Shlach, Bamidbar 15:37. Tzitzis– Equal to All Other Mitzvos

Let’s start with something Reb Moshe Feinstein said. First, I will say what he writes in his Darash Moshe, and the then I will say it the way I heard it from him.

From the Darash:
Tzitzis is a uniquely important mitzvah. So why isn't it mandatory?
Rashi brings that Reb Moshe Hadarshan says that Tzitzis is shkulah keneged kol hamitzvos. If so, if tzitzis is such an important mitzvah, that it equals all the other mitzvos, and in that it is a constant reminder of all the mitzvos of the Torah, why is it not obligatory at all times? It is so easy to avoid this mitzvah by not wearing four kanfos, or by rounding them off, or by wearing garments made of synthetic fiber. Why shouldn’t we be chayav to wear daled kanfos so that we should have the mitzvah of tzitzis at all times?
Because only one who seeks instruction will be sensitive to its lesson.
Answer: the fact is that many people look at tzitzis and remember nothing. The reason for this is that a person is apt to misinterpret the things that he knows, people tend to re-interpret what they know to comport with their desires and yeitzer hora, as demonstrated by all the old and current sects that claim loyalty to the Torah but turn it upside down. For them, Torah becomes a sahm hamoves (Yoma 72b) because they are lack the humility to seek to instruction. They think they know enough to be able to interpret according to their understanding and perspective, but they don’t realize that wisdom does not automatically follow knowledge. Only a person who who seeks to be instructed will look at these strings and see the tcheiles and the gematrios and the mitzvah itself and be reminded to keep the taryag mitzvos.

The way I heard it from Reb Moshe (with a slant toward ahavah instead of humility):
Because only one who does it with loving devotion, not as an imposition, will be sensitive to its lesson.
Why shouldn’t it be chiyuvis to wear a daled kanfos in order to be mekayeim this mitzvah? Also, why is the word "ve’amarta" used, since it is a lashon rafah, a softer form of speech, not "dabeir" which is a stronger form? The answer is that tzitzis is only mazkir the mitzvos when it is done mei’ahava. When a person does a mitzvoh that he is chayav to do, it does not express ahavah. Only a person who can avoid the mitzvoh, but seeks out the opportunity to have the mitzvoh, is doing it mei’ahavah. (See below, update dated June 2015)

This seems to contradict the rule that fulfilling a mandatory mitzvah is greater than fulfilling a voluntary mitvah.
The problem with this pshat is that it seems to contradict the rule of "gadol ham’tzuvah v’oseh," that one who does a mitzvah because he is obligated is greater than one who does a mitzvah by choice. How can he say that making it into a kiyumis makes the reward greater, when the rule is that the schar for a chiyuvis is greater? Although R’ Yosef (Kiddushin 31, BK 38, 87) has a havah amina that there is a greater mailah in eino metzuvah v’oseh, the final decision of the Gemara is that metzuvah is greater.

A side discussion as to whether a Mitvah Kiyumis is called a Eino Metzuvah Ve'oseh.
I told this to Harav Moshe Faskowitz, Rosh Yeshiva of Madreigas Ha’adam and Rav of Torah center of Queens, and he said that even assuming that Tzitzis is a Mitzvah Kiyumis, Mitzvos Kiyumis are included in ‘mafkidna v’avidno," a kiyumis is called metzuvah ve’oseh. I said that this would not be like Tosfos’ pshat based on a yeitzer hora not to do it when commanded to do it. He said that even a kiyumis there is a yeitzer hora to not do it, because it is being done because Hashem said one should do it, and it’s called ‘mifkidno’ and ‘m’tzuveh’ even if it is not mandatory. He said that the real eino m’tzuvah is a woman in a zman grama, and a blind man if you hold they are pattur. And maybe a kattan.

