Must one return sacred objects to Germany if there is a Jewish community there today?

Responsa in a Moment

Volume 19, Number 5

April 2025

Must one return sacred objects to Germany if there is a Jewish community there today?

(Hoshen Mishpat 259:7 & 236:8 and Orah Hayyim 154:4)

by Rabbi David Golinkin

In memory of the Six Million
men, women and children
who were murdered during the Holocaust.
May their memory be for a blessing.

Question from Tammy Kohn, Buenos Aires: In Jewish communities in Germany and elsewhere before the Holocaust, it was customary to turn the swaddling clothes that the baby boy wore during the circumcision ceremony into a Torah binder and donate it to the synagogue to wrap the Torah scroll (see details below). This item is called a “wimpel” or a mappah. Today, there are several wimpels at YIVO (IWO) in Argentina, at the Jewish Museum in Paris, and at the Israel Museum, originating from the Jewish community in Würzburg, Germany. These wimpels were stolen by the Nazis during the Holocaust and redistributed after the Holocaust as part of the “Jewish Cultural Reconstruction.” Soon, the Jewish Museum in Paris will return a wimpel to the current Jewish community in Würzburg.

On the other hand, there is evidence from the sacred objects themselves that many immigrants brought the wimpels – and other Torah decorations – with them to Argentina. They were created in Germany and donated by the family to their synagogue there. In other words, Jews who fled Germany before the Holocaust took these items with them when they escaped.

If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could express your opinion on the matter. In other words, does the wimpel belong to the museum or the family in Argentina, or must it be returned to the Jewish community in Würzburg?

Responsum: This question poses an ethical dilemma. On one hand, without the family’s effort, the wimpel would probably not have survived the Holocaust. On the other hand, according to simple Jewish law, the wimpel belongs to the synagogue in Würzburg and not to the family or the museum.

We will divide our reply into two parts:    

1. In general, do Torah scrolls, sacred books, and sacred objects that survived the Holocaust belong to the person or museum who found or bought them, or to the original owners or their heirs?
2. Specifically, does a wimpel belong to the family that took it to another country or to the museum where it ended up — or to the original synagogue in Germany?

I. In general, do Torah scrolls, sacred books, and sacred objects that survived the Holocaust belong to the person or museum who found or bought them, or to the original owners or their heirs?

Here are the basic Talmudic and halakhic sources with explanatory notes in parentheses:

1. We have learned in the Mishnah, Bava Kamma 10:2 = fol. 114a:

One who saves from the river [after a flood] or from the troops or from the robbers — if the owners have despaired, these items belong to him.

2. We have learned in a Baraita in Bava Metzia 24a, which appears with variations in Avodah Zarah 43a:

And so said Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: One who saves from the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the cheetah [in Avodah Zarah, instead of the cheetah: from the troops and from the river] and from the seabed and from the flood of the river; one who finds [something] on the main road and in a large public square and in any place where many people are found — these items belong to him because the owners despair of them.

I interpreted the word zuto as “seabed” according to modern dictionaries; see Rashi in Avodah Zarah for a different explanation.

3. Maimonides ruled in Hilkhot Gezeilah Va’aveidah 6:2, and I quote from Rabbi Shabetai Frankel’s edition: “Therefore, one who saves from the river, from the seabed, from the flood of the river, from the troops, from the fire, from the lion, from the bear, from the leopard, and from the cheetah — if he knows for certain that the owners have despaired, these items belong to him; if he does not know, he must return them.” He gave a similar ruling , 11:10 based on Bava Metzia 22b.

The Tur gave a similar ruling in Hoshen Mishpat 259, but he added according to his father, the Rosh: “…these items belong to him, even if the owner stands there crying out, it is like crying out over his house that has fallen” (Hatur Hashalem, Vol. 22, pp. 4-5, and see the Bet Yosef ibid.). Rabbi Yosef Karo copied from the Tur in Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 259:7.

4. However, the Rema added in his Darkei Moshe commentary on the Tur ibid. and in his glosses on the Shulhan Arukh ibid.: “In any case, it is good and proper to return it.” In other words, one is not obligated to return it, but it is desirable to do so according to the verse (Deuteronomy 6:18) “And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord” (and see an important explanation in the Ramban’s commentary, ibid.).

