Siman 14

The Rambam wrote in chapter 1, law 11: The threads of the tzitzit require spinning for the sake of tzitzit… Thus far his words. And this law has already been explained in siman 11. And in Sukkah (9a) they derived this from that which is written: "You shall make for yourself twisted cords" – for the sake of your obligation. That is to say: for its sake. And afterwards he wrote in law 12: Tzitzit that a Cuthite made is invalid, as it is said: "Speak to the children of Israel […] and they shall make for themselves tzitzit." But if an Israelite made it without intention, it is valid. Thus far his words. And regarding this making, his intention is to attach them to the tallit, and to make the two knots with a portion of the braid, for this is indispensable according to the Torah. And the Rambam holds that this making does not require "for its sake," and therefore it is valid even without intention. And only regarding a Cuthite did the Torah decree, and not for the reason of "for its sake," for regarding this a verse is not needed, as a Cuthite acts with his own mind even if an Israelite stands over him according to the Rambam, as I have written in siman 11. And from this itself the Rambam inferred that it does not require "for its sake," since a verse is needed to exclude a Cuthite. And one should not ask: From where do we know that "You shall make for yourself twisted cords" comes to teach regarding spinning that it requires "for its sake," and this verse of "and they shall make for themselves tzitzit" refers to the attachment to the garment? Perhaps it is the opposite? For it is impossible to say so, as in this verse it is written (ibid.) "and they shall make for themselves tzitzit on the corners of their garments" – behold, it is explicit that it deals with the time of attachment to the garment, and consequently the other verse comes to teach regarding spinning (so it appears to me).

The Rosh in siman 14 wrote that we require hanging lishmah, see there. And it must be said: that which the verse was necessary to disqualify a Kuti—this is even when standing over him and instructing him to do it lishmah, for according to the Rosh in such a case it is kosher regarding spinning, as I wrote in siman 11. And the reasoning of the Rosh appears to be because he holds that that which we derive "you shall make for yourself twisted cords" lishmah—it applies to all the actions, whether to spinning or to hanging. And the verse "the children of Israel, and they shall make for themselves tzitzit on the corners of their garments" comes to disqualify a Kuti in any case, even when standing over him. And this verse refers only to hanging, since it is written: "on the corners of their garments," as I have written. Therefore, regarding spinning, it is kosher when standing over him according to the Rosh. And the Tur did not mention "lishmah" at all, and it requires further study. And perhaps because his opinion inclines more toward the Rambam, and he did not want to rule explicitly not in accordance with the opinion of his father, and therefore he omitted this entirely.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2: If an Israelite attached tzitzit to a garment without intent, if other tzitzit are not available to make it fit—one may rely on the Rambam who deems it fit. However, he should not recite a blessing over it. Thus far his words. And it appears that he grasped the primary ruling according to the Rambam. But regarding blessings, since they are not indispensable, he was concerned for the opinion of the Rosh. And regarding the matter of going out with such a tallit into the public domain on Shabbat, it appears to me that in any case it is permitted: for according to the Rambam it is obvious, and even according to the Rosh that they are invalid—behold, they are nullified relative to the garment, for the reason that "tzitzit are not nullified" is because of their importance, as I wrote in the previous siman. And according to the Rosh that they are invalid—their importance is gone. (See Levushei Serad. But it is not clear.)

However, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote: "If other tzitzit are not available...", for it is clear from his wording that when other tzitzit are available one is obligated to untie them and cast the others—if so, let him untie those same tzitzit and cast them with intention? And there is one who answered, for example, that it was close to Shabbat, where there is time to cast them, but there is no time to untie and cast them (Magen Avraham subsection 4 and as the explanation of the Machatzit HaShekel). Alternatively: for example, where one of the ends was severed such that when he unties them—it is impossible to cast them again (ibid.). And there is one who answered, for example, that they were thin and worn, such that if he unties them they will be completely ruined (Sha'arei Teshuvah subsection 5). And it appears to me that he did not descend to this at all. Rather, he comes to teach us that it is not similar to other disqualifications where it is forbidden to wear it—he comes to teach us that one may rely on the Rambam and wear it. And so it is explained in the Levush, see there. And this also is obvious: for seemingly this disqualification is more severe than other disqualifications since he is able to fix them, and why should we rely for no reason on the opinion of the Rambam? And if so, you would not find this law at all. To this he says that certainly it is so, but nevertheless if at this time it is impossible to fix them, such as if he himself does not have the ability to cast them or he does not have time or another reason, such that others are not available. That is to say: that it is impossible to fix them, for when he fixes them they too become as others. And know that the essence of the "lishmah" is in the upper knot and in the first link. But from here onwards there is no concern at all. And even if a gentile finished it—it is kosher, for this is not a hindrance after the fact.

It is a simple matter that regarding the fact that the Rambam, of blessed memory, validated hanging without intent, its meaning is that he hung it plainly without intent for the sake of tzitzit. For according to the Rosh, the intent is a formal requirement because it specifically requires "for its sake" just as in spinning, and the Rambam does not make this a formal requirement. However, if he hung them explicitly not for the sake of tzitzit, even according to the Rambam it is invalid, for he has uprooted them from being tzitzit. And so wrote one of the great authorities. (Mishkenot Yaakov siman 20. And the Mishnah Berurah wrote: that from the wording of the Beit Yosef it is proven that even explicitly not for its sake—it is valid, see there. And Heaven forbid to say so. And also the Perishah did not intend this, and aside from this his words are astonishing, see there. And this too is simple, that for hanging, thought for its sake is sufficient, for the act of hanging itself proves the "for its sake," and so wrote the Mishnah Berurah. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that women are permitted to insert the tzitzit into the garment and to make them. For the Gemara in Menachot (42a) did not exclude from "the children of Israel" anyone but a Cuthean and not a woman, because in the entire Torah whenever it is written "the children of Israel"—women are also included. It is only regarding sacrifices, because the Temple service is only for the males of the priesthood, as it is written: "the sons of Aaron"—and not the daughters of Aaron, for only the males entered into the sanctity of the priesthood. Therefore, in the matter of sacrifices, when it is written "the children of Israel"—women were excluded, such as in the case of leaning and other services in Kiddushin (36a). And so too in Menachot (61b) regarding the matter of waving—a Cuthean and a woman were excluded from "the children of Israel" because in sacrifices the males alone perform the service. (And the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 2, is answered. And the answer of the Eliyah Rabbah is forced, see there.) And there is clear proof that women are also included in "the children of Israel," as it is written: "Therefore the children of Israel shall not eat the displaced tendon... because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip"—and are women then not the daughters of Jacob? Therefore, the Gemara excluded only a Cuthean.

And even though women are not commanded in tzitzit, nevertheless, what of it? For specifically regarding tefillin the Torah decreed "And you shall bind them [...] and you shall write them" – anyone who is included in binding is included in writing, but not regarding tzitzit. And it is also not relevant to say "anyone who is exempt from a matter cannot exempt others," for that applies to a mitzvah where one fulfills the obligation for another through his action, such as kiddush and havdalah and the like. But regarding tzitzit, the mitzvah is the wearing. Nevertheless, there are some of the great Rishonim who were concerned for these reasons, and disqualified a woman from attaching tzitzit to a tallit. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that there are those who are stringent to require men to make them. And it is good to do so ab initio. Thus far his words. That is to say: that it is merely a stringency, and the primary law is that they are permitted. And a minor's law is like a woman's. However, since it must be made lishmah, it follows that the minor is not capable of this, unless they teach him. Therefore, one should distance a minor from attaching tzitzit. But regarding his own tallit – there is no concern. And a deaf-mute and an imbecile are certainly disqualified, for they lack the cognitive capacity to make them lishmah. And a blind person is certainly permitted to make them. And know that it is simple that they may attach tzitzit to a tallit whether by day or by night. And even though night is not the time for tzitzit, nevertheless, it is not relevant to their making. For behold, even women are fit to make them, and even those who were concerned regarding women – this is because they are not included in this mitzvah at all.

It is written: "You shall make for yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your garment..." It is explained that only with your garment are you obligated to place tzitzit when you wear it, and not with the garment of others. Therefore, according to the Torah, one who borrows from his fellow a tallit that does not have tzitzit is exempt from placing tzitzit in it forever. It is only by rabbinic decree that they enacted that after thirty days one is obligated to place tzitzit in it (Chullin 110b) because it appears as his own. And specifically when it was with him for thirty consecutive days, but if he returned it in the middle, we do not combine the previous days. Nevertheless, if he wishes to place tzitzit in it, he may place them. Regarding the blessing, it is better not to bless. And even though there are those who say that he can bless, like women who bless over sukkah and lulav even though they are exempt, nevertheless the Rosh wrote there that it is better not to bless. However, one who blesses—this is not a blessing in vain. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 5. And so it is implied from the Machatzit HaShekel, see there.)

It appears to me that this is only regarding the time of the sages of the Gemara, when they would walk in garments of four corners all day. And so it implies in the source of the law in Chullin ibid. However, for us, who wear only tallitot of the mitzvah, if one borrowed from his fellow a tallit that is not fringed with tzitzit for a time—he is obligated to attach tzitzit immediately and to recite a blessing over it. For we are witnesses that he lent it to him in order to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit, and if so, it is his will that he attach tzitzit to it, and he gave it to him as a gift on condition that it be returned. For if not so, for what purpose did he lend it, since this is not a garment at all for us? And if because it is a disgrace to be without a tallit he lent it, and not to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit, is it not known that for us it is a greater disgrace to sit in a tallit without tzitzit, as not everyone has learned the law that a borrowed garment is exempt? And certainly he lent it in order to fulfill the mitzvah, and therefore its law is like borrowed strings which was explained in siman 11, section 25, see there. And also regarding a tallit katan it is so, for we do not wear it except to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit. (And the Acharonim did not speak of this at all. And in my humble opinion it is clear as I have written.)

