Siman 302

It is stated in Niddah (61b): Rav Hisda said: A garment in which shaatnez was lost, one dyes it and it is permitted, for through the dye it is recognized, as wool and linen together do not take the dye equally, since linen is harder to receive the dye than wool, and he will recognize the location of the linen or the wool. And if it is not recognized, this is a sign that one of them fell out, see there. And he established that this is a definitive sign. And I have a question regarding this: if so, why did we learn there in a baraita that a garment in which shaatnez was lost, he shall not sell it and shall not make a pack-saddle, but he may make it into shrouds? For this implies that there is no other remedy, yet there is a remedy through dyeing. And more difficult than this: if so, Rabbi in the Yerushalmi who burned such a garment, as I wrote in siman 301, section 20—behold, he has a test through dyeing.

And it appears to me that there are two types of garments in which shaatnez was lost: the first is when some wool threads were mixed into a linen garment or vice versa, and in this case, there is a remedy through dyeing. However, when wool and linen threads were mixed that are twisted and woven together, this recognition is not applicable since each thread does not stand on its own, and it is regarding this that the Baraita and that which Rabbi [said] in the Yerushalmi deal. And a proof for this is that the Rambam in chapter 10, law 27, wrote this law in this wording: A wool garment in which a thread of linen was lost, or a linen garment in which a thread of wool was lost, etc. And what is the remedy for this garment? He dyes it, for wool and linen do not take the same dye, and immediately it is recognizable to him and he plucks it out. And if it is not recognized, it is permitted, for perhaps it was plucked and is gone, since he searched and did not find it; and we have already explained that every prohibition of doubts is from the words of the Scribes, and therefore they were lenient regarding a doubt. Thus far his words. And why did he change from the wording of the Shas to say "a thread of linen was lost in it" and not "shaatnez was lost in it," if not to inform us that this examination is not for every loss of shaatnez, but only for threads that stand on their own.

And behold, from the wording of the Rambam who wrote "perhaps it fell off," it is clear that this is not a certainty. This is also implied somewhat from the wording of the Gemara there which said: "And since it is not known, say that it surely fell off." However, Rashi wrote there, this is his wording: "And if it is not recognizable in the dye, it certainly fell off." Thus far his words. And it appears that he interprets "say that it surely fell off" as meaning we say it surely fell off. And against the reasoning of the Rambam, the Ra'avad raised a difficulty: for while it is true that all doubts are of rabbinic origin, nevertheless we maintain that a doubt regarding a Torah law is ruled stringently. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his book Kesef Mishneh, answered that since it is an uncommon matter, the rabbis did not decree; see there. And they challenged him on this, for this is certainly common (Taz, subsection 2). Rather, it should be said that according to the Torah, once he has inspected it, the prohibition is completely nullified; however, according to rabbinic law it is not nullified, and it is treated as a rabbinic prohibition (ibid.). The wording of the Rambam is difficult according to this, as is understood.

In my humble opinion, the Rambam follows his consistent approach, for even though we say a doubt regarding a Torah law is treated stringently, nevertheless, since the prohibition is rabbinic, there are places where the sages were lenient regarding a doubt according to what appeared proper to them. This is what he wrote in chapter 18 of Hilkhot Issurei Biah, law 18, and this is his wording: Since the prohibition of all doubts is entirely from the words of the scribes, therefore they were lenient regarding a captive woman. Thus far his words. And in chapter 5 of Hilkhot Shehitah, law 3, he wrote: Even though all the terefot are a law given to Moses from Sinai etc. there are some among them whose doubt is permitted. Thus far his words. And in chapter 9 of Hilkhot Tumat Met, law 12, he wrote regarding several doubts that it is pure, and concludes the reason is because all doubts are from the words of the scribes; see there. And here too, this is his intention, that because it is from the words of the scribes, therefore they were lenient in the doubt; meaning, that the sages saw fit to be lenient in this doubt for the reason that he should not lose the garment, and in most instances the inspection is effective, so presumably today as well it was effective, and the shaatnez was removed and is gone. In any event, we have heard from his words that this law applies even to shaatnez of the Torah, and this is not the opinion of the Tur, as will be explained in section 6.

