Siman 13

Tzitzit are not like tefillin, which are two mitzvot: that of the hand alone and that of the head alone, and they do not impede one another. And if he donned one of them—he has fulfilled a mitzvah. But tzitzit—all four tzitzit are one mitzvah. And they impede one another, for if one of the tzitzit is missing or becomes invalid—they are all void. And if he wore a tallit with three tzitzit, not only has he not fulfilled a mitzvah, but he has also committed a transgression, for he wears a four-cornered garment without tzitzit. And one who goes out with such a tallit on Shabbat into the public domain—is liable for a sin offering, because the remaining tzitzit are a burden. And they are not nullified to the garment like other knots hanging on a garment, which are nullified as I wrote in siman 301, for tzitzit are significant and are not nullified (Shabbat 139b), since his intention is to complete them and repair them. Therefore, if they all became completely invalid, in a manner where his intention is to make them all anew—they are nullified to the garment. And he is not liable for a sin offering, but he commits a transgression by wearing a four-cornered garment without tzitzit. But regarding Shabbat he does not transgress, and it will be explained in siman 301. (Rashi there explained that the significance is because of tekhelet, see there. And according to this, in this time when we do not have tekhelet—they are nullified. But the Tosafot and the Rambam explained as I have written, for the reason that his intention is to complete, see there.)

But a tallit with tzitzit according to the halacha—it is permitted to go out in it on Shabbat to the reshut harabbim, whether a tallit katan or a tallit gadol. And even at night, which is not the time for tzitzit, for they are the beauty of the garment. And all the more so according to the one who holds that a garment of the day is obligated even at night, as I wrote in siman 15. Therefore, in the winter one may wear the tallit gadol before daylight without a berakha and go in it to the beit knesset. And even in this time when we do not have tekhelet, we do not say that the mitzvah is not according to the halacha, for it is not so, as the mitzvah is according to the halacha. For we hold (Magen Avraham subsection 3) that the tekhelet does not prevent the white. And only in this must he be careful when he goes out in it to the reshut harabbim, that the sides of the tallit should not be on his shoulders alone, for this is not the manner of a garment, as will be explained in siman 301. And see there that this is when it does not cover the majority of his body, but when it covers the majority of his body—it is permitted even when the sides are only on his shoulders alone. And this is specifically with a tallit that is certainly obligated in tzitzit, whether its obligation is from the Torah or from the rabbis, such as a silk garment according to the one who holds that its obligation is not from the Torah. But anything whose obligation is due to doubt, such as a garment that is half open and half closed, or that does not have the measure of obligation as will be explained in siman 16—it is certainly forbidden to go out in it on Shabbat to the reshut harabbim. For since it does not require tzitzit—they are not nullified to the garment, as I have written. And according to this, very small tallitot katanim, which do not have the measure—it is forbidden to go out on Shabbat to the reshut harabbim. And the world practices leniency, and perhaps they hold that since this garment does not require the tzitzit at all—the tzitzit have no importance in this garment, and are nullified. (And in the Ba'er Heitev he wrote that in the Responsa of the Rema siman 110 he pilpels on this, and it is not currently under my hand to see there.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that we establish the status of the tallit based on the presumption that it is fringed with tzitzit according to the law, and there is no need to check it before one goes out in it. Thus far his words. That is to say: even though in siman 8 he ruled that one is obligated to check before the blessing, and according to this I would have said that all the more so when one goes out in it on Shabbat to the public domain that he is obligated to check—he comes to teach us that this is not so. And the reason is simple: for in truth, it should have been established based on the presumption there as well, but rather because if so, he would never check, and therefore they obligated him once a day to check. Therefore, they did not require him here to check, because according to the law we establish it based on the presumption. Therefore, even in his sitting in the beit knesset, when he removed the tallit and there was a significant interruption in a manner that when he dons it he must bless, nevertheless, checking is not necessary for the reason that has been explained (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And above in siman 8 we explained that there is room to question the fundamental requirement of checking, see there.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 3: If it became known to him on Shabbat while he is in a karmelit that the tzitzit he is wearing is invalid – he should not remove it from upon himself until he reaches his home, for great is human dignity. And even a tallit katan that is under his clothes, he does not need to strip off. And the same law applies if one of the tzitzit was severed, and he is embarrassed to sit without a tallit, that he may wear it without a blessing by virtue of human dignity. And specifically on Shabbat, when it is forbidden to make tzitzit, but on a weekday in such a case it is forbidden. Thus far his words.

