Why did God command we not wear clothing of two different kinds of material (Leviticus 19:19)

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Caveman on October 9, 2010 at 6:03am

just a thought. what happens to wool and linen when they get wet, either from rain or washing?
another thought - at what point int hte agricultural annual cycle would one expect to have wool and/or linen in hand - maybe it's saying 'do your work in its proper time, do not put it off'.

Shalom. Caveman

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ted Walther on October 9, 2010 at 5:33pm

That is a beautiful insight, Caveman. There are so many meanings to be gotten out of Torah.


Caveman said:

just a thought. what happens to wool and linen when they get wet, either from rain or washing?
another thought - at what point int hte agricultural annual cycle would one expect to have wool and/or linen in hand - maybe it's saying 'do your work in its proper time, do not put it off'.

Shalom. Caveman

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe on October 16, 2010 at 10:46am

BACKGROUND.

In my research of various midrashim I was enthralled by the question ; "Why were Cain and Hevel bringing these offerings in the first place."
I discovered that the covering of Adam and Chava by HaShem occurred on the 14th of Nissan.
The offerings of their sons also occurred on the 14th of Nissan.
So we may deduce that these offerings were characterized by a spirit of thanksgiving to HaShem by the sons as a statement of gratitude to HaShem for their actual existence.

Cain represents those that depend on the work of their hands and endeavour to please HaShem. Keep in mind that the ground had already been cursed in the previous chapter. So Cain toiled to plant, irrigate, tend, harvest and prepare his offering.
On the other hand, Hevel represents those that are have an insight into Divine revelation and act accordingly.
Can one miss what eventually happened on this auspicious day?
So Hevel gave back to HaShem the very thing that HaShem gave him in the first place..... only the very best of the first born of the flock. This is extremely important facet that will play down throughout the ages.

Now I would like to add Yosef ben Yaacov into the mix with the help of another profound teaching of Rabbi Ari Kahn.

Vayeshev(Genesis 37-40)
Clothes Make the Man

The story of Joseph is one of the saddest in the Book of Genesis. The sons of Jacob are remembered for the near- fratricide, rather than for displays of love and respect we would have expected. Infamy is their legacy, and it is this episode -- their hatred of Joseph and his subsequent sale into slavery -- which defines their place in history, and mars their record.

The story itself is well known. The special coat given by Jacob to his beloved son Joseph became the object of the brothers' hatred, the symbol of animosity. When following Joseph's sale into slavery, the coat was saturated with goat's blood, we can imagine the cathartic effect for the brothers -- their anger dissipated, vengeance was taken.
* * *

THE THEME

Yet this coat is more than a symbol. Clothing seems to be a major theme in this week's Torah portion, providing an intriguing subtext for the stories told. We are told in passing of Joseph, Judah, Tamar, and again Joseph in various modes of dress and undress, and of Jacob and Reuben tearing their garments as follows:

Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a striped coat. (Genesis 37:3)

And it came to pass, when Joseph came to his brothers, that they stripped Joseph of his coat, his striped coat that was on him. (Genesis 37:23)

And Reuven returned to the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he tore his clothes. (Genesis 37:29)

And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood. And they sent the striped coat, and they brought it to their father and said, "This have we found; know now whether it is your son's coat or no." And he knew it and said, "It is my son's coat; an evil beast has devoured him; Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces." And Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. (Genesis 37:31-34)

And she [Tamar] took off her widow's garments, and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnat. (Genesis 38:14)

And he said, "What pledge shall I give you?" And she said, "Your signet, and your cloak, and your staff that is in your hand." And he gave them to her, and came in to her, and she conceived by him. And she arose, and went away, and took off her veil, and put on the garments of her widowhood. (Genesis 38:18,19)

And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there inside. And she caught him by his garment, saying, "Lie with me," and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got out. (Genesis 39:11,12)

Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon; and he shaved himself, and changed his garment, and came in to Pharaoh. (Genesis 41:14)

Clothes are given, shed, and ripped. They cover and uncover their possessors. Not all the clothing mentioned has one term, nor one thematic message -- different words are utilized to describe garments, indicating separate motifs.
* * *

K'TONET PASIM ( this is sublime)

