Tzitzis being Only White

The above statement of the Shulchan Aruch and the gloss of the Rama, are based on a מחלוקת between the Rishonim regarding the requirement that ציצית be made from מין כנף . The Braisa quoted in the Gemara says:

מנחות )מא ע”ב( “טלית אין פוטר בה אלא מינה” 152

“A garment is only exempted [from the obligation of ציצית ] with its [same] kind.”

The Rishonim disagree as to what is meant by “the same kind” as the garment. Rashi understands this to mean that the strings that are not תכלת should be the same color as the garment. If the garment is red, the non- תכלת strings should be red; if the garment is green they should be green etc.153

Other Rishonim understand that the intent of this statement is in regard to the material of the garment and not the color. Hence, the requirement of מין כנף is that the non- תכלת strings should be the same material as the garment. So if the garment is made of wool the strings should be wool, if it is made from linen the strings should be linen etc.154

The above quote from the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama is essentially citing the two sides of this מחלוקת . The Shulchan Aruch cites the opinion of Rashi that the strings should be the same color as the garment, commenting that the scrupulous are careful to do so. The Rama disagrees, ruling that regardless of the color of the garment, the strings should be white. In other words, the Rama rules contrary to Rashi and does not require מין כנף as it relates to the color of the strings. Hence, even for a red or green garment one should still wear white strings.

The Chazon Ish points out that the entire above discussion was regarding the strings that are not meant to be תכלת . The requirement for ציצית is that some of the strings be white (according to the Rama), or the same color as the garment (according to the מחבר ) and the others be colored תכלת . (The precise number of each type is subject to a מחלוקת ראשונים , which requires a separate discussion.) The discussion regarding מין כנף was never regarding the strings that are meant to be תכלת . As such, even to wear קלא אילן in place of תכלת is not an issue of מין כנף and is the same as if he were to wear white strings in the place of 155 תכלת .

This can be proven from the Gemara. Regarding the concern that one may use קלא אילן in place of תכלת which would be שעטנז , the Gemara asks: “? ולא יהא אלא לבן ” – “it should [be no worse] than white?”, meaning that the קלא אילן is not any worse than if the strings had no dye at all and remained white, [and is still exempted from the איסור of 156 [שעטנז . If the Braisa that states: ” טלית אין פוטר בה אלא מינה ” – “A garment is only exempted by its kind” is referring to the color, then the Gemara would not be correct in saying that קלא אילן color can be used just like white. The Gemara must be assuming that at least for the strings that are in place of תכלת , if תכלת is not available, any color is sufficient.

Bottom Line: The issue of מין כנף according to all opinions is not applicable to the strings that are in place of .תכלת

The Mishnah permits white-only tzitzis only when Tekheiles is unavailable, making this a b’dieved (non-ideal) fulfillment. Tekheiles is the essence of tzitzis, not a mere enhancement. Multiple sources emphasize that wearing white without blue is only tolerated when necessary, not preferred.
Source: “Threads of Reason,” pp. 5–6

– Halacha allows white tzitzis on non-white garments; color-stringency does not override Techeiles fulfillment (Rabbi Tavger).

– The Rema and Shulchan Aruch explicitly permit this practice, emphasizing the mitzvah itself over garment-string color alignment (Rabbi Barkin).