וְהַמַּטִּ֤ים עַֽקַלְקַלּוֹתָ֗ם יוֹלִיכֵ֣ם יְ֭הוָה אֶת־פֹּעֲלֵ֣י הָאָ֑וֶן שָׁ֝ל֗וֹם עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
אָבער די װאָס נײַגן זיך אױף זײערע קרומע װעגן, זײ װעט גאָט אַװעקפֿירן מיט די טוער פֿון אומרעכט. שלום אױף ישׂראל!
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.
Or HaChaim
לא הביט און ביעקב, "He has not seen iniquity in Jacob, etc." We must try and understand this by reference to a part of the Zohar called Raaye Mehemenuta volume 3 page 265 where we are told that when man sins, the sin leaves a physical impression on the part of his body with which he committed the sin. Our sages consider such parts of the body as being blemished. The meaning of the word און is the name of the physical blemish which results from the commission of a sin. Proverbs 30,20 describes the adulterous woman as saying לא פעלתי און, "I have not done any wrong." We find the same expression in Psalms 125,5: "The Lord makes them go the way of evil-doers." Bileam says that he could not detect any physical blemishes on the body of the people called Jacob which would bear testimomy to their having committed evil. We have already explained that Bileam described the "average" Israelite as יעקב, whereas he described the spiritual elite as ישראל. He meant that though, intellectually speaking, the Israelites had erred on occasion, the result never was serious enough as to leave a blemish on their bodies. Bileam took his cue from the description of the Jewish people in Song of Songs 4,7: כלך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך. "You are completely fair My beloved, you are totally free from any blemish." The sins the Israelites had been guilty of from time to time did not leave a permanent blemish, nothing that could not be cleansed by a thorough washing. Shir Hashirim Rabbah on Song of Songs 1,5 "I am black and yet beautiful" echoes this sentiment. ולא ראה עמל בישראל "neither has He seen perverseness in Israel." The word עמל usually means toil. Bileam means that G'd did not even find amongst the elite of Israel the kind of temporary blemish which can be scrubbed away only laboriously.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויהי עשו בן ארבעים שנה ויקח אשה את יהודית בת בארי החתי ואת בשמת, “when Esau had reached the age of forty he took as a wife Yehudit daughter of Be-eri the Hittite and Bosmas.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 65,1 interpreted the wording to mean that during the first forty years of his life Esau chased married women. When he attained the age at which his father had married his mother, he decided to emulate his father’s example and to take a wife also. He reasoned: “just as my father married at the age of forty, I shall do the same.” Concerning this strange attack of sudden piety on the part of Esau, Rabbi Pinchas quoted Rabbi Simon that it is strange that the pig has been mentioned only on two occasions by the prophets. Once by Moses who emphasized that it is unfit to be eaten by Jews (Leviticus 11,7), and the second time by Assaph in Psalms 80,14 “the wild boar gnaws at it and creatures of the field feed on it.” The psalmist uses the pig as an example of a creature which when “lying down” extends its hooves to display that it is a pure animal, while at all other times it unabashedly disregards civilized conduct. Esau, when getting ready to settle down, pretended to be following in the footsteps of his father by choosing the age at which his father had gotten married to emulate him. The nation descended from Esau also excels in pretending to apply civilized standards as something demanded of others while they themselves rob, plunder and murder. They have a record of perpetrating evil under the cloak of being servants of the Lord.
Both Esau’s wives were Hittites, Canaanites, members of the seven tribes whom the Jewish people have been instructed to exterminate if they do not vacate the land of Canaan first (Deut. 20,17). The Torah informs us that wicked Esau married wives belonging to a wicked people. The verse applied to the marriages of the wicked is found in Psalms 125,5: “but those who in their crookedness act corruptly, let the Lord make them go the way of the evildoers; peace on Israel.” The psalmist means that when the wicked join other evildoers the ultimate result will be peace for Israel as the wicked will self-destruct. Hail to Israel who do not act in this fashion. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 65,3 have stated “when a starling is seen joining a raven, this is not by accident. It proves they have something in common.” [In current parlance this is the meaning of the expression “birds of a feather.” Ed.] If Esau, though biologically descended from a father who epitomized holiness nevertheless married such women, it proved that spiritually he was totally corrupt.
Both Esau’s wives were Hittites, Canaanites, members of the seven tribes whom the Jewish people have been instructed to exterminate if they do not vacate the land of Canaan first (Deut. 20,17). The Torah informs us that wicked Esau married wives belonging to a wicked people. The verse applied to the marriages of the wicked is found in Psalms 125,5: “but those who in their crookedness act corruptly, let the Lord make them go the way of the evildoers; peace on Israel.” The psalmist means that when the wicked join other evildoers the ultimate result will be peace for Israel as the wicked will self-destruct. Hail to Israel who do not act in this fashion. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 65,3 have stated “when a starling is seen joining a raven, this is not by accident. It proves they have something in common.” [In current parlance this is the meaning of the expression “birds of a feather.” Ed.] If Esau, though biologically descended from a father who epitomized holiness nevertheless married such women, it proved that spiritually he was totally corrupt.