Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The word anaf, translated as “tassel,” literally means “branch.” Just as a branch is an extension of the tree, the tzitzit are extensions of the fringes.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 8; Chapter 3, Halachah 5.

In Numbers 15:38-39. Deuteronomy 22:12 refers to these tassels as g’dilim (braids).

Note Halachah 8, which derives a halachic ruling from this comparison of terms.

According to the Scriptural Law alone (מדאורייתא), we are obligated to place tzitzit only on fabrics of linen and wool (Chapter 3, Halachah 1). Both fabrics are white and need not be dyed.

Though the Rabbis established a fixed practice, as explained in Halachah 6, there is no fixed number of strands according to Scriptural Law (מדאורייתא). Though there are some sources that appear to indicate that the Torah also fixed the number of strands required, Sanhedrin 88b concludes that the essence of the mitzvah of tzitzit is a Scriptural obligation; its explanation, however, is Rabbinic in origin.
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:12) rules that if one includes more than eight strands in tzitzit, they are unacceptable. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:1 goes further and states that by doing so, one violates the prohibition forbidding adding to a Scriptural commandment. Note the Mishnah Berurah 11:60, which quotes other opinions that differ.

I.e., sky-blue. Menachot 43b relates that this color is also reminiscent of God’s throne.

The Rambam discusses the nature of this dye and its preparation in Chapter 2.

Menachot 39a requires that the strand of techelet be wound at least seven times around the tassel, as explained in Halachah 8. This is a Rabbinic ordinance.

In this aspect, they resemble the arm tefillin and the head tefillin. (See Hilchot Tefillin 4:4.) As explained in the following halachah, however, unlike tefillin, they are counted as one mitzvah and not two.

This is the practice in the present age, when we do not know how to obtain techelet. Even in Talmudic times, when techelet was available, it was very expensive, and many of the common people made their tzitzit without it.

The explanation of the Rambam’s statements has been debated by the commentaries. Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Menachot 4:1.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the Rambam does not accept tzitzit that were made from techelet without any white strands. Since the verse states, “and you shall place on the tassels of the corner a strand of techelet,” there must be tassels of white strands around which to wind the techelet. Once this has been done, however, if the white strands are severed, one can still fulfill the mitzvah with the techelet alone.

In General Principle 11 of Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam writes:
One might think that since neither is dependent on the other, they would be counted as two mitzvot.... [Nevertheless,] they are a single mitzvah... because they have a single objective, “that you remember all the mitzvot....” All the elements that bring about this remembrance are counted as a single mitzvah.

See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 14) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 386).

Sifri Zuta, Mechilta D’Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.

The use of the singular form of the verb והיה.

I.e., although a garment has several tzitzit, the mitzvah is not fulfilled unless it has all four.

The tzitzit must be placed at the “corners” or the “fringes” of the garment.

Any further distance upward would be considered part of the garment itself and not its “corner” or “fringe” (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 11:9).

This is approximately two fingerbreadths. Any lower would be considered as “below the fringe” and not “on the fringe” (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:16).
Other opinions mention that these distances should also be applied in regard to the space between the hole and the side of the garment. It is customary to follow this view (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 11:10).

As mentioned in Halachah 1, the Torah does not explicitly mention the number of strands in the tzitzit. Although Menachot 39b derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:12, the Rambam considers this process of derivation to be Rabbinic in origin (מדברי סופרים).

Rabbenu Tam requires that the strands be at least twelve fingerbreadths long.

It is common to make the strands slightly longer than twelve fingerbreadths, so that, even if they tear, they will still retain the desired length (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:9; Mishnah Berurah 11:21).

See Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:9. In contemporary measure, a thumbbreadth is approximately 2 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 2.4 centimeters according to Chazon Ish.

Though the eight strands come from folding four larger strands, only half of one of these strands should be dyed. The other half should retain its natural color, white.
The Ra’avad disagrees with this point and maintains that one of the larger strands should be dyed in its entirety, thus producing two smaller strands that are dyed techelet. The Tur (Orach Chayim 10) and other Ashkenazic authorities maintain that two of the four strands were techelet and two were white.
The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s position, noting that Numbers 15:39 states, “And you shall place on the tassels of the corner a strand (singular) of techelet.” Note also the commentary of the Or Sameach.
Significantly, archaeological excavations have uncovered tzitzit belonging to bar Kochba’s soldiers. Only one of the eight strands was dyed techelet.

