Illustration: Alfred E. NeumanMad MagazineWhy is it Forbidden to Weave Wool and Linen Together into a Single Garment?
As briefly as I possibly can: The answer to this question is can be found in the story of Adam and Eve, as well as: the story of Cain and Abel as already discussed in previous articles.
First off, as we have already noted about 50 times in other articles, the Hebrew word for: “meat” is also the word for: “religious preachings of men” and “the gospels”. Hence, “The Gospel of John” could be translated as: “The Meats of John”.
Second, as we have already mentioned about 51 times, the holy day of: “Shavuot” links together: “First fruits of the field”; “first born sons” and “the word of God”.
So, when Adam and Eve were leaving the Garden of Eden, God replaced their fig leaves with the skins of animals. The important thing to understand here is that a person’s clothing usually reflects the source of their beliefs, which anyone who lives in Israel can easily attest to, but is also just as true around the world. So: Zen Buddhists wear orange robes; Roman Catholics wear white collars; Orthodox Jews dress like penguins and Muslim clerics wear their distinctive white hats.
Therefore, because Adam and Eve wanted to associate themselves with God’s word, they wore fig leaves which can be classified as: “the first fruits” (i.e. Adam and Eve themselves were the sources of fruit which contained the knowledge). They intentionally chose fig leaves, because, in ancient times, “the fig” was associated with: “goodness” and, of course, God is good (see the prophecy of Gideon’s son and his parable about the trees in the Book of Judges).
God, however, did not agree that Adam and Eve should be associated with His word and gave them “the skins of dead animals” to wear, symbolizing: “these people no longer have understanding” (What should be noted here is that the Hebrew word: “Goy-im” usually associated with “gentile nations” also means: “dead meat”).
Everything written in the Torah concerning the priests has to do with “purity” (for example: they can ONLY marry virgins and they must come ONLY one specific branch of the Levy family tree).
Accordingly, the garments of the priest must reflect this: “purity”. Nonetheless, since: “a priest is also an intermediary between God and men”, then it is perfectly logical that some of his garments represent: “the pure form of God’s word” and some of them represent: “the pure form of man’s word” (In other words: a man must have a pure heart before he can even approach the Lord).
If, however, these materials were weaved together into a single garment it would signify that the priest was unable to distinguish man’s word from God’s word or, even worse, he EQUATED one with the other, as do modern day rabbis, like the Jerusalem Post commentator: Shlomo Riskin (aka: “God’s partner” and “God’s co-creator”).
The second story, we said, was the one about Cain and Abel. In a previous article, we went on to draw a connection between this story and the Egyptians wanting to throw “the first born sons” of Israel into the Nile (God described all of Israel as: “his first born son”).
In short: “Cain’s first fruits” represent: “God’s word” and “Abel’s sheep” represents: “the word of men”. Hence, Cain, by offering his fruit as a sacrifice is, in effect, saying: “I want to sacrifice God’s word and keep my words intact”; while Abel, when he offered his meat sacrifice, was saying: “I will give up my words and keep God’s word intact”.
The Egyptians were doing the same thing: “Israelite babies” represent: “the seeds of God’s words” and the animals of the Egyptians (i.e. “their meat”) were considered sacred. Hence, Moses told Pharaoh that the Israelites needed to go out into the desert to perform their animal sacrifices otherwise the Egyptians would be offended.
The last important point to understand here is that, basically, “wool” could be described as: “the hair of the sheep”.
Linen is made from flax and many people in the past noted that the fibers of the plant looked a little bit like the hair of a woman (thus the term: “flaxen hair”).
In the stories of Samson and Samuel: “hair” is associated with: “devotion”.
Accordingly, one must be devoted to either God’s word or to man’s word, but they cannot be mixed together.
This is the reason why for thousands of years no rabbi or Pharisee was able to explain why it was forbidden to mix wool and linen together in the same garment. A rabbi teaches that the Judaism is based on BOTH the Torah and the Talmud (i.e. the written and the oral law).
The Talmud, however, because it was written by men, must be associated with: “meat” and the Torah, as we have already noted, must be associated with: “the first fruits” and “the word of God”
If the rabbis explained why weaving wool and linen together was forbidden, then they would also have to acknowledge that teaching the Talmud and the Torah together was forbidden. And no rabbi is ever going to do that……Thus they conclude it is: “Chukim”, which means:“A statute beyond man’s ability to understand”. However, this is NOT true: The prohibition against weaving wool and linen is not a mystery; it is an indictment against the rabbis…..
This, by the way, is the reason, in the New Testament, the Jews are referred to as: “The sons of Cain”….
At first glance, one must ask: What? Is Jesus stupid?
“Everyone knows the Jews are the descendants of Seth, not Cain !!!”
However, if we understand that the word: “son” is a metaphor for: “word of”, thus we can begin to understand why in Egypt the Israelites are called: “the son of God” because they were, at that point in time, the custodians of God’s word (Thus, on Mount Moriah, Abraham was not being asked to sacrifice his literal “son”, he was being asked to sacrifice his beliefs about God and start learning from scratch).
During the period of the New Testament, however, the Jews stopped following the word of God and instead gave their allegiance to the word of the Pharisees/rabbis; which most Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews continue to do till this very day…
Hence, they were described as: “the son’s of Cain” (i.e. “followers of the teachings of men”) and not: “The Sons of Abraham” who was commanded to teach his descendants “to walk in God’s ways” and “follow God’s commandments”.
To conclude, let’s focus on Shlomo Riskin and Paul of Tarsus for a minute. Both these men are linked because they both agree that their theories are based on the teachings of the Hillel school and Rabbi Gamaliel.
Shlomo Riskin has repeatedly asserted that he and his fellow rabbis are: “God’s partners”. In other words: The Torah tells us Moses was MERELY: “God’s servant”, but Rabbi Risken is: “God’s partner” (Hey!!! Doesn’t that imply that Moses is ALSO the servant of Rabbi Risken?).
The Pharisee Paul of Tarsus concluded that: “Moses was a servant” in the house of the lord, but Jesus is: “the son of the master”, hence Moses is the servant of Jesus….
Really? Is that what Jesus said? Or: Is this simply some more: “unsubstantiated conjecture” like what Shlomo Riskin spews out in his articles. (Please don’t forget that Paul of Tarsus NEVER stopped describing himself as: “a Pharisee”).
One of the most famous works in the Talmud is called: “The Prepared Table”. We have shown that “food” is a metaphor for: “knowledge”, therefore: “a table where people eat” is a metaphor for: “a school”.
In the Gospels, Jesus says again and again that his body was like food. In one place he tells his disciples they must eat his body and drink his blood. In another place, he compares his body to bread and his blood to wine. Here it should be recalled that for centuries the rabbis have claimed: “The Torah is the bread of life”.
Hence, based on the words of BOTH Jesus and Moses, what we have is quite simple:
In God’s house, the Children of Israel are seated at a table. Moses, as the servant of the Lord, provides the Children of Israel with “bread” (i.e. manna from heaven); Jesus is the bread itself, he is NOT “the son of the master” sitting at the head of the table giving orders to Moses.
Again: God is the Master of the house; Moses is the servant and Jesus, who is always described in the Gospels as: “the word of God”, is “the bread” served at the table…..
And, of course, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin is: “God’s partner” …..
The name: “Jesus” means: “to save”, hence, it is “the word of God which saves”, not some “literal man”……
This is why it is so important that “Jesus is born of a virgin”. It is: “the pure word of God” which saves, NOT a mixture of the Torah and the Talmud…..