Where mixed fabrics?
Shatnez (or shaatnez, [ʃaʕatˈnez]; Hebrew: שַׁעַטְנֵז šaʿaṭnēz (help·info)) is cloth containing both wool and linen (linsey-woolsey), which Jewish law, derived from the Torah, prohibits wearing. The relevant biblical verses (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11) prohibit wearing wool and linen fabrics in one garment, the blending of different species of animals, and the planting together of different kinds of seeds (collectively known as kilayim).
The word is not of Hebrew origin, and its etymology is obscure. Wilhelm Gesenius's Hebrew Dictionary cites suggestions that derive it from Semitic origins, and others that suggest Coptic origin, finding neither convincing. The Septuagint translates the term as κίβδηλον, meaning 'adulterated'.
The Mishnah in tractate Kil'ayim (9:8), interprets the word as the acrostic of three words: שע 'combing', טוה 'spinning', and נז 'twisting'.
The Modern Hebrew word שעטנז means 'mixture'.
Early writers, like Maimonides, state that the prohibition was a case of the general law (Leviticus 20:23) against imitating Canaanite customs. Maimonides wrote: "the heathen priests adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal materials, while they held in their hand a seal of mineral. This you will find written in their books".[1]
According to modern biblical scholars (and Josephus), the rules against these mixtures are survivals of the clothing of the ancient Jewish temple and that these mixtures were considered to be holy and/or were forfeited to a sanctuary.[2][3] It may also be observed that linen is a product of a riverine agricultural economy, such as that of the Nile Valley, while wool is a product of a desert, pastoral economy, such as that of the Hebrew tribes. Mixing the two together symbolically mixes Egypt and the Hebrews. It also violates a more general aversion to the mixing of categories found in the Leviticus holiness code, as suggested by anthropologists such as Mary Douglas.[citation needed]
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook suggested that shearing wool from sheep is, at some level, "a form of theft, the oppression of the weak at the hands of the strong." Since utilizing the flax plant and sheep are not – in absolute terms – morally equivalent, the Torah sought to distinguish between them, to instill a sensitivity towards animal welfare. [4]
In the Torah, one is prohibited from wearing shatnez only after it has been carded, woven, and twisted, but the rabbis prohibit it if it has been subjected to any one of these operations.[5] Hence felt made with a mixture of wool compressed together with linen is forbidden.[6] Silk, which resembled wool, and hemp, which resembled linen, were formerly forbidden for appearance's sake,[clarification needed][7] but were later permitted in combination with either wool or linen because they are now distinguishable. Hempen thread was thus manufactured and permitted for use in sewing woolen clothing.
Linen mixed with fibres produced by other animals (e.g., mohair or camel hair) is not shatnez. The character of threads spun from a mixture of sheep's wool with other fibres is determined by the majority; if only a minority of the fibre is sheep's wool it is not considered to be wool.[8] None the less, a mixture of any of these materials with linen is Rabbinically forbidden because of the impression it creates[clarification needed].[9]
Rabbinic Judaism maintains that shatnez was permitted in the case of the avnet (kohen's girdle), in which fine white linen was interwoven with purple, blue, and scarlet material. According to the rabbis, the purple, blue, and scarlet were made from wool and interwoven with the fine linen.
