Siman 301

There are two verses regarding shaatnez of garments: one in Kedoshim, "and a garment of shaatnez kela'im shall not come upon you," and the second in Teitzei, "you shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together." And it was taught in the Sifrei there: "You shall not wear shaatnez," I might think he may not wear shearings of wool and bundles of linen, therefore the Torah says "shaatnez"—something that is carded, spun, or twisted, etc. I only know that he may not wear it; from where do we know that he may not cover himself with it? The Torah says "shall not come upon you." I might think he may not sling a basket behind him (a basket in which garments of shaatnez are placed), therefore the Torah says "you shall not wear." Wearing was included (within the category of coming upon), and why was it singled out? To create an analogy to it and tell you: just as wearing is unique in that it provides benefit to the body, so too all must provide benefit to the body. I might think he may not wear a shirt of wool over a shirt of linen, therefore the Torah says "together." Thus far the words of the Sifrei.

And in Torat Kohanim, Parshat Kedoshim, it is taught: "And a garment of shaatnez"—what does this teach? Since it is said, "You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together," one might think he may not wear shearings of wool and bundles of linen; therefore, the Torah says, "garment," etc. From the implication of that which is said, "it shall not come upon you," one might think he may not sling a basket behind him; therefore, the Torah says, "You shall not wear." I only know that he may not wear it; from where do we know that he may not cover himself with it? The Torah says, "it shall not come upon you." You are permitted to spread it beneath you, but the sages said: Do not do so, lest a single thread come upon his flesh. Thus far the words of Torat Kohanim. And this fact—that it is permitted to spread it according to the Torah and the sages forbade it lest a thread wrap around his flesh—is found in the Gemara at the end of the first chapter of Beitzah, and at the beginning of the seventh chapter of Yoma, and in the first chapter of Tamid. And it appears to me that this which is in the Sifrei excludes shearings of wool and bundles of linen from shaatnez, and in Torat Kohanim it excludes them from "garment." The Sifrei comes to add that even if he made them into a likeness of a garment, it is permitted by the Torah because they are not "shua" (combed), "tavi" (spun), and "nuz" (woven). (And that which is in Torat Kohanim includes felt, see there, it is a mere asmachta, as the Ra'avad wrote there in his commentary, see there. And behold, the wording is difficult in Torat Kohanim, see there, and in my humble opinion the version is reversed and it should say: One might think he may not wear shearings of wool and bundles of linen; therefore, the Torah says, "shaatnez," etc. From where do we include felt? The Torah says, "garment," see there. And according to this, the derivation is like in the Sifrei, and felt is a mere asmachta; and delve into this.)

This is the wording of the Tur: By the word of the Torah, there is no prohibition of shaatnez except by way of wearing or by spreading them over oneself by way of warmth. However, if he spreads them over himself not by way of warmth, such as a tent of shaatnez that overspreads him, or if he slings a basket of shaatnez behind him, or if he spreads it beneath him, it is permitted. But the sages prohibited even ten mattresses one upon the other with shaatnez beneath them; it is prohibited to sleep upon them lest a thread wrap around him, etc. Thus far his words. And also in the Rambam, chapter 10, law 12, this is explained with a slight change of wording, as he wrote: And from the words of the scribes, even ten mattresses, etc., and the bottom-most of them is shaatnez, it is prohibited to sit upon the uppermost one lest a thread wrap around his flesh. Thus far his words. And behold, that which the Rambam wrote, "and the bottom-most of them is shaatnez," and the Tur wrote, "and shaatnez beneath them," certainly there is no practical difference, for "ten" is not literal, and the same applies to a hundred. But that which the Rambam wrote, "it is prohibited to sit upon the uppermost one," and the Tur wrote, "it is prohibited to sleep upon them," certainly requires a reason, and in the Gemara it is like the wording of the Tur in all places; see there.

