Siman 300

The Tur wrote: According to Rashi, it is not shaatnez by Torah law unless one mixed the flax and the wool together and combed them together with a comb, spun them, and wove them together. According to Rabbeinu Tam, it is shaatnez from the Torah even if one combed each one individually, spun it individually, and twisted it individually, and afterwards joined them together by means of weaving, or tied them, or sewed them together with two stitches. The Rambam wrote: Wool and flax that one mixed together and pressed them and made felt, this is not shaatnez; if one mixed them and spun them as one and wove a garment from this yarn, this is shaatnez. However, by rabbinic law it is forbidden even if it is not pressed and spun together; therefore, felt is forbidden by rabbinic law even though it is not spun nor woven together. Thus far the words of the Tur.

And all our teachers agreed with the words of Rabbeinu Tam: the Tosafot, the Semag, the Rashba, the Rosh, and the Tur. And this is what we learned in the Mishnah (chapter 9, mishnah 8): Nothing is forbidden as shaatnez except for spun and woven [material], as it is said, "You shall not wear shaatnez"—a thing that is combed (shua), spun (tavi), and woven (nuz). And only regarding "nuz" some say it is woven, while Rabbeinu Tam explains that it is twisted. And that which we learned there, that felt is forbidden because it is combed, this is rabbinic, as the commentators of the Mishnah wrote. And it is stated explicitly so in the Gemara (Niddah 61b): Rav Aha said in the name of Mar Zutra: One who places a linen thread in a woolen cloak and pulled it out, but does not know if he pulled it out or did not pull it out, it is permitted. What is the reason? From the Torah it is written "shaatnez," until it is combed, spun, and woven, and it is the rabbis who decreed regarding it; and since he does not know if he pulled it out, it is permitted. Rav Ashi challenged this: Say [it means] either combed, or spun, or woven. And the halakhah is like Mar Zutra, since the Merciful One expressed them in a single term. Thus far the words of the Talmud. And that which has been explained, that a single thread of shaatnez is not nullified—and it implies that it is shaatnez from the Torah—this is when the thread is combed, spun, and woven. But the linen threads of the Gemara refer to when it is not woven. However, even if it is rabbinic, it is not nullified unless he pulled it out.

And also regarding the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, the Mizrachi wrote in Parshat Kedoshim that Rashi's intention is not specifically that they must be shua, tavi, and nuz together, but rather the matter is as follows: the Torah prohibited the joining of wool and linen on the condition that they be shua, tavi, and nuz. That is to say, whether they are shua, tavi, and nuz together, or whether each of them is shua, tavi, and nuz and afterwards they are joined together by a permanent knot. And this is the explanation of the verse: "You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together"—either the shaatnez, meaning shua, tavi, and nuz, shall be wool and linen together, or the shaatnez shall be in each one and afterwards they are joined together. Therefore, the Torah needed to permit kilayim in tzitzit because the threads of the tzitzit must be twisted, as it is taught in the Sifrei: "a thread of tekhelet"—that it must be spun and twisted, and as is written in Orach Chaim siman 11 (and we have elaborated on this in the book Igrot L'Yitzchak siman 2).

However, regarding the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, confusion has increased. Behold, according to how the Tur cited his version, he follows the path of all the poskim. And so it appears from his commentary to the Mishnah there, where he wrote, and this is his wording: And this is shaatnez from the Torah, etc., that these three matters must all be joined together, and anything that is not so is shaatnez by rabbinic decree. This is a decided halacha and there is no doubt regarding it. And so they said in the Gemara: and if you find for someone a matter that disagrees with what I have told you, let no doubt enter your heart, for he has forgotten the halacha stated in the Gemara in Niddah. Thus far his words. That is to say, that there they ruled like Mar Zutra.

