Siman 299

We learned in Kilayim at the beginning of chapter 9: Camel hair and sheep's wool that one mixed with one another—if the majority is from the camels, it is permitted (to mix linen with them, because the sheep's wool is nullified in the majority of camel hair—Bartenura); and if the majority is from the sheep, it is forbidden; half and half is forbidden. And so too linen and hemp that one mixed with one another (when the majority is from the hemp, it is permitted to bring wool and mix with them, for all prohibitions are nullified by a majority that is before us; and in a matter of dry-in-dry of the same kind, even according to rabbinic law one does not require more, and we follow the name in a case of the same kind, even if one has a descriptive name—Tosafot Yom Tov; and before us it will be explained that this is not a matter of the nullification of a prohibition).

The Semag in the negative commandments (283) brought a Tosefta: In what case is this said? When one brought flax and mixed it among them, but if one brought wool threads of ewes and mixed them among wool threads of camels, it is forbidden. And he wrote the reason that threads are significant and are not nullified, see there. And it is not understood what significance there is in threads; rather, his intention is as the Tosafot wrote in Niddah (61b) regarding the Baraita of a garment in which shaatnez was lost, that one may not sell it to a non-Jew. And they wrote: And if you will say, let it be nullified by the majority etc., it can be said that nullification by a majority is only applicable when the forbidden is mixed with the permitted, but shaatnez, where both are permitted and become forbidden through the mixture, the majority is just as forbidden as the minority. Thus far their words. And they also wrote in tractate Avodah Zarah (65b, in the heading starting "HaBeged"), and this is their wording: For shaatnez is different, as their entire essence is only forbidden through mixture, for behold both are permitted; therefore, their mixture forbids and they are not nullified. And if you will say, behold meat and milk, where each is permitted and their mixture is forbidden, and even so it is nullified? It can be said that meat and milk is different, for the verse explicitly revealed that it is nullified, for the Torah forbade it by way of cooking. Thus far their words.

However, the words of the Tosafot will not align with the words of the Semag, for the reasoning of the Tosafot is only relevant regarding the mixture of wool and linen, and not regarding the mixture of camel hair and sheep's wool even thread by thread, as is understood, for they are not forbidden in their mixture. Rather, the intent of the Semag is even more than the Tosafot, and this is what he says: that whenever both things are permitted, bitul is not relevant and each one retains its name upon it. And the reason is simple: for the Torah which decreed to follow the majority, this is in a matter where this is distinct from that in prohibition and permission, just as "follow the majority" regarding judges, where this one obligates and this one exempts. But in a matter where both are equal in permission or both in prohibition, how is bitul relevant? And that which we say in Zevachim (78a) that prohibitions nullify one another, we do not approach it through the law of bitul, but rather it means that this prohibition does not allow the second prohibition to overcome it, as is explained there.

And one should not ask that if so, why is sheep's wool nullified by camel's wool when the camel's wool is the majority, for the truth is that this too is not by the law of nullification, as is explained from the words of the Rambam in chapter 10, law 6. This is his wording: Sheep's wool and camel's wool and the like that one mixed with each other and spun thread from them—if half was from the sheep, the whole is like sheep's wool and it is shaatnez with linen; and if the majority was from the camels, it is permitted to mix it with linen, because the form of the whole is the form of camel's wool, and we do not concern ourselves with the fibers of wool mixed into them because they are not threads of wool. Thus far his words. Behold, he was precise and wrote that it is not nullification, but rather because the form of the whole is the form of wool, meaning that as long as they have not been spun and have not been made into threads, they do not yet have a name of importance to call them this or that. Therefore, when the majority is of camels, the whole is called camel's wool, and even though many fibers of wool protrude, we do not concern ourselves because they are not threads of wool, meaning they do not carry upon them the name "wool" because they have not yet been made into threads. And the words of the Rambam are exactly like the words of the Smag.