And know that it is further stated there in the Gemara in the name of Mar Zutra: One who casts linen threads into a woolen garment and pulled them out, but does not know if he pulled them all out or did not pull them all out, it is permitted. What is the reason? According to the Torah, it is not shaatnez until it is combed, spun, and twisted, and it is the rabbis who decreed regarding it; and since he does not know, etc., it is permitted. The Rambam did not bring this law, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that his reason is because he holds that according to the Torah it is kilayim with combing alone. This is all according to his approach regarding the opinion of the Rambam, but according to what we explained at the beginning of siman 301, it is not so. Rather, his reason for omitting this is simple: according to the statement of Rav Hananel, the statement of Mar Zutra is nullified, for since it is possible to clarify by means of dyeing, it is obvious that he is obligated to clarify. I am surprised that they labored over this (and in threads there is kilayim according to the Torah and according to the rabbis, as I wrote in siman 301).

But the Tur wrote: A wool garment in which a linen thread was woven and it is not recognizable, he should dye it and it will be recognizable and he shall remove it, for wool and linen do not take the same dye; or he may pluck one thread from it and it is permitted, for we hang the matter on saying that he removed the shaatnez thread. In what case does this apply? Regarding rabbinic shaatnez, but regarding Torah shaatnez we do not hang the matter leniently in their doubt. Thus far his words. And it appears in my humble opinion that for the Tur the two statements we brought were difficult, and it was not pleasing to him to say that they argue according to the opinion of the Rambam who omitted that of Mar Zutra as I wrote in the previous section. Therefore, he holds that they do not argue with one another and either one of them is effective, and therefore the Gemara arranged the two statements one after the other. And it was difficult for the Tur how we may rely on this, to which he says that this is regarding rabbinic shaatnez, and in rabbinic matters we hang the matter on "for I say" as I wrote in siman 111. And it is clear that the intention of the Tur is that even the statement regarding dyeing is regarding rabbinic shaatnez and not Torah law, and as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, understood in his great book. And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote regarding that of dyeing: In what case does this apply? Regarding rabbinic shaatnez, etc. See there. And there is one who says that his intention is only regarding that of plucking (Taz, subsection 2, and the Gra), and these are puzzling words, for he who sees will see clearly that the Tur assembled these two laws together in one manner for the reason we explained (and that which the Taz questioned, that he compares it to one who checks until he reaches a rock which is Torah law, I am utterly amazed, for the Rambam explicitly wrote in chapter 9 of Laws of Ritual Impurity of a Corpse, halacha 10, regarding this law that this is rabbinic even before the checking, see there in halacha 12; and therefore the Rambam was indeed wise here to make it a doubt as there, and as I wrote in section 4, and aside from what we wrote previously, and delve into it).

However, in this regard they wondered about the Tur, who wrote "he should detach one thread from it and it is permitted, for we attribute it to saying that he removed the thread of shaatnez," for in the Gemara they only permitted it if it was detached, but not ab initio. They wrote that the Tur interprets "and he detached it" as intentional, and regarding rabbinic shaatnez they were lenient (Bach and Taz). And even though the language "and he detached it" implies that he detached the shaatnez, for if not so, it should have said "and it was detached," yet it is impossible to interpret it thus, for if so, how could it say "and he did not know if he detached it"? Certainly the Tur is referring to where it is not recognizable, and therefore the Tur interprets that when one of them is detached, we attribute it [to the shaatnez] in cases of rabbinic shaatnez, and in order that he not lose the garment, they were lenient in this (ibid.).

The Rambam wrote: One who buys a wool garment from a star-worshiper must inspect it very well, lest it be sewn with linen. Thus far his words. And regarding the reverse—to buy a linen garment and be concerned lest it be sewn with wool—it implies that there is no concern, because it is not the way to sew with wool threads. This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 2: One who buys a wool garment, etc., and even if the star-worshiper speaks in passing that he sewed them with hemp, he is not believed. Thus far his words. And seemingly, the reason appears to be because one who speaks in passing is only believed regarding the testimony of a woman; however, in a case where a prohibition is not established and regarding a rabbinic prohibition, he is believed when speaking in passing, as written at the end of siman 137. Therefore, they wrote the reason is because they know that for an Israelite there is a prohibition in this, and that the Israelite seeks out hemp threads; therefore, he says so in order to improve his sale (Taz and Shach). The Rosh also wrote this reason. They further wrote that one who buys garments from a star-worshiper must undo their sewing and sew them with hemp. Thus far his words. Meaning, so that we should not say that they only were concerned for this initially and not after the fact, it comes to teach us that even after the fact, and even if there is great exertion, and even if it is only a rabbinic prohibition—such as if it is known that the threads are not combed, spun, and twisted—nevertheless, it is forbidden to wear them, for there is a presumption that they were sewn with linen. However, there are details in this, as will be explained.

For behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: And in places where flax is more expensive than hemp, one may rely [on this] to permit it. Thus far his words. And according to this, now in all our countries it is so, that flax is more expensive, and behold there is room to permit it. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this, and this is his wording: And it is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to sew garments for him with hemp threads, even though flax is more expensive, for it is easier to sew with flax than with hemp. Thus far his words. And seemingly, he contradicts the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and he should have written it in the phrasing of "there are those who say." However, his intention is this: that while it is true that in places where flax is more expensive one may rely [on this] and permit it, this is post facto, when he has already bought the garment, we rely on this; but ab initio, to tell him [to do so], one may not rely on this, because against the high price there is the advantage that it is easier to sew with flax than with hemp, and he will sew with flax and say that he sewed with hemp (Shach, subsection 3). And like the words of our teacher, the Rema, it is explicit in the Responsa of the Rashba (siman 761), and this is his wording: And more than what the tailor gains in the cost of the hemp, he loses in the labor of his sewing, for he will sew with flax in an hour what he would not sew with hemp in an hour and a half, see there. And it is explained that besides it being easier, he loses in the loss of time.

Nevertheless, it is not satisfactory to me that our teacher, the Rema, would rely on this alone to distinguish between lekhatchila and b'dieved. Therefore, it appears to me according to what the Rash wrote in chapter 9, mishnah 7, and this is his wording: And one may rely in our locales to permit it because flax is more expensive than hemp, and it is better for the craftsman to sew with it because the thread is strong at the time of sewing. Thus far his words. And the Semag wrote similarly in negative commandment 283, and this is his wording: And our teacher Shimshon wrote that it is to be permitted in France because hemp is cheaper and also stronger for sewing, and also my teacher Ri said so because most of them sew with hemp. Thus far his words. And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Rema, follow perfectly, for with garments that one takes from a gentile who made the garments for himself, he certainly sewed them with hemp so that they would be stronger; this is not the case when an Israelite gives him a garment to sew, for he is not concerned with its strength, and therefore he is not to be believed that he will sew them with hemp threads; even though they are cheap compared to flax threads, nevertheless they are difficult for sewing, as the Rashba wrote (see the Bach and the Taz, subsection 4, who were pressed in his words, and according to what I wrote it is well understood, and examine it closely).

Nevertheless, if the Israelite gives him hemp threads, our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: But if he gives him hemp threads, it is permitted, and we do not fear an exchange since the matter can be verified, for linen threads extinguish quickly when lit, while those of hemp continue to burn; and such is the custom, even though there are those who are stringent. An Israelite who is suspected of sewing shaatnez has the same law as a gentile. And there are those who are stringent not to sew wool with white hemp so that they do not suspect him that it is linen, and therefore they dye the hemp. Thus far his words. And behold, the sign that he wrote, we have tested it several times and found it to be so. However, there are great authorities who challenged this and say that this is not a definitive sign and sometimes it is not so, and one should not rely on this sign (Shelah and Responsa Pnei Yehoshua). Furthermore, they know that the Israelite will not be meticulous to check after him whether he sewed them with hemp or with linen. And there are those who wrote another sign: that they pull the thread until hairs are pulled out, and if those hairs are very long, it is known that it is hemp (Shach, subsection 5, in the name of Ma'adanei Yom Tov).

And according to what appears from the words of our teachers, in their days there were only threads of either flax or hemp. But now in our time, the majority of the threads with which the craftsmen sew are cotton threads, which are called "baumwoll," and they are the primary threads and are sold by the thousands and tens of thousands in the shops, and they go around small cylinders about two fingers in length, and they call these "kletzelach." And the tailors told me that they sew with them because they are very good for sewing and their strength is very great.