Halacha
הלכה א
אֵין אָסוּר בְּכִלְאֵי בְּגָדִים אֶלָּא צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתָּן בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב יא) "לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו". וְיֵשׁ בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם כְּמוֹ צֶמֶר שֶׁגָּדֵל עַל הָאֲבָנִים שֶׁבְּיָם הַמֶּלַח תַּבְנִיתוֹ כְּתַבְנִית הַזָּהָב וְהוּא רַךְ בְּיוֹתֵר וְכָלָךְ שְׁמוֹ וְאָסוּר עִם הַפִּשְׁתָּן מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן שֶׁהוּא דּוֹמֶה לְצֶמֶר רְחֵלִים. וְכֵן הַשֵּׁירִים וְהַכָּלָךְ אֲסוּרִין מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן:
כסף משנה
1.
The prohibition against mixed fabrics in clothes involves only wool1When the term "wool" is used without any adjective, it refers only to sheep's wool (the Jerusalem Talmud, Kilayim 9:1). and linen, as [Deuteronomy 22:11] states: "Do not wear sha'atnez, wool and linen together." In seaports, there is something like wool that grows on stones in the Mediterranean Sea2Although the Rambam uses the term Yam HaMelech, his intent is the Mediterranean Sea and not the Dead Sea. See Hilchot Tzitzit 2:2 and his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:1) for other examples of such usage. whose appearance resembles gold and it is very soft. It is called kelech.3In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:2), the Rambam states that this fabric is a type of silk. Others identify it with cissaros blossoms. It is forbidden [to be mixed] with linen because of the appearance it creates, because it resembles lambs' wool. Similarly, silk and kelech are forbidden because of the appearance it creates.4For silk resembles linen and kelech resembles wool (ibid.).Rav Yosef Corcus and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 298:1) state that certainly a mixture of wool and silk should be forbidden. Nevertheless, he continues that at present, silk is very common and recognized by everyone. Hence, there is no need to forbid it, because of the appearance it will create.
הלכה ב
רָחֵל בַּת עֵז צַמְרָהּ אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם אֲבָל אָסוּר הוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְחַבֵּר הַצֶּמֶר עִם הַפִּשְׁתָּן צַד חִבּוּר בָּעוֹלָם הֲרֵי זֶה כִּלְאַיִם מִן הַתּוֹרָה. כֵּיצַד. צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים שֶׁטְּרָפָן זֶה עִם זֶה וְשָׁע אוֹתָן וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן לְבָדִין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּלְאַיִם. טְרָפָן וְטָוָה אוֹתָן כְּאֶחָד וְאָרַג בֶּגֶד מִטִּוּוּי זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה כִּלְאַיִם:
כסף משנה
2.
When a ewe is born to a she-goat, one is not liable for [mixing] its wool [with linen]. It is, however, forbidden according to Rabbinic decree, because of the impression it creates.If wool and linen are connected in any manner, they are considered mixed fabrics according to Scriptural Law.5The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, meaning that making a smooth mass is not sufficient to create an article forbidden by Scriptural Law. To explain the difference of opinion: The Mishnah (Kilayim 9:8-9) states:
The prohibition against kilayim applies only with regard to fibers that are spun into thread and woven, as it is written: "Do not wear sha'atnez," [i.e., the prohibition applies to fibers that] are made into a smooth mass, spun, and woven.... Sheets of fabric are forbidden for they have been made into a smooth mass.
In his commentary to that mishnah, the Rambam states:
"Made into a smooth mass"- This refers to making fabric. It involves smoothing down the surface of the substance made into a even mass....
"Spun" - This involves mixing wool and linen together and spinning them into threads.
"Woven" - That [these threads] should be woven together.... It implies connection and establishing union.
If one mixed wool and linen together, spun them into threads, wove them into a garment, and smoothed its surface..., that garment will be considered as mixed fabrics. This applies with regard to mixed fabrics as defined by Scriptural Law. For, [according to Scriptural Law, a garment] is not considered as mixed fabrics unless [making it] involved all these three activities. Anything other than this [that involves wool and linen] is mixed fabrics [only] according to Rabbinic Law.
Some of the Geonim wrote as above. I, however, consider that as incorrect. Instead, any one [of these activities] is sufficient to cause a garment to be considered as mixed fabrics according to Scriptural Law. The statement in tractate Niddah [61b which implies that all three activities are necessary] is not the wording of the Talmud, but an interpretation.
Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah which is a revised edition. Originally - and this is the version followed by the standard published text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah - the Rambam wrote that the ruling that all three activities are necessary for the prohibition to be of Scriptural origin is "a correct ruling, concerning which there is no doubt." Thus originally the Rambam also subscribed to the opinion followed by the Ra'avad [which is also shared by Rashi (Niddah, loc. cit.), but later changed his mind [adopting the view stated here and in Tosafot (Niddah, loc. cit.)]. The Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz discuss the issue in their glosses to the Mishneh Torah. See the Tur and commentaries (Yoreh De'ah 300. The Siftei Cohen 300:1 writes that the majority of the authorities follow Rashi's view. It must be emphasized that all of the opinions maintain that any combination of wool and linen is forbidden according to Rabbinic Law, the debate involves only the extent of the Scriptural prohibition. What is implied? When wool and linen were mixed together, combed together, and made into a smooth mass, they are considered as mixed fabrics. If they were mixed and combed as one and then a garment was woven from this combed fabric, they are considered mixed fabrics.
