The strings - The wording of the Rambam is "One who finds ציצית strings in the marketplace/street, even if they are cut [to the right size] and spun, they are invalid since people will work to make strings that look like ציצית... and if so, then maybe they were not made for the sake of [the mitzvah of] ציצית. And the Maggid Mishneh argues on this and also the Kessef Mishneh wrote that the Rambam in a responsum retracted [his opinion] on this afterwards... Up until here are the words of the Magen Avraham. And the Gr"a in his commentary in Siman 301 wrote that the law follows the Rambam in what he wrote originally... see there further.

Spun for the sake of [the mitzvah of] ציצית - And this is [based on] words from the Torah, as it's written "You shall make tassels" (Deuteronomy 22:12) [which is interpreted to mean] for the sake of [fulfilling] your obligation.

To be lenient regarding combing - For that which is written "You shall make" (Deuteronomy 22:12), means from the [point of] spinning [the wool] and on, for that is the main part of the making of the ציצית strings. And see in the Prisha in the name of the Maharal from Prague who agrees that optimally one should be stringent that the combing should be for the sake of [the mitzvah of] ציצית.

Should say - Explicitly [and] not [just have it] in his mind. And even after the fact (ie. if he spun them without stating out loud that he is doing it for the sake of the mitzvah), it requires further analysis if having it mind was effective. And see further in Siman 32, Se'if 9 and 19 and in Chiddushei Rabbi Akivah Eiger there.

At the start of - And it's enough even for another day (ie. stating it once explicitly at the start of the spinning counts for the spinning he will do on subsequent days), for most likely the latter [spinning] will be with that same intention (of doing it for the sake of the mitzvah)... for anyone who does something, he does it [based] on the original doing (ie. it's a continuation)... unless he explicitly said afterwards that he's doing it NOT for the sake of the mitzvah.

The spinning - And if he spun a little and afterwards said [out loud that he's doing it for the sake of the mitzvah], it doesn't count for what he spun already, for it is doubtful if we say that the end [action] is a proof on [what happened at] the beginning. And if at the beginning he had in mind that he's doing it for the sake of the mitzvah, but didn't say it out loud explicitly [and then spun some, and then said out loud that he's doing it for the sake of the mitzvah], it seems to me that we can lean towards being lenient regarding this because it is a "s'feik s'feika" (ie. a double doubt... Doubt #1 - does just having it in mind count? Doubt #2 - if you said it out loud explicitly after you already spun a little, does it count? ).

Say to the woman - Meaning, at the beginning of the spinning only. And similarly, if the woman herself says that she spun it for the sake of the mitzvah of ציצית it counts, and she is believed on what she said. As opposed to a non-Jew or a deaf-mute, insane person, or child who are not believed. A habitual sinner [who sins] due to his appetite (i.e. he succumbs to his temptations) who doesn't inconvenience himself to make ציצית for his own garment is allowed to spin [for others] and is believed when he says he spun it for the sake if the mitzvah... and certainly if he transgresses other sins only due to his appetite/temptation. But a habitual sinner [who transgresses] due to spite/insolence is a heretic regarding the whole Torah and certainly only does it for his own sake according to everyone.

A non-Jew - And the spinning of a deaf-mute, insane person, or child [as well]... [Regarding] whether it's effective when an adult Jew stands by them and teaches them to do it for the sake of the mitzvah, look in Siman 460 in the Beit Yosef, where there is an argument regarding this. And look in Biur Halacha where we explained the outcomes of the later halachic authorities regarding this.

Stands by him - Look in Biur Halacha where we wrote that it's specifically if the spinning was not done for such a long time, but if the spinning lasted a long time then it seems that even according to the Rosh it's no good that which the [the Jew] taught the non-Jew at the beginning of the spinning to do it for the sake of the mitvah. And certainly if he stopped [in the middle of] the spinning and afterwards, at another time, starting to spin again... for sure everyone agrees that [the non-Jew] was doing it for his own sake and it is invalid.

Invalid - He holds that the non-Jew does it for his own sake and does not listen to that which the Jew commands him to do it for the sake of the mitzvah.

According to the Rosh they are valid - And in an extenuating circumstance, when there is no Jew around to spin it for the sake of the mitzvah, one can rely on this. But without that, one cannot. Because in the Biur Hagr"a, he wrote that the opinion of Tosefot and the Mordechi is also like the Rambam.

