Siman 10

It is written: "You shall make yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself" – four corners and not three. Or perhaps it is only four and not five? The Torah teaches: "with which you cover yourself" (Zevachim 18b). And this is an inclusion to include a five-cornered garment, for a three-cornered garment is not suitable for covering the body, as anything triangular is pointed. This excludes anything more than four – for it is like four, since it possesses four corners and is fit for covering the body. And the same law applies to a garment of six corners or more. And even though there is another Baraita there that also excludes a five-cornered garment, and also in the Sifrei it implies such, nevertheless, most of our teachers decided in favor of obligation for a five-cornered garment. And their reason appears to me to be because in Menachot (43b), where the primary laws of tzitzit are located, only this Baraita was brought, see there. And so we maintain, and so they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. (And the Re'ah of Metz and the Rash ruled according to the other Baraita, see Beit Yosef and Bach. And it is proper to fulfill their opinion as well.)

And even though a garment with five corners is obligated in tzitzit, nevertheless it is forbidden to make more than four tzitzit, and one makes them on the most distant ones. And if one makes five tzitzit – he violates "do not add." And the reason: since all four tzitzit are one mitzvah – for the Holy One, Blessed be He, commanded that such is the mitzvah: four tzitzit and no more. And this reason is explicit at the end of the chapter "HaKometz Rabba" (Menachot 37b). (For it says there: A five-cornered garment is the difference between them. And Rashi explained that according to Rabbi Yishmael, for whom there were four mitzvot – he attaches five tzitzit, and according to the Rabbis only four, see there. And we hold like the Rabbis. And I wonder at the Taz, subsection 1, who wrote a reason from his own mind and there is no reason in it, see there. And I wonder at him: why did he not bring the words of the Rosh brought in the Beit Yosef, that this is the intent of the Sifrei not to make more than four tzitzit? However, we have written the reason that is in the Gemara. And examine and you will find it simple.)

If it has four corners, and one cut another corner diagonally and made it into two—it has become a five-cornered garment and is obligated. And so too if one cut two corners—it becomes a six-cornered garment and is obligated. And we do not say: since his intention was to nullify it from being a four-cornered garment by cutting the corner, his thought should be effective. For it is not so, since ultimately it is a five-cornered garment. (It must be said thus, for if not so, what novelty is there in this? And so it is implied in Rashi at the end of the chapter "HaKometz Rabba" in the entry beginning "Lo," see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

It is a simple matter that what we said, that if one cut one corner diagonally it becomes a five-cornered garment and is obligated in tzitzit—this is when he cut a portion of it. But if he cut half of the garment diagonally—behold, each of the halves becomes a three-cornered garment, as is understood. For every square is thus: when we cut it into two equal parts diagonally, each one will have three protrusions. Rather, it is where he cut a portion of it, for in this case the remainder becomes a five-cornered garment. And the same law applies if it were a three-cornered garment and he cut a portion of one corner diagonally—it becomes a four-cornered garment and is obligated in tzitzit. However, in this case some distance is required, for it is not logical to say at all that when he cut a minute amount diagonally near the corner we should consider it as two corners. And it appears to me that he must cut at least a tefach. Or perhaps three fingers are sufficient, because regarding the laws of tumah, three by three is considered significant. And it requires further study. And it is simple that this is specifically when he cut the corner diagonally in a straight line. But if he cut it in a curve, and this corner became like a circle—it is exempt from tzitzit, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 9: The corners must be square and not round. Thus far his words. And it appears to me also that there must be some length, for it is not logical to say at all that a minute circular cut would exempt it from tzitzit. And it seems to me that in this case three tefachim are required, meaning: that the length of the curve around should be three tefachim. (And a mere tear is not like a cut, see Pri Megadim. And a cut in the shape of a four is like a diagonal cut, as the Mishnah Berurah wrote. And see the Mordechai who wrote that there must be a separation between the corners, and this is as I have written.)

