אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָרְחֹתֵיהֶ֣ם עִקְּשִׁ֑ים וּ֝נְלוֹזִ֗ים בְּמַעְגְּלוֹתָֽם׃
dont les voies sont tortueuses et les sentiers pleins de détours.
Ramban
NEITHER SHALL THERE COME UPON THEE A GARMENT ‘KILAYIM SHA’ATNEIZ’109Literally: “mixed of two kinds of stuff.” (MIXED OF LINEN AND WOOL). “Why is this stated [here, since in Deuteronomy 22:11 quoted further on it is more explicitly stated]? But because it is said [there in Deuteronomy], Thou shalt not wear ‘sha’atneiz’ (a mingled stuff), wool and linen together,110Deuteronomy 22:11. I might think that one is not to wear [loose pieces of] wool-shearings and stalks of flax; Scripture therefore states, a garment, [thus excluding from the terms of the prohibition the wearing of loose pieces of wool and flax which have not been woven together into a garment]. Whence do I know to include felted stuff [of linen and wool, which, though not spun and woven, are pressed into one material and worn as a garment]? Scripture therefore says, sha’atneiz — that which is shu’a (combed), tavui (spun) and nuz (twisted) together. And I say that the word nuz is an expression for materials which are compressed and twined one with the other to be joined [into a coherent web].” This is Rashi’s language.
But it does not appear to me to be correct, for felted stuff [of linen and wool] is not forbidden by law of the Torah, but only by enactment of the Rabbis, since it is only combed [but not spun and twisted, so why then did Rashi include it under the term sha’atneiz,] since that word implies all three actions — combing, spinning and twisting? And so we have been taught in a Mishnah:111Kilayim 9:9. “Felted stuff [of wool and linen] is forbidden because it is combed,” [which clearly indicates that it is not spun and twisted]. And in the Gemara the Rabbis have said:112Niddah 61 b. “Perhaps I might say [that Scripture prohibited wool and linen if they were] only combed, or spun, or twisted!” And the Gemara came to the conclusion: “The final law is as Mar Zutra [who said that this Scriptural prohibition applies only if all three acts were done], since the Merciful One expressed them all in one term” [sha’atneiz, which as mentioned above is a combination of three words: shu’a (combed), tavui (spun) and nuz (twisted)]. But the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim, stating:113Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 4:18. “I know only that a garment [must not be worn if made of wool and linen together]. But whence do I know to include felted stuff? From that which the verse states, sha’atneiz” — that Beraitha intends to include things which are not “a garment,” on the basis of the verse Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,110Deuteronomy 22:11. since the word “garment” is not mentioned there, [but it does not intend to teach, as Rashi interpreted it, that wool and linen even if only combed but not spun and twisted, are already forbidden as sha’atneiz]. This interpretation [of the Torath Kohanim] is a basic principle, since even an article which is not “a garment” [if worn as a vestment] is also forbidden by law of the Torah to be made of wool and linen, such as where one plaits threads [of wool and linen] and makes of them a belt, or anything similar, providing only that the threads were combed, spun and twisted. The Torath Kohanim mentioned “felted stuffs” merely as a Biblical support for a Rabbinical enactment, since these are forbidden only by the law of the Rabbis, as they are not “a garment” [because the two diverse materials are only combed, but not spun and twisted].