The dyed strand should be slightly longer than the others, so that, even after it has been wound around them; it will be the same length as the others.

The pattern of winding the techelet mentioned by the Rambam is based on his interpretation of Menachot 39a. As the Rambam mentions in Halachah 9, it must be followed only when the tzitzit include a strand of techelet. If they do not, as in the case of our tzitzit, different principles apply.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s approach and suggests a different manner of winding the coils of the tzitzit, which resembles the pattern we use today. The Rambam was aware of this approach and, in one of his responsa, explains that the method he mentioned has its source in the Talmud (Menachot, loc. cit.), while the other approach is of later origin.

Rashi, Menachot, loc. cit., states that since the white strand was used first, not ending with it would appear to detract from its importance.
The principle, “one should always ascend to a higher level of holiness, but never descend,” is applied in many other contexts within Torah law—e.g., Hilchot Tefillin 3:17.

Menachot 39a explains that the techelet reminds one of the heavens. There are seven heavens and six spaces between them, thus resulting in a total of thirteen.

This law also applies at present, as mentioned in the following halachah.

Note the Zohar, Vol. III, p. 228b, which explains the mystical significance of the division of the tzitzit into three portions.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 8:7) obligates one to separate the strands of the tzitzit before putting on one’s garment. Note the Mishnah Berurah 8:18, which quotes the Ari zal as stating that the word ציצת is an acronym for the Hebrew words meaning, “A righteous person constantly separates his tzitzit.”

Significantly, besides the knot with which the tzitzit are attached to the garment (Halachah 7), the Rambam does not mention tying knots in the tzitzit at all. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:14) mentions the common practice in which five knots are tied on the strands, leaving four spaces, which are filled with coils in between them. There are certain authorities who combine the two opinions, tying the knots as mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, but dividing the coils into segments as the Rambam mentions (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:27-28,31).

If the tzitzit lack entirely strands which hang loose, they are unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh).

This principle is also accepted by the opinions that do not require that the coils be divided into segments of three. Even so, for tzitzit to be acceptable, they must possess at least three coils (Mishnah Berurah 11:63, 66).

The Rambam leaves the use of entwined strands up to a person’s choice. The Ra’avad objects, quoting a passage from the Sifri that requires that the strands of the tzitzit be made by entwining different threads together. Numbers 15:38 uses the expression, p’til techelet. The word p’til implies “twisted threads.” See the Targum Yonaton to this verse. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:2) follows the Ra’avad’s view and obligates the use of entwined strands. From Chapter 2, Halachah 7, it appears that the Rambam also considered this as the common practice.

I.e., before one begins spinning the strands, one must state that he is doing so for the sake of use for tzitzit.
As explained in Hilchot Tefillin 1:11, any time when an activity must be carried out lishmah, it cannot be performed by a gentile. Therefore, the strands may not be spun by a gentile alone (Rama, Orach Chayim 11:2).

Tzitzit must be made from the same fabric as that which was used for the garment to which they are attached. Since these three sorts of wool are of an inferior quality and are not suitable for use in a garment itself, they may not be used for tzitzit either (Sefer HaMaor, Sukkah).

Numbers 15:38 states: “And you shall make tzitzit for yourselves.” The latter term implies that the tzitzit must belong to their owner and may not be stolen.
One of the principles of Jewish law is that if the form of a stolen article is altered, it is acquired by the thief, and he is required merely to return its worth, but not the article itself. Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:12 and the Mishnah Berurah 11:30, which discuss the implications of this principle on the use of stolen wool for tzitzit.

An ir hanidachat is a city condemned to be destroyed because the majority of its inhabitants worshiped idols. All property contained within the city is condemned to be burned and is considered as if it does not exist.

An animal designated to be offered as a sacrifice. Tzitzit can be made only from wool that belongs “to you.” Once an animal is designated for sacrificial purposes, it is no longer considered as belonging to a private individual (Sefer HaKovetz).

In contrast to other objects worshiped as false deities, an animal does not become condemned and may be used for other purposes (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1). Nevertheless, wool of this nature is unfit to use for a ritual purpose. (See Hilchot Issurei HaMizbe’ach 3:6.)