And it appears to me that the Rambam intentionally changed from the wording of the Talmud, for seemingly, since the concern is lest a thread wrap around his flesh, this would only be relevant in sleep, as a person in his sleep turns from side to side and consequently the bedding becomes disarranged, like that which we learned in tractate Zavim (Chapter 4, Mishnah 4): If one was sleeping, and it is uncertain whether he turned over upon them, they are impure, see there. But regarding sitting, there is no concern for this. He comes to teach us that it is forbidden even to sit upon them. And perhaps he learned this from the Torat Kohanim that we brought in section 2, which says plainly: "But the sages said, you shall not do so," which implies both sitting and sleeping. And so it is in the Yerushalmi, Chapter 9, end of Halacha 1, see there.

And know that there are those who say that according to this reason, lest a thread wrap around his flesh, the prohibition is specifically only when he lies naked (the Gra in Shenot Eliyahu chapter 9, mishnah 2) and also that there is no separation between him and the shaatnez. However, when there is a separation it is permitted, and only when there is no separation, even if he lies on something that is not typically worn, such as a pillow or a bolster and the like, it is forbidden because of the reason lest it wrap etc. And that which the sages, of blessed memory, said, that even ten mattresses are forbidden, this is due to another reason: a decree lest he wear it. And the intention is when there is a garment of shaatnez beneath the mattresses that is fit for wearing; but with mattresses alone it is permitted since it is not fit for wearing, and there is no prohibition unless he lies naked upon the mattress of shaatnez due to the reason lest it wrap. But when a garment is placed beneath them, it is forbidden even if he is clothed due to the reason lest he wear it (ibid.). And see what I wrote later in siman 304, section 5, and it requires further study.

And behold, that which he wrote, that the prohibition of "lest it wrap around" applies only when one is naked, even though this was not explained in the words of the Rambam and the Tur, nevertheless it is possible to say so, for this is the implication of the phrasing "lest a thread wrap around his flesh," and this is when his flesh is exposed. However, that which he wrote, that according to this reason the prohibition applies only when there is no separation between him and the shaatnez—in this, certainly the Rambam and the Tur do not hold accordingly. And similarly, that which he wrote, that there is another reason of a decree "lest he wear it," and according to this the prohibition applies only if a garment is placed under the bedding—they also do not hold accordingly. For behold, the Rambam wrote explicitly: ten mattresses, and the bottom-most among them is shaatnez, it is forbidden to sit on the top-most lest it wrap around, etc. Behold, it is explicit that the concern of "lest it wrap around" applies even with ten mattresses and there is no garment beneath them. And even the Tur, who wrote the phrasing "ten mattresses and shaatnez beneath them," which could be interpreted as a garment of shaatnez, it is also impossible to say so, for behold he concludes "lest it wrap around," etc., and they did not mention the concern of wearing at all. (And in the Gemara it is explicitly implied that it is a single matter, as it says: "And if you say that it separates, but did he not say... even ten mattresses," etc., for it is explicitly explained that it refers to "lest it wrap around." And that which concludes "because it is said 'it shall not come upon you,'" firstly, in Yoma and in Tamid it is not so; and furthermore, this is the explanation: that they were stringent because of the semblance of "coming upon" of shaatnez, lest it wrap around; and examine this carefully).

However, there are some of our teachers who explained it thus, and this is the wording of the Ran at the end of the first chapter of Beitzah: And from the wording of Rashi it appears etc. rather, so it appears to me, that the Baraita took this approach, that even with shaatnez where it is not their way to be draped but rather to be spread out, in any case where nothing intervenes it is forbidden lest a thread wrap around his flesh; but in any case where it intervenes, anything whose way is not to be draped is permitted, and this is what we learned in the tenth chapter: Pillows and bolsters are not subject to the laws of shaatnez provided that his flesh does not touch them, and this is because it is not their way to drape them. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi comes to teach us that even ten mattresses one upon the other, which it is not their way to drape, as long as shaatnez is beneath them, whose way is to be draped, it is forbidden to sleep upon them because of the appearance of draping since it is their way to do so. Thus far his words. (And the Yam Shel Shlomo in the first chapter of Beitzah, siman 46, agreed to this). And Rashi holds like the Rambam and the Tur.

