| (Copyright) by Laura Lee (Bismarck, North Dakota) |
|---|
| I received the following question from Jeanine Kersey Russell of North Dakota: “I have a question. Is there a cotton only in clothing or bedding that is part of your church’s belief.” I believe where people get this from is: Lev 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Deu 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. To save space I will stick to the question asked and not include the commentary in regard to the cattle or the seeds. Here is what the following commentators say in answer to your question. Jamieson-Faussett-Brown neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee — Although this precept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in all probability designed to root out some superstition, it seems to have had a further meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that “wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister” [Whitlaw]. (See Eze_44:17, Eze_44:18). John Gill neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee; for, as Josephus (l) says, none but the priests were allowed to wear such a garment, and with which the Misnah (m) agrees; in which it is asserted, that the priests have no other clothing to minister in, in the sanctuary, but of woollen and linen; which seems to be a better reason of this prohibition than what Maimonides (n) gives, that it was on the account of idolatrous priests, who used to go clothed with such a garment, and a metal ring on their fingers: the Jewish tradition is, nothing is forbidden on account of divers kinds (i.e. in garments) but wool and flax; camels’ wool, and sheep’s wool, mixed together, if the greater part is camels’, it is free, but if the greater part is sheep’s wool, it is forbidden, if half and half, it is forbidden; and so flax and hemp mixed together; also that nothing is forbidden on such account but what is spun and wove (o): the design of this, as of the other, seems to be in general to caution against unnatural lusts and impure mixtures, and all communion of good and bad men, and particularly against joining the righteousness of Christ with the works of men, in the business of justification: Christ’s righteousness is often compared to a garment, and sometimes to fine linen, clean and white; and men’s righteousness to filthy rags, Rev_19:8; which are by no means to be put together in the said affair; such who believe in Christ are justified by the obedience of one and not of more, and by faith in that obedience and righteousness, without the works of the law, Rom_5:19 Rom_3:28; to join them together is needless, disagreeable, and dangerous. (e) תרביע “non facies coire”, V. L. Pagninus, Drusius. (f) Misn. Gelaim, c. 1. sect. 6. (g) Hilchot Gelaim, c. 9. sect. 3. (h) De Special. Leg. p. 784. (i) Misn. ut supra, (f)) sect. 9. (k) Misn. Celaim, c. 1. sect. 7, 8. (l) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 11. (m) Celaim, c. 9. sect. 1. (n) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 37. (o) Misn. ut supra, (k)) c. 9. sect. 1. 8. George Haydock Kind. Mules were therefore either brought from other countries, (3 Kings 10:28,) or they were produced by some of the same species, as, good authors assert, is frequently the case in Syria, Cappadocia, &c. (Pliny, [Natural History?] 8:44; Pineda) (Tirinus) — Spencer (Leg. 2:20,) says, without any proof, that this law had a reference to the impure conjunctions of animals, in honour of Venus and of Priapus. — Different seeds, &c. This law tends to recommend simplicity and plain-dealing in all things; and to teach the people not to join any false worship or heresy with the worship of the true God. (Challoner) — Draw not the yoke with infidels, 2 Corinthians vi. (Theodoret, q. 27.) These different colours were not in themselves evil, since they were used in the priests’ vestments. They insinuate, that we must avoid schisms. (Worthington) — The sowing of different seeds tends to impoverish the soil. (Pliny, 18:10) The Egyptians sowed various seeds on a board, covered with fine mould; and, observing which sort was destroyed by the heat of the sun in the dog-days, superstitiously refrained, that year, from sowing any of it, lest it should produce no crop. (Palladius) — Sorts. The Rabbins say of linen and wool, as Deu_22:11 They allow other sorts. Josephus ([Aniquities?] 4:8,) supposes, that garments of the former description were thus reserved for the priests alone. The Flamen, among the Romans, could not wear a woollen garment sewed with thread, without committing a sin; piaculum erat, says Servius. These precepts were to be literally observed, though they concealed a moral instruction of the greatest consequence, importing that all unnatural intercourse was to be avoided. Pythagoras conveyed his instructions under similar enigmatical expressions, saying, “we must not stir up the fire with a sword,” &c., as Solomon does likewise. (Pro_30:15; Sir_12:3; Sir_12:6.) (Calmet) Biblical Illustrator Woollen and flaxen threads Not only is it forbidden to weave woollen and flaxen threads together into one material to make wearing apparel of it; but, according to the administrators of the law during the second Temple, an Israelite must not mend a woollen garment with a flaxen thread, and vice versa. One of the reasons which the ancient canonists assign for this prohibition is that “wool and linen were appointed for the priests alone.” This law is observed by the orthodox Jews to this day. (C. D. Ginsburg, LL. D.) I did check and the Jewish people do keep this law today and most of us probably also keep it without knowing there even was a law until now. For one thing I can’t wear any kind of wool as it makes me itch. So as far as I know, I don’t even own any. To answer the question though, the prohibition does not seem to be that you only use cotton, but that you do not mix the linen (flax) with wool (sheep). In doing research on this even if you buy a suit or anything with shoulder pads or the like, I guess some manufactures use rags for padding which could be wool mixed with linen. If you aren’t sure what is in your clothing, I found that there are at least 60 labs in the United States alone that can tell you if your clothing is mixed with wool and if it can be fixed or if you should throw it. I personally never gave a thought to this law before I got this question, but it is in God’s law and because it is part of God’s Law, we should all be keeping this law. I welcome any input I can get from others in regard to the law of Shatnez which is the Jewish word for this law as I understand it. What is considered Shatnez? Shatnez (or Shaatnez or Shatnes) is cloth containing a mixture of wool and linen, which is prohibited under a strict reading of Jewish law (see Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11). Only sheep’s wool is considered “wool”, and therefore the prohibition does not apply to other animal fibers such as camel hair, mohair, angora, cashmere, alpaca, or vicuna. The term “linen” refers only to fibers from the flax plant, and not to cotton, hemp, jute and other plant-based fibers. A combination of other materials such as linen and cotton or wool and silk does not create Shaatnez. The prohibition against Shatnez also does not apply to wearing separate garments made of wool and linen. For example, a wool jacket may be worn over a linen shirt as long as the two garments are not sewn or twisted together. From: WHAT IS SHATNEZ? (michaelandrews.com) |
Views: 5