הלכה ג
תָּפַר בֶּגֶד צֶמֶר בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן וַאֲפִלּוּ תְּפָרָן בְּמֶשִׁי אוֹ שֶׁתָּפַר בֶּגֶד צֶמֶר בְּחוּטֵי פִּשְׁתָּן אוֹ בֶּגֶד פִּשְתִּים בְּחוּטֵי צֶמֶר אוֹ קָשַׁר חוּטֵי צֶמֶר בְּחוּטֵי פִּשְתִּים אוֹ גְּדָלָן אֲפִלּוּ נָתַן צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים בְּשַׂק אוֹ בְּקֻפָּה וּכְרָכָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּלְאַיִם. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָשַׁר גְּדִיל שֶׁל צֶמֶר בִּגְדִיל שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָרְצוּעָה בְּאֶמְצַע. וְכֵן אִם כָּפַל בִּגְדֵי צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתָּן וּקְשָׁרָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּלְאַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב יא) "צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו" מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְאַחֵד נֶאֱסַר:
כסף משנה
3.
If one sewed woolen fabric to linen6In the previous halachah, the Rambam stated that any one of the following activities: making fabrics into a smooth mass, spinning, or weaving them is sufficient to incur liability. He also gave examples regarding the first two types of activities mentioned. As mentioned in the previous note, he interprets the term "weaving" as creating a connection. In this halachah, he gives examples of how creating a connection between two fabrics causes one to be liable. - even if he sewed them with silk, sewed a woolen garment with linen thread, or a linen garment with woolen thread, one tied woolen threads with linen threads or braided them together, or even if one placed wool and linen together in a sack or a basket and wound them,7In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:10), the Rambam explains that the sack or the basket causes the two fabrics to be considered as one. It is forbidden to carry the sack or basket on one's back, lest it be considered that one is benefiting from mixed fabrics.This follows Rav Kappach's amended text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version. they are considered as mixed fabrics. Even if one tied a braid of wool to a braid of linen, even if there is a strap of leather in between,8In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:9), the Rambam explains that we are speaking about attaching a thread of wool to one side of a leather strap and a thread of linen to the other. Since the two fabrics are connected, the Scriptural prohibition is involved. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 300:5) which takes a somewhat more lenient position. they are considered mixed fabrics. [This law also applies] if one folded over woolen and linen fabric and tied them together. [The rationale is that the prooftext states:] "Wool and linen together." Since they are combined - regardless of how - they are forbidden.
הלכה ד
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁכָּל אִסּוּרִין אֵלּוּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻצְרַךְ הַכָּתוּב לְהַתִּיר כִּלְאַיִם בְּצִיצִית. כְּמוֹ שֶׁלָּמְדוּ מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא נִסְמְכָה פָּרָשַׁת כִּלְאַיִם לְפָרָשַׁת צִיצִית אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר כִּלְאַיִם בְּצִיצִית. וְהַצִּיצִית חוּטִין קְשׁוּרִין בִּלְבַד הֵן. מִכְלָל שֶׁחִבּוּר כָּזֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט בַּתּוֹרָה דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים:
כסף משנה
4.
What is the source that teaches that all these prohibitions are Scriptural in origin? [We derive this from the fact that] the Torah had to explicitly state that kilayim are permitted in tzitzit.9According to Scriptural Law, on a linen garment, the white strands of the tzitzit should be made from linen, while the techeilet (sky-blue) threads should be made from wool dyed that color using the blood of a chilazon. Although this is the Scriptural Law, according to Rabbinic decree, safeguards should be taken and mixed fabrics should not be used for tzitzit. See Hilchot Tzitzit 3:6-7. As we learned according to the Oral Tradition,10Menachot 39a. the passage concerning kilayim11Deuteronomy 22:11. was positioned next to the passage concerning tzitzit12Ibid.:12. solely to teach that kilayim are permitted in tzitzit. Now the tzitzit are strands that are tied together. Thus it can be derived that a connection of this type in a situation that does not involve a mitzvah is forbidden according to Scriptural Law.13I.e., it is not necessary that the fabrics be spun and smoothed out together. For the Torah would not exclude something that is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law.הלכה ה
הַכִּלְאַיִם אֵין לוֹ שִׁעוּר אֲפִלּוּ חוּט כָּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁל צֶמֶר בְּבֶגֶד גָּדוֹל שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן אוֹ שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן בְּצֶמֶר אָסוּר:
כסף משנה
5.
There is no minimum measure for kilayim. Even the smallest thread of wool in a large linen garment or a thread of linen in a woolen garment is forbidden.14Unlike the laws of kashrut, concerning which a forbidden substance can become betal, of no consequence, if the kosher substance is greater than it according to Scriptural Law and 60 times its size according to Rabbinic Law, there is no such leniency in this instance.Tosafot (Nidah 61b) explains the rationale for this ruling. Generally, a forbidden entity can become nullified, because it is of no consequence when compared to the kosher substance into which it is mixed. Such logic does not apply in this instance, because there is no prohibited object to be nullified. Both the linen and the wool are permitted. Hence, they remain significant no matter how small an amount there is.
Rabbenu Asher quotes this explanation, but questions it, noting that seemingly the same concepts apply with regard to a mixture of milk and meat. Both of them are permitted; it is their mixture that is forbidden and yet, one can become betal if there is 60 times the presence of the other substance. Rabbenu Asher, however, distinquishes between the two instances. In a mixture of milk and meat, what is significant is the flavor of the food. Hence, if the flavor of either the milk or meat can be detected, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. In the case of a mixture of fabrics, the existence of the mixed fabrics itself is what is forbidden. Hence, since neither are forbidden, they cannot become nullified. See Siftei Cohen 299:1 and Turei Zahav 299:1 who also discuss this concept. See also Halachah 27 which explains what should be done to detect a thread that is kilayim.
הלכה ו
צֶמֶר רְחֵלִים וְצֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ שֶׁטְּרָפָן זֶה בְּזֶה וְטָוָה מֵהֶן טִוּוּי. אִם הָיָה הַחֵצִי מִן הָרְחֵלִים הֲרֵי הַכּל כְּצֶמֶר רְחֵלִים וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּלְאַיִם עִם הַפִּשְׁתָּן. וְאִם הָיָה הָרֹב מִן הַגְּמַלִּים מֻתָּר לְעָרְבוֹ עִם הַפִּשְׁתָּן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצּוּרַת הַכּל צוּרַת צֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְנִימוֹת שֶׁל צֶמֶר הַמְעֹרֶבֶת בָּהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן חוּטֵי צֶמֶר:
כסף משנה
6.
