Torah From the Heart

 

By Brother Glenn McWilliams

2011

 

From the beginning of the Torah we learn that YHWH is a God of order.  When the world was created, it was described as being tohu v^evohu—shapeless and empty or formless and void.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2 KJV)

YHWH gave shape and order to this formless confusion by making various divisions and distinctions.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. ⁵ And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5 KJV)

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. ⁷ And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. ⁸ And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. ¹⁰ And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:9-10 KJV)

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (Genesis 1:14 KJV)

Of the living things which YHWH created upon the earth, in the skies, and in the seas, whether animal or vegetable, it was created and commanded to bring forth after its own kind.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (Genesis 1:11 KJV)

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21 KJV)

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Genesis 1:24 KJV)

The only mixed thing found in the Garden of Eden was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which was clearly forbidden to man.

And out of the ground made YHWH God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9 KJV)

And YHWH God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: ¹⁷ But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:16-17 KJV)

These two trees represent two means of gaining knowledge.  The Tree of Life is a symbol of man living exclusively by revelation knowledge.  The Spirit creator would reveal knowledge to the spirit of man by direct revelation.  The spirit of man would then inform his soul how to feel, think, and understand the world around him.  The soul of man would then inform his flesh how to manifest this divine revelation in the world around him.  This is the proper created order. By living exclusively by revelation knowledge and in this proper created order Adam fulfilled his created purpose to be the image of God.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ²⁸ And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26-28 KJV)

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, on the other hand, represents man’s sensual knowledge.  Sensual knowledge is gained through the senses; sight, smell, sound, touch, and taste.  We should remember that when man ate of the forbidden fruit his eyes were opened.

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:5 KJV)

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7 KJV)

Once man’s senses were awakened, man began receiving knowledge from his flesh as well as his spirit.  The soul of man was forced to choose which knowledge was best.  Because the sensual knowledge often conflicts with the divine revelation knowledge man is often conflicted as to which “voice” to listen to.  Once man began “choosing” for himself, which knowledge he would manifest in his flesh, the image of YHWH was lost.  This mixture of divine revelation with human sensual knowledge has lead to all manner of false images, idols, and religious confusion.  It is for this reason that YHWH repeatedly prohibits mixture among the children of Israel.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV)

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deuteronomy 12:32 KJV)

When YHWH thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; ³⁰ Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. ³¹ Thou shalt not do so unto YHWH thy God: for every abomination to YHWH, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:29-31 KJV)

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20: 23 KJV)

For thou shalt worship no other god: for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: ¹⁵ Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; ¹⁶ And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. (Exodus 34:14-16 KJV)

And when YHWH thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: (Deuteronomy 7:2 KJV)

This prohibition against mixture may be observed in various other aspects of Israel’s life as well.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto YHWH thy God. (Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV)

Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. ¹⁰ Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. (Deuteronomy 22:9-10 KJV)

While at face value we may understand the above verses as applying to the practices of “cross dressing” and various agricultural practices, we should also recognize that the principles behind these prohibitions may be applied to our marriages and families.  As the apostle Shaul stated we should not be unequally yoked.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14 KJV)

Believers and unbelievers (or people of different beliefs) should not marry. This mixing of seed produces mixed fruit that will lead to conflict and division in the family and confusion among the faith community.  Such mixture is not permitted among the children of Israel. We may recall that when the House of Judah returned to the land of Israel after the Babylonian exile, they put away all their “strange” or foreign wives, as well as the children born by them in captivity.

Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore. ² And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. ³ Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (Ezra 10:1-3 KJV)

One other prohibition against mixture that is often overlooked is the prohibition against garments made of mixed fibers.

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 woolen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19 KJV)

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together. (Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV)

There is no explanation or reason given in the Torah for this prohibition.  Given the other prohibitions against mixture this prohibition against garments of mixed fiber should not really surprise us. Just as YHWH sanctified our diet by making distinctions between Israel’s diet and the diet of the world[1], the Sovereign One also sanctifies our manner of dress by the prohibitions against wearing cloth made of mixed fibers, against the practice of cross dressing, and by commanding us to wear tsitsiot on the four corners of our garments.

Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: (Numbers 15:38 KJV)

Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself. (Deuteronomy 22:12 KJV)

In spite of the fact that the Torah gives no reason for the prohibition against wearing a garment of mixed fiber, this has not prevented men from seeking a possible explanation. Since the Torah gives an example of the forbidden mixture as being wool and linen, some have suggested a connection with the story of Cain and Abel.  We may recall that Abel was a shepherd.  Wool is an animal fiber.  Cain, on the other hand was a tiller of the ground. Linen is made from the fiber of the flax plant. Since only one offering was deemed acceptable to YHWH, some have suggested that we should not mix plant and animal fibers in our cloth.

The Hebrew term for this forbidden fiber is sha’atnez (shin, ayin, tet, nun, zayin).  The etymology and meaning of this word is debatable. Most scholars agree that the word means “mixture” or “mixture of incompatible things.” The Hebrew word shat (shin, ayin, tet) means “to stamp, stamping, or tramping (as with hooves).” We may picture grapes being mixed or crushed under foot in a vat as was sometime the practice in the olden days. Most scholars, however, seem to suspect that the word sha’atnez is of an Egyptian origin, from the Coptic word saht meaning “woven” and nudj meaning “false.”[2] Others suggest that sha’atnez is a compound word derived from the Aramaic word shat meaning “mix” and the Chaldee word nuz meaning “to twist threads together.”[3] The Mishnah teaches that the word sha’atnez is actually an acrostic made up of the words, shu’a (hackled), tawui (spun), and nuz (woven).

Spun and woven work alone are forbidden under the law of Diverse Kinds, as it is written, Thou shalt not wear Sha’atnez—that which is shu’a (hackled), tawui (spun) and nuz (woven). R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: It means that he that wears it is ‘estranged’ (naloz) and ‘estranges’ (meliz) his Father in heaven against him.[4]

Regardless of the etymology of the word, the context of the word seems to indicate that the prohibition is against cloth made of mixed fibers.  The word sha’atnez appears only twice in the Tanak, both times it is prohibiting the mixing of fibers.  We should note that Torah gives us an example to help clarify the meaning of the term sha’atnez.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together. (Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV)

While this verse helps to clarify what is intended by the term sha’atnez, it does not clarify whether the addition of the example of wool and linen is meant to be a limit to the prohibition or merely an example of the principle of the prohibition. In other words is the Torah intending to limit the prohibition to only cloth made from wool and linen exclusively, or is it prohibiting any mixture of fibers.  The rabbis have largely accepted the limited definition of the term sha’atnez prohibiting only garments made of a mixture of wool and linen.  Others teach that this verse teaches that the prohibition is against animal fibers being mixed with plant fibers.  In other words, it would be acceptable to wear a garment made from wool and leather, or wool and fur, or wool and silk.  It would be likewise acceptable to wear a garment made of a mixture of linen and cotton.  But cotton and fur, or wool and linen, or silk and linen, would be prohibited.  Others teach that this prohibition should be understood as a prohibition against all mixture regardless of the source of the fiber.  In this broader understanding the clothing of the children of Israel should be 100% cotton, or 100% wool, or 100% linen, or 100% acrylic or 100% silk.

We know from archeological evidence that the mixing of wool and linen, or wool and cotton, was a common practice among ancient cloth makers. This mixing of various fibers was thought to strengthen the cloth. Jeffrey H. Tigay writes,

Pairing wool and linen made for a stronger fabric; fragments of such fabric have been unearthed at the site of Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai Peninsula, where religiously heterodox inscriptions in Hebrew were also found, along with inscriptions in other languages.[5]

Cotton and linen from flax were the common vegetable fibers used in the textile industry.  We should recognize however that the cultures that used vegetable fibers for cloth had to be a sedentary people who had time to cultivate and harvest the necessary crops.  Nomadic people would tend to rely upon hair, wool and leather from their vast herds for their cloth and clothing needs.

