Toldot: Noble Clothes
When Jacob’s evil twin brother Esau was born, the Bible offers a description of that fellow, saying that he was “ruddy, entirely like a hairy aderet” (Gen. 25:25). An aderet is a furry article of clothing that has been variously translated as “robe,” “cloak,” “cape,” “gown,” “coat,” or “mantle.” Targum Onkelos translates the word aderet in this context as gelem — a cognate of glima — which refers to a person's outer clothes. Yet in several other places, Targum Jonathan renders the Hebrew word aderet as itz'tal (see Targum to Josh. 7:21, 7:24). In this essay, we will briefly discuss the Hebrew word aderet before moving on to the seemingly-Aramaic words glima and itz’tala that serve as synonyms.
The word aderet appears eleven times in the Bible. Its most well-known appearances are in the context of Elijah the Prophet. When Hashem "revealed" Himself to Elijah at Mount Sinai, the Bible reports that Elijah hid his face in his aderet (I Kgs. 19:13). Later on, Elijah is described "a hairy man" (II Kgs. 2:8), which is probably a reference to his aderet. One of the most famous episodes involving Elijah’s aderet occurs when he uses it to miraculously part the Jordan River (II Kgs. 2:8). In fact, Elijah’s aderet becomes central in the transfer of his prophetic leadership to his protégé, Elisha. After Elijah is taken up to heaven in a whirlwind, Elisha picks up the aderet that fell from Elijah (II Kings 2:13-14), which symbolizes his role as Elijah’s successor. [It is interesting to note that Otzar HaChochmah has over 30 different seforim named Aderet Eliyahu!]
The wordaderet also appears in the Bible in the story of Achan. In the time of Joshua, when the Jews were conquering the Holy Land from the Canaanites, Achan illegally stole from the consecrated booty of the conquered city of Jericho, and one of the items that he took was a “Babylonian/Sumerian aderet” (Josh. 7:21, 7:24).
By the way Rashi (to Zech. 13:4), as well as Ibn Janach and Radak in their respective Sefer HaShorashim, define the word aderet as tallit (“shawl”). Radak adds that the word aderet relates to the root ALEPH-DALET-REISH (adir, “greatness/exaltedness/power”) because the aderet is a garment that demonstrates its wearer’s importance and greatness.
Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim traces the word aderet to the biliteral root DALET-REISH (looking at the initial ALEPH and the final TAV as extraneous to the core root), which refers to “freedom of from all impediments and obligations.” The different declensions of that root as explained by Rabbi Pappenheim include: dror ("freedom/emancipation/manumission," whereby an indentured slave is set free), dardar ("thorn," a sort of wild thorn that grows in ownerless places), dirah ("domicile/home" called so because in one's own personal domain, one is essentially free to act howsoever one wishes), dor ("generation," the approximate duration of a person's domiciled state in This World), madurah ("bonfire," a wild fire that is free to spread without impediment), doher (a horse's "neighing" when it is released from the barn and is allowed to roam outside), neder ("vow," a sort of voluntary obligation that a person imposes on himself out of his own free volition), adir ("powerful," a state of having unrestrained strength and influence), and more.
As part of that framework, Rabbi Pappenheim offers two ways of explaining how the word aderet relates back to the general theme of this two-letter root: Either the connection is seen in the way the aderet is worn on the body in a relatively free way (as opposed to more fitted clothing which are more snugly held in place), or in the way that only important adirim wear this sort of garment as a symbol of their status.
The word glima is used many times throughout the Talmud to refer to a type of outer garment, often a robe or formal attire. Readers might be familiar with this term because it appears in the commonly-used Ketubah (“marriage document”). In that Aramaic document, the husband guarantees all of his property as sureties for the payment of his financial obligations upon the termination of the marriage, including a clause that specifically stipulates "and even the glima that is upon my shoulders." Nowadays, the term glima is often used to refer to the fancy gold dress-coat that is worn by the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel (Rishon L’Tzion). [For more about exactly which articles of clothing can be called a glima, see Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Baghdad's responsa Torah Lishmah (§327).]
When Achashverosh commanded Haman to dress Mordechai in royal clothes, the Scroll of Esther reports that, among other articles of clothing, Mordechai was decorated with a tachrich ("wrap") made of butz and argaman (Est. 8:15). Tachrich derives from the Late Hebrew root KAF-REISH-KAF, which means "wrap/surround." Other derivatives of that root include the Rabbinic Hebrew word krach ("walled city") and the Modern Hebrew word karich (“wrap/sandwich,” although many Israelis prefer the word sandvitch, which is a Hebraization of the English word sandwich).Either way, Targum (to Est. 8:15) translates tachrich as glima, which also denotes an article of clothing that one “wraps” around oneself. [In case you’re wondering, I discussed the word butz in “Is Cotton a Type of Linen?” (Feb. 2019), and the word argaman in “The Color Purple” (Feb. 2022).]
The term for “burial shrouds” in Rabbinic Hebrew is tachrichin, and in fact, in at least one place Rashi (to Shabbat 150b) defines the word glima used in the Talmud as tachrichin, as in that particular context the Talmud was discussing the clothes worn by a human cadaver.
In one place, Rashi (to Shabbat 10a) defines glima as aderet, while in another place (Rashi to Bava Metzia 47a), he defines it as sudar. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, Rashi defines the word glima as tallit (see Rashi to Shabbat 110b, 138b, Eruvin 94a, 96b, 102b, Ketubot 79b, Bava Kamma 119b, Bava Metzia 28a, 114b, Bava Batra 128a, Sanhedrin 7a, and Chullin 127a).
In terms of the etymology of glima, it seems that this word derives from the triliteral root GIMMEL-LAMMED-MEM in Biblical Hebrew. That root appears three times in the Bible (II Kgs. 2:8, Ps. 139:16, Ezek. 27:24), where it refers to “wrapping” or “shapeless matter.” The Mishnah (Avot 5:7) refers to a golem as the antithesis of the chacham (“wise man”) because a dumb or boorish individual is not fully formed and his lack of intellectual abilities leaves him metaphorically “shapeless.” The famous legend of the Golem refers to the creation of a “soulless person,” who likewise only has the outer trappings of a human being without the intellect imbued by the soul.
The Talmud (Shabbat 77b) actually expounds on the word glima by stating "for it is made like a golem." Rashi (there) explains that this means that a glima is a garment which is not cut for the shapes of certain limbs, but is rather essentially like a flat-sheet that covers one’s entire body. In this way, a glima refers to an article of clothing that is not bespoke or custom-tailored, so it is relatively “shapeless” when compared to other clothing. Alternatively, Rabbi Nosson of Rome in Sefer HaAruch explains the Talmud as meaning that when one totally wraps oneself in a glima, he is sort of stuck in place without the ability to freely move or do things, so he looks like a golem.
In his dictionary on Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Dr. Michael Sokoloff relates the word glima to its apparent Akkadian cognate gulenu ("coat"), while Dr. Alexander Kohut sees the word glima as having a Persian origin (as he often does).
Rabbi David Golumb (Targumna to Gen. 49:26) and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Lev. 13:59, Ps. 139:16) understand glima in light of the interchangeability of the letters GIMMEL and KAF, suggesting a connection to the word klimah (“embarrassment/humiliation”). Rabbi Hirsch explains that just like a golem is lacking in shape or form, an embarrassed person feels like he lacks a shape or form in a spiritual/moral sense, as though a part of their very humanity was taken away from them. Rabbi Golumb adds that this connection parallels the Talmudic assertion that the Hebrew word levush (“garment/clothing”) can be read as a contraction of the phrase lo bushah (“no embarrassment”). [For more about levush, see “My Clothes and Me” (Feb. 2018).]
