Daf Ditty Shabbes 149: Art and Imaging

Art and images, beauty and aesthetic experiences, are not part
of religious faith or Jewish worship.

Instead, they stand in opposition to godliness and

transcendence, enslaving the non-confronted man to pleasure
and cheap gratification.

Joseph B. Soloveitchik

1
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to writing that is under a picture or under graven
images [deyokenaot], it is prohibited to read it on Shabbat lest one end up reading business
documents.

And with regard to an idolatrous image itself, even on a weekday it is prohibited to look at it,
because it says:

,‫ֵהי ַמֵסָּכה‬6‫ ֵוא‬,‫ָהֱאִליִלם‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫ִתְּפנוּ‬-‫ד ַאל‬ 4 Turn ye not unto the idols, nor make to
.‫ֵהיֶכם‬6‫ ְיהָוה ֱא‬,‫ ֲא ִני‬:‫ל ֹא ַתֲﬠשׂוּ ָלֶכם‬ yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.
LEV 19:4

“Do not turn toward idols [al tifnu el ha’elilim] or make yourselves molten gods, I am the Lord
your God”.

The Gemara asks for clarification: What is the biblical derivation? How does this verse indicate
that one may not look at an idolatrous image?

Rabbi Ḥanin said: Do not push God [al tefannu El] out of your mind by looking at these images
(Arukh).

2
Jastrow

RASHI

SEFORNO (op cit)

When the Torah now continues with the second of the Ten Commandments by warning us ‫אל תפנו‬
‫אל אלילים‬, the Torah elaborates that it is not only forbidden to make oneself such deities in order to
worship them, etc., but that it is equally prohibited to display respect for such deities worshipped
by other peoples as their gods. Nothing is to be done which would indicate that one invokes the
supposed “power” of such deities to further one’s personal interest and concerns.

Bechor Shor (op cit)

IBN EZRA

idols [Hebrew: ’elilim] i.e., graven images. They are called ’elilim because they are false, as in
“you are all physicians of no value [Hebrew: ’elil]” [Job 13:4]. It is also plausible that the word
comes from ’el , meaning something that lacks substance.

3
Aderet Eliyahu

Chizkuni, Leviticus 19:4:1

‫אל תפנו אל האלילים‬, “do not turn unto idols;” the Torah does not refer to worshipping such idols,
but it refers to feasting one’s eyes on the architectural extravagance lavished on their temples, and
their esthetic appeal, by admiring them.

Hamek Davar

Gur Aryeh to 19:4

TOSAFOS

4
‫תוספות ד"ה ודיוקני‬

Tosfos notes that the statue is only forbidden if it was made for Avodah Zarah.

‫נראה דבשויה לשם עבודת גלולים אמר אבל לנוי מותר‬

Explanation: It appears that he only said this if the statue was made to be an idol. However, if it
was merely made for beauty it is permitted.

‫( מכלל דאחריני הוו מסתכלי‬.‫כדמשמע מבנן של קדושים דלא הוו מסתכלי בצורתא דזוזא )ע"ז דף נ‬

Proof: This is as implied by the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (50a) that says that the sons of the holy
ones would not look at the image on a coin. This implies that others would look at it.

RAMBAN

Avodah Zarah 42b:11-43a:7

5
MISHNA: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure
of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea and
not derive any benefit from them, as they are assumed to be objects of idol worship.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Those figures that are upon respectable vessels are
forbidden. Those that are upon disgraceful vessels are permitted.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the specific figures listed in the mishna:
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that not all utensils that have pictures of the sun, moon or
dragon are forbidden. Only precious utensils with such pictures on them are forbidden, for they
were certainly worshipped. Cheap utensils were, in all likelihood, not worshipped, and are
therefore permitted, even though they have on them pictures of the sun, moon or dragon.

RASHI

Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3:10-11

6
The worshipers of false gods have composed many texts concerning their service,
[describing] what is the essence of their service, what practices are involved, and
what are its statutes. The Holy One, blessed be He, has commanded us not to read
those books at all, nor to think about them or any matters involved with them.

It is even forbidden to look at the image of an idol, as [Leviticus 19:4] states: "Do
not turn to the idols." In this regard, [Deuteronomy 12:30] states: "[Be careful]...
lest you seek to find out about their gods, saying, 'How did they serve them.' This
prohibits inquiring about the nature of their service even if you, yourself, do not
serve them. This matter will ultimately cause you to turn to [the false god] and
worship it as they do, as [the above verse continues]: "so that I will do the same."