(I had Harav Yakov Drillman at my house, and mentioned this question to him. He said that there is a question among the achronim whether a mitzvah kiyumis is docheh a lahv; the Shagas Aryeh, for example, holds that a kiyumis is not docheh. Obviously, then, Tzitzis is not called a kiyumis, because Tzitzis is the source of Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh. In any case, though, he said, Tzitzis is not a good example of kiyumis, because as soon as you have the beged on it certainly becomes a chiyuvis. It is only a kiyumis in the broadest sense, that you don't have to wear a beged in the first place. See Reb Akiva Eiger in Shulchan Aruch OC 11 on Magen Avraham 13, where he asks, why is Tzitzis docheh Shatnez, since you can avoid putting on the beged and not have the conflict. He answers based on the Mordechai that the chiyuv begins only after you have the garment on-- it is not assur to put on a four cornered garment without tzitzis, only that after you have it on, you are obligated to put in the tzitzis. So if Asei were not dochel Lo Sa'aseh, so Tzitzis was not docheh shatnez, you would be still be allowed to put on the garment, and then not put in the Shatnez tzitzis, just as the Mordechai says that you may wear a non-tztizissed garment on Shabbos-- since you cannot put the knots in on Shabbos, you can put on the beged, and then, when the obligation to put in tzitzis arises, you can ignore the mitzvah because of the issur of kosheir. His point is that tztizis is called a chiyuvis, not a kiyumis, in the context of efsher lekayeim shneihem.

But all this does not diminish the question, though. I don't care if Tzitzis is a kiyumis or not, or whether a kiyumis is called metzuvah or eino metzuvah. The fact remains that one can easily avoid the obligation to ever wear Tzitzis.)

Here is the "require some thought" part.
Open-ended Mitzvos are engineered to attract only those who do them with love.
Reb Moshe has another vort in the Darash. Near the beginning of Trumoh he says a remarkable vort. He says that in any mitzvah which is "ein lahem shiur," a mitzvah which has a minimum mandatory requirement but has no maximum limitation, a person who does beyond the mandatory minimum without nedivus leiv is only rewarded as a "eino m’tzuvah ve’oseh." Only if he does it with ahavah and simchah and n’divus haleiv is he rewarded as a ‘m’tzuvah v’oseh.’ This is true by all mitzvos that are "ein lohem shiur", including limud hatorah.

For those that do them with love, they are called mandatory-- the mandate of love.
Reb Moshe’s vort in Trumoh explains his vort here and addresses the argument about whether a kiyumis is called ‘m’tzuvoh’ or not. R Moshe is saying not like me and not like Harav Faskowitz. He says that by any mitzvah that has a mandatory component but also has a ‘ein lohem shiur’ component, when a person does the ein lahem shiur component, (which I think is a perfect model for every ‘eino m’tzuveh,’) then if he does it with nedivus, he gets the schar of a metzuveh, and if he does it without nedivus haleiv, then he only gets the schar of a eino metzuveh.

Tzitzis is a classic example of a Mitzvah that begins as a voluntary mitzvah but becomes a mandatory mitzvah.
So, in the case of tzitzis, which a person can avoid doing forever, if he chooses to be m’chayeiv himself, then his motivation matters very much. If he does it mei’ahavah, then he is rewarded as a m’tzuveh. If not, he is rewarded as an eino m’tzuveh. So Harav Faskowitz is right, to a degree. A kiyumis is included in the rubric of ‘mifkidnah’ or ‘m’tzuveh.’ But if he does it with ahavah, with ‘nediv leiv,’ then he is the person that Hashem wanted to be doing the mitzvah, and he is rewarded as a m’tzuveh. If he does it out of habit or to for his ego or for show, then he is not the person Hashem wanted to be doing the mitzvah, and he is rewarded only as an eino m’tzuveh.

We can even say that any ‘ein lahem shiur’ mitzvoh which is directed at nedivei leiv is intended to be done only when your heart makes you do it. This is what R Moshe means in Trumah. For the nedivei leiv, it was a chiyuv. For everyone else, it was a ‘eino m’tzuveh.’ Hashem is not mandating it unless your heart is driving you to do it. When that is the case, then Hashem is mandating that you do it. If so, tzitzis is a perfect model for this kind of mitzvoh, as follows:

We see from R’ Yosef (Kiddushin 31, BK 38, 87) that there is a advantage in eino metzuvah, although the maskonoh is that metzuvah is greater. The superiority of eino metzuvah is that he does it mei’ahavah, as R’ Moshe says. The superiority of metzuveh is that he is overcoming his yetzer horah to do what Hashem commands. Tzitzis has both advantages! You don’t have to wear a beged daled kanfos, but once you put on the daled kanfos, you are chayav to put in tzitzis. So you have the advantage of eino metzuveh and the advantage of metzuveh. So tzitzis is like the Trumas Hamishkan: for the nedivei leiv, there was no chiyuv. But for a person who was a n’div leiv, it was chiyuvis.