And it is our custom that [the Jew] should assist etc. - And this is all according to the Rosh, but according to the Rambam, none of this helps. And see in the later rabbinic authorities who concluded that this custom (ie. that the Jew assists a little) is the ideal way to do it, but after the fact [if the non-Jew did it all], it is valid, even if the [Jew] did not help at all according to the Rosh... since the Jew is standing over him and instructing him to do it for the sake of the mitzvah. And if the Jew is not standing over him to command him such, then his assisting is not effective according to everyone, for we hold that helping/assisting [in something] is not considered like you actually did anything.

And it requires interweaving - This is referring to the ציצית strings only and not referring to the non-Jew spinning (ie. it's a new topic). For there (by the interweaving), it wouldn't be valid according to the ones who hold that it's invalid if a non-Jew spun it not for the sake if the mitzvah, even if it was interwoven afterwards by a Jew for the sake of the mitzvah. (ie. once the spinning was done in an invalid way, doing the interweaving in a valid way doesn't help at all).

Interweaving - Meaning, that [the threads] should be folded over after the spinning [process] into two and [then] interwoven (ie. those two threads are now spun together to make it one single, thicker thread). And if each thread was folded over into eight and interwoven as well, there is nothing [wrong with that]. And the reason for the interweaving is that it taught in the Sifri: [The verse says] "...and they shall make for themselves fringes..." (Numbers 15:38). I hear from this that they should make fringes as they are (ie. with just one thread). So the verse tells you "...let them attach a cord of blue to the fringe at each corner." (Numbers 15:38), with spinning and interweaving [meaning, like [it was done in] the Mishkan (Tabernacle) which was interwoven... Or [another interpretation] is that a cord/wick is [something that by definition is] interwoven]. Now I have no [scriptural proof for the requirement of spinning and interweaving] except for blue [fringes], how [do we know that the same thing applies to] white fringes? [Because] the Torah says "affix/place" by blue [threads] and "affix/place" by white [threads]... What [is true by] blue [threads], [that they have to be] spun and interwoven, so too [is true by] white [threads], that they have to be spun and interwoven. And see further in Biur Halacha.

For the sake of the mitzvah - Because from the spinning [process] and on, it's all in the category of "making" where it's established that it requires [being made] for the sake of the mitzvah. And the Magen Avraham wrote that even after the fact it prevents [one from fulfilling their obligation] if they were not interwoven for the sake of the mitzvah. And so is it understood from the Biur Hagr"a. And there are those that are lenient [if it was made] after the fact even without interweaving [at all]. And see further in Biur Halacha where we explained that one should not rely on this. But if the interweaving was done without specification (ie. without specifically doing it for the sake of the mitzvah), one can be lenient after the fact, since the spinning was done for the sake of the mitzvah, and anyone who does something, he does it [based] on the original doing (ie. it's a continuation of his original intent).

And became sixteen - Meaning that all eight strings unraveled, and [the Shulchan Aruch] taught the greater [halachic] novelty (ie. that even if all 8 strings unraveled but were left with enough to tie a bow, it is still valid). But the same law applies if 2 strings unraveled and became 4 strings, it's also required to have left over enough to tie a bow, because if not then it's invalid for it's as if it is missing 2 [whole] strings from his ציצית (ie. if 2 strings unravel to less than the amount to tie a bow, -which is then as if there is no string there - then it's possible that both of those strings belonged to the same original long string that was inserted into the hole and now you are left with only 3 of the original long strings having the proper length), which makes it invalid unless he was careful at the time of tying his ציצית strings that [the same] 4 strings always stayed on the same side (ie. because then you know for sure that the 2 strings that unraveled don't belong to the same original long string, as long as they both unraveled from the same group of 4 strings). And this is as will be seen later at the beginning of Siman 12.

Enough to tie a bow - And even though there are those who hold that it is invalid [in a case] where all [the strings] were cut, even if there was left over enough [on each string] to tie a bow, as is written in Siman 12... nevertheless, by interweaving (ie. in a case where the interweaving unraveled) we rely on the first opinion, for the law is in accordance with him, as he (ie. the Shulchan Aruch) concluded there (in Siman 12) [see in Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim]. And you should also know that the Shulchan Aruch is referring specifically to where each string was interwoven into two (ie. after the raw wool is spun into threads -called "t'viah" - each thread is then doubled over and spun/interwoven -called "sh'zira" - to make a thicker string). But if the string was doubled over [again] and interwoven into four or [doubled over again after that to make] eight, as is found nowadays, and then it unraveled into sixteen (ie. each of the 8 ציצית strings unraveled and you now have 16 strings), [then] even if there's not [a section of string] left over [that's long enough] to tie a bow, it is valid. Because at the very least, each string is still interwoven into two. And regarding [the question of whether this is a transgression of] "do not add", see further in Biur Halacha.

It is good to tie - And there are those who say the opposite, that it is better not to tie [the ends]. And it is better to be stringent [and not tie the ends] if they are interwoven well, for then it is not common for it to unravel [Magen Avraham in Se'if Katan 23 and Pri Megadim... see there]

Four thumb-widths - And the measurement of a thumb-breadth is always that of an average person. And we measure it from the top joint [of the thumb] at the place where it's thickest in the middle [see in Shaarei Teshuva]. And see in Magen Avraham [here], and in the Sha"ch in Siman 272 (Yoreh Deah), who bring in the name of the Rambam, that the measurement of a thumb-width is like the width of 7 barley kernels, one next to the other [when they are placed] tightly [next to each other], which is [the same as] the height of two barley kernels [placed end to end] with [a bit of] space [in between].

And that is the custom - And this is the opinion of the Levush. And if so, it's not proper what the sellers do, that they are stingy with the measurement of the length [of the strings] and it's close to [causing people to] make a blessing in vain. Because even though on a Torah level it's enough [for the strings to be] any length, [nevertheless] on a Rabbinic level they need to be twelve thumb-widths from the [first] knot, not including what's sitting on the corner of the garment (ie. the portion of string from the corner hole to the first knot). And [the sellers] should be warned regarding this [Pri Megadim]. And see further in Biur Halacha.

Measurement - The R"i was accustomed to make them longer so that if they tore [off] a little, there would still be left over the [proper] measurement.

Should be - And if one of the strings is not long enough to wrap all [wrappings and knots], he should wrap a few wraps from one string and a few wraps from another string. Because during the time of [when we had] Techeilet (blue dyed strings), they would make a few wraps using the techeilet [strings] and a few wraps using the white [stings]. And one needs to see to it that it's left over on each string, a length of twelve thumb-widths after the wrappings and knots, like the Rem"a wrote. And even that long string, after the wrappings, should have left over twelve thumb-widths.

The tassel - It's called a tassel [based] on [what it will be in] the future, for it [only] becomes a tassel after it was wrapped around [by one of the strings]. And this is what the Rem"a wrote afterwards "this is the smooth part etc", meaning to say, that initially it [the bunch of strings] is smooth without any bundled/knotted or woven [parts], and through this [longer] string it becomes a tassel. Yad Ephraim

After they are tied - And because of the knot that they make on the tassel, it shortens [the strings]. And [so] it requires an additional thumb, meaning thirteen thumb-widths, not including what is resting on the garment (ie. the portion of string from the hole to the knot closest to the hole). And even after the fact (ie. if one unknowingly ended up with string lengths that are too short), it prevents [one from fulfilling the mitzvah]. And the people are lenient regarding this, and it is proper to protest against it.

We do not make - And even after the fact, it is invalid [Ta"z and Pri Megadim].

That the weaver leaves over - One should not ask [the following question]: That even without this, there is something [that makes it] invalid, for the threads were not spun for the sake of [the mitzvah of] ציצית (ie. the Shulchan Aruch said the reason is because of disgracing the mitzvah, but even without that, we're talking about threads taken from a loom which is used to make a garment, not ציצית strings... so obviously the threads left over on the loom were not made for the sake of the mitzvah). We can answer that we are referring to even where initially the threads were spun for the sake of the [the mitzvah of] ציצית, and afterwards he wove a garment from them, and even in this case they are invalid because of disgracing the mitzvah [Ta"z]. And in Sefer Hamaor, he wrote [that] the reason is because there's a requirement that [the material/fibers used for the ציצית strings that hang off] the corner, be the same material as [what's used for the actual garment of] the corner. And [here] these materials are not fit to make from them a garment since they are the remnants of wool and a garment cannot be made from their [small] quantity... Until here are his words (of the Sefer Hamaor). And if so, any type of wool which is subpar, of which a garment cannot be made from it, is invalid for making ציצית strings [Magen Avraham].