It is forbidden to make images for beauty's sake, even it be not for idolatry; for, it is said:

,‫ֵהי ָזָהב‬e‫ֵהי ֶכֶסף ֵוא‬e‫ ֱא‬:‫ ִאִתּי‬,‫יט ל ֹא ַתֲﬠשׂוּן‬ 19 Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods
.‫ל ֹא ַתֲﬠשׂוּ ָלֶכם‬ of gold, ye shall not
Ex 20:19

"Ye shall not make with Me" (Ex. 20.19), as if saying; images of either silver or gold, though they
be no more than works of artistic beauty, ye shall not make, so that the erring will not err and
imagine they are dedicated to idolatry.

But the admonition against it is not applicable to any save to form the image of man. Therefore,
the image of man should not be formed in wood, nor in lime, nor in stone, provided, however, that
the image be protruding, as for instance…

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 307:15

7
Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 3:2

The term temunah, on the other hand, is used in the Bible in three different senses. It signifies,
first, the outlines of things which are perceived by our bodily senses, i.e., their shape and form;
as, e.g.,

‫ִכּי ִהוא ָחְכַמְתֶכם‬--‫ ַוֲﬠִשׂיֶתם‬,‫ו וְּשַׁמ ְרֶתּם‬ 6 Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom
,‫ ֲאֶשׁר ִיְשְׁמעוּן‬:‫ ְלֵﬠיֵני ָהַﬠִמּים‬,‫וִּביַנְתֶכם‬ and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that,
‫ָחָכם‬-‫ ְוָאְמרוּ ַרק ַﬠם‬,‫ַהֻחִקּים ָהֵאֶלּה‬-‫ֵאת ָכּל‬ when they hear all these statutes, shall say: 'Surely this
.‫ ַהגּוֹי ַהָגּדוֹל ַהֶזּה‬,‫ְוָנבוֹן‬ great nation is a wise and understanding people.'
Deut. 4:6

"And ye make an image the form (temunat) of some likeness" (Deut. 4:16);

8
 ‫ ִכּי ל ֹא‬:‫ ְלַנְפֹשֵׁתיֶכם‬,‫טו ְו ִנְשַׁמ ְרֶתּם ְמֹאד‬ 15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves--for ye
‫ ְבּיוֹם ִדֶּבּר ְיהָוה‬,‫ְתּמוָּנה‬-‫ ָכּל‬,‫ְרִאיֶתם‬ saw no manner of form on the day that the LORD spoke
.‫ ִמתּוֹ‹ ָהֵאשׁ‬,‫ֲאֵליֶכם ְבֹּחֵרב‬ unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire--
Deut 4:15

"for ye saw no likeness" (temunah) (Deut. 4:15).

Secondly, the forms of our imagination, i.e., the impressions retained in imagination when the
objects have ceased to affect our senses. In this sense it is used in the passage which begins:

‫ ֵמֶחְז ֹינוֹת ָל ְיָלה; ִבּ ְנֹפל‬,‫יג ִבְּשִׂﬠִפּים‬ 13 In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep
.‫ֲאָנִשׁים‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ַתּ ְרֵדָּמה‬ sleep falleth on men,
Job 4:13

"In thoughts from the visions of the night" (Job 4:13)…

The term temunah, on the other hand, is used in the Bible in three different senses. It signifies,
first, the outlines of things which are perceived by our bodily senses, i.e., their shape and form;
as, e.g., "And ye make an image the form (temunat) of some likeness" (Deut. 4:16); "for ye saw no
likeness" (temunah) (Deut. 4:15). Secondly, the forms of our imagination, i.e., the impressions
retained in imagination when the objects have ceased to affect our senses. In this sense it is used
in the passage which begins "In thoughts from the visions of the night" (Job 4:13), and which
concludes "it remained but I could not recognize its sight, only an image--temunah--was before
my eyes," i.e., an image which presented itself to my sight during sleep. Thirdly, the true form of
an object, which is perceived only by the intellect: and it is in this third signification that the term
is applied to God. The words "And the similitude of the Lord shall he behold" (Num. 12:8)
therefore mean "he shall comprehend the true essence of the Lord."

Midrash Lekach Tov, Leviticus 19:4:1

9
Tur, Yoreh Deah 141

1) Mechaber: All the images of star worshippers found in villages are forbidden,
since, apparently, they were made as idols, but those found in cities are permissible,
since they were certainly made for the sake of beauty, unless they stand at the
entrance of the city, and an image of a staff or a bird or a ball or a sword or a
diadem and a ring is in the hand.

