Parokhet (Ark curtain)

includes discussion of tashmishei mitsvah and tashmishei qedushah

RR 62-65

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.

CURR 22-25

EMBROIDERED NAME OF GOD ON ARK CURTAIN

The Tetragrammaton is embroidered on an Ark curtain in a synagogue in Buenos Aires. A colleague objected that it is not permitted. (Question discussed by Dr. Nathan Blum, Buenos Aires, Brazil.)

THE book which the colleague quoted as source for the objection is Leket Ha-Kemach Ha-Chodesh, a work recently collected by Jacob Zvi Katz, who was Rabbi in Sabasia and now is Rabbi of the Ashkenazic congregation in Amsterdam. Being in Amsterdam, he saw the great library of the Etz Chaim Yeshiva, containing many books of Shaalos-u-Teshuvos that he had never seen before. Therefore he decided to enlarge and to modernize the collection Leket Ha-Kemach made by Moses Hagiz.

The Berech Yitzchok which he quotes is by Isaac of Fass, published in Salonika in 1803. Responsum 2 in this book is by Chaim Abulafia who says, quoting the Shach, that embroidery is forbidden only on a tallis, because appurtenances of a mitzvah (tashmishey mitzvah) may be thrown aside and the Name of God on it thus defiled, but that it is not forbidden on Torah covers and peroches, which are appurtenances of holiness (tashmishey kedusha). Isaac of Fass, in the next Teshuvah, answers him to the effect that the Shach meant to permit it only on the Torah mantles and not on the curtain, which is only the appurtenance of appurtenances (tashmishey tashmishey) of holiness. However, this distinction is artificial, and we can certainly rely on Abulafia that it is permitted. Your arguments are sound, therefore. The curtain is never in danger of being brought to an unclean place, and that is all that is important here.

But, of course, there still remains the basic question, whether in the first place (l’chatchilla) it is permitted to embroider the Name of God on the curtain even if one could be sure that it would be carefully protected against being taken to an unclean place. The whole discussion should be based on the Talmud passage in Arachin 6a, where the question comes up of a Gentile who gave a beam of wood for the Temple with the Name of God on it. The Talmud says that the Name of God should be erased and that the beam can then be used.

Now, the Talmud discusses the reason that the Name of God may be erased, and it says that this Name is not sacred because it is not written in the normal place for the writing of God’s Name. Rashi gives two explanations of this reason, namely, that the Name of God is holy only when the text is written with the Name in its proper place, but the Name alone is not holy and, therefore, can be erased. Rashi ad mits that this is a sound explanation, but he prefers a more artificial reason. Yet the explanation as we have given it is sound, as we can tell from the fact that the Rambam says that the Name can be erased from metal vessels, etc. (See Hilchos Yesodeh Torah 6:1 ff.). This is based on Messeches Sofrim V. Therefore, even if the Name of God on the curtain were destroyed, it would not be a sin because the Name is not “in its proper place,” as the Talmud says, and therefore is not holy.

But there is no reason why we should debate this ourselves, as if this were a new question. In the last generation the greatest Galician authority decided that there is no objection to embroidering the Name of God on the mantles, etc., namely, Shalom Mordecai Schwadron of Berzun (Maharsham). This responsum of the Maharsham is not found, as far as I know, in his regular Teshuvos, but is in a book called Jerushalaim D’Dahava by Benzion Katz, who was Rabbi of Czernovitz. He discusses a similar question, and the Maharsham says as follows, in clear words: “But as for sewing (as opposed to writing) there is no holiness involved at all in the sewn or embroidered Name, and therefore the Rambam did not concern himself about that in his Teshuva quoted by the Bes Joseph in Yore Deah 283.” Because I am certain that this book {Jerushalaim D’Dahava) is not found in Buenos Aires, since it is a rare book, I am sending you the title page and the page of the Teshuva of Shalom Mordecai Schwadron.

Let us, then, sum up: The only possible objection to embroidering the Name is that it would be brought (as with a tallis) to an unclean place. This caution does not apply to the curtain, which is not carried around. The distinction of Isaac of Fass that it is permissible to embroider only the mantle of the Torah but not the curtain is an artificial distinction, because the important question is not whether one is tashmishey and the other is tashmishey tashmishey (an appurtenance of an appurtenance) but whether they are safe from being carried into unclean places. The essential fact is, according to the Talmud in Arachin 6a, that the Name, not written in the normal way, is not holy at all, and this is the basis of the clear answer of Maharsham in Jerushalaim D’Dahava.

✕