The term used to describe the gift given to Joseph is k'tonet pasim. The first time the word k'tonet is used is at the dawn of history, to describe the first set of clothes which followed Adam and Eve's trespass and subsequent feeble attempt to cover themselves:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together ... For Adam and for his wife the Lord God made coats skins and clothed them. (Genesis 3:7,21)

In this context it is somewhat strange that specifically this term is used to describe the gift of Jacob to Joseph.1

There is a tradition that these clothes were one and the same, handed down from Adam to Nimrod, to Esau, and finally used by Jacob to procure the blessing from his father.2 These were the clothes given to Joseph. If this is the case, we can appreciate the resulting enmity between Esau and Jacob, but Jacob's motivation in giving these clothes to Joseph seems obscure.

The more specific term k'tonet pasim is used one other time in scripture, also in a context involving relations between siblings:

And Amnon said to Tamar, "Bring the food into the chamber, that I may eat of your hand." And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. And when she had brought them to him to eat, he took hold of her, and said to her, "Come lie with me, my sister." And she answered him, "No, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel; do not do this shameful deed. And I, where shall I carry my shame? And as for you, you shall be as one of the base men in Israel. And therefore, I beg you, speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you." But he would not listen to her voice; but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her. Then Amnon hated her very much; so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, "Get up, be gone." And she said to him, "Do not add this greater wrong of sending me away to the other that you did to me." But he would not listen to her. Then he called his servant who ministered to him, and said, "Take now this woman away from me, and bolt the door after her." And she had a striped coat upon her; for with such robes were the king's daughters who were virgins dressed. Then his servant took her out, and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore her striped coat that was on her, and laid her hand on her head, crying aloud as she went. (2 Samuel 13:10-19)

Amnon's shameful, dastardly deed led to his murder, by order of his brother Absalom. Again, hostile, vile, violent relations between siblings are punctuated by this coat of many colors -- k'tonet pasim.

From this context, it appears that these are royal garments, the clothes of the aristocratic class.3 If this is so, one may posit that Jacob was indicating that Joseph would one day rule. This would necessarily mean that Reuben, the first of all the sons, would fall into disfavor, and the firstborn of his beloved Rachel, would now lead.4
* * *

PRIESTLY GARB

There is, however, another usage of the term k'tonet -- in relationship with the priestly garb:

And for Aaron's sons you shall make coats, and you shall make for them girdles, and turbans shall you make for them, for glory and for beauty. And you shall put them upon Aaron your brother, and his sons with him. And shall anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister to Me in the priest's office. (Exodus 28:40-41)

While the connection between Joseph and the priestly garb seems obscure, the Midrash draws a connection between them:

Rabbi Simon said: "Even as the sacrifices have an atoning power, so too have the [priestly] garments atoning power, as we have learnt in the Mishnah. The High Priest officiated in eight garments, and an ordinary priest in four, namely in a k'tonet, breeches, a mitre, and a girdle. The High Priest wore, in addition, a breastplate, an ephod, a robe, and a head-plate. The tunic, to atone for those who wear a mixture of wool and linen, as it is said, And he made him a coat of many colors. The breeches atoned for unchastity [lit. the uncovering of nakedness], since it is said, And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover the flesh of nakedness; the mitre atoned for arrogance, since it is said, And thou shalt set the mitre on his head. The girdle was to atone, some say, for the crooked in heart, and others say for thieves." (Midrash Rabbah - Leviticus 10:6)

The k'tonet pasim is understood as being made of shatnez, the product of wool and linen. Apparently this is what is meant by k'tonet -- "from flax," and pasim -- "wool." However, where do we see a sin of "wool and linen" in the Joseph story? Why would this section serve as the prototype for shatnez?5

The Vilna Gaon explained the mystical idea communicated by the prohibition of shatnez.6 Abel was a shepherd, raising sheep and producing wool, while Cain worked the land, raising plants such as flax. The tragic relationship of two brothers with an inappropriate relationship resulted in the law of shatnez, which was designed to heal the rift caused by that terrible sin. Only the priest was allowed to wear a garment of the two species together, because the priest is involved in spiritual healing.

