Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah

Ramban on Leviticus 19:19/רמב"ן על ויקרא י״ט:י״ט

אאֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: "בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם" וְגוֹ'. חֻקִּים אֵלּוּ גְּזֵרוֹת מֶלֶךְ שֶׁאֵין טַעַם לַדָּבָר, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא י"ט:י"ט). וְלֹא הִזְכִּירוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַטַּעַם נֶעְלָם, וְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ יֵצֶר הָרַע וְאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מְשִׁיבִים עֲלֵיהֶם, אֶלָּא בִּלְבִישַׁת שַׁעַטְנֵז, לֹא בְּכִלְאֵי הַבְּהֵמָה. וְאֵין הַכַּוָּנָה בָּהֶם שֶׁתִּהְיֶה גְּזֵרַת מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים בְּשׁוּם מָקוֹם בְּלֹא טַעַם, כִּי "כָּל אִמְרַת אֱלוֹהַּ צְרוּפָה" (משלי ל ה), רַק הַחֻקִּים הֵם גְּזֵרַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יָחוֹק בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ בְּלִי שֶׁיְּגַלֶּה תּוֹעַלְתָּם לָעָם, וְאֵין הָעָם נֶהֱנִים בָּהֶם, אֲבָל מְהַרְהֲרִין אַחֲרֵיהֶם בְּלִבָּם וּמְקַבְּלִים אוֹתָם לְיִרְאַת הַמַּלְכוּת. וְכֵן חֻקֵּי הקב"ה הֵם הַסּוֹדוֹת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁאֵין הָעָם בְּמַחְשַׁבְתָּם נֶהֱנִים בָּהֶם כַּמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲבָל כֻּלָּם בְּטַעַם נָכוֹן וְתוֹעֶלֶת שְׁלֵמָה. וְהַטַּעַם בַּכִּלְאַיִם, כִּי הַשֵּׁם בָּרָא הַמִּינִים בָּעוֹלָם בְּכָל בַּעֲלֵי הַנְּפָשׁוֹת, בַּצְּמָחִים, וּבְבַעֲלֵי נֶפֶשׁ הַתְּנוּעָה, וְנָתַן בָּהֶם כֹּחַ הַתּוֹלָדָה שֶׁיִּתְקַיְּמוּ הַמִּינִים בָּהֶם לָעַד כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הוּא יִתְבָּרַךְ בְּקִיּוּם הָעוֹלָם. וְצִוָּה בְּכֹחָם שֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּ לְמִינֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יִשְׁתַּנּוּ לָעַד לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּכֻלָּם "לְמִינֵהוּ" (בראשית א). וְהִנֵּה צִוָּה סִבַּת הַמִּשְׁכָּב שֶׁנַּרְבִּיעַ הַבְּהֵמוֹת זוֹ עִם זוֹ לְקִיּוּם הַמִּינִין כַּאֲשֶׁר יָבוֹאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים עַל הַנָּשִׁים לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה. וְהַמַּרְכִּיב שְׁנֵי מִינִין, מְשַׁנֶּה וּמַכְחִישׁ בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְּרֵאשִׁית, כְּאִלּוּ יַחְשֹׁב שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁלִים הקב"ה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ כָּל הַצֹּרֶךְ וְיַחְפֹּץ הוּא לַעֲזֹר בִּבְרִיאָתוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, לְהוֹסִיף בּוֹ בְּרִיּוֹת. וְהַמִּינִים בְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים לֹא יוֹלִידוּ מִין מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, וְגַם הַקְּרוֹבִים בַּטֶּבַע שֶׁיִּוָּלְדוּ מֵהֶם, כְּגוֹן הַפְּרָדִים, יִכָּרֵת זַרְעָם, כִּי הֵם לֹא יוֹלִידוּ. וְהִנֵּה מִצַּד שְׁנֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה פְּעֻלַּת הַהַרְכָּבָה בְּמִינִים דָּבָר נִמְאָס וּבָטֵל. וְגַם הַצְּמָחִים אֲשֶׁר יִתְרַכְּבוּ מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ אֵין פִּרְיָם צוֹמֵחַ אַחֲרֵי כֵן, וְיִהְיֶה בְּאִסּוּרָם שְׁנֵי הַטְּעָמִים הַנִּזְכָּרִים. וְזֶה טַעַם "שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם", שֶׁהוּא בְּהַרְכָּבָה עַל דַּעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (קידושין לט). וְאָסַר אַף כִּלְאֵי זְרָעִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּנּוּ בְּטִבְעָם גַּם בְּצוּרָתָם בִּהְיוֹתָם יוֹנְקִים זֶה מִזֶּה, וְיִהְיֶה כָּל גַּרְעִין מִמֶּנּוּ כְּאִלּוּ הֻרְכַּב מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין. וְאָסוּר לַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ כָּל עוֹבֵד אַדְמָתוֹ לְהָבִיא צִמְדּוֹ בְּרֶפֶת אַחַת וְיָבֹאוּ לִידֵי הַרְכָּבָה. וּמֵחֲבֵרֵינוּ מוֹסִיף בְּטַעַם הַכִּלְאַיִם כִּי הוּא שֶׁלֹּא לְעַרְבֵּב הַכֹּחוֹת הַמְגַדְּלִים הַצְּמָחִים לִהְיוֹת