The Rambam wrote in the first chapter, law 17: One may not fold the tallit in two and place tzitzit on its four corners while it is folded, unless one sewed it while folded, even from one side. Thus far his words. The Tur wrote regarding this that from the wording of the Rosh it appears that it is obligated even though one did not sew it at all. Thus far his words. And his intention is: that it is obligated in the four corners as it is spread out (like the Rabbis in Menachot 41a who disagree with Rabbi Shimon who exempts). And even though from the words of the Rambam it is only explained that one does not make them on the fold, nevertheless it seemed to the Tur that if it entered your mind that the Rambam holds like the Rosh—he should have explained this. Therefore, he holds that the Rambam rules like Rabbi Shimon there, who exempts on the grounds that the tallit is not fit for him when it is spread out. And so wrote the Nimukei Yosef, see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, maintained that even according to Rabbi Shimon it is obligated in the four spread-out corners, and that the Rosh also holds so, see there. But our teacher, the Rema, in his book Darkhei Moshe, challenged him, because the phrasing "Rabbi Shimon exempts" implies that he exempts entirely. And see there that his words are not fully explained. Nevertheless, he also agreed to the law, that on its spread-out corners one is obligated in tzitzit, see there.

However, his words in the Shulchan Aruch, section 6, follow a different path. For our teacher, the Beit Yosef, transcribed the words of the Rambam, and he wrote regarding this that one must place them on the four simple corners. And afterwards he wrote: And some say that they are obligated even without sewing. And it is good to make tzitzit for it, but not to recite a blessing over it. Thus far his words, and his intention is that according to the "some say," it is obligated on its four doubled corners, for they interpret the Rabbanan as intending this and they ruled like the Rabbanan. And they hold that what the Tur wrote—that the Rosh would obligate even if he did not sew—refers to its doubled corners, and not like what we explained in the previous section. But it is a wondrous thing, for since in the Gemara there it is explicit that the Amoraim hold that one should not make them on the four doubled corners, see there—and if so, granted that the plain meaning of the Baraita implies that the Rabbanan obligate on the doubled ones, nevertheless, since the Amoraim rejected it, how is it possible to rule so? And the Rif and the Rosh transcribed the words of the Baraita and the words of the Amoraim and wrote nothing, see there. And the Nimukei Yosef ruled explicitly to the contrary, and so too the Rambam. If so, from where do we have it that the Rosh disagrees in this? And if because of the words of the Tur, is it not better to slightly force his wording and say that his intention is regarding its simple corners, as I wrote in the previous section? And he holds that according to the Rambam even on the simple ones it is exempt, as the Nimukei Yosef wrote. But to say something against the ruling of the Amoraim is a wondrous matter. And it requires great study. (And furthermore: the main point is missing, and he should have explained that the obligation is on the doubled ones. And also the Magen Avraham, subsection 7, raised a difficulty: for how is it possible to fulfill all opinions, since according to the Rambam the obligation is on the simple ones, and according to the Rosh on the doubled ones? See there. Therefore it appears in my humble opinion that there is an error here, and the first gloss was printed in error. And so it is implied from the Levush who did not bring it. And the intention of the "some say" is regarding the simple ones, and so it is implied in the Taz, subsection 8, for if not so, his words are not understood? See there. And according to this everything is settled well, as I wrote in the previous section. And as for what the Taz and the Magen Avraham distinguished between the interpretation of the Nimukei Yosef and the interpretation of Rashi, see Taz subsection 7. And the Magen Avraham there is not compelling, see there carefully. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

