Siman 298

It is written, "You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen," and we learned in the ninth chapter of Kilayim: Nothing is prohibited due to kilayim except for wool and linen. And it is explained in the Yerushalmi there that this is what it means: Even though there are many other types of wool, such as camel wool, rabbit wool, and goat hair, and similarly with linen, there is sea-linen—which are reeds that grow in the water and contain something like linen—and hemp-linen, which they call "kanava" and in our language "penka"; however, the Torah only prohibited the wool of ewes and rams and actual linen. And from where did we learn this? As it is written in Melachim (II 3): "And Mesha king of Moab was a sheep-breeder, and he rendered unto the king of Israel... and a hundred thousand rams, wool." Nothing is called "wool" except for the wool of rams alone, which is called "wool" without qualification. And just as "wool" refers to that which has no accompanying name, so too "linen" refers to that which has no accompanying name, to exclude sea-linen and hemp-linen, which are called by an accompanying name, meaning "sea-linen" and "hemp-linen." And similarly, our cotton, which they call "bawool," is not included in "wool," as it is called by an accompanying name (see Tosafot Zevachim 18b, s.v. "ve-eima").

There are matters that, even though they do not involve shaatnez, the sages nevertheless prohibited them due to mar'it ha-ayin, as we learned in a Mishnah (ibid.): Shirayim and kelakh do not involve shaatnez, but they are prohibited due to mar'it ha-ayin. The Rambam explained that they are types of silk and they appear as if they are wool and linen, because one of the types is smooth like linen and the second has a dryness and is hairy like wool. Thus far his words. And in his composition, at the beginning of chapter 10 of Hilkhot Kilayim, he wrote, and this is his wording: And there is in the coastal cities something like wool that grows on the stones in the salt sea, its form is like the form of gold and it is extremely soft, and its name is kelakh; and it is prohibited with linen due to mar'it ha-ayin, for it resembles sheep's wool. And similarly, shirayim and kelakh are prohibited due to mar'it ha-ayin. See there.

The Rosh wrote, and this is his wording: And because of this I prohibited in Ashkenaz not to sew a hemp garment under a wool garment, because a hemp garment is not common in Ashkenaz and they will think it is a linen garment; but now silk garments are common among us and everyone recognizes it, therefore it is permitted to sew silk garments under wool garments, and likewise silk threads in a wool cloak. Thus far his words. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch brought it and wrote that silk is permitted with wool and with linen. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in a place where hemp is common it is permitted, see there. And therefore the Perishah wrote that in our countries it is the custom to permit a hemp garment because it is very common, see there. And in this it is not relevant to prohibit on the grounds of a matter that was prohibited by a quorum, for since the prohibition was explicitly because of the lack of its presence, it is as if they specified that if it becomes common it is permitted, and there are several similar cases to this (see Magen Avraham siman 70, subsection 7).

However, in truth, it must be examined, for it is known among us that according to appearance, linen and hemp are the same, and the recognition between them is very difficult. And granted that it is common among us, nevertheless, since the Mishnah prohibited it due to appearance, there is indeed an issue of appearance here. And it is possible to say that since it is common, there is no issue of appearance, for they will attribute it to hemp, and why would they attribute it to a prohibition? And I saw one who wrote, and this is his wording: From the language of the Rosh it is implied specifically when everyone recognizes it, and between linen and hemp there is no one found who recognizes it except for the few, etc. And the end of his words is that it is only permitted to sew beneath the garment in a place where they will not see (Bach), and specifically regarding shaatnez of rabbinic origin, for regarding shaatnez of Torah origin, everything that they said was due to appearance is prohibited even in the innermost chambers (ibid.). And there is one who permitted it in a place that is not visible even regarding shaatnez of Torah origin, for when it is also concealed in the marketplace, it is permitted (the Gara from Tosafot Shabbat 62a, see there).

And I wonder, for regarding a matter that is well-known to all, "inner chambers" is not applicable. And it is a known matter among us that they attach the "kliakka" to all wool garments when they are made of hemp, and there are those who go about with a hekhsher upon this; if so, it is a great publicity and we should have forbidden it. Rather, it is certainly as our words, for on the contrary, since the matter is very well-known, and among us there is much hemp, and in the depths of the country of Russia the primary planting is hemp and they engage in its commerce much more than flax, and they are very cheap compared to flax, marit ayin is not applicable at all, but rather a lack of knowledge. But one who sees, why should he attribute it to a prohibition? And the Rosh only spoke regarding silk in his days which was common and everyone recognized it, and the permission is not dependent upon the recognition, for if so, why did they forbid it originally? Rather, it is certain that one could err, but this follows automatically: since it is common, everyone recognizes it, meaning in the generality of the species and not in the particularity of this garment. And therefore, one also cannot compare this to what is written in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 2, that the wool of a ewe that is the daughter of a goat is forbidden with flax because of marit ayin, and this is in Bekhorot (17a), for that is an uncommon matter, which is not the case with hemp, which exists by the thousands and tens of thousands.

But this is certainly true, that the actual identification in this matter is known only to merchants and craftsmen. Our teacher, the Rema, later in siman 302, wrote the identification for this: that flax threads, when one ignites them, extinguish quickly, while those of hemp continue to burn; see there. Several times we have tested this and so it is. Nevertheless, I have heard that this is not an absolute sign (and so wrote the Responsa Pnei Yehoshua, siman 8). Therefore, it is certainly true that if the Israelite does not say clearly that it is hemp, one cannot be lenient in this unless he recognizes for himself that it is hemp, or if according to the price it is certainly hemp, as it is cheaper than flax. Furthermore, it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 302 regarding the matter of a gentile speaking in innocence; see there.