יוֹנְקִים זֶה מִזֶּה, מִמַּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּבְרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה (בראשית רבה י':ו'), אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן, אֵין לְךָ כָּל עֵשֶׂב וְעֵשֶׂב מִלְּמַטָּה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַזָּל בָּרָקִיעַ מִלְּמַעְלָה וּמַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ גְּדַל, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (איוב לח לג) "הֲיָדַעְתָּ חֻקּוֹת שָׁמָיִם אִם תָּשִׂים מִשְׁטָרוֹ בָאָרֶץ". וְהִנֵּה הַמַּרְכִּיב כִּלְאַיִם אוֹ זוֹרְעָן בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיִּינְקוּ זֶה מִזֶּה, מְבַטֵּל חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם. וּלְכָךְ אָמַר בָּהֶם "אֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ", כִּי הֵם חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם. וְכָךְ אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי פִּנְחָס, מִשּׁוּם חֻקִּים שֶׁחָקַקְתִּי בָּהֶם אֶת עוֹלָמִי (ירושלמי כלאים פ"א ה"ז). וּכְבָר כָּתַבְתִּי בְּסֵדֶר בְּרֵאשִׁית (א כו) שֶׁהַצְּמָחִים כֻּלָּם יְסוֹדוֹתָם בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים, וּמִשָּׁם צִוָּה לָהֶם הַשֵּׁם אֶת הַבְּרָכָה חַיִּים עַד הָעוֹלָם, וְהִנֵּה הַמְּעָרֵב כִּלְאַיִם מַכְחִישׁ וּמְעָרֵב מַעֲשֵׂה בְּרֵאשִׁית:

1YE SHALL KEEP ‘CHUKOTHAI’ (MY STATUTES). “And these are they: thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind, etc. Chukim (statutes) are the decrees of the King for which there is no reason [given].” This is Rashi’s language. But our Rabbis have not mentioned that the reasons for the commandments [mentioned in this verse] are hidden from us, and that the evil inclination and the idolaters raise objections against them, except in [the case of the prohibition against] wearing a garment made of wool and linen, but not in the case of mating of animals of diverse kinds [for which there is a reason, as will be explained later on].⁹⁵ And the intention of the Rabbis [in defining “statutes” as the laws of the King for which there is no reason] was not that these are decrees of the King of kings for which there are no reasons whatever, for every word of G-d is tried.⁹⁶ [They meant] only that “statutes” are like the enactments which a king promulgates for his kingdom, without revealing their benefits to the people, and the people, not sensing these reasons, entertain questions about them in their hearts but they accept them nonetheless out of fear of the government. Similarly, “the statutes” of the Holy One, blessed be He, are His secrets in the Torah, which the people by means of their thinking do not grasp as they do in the case of mishpatim [“ordinances” — laws which conform to the human conception of justice], but yet they all have a proper reason and perfect benefit.Now the reason for [the prohibitions against] kilayim [“mixed kinds,” as will be explained further on], is that G-d has created in the world various species among all living things, both plants and moving creatures, and He gave them a power of reproduction enabling them to exist forever as long, as He blessed be He, will desire the existence of the world, and He further endowed them with a power to bring forth [only] after their kind, and that they should never be changed, as it is said with reference to all of them [at the time of Creation], after its kind.