The Obligation of Women in Building the Beis Hamikdash - Rabbi Shneur Zalman Lapkowsky shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to the “Lema’an Yishme’u” podcast from Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 In Sefer Avodah, Hilchos Beis Habechirah, chapter 1, the Rambam brings the mitzvah to build the Beis Hamikdash: “They shall make Me a sanctuary, and I will dwell among them.” Later, in chapter 1, halacha 12, the Rambam says that the Beis Hamikdash may not be built at night, as it says, “On the day the Mishkan was erected.” The Mishkan, the Beis Hamikdash, must be built during the day. Then, in that same halacha, the Rambam adds: “Everyone is obligated to build it and assist, with their own efforts and their own money, men and women alike, as with the Mishkan in the desert.” So what does the Rambam tell us? That the Beis Hamikdash must be built by day, not at night. Seemingly, that makes it a time-bound positive mitzvah. Then he adds that everyone is obligated to build it, including women. But there is a rule, which the Rambam himself brings, that women are exempt from time-bound positive mitzvos, apart from a few mitzvos where it explicitly says they are obligated. So how does the Rambam contradict himself in the same book? First he says the Beis Hamikdash is built only by day, not at night; this mitzvah cannot be performed at night. Then he says everyone, including women, is obligated. That is the question the commentators ask. The Rogatchover brings what seems to be an answer to this question. The Rambam rules—and at the beginning, in halacha 1, he states the obligation concerning the Beis Hamikdash—that “it is a positive mitzvah to make a house prepared for offering sacrifices in it.” So the purpose of the Beis Hamikdash is the offerings, and women are obligated in offerings too. Because offerings must be brought, women are also obligated to build the Beis Hamikdash. The mitzvah of “They shall make Me a sanctuary” is a time-bound positive mitzvah, and women are exempt from the mitzvah itself. But what is the purpose of the Beis Hamikdash? The offerings, in which they too are obligated.

03:52 Speaker 2 If they are obligated in offerings, there has to be a place prepared for them, and that is how they become obligated to build the Beis Hamikdash. That is what the Rogatchover says. But it is quite a stretch. The Rebbe also brings this Rogatchover, by the way, but it is quite a stretch. Why? Which offerings are women obligated in? The daily offerings and the additional offerings are themselves time-bound positive mitzvos. The daily offering is time-bound: it is brought in the morning or toward evening. The additional offerings of Shabbos are time-bound positive mitzvos too. What might they be obligated in? Perhaps a sin offering or offerings like that. But then the question is: Why must a woman who has not become obligated to bring any offering build the Beis Hamikdash? To say that because a time might come when she could become obligated to bring an offering, she must already prepare a Beis Hamikdash in which to offer it—that is very strange. It would be like saying a person must buy a lamb before he has sinned, in case he sins and needs to bring an offering. So why are women obligated? It says that women are obligated. Even a woman who has not become obligated to bring any offering, and may never become obligated to bring one—if she has not sinned, she will not be obligated to bring an offering. How, then, can the Rambam say that women are obligated? [unclear] That answer is quite a stretch. I looked through the commentators and found a more straightforward answer. To understand it, we first need to understand some other difficulties in the Gemara. The source for the rule about time-bound positive mitzvos is in Tractate Kiddushin, where the entire discussion appears. Now, the Mishnah says that a woman is not obligated to circumcise her son. A father has a mitzvah to circumcise his son; a woman is not commanded to circumcise hers. The Gemara asks why: What is the source that a mother is not obligated to circumcise her son? The Gemara brings the verse concerning Avraham, “as He commanded him”—him and not her. Only Avraham was commanded to circumcise Yitzchak, not