For themselves, from their own - This is obvious, for similarly, if one bought ציצית on credit, and the seller comes around and demands his money, and this one (ie. the buyer) does not want to pay him... according to halacha, the ציצית does not belong to him, as is seen in Choshen Mishpat Siman 190, see there further... and all similar cases [as well]. Therefore, [here in our case of wool bought on credit], he does not fulfill his obligation with these ציצית. And see further in Biur Halacha.

And specifically etc. - And then, even if the owners despaired [later of ever getting it back], [the ציצית] are invalid, for [the fact that the owner] despaired does not acquire [it for someone else]. And even if the strings were not interwoven, and he (the thief) interwove them... nevertheless, this is not considered a [significant] change [to be considered a valid acquirement], for it did not change the name [of the item] by doing that [Pri Megadim].

Where he stole the strings etc. - See in Magen Avraham Se'if Kattan 10. And according to what he wrote [there], this gloss [from the Rem"a] argues on the Mechaber (ie. Shulchan Aruch), for he (the Mechaber) holds that the verse [in the Torah of "v'asu lahem"] includes even if he made the strings from stolen wool (ie. when the Torah says it has to be made from what belongs to them - "lahem, she'lahem" - it's including even the wool before you made the strings).

It is valid - The Ta"z explains that Rem"a is referring to where [you know that] there is also despair [on the part of the original owner of ever getting his stolen item back], and [so] he acquired it through despair and a change in the name [of the object], because originally it was [called] "wool" and now it's [called] "string". But the Magen Avraham wrote that because the Rem"a was ambiguous, it seems that he holds that even before despair it's valid, for he acquired it through a [physical] change [brought about] by an action. And so too is it understood from the words of the Gr"a in his explanation, that the reason is because of a [physical] change [brought about] by an action... see there further. And if he stole strings and sold them to someone else before [he knew] there was despair [by the original owner], the second owner does not fulfill his obligation with these ציצית, for a change in the location [of the object] without despair, does not acquire [the object], and [therefore] it's not called "they shall make for themselves" (ie. "lahem, she'lahem" - make for themselves, from what belongs to them) [Pri Megadim]. And [regarding] if after it came into the second one's hands, the original owner despaired, see in Choshen Mishpat, Siman 353 Se'if 3, for there are varying opinions regarding this. And if [the original owners] despaired and afterwards they were sold [to a someone else], the second one acquired the ציצית, and even regarding making a blessing, it seems from the Magen Avraham in Siman 649, Se'if Kattan 2, that he could make a a blessing on it and it's not [considered] a mitzvah that came about through a sin, since he did not steal it. And this is how the Machatzit Hashekel ruled. However, the Pri Megadim over there, in the name of the Levush, is stringent regarding this. And so too, the Ta"z in Siman 25 and the Gr"a there, are stringent regarding this.

To make them - Meaning, to affix these ציצית on his garment, since it is a מצוה that came about through a sin. And see further in Biur Halacha.

Siman 649 - For he ruled there that one may not bless on it. And see further in Shaarei Teshuva and Biur Halacha.

Borrowed strings - Meaning, every [time you have the] word שאלה ("borrowed"), it's understood to mean that the exact item [that was borrowed] will be returned. But the word הלואה ("a loan") [means that] it was given to be spent. And these borrowed strings, obviously they were given as a loan, and [so] we can say about it [that it's] "from what belongs to them".

And it's considered his - But if he lent them (the threads) to him with the intent that he will return them to him [exactly] as they were [when he lent them], he should not bless on them. For we can say that he lent them to him to be used for some other purpose. But if he lent him properly made ציצית strings like those that we use which are spun and cut, [then] it's permitted to affix them to his טלית garment and to bless on it, for certainly they were given to him as a gift on condition to be returned. And this is as was written in Siman 14 regarding a טלית [Magen Avraham].

