The Non-Mitzvah of Tzitzis

Parshat Shlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In his introduction to the book of Bamidbar, Nachmanides posits that the majority of the mitzvot of this book were commandments for the specific time period of wilderness travel and would not be applicable once they reached the land of Canaan/Israel.

Last week's one-time consecration of the Levites is a classic example of a mitzvah in this category.

There are mitzvot that exist past the wilderness period, of course, some of which fit into a classification of "obligatory if you make a specific choice." For example, according to the Sefer HaChinukh there are 10 commandments incumbent upon a person who chooses to become a Nazir. Taking on Nezirut status is by no means obligatory – and some are even critical of the Nazir – which translates to 10 of the 613 commandments being "un-fulfillable" to those who never play the Nazir-option card.

In our parsha, "Tzitzis" is apparently another example of this latter category. It seems the obligation is to put the tzitzis strings on four corners of a four-or-more cornered garment that one wears. Were a person to never wear such a garment, the mitzvah would seemingly become obsolete. [The Sefer HaChinukh equates this to the mitzvah of maakeh – if one does not have a flat roof, the mitzvah of maakeh is not applicable.]

To be fair, the Sefer HaChinukh (end of mitzvah 386) says, "Even though the obligation from the Torah is only when a person is wearing a 4-cornered garment," an ode to the fact that the mitzvah is only applicable when the garment is being worn (a mitzvah on the person - גברא), while there is no mitzvah to have strings attached to a garment that sits on a shelf (not a mitzvah on a garment - חפצא), "nevertheless our sages warned us to take the pains to fulfill this mitzvah… The Torah, after all, equated it with fulfilling all the commandments. Rabbi Elazar said anyone who is careful about Tzitzis, Tefillin and Mezuzah is assured he will not sin forever."

I don't believe that one who is careful about these mitzvot is guaranteed not to sin because I don't believe we have the power or intellectual ability to equate these fulfillments with a safeguard against sinning. But is the mitzvah completely irrelevant?

The gemara (Menachos 43b) records a fair share of opinions as to what the verse means when it says "You will see the [strings] and you will remember all the commandments of God and you will do them." (15:39)

Some of the possibilities of what the "all the commandments" reminder will be include: to recite the Shema, regarding the mitzvah of kilayim (mixing wool and flax in clothing - based on the proximity to Devarim 22:12), all Mitzvos that are dependant on time (from which women are exempt of the obligation), and an idea that seeing inspires action (based on a homiletical connection to Devarim 6:13).  

Even the Gemara, therefore, is largely of the opinion that tzitzis is not the answer to everything. But the Gemara continues (and the Rambam quotes this in his own Book of Mitzvot, Shoresh 9), by emphasizing that as much as Tzitzis is only counted as one mitzvah, "someone who does not have Tzitzis on his (presumably 4-cornered) garment is in violation of five positive commandments because the mitzvah is emphasized five times in the Torah." While I don't think Maimonides is saying a person who opts not to wear a 4-cornered garment is in violation, perhaps this thought could nonetheless serve as an incentive as well for people to actively pursue wearing Tzitzis, in order to fulfill five positive components of this Mitzvah.  

The optional side of this and other Mitzvos are a reminder that the obligatory nature of "every" mitzvah is not set in stone. Sometimes ingredients need to fall into place in order for the obligation to set in.  

At the same time, the binding aspect of all Mitzvos is something that should never be overlooked. There is a major difference between a mindset that ignores "commandments as obligations" and one that says "if the circumstances don't present themselves, I will not seek them out." 

Every day brings with it, for example, a new obligation to wear tefillin or to study Torah. On the other hand, one who never divorces, to bring the other type of example, will never fulfill the mitzvah associated with the writing and delivering of a גט (get - divorce document). Ignoring the former is a rejection of the Commander-Commanded relationship. Never fulfilling the latter is hopefully part of a recipe of a nice, healthy, lifelong relationship with a spouse.

When it comes to Tzitzis, and whatever "seeing" the strings is supposed to remind us, the concept of the Tzitzis encompassing the entire body should serve as a symbolic reminder of how we are to devote our entire bodies, when possible, to the service of God.