[The following laws apply when] one mixed the wool of ewes with the wool of camels and the like and made thread from them. If half [of the mixture] is from the ewes, it is considered as kilayim with flax. If, however, the majority is from the camels, it is permitted to mix them with flax, because the form of the entire mixture is that of camel wool. We do not pay attention to the strands of wool that are mixed with them, for they are not threads of wool.15The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that this is not a contradiction to the previous halachah. Indeed, were one to have separate threads of sheep's wool, the garment would be forbidden even if they were mixed with many times their sum of camel wool threads. For the sheep's wool threads are never nullified. In this instance, however, there is room for leniency, because there are no sheep's wool threads. As the threads are being made, the sheep's wool is combined with the camel's wool and since the majority is camel's wool, it is the determining factor. These concepts are also reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 299:1).הלכה ז
לְפִיכָךְ עוֹרוֹת הַכְּבָשִׂים שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן בְּגָדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתּוֹפְרִין אוֹתָן בְּפִשְׁתָּן מֻתָּרִין וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְנִימוֹת שֶׁל צֶמֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּכְרְכוּ בִּכְלַל חוּט הַפִּשְׁתָּן שֶׁתָּפְרוּ בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּטְלוּ בְּמִעוּטָן:
כסף משנה
7.
Therefore when sheep hides are used to make garments,16I.e., of leather, not of wool. they are permitted even though they are sewed with flax. We are not concerned with the strands of wool - even though they become entwined with the linen threads used to sew it, because the wool is insignificant because of the minute amount that is there.17The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's rationale, explaining that it runs contrary to the principle stated in Halachah 5. He follows his thesis stated previously - see the notes to Halachah 2 - that according to Scriptural Law, mixed fabrics are only forbidden when they are smoothed into an even mass, spun, and woven together. If only one of those activities is performed, the prohibition is merely Rabbinical. In this instance, there is only one activity. Hence the prohibition is Rabbnical and since the amount of woolen strands are small is not substantial, there is room for leniency.The Radbaz supports the Rambam's rationale, explaining that the fundamental point here is that the strands of wool are not threads. Hence, they are not of significance and the laws of mixed fabrics do not apply regarding them.
הלכה ח
וְכֵן הַקַּנְבּוֹס וְהַפִּשְׁתָּן שֶׁטְּרָפָן זֶה בָּזֶה אִם רֹב מִן הַקַּנְבּוֹס מֻתָּר לֶאֱרֹג הַטִּוּוּי מֵהֶן עִם חוּטֵי צֶמֶר וְאִם הָיוּ מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה אָסוּר:
כסף משנה
8.
Similar [laws apply when] hemp and linen were mixed with each other. If the majority is hemp, it is permitted to weave these threads with woolen threads. If they are half and half, it is forbidden.הלכה ט
הָעוֹשֶׂה בֶּגֶד כֻּלּוֹ צֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים אוֹ צֶמֶר אַרְנָבִים אוֹ קַנְבּוֹס וְאָרַג בּוֹ חוּט שֶׁל צֶמֶר מִצַּד זֶה וְחוּט שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן מִצַּד זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם:
כסף משנה
9.
If a person makes a garment entirely out of camel's wool, rabbit wool, or hemp and weaves one thread of [sheep's] wool on one side and one thread of linen on the other side,18And thus they do not touch each other. it is forbidden as kilayim.19See Halachah 3.הלכה י
בֶּגֶד צֶמֶר שֶׁנִּפְרַם מֻתָּר לִפְרֹף אוֹתוֹ בְּחוּטֵי פִּשְׁתָּן. וְקוֹשֵׁר אֲבָל לֹא יִתְפֹּר:
כסף משנה
10.
When a woolen garment becomes torn, it is permitted to join it together with threads of linen and tie them, but one may not sew them.20With regard to tzitzit, tying causes the garment to be considered as kilayim, because the wool and the linen are themselves tied together. In this instance, by contrast, the linen is not tied to the wool, but rather tied around it like a belt [Tur (Yoreh De'ah 300)].הלכה יא
לוֹבֵשׁ אָדָם בִּגְדֵי צֶמֶר וּבֶגֶד פִּשְׁתָּן וְחוֹגֵר עֲלֵיהֶם מִבַּחוּץ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִכְרֹךְ אֶת הַמְּשִׁיחָה וְיִקְשֹׁר בָּהּ בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו:
כסף משנה
11.
A person may wear woolen garments and linen garments and tie a belt around them from the outside,21Surrounding both garments, but not tying the two together. Even though he cannot remove either of the garments without untying the knot, it is permitted. See Siftei Cohen 300:10. provided he does not wind together cords [of each fabric] and tie them22I.e., tie the linen and woolen garments together. between his shoulders.הלכה יב
כִּלְאֵי בְּגָדִים מֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹתָם וּלְמָכְרָם וְאֵין אָסוּר אֶלָּא לְלָבְשָׁן בִּלְבַד אוֹ לְהִתְכַּסּוֹת בָּהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב יא) "לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז". וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יט) "לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ". הָעֲלִיָּה שֶׁהִיא דֶּרֶךְ לְבִישָׁה אָסוּר אֲבָל עֲלִיָּה שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ לְבִישָׁה כְּגוֹן אֹהֶל שֶׁהוּא כִּלְאַיִם מֻתָּר לֵישֵׁב תַּחְתָּיו. וְכֵן מֻתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה לֵישֵׁב עַל מַצָּעוֹת שֶׁל כִּלְאַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ אֲבָל אַתָּה מַצִּיעוֹ תַּחְתֶּיךָ. וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים אֲפִלּוּ עֶשֶׂר מַצָּעוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְהַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן כִּלְאַיִם אָסוּר לֵישֵׁב עַל הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁמָּא תִּכָּרֵךְ נִימָא עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ:
כסף משנה
12.