From the words of our teacher Shimshon in the commentary on the Mishnah there, it is clear that although he does not hold of the concern of dressing, nevertheless, he holds that this law of ten mattresses is only when there is a garment beneath them fit for wearing, for then they were concerned lest a thread wind around him; but with mattresses alone, they were not concerned. This is the wording of the Rash: Pillows and bolsters are made for lying upon, and we say etc. lest a thread wind around etc. and even ten mattresses with shaatnez beneath them, it is forbidden to sleep upon them; here, regarding pillows and bolsters and a pack-saddle further on, where his flesh does not touch, they did not decree in a matter whose way is not for draping. Thus far his words. That is to say, in this they were not stringent. And according to this, we could also say the same regarding the opinion of the Tur, and he intentionally changed from the wording of the Rambam. Nevertheless, it is impossible to say so regarding the opinion of the Tur, for he wrote another reason regarding pillows and bolsters, because they are hard, as will be explained. And also the Rashba does not hold so, for he wrote in the novellae there regarding the reason for pillows and bolsters that since they are rabbinic shaatnez, they were not concerned for the concern of lest a thread wind around, as they are not combed, spun, and woven. See there. And the Semag holds like the Rash, for he wrote, and this is his wording: Even though the sages forbade spreading lest a thread wind around him, we say these words apply to something whose way is for wearing, but a pack-saddle and pillows and bolsters, whose way is not for wearing, they did not decree. Thus far his words in negative commandment 283. See there. (And know that according to these teachers of ours, it is well understood why the Gemara in Beitzah did not bring this Mishnah of pillows and bolsters. And also the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote there that the concern of lest a thread wind around was only decreed regarding garments fit for draping; see there. However, it requires further study, for if so, why is a reason needed for pillows and bolsters because they are rabbinic as he wrote? And one could answer with difficulty; see there and examine it closely).

According to what has been explained from all these words of our teachers, there is no prohibition to sit in carriages and wagons where the seating area and the sides are sewn with wool cushions, even when sewn with linen. For since one sits or lies down while dressed, there is a separation between his flesh and the shaatnez; and since they are not fit for wearing, it is permitted to sit and lie upon them while he is dressed. And even according to Rashi, the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, who did not distinguish between things fit for wearing and those not fit, nevertheless, this is all when one sits or lies naked (as per the words of the Gra), where there is a concern of a thread wrapping around him, but not when he is dressed. And it is obvious when they are attached by sewing or with nails to the carriages, that the wrapping of a thread is entirely impossible. And even if we judge them as soft and not as hard, the permission is simple, as will be further explained. Furthermore, according to what has been explained, even with soft ones there is no concern of a prohibition. And so wrote explicitly one of the great authorities (Panim Meirot, part 2, siman 112), and this is his wording: Cushions placed in a carriage, even though they are not completely hard and are only for sitting upon, it is permitted to sit upon them, and it goes without saying if they are fixed with nails; and there is not even a measure of piety or holiness in [avoiding] it. Thus far his words. Only in the winter, when a covering is made at the edge of the wagon to cover the legs and the body from the intense cold, in this there is certainly a complete prohibition to cover the legs with them if they are shaatnez, even rabbinic shaatnez, and one must know that there is no shaatnez in them.

And regarding that of ten spreads, the Rambam wrote: In what case are these things said? With soft items, such as curtains and garments, but pillows and bolsters, which are hard and there is no concern that a thread might wrap around him, it is permitted to sit and recline upon them, provided that his flesh does not touch them. Thus far his words. For such is the conclusion of the Shas in Beitzah there. And the Tur wrote further: In what case are these things said? When they are empty and placed upon the ground, but if they are full, or even empty and placed upon a bed, no, because it bends under him and wraps around his flesh. Thus far his words. And so it is in the Shulchan Aruch, section 1. And this is from the Yerushalmi on the Mishnah that pillows and bolsters are not subject to shaatnez, see there. And the Ra'avad criticized the Rambam for not bringing this, but the Rambam holds that since our Shas did not make this distinction, we need not concern ourselves with the Yerushalmi. Nevertheless, for the halachah we hold like the majority of the poskim. And the difference between a bed and the ground is not exact, for the law is the same that on a bed of boards it is permitted; and that which is forbidden on a bed refers to one of ropes or one that has straw in it, for in this we fear lest it bend slightly over his flesh. And the law is the same that on a hard bench it is permitted and there is no concern lest it bend. Therefore, if he placed straw on the ground or another soft thing and placed pillows and bolsters of shaatnez upon it, it is forbidden to sleep upon them.

