Niddah 122
תנא
and when worn out it should be examined in sunlight.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When holding up the garment to the light the place of the semen appears darker than the rest of it. A new garment, however, whose texture is close would not show up such a stain even in front of the light. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
בגד שאבד בו כלאים הרי זה לא ימכרנו לעובד כוכבים ולא יעשנו מרדעת לחמור
was lost<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it was known that a thread of wool had been woven into a garment of flax or a thread of flax into a garment of wool but the thread could not be traced so as to be extracted. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
א"ל אביי ואי תימא רב דימי
implies that the commandments will be abolished in the Hereafter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the resurrection. Had they remained in force the revived dead (cf. prev. n) would he transgressing the law of kil'ayim. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מאי דכתיב (תהלים פח, ו) במתים חפשי כיון שמת אדם נעשה חפשי מן המצות
this is forbidden'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can R. Joseph derive from this ruling that 'the commandments will be abolished in the Hereafter'? ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אמר רפרם בר פפא אמר רב חסדא
— The other replied: But was it not stated in connection with it, 'R. Johanan ruled: Even for burial'? And thereby R. Johanan followed his previously expressed view, for R. Johanan stated: 'What is the purport of the Scriptural text, Free<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V., 'set apart'. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
מנא ליה לסבא הא
Rafram b. Papa citing R. Hisda ruled: A garment in which kil'ayim was lost may be dyed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the colour effect of dye on wool is different from that on flax the one could be distinguished and separated from the other. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
מתני' היא דתנן בודק עד שמגיע לסלע ואי ליכא אימר עורב נטלה
it is then permitted to be worn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumption being that the threads of the other kind have somehow dropped out of the texture. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
עמרא וכיתנא בהדדי לא סליק להו צבעא וכיון דלא ידיע אימר מנתר נתר
The other replied: It is in our Mishnah, for we have learnt, ONE CONTINUES THE EXAMINATION OF THE HEAP UNTIL ONE REACHES BEDROCK; and if it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unclean object. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אמר רב אחא בריה דרב ייבא משמיה דמר זוטרא
is not there, it is obviously assumed that a raven had carried it away. Here too, dye does not have the same effect on wool and flax and, since no [difference could be] discerned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after the dye had been applied. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
מ"ט מדאורייתא שעטנז כתיב עד שיהיה שוע טווי ונוז ורבנן הוא דגזרו ביה
R. Aha son of R. Yeba citing Mar Zutra ruled: If a man inserted flaxen threads in his woollen garment and then pulled them out but is not sure whether he pulled them [all] out or not, it is quite proper [for him to wear the garment]. What is the reason? — Pentateuchally, since it is written sha'atnez<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 11. E.V., 'mingled stuff'. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
וכיון דלא ידע אי נתקיה שרי
the prohibition does not apply unless the material was hackled, spun and woven,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shu'a, tawui and nuz, three words Rabbinically assumed to make up the word sha'atnez. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
אימר או שוע או טווי או נוז
and since the man is not quite sure about the pulling out of the threads the garment is permitted. R. Ashi demurred: Might it not be suggested that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A material that is to be forbidden as Kil'ayim. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
והלכתא כמר זוטרא מדאפקינהו רחמנא בחדא לישנא
must be either hackled or spun or woven? — The law, however, is in agreement with Mar Zutra, because the All Merciful expressed them in one word.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shu'a, tawui and nuz, three words Rabbinically assumed to make up the word sha'atnez. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
ת"ר
Our Rabbis taught: A dyed garment is susceptible to the uncleanness of a bloodstain. R. Nathan b. Joseph ruled: It is not susceptible to the uncleanness of a stain, for dyed garments were ordained for women only in order to relax the law in regard to their bloodstains. 'Were ordained'! Who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
בגד צבוע מטמא משום כתם רבי נתן בר יוסף אומר
ordained them? — Rather read: For dyed garments were permitted to women only in order to relax the law in regard to their bloodstains. 'Were permitted'! Does this then imply that they were once forbidden? — Yes, for we have learnt: At the time of the Vespasian invasion they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
אינו מטמא משום כתם שלא תקנו בגדי צבעונין לאשה אלא להקל על כתמיהן
prohibited the wearing of garlands by bridegrooms and the beating of drums at weddings. They also desired to prohibit dyed garments, but felt that it was better not to do so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they said that was better'. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>