Shatnez in Rented Suits

You are here:
< Back

Rabbi Simon,

If one rents a (dinner) suit to attend a function, does it have to checked for shatnez? Thanks in advance for the answer. Best regards.


Unknown Object

Dear PhilippeI have looked into this, and it seems that yes, it is necessary to have a garment checked for Shaatnez even if it is only rented for a particular occasion. I have checked with the Shatnez Centre people and they can do an express service (24 hours) though they may charge extra for this. They will of course refrain from attaching their usual label–though it might be useful to have, to save the next customer the need to do the same!

When I graduated high school (many years ago, I can assure you) the firm that rented the tuxedos had a chazakah that their suits had no shatnez, but they were American made, and very few American suits had shatnez at that time. The situation in Europe today is apparently different.

I hope this is helpful.

Kind regards

Questions & Answers
this week

Questions and Answers

Ask the Rabbi: Easy as א-ב-ג?
Dear Rabbi Simon,
I hope you fasted well yesterday.
Thank you for the insights into the Kinnot, making them easier to understand.
In the afternoon, I was listening to a shiur on Eichah on Torahanytime.  As an aside, the speaker mentioned that the 1st perek of Eichah is the source for the order of the alef bet as we know it.  Other chapters also follow the alef bet chronology but with ayin en peh interchanged.
He quoted Rabbi Shimon Schwab as his source.
Although he did not elaborate on this, surely Sefer Tehillim predates Megillat Eichah by centuries.  Several psalms are written in the alef bet order (e.g.
psalm 119).
Can you please clarify?
Thank you & best wishes.
PhilippeHi Philippe
TY for your sophisticated Q.
I have also heard that the question of the sequence of samekh and 'ayin is subject to dispute. It seems that there are indications that in Paleo-Hebrew the order is reversed from what we know. It is alleged that chapters 2, 3 and 4 of Eichah (chapter 5 is not alphabetical) reflect the original order. Of course, as you say, ch 1 conforms to the order with which we are family.
You are right that Tehillim predates Eichah, however a critic can claim that the order was redacted to bring it in line with the accepted/preferred sequence. This is particularly true for ch. 119, where each of the 8 vv per letter are their own group, and each set of 8 vv. can easily be repositioned. The question is in Ps. 34 or 145, if the internal logic of the passage sheds light on the correct sequence. In Ps. 34, some claim that the v. starting with the letter peh makes more sense to follow the verse starting with samekh (due to the common appearance of the word ra'). I am not convinced that this argument is compelling.
I will stick with the mesorah, that 'ayin belongs before peh. Best to look before speaking.
Rabbi Rashi Simon
Events / Calendar