5. In general, there is yeiush [despair of recovering a lost object] in such situations, but not regarding books, because a Jewish book is worthless in the eyes of a non-Jew, and therefore the owner of the book assumes that eventually the book will return to him. This was the ruling of Rabbi Yosef Halevi Ibn Migash (1077-1141), a devoted disciple of the Rif and the teacher of Maimon, the father of Maimonides; Tosafot to Bava Kamma 114b, s.v. hamakir keilav; the Mordechai to Bava Kamma, chapter Hakoness, paragraph 60, ed. Vilna, fol. 48c, and to Bava Metzia, chapter Elu Metziot, paragraph 427, ed. Vilna, fol. 83d; and the Rema in Darkei Moshe to Hoshen Mishpat 236, Hatur Hashalem, 21, p. 334, and in his glosses to Hoshen Mishpat 236:8.

Now let us see how the Poskim [halakhic authorities] related to these sources in connection with sacred books and sacred objects after the Holocaust (all the responsa mentioned below are listed in the Bibliography).

1. The owners despaired, and therefore the books or sacred objects belong to the person who found or bought them.

Rabbi Ephraim Oshry (1914-2003) was a prominent rabbi in Kovno, Lithuania, who survived the Holocaust and emigrated to New York, where he published six volumes of Responsa Mima’amakim [from the Depths], which he wrote during and after the Holocaust.

On the first day of Adar 5702 (1942), the Germans ordered the Jews in the Kovno ghetto to hand over all their books, both sacred and secular, to the Germans, and anyone who did not do so would be sentenced to death. One of the Jewish police officers in the ghetto, Mr. Yitzhak Greenberg hy”d, risked his life and placed valuable books in a crate, buried the crate in a pit, and covered it with earth. After the Holocaust, “Reuven” dug up the crate and began selling the books. “Shimon” claimed that some of the books belonged to him, his father, and his grandfather, as evidenced by their signatures in the books, and refused to pay. They came to Rabbi Oshry for a halakhic ruling. After discussing many sources, Rabbi Oshry ruled according to the Mishnah and the above-mentioned poskim: “Therefore, it seems from all the above that these books belong to the person who dug them out of the ground, and may God save us from errors.”

And so ruled Rabbi Meshulam Rath (1875-1962), who survived the Holocaust in Chernowitz and was a Dayan in the Great Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem after the Holocaust. He was asked by Rabbi Dr. S. Z. Kahana, Director of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, about a Torah crown that the Ministry of Religious Affairs saved from the Europe after the Holocaust and placed on display in the Tomb of David in Jerusalem. Mr. Zvi Landsman from Haifa saw the crown and recognized it as his from before the Holocaust and even provided identifying marks. Rabbi Rath ruled according to Bava Metzia 24a mentioned above that there is yeiush [despair], so there is no need to return the crown to the claimant; and that all of the Torah crowns on display at David’s Tomb must be donated to synagogues.

2. Even though there is yeiush [despair], a compromise should be made between the claimant and the defendant.

Rabbi Moshe David Ostreicher (1883-1954) was a rabbi in Czechoslovakia who survived the Holocaust and emigrated to New York. He was asked about Reuven, who bought books after the Holocaust to sell them for profit and also to save them from the hands of non-Jews. He then sold them to Shimon, who paid partially and then saw his brother’s stamp on them and did not want to pay Reuven the remaining money. Rabbi Ostreicher ruled according to the above-mentioned sources and many others that there was yeiush, “and nevertheless, I made a compromise with the agreement of both parties.”

3. According to simple Jewish law, the books belong to Reuven, who bought them from non-Jews. Nevertheless, according to the Rema, they should be returned because of “And you shall do what is right and good,” since these books are like a monument for his entire family who perished sanctifying God’s name.

This was the ruling of Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Liebes (1906-2000) from Greiding, Galicia (today: Horodek, Ukraine), who survived the Holocaust in the forests and emigrated to New York after the Holocaust. There is a similar ruling by Rabbi Ya’akov Levinson, who passed away in New York in 1955.

4. The books that a rabbi saved from the library of the Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin do not belong to the him because the wicked ones, may their names be erased, took all the books from the libraries and placed them in guarded locations.

Rabbi Dr. Yehiel Ya’akov Weinberg (1884-1966) was the last Rector of the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin, who survived the Holocaust and lived in Switzerland until his death. He was asked by Rabbi M. Rabhon from Haifa, who saved books from the library of the Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin, if they are considered as “saved from the seabed” and if they belong to him. Rabbi Weinberg ruled that there is no yeiush regarding lost books, as the Rema ruled in Hoshen Mishpat 236:8, and it is necessary to consult with the surviving heads of the seminary to decide what to do with the books.

5. The opinion of the Rishonim [early authorities] that there is no yeiush regarding sacred books does not apply to the Holocaust period.