And that which they wrote, "unless he sewed it entirely even from one side," it appears that this is its explanation: he sewed it entirely from the top of the garment until its end, but all of it only on one side, and that is opposite the side of the fold, for in this case it will not spread further, as is understood. And I saw one who explained that the sewing is on all sides, and that which they wrote "from one side" is that their intention was a weak sewing (Mishnah Berurah). And it is not at all clear, and the language does not imply so. (And so it is explained by our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, see there.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: If one folded the corners of his tallit and tied them or sewed them, and it appears as if he rounded them and it has no corners—nevertheless, it is not exempt. Thus far his words. That is to say: that he raised the corners and wrapped them in a circle to nullify them from being corners. And if he had cut them in such a manner—it would certainly be exempt, as I wrote in section 4. But by tying them or even sewing them—it is not effective. And even though it was explained regarding folding it in two and sewing it that it is effective—it is not comparable, for there it is the normal way to fold it in two. But to fold the edges—it is not the way of the world, and therefore we judge it as if it is not wrapped (so wrote the Mordechai). Therefore, here he makes the tzitzit as before, because he will eventually return the corners to their original state. And according to this, even if he folded them not in a circle but diagonally—the law is also such, that he makes the tzitzit on the original place. But the Tosafot (37b, starting with "Hai") wrote that in such a manner sewing is effective, and he places the tzitzit on the fold, see there. And it must be said according to their words that this case of a circle, sewing is not effective, and it is not comparable to folding it in two because to nullify the mitzvah of tzitzit, sewing is not effective. Therefore, when he does not nullify it, such as when he folded them diagonally so that corners remain—sewing is effective. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 4, and as he wrote in the Machatzit HaShekel. And in vain did the Artzot HaChaim wonder about him. And this law is a dispute between the Tosafot and the Mordechai, and in folding it in two, certainly tying is not effective, only sewing. And the author of the Mishnah Berurah wrote that if he tucked the edge of the garment inside and sewed it, until the fold is not visible at all from above, in the way that tailors do—it is certainly effective, see there. And it is correct. Nevertheless, it seems to me that to do so in a circle and exempt it from tzitzit—is not effective according to the opinion of the Tosafot that we explained. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

Leather is not a garment, for regarding the laws of impurity it is written: "either a garment or leather." Therefore, even if one sewed it like a garment—it is nothing. And our sages, of blessed memory, said (41a): If the garment is of cloth and its corners are of leather—it is obligated. If the garment is of leather and its corners are of cloth—it is exempt. For we follow the primary part of the garment and not the corners, even though the tzitzit are placed in them, as it is written: "with which you cover yourself"—and behold, one covers oneself with the primary part of the garment, not with the corners. And so too regarding the body of the garment, if the majority is cloth and the minority is leather—it is obligated in tzitzit, and if the majority is leather and the minority is cloth—it is exempt. And if the leather is the lining of the garment which is called "unter-shlak"—we do not follow it, for we always follow the upper part of the garment which is the primary part (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). However, when one made the leather for reinforcement, such as if he sewed leather around the holes or at the edges—we have no concern with it at all. And not only because it is a minority of the garment, but because anything made for reinforcement is like the garment. (And therefore Rashi wrote there: "and its corners are of leather," that he cut the corners, see there. And he should have said that the leather is above, but in such a case it would be for reinforcement. And even according to the one in the Gemara who follows the corner—it is nothing. And so wrote the Beit Yosef at the end of siman 11. And this is the intent of the Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 5, and see Machatzit HaShekel. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

It is written: "And they shall make for themselves tzitzit on the corners of their garments." Therefore, it is necessary that when one begins to attach the tzitzit, all four corners of the garment must be prepared in their entirety. But when they are not prepared, such as if the garment has three corners and he attached three tzitzit to it, and afterward he made a fourth corner for it and attached the fourth tzitzit to it—all the tzitzit are invalid. And he must undo them, and remove the tzitzit from there, and return and attach them. And this invalidation is called in the Gemara "ta'aseh v'lo min he'asui." That is to say: make the tzitzit while the garment is in its state of four corners, for then it is obligated in tzitzit, and not that the tzitzit be made in a state of invalidity when there was not yet an obligation upon the garment. And so too, whenever the tzitzit were made in a state of invalidity when he attached them to the garment, whatever invalidity it may be—it is of no avail to validate them afterward, since they were made in a state of invalidity. And many laws will be further explained regarding this invalidation, and the intent is as I have written.

The general rule of the matter: if one even attached only one tzitzit in a state of disqualification, and even if he did not attach it in its entirety but rather tied the upper knot in a state of disqualification, and afterward completed the four corners, or if he removed the other disqualification that was upon it and finished this tzitzit and another three tzitzit—they are all disqualified, until he removes the one tzitzit that was made in a state of disqualification and returns and makes it in a state of fitness. However, when he repaired this, even though he repaired it after he attached the other three—it is of no concern to us, for the three were made in a state of fitness. And there is one who disqualifies even in such a case, but there is no reason for the matter (Magen Avraham, subsection 6).

One who placed tzitzit upon tzitzit, meaning there was a garment with valid tzitzit and he made another four tzitzit on the four corners, the Rambam wrote in chapter 1, law 15: One who placed tzitzit upon tzitzit, if he intended to nullify the first ones—he unties the first or cuts it, and it is valid. But if he intended to add, even though he cut one of the two—it is invalid. For when he added, he invalidated everything, and when he untied or cut the addition—it turns out the remainder was made from that which was already made, as its initial making was invalid. Thus far his words. (And this ruling is according to his commentary in Menachot 40b regarding that of Rava, Rava, and Rav Papa, as the Beit Yosef and the Taz, subsection 9, wrote; see there.)

However, the essence of the matter is puzzling: for how can he disqualify the first tzitzit that were made in a fit manner, based on the fact that he adds more tzitzit and violates "do not add"? For the first ones stand on their own, and this one stands alone, and that one stands alone, as we say at the end of the chapter "HaNenekhin" (Sanhedrin 88b). And this is the intent of the Ra'avad in the glosses, and the commentators did not respond to this at all. But the truth is that the Rambam follows his own reasoning in the seventh chapter of Lulav, that if one added another etrog or lulav—it is disqualified. And there too the Ra'avad challenged him for the reason that has been explained. And it must be said that the Rambam holds that this "stands alone..." is only when adding a different species, for since it is not its species it does not ruin it when it stands on its own, but not regarding its own species. And the Ran wrote this reasoning there, and the Mordekhai in the name of the Rash in the laws of tzitzit (and so wrote the Artzot HaChaim). But in truth, regarding lulav there, they wrote that the Rambam retracted at the end of his days, and he holds that even regarding its own species we say "this stands alone...", and he commanded to emend there that if one added—he did not disqualify (Kessef Mishneh there). And here we have not found that he retracted. And it seems to my humble opinion that here he did not retract, for here, where on this garment two types of tzitzit are made—it is properly "do not add" and they are disqualified. For the reasoning of "this stands alone" is only regarding lulav if it does not require binding, as they are not connected to one another. And so too regarding tzitzit when it does not require an upper knot by Torah law, regarding which they said this reasoning in the Gemara there. But according to what we maintain that it requires an upper knot, and he made on this garment two types of tzitzit, and behold the Torah said one tzitzit and not two tzitzit, and consequently the garment is disqualified and it is forbidden to wear it. (And the Artzot HaChaim labored over this in a distant way, see there. And to me it seems as I have written. And it seems to me that this is the intent of the Mordekhai, see there. And be precise and you will find it simple.)

But the Tur wrote: If it had four tzitzit on its four corners, and he made others for it and cut the first ones—they are kosher with the latter ones. Thus far his words. And even if he intended to add, and all the more so if he cut the latter ones, they are kosher with the first ones. And from Rashi there it is implied that the first ones are always kosher even if he did not cut the latter ones, and nevertheless they did not rule accordingly. And these are the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 6, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled like the Rambam, and he wrote: And there are those who permit in every case and such is the primary ruling. And before he cut the first ones—it is invalid in every case. Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of the Tur, and this is its explanation: And there are those who permit in every case, whether he cut the first ones and the latter ones remained, or whether he cut the latter ones and the first ones remained. And whether he intended to nullify or whether he intended to add there is no difference, for if he only cut one of them—the others were made kosher. And before he cut one of them—it is invalid in every case. And that which he took the term "the first ones" is because he is dealing with cutting these, but there is no practical difference, and as I have written, there is no reason to differentiate between them. (And so wrote the Magen Avraham, subsection 9. And according to the Rambam the first ones were always invalidated, for he invalidated them by the making of the latter ones, and as the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 8. And the words of the Taz, subsection 9, require further study.)

