Tzitzit I: Keli Gever

A single pasuk in Devarim adds more detail:

The mitzva is to wear tzitzit, fringes, on a four-cornered garment,¹ and ideally to include blue (techelet) threads in the fringes.²

Verse 39 of Bemidbar emphasizes “that you will see it.” Why is that important? Seeing tzitzit on one’s garment reminds the wearer of “all God’s commandments” in order to keep one’s heart and eyes from straying.

The Significance of Tzitzit

The ultimate purpose of tzitzit is to encourage the wearer to perform the mitzvot and, in so doing, to “be holy.”³

The Talmud offers additional explanations for the significance of the mitzva. The blue strings of techelet are like the sea, the sea like the sky, and the sky like the Divine throne.⁴ The mitzva of tzitzit invites the Divine presence (Shechina) into our lives.⁵

Is wearing tzitzit obligatory?

To be clear, wearing a four-cornered garment (picture a shawl, poncho, toga or sari) is not obligatory for anyone. So too, having fringes on a four-cornered garment that is folded in the closet is not obligatory. The obligation applies only if one wears⁶ a four-cornered garment.

Nowadays, many people do not wear ponchos or shawls, and wearing a large, four-cornered tallit (prayer shawl) is limited by custom to the morning service. One should not try to get out of performing this mitzva, though.⁷ For this reason, halachic practice is to wear a tallit katan (literally, little shawl), a small, fringed, four-cornered garment, colloquially known as ‘tzitzit,’ which creates the opportunity to fulfill the mitzva regularly.

If wearing tzitzit is such a valued mitzva, to the point that we encourage men to wear a special four-cornered garment in order to fulfill it, why have women generally not performed it?

The Initial Debate

The Sifrei, midrash halacha to Bemidbar, presents a debate over whether women are obligated in tzitzit:

The anonymous first opinion maintains that women “are included” in the obligation of tzitzit, i.e., women are subject to the obligation.

Rabbi Shimon disagrees. He maintains that women are exempt from the mitzva of tzitzit, because it falls under the category of positive time-bound commandments.

Note that, according to both points of view, the phrase “benei Yisrael,” “children of Israel,” in Bemidbar 19:38 does not exclude women from the mitzva.⁹ The first opinion clearly understands the phrase as including women. Rabbi Shimon must consider the phrase inconclusive. He would not have needed to mention that tzitzit is a positive time-bound mitzva if he read “benei Yisrael” as excluding women.

Building on Rabbi Shimon’s view, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava adds another point, that a woman’s garment must have tzitzit on it specifically when it may come to be shared with her husband. Even if she is not obligated in tzitzit on her own account, a woman is permitted to wear a garment with tzitzit attached to it.

The Talmudic Discussion

Why should we consider tzitzit a time-bound commandment? The Babylonian Talmud cites the midrash halacha above and then offers an explanation for Rabbi Shimon’s view:¹⁰

Bemidbar 15:39 specifies that we should see the tzitzit. Because we see best by the light of the day. Rabbi Shimon derives from this verse that tzitzit is time-bound.

The simplest reading of this passage, found in Rambam, is that the obligation of tzitzit only applies during the day.¹¹

Interestingly, the Talmud provides examples of two Babylonian Amora’im of the second generation who attached tzitzit to their wives’ garments:

In the first case, Rav Yehuda’s, the Talmud specifically says that he disagrees with Rabbi Shimon’s view that tzitzit is a time-bound commandment. Though the Talmud does not offer a rationale for Rav Amram’s action, Rashi explains it in the same way.¹²

Ran reads the passage differently:

According to Ran, Rav Amram considered women exempt from tzitzit. He attached tzitzit to his wife’s garment only as a midat chassidut, a pious act. It is not clear if his piety was to allow for the possibility that he might come to share the apron, as we saw in Sifrei, or because his wife herself wished to fulfill the mitzva of tzitzit voluntarily.

Ran asserts that dissent with Rabbi Shimon’s view exempting women from the mitzva of tzitzit was uncommon.

Halachic Ruling

Halachic authorities follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that tzitzit is time bound. Here, for example, is the ruling of Shulchan Aruch:

Women and bondsmen, thus, are exempt from the mitzva altogether.¹³

May a woman choose to fulfill the mitzva of tzitzit voluntarily?

On the whole, women can choose to perform positive time-bound mitzvot voluntarily. Indeed, Rambam explicitly categorizes tzitzit in this way:

Beyond permitting women to wear tzitzit, Rambam states explicitly that a woman’s choice to do so is one “we do not protest.” (See here for more information on his opposition to women reciting a beracha over voluntary mitzva performance.)

There is also no indication from Shulchan Aruch (quoted above) that there is any unique aspect to the relationship of women to this mitzva, as opposed to any other time-bound mitzva, such as shofar or lulav. We would assume, then, that a woman who chooses to perform these mitzvot and whose custom it is to make berachot on positive, time-bound commandments could choose to put on tzitzit and to recite a beracha.