07:11 Speaker 2 Sarah, the mother. Seemingly, it is also unclear why a verse is needed for this. Circumcision is itself a time-bound positive mitzvah, since circumcision is performed only by day. The verse says, “On the eighth day,” and the Gemara derives: by day, not at night. So circumcision is a time-bound positive mitzvah, and a woman is exempt from time-bound positive mitzvos. Why, then, is a verse needed? The Gemara requires a verse to establish that a woman is not obligated to circumcise her son. The Ritva asks this question too. Tosafos seeks to answer it by bringing the view that circumcision performed after its proper time may also be done at night, so it is not a time-bound positive mitzvah. But two questions arise. First, this is a matter of dispute, and what about the view that says—and this is the halacha—that even circumcision performed after its proper time may be done only by day? Second, to begin with, circumcision on the eighth day is only by day. So how could it not be a time-bound positive mitzvah? The eighth day determines that it is done by day and not at night. The Ritva answers that this is a mitzvah involving someone else. When we say a woman is exempt from a time-bound positive mitzvah, that is when the mitzvah rests on her. But here the mitzvah concerns someone else: she might have a mitzvah to see to it that the mitzvah is performed for her son. That is a positive mitzvah. Her obligation is on behalf of someone else, and that someone else is male, so perhaps she is obligated after all. The Tashbatz seeks to answer that her obligation to see to it that her son is circumcised, and to have him circumcised, applies at all times. She can approach the mohel at night as well. It is not a time-bound positive mitzvah. What rests on her—seeing to it that the mohel circumcises her son by day—rests on her both by day and by night. But this too is quite a stretch. If she is exempt from the mitzvah itself, how can there be an obligation on her to see to it

10:16 Speaker 2 that someone else is circumcised? If the Torah exempted her from time-bound positive mitzvos, so that she herself has no obligation in these mitzvos, are we now creating a new obligation for her to take responsibility for others performing time-bound positive mitzvos? If the Torah exempted her from the mitzvah itself because it is time-bound, how can we say the Torah obligated her in something connected to a category of mitzvos from which she is entirely exempt? There is also a question concerning tzitzis. The Gemara says that a woman is exempt from tzitzis, and although there is a dispute about this, that is the halacha: she is exempt. Why is she exempt? Because it too is a time-bound positive mitzvah. A garment worn at night is exempt from tzitzis, and therefore a woman is exempt from tzitzis. The mitzvah depends on time: it applies to a daytime garment, not a nighttime garment. But according to the opinion that a nighttime garment also requires tzitzis, and interprets “you shall see it” as exempting a blind person, women would be obligated too. That is why Rabbi Yehudah would put tzitzis with techeiles on women’s garments. So tzitzis is a time-bound mitzvah, but if tzitzis is required at night, a woman is obligated too. That is what the Gemara says. Why does it follow from the obligation to put tzitzis on a nighttime garment that a woman is obligated? Seemingly, the question is that even according to the opinion that a nighttime garment requires tzitzis, a woman should be exempt for another reason. What reason? Because tzitzis cannot be made on Shabbos. The Shulchan Aruch rules that one may wear a four-cornered garment on Shabbos. Why? Because the mitzvah does not say that you may not wear a four-cornered garment without tzitzis. It says that when you wear a four-cornered garment, you have a mitzvah to make tzitzis. On Shabbos, you cannot make tzitzis, because doing so requires tying, and tying is forbidden on Shabbos. So since Shabbos prevents

