Simanim 12-14 Defective Tzitzit
Mishna Berura
Yeshivat Har Etzion
SHIUR
#9: Simanim 12 - 14
Pages
45 - 52
by
Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon
Siman 12: Defective Tzitzit
*****************************
If the tzitzit strings tore
(se'if 1):
Note: The tzitzit are composed of four strings
which are doubled over to form eight.
Henceforth, "string" will refer to one of these four. When half a string (or one-eighth the
total) is meant, this will be designated as a "segment."
In Menachot 35b we learn that "the remnants of (gardomei) tekhelet are
valid tzitzit." In other words, if
the tzitzit's strings are cut off but there is a bit left, the tzitzit are
kosher. (The length of twelve
gudlin or thumb-breadths discussed in the previous siman is required only at the
time of the manufacture of the tzitzit.)
How long must these leftover pieces be?
A preliminary answer is found in Menachot 38b: "What is the length of
remnants? ... In order to tie a loop around them."
There is a debate among the Rishonim regarding the meaning of the phrase
"remnants of tekhelet," i.e., how many of the strings may be torn before the
tzitzit are considered invalid.
The Rosh understood "gardomei tekhelet" to mean all the strings of the
tzitzit, "tekhelet" being simply an alternate way to say tzitzit. According to this, even if every string
of the tzitzit is cut, as long as there is enough left on each string to tie a
loop (kedei aniva), the tzitzit are fine. (For each string, only one of its halves
need have this length left.)
Rabbeinu Tam, in contrast, took the word "tekhelet" literally (according
to R. Tam there are two strings of tekhelet at each corner and two white
strings). The two white strings, he
maintains, must be fully intact. It
is only the two tekhelet ones which may be torn if one wants his tzitzit to
remain valid (assuming, of course, that enough for a loop is left on each
string). Nowadays when all the
strings are white, the same rule applies - two must be whole and two may be
torn.
How does the Shulchan Arukh rule?
The Rosh's opinion may, in fact, be a significant leniency in a case of
emergency. See M.B. 12:11 regarding
the recital of a berakha on tzitzit in which only "enough to tie a loop" remains
on each string, and M.B. 12:13 until the words "mi-tefilla be-tzibbur" regarding
when one may follow this leniency.
What is the precise meaning of
"enough to tie a loop?" See
the Biur Halakha s.v. Im Nifseku (on se'if 1), particularly the end where he
issues a ruling.
A practical problem presents itself in this matter: If two segments of
string are completely cut off, how is one to be sure that they are not in fact
two halves of one string (in which case there is not even "enough to tie a loop"
left and the tzitzit are certainly invalid)? One way to eliminate this problem is to
make sure from the start that the halves of the strings on each side never
become mixed up. The simplest way
to accomplish this is to tie up one of the two groups while the tzitzit are
being made (it is easier to tie the group without the long
shamash).
[Is it permitted to tie an actual knot and then to untie it? See S.A. 11:13. Despite this, the Har Tzvi (OC vol. I,
15) ruled that the tzitzit are kosher because, among other reasons, only one
side was knotted. However, it is
better to use a slip knot.]
The following halakhic conclusion can be drawn:
If one segment is completely cut off, the tzitzit are certainly
valid.
If, in addition, another segment is cut so that "enough to tie a loop" is
left, the tzitzit are still fine because no whole string is completely cut,
which fulfills the Rosh's requirement, and two strings are still left whole,
which fulfills Rabbeinu Tam's.
If two segments of string from the same side are completely torn but the
two groups were kept separate during the manufacture of the tzitzit, the tzitzit
are valid. If, however, the groups
were not kept separate or the two torn strings are on different sides, then the
tzitzit are disqualified (because it is quite likely that one string is now
completely missing).
If each and every segment is torn but enough remains to tie a loop
(approximately four cm), then the Rosh would accept these tzitzit (as he would
even if on one side all the segments were fully cut off, assuming a separation
had been maintained during manufacture), while Rabbeinu Tam would disqualify it
for not having at least two complete strings. In practice, if one cannot easily find
other tzitzit, he may wear such these and recite a berakha over them (M.B
12:11,13).
Tying a torn string (se'if
1):
If a string is torn, may one retie it? See M.B. 12:7 (from the words "She'eila:
Chutei ha-tzitzit") for a surprising approach.