Perhaps Jacob gave Joseph these clothes as an antidote to the insidious hatred which seethed within the family. Perhaps Jacob saw Joseph as a prototype of the High Priest.
* * *

CLOTHES OF ADAM AND EVE

All the discussion until this point revolves around the term k'tonet. When the Torah tells us of Adam and Eve being clothed, the text reads:

For Adam and for his wife the Lord God made coats of skins, and He clothed them. (Genesis 3:21)

The concluding phrase "and he clothed them" is written in Hebrew as one word vayalbishem. The Talmud explains the etymology of this word (Shabbat 77b). The word l'vush, "to clothe" is connected with lo bushah, "without shame." The purpose of clothing is to hide one's shame. Man, who stood all but naked in the Garden of Eden, was clothed by God in an act of compassion, his embarrassment covered.

In a sense, all clothing covers the individual and hides the real person, and must be considered within this context. The Hebrew word for coat, me'il, has connotations of me'ila, a trespass.

Once we understand the association between clothing and man's sin we can understand what happens at the end of our Torah portion when Joseph becomes the object of advances of the mistress in the house of Potiphar -- advances which he heroically withstands:

And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, "Lie with me." But he refused, and said to his master's wife, "Behold, my master knows not what is with me in the house, and he has committed all that he has to my hand. There is none greater in this house than I, nor has he kept back any thing from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" ...

And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business, and there was none of the men of the house there inside. And she caught him by his garment, saying, "Lie with me," and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got out. And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and had fled out... (Genesis 39:7-13)

* * *

THE REBELLION OF JOSEPH

The sages are divided regarding Joseph's intention, when he allowed himself to be secluded with her.

Rabbi Johanan said: "This teaches that both [Joseph and Potiphar's wife] had the intention of acting immorally: He went into the house to do his work." Rav and Shmuel [differ in their interpretation]. One said that it really means to do his work; but the other said that he went to satisfy his desires.

And there was none of the men of the house... Is it possible that there was no man in a huge house like that of this wicked [Potiphar]! It was taught in the School of Rabbi Yishmael: "That day was their feast-day, and they had all gone to their idolatrous temple; but she had pretended to be ill because she thought, 'I shall not have an opportunity like to-day for Joseph to associate with me.'"

And she caught him by his garment, saying... At that moment his father's image came and appeared to him through the window and said: "Joseph, thy brothers will have their names inscribed upon the stones of the ephod and thine amongst theirs; is it thy wish to have thy name expunged from amongst theirs and be called an associate of harlots?" (Sotah 36b)

Here the term for clothing is beged; she grabbed his clothing, b'vigdo. The root of the word is b-g-d. This is also the root of the word "rebel."7

Tradition tells us that these two words which share a common root -- rebel and clothing -- are interrelated.

Clothing is the testimony to the first and perhaps most profound rebellion which man staged against God. In the Garden of Eden, when the world was brand new and man was innocent and pure, man reached beyond his rightful grasp. The world has never been the same. Clothing is a symbol of lost innocence. When Joseph went into the room, he allowed himself to enter a spiritually precarious situation. Sin was palatable. Joseph was guilty of rebellion. At that moment she grabs his clothing, seizing his "rebellion."

Nonetheless, Joseph extricates himself, retaining his innocence. He will once again wear royal garb, just as his father had envisioned years before.

And removing his signet ring from his hand Pharaoh put it on Joseph's hand; and he had him dressed in robes of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck ... Thus he [Pharaoh] placed him [Joseph] over all the land of Egypt. (Genesis 41:42-43)

Joseph let go of his rebellion, and he emerged spiritually fortified, a man who was able to withstand temptation. Now Joseph wore royal clothes, befitting aristocracy. Joseph becomes the person his father knew he would become. His clothes now fit.

