Q&A: Tzitzit for Women
Tzitzit for Women
Question
Just a question—I don’t know whether the later authorities (Acharonim) have already discussed it, but is a woman permitted to wear tzitzit made of a forbidden wool-linen mixture?
Answer
The Raavad, at the beginning of his commentary to the Sifra, says that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even for women who are exempt from the positive commandment (such as laying hands on a sacrifice).
Discussion on Answer
Where does he say that he gets some reward? Are you referring to Maimonides at the end of chapter 8 of Laws of Kings? He doesn’t say that there.
I see here https://www.betmidrash.org.il/index.php?title=%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D_%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA that they wrote, among other things, this:
In the Mishnah in Terumot (3:9) it says: “A gentile and a Cuthean—their terumah is terumah, their tithes are tithes, and their consecrations are consecrated.” Maimonides also brought support for his view from this Mishnah, writing there in his commentary to the Mishnah: “Gentiles, although they are not obligated in the commandments, if they perform any of them they receive some reward, and this is one of our principles. Since they share with us in reward, their acts regarding the commandments are valid.”
I see. On the substance of the matter, I don’t see his proof, because specifically regarding terumah and tithes there is apparently a special rule, over which the Tannaim disputed in the case of a gentile’s terumah. For example, at the beginning of chapter 2 of tractate Kiddushin, and elsewhere.
Why assume that the rule that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition is relevant to the seven Noahide commandments? On the contrary, each of their prohibitions is severe enough to incur the death penalty, so apparently one would need specific proof that this rule applies there as well.
A Jew who eats a limb from a living animal is not liable to death. So it is reasonable that a gentile dies not because the prohibition is more severe, but because his life is valued less than a Jew’s life.
By the way, in discussions about a minor who comes of age—if a commandment applies to him while still a minor (as there in the Tur according to Tosafot)—then perhaps the same would apply to a gentile who began fasting and then converted. I once saw something about that.
According to this, one should also reconsider Maimonides’ view that a gentile who fulfills a commandment out of acknowledgment of Moses’ prophecy receives some measure of reward—that is, he is accomplishing something through it. Perhaps for him too a prohibition would be overridden. I have a weak example: if eating on the eve of Yom Kippur is a Torah-level commandment, then perhaps he could eat a limb from a living animal then. What is the distinction? (Maybe that women are exempt, whereas gentiles were never obligated—but what exactly does that mean?)