Rabbi Ostreicher and Rabbi Liebes ruled that the opinion of the Rishonim mentioned above, that there is no yeiush regarding books, is not relevant to the Holocaust period: if the Jews despaired of their own lives, how much the more so of their property! Rabbi Oshry emphasized that in the city of Kovno, all the Jews knew that the Germans took the books in order to make paper, “and therefore the books would never come into the hands of Jews, and thus the owners certainly despaired in this case, and it is clear that the books belong to the finder.”

6. A Torah crown must be returned to its owner after the Holocaust, and he is not required to cover the expenses of the committee that displayed the crown at the Tomb of David.

This was the ruling of a regional rabbinical court in Israel in 1954, contrary to Rabbi Meshulam Rath’s ruling mentioned above, but I have not yet seen the original ruling, so I do not know their reasoning.

II. Does the wimpel belong to the family that took it to Argentina or to the museum where it ended up — or to the synagogue in Germany?

As can be seen from the literature list below, many scholars have dealt with the wimpel, but most were interested in the artistic or historical aspects of the custom. The earliest dated wimpel, discovered in 1893, was from the year 1480 (Hamburger, p. 581). The earliest known extant wimpel is from southern Alsace, dated 1569 (Feuchtwanger-Sarig, 2005, p. 162, note 3; Feuchtwanger-Sarig, 2012, p. 16; Oicherman, p. 107).

The wimpel was donated by the family to the synagogue the first time the mother brought the child to the synagogue at the age of one month or six months or one year or two years or three years or four years or five years, or upon the child’s weaning (Hamburger, pp. 513-526). Here is a description of the ceremony by Rabbi Yuzpe Shamesh, the Sexton of the Jewish community in Worms beginning in 1648 (ed. Makhon Yerushalayim, 1992, pp. 157-158, 162-164):

They make the wimpel from the Judish windel [circumcision swaddling clothes]… and write on it the child’s names as they are called to the Torah, also the day of birth, the month in which they were born, and the year of birth, and they draw on it the zodiac sign of that month.

The mother does not leave her home until the fourth Sabbath after the birth…

On the morning of that Sabbath, it is obligatory to call the husband to the Torah, and they make two Mee Sheberakh blessings for him… and while he is still standing before the Torah, his wife sends him the wimpel, because here they place the wimpel in the synagogue immediately on the Sabbath when the mother leaves her home for the synagogue [unlike most communities, where the child himself brings the wimpel to the synagogue when he turns one or three years old]…

According to the common custom, called Schultragen, (Carrying to Shul; Hamburger, p. 531), the father would go up to the bimah with his young son in his arms, and the child would hand the wimpel to the person honored with rolling the Torah. After the rolling, the father would guide the child’s hand to one of the Torah’s wooden rollers and recite the verse “It is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it” (Proverbs 3:18). This custom is depicted in a wonderful painting by Moritz Oppenheim from 1869 (see Oppenheim).

Since each synagogue had many more wimpels than Torah scrolls, it was customary to store them in a special cabinet or box, or in a special cabinet with twelve drawers, one for each month of the year (Hamburger, p. 580).

The child would roll the Torah scroll with his wimpel on important occasions such as his birthday, his Bar Mitzvah, and his Aufruf [pre-wedding Shabbat] (Hamburger, pp. 527-528, 580).

According to Katya Oicherman (p. 106), the average wimpel is 20 cm wide and three meters long.

It is clear from Hamburger’s thorough survey of wimpel collections before and after the Holocaust (pp. 580-592) that the wimpels belonged to the synagogue and not to the families, and when they wore out, they were placed in the synagogue’s Genizah. For example, between 1881 and 1885, an archive of 604 wimpels (sic!) from 1570ff. was discovered in the genizah of the synagogue in Worms. In 1956, a researcher named Bernstein found collections of 160, 50, 40, and 28 wimpels in various synagogues in Germany (Hamburger, pp. 585-586). In other communities in Germany, Switzerland and Alsace, collections of 93, 200, and 130 wimpels have been found in recent years (Hamburger, pp. 586-587).

Therefore, from a halakhic point of view, the wimpel belonged to the synagogue and not to the child or his family.

Furthermore, the wimpel is considered one of the tashmishei kedushah, a sacred object, and may not be used for secular purposes or may not even be turned into a Tefillin bag, according to the principle of “one increases in holiness and does not decrease.” Rather, it is permissible to use a wimpel in order to make shrouds for a dead person and this is considered its Genizah or it can be placed in a Genizah, as was done for hundreds of years in the synagogues of Germany.(1)

Therefore, if the wimpel was taken from a specific synagogue in Würzburg and that synagogue exists today – even if it is in a different building – the family or the museum must return the wimpel to that synagogue. On the other hand, if it is a completely new synagogue or a different synagogue in Würzburg, there is no obligation to return the wimpel to Würzburg, but it should be donated it to a local synagogue so that it will be used for Gelilah.