It is permitted to make mixed fabrics and sell them.23I.e., there is no prohibition against benefiting from them. It is forbidden only to wear them or cover oneself with them.24I.e., covering oneself with a blanket made from both linen and wool. [This is derived from] the verses [Deuteronomy 22:11]: "Do not wear sha'atnez" and [Leviticus 19:19: "A garment that is of mixed fabrics, sha'atnez] shall not come upon you." [The association of the verses implies] that to be forbidden, [a garment must] "come upon [you]" as one wears it. If, however, it comes upon one not in a manner of wearing, i.e., a tent that is kilayim, it is permitted to sit under it.Similarly, it is permitted according to Scriptural Law to sit on spreads25I.e., blankets or sheets spread on the floor or on furniture. that are made of kilayim. For "Shall not come upon you" [implies], that you may spread it under you. According to Rabbinic decree, however, even if there are ten spreads one on top of the other and the bottom one is kilayim, it is forbidden to sit on the top one, lest a strand [of kilayim] becomes wound around one's flesh.
הלכה יג
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּרַכִּין כְּגוֹן יְרִיעוֹת וּשְׂמָלוֹת. אֲבָל בְּקָשִׁין שֶׁאֵינָן נִכְרָכִין כְּגוֹן כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת מֻתָּר לֵישֵׁב וּלְהָסֵב עֲלֵיהֶן. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בְּשָׂרוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶם:
כסף משנה
13.
When does the above apply? With regard to [spreads made from] soft [fabrics], e.g., curtains and sheets. With regard to [those made from] firm [fabrics] that will not become wound [upon a person's body], e.g., pillows and cushions,26Our translation is taken from Rav Kapach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:2) who interprets the Arabic term the Rambam employs as referring to cushions one places behind his back for support.The Ra'avad cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 9:1) which qualifies the leniency, stating that it applies only when the pillows and cushions are solid. If they are stuffed, they are forbidden lest they become wound around a person's flesh. This view is also cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 301:1). it is permitted to sit or lie upon them, provided one's flesh does not touch them.27I.e., there must be something else interposing between one's flesh and the kilayim.
הלכה יד
וְכֵן הַפָּרֹכֶת שֶׁהִיא כִּלְאַיִם אִם הָיְתָה רַכָּה אֲסוּרָה שֶׁמָּא יִסָּמֵךְ לָהּ הַשַּׁמָּשׁ וְתַעֲלֶה עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ. וְאִם הָיְתָה קָשָׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִכְרֶכֶת מֻתֶּרֶת:
כסף משנה
14.
Similar [laws apply when] a drape is made from kilayim. If it is soft, it is forbidden lest a servant lean against it and it become draped around his body.28Note the gloss of the Radbaz who explains why the Rambam deviates slightly from the wording used in his source, Beitzah 14b. If it was firm and would not be draped, it is permitted.הלכה טו
מִנְעָל שֶׁהוּא כִּלְאַיִם וְאֵין לוֹ עָקֵב מֻתָּר לְלָבְשׁוֹ. שֶׁעוֹר הָרֶגֶל קָשֶׁה הוּא וְאֵינוֹ נֶהֱנֶה כִּשְׁאָר עוֹר הַגּוּף:
כסף משנה
15.
It is permissible to wear slippers29Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:6). The slippers were worn to walk on cushions and spreads and not for the person's own benefit. from kilayim that do not have a heel.30The Radbaz asks: Since the person is not benefiting from wearing the slipper, what difference does it make whether it has a heel or not? He explains that if the slippers have heels, they appear as functional garments and hence, it is forbidden to wear them if they contain kilayim. Alternatively, if they have a heel, it is impossible that they will not warm one's feet. The Kessef Mishneh states that indeed even if the slippers have heels, it is permitted to wear them. The Rambam mentions slippers without heels, only because that was the kind of slippers worn at the time.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 301:13) quotes this law also with regard to wearing slippers like rubbers that are kilayim. [The rationale is that] the skin of the foot is tough and does not derive satisfaction as does the skin of the other [portions] of his body.
הלכה טז
תּוֹפְרֵי כְּסוּת תּוֹפְרִין כְּדַרְכָּן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוְּנוּ בַּחַמָּה מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה וּבַגְּשָׁמִים מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. וְהַצְּנוּעִין תּוֹפְרִים בָּאָרֶץ. וְכֵן מוֹכְרֵי כְּסוּת מוֹכְרִין כְּדַרְכָּן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוְּנוּ בַּחַמָּה שֶׁיָּצֵל לָהֶם הַכִּלְאַיִם שֶׁעַל כְּתֵפָן מִן הַחַמָּה. וְלֹא יִתְכַּוְּנוּ בַּגְּשָׁמִים לְהִתְחַמֵּם בּוֹ. וְהַצְּנוּעִין מַפְשִׁילִין בְּמַקֵּל לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶן:
כסף משנה
16.
Seamtresses sewing garments may sew [kilayim] in their ordinary manner,31I.e., draped over their legs. provided they do not intend [to benefit from them,32As mentioned above, the prohibition against kilayim is twofold: not to wear them and not to have them come upon one's person. It is forbidden to wear kilayim under any circumstances (see Halachah 18), but it is forbidden to have them come upon one's person only if one benefits [Yevamot 4b; Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 301)]. In this instance, although he may actually benefit from the kilayim, since he does not have the intent to benefit, the benefit is not significant. See the notes to Halachah 18. using them as a shield] against the sun in the summer and the rain in the rainy season. The meticulous33Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:5). sew [with the garment lying] on the earth.34So that the kilayim will not be draped over their bodies at all.Similarly, people who sell garments may sell them in the ordinary manner,35I.e., draped over their shoulders and thus they are carrying the garments that are kilayim on their bodies. as long as they do not have the intent that the kilayim on their shoulders will protect them from the heat in the summer and warm them in the rainy season. The meticulous [hang the clothes on] a pole extended over their backs.
