Gen. 24:48 — ואברך את יהוה אלהי אברהם אשר הנחני בדרך אמת
Deut. 6:6-7 — והיו הדברים האלה אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך ודברת בם בלכתך בדרך
Acts 24:14 — אני מודה כי אני בדרך ההיא אשר יקבוה מפלגה בה אני עובד את אלהי אבותינו וכי אני מאמין בכל הכתוב בתורה ובנביאים

_____________________________________________

4.5.10

שמירת מצוות התורה - ציציות

Much has been said in our circles on the question of 'observing Torah' - most of it in the abstract. Instead of theory, let's talk specifics! What does it mean for us today when Adonai says:

דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם וְעָשׂ֨וּ לָהֶ֥ם צִיצִ֛ת עַל־כַּנְפֵ֥י בִגְדֵיהֶ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָ֑ם וְנָ֥תְנ֛וּ עַל־צִיצִ֥ת הַכָּנָ֖ף פְּתִ֥יל תְּכֵֽלֶת׃ וְהָיָ֣ה לָכֶם֮ לְצִיצִת֒ וּרְאִיתֶ֣ם אֹת֗וֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם֙ אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹ֣ת יְהוָ֔ה וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם וְלֹֽא־תָתֻ֜רוּ אַחֲרֵ֤י לְבַבְכֶם֙ וְאַחֲרֵ֣י עֵֽינֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֥ם זֹנִ֖ים אַחֲרֵיהֶֽם׃
[Num. 15:38-39]

He says בגדיהם in the plural - does this mean we have to 'make tassels' on every single piece of clothing? Not only, say, a shirt or tunic; but also pants, jackets, socks, pajamas, hats, kipot? But wait; ציצית is singular! Was God's intention that we make one huge tassel for all the garments of Israel? Or that we each have only one tassel? Or one tassel per garment? It's confusing!

The more I think about it, the more questions arise! Does תכלת just mean 'blue', or does it refer to the color of a special dye manufactured from a certain species of sea creature? Do the non-blue tassels have to be the same color as the garment, to show they are part of it? Or maybe they should be a different color, to highlight their special function?

What about current rabbinic practice: instead of adding tassels to regular garments, 'Orthodox' Jews simply make a separate, special piece of clothing with tassels to wear every day (טלית קטן). Does that satisfy the commandment of Torah? Or how about Reform-style practice, wearing no טלית קטן but a טלית גדול once a week (or a year)? Incidentally, do the tassels have to show on the outside, or can I tuck them into my other garments? Should women also have ציציות, or is this commandment just for men?

In just a few minutes, I've come up with several questions related to how to keep this commandment. And I could go on and on. The words of the מצוה do not themselves answer my questions. So what do I do? The response of rabbinic and rabbinic-like Judaisms has been to try to standardize every single detail, to answer every single possible question with an "authoritative" prescription. A council of rabbis (or other 'clerics') decides what "must" be done - and that becomes the "doctrine" or teaching of the religion or denomination.

My view is the opposite. If God left it unsaid, where do these councils get the hubris to impose conformity on a free people? To put themselves in the place of God and issue additional מצוות to כל עם ישראל? To forbid what is not forbidden by Torah itself? Why do they even want to control every aspect of everyone's behavior? Is this not totalitarianism?

The wording of this commandment, as well as many others, leaves open the possibility of a wide variety of forms or styles in observance. In my opinion, each of us should make an effort to keep this commandment. Personally, I see no problem with one person wearing טלית קטן every day, another wearing טלית גדול only on shabbat, a third attaching green (and blue) fringes to his yellow football shirt, and a fourth wearing a brown poncho with brown and blue fringes. What in the world is the problem with this?? Only fascists want to eliminate all variety from life and force everyone to think and act identically.

God said for us to have ציציות on our clothes as a visual reminder of His commandments; i.e., of how He wants us to live. We should therefore have ציציות on our clothes as a visual reminder of His commandments. What we should not do is to ignore this instruction completely. We should also not ignore it in part, (e.g.) by explaining away the need for a blue cord. Yet neither should we obsess over what isn't clear. Not all details have been given, leaving many questions open to a multiplicity of interpretations. The possible existence of a variety of practices (ways of keeping this commandment) should be viewed as a positive phenomena and deeply enriching to Jewish life. Most importantly, none of us should attempt to impose one particular interpretation of these unprescribed details on everyone else. That does violence to God's commandments and also to the creativity and freedom He has implanted in every human spirit.