The Tur wrote: And similarly, all stiff garments are permitted for spreading beneath [one], but it is forbidden to wear them; and stiff felts are permitted even for wearing, since even the wearing of soft ones is only by rabbinic decree. Thus far his words. That is to say, felts are not shaatnez according to the Torah, as they are only pressed (shua) and not spun (tavi) or woven (nuiz). According to this, it must be said that what he wrote previously regarding the matter that they forbade for spreading, this is all regarding shaatnez according to the Torah; and from the Torah there is no distinction between soft and stiff, for if they are pressed, spun, and woven, they are forbidden for wearing and permitted for spreading. And the Rabbis forbade spreading soft ones that are pressed, spun, and woven, but with stiff ones they did not decree even for pressed, spun, and woven regarding spreading. And wearing is forbidden in soft ones even with pressed alone, as we learned in the Mishnah: "Felts are forbidden, etc."; and in stiff ones it is permitted even for wearing with pressed alone. According to this, in our carriages where the shaatnez is rabbinic, sitting in them is permitted for this reason as well, as I wrote in section 9. And like the words of the Tur, the Rosh, Tosafot, and the Rashba ruled in Beitzah ibid.

And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 regarding the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote: These "kapanages" of ours, if they are sewn with linen, one must be careful not to place them upon himself, and even from spreading them beneath him, until he sews them with silk or hemp. Thus far his words. And he explained his words in his great book, that they are types of felt which are only "shua" alone, and there is a doubt whether they are hard or soft. Therefore, to place them upon himself is forbidden according to all the poskim, for perhaps they are soft; and even to spread them beneath him is forbidden according to the opinion of the Rambam, following his system, for the Rambam holds that even with "shua" alone it is forbidden by Torah law. However, according to what we explained at the beginning of siman 300, the Rambam does not disagree with all the poskim, see there (the Bach also questioned him, see there). And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: All hard garments are permitted for spreading beneath him and forbidden to wear them, and hard felts are permitted even for wearing, since even soft ones are only forbidden by rabbinic law. Thus far his words. And this is like the words of the Tur, and his main intention is that specifically the "kapanage" is forbidden because there is a doubt regarding them whether they are hard or soft, but when they are certainly hard, it is permitted. And he further wrote: And there are those who are stringent regarding the wearing of felts. Thus far his words. And this follows the system of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, regarding the Rambam, that even with "shua" alone it is forbidden by the Torah, and not according to what we explained at the beginning of siman 300.

And according to this, one must wonder about our teacher, the Rema, in section 1 regarding the law of ten mattresses, where he wrote: And there are those who say that all of this refers to shaatnez of the Torah, but regarding shaatnez of rabbinic origin, if they are hard, it is permitted to sit on them in any manner; for since they are soft they are only rabbinic, and regarding hard ones they did not decree; and nevertheless, one should not make them initially from shaatnez. Thus far his words. And it is a great wonder: what is the meaning of the expression "and there are those who say"? Who is the one who disagrees on this? And they have already wondered about him regarding this (Shach, subsection 2). But it is even more wondering, for sitting on hard materials is permitted even with shaatnez of the Torah, and the permission for hard materials that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote there refers to shaatnez of the Torah, as has been explained. And if so, how can he say that with shaatnez of rabbinic origin and they are hard it is permitted to sit on them? For even regarding wearing it is permitted, as he wrote himself in section 2 and as was explained in the previous section, and to sit on hard materials is permitted even with that of the Torah. And this requires great study. (And it appears that he did not wish to be precise in this and relied on what follows, and he transcribed the wording of the Responsa of the Rashba, siman 762, who was asked regarding pillows and cushions of shaatnez and permitted it for two reasons, see there; and so it appears from the Taz, subsection 4).