Similarly, in respect of that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote with reference to combing, that [the wool and linen] must also be compressed and twisted together, and in a similar manner he also wrote in his commentaries to the Gemara,114Yebamoth 5 b; Niddah 61 b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 122. other scholars,115Tosafoth, Yebamoth 5 b. have already commented that Rashi’s interpretation is not in accord with what the Rabbis have said [in the following text of the Talmud]:116Menachoth 39 a. To understand the following text it is necessary to clarify these two points: (a) The commandment of Tzitzith (Fringes) consists of making for each of the four corners of the garment four threads specially woven for that purpose. They are then passed through a hole situated a few thumbs’ breadth away from each of the four corners, the threads are doubled, and two knots are then formed at the lower edge of the garment, followed by a series of windings and other double knots (see “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 22, for precise details). (b) A cardinal principle in Torah law is that, subject to certain general exceptions, any duty of fulfilling a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment (see Ramban on Exodus 20:8 — Vol. II, pp. 309-310). This is derived from the juxtaposition of these two verses: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. Thou shalt make twisted cords upon the four corners of thy covering, wherewith thou coverest thyself (Deuteronomy 22:11-12). The closeness of the two verses intimates that the commandment of Fringes overrides the prohibition of sha’atneiz, so that the Fringes may be made with threads of wool even if the garment itself is of linen. — The Gemara now argues on the basis of the second principle mentioned, that we must say that the upper knots [formed at the lower edge of the garment] after the four threads are passed through the opening and doubled, are obligatory by law of the Torah, “for should you think etc.” “You must deduce from this117I.e., from the fact that the Torah intimated a special permission showing that the commandment of the Fringes overrides the prohibition of wearing sha’atneiz (see Note 116 (b)). that the upper knots118“Knots.” The Hebrew is kesher — “knot” in the singular. But Ramban himself further on refers to “two knots” which are made at the lower edge of the garment. Basically, however, it is the first knot with which we are concerned, since if the threads are of wool and the garment of linen, and they are joined together with only one knot, which holds them together, nonetheless the prohibition of sha’atneiz would be incurred by wearing them afterwards, were it not for the fact that in that case the Torah especially permitted it. in the Fringes are required by Scriptural law. For if you should think that they are not required by Scriptural law, why then did the Merciful One have to state a [special] permission for using mingled stuff of wool and linen in Fringes! Do we not hold the law to be established that if one fastens two pieces together with only one stitch, it is not considered joined!”119Hence if the commandment of the Fringes required merely the passing of the four threads through the hole, and then doubling them, without tying them with a knot, there would have been no need for the Torah to intimate a special permission for sha’atneiz in Fringes, since the woolen threads and linen garment would not be considered “joined together.” But if, on the other hand, after the threads are passed through the opening and are doubled they must then be tied with a knot, that constitutes already an act of joining the woolen Fringes and the linen garment together, which ordinarily would render it forbidden to be worn, and then we would understand that in the case of the Fringes, the Torah had to intimate a special permission. — Thus far is the reasoning of the Talmud. Ramban now deduces from it, that in order to be included in the prohibition of sha’atneiz it is not necessary that the wool and linen themselves be combed, spun and twisted together, as Rashi had written. Thus the Rabbis [of the Talmud] have revealed to us that a garment made of linen, in which woolen fringes have been tied with two knots, constitutes diverse kinds by law of the Torah, even though they have not been compressed and twined together!
Rather, the matter is as follows: Scripture here stated, Neither shall there come upon thee a garment ‘kilayim sha’atneiz,’ meaning to say that every garment that is made of a thread which has been combed, spun and twisted, we should not wear if it is kilayim, that is, of mingled stuff. And in the Book of Deuteronomy He explained in addition that we should not wear anything which was combed, spun and twisted of wool and linen if they be together, that is to say, if the wool and linen are joined together with [at least] two stitches. This means to say that [even] if the wool and linen were each combed, spun and twisted separately, they may not be attached together, for when they are joined they constitute kilayim (mingled stuff); just as He said [in the preceding verse there], Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together,120Deuteronomy 22:10. Now just as in this case the prohibition applies to joining together in work an ox and an ass, which are two separate creatures, even so in the verse on sha’atneiz which follows, the prohibition applies only where the thread of wool was treated to all three actions separately, and so also the thread of linen, and then they were both joined together. that is to say, if they are tied and joined to each other. And in the case of garments, fastening with two stitches already constitutes “joining” them, it being derived by the Rabbis from the word together [wool and linen ‘together’] that two stitches constitute a joining together. From there [i.e., from the verse in Deuteronomy where the word “garment” is not mentioned, as it is here in the verse before us], the Rabbis have learned that mingled stuff