And also according to the law of the Gemara, this is only when he borrowed a tallit that does not have tzitzit. But if he borrowed it when it has tzitzit— the Rosh ruled there that he recites the blessing over it immediately, and so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 3. For certainly with this intention he lent it to him, that he should recite the blessing over it immediately, and if it is not effective by way of borrowing—let it be as a gift on condition to return (ibid., and from this is also proof for what we have written). And it is simple that this is only with a tallit designated for the mitzvah of tzitzit, and not with a plain four-cornered garment (Taz, subsection 4). And likewise, this is only when he lent it to him to pray in it, but when he borrowed it for a moment, such as to go up to the Torah and anything similar to this—he does not recite the blessing, for he did not lend it because of the mitzvah but because of derech eretz. And so ruled the great ones (Yam Shel Shlomo in Chullin ibid., and Magen Avraham subsection 6). And likewise, when one borrows a tallit from his fellow to be a mohel or a sandek—he does not recite the blessing over it. But if he borrowed it to go before the ark to be a shaliach tzibbur—he recites the blessing. And likewise a kohen who goes up to the duchan, for this is exactly like prayer (ibid.). And a tallit of the community is like his own, for everyone has a portion.

The Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 4 that it is permitted to take the tallit of his fellow and recite the blessing over it, provided that he folds it if he found it folded. Thus far his words. This is because it is certainly pleasing to a person that a mitzvah be performed with his property (Tur), and the owner of the tallit desires this and is not fastidious. Therefore, if we know that he is a fastidious man—it is forbidden to take it without his knowledge. And it appears in my humble opinion that even though our teachers ruled this law, that ordinarily it is permitted to take the tallit of his fellow without his knowledge and pray in it on the grounds that it is certainly pleasing to him, however, we see that many are very fastidious about this, and especially when the tallit is new and clean. And also there are people who do not tolerate at all that another person should wear their garment on account of sweat and cleanliness. And it appears in my humble opinion that one must deliberate very carefully regarding this law.

And also regarding the source of the law, it is not so certain that it is permitted in all manners. For the Semak wrote this permission regarding a tallit that is not folded and is placed in a hidden location, but regarding one that is folded, one must take permission (cited in the Beit Yosef). And the Mordechai wrote on this that if he folds it as it was at first—it is permitted. Or perhaps since the owners folded it—they have revealed their intent that they are particular about the matter of lending it. Thus far his words (ibid.); behold, even regarding folding he is in doubt, and all the more so when it is placed in a hidden location. And the Nimukei Yosef wrote in this wording: And in a place where they are accustomed to leave their tallitot in the synagogue, if a person comes to wrap himself in it for a short time and return it to its place—it is permitted… and the Ri wrote: And those who take tzitzit that they find in the synagogue without the knowledge of their owners—it is permitted… Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that even those who permit only permitted when the tallitot are left in the synagogue, and not when each one hides his tallit in a hidden location, for in such a case we have not found anyone who permits it. And it seems clear to me that the Tur and Shulchan Aruch also deal with such a case. But in a case like ours, where each one folds his tallit and hides it in a chest, or gives it to the shamash to hide it in a chest—certainly it is forbidden without the knowledge of the owners unless he knows clearly that the owners are not particular. And now the custom is that the shamash takes the tallit of one of the householders hidden with him in his chest, and gives it to a guest to pray in it. And in my opinion, it is forbidden to do so without the knowledge of the owners. And one should not be lenient in this, for there is a concern of theft in this, as a borrower without knowledge is a thief. And regarding this it is said: "And the robber blesses, but blasphemes the Lord," and it is better to pray without a tallit.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is also permitted to take tefillin without knowledge. However, it is forbidden to learn from the books of one's fellow without his knowledge, for we fear perhaps he will tear them during his study. Thus far his words. And even in a merely incidental manner it is forbidden, for perhaps he will delve into it extensively until it tears from excessive handling. Nevertheless, for a mere glance, it is the custom to permit it, and likewise to take a siddur or a machzor without the knowledge of the owners, for the majority of the world is not fastidious about this. See what I have written in Choshen Mishpat siman 292, section 34. (And see Taz subsection 7, and Magen Avraham subsection 10.)

A tallit of partners is obligated in tzitzit, as it is written: "on the corners of their garments" (Chullin 136b). And who shall wear it – this is according to their agreement. And if they did not make an agreement – each one shall wear it for a known time. And it is obvious that one of them can claim the claim of "cut or be cut." And a garment that has four corners, and a woman or a Cuthean has a partnership in it – it is exempt from tzitzit. And it requires further study.