NOTES

1. The Midrash is critical of Jacob for showing favor to one son over the others. (Midrash Rabbah - Genesis 84:8 Resh Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah: "A man must not make a distinction among his children, for on account of the coat of many colors which our ancestor Jacob made for Joseph they hated him. (return to text)

2. Rav Kasher cites this Midrash which exists in manuscript form. See Torah Shelemah Vayeshev, chapter 17 note 50. (return to text)

3. Nachmanides makes this observation. (return to text)
4. King Saul's loss of the kingdom is connected to two instances relating to clothing: (1) His clothing is ripped as a sign of his impending loss of the kingdom. (2) Furthermore:

And Saul disguised himself and put on other garments, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, I beg you, divine for me by a spirit, and bring him up for me, whoever I shall name to you.... Because you would not obey the voice of the Lord, nor execute his fierce anger upon Amalek, therefore has the Lord done this thing to you this day. And the Lord will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines; and tomorrow shall you and your sons be with me; the Lord also shall deliver the camp of Israel into the hand of the Philistines. (1 Samuel 28:8,18,19) (return to text)
5. The Talmud in a number of places, says that the k'tonet atones for murder. See Z'vachim 88b, Arachin 17. This would help explain the reference to the k'tonet in the section of Amnon and Tamar, where Amnon is murdered. The Midrash in Shir Hashirim cites both traditions: Midrash Rabbah - Shir HaShirim 4:8. (return to text)

6. Commentary to the "Sifra Deztenuta" chapter 4. (return to text)
7. This association is already implied in the Talmud. Kiddushin 18b. See Rashi's commentary where he cites the verse referring to Joseph. See Bal Haturim, and Rabbenu B'chaye, Exodus 21:8, see the Nachmanides 39:9 where he labels Joseph's possible affair as a b'gida, rebellion; in light of the numerous times the word beged is used in this section, I would doubt that the Nachmanides did not intend this association. (return to text)

Now, let us try and tie this whole saga of intertwining characters together.
Starting with Cain and Hevel we have sibling rivalry. The result : the first fratricide.
Avraham had two sons, Yismael and Yitzchak ...... more sibling rivalry. The result Yismael must leave.
Yitzchak has two sons, Esav and Yaacov..... more sibling rivalry. The result Yaacov departs.

Yaacov now has many sons, the building blocks of a Holy Nation.
Sibling rivalry must not be part of the equation this time. A house divided will not stand.
It is interesting to note that Yaacov returned back to Eretz Yisrael once Yosef was of age, knowing full well that Yosef had the ability and the qualities to overcome Esav.

יח וְהָיָה בֵית-יַעֲקֹב אֵשׁ וּבֵית יוֹסֵף לֶהָבָה, וּבֵית עֵשָׂו לְקַשׁ, וְדָלְקוּ בָהֶם, וַאֲכָלוּם; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה שָׂרִיד לְבֵית עֵשָׂו, כִּי יְהוָה דִּבֵּר. 18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken.
יט וְיָרְשׁוּ הַנֶּגֶב אֶת-הַר עֵשָׂו, וְהַשְּׁפֵלָה אֶת-פְּלִשְׁתִּים, וְיָרְשׁוּ אֶת-שְׂדֵה אֶפְרַיִם, וְאֵת שְׂדֵה שֹׁמְרוֹן; וּבִנְיָמִן, אֶת-הַגִּלְעָד. 19 And they of the South shall possess the mount of Esau, and they of the Lowland the Philistines; and they shall possess the field of Ephraim, and the field of Samaria; and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
כ וְגָלֻת הַחֵל-הַזֶּה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר-כְּנַעֲנִים, עַד-צָרְפַת, וְגָלֻת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, אֲשֶׁר בִּסְפָרַד--יִרְשׁוּ, אֵת עָרֵי הַנֶּגֶב. 20 And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel, that are among the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath, and the captivity of Jerusalem, that is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the South.
כא וְעָלוּ מוֹשִׁעִים בְּהַר צִיּוֹן, לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת-הַר עֵשָׂו; וְהָיְתָה לַיהוָה, הַמְּלוּכָה. {ש} 21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S. Ovadiyah 1 v 18-21.

Is it any wonder that Yaacov gave Yosef the K'tonet ha Pasim ?
I personally believe that Yaacov was particularly instrumental in grooming Yosef with Divine Revelation to overcome the sibling rivalry that had surfaced amongst the brothers.

