Siman 9

Know that in the Gemara there is a dispute of Tannaim and Amoraim, and likewise among the poskim there is this dispute, whether other garments besides wool and linen garments are obligated in tzitzit from the Torah; or whether they are exempt from the Torah, and only by rabbinic decree were they obligated in tzitzit in order to be careful in the mitzvah of tzitzit (the Rambam at the beginning of the third chapter). And the reason for the dispute: those who obligate say that since it is written, "and they shall make for themselves tzitzit on the corners of their garments" – all garments are implied. And those who exempt say that since the Torah revealed regarding nega'im "a wool garment or a linen garment," and likewise regarding shaatnez it is written "wool and linen" – learn from this that all garments mentioned in the Torah are only wool and linen. This is the wording of the Shas in Menachot (39b): Since garments are mentioned in the Torah without specification, and the verse specified for you in one of them wool and linen – so too all are wool and linen, see there. And the "one of them" is nega'im where it is written "garment," but regarding shaatnez "garment" is not written. (And the words of Rashi there require some investigation, and perhaps there is a printing error there. Examine closely and you will find it easily.) And the Rif and the Rambam ruled that the obligation in other garments is rabbinic. And Rashi, Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Semag ruled that they are obligated from the Torah, and so ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 1. (And in Artzot HaChaim he brought a proof for this from a Mishnah at the beginning of the ninth chapter of Kilayim, which enumerates matters of wool and linen, and did not enumerate this of tzitzit. And perhaps because all those enumerated there, even by rabbinic decree – there is no obligation. And it is not so regarding tzitzit.)

The tzitzit must be of two kinds, from white threads and tekhelet threads, as it is written: "and they shall place upon the tzitzit of the corner a thread of tekhelet." Rashi and Tosafot wrote at the beginning of the chapter "HaTekhelet" that we require two white threads and two tekhelet threads. The Rambam, at the beginning of the laws of tzitzit, wrote: one thread of tekhelet and three of white. The Semag, in commandment 27, wrote according to both opinions, and this is his wording: two of white and two of tekhelet, or three of white and one of tekhelet. Thus far his words, and it implies that there is no strict requirement in this. However, from Tosafot there it implies that two are indispensable. And we say there in the Gemara: It is a mitzvah to prioritize white over tekhelet, and if one prioritized tekhelet over white – he has fulfilled the obligation, but he has failed to perform the mitzvah in the optimal manner.

And these are not two mitzvot but rather one mitzvah. This is the wording of the Rambam there: The sages said: "And it shall be for you for tzitzit" – this teaches that both of them are one mitzvah. And we learned in the Mishnah there: The tekhelet does not prevent the white, and the white does not prevent the tekhelet. For if one made all four of them tekhelet or all four of them white – he has fulfilled his obligation (Rashi). And according to the Rambam the white prevents, for if one made tekhelet without white – he has not fulfilled his obligation, but white without tekhelet – he has fulfilled his obligation. And only regarding this matter does the white not prevent: that if one made white and tekhelet, and the white snapped and the tekhelet remained alone – it is kosher, see there.

And what is "tekhelet"? The Rambam wrote at the beginning of the second chapter of tzitzit: "Tekhelet" mentioned in the Torah everywhere is wool dyed with a specific blue dye, and this is the likeness of the sky as seen by the eye in the sun during the purity of the sky. And the tekhelet mentioned regarding tzitzit must be dyed with a known dye that retains its beauty and does not change. And any that was not dyed with that dye is pasul for tzitzit, even though it is like the color of the sky. For example, if one dyed it with isatis, or with black, or with other darkening agents—this is pasul for tzitzit. The wool of a ewe that is the offspring of a goat is pasul for tzitzit. (And what is the known dye? With the blood of the chilazon, as will be explained.)

How is the tekhelet of tzitzit dyed? One takes the wool and soaks it in lime, and afterwards washes it until it is clean. And one boils it with alum and the like, in the manner that dyers do so that it will absorb the color. And afterwards one brings the blood of the chilazon, which is a fish whose color is similar to the color of the sea, and its blood is black like ink, and it is found in the Salt Sea (see Megillah 6a, and it requires further study). And one places the blood into a vat, and places with it drugs such as cumin and the like, in the manner that dyers do. And one boils it, and places the wool into it until it becomes like the color of the sky. And this is the tekhelet of tzitzit.

The tekhelet of tzitzit requires dyeing lishmah, "for the sake of tzitzit." And if he dyed it not lishmah—it is pasul, for all matters of tzitzit require lishmah. And he must say explicitly that he is dyeing for the sake of tzitzit, just as with spinning lishmah which will be explained in siman 11. But in an unspecified case—it is pasul, for an unspecified case does not stand as lishmah. And it is possible that even when he intends in his heart lishmah—it is kosher. And we hold that tasting is pasul (Menachot 42b). That is to say: just as with a cooked dish where one takes a little to taste if it is good, so too he takes a little dye from the vat to dye something and test it to see if it is good or not—it is pasul. And the reason: since we require lishmah, behold that which he takes to test—this is not for the sake of tzitzit (Gemara). And not only that, but if a little of the tasting fell back into the vat—the entire vat is disqualified. And it implies that nullification is of no avail, and I do not know the reason.

And even when one performed the test on tekhelet and intended it for the sake of tzitzit—it is likewise invalid (Tosafot ibid. starting with the words "Ma"). For since he also performed it for the sake of a test—it is like "for its sake" and "not for its sake," which in the case of sacrificial matters is invalid in such a manner (ibid.). Rather, how should one act when he wishes to test it? He takes the dye from the vat in a small vessel, and places in it the wool that he is testing, and burns that which he tested since it was dyed for testing, and pours out the dye in the vessel that he tested with since its taste has been spoiled. And he dyes the tekhelet with the rest of the dye in the vat which was not impaired.

The tekhelet is not taken except from an expert (ibid.), lest it was dyed not for its sake or was dyed with a dye used for testing. This matter is impossible to examine, obviously, and therefore an expert is required, meaning one who knows the law and is trustworthy. Aside from this, our sages, of blessed memory, said that an expert is required because there is another dye similar to tekhelet called "kala ilan," and when he is not trustworthy – there is reason to suspect him that he dyed with kala ilan and not with tekhelet. And our sages, of blessed memory, said (61b) that therefore it is written in the parsha of tzitzit "I am Hashem" – the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am destined to exact punishment from one who attaches kala ilan to his garment and says "it is tekhelet."

However, if it were only due to this concern of kala ilan—we would not be concerned, because for this there is a test. How do they test it? They bring magbiya gili and water of shablilta. Rashi explained: "magbiya gili"—this is alum; "water of shablilta"—water that comes out of fenugreek. The Rambam wrote: straw and the slime of a snail. Furthermore, they bring urine that has fermented for forty days, and they soak the tekhelet in it for a twenty-four hour period. If it remained as it was and did not fade—it is kosher. And if it faded—they take barley dough that they allow to mold for muries, and they place this tekhelet that changed within it, and one bakes the dough in an oven, and they remove the tekhelet from the bread and examine it. If it faded from what it was—it is pasul. And if its appearance increased, and it became darker than it was before the baking—it is kosher. Therefore, even though it was purchased from an expert, if they tested it with this test and the test did not turn out well—it is pasul.

A courtyard where they sell tekhelet, and it was established as being in a state of kashrut – one may purchase from it without specification, and it does not require examination. And it remains in its established status until it is suspected. And it appears to me that this is specifically when the people in the courtyard have not been replaced by others, but rather those same people who were established in kashrut, they and the members of their household. One who deposits tekhelet with a Cuthean – it is invalid, for we fear perhaps he exchanged it. And if it was in a vessel and sealed with two seals, a seal within a seal – it is valid. And with one seal – it is invalid, for anything that is from the Torah requires a seal within a seal, as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 118. And the same law applies if he deposited it with a suspected Israelite – it requires two seals as is explained there.

One who finds tekhelet in the marketplace, even if they are cut in a manner that shows they were intended for the sake of tzitzit, nevertheless they are not valid, for who is to say they were made with the proper fitness? Therefore, if they are cut and also twisted, meaning they were spun, they are valid, for since he exerted all this effort—certainly he made them for the sake of the tekhelet of tzitzit. But if they are twisted and not cut—there is no proof of their fitness, for it is possible he twisted them for a garment. However, cut strings are not fit for a garment (so it is proven in Eruvin 96b). The Rambam in the second chapter, law 7, was brief in his wording, see there. But his intention is also thus, for so it is proven in the Gemara, see there. And even though tekhelet may only be purchased from an expert, nevertheless, since he found them twisted and cut—one may assume they fell from an expert. For one who is not an expert—is not accustomed to involve himself in this, as he knows they will not purchase from him, and why would he exert much effort (Tosafot ibid. starting with the words "One who finds"). And all this is regarding tekhelet alone. But one who purchases a garment with tzitzit from the marketplace from an Israelite—it is valid (Menachot 43a), even from any Israelite whatsoever, for since the garment was made with tzitzit—certainly they were made with the proper fitness. Moreover, even if he purchased it from a Cuthean, if he is a merchant—it is valid, for certainly he purchased it from an Israelite, as a merchant will not damage his reputation. But from a commoner—it is invalid.

It was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Meir used to say (ibid.): The punishment for [neglecting] the white is greater than the punishment for [neglecting] the tekhelet, because white is common everywhere and easy to obtain, and despite this, he did not perform it. Therefore, his punishment is greater. This is not the case with tekhelet, whose price is dear and is difficult to obtain; therefore, its punishment is not as great as in the absence of white. And due to our sins, since the time we were scattered, we do not have tekhelet. We know nothing of this at all, and all of our tzitzit are white. Nevertheless, we fulfill the mitzvah properly, as it has already been explained that the tekhelet does not prevent the white. Therefore, one who nullifies this mitzvah—his punishment is great. And know that several years ago, one person boasted that he found the chilazon and produced tekhelet from it, and he drew some people after him. However, he had no listener among the greats of the generation or the community of Israel. And the matter was nullified until the righteous redeemer shall come speedily in our days. Amen.

Know that the Torah permitted shaatnez in tzitzit, as it is written: "You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together," and juxtaposed to it: "You shall make for yourself twisted cords on the four corners of your garment...", to say that in tzitzit—shaatnez is permitted (beginning of Yevamot). And so it is explained from the verses of tzitzit, that the Torah required one to place tekhelet, and tekhelet is dyed wool. And garments of wool and linen are certainly obligated in tzitzit, and if so, tekhelet in linen is shaatnez (ibid.).

And we say there that Rava raised a contradiction between verses: for here it is written "wool and linen... tassels you shall make for yourself," which implies that tzitzit must only be of wool or linen. And it is written: "and they shall place upon the tzitzit of the corner...", and this "the corner" is superfluous, for it should have written "and they shall place upon the tzitzit a thread of tekhelet." Rather, certainly "the corner" means the type of the corner, meaning to make the tzitzit from the type of the garment. How so? Wool and linen exempt both their own type and not their own type, and other types only exempt their own type, meaning: that if it was a garment of silk—one may make tzitzit of silk, and so too for similar cases. And this is what they wrote in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, that tzitzit of wool or of linen exempt all types, but other types such as silk or cotton do not exempt unless the tzitzit is of the type of the tallit. Thus far their words. And this is according to the one who holds that all garments are obligated in tzitzit by the Torah, and Rava holds accordingly. But according to the Rif and the Rambam who ruled not like Rava, seemingly all of this is not applicable, as is understood, and according to them certainly tzitzit are necessarily only of wool or linen. And according to them this derivation is not applicable. And I found in a responsum of the Rashba (Part Three, siman 280) that according to this approach "the corner" means the type of the corner regarding beginning with white because of "the corner," the type of the corner, and finishing with white because one elevates in holiness and does not lower, as is found in Menachot (39a). And indeed the Rif brought this, and so too the Rambam in chapter one, law 7, see there. And consequently, regarding the type of the corner as Rava derived, he does not hold accordingly.

According to this, one must understand the words of the Rambam in chapter three, law 5, who wrote that for other garments, one makes the white of each and every species from its own species, such as silk threads for a silk garment, and down threads for a down garment. And if one wished to make the white for all other species from wool or linen – he may do so, because wool and linen exempt both their own species and that which is not their own species. But other species – they exempt their own species, but they do not exempt that which is not their own species. Thus far his words. And it is not understood: for behold, he ruled not in accordance with Rava, so how did he cite the derivation of Rava? However, his words are correct, and he did not intend the derivation of Rava, but rather because in the Gemara (39b) it says this plainly, for on the contrary, according to the one who says that the obligation of other garments is rabbinic – certainly they are exempted with tzitzit of their own species. This is the wording of the Gemara: It is well if you say it is rabbinic, that is why they are exempted with their own species; but if it is from the Torah, do we not require wool and linen? And it answers according to Rava, see there. Behold, it is explicit that if it is rabbinic – it is obvious that they are exempted with their own species. And this is the intention of the Rambam, and not because of the derivation of Rava. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also wrote thus, even though he follows the system of the Rambam. And according to this, this law would be according to all opinions.

And since the Torah permitted shaatnez in tzitzit, if so, let us permit making tzitzit of linen, namely the white strings in a garment of wool, and tzitzit of wool in a garment of linen. The answer to this was written by the Rambam in chapter three, law 6, and this is his wording: By right it should be permitted… and for what reason do we not do so? Because it is possible to make its white strings from its own kind. And everywhere that you find a positive commandment and a negative commandment, if you can fulfill both of them—it is better… and here one can fulfill both of them. Thus far his words. And there is a question regarding this: Granted, in a time when there is no tekhelet, such as in our time—one can certainly fulfill both of them. But in the time of tekhelet—behold, it is impossible to fulfill both of them in linen garments, for one must place tekhelet in them. And the answer to this: First: that indeed it was said so, that this is regarding wool garments and linen garments in a time when there is no tekhelet. Furthermore: that even when there is tekhelet, nevertheless the white can be of its own kind. Furthermore: that regarding linen garments, it will be explained that we do not place tekhelet in them at all because of a decree, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of the Rambam there: A garment of linen—one does not place tekhelet in it, but rather one makes the white part alone from linen threads. And this is not because tzitzit is overridden by shaatnez, but rather it is a decree of their words lest one cover himself with it at night… for the obligation of tzitzit is by day and not by night… Thus far his words. And according to the system of the Rosh that we brought, that a garment of the day is obligated even at night, one must say it is a decree because of a garment designated for the night. And according to this, according to the system of the Rambam, one may make a four-cornered garment of linen and place in it tzitzit of linen, and he fulfills the commandment from the Torah with it. And this is also the opinion of Rashi and the Rif, of blessed memory.

However, the approach of Rabbeinu Tam in Menachot (41a), and the Meor in the second chapter of Shabbat, and several other Geonim, is that a linen sheet with tzitzit is forbidden even with tzitzit of linen. That is to say: that the sages forbade making any tzitzit on a garment of linen, even tzitzit of linen. And the explanation of the matter is as follows: for the primary prohibition is because of tekhelet, lest one come to make tekhelet on a night garment, and violate the prohibition of shaatnez. And there are further decrees regarding this in the Gemara, and all of them pertain to tekhelet and not to the white. However, since the commandments of the tekhelet and the white are dependent on one another, and even if they do not disqualify one another, nevertheless both of them are tzitzit and you cannot separate them from one another, and since the tekhelet was forbidden—it follows that the white was also forbidden with it. And it is impossible to obligate him in white of linen and forbid him in tekhelet, for how can one commandment be half an obligation to perform and half a prohibition to perform? This is something the mind cannot tolerate (Meor ibid.). Therefore, they completely forbade any type of tzitzit on a linen garment.

And if it is difficult according to this approach: How could the sages uproot a positive Torah commandment, to wear a four-cornered garment without tzitzit at all? However, in truth, they asked this in the Gemara in Yevamot (90b), and they answered that regarding "sit and do not act" – they have the ability to uproot. And even though this is not "sit and do not act," for he performs an action by wearing it, the Tosafot answered there that at the time of wrapping himself he is not yet obligated until after he has wrapped himself. And after he has wrapped himself – it is "sit and do not act," see there. And on the contrary, according to the first approach, I have a great difficulty: Why did the Gemara there consider a linen sheet regarding tzitzit as an uprooting of a Torah commandment? For since he makes tzitzit of linen, he is fulfilling the commandment, as the Rambam explicitly wrote in the first chapter, law 5, that one who wears a tallit that has white or tekhelet or both together – has fulfilled the positive commandment. Thus far his words. And since he places white of linen – he has fulfilled the positive commandment, and there is no uprooting of a Torah commandment here at all. And it requires great study.

However, even according to the method of our teacher Tam, it can be said that in this time it is permitted to make tzitzit of linen on a tallit of linen. For when did the sages forbid it? In the time when there was tekhelet in a night garment, one could have come to the prohibition of shaatnez. But in this time when there is no tekhelet—behold, there is no possibility of coming to a prohibition. And if it is because perhaps he will come to attach those of wool, has it not already been explained that nowadays shaatnez is forbidden, for in any place where you can fulfill both, the negative commandment is not pushed aside, as I wrote in section 16 in the name of the Rambam. And I found this reasoning in a responsum of the Rosh, klal 2, see there. And so he wrote at the end of the laws of tzitzit.

And behold, according to these two approaches, for a tallit of wool – one makes tzitzit of wool. And for a tallit of linen, according to Rashi, the Rif, and the Rambam, one makes tzitzit of linen; and according to our teacher Tam and the Maor, in the time of tekhelet it is forbidden to make them of linen, and nowadays it is possible that it is permitted. And for other garments, such as garments of cotton, and silk, and camel hair, and goat hair – they may make the tzitzit from whatever they wish, either from the species of the garment or from wool or from linen.

And there is another approach of some of the Rishonim, that this which Rava said, that wool and linen exempt even that which is not of their kind—this is specifically wool and linen together, two threads of wool and two threads of linen. And consequently, in other garments it is impossible to attach tzitzit except from its own kind. And the Terumat HaDeshen in siman 44 brought this opinion in the name of the Maharam, and so it is in the Hagahot Maimoniyot (chapter three, letter 6). And there is also an approach of some Geonim brought by the Rif, that tzitzit of linen alone does not exempt in any place. And the Rif rejected their words. However, in other kinds of garments it is proper not to attach linen threads but rather from its own kind or wool. And this is what the Tur wrote in the name of the Semak, that it is proper to be careful not to make tzitzit of linen for a garment of silk. Thus far his words. That is to say: granted that in a linen garment it is impossible to use other tzitzit, and we establish it according to the opinion of Rashi, the Rif, and the Rambam. But in silk or other kinds, why should we enter into a dispute? Let us make them of its own kind or of wool (see the Bach and the Taz, subsection 4, who explained in this manner). And he used in his wording "of silk," and the same law applies to other kinds (Bach).

And there are those who explained in the words of the Tur an entirely different reason: and that is that only in a garment of silk one should not make tzitzit of linen, because there is wool that appears like silk; and they will come to place tzitzit of linen on a garment of wool, as they will think it is silk (Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham subsection 2). Therefore, also in a garment of hemp one should not place tzitzit of wool, because between hemp and linen there is not such a distinction, and they will come to place wool on linen (Beit Yosef). And there are those who say that in this we are not concerned, because between hemp and linen people are knowledgeable, and they do not use it without investigation, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 302. But wool that comes from the seacoast resembles silk, and one might come to err (Magen Avraham ibid.). And according to this they also explained the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 2, who wrote: And there are those who say not to make tzitzit of linen at all, even for other types. And such is the custom. Thus far his words, for his intention was for the reason that was explained. And these are puzzling matters, and it is simple that he intended for the positions we explained. And that which he wrote "even for other types," this is its explanation: it is not necessary to state in a garment of linen, for according to the position of Rabbeinu Tam it is entirely forbidden as has been explained, but even in other types one must be concerned for the position that requires specifically "together."

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: If one placed on a tallit of other materials some tzitzit of its own material, and some of wool or linen—the matter is in doubt. Thus far his words. And the doubt is that here there is neither "the corner of its own material," nor wool or linen. And there is one who raised a difficulty: for this doubt is relevant if the obligation of other garments is from the Torah, but our teacher, the Beit Yosef, has ruled that they are rabbinic (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And it is no difficulty at all, for besides that which can be said that "whatever the sages ordained, they ordained similar to the Torah law," and I saw one who answered thus (the HaGrib), however, there is no need for this, for we have already explained in section 15 that in the Gemara the matter is even more simple if other garments are rabbinic, that they are exempted either with their own material or with wool and linen, see there. And consequently, with both of them together, the matter is not so simple.

And the conclusion of the halacha, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 6: Some say that one should not make a tallit of linen. And even though the halacha is not so, a God-fearing person satisfies all opinions and makes a tallit of sheep's wool, which is obligated in tzitzit from the Torah without doubt. However, if it is only possible with a tallit of linen – it is better that he make a tallit of linen and tzitzit of linen than that he should be nullified from the mitzvah of tzitzit. Thus far their words. And if he makes a tallit of other materials – he should make tzitzit of wool. And if he only has tzitzit of linen – he should make them of linen. And even with a tallit of silk, for the concern that was explained in section 23 is not relevant among us, as we do not have wool that resembles silk. (The Magen Avraham in subsection 8 wrote that with a linen tallit – he should make corners of leather and attach wool to it, see there. And it is a difficult enactment, and it is possible to come to a mishap, and they did not practice so. And also the Eliyah Rabbah and the Tevuot Shor rejected this, see there, as was written in the Sha'arei Teshuvah.)

The Rambam, of blessed memory, ruled that the white strings of the tzitzit—and for us, where all are white—the appearance of the tzitzit must be like the appearance of the tallit. This is his wording at the end of chapter 2: A tallit that is entirely red, or green, or of other colors—one makes its white strings like the color of its dye. If green—green; if red—red. If it was entirely blue—one makes its white from other colors except for black, because it appears like tekhelet... Thus far his words. And this is explained in Menachot (41b). The Tosafot there wondered about this, as Rava asks at the beginning of the chapter "HaTekhelet": Does the dye cause anything? And they answered that this is rabbinic due to "This is my God and I will glorify Him," see there. The Ra'avad answered in a different manner. In my humble opinion, it appears that specifically Rava, who holds that the obligation of other garments is from the Torah, and expounds "the corner" as "the kind of the corner" regarding the essence of the tzitzit as has been explained—rightly asks: Does the dye cause anything? But the Rambam ruled not like Rava, and rightly expounds "the corner" as "the kind of the corner" regarding the color. And so the sugya there holds, that it requires the color to be of the kind of the tallit. The Tur brought that the Ri disagrees in this. And so the Rashba wrote in a responsum that they did not practice according to the words of the Rambam (Part 3, Siman 280), and so the Terumat HaDeshen wrote in Siman 46. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote on the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 5, who wrote: There are those who say that one must make the tzitzit from the color of the tallit. And those who are meticulous practice so. Thus far his words. He wrote that the Ashkenazim are not accustomed to make the tzitzit except white even in dyed garments, and one should not change. Thus far his words, and such is the simple custom. However, certainly it is better that the tallit also be white to fulfill the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, and so many and whole ones practice. (And that which we make at the edge of the tallitot the appearance of the sky and call this "tekhelet"—it is for beauty alone. And its essence is a white appearance as is known.)

It is not called "wool" except for the wool of ewes and rams. But not camel hair, or rabbit hair, or goat hair, and the like. And sheep's wool that was mixed with other species—one follows the majority, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 298 (Magen Avraham subsection 1). And it has already been explained that a ewe born of a goat—its wool is invalid for tzitzit, and if so, it only exempts its own species (ibid.). And a tallit where the warp is of wool and the woof is of silk, or vice versa—there is no remedy according to the opinion of those who hold that for other species one requires tzitzit of wool and linen together, as I wrote in section 22. And in this case it is not relevant to follow the majority, since each one is recognizable on its own—it is not nullified. And it is not similar to where they were mixed with one another (ibid. subsection 4). And they wrote that in Ashkenaz they are careful regarding this (ibid.), but according to the opinion of most of our teachers, it is permitted to make tzitzit of wool, for one fulfills the obligation with this even for other garments as has been explained. And if the composition is of linen with other species—it is necessary to make tzitzit of linen, and to rely on the opinion of Rashi and the Rif and the Rambam as has been explained.

And behold, we have explained with the help of Heaven all the opinions. And the preferred way: to make a tallit and tzitzit of wool. And at the very least, if of other materials—they should be white and not another color. And also the stitching should be with white threads, and also the silk atara white. Thus wrote the Maharshal, and so one should act. However, post facto, one can rely on the opinions of our teachers that have been explained, and not be idle from the mitzvah of tzitzit, which is equivalent to all the mitzvot. And its reward is very great, whether in a tallit gadol or in a tallit katan, and one should not cast off the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven from his neck all day long. And to the one who heeds it shall be pleasant, and a blessing of good shall come upon him. Amen.