And one must be astonished, for before us the version in his work, chapter 10, law 2, is the opposite, and this is his wording: Once wool has been joined with linen by any manner of joining in the world, this is shaatnez from the Torah. How so? Wool and linen that one mixed together and pressed them and made felt from them, these are shaatnez; if he mixed them and spun them as one and wove a garment from this thread, this is shaatnez, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he ruled that felt is shaatnez from the Torah, and he ruled like Rav Ashi that either "shua" or "tavi" or "nuz" [is sufficient]. And the Ra'avad challenged him, that felt is not from the Torah, see there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, upheld this version and exerted himself to prove that it is so, and wrote that even in the Commentary on the Mishnah he found another version, and in it was written that with any one of them it would be shaatnez from the Torah, and that which is written in the Gemara in Niddah, "and the halacha is like Mar Zutra," is not from the Shas, see there. And based on this, he established the law in the Shulchan Aruch, section 1. And it is very puzzling, for even if the opinion of the Rambam were so, how could he rule like him, given that all our teachers disagree with him? And furthermore, regarding the Rambam himself, why should we choose a version that is against all the Rishonim? Let us choose the version of the Tur, which equates his opinion with all the poskim, and so is the primary law (and so wrote the Bach; and we have already elaborated in the book Igrot L'Yitzchak there that all the proofs of the Beit Yosef are puzzling. And the Bach wanted to differentiate the opinion of the Rambam, that he does not require "shua," see there. And in my humble opinion it is not so, for without "shua" you do not find it, as every type of garment before its spinning must be smoothed, and therefore even the Tanna did not need to mention this. And many great ones toiled over this, but the matters are simple: and this is what the Mishnah meant: nothing is forbidden as shaatnez except "tavi" and "arug," meaning that in addition to "shua," which is necessary for everything—since without it one cannot spin or weave—one also needs "tavi" and "arig." But "shua" alone you find in felt. And also their primary proof is from the Yerushalmi which said: "If we had learned 'shua' and not 'tavi' etc., if we had learned 'tavi' etc., if we had learned 'nuz' and not 'shua' etc." and they explain that it refers to the verse. And it is a wonder, for if so, what is this expression "we learned" [taninan]? And in my humble opinion, it refers to the Mishnayot, for one who is precise will find that afterwards the Sages taught in the Mishnah three clauses: one, "shua" alone, which is the clause of felt; and afterwards "nuz" alone, which is the clause of the wool fringe because it resembles weaving; and afterwards purple cords because one twists them, meaning it resembles spinning; and all of them are rabbinic. And regarding this the Yerushalmi says that they are all necessary, only that one must emend what is written there "the Mishnah did not say so but rather nothing is forbidden etc." and one must read that of the purple cords etc. And furthermore, even if the Yerushalmi holds like Rav Ashi, since in our Shas the halacha was decided like Mar Zutra, the halacha is like our Shas, especially since their explanation of the Yerushalmi is forced and strained according to what is there, and delve into it).

And know that regarding the definition of "noz," Rashi explained "woven," and so it is clarified from the Rambam. Rabbeinu Tam explained "twisted." And it appears to me that they do not disagree, for certainly in a case of "shua," "tavi," and "arig," according to all our teachers it is shaatnez from the Torah and does not require twisting. However, this is when the wool and the linen together are "shua," "tavi," and "arig," and then twisting is not required. But when each one alone is "shua," "tavi," and "noz," and afterwards he joined them together by means of weaving or tying—for this also is shaatnez from the Torah as I wrote—necessarily "arig" is not applicable, for "arig" is only this with that, as is understood. Therefore, each one must be twisted alone. Therefore, Rashi and the Rambam, who are dealing with a case where both were made together as "shua," "tavi," and "noz," explained "noz" as weaving. And Rabbeinu Tam, who is dealing with each one alone, explained "twisted." And they do not disagree regarding the law (for the term "noz" is an expression of "naloz," which is crooked, as the Bartenura wrote, and therefore whether in twisting or in weaving it is so, as is understood. And according to this, the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in the Mishnah are well-settled: "He is 'naloz' and makes his Father in Heaven 'maliz' against him," to explain the words of the first Tanna who opened with "arig" and concluded with "noz," which is twisted; to this he says that he is "naloz" and "maliz," meaning that even this weaving is included in the term "noz," for in this too he makes crooked etc., and examine this carefully).

