Ginat Egoz

Siman 2: Regarding the Requirement of White Garments for Tzitzis

A. The Garment Must Be White

The Tur, Beis Yosef, and Mechaber (Orach Chaim 9:5) wrote that one should be concerned for the opinion of several Rishonim who derive from the drasha of “haknaf min kanaf” that the tzitzis strings should match the color of the garment. The Rema, both in Darkei Moshe and in his gloss there, writes that the Ashkenazim are not accustomed to making the tzitzis anything but white, even for colored garments, and one should not deviate from this practice.

The Mishnah Berurah (9:16) quotes the Taz, who explains that in order to be stringent according to both opinions (1). One should ensure that the tallis is not dyed any color but should specifically use a white tallis so that by having white strings, he fulfills his obligation according to both positions.

According to Kabbalah, there is an additional reason for this practice. In Sefer Daniel (7:9), when describing Hashem, it states: “His garments were like white snow.” Sefer Chassidim explains that in his prophetic vision, Daniel saw Hashem clothed in a white tallis (of tzitzis). Therefore, it is proper for us as well to wear a white tallis shel mitzvah.

In recent times, some have begun wearing a tallis shel mitzvah that is dyed in various colors, which goes against the accepted minhag, as explained.

B. The White Strings Should Not Be Dyed

Even though the Rema wrote that the custom is not to dye the tzitzis strings even when the garment itself is dyed, it is nevertheless clear that even if one did dye the strings in any color, even if the entire garment was white, he still fulfills his obligation b’dieved. This is explicit in Menachos (40a), where it states that one who dyed the strings with k’la ilan (a counterfeit techeiles dye) has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation, since at the very least, the strings remain “white.”

Consequently, it would seem obvious that if we have a safek techeiles, it is certainly better to use it to dye some of the strings rather than strictly adhering to the Rema’s custom of using only white strings. Since safek d’oraisa l’chumra applies, one is certainly obligated to use the doubtful techeiles, as this may allow him to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis in its complete form. (2)

C. The Halacha of Safek D’Oraisa L’Chumra

It is said in yeshivos in the name of Reb Chaim zt”l that the principle of safek d’oraisa l’chumra applies only when one is uncertain whether he has already fulfilled the mitzvah or whether he is obligated to perform the mitzvah at all. By being stringent and performing the mitzvah, he resolves the doubt and ensures with certainty that he has fulfilled his obligation.

However, if one is definitely obligated in a mitzvah, but fulfilling it in a particular manner remains in doubt—such that even if he acts stringently, he is still unsure whether he has actually fulfilled his obligation—then we do not apply safek d’oraisa l’chumra. Based on this, if one has safek techeiles, we would not apply safek d’oraisa l’chumra in this case, since even if he places the dyed strings in his garment, he will still remain in doubt as to whether he has fulfilled anything at all.

However, at face value, this reasoning is quite difficult. See Gur Aryeh Yehuda (by the son of the holy Gaon, R’ Menachem Zemba, Hy”d), simanim 7 and 8, where he explains that this very reasoning is how the Pri Megadim understood the intent of the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 190). Nevertheless, the Ran on Sukkah (46b) explicitly rejects this view.

D. The Halacha of Bal Tigra (Not Diminishing a Mitzvah)

See Teshuvos Beis Halevi (vol. 1, siman 42), where he brings a novel explanation from Toras Olas Avraham regarding the prohibition of bal tigra (diminishing a mitzvah). He explains that if one places only three tzitzis strings on a garment, or omits a parsha from his tefillin, he cannot be considered to have transgressed bal tigra, since he has essentially done nothing—he simply hasn’t fulfilled the mitzvah. The prohibition of bal tigra only applies when one performs a mitzvah but reduces its proper fulfillment, meaning he did fulfill it, just not in its complete form.

See also the Mishnah Berurah (34:2, in the Biur Halacha s.v. yaniach), where he cites from Zevachim (Perek Beis Shamai) that in a case where blood that required two or four applications was applied only once, the korban is valid b’dieved—yet the person still transgresses bal tigra. This serves as an open rebuke to those who are lax in mitzvos when something is only lechatchila.

According to the Toras Olas Avraham, this is the definition of bal tigra: one may not perform a Torah mitzvah in a deficient manner. It applies only when one is actively fulfilling the mitzvah, but in a manner that only suffices b’dieved.