It's wool etc. - Even though an item that was worshiped is only forbidden [to be used] for a sacrificial offering, but for a normal (ie. non-holy) use it is permitted, nevertheless, it is forbidden [to be used] for the mitzvah of ציצית because since it is for an elevated (holy) purpose, it is [considered] disgusting to [Hashem] above, since it (ie. the wool) was not changed so much, for it retains it's appearance and you can see that it's wool. As opposed to [the case] where one worshiped planted flax, which is like a tree, and now that you made it into threads, it's original appearance changed and is gone.

Is invalid - See in Siman 586 in Magen Avraham Se'if Katan 6, where he concludes that according to the Mechaber (ie. Shulchan Aruch) there, this invalidation is only optimally, because it is disgusting [to Hashem]. But after the fact [if one used it for ציצית], he fulfilled his obligation. And so too wrote the Gr"a in this Siman... ?

For ציצית - The Olat Tamid wrote that the wool that was on the animal at the time of being worshiped is forbidden, and certainly whatever grew afterwards. And in the Sefer Bnei Chayei, he wrote the opposite, that whatever grew after it was worshiped is permitted [and in the Be'er Heitev he wrote that the Ta"z also holds like that later in Siman 649, Se'if Katan 5. And see further there in Eliyah Rabbah and Pri Megadim]....

Planted - But flax that was uprooted is forbidden even for normal (ie. non-holy use) use, like the laws of idol worship and its' sacrifices. And it doesn't help by changing [it's form], since whatever you make from it is [considered] like it.

He makes a hole - The Beit Yosef wrote that even though there are some who say that you should make two holes like [the form of] a tzeirei (ie. the vowel that looks like ".."), and insert the ציצית in them (ie. into one of the holes) and [then] remove them (ie. from the other hole) out to one side, we do not observe that. And one who wants to be stringent on himself [to do like that] or similar, is not [considered to be] from the "stringent ones", rather from the "puzzled/confused ones", for it it appears as haughtiness... till here are his (the Beit Yosef) words. And the Ba"ch wrote that [regarding] a tallit katan, one should make two holes because there it does not appear as haughtiness since it's not seen by all. And so too is written in the Kavanot, that the Ari"zal did this [However in Birkei Yosef, he wrote that R. Shmuel Vital testified that his father, R. Chaim Vital, did not do this]. And this custom has become widespread in the land of Poland. However, in the land of Hungary and Germany, this is not the custom. And "each river and its unique course" (ie. each place follows its custom).

In it's length - See below in Mishna Berura, Siman Kattan 52 what we wrote there.

Not above three - For [higher than that] is not called "the corner of the garment", rather it's [just] "the garment". And the Torah wrote "...on the corners of their garments..." (Numbers 15:38). And see in Beit Yosef, where he wrote that three finger-widths exactly, it is permitted to distance it [that much] and to make the hole right after that point. And many of the halachic authorities argue on this and they hold that since [by doing it that way] you have three finger-widths, [therefore] anything past that is called "a garment" and not "a corner". Therefore, one should be careful to make/start the hole within three finger-widths. The Magen Avraham wrote that if one made the hole above three [finger-widths from the edge], even though when they tied the [first] knot it made the strings that were on the garment (ie. since the hole is past 3 finger-widths, it's called being on the garment and not on the corner) shorter and it bunched up the [fabric of the] corner and [so now] the hole is less than three [finger-widths from the edge], it is invalid, because in any case, the corner has a measurement [that's considered to be part] of "the garment" [and not "the corner"]. And similarly, if one made the hole above the length of an "agudal" (i.e from the knuckle of the thumb until the end of its fingernail), and because of the [first] knot it bunched up the garment to the point that [now] there is less than the length of an "agudal", it is valid since you have in any case the [proper] measurement from the corner.

Meaning, the thumbs - See above in Siman Katan 19. And see in Artzot Hachaim who concludes that ideally it's better to measure the three finger-widths using the middle, ring, and pinky [fingers] which are close one to another. And see further in Biur Halacha.

