CCAR RESPONSA
American Reform Responsa
41. Fabric Used in a Torah Mantle
(1977)
QUESTION: May a Torah mantle be made of a fabric which contains a blend of two different fibers? May the Talit of the deceased boy in whose memory the Torahmantle will be given be used as part of the mantle? (Rabbi Stephen H. Pinsky, Tenafly, New Jersey)
ANSWER: The concern expressed here deals with Shaatnez and the Biblical prohibition against the wearing of fabrics which contain a mixture of wool and linen (Lev. l9:19; Deut. 21:11). This matter has been of little concern to Reform Jews and also puzzled our traditional ancestors. The commandment was given without any reason. Maimonides felt that it was intended to avoid imitation of heathen practices (Moreh Newchim 3.37). Nahmanides considered this as a prohibition against man’s attempt to improve upon God’s creation (Commentary to Lev. 19:19), but none of these interpretations proves satisfying. The Biblical ordinance which dealt only with wool which had been carded, woven, and twisted (Kil. 9.8, where the term Sha-atnez is explained) was extended by the Rabbis to include wool for which any of these operations had been done (Nidda 61b). We should, however, note that the Rabbinic prohibition was limited to the wool of sheep, rams, and lambs; it did not include camel or goat wool, or any other wool. If these were mixed with sheep wool, but remained dominant, then it was not considered as “wool” (Kil. 9.1). The prohibition against such mixtures was temporarily extended to silk and hemp because of their appearance (Kil. 9.3; Yad, Hil. Kil-ayim 10.2), but this restriction was later removed (Sh.A., Yoreh De-a 298.1). From this it is clear that the restrictions of Sha-atnez are very limited and certainly would not apply to any of the modern artificial fibers or to any other mixtures.
Even in the matter of wearing such fabrics the prohibition was concerned with their being woven or sewn together, but it was perfectly permissible to wear a woolen cloak over a linen garment, though an item of Sha-atnez could not be worn or slept upon, “even on top of ten other garments.” Such an item might be carried (Beitsa 15a) and may be used in curtains or cushions which do not touch the bare body (Kil. 9.2) and warm it. Therefore, chair-seats and bedspreads should not contain Sha-atnez as they will form a warm contact with the body (Yoma 69a). Yet, felt soles on shoes with heels were permitted, as they were stiff and would not warm the feet (Beitsa 15a), as were various kinds of Sha-atnez rags (Misheh Torah, Hil. Kil-ayim 10.19). The general rule being that items which warmed the body were prohibited while those which did not, or provided only random contact, were permitted. Sha-atnez was excluded from tablecloths as well as from the cover on the reading desk in the synagogue, as it might warm the hands (Sh.A., Yoreh De-a 300.9, Isserles note). It was also excluded specifically from the binder around a Torah (Kil-ayim 9.3; Mishneh Torah, Hil. Kil-ayim 10.22); there is some controversy with the majority permitting the use, but R. Eliezer prohibited it, and the law followed R. Eliezer (Bartenura, ad loc.). We should note that the ancient priestly garments were exempt from these restrictions (Ex. 39:290). Similarly, the Tsitsit on a Talit may interweave wool and linen, or woolen Tsitsit may be attached to a linen garment (Yev. 4b, 5b). In other words, in these sacred appurtenances the restrictions did not apply.
Tradition would then permit any mixture for a Torah mantle except wool and linen. We, as Reform Jews, would permit this mixture (Sha-atnez) as well, for the following reasons: (a) it was permitted by the Mishnaand prohibited only by R. Eliezer; (b) it fits into our general pattern of life, which has rejected these prohibitions.
There might be some question about the use of a Talit for a Torah mantle as it is sometimes buried with the dead, but is this obligatory? The Shulchan Aruch states that we bury the dead in a Talit, and there is some controversy whether the Tsitsiyot should remain on it or not (Yoreh De-a 351.2). The Tur provided the varying opinions on this matter. Nahmanides felt that the Tsitsiyot should remain; another authority felt that they should be snipped off; and a third said that the Talit was placed on the dead during the funeral procession, but then removed at graveside. In other words, burial with a Talit is optional. In fact, in Israel the custom is the reverse, and no one is buried with his Talit (Gesher Hachayim II, pp. 122ff; S.B. Freehof, Modern Reform Responsa, pp. 269ff). A Talitmight, therefore, well be available after an individual’s death, and there should be no hesitation about using it.
The disposal of a worn-out Talit or Tsitsit presented few problems as they were considered “utensils of mitzvot” (Tashmishei Mitzvot), not “holy utensils” (Tashmishei Kodesh) (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 21.3). Like the items connected with the Sukka, they could be cast off, but it was to be done with care, i.e., Tsitsiyot were removed from the Talit, rendering it unsuitable. It was recommended that the Tsitsiyot be used in some good fashion as bookmarks (Turei Zahav, ad loc.). The pieces of a Talit rendered unfit could be used even to fashion clothing for a Gentile (Ba-er Heitev, ad loc.). All of this clearly indicates that a parallel use, as for a Torahmantle, would certainly be appropriate.
We must still inquire about the suitability of various items for inclusion in a Torah mantle. Very little has been written about this in the usual sources, and most concern with Torah and Ark decorations dealt with gold and silver objects (Yad, Hilchot Tefila 10.4; Tur, Yoreh De-a 282; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 154.6, Isserles). We can more properly rely on the mantles which have come down to us, especially on the large collection now in the Jewish Museum of Prague, which has been well described by H. Volavkova in The Synagogue Treasures of Bohemia and Moravia. This collection clearly indicates that all kinds of brocades, textiles, and precious fabrics were used in Ark curtains and Torah mantles. The variety was endless and represented the economic circumstances of the donor; and so we find decorative embroidered kitchen towels, sections of old wedding dresses, rococo waistcoats, as well as Japanese embroidery (Synagogue Treasures, p. ix). A great number of fabrics were also freely used. We should also recall the custom of preparing “Wimples,” Torah wrappers, from linen diapers. This was done in the Rhineland and Bavaria. It would, therefore, be appropriate to use a Talitor a segment of it in this fashion.
There is nothing in our Reform practice which would keep a Talit or any mixture of fabrics from being used to make a Torah mantle. The Talitof the deceased boy may be used. Such special gifts to the synagogue have been encouraged for centuries.
Walter Jacob
See also:
S.B. Freehof, “Sha’atnez with Regard to Tzitzis,” Reform Responsa for Our Time, pp. 296ff.
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.