Jewish congregational statutes

With the increasing autonomy of Jewish congregations in the early modern period, which is one of the central features of Jewish history of this era in Europe, the genre of congregational statutes (takkanot) also continued to develop. Depending on the degree of congregational autonomy, these statutes could cover either primarily intra-congregational religious matters – for example, in the form of synagogue rules regulating worship – or broad areas of daily life. This was especially the case in Eastern Europe, where, in addition to the congregations, regional and supraregional councils (Council of Four Lands, Council of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) appeared as statute-making institutions from the seventeenth century onward. There and in larger communities with extensive autonomy rights, issues of worship, community elections and administration were regulated, as well as poor relief, economic matters (such as bankruptcy) and the like. Many statutes also contained sumptuary laws and dress codes or individual sections on these matters. Such statutes were usually drawn up by the lay leadership of the Jewish communities, sometimes with the involvement of the community rabbi. In some cases, there were specially appointed statute commissions, as in Hamburg. In addition, individual organizations within the congregation, such as the burial society (hevrah kadisha), often left their own statutes.

The statutes of the triple congregation of Altona, Hamburg, Wandsbek

In the early modern period, many Jewish congregations enacted more or less extensive congregation statutes; the Altona statutes, which were adopted by the (AHW) triple congregation  Dreigemeinde of Altona, Hamburg, Wandsbek, are among the most extensive. They mainly contained provisions for the internal self-administration of the Jewish congregation: the conditions for admission to the congregation, for elections within the congregation, for the poor, and even increasingly regulations on clothing, consumption, and leisure behavior. Sometimes, as in Altona, they were also a reaction to the decrees of the municipal authorities, which tried to prevent begging in the city at the beginning of the eighteenth century. This also prompted the heads of the Jewish congregation to issue new regulations that not only prohibited begging, but also generated new revenue in the congregation to finance the expanding poor relief.

Dress codes and sumptuary laws

Dress codes and sumptuary laws, which governed both permitted and prohibited clothing as well as expenditures for festivities and gifts on various occasions, were a typical means of governing in the early modern period and they appeared regularly and in a wide variety of governing contexts (at the imperial level, in state or municipal codes). While Christian imperial dress codes for Jews primarily prescribed the wearing of stigmatizing markings and in some cases also prohibited the wearing of certain items of clothing, intra-Jewish dress codes covered social and gender-specific differences and at the same time distinguished between different categories of space and time. The earliest dress codes emerged in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in Spain and various Italian cities and from the late sixteenth century onward in Central and East-Central Europe. The earliest known takkanot from this area are from the Jewish congregation of Kraków, written in 1595. They also contain numerous dress codes that go well beyond the classic biblical regulations, such as the separation of linen and wool (sha’atnez) or the prohibition against shaving off one’s beard. Additional dress codes were issued by the supraregional Jewish councils in Poland and Lithuania, regional councils such as that of Moravia, and individual congregations from Posen to Metz and from Hamburg to Frankfurt am Main and Fürth.

The sections selected here containing dress codes for the congregation of Altona are not formulated as separate dress codes, but form a cohesive block within the congregational statutes of 1685, although individual sections prescribing or prohibiting specific attire can also be found elsewhere in the takkanot.

In this context, the individual bans concern various levels of difference: On the one hand, certain fabrics and materials were prohibited, as were certain items of clothing and cuts, such as Swedish skirts or tabards (a kind of round coat). In this regard, section [178] states: “Women may under no circumstances wear colored silk dresses, but only black ones. […] Sable, marten, or lynx must not be worn on the body, much less lower skirts be lined with it. Swedish skirts are forbidden at all.” The main issue in this regard was the avoidance of – in the eyes of the Jewish authorities – unnecessary luxury, which could influence the perception of Jews by their Christian surroundings and even cause envy; but it also touched on the financial situation of the congregation itself, which was dependent on taxes and donations from its congregation members, especially for the poor relief. Thus, velvet cloth was forbidden for Jewish men, lace was allowed only to a limited extent, which was precisely specified (§ [176]). The weaving of gold and silver threads was also forbidden on most garments. Buttons were an exception here for Jewish men. For women, many kinds of embroidery and borders made of gold and silver threads were forbidden. Not only financial aspects of such goods were an issue here as the regulations not only prohibited jewelry with real pearls and precious stones, but also the respective imitations (§ [178]). The main concern in this context was not to give the appearance of wealth. However, one needs to emphasize, that genuine pearls and precious stones remained unaffordable for the majority of the congregation members anyway.

The regulations also refer to social and gender differences within the congregation. Different regulations as applied to men and women are found for cloth and lace. In addition, the statutes distinguish between married and unmarried people, usually referred to as young people in the source. While postulating that they are equally prohibited from wearing certain clothing, the statutes show some exceptions. For example, unmarried men were allowed to wear neckerchiefs with lace, and young girls were allowed wide sleeves with lace (§ [177]). Unmarried women were also allowed to wear tabards and Swedish skirts, but not of colored silk. Within the congregation, a differentiation is missing here, in the relatively short sections on dress, but it is found in more detailed dress codes, such as in Kraków (1595) or Metz (late seventeenth century). In these congregations, the tax performance of the congregation members was used as a basis to differentiate, for example, the width or the price of the permitted lace. The most important social dividing line was drawn between congregation members and servants, so that maids were not allowed to wear a tabard at all. Other dress codes also contain much more extensive provisions concerning maids and servants.

In many dress codes, the distinction between profane and sacred seasons or between “Jewish” places, such as synagogues or “Jews’ lanes,” and non-Jewish places also played a central role. In Altona, such a regulation appeared only with regard to contact with non-Jews, when it was forbidden to have one’s hair cut by non-Jews on Shabbat and holidays (§ [179]). This reference shows at the same time that Jewish women apparently sought out gentile hairdressers on a regular basis to have their hair done. At least on Shabbat, this was to be avoided.

Finally, the takkanot insisted that these regulations also applied to members of other Jewish congregations, thus attempting to gain clear interpretive authority over their own urban space (§ [181]). Interesting, however, is the exception made right at the beginning, which stipulated that newly admitted congregation members could be exempted from the dress regulations (§ [176]). It can be assumed that the payment of a larger sum into the congregational coffers or the prospect of (relatively high) tax revenues was decisive for this.

The statement that the statutes commission could not possibly warn against all the new fashions the congregation members – explicitly mentioned in this context are married and unmarried men and women – introduced (§ [180]) indicates that in a large city like Altona and Hamburg, the general fashion was also perceived in the Jewish congregation and that it appealed to its members.

Summary

Normative sources such as congregational statutes and dress codes first of all provide an ideal image; the repetition of such regulations, which in the case of Jewish congregations were often read out in the synagogue, also indicates non-compliance with those regulations. Nevertheless, we should not consider them meaningless; often the congregation members were well aware of the prohibitions, but frequently tried to circumvent them, for example, to increase their social capital. Unfortunately, we hardly know – neither in Altona nor in other cases – how strictly the regulations were actually enforced, whether there were regular denunciations, and what penalties, if any, were imposed. Although the statutes commission threatened to impose (unspecified) fines for failure to comply with the regulations and for wearing new fashions in general, no corresponding consequences have been documented. Over time, one may assume, fines for wearing certain clothing and accessories also took on the function of a luxury tax, at least when no other punishments, such as excommunication, were threatened. However, this cannot be verified for sure.

The congregations in Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbek enacted a whole series of sections on dress or added new details, for example in 1715 and 1726. In the following decades, however, they disappeared – the multitude of new fashions, fabrics, and ornaments could hardly be regulated, and more and more Jews wore clothing in their everyday lives that hardly distinguished them from the Christian population of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbek. Statutes for the congregations of Wandsbek and Hamburg in 1801/02 regulated a wide range of issues such as synagogue rules, congregation elections, taxes, poor relief, and even the business practices of young Jewish merchants. Not a single section, however, referred to the clothing or public appearance of the congregation members.

Select Bibliography

Selected English Titles