For that is not called "a corner" - And this prevents [one from fulfilling the mitzvah], even after the fact. And even if [he made the hole too high and then] afterwards he made the ציצית (ie. tied the knots and windings), and even if he made just one set of windings, he [realized and then] cut the hole [downward] so that the strings hang lower [in the proper area of the corner], even in such a case it is invalid because of "You shall make, and not from that which is [already] made". And the same applies in the opposite [case], where he affixed the ציצית [in the hole when the hole was] within [the length of] an "agudal" (i.e from the knuckle of the thumb until the end of its fingernail) [from the edge of the garment], and [after he realized] he cut upwards into the garment and pulled up the strings [so that they are now] higher than an "agudal" [from the edge] and then sewed below that point or affixed a patch on the corner [to hold it in place], this is also "You shall make, and not from that which is [already] made". A wool טלית which had ציצית affixed to it according to halacha, and then they found among the tassels of silk that were made on the edge of the טלית (ie. they would do this for adornment), threads of linen (which constitutes shatnez - a forbidden mixture of fabrics), and they had to remove the silk tassels from the טלית... [in such a case] it is proper to be stringent and untie the ציצית strings and then go back and tie them.

And not below etc. - And this prevents [one from fulfilling the mitzvah], even after the fact. And it seems to me that the place of the hole should also be above this measurement (ie. not only should it not be below the "agudal" measurement, but it shouldn't be exactly at that point either). And perhaps this also prevents [one from fulfilling the mitzvah], even after the fact. And see further in Biur Halacha.

From the measurement etc. - It's obvious that this is also measured [based] on an average man's [thumb].

Until the fingernail - The place where it is even with the flesh. (ie. the place where the nail is still attached to and touching the skin)

Straight - Meaning, that from the edge of the garment we measure in a straight [perpendicular] line, the three fingers. And similarly the measurement of the thumb knuckle, whether it's the length or the width (ie. whether it's the measurement of the length of the thumb from the knuckle to the end of the nail, or if it's the measurement of a thumb-width), as is see below at the end of Siman 10. And we don't measure the measurements at an angle because the angle lessens the measurement by around two-fifths [Beit Yosef].

And came out etc. - And the same applies if the hole tore to the point where because of that it was no longer left with the proper measurement [from the edge of the garment]. And even if this happened right after you made the first set of windings with the [the next] knot (ie. since that's the minimum that needs to be done for it to be considered a tassel on a Torah level), as will be seen coming up.

From the strings of the woof - And consequently, it shortened the length of the garment because of that. And according to what will be explained coming up, the same applies if the garment was shortened on it's width.

At the time - [Because] the verse states "...and they shall make for themselves ציצית on the corners of their garments" (Numbers 15:38), [we learn out that] the Torah was only particular that at the time of making the ציצית it should be on the corner, but not afterwards. And this is specifically those ציצית that were fixed in the proper way [and then ended up closer to the edge]. But if he wants to affix different ציצית strings [in that hole which is now too close to the edge], which is a new "making", it is invalid until he stitches it up first, as is below in Siman 14, see there further.

Less than the [proper] measurement - Even though after the fact it is valid, nevertheless, it's good to do this in order that others shouldn't see it and say that it's invalid, because not everyone learns/knows the laws.

There are those who say that within etc. - Because they hold that the main [thing] that we call a "corner" is in regards to the lower edge [that's along] the width of the garment, and not [edge that's along] the length of the garment. The width of the garment is referring to the [direction] when it is worn on the person, [along] his height from his head to his feet. And the length of the garment is referring to the [direction] when he wraps in it, for the way of wrapping is with the length. (ie. you take from the sections of the garment that extend along the horizontal length of the garment and use that to wrap)

There is no [minimum] measurement - Meaning below... that one can make [the hole] even less than the [measurement of the length of the thumb from the] knuckle [to the end of the nail]. But [to make the hole] higher than 3 finger-widths is invalid [Beit Yosef].

Which is called "oorilyzah" - This is [referring to] what [it's called when] they leave over a bit of the threads from the warp without [weaving into it threads from] the woof. And then at the ends [of those warp threads], they weave [some threads from the woof]. (ie. there would be threads sticking out from the sides of the tallit - similar to what we have today on our tallit, but instead of tying knots at the ends of those, they would leave a space and then weave some threads along the outermost edge to secure them all). And there are those who write that this is what we call in our language "kreikus". And there's no difference whether those fringes (ie. those threads from the warp with no woof thread woven in) are along the length of the garment or the width.

Was wide - [Meaning] that is was more than length of the thumb from the] knuckle [to the end of the nail]. For otherwise, without that [minimum length] it would be invalid as we mentioned above.