And no longer resembles the object which was worshiped. (See Hilchot Issurei Hamizbe’ach 3:14.)

I.e., attached to the garment and tied.

Menachot 42a relates that this verse serves as the source for the ruling that only a Jew may tie tzitzit.
The Hagahot Maimoniot state that since the phrase ישראל בני literally means “sons of Israel,” tzitzit should not be made by women. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 14:1) does not accept this opinion. The Rama, however, states that it is preferable for women not to tie tzitzit.

The Ashkenazic authorities do not accept this premise and maintain that, at the very least, the strands must be attached to the garment with the intent that they be used for the mitzvah. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 14:2.)

This principle is explained and illustrated in detail in the following four halachot.

The Rambam is speaking about the following instance: The person used long strands and placed one end of them through each of the two holes. Afterwards, using the strands from each corner that was not passed through the hole, he tied both tzitzit, and then separated them from each other.

This law is based on the Rambam’s interpretation of Sukkah 11a-b. Others (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 11:13) interpret that passage as speaking about the tzitzit of a single corner. If one inserts a single long strand in the hole several times, thus producing eight strands, ties the tzitzit, and then separates the strands from each other, the tzitzit are not acceptable. This is also considered as making tzitzit from those which are already in existence.

See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:24, which describes the manner in which tzitzit should be removed from a garment.

Since he intended to remove the initial tzitzit, there is nothing wrong with attaching the second one (Menachot 40b).

According to the Rambam, it does not matter which tzitzit he removes. For the tzitzit to be acceptable, both sets have to be removed, and then a single set retied.

By adding the second set, he transgresses the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot of the Torah. Therefore, both sets of tzitzit are disqualified. The Ra’avad and the Ashkenazic authorities do not accept the Rambam’s decision. They maintain that while both sets of tzitzit are hanging from the garment, their existence is not considered at all significant. It is as if they do not exist at all. Therefore, by removing the extra set, it is not considered as if one is making tzitzit from ones which previously existed. On the contrary, it is considered as if one is bringing an acceptable set of tzitzit into existence.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 10:6) accepts the Rambam’s view. The Rama, however, follows the other opinions.

The Rambam’s statements have raised questions. Though all commentaries agree that the three tzitzit made when the garment had only three corners are unacceptable, the question revolves around the fourth corner. Why is the tzitzit made upon it disqualified? When it was made, the garment already had four corners. On this basis, the Magen Avraham (10:6) rules that, indeed, the fourth tzitzit is not disqualified and may remain.

Tzitzit are required only on a garment with four corners, as stated in the proof-text quoted from Deuteronomy and mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.

There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam’s statements: In this halachah he cites the verse from Deuteronomy as a proof-text, while in Halachah 13 he cited a verse from Numbers.

Although in its present state, the garment has four corners, unless it is sewn it is possible that the folds will open and the position of the corners will change (Menachot 41a). Note the Rama (Orach Chayim 10:6), who quotes a difference of opinion where the tzitzit should be placed during the time the garment is folded. Because of this difference of opinion, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 10:13 suggests not wearing such a garment unless it is sewn closed.

Our translation follows the explanation of the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 10). Note, however, the explanation of the Be’ur Halachah 10.

When the torn portion is three fingerbreadths long, it is considered as the “corner” of the garment. Therefore, the tzitzit are considered to be attached to a significant portion of the garment and need not be untied before the corner can be sewn back on the garment (Nimukei Yosef, Menachot 40b). The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between this law and Halachah 13, which forbids one to sew a piece of a garment to which tzitzit are attached to another garment. The commentaries differentiate between these two laws, explaining that there is a difference between a piece of fabric from another garment (Halachah 13) and a portion of the original garment which was detached (the present halachah). The Turei Zahav 15:3 does not accept this distinction, and maintains that even attaching a piece of the original garment is unacceptable. The later authorities suggest following this stringency.

A portion of a garment less than three fingerbreadths long is not considered significant. Therefore, the tzitzit are no longer considered to be attached to part of the garment. Accordingly, when this fragment is sewn back to the garment, the tzitzit attached to it will be disqualified, based on the principle that one must make tzitzit and not use those existing previously. If, however, one untied the tzitzit, one may sew the detached corner back onto the garment, and then attach new tzitzit to it (Rav David Arameah).
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Amram Gaon as stating that, if such a small portion was detached from the garment, tzitzit may never be attached to the garment again. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 15:4) suggests following this more stringent view if possible.

Although initially the tzitzit should be positioned a certain distance above the end of the garment, as mentioned in Halachah 6, once they have been attached to the garment in the proper manner, there is greater leniency (Menachot 42a). The Rama (Orach Chayim 11:10) suggests sewing a border around the hole through which the strands are placed so that it will not tear.

For example, they became torn. Based on Menachot 38b, the Rabbis have offered two interpretations of “enough to tie a loop”:
a) Enough to tie a loop around all the strands of the tzitzit;
b) Enough to tie a loop around the strand itself.
The grammatical construction of the Rambam’s statements indicates—albeit not definitely—that he favors the latter view.
(Note the Be’ur Halachah 12, which states that the measure “to tie a loop” surely does not exceed four centimeters.)
The Rambam maintains that even if the majority of all the strands of the tzitzit were cut off, as long as “enough to tie a loop remains,” the tzitzit are acceptable. If, however, both ends of one long strand are cut off entirely, the tzitzit are not acceptable. Rabbenu Tam does not accept this decision and requires that at least two entire strands retain their full length. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 12:1.) The later authorities, particularly in the Ashkenazi community, suggest following Rabbenu Tam’s view.

See Turei Zahav 12:3.

See the Kessef Mishneh who mentions that although such wool is unacceptable for techelet, a garment made from such wool requires tzitzit and such wool may be used for that purpose.

The identity of the chilazon is a matter of question. Menachot 44a states that it would be visible only once in seventy years. From Bechorot 6:2, one can infer that it was a long snakelike fish. From other sources, it appears to be a snaillike animal. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 4:1), the Rambam writes that techelet is no longer available. Approximately one hundred years ago, Rabbi Gershon Chenoch Leiner of Radzin attempted to reintroduce a dye which he determined to be techelet. Similarly, Rabbi Herzog, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, and other scholars have attempted to locate the chilazon. Although, from a theoretical perspective, the Torah community appreciated the value of their research, in practice, their decisions have never been accepted by the majority of Torah scholars.

Though ים המלח generally refers to the Dead Sea, there are times when the Rambam uses this term to refer to the Mediterranean. See the conclusion of his Commentary to the Mishnah.

Menachot 42b interprets the phrase, “totally techelet” (Exodus 28:31), to mean that the entire dye must be intended for a ritual purpose.

Thus, it is unfit to be used for tzitzit. This wool should be burned lest it be discovered by someone else and unknowingly used for tzitzit.

Since it was purchased from a recognized dealer, there is no obligation to check it. Nevertheless, if it was checked, it can be disqualified. See Halachah 6.

These processes are mentioned in Menachot 42b-43a.

The concept of two seals is explained in the laws of kashrut. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 13:8.

Even if it proves to be techelet, we assume that it was not dyed for the purpose of being used for tzitzit.

We assume that twisted strands of techelet were made to be used for tzitzit. It is unlikely that someone would go to the trouble of twisting strands of techelet for any other purpose. (See the Ra’avad.)
Our text follows the standard published versions of the Mishneh Torah, which is supported by a responsum purported to have been written by the Rambam. The original printings and many authoritative editions of the Mishneh Torah state that even twisted strands of techelet are not acceptable when found in the marketplace. This version appears to be supported by the Rambam’s ruling, Hilchot Shabbat 19:24, which is based on the same Talmudic passage, Eruvin 96b.

We assume that a merchant will not risk tarnishing his reputation by misrepresenting an article.

The rationale for this decision is that tzitzit must be “of the same type of fabric as the fringe of the garment.” This also implies that they should share the same color as the fringe (Rashi, Menachot 43b). This decision is not shared by Tosafot, Menachot 41b, which rules that white strands are appropriate even when the garment itself is of another color. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 9:5) mentions that those who are precise in their performance of mitzvot follow the Rambam’s view. The Rama, however, maintains that one should use white tzitziot for all garments.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s statements are not an exact quote from his source, Menachot, loc. cit., which substitutes the word kelah ilan instead of black. Kelah ilan is a dye which looks almost exactly the same as techelet except that it is not made from the blood of the chilazon. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the Rambam meant that any dark color is unacceptable although lighter colors would be acceptable. It is necessary that there be a contrast between the color of the strands of tzitzit, just as there is a contrast between white and techelet.

Even in Talmudic times, techelet was very expensive and difficult to obtain. As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1, according to most authorities, techelet is not available in the present era, nor has it been available for at least 1000 years.

With this expression, the Rambam is emphasizing that the mitzvah of tzitzit is an obligation associated with the garment and not with a person per se, i.e., according to Scriptural Law, a person is not obligated to wear tzitzit. Should he desire to wear a garment of the type that requires tzitzit, then he has the opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah. See Halachot 10-11.

Deuteronomy 22:12 states: “Make braids on the four corners of your garments.” As explained in Halachah 3, this excludes a garment with fewer than four corners.

See Halachah 3.

This requirement is particularly significant regarding a tallit katan. Note the Mishnah Berurah 16:4, which requires that a tallit katan be at least 0.75 of a cubit long and 0.5 of a cubit wide on each side, without including the area of the hole where one’s head is inserted. Preferably, the tallit katan should be a cubit long on each side.

The Tur (Orach Chayim 16) defines this as referring to a child who is at least nine years old.

As explained in the following halachah.

The term “wool” when used without any modifier refers to wool from sheep or rams only.

The Rambam’s opinion is quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 9:1). The Ashkenazic authorities, however (see the Rama), disagree and maintain that all four-cornered garments require tzitzit regardless of the fabric they are made of. This difference of opinion results from the interpretation of a debate between Amoraim (Menachot 39b).
Because of this difference of opinion, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 9:6) suggests that everyone wear a tallit of wool, so that he will fulfill the mitzvah as required by Scriptural Law according to all opinions. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 9:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 9:5 suggest that a God-fearing person should have both his tallit gadol and his tallit katan made of wool. See also the notes to Halachah 5.

Were tzitzit not required to be attached to these garments, people might not attach them to the garments which do require them. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 9:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 9:5 suggest that a God-fearing person should have both his tallit gadol and his tallit katan made of wool.

Even when extending the scope of the mitzvah, the Rabbis maintained these criteria, which are explained in the previous halachah.

As explained in Menachot, loc. cit.

Since the Torah mentions garments of wool and linen (using the root בגד) regarding the prohibition against mixing fabrics (sha’atnez, Hilchot Kilayim 10:1) and the laws of tzara’at (an affliction similar to leprosy, Hilchot Tumat Tzara’at 13:1), we can assume that any place in the Torah which mentions the word “garment” is referring to one made from wool or linen unless another fabric is explicitly mentioned. A form of the term בגד is used with regard to tzitzit in Numbers 15:38.

In this halachah, the Rambam departs from his usual pattern of stating a law tersely without explanation, and quotes the entire passage (Menachot 43b), from which these laws are derived.

Since the mention of a specific number of corners obviously is intended to exclude garments which do not meet this requirement.

I.e., why restrict the scope of the exclusion?

For one also “covers himself” with such garments.

I.e., why is the inclusion applied to a five-cornered garment and the exclusion to a three-cornered garment? Perhaps they should be reversed.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that the inclusion applies to it. This concludes the quotation from the Talmud.

Since the reason tzitzit are placed on a five-cornered garment is that it possesses four corners.

Indeed, if one attaches tzitzit to more than four corners of the garment, one transgresses the prohibition against adding to a Scriptural commandment (Magen Avraham 10:2).

For, in this way, the tzitzit will be more noticeable (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 10:3).

There are other opinions, which maintain that a garment with more than four corners does not require tzitzit. In consideration of these opinions, it is preferable not to wear such garments at all (Magen Avraham 10:1).

Any cloth, not only wool or linen.

A garment made of leather does not require tzitzit. Deuteronomy 15:38 states that tzitzit must be attached to בגדיהם, “their garments.” The word בגד implies a woven garment and not one of leather (Levush, Orach Chayim 10:4). Thus, a leather garment does not require tzitzit.

The same law applies when not only the corners, but also a portion of the garment itself, is leather. As long as the greater portion of the garment is cloth, it requires tzitzit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 10:8; Mishnah Berurah 10:10).

In this case as well, as long as the greater portion of the garment is leather.

This is derived from the conclusion of the verse from Deuteronomy, “with which you cover yourself.” A person covers himself with the major portion of the garment (Rabbenu Manoach).

Here, the usage of a plural term implies an inclusion of garments which belong to many owners.

In this verse, the singular form of the word “your” is used.

. Nevertheless, one is allowed to attach tzitzit to the garment if one chooses. Furthermore, one is allowed to borrow a colleague’s tallit and recite a blessing over it—even without his knowledge (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 14:3-4).

Note the Hagahot Maimoniot, which explain that, even after thirty days, there is no Scriptural requirement for a person to attach tzitzit to a garment which is not his own. The Sages, however, imposed this obligation because the garment appears to be his.

Note the explanation in the following halachah.

As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 2, there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether garments made from fabrics other than wool or linen require tzitzit or not. According to the opinions which maintain that they do, the principles that follow are derived from the exegesis of a Biblical verse. (See Menachot 39b.) According to the Rambam, who maintains that the requirement of tzitzit on these garments is Rabbinic in origin, we must assume that these principles were part of the Rabbinic ordinance requiring tzitzit for these garments (Kessef Mishneh).

The authorities who consider the obligation to attach tzitzit to such garments as stemming from Scriptural Law explain that, in the commandment to attach tzitzit, the Torah mentions the word “corner” an extra time, to teach that the tzitzit should be made of the same fabric as the corners.

If one chooses to make tzitzit from these fabrics, one should use them for all four tzitzit. It is questionable whether it is acceptable to make some of the tzitzit of a specific garment from wool and others from the fabric of which the garment is made (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 9:4).

The Rama (Orach Chayim 9:2) states that at present it is customary not to make linen tzitzit at all.

Menachot, loc. cit., derives this law from the fact that Deuteronomy 22:12 mentions the mitzvah to attach tzitzit to our garments directly after the mention of the prohibition of making garments of wool and linen. Our Sages explain, that although mixtures of wool and linen are forbidden in general, such a mixture is required in tzitzit. (See the following two halachot.) Therefore, whenever tzitzit are made, either of these two fabrics may be used.

. Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg maintains, however, that wool and linen strands individually are not sufficient, and only a combination of wool and linen including strands of techelet can be used to fulfill the obligation of tzitzit for garments made from other fabrics. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 9:4 suggests considering this opinion.

Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 9:5 and the Mishnah Berurah 9:10, 13 which discuss a situation where the garment is woven from both wool and another fabric.

It appears that the Rambam is asking about attaching tzitzit that have only white strands, without attaching techelet. Thus, one can conclude that when attaching tzitzit to a linen garment, it is forbidden to make the white strands of wool even though one includes a woolen strand of techelet. Though the prohibition against sha’atnez is lifted for this garment, it is lifted only when there is no alternative but to do so (Kessef Mishneh).

A mixture of wool and linen which is forbidden. (See Deuteronomy 22:11 and Hilchot Kilayim, Chapter 10.)

Chapter 2, Halachot 1-2.

According to Scriptural Law. See, however, the following halachah.

Woolen strands for a woolen garment, linen strands for a linen garment, and thus skirt the prohibition entirely.

The following are general rules which apply, not only regarding tzitzit, but in other circumstances as well: for example, Hilchot Milah 1:9.

By fulfilling the positive commandment without breaking the prohibition.

Rav Nissim Gaon explains that although the violation of a negative commandment receives a more severe punishment than the failure to observe a positive commandment, when God originally gave the negative commandments, He prescribed that they do not apply when adherence to them causes the performance of a positive commandment to be nullified.
Tanya (Iggeret HaTeshuvah, Chapter 1) explains the rationale for this principle. Man’s purpose in this world is to spread Godly light through the observance of mitzvot. Accordingly, the observance of these mitzvot is always given preference when there is such a conflict.
It must be emphasized that one must fulfill the mitzvah at the time one is violating the transgression. It is forbidden, however, to break a commandment in order to later perform a mitzvah.

This decree was imposed even when techelet was available.

Even though by doing so, one does not fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit to the fullest degree.

The Rabbis have the power to ordain that a person bypass the performance of a Scriptural commandment. Surely this applies in the present instance, when the mitzvah of tzitzit is not nullified entirely.