As mentioned above, when the Jews first conquered the Holy Land, Achan was said to have stolen a Babylonian aderet from the spoils of Jericho, which were previously consecrated to Hashem. It is in that context that Targum (to Josh. 7:21, 7:24) renders the Hebrew word aderet as itz'tala. In fact, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a) elaborates on what exactly Achan stole, with Rav explaining that the Babylonian aderet that Achan coveted and stole was a silk itz’tala. In this context, Rashi (to Sanhedrin 44a, see also Bechorot 34b) defines itz’tala as tallit, the same word he used for defining aderet and glima (as mentioned above).
The word itz’tala also appears once in the Mishnah (Gittin 6:5) as an example of something that a husband might want from his wife and condition a gett on him receiving.
In terms of its etymology, the word itz’tala derives from the Latin stola and Greek στολή (stolē), which are generally words that refer to "garment/equipment." According to The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, these words derives from the Proto-Indo-European root stel- ("standing/putting"), which is the etymon of such English words as still, apostle, epistle, stall, forestall, install, pedestal, gestalt, stele, stilt, and more. But the closest English cognate is the word stole, which refers to a long, narrow garment or accessory that resembles a scarf or shawl. A stole typically drapes around the neck and extends down the front of the body, often reaching down to the knees or lower. Stoles are often used by Christian clergy, for whom it symbolizes the responsibilities and duties of the ministry (not unlike Elijah’s aderet) and is often worn during liturgical ceremonies.
Likewise, when the term itz’tala appears in the Talmud, it almost always refers to a garment worn as a status symbol. For example, in two cases a silk itz’tala was said to be written into a woman’s marriage contract as part of the dower (Yevamot 66b, Bava Metzia 17a). Similarly, in explaining how the court system must present all litigants on equal footing, the Talmud (Shavuot 31a) states that if one party is wearing rags and the other party is wearing an expensive itz’tala, the judges should tell the latter that he should either dress like the former, or that he should pay for the former to dress in a fashion similar to his own.
As Sefer HaAruch already notes, the word itz’tala is sometimes spelled is’tala (with a SAMECH instead of a TZADI). For example, when Targum (to Est. 7:6) adds to the Bible’s narrative that Esther — in front of Achashverosh — accused Haman of wanting to wear the king’s is’tala, Targum spells this word with a SAMECH instead of a TZADI. Likewise, when Joseph gifted each of his brothers a dress suit and gave his brother Benjamin five such suits, Targum (to Gen. 45:22) uses the word istalvan (plural of istala) to denote those garments.Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur in Meturgaman already took note of this discrepancy in spelling. This inconsistent spelling makes more sense once we realize that it is actually a Greek loanword, as opposed to a native Hebrew or even Semitic word. A cursory glance at the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (known to scholars as CAL) website suggests to me that the SAMECH spelling is a feature of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, while in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, the word could be spelled with either a TZADI or SAMECH.
Both glima and itz’tala refer to outer garments, often worn as a sign of status or dignity, but they can carry slightly different connotations: the former focuses on the unfinished simplicity of the garment, while the latter carries a stronger association with a person's role or title — for example in the phrase itz’tala d’rabbanan, meaning "cloak of the sages," which refers metonymically to the honor associated with rabbinic authority. In this way, itz’tala took on a figurative meaning similar to that of the English "mantle" in phrases like "to assume the mantle," which suggest the acceptance or assumption of a role's associated duties or ideals. This symbolic usage emphasizes the alignment between outer appearance (the garment) and inner responsibility (the role's expectations).
Other idiomatic parallels in English wherein wearing an article of clothing represents the assumption of authority or responsibility include the term investiture (related to vest and vestment), which is a formal ceremony or process by which someone is granted a specific office or position, typically involving symbolic clothing; the expression “stepping into the shoes,” whereby another person assumes the role previously filled his predecessor; and defrocking (related to the word frock, a type of coat), the removal of a person from their position of authority or honor (often in religious contexts).
