Made - Meaning, that [if] he affixed them to a garment, it is invalid, and even if a Jew is standing over him and teaches him how to make it for the sake of the mitzvah. For if a non-Jew spun or interwove in this way (ie. with a Jew standing over him and teaching him to do it for the sake of the mitzvah), it is valid according to the Ro"sh, like we wrote above in siman 11, se'if 2. And [this that we say that if a non-Jew made it, it is invalid, is] specifically if he inserted [the strings] into the [hole in the] corner, or if he made the first set of windings or the first knot. But if the first set of windings and knot were made by a Jew and the non-Jew finished the rest of the windings and knots, which are only an [addtional] mitzvah, then it is valid.

To require men - And even if [a man] was standing over them (ie. a woman) [while she was making it], it wouldn't help, since the verse says "[speak to] the Children (literally: Sons) of Israel [and say to them:] And you shall make [ציצית]", it is inferred to also exclude daughters of Israel.

To make them - Specifically affixing them to the garment, but the spinning and interweaving is permitted to be done by women.

And it is proper to do so etc. - And similarly, it is fitting and proper that optimally, affixing the ציצית into the garment of an adult should not be done by a child under 13 years. But if the child is 13 years and 1 day, even though he did not produce 2 [pubic] hairs, even optimally there is no need to be stringent. And the Orchot Hachaim is lenient [to allow it to be done] even optimally by a child. And all this is specifically when an adult is standing by the child to teach him how to do it for the sake [of the mitzvah], but without that, even if the child already affixed them to the garment, one would be required to remove the strings and then re-affix them.

Optimally - But after the fact (if it was done by a woman), it is [still] permitted. And even if [a man] was not standing over her, she is trusted to say that she affixed them for the sake [of the mitzvah] of ציצית.

Without intention - Meaning, that he made the upper (ie. first) knot, which is a Torah level mitzvah, without intention. But if he tied the upper knot and one winded section with intent, even though he made the other knots and winded sections afterwards not for the sake of the mitzvah, [then] even when there are other ציצית available, we can deem [this one] as fit.

On the Rambam who deems it as fit - Even if he did the inserting [of the strings into the hole] and also the knots and winded sections without intent. For he holds that even though it's required that the strings be spun for the sake of the mitzvah, nevertheless, the inserting does not have to be [done] for the sake of the mitzvah. And he derives it from [the fact that] the verse says "...[speak to] the Children of Israel..." (Numbers 15:38), which excludes non-Jews; we conclude from it that [if it was made by] a Jew without intent, it is valid. And don't ask: [Why not] remove [the strings] from the garment and then go back and put them on with intent, for the sake of the mitzvah? We can answer that we are referring to when it is close to Shabbos and there is no time to remove and re-tie them. Or [we can answer that we're talking about a case] where one of the ends [of one of the strings] became severed, and if he would remove it, it would be forbidden to go back and put in on the garment, as we mentioned above in Siman 12.

One should not make the blessing on it - Even if only the inserting of the strings into the [hole in the] corner was done not for the sake of the mitzvah, and certainly [the same applies] if he made the top (ie. first) knot not for the sake of the mitzvah. For Rashi, the Rosh, and Tosefot all hold that on a Torah level the affixing [of the ציצית onto the garment via the holes] also requires [intent to do it] for the sake of the mitzvah. And the verse that excludes a gentile is needed [to teach us] that [even in the case of] a Jew standing over the gentile and teaching him to do it for the sake of the mitzvah [is invalid]. Therefore, one must be careful optimally, before affixing [the ציצית] to the garment to say out loud, explicitly, that he is affixing all these ציצית [strings] for the sake of the [mitzvah of] ציצית. And [this is] like what we wrote above in siman 11 regarding the spinning and interweaving, and see further in Biur Halacha.

He is exempt - And one who affixes ציצית to it and makes the blessing on it does not lose out, just like women who are allowed to make a blessing on a time-bound mitzvah even though they are exempt from it. And therefore, he may go out with it on Shabbos to a public domain, for it is [considered] a beautification of the garment.

On a rabbinic level - And you can make a blessing on it. And a renter is similar to a borrower (Olat Tamid who proves this from Tosefot in Menachot 44a [the section] beginning with the word "Tallit" etc). And in the Itur I found that he wrote that he is in doubt regarding a renter....