Three finger-widths - Meaning that one should not distance the hole from the edge of the fringe threads and further [towards the middle of the garment], more than three finger-widths.

Without the fringes - And if the fringes were two or three fingers wide, he should cut some of it [off]. And similarly, if the threads of the woof are sticking out without [the threads of] the warp [interwoven into them at all], or the [threads of the] warp without [the threads of] the woof [interwoven into them at all], there is a doubt if they count towards the measurement. And therefore, he should cut them (ie. the fringes that stick out) off at the corners. And therefore, the edges of our טלית which we call "sh'liak" (ie. hem), which do not have threads woven on [both] the warp and woof (ie. there are threads sticking out), one should cut them off before affixing ציצית strings on the corners.

Four [which are] doubled - For it says in the Talmud, "גדיל" (fringe) is two, "גדילים" (fringes) is four. Meaning, if it said [in the Torah] "גדיל", it would be understood to mean two, for [it's not considered] a fringe with less than two. Now that it says "גדילים", it's understood to mean four. And during the time that we had t'cheilet (ie. blue-dyed strings), they would make two out of t'cheilet [strings] and two of white [strings]. And nowadays we use white [strings] in place of t'cheilet and we make the four long strings out of white.

Which are eight - After you placed them into the garment [via the hole] and folded them over. Like it says [in the verse] "פתיל" (ie. wick) (Numbers 15:38), [which means that you should make it] like a wick which is folded over.

It is invalid - Because he transgressed on [the prohibition of] "Do not add". And the Gr"a in his commentary agreed that the law is like the opinion of the Itur which is brought in the Beit Yosef, who holds that there is no [prohibition] of "Do not add" here. And this that the Talmud says it's invalid [when done] like this, that's specifically when one added [a string] from a different species to the [other] strings [for example strings of cannabis or cotton wool]. But [if one added another string] from the same species, they permit it, even optimally, to add as much as he wants. And see in Artzot Hachaim, where he brings a few more from the great early rabbinic authorities who hold the same way. And therefore, we conclude that if he already made them [with extra strings] and it's impossible for him to fix them, he may wear them. But as soon as he is able to fix them, he must fix them. But [regarding] lessening from [the number of] the strings, everyone agrees that it is invalid, as is seen in Beit Yosef.

One should cut - Meaning to say, that ideally one should cut them before inserting them into [the hole of] the corner [Magen Avraham and Biur HaGr"a]. And one should cut them with their teeth and not with a knife.

One must be careful - Meaning to say, that if one transgressed and did not cut them before inserting them [into the hole], nevertheless, they should be careful now before the windings. And see in the Ta"z.

One set of windings - Even of [just] three windings.

And tied etc. - Meaning, [in general] if one made a set of windings and also a knot after the wound section, even one knot, he has fulfilled his obligation on a Torah level, even if he didn't make the knot that's closest to the corner. And therefore, [in our case where he did all that before he cut the ends of the strings] it is [considered a transgression of] "You shall make, and not from that which is [already] made". But if he didn't make the knot after the wound section, even if he made the first knot that's before the wound section, [it's considered like] he didn't yet complete the making of the ציצית, because without the knot [the comes after the wound section], the wound section can't remain [in place] at all and [so] you don't have a גדיל/tassel here [which is a requirement]. And therefore, you could cut the strings [in that case]. And there are those who are stringent, and [so] ideally it is proper to heed their opinion. And know, that this that he (ie. the Mechaber) wrote "one knot", he means to say from the five knots that we are accustomed to make. But [a knot that's referred to here,] it is one that is [tied] two times, one on top of the other, as is mentioned below, for without that it's not called a knot since it's not permanent.

For the windings - Meaning, for the number of windings. And also [regarding] the number of sets of windings (ie. the sections between the knots) and knots, [having more than what the Mechaber described] does not prevent [one from fulfilling the mitzvah] according to halacha, except that it's the best way to do the mitzvah, because the five knots are a hint that through it one will remember the five books of the Torah; and the doubling of the five knots which adds up to ten is a hint to the ten sefirot of the Holy One Blessed Be He, as is seen below in Siman 24. And [regarding] the reason for the sets of windings, see in Beit Yosef.