הלכה יז
לֹא יִקַּח אָדָם בֵּיצָה כְּשֶׁהִיא חַמָּה בְּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא נֶהֱנֶה בְּכִלְאַיִם מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַצִּנָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
17.
A person should not pick up a hot egg with a cloth that is kilayim for he is [then] benefiting from the mixed fabrics as protection from the heat or from the cold.36I.e., holding the hot egg will warm the cloth which in turn will warm his hands.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, noting that the Babylonian Talmud (Beitzah 16a) rules that there is no prohibition in a similar instance. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh show a source for the Rambam's ruling in the Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 9:3) and explain that there is no contradiction between that ruling and the passage from Beitzah. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
הלכה יח
לֹא יִלְבַּשׁ אָדָם כִּלְאַיִם עַרְאַי וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי עֲשָׂרָה בְּגָדִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְהַנֵּהוּ כְּלוּם. וַאֲפִלּוּ לְהַבְרִיחַ אֶת הַמֶּכֶס. וְאִם לָבַשׁ כֵּן לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
18.
A person should not wear kilayim [even] temporarily and even on top of ten other garments in which instance, he is not deriving benefit from [the mixed fabrics].37In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro connects this ruling to the concepts explained in Halachah 16. Wearing kilayim is forbidden under all circumstances, he explains, even if one does not receive any benefit. When, however, kilayim merely "come upon" one's body, there is no prohibition when one does not derive benefit. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 301:5), he quotes the Rambam's ruling.The Tur and the Rama follow the opinion of Rabbenu Asher who maintains that even wearing kilayim is permitted, provided one does not intend to benefit from wearing them. This touches on an issue of a larger scope: Whether a prohibited activity that is not performed with the intent to benefit is forbidden or not. The Rambam apparently maintains that it is forbidden, while Rabbenu Asher maintains that it is permissible. This explanation is, however, difficult, for in Hilchot Shabbat 1:5, the Rambam rules that according to Scriptural Law, there is no prohibition when one performs an act without an intent to benefit. The Radbaz explains that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter among the Sages. Since the prohibitions of the Sabbath are regarded seriously by people at large, in that context, the Rambam did not worry about taking the more lenient position. The laws regarding kilayim are not considered as severe. Hence he felt it necessary to take a more stringent position. See also the Turei Zahav 301:7 and the Siftei Cohen 301:8 who offer explanations of the Rambam's view. This is forbidden even to deceive customs inspectors.38I.e., if one's personal garments are not subject to customs duty, but merchandise is, one might desire to wear garments of kilayim that were meant to be sold so that they will not be considered as merchandise and thus he would avoid paying customs duty for them. See Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:2).
See Hilchot Gezeilah 5:11-12 on which basis it can be derived when it is permitted to deceive a customs inspector and when doing so is forbidden. If one wears them for such a purpose, he is liable for lashes.
הלכה יט
אֵין אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם אֶלָּא בְּגָדִים שֶׁהֵן דֶּרֶךְ חִמּוּם כְּגוֹן הַכְּתֹנֶת וְהַמִּצְנֶפֶת וְהַמִּכְנָסַיִם וְהָאַבְנֵט וְהַשִּׂמְלָה וּבְגָדִים שֶׁמְּחַפִּין בָּהֶן אֶת הַשּׁוֹקַיִם וְאֶת הַיָּדַיִם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם. אֲבָל צִלְצוּלִין קְטַנִּים שֶׁעוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן הָעָם בְּבֵית יָד שֶׁלָּהֶן לִצְרֹר בָּהֶן מָעוֹת אוֹ תַּבְלִין וּסְמַרְטוּט שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין עָלָיו רְטִיָּה אוֹ מְלוּגְמָא אוֹ אִסְפְּלָנִית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ חִמּוּם בְּכָךְ:
כסף משנה
19.
The prohibition against [wearing] kilayim applies only to garments that [are worn] to provide warmth, e.g., a long shirt, a hat, pants, a belt, a dress, knee pants, gloves, or the like. However, small belts that people make with their pockets prepared to hold money, spices, or the like are permitted [despite the fact they contain kilayim] even though one's flesh touches them, because this is not the ordinary way in which one warms himself. [The same principles apply with regard to] a rag on which one places a bandage, poultice, dressing, or the like.הלכה כ
צִיץ שֶׁל עוֹר אוֹ מֶשִׁי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁתָּלָה בָּהֶן חוּטֵי צֶמֶר וְחוּטֵי פִּשְׁתָּן מְדֻלְדָּלִין עַל פְּנֵי הָאָדָם כְּדֵי לְהַפְרִיחַ הַזְּבוּבִין אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ חִמּוּם בְּכָךְ:
כסף משנה
20.
A forehead piece of leather, silk or the like to which are attached strands of wool and strands of leather that hang over a persons face to chase away flies are not [forbidden] as kilayim, because this is not the manner through which a person derives warmth.הלכה כא
הַמַּנְהִיג בְּהֵמוֹת וּמַכְנִיס חֲבָלִים לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ מֵהֶן פִּשְתִּים וּמֵהֶן צֶמֶר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכּוֹרְכָן עַל יָדוֹ. אֲבָל אִם קְשָׁרָן כֻּלָּן נַעֲשׂוּ כִּלְאַיִם וְאָסוּר לוֹ לְכָרְכָן עַל יָדוֹ:
כסף משנה
21.
