1. Question: Why can a kohen wear his priestly garments which has shaatnez in them even when not doing the holy service but the Raavad holds you can’t wear tzitzis which has shaatnez in them at night since there is no obligation at night?
A. These are examples of a positive
mitzvah pushing off a negative mitzvah, in this case the mitzvah of tzitzis or
priestly garments pushing off the prohibition of shaatnez/forbidden mixtures.
B. Really when it comes to the
priestly garments the Torah didn’t just push off the prohibition of shaatnez
but completely permitted it because that’s the only way to perform the service
in the Beis hamikdash.
C. You don’t have to wear shaatnez
by tzitzis but if you have a linen garment and the techeiles/blue string (when
worn) was supposed to be wool then the positive mitzvah of tzitzis pushes off
the negative mitzvah of shaatnez.
D. Why does the priestly garments permit the prohibition of shaatnez but the tzitzis only push off the prohibition if shaatnez.
Answer: The Kovetz Ha’aros (40 in new edition) answered that the Raavad holds that since there is no other way to wear the priestly garments while doing the Holy service then the prohibition became permitted even after the service was done and before it took place but by tzitzis you can always wear a linen garment with linen tzitzis so you wouldn’t need to mix wool and linen together. The Torah just permitted you to do so if you wish for the sake of the mitzvah so the mitzvah only pushes off the prohibition so when there is no mitzva, like at night then the prohibition won’t allow you to wear the garment.
would be the difference between a Jew and non-Jew together tying tzitzis and
them together shechting an animal?
A. The case by shechting is where they are both holding onto the
knife when slaughtering where the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 2:11 says it is no
B. You need an action of a kosher shechita done by a Jew but it
does not transform the animal in any way but by tzitzis the four cornered
garment is transformed into a tzitzis garment and the action required to be
done by a Jew is just the means to transform it into a kosher tzitzis garment.
C. Why then would it be alright if a non-Jew made the tzitzis with the Jew even if it would not work by shechting the animal?
Answer: Since what is required by shechting is a kosher action then the whole action must be done only by a Jew according to the Shulchan Aruch. But by tzitzis you just need a garment of tzitzis made by a Jew and it was made by a Jew a non-Jew was just involved as well.
1. Question: Why are there some poskim who hold that if one isn’t sure whether he fulfilled the mitzvah of Omer or not he should still say a blessing and count the Omer for that night but they would also hold that a tumtum should not say a blessing upon putting on tzitzis?
A. A tumtum is a person born without clear signs of genitalia, it might be the person has to much fat or skin in the area to make a judgment whether it is female or male therefore there is a halachic doubt whether it is obligated in the mitzvah of tzitzis, so he should wear the tzitzis in doubt but should not say a blessing because, safek brachos lihakel, we are lenient to not say a blessing when in doubt lest we might say Hashem’s name in vain.
B. Shouldn’t this opinion, also be concerned that the person might have said the Omer already and saying a blessing potentially again might constitute saying Hashem’s name in vain so when in doubt don’t make the blessing?
Answer: This opinion holds that when there is a doubt of whether there is a mitzvah to begin with then one should not say a blessing but by this case of the Omer there was a definite obligation the only question is whether it was fulfilled yet or not therefore he holds a blessing should still be said since a definite obligation exists.(See Dirshu Mishna Berura footnote 41 on Be’ur Halacha 489:1 “moneh viholech”)
- Question: Why should a majority be used to decide that
a sheep already counted and then remixed into the pen can be ignored or
nullified regarding taking tithes of animals but we can’t use a majority to
nullify a string of wool which was not twirled for the sake of the mitzvah of
tzitzis and got mixed up with other strings that were woven for the sake of the
A. The Oneg Yom Tov (siman 2) says that if strings twirled not
for the sake of the mitzvah of tzitzis are mixed in a pile of strings that were
twirled for the mitzvah one cannot use a majority to nullify the invalid ones
because nullifying in a majority only works when stuff that are forbidden fall
into stuff that are permissible where nullifying the majority removes the issue
of prohibition but here the nullifying in majority is being used to make the
strands of tzitzis kosher that were twirled not for the sake of the mitzvah and
we don’t find anywhere a concept of nullifying like that.
B. The Gemara in Bava
Metzia 6b says that if one of the sheep that was already counted for tithes
jumped back into the pen and got mixed up then all of them are exempt from
tithing.Tosfos there asks and leaves the question unanswered, why not say that
that sheep should be nullified in the majority and all then should be counted
in the count of tithing? Problem is that means the majority is actually adding
a new din of untithed to the animal that was already counted. It didn’t just
nullify that animal because it will be part of the count again which is a
question on the Oneg Yom Tov.
C. Chakira in tithing animals: (a) Does the obligation of tithing animals come off by itself once it is counted or (b) really each animal is obligated to be tithed but once they are counted they are exempted from animal tithing.
Answer: If you say like the second side that really each animal is obligated in tithing but is exempted after being counted then Tosfos question makes sense because the nullification through majority takes away the exemption of being counted already and automatically all that is left is the obligation of tithing an animal which by itself it is liable for. Just to clarify, by the tithing of the sheep the obligation of tithing is always on the animal but it is exempted one counted so the majority removes that exemption and the sheep is left with an obligation again which it always has but by the tzitzis, it started off not being made kosherly and the majority would be used to transform it into something kosher which it can’t do.
Question: Why isn’t it a problem to put tzitzis onto a garment which has shaatnez and then take out the shaatnez?
A. The problem is that
there is a rule that one can only put tzitzis on a garment which already
requires tzitzis. For example if a garment has rounded corners which are not
obligated in tzitzis and he tied tzitzis on each round corner and then cut the
corner so it would be square which now makes the garment obligated in tzitzis,
he must now untie the tzitzis and retie them to be allowed to wear the garment.
B. The main problem is
that you can’t perform a mitzvah through doing a sin.
C. The prohibition of meat and milk has to do with a mixture this is the same prohibition of shaatnez, a mixture of wool and linen.
Answer: The issue of shaatnez and tzitzis do not cross paths for the prohibition of shaatnez is in the mixture whereas the mitzvah of tzitzis could be performed within the measurement of wool by itself, assuming most of the garment is wool and there are just a few strands of linen mixed in.