In short: Tzitzis is a unique Mitzvah, that comprises all the Mitzvos of the Torah. One would think that such a mitzvah would be mandatory, while in fact Tzitzis is a mitzvah one could legitimately avoid his entire life. The reason this is so is because the Mitzvah of Tzitzis contains the advantage of both an obligatory mitzvah and a voluntary mitzvah; one may avoid wearing a four-cornered garment. But when one chooses, because he seeks the opportunity to do the mitzvah, to wear such a garment, as soon as he puts on the garment he becomes obligated to put in tzitzis. Thus, Tzitzis falls under the rubric of both Metzuveh and Eino Metzuveh, and it carries the reward of both types of Mitzvos as well. It is only for such a person who seeks out the opportunity to become obligated in the mitzvah, for a person who is driven by his devotion to Hashem’s will even when he is under no obligation, that Tzitzis equals all the mitzvos of the Torah.

UPDATE JUNE 2015/SIVAN '75
Reb Moshe in Kol Rom I page 136 says

מצינו לשון ויאמר אע"ג שנשנה כאן דיני תורה והי' צ"ל דברים קשים ובלשון "וידבר." ונראה משום שמצות ציצית אינה חיוב כשאר מצוות אלא רק אם לובש בגד של ארבע כנפות צריך להטיל בהם ציצית.  וא"כ כשמקיים מצוה זו, אע"ג שאינומוכרח, ומביא עצמו לידי חיוב, מראה שעושה המצוה מאהבה וזה מדרגה הכי גדולה-- ורק ע"י זה יבא ל"וזכרתם את כל מצות ה'"

A side discussion about whether a Mitzvah Kiyumis is called Metzuveh Ve'oseh.
Regarding the issue of whether a Mitzvah Kiyumis is called Metzuveh or Eino Metzuveh:
Rabbi Drillman pointed out the Gemara in Bava Kama 38a. The Gemara says "Amad Vayteir Goyim," Hashem saw that the nations did not fulfil the seven mitzvos and He freed them from their obligation to fulfill them. The Gemara asks, does this mean they benefitted from their negligence? The Gemara answers that as a punishment for their indifference to the seven mitzvos, Hashem changed their status from Metzuva ve'oseh to Eino Metzuveh ve'oseh, which gets less reward. The Gemara asks, but Rav Meir said that anyone who fulfills a Mitzvah, even a non-Jew who does Mitzvos, is rewarded as if he were a Kohen Gadol! The Gemara answers that they do get a reward, but not as a Metzuveh, only like an eino metzuveh. Rashi there says a remarkable thing: he says that even though "va'yateir," they are called eino metzuveh, but if they transgress these mitzvos, they are punished. Rashi in Avodah Zarah says the same thing: the Gemara there says that there is an issur of lifnei iveir for a Jew to enable a Gentile to transgress one of the seven mitzvos. Rashi asks, but the Gemara in Bava Kama says "vayateir!" Rashi answers that even after vayateir, they are punished for transgression. So what do we see from this Rashi? Obviously, there remains a mitzvah kiyumis for the Gentiles to fulfil the seven mitzvos. The Gemara says there is a schar of a kiyumis. And even so, the Gemara calls it Eino Metzuveh. So we see that Mitzvos Kiyumis-- even where transgression results in punishment!-- are called Eino Metzuveh.

Shlach: Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#2)

This is very, very succinct. You can use one part of it, adjust it to your needs, and have a perfectly useful Drasha.

The specific connection with this week's parsha is the fact that the din of Tzitzis is here, but it can be used any time. With a little effort on your part, it can be developed into an excellent Dvar Torah for a Sheva Brachot. Or Vort for a Sheva Brochos. As I've said before, the traffic on this site is pretty light, so if you use it without attribution, you probably can get away with it. Who would you attribute it to, anyway? Barzilai? That's just a pseudonym I took out of Tanach for reasons that are none of your business. Just don't use it before tonight, June 3 '07, because that's when it is going to debut in Lakewood.

First of all, we must remember that even after Hashem told the Jewish people how wonderful the land of Israel is, they insisted on checking it out themselves. Similarly, as soon as the chassan heard about how marvelous the kallah is, and what a yichus she has, and how brilliant and kind she is, it was clear that this was a great opportunity. Still, there was only one thing he had to verify for himself-- "Hashemeinah hee im Razah." (For the humorless among you, I need to identify that as a joke.)

Second, and more seriously: Building a Bayis Ne'eman requires three elements: A foundation, walls, and a roof.

The foundation is the history the couple brings to the marriage: their mesora from their families, their mesora from their teachers, and their achievements in Middos and Chessed.

The walls are the contribution of the Kallah. Under the Chupah, the Kallah walks around the Chassan seven times, as we did with the Aravah on Sukkos around the Mizbei'ach, to symbolize that it is the Akeres Habayis that creates the circumstances of kedushah that separate the home life from the influences of the secular world. As the Gemora (Yevamos 62b) says, "Hasharui be'lo ishah, sharui... be'lo Chomah." One who is without a wife, lacks a wall. The wife creates the walls that define and surround the Jewish home.
The Yerushalmi says that the hakafos of the mizbei'ach are a remembrance of Yericho. This is difficult - do we want the Earth to swallow up the Mizbei'ach? My wife answered that this is a misunderstanding of what happened at Yericho. The hakafos and tru'os were not destructive. They created an environment of Kedusha and Tahara. The walls of Yericho, walls that were built for tum'ah and issur, could not co-exist with the environment of kedusha. Of course, in the case of the Mizbei'ach, the kedusha enhanced the Mizbei'ach.
So, too, the Kallah weaves walls of kedusha around the chassan, and when they build a house, it is she that establishes what madreiga of kedusha the house will embody. As the Gemara in Yevamos 62נ darshans from נקבה תסובב גבר.  

 יגאמר רבי תנחום אמר רבי חנילאי: כל אדם שאין לו אשה — שרוי בלא שמחה, בלא ברכה, בלא טובה. בלא שמחה, דכתיב: ״ושמחת אתה וביתך״. בלא ברכה, דכתיב: ״להניח ברכה אל ביתך״. בלא טובה, דכתיב: ״לא טוב היות האדם לבדו״. ידבמערבא אמרי: בלא תורה, בלא חומה. בלא תורה, דכתיב: ״האם אין עזרתי בי ותושיה נדחה ממני״. בלא חומה, דכתיב: ״נקבה תסובב גבר״.

The roof is the contribution of the Chassan. In Megilas Rus (3:9), Boaz was asked "Ufarasta kenafecha ahl amasecha,"  ופרשת כנפיך על-אמתך-  spread the corner of your garment over your maidservant. Rashi says  וּפְָרַשְׂתָּ כְנָפֶךָ. כְּנַף בִּגְדְּךָ לְכַסּוֹתִי בְטַלִּיתְךָ וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן נִשּׂוּאִין.  The husband brings the Kallah to the chuppah that he creates, and that chuppah is the roof of the bayis ne'eman. What does the roof signify? The Gemora in Menachos says that Tzitzis, which are discussed at the end of this week's parsha, are a segula for two things: for Tznius and for a kosher Parnassah. It is when a person gets married that these two things acquire the greatest importance, when he becomes responsible for the wellfare of his wife and family. It is with the middah of Tznius, and the siyata dishmaya to ensure that the home is sustained with only koshereh parnassah, that the husband creates a roof of the bayis ne'eman.

It is with these three elements that a Bayis Ne'eman is created. With the foundation of experience and history and influence and family that the Chassan and Kallah bring with themselves; with the walls of kedusha that exclude the outside world and create within them an environment of kedusha; and the roof of tznius and ehrlichkeit that is symbolized in the Chuppah, the Tallis Gadol that the Chassan wears on his body and with which he provides shelter and safety for his Bayis Ne'eman.

A more effective way to arrange the vort is this:

Minhag among Eastern Europeans to not wear Tallis Gadol till married.

Maharil says because parsha of marriage is next to Parsha of Tzitzis, also we find in Megillas Rus (see Rashi on 3:9) the expression for marriage being uforasto kenofecha ahl amasecha.

But what’s the real underlying reason?

We find two segulos associated with wearing tzitzis; Tznius and Ehrlichkeit in Parnassah (Menachos 43 and 44).

Tznius is a way of life, and not at all limited to physical modesty. Modesty means that you don't show off your money, your holiness, or your shittos. Ehrlichkeit in parnassah means that you want every element that contributes to your lifestyle to be kosher in all ways.

The most important time to ask for siyata dishmaya in these two elements is when one gets married.

The Tallis, the Chupah, that represents these two elements, is only the ceiling.

You can't just float a roof on nothing. There have to be walls that hold it up. In fact, to build a Bayis Ne’emon you need three things: Foundation, Walls, and Roof.

Roof– Tallis. Husband’s. (INSERT NICE THINGS ABOUT THE GOOD CHARACTER OF THE CHASSAN.)

Walls– kedushoh created by the Akkeres Habyis, as it says, hashorui belo isho shorui belo chomoh. (INSERT NICE THINGS ABOUT THE KALLAH, and her good sense of knowing what to allow and what to exclude from a good Jewish home, about what to encourage and what to discourage, about inculcating in herself and in others everything the Mesilas Yeshorim, or her favorite sefer, discusses.)

Foundation– parents, chinuch, middos. (INSERT NICE THINGS ABOUT THE FAMILIES AND YESHIVOS AND RABBEIM AND RABBONIM that guided the Chassan and Kallah to this point.)

How We Were Zocheh to Tzitzis

9:23. Vayikach Sheim voYefes.

Rashi from Sanhedrin 70— because of the chesed and kibud av of this simlah, Sheim was zocheh to the tallis of tzitzis.

The Mizrachi here asks from here to the gemara Chulin 89 that says we were zocheh to chut shel tzitzis and retzu’ah shel tefillin because of the “michut ve’ad sroch na’al in Lech Lecho 14:23— so, which zechus was essential for bringing us the mitvah? Was it Avrom’s refusal of Melech Sdom’s money, or Sheim’s concern for his father’s dignity?

The Mizrachi says that one was for the white threads and the other for the tcheiles.

The Kli Yokor says that one was for the tallis shel mitzvah and the other for the chut of tzitzis (this teretz is shver, because the beged of tzitzis is just a machshir and has no intrinsic chashivus– you have to put them somewhere. (Someone showed me a likut called Yakro D’Orayso that brings someone who, not mentioning the Kli Yokor, wants to bring rayos that the beged is part of the mitzvoh; his rayos are weak. One is the Rashi on Hiddur that says Tallis no’eh (I thought it was the Gemorah) besides tzitzis no’im, so you see that the beged is part of the mitzvoh. Another is the fact that we say “l’his’ateif batzitzis,” and if the beged is not part of the mitzvoh, why mention the ittuf part. Poor rayos. I think he also brings some irrelevant Netziv from a Mechiltah.)

But then the Kli Yokor adds a very good thing: that tzitzis protects from two things-- arayos and poverty, so the story of Sheim, with the beged to cover Noach, gave tzitzis the sgula of protection from arayos, it covers the ervoh, and the story of Avrohom, where he refused bad money, he refused money that wasn’t kosher, brought the sgula of protection from poverty.)

The Kli Yokor says that tzitzis protect from arayos based on the story of the man and the zonah in Menachos 44, and they protect from poverty because a person that is involved in arayos becomes poor. His ‘poverty’ point seems weak.

However, I found that the Gemorah in Menochos 43a says that Rav Moni was very makpid to get good tcheiles, and ‘hahu sabbo’ told him that the ancient ones were also makpid like that and they were successful in their businesses. This is something you will never forget: Rav Moni– lot’s of money.

One must realize, however, that tzitzis are not magical amulets; we wear them because of Hashem’s mitzvah. But they do assist a person who is trying to do Hashem’s will to earn an honest living and avoid arayos.

This Kli Yokor should give us a greater appreciation of what the mitzvos of the Torah mean, where they come from, and their deeper meanings. Every mitzvoh is like this, but when we are lucky enough to make the occasional discovery about one or the other, we should get chizuk out of it. So next time you put on your tzitzis, or buy a pair of tzitzis, remember that this mitzvah stems from the most ancient times and appreciate and celebrate it as it deserves.


However, I later wondered, what do these Gemoros mean when they say we were zocheh to particular mitzvos because of a maiseh ovos. Since when do we have mitzvos because of the zchus of something we did? Weren’t the mitzvos given because Hashem wants us to have the taryag? And does this mean that all of our mitzvos stem from something we did? And if not, what distinguishes these two mitzvos, in the sense that all other mitzvos are gzeiras melech, and these two stem from a maiseh ovos?

Maybe the answer is that tzitzis is one of the rare mitzvos that, the Bach says, should be done with specific kavonoh. Where there is a din of specific kavonoh, it is important to remember the story behind the mitzvoh. In the case of tzitzis, when a person puts on the tzitzis, he should remember the shame and disgrace of arayos, and the schar of the strength of character one should have in rising above it; and he should remember Avrom Ovinu’s refusal to take money he was entitled to because it was not clean money, and how important it is to trust in Hashem and not accept money or gifts that are not honorable.

However, I later looked at the Gemora in Chullin 89a, and I saw that the Gemora really says a very interesting thing that people don’t realize. The gemora says b’zchus michut etc. Then, the Gemora asks, bishlemo tefillin, it says v’ro’u kol amei ho’oretz...v’yor’u mimeko. But what is there about tzitzis. Rashi there explains, by tefillin we know what hano’oh there is from doing the mizvoh. So it is clear as day that the gemora doesn’t mean that we were zocheh to the mitzvos because of ma’aseh ovos. The Gemora means that we were zocheh to have a specific hano’oh or schar that is generated from doing the mitzvoh.

Another point: the gemora then answers that the hano’oh from tzitzis is that the color of tcheiles is... like the kisei hakovod. Normally, you learn that this means that we look at the tcheiles and we are reminded of all the mitzvos in the Torah. Rashi says this is not correct. Rashi says that the result of the color is that Hashem looks at His kisei hakovod and He remembers the mitzvoh of tcheiles! This is the hano’oh of the mitzvoh, that one who wears tcheiles will be remembered by Hashem, because Hashem is reminded about the mitzvoh when He looks at His kisei hakovod.

It is worth noting that a similar Chazal, in Sotah 17a, says as above regarding tefillin and tzitzis, and also that we were zocheh to Eifer Poroh Adumoh and Afar Sotah from Avrohom’s saying “v’onochi ofor vo’eifer” in Vayeiro 18:27. If you will look at the Torah Temimoh there, you will see that he is completely off the tracks, and didn’t remember the idea that the “zochu” refers to a tangential benefit.

Now, back to the original question the Mizrochi asked, why does the Gemora have two reasons we were zocheh to tzitzis:
R’ Chaim Shmuelevitz says that one was the seed and the other was the earth and water to make it grow, and the Levush Ho’Orah in the same sefer as the Mizrachi says that the brocho to Sheim could have gone to any of his descendants, and it was Avrohom’s act that brought it to us. This teretz, although it sounds most logical, is shver because we don’t find that other nations have any mitzvos at all. Does he mean that we would have had 612 and the Indians would have the mitzvah of tzitzis? R’ Chaim Shmuelevitz’s teretz, however, fits into the Levush Ho’orah’s pshat, because although the seed was given to Sheim, only one of his descendants, Avrohom, made it sprout.

A Remarkable Brisker Chumra on S'chach

I saw the strangest thing in the Brisker sefer (anonymous, printed taf shin nun gimmel) on the moadim. He brings that R Chaim was choshesh for the shitta of the Magen Avraham in OC 14 and 649 that l’chatchila only a bar chiyuva can make tzitzis or put s'chach on or even tie the lulav together.  Not only was Reb Chaim machmir like the Magen Avraham, but he was machmir more than the Magen Avraham:  The Magen Avraham says that the whole thing is just Lechatchila; and also, if the child is thirteen we are not chosheish that he is not a gadol.  Apparently, Reb Chaim was chosheish to such an extent that when he found out that a thirteen year old had put the s'chach on a sukkah, he refused to eat there, because he didn't want to rely on Chazaka d'Rabba for De'oraysas.  (Obviously, Reb Chaim wasn't machmir because the Magen Avraham says so, he was machmir because held like the Magen Avraham, but not just as a chashash lechatchila, but mei'ikar hadin.)

R Moshe talks about this chumrah in Igros OC 5 page 133. He disagrees with the Magen Avraham on two points.

First, he (and the Mishneh Brura) says that the Rema that says that yeish omrim that a woman should not tie tzitzis is not because of Rabbeinu Tam’s limud that the same way women cannot write tefillin because “uchsavtam/uk’shartam” which teaches that “kol she’yeshno b’kshira yeshno b’ksiva,” applies to all mitzvos, but rather the Maharam’s “dabeir el b’nei Yisrael v’assu lahem tzitzis,” which teaches “v’lo akum,” and which the Maharam says also excludes women.  The Maharam is specific to the mitzvoh of tzitzis and unrelated to other mitzvos.

Second, he says that even Rabbeinu Tam, whose shitta excluding a non-bar-chiyuva the Magen Avraham says would apply to tzitzis, agudas lulav, and putting up the s'chach, does not really hold like that. Rabbeinu Tam’s limud only applies to objects which have no meaning outside of the mitzva, like lulav agud and tzitzis. But where the object exists independent of the mitzva, like schach l’sheim tzeil, even Rabbeinu Tam would agree a woman can make the sukka.

Reb Moshe notes that Tosfos in Gittin 45a DH Kol says that RT said his din on tzitzis and igud lulav and asks that Rabbeinu Tam’s din should also apply to passel a women from putting on the s'chach, and this is shver from ganba’ch and Tosfos bleibs shver. R Moshe says that the answer to Tosfos’ kashe is that Rabbeinu Tam never meant to apply his din to Sukka.

Then R Moshe has an interesting discussion about the idea of Hiddur Mitzva. He says that the Machzor Vitri’s pshat in hiddur mitzvoh is that you should be machmir to do the mitzva fully with all chumros and things that contribute to the kiyum hamitzva, and has nothing to do with esthetic beauty. For example, putting on a gartel is a noi mitzva because it adds to Hikone. So it could be that Rabbeinu Tam holds like the Machzor Vitri, and holds that the din hiddur we find by igud lulav is because it contributes to holding the minim together, which is a to’eles in the kiyum hamitzva. If so, this explains Rabbeinu Tam’s reason for not having a women do the igud, because igud is not just hiddur, it is a part of the tzuras hamitzva. (See Parshas Lech Lecha, Breishis 12:1, where I bring from the Brisker Rov that the ambiguity of the identity of the land to which Avram was told to go was intended so that the halicha should be mitzva atzma and not just hachanoa.)

I am told that the Briskers hold that the Rambam holds like the Machzor Vitri.

This was originally posted in '06, and has been edited for stylistic consistency and clarity.  Mostly the former. 



However, you can’t go too far with this shittoh, because the Rambam in 7 Issurei Mizbei’ach says that from the possuk by Hevel, which says that Hevel brought beautiful korbonos and “vayisha Hashem el Hevel v’ehl minchoso” shows that whatever mitzvoh you do should be done in a beautiful way. The Rambam there says clearly that he is referring to esthetic beauty. But it is also interesting that he doesn’t prove it from the regular din of hiddur mitzvoh or from v’anveihu. Also, the Brisker Rov somewhere in his pirush on the gemora says that there is a special din by korbonos of ‘meichelveihem,’ which is not connected to ‘v’anveihu.’

So the bottom line is that R Moshe holds that even if you are machmir like Rabbeinu Tam, it would only apply to tzitzis and lulov, but not other mitzvos. But b’etzem he holds like the Maharam, which is limited to tzitzis, and would be mattir even lulov. He says he is surprised that the Bikkurei Yaakov paskened like RT, and he paskens instead like the Maharam. Imagine how surprised he would be at the story of R Chaim not sitting in the Sukkoh because a boy of thirteen put on the schach, and maybe he didn’t have shtei sa’aros.