Karaite Judaism maintains that the purple, blue, and scarlet materials must also have been made of linen, since the Torah prohibits wearing garments made from combinations of wool and linen. The Torah does not state from what materials the purple, blue, and scarlet threads were made.[10]
The phrase regarding the kohenim sons of Zadok, "they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat"[11] is interpreted in the Talmud to mean "they shall not gird themselves around the bent of the body, where sweat effuses most".[12] Judah ha-Nasi was of the opinion that the girdle of the ordinary priest was of shatnez, but Eleazar ben Shammua says it was of fine linen. The Talmud states that the high priest wore a linen girdle on Yom Kippur and a girdle of shatnez on all other days.[13]
Torah law forbids kil'ayim (shatnez) - "intertying" wool and linen together, with the two exceptions being garments of kohanim[further explanation needed] and tzitit. Concerning tzitzit, chazal permit using wool and linen strings in tandem only when genuine tekhelet is available, whereas kabbalist sources take it a step further by encouraging its practice.[14]
The Talmud argues that a woolen garment may be worn over a linen garment, or vice versa, but they may not be knotted or sewed together. Shatnez is prohibited only when worn as an ordinary garment, for the protection or benefit of the body,[15] or for its warmth,[16] but not if carried on the back as a burden or as merchandise. Felt soles with heels are also permitted,[16] because they are stiff and do not warm the feet. In later times, rabbis liberalised the law, and, for example, permitted shatnez to be used in stiff hats.[17]
Cushions, pillows, and tapestry with which the bare body does not touch do not come under the prohibition,[18] and lying on shatnez is technically permitted. However, classical rabbinical commentators feared that some part of a shatnez fabric might fold over and touch part of the body; hence, they went to the extreme of declaring that even if only the lowest of 10 couch-covers is of shatnez, one may not lie on them.[19]
Many people bring clothing to special experts who are employed to detect the presence of shatnez.[20] A linen admixture can be detected during the process of dyeing cloth, as wool absorbs dye more readily than linen does.[5] Wool can be distinguished from linen by four tests—feeling, burning, tasting, and smelling; linen burns in a flame, while wool singes and creates an unpleasant odor. Linen thread has a gummy consistency if chewed, due to its pectin content; a quality only found in bast fibers.
Observance of the laws concerning shatnez became neglected in the 16th century, and the Council of Four Lands found it necessary to enact (1607) a takkanah ("decree") against shatnez, especially warning women not to sew woolen trails to linen dresses, nor to sew a velvet strip in front of the dress, as velvet had a linen back.[21]
Observant Jews in current times also follow the laws of shatnez, and newly purchased garments are checked by experts to ensure no forbidden admixtures are used. In addition to the above-mentioned methods, modern shatnez experts employ the use of microscopy to determine textile content. In most cases, garments that do not comply can be made compliant by removing the sections containing linen. Some companies label compliant products with "shatnez-free" tags.
Karaite Jews, who do not recognize the Talmud, forbid the wearing of garments made with linen and wool (and fibres from any plant and/or any animal) under any circumstances. It is even forbidden for one to touch the other.[citation needed]
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Sha'atnez". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
When was the last time you stopped and considered the fabric content of the garment you were about the purchase?
Few women except maybe those with a particular fabric dislike stop and think about the quality and properties of the fabric in the garment they are about to purchase, and yet it’s the fabric that holds the key to how an item will drape, feel and wear over time.
In today’s feature, I want to explore with you some of the most common fashion fabrics and blends – the pros and cons so you can know if the garment will serve you as you expect.
Simply put it’s when two or more types of fibers are combined together into the one fabric.
Blends are created to improve the feel, performance or durability of the fabric. For example when cotton and spandex are combined it often creates a fabric that is that is lightweight, cool and with some degree of stretch. The percentage of each fiber is important as more or less of each can make or break the fabric. Too high a percentage of a stretch fiber in a fabric and the garment can turn into a saggy mess, too little and you can feel overly constricted.
Well before the arrival of man-made fibers, manufacturers were creating hundreds of different kinds of fabrics from natural fibers such as wool, cotton, silk and flax. Each differed mainly by fiber content, weight, style of weave, or sheen.
Natural fabrics tend to have positive characteristics such as durability, non-allergic, breathable and therefore are comfortable to wear, absorbent, fire resistant and biodegradable. Negatives include being: expensive, high maintenance, shrinkage and delicate.
The first commercial production of a man-made fiber was achieved in 1889 by French chemist, Charles Chamberland, who caused a sensation in the Paris Exhibition when he showed his ‘artificial silk’. Next came rayon in 1910 and nylon in 1939. By the 1950′s made-made fabrics were taking 20% of all fibers being produced by American mills. These fibers were developed to solve some of the more problematic issues associated with natural fibers such as moths, wrinkles, and durability.
The positive characteristics of man-made fibers include water and stain resistance, stretch, strength, durable, retain shape and comparably less expensive. Negatives include being: hot to wear, they do not absorb water, seams do not hold as tight as natural fabrics, prone to skin allergies and they are not biodegradable.
