# Why does the bible forbid mixed cloth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 7, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291 "2016-09-07T19:31:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/21 "2016-09-08T04:33:28Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Accusing the “others” of sexual deviancy as well \*as sexual promiscuity and prudishness is a pretty common thing in human history. > \*Ideally you can accuse them of both simultaneously. 😃 You left out “while calling them impotent and their women frigid sluts”. Depending on how much the accuser feels like expanding, the womenfolk may be cured through judicious application of the appropriate kind of dick. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/22 "2016-09-08T12:45:36Z")
I recall a radio discussion about this sort of thing, mainly dietary laws. The commentator was suggesting that a lot of this was due to some OCD pattern problem, not so much health or logic. This seems to go along with the “purity” comments above. Basically, the point was that the ones who first formulated these laws looked for patterns. i.e. if it swam in the water and was a fish, it had scales. If it chewed its cud, it had split hooves (and fur). And so on… So mixing things, or things that did not follow a proper pattern, did not “fit in the box”, did not belong and somehow offended. (And now the Sesame Street song is playing in my head, \*“Which one of these is not like the other ones…”\*♫ ) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/23 "2016-09-08T12:58:37Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > I’m certainly not an OT scholar, but a quick GoodSearch brought up 7 mentions of mules in the OT, with some distinguished folks astride them. Even a city feller like me knows that mules are an admixture of horses and donkeys, and that seemed to be okay with the Jews. > [Art and the Bible - concordance mule, the Old Testament - page 1](http://www.artbible.info/concordance/m/9229-1.html) The injunction is against breeding such animals. There is no injunction against riding them. Edit: also, the injunction was against cross-breeding “cattle”. I’m not scholar enough to know if horses and donkeys fell within the definition of “cattle”. They typically don’t in English. > [@](#): > > cat·tle > /ˈkadl/ > noun > > plural noun: cattle > > 1. large ruminant animals with horns and cloven hoofs, domesticated for meat or milk, or as beasts of burden; cows. > > 2. similar animals of a group related to domestic cattle, including yak, bison, and buffalo. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/24 "2016-09-08T13:07:55Z")
I’ve wondered if “plainness” was part of this. I.e., clothing made of different materials was considered fancier and this wasn’t thought of as being appropriate for ordinary folk. Regular folk should stick to plain stuff and donate their extra money to the temple. Compare to Joseph’s coat of many colors (or long sleeves or whatever) which caused envy among his brothers. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/25 "2016-09-08T13:20:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Keeve** : > > A problem with most of the posted ideas is that this prohibition does not apply to ANY combination of fabrics. It ONLY applies to wool and linen, as explained in the quote from Deuteronomy. How many other fabrics would the ancient Hebrews have had access to, though? And while the Deuteronomy quote is more specific than the Leviticus one, that doesn’t invalidate the more general rule in Leviticus. It could just as easily be taken as an example. **Malthus** , while it’s true that in contemporary modern English, “cattle” usually refers specifically to _Bos taurus_, it’s my understanding that in older dialects (like the one used in the KJV), it more generally just meant “domesticated animals”. Certainly, if the law mentioned is to make any sense, it must encompass at least two different kinds of animals. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/26 "2016-09-08T13:42:17Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > How many other fabrics would the ancient Hebrews have had access to, though? > > And while the Deuteronomy quote is more specific than the Leviticus one, that doesn’t invalidate the more general rule in Leviticus. It could just as easily be taken as an example. > > **Malthus** , while it’s true that in contemporary modern English, “cattle” usually refers specifically to _Bos taurus_, it’s my understanding that in older dialects (like the one used in the KJV), it more generally just meant “domesticated animals”. The issue isn’t one of the KJV, but of the original Hebrew. I have no idea what the word translated as “cattle” in the KJV and others meant to speakers of Hebrew circa 500 BC, or whether it included horses and donkeys or not. Perhaps a modern speaker of Hebrew could weigh in? That would not be definitive, but would at least be some evidence. It is worth noting that certain distinctions between animals were very significant to the Israelites who redacted the OT - for example, look at the rules of Kashrut, concerning whether animals had “cloven hooves” or “chewed their cud” were both significant markers. According to these rules, anything that “chews the cud” and has a completely split hoof is ritually clean, but those animals that only chew the cud or only have cloven hooves are unclean: [Kosher animals - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_animals#Land_animals:_Mammals) > [@](#): > > Certainly, if the law mentioned is to make any sense, it must encompass at least two different kinds of animals. Not a problem, in modern English at least. As you can see from the above-noted definition, “cattle” _already_ means more than one species in modern English: it means anything roughly similar to a “cow”, including such diverse species as Yaks and Bison. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/27 "2016-09-08T13:47:19Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Impossible to determine. The closest we can get is “The prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel wrote: this is what God says.” > > So the minds of the prophets became the mind of God. Crazy, insane prophets were no exception. What the prophets’ schizophrenic minds dreamed up became The Law. “The Law” and “The Prophets” are two different parts of scripture. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/28 "2016-09-08T14:09:20Z")
