Siman 11

The tzitzit strings must be spun and twisted, meaning that one twists several thin threads with one another and they all become one string. As it is brought in the Sifrei: "A thread of tekhelet" — spun and twisted; I only have tekhelet, from where do we derive white? You may reason: Since the Torah said "place tekhelet" and "place white," just as tekhelet is spun and twisted, so too white is spun and twisted. Thus far the wording of the Sifrei. For "thread" implies that several strings are twisted together, as it is a term of connection as it is written: "With divine wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister." And there is no measure for the twisting: there are those who twist four together, and there are those who double it to eight and maintain this as a beautification. However, two are indispensable, and two are sufficient for they are twisted. (And in the priestly garments, their string was six-fold and the twisted was eight-fold, as it is brought at the end of the seventh chapter of Yoma. And perhaps because of this they maintain eight-fold as a beautification, because of the term "twisted" in the Sifrei. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

It is implied from the language of the Sifrei that spinning and twisting have the same law. If so, just as spinning requires "for its name" as will be explained, and if not it is invalid—so too with twisting. There are some among the poskim who wrote thus (Nimukei Yosef and Magen Avraham subsection 3). However, the Rambam did not require twisting at all for tzitzit. This is his wording in the first chapter, law 10: Whether the white threads or the tekhelet threads, if one wished to make them twisted—he may do so. And even if the thread was doubled from eight threads, and twisted until it became one cord—it is considered only one thread. Thus far his words. It appears to me from his language that he interprets the Sifrei as also permitting twisted threads. That is to say: so that we should not say there are many more threads than the required measure, for it is not so, as they are all considered one thread. And even though in Eruvin (96b) it is explicitly implied that the threads of tzitzit are twisted, see there—certainly it is so, for they would do so because of hiddur but not because of obligation (see Beit Yosef). It appears to me there is a proof for his words from Yoma (72a), which expounded: "And he cut cords," "cord," "cords"—behold there are four. That is to say: "cord" is one, "cords" is two, and he cut them—behold there are four. It is evident that a cord is only one and not twisted, for regarding this matter we say so there, see there. (And the Ra'avad disagreed with him. And his response to the sages of Lunel that the Kesef Mishneh brought is not sufficient at all, and therefore they rejected his words. But according to what I have written, it works out well. And examine and you will find it easy.)

Most of the poskim disagree with him, and they hold that being twisted is indispensable. However, regarding the matter of "lishmah," it is implied even from the language of the Tur that only spinning is indispensable for their sake and not twisting, as he wrote: And they shall be spun for the sake of tzitzit. But if they were not spun for their sake—they are invalid. And they must be twisted. Thus far his words. And it is explicitly implied that regarding twisting, "lishmah" is not indispensable. And it appears more likely that since the twisting occurs after the spinning, and since he spun each thread for its sake—consequently the twisting is as if it were "lishmah," for he acts based on the original intent. And there are some of the later authorities who are lenient post facto even without twisting at all (Pri Megadim in the name of the N.T., and Eliyah Rabbah and Sha'arei Teshuvah subsection 2). And it requires further study, since most of the poskim disagree on this. However, this is certainly true regarding when he did not twist them for their sake, one may certainly rely on the reason that I have written.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that there are those who are stringent even to comb them lishmah. However, the custom is to be lenient regarding combing. Thus far his words. And certainly, even those who are stringent do not mean from the essential law, as is proven from the wording of the Mordechai who wrote: The Maharam wrote that one should be stringent to comb the wool of tzitzit lishmah, see there – behold, he wrote it as a mere stringency. For by the law it is certainly impossible, as combing is nothing more than removing the waste. And the Maharal of Prague said that since it is written "You shall make for yourself twisted cords" next to "You shall not wear shaatnez," and shaatnez is shua, tavui, and nuz – therefore also in shua, which is combing, one requires "lishmah" (Derisha). Therefore, it is certainly proper to be careful in this.

