The Order of the Wrappings and the Tying of the Knots with Tekhelet

According to the Shulchan Aruch HaRav

Rabbi Yitzchok Silber

Rosh Kollel, Ohr HaChaim, Monsey, NY

Introduction

After more than a thousand years in which we were not zocheh to fulfill the mitzvah of Tekhelet in tzitzit, in recent years we have merited to find strong evidence for the identity of the original chilazon, and we have also succeeded in reconstructing the method of dyeing woolen strings with Tekhelet for tzitzit. It is therefore very reasonable to say that today we are able to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit properly and completely, in a way that many generations before us did not merit.

It seems that the debate over the identity of the chilazon has already more or less run its course. Torah is available to anyone who wants to take it; whoever wants can come, investigate, and make his choice. Someone who is not convinced by the evidence that exists today will presumably not be convinced by another few pieces of evidence either. Even if one day an actual pair of tzitzit from the time of the Beit HaMikdash were discovered on the Har HaBayit itself, sealed with the seal of a Kohen Gadol, it is reasonable to assume that for most people this would still not change anything. And for those who are already convinced, one question or another is not going to change very much either. The gates of answers have never been closed.

Today one can summarize the question of restoring Tekhelet as being more a question of hashkafah than a question of halachah. More precisely, it is a question of the proper approach and of the principles upon which one’s halachic personality is built.

The question can be summed up this way. On the one hand, there is a great deal of evidence that the chilazon from which Tekhelet was dyed was the purpura — the Murex. On the other hand, most of the strongest proofs did not come from inside the beit midrash. They did not emerge directly from learning the sugyot themselves, from Chazal and the poskim, but rather from a great deal of information that we draw from outside sources.

It is true that we have not found any real contradiction in the words of Chazal or the poskim to identifying the purpura as the chilazon. More than that: once we know the identity of the chilazon and the method of dyeing, the words of Chazal become much clearer and take on a new light. But the main force of the evidence still comes from outside information, from outside the beit midrash.

This, in my view, is the main reason that we see many talmidei chachamim who do not want to hear “new things” in the vineyard of Klal Yisrael and who oppose the restoration of the mitzvah of Tekhelet in our time. On the other hand, from day to day the number of Jews who love the mitzvah and are careful in halachah by putting Tekhelet into their tzitzit is increasing, some privately and some publicly.

With the restoration of Tekhelet, new questions also arise: how to make the wrappings, the chulyot, the knots, and everything connected with them. When there is no mitzvah of Tekhelet, the laws of the chulyot and knots do not really apply in their original form. Even those who had a custom to make chulyot did so only as a remembrance of the time when Tekhelet was available. Since it was only a remembrance, they did not insist that the chulyot be made according to the basic din, because they wanted the wrappings to allude to other matters and sodot as well.

It is therefore clear that one cannot simply continue making the wrappings in the same way that we have been doing until now with white strings alone. I do not think anyone has ever seriously suggested such a thing. Once the crown is restored to its place, the laws of chulyot also return. Since there are many different shittot in these laws, we have to clarify anew according to which shittah they should be done in practice.

These laws are different from most areas of Torah law in two ways.

First, according to everyone, the questions here are only matters of the proper way to fulfill the mitzvah and are not me’akev. According to all the shittot and minhagim, all the Geonim, Rishonim and Acharonim, if one made only one knot and one chulyah, he was yotzei. There is therefore no reason for a person to excuse himself from the mitzvah of Tekhelet on the claim that he cannot decide between the different shittot and minhagim.

Second, I am not sure there is another mitzvah in the entire Torah with so many differences of opinion and so many minhagim as the various methods of wrapping Tekhelet. From the Geonim through the Rishonim and down to the Acharonim, there are many possibilities, and the Gemara itself already gives two options for the number of chulyot. The confusion here is therefore very great, and this sugya is truly “longer than the earth in measure.”

As stated, because Tekhelet was not available until our generation, the great poskim whose rulings we follow did not pave the road for us in this area, and many doubts remain as to what should be done in practice. But we were fortunate that one of the great poskim, the Baal HaTanya, discusses several laws of Tekhelet in his Shulchan Aruch. As is well known, among Chassidim it is accepted that the halachah follows the Rav, and we therefore have a major authority on whom to rely.

In this article I will not discuss all the shittot of the Geonim and Rishonim throughout the sugya. I will only try to clarify the shittah of the Rav in each question. In some matters he ruled explicitly, while in others the answer can only be inferred from his words.

One note should be made. I will not deny that a baal din could argue that the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav in matters of Tekhelet do not carry exactly the same weight as his rulings in other areas. At the time, Tekhelet was not available, and a halachah stated as hilchata l’Meshicha or merely as an introduction to another halachah is not necessarily the same as a halachah stated for actual practice.¹

How Many Tekhelet Strings?

It is well known that the Rishonim disagree as to how many of the strings are Tekhelet and how many are white. Three main shittot were said in this matter.

The first is the Rambam’s shittah, that half of one string out of the four doubled strings is dyed Tekhelet. Thus, after the strings are inserted into the garment, there are seven white ends and one Tekhelet end. According to the Rambam, the main function of the Tekhelet is to make the wrappings around the white strings. Since one string is enough for the wrappings, only half of one of the four full strings is dyed. Many Mekubalim follow the Rambam’s shittah.

The second is the shittah of Rashi and Tosafot: two full strings of Tekhelet and two full strings of white. According to Tosafot, Tekhelet and white are both intrinsic parts of the mitzvah of tzitzit, so there is no reason to give preference to one over the other. After folding them, there are four white ends and four Tekhelet ends.

The third is the shittah of the Raavad, and apparently of most of the Rishonim, that one full string should be Tekhelet and three should be white. This gives six white ends and two Tekhelet ends. The basis for this shittah is the pasuk “petil Tekhelet” — “a thread of Tekhelet,” in the singular, implying one string.

Each shittah has many proofs and arguments brought on its behalf, but in practice the issue is very far from being conclusively decided.

In this matter, however, we are fortunate that the Rav rules explicitly in his Shulchan Aruch, at the beginning of siman 11:

“The mitzvah of tzitzit at the time when Tekhelet existed was that he should take two strings dyed with the color called Tekhelet and two strings that are not dyed, which are called white strings, because we are not commanded to dye them and they therefore remain white.”

Thus the Rav rules according to Rashi and Tosafot. Presumably he follows the Tur, who writes:

“The mitzvah of tzitzit at the time when Tekhelet existed was to take two doubled strings of wool dyed Tekhelet and two doubled strings of white wool or linen.”

The Mitzvah of Making the Gedil

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav, siman 11 se’if 25, writes:

The Torah says, “You shall make gedilim for yourself.” One might have thought that the entire tzitzit should be a gedil. The Torah therefore says, “They shall make for themselves tzitzit,” and tzitzit means separate strings, as explained in siman 8. How is this done? The gedil extends from the corner, and the loose tzitzit extend from the gedil.

The Torah gives no specific measure for the length of the gedil. Therefore, whether he wrapped most of the length of the tzitzit or wrapped only one chulyah, it is kosher.

But he must make a knot at the end of the wrapping, because the wrapping does not remain in place without a knot after it, and otherwise there is no gedil.

The Proper Way to Make the Gedil and the Definition of a Chulyah

The source is the Gemara in Menachot 39a:

Rav Chiya bar Rav Natan taught it this way: Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Sheshet, Rav Yirmiyah bar Abba said in the name of Rav: Tekhelet where most of it was wrapped is kosher. Even if he wrapped only one chulyah it is kosher. The beauty of Tekhelet is one-third gedil and two-thirds loose strings.

How much is a chulyah? Rebbi taught: enough to wrap once, repeat it, and do it a third time.

We therefore learn that min haTorah one needs one knot and one chulyah. For hiddur mitzvah, one-third should be gedil and two-thirds loose strings. We also learn from the Gemara that a chulyah means three wrappings.

The Number of Chulyot

The Gemara continues:

One who does fewer should not do fewer than seven, and one who adds should not add beyond thirteen. One should not do fewer than seven, corresponding to the seven heavens, and one should not add beyond thirteen, corresponding to the seven heavens and the six spaces between them.

According to the straightforward reading of the sugya, and as almost all the Rishonim understand it, the Gemara gives two possible numbers for the chulyot. This is in contrast to the Raavad and one explanation in Tosafot, who understand the beraita as referring to the number of wrappings within each chulyah.

The halachah therefore allows two possibilities: seven chulyot or thirteen chulyot, with each chulyah consisting of three wrappings.

In practice, the accepted custom with white strings is to make thirteen chulyot, and there would seem to be no reason to change this for Tekhelet unless there is some particular reason to do so.

In fact, it seems that the two possibilities in the Gemara may correspond to the two shittot regarding the number of Tekhelet strings, because this affects which string is used for wrapping.

As will be explained below, according to Tosafot one wraps alternately with white and Tekhelet. According to that shittah, it makes sense to prefer thirteen chulyot, corresponding to the seven heavens and the six spaces between them.

According to the Rambam, on the other hand, essentially all the wrappings are made with Tekhelet, and one would therefore make seven chulyot, corresponding to the seven heavens.

Since the Shulchan Aruch HaRav follows Tosafot regarding the number of Tekhelet strings, it would therefore seem that thirteen chulyot should be made.

Which String Is Used for the Wrappings?

The Gemara states another law concerning the wrappings:

When he begins, he begins with white — “the corner,” meaning the same type as the corner. And when he finishes, he finishes with white, because we go up in kedushah and do not go down.

From this Gemara we learn that one begins and ends with white, with Tekhelet wrappings in between. The Geonim and Rishonim disagree over several details.

According to the Rambam, who holds that all the wrappings are Tekhelet, the requirement to begin and end with white refers only to one white wrapping at the beginning and one at the end.

Many Rishonim, however, hold that the entire first chulyah — three wrappings — and the entire last chulyah should be white.

The Rishonim also disagree over the middle section. Should all the middle chulyot be Tekhelet, or should they alternate white, Tekhelet, white, Tekhelet, and so on? Tosafot and the Rosh follow the second approach, though there are several ways to work out the details.

We do not have an explicit ruling from the Rav on this point. But as stated above, if the Rav follows Tosafot regarding the number of Tekhelet strings, and the logic of that shittah is that the two colors should be treated equally, the same reasoning would seemingly apply to the wrappings: there is no reason to give preference to one color over the other, and they should be alternated.

The Laws of the Knots

We saw above that according to the Rav, one knot is de’Oraita:

“But he must make a knot at the end of the wrapping, because the wrapping does not remain in place without a knot after it, and otherwise there is no gedil.”

The Gemara likewise says that the “upper knot” is de’Oraita, although the Rishonim disagree as to which knot is called the “upper knot”: the one closest to the garment or the one furthest away. In practice there is no nafka mina for us, because we make a knot both at the beginning of the gedil, near the garment, and at the end.

That is the de’Oraita requirement. There is also a derabbanan issue. The Gemara states:

Rava said: We learn from here that one must tie a knot over every chulyah.

There are several approaches among the Rishonim to this statement. Some say that “every chulyah” is not literal, but means that beyond the upper knot there must be additional knots. One could also argue that because the Gemara later rejects Rava’s proof, perhaps we do not pasken like Rava.

However, Tosafot, the Rosh and the Mordechai follow the simple meaning of Rava: a knot is required after every chulyah.

Five Knots

We find in many Geonim and Rishonim the minhag of making five knots. Rashi writes on Menachot 39a, according to the Bach’s text:

Nowadays, when we make five knots, this is because we say that the mitzvah of tzitzit is equal to all the mitzvot of the Torah. The word tzitzit has the numerical value of 600, and the eight strings and five knots bring the total to 613. We therefore make two knots at the top and three at the bottom.

The law of five knots is not mentioned in the Gemara. It first appears among the Geonim. On the contrary, the Gemara says, as above, that one must tie a knot over every chulyah, and the number of chulyot is no fewer than seven.

Tosafot address this issue, and because their words are important for understanding the rest of the discussion, I will quote them:

“One should not do fewer than seven,” corresponding to the seven heavens, because Tekhelet resembles the sea and the sea resembles the sky. Nowadays, when we do not have Tekhelet, we are not particular about this. The same applies to that which we say, “one must tie a knot over every chulyah”; this is so that the Tekhelet should be recognizable.

As for our custom to make five knots, Rashi explained, regarding the statement that tzitzit is equal to all the mitzvot, that tzitzit equals 600, plus eight strings and five knots, totaling 613. Rabbeinu Tam also had the custom to make these five knots.

However, we do not find an explicit source in the Gemara for five knots. One can say that when the Gemara says that one must tie a knot over every chulyah, it means after a pair consisting of one white chulyah and one Tekhelet chulyah. Thus, when one does no fewer than seven chulyot, he makes five knots: one knot near the tallit, then two chulyot, one Tekhelet and one white, followed by a knot, until six chulyot are completed, which gives four knots, and then he makes a seventh white chulyah so that he ends with white, followed by a final knot, giving five knots. Some explain that “not fewer than seven” refers to seven wrappings between each knot.

The Rosh writes similarly:

We find no source for five knots, because in the days of Chazal they made at least seven knots, as it says, “one should not do fewer than seven,” with a knot over every chulyah. If you insist, one can explain that “one must tie” refers to a pair consisting of one white and one Tekhelet chulyah. There is then a source for five knots: one begins with a knot near the corner, makes a white chulyah and a Tekhelet chulyah, then ties, giving two knots; then white and Tekhelet and ties, giving three; then white and Tekhelet and ties, giving four; and finally he ends with white and ties, giving five.

According to Tosafot and the Rosh, it is clear that when Tekhelet exists, the minhag of five knots is not necessarily the operative system. The Gemara says one may make thirteen chulyot, and if one literally requires a knot after every chulyah, five knots clearly would not work.

What Tosafot are saying is merely that according to the seven-chulyah option of the beraita, one can fit the five-knot minhag into the system if “knotting after every chulyah” is understood as a knot after each pair of one white and one Tekhelet chulyah. In other words, they are showing that there is a possible source for five knots even in the time of Tekhelet — not that five knots is necessarily the preferred arrangement when Tekhelet is present.

A further point: we do not see in Tosafot that when there is Tekhelet there is any preference to make seven chulyot specifically in order to preserve five knots, rather than using the other option of thirteen chulyot.

On the contrary, based on what we explained above, since Tosafot alternate the colors, logic would favor thirteen rather than seven.

Therefore, in my view, what I have seen many write — that according to Tosafot one should make seven chulyot and five knots, with one knot after every two chulyot — is not correct. Tosafot only wrote that if one makes seven chulyot there is a way to find a source for five knots. They did not say that this is the preferred arrangement when Tekhelet exists. It is entirely possible that according to Tosafot, thirteen chulyot are preferable.

The language of the Rosh is somewhat more open, since he says, “if you insist.”

How many knots should be made according to Tosafot if one makes thirteen chulyot? Either eight knots, if “a chulyah” in Rava means a pair of one white and one Tekhelet chulyah, or fourteen knots according to the plain meaning of Rava. I am not certain whether Tosafot would interpret Rava’s “each chulyah” as meaning a pair of colors even according to the thirteen-chulyah option of the beraita.

Several additional points should be made regarding the five knots.

First, according to all shittot, five knots are only a minhag, not an absolute din.

Second, a number of Geonim, as well as the Rambam, do not mention this minhag at all. According to them, even when there is no Tekhelet one does not necessarily make five knots.

Third, regarding whether this minhag applies only when there is no Tekhelet, or also when Tekhelet is present, we have already cited Tosafot and the Rosh, who indicate that one does not need five knots with Tekhelet.

Other Rishonim say the same. The Mordechai quotes the Ri:

Rava said: We learn from here that one must tie over every chulyah. After the first knot is made, one takes one white string and wraps it around the other strings three times, and three wrappings are called a chulyah. Then he takes a Tekhelet string and makes another chulyah, and then white again. One begins with white because it is the same type as the corner, and ends with white because we rise in kedushah and do not descend.

We also say in the Gemara that one should not do fewer than seven, corresponding to the seven heavens, and one should not add beyond thirteen, corresponding to the seven heavens and the six spaces between them.

This is difficult according to our custom, in which we make only five knots. The Ri explains that nowadays, when there is no Tekhelet, we need not be particular about the number of chulyot. Rather, one wraps and wraps again until there are five knots, with a thumb-width between each knot, until the gedil is four thumb-widths long. We rely on the Gemara’s statement that even if one wrapped only one chulyah, it is kosher.

The Beit Yosef likewise cites the Ittur, who explains that the five knots were adopted because when Tekhelet existed, one who made seven chulyot ended up with five knots on the white sections alone. Therefore, now that there is no Tekhelet and all the chulyot are white, we make only five knots.

According to this, when Tekhelet is present, five knots have no special place.

We also find that several Geonim and Rishonim understood the sugya to mean that a knot and a chulyah are essentially one unit: to fulfill the requirement of a knot, one makes a chulyah of three wrappings.

Rabbeinu Yehonatan of Lunel writes:

“Even if he wrapped only one chulyah, it is kosher.” That means that one chulyah is needed, and that is the upper knot which is de’Oraita.

“One should not do fewer than seven.” Some explain this as referring to knots, corresponding to the seven heavens. “And one should not add…” Since Tekhelet resembles the sky and the spaces between the heavens, some authorities write that nowadays, since we do not have Tekhelet resembling the sky, we instead make a remembrance of the 613 mitzvot: tzitzit plus five knots equals 613. And some explain…²

According to these Geonim and Rishonim, it is clear that when Tekhelet exists, one should fulfill the beraita by making seven or thirteen knots, while the five-knot minhag applies only when Tekhelet is absent.

Against all these sources, the Radzyner Rebbe, the Baal HaTekhelet, cites in his Ein HaTekhelet a Rishon who seems to indicate that the five-knot minhag applies even when Tekhelet exists. He quotes Rav Nissim Gaon’s introduction to Sefer HaMafteach:

“The received tradition has remained preserved among the nation, and when a person would read ‘they shall make for themselves tzitzit,’ he would say that this tzitzit is placed on the corner of the garment, with eight strings³ and five knots, etc.”

But in truth, aside from the fact that the wording is somewhat difficult, it was not said in the context of a halachic ruling. It can also be explained that Rav Nissim was simply describing the reality of his own time: we have a tradition that when we have white strings alone, we make five knots. This could fit the Ittur’s explanation, that five knots are for the white strings alone, or it could be for another reason. In any event, his wording does not prove that even when Tekhelet exists, only five knots should be made.

The bottom line is therefore that there is no real doubt that the accepted halachic position is that the minhag of five knots does not apply in the same way when Tekhelet is present. This is true even aside from the specific shittah of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, which we will now discuss.

The great majority of the Rishonim take this position: the Rambam, Tosafot, the Rosh, the Mordechai in the name of the Ri, the Ittur in the name of the Geonim, and Rabbeinu Yehonatan of Lunel. These are the Rishonim whose words form the basis of our halachic life.⁴

A fourth point should also be added. The poskim discuss in various places whether, when a certain number is used to allude to an idea, adding to that number ruins the remez or not. This comes up regarding Havdalah, Shabbat candles, and other areas.

The same question exists here. If one adds additional knots beyond five, does that ruin the symbolism of five, or perhaps not? We saw that some Rishonim were careful with white strings not to add beyond five knots, and the poskim follow this in the laws of white tzitzit.

Still, one could argue that even if, regarding white strings, one should not add beyond five, perhaps with Tekhelet — even according to those who maintain that the five-knot minhag still has relevance — adding extra knots would not necessarily be a problem.

The Ruling of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav

We can now see what the Rav rules in these questions. In se’if 25 he writes:

At the time when Tekhelet existed, Chazal instituted that one should not wrap fewer than seven chulyot, corresponding to the seven heavens, because Tekhelet resembles the sky.

They also instituted that one should make a knot at the end of every chulyah, so that there should be a recognizable distinction between one chulyah and the next.

Nowadays, when we do not have Tekhelet, we do not need to be particular about the number of chulyot or the number of knots between the chulyot.

Nevertheless, the universal Jewish custom from ancient times is to make five knots, because the Torah says, “You shall see it and remember all the mitzvot of Hashem.” There are 613 mitzvot, tzitzit has a gematria of 600, and eight strings plus five knots equals 613.

The Rav’s words are crystal clear.

First, he follows Tosafot, the Rosh and other Rishonim who understand Rava literally: when there is Tekhelet, one must tie a knot after every chulyah.

Second, he follows the reason given by Tosafot and the Rosh: “so that there should be a recognizable distinction between one chulyah and the next.”⁵

Third, he also follows the majority of the Rishonim that the five-knot minhag applies specifically when there is no Tekhelet, whereas when there is Tekhelet one makes a knot after every chulyah.

An Apparent Contradiction in the Rav

Before reaching a practical conclusion, however, we must address another passage later in the same siman, where the Rav seems to say something somewhat different when discussing the method of wrapping white tzitzit.

I will quote only what is relevant from se’ifim 28–31:

The custom is to make four spaces between the five knots and to wrap a number of wrappings in each space… This continues until one has five double knots and four spaces between them filled with wrappings. There is no fixed number of wrappings in each space; one may do as he wishes.

The custom is to make seven wrappings in the first space, eight in the second, eleven in the third, and thirteen in the fourth, totaling thirty-nine, corresponding to Hashem Echad.

Some have the custom to divide the wrappings in each space into chulyot, meaning that after the first three wrappings he leaves a small gap, then wraps another three in the same space. He then takes one wrapping from the first space and joins it to two wrappings from the second space, leaves a small gap, and wraps another three, continuing until the thirty-nine wrappings form thirteen small chulyot. And this is how they would do it when Tekhelet existed.

At first glance, the Rav’s statement, “and this is how they would do it when Tekhelet existed,” is very difficult.

Earlier, he ruled that when Tekhelet exists, one must make a knot at the end of every chulyah, and that the purpose of the knot is to make the division between chulyot recognizable. In other words, the knot marks the end of one chulyah and the beginning of the next.

Yet here he appears to say two things that conflict with that.

First, he says that one wrapping from the first section can be joined with two wrappings from the second section, meaning that a knot occurs in the middle of a chulyah, yet it is still called a chulyah. Earlier, however, he had implied that a knot ends the chulyah.

Second, he says that simply leaving a small gap is enough to separate one chulyah from another, whereas earlier he ruled that a knot is required.

The question is not on the actual white-string minhag described here. When Tekhelet is absent, there is no true din of chulyot. The problem is specifically his closing statement: “and this is how they would do it when Tekhelet existed.” That seems to contradict his earlier rulings regarding Tekhelet.

Resolving the Rav’s Words

In my opinion, the correct way to understand the Rav is that the words “and this is how they would do it when Tekhelet existed” refer only to two details: that the wrappings were divided into distinct chulyot, and that a chulyah consists of three wrappings. They do not refer to making a knot in the middle of a chulyah.

This is similar to the source from which the Rav took the halachah, the Magen Avraham. The Magen Avraham cites the writings of the Arizal regarding making chulyot even with white strings, and then adds, “as the Rambam wrote.”

But the Arizal’s system combines chulyot with five knots and thirty-nine wrappings. Clearly, when the Magen Avraham compares it to the Rambam, he means only the basic idea of making chulyot, not every detail of the Arizal’s arrangement.

The same applies here. When the Rav says “and this is how they would do it when Tekhelet existed,” he means only that the wrappings were divided into chulyot.

The Rav had been discussing the custom with white strings of making different numbers of wrappings in the four spaces between the knots — seven, eight, eleven and thirteen.⁶ He then says that some also divide these into actual groups of three wrappings, and that this is how chulyot were made when Tekhelet existed.

In fact, this is the only place where the Rav explicitly states that the definition of a chulyah is three wrappings.

One can also explain why the Rav did not spell out that he meant only this detail. No Gaon or Rishon, as far as we know, ever suggested that when Tekhelet exists one can make a knot in the middle of a chulyah. The Rav may never have imagined that anyone would read his words that way.

Regarding the Arizal’s practice with white tzitzit, where a knot can fall in the middle of a symbolic chulyah, this is easily understood. As we have stated several times, when there is no Tekhelet the Rav himself says:

“Nowadays, when we do not have Tekhelet, we do not need to be particular about the number of chulyot or the number of knots between the chulyot.”

Thus, the chulyot made according to Kabbalah are only a remembrance of the true chulyot of Tekhelet. Since the goal is also to allude to other matters — the numbers seven, eight, eleven and thirteen, the thirty-nine wrappings, and the five knots corresponding to 613 — the Arizal could hold that as long as the chulyot are visually separated and recognizable, there is enough of a remez to the original chulyot, even if a knot occurs in the middle.

This also explains why the Rav, who earlier ruled according to Tosafot and the Rosh that the knot itself creates the recognizable division between chulyot and that simple spacing is not enough, nevertheless quotes the Rambam’s system of leaving a gap. When one is dealing only with a remembrance of a chulyah, a gap is sufficient.

This resolves the second contradiction as well. Why does the Rav say here that a gap is enough, when earlier he said that a knot is required? Because here the chulyah is only symbolic. Once the wrappings are separated and one can see a group of three as a chulyah, that is sufficient for the remez. A fully halachic chulyah with a knot is required only when Tekhelet is actually present.⁷

Practical Conclusion

I would like to suggest four possible ways to make the chulyot according to the shittah of the Rav, laying out the advantages and disadvantages of each.

First, let us summarize what we have learned until now.

Summary of the Rav’s Shittah

1. Number of strings: Four white ends and four Tekhelet ends, according to Tosafot. The Rav rules this explicitly.
2. Alternating the chulyot: It follows that the chulyot should presumably alternate between white and Tekhelet, according to Tosafot.
3. Beginning and ending with white: Since the Gemara rules that one begins and ends with white, it would seem that according to the Rav the first full chulyah and the last full chulyah should be white, following Tosafot and many other Rishonim.
4. Thirteen chulyot are preferable: It also seems that the preferred method is thirteen chulyot, not merely seven. There are several reasons. First, there is no reason to depart from the widespread Jewish minhag — aside from the Yemenites who follow the Rambam — of making thirteen chulyot with white strings. More importantly, according to Tosafot, where the colors alternate, it makes sense to prefer thirteen, corresponding to the seven heavens and six spaces, as in the straightforward reading of the Gemara.
5. A knot between every chulyah: The Rav also rules that a knot should be made between each chulyah. The simple meaning is literally between every single chulyah.

The First Approach

The first approach is to take the Rav’s words literally: make thirteen chulyot and a knot after every chulyah.

In sequence:

Knot — white — knot — Tekhelet — knot — white — knot — Tekhelet — knot — white — knot — Tekhelet — knot — white — knot — Tekhelet — knot — white — knot — Tekhelet — knot — white — knot — Tekhelet — knot — white — final knot.

According to this method, one loses the minhag of five knots.

This should not be treated lightly. The Rav himself calls it “the universal minhag of Klal Yisrael from ancient times.” Nevertheless, if both cannot be fulfilled — a knot after every chulyah as required by the Gemara, and exactly five knots — one must ask which takes precedence.

We should briefly review the reasons why there is room to be lenient regarding five knots.

First, according to the Rambam and a number of Geonim, five knots are not required at all.

Second, it seems clear from almost all the Rishonim that the minhag of five knots applies only when there is no Tekhelet, and this is also how the Shulchan Aruch HaRav rules.

Third, it is possible that adding more knots does not destroy the symbolism of five, even though many poskim do not seem to agree with this. It can perhaps at least be used as an additional consideration.

Were I not afraid to suggest something new, I would add another possibility. Even though according to the Rav we presumably alternate the colors, perhaps it would be better not to alternate them through the entire gedil. Instead, the three chulyot before the final white chulyah could all be Tekhelet.

This would produce seven Tekhelet chulyot and six white chulyot.

The main advantage is that in this way one may be able to satisfy both the Rambam and Tosafot. According to the Rambam, there should be seven Tekhelet chulyot, with knots and spacing between them. Presumably, inserting a white chulyah in between as an additional separation would not ruin anything.

According to Tosafot, the reason to include white chulyot is that one should not give preference to Tekhelet over white. But by the same logic, there is also no reason to give preference to white over Tekhelet. Just as seven white and six Tekhelet would be acceptable, seven Tekhelet and six white should also be possible.

The only reason we originally favored seven white and six Tekhelet was the separate halachah that one must begin and end with white.

I therefore have some thoughts that perhaps even according to Tosafot, seven Tekhelet chulyot may actually be preferable to seven white ones.⁸

Returning to the main point, however, this first approach — a knot after every chulyah — has one major practical problem: it is very difficult to do.

To make fourteen knots requires extremely long strings. Even if that problem can be overcome, the hiddur mitzvah is that one-third of the tzitzit should be gedil and two-thirds should remain loose. People are not accustomed to tzitzit of such extreme length.

The Second Approach According to the Rav

A second possibility is therefore to make only seven chulyot, with a knot after each chulyah:

Knot — white — knot — Tekhelet — knot — white — knot — Tekhelet — knot — white — knot — Tekhelet — knot — white — final knot.

But if one is already making only seven chulyot, perhaps according to the Rav it would be better to make all seven chulyot Tekhelet, according to the Rambam, with only the first and last wrapping white.

It is true that according to Tosafot, even when one makes seven chulyot, the colors are alternated. But the Rav never explicitly ruled this way.

The reason we originally assumed that the Rav would require alternating colors was that he follows Tosafot regarding the number of Tekhelet strings, and it is logical that the color of the chulyot should follow the same principle. The same reasoning underlies both: there is no reason to prefer Tekhelet over white.

But if that is the logic, then one should also prefer thirteen chulyot rather than seven, corresponding to the heavens and spaces. If one is not doing thirteen in any case, perhaps there is no clear preference to alternate the colors either.

The two points can perhaps be distinguished, but since the Rav did not explicitly rule on this matter, it remains tzarich iyun.

The Third Approach According to the Rav

One could also follow the answer of Tosafot and make seven chulyot, but put a knot only after each pair of chulyot — one white and one Tekhelet. This gives five knots.

A person who does this is presumably not acting incorrectly even according to the Rav.

Still, from a strict halachic standpoint it is certainly preferable to tie after every actual chulyah. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav does not mention Tosafot’s alternative explanation, and instead rules according to the plain meaning of the Gemara: a knot at the end of every chulyah.

It is also possible that Tosafot themselves offered their explanation only to show how the five-knot minhag can fit the seven-chulyah system and thereby explain the later minhag with white strings. But if one uses thirteen chulyot — which, as argued above, may be preferable according to Tosafot themselves — perhaps even Tosafot would require a knot after every chulyah.

Furthermore, even according to Tosafot’s answer, nothing is lost by tying after every chulyah. Their point may only be that Chazal did not require a knot after every single chulyah, and that one knot after one white and one Tekhelet chulyah is sufficient.

Nevertheless, apart from the strong foundation that this approach has in Tosafot themselves, one can also argue that it does not directly contradict the halachic ruling of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, although it does not fit his exact wording:

“And they instituted that one should make a knot at the end of every chulyah.”

If one follows this approach and knots only after every two chulyot, it seems clearly preferable to use seven chulyot rather than thirteen, so that the five-knot minhag is preserved.

The reason is that the weight of the five-knot minhag is certainly greater than the minhag of thirty-nine wrappings corresponding to Hashem Echad.

It also seems more important than the preference for thirteen chulyot, even according to Tosafot’s alternating-color system. The connection between alternating the colors and specifically using thirteen chulyot is not absolute. One can alternate colors and still make seven chulyot corresponding to the seven heavens, even if not all seven of those chulyot are Tekhelet, as Tosafot themselves indicate.

By contrast, the minhag of five knots is an ancient minhag vatikin that has been sanctified through all the generations since the time of the Geonim.

The Fourth and Preferred Approach According to the Rav

In my opinion, the best practical method is based on a principle found in Hilchot Tzitzit LeChad MiKamai, an early manuscript work published in Kovetz Tzefunot, vol. 6, p. 11.

It says:

In brief, this is how it is done in practice… He ties a full knot with four strings against the other four, then wraps one chulyah, which consists of three wrappings, and ties it to make the chulyah recognizable. He then makes a second chulyah and a second full knot like the first. He then makes seven more chulyot, tying between every chulyah, followed by the third full knot. He then makes another two chulyot and ties the fourth full knot, then another two chulyot and the fifth full knot. Thus we have five knots, the upper knot immediately next to the corner is fully de’Oraita, and we have made thirteen chulyot totaling thirty-nine wrappings. This is the proper method. The two knots nearer the top and the three lower down follow the principle of rising in kedushah and not descending, in the name of Rav Hai Gaon.

Without entering into the precise sequence of knots suggested there, we can derive an important new principle from his words: there can be two different types of knots.

One is a full knot, where four strings are tied against the other four. This kind of knot fulfills the requirement of the “upper knot” de’Oraita and also preserves the ancient minhag of five knots.

The second is a smaller knot made with the wrapping string. This type of knot can fulfill the Gemara’s requirement to tie between each chulyah.

This distinction between two kinds of knots fits the shittah of the Rav very well, both conceptually and in his precise wording.

Regarding Chazal’s institution to make a knot at the end of each chulyah, the Rav follows Tosafot and the Rosh, who explain that the purpose is so that “there should be a recognizable distinction between one chulyah and the next.”

According to that reason, one can argue that a full knot is unnecessary. A small knot sufficient to mark the division between chulyot should be enough.

In addition, according to most Rishonim, the knots themselves were made with the wrapping string.⁹ The kind of full knot we make today — four strings against four — was introduced after the time of Rabbeinu Tam.

Although in practice we are machmir today to make a full knot according to all opinions, for the specific purpose of distinguishing between chulyot, a knot in the wrapping string should be sufficient.

The “upper knot,” however, is different. The Rav writes:

“But he must make a knot at the end of the wrapping, because the wrapping does not remain in place without a knot after it, and otherwise there is no gedil.”

Here the purpose of the knot is not merely to mark a separation but to hold the gedil together. For that, a full knot is required according to all opinions.

Using these full knots, one can also preserve the universal Jewish minhag of five major knots by distributing them among the thirteen chulyot according to one of the established methods.

It seems to me that the best arrangement is to follow the shittah of the Chinuch and many other Rishonim, while also making a small knot after every chulyah:

Knot — white, Tekhelet, white — knot — Tekhelet, white, Tekhelet — knot — white, Tekhelet, white — knot — Tekhelet, white, Tekhelet, white — knot.

And according to what I suggested above, that perhaps even according to the Rav it is preferable to have seven Tekhelet chulyot and six white chulyot, it would be better to arrange it:

Knot — white, Tekhelet, white — knot — Tekhelet, white, Tekhelet — knot — Tekhelet, white, Tekhelet — knot — Tekhelet, white, Tekhelet, white — knot.

This also works much better aesthetically than the first approach and will not ruin the appearance of the gedil.

Regarding the smaller knots, it must be added that it would apparently not be sufficient merely to separate the chulyot in the way commonly done in the Chabad white-string method. That is not really called a knot at all. Such a tuck can help create spacing between chulyot, as the Rav writes, but it is not halachically a knot.

Even though it creates a visible separation, since Chazal specifically instituted that a knot should create the separation, one cannot fulfill that requirement with any arbitrary method of spacing. A real knot should be made with the wrapping string, similar to the Yemenite tying method or something comparable.

According to this approach, one gains virtually everything according to the shittah of the Rav.

One fulfills the rabbinic requirement based on the Gemara to have a knot between every chulyah.

One preserves the minhag of five knots.

One also fulfills the principle of rising in kedushah by making four chulyot toward the end of the gedil.

One retains the thirty-nine wrappings.

And one can also accommodate the Rambam and those who follow him.

The result is that the minhag Yisrael used for white strings is not changed very much, while at the same time the mitzvah of tzitzit with Tekhelet is fulfilled “in the name of all Klal Yisrael,” together with the majority of Jews who, as of now, are not yet fulfilling the mitzvah of Tekhelet.

Appendix

The Baal HaTekhelet, the Radzyner Rebbe, introduced a method in which even with Tekhelet one can make the chulyot and knots according to the Arizal’s minhag for white strings, as cited by the Magen Avraham, with only a small change for the sake of the Tekhelet.

Many Chassidim follow his method.

Today this method is known as the Radzyner–Chabad method.