As long as etc. - And [regarding] what is written in se'if 13 - that if you wound even one section - I will explain the root of the matter: Because Chazal agreed that ציצית require a גדיל/tassel, which means that it's a requirement, like it says in the verse "you shall make for yourself גדילים (tassels)", and also it needs to have individual strings, like it says [in the verse] "by the hairs of my head" (Ezekiel 8:3). However, on a Torah level, there is no measurement regarding the length of the tassel, rather even if one only wound three windings and tied a knot above that, that too is a law to Moshe from on Sinai [that] one fulfills with it the name "גדיל/tassel". And with that [alone] one already completes the mitzvah on a Torah level. And this the reason of the words (ie. opinion) of the Shulchan Aruch there. And on this one may rely on Erev Shabbos before nightfall when he doesn't have enough time to make [his ציצית] properly (ie. with the full number of knots and winded sections) and [so] it's permitted to go out [while wearing it] on Shabbos and to make the blessing on it. (And [it would be] even better if he also makes the first knot that's before the first set of windings like we are accustomed to do, in order to fulfill [the mitvah] also in accordance with some of the rabbinic authorities who hold that it's regarding that [first] knot that Chazal were referring to which is on a Torah level). And all of this is on a Torah level, but on a Rabbinic level, one must make a third [of the total length of the ציצית] - the גדיל/tassel, and two thirds - the פתיל/loose spun threads. And since the length of the strings is twelve thumb-widths, as we mentioned above in se'if 4, one should make four thumb-widths - as the גדיל/tassel, which are the windings, and leave over eight thumb-widths of separate strings, for that is the beauty of the ציצית. And therefore, if one made [only] one set of windings on Erev Shabbos before nightfall, he must complete it immediately after Shabbos. Because if not, he is transgressing on the words of the Rabbis. And there are those who stumble regarding this.

The width of etc. - This is optimally. But after the fact, even if he winded up the majority of it, it is valid, because nevertheless, we still have here a [portion of] פתיל/loose spun threads. But if he winded up the entire thing, it is invalid.

Four thumb-widths - [Together] with the knots. And in R'aya M'hemna it's written that between each knot it should be a thumb-width. The Rosh wrote that all the sections of windings should be equal [in length] because that is the beauty of the ציצית. And therefore, in the first section, one should make the windings distant from each other. And afterwards, each [subsequent] section should be closer together [Magen Avraham].

And two-thirds hangings strings - See Biur Maharsh"al on the Sma"g. And everyone agrees that it does not prevent [one from fulfilling the mitzvah] after the fact, as we mentioned above.

And in the second [section], nine - And in the Kavanos [of the Ari"zal] it's written that in the second section, eight. And this is the consensus of the later rabbinic authorities, that seven and eight is [alluding to] the Name of י"ה (whose numerical value is 15 = 7+8). And afterwards [in the third section] eleven, and together [with the 15 it alludes to] the Name of הוי"ה (15+11=26. And afterwards [in the fourth section] thirteen, which is the numerical value of [the word] אחד/One. And [altogether] this is ה' אחד (Hashem is One). And the ציצית of R. Shlomo Molcho, the first section had ten windings and afterwards five etc., like the Name הוי"ה [Magen Avraham]. And see further in Levush and Eliya Rabba regarding the windings.

At the end of each string - See above in se'if katan 18 what we wrote there. It is good to make the strings average [thickness], not thick and not thin, because of "This is my G-d and I will glorify Him" [Eliyah Rabba].

Along the length of the טלית - See above in se'if katan 52 [regarding] what is "the length" and see [also] in Biur Halacha.

Because it needs to be etc. - Meaning, whether at the time of affixing [the ציצית] or afterwards if they fell down to the bottom [edge of the טלית], one should return them [to their proper position]. And all of this is optimally, but after the fact there is no [need to be concerned that they were not] particular about this (ie. they still fulfilled the mitzvah). Nevertheless, one should be very careful that the ציצית should not hang diagonally from the corner because this is the custom of the Karaites who do it that way. And if they are hanging [diagonally], it is a mitzvah to return them to their place.

Any [additional] material - For it's required that the ציצית are resting [directly] on the corner and not on something [else] which is resting on the corner.

And there are those who permit this - Because they are only doing this (ie. adding extra material around the hole) to strengthen the garment so that it shouldn't tear, and it is subordinate to the garment. And even if [one used] leather, it is permitted. And this is the position of the rabbinic authorities.