Shatnez – the Achilles Heel of the Oral Law

 

 

 

The Torah forbids wool and linen mixtures .   The translation given below in Leviticus 19  of the word Shatnez is not accurate. In Deuteronomy, Shatnez  is clearly defined as wool and linen.

 

The rabbis of the oral law looked at the verse 12 of Devarim 22, which commands the mitzvah of Tzitzit.  They somehow managed to confound this with the previous verse, and arrived at the conclusion that  whereas Shatnez is an outright prohibition,  in the case of Tzitzit  it is permitted, namely the techelet thread should be made of wool, with the rest of linen.  From here they also projected this synthesis of the forbidden and the permitted onto the garments of the Kohanim in the Temple service.  Whether the sequence was in this order, or in reverse is not clear – although my guess would be that they started with the perversion of  temple service, which was their methodology of  desecrating as much of the Temple purity as possible. From there, they tried to retrofit their justification onto the verses in Devarim.

 

 

Leviticus Chapter 19 וַיִּקְרָא

 

אֶֽת־חֻקֹּתַי֮ תִּשְׁמֹ֒רוּ֒ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ֙ לֹא־תַרְבִּ֣יעַ כִּלְאַ֔יִם שָׂדְךָ֖ לֹא־תִזְרַ֣ע כִּלְאָ֑יִם וּבֶ֤גֶד כִּלְאַ֙יִם֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז לֹ֥א יַעֲלֶ֖ה עָלֶֽיךָ׃

 

 

            19 Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.

 

 

Deuteronomy Chapter 22 דְּבָרִים

 

לֹ֤א תִלְבַּשׁ֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז צֶ֥מֶר וּפִשְׁתִּ֖ים יַחְדָּֽו׃ {ס}        

11. You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.

גְּדִלִ֖ים תַּעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֑ךְ עַל־אַרְבַּ֛ע כַּנְפ֥וֹת כְּסוּתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּכַסֶּה־בָּֽהּ׃ {ס}        

12. You shall make tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

Yechezkel – Ezekiel, reiterates the laws pertaining to the Priestly garments, as if he prophetically foresees the abuse of this Law by the Pharisees. Interestingly, he  states that it is the Priests of Tzadok who will maintain the Temple service:

 

 

Ezekiel

44

 

 

 

17 וְהָיָ֗ה בְּבוֹאָם֙ אֶֽל־שַׁעֲרֵי֙ הֶחָצֵ֣ר הַפְּנִימִ֔ית בִּגְדֵ֥י פִשְׁתִּ֖ים יִלְבָּ֑שׁוּ וְלֹֽא־יַעֲלֶ֤ה עֲלֵיהֶם֙ צֶ֔מֶר בְּשָׁרְתָ֗ם בְּשַׁעֲרֵ֛י הֶחָצֵ֥ר הַפְּנִימִ֖ית וָבָֽיְתָה׃

And when they enter the gates of the inner court, they shall wear linen vestments: they shall have nothing woolen upon them when they minister inside the gates of the inner court.

 18פַּאֲרֵ֤י פִשְׁתִּים֙ יִהְי֣וּ עַל־רֹאשָׁ֔ם וּמִכְנְסֵ֣י פִשְׁתִּ֔ים יִֽהְי֖וּ עַל־מׇתְנֵיהֶ֑ם לֹ֥א יַחְגְּר֖וּ בַּיָּֽזַע׃

They shall have linen turbans on their heads and linen breeches on their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causes sweat.

 19 וּ֠בְצֵאתָ֠ם אֶל־הֶחָצֵ֨ר הַחִיצוֹנָ֜ה אֶל־הֶחָצֵ֣ר הַחִיצוֹנָה֮ אֶל־הָעָם֒ יִפְשְׁט֣וּ אֶת־בִּגְדֵיהֶ֗ם אֲשֶׁר־הֵ֙מָּה֙ מְשָׁרְתִ֣ם בָּ֔ם וְהִנִּ֥יחוּ אוֹתָ֖ם בְּלִֽשְׁכֹ֣ת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וְלָֽבְשׁוּ֙ בְּגָדִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וְלֹא־יְקַדְּשׁ֥וּ אֶת־הָעָ֖ם בְּבִגְדֵיהֶֽם׃

When they go out to the outer court—the outer court where the people are—they shall remove the vestments in which they minister and shall deposit them in the sacred chambers; they shall put on other garments, lest they make the people consecrated by [contact with] their vestments.