It is permitted for a person who is leading animals to hold the leashes attached to them in his hand even though some of them are linen and some of them are wool. [He may] even wind them around his hand. If, however, he ties them all [together],39The Turei Zahav 300:11 maintains that we are speaking about a permanent knot, i.e. a double knot, even though the Beit Yosef states that one knot is sufficient for there to be a prohibition involved. they are considered as kilayim40Since they are tied together, they considered as connected and part of one garment. and it is forbidden for him to bind them around his hand.41For his hand will be warmed by them (Siftei Cohen 300:12). Even though he does not intend to benefit from the activity, it is still forbidden as above. As in Halachah 18, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 300:6) follows the Rambam's view, the Rama follows the opinion of Rabbenu Asher who grants leniency in such a situation.הלכה כב
מִטְפָּחוֹת שֶׁמְּקַנְּחִין בָּהֶן אֶת הַיָּדַיִם וּמִטְפָּחוֹת שֶׁמְּסַפְּגִין בָּהֶן הַכֵּלִים וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת (וּמִטְפַּחַת סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה) וּמִטְפָּחוֹת סְפָרִים אֲסוּרִים מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם שֶׁהֲרֵי הַיָּדַיִם נוֹגְעוֹת בָּהֶן וְהֵן נִכְרָכִין עַל הַיָּד תָּמִיד וּמִתְחַמְּמִין:
כסף משנה
22.
Towels used to clean hands,42Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:3). cloths used to wipe down utensils and land,43Here the Rambam uses a slightly different interpretation than that found in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). mantles for Torah scrolls,44In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains this term as referring to the cloths which a person holds when reading from the Torah. and a barber's cloth45The cloth a barber puts on the shoulders of the person receiving a haircut (ibid.). are all forbidden [to be made from] kilayim.46In his initial version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.; which is followed in the standard printed version of the text), the Rambam rules that there is no prohibition involved in these instances. Later, however, based on the ruling of the Jerusalem Talmud, he changed his mind and forbade them for the reason given here. [The rationale is that one's] hands touch them and they always become wound around the hands and warm them.הלכה כג
אוֹתוֹת שֶׁעוֹשִׂין הַכּוֹבְסִין וְהַגְּרָדִין בַּבְּגָדִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא כָּל אֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. אִם הָיְתָה אוֹת שֶׁל צֶמֶר בְּפִשְׁתָּן אוֹ פִּשְׁתָּן בְּצֶמֶר הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּב אֶצְלוֹ:
כסף משנה
23.
[The following law applies to] tickets47In the Talmudic era, laundry tickets were made of small fragments of cloth. If they were kilayim, there would be a difficulty involved. that launderers and weavers make for clothes so that each person could identify his own. If the ticket was of wool on a linen garment or a linen ticket on a woolen garment, it is forbidden even though it is not significant for him.הלכה כד
בֶּגֶד צֶמֶר שֶׁחִבְּרוֹ עִם בֶּגֶד פִּשְׁתָּן בִּתְכִיפָה אַחַת אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר וְאֵין זֶה כִּלְאַיִם. קִבֵּץ שְׁנֵי רָאשֵׁי הַחוּט כְּאֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁתָּכַף שְׁתֵּי תְּכִיפוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה כִּלְאַיִם:
כסף משנה
24.
When a person joined a woolen cloth to a linen cloth with one thrust [of the needle and thread], they are not considered as having been joined together48This concept also has ramifications with regard to the laws of ritual purity. If they are connected so loosely and an object that conveys impurity touches one, the other does not become impure, nor is one liable for separating them on the Sabbath [Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:10)]. and they are not considered as kilayim.49In the above source, the Rambam explains that if the two cloths are pulled in opposite directions, they will separate effortlessly. If he gathered the two heads of the thread [and tied them] together50The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the commentary of the Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to the above mishnah and the Turei Zahav 300:3. It appears from the Rambam, that he changed his understanding of the mishnah slightly, for there he interprets the two clauses as complementing each other and describing the same circumstance. Here, however, he describes them as two separate instances. or [joined the cloths with] two thrusts [of the needle and thread],51The Radbaz notes that that in Hilchot Shabbat 10:9, the Rambam rules that for a person to be liable, in addition to sewing two stitches, he must tie the threads in a knot. He explains that the laws of the Sabbath are stricter than those applying to kilayim. For one to be liable on the Sabbath, one must perform a labor that has a permanent effect, while to be liable for kilayim, all that is necessary is that the two garments be connected at the time.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 300:2) quotes the ruling of the Rambam. The Tur and the Rama follow the opinion of Rabbenu Asher who maintains that to be liable, one must tie the two threads. they are considered as kilayim.
הלכה כה
מֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת מִן הַכִּלְאַיִם תַּכְרִיכִין לְמֵת שֶׁאֵין עַל הַמֵּתִים מִצְוָה. וְלַעֲשׂוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ מַרְדַּעַת לַחֲמוֹר וְיוֹשֵׁב עָלֶיהָ וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בְּשָׂרוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בָּהּ. וְלֹא יַנִּיחַ מַרְדַּעַת זוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ אֲפִלּוּ לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַזֶּבֶל:
כסף משנה
25.
It is permitted to make shrouds for the deceased from kilayim, for the deceased are not obligated in any mitzvot.52Tosafot, Niddah 61b notes that we must be careful not to wear tzitzit in the presence of a corpse lest this be considered as "mocking the poor," i.e., mocking the dead who can no longer observe the mitzvot [see Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 23:4)]. Nevertheless, wrapping a corpse in a garment that is forbidden is not considered as mockery, because since the person is not deriving benefit, even during his lifetime, there would be no prohibition.The Or Zerua, Vol. II, sec. 421, emphasizes that even after the resurrection of the dead, there will be no difficulty with the dead being clothed in kilayim, for in that future era, the observance of mitzvot will be nullified. [Kilayim] may be used as a saddle-blanket for a donkey53Provided it is obvious in contrast to Halachah 27. and one may sit on it, provided his flesh is not touching it.54For it is firm and thus, as stated in Halachah 13, will not become wound around his body. He should not place this saddle-blanket on his shoulder even to take out the compost.55For this is "bringing kilayim upon oneself." Furthermore, we cannot say that he is doing this unintentionally, because he is using the saddle-blankets to protect him from being sullied by the compost.