9 comments:

  1. Well put. We need to focus on the "spirit" fo the commandment. I use this term intentionally even though it's not a Biblical concept nor one I favor too much. Whereas others may argue that we need to focus on the "spirit" of the commandment, and therefore don't need to wear ציצית because we understand that it is a reminder of God's commandments and since I know this I have no need for the physical thing. I rather say, in agreement with Shuvya, that recognizing the "spirit" of the commandment frees us ot to obsess over the minutae. Simply put, we do what is clear, tassels on our garment with a blue string, in order to remind my of God's commandments. Having a blue dye from a particular snail or tying the knots this way or that doesn't help me remember God's commandments any better. To be honest I'm not sure why a blue string as opposed to a red one helps me remember, but that's what God said so I do it. The rest is commentary. I liked ליש's interpretation in tying a certain number of knots and thus created my own style to make it personal. I like this type of variety of which Shuvya speaks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. תודה רבה.

    A comment on your comment: οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος· τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ / Not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter [of the law] kills, but the spirit enlivens. [2Cor. 3:6; cf. Rom 2:29, 7:6; 2Thes. 2:2] I would argue that the contrast between 'letter' and 'spirit' of the law, found also in legal parlance today, is a biblical concept. Following only the 'letter' can lead to all kinds of abuses, loopholes, offshore tax havens - i.e., ways to avoid doing what the law actually intends. Following the spirit of the command is what gives life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First, I must say it's exciting to answer questions like that to be in a blog!

    Thanks יב"א for the compliment over the small personal freedom I took.

    To contrast my opinion here, though not yet complete, there is yet another passage which gives more clarity to the commandment:

    דברים (פרק כ"ב, י"ב):
    "גְּדִלִים, תַּעֲשֶׂה-לָּךְ, עַל-אַרְבַּע כַּנְפוֹת כְּסוּתְךָ, אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה-בָּהּ".

    So we can understand that the Israelites did wear a CERTAIN type of garment that had 4 corners/edges. Hence I see it quite easy to understand that it was:
    A. One set of garment per person. i.e. 4 tassels
    B. The garment was apparently a regular garment Israelites wore, which the modern western world, as far as I know, does not use any more. But I do think that adding it to our modern attire is a good idea non the less (טלית קטן applies well here I suppose).
    C. The garment was probably made of linen or wool, so it was a sort of white in its tone. Provided it was not dyed (most likely the dye was used only for the תכלת cord).

    So in view of the text and a bit of the historical context we can trace to some extent the way this מצווה was upheld.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While following the "letter" can lead to loopholes, I would also argue that following the "spirit" is used as an excuse not to obey the commandment.

    Let's continue with the example of tzitzit. The "letter" of the commandment is to put tassels, with a blue string,on the four corners of our garment. The purpose given is to remember God's commandments. Of course it is possible to fulfill the external aspect of putting them on, but without fulfilling the meaning- remembering God's commandments! In this case I find it difficult to fulfill the "spirit" without the "letter". God says do it so I do it.

    I'm going on a related tangent for a moment using the example of tzitzit. I had a discussion with friends yesterday how I don't see the distinction between moral/ritual/civil commandments. To most it seems to obvious that there is this distinction because it seems so on the surface. One major problem with this view, of course, is that God doesn't make this distinction. I explained to my friends that on a certain level I can understand that loving my neighbor is more significant than whether I put tassels on my garment. The issue is that it's not about putting tassels on my garment, but rather obeying God. I love God and therefore I want to obey and fulfill his commandments. From this perspective wearing tzitzit is a very moral commandment!

    This brings me back to the orginal point. I simply don't see a clear-cut distinction between the "spirit" and "letter". Maybe they can be helpful tools in understanding the commandments, but ultimately they are connect. I would argue that supposedly fulfilling the "spirit" of the commandment in order to avoid having to do the "letter" is not obeying the spirit of it at all! The issue is about our intent. Am I seeking to follow and obey God? If the answer is yes, then why would I try to avoid, like so many seem to do, fulfulling the actual commandment.

    In regard to the verses you point out, Shuvya, we'd have to look at them each in depth. Take Romans 7:6 for example:
    "and now we have ceased from the law, that being dead in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter."
    If we only look at this single verse it seems to point to with what we disagree- mainly that Torah (i.e. the letter) is not valid anymore. As we know, of course, Shaul continues and explains how Torah is not sin, but rather points out our sin. I can honestly say I don't fully understand his intent in this verse here. My difficulty is that I don't believe God intended that following Torah would a be a slavish obedience to the law.