Just out of interest, I found this: > **[Casiphia - Holman Bible Dictionary -](https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hbd/c/casiphia.html)** > > (cuh ssihf' ih uh) Place name meaning, “silversmith.” Place in Babylon where Levites settled in Exile (Ezra 8:17 ) and from which Ezra summoned Levites to return with him to Jerusalem. The place is unknown outside this passage. ; > [@](#): > > Behemah can be cattle distinguished from sheep and goats of the flock (2 Chronicles 32:28 ). They need pasture lands (Joel 1:18 ). Interbreeding among behemah of different kinds was forbidden (Leviticus 19:19 ). The word used is apparently “behemah”, which is variously used: it can mean “animals” generally, or it can refer specifically to what we know of as “cattle”, depending on context. For example, in 2 Chronicles 32, the word is used to distinguish “cattle” from “sheep”. > [@](#): > > 2 Chronicles 32:28 - storehouses also for the produce of grain, wine and oil, pens for all kinds of cattle and sheepfolds for the flocks. Also here: > [@](#): > > Joel 1:18 - How the beasts groan! The herds of cattle wander aimlessly Because there is no pasture for them; Even the flocks of sheep suffer. So the question is: how was the word used in Leviticus 19:19? Does it have a general meaning, or a specific one? For example, would breeding two types of “sheep” together have been acceptable at the time? One thing is clear: it isn’t, according to the (later) Talmud and other commentaries. As is usual, they generalize from the specifics listed and create a whole complex system of rules, so that even breeding two kinds of wild birds together is prohibited, a very general definition of “cattle” indeed. > **[Mixed Species](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/mixed-species)** > > Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism. This doesn’t get us any closer to understanding what the original prohibition meant, of course, although the speculation of the commentators is interesting. > [@](#): > > Some of the reasons given for the prohibition stemmed from the above-mentioned belief that the effects of environmental factors are hereditary. To the same category belongs the reason for forbidding change in the order of Creation. Naḥmanides gives this reason in his biblical commentary (to Lev. 19: 19), adding that if the crossbreeding of a horse and an ass produces a mule, which is a miserable creature that cannot beget, so too when mixed species of trees are grafted, “their fruit does not grow thereafter.” Maimonides (Guide 3, 49) explains that the man who couples creatures of different species defies the laws of nature and of ethics, and similarly in the grafting and mixing of plants. It was part of the false beliefs of idolators that this served as a specific for fertility (ibid. 3, 37). That cross-breeding was unnatural was an early belief: Josephus (Ant., 4:229) explained that “nature delighteth not in the conjunction of things dissimilar.” Rabbenu Nathan, av ha-yeshivah (Ereẓ Israel in the 11th century), gives an agricultural reason, that one species prevents the development of the adjacent one (commentary to Mishnah Kil. ch. 1). A similar reason for the prohibition of mixed seeds in the vineyard was given earlier by Philo: “since as a result of it too great a burden is put upon the earth” (Spec. 4:211). Some Greek and Roman agricultural writers laid down that summer plants which impoverish the soil should not be sown in the vineyard (Pliny, Naturalis 18, 101) and that it is forbidden to sow intermediate plantings in a vineyard (Geoponica 5, 11). > > As against those who sought to rationalize the prohibition, Rashi concluded: “These statutes are a royal decree, for which there is no reason.” In point of fact it is impossible to determine the reasons for the prohibition. Post factum, however, it seems that, as a result of the care taken by Jews in this matter, the fields were kept free of weeds and the purity of plant species was preserved. It is also possible that it was a contributory factor to the success of Jewish agriculture in Ereẓ Israel. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/29 "2016-09-08T14:27:40Z")
That might have been the belief of the rabbis, but it’s factually incorrect. Different plants grafted together will have no problems producing fruit, and in fact that’s often the most fruitful way of growing them. And mixing different crops together in the same field, if the right crops are chosen, will prevent impoverishing of the soil, not cause it. ---
**Author:** ![Teuton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/teuton/32/3864_2.png) [@Teuton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Teuton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/30 "2016-09-08T15:43:35Z")
So, from what I’ve read in this thread so far, there isn’t really a GQ answer to this? Might it be better in IMHO? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2016, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/31 "2016-09-08T23:10:28Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > “The Law” and “The Prophets” are two different parts of scripture. I understand what you’re saying, but you may have missed my point. What the writers wrote (often called “prophets”) became the bible/Torah, which is The Law to present-day orthodox. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/32 "2016-09-09T12:11:40Z")