 

 

 

 

In contrast to the claim of the Pharisees,  no wool is permitted on/in any of  the priestly garments.  The rabbinic commentators try all kinds of pretzel logic to weave their way out of this – some say that it is only on Yom Kippur, and no shatnez was worn on that day (which is contrary to their own sources); Others say it was not Yom Kippur, and that these verses do not apply to the High Priest (although all priests would wear tekhelet according to the rabbis this would be wool woven with linen garments).

 

The absurdity of the zig zagging by the Pharisees is indicative that this matter is an Achilles heel for the oral law.

 

 

 

Rambam  also has some difficulty in trying to solve this problem.  Despite his protestations in his legal Mishneh Tora, that the priests' garments and also tzitzit were made of shatnez, in his Guide for the Perplexed  he makes an interesting insinuation – pointing out that the ancient priests of Idolatry would wear shatnez tunics, and this is the reason why it is forbidden!

Freud on Monotheism, and the sublimation of the Talmud

 

 

The great psychoanalyst  Sigmund Freud attempted to deal with Religion in his final book “Moses and Montheism”.  This was not received very well  - not by the Orthodox Jews, and not by secular academics.  Briefly, his thesis was that the Israelites rose up in the wilderness, against Moses, and killed him.  But because of this guilt, they established a monotheistic religion, which became Judaism. Moses was then possibly replaced by a Midianite priest, who also took on the name Moses.

 

Whilst this appears as sheer fantasy, it is in fact not a novel theory, but perhaps a distorted or displaced theory of  statements in the Talmud, and maybe even the Torah.

 

 

In the Talmud Yerushalmi (the less commonly studied version)  Sanhedrin 2:6 , a remarkable story is told. It claims that King Solomon was deposed from his throne,  by an angel, who then replaced him on the throne!

 

“It is written: To amusement I said, be praised. The Holy One, praise to him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his stead. He was going around in synagogues and houses of study, saying I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem. They were telling him, the king sits on his chair of honor and you say, I am Ecclesiastes? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: that is my part. Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. Who had accused him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, י in יַרְבֶּה accused him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a י from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.”

 

https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.2.6.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

 

 

 

 

This story is sheer fantasy, and has no basis in the Tanakh.  For a more detailed analysis see Rabbi Nachum Rabinowitz’s excellent essay:

 

https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/wisdom-and-human-pretention-the-riddle-of-shlomo-and-its-resolution/

 

 

 

So far, we have seen a theory about Moses, written by Freud in the 20^th century, which is remarkably similar to the story told in the Talmud Yerushalmi, which was written about 1500 years earlier.  The displacement of the story is that whereas the Yerushalmi is talking about King Solomon,  Freud has applied the core concept to Moses. The further distortion is that the Yerushalmi speaks of an “angel” who ousted Solomon, and took his throne, whereas for Freud, it was the people who arose and ousted (murdered) Moses.

 

 

Is there any basis in the Torah itself for Freud’s assertions regarding Moses?

 

The Torah tells us a course of events, which lead to Moses being prevented from Entering Israel, and sadly dying outside of the Land. But Moses in turn blames the people for this, as they were ultimately responsible for his ownpuishment:

 

 

 

Deuteronomy Chapter 1 דְּבָרִים

 

37 Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying: Thou also shalt not go in thither;

38 Joshua the son of Nun, who standeth before thee, he shall go in thither; encourage thou him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.

 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy Chapter 3 דְּבָרִים

 

25 Let me go over, I pray Thee, and see the good land that is beyond the Jordan, that goodly hill-country, and Lebanon.'

26 But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and hearkened not unto me; and the LORD said unto me: 'Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter.

 

28 But charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him; for he shall go over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land which thou shalt see.

 

 

 

 

So Moses himself sees this as a punishment, which was due to the behaviour of the people, although indirect. And his replacement  is Joshua.

 

Freud was aware of the Torah’s own narrative, and presumably also of the Talmud.

 There is some basis for his claims, although it does take a different course from what the Torah says, and is somewhat in line with the Talmudic formulation regarding Solomon.  Freud is projecting his own theories of the subconscious and trying to derive a new theory about religion.  Moses would not agree with Freud, but he did place the punishment he suffers on the shoulders of the people, who caused  this in the first place. In fact  their rebellious nature , against Moses,  led to his receiving a punishment and dying before reaching Israel. He was replaced by another leader, Joshua.