Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

It says in the Shulchan Aruch Harav in sif 5 and 6 that there are two opinions as to what garments are obligated in tzitzis:

  1. Since the blessing says "Lehisateif BaTzitzis", only garments which can be worn "KeAtifas Haishmeilim" are obligated in Tzitzis. Therefore, our Tzitzises which are too small are not obligated in Tzitzis.
  2. All garments which have four corners are obligated, as the formula of the bracha is not mentioned anywhere in the Torah. Therefore, our Tzitzises must have Tzitzis, but the blessing is "Al Mitzvas Tzitzis".

He says that the Halacha is like the second opinion.

In Sif 7, however, he says that if one wants to fulfill his obligation of wearing Tzitzis according to all opinions (and to be able to say "Lehisatef"), he should wear the tzitzis over his head with it draping down his back (which is ituf).


I have two questions on this:

  1. Is a Tallis Katan big enough to do Ituf? If yes, one should be obligated to place tzitzis on it according to all opinions. If not, what is the idea of draping it down his back?
  2. He says that one should do this if "he wants to fulfill his obligation according to all opinions, if he wants to say the blessing 'Lehisatef batzitzis'" ... If one wants to be stringent like the first opinion, he must do ittuf whatever blessing he says.
share|improve this question
2  
Two things - Do you mind being more precise with your title (ie., is that the only stirah, such that mentioning the subject is redundant)? And do you mind if I remove the 'es' at the end of 'Tzitzises'? It's driving me nuts. ;-) –  Seth J Jul 17 '12 at 1:26
    
You're asking if atifah is a shiur in the cheftza or maaseh? –  Double AA Jul 17 '12 at 1:55
1  
Side Note: The Alter Rebbe's dikduk in the siddur is B'Tzizis with a Shva which differ with the dikduk of Nusach Ashkenaz which says BaTzitzis with a Patach. I only mention because you type BaTzizis. –  user1292 Jul 18 '12 at 2:22
    
To clarify for others, @mochinrechavim is referring to the "alter rebbe" of Lubavitch, better known (except to Lubavitchers) as the baal haTanya, the Graz, or the rav, i.e. the author of the Shulchan Aruch Harav. He/She's not referring to any of the hasidic rebbes named Alter (of the Ger/Gur dynasty). –  msh210 Jul 18 '12 at 20:06
    
@mochinrechavim I know, but that's how it is in the Shu"A of the Alter Rebbe –  Shmuel Brin Jul 19 '12 at 3:54

1 Answer 1

It appears as follows:

Opinion A: The text of the blessing "to wrap" indicates that the mitzva requires wrapping the talis. A full flege wrap is an Ishmaelian wrap. Those garments that cannot be worn such are exempt.

Opinion B: The text of the blessing was not based on the performance of the mitzva, but on common dressing practices of the time, which was to do a quasi-wrap. But certainly even garments that cannot be wrapped still have the mitzva.

Shulchan Aruch haRav: One may fulfill both opinions when donning a large talis by starting with an Ishmaelian wrap and switching afterwards.

Opinion C: Implied by the SAhR, even according to the 2nd opinion, the blessing "to wrap" requires wrapping. If you are not wrapping, you may not make this blessing. (Others may hold that although the blessing is "to wrap", that's just b/c that's what they did, but it isn't necessary, as long as the mitzva of wearing is done.)

Shulchan Aruch haRav: to fulfill "all opinions", meaning even Opinion C within Opinion B, one should do some sort of wrap.

Granted that one will not fulfill Opinion A.

share|improve this answer
    
so can one be enwrapped in a Tallis Kattan? –  Shmuel Brin Jul 19 '12 at 3:55
    
@ShmuelBrin, although one cannot do atifas Yishmaelim (and are therefore patur acc. to A, one can do a quasi atifa enough to qualify for the language of the bracha of l'hisatef. –  YDK Jul 19 '12 at 5:12
    
but the source of opinion A is from the bracha? –  Shmuel Brin Jul 19 '12 at 5:49
    
The halachic definition of atifa differs from the colloquial usage. The argument between A and B is whether the chachamim created the text of the bracha l'hisatef to reflect the halacha (in which the definition of atifa is specificly Ishmaelian), or to reflect common practice which was not necessarily Ishmaelic, but the text of atifa is nevertheless appropriate in a colloquial sense. –  YDK Jul 19 '12 at 22:50

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.