The Rambam wrote: If one sewed a wool garment with a linen one, even if he sewed them with silk, or if he sewed a wool garment with linen threads, or a linen garment with wool threads, or tied wool threads with linen threads, or braided them, etc., these are shaatnez, as it is said, "wool and linen together"—in any manner, once they are joined, it is forbidden. And from where do we know that all these prohibitions are from the Torah? For the verse was required to permit shaatnez in tzitzit, as they learned from the oral tradition, for the section of shaatnez was only juxtaposed to the section of tzitzit, as it is written, "You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together; you shall make for yourself twisted cords etc.," in order to permit shaatnez in tzitzit. And the tzitzit are merely tied threads; it follows that such a connection, when not in the context of a mitzvah, is forbidden by the Torah, for the Torah does not exclude something that is only forbidden by the words of the scribes. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that they are exactly comprised of the words of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, of blessed memory. For after he explained previously that wool and linen that one mixed together and spun as one and wove them, this is shaatnez, which is according to Rashi, he explained afterwards according to Rabbeinu Tam. That is to say, even if the three details—shua, tavui, and nuz—are each on their own, if he joined them afterwards together by means of sewing or by means of a knot, whether between garment and garment, between thread and garment, or between thread and thread, this is shaatnez from the Torah, as is proven from tzitzit and as Rabbeinu Tam also proved, as is explained in Tosafot and in Sefer HaYashar (siman 2). However, the threads themselves or the garments themselves must be shua and tavui and nuz, and the threads of tzitzit are also so, as we brought from the Sifrei and from Orchot Chaim in section 3. According to this, all our teachers are equal in this detail, that shaatnez of the Torah is only with the three things together (and the Taz in subsection 1 lengthily attacked the Beit Yosef, who innovated a different approach in the Rambam, that shua is from the Torah and tavui and nuz are not from the Torah except both of them together; and he attacked this, and indeed it is so, and the Taz was forced to say that each one is from the Torah, see there, and he erases that which is in Niddah, and the matters are perplexing, and delve into it).

And know that the Rambam in law 3, when he enumerated shaatnez from the Torah as sewing a wool garment to a linen garment, wrote, and this is his wording: Even if one placed wool and linen in a sack or a basket and bound them, this is shaatnez; and even if one tied a fringe of wool to a fringe of linen, even though a strap is in the middle; and similarly, if one folded garments of wool and linen and tied them, these are shaatnez, as it is said, "wool and linen together"—in any event, since they were joined, it is forbidden. Thus far his words. And later in law 9 he wrote: 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 because of shaatnez. Thus far his words. And this law was already brought at the end of siman 299, for the Rambam holds that even though the wool and the linen are not adjacent to one another, such that there is an interruption between them, nevertheless it is shaatnez. And some of our teachers disagree with him, as I have written there.

And according to this, one must understand regarding the Rambam in what he wrote, "and even if he tied a fringe etc. even though the strap is in the middle," for why does he require a knot? For according to him, even without tying it is shaatnez, like that case of a thread of wool on this side and a thread of linen on this side. However, his intention is clear, that for shaatnez from the Torah we specifically require tying, and therefore here in law 3, where he counted it as shaatnez from the Torah, he required tying. But in law 9, it is shaatnez by rabbinic enactment, and therefore in law 3 he wrote "these are shaatnez," and in law 9 he wrote "this is forbidden because of shaatnez," meaning that it is forbidden by rabbinic enactment (and in the Commentary on the Mishnah 9, regarding "he shall not tie a ribbon of wool to one of linen etc. even though the strap is in the middle," he wrote, and this is his wording: to join a belt or a sash, one of wool and one of linen, with leather straps between them both in order to tie etc. and all this is shaatnez by rabbinic enactment, thus far his words; his intention refers to before tying, or if he ties without two stitches, for regarding tying, did he not write here that it is from the Torah? And even if we say that in his commentary he held that even with tying it is only by rabbinic enactment and in his composition he retracted this, nevertheless, it is simple that without tying it is only by rabbinic enactment, and examine this well).

And behold, all our teachers disagree with him and hold that when the wool and the linen are not adjacent to one another, it is entirely permitted. And that which was taught regarding one who makes a garment etc. and wove into it a thread of wool on this side etc. refers to when he placed the thread of wool adjacent to that of linen, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote above at the end of siman 299. And that Mishnah which taught that one may not tie a ribbon of wool to one of linen etc., the prohibition is specifically by means of tying, as the Tur wrote. This is his wording: A strap whose one end is of wool and the other is of linen, it is forbidden to gird oneself with it even though there is a leather strap in the middle, because he ties its two ends together when he girds himself with it; but if it has wool in one place in its middle and linen in another place and they are not next to each other, it is permitted. And the Rambam wrote etc. Thus far his words. And so too wrote our teacher Shimshon on the Mishnah there at the end of Mishnah 1 and the end of Mishnah 9, see there. And so too wrote the Rosh in Niddah chapter 9 in the laws of kilayim of garments, siman 2.