הלכה כו
הַמֵּת וְהַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהָיוּ מְלֻבָּשִׁין כִּלְאַיִם מֻתָּר לְנָשְׂאָן עַל כְּתֵפוֹ:
כסף משנה
26.
It is permissible to carry a corpse or an animal that is dressed in kilayim on one's shoulders.56This situation resembles the sellers of clothing mentioned in Halachah 16.הלכה כז
בֶּגֶד צֶמֶר שֶׁאָבַד בּוֹ חוּט שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן. אוֹ בֶּגֶד פִּשְׁתָּן שֶׁאָבַד בּוֹ חוּט שֶׁל צֶמֶר. הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לְנָכְרִי שֶׁמָּא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ הַנָּכְרִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ מַרְדַּעַת לַחֲמוֹר שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא אוֹתוֹ אַחֵר וְיִקְרָעֶנּוּ מֵעַל הַמַּרְדַּעַת וְיִלְבָּשֶׁנּוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַכִּלְאַיִם נִכָּר בּוֹ. וְכֵיצַד תַּקָּנַת בֶּגֶד זֶה. צוֹבְעוֹ שֶׁאֵין הַצֶּמֶר וְהַפִּשְׁתִּים עוֹלִים בְּצֶבַע אֶחָד וּמִיָּד הוּא נִכָּר לוֹ וְשׁוֹמְטוֹ. וְאִם לֹא נִכַּר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁמַט וְהָלַךְ לוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּדַק וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת בִּיאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת שֶׁכָּל אִסּוּר סְפֵקוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וּלְפִיכָךְ הֵקֵלּוּ בְּסָפֵק:
כסף משנה
27.
When a thread of linen becomes lost within a woolen garment or a thread of wool becomes lost within a linen garment, the garment should not be sold to a gentile lest the gentile sell it to a Jew.57See Halachot 6-7 above which emphasize that a thread of shaatnez can never become nullified. Nor should he make it a saddle-blanket for a donkey, lest another person find it and tear it off the saddle-blanket and wear it, because the kilayim are not discernable within it.What can be done to correct the situation regarding this garment? It should be dyed. Because wool and linen will not dye in the same manner. Thus [the lost thread] will become recognizable and then he should remove it. If it is not recognizable [after the dying], it is permitted [to use the garment], for perhaps [the lost thread] fell off. After all, he checked and did not find it. As we explained already in the laws of forbidden intimate relations,58Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:17. See also Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 16:1. any prohibition arising from a doubt is of Rabbinical origin. Therefore, [our Sages] were lenient because of the doubt.59The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point. He agrees that according to Scriptural Law, one is not liable in a situation of doubt, but maintains that our Sages required us to be stringent when there is a doubt. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh agree with the Ra'avad in principle, but explain the Rambam's words as follows: Because all that is involved is a Rabbinic prohibition and this is an exceptional and abnormal situation, our Sages granted leniency.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 302:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Tur and the Ramah follow the approach of the Ra'avad and allow leniency only when the prohibition against kilayim is Rabbinic in origin.
הלכה כח
הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלִי צֶמֶר מִן הַנָּכְרִי צָרִיךְ לְבָדְקוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה שֶׁמָּא הֵן תְּפוּרִין בְּפִשְׁתָּן:
כסף משנה
28.
When a person purchases woolen garments from gentiles, he must check them very carefully, lest they be sewn with linen thread.60This law is relevant at the present time as well, because the thread and the lining of garments are often made from linen. For this reason, Sha'atnez laboratories have been established in most major cities to examine garments to see if they contain linen.הלכה כט
הָרוֹאֶה כִּלְאַיִם שֶׁל תּוֹרָה עַל חֲבֵרוֹ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּשּׁוּק קוֹפֵץ לוֹ וְקוֹרְעוֹ עָלָיו מִיָּד. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה רַבּוֹ שֶׁלִּמְּדוֹ חָכְמָה. שֶׁאֵין כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת דּוֹחֶה אִסּוּר לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה הַמְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה. וְלָמָּה נִדְחֶה בְּהֶשֵׁב אֲבֵדָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא לָאו שֶׁל מָמוֹן. וְלָמָּה נִדְחֶה בְּטֻמְאַת מֵת הוֹאִיל וּפֵרֵט הַכָּתוּב (ויקרא כא ג) (במדבר ו ז) "וּלְאַחֹתוֹ". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ לַאֲחוֹתוֹ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם הֲרֵי הוּא נִדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים יז יא) "לֹא תָסוּר מִן הַדָּבָר" הֲרֵי לָאו זֶה נִדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה עָלָיו שַׁעַטְנֵז שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵינוֹ קוֹרְעוֹ עָלָיו בַּשּׁוּק וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹשְׁטוֹ בַּשּׁוּק עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵיתוֹ וְאִם הָיָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה פּוֹשְׁטוֹ מִיָּד:
כסף משנה
29.
When a person sees kilayim that are forbidden by Scriptural Law on his friend - even if the latter is walking in the market place - he should jump up and rip it off him immediately.61Despite the embarrassment it might cause, because every moment he wears it, he transgresses the prohibition against kilayim.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 303:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Tur and the Rama maintain that this ruling applies only when the person is conscious of the transgression he is performing. If, however, he performs the violation unintentionally, the garment should not be removed from him in public. [This applies] even to his teacher from whom he has learned wisdom.62Whom he is obligated to honor (Hilchot Talmud Torah, ch. 5). For [the obligation to] honor people at large does not supercede a negative prohibition in the Torah.63Berachot 19b quotes Proverbs 21:30: "There is no wisdom; there is no understanding; and there is no counsel against God" and concludes: "Wherever there is a desecration of God's name (i.e., the transgression of a prohibition in public), deference is not granted to a master's honor."