Understanding the development of the textile practices of ancient people sheds only a little light upon this prohibition.  L. Bellinger writes;

In fact, it was probably the vegetable fibers themselves which suggested the idea of spinning to man, for when vegetable fibers are wet, they turn as they dry.  Flax turns in the direction of the center part of the letter “S”; cotton turns quite actively in all directions but apparently rather more in the “Z” direction than in the “S.”  Flax was a medium-length fiber—12 to 20 inches—but the cotton in the Bible lands was very short, 1^1/4 inches at most.  Flax therefore, was the easier fiber to spin, and the spinning in Egypt, where it was the principal fiber, followed the lead of the flax itself and turned in the “S” direction.  This method of spinning reached the boundaries of Egypt’s influence. Cotton from India, where it seems to have originated, was Z-spun, and this method traveled West over the trade routes.  Vegetable fibers have been spun since the Stone Age, when sheepskins were being used whole and felt was made with the wool shed by sheep and goats.  Wool began being spun in the Bronze Age, but the practice became much more common in the Iron Age, when the invention of shears made it possible to shear sheep instead of plucking the wool. By this time both vegetable spinning crafts were well established, and either or both were adopted by people with wool to spin, since animal fibers have no innate preference as to direction of spin.[6]

 

Another important element of cloth making is that of dying the cloth.  Again Bellinger writes;

 

This story [ of Jacob asking Laban for the speckled and spotted sheep or goats: Genesis 30:32-34] points up the fact that there were many natural colors in wool which could be separated or used together.  It seems also to have been customary to dye animal fibers.  Therefore, any color mentioned in the Bible except blue, which was used sparingly on cotton or linen also, connoted wool.  The reiteration of “blue and purple and scarlet stuff” in such places as Exod. 26:1 sounds as if these were the only three colors available.  However, indigo dyed on white wool could give a light or medium dark blue; if dyed on gray wool, it would be darker still; on yellow wool it produced green.  Madder or kermes on white would give red or pink; on yellow, orange; on gray, garnet.  In fact, with a blue dye and a red dye and the natural colors in the wool itself, the weaver had at his disposal a complete palette.[7]

 

Concerning the question of sha’atnez Bellinger declares;

One question we cannot answer conclusively concerns Lev. 19:19: “Nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff” (KJV adds “mingled”).  The Ban may have been against spinning two fibers together.  At least, this was never done.  If it means that two fibers may not be used in a single garment, it goes counter to the specifications for the holy garments, since the girdle calls for wool and linen, and the robe, breast piece, and ephod call for wool, linen, and gold.  Only the turban, breeches, and coat are to be made all of linen.[8]

We should take careful note of Bellinger’s suggestion that the prohibition requires us to make a distinction between fabrics made from yarn or thread that has been spun with two different fibers, and a fabric that has been woven with two different threads made of distinct (100% pure) fibers. If this is the case then it is appropriate to weave a garment from 100% wool yarn or thread, and 100% linen  or 100% cotton thread.  It would not be appropriate, however, to weave a garment from thread or yarn that is 50% wool and 50% cotton or linen.  If Bellinger is correct in this distinction then the sacred garments of the High Priest are not an exception to the rule of sha’atnez.

And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. ⁴ And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. ⁵ And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. ⁶ And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work. ⁷ It shall have the two shoulder pieces thereof joined at the two edges thereof; and so it shall be joined together. ⁸ And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen. (Exodus 28:3-8 KJV)

And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold, of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine twined linen, shalt thou make it. (Exodus 28:15 KJV)

If Bellinger, as well as numerous other scholars, are correct, that the blue (tekelet), purple (argamon), and scarlet (shaney) mentioned in the list of materials used for the priestly garments are referring to died wool, while the additional cloth (shash) is referring to fine linen, then this would indeed seem to indicate that the priestly garments are made from a cloth of mixed threads, though not necessarily a cloth made of yarn or thread made of mixed fibers.  The rabbis clearly understood the cloth of priestly garments to be made of a mixture of threads, and possibly fibers.  The Talmud mentions prohibition of sha’atnez and the priestly garments several times.