The beginning of Rema’s gloss on this halacha also reads this way:

But there is more to the story. Two additional concerns have arisen about women fulfilling the mitzva of tzitzit: keli gever (men’s garb) and yuhara (spiritual aggrandizement). We explore the connection to keli gever below (and discuss it on its own terms here). Next, we adress yuhara,, which Rema himself goes on to discuss.

What is the halachic objection to women fulfilling the mitzva?

We’ve seen that there is nothing specifically male about the way this mitzva is presented in the Torah, and a couple of early sages attached tzitzit to their wives’ garments. Nevertheless, some halachic sources raise the concern that wearing a garment with tzitzit attached may violate the Torah’s prohibition of cross-dressing:

This verse is asymmetrical. A man may not “wear” a woman’s “garment.” However, a man’s “article” may not “be upon” a woman. The use of broader terms with the prohibition for women leaves room for applying it to more than just clothing.¹⁴

Targum Yerushalmi, a translation of the Torah into Aramaic from Eretz Yisrael (precise date unknown), includes a garment with tzitzit in the cross-dressing prohibition:

The earliest halachic authorities do not take up this issue, likely because tzitzit were originally placed on regular garments, not on garments worn specifically for the mitzva like we have today. The tallit katan, a ritual garment whose entire purpose is to have tzitzit affixed to it, became customary for men only in the Middle Ages. Following that shift, Rav Mordechai Yafe (Bohemia, sixteenth century) does discuss keli gever in his commentary to Shulchan Aruch, Levush.

To Levush, women’s exemption from the mitzva of tzitzit (because it is positive and time bound) means that the mitzva by definition applies specifically to a man’s garment and not to a woman’s. Therefore, a woman seeking to fulfill this mitzva would have to contend with the prohibition of cross-dressing, and this alone should keep her from pursuing it.¹⁵

Indeed, the tallit and tallit katan have become firmly entrenched in common custom as male garments. Many halachic authorities agree with Levush,¹⁶ notably Ben Ish Chai, who adds a kabbalistic concern:¹⁷

Prohibiting voluntary fulfilment of the mitzva of tzitzit by women because of keli gever has been questioned on two counts: One, does the prohibition of keli gever apply to a women’s garment with tzitzit attached? Two, does it apply when a garment is worn in order to fulfill a mitzva?

I. Keli gever and a four-cornered women’s garment with tzitzit attached

Notably, neither Rambam nor Rema raise the concern of keli gever at all. Still, Rav Zalman Nechemya Goldberg argues that there might be a transgression of keli gever, because the tzitzit strings themselves are a type of male article:¹⁸

Rav Goldberg concedes that considering a tallit to be keli gever is much more clear-cut than considering the strings themselves to be a male garment.

In a landmark responsum on feminism, Rav Moshe Feinstein expresses a number of concerns about women who wear tallit, but he leaves open the possibility of a woman fulfilling the mitzva of tzitzit under certain conditions (some of which we explore here):

Rav Moshe suggests that keli gever concerns could be addressed by attaching tzitzit to a garment “different in form from men’s clothing.” The strings themselves are not a keli gever issue.

II. Keli gever and a garment worn for the purpose of fulfilling a mitzva

The prohibition of cross-dressing may not apply to cases in which an article of clothing is not worn for purposes of beautification or for resembling another gender, but for a distinct reason.

One could argue that if protection from the rain provides grounds to allow for a woman to wear a man’s garment, a desire to fulfil a mitzva would as well.

Rav Yechiel Ya’akov Weinberg makes an argument like this in the context of a discussion of tefillin:

According to this logic, if a garment with tzitzit is worn for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva, and not for decorative purposes, the prohibition of “male article” may not apply.¹⁹

However, the halachic authorities who prohibit tzitzit to women out of concern for keli gever, clearly do not agree with this approach. They may only permit keli gever when the non-decorative purpose of wearing the garment is functional, not ritual. ²⁰ Additionally, they may claim, as does Rav Goldberg, that a woman’s ultimate purpose in wearing a garment with tzitzit is to emulate men:

It is hard to get away from the issue of resembling men here, when men have historically been the ones to wear tallitot.

A woman may still see herself differently, though. Is there any way for a woman who wants to fulfill this mitzva to establish that she is not trying to resemble men?

In a responsum, Rav Yehuda Henkin makes one suggestion:

To Rav Henkin, a woman who only wears a tallit gadol in private²¹ or a tallit katan under her clothes makes it clear that her intent is only for the mitzva.

Summary Keli gever is a Torah-level prohibition, and a woman interested in fulfilling the mitzva of tzitzit should be concerned about transgressing it. Some halachic authorities argue that a woman wearing tzitzit inevitably violates at least the spirit of the law. Others, however, suggest that she could address concerns by affixing her tzitzit to a garment discernably made for women, or that keli gever may not apply here, especially if she keeps the mitzva privately.

There is still the question of yuhara to consider. We do that here.