13:11 Speaker 2 exempt him from the mitzvah of tzitzis, and so he may wear the garment. According to Torah law, he may wear a four-cornered garment without tzitzis on Shabbos. That is how the Shulchan Aruch rules. Seemingly, we could say the same here: since one cannot make tzitzis on Shabbos, this is a time-bound positive mitzvah. Even if a nighttime garment is obligated in tzitzis, on Shabbos there should be an exemption from tzitzis, and a woman should not be obligated. Let me briefly explain this point. We need to look at the source. Where do we see that a woman is exempt from time-bound positive mitzvos? What is the source? The Gemara says we learn it from tefillin, to which the entire Torah is compared. A woman is exempt from tefillin. There is a comparison to Torah study, regarding which the verse says, “You shall teach them to your sons”—not your daughters. So she is exempt from tefillin. Since she is exempt from tefillin, and tefillin is a time-bound positive mitzvah to which the entire Torah is compared, the Gemara gives this as the reason. Why, and from where, do we know that a woman is exempt from time-bound positive mitzvos? Because the entire Torah is compared to tefillin, and tefillin is a time-bound positive mitzvah. That is the source. The source is tefillin. Now, if tefillin is the entire source, let us consider what the mitzvah of tefillin is. What is the mitzvah? At the time when a person is obligated to wear tefillin, he must wear them, and then he fulfills the mitzvah. According to the Rambam’s opinion that nighttime is not a time for tefillin, wearing tefillin at night does not fulfill a mitzvah. It is not a mitzvah. The mitzvah applies only by day—or, according to the halachic view that nighttime is a time for tefillin, it applies at night too. Shabbos and Yom Tov are not times for tefillin. There are times when tefillin is not a mitzvah at all. When is it a mitzvah? When the Torah obligates a person in it. When the Torah does not obligate him, it exempts him. So it is

15:50 Speaker 2 not a mitzvah. The mitzvah of tefillin applies only at its appointed time, not at other times. And that is how time-bound positive mitzvos work. All the time-bound positive mitzvos from which a woman is exempt are mitzvos only at their appointed times, not at other times. Yom Tov, for example: when is it Yom Tov? Only from 15 Nissan through 21 Nissan. So there are mitzvos that apply only then. At another time, they are not mitzvos. Sukkah applies only during Sukkos. Once Sukkos has passed, it is no longer a mitzvah. But there are mitzvos that apply all the time. There is, though, a distinction: when are you able to perform them? Perhaps only at a certain time. Take tzitzis, for example, and you will see the difficulty it raises. Whenever you wear a four-cornered garment with tzitzis, you fulfill a mitzvah. There is no time when you would not fulfill it. If the mitzvah applies at night too, you fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis at night. And on Shabbos, if you wear a tallis, you fulfill the positive mitzvah of tzitzis. There is just one thing you cannot do: you may not tie the tzitzis on Shabbos. But once you have tied them, the mitzvah applies at all times. So a woman is obligated if the mitzvah of tzitzis applies at night as well. Now let us consider the mitzvah concerning the Beis Hamikdash: “They shall make Me a Sanctuary.” Would we say that once the Beis Hamikdash has been built, the mitzvah is no longer fulfilled at night, even though the Beis Hamikdash remains standing at night? No. Once you have built the Beis Hamikdash, you fulfill the mitzvah concerning it at all times. There is simply a rule that the Beis Hamikdash may be built only by day. You have to build it by day, but what is the intended outcome, the purpose of the mitzvah? That it stand at all times. Take the Mishkan, for example. If they built the Mishkan by day, could they

18:44 Speaker 2 dismantle it at night? No. Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants the Sanctuary to stand at all times. “They shall make Me a Sanctuary” does not mean that it should exist only by day—that you make a Sanctuary during the day, but at night the mitzvah concerning it no longer applies. Could they destroy the Beis Hamikdash at night and build it anew each day, fulfilling many mitzvos by building a Sanctuary every day? No, I cannot destroy it. The mitzvah of “They shall make Me a Sanctuary” is to have an enduring Sanctuary, standing by day and by night. The question is only when you may build it: by day. But the mitzvah applies continuously. Take the Ramban’s explanation, for example. What does the Ramban say is the purpose of the Beis Hamikdash? The resting of the Shechinah. Does the Shechinah rest there by day or by night? Once you have built the Beis Hamikdash, it rests there by day and by night. There is simply a condition governing the actual construction—when and how to build the Beis Hamikdash: build it by day. Take the Mishkan, for example. Who was obligated to build the Mishkan? All of Israel. And what does Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s statement, “Let every wise-hearted person among you come and make it,” mean? Who actually made the Mishkan? The wise-hearted craftsmen made it. Not just anyone could make those things, because the verse explicitly says to give the work to the wise-hearted, and they would make it. Who could erect the Mishkan in the first place? Moshe Rabbeinu. No one else could erect it. To whom was the command to erect the Mishkan addressed? To Moshe Rabbeinu. Yet the mitzvah rested upon the entire Jewish people. What this means is that the essential mitzvah concerning the Sanctuary is that there should be a Sanctuary. It is an ongoing mitzvah, extending through both days and nights, and all of Israel has a part in it. Everyone built the Sanctuary; everyone helped, brought the materials, and saw to it that it was built. Only the actual construction had to be done by day. Though