Why is such [a prohibition] superceded with regard to returning a lost object?64I.e., the Torah forbids ignoring the lost object and not trying to return it to its owner (Hilchot Gezeilah Va'Aveidah 11:1). Nevertheless, if the person who discovers the lost object is a Torah scholar and it is compromising to his honor to return it, he is not required to do so (ibid.:13). Because the prohibition involves financial matters.65A person can waive his colleague's obligation to him with regard to financial matters. Hence, we assume that he would waive return of the article in consideration of the Sages' honor.
Why is [a prohibition] superceded with regard to the ritual impurity associated with a corpse?66I.e., a priest who is ordinarily forbidden to come in contact with the ritual impurity resulting from a human corpse (Hilchot Evel 3:1) must bury a corpse that has no one else to bury it (ibid.:8). Because Scripture made an exclusion regarding his sister.67He is commanded to become impure for the burial of all his immediate relatives with the exception of his married sister (Leviticus 21:3 .According to the Oral Tradition,68Berachot, loc. cit. it was taught: For his sister, he may not become impure, but he may become impure for a corpse that it is a mitzvah to bury.
If, however, a prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, it is superceded by the consideration of a person's honor in all situations. Although the Torah states [Deuteronomy 17:11]: "Do not deviate from any of the statements they relate to you,"69I.e., one of the 365 prohibitions in the Torah forbids us from deviating from the commands of the Sages [Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 312) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 496), Hilchot Mamrim 1:2]. this prohibition is superceded by considerations of a person's honor. Accordingly, if [another person] has upon him sha'atnez that is forbidden according to Rabbinical law, one may not rip it off him in the marketplace, nor must [the person himself] remove it in the marketplace until he reaches home. If [the sha'atnez was forbidden] according to Scriptural Law, he must remove it immediately.
הלכה ל
הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאַיִם אוֹ הַמִּתְכַּסֶּה בּוֹ לוֹקֶה. הָיָה לָבוּשׁ בְּכִלְאַיִם כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אַחַת. הוֹצִיא רֹאשׁוֹ מִן הַבֶּגֶד וְהֶחְזִירוֹ הוֹצִיא רֹאשׁוֹ וְהֶחְזִירוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁט הַבֶּגֶד כֻּלּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב אַחַת כָּל הַיּוֹם כְּשֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ הַתְרָאָה אַחַת. אֲבָל אִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ פְּשֹׁט פְּשֹׁט וְהוּא לָבוּשׁ בּוֹ וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי לִפְשֹׁט וְלִלְבּשׁ אַחַר שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב עַל כָּל שְׁהִיָּה וּשְׁהִיָּה שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ עָלֶיהָ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁט:
כסף משנה
30.
A person who wears kilayim or covers himself with them is liable for lashes. If he was wearing kilayim the entire day, he is liable only for one set of lashes.70For it is considered as if he violated only one transgression. If he repeatedly stuck his head in and out of the garment - even though he did not take off the entire garment, he is liable for each time [he stuck his head out].71Provided he received a warning each time (Kessef Mishneh).When is he liable for only one set of lashes? When he received one warning. If, however, they warned him and told him: "Take it off, take it off," and he continued to wear it and remained wearing for the amount of time necessary to remove it and put it on after they warned him, he is liable [for lashes] for each interval that he waited,72Although a person who violates a prohibition without committing a deed is not liable for lashes, there is a difference in this instance, because wearing the garment is considered as committing a deed (Ritba, as quoted by Kessef Mishneh). for he was warned regarding it and, nevertheless, did not remove [the forbidden garment].
הלכה לא
הַמַּלְבִּישׁ אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ כִּלְאַיִם אִם הָיָה הַלּוֹבֵשׁ מֵזִיד הַלּוֹבֵשׁ לוֹקֶה וְהַמַּלְבִּישׁ עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יט יד) "וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל". וְאִם לֹא יָדַע הַלּוֹבֵשׁ שֶׁהַבֶּגֶד הוּא כִּלְאַיִם וְהָיָה הַמַּלְבִּישׁ מֵזִיד הַמַּלְבִּישׁ לוֹקֶה וְהַלּוֹבֵשׁ פָּטוּר:
כסף משנה
31.
[The following laws apply when] a person dresses a colleague in kilayim. If the wearer acted consciously, he is liable for lashes73He is not considered as if he did not perform a deed when committing this transgression, because as in the previous halachah, wearing the garment itself can be considered a deed. Moreover, when a person dresses a colleague, the person being dressed helps to some degree. That is sufficient a deed to warrant lashes (Kessef Mishneh). and the person who dressed him is liable for "plac[ing] a stumbling block before the blind."74See Hilchot Rotzeach 12:14 which interprets this phrase from Leviticus 19:14 as a prohibition against causing a person who is unaware to commit a spiritually undesirable act. If the person wearing the garment did not know that it was kilayim and the person who dressed him acted willfully, that person is liable for lashes75In one of his Responsa (Klal 2, Responsum 16), Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that there is no prohibition involved other than "placing a stumbling block in front of the blind" and one is not liable for lashes for violating that prohibition since it is of a general scope.The Radbaz explains that the Rambam considers the prohibition against Kilayim as also applicable to a person dressing a colleague. He questions, however, why the Rambam does not rule in a similar manner in Hilchot Nazir 5:20. and the wearer is exempt.
הלכה לב
כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁלָּבְשׁוּ בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה אֲפִלּוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ לוֹקִין מִפְּנֵי הָאַבְנֵט שֶׁהוּא כִּלְאַיִם וְלֹא הֻתְּרוּ בּוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה כְּצִיצִית: סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת כִּלְאַיִם בְּסִיַעְתָּא דִּשְׁמַיָּא
כסף משנה