How is the spinning performed lishmah? One must say at the beginning of the spinning that it is for the sake of tzitzit. And if a woman is spinning, he should say to her: Spin for me tzitzit for a tallit. And all the more so when she herself says so. And when he has said so, even if he did not finish the spinning now but left it for the next day – we say that he acts based on the original intent. But if he only said so at the end of the spinning or in the middle of the spinning – it is pasul. And we do not say regarding this: "the end proves the beginning," for there is no unusual action here, but rather spinning like all other spinnings, and how can we say that his intention was for the sake of tzitzit without any revelation of intent at the time of the act? And we have already explained in Yoreh Deah siman 271, section 11, that in a spiritual matter such as bringing something down into holiness, the primary factor is at the beginning of the act, see there. And there it was explained that one of the early authorities was in doubt whether in every matter of lishmah we specifically require speech or if mere thought is sufficient. And from the wording of the Rosh there it implies explicitly that it is effective, as he wrote: It is good that he should express it with his lips, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: If a Kuti spun them, and an Israelite stands over him and says that he should do it for their sake—according to the Rambam it is pasul, according to the Rosh it is kosher. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And we are accustomed that the Israelite assists a little, as is found below in siman 32 and in Yoreh Deah siman 271 regarding tefillin and a Sefer Torah. Thus far his words. And I wonder at this: what comparison is there to the tanning of leather for its sake? For it is well understood regarding leather, when the Israelite assists a little in the tanning and says that he is doing it for its sake—behold, there is in this leather tanning for its sake. But in the spinning of tzitzit, what benefit is there in assisting a little for what he will spin afterward? Since according to the Rambam a star-worshiper acts with his own intent, behold, what he spins afterward is not for its sake. And also according to the Rosh, there is no proof from tanning, which lasts a short time and we say that he acts according to the intent of the Israelite, to spinning, which lasts a long time. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it is difficult to rely on this law, and so I found among the great ones who doubted this law. And if a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor spun them—they are pasul. But if an Israelite stands over them and teaches them to do it for its sake—it is kosher. (The Magen Avraham, subsection 2, wrote that it depends on the dispute in siman 460, and there we hold to be lenient as the HaGra"z wrote in the Kuntres Acharon. And so he ruled there in the Shulchan Aruch.)

Since tzitzit specifically require that they be made for their own sake, therefore one who finds threads in the marketplace, even if they are twisted and cut, they are invalid. We do not say that they were certainly made for the sake of tzitzit, for perhaps he exerted himself for the sake of mere threads. Thus the Rambam ruled in the second chapter regarding tekhelet. However, he retracted and validated them when they are twisted and cut, as I wrote above in siman 9, section 11; see there. Nevertheless, regarding white threads, one should not validate them. For specifically regarding tekhelet one can say that he would not exert himself so much if not for the sake of tzitzit. But regarding white threads, it is forbidden. Thus wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book at the end of siman 20; see there. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham in subsection 1, and he was brief as is his way; see there.)

It has already been explained that they require twisting. Therefore, if the strings became unraveled from their twisting, if they were initially twisted with each string consisting of only two thin threads, and all eight strings unraveled and became sixteen—they are pasul since the twisting has been nullified, unless we rely on the Rambam that twisting is not a requirement. And if there remained of them enough to form a loop in their twisted state—it is obvious that they are kosher. And even though in siman 12 it will be explained regarding a case where all of them were severed that some say enough to form a loop does not avail, yet in this case one may join the opinion of the Rambam that it is not a requirement (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And similarly, if only one string unraveled from its twisting—we have no concern with it. And similarly, if they were twisted from three or four thin threads or more, and they unraveled slightly—there is also no concern, for in any event they remain twisted with two. And there is no concern of "bal tosif" in this that he adds to the eight strings, for he did not do this intentionally, and even now he does not intend for this at all. And I saw one who wrote that if he goes back and twists them—it is "make it and not from that which is already made" and they are pasul (Mishnah Berurah). And I say that regarding this matter one may certainly rely on the Rambam that they were not disqualified at all by this. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that ideally it is good to tie the strings at the bottom. Thus far his words. That is to say: and by this they will not unravel from their twisting. And this is not adding to the knots, for it is evident that his intention is not for the sake of a knot but rather so that they do not unravel. And see in section 18.

