And there remained - Meaning, on each of the [torn] strings there remained enough to make a loop, which is called "shleif", around all the [other] severed strings together. And if not all of them tore, it's sufficient if there was left over [on each of the torn ones] enough to make a loop around the severed strings alone, and not on all the strings.

It is valid - And if he removed the ציצית (ie. you undid all the knots and windings), it is forbidden to affix them to another טלית, for that is [considered] like [he is affixing the ציצית] initially (ie. you need to have the proper measurement of all the strings when you initially affix the ציצית, and here where the ציצית tore and you want to affix them to a different טלית, they don't have the proper initial measurement anymore). And even if only one strings tore. And [now, after it tore], it does not have a length of twelve thumb-widths.

For it tore completely - Meaning to say, that on both ends there is not enough to make a loop [around the other strings and therefore], it is invalid, even if the remaining strings were whole. And if there remained on both ends enough to make a loop by combining (ie. each end did not have enough to make a loop, but the combined length of both ends was enough), it is questionable if that is sufficient. And it seems from the Eliyah Rabba and from the Derech Hachaim that one should be stringent regarding this. And even if there is a doubt if the two ends are from two strings or from one, in which case we have a double doubt: maybe they are from two [different] strings, and maybe [the lengths] can be combined, nevertheless, one should be stringent since ציצית are common (ie. it's easy to find/buy another pair of ציצית, so better to just do that). And the Artzot Hachaim is lenient in a case like this. And it seems that if there remains on one of the ends enough to make a loop around [just] one string, for sure one can rely on that.

It is invalid - See below in se'if 3. And everyone agrees that if one string tore at it's root, meaning the place where it attaches to the corner, that it is invalid. And the Ta"z wrote "therefore it is fitting for every G-d fearing person, that he should look, at the time that he checks [his ציצית strings before he makes the blessing and wraps in it], also at the beginning of the ציצית strings where they emerge, meaning the place where they are attached to the corner, if there is a tear there.

Two ends - And there is not left over on either one of them enough to loop around the other strings. But if one of them has enough to make a loop around the other strings, it is valid.

Maybe it tore etc. - Meaning to say, even if the two torn ends are from one side (ie. when viewing the ציצית strings coming out from the final knot, they are separated, 4 on one side and 4 on the other), nevertheless, it's possible that both of them are from the same [original] string, since he was not careful at the time of making [the ציצית to ensure that the four strings on each side always stayed together].

Two ends etc. - And the same applies if all the ends tore from one side, and from the four ends on the second side there is only left on each one enough to make a loop [around the other strings], it would also be valid, because it is only invalid, according to this opinion, if the same string tore on both ends. And [regarding] what the Mechaber (ie. Shulchan Aruch) wrote - "that behold, there is [left] on the second end more than [what's needed] to make a loop [around the other strings]" - this is not an exact thing (ie. when he says there is "more than"). A question: ציצית strings that tore and he went and tied them [back together], if it's effective - the fact that they were made whole through his tying. The later rabbinic authorities concluded that the law is like this: if from the outset, before he made the ציצית from the strings, they tore and he tied them with a permanent knot, and afterwards made them into ציצית, it is valid because the knot was a total attachment (ie. tying a torn string back together with a permanent knot is considered one string now). And similarly, [if it tore] after [the ציצית] were made in a valid way, meaning if one end tore after the ציצית were affixed to the garment, even if there isn't left enough to make a loop [around the other strings], tying it now works. And even if the second end of that same string tears afterwards, it would be valid, since when he tied it, the ציצית were valid. But if the strings became shortened in a way that invalidates the ציצית because of that, for example: if both ends tore and there wasn't left enough to make a loop [around the other strings], or if the string tore by the hole, it doesn't help to retie it for that falls under the category of "You shall make it, but not from that which is already made" though an invalidation. And certainly if the string was shorter than it's [required] length from the outset, at the time of making the ציצית, for sure it doesn't help to go back and tie it (ie. to tie an additional length of string to the short one) after the windings and the knot of the first section [of the ציצית], for that is literally "You shall make it, but not from that which is already made". And this is as was seen previously in Siman 11, Se'if 13 regarding cutting the ends of the strings.

And according to Rabbeinu Tam etc. - His reason [is] that two of the strings which are four (ie. since they are folded over after inserting them through the hole), we put in place of the techeilet [strings] (which we don't have anymore). And [the other] two strings we put in place of the white [strings]. [Therefore] it needs to at least have one [of those two] type[s] be complete.

If he was not careful - This is a difficulty (ie. a question) - For behold, it's a certainty [that the ציצית would be invalid when three ends were severed] if he was careful [to make sure the same four ends were on one side at the time of tying the ציצית, since that means that three of the main strings are now too short], like the Rem"a wrote in his gloss after [the words of the Mechaber]. And we can answer that he (the Mechaber) chose [the words] "[if] he was not careful" because of the end [portion of this se'if]; for he ends [with the words] "but if only two of the ends were severed, it is valid as long as it has [left over enough] to make a loop [around the other strings]" - and that is specifically without being careful. But if he was careful, [then] if two ends were severed from the same side, it is valid, even if there isn't left over enough to make a loop [around the other strings], for there is left over on each one of those, the [entire] other end. But if two ends were severed from each side, and there is not left on each one enough to make a loop [around the other strings], it is invalid, because maybe it was from one string.

It is valid as long as it has enough to make a loop [around the other strings] - Meaning, even if it had the measurement of "enough to loop [around the other strings]" only on one of them. And this is like we saw above in sei'f katan 5.

And the law is etc. - It's obvious that it is permitted to make a blessing on them, like we explained in Biur Halacha.

It is valid - For they are [in fact] long enough to make a loop [around the other strings], except that due to their thickness he is not able to loop them.

One may rely on the R"i - And it is permitted to wear that garment. And above in se'if 1, where he (ie. the Mechaber) wrote that "whenever possible, it is better to be concerned for the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam", that means when it's possible to easily find another pair of ציצית, but one is not required to [make an effort to] go searching after them if they're not right by him or if searching for another pair would cause him to miss praying with a congregation. And here [in se'if 3] he (the Mechaber) wrote "where it is not possible", meaning in a situation where it's not possible to find ציצית at all, on can rely on [the opinion] of the R"i. Nevertheless, one should not make a blessing on them and it is forbidden to go out on Shabbos with them to a public domain. And similarly, it can be permitted in an extenuating circumstance also when a bit of the tassel (ie. the winded up and knotted section above the loose strings) itself became severed [Responsum of ?? - see there]. And you should know that all of this [that has been discussed] is not referring to when the string tore at the place of [where it's inserted into] the hole, for [if it tore] there, even according to the R"i, it is invalid on a Torah level. And it's obvious that when the ציצית become invalid, one must take them off [of his body]. And it's not enough to just stand in one's place and to not walk four cubits because the law of four cubits (ie. there is a Rabbinic level law that one should not walk four cubits without ציצית on, but standing in place without ציצית would not violate that) is only applicable when you're walking without ציצית [at all] (But here where you're wearing invalid ציצית, which is forbidden to do on a Torah level, it's not good enough to just stand in place because even that is forbidden). One should also not fix the ציצית while the טלית is still on him, rather he should remove it and then fix it.