| Home |Breishith |Shmot |Vayikra |BaMidbar |Dvarim |Holidays |Tehillim |Stories |
| Sha'atnez - A Glimpse into the Future |
While first introduced here in Lev. 19:19, the prohibition of sha'atnez is
more clearly defined later on in the Torah: "Do not wear sha'atnez — wool
and linen together" (Deut. 22:11). Why does the Torah prohibit using wool and
linen in the same article of clothing? Also, the special garments of High Priest
contained both wool and linen. Why was he allowed to wear sha'atnez?
Chok — for the Future
These two materials — linen, from the flax plant, and wool, shorn from sheep —
were the two major fibers available to ancient civilizations. According to one
opinion in the Talmud (Shabbat 26b), whenever the Torah speaks of garments
without specifying the material, it only refers to garments of wool or linen.
The Torah’s prohibition of wearing linen and wool together is a prime example
of a chok, a decree for which we do not know the reason. As Rashi wrote, the
nations of the world and the evil inclination taunt us, saying, 'What is this command? What logic is there to it?'
According to Rav Kook, it is not that a chok has no reason, or no reason that
we are capable of grasping. Rather, this category of mitzvot belongs to a
future reality that is different from our own. At that future time, the purpose of
these decrees will become clear.
In other words, these mitzvot serve to morally prepare us for the future.
One intriguing view of the future is the idea expressed by the Kabbalists
that the future elevation of the universe will also include a radical change in the
animals. Animals will develop into a state similar to the current level of human beings.
This belief plays a central role in Rav Kook's writings in many areas: vegetarianism,
Temple sacrifices, and understanding decrees such as sha'atnez and not eating milk and meat together.
The use of linen from the flax plant does not raise any moral dilemmas.
But the use of wool necessitates a mild censure from the standpoint of absolute morality:
Of course, the moral offense applies primarily with regard to the future state of sheep.
In order to distinguish between the use of wool and linen, and instill a sensitivity towards
animal welfare that we will need in future times, the Torah decreed that these two fibers
should not be worn together. Utilization of the flax plant and manipulation of sheep
are not — in absolute terms — morally equivalent.
All of this is true when the wool is used for private consumption. But if the wool is designated
for Divine service — as in the clothes of the High Priest — then the principle of bechol me'odecha,
serving God with all of our possessions, takes force. Here it is appropriate that, out of
their own free will, the animals will contribute their part for the sake of the universe's spiritual elevation.
Why Only Linen?
A student once asked Rav Kook why, according to this explanation, the Torah
only forbids linen together with wool, but not other fibers (such as cotton) together with wool.
Rav Kook answered that mitzvot are like words. Through these words, we can discern the
Torah's fundamental teachings. If one word is sufficient to convey the message,
there is no need for another word to teach the very same concept.
However, the word chosen should be the best and most lucid. The message
of concern for animal welfare needs to be ingrained in the minds of society's
leaders. Therefore, the Torah chose to express this message through linen,
the fiber favored for respectable and elegant clothing in olden times. Fibers
such as cotton are used for purely utilitarian purposes. Linen best symbolizes
our desire to clothe ourselves in dignity and honor; thus, it is the best medium
to express the need for human sensitivity towards animals.
(Gold from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Igrot HaRe'iyah vol. I, p. 104.)
Copyright © 2006 by Chanan Morrison
"Man, in his boundless egocentricity, approaches the poor cow and sheep. From one he seizes
its milk, and from the other, its fleece.... There would be no impropriety in taking the wool
were the sheep burdened by its load; but we remove the wool when its natural owner needs it.
Intellectually, we recognize that this is a form of theft — oppression of the weak at the hands of
the strong. (Otzarot HaRe'iyah vol. II, p. 97)