This is the wording of the Rosh: One should not tie a band of wool etc., meaning he should not make a belt of linen on one side and of wool on the other side with a strap in the middle, even though the linen is not connected to the wool, because when he girds his loins he ties the two ends of wool and linen together. Were it not for this, it would be permitted, as the strap does not connect them according to the custom of the world, for they are accustomed to connect skins sewn with linen under woolen garments, even though the sewing connects the skin and the garment together. However, there it is even more permitted, as there are two interruptions between the linen and the wool: the linen thread is connected to the skin, and the skin to the garment by means of a sewing thread. And that which was taught in the Tosefta, which prohibited a cloak of camel hair in which one wove a thread of wool and of linen, refers to when the thread of wool and of linen are next to each other. And the Rambam etc. Thus far his words. And the Rashba wrote similarly in a responsum (siman 360), see there. And according to what we explained, also according to the Rambam, these skins sewn with linen under woolen garments are not shaatnez according to the Torah, since the wool and the linen are not together, as we explained; for behold, the Rambam wrote explicitly that we require that they be united together. And according to what the Rosh wrote, that here it is more lenient because there are two interruptions, it would be possible to say that even the Rambam agrees here. And all the more so since the threads are certainly not twisted, and there is no category of a Torah prohibition here at all, as the Rashba wrote in the responsum there. This is his wording: For these are rabbinic shaatnez, as standard threads are not twisted etc., and one follows the lenient view regarding them etc., and so too we are not concerned lest one make the sewing thread in the middle of the thread of the sewing of the skins etc. Thus far his words. However, at most, according to the Rambam it would only be rabbinic shaatnez, and since many disagree with him, there is no concern in the matter (as appears to my humble opinion).

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 5 wrote: one strap of wool, etc., and according to this it is permitted to attach skins sewn with linen under woolen garments, etc. And according to the Rambam, all this is shaatnez from the Torah, and even if one placed wool or linen in a sack or a basket and bound them, it is shaatnez from the Torah. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: and the custom is like the first opinion. Thus far his words. And the Tur brought that the Ramban permitted it explicitly; see there. And I wonder at our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for regarding a sack and a basket that one bound, the Rambam explained explicitly that it is from the Torah because they were joined to one another, and likewise with tying; but as long as they are distant from one another, it never entered the mind of the Rambam that it is from the Torah.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, follows his approach in his great work regarding what the Rosh wrote after the matters we brought in section 12. This is his wording: The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote that if one tied a fringe of wool, etc., and he attributed the reason to the fact that he ties two ends together when he girds himself; and so he wrote that one who makes a garment of camel hair and wove into it a thread of wool from this side, etc., this is forbidden because of shaatnez. Thus far his words. It is clear that the intent of the Rosh is that this is what he meant: that the Rambam forbade both with tying and without tying, and the reason is as I wrote, that this is from the Torah and this is rabbinic. The Tur brought these matters and wrote afterward: and he did not respond to his words, and he was inclined to be stringent in the matter, and therefore he was stringent upon himself and would not sew skins sewn with linen under a garment of wool, etc., but he would not instruct others to be stringent, and the Ramban explicitly permitted it, and so we practice. Thus far his words. In the Tur before us, it is written regarding the words of the Rambam: "and he did not attribute the reason to the fact that he ties its two ends as one," see there. It is clear that this is a printing error, as it is known that the books of the Turim had many printing errors, and it should say "and he attributed the reason," as written in the Rosh, for the Rambam in truth did attribute the reason to tying. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, lengthily upheld the version of the Tur and considered the Rosh to be in error, and wrote that what the Rambam wrote "if he tied" is not literal, see there. These matters are astonishing in my humble opinion. (And several great authorities were drawn after the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and strengthened the prohibition, and it is against the custom of all Israel; and in my humble opinion, it was the exact opposite of this, and all the House of Israel are blameless. Aside from this, the Shach wrote in subsection 11 another permission from the Terumat HaDeshen, because the threads with which the skins are sewn are not significant and are nullified relative to the skin, and since it is only to join the skins, they are not subject to shaatnez, see there.)

