Siman 15

It is permitted to untie tzitzit from this garment and place them on another garment. There is no concern of degrading a mitzvah in this, since he is placing them on another garment. And why does he do so? Either because this garment is old and this one is new, or because this one is pleasing to him and this one he has come to loathe. And there is no practical legal difference in this. However, to untie tzitzit from a garment and not place them elsewhere is forbidden, like removing a mezuzah from a house, for you have no greater degradation than this. Unless he wishes to make this garment such that it does not have four corners, or he wishes to sell it to a gentile, for then it is permitted to untie the tzitzit in any case (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). But when he sells it to his fellow, it is forbidden for him to untie the tzitzit if it is not his desire to place them on another garment (ibid.). And if he wishes to make tzitzit that are more beautiful than these, it is also permitted to remove them in any case (ibid.). And likewise, if the first ones were severed, even though they are still kosher, nevertheless if he wishes to remove them and make complete tzitzit, it is also permitted in any case (ibid.). And likewise, the cloths of the dead—it is permitted to untie them, for they are not subject to obligation.

There is one who says that a thread of which there remains enough to form a loop, which is kosher as I have written in siman 12, nevertheless, to place it initially into a garment is forbidden, for initially one requires a complete thread twelve thumb-breadths long (ibid. subsection 1). However, if he wishes to tie another thread to this thread in order to complete it to the required measure, it is permitted, for tying is considered a complete connection as if it were a single thread (ibid.). And when is tying effective? Before he has placed them in the tallit. But to render it kosher by means of tying after they are already made in the tallit is not effective. For example, if the threads were severed such that there does not remain enough of them to form a loop, and he wishes to render them kosher by means of tying, it is not effective, for this is "you shall make, and not from that which is already made" in a state of invalidity (ibid.). And we have already explained this at the end of siman 12; see there.

It is stated in the Gemara (41a): A tallit that was torn outside of three—one may sew it. Within three—one may not sew it. It was also taught thus in a Baraita: A tallit that was torn… Rabbi Meir says… and the Sages say… and they agree that one may not bring even a piece a cubit by a cubit from another place which has tekhelet in it and hang it on it. And they agree that one may bring tekhelet from another place and hang it on it. Rashi explained: "Outside of three"—higher than three fingers from the edge of the corner. "One may sew it"—and we do not fear that perhaps something of the sewing thread will remain, and he will leave it and add to it until there are four threads for the sake of tzitzit, and there would be "make it, and not from that which is already made." For outside of three is not fit for hanging tzitzit. But "within three"—where it is fit to place tzitzit there, "one may not sew it"—for here we fear as we have explained. Thus far his words. And regarding "And they agree…" Rashi explained that he brings from another tallit which has tekhelet in it and hangs it on it. Because "on the corners of their garments" is written, and this "corner" was not from this garment at the time of making. And they agree that one may bring tekhelet, meaning he unties tzitzit from another tallit and hangs it on it, for here there is no "and not from that which is already made," for he must return and wrap it and fix it here as at the beginning. Thus far his words.

It is explained from his words that the concern that within three he should not sew is because perhaps he will join the sewing thread to the tzitzit, and there is "make it, and not from that which is already made." That is to say: even if the sewing threads are from threads that were spun for the sake of tzitzit, nevertheless there is in this the issue of "and not from that which is already made," for behold, he placed them in the garment for the sake of sewing and not for the sake of tzitzit. And if so, it is made in a state of disqualification. And there is no difference according to Rashi whether the piece was torn entirely from the garment, or is still attached to the garment, since the concern is because of the sewing thread. But against this there is a leniency, that this concern only exists when he sews with threads of the type from which one makes tzitzit. But if he sews with silk threads and the like—this concern does not exist, for behold, we do not make tzitzit from silk. And regarding that which they do not bring a piece, even a large one, from another place when there is tzitzit in the piece and sew it to this tallit, for even though there is no concern here of remnants of sewing since it is above three. But in this there is no need for a concern for it is disqualified by the essence of the law, for behold it is written, "and they shall make for themselves tzitzit on the corners of their garments"—and behold, this corner was not in this garment at the time of making. That is to say, even though afterwards it becomes part of this garment—behold, it is made in a state of disqualification, and there is in this the issue of "and not from that which is already made." And therefore, when he unties tzitzit from another garment—he is permitted to hang them on it, for behold, he makes it anew and there is no "from that which is already made."

And also in the Rambam, in the first chapter, law 13, it is explicit that the invalidity of bringing a piece with tzitzit from another place is because of "and not from that which is already made." This is the wording of the Rambam: Tzitzit that were made from that which was already made previously—are invalid. How so? If he brought a corner that has tzitzit in it and sewed it onto the garment, even if there is in that corner a cubit by a cubit—it is invalid, as it is said: "And they shall make for themselves tzitzit"—and not from that which is already made... Thus far his words. And the law of being severed within three, he wrote there in law 18, and this is his wording: If the corner that has tzitzit in it was severed beyond three fingers—he may sew it in its place. Within three—he shall not sew. Thus far his words. And he did not explain the reason. However, in any event, regarding the first law it is because of "and not from that which is already made," according to the explanation of Rashi.

The words of the Tur are completely obscure, as he wrote the two laws without any reason for them; see there. Certainly, if he had disagreed in the first law with the reasoning of Rashi and the Rambam, he would have explained this, and certainly he also holds that the reason is because of "and not from that which is [already] made." The Nimukei Yosef also wrote the reason is because of "and not from that which is [already] made." And even regarding the law of "within three," he wrote this reason, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. Also the Rosh (siman 11) who wrote regarding the first law, this is his wording: Because we require "upon the corners of their garments," and this "corner" was not in this garment at the time of making. Thus far his words. His intention is also thus, for he transcribed the wording of Rashi. (And Rashi concluded regarding the second "and they agree," that here there is no "and not from that which is [already] made." Thus far his words. It is explicitly explained that in the first "and they agree" there is "and not from that which is [already] made" like the explicit words of the Rambam, and there is no doubt in this at all. And also the intention of the Shulchan Aruch in section 2 is thus; see there.)

And there is a question regarding this: for if so, why in a case where it was torn completely beyond three [fingerbreadths] may he sew it? Since this corner was torn from the garment, how can he sew it with the tzitzit? Is it not disqualified because of "and not from that which is [already] made"? For one can say that this is not a comparison, for ultimately this corner is from this garment and not from another garment, and when he returns and attaches it—it returns to its original state. For in this garment it was made in a valid manner from its beginning, and we do not call it "made" in a state of disqualification, for it was not made in disqualification. But when he brings [a corner] from another place—relative to this garment it was made in disqualification. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 3. And the great later authorities deliberated on this, and the matter is clear as I have written. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And know that there are those who wish to say that when the corner has the measure of a tallit that is obligated in tzitzit, one is permitted to sew it to another tallit. And we do not call the tzitzit that are in the corner "and not from that which is made" in disqualification, since it itself has the measure for tzitzit. And according to their words, one must say: That which the Gemara said, "even an amah by an amah" — is because in an amah by an amah there is not yet the measure of a tallit. But in my humble opinion it is not so, for from the Gemara it implies that it spoke as a greater novelty: even if it is very large. And it appears to me that as long as the name "corner" applies to it — its tzitzit are disqualified upon its attachment to another garment. And this is when one attaches a minority to a majority, for in the corner there is less than what is in the garment to which it was attached. For the garment is called by the name of the majority, and automatically the minority is called a "corner" and there is no "upon the corners of their garments" here. But when it is the majority and is attached to the minority — it is kosher, for this is not a corner but rather the essence of the garment. And it is necessary that in the minority there should not be tzitzit (so it appears according to my humble opinion).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: A tallit with tzitzit according to its law that was divided into two, and in each part there is the measure to wrap oneself, and there remained for each of them one or two tzitzit—there is no concern therein of "make it, and not from that which is already made." Thus far his words, and this is from the Responsa of the Rashba, siman 217, see there. The explanation of his words: So that you should not say that since it is forbidden to attach a corner that has tzitzit on it to a garment, if so, the tzitzit on the corner are permanently disqualified. For it is not so; for when are they disqualified? When it is attached to another. But when it is by itself—the tzitzit are kosher, and one makes two more tzitzit at its edges in the place where it was divided. And some say that therefore when one sews it to another—it is disqualified (Bach). And some say that it is kosher. And ab initio it is permitted to sew it to another (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And according to my humble opinion both are true: for if he attaches it to a piece larger than it—the tzitzit are disqualified, for the name "corner" is applied to it there. And if he attached it to one smaller than it—it is kosher, as I wrote in the previous section, because the name "garment" is upon it and not the name "corner." (See Magen Avraham, subsection 4, where it implies that the Bach forbids even attaching the two halves together afterwards. And on this he objected from "torn beyond three." And it requires further study, for in the Bach it is explicit when he joins to each part another piece, see there. And if the Magen Avraham also objected to this, if so, what is the proof from "torn beyond three"? However, for the law, the main point is as I wrote. And be precise and you will find it easy. And the words of the Taz in subsection 3 who forbids attaching them together—are astonishing.)

And regarding a tear within three, which we explained that according to Rashi the reason is because of the sewing thread as I have written, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 that according to this reason, even if it was torn any amount—one should not sew it, see there. And we have already explained this. Furthermore, he wrote that according to this, a tallit of wool that was torn within three—it is permitted to sew nowadays, as it is not the way to sew with wool threads. Thus far his words. That is to say: that in a tallit of wool the tzitzit are also of wool, and consequently with other threads it is permitted. (And such is the conclusion of the Magen Avraham in subsection 6. And what he wrote in subsection 5, that the sewing was not spun lishmah—is astonishing, for if so, why does Rashi need the reason of "and not from that which is already made"? Therefore, it seems to me as I wrote in section 4. And it seems to me that for us, since the tzitzit are always of wool, and it is not the way to sew with wool threads, if so, according to the method of Rashi, this is completely permitted. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

But there are some of our teachers who did not agree with the explanation of Rashi, but rather with the explanation of Rav Amram Gaon, who explained that because it is within three—the tzitzit is immediately nullified, as there does not remain in it the measure of a "kanaf." And when he returns and sews it—it becomes "make it, and not from that which is already made" (Nimukei Yosef). And it is understood that the disqualification is only if it was torn completely from the garment. But when it is still slightly attached—it is permitted. And so too, even if it was torn completely—the disqualification is only regarding the tzitzit that was hanging on the tear. But to make new tzitzit after he sewed it—it is permitted, for there is no "and not from that which is already made" here.

And so it is clear from the words of the Rambam that we brought, as he wrote: If the corner that has tzitzit in it was severed… within three – he shall not sew it. Thus far his words, for behold, the disqualification is only regarding the tzitzit that are in it now, and not what he will do afterward. Therefore, he was precise to say "the corner was severed," meaning: severed completely. But if it is slightly attached – it is permitted. However, the wording of the Tur, who wrote: If the tallit was torn within three of the corner – he cannot sew it. Outside of three – he can sew it. Thus far his words, and since he did not mention "tzitzit" and also did not write "severed" – it implies like the explanation of Rashi (and so wrote the Bach). And even though the Rosh brought both explanations, nevertheless, he did not decide. Therefore, the Tur agreed with the explanation of Rashi. And the Mordechai also wrote like the explanation of Rashi, see there.

However, the wording of the Rosh regarding the explanation of Rav Amram is different, for he wrote, and this is his wording: And Rav Amram explained: outside of three—one shall sew it; since it has three by three, it has the status of a "garment." Within three—it does not have the status of a "garment," and it is considered as if it is non-existent. And even though he sewed it, it is considered as if it is severed and we do not place tzitzit on it, and if he made tzitzit on it—it does not exempt the tallit. Thus far his words, and from the flow of his wording it implies that even if they place tzitzit in it after the sewing—it is not effective. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, understood his intention accordingly in section 4. But the matters are very astonishing, for behold all the poskim agreed that sewing is a complete connection, as I wrote in section 2. And it seems more correct to slightly press his wording and say that the Rosh also intends to refer to the tzitzit that were in it. And that which he wrote "and if he made tzitzit on it," his intention is regarding the piece of the tear prior to the sewing. And that which he wrote "and even though he sewed it, it is considered as if it is severed," his intention is also regarding prior to the sewing, and his intention is only that the sewing is not effective for what preceded it. (And the Taz wrote accordingly in subsection 4, and it is also necessitated by the sugya of the Shas there, and the Bach ruled accordingly. And the Beit Yosef concluded that a God-fearing person should satisfy all opinions where possible, see there. And according to what I wrote, this is only the view of Rashi, and Rav Amram as per the explanation of the Nimukei Yosef, and according to what was explained regarding where it was not severed completely. And for us, where we do not sew with wool, and tzitzit are only of wool—it is permitted according to everyone. Examine and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: If it was torn from the hole where the tzitzit hangs and below, if the placing of the tzitzit preceded the tear, such that those tzitzit were there at the time of the tear—it is kosher. And if it was torn and any amount of it remained and he sewed it, and afterward he placed tzitzit in it, if it is of wool—it is kosher according to everyone. And if it is of other species where it is the way to sew with threads of that same species—he should not sew according to the opinion of Rashi. And if it was torn and he sewed it, and afterward he placed tzitzit in it—there is reason to doubt. Thus far his words, and his words require explanation.