If that is not possible, it is appropriate to exhibit the wimpel in a display case in a synagogue with a sign explaining the history of the wimpel, in order to educate the public about this beautiful custom which was observed in Germany and other countries before the Holocaust. If that too is not possible, it is appropriate to display the wimpel in a display case in a Jewish Museum or in a Holocaust Museum in order to educate the public about Jewish life in Germany before the Holocaust. This is similar to a pasul [disqualified] Torah scroll from the Holocaust, which one may display in a museum for educational purposes (see Rabbi Kassel Abelson in the Bibliography below, paragraph 5).

In conclusion, it would be wonderful if the Jews of Germany today and the descendants of German Jews throughout the world could continue to observe this beautiful custom.

David Golinkin
Jerusalem
Yom Hashoah 5785

Notes

1. See Megillah 26b at bottom; Rambam, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 10:3; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 154:4; Rabbi Yehudah Ayash, Responsa Bet Yehudah, 27; Rabbi Hayyim Modai, Responsa Hayyim L’olam, No. 5, quoted by Sedei Hemed, Assefat Dinim, Ma’arekhet Bet Knesset, paragraph 27, ed. Schneerson, Vol. 4, p. 1519. The latter two sources are quoted briefly by Rabbi Ya’akov Hayyim Sofer, Kaf Hahayyim to Orah Hayyim 154, paragraph 34. On the other hand, the Rema adds in Orah Hayyim 154:8 — on the basis of Rabbi Israel Isserlein, Terumat Hadeshen, No. 273 — that “the heart of the court makes a condition about them,” meaning that since so many people make the mistake of using sacred objects for secular purposes, we must assume that the Bet Din always makes a condition in advance that it’s permissible to use sacred objects even for secular purposes. However, a careful reading of Rabbi Isserlein’s responsum teaches us that he actually thought that this practice was forbidden. After a long section “to somehow justify” the custom of benefitting from Torah binders and mantles, he concludes: “I was forced to somehow justify the fact that people are not careful about this.” In other words, he invented this excuse so that the Jewish people would not be considered sinners, but the simple law is that it’s forbidden to reduce the sanctity of an Ark, Torah binders and Torah mantles.

Bibliography

1. 1. Rishonim

שו”ת ר”י (רבנו יוסף הלוי) אבן מיגאש, מהד’ שמחה חסידה, ירושלים, תשנ”א, סימן קכ”ה = שיטה מקובצת לבבא מציעא כ”ד ע”ב, ד”ה וה”ר יוסף הלוי אבן מיגש

שו”ת הרמב”ם, מהד’ יהושע בלאו, ירושלים, תש”ך, כרך ב’, סימן ר”ט = שיטה מקובצת לבבא מציעא כ”ד ע”ב, ד”ה שאלת

תוספות לבבא קמא קיד ע”ב, ד”ה המכיר כליו

שו”ת מהר”ם מרוטנברג, דפוס פראג (בודאפעשט, תרנ”ה), סימן תתר”ט

המרדכי לבבא קמא פרק הכונס, סימן ס’, דפוס ווילנא, דף מ”ח ע”ג ולבבא מציעא פרק אלו מציאות, סימן תכ”ז, דפוס ווילנא, דף פ”ג ע”ד.

1. 2. Responsa Related to the Holocaust

הרב משה דוד אסטרייכער, שו”ת תפארת אדם, ניו יורק, תשט”ו, סימן צ”ח

הרב מאיר אריק, שו”ת אמרי יושר, חלק ב’, קראקא, תרפ”ה, סימן נ”ט (נכתב בעקבות מלחמת העולם הראשונה)

הרב אפרים אשרי, שו”ת ממעמקים, חלק ב’, ניו יורק, תשכ”ג, סימן ח’

הרב שמואל הלוי ואזנר, שו”ת שבט הלוי, מהד’ ג’, בני ברק, תשס”ב, חלק ז’, סימן רכ”ז

הרב יחיאל יעקב ויינברג, שו”ת שרידי אש, ירושלים, תשל”ז, חלק אבן העזר, סימן ע”א

הרב יצחק יעקב וייס, שו”ת מנחת יצחק, ירושלים, תשנ”ג, חלק ח’, סימן ס”ט, סעיף ב’