Our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority: A garment in which there is lost a mixture of linen and flax—lo, one may not sell it to a gentile or make it into a packsaddle for an ass, but one may make it into a shroud for a corpse.  Said R. Joseph, “That implies that the religious duties are nullified in the age to come.”  Said to him Abbayye, and some say, R. Dimi, “But has not R. Mani said R. Yannai said, ‘This rule [concerning the use of the mixed substances for a shroud] only applies to the shroud that is used for the funeral, but for use for burial, it is forbidden’?”  He said to him, “Has it not been stated in that connection, “Said R. Yohanan, ‘It may be used even for burial’?”  And R.Yohanan is consistent with positions expressed elsewhere, for said R. Yohanan, “’What is the meaning of the following verse: ‘Free among the dead’ (Psa. 88:6)?  When a person dies, he is free of religious duties.” Rafram b. Pappa in the name of R. Hisda said, “A garment in which there is lost a mixture of linen and flax—lo, one may dye it, and then it is permitted [for routine use].”  Said, Raba to Rafram b. Pappa, “ How does the elder know this?”  He said to him, “It is in accord with our Mishnah, for we have learned in the Mishnah: One examines until one reaches rock or virgin soil.  If it is not there, then we assume that a raven carried it away.  Here too, dye does not have the same affect on wool that it does on flax, and since there is no difference to be discerned, we assume that the threads that should not be there have dropped out.”  Said, R. Aha b. R. Yeba in the name of Mar Zutra, “If someone inserted flaxen threads into his woolen garment and then pulled them out but is not certain whether or not he has pulled all of them out, he may wear the garment.  What is the operative consideration?  Since in Scripture it is written, “mingled stuff,” the law of the Pentateuch applies only if the material was hackled, spun, and woven [Mishnah Kil. 9:8], and only rabbis have imposed a prohibition on it [if it was not hackled, spun, and woven].  Since the man is not sure that he has pulled out all the threads, the garment is permitted.” R. Ashi objected, “But perhaps the sense is, either hackled, or spun, or woven?”  The decided law accords with the position of Mar Zutra, for the All-Merciful has put all three classifications of weaving into a single word.[9],[10]

When R. Dimi came, he said, “As to the girdle of the high priest “Rabbi and R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon—“one said, ‘It is made of mixed fabrics [wool and linen, otherwise forbidden].’  “The other said, ‘It is made of fine linen.’”  You may draw the conclusion that it is Rabbi who said, “it is made of mixed fabrics [wool and linen, otherwise forbidden],” for it has been taught on Tannaite authority: “The only difference between a high priest and an ordinary priest is the girdle,” the words of Rabbi.  “R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says,” Not even the girdle.”  Now to what occasion is reference made here?  Should we say that it is on the other days of the year?  But then there are more points of difference, since, after all the high priest serves in eight garments, and ordinary priest in four.  So is this not with reference to the Day of Atonement?  [Then the high priest has only four garments, like a common priest, but the character of the girdle then is the point of difference, since on that day the high priest’s girdle was of linen, the common priests, of wool and linen, as during the rest of the year (Jung)].[11]

But the proposed conclusion [at B] still stands to reason, namely, that they [phylacteries] may be located next to their heads [while sleeping], for if you say that they may be located literally underneath their heads, then, even if we grant that the objects are available for personal benefit, there is still the priestly girdle, so you would nonetheless find ourselves in the position of exempting priests from the prohibition against using fabric made of diverse kinds, namely flax and wool that are used in the priest’ girdle, [since the priests’ garments were made of flax and wool].  The objection would pose no problem for him who maintains that the belt of the high priest [made of linen and wool] is the same as the belt of an ordinary priest.  But from the perspective of him who maintains that the belt of the ordinary priest is not the same as the belt of the high priest, what is to be said?  [The ordinary priest may not in any case  use such a cloth just as the high priest does.].  And should you maintain that putting on or wearing a garment of mixed fibers is forbidden to an ordinary priest, but spreading them out is permitted, the answer is in line with that which has been taught on Tannaite authority,  “It should not come upon you” (Lev. 19:19), meaning, you may spread it out under you,” but sages have nonetheless said, “It is forbidden to do so lest a thread of the garment should wrap around his body [and so come upon him.”][12]

Clearly the rabbis are indicating that while garments made of mixed fibers are prohibited to the ordinary Israelite and priest, the High Priest is exempt from the law of sha’atnez.  Josephus indicates that the use of mixed fiber cloth for the High Priestly garments is the specific reason that no one else can wear such cloth of mixed fibers.

Let not any one of you wear a garment made of woolen and linen, for that is appointed to be for the priests alone.[13]

If Josephus is correct then we may understand that fabric made of mixed fibers is like the anointing oil that is holy unto YHWH and may be used only for specific sacred purposes. No ordinary person may be anointed with this special oil.