And this is its explanation: for it has already been explained in siman 11 that the tzitzit must be made above the thumb-joint from the edge of the garment. And only if after the making of the tzitzit it was torn from the hole and below, and the tzitzit are hanging below the thumb-joint—it is kosher. For the Torah was only particular at the time of making, see there. And this is what it says: "If it was torn from the hole... if it preceded...—it is kosher." And afterward it says that "if it was torn and there remained...", meaning: if it was torn before he placed tzitzit in it, that he is obligated to sew it even if there remained of it any amount, for behold, he requires a thumb-joint. And the same law applies if it was torn completely, such that there did not remain any amount. And that which he wrote "remained"—this is not regarding being torn from the hole and below, but rather that the entire edge of the corner was cut from the garment, for in this there must remain any amount according to the system of Rav Amram, as I have written. And the concern is only according to the system of Rashi because of the sewing thread. And regarding this it says that "if it is of wool," meaning: that the garment is of wool—it is kosher according to everyone. For according to Rav Amram Gaon, behold, it remained attached in part. And according to Rashi, behold, it is not the way to sew with wool threads. But if the garment is of other species that it is the way to sew with them, meaning and also tzitzit are kosher from them—he should not sew according to the opinion of Rashi because of the sewing thread. And according to what I have written, since among us we do not make tzitzit except from wool—there is no concern according to the opinion of Rashi even in other species. And for extra strength he should sew it with dyed threads, for then there is no concern at all according to the opinion of Rashi, for all our tzitzit are white. And all the more so that according to the system of Rav Amram there is no concern, because it is attached in part. And it says further: "And if it was torn and he sewed it, and afterward he placed tzitzit in it—there is reason to doubt." Meaning: if it was torn completely from the garment, in this there is reason to doubt according to the system of Rav Amram: for according to the opinion of the Nimukei Yosef it is permitted to place tzitzit afterward, and according to the opinion of the Rosh it is pasul. And this is according to the system of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, regarding the words of the Rosh. But according to what I have written, even the Rosh holds so. (And the Gra wrote that there is a doubt in the system of Rashi: whether even post facto it is a hindrance or not, see there.)

And he wrote further: One who sews a piece of cloth onto the corners of the tallit, and likewise that which is customary to sew around the hole where the tzitzit are placed, if the tallit is of silk and he sews it with a white silk thread – one must be concerned for the opinion of Rashi, that there should be no sewing lower than three [fingerbreadths] or higher than a thumb-joint. And the same law applies in any place where he sews with a thread of the same material as the tzitzit, for we fear perhaps he will take that thread for the tzitzit thread. Thus far his words, and his words are clear. And likewise, regarding sewing around the hole there is a concern according to the opinion of Rashi, but in wool tallitot there is no concern at all, as has been explained. And in other tallitot as well, according to our custom that the tzitzit are only of wool, as I have written. And if indeed they make tzitzit from other materials – one must sew with a dyed thread. (And post facto perhaps one may rely on the opinion of Rav Amram, for the great authorities wrote that most poskim hold by his approach. And see in the Magen Avraham, subsection 14, who wrote that therefore the world is accustomed to sew a piece of cloth on the corners of the tallit on the other side of the tallit, because most garments, even new ones, have sewing within three [fingerbreadths]. And according to Rav Amram it is invalid... see there. And it is not understood, for it is not common to be completely severed. And it is more correct to say it is to satisfy the opinion of Rashi, so that it will be strong and he will not need to sew within three. Examine it and you will find it simple.)