(that is, they are not compelled to obey, but they are permitted to do so if they wish). However, he adds, if they do put it on, it would appear to be a show of extra pride of piety(yohara). But if they are not to put it on because it would look like a show of extra pride of piety on their part, then it becomes necessary to explain the fact that women observe the commandment of the lulav and recite blessings over it. Is not the lulav also a positive commandment limited by time? The explanation of this differ­ence is given by the Magen David : that the lulav is a stricter com­mandment than the one concerning fringes, because if a person does not have a square garment(the fringes must be on the cor­ners of a four-cornered garment) he need not put fringes on at all. It is true that it is now our custom always to wear a talit katan with four corners and fringes. Nevertheless, according to law, it is only if a man has a four-cornered garment that he must put fringes on. In other words, the obligation depends on the gar­ment. But with regard to the lulav, a man must get a lulav and say the blessings. In this case the obligation is incumbent upon the man himself(hovat gavra), not on whether he has the object or not; he must get it if he lacks it.

One of the later deciders, Yechiel Epstein , in his Arukh Hash­ulhan, Orah Hayim 17, says that we should not allow women to put on the fringed falit. But then Epstein has the problem of explaining why women bless the lulav and formally eat the matzah at the seder, which are positive commandments limited by time. He explains by saying that these positive time-limited commandments come only once a year) but the iulit should be worn every day.

However, all the great(and earlier) authorities permit it. The only question that seems to divide the earlier authorities(none of whom doubts the right of women to put on the talit) is the ques­tion as to whether, when a woman puts on the talit she may make the regular blessing or not. There is a full discussion of this problem in the Tosafot to Rosh Hashana 33a, s.v.ha. This tosefet is mainly the opinion of Rabbenu Tam . The discussion is on the

general principle of whether anyone(such as women and the blind) who is free from the obligation to fulfill“positive com­mandments limited by time” should(when he fulfills such com­mandments voluntarily) pronounce the blessing over them or