It has already been explained that shaatnez is only forbidden through wearing and draping, and by rabbinic decree also through spreading it beneath oneself. However, when the shaatnez forms a tent over the person, even though it protects him from the heat, the cold, and the rain, nevertheless, since it is not upon the body of the person, we have no concern regarding it. This is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the beginning of section 1: that it is permitted to raise them over him not in the manner of warming, such as spreading a tent of shaatnez over him, and similarly to spread a shaatnez garment over a tub in which he is washing in order to maintain the heat, etc. Thus far his words. And even if he sits in the tub and perspires by means of the cover, we have no concern regarding it. Therefore, the sages of blessed memory said in Beitzah ibid. that a curtain of shaatnez is forbidden because the attendant warms himself with it and wraps himself in its edges (Rashi). The curtain is spread opposite the doorway and protects against the wind, and even so, were it not for the concern of the attendant warming himself, it would be permitted. (The Taz, subsection 2, elaborated on the practice of permitting sitting in wagons that have a tent called a "paklit" which is shaatnez, and how it differs from a curtain; he wrote that since this is rabbinic shaatnez, there is no concern for this, see there. I do not know what this "paklit" is; if they are like our wagon covers called "bud," then what connection does it have to a curtain, where Rashi explained that the attendant wraps himself in its edges, whereas the shaatnez of the wagons is attached and has no edges).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 3: A large garment with shaatnez on one side is forbidden to be worn even from its other side, even though the side containing the shaatnez is dragged along the ground. Thus far their words. And it is simple that even if the entire garment is of hemp or camel hair, since it contains shaatnez it is forbidden. And I saw one who is uncertain about this (according to the Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 3), but there is no doubt about this at all, for this law is explicit in the Tosefta chapter 5 and in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of chapter 9, and it is derived from the verse "shall not come upon you." This is the wording of the Yerushalmi: For what purpose was it said "shall not come upon you"? That if there was a large garment there, etc. See there. Meaning, this is what the verse says: "And a garment of kilayim, shaatnez, shall not come upon you"—a garment that contains kilayim, the entire garment shall not come upon you. And if so, what difference does it make from what the garment is made? Ultimately, it is a garment that contains kilayim. And one must wonder about the Rambam, of blessed memory, who omitted this law (and perhaps because at the beginning of Yevamot it derives "shall not come upon you" to forbid "bringing up" [the garment upon oneself], for regarding "clothing" we would not have known this as the benefit is minimal, see there; and the Yerushalmi perforce holds that from "clothing" we learn "bringing up," for otherwise how could it say "for what purpose was it said"? And he holds that for our Talmud this law does not exist. And the Pnei Moshe there wrote that he relied on what he wrote, that a garment that has a wool thread on one side, etc., is forbidden, and all the more so this, see there. And his words are astonishing, for what is the connection between one and the other? There, one could say that he covers himself with the entire garment. Therefore, it appears to me as I wrote, and for the law we hold like the Tur and Shulchan Aruch).

We learned in the Mishnah (Chapter 9, Mishnah 2): There is no "temporary" regarding shaatnez. The Rambam and the Bartenura explained this according to its plain meaning, that even to wear it in a temporary manner is forbidden. He wrote similarly in his work in Chapter 10, Law 18. This is his wording: A person shall not wear it temporarily, etc. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 4 wrote: It is forbidden to wear shaatnez even in a temporary manner, such as a tallit of a minor that an adult wears in a temporary manner to go out to the marketplace. Such is the wording of the Tur, and such is the wording of the Shas in Menachot (41a), see there. And in the Shulchan Aruch it is written: Even though the adult does not go out in it temporarily. The Rash wrote similarly in his commentary on the Mishnah. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book that there is an error in the Tur, but the commentators on the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that there is no error in this and the intent is the same; meaning, even though the adult never goes out in it even in a temporary manner, nevertheless, if he now goes out in a temporary manner, it is forbidden (see Bach, Derishah, Taz subsection 5, and Shach subsection 6). From their words it is implied that the version in the Gemara is like the version of the Shulchan Aruch, see there. But I wonder, for before us in the Gemara it is exactly like the wording of the Tur. It appears to me that the Rambam also holds this way, but he did not see fit to elaborate; even though there is a novel point in this—that the garment itself is temporary for him and also now he only walks temporarily—nevertheless, it seemed to the Rambam that it is all one, and he did not see fit to explain this explicitly.