And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, This shall be an holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations. ³² Upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition of it: it is holy, and it shall be holy unto you. (Exodus 30:31-32 KJV)

One challenge that we may examine concerning this explanation for the exclusive use of mixed fiber garments for the priesthood may be raise based upon the instructions given to Moses concerning the sacred garments.  Let us look at the supply list given for the Tabernacle and the priestly garments.

And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass, ⁴ And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, (Exodus 25:3-4 KJV)

And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. (Exodus 28:5 KJV)

We should note that the lists are fairly similar.

• Zahav              Gold                                Used in Tabernacle and Garments
• Kesef               Silver                               Used in Tabernacle
• Nechoshet       Brass                             Used in Tabernacle
• T^ekhelet           Blue                               Used in Tabernacle and Garments
• Argaman         Purple                           Used in Tabernacle and Garments
• Tola’at Shaney Scarlet                       Used in Tabernacle and Garments
• Shash              ?                                         Used in Tabernacle and Garments
• E’ziym             Female Goats hair      Used in Tabernacle

We also know that various colored hides were used for the covering of the Tabernacle which I have not listed here.  Gold, Silver, and Brass are clearly a material element as well as a color. The next three words on our list; blue, purple, and scarlet are simply colors and do indicate what the substance is being referred to. This is especially interesting when it comes to the priestly garments.  We are not told whether the blue, purple, and scarlet is dyed wool or dyed linen.  Tradition, and archeology, assume that since dying wool was the common practice that these dye colors are referring to dyed wool.  It is probable that this is the case.  However, when we come to next word on our list, “shash” we must use caution.  The Hebrew shash (shin, shin), comes from an unused root, shush (shin, vav, shin) which means “to be white.”[14] It may refer to alabaster or marble,[15] or to linen, or anything bleached white. The word shush is most probably the root word behind the Hebrew word “shushan” which means “Lily” or “Lotus”. Brown, Drivers, Briggs classify the word as a Coptic loan word from Egypt meaning “weave or woven” and define it as being a reference to the linen woven and worn in Egypt.[16] We must question, however, whether the word shash was meant to refer to the process of weaving, the color white, or the substance, i.e. the flax or linen.  According to Ernest Klein this word may mean white such as alabaster or marble.[17] Klein also acknowledges that it could be a Coptic loan word referring to Egyptian linen.[18] James Strong draws the connection between the word shash, meaning linen or white, and shayish (shin, yud, shin) which means to bleach, or whiten.[19] If it is possible to understand the word shash as meaning “white” or “bleached white,” then it would be possible that the list of materials listed for the Tabernacle and the priestly garments were not linen and wool but of one kind.  It is interesting to note that “goats hair” is listed by substance rather than color.  I would suggest that it is possible that the blue, purple, and scarlet were wool, but that it is also possible that shash was simply understood as wool bleached white. It is also possible that shash is in reference to the goats’ hair. If this is the case, then we should understand shash as a color (white) and not a substance (linen).  This would mean that the priestly garments are not an exception to the law of sha’atnez.  While the children of Israel may have had abundant linen from Egypt with them when they left, we should remember that flax and cotton would not have been readily available to the children of Israel as they journeyed through the wilderness.  Sheep and goats, on the other hand, would have provided the Israelites with ample wool and hair for the making of coverings and garments.

There is another verse that may help us to shed some light on this particular question of “kind” or “color”.  The skin covering of the Tabernacle is often described as being made of two types of skins; rams’ skin and badgers’ skin (or sometimes translated as dolphins’ skin).

And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins(t^echashim), and shittim wood, (Exodus 25:5 KJV)

Nahum M. Sarna suggest that this may not be the best translations.