Significantly, the Rambam does not quote his apparent source (Menachot 40b) exactly. The Talmud states “lest one wear a garment of the night.” The Rambam’s change of phraseology teaches two points. First, that not only a garment which is generally worn at night, but even one which is worn primarily during the day, should not have techelet attached to it, lest one wear it during the night.
This also sheds light on a more involved issue. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the exclusion of wearing tzitzit at night applies to all tzitzit, or if it applies only to garments which are worn primarily at night. According to the latter opinion, garments worn primarily at night do not require tzitzit, even when worn during the day. In contrast, a garment which is worn primarily during the day requires tzitzit, even during the night and one does not transgress the prohibition against sha’atnez when wearing it at that time.
By altering the terminology used by the Talmud, the Rambam indicates his acceptance of the first perspective. Rabbenu Asher is the primary exponent of the second position. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 18:1) mentions both views without reaching a conclusion.

See Hilchot Kilayim 10:32, which mentions a similar concept regarding the priestly garments. The sash worn by the priests was made from sha’atnez. Therefore, the priests were allowed to wear it only when they were actually involved in the Temple service. Wearing it at other times constitutes a transgression, and not a mitzvah.
Significantly, Rabbenu Tam differs with the Rambam and allows the sash and tzitzit to be worn even during the times when doing so does not fulfill a mitzvah.

Note the Magen Avraham 8:13, which states that this verse also implies that one should wear tzitzit in a manner in which the strands can be seen.

I.e., the daytime hours. Note the Chatam Sofer and Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Orach Chayim 18), who mention opinions that maintain that the mitzvah is not limited by the times of day and night, but rather by situations when one can see the tzitzit. Thus during bein hashamashot (twilight), even the authorities who maintain that this period is no longer day would agree that there is a Scriptural commandment to wear tzitzit at this time, because the tzitzit can be seen.

There is no question concerning a blind man’s obligation. He is required to wear tzitzit and may recite a blessing beforehand (Mishnah Berurah 17:1).

I.e., doing so is not a transgression of the prohibition against adding to the performance of a mitzvah.
The Mishnah Berurah 21:15 quotes the Arizal, as advising one to sleep in a tallit katan at night.

Rabbi Yitzchak Abuhav maintains that this law applies even to linen tzitzit containing techelet. Based on the previous halachah, however, most authorities do not accept this opinion.

On the Sabbath, it is forbidden to carry in the public domain. Therefore, one might think that it is forbidden to wear a garment with tzitzit at night, for it would be considered as if one is carrying them. The Rambam is teaching us that the tzitzit are not considered to be a burden, but rather an adornment of the garment to which they are attached.

Therefore, when a tallit is put on during the night—e.g., before the Selichot prayers—a blessing should not be recited (Rama, Orach Chayim 18:3).

According to the Rambam, this question applies whether one wears his tallit at night or not. Nevertheless, because of Rabbenu Asher’s opinion mentioned in the previous halachah, if someone slept in his tallit katan, he should not recite a blessing upon it in the morning. Instead, it is preferable that he recite the blessing over his tallit gadol with the intention of including the tallit katan (Mishneh Berurah 8:24).

Note the Rama (Orach Chayim 18:3), who allows the blessing to be recited from dawn onwards.

For a tallit katan, most authorities suggest concluding al mitzvat tzitzit, “concerning the mitzvah of tzitzit.”

I.e., even when he has already recited the blessing once that day. Note the difference of opinion between the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 8:14) and the Rama, whether a person who removes his tallit with the intention of putting it on again in the near future is obligated to recite a blessing or not.

Note Hilchot Berachot 11:9, which states that one should recite the blessing, shehecheyanu, when one acquires or makes tzitzit. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 22:1.)

Making the tzitzit or even attaching them to the garment is only a preparatory act. See related concepts in Hilchot Mezuzah 5:7; Hilchot Berachot 11:8.

This leniency is granted with regard to tzitzit, because the tzitzit themselves are not considered sacred articles. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 21:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 21:14 state that it is improper to enter a lavatory wearing a tallit gadol. Since this garment is worn exclusively at the times of prayer, it is not fitting to wear it in a lavatory.

The Rama (Orach Chayim 21:1) differs and maintains that even after tzitzit have been removed from a garment, they should not be treated with disrespect.

Though the tzitzit are used to perform a mitzvah, they, themselves, do not become sacred.

And we are afraid that he will deface it. (See Hilchot Mezuzah 5:11.)

Note Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat HaNefesh 12:7, which forbids traveling together with a gentile.

Women are not required to fulfill any mitzvot whose observance is linked to a specific time. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:3.) Since tzitzit are worn only during the day, women are not obligated to wear them.

I.e., gentile servants, who are required to fulfill only the mitzvot for which women are obligated.

The Torah does not place any obligations on minors.

Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 17) notes that the Rambam’s choice of phraseology appears to indicate that the requirement to become trained in the performance of mitzvot obligates the child himself. Generally, it is understood that the obligation is on the child’s parents, who are required to train him in Torah observance.

The Rama (Orach Chayim 17:3) interprets this to mean, “knows how to wrap himself in tzitzit in the ritual manner.”

In many communities, it is customary to begin training a child to wear a tallit katan from the time he is toilet trained. In other communities, a child begins to wear tzitzit from the age of 6.

The Rama (Orach Chayim 17:2), however, advises against women wearing tzitzit, explaining that doing so would be a sign of conceit.

Since they are not obligated to fulfill these commandments, it is improper for them to say the blessing which praises God “who has commanded us” to perform the mitzvot.
our Sages relate, women are given some measure of reward for the fulfillment of these commandments indicates that the commandment applies—albeit not completely—to them as well.

The word tumtum has its roots in the word atum, which means “a solid block.” It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by skin, so that it is impossible to determine whether he is male or female.

Androgynous is a combination of the Greek words meaning “man” and “woman.” It refers to a person who possesses the sexual organs of both genders.t Ishut 2:24.)

I.e., it is doubtful whether they are governed by the laws applying to a man or those applying to a woman. The doubts are, however, different in nature. With regard to a tumtum, we are uncertain what is his true gender. With regard to an androgynous, however, the question revolves around the Sages’ failure to define his status.

Lest they be considered men.

Lest they be considered women. Needless to say, according to Ashkenazic practice, they would be required to recite blessings as well.

See Halachot 1-4.

The Rambam’s statements in this halachah revolve around a difference of opinion of our Sages, Menachot 42b. There are Sages who maintain that tzitzit is an obligation that depends on the garment—i.e., the mitzvah is completed by placing tzitzit on every garment which requires them. The other opinion states that tzitzit are an obligation incumbent on a person, that a person is required to attach tzitzit to his garments.

With this choice of phraseology, the Rambam indicates that—in contrast to other mitzvot (e.g., tefillin)—there is no Scriptural obligation to wear tzitzit every day. Only when a person desires to wear a garment that requires tzitzit is he obligated to fulfill the mitzvah.
Here, his choice of phraseology indicates that, although the mitzvah is incumbent on the person, it does relate to the garment. Only when a person wears a garment which requires tzitzit is he obligated to fulfill the mitzvah.

As explained in the previous halachah.

Because of the importance of this mitzvah, as mentioned in the following halachah.
The Rambam mentions being “wrapped in a garment requiring tzitzit,” an expression which appears to refer to a tallit gadol, a garment of the size and cut appropriate for “wrapping oneself.” Significantly, throughout these halachot, he has used that term and never makes any reference to a tallit katan, the smaller garment which is colloquially called “tzitzit” today.
In Talmudic times, draping oneself with a garment that resembled our tallitot gedolot was common, but in different lands and different eras, the style of dress changed and, except for sages who would spend their day involved in study, it was rare that a person would wear a tallit gadol throughout the day. Accordingly, the people took to wearing the smaller tallit katan, which could be accommodated to other styles of dress more easily.
There is no explicit mention of a tallit katan in the Talmud, although a story related in Menachot 44a appears to indicate that such garments were worn in that era as well. The writings of the early Ashkenazic and later Sephardic rabbis of the Middle Ages mention the wearing of a tallit katan as an accepted practice

The Rambam does not specify the morning service. Perhaps he refers to the afternoon service as well.

See Rosh HaShanah 17b, which relates that when God revealed the thirteen qualities of mercy to Moses, “He wrapped Himself [in a tallit] like a leader of prayer and taught him the order of prayer.”