And so it is clear from what the Rambam wrote afterward, and this is his wording: Therefore, sheepskins from which garments are made, even though they are sewn with linen, are permitted; and one need not be concerned about strands of wool even if they were entwined within the linen thread with which they were sewn, for they were nullified in their minority. Thus far his words. That is to say, these strands were already nullified in their minority, for as long as they are strands and not threads, they possess no status of importance, and automatically they were nullified by the majority. And he wrote further: And so too hemp and linen that were mixed with one another—if the majority is of hemp, it is permitted to weave the spun material from them with wool threads; but if they were half and half, it is forbidden. One who makes a garment entirely of camel hair or rabbit hair or hemp, and wove into it a thread of wool from this side and a thread of linen from that side, this is forbidden due to shaatnez. Thus far his words. For since they were made into threads, they then have importance and are not nullified by the majority, as the concept of nullification does not apply to shaatnez. It emerges that the Rambam, the Tosafot, and the Smag stand in one position: that nullification does not apply to shaatnez, and nullification does not apply to a permitted substance within a permitted substance. However, this is when they possess a status of importance, but when they do not yet possess a status of importance, they are perforce nullified by the majority. (And according to what I have written, the objections of the Ra'avad are answered, who challenged him: "And do wool and linen become nullified by a majority?" See there. And according to our words it is well understood; and see Kesef Mishneh, and delve into this.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch also follow this approach, and they added further to say, and this is their wording: Therefore, one whose wool became mixed with linen brings another species and mixes it with them and nullifies one of them; and nullification only applies to them before they are made into threads, but after they are made into threads, shaatnez has no minimum measure—even a single thread of wool in a large garment of linen, or of linen in wool, is forbidden. Thus far their words. This is because there is no nullification in shaatnez, as has been explained. And they added to the words of the Mishnah and the Rambam, for until now it was only explained regarding camel's wool and sheep's wool, or linen with hemp, that were mixed together, where we follow the majority when they have not yet been made into threads. But wool and linen themselves that were mixed and entangled together before they were made into threads, there would be room to say it is forbidden; and for this they explained that even when wool became mixed with linen themselves before they were made into threads, he can bring another species to nullify one of them. And this is from the Yerushalmi, see there. And the reason is also that as long as they are not threads, they do not possess the status of importance, and the rule "one may not nullify a prohibition initially" does not apply to them. And if it is difficult, for if so, why is another species necessary? Let us follow the majority within them themselves, as with sheep's wool and camel's wool—this is not a difficulty at all, for if so, afterwards when a garment is made from them, it perforce contains shaatnez. But when he brings another species and increases it over one of them, the minority is nullified as if it does not exist at all, since it did not yet possess the importance of a name, and before the garment was made, its name was already lost.

And one should not ask: how can we say that wool and linen themselves, without a mixture of another species, are forbidden, for the Rambam was not concerned regarding sheepskins with strands of wool that were wound with linen threads, and there, there is no third species? I have seen one who says that the skins are the third species (Taz, end of subsection 1), but these are puzzling words, for the skins stand on their own. However, the truth is that the Rambam himself was precise in his words, because they are still strands and do not have the importance of a name, and it is called by the name of linen threads and not by the name of the wool strands wound in them; and from these strands there will never be either a garment or threads. Therefore, we said that to make a garment from them, one necessarily requires a third species. (And with this, all the difficulties of the Derisha and the Taz are settled, for they were pressed in this; and so too the Noda BiYehuda, second edition, in siman 186, labored greatly in this, and according to our words it is settled with the help of Heaven. And even if it is possible that the Ra'avad does not hold so, nevertheless, this is the method of most of the poskim: the Rambam, the Tosafot, the Smag, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch; and delve into this.) (And the Gra, subsection 5, rejected the words of the Shulchan Aruch and wondered about him and about the Rambam, but according to what I wrote, it is not difficult at all.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even if the thread was lost and we do not know its location, nullification does not apply to it and it is prohibited. Thus far his words. And this is an explicit Gemara: A garment in which shaatnez was lost, one may not sell it to a non-Jew lest he return and sell it to an Israelite. And logic dictates this, since according to the law nullification does not apply to shaatnez, what does it matter to us if the location is known or if it is not known? And there is almost no novelty in this, rather the novelty is that since we clarified that it depends on importance, if so, when the thread is lost we might say its importance is lost; for this he informs us that it is not so. And let it not be a wonder in your eyes what we said, that it depends on importance, for behold, even regarding diverse kinds in a vineyard and diverse kinds of seeds it was explained that the Merciful One is concerned with the appearance of diverse kinds, and when it does not appear as diverse kinds, even though they are adjacent to one another, it is nothing. And so too regarding shaatnez of garments, for as long as it has no importance, the name of shaatnez is nullified from it, and as long as they have not yet been made into threads, they have no importance at all. Therefore he wrote further that a garment where the warp is of silk and the woof is of linen, it is prohibited to sew it with wool even though the majority is of silk. And therefore it is prohibited to make tallitot from garments called "parchot" because the woof is of linen and it would be shaatnez with the tzitzit. Thus far his words. And it is simple, and this species is not known to us. And so too there is one who wrote that "English flannel," the warp is linen and the woof is wool (Chachmat Adam), and now we do not know of this.

And know that regarding that which the Rambam wrote, that if one wove into a garment a thread of wool from this side and a thread of linen from the other side, this is forbidden due to shaatnez, several of our teachers disagree with him and hold that if there is something separating between the wool and the linen, this is not shaatnez. For this reason, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 regarding the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who brought the words of the Rambam, and this is his wording: And there are those who say that it is permitted in such a case unless he wove the thread of wool next to the thread of linen, but if they do not touch together it is permitted. Thus far his words. And the essence of this law will be explained in the next siman with the help of Heaven.