is forbidden although they are not in a garment, but even if one plaited threads of thick material, and made of them belts, although they were not woven [for a vestment], similar to what we are taught in a Mishnah:121Kilayim 9:9. “One may not tie a cord of wool on to one made of linen, in order to bind up the loins.” And the expression nuz [in the word sha’atneiz] is a shortened word122Meaning: “naloz (he preverses) umeiliez (and turns) his Father in heaven against him” (ibid., 9:8). “The word nuz is thus an expression of perverseness and crookedness, similar to the twisting of threads with each other. It is for this reason that the Merciful One had to permit expressly kilayim in Fringes, since in the case of the Fringes the threads must be twisted” (Ramban in his commentary to Tractate Niddah, 61b). See further in the text before us. in this composite term, just like the word tavui (spun), of which there is only the letter teth [in the word sha’atneiz]. And the meaning thereof [i.e., of the word nuz] is in my opinion like the word naloz (perversing), of the expressions: an abomination to the Eternal is ‘naloz’ (the perverse),123Proverbs 3:32. meaning he who turns aside and perverses his paths; ‘unelozim’ (and perverse) in their paths,124Ibid., 2:15. meaning those who are crooked and turn aside [unto their crooked ways],125See Psalms 125:5. for anything which is spun [like a thread] is turned and crooked. This is similar to what we are taught in a Mishnah:126Kilayim 9:8. “Rabbi Shimon127In our text of the Mishnah: “Rabbi Shimon the son of Elazar.” Ramban’s version, however, suggests that it is Rabbi Shimon the son of Yochai, who is always referred to as “Rabbi Shimon” without further qualification. says: [The meaning of the word sha’atneiz is that he who disregards this law] is perverse and turns his Father in heaven against him,” meaning to say that the Glorious Name turns away His merciful ways from him, similar to what is said, and with the crooked Thou dost show Thyself subtle.128II Samuel 22:27. And in the language of the Sages, this word [naloz] is used in a shortened form, thus:129Shemoth Rabbah 37:2. “This can be compared to a king’s son sh’noz130In our text of the Shemoth Rabbah the word is sh’zachah da’ato alav — “whose mind was charged with haughtiness upon him.” Ramban will later on explain the text before us as meaning: “who turned [or perverted] his heart into an evil path.” his heart upon him, and he took a digging tool to undermine his father’s house,” [the word sh’noz meaning] that “he turned his heart to an evil path.” It is of the same root [as the word naloz, in its shortened form nuz], that the Sages have said in the Talmud [in Tractate] Sanhedrin:131Sanhedrin 41 b. “Minizyathei132In our text of the Gemara: minezihuthei, which Rashi explains as meaning: “if you had wanted ‘to rail at us’ we could not have answered you at all. But as you spoke kindly, we will tell you many things that we have said about it.” Ramban will explain the text before us [which conforms to the reading of the Munich Talmud manuscript] as meaning: “if you had wanted to turn away the matter from the right course etc.” of the master, we could not have answered him at all,” that is to say, if you had wanted to insist and turn away the matter [from the right course], we would not have known how to answer you at all. Nizyathei is thus like nilzyathei, that is to say, “his turning away” from the correct path. This is the true and correct interpretation in this matter [of sha’atneiz]. It was for this reason that it was necessary for the Torah to grant permission for kilayim (mingled stuff) in Fringes,133See above, Note 116 (b). Ramban’s intention is that although the woolen Fringes are not plaited or woven together with the cloth of the four-cornered garment, to which they are later attached, nonetheless since the Fringes are themselves combed, spun and twisted, and then attached to the cloth which was likewise combed, spun and twisted, as explained above, that is a sufficient “mingling of stuffs” to constitute sha’atneiz. Hence it was necessary for the Torah to grant permission etc., although the Fringes are not plaited and do not constitute a garment. This then is the law of the Torah [i.e., if the linen garment was made of threads which were combed, spun and twisted, and the woolen threads were likewise combed, spun and twisted, then these two kinds of threads must not be joined together]. However, the Sages prohibited it even if the threads were only made in one way — either combed, or spun, or twisted. It is for this reason that we have been taught in a Mishnah:111Kilayim 9:9. “Felted stuff [of wool and linen] is forbidden because it is combed. An edging of wool on a linen garment134Even though the woolen edging is not woven together with the linen garment, but is merely attached to it by some artificial means (Tifereth Yisrael, Kilayim 9:9, Note 46). is forbidden since it interlaces the web of the garment.” All these are prohibited by law of the Rabbis.135In summary then, two major differences of opinion have appeared between Rashi and Ramban on the law of sha’atneiz: (a) According to Rashi the Scriptural prohibition applies where the wool and linen were either combed, or spun, or twisted. Hence felted stuff which is only combed, is forbidden by law of the Torah. According to Ramban, the Scriptural prohibition applies only where the wool and linen went through the process of all three acts mentioned, and therefore felted stuff which is only combed, is forbidden only by enactment of the Rabbis. (b) According to Rashi the prohibition of sha’atneiz applies where the wool and linen were combed [or spun or twisted] together. According to Ramban, the prohibition applies where the threads of wool were separately combed, spun and twisted, and likewise the threads of linen were combed, spun and twisted, and then they were both attached to each other with a minimum of two stitches, or tied with a knot. — Rambam’s presentation of this law follows that of Rashi, while the Rashba follows that of Ramban.