The more popular blended fabrics include:
The primary purpose of creating blended fabrics is to marry two qualities inherent in each fabric with each other to create a final complementary blend. There are a number of reasons why fabrics are combined. It might be to improve the look or feel (known as the ‘hand’), to make the fabrics easier to care for or handle, or to make it more economical for manufacturers.
Here’s a breakdown of what the most common fibers bring to a blend:
New Blend Fibers
Tencel and bamboo are two new microfibers that blur the lines between natural and synthetic and although both are derived from organic sources, these new microfibers are synthetically derived. Tencel is made from cellulose that is obtained from wood and pulp. It’s typically used with casual wear such as T-shirts and jeans.
Tencel is biodegradable, absorbent, and has low heat retention making it ideal for hot weather. It is also very breathable, wrinkle-free, and qualifies as an easy care fabric. Denim Tencel is readily available in the market, it’s very comfortable.
Bamboo, like Tencel, is biodegradable. This sustainable fabric is often described as cool to the touch, soft to wear, and comfortable 24/7. It is also excellent at moisture wicking which pulls moisture from the body to the exterior of the shirt where it can evaporate more easily. Many also consider bamboo to be a more sustainable alternative to cotton and it looks and feels more luxurious than cotton.
Both Tencel and Bamboo are being used for active wear and casual wear. Unlike wool and cotton blends, which are strongly identified with one specific season of the year or type of weather, Tencel and Bamboo are versatile enough to be worn for multiple seasons since both fabrics have cooling and anti-moisture properties.
Modal is a blend is a blend of cotton and modal which is a type of rayon made from beech tree fibers. When modal is added to cotton, the result is a fabric that shrinks less, is softer to the touch and is more absorbent than fabric made from pure cotton. Because of its silky feel, clothing manufacturers often use modal cotton in underwear and other fabrics that come into direct contact with the skin, such as sheets and towels. However, even though modal is made from beech fibers, it is not considered a completely natural fiber because many chemicals are used in its manufacture. Garment care instructions for modal cotton fabrics are similar to those for cotton fabrics, although the addition of modal to cotton makes fabric more susceptible to damage by excessive heat and chlorine bleach.
Nano Technology
Recent scientific and technological advancements have brought about an entirely new type of blending within fabrics.
Nanotechnology allows for all manner of materials to be blended into fibers on a microscopic level to improve their use, life, comfort, and hygiene.
Here’s a few examples:
Silver nanoparticles are added to clothing for their powerful ability to kill bacteria and fungi and to prevent the nasty odors they cause. Nanosilver particles release positively charged ions that stop bacterial cells functioning. The particles’ tiny size means the garment stays soft and wearable.
Nanoparticles of silica incorporated into the weave of a fabric or sprayed onto its surface create a coating that repels water and stain-producing liquids. The angle and roughness of the silica coating creates enough surface tension to ensure that liquids form beads that roll off the fabric rather than soaking into it.
Ever got sunburnt through your T-shirt? Nanoparticles of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide are incorporated into textiles to protect your garments – and your skin – from sun damage. Both particles scatter the ultraviolet light in sunlight, and do so more effectively as nanoparticles rather than as larger particles.
Some fabrics – particularly synthetics such as polyester and nylon – tend to gather static charge. Whisk a top over your head and your hair stands on end. But nanoparticles that conduct electricity, such as zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, and antimony-doped tin oxide, can help disperse this charge.
At the moment, clothes featuring nanotechnology are largely made from standard fabrics upon which a nano-coating has been applied. But in the future, we’re likely to see more fabrics made from nanofibres, with nanoparticles and nanofilaments an integral part of the weave. A new era of “smart” fabrics, for example, could automatically respond to your body and the environment around you.
I hope that this quick field guide to blended fabrics has shed some light on its unique properties as well as its practical applications.
Among other issues, a couple of commenters listed a number of popular arguments for why homosexuality is reconcilable with Christianity. For today and tomorrow, I’d like to address a couple of those arguments that I encounter most often. My hope is that I might serve those who erroneously believe that faith in Jesus and His Word can be reconciled with attempts to legitimize homosexuality.
The objection I want to address today basically boils down to this: “There are plenty other commands in Scripture that Christians don’t follow today, like the prohibition against mixing fabrics (Lev 19:19) or eating shellfish (Lev 11:10–12) and pork (Lev 11:7–8). So why not one more?”
Unbiblical Reasoning
First, I just want to observe that this kind of reasoning is patently unbiblical. The argument concedes that the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality. We’re not getting an argument from these folks on that. They’re just giving a reason for why we should ignore more of what the Bible clearly says. “We disobey God’s Word all over the place. Why should disobeying His commands against homosexuality be any different?”
If you find yourself thinking this way, I just want to plead with you to realize that this is just not the way a Christian thinks about God’s Word. Someone who loves God in the Person of Jesus Christ does not look for ways to legitimize their disobedience or to free themselves from what He’s actually said. The one who loves God loves His Word. The Word of God is the delight of the child of God (see Psalm 119; Job 23:12; Jer 15:16). If God’s Word is something you feel you have to get around or escape, please examine whether you’re truly a Christian at all.
The Purpose of the Law
But aside from the fact that a Christian simply doesn’t reason this way, this objection fails to understand the purposes of the Mosaic Law, and how the Christian under the New Covenant is to relate to the Law given under the Sinaitic Covenant. This isn’t an easy theological issue, and so to some degree I understand the confusion over this issue. But Scripture gives a clear answer, so try to stick with me.
To Set God’s People Apart
For one thing, these civil and ceremonial regulations functioned to set Israel apart from all the other nations. No other nation cared about eating animals that didn’t chew cud or wearing clothes woven with two different fabrics. No other nation let a perfectly good day of work (and profits) slip through their fingers by resting on Saturday. In all these restrictions, God’s design was for Israel—His people—to be different than all the nations. And He wanted them to be different from the nations because He was different than the gods of the nations.
But God’s people are no longer confined to a particular nation. They are no longer bound by physical, national, or even cultural boundaries (Eph 2:12). The Church is not a civil government or a theocracy, but a spiritual building (Eph 2:21–22). Because of that, we’re not set apart by obeying laws about fabrics, foods, lengths of beards, and days of rest, but by our moral purity and holiness. We are to come out from all moral impurity and uncleanness, and are to be separate, for the Holy God walks in our midst (2 Cor 6:14–7:1).
To Point God’s People to a Savior
So, one function of the Mosaic Law was to set God’s people—the nation of Israel—apart in tangible, physical ways in order to show His own uniqueness.
But the Law was also given to Israel for another purpose: to illustrate God’s standard of righteousness, to show how far short of that standard His people fall, and ultimately to point them to a Savior to provide that righteousness.
Under the Mosaic Covenant, a right relationship with God depended on compliance with all of what He had said. If someone broke God’s Law, that was sin, and sin demanded a punishment. God made a provision to punish His people’s sin in a substitute, and so the sacrificial system was instituted. The consistent bloody exercise of animal sacrifice was designed to make clear to Israel that God was infinitely holy and that He took sin seriously. Day after day, year after year, all of Israel would offer sacrifices for their sins. And one thing they were supposed to come away with after doing that was that they could not live the way God required. God was holy. And they were hopelessly unholy.
Because of this, in Galatians 3 Paul calls the Law a tutor or a schoolmaster.
So the Law was designed to teach Israel that they could never meet God’s standard of holiness themselves, and that they needed to look outside of themselves—to Him—for the gracious provision of that righteousness. And God provided that righteousness in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ. The Law was designed to point to Him!
That’s why when Jesus shows up, He can declare that all foods are clean (Mark 7:19) and work on the Sabbath (Luke 6:2, 5). It’s why God’s people no longer have to offer sacrifices in a temple—why when Jesus was crucified the veil of the temple was torn in two (Matt 27:51): because in Jesus, something greater than the temple is here (Matt 12:8)! Access to God would no longer be mediated by the regulations of the Mosaic Covenant, but by those of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Luke 22:20), whose mediator is Christ Himself (Heb 9:15).
That’s also why the Book of Hebrews declares that the Mosaic Covenant has been made “obsolete” (Heb 8:13): because the purpose for which that Covenant was given—namely, to set Israel apart and to point them to a need for a Savior—is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the point of the dietary laws. God’s people are no longer set apart by not mixing fabrics, they are set apart by being united to Jesus by faith.
No Longer Under a Tutor
So, the reason that Christians don’t have a problem mixing fabrics or eating pork is not because we’re picking and choosing which biblical commands we follow. Neither were the commands culturally conditioned. Rather, they were covenantally conditioned. It’s actually because those commands, which belonged to the Mosaic Covenant, have been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the Mediator of a new and better covenant. We actually obey the commands of the Law not by carrying them out ourselves, but by looking to Jesus as their fulfillment and trusting Him to provide the righteousness that those commands couldn’t produce. That’s why Paul says in that same passage in Galatians 3:
We are no longer under that Law which functioned for us as a tutor! To attempt to keep the dietary laws and other aspects of ceremonial worship would actually be to deny that Jesus’ righteous life and substitutionary sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to achieve God’s righteousness on our behalf. So when Christians exercise their freedom to mix fabrics or to eat shellfish and pork, we are not breaking the Mosaic Law. Rather, we are living obediently in light of its fulfillment in Christ (cf. Matt 5:17).
Why Homosexuality is Different
However, the commandments against homosexuality do not belong to the ceremonial or civil stipulations of an obsolete covenant from a bygone era. Yes, a prohibition of homosexuality is given in Leviticus 18:22. But that prohibition is repeated in the New Testament—God’s revelation for those living under the New Covenant.
Whereas the New Testament declares the fulfillment (and thus the end) of certain civil and ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Covenant, these New Covenant Scriptures only reaffirm the Old Testament prohibition against homosexuality. This shows us that such a prohibition wasn’t applicable only to national Israel, but is also binding upon the New Testament people of God. And the reason for that is because the prohibition against homosexuality wasn’t designed to teach a temporary lesson, like the food laws and civil regulations were; rather, homosexuality in all ages tragically distorts the picture of the Gospel that marriage is designed to be. According to God’s own Word to His people, you cannot be in a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ while living an unrepentant homosexual lifestyle.
Shatnez (or shaatnez, [ʃaʕatˈnez]; Hebrew: שַׁעַטְנֵז šaʿaṭnēz (help·info)) is cloth containing both wool and linen (linsey-woolsey), which Jewish law, derived from the Torah, prohibits wearing. The relevant biblical verses (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11) prohibit wearing wool and linen fabrics in one garment, the blending of different species of animals, and the planting together of different kinds of seeds (collectively known as kilayim).
The word is not of Hebrew origin, and its etymology is obscure. Wilhelm Gesenius's Hebrew Dictionary cites suggestions that derive it from Semitic origins, and others that suggest Coptic origin, finding neither convincing. The Septuagint translates the term as κίβδηλον, meaning 'adulterated'.
The Mishnah in tractate Kil'ayim (9:8), interprets the word as the acrostic of three words: שע 'combing', טוה 'spinning', and נז 'twisting'.
The Modern Hebrew word שעטנז means 'mixture'.
Early writers, like Maimonides, state that the prohibition was a case of the general law (Leviticus 20:23) against imitating Canaanite customs. Maimonides wrote: "the heathen priests adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal materials, while they held in their hand a seal of mineral. This you will find written in their books".[1]
According to modern biblical scholars (and Josephus), the rules against these mixtures are survivals of the clothing of the ancient Jewish temple and that these mixtures were considered to be holy and/or were forfeited to a sanctuary.[2][3] It may also be observed that linen is a product of a riverine agricultural economy, such as that of the Nile Valley, while wool is a product of a desert, pastoral economy, such as that of the Hebrew tribes. Mixing the two together symbolically mixes Egypt and the Hebrews. It also violates a more general aversion to the mixing of categories found in the Leviticus holiness code, as suggested by anthropologists such as Mary Douglas.[citation needed]
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook suggested that shearing wool from sheep is, at some level, "a form of theft, the oppression of the weak at the hands of the strong." Since utilizing the flax plant and sheep are not – in absolute terms – morally equivalent, the Torah sought to distinguish between them, to instill a sensitivity towards animal welfare. [4]
In the Torah, one is prohibited from wearing shatnez only after it has been carded, woven, and twisted, but the rabbis prohibit it if it has been subjected to any one of these operations.[5] Hence felt made with a mixture of wool compressed together with linen is forbidden.[6] Silk, which resembled wool, and hemp, which resembled linen, were formerly forbidden for appearance's sake,[clarification needed][7] but were later permitted in combination with either wool or linen because they are now distinguishable. Hempen thread was thus manufactured and permitted for use in sewing woolen clothing.
Linen mixed with fibres produced by other animals (e.g., mohair or camel hair) is not shatnez. The character of threads spun from a mixture of sheep's wool with other fibres is determined by the majority; if only a minority of the fibre is sheep's wool it is not considered to be wool.[8] None the less, a mixture of any of these materials with linen is Rabbinically forbidden because of the impression it creates[clarification needed].[9]
Rabbinic Judaism maintains that shatnez was permitted in the case of the avnet (kohen's girdle), in which fine white linen was interwoven with purple, blue, and scarlet material. According to the rabbis, the purple, blue, and scarlet were made from wool and interwoven with the fine linen.
Karaite Judaism maintains that the purple, blue, and scarlet materials must also have been made of linen, since the Torah prohibits wearing garments made from combinations of wool and linen. The Torah does not state from what materials the purple, blue, and scarlet threads were made.[10]
The phrase regarding the kohenim sons of Zadok, "they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat"[11] is interpreted in the Talmud to mean "they shall not gird themselves around the bent of the body, where sweat effuses most".[12] Judah ha-Nasi was of the opinion that the girdle of the ordinary priest was of shatnez, but Eleazar ben Shammua says it was of fine linen. The Talmud states that the high priest wore a linen girdle on Yom Kippur and a girdle of shatnez on all other days.[13]
Torah law forbids kil'ayim (shatnez) - "intertying" wool and linen together, with the two exceptions being garments of kohanim[further explanation needed] and tzitit. Concerning tzitzit, chazal permit using wool and linen strings in tandem only when genuine tekhelet is available, whereas kabbalist sources take it a step further by encouraging its practice.[14]
The Talmud argues that a woolen garment may be worn over a linen garment, or vice versa, but they may not be knotted or sewed together. Shatnez is prohibited only when worn as an ordinary garment, for the protection or benefit of the body,[15] or for its warmth,[16] but not if carried on the back as a burden or as merchandise. Felt soles with heels are also permitted,[16] because they are stiff and do not warm the feet. In later times, rabbis liberalised the law, and, for example, permitted shatnez to be used in stiff hats.[17]
Cushions, pillows, and tapestry with which the bare body does not touch do not come under the prohibition,[18] and lying on shatnez is technically permitted. However, classical rabbinical commentators feared that some part of a shatnez fabric might fold over and touch part of the body; hence, they went to the extreme of declaring that even if only the lowest of 10 couch-covers is of shatnez, one may not lie on them.[19]
Many people bring clothing to special experts who are employed to detect the presence of shatnez.[20] A linen admixture can be detected during the process of dyeing cloth, as wool absorbs dye more readily than linen does.[5] Wool can be distinguished from linen by four tests—feeling, burning, tasting, and smelling; linen burns in a flame, while wool singes and creates an unpleasant odor. Linen thread has a gummy consistency if chewed, due to its pectin content; a quality only found in bast fibers.
Observance of the laws concerning shatnez became neglected in the 16th century, and the Council of Four Lands found it necessary to enact (1607) a takkanah ("decree") against shatnez, especially warning women not to sew woolen trails to linen dresses, nor to sew a velvet strip in front of the dress, as velvet had a linen back.[21]
Observant Jews in current times also follow the laws of shatnez, and newly purchased garments are checked by experts to ensure no forbidden admixtures are used. In addition to the above-mentioned methods, modern shatnez experts employ the use of microscopy to determine textile content. In most cases, garments that do not comply can be made compliant by removing the sections containing linen. Some companies label compliant products with "shatnez-free" tags.
Karaite Jews, who do not recognize the Talmud, forbid the wearing of garments made with linen and wool (and fibres from any plant and/or any animal) under any circumstances. It is even forbidden for one to touch the other.[citation needed]
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Sha'atnez". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