The Tur wrote: If one joined wool and linen with two stitches, it is a connection. And what are two stitches? For example, when one passes the needle once and does not pull the entire thread through, and passes the needle a second time, and it results in the two ends of the thread being together, and he ties the two ends of the thread, for in any other manner they do not hold. But if he does not tie the two ends of the thread, or if he only passes the needle once, even if he ties the two ends of the thread on the edge of the garment, it is not a connection. And the Rambam wrote that even one stitch and he ties the two ends of the thread, or two stitches even if they are not tied together, it is a connection. And my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote according to the first opinion. Thus far his words. And even though regarding the liability of Shabbat, the Rambam himself ruled in chapter 10 of Shabbat like the opinion of the Tur, see there, this is because regarding Shabbat we require "intentional labor," and without two stitches and a knot it is not considered labor; this is not the case regarding kilayim, where it is written "together," and they are together, and only with one stitch without a knot is the name "connection" not applied to it at all (see Taz subsection 4 and see Dagul Mervavah). And two knots with one stitch is a connection even according to the Tur (Magen Avraham siman 11).

A wool garment that was torn may be joined with linen threads, specifically by wrapping a thread around the two ends of the tear such that the ends of the tear protrude outside the wrapping, and one ties the two ends of the thread. Even though tying constitutes a connection, nevertheless, since one can pull out the two ends of the tear without undoing the knot—as they are protruding as mentioned—it does not constitute a connection of the wool to the linen threads. Therefore, if they do not protrude and the tying is over the ends of the tear, it is forbidden. To sew the tear with a linen thread is forbidden in any case, for the wool and the linen become as one. So too, if one makes holes in the wool garment itself and joins them with a thread by means of a knot, it is forbidden (Taz, subsection 5; and what he wrote there previously is not understood by me, see there and examine it closely).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: And similarly, it is permitted to place wool into a pillow or mattress of linen, even though he sews all around it and cannot remove the wool; it is like a sack of linen that one fills with wool and sews its opening, for there is no prohibition of shaatnez in this. And even if he inserted the sewing into the wool itself it is permitted, for behold, he can take the wool from there without undoing the sewing. But with worn-out garments of wool it is forbidden in such a case, for behold, it is impossible to take the garments from there without undoing the sewing. Thus far his words. And this is from the words of the Tur, see there. And the reason is because there is no connection of the wool with the linen, and this is like placing it in a vessel. Nevertheless, we require that he be able to remove it from there without undoing the sewing, meaning that he makes a small hole and removes the wool, for if not so, behold we read concerning them "together." And therefore with garments it is forbidden in such a case. And that which he wrote, that it is like a sack of linen that one fills with wool etc., which implies that this is certainly permitted, the reason is simple: for with a sack it is visible to the eye that it was not made to be so, as it was only placed there temporarily, which is not the case with a pillow or mattress which is made to lie upon (Bach).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work that according to the Rambam, this would be shaatnez according to the Torah, for he wrote that if one placed wool and linen in a sack or a basket and bound them together, it is shaatnez according to the Torah, see there. And it is a great wonder, for this permission was written plainly by the Tur, the Semak, and the Rivash in siman 29, and how did they all not mention that according to the Rambam it is shaatnez according to the Torah? And how did they not concern themselves at all with his great opinion? Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that they hold that in this case even the Rambam admits, and he only forbade where one places the wool with the linen inside the sack or the basket so that they are truly mixed, and the binding is like sewing, and we read concerning them "together." This is not the case when one places wool in a pillow of linen, where it is recognizable to all that this stands on its own and this stands on its own, and they are not mixed with one another and are not joined to one another, and also one can take the wool without undoing the sewing; this is not in the category of shaatnez at all, for they are not shaatnez neither by mixture nor by joining. Therefore, they did not write that according to the Rambam it is forbidden.

He further wrote that it is permitted to join sleeves of wool that have knots or hooks to a bodice (a garment on the body) of linen that has holes, and he inserts the knots or the hooks into the holes, since they are loose and he can remove them from there with his finger and does not need to tear the holes, even though he leaves them this way constantly. But if they are so tight that it is impossible to remove them from there without tearing the holes, it is a connection and it is forbidden. Thus far his words. (And see Magen Avraham siman 10, subsection 12, who wrote regarding the closing of the garment in tzitzit that it is possible that it is forbidden due to marit ayin, see there; and his intention is only for tzitzit, for behold he does not disagree with this law, see there, and in tzitzit it is more noticeable. And know that the knots mentioned here are also like hooks, as they are accustomed to make, and not actual knots to tie one to another, for in such a case it is certainly forbidden; rather, knots like hooks that they place upon a button, which they call "kneplech," and they remove them instantly. And that which he wrote, "that he inserts into the holes," meaning that in the holes there is something upon which the hooks or the knots are inserted, and he can remove them instantly; and delve into this.)

It was taught in the Tosefta (chapter 5, halacha 10): A person may wear two tunics even though his belt is girded over them from the outside, provided that he does not loop the cord and tie with it between his shoulders; that is to say, that he should not tie the two tunics together in a manner that he would be unable to separate them without undoing the knot. Thus explained the Rosh. And the wording of the Rambam is as follows: A person may wear wool garments and linen garments and gird over them from the outside, provided that he does not loop the cord and tie with it between his shoulders. Thus far his words. And before us the version is written "provided that he does not wrap." And the wording of the Tur is as follows: It is permitted to wear a wool tunic over a linen tunic and to tie them together even though he cannot remove them without undoing the knot, provided that it is not a permanent knot; but if it is a permanent knot, it is forbidden. Thus far his words.

And it is a clear matter that the intent is that the two garments are joined to one another by means of the knot, as the Tur was precise to say, "and to tie them together." And this is what the Tosefta said, "provided that he does not pin," etc., meaning that he should not pin the garments to one another, for this is a term of joining, as we learned in a Mishnah: "She may pin [a cloak] over a stone," and for "loops" Onkelos translated "purpaya." And the version in the Rambam is "provided that he does not pin" (and the Beit Yosef brought this version, see there). And even regarding this, the Tur wrote that specifically a permanent knot is forbidden (and so the Derisha and the Bach explained). And so wrote the Rashba in a Responsum (Part 3, Siman 226, brought by the Beit Yosef), that specifically when he joined them to one another with two stitches it is forbidden, and he brought this from the Yerushalmi, see there. And even in such a case, one of the great authorities wondered: since he will eventually untie the knot when he removes them, why do we care? Is this any worse than the sewing of the mouth of a sack, which is permitted since he subsequently tears the sewing? Therefore, he explained that the intent is that he removes both garments without untying the knot (Bach). However, in truth, it does not appear so from the wording of the poskim. And it can be said that it is not comparable to a sack, where the wool and the linen are not so joined; but when they are joined together by a permanent knot, which is two stitches, it is forbidden even temporarily. However, this is certain: that without joining them to one another, there is no prohibition at all when he girds a belt over both of them, even if he ties the belt with several stitches.

And according to this, one must wonder about our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4, who wrote: It is permitted to wear a wool garment over a linen garment and to tie them together, even though he cannot remove them without undoing the knot, and even if it is a permanent knot, provided that he does not attach them to one another with the cord using two stitches; and some prohibit in the case of a permanent knot. Thus far his words. For this implies that some prohibit even without attaching them to one another. And based on this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote additional laws like these, as will be explained. And it is a wonder: who are those who prohibit? And they wrote that the one who prohibits is the Tur (in Be'er HaGolah). And it is a wonder, for the Tur also wrote "and to tie them together." And there is one who wrote that even from the responsa of the Rashba there is no necessity to permit (Shach, subsection 7), and I do not know why, for it is explicitly explained so, see there. (And the Bach indeed rejected the words of the Beit Yosef in this, see there, for he wrote, and this is his wording: And so wrote the Rashba in a responsum as a practical halachic ruling, that all of Israel have so conducted themselves, and it is not proper to follow the great ones who were stringent in the matter, and the Beit Yosef brings it, and so we hold. Thus far his words. And if it is because the Rashba wrote there that our teacher Yonah the Pious was careful not to tighten his belt, see there, this was from the greatness of his piety and not from the law, as the Rashba wrote there; but who are those who prohibit?)