Hebrew t^echashim (sing. tachash), with one exception, always refers to the covering of the Tabernacle.  Its exact meaning is uncertain. In rabbinic times the tachash was invested with mythical association and identified with the unicorn.  Because of the similarity with Arabic tuchas, duhs, which denote both the dolphin and the dugong found in the Red Sea, modern scholars have variously identified the biblical creature with one or the other.  A suggestion to equate the term with Akkadian dusu (=tahsia), the name of a precious stone of either yellow or orange in color, seems more plausible since that word is also used to describe leather that is dyed and tanned the color of the stone.  Significantly, only hides of goats (and sheep) were so treated.[20]

If Sarna is correct, then we should understand that the skin covering of the Tabernacle was not made with diverse skins, but was of diverse colors.  In other words Exodus 25:5 should read as follows.

And  skins of rams dyed red, and skins dyed orange, and shittim wood, (Exodus 25:5 KJV)

If this is correct then I would suggest that we should read the earlier list of materials in a similar fashion. In other word’s we should understand the list as describing the “colors” rather than the substance, except where specifically indicated. This would mean that shash is to be simply understood as the color white rather than as “fine linen”.

Given YHWH’s numerous prohibitions against various kinds of mixture, it would seem that we should understand the law of sha’atnez in the same spirit. From the context of the prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fibers, I would suggest that the prohibition does indeed mean that we should not be wearing garments of any mixture. If we are to be the image of YHWH then mixture is not consistent with the Creator’s image.  Remember it was the tree of mixed fruit that was prohibited to man.  However, with all of this said, we must admit that we are still left with a great deal of ambiguity surrounding this issue, and therefore should not be dogmatic about our position. The Torah does not give us a clear definition as to what is meant by mixed fibers, nor does the Torah give us a clear explanation as to why we must avoid wearing such cloth. Therefore each individual Israelite must study and pray about this precept for him or herself and determine what the Sovereign One is asking of his covenant people.  Each Israelite must come to terms with his own conscience before the Sovereign One on this matter. Each individual Israelite must discern what the Sovereign One is commanding concerning the sanctifying of our garments.

Before we leave this topic we should note that garments and coverings have always played a significant part in the proclamation of YHWH. We may recall that immediately after the fall, Adam and Chavah made “garments” of fig leaves for themselves.

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7 KJV)

YHWH likewise made coverings for Adam and Chavah.

Unto Adam also and to his wife did YHWH God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (Genesis 3:21 KJV)

It should not surprise us that whole altar service revolves around the making “coverings” for the people of YHWH that they may continue in communion with YHWH.  The word most often translated as “atonement” is the Hebrew word kafar (kaf, fey, resh) which literally means “to cover”.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement (l^ekafar—to cover) for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement (y^ekafar—covering) for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11 KJV)

Throughout the 18^th chapter of the Book of Leviticus we are warned not to “uncover the nakedness” of our close relatives.

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am YHWH. (Leviticus 18:6 KJV)

Instead of uncovering the nakedness of those near to us we are encouraged to cover the sins and nakedness of our brethren with love.

Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins. (Proverbs 10:12 KJV)

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8 KJV)

We have also been encouraged to put on the “new man” like a garment.

And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (Ephesians 4:24 KJV)

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: (Colossians 3:10 KJV)

And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: ¹² And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. (Matthew 22:11-12 KJV)

We may see a hint of this teaching against mixed garments in Yeshua’s response concerning old and new cloth.

No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. (Matthew 9:16 KJV)

Clearly mixed fiber is not appropriate for this “new man” who is to be without mixture.

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Messiah our Passover is sacrificed for us: (1 Corinthians 5:7 KJV)

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1:8 KJV)

Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. (James 4:8 KJV)

We may also recognize that garments and coverings are also associated with authority.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Messiah is God. ⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. ⁵ But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. ⁶ For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. ⁸ For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. ⁹ Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. ¹⁰ For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in YHWH. ¹² For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (1 Corinthians 11:3-12 KJV)

We may recall that when Rebekah met Isaac for the first time, that she descended from her camel and covered herself, demonstrating that she was coming under the authority or covering of her husband.

And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. ⁶⁵ For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself. ⁶⁶ And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. (Genesis 24:64-66 KJV)

We would all agree that we are not to have two masters or coverings.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24 KJV)

Given all the metaphorical uses of garments in the proclamation of the scriptures, especially as representing our covering and authority, it should make sense that we would not put on ourselves a garment of mixed fiber anymore that we would accept upon ourselves the authority of two master.  Even in our garment we may proclaim;

Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH is One: (Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV)