Tosafos R’ Bentzion Halberstam

The fact that we need five knots has many sources:

Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 10, and this is the language:

“On the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself” — this is like the Me’il Ha’ephod, with its bells and pomegranates. These correspond to the chulyos and knots. The bottom of the Me’il corresponds to the corners of the mitzvah. And they are five knots, corresponding to “Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem,” which correspond to the five strings of David’s kinnor, which would play by itself. There are thirteen chulyos, like the numerical value of “echad,” because the sound of the music rises in “echad.” And this is eighteen, between the chulyos and knots, on each side. Altogether they come to seventy-two, and this is “and the throne is established through chesed” — chesed being seventy-two. Anyone who wraps himself in the garment of the mitzvah is considered as if he prepared a throne for HaKadosh Baruch Hu.

And similarly in Tikkun 18, it says:

“These are the ones who cover Me with the garment of the mitzvah of tzitzis, with five knots and thirteen chulyos on each side, and thirty-two branches of the mitzvah.”

Also:

• Rashi, Menachos 39a, ד”ה מין כנף
• Tosafos there, ד”ה לא יפחות
• Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 11:14
• Magen Avraham there, se’if katan 23
• Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 24:5, whose source is the Recanati
• See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, siman 11 se’if 31, that this is what they did in the time when there was Techeiles
• Sha’ar HaKavanos, Inyan Tzitzis, where it says: “This is the matter of the five knots and the four spaces, etc.” And he goes on to explain the kavannah according to Sod
• Pri Etz Chaim, Sha’ar HaTzitzis, beginning of chapter 1

So, ממילא, one should not change from our minhag of making five knots, since it is so well-founded. We also always practiced this way until the rediscovery of Techeiles. And changing a minhag is a serious thing. To change it without an absolute necessity is certainly not something to do, especially when there are so many sources saying explicitly that even when Techeiles was around, they made the tzitzis this way. So there is no reason to change. And one who changes has the weaker position.

Furthermore, if one does change it, it could also undermine the inyan of holding the two tzitzis during Baruch She’amar, which is an old minhag brought in the Magen Avraham, siman 51, in the name of Sefer HaKavanos. In Shu”t Zichron Yehuda, siman 9, he explains that minhag in a way that depends on there being five knots, since between the two tzitzis there are ten knots in total. See there.

Also, min hadin one only needs one chulya, and the rest is only for beauty and for mitzvah min hamuvchar. It is not me’akev at all. So certainly, for something that is not me’akev, it is not proper to change a fixed and well-founded minhag.

The order of 7, 8, 11, 13, and making the chulyos in that order, is explained in Shulchan Aruch HaRav there, and in Sha’ar HaKavanos there, and in Pri Etz Chaim there, that this is how to do it when there is Techeiles.

Also, in this way, we have not changed from what we were doing until the rediscovery of Techeiles. And the fact that we are not changing is itself a proper reason, all the more so since in the above sources it is clear that this is the main way.

The fact that we alternate the chulyos — one chulya of lavan and one chulya of Techeiles, and then repeat — is found in:

• Baal Ha’Itur, Hilchos Tzitzis, daf 69
• Rav Amram Gaon, Geonica vol. 2, pp. 330–331
• Tosafos, Menachos 39a, ד”ה לא יפחות
• Rosh, Hilchos Tzitzis, siman 15
• Mordechai, Hilchos Ketanos, end of siman 939
• Rabbeinu Yehonasan miLunel, Hilchos Ketanos, Tzitzis, p. 29
• Semag, Mitzvas Aseh 26, Tzitzis
• Gra, Yahal Or, Parshas Pinchas 227a

Also, the Raavad and Rav Natronai Gaon — brought in the Raavad, perek 1 halacha 7 — hold that one alternates. However, they hold that the alternating is done with the individual wrappings, not with the chulyos. But either way, we see from them too that it is proper to make it alternating. I leaned after the majority, who say to alternate by chulyos, and also in order to fulfill the chulyos according to the Rambam, as explained below.

According to the Rambam, the chulyos are made of Techeiles only, except for the first one, where he begins with one wrapping of lavan, because one must begin with lavan, as is explained. And except for the last one, where he ends with one wrapping of lavan, because one must also end with lavan, as is explained.

Now, only one chulya is required min hadin — Rambam, perek 1 halacha 8 — and the rest is only for beauty. So according to our way, we have a complete chulya of Techeiles, which certainly, according to the Rambam, counts for the chulya that is required min hadin. We also begin and end with lavan. The only difference is that instead of it being only one wrapping of lavan, it is a full chulya of three wrappings. That does not lessen the validity of the Techeiles chulya.

But according to the other Rishonim, who require beginning and ending with a full chulya of lavan, this would not be fulfilled with only one wrapping. According to them, one wrapping is not yet considered a full beginning and ending with lavan, because a single wrapping does not have significance according to their approach, since they never mention such an arrangement in any way. Therefore, it is better to do it this way.

As for the rest of the chulyos, which are only added for beauty, as mentioned above, we are not so concerned about them.

In truth, I had a safek whether to make all the chulyos Techeiles, except for the first and last, as mentioned above. But I chose this way in order to fulfill the inyan of sirug, alternating, which so many Kadmonim mention, as above. ממילא, in my humble opinion, this seems to be the best way to fulfill the matter in the strongest way, and it works nicely according to most shitos.