הרב יצחק אייזיק ליעבעס, שו”ת בית אב”י, ניו יורק, תשל”א, סימנים קנ”ז ו-קנ”ט

הרב יעקב לעווינזאן, שו”ת דבר בעתו, ניו יורק, תש”ז, סימן י”ד

פסקי דין של בתי הדין הרבניים האזוריים בישראל, כרך א’, ירושלים, תשי”ד, עמ’ 170-169 (סיכום אצל לוין, עמ’ 308-307; טרם ראיתי את פסק הדין המקורי)

הרב משלם ראטה, שו”ת קול מבשר, ירושלים, תשל”ג, חלק א’, סימן נ”ז.

1. 3. Secondary Literature about the Holocaust Responsa

Levin — איתמר לוין, אותיות של אש, מהדורה שנייה מורחבת, תל אביב, תשס”ב, עמ’ 301-310

Irving Rosenbaum, The Holocaust and Halakhah, New York, 1976, pp. 128-130

H. J. Zimmels, The Echo of the Nazi Holocaust in Rabbinic Literature, New York, 1977, pp. 263-264. 

4. Literature about the Wimpel

Brenner — טלי מרים ברנר, על פי דרכם: ילדים וילדות באשכנז, ירושלים, תשע”ח, עמ’ 227-225

Naomi Feuchtwanger-Sarig, 1999 — נעמי פויכטונגר-שריג, חיתולים לספר התורה מדנמרק, עבודת דוקטור, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים, תשנ”ט

Naomi Feuchtwanger-Sarig, 2005 — ” ‘May he grow to the Torah’ –The Iconography of Torah Reading and Bar Mitzvah on Ashkenazi Torah Binders” in: Ruth Langer and Steven Fine, eds., Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue: Studies in the History of Jewish Prayer, Winona Lake, Indiana, 2005, pp. 161-176

Naomi Feuchtwanger-Sarig, 2012 —   נעמי פויכטונגר-שריג, מפות (קטלוג של תערוכה), עפולה, 2012

Gulnitzky —   השיל גולניצקי, במחזור הימים: מועד וחול באמנות ובפולקלור היהודי, חיפה, תשכ”ג, עמ’ 19-18

Gutman, “Die Mappe Schuletragen: An Unusual Judeo-German Custom,” Visible Religion 2 (1983), pp. 167-173 and again in Hebrew: “נשיאת החיתול לספר התורה לבית הכנסת”, רימונים ה’ (תשנ”ז), עמ’ 59-56

Gutman, The Jewish Life Cycle, Leiden, 1987, pp. 6-8

Hamburger —  הרב בנימין שלמה המבורגר, שרשי מנהג אשכנז, כרך שני, בני ברק, תש”ס, עמ’ 604-322 (282 pages!)

Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, “The Cut that Binds: The Western Ashkenazic Torah Binder as Nexus Between Circumcision and Torah” in: Victor Turner, editor, Celebration: Studies in Festivity and Ritual, Washington, D.C., 1982, pp. 136-146

Oicherman — קטיה אויכרמן, “זהות על התפר: חיתול תורה כמראה חומרית”, זמנים 136 (סתיו 2016), עמ’ 115-104

Oppenheim — Georg Heuberger and Anton Merk, editors, Moritz Daniel Oppenheim: Jewish Identity in 19^th Century Art, Frankfurt am Main, 1999, p. 281

Philologos, “Wimpels Made Simple,” Forward.com, July 15, 2011

Sperber — דניאל ודוד שפרבר, מנהגי ישראל, חלק שני, ירושלים, תשנ”א, עמ’ קצ”ז-קצ”ט; וחלק רביעי, ירושלים, תשנ”ה, עמ’ עט-פ, פה, קב, קלד-קלו, ש-שא

Annette Weber, Evelyn Friedlander and Fritz Armbruster, editors, Mappot – Blessed Be Who Comes: The Band of Jewish Tradition, Osnabruck, 1997

1. 5. Displaying a Sefer Torah Pasul from the Holocaust

Rabbi Kassel Abelson, “Display of a Pasul Torah in a Museum Case,” in: Rabbis Kassel Abelson and David Fine, eds., Responsa 1991-2000, New York, 2002, pp. 153-162, also on CJLS website.

To Purchase Rabbi Golinkin’s Volumes of Responsa: CLICK HERE

image: Wimpel from Lengnau, Switzerland, 1886, Collection of Jewish Museum of Switzerland, (via wikicommons CCA-SA4.0)