzit on these garments is Rabbinic in origin, we must assume that these concepts were part of the Rabbinic ordinance requiring tzitzit for these garments (Kessef Mishneh).
the white strands should be made from the same fabric as the garment itself. - The authorities who consider the obligation to attach tzitzit to such garments as stemming from the Torah explain that, in the commandment to attach tzitzit, the Torah mentions the word "corner" an extra time, to teach that the tzitzit should be made of the same fabric as the corners.
For example, silk strands should be used for a silk garment, strands of goats' wool should be used for garments of goats' wool. - If one chooses to make tzitzit from these fabrics, one should use them for all four tzitzit. It is questionable whether it is acceptable to make some of the tzitzit of a specific garment from wool and others from the fabric of which the garment is made (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 9:4).
If one desired to make white strands of wool or of linen - The Ramah (Orach Chayim 9:2) states that at present it is customary not to make linen tzitzit at all.
for [garments of] any type [of fabric], one may - Menachot, ibid., derives this concept from the fact that Deuteronomy 22:12 mentions the mitzvah to attach tzitzit to our garments directly after the mention of the prohibition of making garments of wool and linen. Our Sages explain, that although mixtures of wool and linen are forbidden in general, such a mixture is required in tzitzit. (See the following two halachot.) Therefore, whenever tzitzit are made, either of these two fabrics may be used.
because [strands of] wool and linen can fulfill the obligation [of tzitzit] for garments made of their own fabric or for garments made of other fabrics. - Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg maintains, however, that wool and linen strands alone are not sufficient, and only a combination of wool and linen including strands of techelet can be used to fulfill the obligation of tzitzit for garments made from other fabrics. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 9:4 suggests considering this opinion.
In contrast, [strands made] from other fabrics can fulfill the obligation [of tzitzit] only for garments made of their own fabric. - Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 9:5 and the Mishnah Berurah 9:10,13 which discuss a situation where the garment is woven from both wool and another fabric.
Commentary Halacha 6
What is the ruling regarding making woolen strands for a garment of linen or linen strands for a garment of wool - even though we are speaking only of the white strands without techelet? - It appears that the Rambam is asking about attaching tzitzit that have only white strands, without attaching techelet. Thus, one can conclude that when attaching tzitzit to a linen garment, it is forbidden to make the white strands of wool even though one includes a woolen strand oftechelet. Though the prohibition against sha'atnez is lifted for this garment, it is lifted only when there is no alternative but to do so (Kessef Mishneh).
One might think that it should be permitted, because sha'atnez - a mixture of wool and linen which is forbidden. (See Deuteronomy 22:11 and Hilchot Kilayim, Chapter 10.)
is permitted to be used for tzitzit, as evident from the fact that techelet is made using woolen strands - Chapter 2, Halachot 1- 2.
and yet it should be placed on a linen garment - according to Torah law. See, however, the following halachah.
Neverthless, this - Using linen strands for a woolen garment or vice versa
is not done.Why? Because it is possible to make the white strands from the same fabric as [the garment]. - Woolen strands for a woolen garment, linen strands for a linen garment, and thus skirt the prohibition entirely.
Whenever [a conflict exists] between the observance of a positive commandment and the adherence to a negative commandment, [the following rules apply:] - The following are general rules which apply, not only regarding tzitzit, but in other circumstances as well: for example, Hilchot Milah 1:9.
If it is possible to observe both of them - by fulfilling the positive commandment without breaking the prohibition
one should. If not, the observance of the positive commandment supersedes the negative commandment. - Rav Nissim Gaon explains that although the violation of a negative commandment receives a more severe punishment than the failure to observe a positive commandment, when God originally gave the negative commandments, He prescribed that they do not apply when adherence to them causes the performance of a positive commandment to be nullified.
The Tanya (Iggeret HaTeshuvah, Chapter 1) explains the rationale for this principle. Man's purpose in this world is to spread Godly light through the observance of mitzvot. Accordingly, the observance of these mitzvot is always given preference when there is such a conflict.
It must be emphasized that one must fulfill the mitzvah at the time one is violating the transgression. It is forbidden, however, in order to break a commandment to later perform a mitzvah.
In the present instance, however, it is possible to observe both of them - as explained above.
144
Commentary Halacha 7
Techelet should not be attached to a linen garment. - This decree was imposed even when techelet was available.
Rather, one should [make the tzitzit] from white threads of linen alone - even though by doing so, one does not fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit to the fullest degree.
This is not because [the prohibition against] sha'atnez supersedes [the mitzvah of] tzitzit, but rather it is a Rabbinical decree - The Rabbis have the power to ordain that a person bypass the performance of a Torah commandment. Surely this applies in the present instance, when the mitzvah of tzitzit is not nullified entirely.
[imposed] lest one wear the garment at night - Significantly, the Rambam does not quote his apparent source (Menachot 40b) exactly. The Talmud states "lest one wear a garment of the night." The Rambam's change of phraseology teaches two concepts. First, that not only a garment which is generally worn at night, but even one which is worn primarily during the day, should not have techelet attached to it, lest one wear it during the night.
This also sheds light on a more involved issue. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the exclusion of wearing tzitzit at night applies to all tzitzit, or if it applies only to garments which are worn primarily at night. According to the latter opinion, garments worn primarily at night do not require tzitzit, even when worn during the day. In contrast, a garment which is worn primarily during the day requires tzitzit, even during the night and one does not transgress the prohibition against sha'atnez when wearing it at that time.
By altering the terminology used by the Talmud, the Rambam indicates his acceptance of the first perspective. Rabbenu Asher is the primary exponent of the second position. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 18:1) mentions both views without reaching a conclusion.
when one is not required to wear tzitzit, and thus violate a negative commandment when the performance of a positive commandment is not involved. - See Hilchot Kilayim 10:32, which mentions a similar concept regarding the priestly garments. The sash worn by the priests was made from sha'atnez. Therefore, the priests were allowed to wear it only when they were actually involved in the Temple service. Wearing it at other times constitutes a transgression, and not a mitzvah.
Significantly, Rabbenu Tam differs with the Rambam and allows the sash and tzitzit to be worn even during the times when doing so does not fulfill a mitzvah.
[This is because] the obligation to wear tzitzit applies during the day, but not at night [as can be inferred from Numbers 15:39]: "And you shall see them." - Note the Magen Avraham 8:13, which states that this verse also implies that one should wear tzitzit in a manner in which the strands can be seen.
[The mitzvah applies only] during a time when one can see. - i.e., the daytime hours. Note the Chatam Sofer and Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Orach Chayim 18), who mention opinions that maintain that the mitzvah is not limited by the times of day and night, but rather by situations when one can see the tzitzit. During a daytime eclipse, one would not be obligated.
[Nevertheless,] a blind man is obligated to wear tzitzit. Even though he does not see them, others see him [wearing them]. - There is no question concerning a blind man's obligation. He is required to wear tzitzit and may recite a blessing beforehand (Mishnah Berurah 17:1).
Commentary Halacha 8
A person is permitted to wear tzitzit at night - i.e., doing so is not a transgression of the prohibition against adding to the performance of a mitzvah.
The Mishnah Berurah 21:15 quotes the Ari zal, as advising one to sleep in a tallit katan at night.
both during the weekdays - Rabbi Yitzchak Abuhav maintains that this law applies even to tzitzit containing techelet. Based on the previous halachah, however, most authorities do not accept this opinion.
and on the Sabbath - On the Sabbath, it is forbidden to carry in the public domain. Therefore, one might think that it is forbidden to wear a garment with tzitzit at night, for it would be considered as if one is carrying them. The Rambam is teaching us that the tzitzit are not considered to be a burden, but rather an adornment of the garment to which they are attached (Hilchot Shabbat 19:20).
even though this is not the time when the mitzvah should be fulfilled, provided he does not recite a blessing. - Therefore, when a tallit is put on during the night - e.g., before the Selichot prayers - a blessing should not be recited (Ramah, Orach Chayim 18:3).
When should the blessing over tzitzit be recited in the morning? - According to the Rambam, this question applies whether one wears his tallit at night or not. Nevertheless, because of Rabbenu Asher's opinion mentioned in the previous halachah, if someone slept in his tallit katan, he should not recite a blessing upon it in the morning. Instead, it is preferable that he recite the blessing over his tallit gadol with the intention of including the tallit katan (Mishneh Berurah 8:24).
When [the sun has risen so] that one can differentiate between the strands of techelet and those which are white. - This time is slightly more than midway between dawn (עלות השחר) and sunrise (הנץ החמה).
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 18:3), who allows the blessing to be recited from dawn onwards.
Which blessing should be recited upon it? "Blessed are you, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to wrap ourselves with tzitzit." - This is the blessing recited over the tallit gadol. For a tallit katan, most authorities suggest concluding al mitzvat tzitzit, "concerning the mitzvah of tzitzit."
Whenever a person wraps himself in tzitzit during the day, he should recite the blessing before doing so. - Note the difference of opinion between the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 8:14) and the Ramah, whether a person who removes his tallit with the intention of putting it on again in the near future is obligated to recite a blessing or not.
No blessing should be recited on the tzitzit when making them - Note Hilchot Berachot 11:9, which states that one should recite the blessing, shehecheyanu, when one acquires or makes tzitzit. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 22:1.)
because - making the tzitzit or even attaching them to the garment is only a preparatory act
the ultimate purpose of the mitzvah is that one should wrap oneself in [a tallit]. - See Hilchot Mezuzah 5:7; Hilchot Berachot 11:8.
Commentary Halacha 9
In contrast to tefillin (see Hilchot Tefillin 4:17-20) and a Torah scroll (see Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:6), which are themselves sacred articles,
It is permissible to enter a lavatory or a bathhouse [wearing] tzitzit - since the tzitzit themselves are not considered sacred articles. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 21:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 21:14 state that it is improper to enter a lavatory wearing a tallit gadol. Since this garment is worn exclusively at the times of prayer, it is not fitting to wear it in a lavatory.
If one of the strands of white or techelet becomes torn, it may be discarded in a garbage dump - in contrast to sacred articles that have become worn, which must be entombed. (See Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:3-4.)
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 21:1) differs and maintains that even after tzitzit have been removed from a garment, they should not be treated with disrespect.
because tzitzit is a mitzvah which does not confer sanctity on the article itself. - Though the tzitzit are used to perform a mitzvah, they, themselves, do not become sacred.
It is forbidden to sell a garment with tzitzit to a gentile until he removes the tzitzit, not because the garment possesses a measure of holiness - and we are afraid that he will deface it. (See Hilchot Mezuzah 5:11.)
but because we are concerned that he will dress in it, and [unknowingly,] a Jew will accompany him, thinking that he is a fellow Jew, and the gentile may kill him. - Note Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat HaNefesh 12:7, which forbids traveling together with a gentile.
Women - Women are not required to fulfill any mitzvot whose observance is linked to a specific time. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:3.) Since tzitzit are worn only during the day, women are not obligated to wear them.
servants - i.e., gentile servants, who are required to fulfill only the mitzvot for which women are obligated. (See Hilchot Tefilah 1:2 and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11, 14:9.) A Jew sold as a slave is required to fulfill all the mitzvot.
and minors are not required by the Torah to wear tzitzit. - The Torah does not place any obligations on minors.
It is, however, a Rabbinical obligation for every child -Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 17) notes that the Rambam's choice of phraseology appears to indicate that the requirement to become trained in the performance of mitzvot obligates the child himself. Generally, it is understood that the obligation is on the child's parents, who are required to train him in Torah observance.
The contention that the obligation is on the child himself is supported by Hilchot Berachot 5:15-16, which states that an adult who has eaten only a small meal can fulfill his obligation to recite the grace by answering "Amen" to the blessings recited by a child who has reached the age of education. This ruling is based on the rationale that both the child and the adult share the same degree of obligation, a Rabbinical decree. This appears to indicate that the Sages placed the obligation to recite grace on the child himself.
who knows how to dress himself - The Ramah (Orach Chayim 17:3) interprets this to mean, "knows how to wrap himself in tzitzit in the ritual manner."
to wear tzitzit in order to educate him to fulfill mitzvot. - In many communities, it is customary to begin training a child to wear a tallit katan from the time he is toilet trained. In other communities, a child begins to wear tzitzit from the age of 6.
Women and servants who wish to wrap themselves in tzitzit may do so - The Ramah (Orach Chayim 17:1), however, advises against women wearing tzitzit, explaining that doing so would be a sign of conceit.
without reciting a blessing. Similarly, regarding the other positive commandments which women are not required to fulfill, if they desire to fulfill them without reciting a blessing, they should not be prevented from doing so. - Since they are not obligated to fulfill these commandments, it is improper for them to say the blessing which praises God "who has commanded us" to perform the mitzvot.
This perspective is not accepted by Ashkenazic authorities. TheMagen Avraham 17:1 explains that the fact that, as our Sages relate, women are given some measure of reward for the fulfillment of these commandments indicates that the commandment applies - albeit not completely - to them as well.
A tumtum - The word tumtum has its roots in the word atum, which means "a solid block." It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by skin, so that it is impossible to determine whether he is male or female. (See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:4, Hilchot Ishut 2:25.)
Should a tumtum undergo an operation and it be revealed that he is either male or female, he is bound by the laws which apply to that gender.
and an androgynous - Androgynous is a combination of the Greek words meaning "man" and "woman." It refers to a person who possesses the sexual organs of both genders. (See also Hilchot Ishut 2:24.)
are obligated in all positive commandments because of the doubt [about their status]. - i.e., it is doubtful whether they are governed by the laws applying to a man or those applying to a woman. The doubts are, however, different in nature. With regard to a tumtum, we are uncertain what is his true gender. With regard to an androgynous, however, the question revolves around the Sages' failure to define his status.
Therefore, they fulfill [all these positive commandments] - lest they be considered men.
without reciting a blessing. - lest they be considered women. Needless to say, according to Ashkenazic practice, they would be required to recite blessings as well.
Commentary Halacha 10
What is the nature of the obligation of the commandment of tzitzit? Every person who is obligated to fulfill this mitzvah - i.e., adult males, as explained in the previous halachah
if he wears a garment requiring tzitzit - See Halachot 1-4.
should attach tzitzit to it and then wear it - if he desires to do so.
If he wears it without attaching tzitzit to it, he has negated [this] positive commandment.
There is, however, no obligation to attach tzitzit to a garment which requires tzitzit, as long as it remains folded in its place, without a person wearing it. - 13The Rambam wants to emphasize that
It is not that a garment requires [tzitzit]. - The Rambam's statements in this halachah revolve around a difference of opinion of our Sages, Menachot 42b. There are Sages who maintain that tzitzit is an obligation that depends on the garment - i.e., the mitzvah is completed by placing tzitzit on every garment which requires them. The other opinion states that tzitzit are an obligation incumbent on a person, that a person is required to attach tzitzit to his garments. The Rambam rephrases the latter opinion as follows:
Rather, the requirement is incumbent on the person [wearing] the garment. - With this choice of phraseology, he desires to indicate that - in contrast to other mitzvot (e.g., tefillin) - there is no obligation from the Torah to wear tzitzit every day. Only when a person desires to wear a garment that requires tzitzit is he obligated to fulfill the mitzvah.
This conception represents a change of position for the Rambam. Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, whose decisions the Rambam frequently followed, maintains that each person is obligated to wear tzitzit, apparently indicating that tzitzit, like tefillin, are an obligation which a person is required to fulfill.
The Rambam apparently held this view himself at one time. Therefore, in Sefer HaMitzvot, at the conclusion of the listing of the positive commandments, he lists tzitzit (together with tefillin) as one of the positive commandments whose observance we must pursue. Here, his choice of phraseology indicates that, although the mitzvah is incumbent on the person, it does relate to the garment. Only when a person wears a garment which requires tzitzit is he obligated to fulfill the mitzvah.