According to the biblical narrative, Yosef would hang around the sons of the concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah.
This was a bold assertive gesture to the sons of Leah: Reuven, Shimon , Levi and Yehudah, that any thoughts that they harboured assuming that these sons of concubines would be their servants just as their mothers were to Leah and Rachel were misguided. Yosef understood this all too well. The nation of Yisrael depended on each individual son becoming an integral part of the national unity and pulse. Just as Rabbi Kahn expressed in his article on Cain and Hevel, the same criteria is at work here. Each must view his role in context of personal responsibility rather than on mutual comparison.

Yosef had a dilemma that, if I may, I would like to add some personal insight into.
Benyamin was too young at the time, so he is not part of the equation.
We have the sons of Leah, a total of four versus the sons of the concubines, a total of six.
No matter who Yosef sides with, the disparity will always be evident and the rivalry will continue.
Yosef has what I believe to be a game plan.
He invests much time on giving reports of his brothers to his father Yaacov. This inflames the situation further.
Yaacov sends Yosef to Sh'chem to report on his brothers and their attendance to the flocks of sheep.
His brothers are however not attending to the flock but are in a place called "Dotan" an allusion in Hebrew to "law council."
Five versus Six nor Four versus Seven will achieve anything but further turmoil.
This is now the brilliance of Yosef. Ten versus one will be just right. What Yosef has managed to do is unite his brothers in their hatred of him. This he can manage to meander with, according to the dreams that HaShem had given him.

The story does not end here. There is more.
Have you ever wondered why Yosef did not reveal himself to his brothers when they came to Egypt rather than play the set up game with Benyamin ? It never made sense to me and at times I felt that there was a tease at play rather than unbridled rejoicing at the reunion.

The story of Yosef is one of the longest in the Torah.
Why is it that when we get to the climax of the Benyamin episode the Torah pauses with the suspense of Benyamin and starts the story of Yehudah against all logic.
The Sages tell us that the story of Yosef is the story of Yehudah. How so ?

Yehudah is the youngest of the sons of Leah. He has nothing going for him.
In fact he leaves his brothers and goes into business with a gentile and comes undone with the unsavoury saga of Tamar.
But there is something in Yehudah that is of importance to HaShem.
Yosef engineers the whole episode with the goblet and Benyamin to bring out this important aspect.
Yehudah in the end proves to all and sundry that he is prepared to sacrifice his life for the benefit of the family.
He is left with the choice," Is the love that I have for my father greater than the disappointment of not being the favourite son ? "
Yehudah's decision to lay down his life for Benyamin is the catalyst to establish his leadership qualities, a point that is not overlooked by Yaacov on his death bed when he announces prophetic utterances towards all his sons.

So in all reality, despite all the work that Yosef undertook to unite his brothers his ultimate role was to establish the authority of Yehudah. This is his crowning glory.
This attribute is of extreme importance to us today, especially those who claim to be descendants of Beit Yosef / Efrayim - Beit Yisrael. Are we helping in establishing the authority of Yehudah ?
Yosef paved the way by setting the precedence.
His descendant, Yeravam ben Nevat failed dismally during the schism of the Kingdom.
Just like the rebellion of Korach, the earth opened up and swallowed up alive all the descendants of the Northern Kingdom. They were lost to history but not to HaShem.
Will we rectify the tikkun as we understand that sibling rivalry will never achieve HaShem's intended purpose for the unification of His Nation where all tribes play a vital role in the life of the nation..... a understanding that was very much part of Yosef's make up.

CONCLUSION

As we started this incredible journey with Cain and Hevel, compliments of Rabbi Ari Kahn, to the glory of HaShem, we see that the separation was necessary until such time that the Geulah would be at hand.
Shatnez and the prohibition of mixing linen and wool was a mitzvah and in the end the Cohen ha Gadol with his role of council of peace would ultimately atone for the original fratricide of the Hevel by Cain, the tiller of the ground.
A story that somewhat repeats itself with Yosef and his brothers but with a different ending..... a sign for the ultimate Geulah at the end of days.
Is there a clue ?