21:17 Speaker 2 this is not at all like tefillin. If tefillin is the entire source, then consider that tefillin is a mitzvah with times after which the mitzvah does not apply at all. Putting on tefillin during the week, yes, fine. Shabbos comes, and there is no mitzvah of tefillin. There is another mitzvah, the mitzvah of Shabbos. On Shabbos you may not put on tefillin; because of the prohibition of adding to the mitzvos, you may not do so. The mitzvah does not apply. Sukkos passes, and there is no mitzvah of sukkah. You can sit in a sukkah any number of times, but it is not a mitzvah; the mitzvah has ceased to apply. But the mitzvah concerning the Beis Hamikdash—its purpose and its very existence—continues at all times. There is only a condition: the Beis Hamikdash must be built by day. A condition governing how it is built does not exempt women. As I said earlier, where does the entire source come from? From tefillin. So the other mitzvos must be comparable to tefillin. A mitzvah that is not at all like tefillin, because it applies continuously and merely has a condition governing how it is built, is not one from which you have exempted women. And if you have not exempted women, they too are obligated. This is what the Rambam brings: the Mishkan in the wilderness was something everyone was obligated to make. We can see this even more clearly from the fact that the entire command concerning the Mishkan began, “Moshe assembled the entire congregation of the Children of Israel.” It was an assembly. What does such an assembly include? Men, women, and children. Moshe Rabbeinu assembled them all and told them of the obligation to build the Mishkan. Why did he assemble everyone? He should have assembled only the men, those obligated in the mitzvah. No, everyone was obligated, because the Mishkan is enduring; it is an ongoing mitzvah. There is simply a rule that the making of the Mishkan must take place by day. If so, this is not at all like other time-bound positive mitzvos. It now follows straightforwardly that women are obligated to do all these things, without having to resort to a strained reading of Rabbeinu Tam’s position. Rabbeinu Tam says that someone exempt from a mitzvah cannot

23:36 Speaker 2 perform its preparation. For example, a woman who is exempt from the mitzvah of lulav cannot bind the lulav. If a woman is exempt from a mitzvah, then she cannot prepare for it either. So how does the verse say that “they spun the goats’ hair,” meaning that women made the goats’-hair curtains? Who made those curtains? The women, though they would be exempt from this. He resolves this by way of the Gemara too, but his answer is also strained. The verse says, “They spun the goats’ hair.” This required exceptional skill—meaning an ordinary person could not do it. So it was done in an unusual manner, and something done in an unusual manner is considered as though it happened on its own. I do not understand what “happened on its own” means; in practice, they did it. The completion came when they made the curtains and placed them on the Mishkan. He also wants to introduce a further idea: that the Mishkan is valid even without the goats’-hair curtains. All right, we will not go into that. But the point I want to make is that the positive mitzvah concerning the Beis Hamikdash differs from tefillin. Since it differs from tefillin, the exemption for women does not apply to it. There is no exemption for women here, so they are obligated. The mitzvah applies continuously, at all times; there is only a condition that the actual construction must take place by day. That is the precise wording: women are obligated to build—not merely to help, bring materials, or make an effort, but to build. They have a mitzvah to build it.