Commentary Halacha 11
Even though a person is not obligated to purchase a tallit and wrap himself in it so that he must attach tzitzit to it - as explained in the previous halachah.
it is not proper for a person to release himself from this commandment. Instead, he should always try to be wrapped in a garment which requires tzitzit so that he will fulfill this mitzvah - because of the importance of this mitzvah, as mentioned in the following halachah.
The Rambam mentions being "wrapped in a garment requiring tzitzit," an expression which appears to refer to a tallit gadol, a garment of the size and cut appropriate for "wrapping oneself." Significantly, throughout these halachot, he has used that term and never makes any reference to a tallit katan, the smaller garment which is colloquially called "tzitzit" today.
In Talmudic times, draping oneself with a garment that resembled our tallitot gedolot was common, but in different lands and different eras, the style of dress changed and, except for sages who would spend their day involved in study, it was rare that a person would wear a tallit gadol throughout the day. Accordingly, the people took to wearing the smaller tallit katan, which could be accommodated to other styles of dress more easily.
There is no explicit mention of a tallit katan in the Talmud, although a story related in Menachot 44a appears to indicate that such garments were worn in that era as well. The writings of the early Ashkenazic and later Sephardic rabbis of the Middle Ages mention the wearing of a tallit katan as an accepted practice.
In particular, care should be taken regarding this matter during prayer. - The Rambam does not specify the morning service. Perhaps he refers to the afternoon service as well.
It is very shameful for a Torah scholar to pray without being wrapped [in a tallit]. - See Rosh HaShanah 17b, which relates that when God revealed the thirteen qualities of mercy to Moses, "He wrapped Himself [in a tallit] like a leader of prayer and taught him the order of prayer."
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Tuesday, 22 Tevet 5775 • 13 January 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: Nevertheless, such a (p. 49)...and so forth. (p. 51).
My father proclaimed at a farbrengen: Just as wearing tefillin every day is a Mitzva commanded by the Torah to every individual regardless of his standing in Torah, whether deeply learned or simple, so too is it an absolute duty for every person to spend a half hour every day thinking about the Torah-education of children, and to do everything in his power - and beyond his power - to inspire children to follow the path along which they are being guided.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
In His Presence
What is it that brings a thinking being to abandon the Master for the servant, to serve a single star rather than He who sprinkles out galaxies as dust, to play with spiritual forces and energies rather than connect to the Source of Life, to follow the commands of his own ephemeral cravings above the wishes of He who alone is real and true?
It is because in the worship of these we may delude ourselves that we too are something great, and perhaps all these are made for our glory At the very least, we are something that must be reckoned with. We exist.
But in the presence of the Infinite Light, there is no room for any other being to exist.
This the inheritance we have from Abraham, our father: The readiness to sacrifice our claim to existence so we may stand in the presence of the Infinite.
In this, we transcend the very act of being.[Maamar Bayom Ashtei Asar, 5731.]
____________________________
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: Nevertheless, such a (p. 49)...and so forth. (p. 51).
My father proclaimed at a farbrengen: Just as wearing tefillin every day is a Mitzva commanded by the Torah to every individual regardless of his standing in Torah, whether deeply learned or simple, so too is it an absolute duty for every person to spend a half hour every day thinking about the Torah-education of children, and to do everything in his power - and beyond his power - to inspire children to follow the path along which they are being guided.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
In His Presence
What is it that brings a thinking being to abandon the Master for the servant, to serve a single star rather than He who sprinkles out galaxies as dust, to play with spiritual forces and energies rather than connect to the Source of Life, to follow the commands of his own ephemeral cravings above the wishes of He who alone is real and true?
It is because in the worship of these we may delude ourselves that we too are something great, and perhaps all these are made for our glory At the very least, we are something that must be reckoned with. We exist.
But in the presence of the Infinite Light, there is no room for any other being to exist.
This the inheritance we have from Abraham, our father: The readiness to sacrifice our claim to existence so we may stand in the presence of the Infinite.
In this, we transcend the very act of being.[Maamar Bayom Ashtei Asar, 5731.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment