Why dosent the high priest wear Tzisit?

[Chai]

http://www.templeinstitute.org/images/meil_altar.jpg

[muman613]

I am not going to give an 'authoritative' answer but I will tell you my opinion.


The commandment of tzit-tzit , the instruction to attach fringes, only applies to a special kind of garment... Tzit-Tzits must only be attached to a garment which has four corners.

The High Priest has special garments which may not include a four-corner garment.

Here is a list of the requirements for tzitzit:


http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/536771/jewish/The-Fringes-and-Garment.htm

The Garment

*    Only a garment which covers most of the body requires tzitzit. A scarf, for example, is therefore exempt.

*    Any garment which has four or more corners is obligated in tzitzit. If the garment has more than four corners, tzitzit fringes are only attached to the four corners furthest from each other.

*    Only a garment which has two corners in the front of its wearer and two in the back must have tzitzit.

*    A rounded edge is not considered as a corner.

*    A garment only requires tzitzit if and when it is actually worn.

*    Only a four-cornered garment which is of a woven material is obligated in tzitzit. A four-cornered plastic or leather garment does not require tzitzit.

*    The noted 13th century halachic authority Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg contended that one does not satisfy the biblical obligation of tzitzit unless the garment and fringes are of the same material. Since all manufactured tzitzit fringes are made of wool, according to Rabbi Meir, one would not fulfill any mitzvah when wearing a cotton or silk tallit or tzitzit garment. Though Rabbi Meir's is a minority ruling and not binding, ideally one should strive to recite the blessing on a woolen tallit or tzitzit.

*    The tallit or tzitzit garment must be at least 19x19 inches. A child's tzitzit can be smaller.

Also the very reason for the commandment of tzitzits involves controlling base human feelings by commanding:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/758547/jewish/Do-I-need-to-let-my-tzitzit-hang-out.htm

We read in the Torah, "This shall be fringes for you, and when you see it, you will remember all the commandments of the Lord to perform them. And you will not turn after your heart and after your eyes, after which you tend to stray …"1

Since the only time the Kohen Gadol wore the special garments was during the service in the Holy of Holies there should be no issue of turning after your heart and your eyes, so possibly there is no real need for the Kohen Gadols garments to have tzitzits..

This is my opinion...

[muman613]

Here is a reasonable discussion of this issue:

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-shemot/20-10tetzaveh.htm

PARASHAT TETZAVEH
By Rav David Silverberg

.
.
.

            Yesterday, we discussed the debate among the Rishonim regarding the formation of the me'il, the robe worn by the kohen gadol.  One view (Rashi, Ra'avad) describes the me'il as a long shirt, whereas others (Rambam, Ramban) held that the me'il was open on both sides.  According to the second opinion, the me'il resembled the tallit katan worn today (only much longer), and was an open garment draped over the kohen gadol's head.

           A number of Acharonim addressed the interesting question of why, according to the second view, the me'il did not require tzitzit.  The mitzva of tzitzit requires affixing tzitzit to the corners of a four-cornered garment, and, according to the Rambam and Ramban, the me'il was open on both sides such that it featured four corners, two on either side of the kohen gadol.  Why, then, were tzitzit not required for the me'il?

            Instinctively, one might answer that the Torah suspended the tzitzit obligation with regard to the me'il, just as the prohibition of sha'atnez – which forbids wearing a garment woven with both linen and wool – did not apply to the priestly vestments.  The Torah here perhaps introduces an extraordinary measure that should not be questioned on the basis of normal halakhic guidelines.  However, as the Minchat Chinukh (99) convincingly demonstrates, the Gemara quite clearly implies otherwise.  The Gemara in Masekhet Arakhin (3b) cites a Berayta establishing that kohanim are included in the obligation of tzitzit.  In response to the question of why such an obvious halakha requires explicit mention, the Gemara explains that one might have thought to exempt kohanim from this obligation given the association drawn in the Torah (Devarim 22:11-12) between tzitzit and sha'atnez.  Since kohanim are absolved from the laws of sha'atnez (at least performing the Temple service), one might have exempted them from tzitzit, as well.  The Minchat Chinukh notes that if an exceptional provision applied with regard to the me'il exempting it from tzitzit, then the Gemara could have suggested a far more compelling reason why the Berayta emphasized the kohanim's inclusion in the tzitzit obligation.  Namely, since the kohen gadol wore the me'il without first affixing tzitzit, one might have erroneously concluded that the obligation of tzitzit does not apply to the kohanim.  The fact that the Gemara did not advance such an argument appears to prove that the me'il, for whatever reason, did not meet the criteria required for a garment to be obligated in tzitzit, and was not exempted simply by a gezeirat ha-katuv, an extraordinary provision.

            The Minchat Chinukh explains that the me'il was not obligated in tzitzit because it was not owned by the kohen gadol.  The Gemara in Masekhet Chulin (136a) explicitly exempts borrowed garments from the tzitzit obligation; one must affix tzitzit only to a four-cornered garment that he owns and wears.  Since the me'il belonged to hekdesh, the Temple treasury, and not to the kohen gadol personally, it did not require tzitzit.

            Rav Menachem Kasher, in his Torah Sheleima (Parashat Tetzaveh, appendix 13), questions this approach, noting that the exemption for borrowed garments perhaps applies only to garments that can be retrieved by the owner at any moment.  Nobody other than the kohen gadol could or would ever wear the me'il, and in fact, according to the Rambam (Hilkhot Kelei Ha-mikdash chapter 8), the kohen gadol could wear his special garments whenever he wished, and not merely during the avoda.  Conceivably, then, these garments could be deemed his property with respect to the obligation of tzitzit, and not borrowed garments.

            The Keli Chemda suggests a different explanation for why tzitzit were not affixed to the corners of the me'il.  Any addition to the bigdei kehuna beyond the material prescribed by the Torah would disqualify the kohen's service, given the rule of ribuy begadim, which requires that the kohen be dressed during the avoda only in the garments specified by the Torah.  It was therefore halakhically unfeasible to affix tzitzit to the me'il, given that the Torah makes no mention of tzitzit in its description of this garment.  The Keli Chemda writes that according to one view in the Rishonim, the obligation of tzitzit constitutes only an obligation, and not a prohibition.  Meaning, one who wears a four-cornered garment has not transgressed a Torah prohibition; he has merely neglected a Torah obligation.  The practical implication of this perspective is that in a case where tzitzit cannot be obtained by any means, one would be permitted, according to this view, to don a four-cornered garment.   Since no prohibition is transgressed by wearing such a garment without tzitzit, the individual bears merely an obligation to affix tzitzit – an obligation that he is currently unable to fulfill.  Accordingly, the Keli Chemda suggested, the kohen gadol was allowed to don the four-cornered me'il without affixing tzitzit, given the halakhic impossibility of adding material to the priestly garments.

            A particularly novel theory was advanced by Rav Gershon Henoch of Radzhin, in his work Ein Ha-tekhelet, where he cites a passage from the Zohar to the effect that the bells and pomegranate-shaped adornments along the edge of the me'il functioned as the garment's tzitzit.  It thus turns out that according to the Zohar, the me'il in fact did have tzitzit, thereby obviating this entire discussion.  One might, of course, argue in response that the Zohar never intended this analogy as a halakhic statement concerning the status of the me'il with respect to the tzitzit obligation, and referred only to the symbolic meaning of this garment.

PS: It appears my opinion does not concur with the facts. Apparently the Beged Kahuna does include a four-corner garment...

[Chai]

Great find , but how come the regular kohanim also neglect it?