A person may not wear shaatnez temporarily, even on top of ten garments where it provides him no benefit at all, and even if his intention is not for wearing at all but rather to hide it from an extortionist—who does not take payment from what is on one's body but rather from merchandise—and he wears it to be saved from payment, nevertheless it is forbidden. Our teacher, the Rema, in section 6 wrote: And there are those who permit even wearing shaatnez as long as one does not intend for his benefit, such as one who wears shaatnez to evade payment from an extortionist, or who wears them in order to show their measurement if he wishes to sell them, and the like. Thus far his words. This is the opinion of the Tur, but the Rambam forbids it, and it is an explicit Mishnah there. However, the Tur holds that this follows the one who maintains that an unintended act is forbidden, but for us, who establish that an unintended act is permitted, this too is permitted.

The Rambam himself ruled to permit in a case of one who does not intend, for he wrote: Tailors of garments sew in their usual manner, provided they do not intend in the sun for the sake of the sun or in the rains for the sake of the rains, and the modest sew on the ground; and similarly, sellers of garments sell in their usual manner (where the garment is upon him), provided they do not intend in the sun for the sake of the sun or in the rains for the sake of the rains, and the modest strip it off with a staff behind them. Thus far his words. And this is also a Mishnah there. And the Tur holds that there is no distinction between this and that, but the Rambam distinguishes between them, for here he is not actually wearing it, but it is merely placing it upon himself without intent for placing it; however, in the previous law, in any event, he is actually wearing it (Kessef Mishneh). And the explanation of this seems to me to be that there everyone sees that he does not intend for wearing, but in the previous law, those who see will say that he intends for wearing, and that which he thinks in his heart for whatever reason he does so are "matters of the heart." And there is a further distinction, that in the previous law, even though he does not intend, nevertheless it is a pesik reisha, for it is impossible that the garment will not warm him; but regarding sellers of garments, it is not a pesik reisha, for merely placing it upon oneself for a brief moment, it is possible that it will not warm him (Bach). And all the more so regarding tailors, who only place a portion of the garment upon their legs. And there are further distinctions between them (Atteret Zahav subsection 7 and Shach subsection 8).

It is permitted to make the shrouds of the deceased from kilayim, whether in that which they clothe him during the eulogy or in the garments they bury him in, for once a man dies he becomes free from the mitzvot. The concern of "mocking the poor" does not apply here as we are concerned regarding tzitzit, because in a living person, in a case like this where the kilayim does not warm him, there is no prohibition, and in a deceased person there is no warming (see Beit Yosef). Similarly, it is permitted to make a donkey's saddle-cover from kilayim and sit upon it like cushions and bolsters because they are hard, provided that his flesh does not touch it. The Rosh permits his flesh to touch it because a saddle-cover is harder than cushions and bolsters. In the Shulchan Aruch, section 8, the opinion of the Rosh was not brought at all. However, he may not place the saddle-cover on his shoulder even to carry out manure upon it, for they only permitted sitting upon it and not raising it upon his body. Even if his intention is only to save himself from the filth of the manure, ultimately it is "raising," and this is not a matter of "unintentional act" for he intends to save himself from filth. This is not comparable even to saving oneself from bandits, which is permitted according to the opinion of the Tur as I wrote in section 17, for there he is not pleased at all with the wearing, but here he is pleased in order to save his body from filth (Shach, subsection 5), and not like the one who compared this to there.

All this applies to shaatnez that is recognizable, but a garment in which shaatnez was lost is forbidden to be made into a pack-saddle for a donkey; for since the location of the shaatnez is not recognizable, we fear lest he forget and take a patch from it to sew onto his garment. And he may not sell it to a non-Jew, lest he return and sell it to an Israelite. However, with shaatnez that is recognizable, behold, he sees it and will not come to a mishap. And behold, the poskim did not explain to us what should be done with a garment in which shaatnez was lost, but in the Gemara Niddah (61b) it is explained that he makes it into shrouds for the dead, see there. And it appears to me that if it is not fit for shrouds, he should burn it, as is proven from the Yerushalmi, chapter 9 of Kilayim (halacha 1), which says there: Rabbi Hillel son of Rabbi Vallas had a garment worth thirty myriad dinars and he gave it to Rabbi, and he found shaatnez in it and burned it. Thus far his words. And it is explained that the shaatnez was not recognizable, and only Rabbi in his great wisdom found the shaatnez. And if there is no obligation to burn it, how could he have violated the prohibition of "do not destroy"? (And there is a remedy through dyeing, and it will be explained in siman 302).

Cloths with which one wipes the hands, and cloths with which one dries vessels and the ground, and those with which one dries oneself after washing or those at the bath-attendants in the bathhouse, whether of women or of men (Yerushalmi ibid. halacha 2), and book-cloths that are placed upon the book or under the book, are forbidden on account of shaatnez, for the hands touch them and they are constantly wrapped around the hand and become warm. And likewise, it is forbidden to make cloths of shaatnez for the table upon which one eats, because he occasionally wipes his hands with it and is warmed by them. And likewise, cloths in the beit knesset that one reads upon or upon the pillar, and all is for the reason that has been explained. And likewise, cloths with which one is given a haircut, if it has a head-opening and one wears it in the manner of wearing, it is forbidden on account of shaatnez. And even though his intention is only so that the hairs do not fall upon his body, nevertheless it is a wearing, just as it is with a pack-saddle for taking out the dung in section 19. And it appears to me that all these are forbidden even with rabbinic shaatnez, because it is nearly certain that he will benefit from the shaatnez. And cloths with which one is given a haircut that do not have a head-opening are permitted; and even though he brings it up upon his heart or upon his scalp, since it is to save from filth, it is not considered "bringing up," which is not the case with wearing.

A curtain that is hung before an opening, if it is soft, it is forbidden to make it from shaatnez because the attendant sometimes warms himself with it, and if it was stiff, it is permitted. One must distinguish what is called soft and what is called stiff, and in a case of doubt, we follow the stringent view (see the Beit Yosef and Bach, for we are not experts in this, and I do not know what expertise is relevant to this). And so they said in the Yerushalmi there, that it is forbidden to take a hot egg with a shaatnez garment in one's hand, for since he is saved by the garment from being burned by the heat of the egg, the benefit is considered like the prevention of cold; for what difference is there to me between being saved from coldness or being saved from heat? Therefore, it is forbidden to take a cup or other vessel full of hot water when it is impossible to take the cup or the vessel in the hands without an interruption because of the heat. However, the parokhet that is before the holy ark, or the cloths that they spread in the ark or around the Torah, are permitted to be of shaatnez, because it is forbidden to benefit from them by warming the hands, as they are holy. And there is one who forbids a cover of a Sefer Torah, which they call a "mantle," that they dress over the Sefer Torah, and likewise the cloth with which they wrap the Sefer Torah, because many times the attendant holds them and wraps them with his hands, and there is concern for warming during the time of cold (Taz, subsection 11). And I wonder, for it is certainly simple that it is forbidden for him to intend to warm himself, and if so, an unintended act is permitted, and certainly there is no "psik reisha" here, as is understood. This is the reasoning of our teacher, the Rema, who ruled in section 11 to permit it; see there.

It is stated in Beitzah (15a): Rava bar Rav Phineas said: Ardalin are not subject to the prohibition of shaatnez. Rashi explained: I saw in the Responsa of the Geonim that they are accustomed to wearing them under their shoes, and they patch them with processed goat skin under their soles, and opposite the heel of the foot some make them of wool and call them namti; they are not subject to the prohibition of shaatnez because they are hard. Thus far his words. That is to say, the wool is hard. The Tur wrote: because the heel is hard and does not become warm, see there. And it is not understood, for what does this avail? For since the rest of the foot is warmed, it is automatically forbidden even when on this side there is no shaatnez, since on the other side there is shaatnez, as I wrote in section 15 (Derisha, note 5). And it must be said: since according to its manufacture there is not even one place where he benefits from the shaatnez, it is not comparable to there (ibid.).