Maybe they thought the diseases they knew an animal would carry would combine … like two versions of influenza combining , they thought disease symptoms would come from the combination of cotton rash and wool rash. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/33 "2016-09-09T12:34:38Z")
Chronos: > [@](#): > > And while the Deuteronomy quote is more specific than the Leviticus one, that doesn’t invalidate the more general rule in Leviticus. The rule in Leviticus is not “more general.” Deuteronomy is EXPLAINING what the word in Leviticus means. The fact that English translators cannot do better with the Hebrew word “Shaatnez” than “mixed cloth” does not mean that “Shaatnez” ever meant all mixed cloth; it always specifically means a mixture of wool and linen. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/34 "2016-09-09T13:52:56Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Chronos: > > The rule in Leviticus is not “more general.” Deuteronomy is EXPLAINING what the word in Leviticus means. The fact that English translators cannot do better with the Hebrew word “Shaatnez” than “mixed cloth” does not mean that “Shaatnez” ever meant all mixed cloth; it always specifically means a mixture of wool and linen. This interpretation derives from later Talmudic sources, though. There are two possibilities: 1. The word “shatnez” had a meaning, something like “adulterated” or “mixture”. Thus, the first prohibition was a general one, and the second a mere specific example. 2. The word “shatnez” had a specific meaning, which is defined in the second prohibition. This is the interpretation provided in the Talmud and by such authoritative commentators as Maimonides. The Karaite Jews, who do not follow the Talmud, allegedly use the first interpretation and hold that the prohibition is on “mixtures” in general; the vast majority of Jews, who follow the Talmud, use the second interpretation and hold, as you say, that it only and forever means a mixture of linen and wool. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/35 "2016-09-09T13:55:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That might have been the belief of the rabbis, but it’s factually incorrect. Different plants grafted together will have no problems producing fruit, and in fact that’s often the most fruitful way of growing them. And mixing different crops together in the same field, if the right crops are chosen, will prevent impoverishing of the soil, not cause it. I for one would not look to medieval/late antiquity rabbis for scientific advice on agriculture. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/36 "2016-09-09T16:39:52Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > Maybe they thought the diseases they knew an animal would carry would combine … like two versions of influenza combining , they thought disease symptoms would come from the combination of cotton rash and wool rash. That goes far beyond any understanding of disease at that time. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/37 "2016-09-09T16:54:44Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t think so, and here’s my reasoning: the redactors of the OT had no problems with coming right out and saying that the Hebrews should not take up the habits of foreign folks, so there is no reason they would have bothered with _metaphorical_ circumlocutions on the topic. > > Rather, I think it is just a matter of ritual purity, like keeping kosher by not mixing milk and meat. Culturally, the redactors of the OT apparently simply found mixing things to be “impure” and thus bad. I don’t think it goes any deeper than that. > > … It would be a reminder and reinforcer at a subconscious level not to mix by actively seeking out pure garments, it becomes a routine and part of life to discriminate (used in the older sense of the word). It just becomes part of life to observe and strive for purity. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/38 "2016-09-09T18:29:29Z")
Or they could just say “Hey Jews, don’t lose your cultural identity!” instead of making up all these weirdo nonsense rules about grain planting or cloth mixing. If I ever follow a god, he’d have to tell me specifically why he’s doing something instead of making up metaphorical reasons for it ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/39 "2016-09-09T18:44:05Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Or they could just say “Hey Jews, don’t lose your cultural identity!” instead of making up all these weirdo nonsense rules about grain planting or cloth mixing. If I ever follow a god, he’d have to tell me specifically why he’s doing something instead of making up metaphorical reasons for it Maybe, but the whole book of Lev is full of do’s and dont’s. There’s one about reparations to be made if you sleep with a slave you don’t own. You have to give your priest a ram (the animal, you perv). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291/40 "2016-09-09T18:53:05Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > A problem with most of the posted ideas is that this prohibition does not apply to ANY combination of fabrics. It ONLY applies to wool and linen, as explained in the quote from Deuteronomy. Some might think that wool and linen are merely an example of a forbidden mixture, but that would be a mistake; they are the only forbidden mixture of fabrics. > > Wool with silk and cotton - no problem. Linen with silk and cotton - again, no problem. Just don’t mix the silk and cotton. > . Only _sheeps_ wool and linen. And which was what the Priests wore (well…). So, it certainly isnt a evil mixture. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-bible-forbid-mixed-cloth/765291.md?page=3)