It is clear that the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, refers to what he cited in his great work from the Hagahot Ashri in the name of the Or Zarua at the end of the first chapter of Beitzah, that it is forbidden to wear wool socks over linen socks when they are narrow and tight, such that it is impossible to remove the upper ones without pulling the lower ones with them; see there. Our teacher, the Rema, in his work Darkhei Moshe, sign 2, distinguishes between garments and socks, see there, for he wrote that garments are permitted. And I am utterly and completely astonished: first, even if he forbids it, why should we be concerned for a solitary opinion for which there is no reasoning? And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, himself rejected this in his work, see there. But it is even more wonderous, for before us this is not found in the Hagahot Ashri there. Furthermore, in the great Or Zarua in the laws of kilayim (siman 303) the opposite is explained. This is his wording: Our teacher Shimshon responded: You said, my son, that my brother forbids women from girding a wool belt over a linen garment etc. I am surprised if he ever said such a thing etc. see there. And the Or Zarua himself wrote at the end of his words, this is his wording: Therefore, it is like a person who wears two garments one over the other, one of wool and one of linen, and it is taught in the Sifrei: One might think he should not wear etc. And whoever does not explain it so has not found his hands or feet in the house of study. Go out and see what the people do, for they wear a wool kittel over a linen shirt and gird from above, and if it were considered a connection, what is the difference between this and that etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote to permit it, and it requires great investigation.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And it seems to me that those leggings that are made in these lands and are called "portki," meaning that they are made of wool and they make in them a cord that passes through them here and there like a strap in the passage of the tefillin, it is permitted even if the cord is of linen or vice versa. For since it is possible to remove the cord from there without undoing the sewing, it is nothing more than one who girds with a cord of linen over a shirt of wool. And even though he ties the cord when he wears them, it is not called a permanent knot. But if he makes knots at the two ends of the cord, it appears that it is forbidden, for it is impossible to remove it from there. And there are those who say that it is forbidden to wear two leggings, one of wool and one of linen, one over the other, for since it is impossible to strip off the lower one without the upper one, it is like a connection. And it is not similar to two shirts one over the other, where it is possible to strip off the lower one without the upper one. And it is proper to be careful. Thus far his words. And this is because with two shirts he can bring his arms inside and strip off the shirt. And all of this follows the opinion of "there are those who forbid," but the world is accustomed to be lenient, for they do not hold like this opinion (Shach subsection 8, and also the Levush rejected his words, and besides this we have already explained that the core of these matters is astonishing).

One who leads animals and places ropes into his hand, some of which are linen and some of which are wool, this is permitted even though he wraps them around his hand. However, if he tied them all together with a permanent knot with two stitches, they have become kilayim and it is forbidden for him to wrap them around his hand. And there are those who permit it since he does not intend [to be warmed], but the first opinion holds that it is a pesik reishia, for it is impossible that his hand will not be warmed. (And that which we wrote "with two stitches," so wrote the Taz in subsection 11, and so it is explicit in Rashi, Shabbat 54a. And so wrote the Mordechai there. And regarding what the Taz wrote, that the Beit Yosef wrote even with one stitch, it is true that in the Beit Yosef he inferred this from the Rambam, but in his book Bedek HaBayit it appears that he retracted this, see there; and also from the Rambam there is no proof, see there and delve into it).

We learned at the end of Kilayim: The sack and the basket combine for shaatnez. And in the Yerushalmi they said: The father and his son combine for shaatnez. How so? The Tur wrote: A piece of linen cloth attached to a sack and a piece of wool cloth attached to a basket, and he joined them together with two stitches, they combine even though they are attached to two vessels; and it is forbidden to cover oneself with the sack or the basket, and we do not say this stands alone and this stands alone (since the wool and the linen are joined to one another). The father and his son, how so? He was wearing wool and his son linen, and he joined his (garment) with the (garment) of his son with two stitches, and he girt a belt over himself and over his son, it is forbidden because of shaatnez. But if he did not gird a belt over both of them, it is permitted, for since they are living beings separate from one another, it is not relevant to say that this is shaatnez. And he himself combines for shaatnez, how so? He was wearing wool on one leg and linen on the second, and he joined them together with two stitches, it is shaatnez. Thus far his words. And it is obvious that "father and son" is not literal, and the same applies to other people. And the Rambam did not bring this Yerushalmi of father and son, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book that his reason is because there is no novelty in this at all when they are joined by two stitches, see there. (And one who examines the Yerushalmi, it appears explicitly that the Rambam explained that he did not join the garment of the father and the son to one another, but rather that he wrapped a belt over both of them, and the Yerushalmi rejects this, that it is not shaatnez, and so wrote the Pnei Moshe, see there. And because the Yerushalmi did not mention at all that he sewed the garments to one another or tied them with two stitches, and also it is a wondrous thing as is understood, therefore the Rambam omitted it. And know that from the words of the Rema it appears that he forbids in the case of father and son when he sewed them together even without a belt, see there and in the Shach, subsection 16, and delve into this.)