Now the reason for the prohibition of mingled stuff in garments is in order to keep far away from the mixing together of different species, and He therefore prohibited [the threads, i.e., of wool and linen] from which garments are usually made. But the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] had said in the Moreh Nebuchim136Guide of the Perplexed III, 37. that the reason for the prohibition of wearing a garment made of wool and linen, is because at that time this kind of garment was used by the priests and magicians to adorn themselves when performing their activities, and he [Maimonides] says that he found it so written in their books. And since this was for them a matter of great importance, and very much desired by them in order that they should do their activities [in honor of] the idols and demons, therefore the Torah removed it from being worn by all people, since the Torah intends to blot out their deeds and efface their memory.
But it does not appear to me to be correct, for felted stuff [of linen and wool] is not forbidden by law of the Torah, but only by enactment of the Rabbis, since it is only combed [but not spun and twisted, so why then did Rashi include it under the term sha’atneiz,] since that word implies all three actions — combing, spinning and twisting? And so we have been taught in a Mishnah:111Kilayim 9:9. “Felted stuff [of wool and linen] is forbidden because it is combed,” [which clearly indicates that it is not spun and twisted]. And in the Gemara the Rabbis have said:112Niddah 61 b. “Perhaps I might say [that Scripture prohibited wool and linen if they were] only combed, or spun, or twisted!” And the Gemara came to the conclusion: “The final law is as Mar Zutra [who said that this Scriptural prohibition applies only if all three acts were done], since the Merciful One expressed them all in one term” [sha’atneiz, which as mentioned above is a combination of three words: shu’a (combed), tavui (spun) and nuz (twisted)]. But the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim, stating:113Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 4:18. “I know only that a garment [must not be worn if made of wool and linen together]. But whence do I know to include felted stuff? From that which the verse states, sha’atneiz” — that Beraitha intends to include things which are not “a garment,” on the basis of the verse Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,110Deuteronomy 22:11. since the word “garment” is not mentioned there, [but it does not intend to teach, as Rashi interpreted it, that wool and linen even if only combed but not spun and twisted, are already forbidden as sha’atneiz]. This interpretation [of the Torath Kohanim] is a basic principle, since even an article which is not “a garment” [if worn as a vestment] is also forbidden by law of the Torah to be made of wool and linen, such as where one plaits threads [of wool and linen] and makes of them a belt, or anything similar, providing only that the threads were combed, spun and twisted. The Torath Kohanim mentioned “felted stuffs” merely as a Biblical support for a Rabbinical enactment, since these are forbidden only by the law of the Rabbis, as they are not “a garment” [because the two diverse materials are only combed, but not spun and twisted].
