Rambam, Sefer Ahava, Hilchos Tzitzis 2:8 w/Kessef Mishna – Techeiles is Black

Translation: Chabad.org

Rambam, Sefer Ahava, Hilchos Tzitzis 2:8

When a garment is entirely red, green, or any other color [besides white], its white strands should be made from the same color as the garment itself. If it is green, they should be green. If it is red, they should be red. [1] Should the garment itself be techelet, its white strands should be made from any color other than black, [2] for it resembles techelet. He should wind one strand of techelet around all the strands, as one does with other tzitzit that are not colored.

Kessef Mishna Translation: ChatGPT

A tallis that is entirely red or green, etc. – In Maseches Menachos (41b), the Gemara states: “The Rabbis taught: A tallis that is entirely techeiles—any colored threads may be used for the white strings except for kala ilan.” The Gemara challenges this ruling: “But we have learned that a tallis may only be fulfilled with its own kind!” The Gemara resolves the contradiction: “One case refers to a tallis with four strings, and the other refers to a tallis with eight strings.”

Rashi explains: Any colored threads may be used for the white strings because there is no requirement to use the same type as the garment. Therefore, one does not need to be particular about the white strings, as long as there are two distinct types—except for kala ilan, which looks like techeiles. Sometimes, a person might sell a tallis with kala ilan strings, and the buyer will think all the strings are true techeiles. Later, if he needs a new tallis, he might take two strings from this one, place them on his new tallis along with white strings, and unknowingly end up with kala ilan mixed with white, causing shatnez without the mitzvah.

When it comes to fulfilling the requirement of white, one must use the same type as the garment. If the tallis is red, it should have two red strings and two techeiles strings. The same applies to other colors. He should use two techeiles strings for the mitzvah of techeiles and two of another material for the white. Even though techeiles is the same as the garment, we still require two types because we follow the majority of talleisim.

The Gemara continues: If someone used kala ilan, it is still kosher. This implies that kala ilan does work for fulfilling the mitzvah. In a four-string tallis, two techeiles and two kala ilan strings are acceptable. However, in an eight-string tallis, if he uses four techeiles and four kala ilan strings to fulfill the requirement of two types, it is invalid. This is because, aside from the kala ilan, there are enough proper strings. We are concerned that he might later take the techeiles strings and transfer them to another tallis, leaving only kala ilan, or he might take the kala ilan strings and transfer them.

Another explanation: The main issue with kala ilan is that we are particular about the two appearances of the strings, and these two look the same. The Gemara’s challenge—”If he used kala ilan, it is kosher”—refers to a case where the tallis has eight strings, four of techeiles and four of another material. If he wants to add four more strings, he should not use kala ilan, lest he later sell the tallis to someone who thinks they are techeiles. That person might remove them and place them on a different tallis as part of the techeiles requirement, and the original tallis would end up with kala ilan instead of real techeiles. Nevertheless, if he already did so, it remains kosher because the main mitzvah is fulfilled with four techeiles and four of another material.

Now, there is a question on the Rambam, who writes that if the entire tallis is techeiles, the white strings should be made of other colors except for black. However, the Gemara only excludes kala ilan, which is a techeiles-like dye that is not from the chilazon. Another difficulty: Why didn’t the Rambam distinguish between a four-string tallis and an eight-string tallis like the Gemara does?

One possible explanation: The Rambam might consider kala ilan as a broad term including both techeiles-colored dyes not from the chilazon and black. He therefore forbade black and certainly would prohibit non-chilazon techeiles. He holds that kala ilan should not be used for white because we require two distinct types, and using kala ilan would make it appear as if only one type is present. Even if the Rambam agrees with other Rishonim that kala ilan does not include black, he might reason that since kala ilan is invalid for white because it makes it look like there is only one type, the same logic applies to black, and therefore he forbids black and certainly kala ilan.

Another explanation: Since the ideal practice is to avoid using kala ilan in all cases, the Rambam did not bother clarifying that if one transgressed and used it in an eight-string tallis, it is invalid. This is because such cases are uncommon.

The Raavad comments: “I saw someone who questioned the Rambam’s ruling… because the strings must be of the same type as the garment.” The Tosafos also ask the Raavad’s question and answer that this is based on the concept of “zeh Keili ve’anveihu”—beautifying the mitzvah.

The Tur writes: “The Rambam ruled that the tzitzis should be the same color as the tallis—if it is red, the tzitzis should be red; if it is green, the tzitzis should be green.” Rashi and the Ri disagreed and held that it is unnecessary.

Rabbi Yosef ibn Habib analyzes the Rambam’s wording and argues that the Rambam’s main intent was only to prohibit a tallis that is entirely techeiles from having all its strings in techeiles or black (which resembles techeiles). Instead, its white strings must be either plain white, green, or red. However, for a red or green tallis, the white strings may be either that same color or left plain white. The Rambam was not saying that the white strings must match the tallis, only that they are allowed to, unlike a fully techeiles tallis, where it is mandatory to have two distinct types—techeiles and white.

The Rambam writes at the beginning of Hilchos Tzitzis: “The strand that is made on the corner from the material of the garment is called tzitzis.” He also writes that this strand is called “white” because we are not required to dye it. If the Rambam meant that one must always match the tzitzis to the tallis, how could he establish a principle that we are not required to dye the tzitzis?

While one could answer this difficulty, Rabbi Yosef ibn Habib argues that the Rambam never meant to require that the tzitzis match the tallis. At the very least, the Tur’s citation of the Rambam is imprecise. If the Rambam truly required tzitzis to match the tallis, he would have specified that the rule does not apply to a techeiles tallis, where the white strings must be distinct.

Now that we do not have techeiles, if someone makes a tallis in techeiles-colored material, all the tzitzis should be white. Why, then, should it be any different for a red or green tallis? The tzitzis should all be white. This aligns with many poskim who hold there is no need to match the tzitzis to the color of the tallis.

However, I do not understand why some are compelled to interpret the Rambam differently, since his words align with the Tur’s explanation. If the Rambam meant otherwise, he should have first stated, “If the entire tallis is techeiles, the white should be from other colors,” before mentioning that a red or green tallis may have white strings of that color.

When the Rambam states that the tzitzis are called “white” because we are not commanded to dye them, he clearly means we are not commanded to dye them techeiles. Any non-techeiles color is still referred to as “white.” Rabbi Yosef ibn Habib himself acknowledges this difficulty when he writes, “It did not escape me that this could be refuted,” yet he still insists on his approach. Given this, it is perplexing why he was so determined to dispute the Tur’s understanding of the Rambam.