And know that the early authorities asked great questions regarding the garments that we wear, why we do not make tzitzit for them, such as our upper garment which has four corners. However, they are all on one side, meaning: that two corners are near the neck and two are toward the bottom. And it is true that when there is a piece of cloth attached behind it which is called a "collar," even though its edges are square, nevertheless, since these two corners of the collar are not aligned opposite the two corners in front of it which are below near the ground, and the collar is above – this is not a garment of four corners, for they must be opposite one another (Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham at the end of this siman). But without a collar – seemingly they would be obligated in tzitzit. However, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote at the end of this siman, and this is their wording: The garments in Egypt called "jukhas"..., even though they have four corners – they are exempt. And the same law applies to the garments of the regions of the people of Ashkenaz and Sefarad; since their corners are not made so that two are in front of them and two are behind them aligned one opposite the other – they are exempt. Thus far their words. And even though it is written plainly in the Torah "the corners of their garments," nevertheless, their garments were such that they were like our tallitot, which is called a "sudar" in the language of the Gemara, and they would wrap themselves in it. And so it is in the Midrash, that Gabriel proclaimed at the time of the splitting of the Reed Sea: Be careful with those who carry two tzitzit behind them (see Taz subsection 10). And even though the Torah had not yet been given, did not the Patriarchs fulfill the Torah before it was given, and bequeathed it to their children after them.

And this is the answer regarding the upper garments. But the lower garment called a "surtout" or "frock," which are open from their front and from their back, and have four corners aligned one against the other—why do we not make tzitzit for them? And they already asked the Rashba about this in his Responsa, siman 434, and this is his wording: What you asked regarding the garment called a "gonella" that they cut from its front and from its back... it is not called a garment of four corners except for cloaks that are entirely open... but garments that are sewn and joined at the top—these are not a garment of four corners. And such was the custom... Thus far his words. And from its plain meaning, it appears that anything joined at the top is not a garment of four corners. And several great figures in the days of the Maharik held this view. But the Maharik in Shoresh 149 disagreed with them, for his intention was specifically when the majority of the garment is joined. But when its majority is open and its minority is closed—it is obligated in tzitzit. And he wrote that the teacher Meir of Rothenburg and the Rash wrote accordingly, see there.

Based on this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: Garments that are open from the sides at the bottom, and have four corners at the bottom side but are closed at the top, if the majority is closed – it is exempt, and if the majority is open – it is obligated. And if half is closed and half is open – we cast it toward the stringency and it is obligated in tzitzit, but one may not go out in it on Shabbat. Thus far his words. And even to a karmelit one may not go out in it, for ab initio it is forbidden in a case of doubt even regarding a rabbinic prohibition (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). And it is simple that one does not recite a blessing over it (ibid.). And if the majority was closed and he made tzitzit on it, and afterward he opened it until the majority was open – the tzitzit are invalid because of "you shall make, and not from that which is already made" (ibid., subsection 10). And according to this, one must be careful regarding those who wear a tallit katan that has armholes, meaning that from above they are closed on the sides and they leave a space there to insert the hands, that the majority should be open, specifically the majority of the length of the tallit. And the place of entry for the hands is not included in the calculation.

And behold, according to this, our surduton, when they are somewhat long, most of them are open, and nevertheless we do not place tzitzit on them. And those who are meticulous sew them from behind. And it appears to me that the world relies on the plain meaning of the words of the Rashba that we brought in section 16, that as long as they are joined at the top—this is not a garment of four corners. For indeed, the explanation of the Maharik is puzzling, for if his intention was specifically when most of it is closed, how did he not mention the main point? And it further appears to me that even according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, since our garments are completely open from the front, and when the garment is spread out, the four corners are all from the upper and lower edges in front of him, and these are exempt because at the top it is rounded, as is known. And these four corners that are in front of him and behind him, when he is wearing it, they are in the middle of the garment when it is spread out. And it turns out that this is not the four corners that are obligated in tzitzit, and it is like the law that was explained in section 5.

It further seems to me a permission based on what was written in the responsa of Maharam of Rothenburg (siman 287), and this is his wording: And those talitot made like a kind of capron, I heard that these are the talitot of the pious of Ashkenaz. And it has four corners, and when he removes it from upon him, he spreads them out and covers himself with it. And some say that it is not called "talitot" except for those like ours, which are made to wrap oneself in and to cover oneself, as it is written "your covering," and we recite the blessing "to wrap oneself." And I am careful not to wear them, to remove myself from doubt. But that kottush which has a sleeve—it is not similar at all, and there is no concern here, for their corner is not a corner. Thus far his words (part of which the Magen Avraham cited in subsection 12). Behold, he wrote explicitly that those which have a sleeve, meaning that they clothe the arm, which they call arbel—are certainly exempt from tzitzit. And if so, our surdutin—behold they have sleeves. (And according to the opinion of the "some say," there is no obligation of tzitzit for a garment that one wears on his body, but rather one that wraps his body and covers it. And therefore it is written "your covering" and not "your garment." And this applies only to our talitot.)

It is taught in the Sifrei on Parshat "Teitzei" (Piska 234): "Your garment" – excluding a sheet. "You cover" – excluding a sagos. "With it" – excluding a ma'aforet with which one does not cover his head and the majority of his body. Thus far his words. And it seems to me that this is the explanation: Excluding a sheet that is on the bed or that one covers himself with at the time of sleep, even when sleeping during the day, because the Torah only obligated an enwrapment. Therefore, our "koldres" that they cover their bodies with at the time of sleep are exempt for two reasons: one, because it is a garment of the night, and second, because it is not the manner of enwrapment. And excluding a sagos because it is a thick garment, as we learned in the fifteenth chapter of Ohalot: a thick sagos. And it is not included in the category of a garment. And excluding a ma'aforet – there is a ma'aforet with which they enwrap the head, as we learned in the twenty-ninth chapter of Kelim. And the Bartenura explained: a kerchief with which they enwrap the head, see there. And in Shabbat (9b) they said: from when he removes his ma'aforet from him. And Rashi explained: his kerchief is the first of the stripping of his garments. Thus far his words, implying that it is an upper garment. And in any event, we learned from the Sifrei that anything with which one does not cover his head and the majority of his body is exempt from tzitzit. And according to this, our garments are exempt for another reason, for behold, one does not cover his head with them. And this is according to the opinion of the poskim that without covering the head, one is not obligated in tzitzit, as I wrote in siman 8, section 4, see there. And there we brought in the name of the Nimukei Yosef that it is not so, see there. But from this Sifrei it implies so, and it requires further study. However, according to these opinions, an additional permit is added to our garments.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: A capa that is open in a manner that it has four corners, if they fix an astringa to it to make it as if it were closed in order to exempt it from tzitzit – this repair is not effective unless it is fixed from half its length and downward at the very least, and also that it be fixed below the belt so that the majority of the closure will be the majority visible to the eyes. For if not so – it will be prohibited due to marit ayin. Thus far his words. And it appears that the astringa is a permanent connection that connects side to side forever, for if it is merely like loops that one ties and unties constantly – this is not a closure. And that which he wrote "from half its length and downward" – is not exact, and his intention is: a little more, since we require a majority to be closed. However, that which he wrote that it be fixed below the belt – is not understood, for since it is fixed from half its length and downward, it is automatically below the belt. Therefore, one must say that his intention "from half its length and downward" means from the top until half its length and a little downward, so that it will be a majority closed. And regarding this he said that if the belt is below this measure – the astringa must extend until below the belt, so that everyone will see the closure. (And the connection of hooks is not a connection unless they are bent significantly. And even though the Magen Avraham in subsection 12 was concerned for marit ayin even with ordinary hooks, the later authorities disagreed with him. And it appears that even when it is connected with a complete connection by means of sewing – it must also extend until below the belt. And there are those who are uncertain about this, but to me it appears as I have written.)

He further wrote: A mitznefet is exempt. Even those of the Western lands whose two ends are cast over their shoulders and their bodies, even though his head and the majority of his body are covered by it—it is exempt since its primary purpose is to cover the head. For the Merciful One said "your garment," and not a head covering. And a sudar that they place on the neck in the kingdom of Eretz Yisrael which is called in Arabic a "shid," and likewise the "buka" that they used to place in Spain on their shoulders—they are exempt. Thus far his words. Because their primary use is not for the benefit of covering but for a utility, to tie money in it (Beit Yosef). And silk scarves that they fold and wear on the neck are exempt, even though they have four corners, for it serves only the neck and not the body. But if he wraps his body in a large scarf and goes out into the marketplace in it—it is obligated in tzitzit. Therefore, he should make one corner rounded, as it has already been explained that the corners must be square and not rounded. However, there must be some extent to the rounding, at least three tefachim in the length of the circumference of the rounding, for it is not logical to say that with a minimal rounding at its edge the status of a corner would be nullified from it, as I wrote at the end of section 4.