And furthermore, there we derive it from "it shall not come upon you," as is written there, and this applies to a garment and not to a shoe (ibid.). And furthermore, there is a concern there that perhaps that side which contains the shaatnez will come upon him, but here this is impossible, as is understood (ibid.). And all these matters are forced. And perhaps it can be said that this wool which is opposite the heel is not connected at all to the linen, and it is a piece unto itself, but rather he carries them together in the shoe, as this is connected to the shoe and this is connected to the shoe, but together they have no connection. And nevertheless, if in the place of the heel warming were applicable, then wool and linen are connected as one by means of the shoe; but since in the heel warming is not applicable, they have no connection to one another even though they are adjacent to one another.

The Rambam wrote exactly the opposite, and this is his wording: A shoe that is shaatnez and has no heel is permitted to be worn, for the skin of the foot is hard and does not derive pleasure like the rest of the skin of the body. Thus far his words. And it implies that a heel is more severe, and this is puzzling, for we see that the skin of the heel is harder. And they wrote that what he wrote, "and has no heel," is not because of the law, for the same would apply if it has a heel, but rather such is the craftsmanship of the shoe (Kessef Mishneh). And furthermore, it is possible to say that when it has a heel, since it appears like a garment, it is forbidden even if the body does not derive pleasure from it (Beit Yosef). And there is one who says that one must emend the text of the Rambam to read "and has nothing but a heel" (Tosafot Yom Tov, chapter 9, mishnah 7). And there is one who says that it is a shoe that has nothing but leather beneath the foot and extends upward slightly against the toes and its sides, and behind the heel a tiny bit, and they make holes in it and tie them with a lace above; and the explanation of "has no heel" is that it has no leather surrounding the heel (Be'er HaGolah, and similarly wrote the Knesset HaGedolah). And there is one who says that "has no heel," his intention is that the leather is not hard like our shoes (Yam Shel Shlomo, first chapter of Beitzah, siman 47) (the words of the Taz, subsection 12, are included in the Derishah).

And behold, in all countries, rubber shoes that are worn over the shoe, which are called "galoshes," have spread, and inside them, all around, is red wool, and beneath the wool lies a piece of linen-like material along the entire length of the shoe at its bottom, but it does not go up the sides of the shoe. And the truth is that it is not linen but inferior hemp, for linen is much more expensive than hemp, and why would they make this from linen since it is not visible on the outside and to the eye it appears very inferior? And without a doubt, this is not linen, and so we have heard clearly. However, according to the opinion of the Rambam that the leather of the bottom of the foot is hard, in any case there is no concern regarding this, as this is only at its bottom; and the permission for these shoes has spread throughout the entire world, as is known.

The Rambam wrote: Nothing is forbidden as shaatnez except for garments that are for the purpose of warmth, such as the tunic, the turban, the trousers, the belt, the cloak, and garments that cover the thighs and the hands, and the like. However, small pouches that people make in their sleeves to bundle coins or spices in them, and a rag upon which one places a compress, or a poultice, or a plaster, and the like—these are permitted even though his flesh touches them, for this is not the way of warmth. A headband of leather or silk and the like, from which one hung wool threads and linen threads dangling over the person's face in order to drive away flies, is not subject to shaatnez, for this is not the way of warmth. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 14. And it is obvious that if in any of these his intention is also for warmth, it is forbidden.

They further wrote: Regarding marks that the launderers and the weavers weave into garments so that each person may recognize his own—if there was a mark of wool in linen or linen in wool, this is forbidden, even though it is of no importance to him. Thus far his words. And this is a Mishnah at the end of Kilayim, see there; for since this is a garment, even a single thread constitutes shaatnez. And it is stated in the Yerushalmi there (Halacha 1) that when they brought garments to Rabbi Shmuel from the laundry, he would seat tailors to identify if there were marks of shaatnez there. And it appears that this is with a gentile laundress, for a Jewish woman would not do so. It is further stated there that he would command the members of his household not to place spun wool near spun linen, so that the threads would not become mixed one with the other, see there.