"Enough to tie a loop" -
from where is this measured? (se'if 3)
We have seen that if a string is torn but enough is left to tie a loop,
the tzitzit remain valid. Must this
amount be left from the anaf (the string that comes after all the knots) or can
the gedil (the segment with all the knots) count too? Rashi and the Ri debate this point. How does the Shulchan Arukh rule? When is it permissible to rely upon the
Ri, and with what limitations? See
M.B. 12:13.
See the Bi'ur Halakha, s.v. Yesh Lismokh Al Ri, for an interesting
solution in case all the strings are cut off until the gedil (this even accords
with Rashi's opinion).
Siman 13: Tzitzit on Shabbat
*****************************
Are the strings of the four corners interdependent? (se'if
1)
In the mishna on Menachot 28a, we find the following disagreement: Tana
kama asserts that the four [corners of] tzitziot are one mitzva and are
interdependent - if one is missing, the whole is disqualified. R. Yishmael, in contrast, believes that
each is a separate mitzva. If, for
example, there are strings on two of the corners, two mitzvot are
fulfilled.
How does the Shulchan Arukh rule?
What ramification does this have for wearing invalid tzitzit outdoors on
Shabbat? The problem is that if one
goes out with invalid tzitzit on Shabbat he is considered to be carrying - not
wearing - the disqualified strings (which is forbidden if there is no
eruv).
Personal dignity (se'if
3):
See the two stories on Menachot 37b-38a about Ravina and Mar bar Rav
Ashi.
Learn the Mishna Berura and distinguish between Shabbat and weekdays, and
between a tallit gadol and a tallit katan.
The rule of thumb is found at the end of M.B. 13:12. This also has ramifications for a chazan
who takes a tallit and finds it to be invalid. And see also the Bi'ur Halakha, s.v.
Ve-davka, who brings a case in which one should certainly be lenient and refrain
from removing his tallit.
Siman 14: Tzitzit Made by a Woman, or
Borrowed
***********************************************
Tzitzit tied by a woman
(se'if 1):
In Gittin 45b we read, "Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot written by
... a woman or a minor are invalid, as it is written, 'and you shall tie'
[adjacent to] 'and you shall write' ... "
What if a woman put tzitzit on a garment? See Tosafot s.v. Kol.
How did the Shulchan Arukh rule?
The Rama?
Tying the tzitziot without
the proper intention (se'if 2):
Tzitzit which were tied without the proper kavana (intention) are kosher
according to the Rambam (Hilkhot Tzitzit 1:12) but invalid according to Rashi
(Menachot 42a) and the Rosh (Hilkhot Tzitzit, 14).
How did the Shulchan Arukh rule?
It is clear that a person who is making tzitzit almost invariably does so
li-shma (for the sake of the mitzva of tzitzit), even according to Rashi and the
Rosh (Meishiv Davar vol. I, 3).
This is especially true of our tzitzit nowadays in which the garment is
worn specifically for the sake of the tzitzit (Bi'ur Halakha s.v. Lo Yevarekh
Alav). Nevertheless, one should,
ideally, say the words "le-shem mitzvat tzitzit" - preferably before inserting
the strings into the hole but at least before tying the first knot (Bi'ur
Halakha).
A borrowed tallit (se'if
3):
Chullin 136a teaches, "'On the four corners of YOUR garment' - why must
it say 'your' garment? For [that
which is taught by] R. Yehuda who said, 'A borrowed tallit is exempt from
tzitzit a full thirty days.'"
Tosafot (Chullin 110b s.v. Tallit) explain that even after thirty days
have passed one need not, strictly speaking, put tzitzit on it; the Sages
required it only because by that time it looks as if it is
his.
May one recite a berakha on a borrowed tallit?
Tosafot (ibid.) say that even though it is true that a woman may recite a
berakha on time-bound mitzvot (from which she is exempt), one still may not do
so over a borrowed tallit (which is also exempt) because this exemption centers
on the garment, not the person.
Nevertheless, conclude the Tosafot, one who does recite such a berakha is
not held culpable.
The Rosh (siman 26) draws the following distinction: If a four-cornered
garment was borrowed without tzitzit on it, it is exempt; if it was borrowed
already fitted out with strings, one should recite the berakha. (We assume that the garment's owner
intended the borrower to make this berakha and therefore must have given it to
him not as a loan but as a present that will later be returned - "matana al
menat le-hachzir.")
