Ark Curtain

You ask whether traditional law requires that the Ark have a curtain (parochet) in front of it, and whether Reform synagogues have any justification for building Arks with ornamental doors and not having a cloth curtain. (To Rabbi Earl Grollman, Beth EI Temple, Belmont, Massachusetts)

I know of no legal requirement in traditional law that there must be a curtain before the Ark. There is, of course, con siderable discussion in the Talmudic literature about the curtain that divided the rest of the sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. To the extent that the custom of having a curtain in front of the Ark is based on the theory that the Ark is like the Holy of Holies, to that extent it is an imitation and, as such, it is actually rather unjustified, because there is general objection in the law to imitating the appurtenances of the Temple. In all places in the great codes where a curtain would be referred to (if it were actually a requirement) there is no reference to the curtain. In Maimonides (Yad Hil. Telfilla XIV), where he carefully discusses the location of the synagogue, the appurtenances of the synagogue, reading desk, Ark, et cetera, he makes no mention at all of the curtain. The same applies to the Tur in Orah Hayyim #150. Also, in the Shulchan Aruch there is no reference to the curtain; nor do any of the classic commentaries to these codes mention it. So this much at least is clear negatively, that the curtain could not be of essential importance; otherwise it would not have been passed over so completely where the other appurtenances of the synagogue are carefully described.

Moreover, there is more direct evidence that the curtain is not essential. As far as I know, there are only two references to questions of the curtain in the older responsa. The first one, while it has no bearing on our problem, has its own interest. The second is more directly relevant to our question as to how necessary the curtain is. The first is in Tumas Yesharim, Responsum #204 (not #208, as in the index). These responsa are by Tam Ibn Yachya, of Constantinople (sixteenth century). He is asked whether the Ark curtain in question, originally from a Samaritan synagogue, may be used as the Ark curtain in one of our synagogues. He answers in the negative because the Samaritans were considered to be idolaters. All we learn from this responsum is that although the curtain was not required, it was used by both Samaritans and Jews. The second responsum is by Meir of Padua (sixteenth century), who, in #82, discusses the following question: May an Ark curtain be used as a covering for the desk on which the Torah is laid? The question is based upon the general principle, discussed as far back as the Mishnah, that no sacred object may be reduced in status to a lower degree of sacred use. This leads Meir of Padua to a direct consideration of the question as to how sacred is the curtain. He concludes that the curtain has almost no sanctity and may be used for the purpose inquired about. He says that it is only “secondary to a secondary” purpose, and he concludes: “The term ‘holy’ cannot be applied to the curtain at all.” Thus, from the silence of the codes, and the logical conclusion of Meir of Padua, it is evident that the Ark curtain is not required by law.

There is also some historical evidence of this fact. Joseph Jacobs, in the Jewish Quarterly Review (O. S., XIV, 737), studied the oldest pictorial representations of the Ark and found that no curtains were used. He says, therefore, that the Sephardim, who do not use an Ark curtain, are justified in their custom. (See the articles “Paroket” in the Universal Encyclopedia and “Curtain” in the Jewish Encyclopedia, indicating that at least the European Sephardim did not have this custom of a curtain.)

Of course the custom is fairly widespread, nevertheless, even though it is not required. Many Reform congregations have a curtain before the Ark. Those who wish to use it certainly will have plenty of Jewish tradition behind its use. But those who prefer not to use it, but to have ornamental doors instead, have strong justification in Jewish law and in the custom of the Sephardic communities in Europe.