Zechariah Chapter 13 זְכַרְיָה
א בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יִהְיֶה מָקוֹר נִפְתָּח, לְבֵית דָּוִיד, וּלְיֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִָם--לְחַטַּאת, וּלְנִדָּה. 1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem ( Yehudah ), for purification and for sprinkling.
ב וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, אַכְרִית אֶת-שְׁמוֹת הָעֲצַבִּים מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְלֹא יִזָּכְרוּ, עוֹד; וְגַם אֶת-הַנְּבִיאִים וְאֶת-רוּחַ הַטֻּמְאָה, אַעֲבִיר מִן-הָאָרֶץ. 2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered; and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.
ג וְהָיָה, כִּי-יִנָּבֵא אִישׁ עוֹד, וְאָמְרוּ אֵלָיו אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ יֹלְדָיו לֹא תִחְיֶה, כִּי שֶׁקֶר דִּבַּרְתָּ בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה; וּדְקָרֻהוּ אָבִיהוּ וְאִמּוֹ יֹלְדָיו, בְּהִנָּבְאוֹ. 3 And it shall come to pass that, when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begot him shall say unto him: 'Thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD'; and his father and his mother that begot him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.
ד וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יֵבֹשׁוּ הַנְּבִיאִים אִישׁ מֵחֶזְיֹנוֹ--בְּהִנָּבְאֹתוֹ; וְלֹא יִלְבְּשׁוּ אַדֶּרֶת שֵׂעָר, לְמַעַן כַּחֵשׁ. 4 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be brought to shame every one through his vision, when he prophesieth; neither shall they wear a hairy mantle to deceive;
ה וְאָמַר, לֹא נָבִיא אָנֹכִי: אִישׁ-עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה אָנֹכִי, כִּי אָדָם הִקְנַנִי מִנְּעוּרָי. 5 but he shall say: 'I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the ground; for I have been made a bondman from my youth.' - Mashiach ben Yosef.
ו וְאָמַר אֵלָיו, מָה הַמַּכּוֹת הָאֵלֶּה בֵּין יָדֶיךָ; וְאָמַר, אֲשֶׁר הֻכֵּיתִי בֵּית מְאַהֲבָי. {פ} 6 And one shall say unto him: 'What are these wounds between thy hands?' Then he shall answer: 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.' - Mashiach ben Yosef.
ז חֶרֶב, עוּרִי עַל-רֹעִי וְעַל-גֶּבֶר עֲמִיתִי--נְאֻם, יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת; הַךְ אֶת-הָרֹעֶה וּתְפוּצֶיןָ הַצֹּאן, וַהֲשִׁבֹתִי יָדִי עַל-הַצֹּעֲרִים. 7 Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the man that is near unto Me, saith the LORD of hosts; smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn My hand upon the little ones.
ח וְהָיָה בְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, נְאֻם-יְהוָה, פִּי-שְׁנַיִם בָּהּ, יִכָּרְתוּ יִגְוָעוּ; וְהַשְּׁלִשִׁית, יִוָּתֶר בָּהּ. 8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
ט וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶת-הַשְּׁלִשִׁית, בָּאֵשׁ, וּצְרַפְתִּים כִּצְרֹף אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף, וּבְחַנְתִּים כִּבְחֹן אֶת-הַזָּהָב; הוּא יִקְרָא בִשְׁמִי, וַאֲנִי אֶעֱנֶה אֹתוֹ--אָמַרְתִּי עַמִּי הוּא, וְהוּא יֹאמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי. {פ} 9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried; they shall call on My name, and I will answer them; I will say: 'It is My people', and they shall say: 'The LORD is my God.'

The mind boggles at the vast richness of the Torah narratives.
I am sure that there is much more to still unravel.
Notwithstanding, we do have a mission in the establishment of Yehudah's G-d given authority.
Will we submit to HaShem's decision ? or will we continue to rebel in self conceit and arrogance?
What a glorious day when Mashiach ben David arrives to establish the Malchut Shamayim based on achdut between all the reunited tribes.
May it happen speedily in our day.

b'Ahavat Yehudah v'Yisrael
JOE.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anders Branderud on June 11, 2011 at 5:20am

Shalom to you all!

 

First of all the application of the mitzwah is how it was applied in the ancient times – according to the mishpat decided by the beit din [Definition mishpat: Link].