The Yam Shel Shlomo (Chullin 8:53) disagrees, believing that one should
not recite the berakha even on a tallit that was borrowed with tzitzit on it
already. These who say that the
berakha should be made, he claims, mean this only in a case in which it was
borrowed for the sake of tefilla, not for the sake of an honor (such as being
the chazan or getting an aliya).
How does the Shulchan Arukh rule?
See M.B. 14:11 who says that if he borrowed it for tefilla, he should say
a berakha; for an honor, he should not.
The reason for this is that if he borrowed it only for an honorary
purpose then we assume that the lender did not mean to "give" it to him but only
to lend it to him.
There are two ways in which a borrower can deal with this
matter:
1) He can intend to acquire
the tallit as a gift to be returned, ideally letting the owner know,
or
2) he can intend NOT to
acquire ownership of the tallit.
See the Mishna Berura to learn which situations call for which
intention. In any case, even if he
did not tell the owner he was taking it as a gift to be returned, or conversely,
did not have in mind not to acquire it as such, the halakha is as above - if he
borrowed it for tefilla he should say a berakha, if he borrowed it for an honor,
he should not.
A communal tallit (based on
se'ifim 3 and 5):
There are two possible reasons to make a berakha on the community's
tallit:
1) The Peri Megadim (Eshel
Avraham, 6) and Elia Rabba (6) learn this from the law of a tallit owned by
partners (tallit ha-shutafin). The
gemara in Chullin 136a says that a tallit owned by partners is obligated to have
tzitzit, and this is how the Shulchan Arukh rules (se'if
5).
2) Derekh Ha-chayim says
that the reason is that such a tallit was bought for this exact purpose - so
that all who wear it can acquire temporary ownership of it and say the
berakha.
The practical differences that arise from these two approaches are as
follows:
1) A stranger to the
synagogue would not make a berakha according to the first reason, but would
according to the second.
2) One who expressly intends
not to acquire ownership of the garment in order to be exempt from the berakha
would find his plan effective according to the second reason, but not according
to the first (and so indeed rules the Peri Megadim in siman 581, Eshel Avraham
3).
The Bi'ur Halakha s.v. She'eila deals with this issue but leaves
unresolved the question of whether to make a berakha on a communal tallit that
was borrowed to wear during an honorary calling-up (like an aliya). However, in the Mishna Berura (14:11
from the words "ve-khol zeh be-tallitot") he says that one does make the
berakha, and the same conclusion is reached in the Bi'ur Halakha elsewhere (8:9
s.v. Kodem She-yevarekh). Also, see
the Bi'ur Halakha there (8:8) regarding whether one is even permitted to wear it
without a berakha.
In one's own synagogue, there seems to be a consensus that he may recite
the berakha, since both reasons mentioned above apply. However, he should still have in mind
that his donning of it is for the sake of the mitzva of tzitzit (cf. the Biur
Halakha on siman 14).
In any case of uncertainty about this berakha (and similarly if one dons
the tallit at a time when the obligation might not be in force - for example,
early in the morning before there is visibility by natural light), it is
preferable to refrain from using a communal tallit, and to intend not to acquire
ownership of it (cf. the commentaries on siman 581).
Using a tallit without
permission (se'if 4):
The gemara in Bava Metzia 29b makes the following assumption: "The
average person would like to have a mitzva done with his
belongings."
On the other hand, we learn in Bava Batra that "One who borrows without
permission is a thief."
It is therefore permitted to borrow religious items without asking - but
only under specific conditions (which indicate that the owner would like the
item to be used). These are
detailed in the Shulchan Arukh se'if 4 and the Mishna Berura 14:13 and
16.
In Tzitz Eliezer (12:7) it is written that a sick person should not
borrow a tallit or the like since it is likely that the owner would object
because of the germs.
An additional problem presents itself in this situation: If the owner did
not transfer the tallit to his possession, how can he make a berakha on it? See the opinion of Tosafot cited above
in connection with one who borrows a tallit; you will then be able to explain
the ruling of the Shulchan Arukh the way the Magen Avraham did (se'if 8). In contrast, the Taz disagrees with the
Shulchan Arukh, as does the Yam Shel Shlomo (also brought above). See M.B. 14:14. How does the Mishna Berura
rule?
(This shiur was
translated by Pnina Baumgarten.)