Based on this, even though we follow the Chachamim over Rabbi Yehuda that techeiles is not me’akev lavan, nevertheless, if one has techeiles available and does not make the effort to place it on his garment, he transgresses bal tigra.

E. The Fundamental Nature of Techeiles and Lavan

See Rambam (Hilchos Tzitzis 1:3-4), where he states that tzitzis does not consist of two separate mitzvos (one for techeiles and one for lavan); rather, it is all one single mitzvah.

In Ma’aseh Nissim (Question 5), the dayan R’ Daniel HaBavli raises a difficulty with the Rambam’s position. After all, the Rambam himself writes (Hilchos Tefillin 4:4) that tefillin of the arm (shel yad) and tefillin of the head (shel rosh) are two separate mitzvos, as proven by the fact that they do not invalidate one another. Similarly, in Hilchos Lulav (7:5), he writes that the four species of the lulav constitute one mitzvah since they are mutually indispensable (3). If so, why does the Rambam write here that techeiles and lavan form one mitzvah, when they do not invalidate each other? Based on this reasoning, they should be considered two separate mitzvos, like tefillin. This question is discussed in Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvos, Shoresh 11, and in the responsum of R’ Avraham, Rambam’s son, in Ma’aseh Nissim.

Rav Chaim (zt”l) explained that the Netziv, in his commentary on the She’iltos (Parshas Shelach), notes a fundamental dispute between the Rambam and Ra’avad on one side and Rashi and Tosafos on the other regarding the nature of techeiles. According to Rashi and Tosafos (Menachos, perakim on techeiles), half of the strings must be techeiles, which indicates that techeiles and lavan are two distinct components of the mitzvah. Given that Chazal rule that techeiles does not invalidate lavan, Tosafos (Menachos 38b, d”h hatcheiles) suggest that one need only attach two white strings (which are four when doubled), since adding extra white strings serves no purpose if the primary obligation is already fulfilled.

However, according to the Rambam and Ra’avad, techeiles is not an independent component of the mitzvah of tzitzis. Rather, the primary obligation is the four white strings, which are eight when folded. The role of techeiles is solely in the p’sil, meaning the windings in the knots (chulyos), as per Rashi’s interpretation of dor ikesh u’f’saltol (Devarim 32:5), where p’sil is understood as cord (tzudreiy”t in Old French). The techeiles is required specifically for making these windings, as the verse states: “And they shall make for themselves tzitzis… and place upon the tzitzis of the corner a thread of techeiles.” This means that the core mitzvah is fulfilled with white strings, while the techeiles enhances it by serving as the p’sil for the required windings.

For this reason, the Rambam and Ra’avad rule that one techeiles string suffices, since techeiles is only necessary for the p’sil. Their dispute is merely whether a full string is required or whether half a string suffices. But regarding the fundamental concept, both agree that techeiles functions as a tosefes (an enhancement) rather than an independent requirement.

With this, R’ Daniel HaBavli’s difficulty is resolved. The Rambam rules that techeiles and lavan do not invalidate each other, but he does not interpret the Mishnah (Menachos 38a) in its simplest form, as understood at the beginning of the sugya. The Mishnah states: “Techeiles does not invalidate lavan, and lavan does not invalidate techeiles.” The Gemara initially questions whether this Mishnah follows the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that techeiles and lavan are interdependent. Rav Yehuda explains that the Mishnah can even follow Rabbi Yehuda, as it merely addresses precedence, rather than validity. The Gemara then clarifies why lavan does not invalidate techeiles, but questions why techeiles does not invalidate lavan. Rava resolves this by saying the Mishnah refers to gerdumin (remnants of strings).

From the makshan’s perspective, if the Mishnah follows the Chachamim’s view (against Rabbi Yehuda), then both its statements—techeiles does not invalidate lavan and vice versa—are clear and do not require Rava’s explanation. The explanation of gerdumin is needed only if the Mishnah follows Rabbi Yehuda. Since the Rambam paskens like the Chachamim, he had no reason to bring Rava’s explanation of gerdumin at all. However, in Hilchos Tzitzis (1:4), the Rambam explicitly writes: “Techeiles does not invalidate lavan, and lavan does not invalidate techeiles. How so? If one lacks techeiles, he may use lavan alone.” This aligns with the Chachamim’s position. But then the Rambam continues: “Similarly, if one attached both lavan and techeiles and the lavan tore off, leaving only techeiles, it is valid.” This refers to gerdumin.