The mitzvah of tzitzit is to take four long strings and insert them into the corner of the tallit. When he draws them through the hole in the corner, they will be eight strings, and he ties them with two knots above near the corner. Afterward, he winds one string of the eight strings—which he makes longer than all of them—and winds it over the remaining seven for a portion of the string. This is what is called "gedil," meaning: that he braids them together. The rest of the strings from the gedil and below are called "patil," for patil is when each string is on its own, as Onkelos translated regarding "patil tekhelet": "the string of tekhelet." How much is gedil and how much is patil will be explained before us. And so he does in each and every corner of the four corners. In the time when there was tekhelet, there were two strings of white, either of wool or of linen, and two strings of tekhelet. According to the Rambam, there were three strings of white and one of tekhelet, and he would wind with it. Now that we do not have tekhelet—all four strings are white. This is the essence of tzitzit.

And all this is explicit in the Torah, as it is written: "You shall make for yourself twisted cords, upon the four...", "cord" – two, "cords" – four. Make a cord and twist it from within it (Yevamot 5b), for less than two cannot be called a "cord," as there is no connection with less than two. And it is written: "cords" – behold there are four threads here. And it is written: "upon the four corners of your garment" – behold there are four threads on each corner. And when one doubles them – behold there are eight. And the Torah said: Make a cord and twist it from within it, so that there shall be hanging fringes, meaning threads. That he should not make it entirely a cord, but rather part cord and part branch (Rashi). And this is the "fringe" mentioned in the parsha of tzitzit. And from this it is explained that part of the threads shall be a cord and part shall be a fringe. And by the law of the Torah there is no hindrance as to how much shall be cord and how much fringe. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said in Menachot (39a): If he wound the majority of it – it is kosher. And conversely, even if he did not wind in it but a single link – it is kosher. However, the beauty of the tzitzit is that it should be one-third cord and two-thirds branch. (And the Gemara said: the beauty of tekhelet, see there. And now it is the beauty of the white, of course.)

And how much is the length of the strings when they are doubled? Our sages, of blessed memory, said in Menachot (41b): four fingers of the thumb. That is to say: four thumb-breadths. And in width: the place of the thumb. Rashi explained that this refers to the hanging fringe, which is to say, the petil. And since the gadil is one-third—the gadil must be two thumb-breadths, and in total six thumb-breadths. The Rambam in the first chapter explained that this refers to the total, that the gadil and the fringe together are only four thumb-breadths, and of this, two-thirds are fringe and one-third is gadil. But Rabbeinu Tam explained that this refers to the gadil, that it should be four thumb-breadths and the fringe eight, and in total twelve thumb-breadths. Many of the poskim agreed with his explanation, and such is the custom. And know that this entire measure is apart from the part placed upon the corner; rather, below the corner one requires this measure. And it is permitted for it to be longer than this measure. And there is no mitzvah in this, and it is permitted to cut the excess even after the tzitzit were made, for there is no issue of "you shall make, and not from that which is already made" since there is no disqualification in this. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said there: they have no maximum measure. But they have a minimum measure, and it is the measure that has been explained. (And that which it says there: tzitzit is only "anything"—requires some study. For even though the Tosafot wrote in Shabbat (63b) in the heading starting "Arig" that even "anything" has some measure, see there—nevertheless, how is it relevant to say "anything" regarding a length of many thumb-breadths? And Rashi explained that it refers to the remnants, and it requires study—for even for this there is a measure of "enough to make a loop." Furthermore: if so, why should the Gemara provide another answer? And the thumb is measured by that of an average man. And be precise and you will find it easy.) (And this is like the length of two barleycorns.)

And it has already been explained that one makes one long thread to wrap the gadil with it. And if he does not have a long thread—he should wrap a little from this thread, and afterwards from another thread, and so on further. And he should not wrap from only one, for if so, this thread will be shortened significantly. And in the time of tekhelet they would wrap thus, some wrappings from tekhelet and some from white, as is explained in the Rambam. (And know that in all our editions of the Shulchan Aruch, a gloss was printed in section 4 after "the gadil," and this is its wording: This is the part of the tzitzit that is not woven. Thus far its words. And this has no meaning. And the truth is that an error occurred, and thus it must say: which is made like a weaving. That is to say: that the gadil is made like a weaving by means of wrapping the thread upon it. And because in the Shulchan Aruch the word "gadil" had not yet been explained, and also in section 11 there is "gadil" referring to another intention, see there—therefore it explained it.)

