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.
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…”*♫ )
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
“The Law” and “The Prophets” are two different parts of scripture.
Just out of interest, I found this:
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”.
Also here:
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.
This doesn’t get us any closer to understanding what the original prohibition meant, of course, although the speculation of the commentators is interesting.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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.
I for one would not look to medieval/late antiquity rabbis for scientific advice on agriculture. 
That goes far beyond any understanding of disease at that time.
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.
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).
Only sheeps wool and linen.
And which was what the Priests wore (well…). So, it certainly isnt a evil mixture.