This is puzzling. Why does the Rambam cite Rava’s explanation, which was introduced only to interpret the Mishnah according to Rabbi Yehuda? Since the Rambam rules like the Chachamim, why didn’t he just quote the Mishnah kepshuto, as understood by the makshan?

The answer must be that at the outset, the makshan assumed, like Rashi and Tosafos, that techeiles and lavan form two distinct elements of the mitzvah. Therefore, according to the Chachamim, one who places only white or only techeiles has fulfilled only half the mitzvah. This means that even if he has not fully performed the mitzvah, he has at least partially fulfilled it. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, he has not fulfilled anything at all.

However, Rava’s explanation regarding gerdumin introduces a new understanding of the Chachamim’s position, which the Rambam adopts. According to this view, the primary mitzvah consists of the four white strings. The requirement to wind them with techeiles is an additional hiddur that enhances the mitzvah but is not essential. This is why the Mishnah states: “Techeiles does not invalidate lavan.” But in the seifa, we cannot simply say that one fulfills a partial mitzvah by attaching only the windings (p’sil) without the white strings. That would be meaningless—how can one perform the hiddur without fulfilling the core mitzvah? This explains why the Rambam quotes Rava’s teaching about gerdumin, even though it was originally offered only according to Rabbi Yehuda.

From this, it is clear that techeiles and lavan cannot be considered two separate mitzvos just because they do not invalidate each other. The very concept that “lavan does not invalidate techeiles” makes no sense if techeiles were an independent mitzvah. Rather, there is a single mitzvah of tzitzis, which consists of white strings, with an additional hiddur to wind them with techeiles.

Consequently, if we accept Toras Olas Avraham’s definition of bal tigra—that one transgresses bal tigra by fulfilling a mitzvah in a deficient manner (i.e., in a way that is only valid b’dieved)—then someone who wears a white-only tzitzis when techeiles is available would certainly be in violation of bal tigra.

F. The Principle of Aseh Docheh Lo Sa’aseh

If one does not have access to techeiles, it must be said either that there is no prohibition of bal tigra in such a case—since he has no option to fulfill the mitzvah completely—or that even if bal tigra does apply, the principle of aseh docheh lo sa’aseh (a positive commandment overrides a negative one) would apply. However, if one does have access to techeiles, then aseh docheh lo sa’aseh cannot be invoked, since he is able to fulfill both the positive commandment (of tzitzis) and avoid the prohibition (bal tigra). As Reish Lakish states in Menachos (40a): “Wherever you can fulfill both [a mitzvas aseh and lo sa’aseh], you must do so.”

Therefore, it seems clear that anyone who has even a safek techeiles is obligated to use it in his tzitzis to avoid transgressing bal tigra. The claim attributed to R’ Yitzchak Elchanan zt”l—that even though he believed the Radzyner Rebbe’s techeiles was legitimate, he refrained from using it due to political reasons—is highly problematic. There is no wisdom, no strategy, and no counsel that can override the will of Hashem (Ein chochmah, ein tevunah, v’ein eitzah l’neged Hashem). How could one be permitted to violate even a safek of bal tigra for political considerations?

A number of years ago, a group of Torah scholars from Efrat thoroughly examined the research of HaGaon R’ Yitzchak Herzog zt”l regarding the chilazon and presented a case for what they believed was the definitive identity of techeiles. Even for those who are naturally skeptical of new developments, or for those who argue that our mesorah in identifying the chilazon has been lost (as discussed in Nefesh HaRav, p. 53), it is undeniable that this new techeiles remains at least a safek. Consequently, mimah nafshach—by any logic—anyone who has the ability to use it should do so, due to the concern for bal tigra, as explained.

In truth, one is not obligated to wear a four-cornered garment at all—it is merely an extra piety (midas chassidus) to obligate oneself in tzitzis. However, following simple logic, if one has the opportunity to place techeiles in his tzitzis but refrains from doing so, it would be better for him not to wear a four-cornered garment altogether. By not wearing a four-cornered garment, he avoids any obligation of tzitzis, whereas by wearing one without techeiles, he actively transgresses bal tigra.

G. The Number of Techeiles Strings

The Rishonim dispute the proper number of techeiles strings, as previously mentioned.

• Rashi and Tosafos (Menachos) hold that one must insert two techeiles strings (which, when folded, result in four).
• The Ra’avad holds that there should be one long techeiles string out of the four main strings.
• The Rambam maintains that only one of the eight total strings should be dyed with the blood of the chilazon.

Tosafos (Kesubos 40a, d”h k’gon) repeat this discussion regarding the principle of kilayim in tzitzis, quoting Rabbeinu Tam that two strings are considered hutra (completely permitted), while two others are merely dechuya (pushed aside). The Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chaim 9:7) and Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 12:1) cite Rabbeinu Tam as the practical ruling: one should always use two techeiles strings and two white strings.

Additionally, the Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 9:14) cites the Malbim, who states that as long as two strings match the garment’s material and the other two are made of wool, it is valid, since tzitzis consists of two separate components—two white strings and two techeiles strings.

Accordingly, for Ashkenazim, who generally follow the rulings of the Baalei HaTosafos (as the Rosh writes in a teshuvah, that Rabbeinu Tam and Ri were greater in wisdom and numbers than the Rif and Rambam), they should also follow the Tosafos’ opinion here and attach two techeiles strings and two white strings.

Although the Gra was convinced that Rashi and Tosafos were certainly incorrect in this matter, he did not determine whether the halacha follows the Rambam or the Ra’avad (4). Therefore, those who always follow the Gra should adhere to his uncertainty in this as well. However, the general public, which does not consistently follow the Gra, should follow the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch, Mishnah Berurah, and other Acharonim, who accepted the position of Rashi and Tosafos.

H. The Number of Windings and Chulyos

Regarding the number of windings (kerichos) and chulyos, see Divrei Eliyahu (end of Parshas Shelach) in the name of the Gra, where it appears that one should always make 39 windings, divided into four chulyos of 7, 8, 11, and 13. He also explains the reasoning behind this.

At first glance, this is difficult, since Menachos (39a) states that one should not make fewer than seven windings (kneged zayin rakiyim—corresponding to the seven heavens) and not more than thirteen (kneged zayin rakiyim v’shisha avir—corresponding to the seven heavens and six spaces between them). The Rishonim debate whether this statement refers to the number of windings in each chulya or to the total number of chulyos (5).

Although most Rishonim understand it as referring to the number of chulyos, our custom today does not follow this. As mentioned earlier in the name of Tosafos and the Rambam, when techeiles is absent, we do not need to be exact about the windings (6). The prevalent custom follows Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, which states that tzitzis should have five knots, based on the Gemara (Menachos 38b), which says that a knot should be made after each chulya. Since we make five knots, there must be four chulyos between them.

The custom follows the Ra’avad, that each chulya should have no fewer than seven windings and no more than thirteen. This is why the standard practice is to use the sequence 7, 8, 11, and 13—starting with the minimum (7) and ending with the maximum (13).

However, when techeiles is present, one must be much more precise about the windings, since this is the p’sil mentioned in the Torah. Presumably, in such a case, one should follow the majority of Rishonim and make at least seven chulyos and a full knot between each chulya (as is our practice today). Each chulya should have at least three windings, as stated explicitly in the Gemara: “What is the measure of a chulya? That one should wind, repeat, and wind a third time.”

Certainly, if one makes seven chulyos with seven windings each, he fulfills all opinions. However, in many cases, the strings are not long enough to accommodate 49 windings plus 16 knots (i.e., 8 double knots). Ideally, the total length of the windings should be about one-third of the string’s length, while the free-hanging portion (anaf) should be two-thirds.

A practical solution is to make at least the first chulya with seven windings, while keeping the others with three. This way, he gains at least a partial fulfillment of the stringencies, since the Gemara states that only one chulya is essential b’dieved. Adding four extra windings to the first chulya does not significantly reduce the length of the strings, allowing one to maintain both the windings and the necessary hanging length.

I. The Order of Alternating Windings Between Techeiles and Lavan

There is a significant dispute among the Rishonim regarding the order of winding the techeiles and lavan within the chulyos:

• According to the Rambam, only the first and last windings (of the 21 or 49 total windings in the seven chulyos) are white, while all the remaining windings are made entirely of techeiles.
• The Ra’avad, in his glosses, holds that every third, fifth, seventh, ninth, etc., winding should be white.
• The Tosafos hold that the first chulya should be white, the second chulya should be techeiles, the third chulya should be white, and so on, alternating between chulyos, similar to the Ra’avad’s logic. However, whereas the Ra’avad alternates within each chulya, Tosafos alternate by chulyos.