It is written, "You shall make for yourself twisted cords upon the four corners..." and it is also written, "and they shall place upon the tzitzit of the corner." From this it is clear that one must place the tzitzit on the corner of the garment and not in the middle of the garment. And it is not called a "corner" higher than three thumb-breadths from the end of the garment. Therefore, one must be careful not to make the holes into which one inserts the threads of the tzitzit higher than three thumb-breadths. This is a requirement even ex post facto, because it is not called a "corner." And if after making them higher than this measure, one cut the edge of the garment from below until they were situated within three thumb-breadths—they are invalid because of the rule "You shall make, and not from that which is already made" (Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And even if one made a single tzitzit higher than three—it is invalid. One must untie the tzitzit and make the hole lower than three, and afterwards place the tzitzit.

And just as it is forbidden to make them higher than three, so too one must not make them at the very edge of the corner, for it is written "upon" the corner and not "below" the corner. And "upon" the corner is called the measurement of the thumb joint, which is from its middle until the end of the entire nail. And this too is an absolute requirement even post facto, except that in this there is a leniency: that if at the time of making it was higher than the thumb joint as I have written, and afterwards it tore within the hole until the tzitzit hangs below the joint—it is kosher (Gemara ibid. 42a). For the Torah was only particular regarding the time of making, as it is written: "And they shall make for themselves tzitzit upon the corners...", "Gedilim you shall make for yourself upon the four corners...". And after the making—we have no concern with it. And this law is found not only regarding below the thumb [joint] but also regarding above three thumb-breadths, for the tzitzit does not rise higher, as is understood. And so too when one made it higher than the thumb joint, and the warp threads of the garment were detached until now it has become lower than the thumb joint—it is also kosher for the reason that has been explained, for the requirement is only at the time of making. Therefore, it is customary to make a border around the hole, which is to sew the edge well so that it will not tear there, and become less than the measurement. And even though there is no invalidation in this as I have written, nevertheless, this is not a beautification of the commandment. And so too they were accustomed to make a border at the edge of the garment below, so that the warp threads would not be detached. And know that one measures the three thumb-breadths and the thumb joint from the edge of the garment straight, and not from the corner diagonally.

The opinion of the Tur is that this measurement applies only to the length of the tallit and not to its width, for in the width of the garment one may place them even close to its edge. However, there are great authorities who wrote that even for the width we require these measurements (see Beit Yosef), and so our teacher, the Beit Yosef, decided in section 10, see there. And the "length" is called such relative to the width of the person, for this is the wrapping around the body. This is the length, and the "width" is relative to the height of the person (Magen Avraham, subsection 16). And it seems to me that this applies to a tallit gadol that one wraps oneself in, but in a tallit katan, the length is relative to the length of the person and the width is relative to his width. However, regarding the law there is no practical difference, since this measurement applies both to the length and to the width, and the measurement of the thumb joint is close to two thumb-breadths (the HaGra"z).

The custom of the makers of tallitot is to leave at the edge weft without warp, and in our language it is called shliak, and in the language of the early authorities it is called orillaio. And it is not part of the garment, and even if it is very wide – one should not place the tzitzit in it. And if he placed it in it – it is invalid, for "on the corners of their garments" is written, and this is not part of the garment. Nevertheless, since it is the way of the weavers to do so – it is considered part of the garment regarding this matter, that it enters into the calculation of the three thumb-breadths and the thumb-breadth knot, since the hole is within the garment. And there is no clear permission in this, and therefore it is better that the thumb-breadth knot be without it, and regarding the three thumb-breadths it shall also be considered. And if it is very wide – he should cut it off entirely at the place of the corners. And so we practice, for in this we have removed ourselves from all doubt. And so too a place where protrusions emerge from the tallit, warp without weft or weft without warp – he should cut this off entirely at the place of the corners. (And see Magen Avraham subsection 17, and Taz subsection 12. And in the Shulchan Aruch section 11 he calls this a gedil, see there. And I do not know the reason.)

It has already been explained that the number of tzitzit strings in each corner is four doubled, which are eight. And if one added, it is invalid. And if the strings are not yet cut into four strings, one should be careful ab initio to cut them into four strings before inserting them into the hole of the corner, and afterwards insert them into the corner and double them and they will be eight. However, if one inserted them before cutting them, this is not invalid, for there is not yet an act of tzitzit here. But in any case, one should be careful that if one inserted them into the hole when they were not cut, that one should cut them into eight before making the knot and before the windings. For if one wound even one hulyah, which is one part of the windings from that which is between knot and knot, and knotted them even with one knot, they are invalidated even if one cut them afterwards because of "you shall make, and not from that which is already made," for one made them in a state of invalidity. And so too even if one did not wind at all but rather knotted them with two knots, they are invalidated because of "you shall make, and not from that which is already made." (And those who make two holes as will be explained—it is invalidated even with one knot that can endure.)

The eight strands he shall divide with his hand, four on this side and four on this side, and tie twice, one on top of the other. Afterward, he shall wind the long strand around the seven strands for a number of windings, and tie twice, one on top of the other. He repeats the winding and tying until he completes five double knots and four spaces between them, and the spaces are filled with windings. According to the law, there is no fixed measure for the windings and the knots. Even if he wound the majority of the strands, or if he wound only one hulyah—it is kosher. Only when he wound the entire length is it pasul, for there is no "petil." However, for the beauty and hiddur of the mitzvah, there should be one-third gadil and two-thirds petil, meaning the gadil is four thumb-breadths and the petil is eight thumb-breadths, according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam as was explained in section 11. The custom is to wind seven complete windings in the first hulyah, eight in the second, eleven in the third, and thirteen in the fourth, corresponding to the numerical value of "Hashem Echad." It is proper that between each knot there should be the width of a thumb, and that all the hulyot should be equal. Therefore, in the first hulyah he should space them out slightly, and in the fourth he should bring them very close together in order to make them equal. It has already been explained that there are those who tie each strand at its end so that the twisting does not unravel. This is not considered as adding to the knots. There are those who are meticulous because of "adding" and do not do this (Levush and Magen Avraham, subsection 23). And so we practice, for ours are twisted well and do not unravel.

One should not hang the tzitzit downward toward the ground, but rather on the side of the corner, as it is said: "on the corners of their garments"—that it should hang over the corner (and this is the intention of the Shulchan Aruch in section 15). Therefore, it is proper that when one ties the upper knot, he should tie it attached to the side of the corner so that it will hold there and not fall downward. And even though through this the corner is slightly shriveled, and there will not be the length of a thumb's joint—we have no concern with it, for shriveling is nothing, since in its expansion it has the measure, as we follow the expansion. And so too the opposite: when it is higher than three thumb-breadths, it is pasul even though he shriveled it and it does not have three thumb-breadths, but since in its expansion it has [the measure], it is pasul. And know that there are those who say that one should not put anything in the holes of the tallit into which they insert the tzitzit, so that it should not be "above the above." And there are those who permit it, and so they practiced. And even to sew them with leather is permitted, since he does this only for mere strengthening. And one should not doubt this at all.

The simple custom is to make one hole in the tallit, and so it is explained by all the poskim. And there are those who make two holes one beside the other like a tzeirei, and insert through one and bring it out through the other. And this is the opinion of the Ittur. And the reason: for if not so, it appears like eight tzitzit, since the tzitzit are visible from this side and from that side. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book that one who comes to be stringent upon himself to do so—he is not of the stringent ones but rather of the eccentric ones, and it appears like yohara. Thus far his words. That is to say: that in the opinion of all the poskim there is nothing to this concern, for how is it relevant that they appear like eight since this is the way of their making? And furthermore: that it appears like yohara that he fulfills his obligation even according to a single opinion. And in truth this opinion is wondrous, for behold in the Gemara (42a) they said that it should hang over the corner, and with two holes it will not strike the corner, as is understood. And perforce one must explain that the intention is not on the edge of the corner, but rather that he should raise it above the end of the corner the width of a thumb. But the language implies explicitly "on the edge of the corner," for if not so, it should have said that he should raise it above the end of the corner. And also there is one who raised a difficulty that if so, according to the opinion of the Rambam regarding shaatnez—he would be liable even without a knot in such a case, as he wrote in the tenth chapter of Shaatnez. And in the Gemara (Menachot 39a) it is explained explicitly that there is no shaatnez in tzitzit until he stitches two stitches, that is to say: two knots. And even according to the Tur in Yoreh Deah siman 300 who disagrees with the Rambam, nevertheless he admits that with one stitch—he is liable in such a case (Magen Avraham subsection 13). And nevertheless there are those who say that in a tallit katan, which is under his clothes and there is no concern of yohara in this—it is proper to do so (Bach). And so wrote in Peri Etz Chaim, Shaar HaTzitzit, first chapter, that so practiced the Ari, of blessed memory, see there. But one of the greats of Sefarad (the Gaon Chida in Birkei Yosef) testified in the name of the son of Rabbi Chaim Vital, who was a preeminent student of the Ari, of blessed memory, that he did not practice so. And especially since it is not because of the concern of yohara alone that there is in this, but from the essential law there is a concern. And therefore we have never practiced this. And there are individuals who do so. And it requires further study. (And he wrote in Peri Etz Chaim there that when he divides in their winding four strings from the other four—they should be so until the end of their making: these four to this side and these to that side, see there. And it is proper to be careful in this.)

It is a mitzvah to make the tzitzit from good and choice wool, because of "This is my G-d and I will glorify Him." However, if one made them from the utterly inferior types, from which a garment is not made—they are completely invalid, for this is not a type of "corner." Therefore, the sages said (42a) that one may not make tzitzit from the wool that gets caught in thorns when the sheep lie among them, nor from the hairs that are plucked from the animal. Furthermore, there is a degradation of the mitzvah in this (see Magen Avraham, subsection 9). Likewise, it is forbidden to make them from the remnants of the warp that the weaver leaves at the end of the garment, because of the degradation of the mitzvah. And this is even if they were spun for the sake of tzitzit and afterwards he changed his mind to make a garment from them, for if not so, they would be invalid for the reason that they were not spun for their sake (Taz, subsection 4). And so too anything similar to this. And all of this is a requirement post facto.

If one stole wool and made tzitzit from them—they are invalid, as it is written: "And they shall make for themselves"—from their own. And similarly, if one stole a tallit and attached tzitzit to it—it is invalid even if the tzitzit are his, for the Merciful One said "your garment" (Pri Megadim) and not the garment of others. And similarly, if one bought a tallit or tzitzit, and the seller is "coming and going for the money" in a manner that they are not yet his according to what I wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 190—he also cannot recite a blessing over it (Mishnah Berurah). Unless it is known that they will not take it back from him, and he will wait for the money for a duration of time as is the way of merchants. And if he stole the tzitzit and attached them to his garment, and afterward he paid him or he gave them to him as a gift—it is permitted. And it is not relevant in this case to say "make, and not from that which is already made" regarding the invalidity, for this is not an invalidity of the body of the tzitzit but rather because they are not his, and now behold they are his. (The Mishnah Berurah is in doubt regarding this, but there is no doubt in this at all.)

And regarding this matter of one who stole wool and made it into tzitzit being invalid, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6 that this is specifically when he stole the threads. However, if he stole wool and made it into threads—they are valid. Nevertheless, ab initio it is forbidden to make them. And regarding the matter of the blessing, see the beginning of siman 649. Thus far his words. That is to say: that when he stole threads and made them into tzitzit—he does not acquire them even after despair, for there is neither a change of name nor a change of action. For there is no action here, as the windings and the knots are not called an action since it is easy to untie them, and there is no change of name, for even now they call this "tzitzit threads." But wool that he made into threads is a complete action and a complete change of name, and therefore even before despair—he acquires it according to the law of a change of action. And if it is a change that can return to its original state—this requires despair, for he acquires it through despair and a change of name, for originally it was wool and now it is threads. And the principles of these laws were explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 360 and 361, see there. And all this is regarding the matter of wearing, but it is forbidden to recite a blessing over it, even when he acquired it through a change, for this is not one who blesses but one who blasphemes.

The Rambam, chapter one, law 11, wrote: And one may not make them from stolen wool, nor from that of a city led astray, nor from consecrated property. And if he made them—it is invalid. Thus far his words, and it is clear from his wording that even if he stole wool and made it into tzitzit—it is invalid. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book wrote that this refers to before despair, see there. And certainly it is possible to say so. (And the Taz, subsection 5, questioned him: for if so, why do I need a verse, see there. And his words are puzzling. And in a sacrifice the Gemara asks this, for it is impossible to consecrate it. Examine and you will find it easy.) He further wrote that one could say that he holds it is a change that returns to its original state, and if so, even after despair it is not effective, see there. And this is impossible to say, for it has already been explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 361 that despair with an inferior change—acquires (Derisha and see Taz there). And there is one who wished to say that the Rambam holds that regarding a matter of a mitzvah, despair and change are not effective (Taz there). But the Maggid Mishneh in the sixth chapter of Chametz wrote explicitly to the contrary, see there. And in my humble opinion another reason appears in the Rambam, if his intention is even after despair as is implied by his wording. Because the beginning of the spinning must be for its sake as has been explained, and despair alone does not acquire. And if so, granted that after its spinning he acquired it through despair and change, nevertheless, how can "for its sake" take effect upon it when it is not yet his? And the "for its sake" will not take effect at all without the knowledge of the owner. (However, in any event, in practice it is difficult to be lenient against the opinion of the Rambam, as the Taz wrote there.)

Borrowed strings – it is a loan, as they do not return in their original state, and it is considered like his own. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7, meaning: even though every expression of "borrowing" applies to a thing where he returns that same thing itself, and a loan applies to a thing where this thing will not be returned to him but only another thing in its place, like a loan of money where he pays him back with other money, nevertheless, if he borrowed tzitzit strings from him – certainly his intention was for a loan. For if he were to return them in their original state, why did he borrow them, and what would he do with them? For if we say that he borrowed them to place them in his tallit for some time, and afterwards he would untie them from the tallit and return them to him – this is not the way of the world. Therefore, if he explicitly stipulated that he return them to him – he places them in his tallit and does not recite a blessing over them, as they are not his. And even though in siman 14 it will be explained that the opinion of the Rosh is that one who borrows a tallit with tzitzit recites a blessing over it immediately, nevertheless, it can be said that here he does not recite a blessing. For there we estimate the intention of the lender, that if he did not intend for a gift on condition of return so that he would be able to recite a blessing over it, for what did he lend it? But here we say that he lent them to place them in his tallit because it is forbidden to walk in a four-cornered tallit without tzitzit. Therefore, he lent them until he obtains tzitzit of his own, but he did not intend that he fulfill the obligation of tzitzit with it, but rather to remove the prohibition. For certainly, even though we require tzitzit of his own – this is for the fulfillment of the mitzvah. But the prohibition was removed from him. And according to this, it seems to me that even in a case of borrowing he may place them in his tallit, even if he spoke explicitly to return them to him. And some say that in such a case it is forbidden for him to place them in his tallit. And he distinguishes between tzitzit strings and prepared tzitzit, that with prepared ones – he is permitted to place them, and with tzitzit strings – it is forbidden (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). And these are puzzling words, for if so, for what did he borrow them? (And the Magen Avraham also holds that when he borrowed them to place in his tallit – he recites a blessing, see there. And in my humble opinion, it seems as I have written, that even in such a case it is not similar to borrowing a tallit with tzitzit. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: One who prostrates himself to an animal—its wool is invalid for tzitzit. One who prostrates himself to planted flax—it is valid for tzitzit, for it has been changed. Thus far his words, and this is from the words of the Rambam, see there. And the explanation of the matters: For even though we hold that a change acquires—this is regarding other transgressions, such as theft and the like. But wool or flax of prohibited benefit, and all the more so if one prostrated himself to them—no change in the world is effective. And everything made from this is prohibited for benefit (Rashi in Avodah Zarah 46a, starting with the words "Or"). However, it is known that if one prostrated himself to a living creature or to something attached to the ground—it is not prohibited for common use, only for the Most High, as it is written: "their gods upon the mountains"—and not the mountains themselves as gods (ibid. 45a). And also living creatures are only prohibited for the Most High and not for common use (beginning of the sixth chapter of Temurah). And according to this, by the letter of the law, whether one prostrates himself to an animal or to planted flax which is attached—the wool and the flax are permitted for tzitzit, for they have been changed. But despite all this, they invalidated the wool because it is apparent to all that it is wool and there is a degradation of the mitzvah. But flax is not recognizable at all, for when it is attached it is merely like wood, and now they are threads (Magen Avraham subsection 12). And nevertheless, post facto it is possible that even with wool it is valid (ibid. in siman 586, end of subsection 6). And all this is according to the opinion of the Rambam. But according to what appears from the words of the Tosafot in Avodah Zarah there (starting with the words "Highnu"), they have one law and it is also invalid with flax, see there. And perhaps even post facto it is invalid, and it requires further study.