An explanation of their words: For we hold that great is human dignity, for it overrides a negative commandment in the Torah, and this refers to the negative commandment of "do not deviate" which is rabbinic (Berakhot 19b). That is to say: certainly human dignity does not override a complete Torah prohibition, for "there is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against Hashem" (ibid.). Rather, regarding the negative commandment of "do not deviate," wherein the Torah commanded us to listen to the words of the sages—in this, human dignity overrides. And even though this too is from the Torah, nevertheless, since this is by virtue of a rabbinic commandment, the sages waived their honor for the sake of human dignity (Rashi ibid.). And according to this, if one is walking in a reshut harabim on Shabbat and finds that the tallit is pasul—he must remove it even in the marketplace. But in a karmelit, which is a rabbinic prohibition—he does not remove it until he reaches his home. And according to this, according to what we maintain that we do not have a reshut harabim in this time—he does not remove it in any place. And even a tallit katan that is under his clothes, where there is no disgrace when he walks without it since it is not noticeable, nevertheless, the act of removing it in the middle of the street is a disgrace. And so too even our tallit gadol, which involves no disgrace in its removal since it is not made for a garment, nevertheless, he does not need to remove it since the sages did not decree (Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham subsection 7). And they were even more lenient, that even to wear it initially in the synagogue during the time of prayer, when he found on Shabbat that it is pasul and he would have disgrace to sit without a tallit—he may wear it without a berakhah because of human dignity. And this is only on Shabbat, but on a weekday, behold he can repair it, and it is forbidden to wear it. And this is the approach of the Shulchan Aruch.

But these two laws are perplexing, for ultimately they only permitted it because of human dignity, meaning that there is a disgrace in its removal. But whenever there is no disgrace—they did not permit it. And if so, regarding our large tallit, where there is no disgrace in its removal—why should we permit it? And also the second law, to wear it ab initio because of disgrace, from where do we have the authority to be so lenient? For our sages, of blessed memory, only permitted not to remove it because of disgrace, and not to wear it ab initio? And the first difficulty, I found one who raised this question (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And also regarding the essence of these laws there is a question: even granted that regarding a rabbinic prohibition of Shabbat—we are lenient because of human dignity, yet besides this, is there not a Torah prohibition to wear a four-cornered garment without tzitzit? And it is true that regarding this they wrote that at the time of wearing there is no prohibition, for the Torah did not say that you shall not wear it without tzitzit, but rather that when one wears it he is obligated to place tzitzit, and then it is a case of "sit and do not act" and this is set aside because of human dignity. But if so, it should also be permitted on a weekday (Magen Avraham siman 108)?

And it appears in my humble opinion that the essence of the matter is this: that certainly to set aside any Torah prohibition because of this—the mind cannot tolerate it. For this is not similar to other cases of human dignity where they permitted it through "sit and do not act" in matters involving great disgrace, and this is not so regarding the stripping of his tallit, as is understood. Therefore, on a weekday there is no permission at all, and only on Shabbat is there another permission that appears clear in my humble opinion: that from the Torah there is no prohibition at all to wear on Shabbat a four-cornered garment without tzitzit, for the Torah commanded to make tzitzit on this garment when you wear it, and on Shabbat the Torah prohibited all melakha, and consequently this is as if it prohibited making tzitzit on it today. And we have not found that the Torah prohibited wearing it when it does not have tzitzit if the Torah itself prohibited him from making the tzitzit today, for if it is because he was able to make them yesterday—it is not the way of the Torah to prohibit because of this, though the sages can prohibit this. And all the more so regarding tzitzit that were severed on Shabbat—it is obvious that from the Torah it is completely permitted. Thus it is found that from the perspective of the prohibition of tzitzit, there is none at all on Shabbat from the Torah, and therefore they permitted even wearing it on Shabbat because of human dignity; since from the Torah it is completely permitted—the sages did not uphold their words, since it is impossible for him to make them today, and from the Torah it is a complete permission. And likewise, he shall not strip off the tallit gadol for this reason, since this is a complete permission from the Torah. And all this is on Shabbat. But on a weekday, there is a Torah prohibition in this and it is prohibited in every case, and he is also obligated to strip the tallit from upon him. And with this, the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, are as clear as a matter of stringency. (And it appears to me that this is the intention of the Mordechai. And the Magen Avraham there lengthily questioned him, and according to what I have written, his words are straightforward to one who understands. And be precise and you will find it easy.) And according to what we have explained, on a weekday it is prohibited even with a tallit katan, and he is obligated to strip off his clothes and strip it off. And there are those who permitted with a tallit katan even on a weekday (Magen Avraham). And it appears to me that it is prohibited, and only on Shabbat is it permitted in every case, and likewise on Yom Tov. (And with our words, the question of the Magen Avraham in the name of his brother is also answered, that he could have given it as a gift, see there. And according to our words, on Shabbat it is a complete permission. And be precise and you will find it easy.)