Regarding this dispute, we lack a clear mesorah on how to decide or what the proper practice should be. Furthermore, Tosafos’ opinion on this matter is not well established or widely accepted, unlike their well-known opinion regarding the number of techeiles strings. That view is cited in several places in Tosafos and is brought down by the Mechaber and Mishnah Berurah, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, in practice, it would seem proper to rely on the Rambam’s opinion, since the Kesef Mishneh (Hilchos Tzitzis 1:7) cites a responsum of the Rambam to the sages of Lunel, where he writes that this was also the position of the Gaon R’ Shmuel ben Hofni. This suggests that it is an older mesorah than what is recorded in Tosafos.

One might argue, however, that the Rambam’s position follows his general view on the number of techeiles strings. Since he holds that techeiles is not an integral part of tzitzis but rather a means of fulfilling the requirement of p’sil (windings), he logically maintains that all the windings—except for the first and last—should be made of techeiles. If we have already ruled (for Ashkenazim) to follow Rashi and Tosafos in making half the strings white and half techeiles, then we have already rejected the Rambam’s fundamental premise that techeiles is merely for the p’sil. Consequently, one might suggest that we should follow Tosafos (or the Ra’avad) regarding the order of windings, in order to maintain consistency in our approach.

Nevertheless, this is not necessarily required. Even if we do not accept the Rambam’s position that the entire purpose of techeiles is for the p’sil, we can still maintain that, based on the language of the verse—“And they shall place upon the tzitzis of the corner a p’sil of techeiles”—the primary windings should be made with techeiles. This is a straightforward reading of the pasuk.

Additionally, several Rishonim write that in the absence of techeiles, there is no need to make chulyos at all (see Kilil Techeiles, siman 42, and footnote 64 there).

Here’s the footnoted section formatted properly for clarity:

Footnotes

1. See what is written in Nefesh HaRav (p. 20) regarding this matter.
2. Regarding what is printed in Kovetz Teshuvos (from HaGaon R’ Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, shlit”a), Vol. 1, Siman 2—this requires further examination, and it is likely that there is some hidden reasoning behind it.
3. It appears that I saw in the name of the Gaon, the author of Tzafnas Pane’ach, that the source in the Talmud for the Rambam’s principle is from the Gemara in Arakhin (10b): “R’ Yehuda holds that tekiah-teruah-tekiah is one unit, while the Chachamim hold that tekiah is independent, teruah is independent, and tekiah is independent.” What is the reasoning? … And the Chachamim—what is their reasoning? Because the verse states: ‘And when assembling the congregation, you shall blow (tekiah) and not sound an alarm (teruah)’ (Bamidbar 10:7). If you were to say that tekiah-teruah-tekiah is a single unit, why would the Torah command performing only half a mitzvah?”

From here we see that the Amoraim assumed that if two components can sometimes exist independently, then they are not considered a single mitzvah. Regarding R’ Yehuda’s opinion that tekiah-teruah-tekiah is one mitzvah, one could suggest that he holds the verse “And when assembling the congregation, you shall blow” was not intended as a commandment for future generations but was rather a hora’as sha’ah (a temporary directive). Since we do not derive halacha from temporary directives, we cannot use this as proof of anything. It is possible that this is what the Gemara in Arakhin meant by stating that R’ Yehuda’s position was merely a siman (a mnemonic) rather than a fundamental halachic principle.

4. See Sefer Hilchos HaGra U’Minhagav (by R’ Moshe Sternbuch, shlit”a), p. 35.
5. See Tosafos (Menachos 39a, d”h Lo Yifchos), and Kilil Techeiles, Simanim 35-36.
6. As Tosafos explains there, the significance of seven and thirteen in the context of techeiles is that techeiles resembles the sky, and all these numbers—seven and thirteen—correspond to the seven heavens (rakiyim) and the six spaces (avir) between them, totaling thirteen. Consequently, in a time when techeiles is not available, there is no need to be overly precise in maintaining these symbolic references to the heavens.