⁹⁷ This driving force in the normal mating of animals is for the sake of preserving the species, even as human beings engage in sexual activity for the sake of having children. Thus one who combines two different species, thereby changes and defies the work of Creation, as if he is thinking that the Holy One, blessed be He, has not completely perfected the world and he desires to help along in the creation of the world by adding to it new kinds of creatures. Moreover, the mating of diverse species of animals does not produce offspring, and even in the case of those that are by nature close to each other [such as the horse and the ass], from which offspring are born, such as mules, their seed is cut off, for they themselves [the mules] cannot produce offspring. Thus from the point of view of these two matters [i.e., the changing in the order of Creation and the sterility of the product, we see that] the act of combining different species is despicable and futile. Even when diverse species of vegetation are grafted together, their fruits do not reproduce afterwards, and they too are prohibited because of the two above-mentioned reasons [for the prohibition of mixing different species together]. This is the meaning of the prohibition [stated here in the verse], thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed, which in the opinion of our Rabbis⁹⁸ constitutes a prohibition against grafting [diverse kinds of trees, or trees and vegetables, and is not a prohibition against merely sowing together diverse kinds of seed].⁹⁹. By placing these two prohibitions together, Scripture is teaching that just as in the case of cattle, the verse refers to well-definable objects [cattle], so in the case of sowing the field, Scripture refers to well-definable objects — trees, vegetables, etc., — and is not a mere prohibition against sowing diverse kinds of seed [although that too is forbidden], since these are not yet distinguishable. But He has prohibited also the mere sowing together of diverse kinds of seed, because their nature and form change when they derive nutrition from each other, and thus each kernel of it is as if it were grafted together from two kinds. Similarly, He has forbidden to plow with an ox and an ass together,¹⁰⁰ because it is customary among tillers of the soil to bring their working animals into one cattle-shed, and there they might come to mate with a diverse kind.¹⁰¹ And one of our colleagues¹⁰² (our colleague) indicates the closeness with which the group kept together, so that anyone who was part of them was called a chaveir (a colleague). The expression “one of our colleagues” may perhaps also indicate that Rabbi Ezra and Ramban were regarded as equals, for otherwise he would have referred to him as a teacher or master. adds to the reason for the prohibition against mixing seeds, that it is in order not to throw into disorder the primary forces which bring about the growth of the plants, when they derive nutrition from each other,¹⁰³ as is indicated in the saying of our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah:¹⁰⁴ “Said Rabbi Simon: There is not a single kind of herb that does not have a constellation in heaven which smites it and says to it, ‘Grow.’ It is with reference to this that Scripture says, Knowest thou ‘chukoth shamayim’ (the statutes of heavens)? Canst thou establish ‘mishtaro’ (the dominion thereof) in the earth?¹⁰⁵ — [mishtaro being derived from the root shoter (executive officer)].” Now he who grafts diverse kinds of plants or sows seeds of diverse kinds with the intention that they derive nutrition from each other, thereby destroys ‘chukoth shamayim’ (the statutes of heavens). This is why He has said, Ye shall keep ‘chukothai’ (My statutes), as they are the statutes of the heavens. And so did Rabbi Chanina in the name of Rabbi Pinchas say,¹⁰⁶ that [the statutes mentioned here in the verse] are because of “the statutes with which I formed My world.” I have already written in the section of Bereshith¹⁰⁷ that all plants have their foundations in higher [forces], and it is from there that the Eternal commanded them the blessing, even life forever.¹⁰⁸ Thus he who mixes different kinds of seeds, denies and throws into disorder the work of Creation.

בוּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב יא) "לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו", יָכוֹל לֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גִּזֵּי צֶמֶר וַאֲנִיצֵי פִשְׁתָּן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "בֶּגֶד". מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַלְּבָדִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "שַׁעַטְנֵז" - דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא שׁוּעַ טָווּי וְנוּז. וְאוֹמֵר אֲנִי "נוּז" לְשׁוֹן דָּבָר הַנִּמְלָל וְשָׁזוּר זֶה עִם זֶה לְחַבְּרוֹ, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא י"ט:י"ט). וְאֵינוֹ נָכוֹן בְּעֵינַי, שֶׁהַלְּבָדִים אֵין אִסּוּרָם מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, שֶׁאֵינָן אֶלָּא שׁוּעַ בִּלְבַד, וְכָךְ שָׁנִינוּ (כלאים פ"ט מ"ט), הַלְּבָדִים אֲסוּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שׁוּעַ. וּבַגְּמָרָא אָמְרוּ (נדה סא), וְאֵימָא אוֹ שׁוּעַ אוֹ טָווּי אוֹ נוּז, וְהֶעֱלוּ וְהִלְכְתָא כְּמָר זוּטְרָא מִדְּאַפְּקִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בְּחַד לִישָׁנָא. אֲבָל הַבָּרַיְתָא הַשְּׁנוּיָה בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרק ד יח), אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בֶּגֶד, וּמִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַלְּבָדִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "שַׁעַטְנֵז", בָּא לְרַבּוֹת הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן בֶּגֶד מִ"לֹּא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז", שֶׁלֹּא הֻזְכַּר בֶּגֶד. וְהַמִּדְרָשׁ הוּא עִקָּר, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶּגֶד אָסוּר בְּכִלְאַיִם מִן הַתּוֹרָה, כְּגוֹן הַקּוֹלֵעַ חוּטִין וְעֹשֶׂה מֵהֶן חֲגוֹרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שׁוּעַ וְטָווּי וְנוּז. וְתָפַס לוֹ הַלְּבָדִים לְאַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא, שֶׁהֵם אֲסוּרִים מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם וְאֵינָן בֶּגֶד. וְכֵן מַה שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ הָרַב בְּ"שׁוּעַ", שֶׁהוּא דָּבָר הַנִּמְלָל וְשָׁזוּר זֶה עִם זֶה, וְכַפֵּרוּשׁ הַזֶּה כָּתַב עוֹד בְּפֵרוּשָׁיו בַּגְּמָרָא (יבמות ה נדה סא), כְּבָר הֵשִׁיבוּ עָלָיו שֶׁאֵין פֵּרוּשׁוֹ עוֹלֶה מִמַּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (מנחות לט) שְׁמַע מִנָּה קֶשֶׁר הָעֶלְיוֹן בְּצִיצִית דְּאוֹרָיְתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְתָא, כִּלְאַיִם דִּשְׁרָא רַחֲמָנָא בְּצִיצִית לָמָּה לִי, הָא קַיְמָא לַן הַתּוֹכֵף תְּכִיפָה אַחַת אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר. וְהִנֵּה גִּלּוּ לָנוּ שֶׁהַבֶּגֶד שֶׁהוּא מִין פִּשְׁתִּים וְנִקְשֹׁר בּוֹ צִיצִית שֶׁל צֶמֶר בִּשְׁנֵי קְשָׁרִים הוּא כִּלְאַיִם מִן הַתּוֹרָה, אע"פ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִמְלָל וְשָׁזוּר זֶה עִם זֶה. אֲבָל הָעִנְיָן כָּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב "וּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז" לוֹמַר שֶׁכָּל בֶּגֶד הַנַּעֲשֶׂה מִחוּט שֶׁהוּא שׁוּעַ וְטָווּי וְשָׁזוּר לֹא נִלְבַּשׁ אוֹתוֹ כִּלְאַיִם, שֶׁהוּא עֵרוּבִים, וּבְמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה (דברים כב יא) הוֹסִיף לְבָאֵר שֶׁלֹּא נִלְבַּשׁ שׁוּעַ טָווּי וְנוּז מִצֶּמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ "יַחְדָּו", כְּלוֹמַר מְחֻבָּרִים יַחַד בִּשְׁתֵּי תְּכִיפוֹת, לוֹמַר שֶׁהַצֶּמֶר וְהַפִּשְׁתִּים שֶׁכָּל מִין מֵהֶם שׁוּעַ טָווּי וְנוּז בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ לֹא נְחַבְּרֵם יַחְדָּו, כִּי "יַחְדָּו" הוּא הַכִּלְאַיִם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר (דברים כב י) "לֹא תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו", כְּלוֹמַר קְשׁוּרִים וּמְחֻבָּרִים, וְהַחִבּוּר בִּבְגָדִים בִּשְׁתֵּי תְּכִיפוֹת, כִּי מִלְּשׁוֹן "יַחְדָּו" לָמְדוּ כֵן כִּי שְׁתֵּי תְּכִיפוֹת הֵן חִבּוּר, וּמִשָּׁם לָמְדוּ שֶׁהַכִּלְאַיִם אֲסוּרִין אע"פ שֶׁאֵינָן בֶּגֶד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ בְּקוֹלֵעַ הַחוּטִין מַעֲשֵׂה עֲבוֹת וְעֹשֶׂה מֵהֶן אַבְנֵטִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָרוּג, וּכְעִנְיָן שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ (כלאים פ"ט מ"ט) לֹא יִקְשֹׁר סֶרֶט שֶׁל צֶמֶר בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן לַחְגֹּר בּוֹ אֶת מָתְנָיו. וּלְשׁוֹן "נוּז" מִלָּה מְקֻצֶּרֶת בַּתֵּבָה הַמֻּרְכֶּבֶת הַזֹּאת, כְּמוֹ הַטָּווּי שֶׁאֵין מִמֶּנּוּ בָּהּ אֶלָּא הַטֵּי"ת, וְעִנְיָנָהּ לְפִי דַּעְתִּי נָלוֹז, מִלְּשׁוֹן "תּוֹעֲבַת ה' נָלוֹז" (משלי ג לב), מַטֶּה וּמְעַקֵּם דְּרָכָיו, "וּנְלוֹזִים בְּמַעְגְּלוֹתָם" (שם ב טו), פְּתַלְתֻּלִּים וּמַטִּים, כִּי כֵן הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁזוּר פָּתוּל וּמְעֻקָּם. וּכְמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ (כלאים פ"ט מ"ח), רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר נָלוֹז וּמַלִּיז אָבִיו שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם עָלָיו, מַטֶּה הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד מִדַּרְכֵי רַחֲמָיו עָלָיו, כְּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְעִם עִקֵּשׁ תִּתְפַּתָּל" (תהלים יח כז). וּבִלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים יְשַׁמְּשׁוּ בּוֹ בְּקֹצֶר, לְבֶן מְלָכִים שֶׁנּוּז לִבּוֹ עָלָיו, וְנָטַל אֶת הַצִּפֹּרֶן לַחְתֹּר עַל אָבִיו (שמו"ר לז ב), שֶׁנָּטָה לִבּוֹ לְדֶרֶךְ רָעָה. וּמִזֶּה אָמְרוּ בְּתַלְמוּד סַנְהֶדְרִין (מא), מִנָּזְיָתֵהּ דְּמַר לָא אָמְרִי בֵּהּ וְלָא מִידִי, כְּלוֹמַר אִם הָיִיתָ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְעַקֵּם וּלְהַטּוֹת הַדְּבָרִים לֹא הָיִינוּ יוֹדְעִים לְנֶגְדְּךָ כְּלוּם, "נָזְיָיתֵהּ" כְּמוֹ "נַלְזְיָתֵהּ", כְּלוֹמַר הַטָּיָתוֹ. וְזֶהוּ הָאֱמֶת וְהַנָּכוֹן בָּעִנְיָן הַזֶּה. וּלְפִיכָךְ הֻצְרַךְ לְהַתִּיר כִּלְאַיִם בְּצִיצִית אע"פ שֶׁאֵין הַצִּיצִית אָרוּג וְאֵינוֹ בֶּגֶד. וְזֶהוּ דִּין תּוֹרָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אָסְרוּ אֲפִלּוּ מַה שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם, אוֹ שׁוּעַ אוֹ טָווּי אוֹ נוּז, וּלְפִיכָךְ שָׁנִינוּ (כלאים ט ט), הַלְּבָדִים אֲסוּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שׁוּעִים, פִּיף שֶׁל צֶמֶר בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן אֲסוּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן חוֹגְרִין בְּאָרִיג, וְהַכֹּל מִדְּרַבָּנָן. וְטַעַם כִּלְאֵי הַבְּגָדִים לְהַרְחִיק הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת בְּמִינִין, וְאָסַר הָרְגִילִים לְהֵעָשׂוֹת מֵהֶן בֶּגֶד. וְהָרַב אָמַר בְּמוֹרֶה הַנְּבֻכִים (ג לז) טַעַם הַשַּׁעַטְנֵז, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה בַּזְּמַן הַהוּא בֶּגֶד יָדוּעַ לְכָמְרֵי בַּעֲלֵי הַכְּשָׁפִים שֶׁבָּהֶם הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים כָּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם. וְאָמַר שֶׁמָּצָא זֶה כָּתוּב בְּסִפְרֵיהֶם. וּלְפִי שֶׁהָיָה עִנְיָן גָּדוֹל וְרָצוּי לָהֶם מְאֹד שֶׁיִּפְעֲלוּ בּוֹ פְּעֻלּוֹתָם הַיְּדוּעוֹת לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְלַשֵּׁדִים, תַּרְחִיק אוֹתוֹ הַתּוֹרָה מִכָּל אָדָם, כִּי הַתּוֹרָה תָּבֹא לִמְחוֹת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם וּלְהַכְחִיד זִכְרָם:

2NEITHER SHALL THERE COME UPON THEE A GARMENT ‘KILAYIM SHA’ATNEIZ’¹⁰⁹ (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,¹¹⁰ 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:¹¹¹ “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:¹¹² “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:¹¹³ 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,¹¹⁰ 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,¹¹⁴ other scholars,¹¹⁵ have already commented that Rashi’s interpretation is not in accord with what the Rabbis have said [in the following text of the Talmud]:¹¹⁶ (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 this¹¹⁷ (see Note 116 (b)). that the upper knots¹¹⁸ — “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!”¹¹⁹ 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,¹²⁰ 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:¹²¹ “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 word¹²² (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),¹²³ meaning he who turns aside and perverses his paths; ‘unelozim’ (and perverse) in their paths,¹²⁴, 2:15. meaning those who are crooked and turn aside [unto their crooked ways],¹²⁵ for anything which is spun [like a thread] is turned and crooked. This is similar to what we are taught in a Mishnah:¹²⁶ “Rabbi Shimon¹²⁷ 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.¹²⁸ And in the language of the Sages, this word [naloz] is used in a shortened form, thus:¹²⁹ “This can be compared to a king’s son sh’noz¹³⁰ — “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:¹³¹ “Minizyathei¹³², 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,¹³³ 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:¹¹¹ “Felted stuff [of wool and linen] is forbidden because it is combed. An edging of wool on a linen garment¹³⁴ is forbidden since it interlaces the web of the garment.” All these are prohibited by law of the Rabbis.¹³⁵ (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 Nebuchim¹³⁶ 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.