He makes the blessing on it - And there are those who are stringent and hold that he should not make the blessing unless [the owner] gave it to him explicitly as a present with the condition that it be returned [after]. However, the majority of the later rabbinic authorities agree with the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch. And the reason is [that the owner] had in mind when he lent it to him that he (ie. the borrower) would make the blessing on it, and since it's impossible for him to make the blessing on it unless it belongs to him, it's [considered] as if he (ie. the owner) gave it to him as a present on condition that it be returned [after]. But optimally, it is certainly better to ask the owner to give it to him as a present on condition that it be returned [after], but [not doing so] does not prevent one [from making the blessing]. And [this is] specifically if he borrowed a טלית that's designated for the mitzvah [of ציצית], but if it's [just] a garment that's meant for wearing and only due to the majority of it being open (ie. like a tallit kattan where the slits under the arms are open) did they make ציצית for it, and it wasn't made for the mitzvah of ציצית, or if he borrowed a טלית to go up to the Torah (ie. he received an aliyah) or to lead the prayers for the congregation or [if he's a Cohen] to give the Priestly blessings (ie. "duchan") which [in all those cases] is only [worn] for the honor, we don't make the blessing on it; because maybe his (ie. the owner's) intention was to lend it only to be worn, and not to transfer ownership to him. And there are those who argue on this and they hold that in all circumstances we make the blessing. Therefore, it's written in Derech Chaim, that its better that he (the borrower) should have in mind that he is not acquiring it in order that he shouldn't have to make the blessing on it according to all opinions; except for a טלית that he borrowed during prayers in order to fulfill his obligation. And all of this is in regards to a טלית that belongs to an individual. But regarding communal טליתות, like those found in our synagogues, all opinions agree that one needs to make a blessing on them, even if he is only wearing it in order to lead the prayers for the congregation or to go up to the Torah (ie. for an aliyah), because [when it comes to] a communal טלית, the intent when they originally bought it is that anyone who wears it, it should be his [in order to fulfill the mitzvah], just like by an etrog. And see further what we wrote in Biur Halacha in the name of the Shaarei Efraim.

Immediately - See in Siman 658 Se'if 5 (Orach Chaim 658, 5) regarding a Lulav and in Pri Megadim there. And from there we can also learn regarding our matter (ie. borrowing a טלית) that one needs to return it to the owner in a timely fashion, which is: if the owner fulfilled his obligation [with the טלית] today, he (the borrower) should, at the latest, return it the following day before the prayer service so that the owner will have [again] it to fulfill his obligation. But if he did not return it to him, and the owner does not have another טלית to use, it would seem that the "gift" (ie. this that the owner gave it to the borrower as a gift on condition that it be returned) was nullified retroactively and it not called "your garment" [anymore] [and even though he (the owner) still has a טלית קטן on, nevertheless, it makes sense that he did not have that in mind when he gave his טלית to the borrower], and this is not like what the sefer Netiv Chaim wrote. It's also explained over there (by Lulav), that after he (the borrower) fulfilled his obligation, he must return it to the owner as a gift in order to transfer ownership [back] to the owner, because it became his (the borrower), and it's obvious that the same thing applies here (to טלית). It seems obvious to me that if the טלית or one of the ציצית got ruined when it was by the borrower, even though it was an accident and [when] he returns it, it's not in the same condition as when he borrowed it, he does not fulfill his obligation in the mitzvah (since there was a stipulation that it was a "gift on condition that it be returned", and the borrower here is not fulfilling the stipulation because he's returning something different than what he borrowed). See further in Siman 658 Se'if 4 and in Chiddushei R. Akiva Eiger there....

His friend's טלית - Meaning, without his knowledge, for a person is happy for his money/belongings to be used for a mitzvah specifically on a temporary basis, but [to use his items] on a permanent basis is forbidden. And even [to use it] on a temporary basis is only [when it's being used] in the same place [where it was found], but to remove it from his (the owner's) house [and take it] to the synagogue or the opposite, that is forbidden because it's possible that he's particular about it (ie. that it shouldn't be moved), and it would [therefore] be stealing. And see further in Pri Megadim who wrote that in any case, it is proper to be careful when the owner is with him [to ask him] to borrow it and not rely on the assumption in a case where one can easily clarify [the matter]. And certainly if he knows that the owner is particular.

And to recite the blessing on it - See in Magen Avraham, and see in Derech Chaim who wrote that it's better to have in mind to not acquire it and to not make the blessing on it.

He folds it - On it's original folds. And on Shabbos, he should fold it, but not on it's original folds. And the Magen Avraham is lenient regarding Shabbos, to not have to fold it at all.

Without his knowledge - Even just on a temporary basis. For we are concerned that maybe he will [end up] reading it a lot until it ends up tearing due to the frequent usage. And [nowadays] people are accustomed, when they find a siddur or a machzor in shul, to take it in order to pray from it. And I don't know how this is allowed, for how is a siddur different from seforim? [Pri Megadim]

Partners - And a טלית of a partnership between a Gentile and a Jew or a man and a woman is obligated in ציצית, but one should not make the blessing on it. Artzot Hachaim, [who holds] not like Damasek Eliezer; see there further.

Obligated - And we're talking [here] about where one friend (ie. one of the partners) wants his friend (ie. a non-partner) to wear the טלית, and it has no ציצית, [in such a case] he is obligated to make ציצית for it. But [regarding] partners, where [the טלית already] has ציצית on it, and one [of the partners] is adamant that the other not wear it; even if the טלית has enough [material] to divide it where each half would have the measurement of a [valid] טלית, even so, if he wears it through robbery and blesses on it, he transgresses [the prohibition of] "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7) because one of the halves, which has 2 ציצית on it, is not his; and certainly [this applies] if [the טלית] did not yet have ציצית on it [Pri Megadim]. And [therefore], according to this, [regarding] a טלית that was left over to an inheritor [and his brothers] from his father, and the other brothers are adamant [that he not wear it], he should be careful to not make the blessing on it until they [all] come to a compromise.