    "The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." [Deut 30:6; cf. Duet 10:16, Jer 4:4)

    How do you interpret Shaul's idea here?

    ReplyDelete
  5. First I want to point out that within this single thread, several topics have been brought up that could warrant their own threads if not their own blogs. שוב began with the matter of wearing ציצית. The numerous questions that arose regarding this command led him to more general conclusions that have to do with approach--how do we as individuals and we as collective Israel handle God's commands when they are not always completely clear? And of course, as followers of Yeshua, Shaul's perspective weighs on our minds, which leads to even more fundamental questions such as, "should we follow Torah?" and "what does that mean?" All of these topics are worthy of discussion, but from this point on, I want to submit my thoughts on ציצית only, making the assumption right now that responding to God's commands through physical action is the correct manner of living for us Jewish believers.

    ליש was one step ahead of me when he drew our attention to the corresponding passage in דברים. However, I want to note the difference in wording between that passage and the one in Numbers:

    גדלים תעשה לך על ארבע כנפות כסותך אשר תכסה בה -דברים

    דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם ועשו להם ציצת על כנפי בגדיהם לדרתם ונתנו על ציצת הכנף פתיל תכלת והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות יהוה ועשיתם אתם ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם -במדבר

    Notice the passage in Deuteronomy does not say ציצית. We can assume that גדלים is synonymous or involved in ציצית, however, in light of its meaning and the command: something needs to be put on the כנפים of some article(s) of clothing. I'm not sure, by the way, why in דברים we have כנפות whereas in במדבר we have כנפים, so perhaps one of you can tend to that difference. But as ליש suggests, we have a perhaps clearer idea of how to wear these fringes based on the passage in דברים as compared to that in במדבר. Taken together, we understand that we have to wear twisted threads on the four corners (wings? flaps?) of a garment that covers us, and within those threads must be found a cord of תכלת. Presumably תכלת is a sort of blue; Torah does not mention a certain animal or plant from which comes the dye (the LXX, however, lists hyacinth!). Furthermore--and I'm no ecologist--I doubt that this dye comes from the snail that some rabbis have designated as the origin of the dye because the command was given in the desert, not in the land of Israel! Aside from these specifics, as עוזיאל said and ליש clarifies, we seem to have much freedom (i.e. with respect to color of the fringes--though ליש makes a good point about the color of the garment based on the material, how the fringes are tied, etc).

    As a side note, the dual appearance of a command--once in במדבר, once in דברים--and the differing degrees of specificity between the two instances reminds me of commands regarding שעטנז...

    The LXX gives us a bit of a confusing rendering when taking the Hebrew texts into account. If anyone is interested, I've begun parsing the texts. But it's pretty confusing, so prepare yourselves. Be there interest?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Friends: These comments include some great points! I'd like to follow up on what ירמיה said and suggest that we start separate threads for some issues raised by עוזיאל: a) "letter and spirit"; b) "categorizing the Torah" (including the question of moral/civil/ceremonial). This should help us to keep our discussions organized. (Meanwhile, ירמיה, please do share what you've gleaned from the LXX verses on ציצית.)

    My main point in this post was simply that no one has the right to impose conformity in the details (minutiae) of observance when the text of a commandment leaves open the possibility of multiple forms of practice. More than that, I do not understand and cannot relate to the very desire to impose conformity on others (which is extremely pronounced in "Orthodox" Judaisms). Personally, I find a variety of observance to be enriching! You will probably recognize this as a prominent theme in my future posts as we continue to discuss such issues. Any given question regarding the details of ציצית has already been discussed ad infinitum by many generations before us. My argument is that we should take a different *approach* to the question: a freer, humbler, less nitpicking approach. The text itself gives us no justification for being so dogmatic about one particular way of keeping the commandment.