Similarly, in respect of that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote with reference to combing, that [the wool and linen] must also be compressed and twisted together, and in a similar manner he also wrote in his commentaries to the Gemara,114Yebamoth 5 b; Niddah 61 b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 122. other scholars,115Tosafoth, Yebamoth 5 b. have already commented that Rashi’s interpretation is not in accord with what the Rabbis have said [in the following text of the Talmud]:116Menachoth 39 a. To understand the following text it is necessary to clarify these two points: (a) The commandment of Tzitzith (Fringes) consists of making for each of the four corners of the garment four threads specially woven for that purpose. They are then passed through a hole situated a few thumbs’ breadth away from each of the four corners, the threads are doubled, and two knots are then formed at the lower edge of the garment, followed by a series of windings and other double knots (see “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 22, for precise details). (b) A cardinal principle in Torah law is that, subject to certain general exceptions, any duty of fulfilling a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment (see Ramban on Exodus 20:8 — Vol. II, pp. 309-310). This is derived from the juxtaposition of these two verses: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. Thou shalt make twisted cords upon the four corners of thy covering, wherewith thou coverest thyself (Deuteronomy 22:11-12). The closeness of the two verses intimates that the commandment of Fringes overrides the prohibition of sha’atneiz, so that the Fringes may be made with threads of wool even if the garment itself is of linen. — The Gemara now argues on the basis of the second principle mentioned, that we must say that the upper knots [formed at the lower edge of the garment] after the four threads are passed through the opening and doubled, are obligatory by law of the Torah, “for should you think etc.” “You must deduce from this117I.e., from the fact that the Torah intimated a special permission showing that the commandment of the Fringes overrides the prohibition of wearing sha’atneiz (see Note 116 (b)). that the upper knots118“Knots.” The Hebrew is kesher — “knot” in the singular. But Ramban himself further on refers to “two knots” which are made at the lower edge of the garment. Basically, however, it is the first knot with which we are concerned, since if the threads are of wool and the garment of linen, and they are joined together with only one knot, which holds them together, nonetheless the prohibition of sha’atneiz would be incurred by wearing them afterwards, were it not for the fact that in that case the Torah especially permitted it. in the Fringes are required by Scriptural law. For if you should think that they are not required by Scriptural law, why then did the Merciful One have to state a [special] permission for using mingled stuff of wool and linen in Fringes! Do we not hold the law to be established that if one fastens two pieces together with only one stitch, it is not considered joined!”119Hence if the commandment of the Fringes required merely the passing of the four threads through the hole, and then doubling them, without tying them with a knot, there would have been no need for the Torah to intimate a special permission for sha’atneiz in Fringes, since the woolen threads and linen garment would not be considered “joined together.” But if, on the other hand, after the threads are passed through the opening and are doubled they must then be tied with a knot, that constitutes already an act of joining the woolen Fringes and the linen garment together, which ordinarily would render it forbidden to be worn, and then we would understand that in the case of the Fringes, the Torah had to intimate a special permission. — Thus far is the reasoning of the Talmud. Ramban now deduces from it, that in order to be included in the prohibition of sha’atneiz it is not necessary that the wool and linen themselves be combed, spun and twisted together, as Rashi had written. Thus the Rabbis [of the Talmud] have revealed to us that a garment made of linen, in which woolen fringes have been tied with two knots, constitutes diverse kinds by law of the Torah, even though they have not been compressed and twined together!
Rather, the matter is as follows: Scripture here stated, Neither shall there come upon thee a garment ‘kilayim sha’atneiz,’ meaning to say that every garment that is made of a thread which has been combed, spun and twisted, we should not wear if it is kilayim, that is, of mingled stuff. And in the Book of Deuteronomy He explained in addition that we should not wear anything which was combed, spun and twisted of wool and linen if they be together, that is to say, if the wool and linen are joined together with [at least] two stitches. This means to say that [even] if the wool and linen were each combed, spun and twisted separately, they may not be attached together, for when they are joined they constitute kilayim (mingled stuff); just as He said [in the preceding verse there], Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together,120Deuteronomy 22:10. Now just as in this case the prohibition applies to joining together in work an ox and an ass, which are two separate creatures, even so in the verse on sha’atneiz which follows, the prohibition applies only where the thread of wool was treated to all three actions separately, and so also the thread of linen, and then they were both joined together. that is to say, if they are tied and joined to each other. And in the case of garments, fastening with two stitches already constitutes “joining” them, it being derived by the Rabbis from the word together [wool and linen ‘together’] that two stitches constitute a joining together. From there [i.e., from the verse in Deuteronomy where the word “garment” is not mentioned, as it is here in the verse before us], the Rabbis have learned that mingled stuff