Looking Like An Egyptian

Parshat Sh'mot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

From his first introduction to us, most of the Torah depicts Moshe as the quintessential leader par excellence. The ultimate Jewish figure, he continues to hold that enigmatic quality that Jewish mothers dream about for their children — “Maybe one day you can be as great as Moses.”

And yet, there is one description of him that is so out of character, we wonder how it came to pass that he would be called such. After Moshe saves the daughters of Yitro from the shepherds who were mistreating them, they tell their father that an “Ish Mitzri,” an Egyptian man, saved them from the shepherds (2:19).

Oddly enough, only two other people in the Torah are described as “Ish Mitzri.” The first is Potiphar, Yosef’s first Egyptian master (Bereshit 39:1). The second is the man Moshe killed earlier in our chapter, for striking the Hebrew slave (2:11). The term appears in Vayikra 24:10 as well, but most people identify the Ish Mitzri there (the father of the blasphemer) as the same Egyptian man that Moshe killed in 2:11.

Certainly Moshe has little, if anything, in common with Potiphar and the violent Egyptian. How could the Torah give him the same title as these other Egyptian men?

I do not yet have an explanation as to whether a comparison to Potiphar is valid, unless in his case, as in Moshe’s, it refers to a member of Egyptian aristocracy.

Regardless, Rabbenu Bachaye records a beautiful interpretation that appears in a number of places in the Midrash. Yitro’s daughters were thanking their lucky stars that Moshe was present at the well. It was his flight on account of killing the “Ish Mitzri” of 2:11 that brought him to Midian. In this light, they were saying that the circumstances that brought Moshe to be at that well to save them was on account of an Ish Mitzri whom Moshe killed. In this interpretation, the last three times the term appears in the Torah all refer to the same Ish Mitzri - while the term is not being used to describe Moshe.

Of course, the simple explanation is that Moshe, who grew up in the palace of the king, was dressed like and spoke the language of an Egyptian.

I think that his being an Ish Mitzri here is just another challenge for him to overcome in the pursuit of his identity. Different Midrashim paint his time period in Midian to between 40 and 60 years, meaning he’ll have much time to contemplate who he is and what his mission in life will ultimately be.

The story is told that when the Russian Tzar decreed the Jews could no longer wear “Jewish” clothing, many rabbis felt the need to oppose the legislation and to wear Jewish clothing at all costs. The Kotzker rebbe, on the other hand, was against such an approach, as he felt the only real “Jewish clothing” are the tallis and techelet, both of which can always be worn, either when praying, or underneath one’s outer garments.

Moshe was dressed like a Mitzri, even though he was a Hebrew, says the Midrash. He demonstrated his concern for the other in every encounter he had in the Torah's first depictions of his behavior.

For us, the question becomes one of how much our dressing like the “mitzri” affects who we are as Hebrews. I recall fondly one of the musser talks I heard from one of my high school rebbeim about how “the clothes make the man.” I wonder if I remain a more conservative dresser, to this day, on account of that 20 minute monologue.

I still marvel over how many of us fall into the trap of “needing” to be up-to-date in terms of styles and accessories. While the Kotzker rebbe was right that “Jewish clothing” are a tallis and techeilet, there is also a “Jewish dress code” that the Kotzker rebbe felt no need to refer to because he lived in a time when everyone dressed more conservatively.

The Jewish dress code of modesty is not just one of how much skin or form is exposed to onlookers. That element, one would hope, is more obvious. Modesty is also about how much attention we draw to ourselves on account of what we are wearing. There is nothing wrong with receiving a compliment from those we know, but if even those we don’t know are turning heads and gaping at our chosen form of attire, it is time to reconsider our priorities and whether we are looking too much like a “mitzri.”

Whether Yitro’s daughters referred to the Egyptian Moshe killed or thought he himself was an Egyptian, it did not take long for Moshe to set the record straight and eventually become Moshe Rabbenu. We must take the bull by the horns, swallow our need to be a walking showcase for the latest design and designers and focus on promoting the Jewish dress code of modesty and furthering our own spiritual pursuits.

It’s not just about what part of us people see. It is more about how people see us. And unlike Moshe who soon joined the family who may have viewed him otherwise, we don’t always get to set the record straight.