 

According to mishpat the definition of  sha'at'neiz′ is a "fabric made of wool mixed with linen"

 

Torah prohibits follow ones own interpretation instead of the real world historical and logical mishpat-decision by the beit din of how to keep the mitzwot:

 

"You shall not reconnoiter after your own heart and after your own eyes, after which you are prostituting." [Further documentation]

 

D’varim – ‘Deuteronomy’ – 32:4:  (ha-Tzur; [He is] the Rock, Boulder),תמים(tâmim′) פעלו(pââlo; is His action), כי כל-דרכיו (ki khâl-d^әrâkhâyv; for all of His Ways) are משפט(mishpât′)!!!

 

All of His ways are mishpât. According to Torah, a mishpat is the decision by a beit-din of how a certain mitzwah of Torah should be practised! It is not an addition to, nor is it a subtraction from, the written Torah. The beit-din is not allowed to decide mishpat that adds to Torah and/or subtracts from Torah. Unfortunately some claim definitions about e.g. about melakhah, which adds to and subtracts from the Torah-definition. [Documentation]

 

Mishpat: D'varim 1:17,.16:18-20, 17:8-13 in Hebrew according to etymology and many more verses in Hebrew according to Hebrew numbering.

 

Here is an interesting quote about the rationale of the mitzwah [slightly edited by me]: “19.19— ובגד כלאים שעטנז לא יעלה עליך (u-vëgëd kilayim sha•atneiz lo ya•alëh âlëykhâ; and no beged of hybrid-shaatneiz is to come up on you).

 

Bëgëd can mean either "garment" or "treachery ."

 

In LXX, shaatneiz is rendered as κιβδηλος (kibdeilos)—counterfeit.

 

From the pârâshâh′ of Q’doshim we learn that shaatneiz refers to a hybrid—of two kinds of material.

 

From D^’vârim′ [Deuteronomy] 22.11 we learn that this hybrid specifically refers to the mixing of wool and linen together. Particularly as the source texts for NHM were redacted by the Romans, the passage at NHM 9.16 may be a corruption of, or perhaps a generalization based upon, today's pârâshâh′.

 

Several rationalizations have been offered by various sages over the past millennia to explain the significance of the prohibition against shaatneiz, however none are logical.

 

However, a key is found in the Seiphër Torâh′ which is absent from even the Hebrew in most editions of the Masoretic Text. Shaatneiz is also an acronym representing the first of two words שעטנ"ז ג"ץ (Shaatnei"z Gei"tz), which together form an acronym for the seven letters in the Seiph′ër Torâh′ that are given crownlets in the script of the Seiph′ër Torâh′.

 

שעטנ"ז (Shaatnei"z) represents the first five of these seven letters (ש, ע, ט, נ, ז), and the second word of the acronym, ג"ץ, represents the final two of these seven letters.

The crownlets distinguish these letters in direct relationship to this pârâshâh′' and the second word of the acronym unlocks the meaning, in today's pârâshâh′.

 

ג"ץ is the abbreviation for גר צדק (geir tzëd′ëq; a just—popularly "righteous"—resident-alien)!

Putting this together, the prohibition is then against שעטנ"ז (intermixed linen & wool) ג"ץ ("righteous" resident-alien).

 

The mixture of wool and linen in shaatneiz, then, is associated with the remnants of a geir's former religious culture (wool) in contrast to the precepts ofJudaism (linen), respectively.

 

The warning of this passage may be paraphrased as: "You shall not intermix your animals, you shall not intermix your plants and you shall not allow the treachery of an 'intermixed Geir tzëd′ëq' to come up over you." The admonition here is that the Geir Toshâv who has been studying Judaism but has not abandoned tenets of his former religion and who still mixes the two together, must not be recognized as a Geir tzëd′ëq.

 

To reinforce the symbolism of this prohibition against intermarrying perpetually, we are prohibited from wearing garments mixing wool and linen.” [Quote; Calendar (left menu);  scroll down to the Parashah called Q’doshim]”

 

Shalom,

Anders Branderud

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rimmon 24 on June 17, 2011 at 3:40pm

Interesting thread...but I personally am allergic to alot of fabrics, including linen and wool.  So I can not wear them.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page