is forbidden although they are not in a garment, but even if one plaited threads of thick material, and made of them belts, although they were not woven [for a vestment], similar to what we are taught in a Mishnah:121Kilayim 9:9. “One may not tie a cord of wool on to one made of linen, in order to bind up the loins.” And the expression nuz [in the word sha’atneiz] is a shortened word122Meaning: “naloz (he preverses) umeiliez (and turns) his Father in heaven against him” (ibid., 9:8). “The word nuz is thus an expression of perverseness and crookedness, similar to the twisting of threads with each other. It is for this reason that the Merciful One had to permit expressly kilayim in Fringes, since in the case of the Fringes the threads must be twisted” (Ramban in his commentary to Tractate Niddah, 61b). See further in the text before us. in this composite term, just like the word tavui (spun), of which there is only the letter teth [in the word sha’atneiz]. And the meaning thereof [i.e., of the word nuz] is in my opinion like the word naloz (perversing), of the expressions: an abomination to the Eternal is ‘naloz’ (the perverse),123Proverbs 3:32. meaning he who turns aside and perverses his paths; ‘unelozim’ (and perverse) in their paths,124Ibid., 2:15. meaning those who are crooked and turn aside [unto their crooked ways],125See Psalms 125:5. for anything which is spun [like a thread] is turned and crooked. This is similar to what we are taught in a Mishnah:126Kilayim 9:8. “Rabbi Shimon127In our text of the Mishnah: “Rabbi Shimon the son of Elazar.” Ramban’s version, however, suggests that it is Rabbi Shimon the son of Yochai, who is always referred to as “Rabbi Shimon” without further qualification. says: [The meaning of the word sha’atneiz is that he who disregards this law] is perverse and turns his Father in heaven against him,” meaning to say that the Glorious Name turns away His merciful ways from him, similar to what is said, and with the crooked Thou dost show Thyself subtle.128II Samuel 22:27. And in the language of the Sages, this word [naloz] is used in a shortened form, thus:129Shemoth Rabbah 37:2. “This can be compared to a king’s son sh’noz130In our text of the Shemoth Rabbah the word is sh’zachah da’ato alav — “whose mind was charged with haughtiness upon him.” Ramban will later on explain the text before us as meaning: “who turned [or perverted] his heart into an evil path.” his heart upon him, and he took a digging tool to undermine his father’s house,” [the word sh’noz meaning] that “he turned his heart to an evil path.” It is of the same root [as the word naloz, in its shortened form nuz], that the Sages have said in the Talmud [in Tractate] Sanhedrin:131Sanhedrin 41 b. “Minizyathei132In our text of the Gemara: minezihuthei, which Rashi explains as meaning: “if you had wanted ‘to rail at us’ we could not have answered you at all. But as you spoke kindly, we will tell you many things that we have said about it.” Ramban will explain the text before us [which conforms to the reading of the Munich Talmud manuscript] as meaning: “if you had wanted to turn away the matter from the right course etc.” of the master, we could not have answered him at all,” that is to say, if you had wanted to insist and turn away the matter [from the right course], we would not have known how to answer you at all. Nizyathei is thus like nilzyathei, that is to say, “his turning away” from the correct path. This is the true and correct interpretation in this matter [of sha’atneiz]. It was for this reason that it was necessary for the Torah to grant permission for kilayim (mingled stuff) in Fringes,133See above, Note 116 (b). Ramban’s intention is that although the woolen Fringes are not plaited or woven together with the cloth of the four-cornered garment, to which they are later attached, nonetheless since the Fringes are themselves combed, spun and twisted, and then attached to the cloth which was likewise combed, spun and twisted, as explained above, that is a sufficient “mingling of stuffs” to constitute sha’atneiz. Hence it was necessary for the Torah to grant permission etc., although the Fringes are not plaited and do not constitute a garment. This then is the law of the Torah [i.e., if the linen garment was made of threads which were combed, spun and twisted, and the woolen threads were likewise combed, spun and twisted, then these two kinds of threads must not be joined together]. However, the Sages prohibited it even if the threads were only made in one way — either combed, or spun, or twisted. It is for this reason that we have been taught in a Mishnah:111Kilayim 9:9. “Felted stuff [of wool and linen] is forbidden because it is combed. An edging of wool on a linen garment134Even though the woolen edging is not woven together with the linen garment, but is merely attached to it by some artificial means (Tifereth Yisrael, Kilayim 9:9, Note 46). is forbidden since it interlaces the web of the garment.” All these are prohibited by law of the Rabbis.135In summary then, two major differences of opinion have appeared between Rashi and Ramban on the law of sha’atneiz: (a) According to Rashi the Scriptural prohibition applies where the wool and linen were either combed, or spun, or twisted. Hence felted stuff which is only combed, is forbidden by law of the Torah. According to Ramban, the Scriptural prohibition applies only where the wool and linen went through the process of all three acts mentioned, and therefore felted stuff which is only combed, is forbidden only by enactment of the Rabbis. (b) According to Rashi the prohibition of sha’atneiz applies where the wool and linen were combed [or spun or twisted] together. According to Ramban, the prohibition applies where the threads of wool were separately combed, spun and twisted, and likewise the threads of linen were combed, spun and twisted, and then they were both attached to each other with a minimum of two stitches, or tied with a knot. — Rambam’s presentation of this law follows that of Rashi, while the Rashba follows that of Ramban.
Now the reason for the prohibition of mingled stuff in garments is in order to keep far away from the mixing together of different species, and He therefore prohibited [the threads, i.e., of wool and linen] from which garments are usually made. But the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] had said in the Moreh Nebuchim136Guide of the Perplexed III, 37. that the reason for the prohibition of wearing a garment made of wool and linen, is because at that time this kind of garment was used by the priests and magicians to adorn themselves when performing their activities, and he [Maimonides] says that he found it so written in their books. And since this was for them a matter of great importance, and very much desired by them in order that they should do their activities [in honor of] the idols and demons, therefore the Torah removed it from being worn by all people, since the Torah intends to blot out their deeds and efface their memory.
Rabbeinu Bahya
It follows that the two trees in the centre of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, refer to the positive and the negative commandments which are rooted in the Torah. The word האדם is an allusion to intellect an abstract part of man. G-d did not consider it good for this intellect to be alone as it needed an instrument by means of which its achievements could become manifest and which would be his assistant when performing the commandments of the Torah. This instrument would be matter rather than something abstract like the intellect. Seeing that man had been created as a combination of body and spirit it needed a partner in order to ensure the continuity of the species by means of offspring. This is similar to the body being a partner to the intellect in matters pertaining to intellectual pursuits. The helpmate in question was woman. The very name of woman contains an allusion to גוף, body. Solomon compared matter to woman when he said in Proverbs 2,16 להצילך מאשה זרה, “to save you from the alien woman.” He meant that matter by definition is not part of the intellect, but it is necessary in order to become the receptacle of the intellect’s activity. Woman is such an instrument. Matter reflects the form and accepts the shapes the intellect dictates to it. The serpent i.e. נחש, represents an allusion to the evil urge, as we find the word מ-נחש which expresses an attempt to seduce and to put man to a test. The serpent began the dialogue with the woman, i.e. it addressed itself to חומר, matter. It began with the word אף, anger, seeing that anger and wrath are derivatives of the power of Satan.
Now to explain what it was exactly that the serpent was saying: אף כי אמר אלוקים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן, “if G-d has said that you must not eat from any of the trees of the garden, this is equivalent to denying you any physical gratification at all. You would not benefit from all the good things to be found in the world. How could G-d have commanded something like this?” This was typical of the tactics of seduction employed by the evil urge, by Satan. The reason that he serpent spoke with woman and not with man is simply that the evil urge always addresses the physical side of man, i.e. the חומר, the material. It never tries to match wits with the power of the שכל, man’s reason.
Now to explain what it was exactly that the serpent was saying: אף כי אמר אלוקים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן, “if G-d has said that you must not eat from any of the trees of the garden, this is equivalent to denying you any physical gratification at all. You would not benefit from all the good things to be found in the world. How could G-d have commanded something like this?” This was typical of the tactics of seduction employed by the evil urge, by Satan. The reason that he serpent spoke with woman and not with man is simply that the evil urge always addresses the physical side of man, i.e. the חומר, the material. It never tries to match wits with the power of the שכל, man’s reason.