Siman 21

It is stated in Megillah (26b): Accessories of a mitzvah – are thrown away. Accessories of holiness – are sequestered. And these are accessories of a mitzvah: sukkah, lulav, shofar, tzitzit. And accessories of holiness… a case for a Sefer Torah, and a pouch for tefillin… And ostensibly, "accessories of a mitzvah" also means like "accessories of holiness," in that it does not refer to the holiness itself but to a thing that served the holiness, like a case or a pouch. And here too, accessories of a mitzvah would not refer to the mitzvah itself, but to a thing that served the mitzvah. But it is impossible to say so, for since there is no holiness in the mitzvah – with what were the vessels that served the mitzvah sanctified? And what would this come to teach us? And all the poskim did not interpret it so, as is evident from their words.

And it appears to me that from this emerged the view of the Sheiltot which the Tur cited, who wrote in Parshat Shelach: It is forbidden for the children of Israel to perform their needs with something that is made to fulfill the obligation of a mitzvah, such as threads fixed in a tallit… for we learn from blood… as we say that one should not cover it with his feet, so that the mitzvot should not be contemptible to him. For specifically tashmishei mitzvah after the mitzvah has been performed with them—they may be discarded. Thus far his words. And the Tur disagreed with him, that it is not similar to blood, for when one covers with the foot it is a way of contempt, which is not the case here… Thus far his words. And in my humble opinion, it appears that the Sheiltot did not learn it from blood, but rather from the fact that he calls them "tashmishei mitzvah"—learn from this that he is not dealing with the time when they are fit for the mitzvah, for if so, they are "mitzvah" and not "tashmishei mitzvah." Rather, he is dealing with after their mitzvah has been performed with them, meaning that they are no longer fit for the mitzvah, such as if they became invalid. And he rightly calls them "tashmishei mitzvah," meaning: that it served a mitzvah, and while it was valid it was the mitzvah itself. And after it became invalid it is called something that served a mitzvah. And also the tallit is called tashmishei mitzvah, as it served the tzitzit. (And that which he wrote that we learn from blood—he did not learn it from there, but rather he was stating the reason. But the essence of his ruling is from the language, and so it is implied from Rashi there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 3, law 9: It is permitted to enter a beit hakiseh or a beit hamerchatz wearing tzitzit. If the white strings or the tekhelet were severed—one may throw them in the trash, because it is a mitzvah that does not possess inherent kedushah. Thus far his words, meaning: and therefore it is permitted to enter a beit hakiseh or a merchatz with them, because they do not possess kedushah. And this is not a disgrace to the mitzvah, for such is the way of people and he is not doing anything with them. Nevertheless, to use the tzitzit for some other use—it is forbidden according to the words of the Sheiltot. However, if they were severed, since now they are only tashmishei mitzvah—he may throw them in the trash, because they do not possess kedushah but are only tashmishei mitzvah and are thrown away. (See Bach and Taz. And according to what we have written, the words of the Sheiltot emerge from the body of the Shas in Megillah.)

And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote likewise in section 1, that when they are severed—one may throw them into the trash. And as long as they are fixed to the tallit—it is forbidden to use them, such as to tie anything with them and the like, due to the degradation of a mitzvah. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And there are those who say that even after they are severed—one should not treat them with a practice of degradation to throw them in a loathsome place, but rather they do not require genizah. And there are those who are meticulous to hide them away, and one who is stringent and meticulous in mitzvot—may a blessing come upon him. Thus far his words. And it appears to me regarding his intention that he wrote this according to the essential law. For although our sages, of blessed memory, said that accessories of a mitzvah are thrown away—the intention is not actual degradation, such as throwing them into a bathroom or wiping with them, Heaven forbid. For this is not a logical reasoning at all. Rather, the intention is that they do not require genizah with honor like accessories of holiness, but rather without honor, yet also not by way of degradation. And regarding this, there is no one who disagrees. And afterward he wrote: "And there are those who are meticulous to hide them away" because perhaps they interpret the words of the Gemara regarding accessories of a mitzvah as being similar to accessories of holiness, and that is the pouch in which the tallit was placed or the tallit itself, but not the tzitzit that were disqualified. And regarding this he wrote "that one who is stringent..." meaning: to fulfill the opinion of an individual, since most of the poskim did not interpret it so. And therefore they brought from the Mahariv that he would place the tzitzit in a book as a marker (Magen Avraham). That is to say: that he was concerned for this.

And proof for our words: for everyone agrees with the ruling of our teacher, the Rema, from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2 who wrote: Tzitzit garments of a mitzvah that have worn out – a person separates himself from them. And it is not permitted to wipe oneself with them, nor to designate them for a degrading use. Rather, he throws them away and they decay. Thus far his words. And if it should enter your mind that the "there are those who say" of our teacher, the Rema, disagrees with the former, if so, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, contradicts himself. Rather, it is certainly as our words. And in section 2 he teaches us a novel point: that it is not necessary to say that with the tzitzit themselves one should not perform a degrading use, but even with the garments, as I have written.

And they wrote in section 3: It is permitted to enter a beit hakise with tzitzit, and all the more so to sleep in them, which is permitted. And some have written that the custom is not to sleep in a tallit that has tzitzit, and also not to give it to a gentile laundress to wash. And all this is so that the mitzvot should not be degraded by him. However, the custom is to be lenient to sleep in them. Thus far his words. And the reasoning of those who forbid sleeping in a tallit is not understood: is sleeping worse than a bathhouse or a beit hakise? And it seems to me that their reasoning is: for we have already clarified that everyone agrees that a matter of degradation is forbidden even when the tzitzit have become disqualified, and all the more so when they are valid. And seemingly, entering a beit hakise or a bathhouse is a way of degradation. And one must say the reason is as I have written, that such is the way of people and it is impossible otherwise except with great effort. Therefore, regarding sleeping, where it is the way of people to remove their clothes—if so, it is a degradation when he sleeps in a tallit. However, our teacher, the Rema, decided that the custom is to be lenient to sleep in them. And the reason: that we do not consider this a degradation at all. (And on the contrary, the Ari, of blessed memory, slept in a tallit katan, as the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 2.) And there is one who wrote that all this is regarding a tallit katan. But with a tallit gadol that is made only to pray in—one may not enter a beit hakise in it (Taz subsection 3). And certainly it is so, for there is no effort to remove it, and if so, it is considered a degradation when he goes in it to a beit hakise or a bathhouse. And it is proper to be careful to remove the tallit even at the time of going out for urination. And so we practice, and all is for the reason we have explained.

One must be careful when a person wears a tallit that he should not drag his tzitzit. And regarding him it is said: "And I will sweep it with the broom of destruction." Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote so in section 4. And there are contradictions to this in the Gemara (see Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And it is possible that the strictness is only at the time of wearing when he recites the blessing, and not afterward. And so it is implied from the language "when a person wears a tallit," which implies only at the time of wearing (see Magen Avraham ibid., who also wrote so for another reason). And there is one who wrote that to drag them in a way of disgrace is forbidden (Artzot HaChayim). And so it is implied in the Rokeach, who wrote that one should not tread upon the tzitzit, see there. It implies explicitly that dragging is permitted. And how could it not be so, for is he not occupied with prayer or with Torah? And there are those who tuck the ends of the tallit into their belt for this reason. But I have not seen the great ones who did so, and there is no concern in this if they happen to be dragged on the ground. (And the Ba'er Heitev brought in the name of "there are those who say" to distinguish between a tallit gadol..., see there. And it is not at all clear.)