    I agree with ליש that it is always valuable to consider evidence of historical observance, particularly when we are puzzled by the meaning of a given commandment. At the same time, we have to keep in mind that the תנ"ך is a set of ancient texts, written over the course of many centuries and within cultures, languages, and civilizations not native to us today. We have to expect that there will be some uncertainty or lack of clarity as we try to apply its statements to our own lives. This has been and will be an issue for every generation, and there is nothing wrong with that. Once again I return to the theme of "variety." We have evidence of widely differing styles or customs among Jews even in ancient and medieval times. Just look at the Encyclopedia Judaica's (8: 3-4) depiction of various kinds of historical Jewish "head coverings," none of which look anything like a standard kipa today! Wearing a head covering is merely a tradition, not a commandment; but it has been perceived as a commandment, and this diversity illustrates the point that styles will necessarily vary across time and space -- as well as from person to person.

    Someone reminded me recently of the important distinctions among: מצוות, חוקים ומשפטים. These three terms are not identical. Perhaps we can discuss this as well in the new thread on "categorizing."

    ReplyDelete
  7. At first I thought that the relevant passages in the LXX were inconsistent with its Hebrew vorlage. Having studied these passages in Hebrew and Greek in depth, though, I find, in fact, that besides the somewhat ambiguous relationship of the focuses of the two passages at hand and a lexical inconsistency on the part of the LXX editor(s), these commands seem fairly clear. But that clarity is the result of understanding ציצת and גדלים as different from one another.

    The first question I could pose is, What is the subject of each passage? Are they, in fact, identical? It's possible that ציצת and גדלים are not the same thing (though they remain directly involved with each other). We might deduce because of the other key words in these passages that the גדלים of the דברים passage is talking about the פתיל תכלת of the במדבר passage. The first factor is, as already indicated, the simple lexical variation between the texts' subjects: גדלים and ציצת. The second is the use and meaning of כנף. In במדבר, God tells us to put ציצת on the כנפי of our clothes, and in דברים Moshe instructs us to put גדלים on the four כנפות of a certain kind of garment. Perhaps, then, when Moshe is rehashing the commands of God, his intent for the meaning of כנפות is, at that point, what God earlier described as "ציצת upon כנפי בגדים," or "ציצת הכנף".

    Now then: the corresponding passages in the LXX are on one hand consistent and on the other hand somewhat complicated when ruling them against their Hebrew forebear. Allow me to reassemble the material, starting with the first passage:

    In במדבר, God tells Moshe to tell the sons of Israel to make ציצת/κράσπεδα upon the כנפי/πτερύγια of their clothes for their generations and to place upon the ציצת הכנף/κράσπεδα τῶν πτερύγια a פתיל תכלת/κλῶσμα ὑακίνθον. So far there's no immediate confusion; every Hebrew word is assigned a specific Greek word that, to my knowledge, consistently conveys a similar basic meaning for both languages.

    The trouble arises when we compare that passage to דברים again, but also in a new way. Therein, Moshe instructs us to make στρεπτὰ (גדלים) on the four κρασπέδων (כנפות) of the thing-you-throw-around-yourself that covers you. In the Greek, the first difference between the two passages is consistent with the Hebrew: whereas we were talking about ציצת/κράσπεδα in במדבר, now in דברים we're talking about גדלים/στρεπά. But the problem is κράσπεδον. It translates ציצת in במדבר, whereas here it translates כנפות, for which we might expect πτερύγια since it's in במדבר and has a similar basic meaning: wing-things.

    The LXX editor's/s' inconsistent use of κράσπεδον is apparent, but I think that in light of the broad meaning of this word, we can more-or-less excuse his/their inattentiveness. κράσπεδον in a basic literal sense means, "the edge, border, skirt, or hem" according to the IGEL, which also indicates that in the plural it can refer to the edges of things like mountains and armies (448). And in our passages, this term appears only in the plural. If, then, we esteem it as a somewhat loose translation of the Hebrew, then there's no problem other than its inconsistent assignment. But furthermore and on that note, its relationship with the Hebrew is actually not so terribly inconsistent when we take into account the meaning of כנפות. As discussed above, it seems that when Moshe speaks of כנפות in דברים, he is referring to what God termed the ציצת הכנף in במדבר. The vagueness of κράσπεδον (edge-things) and Moshe's apparent use of כנפות as a synonym for ציצת הכנף may explain the LXX editor's/s' lexical selection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love the comment & explanation, ירמיה! One point: Are you sure the LXX actually had editor(s) who even tried to standardize lexical usage? It doesn't seem that way...

    ReplyDelete
  9. "There is a discussion in Tal. Menachot 39b about what kinds of garments require tzitzit. A teacher from the school of R. Ishmael exempted garments made of camel's hair, goat's hair, etc." _The Messianic Writings_, note to Matthias 3:4

    ReplyDelete