10
HALACHAH: LOOKING AT DRAWINGS

Our Daf says that one may not look at drawings during the week. To what type of drawing does
this prohibition apply, and why is one prohibited from looking at it?

RASHI (DH El mi'Da'atchem) and TOSFOS in Avodah Zarah (50a) explain that looking at
pictures is forbidden because one who gazes at such drawings wastes time with an invented,
imaginary reality.

There are several ways to understand Rashi's words.

1. The ME'IRI explains that a person who looks at such drawings wastes time and draws himself
away from serving Hash-m.
2. The RITVA adds that a person should give his attention only to Hash-m's creations in order to
be awed by Hash-m's wonders, rather than to manmade creations.
3. Rashi mentions that a person should not look at drawings of "strange creatures or pictures of
events of the past."

RAV YAAKOV D. HOMNICK (MARBEH SHALOM #22) points out that Rashi's words imply
that one is prohibited from looking only at the type of picture that is based on human imagination
-- pictures that depict objects or events of fantasy which a person otherwise would not conceive.
In contrast, pictures of real objects, natural scenery, and multicolored frescos, are permissible to
draw and to view (as is clear from the Gemara in Bava Metzia 115a), because a person either
knows what these things look like without using his imagination, or because they do not represent
any particular object at all.1

TOSFOS and the ROSH explain that looking at drawings is forbidden only when the drawing was
made specifically for Avodah Zarah (even if it was not actually worshipped as such). Since it was
made for the purpose of Avodah Zarah, one may not look at it.

MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 307:23, cited by the Bi'ur Halachah) writes that the custom is to be
lenient and allow the viewing of drawings, unless they were made for Avodah Zarah. He adds that
one certainly is permitted to look at them casually, without gazing intently at them.2

The Gemara here states that one may not gaze at images even on a weekday, as this is a violation
of the Torah’s prohibition—Do not turn to false gods. (Lev 19:4)

The Gemara explains that gazing at images is subsumed under this prohibition because the phrase
may be read: ‫—תפ אל‬Do not turn to that which you create from your own thoughts.

Ramban (to Vayikra loc. cit. see above ) explains the prohibition further, and states that it warns
us not to belief that other deities can provide us with any benefit, nor to believe predictions that
the prophets of these deities foretell.

1
See Marbeh Shalom there for a deeper explanation for why pictures based on human imagination are prohibited.
2
Daf Advancement Forum

11
Rather, one must realize that the future is dictated by Hashem alone, and the other gods and all
that is attributed to them must be null and void in one’s eyes.

It is in this context, continues Ramban, that the Gemara asks us to avoid gazing at representations
of other deities, as a person should avoid focusing his attention on any deity other than Hashem.

In the same vein, Shem MiShmuel (Parashas Veyeileich, 5672) writes that the statement

‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ ַהְסֵתּר ַאְסִתּיר ָפַּני ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא‬,‫יח ְוָא ֹנִכי‬ 18 And I will surely hide My face in that day for all the
‫ִהים‬e‫ֱא‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫ ִכּי ָפָנה‬:‫ ֲאֶשׁר ָﬠָשׂה‬,‫ָהָרָﬠה‬-‫ָכּל‬ evil which they shall have wrought, in that they are
.‫ֲאֵח ִרים‬ turned unto other gods.
Deut 31:18

“And I will surely conceal My countenance on that day on account of all the evil that he did, for
he turned to other gods” —

does not refer to pantheistic or pagan worship. Rather, it refers to a person who did not sanctify
himself sufficiently — to a person who was not meticulous in refraining from gazing at the images
of other deities.

In this manner, Shem MiShmuel resolves the difficulty presented by the pesukim in Parashas
Vayeileich: If the Jews have already done teshuvah, as indicated by the previous pesukim, why
does Hashem continue to conceal himself?

The answer is that they did teshuvah on the major sins, and that suffices to save them from
perishing in Galus, but they did not turn away from the images of the countenances of other gods.

Hence, measure for measure, Hashem conceals His countenance from them. Shem MiShmuel
concludes: “And this is a great lesson, to know that in the days of teshuvah, the main thing is to
accept upon oneself to refrain even from that which is [technically] permitted [such as gazing at
images] from today onwards, and his heart should regret the past. For it does not suffice to accept
resolutions on the mitzvos themselves. And a person should consider and know to what extent these
matters [of teshuvah] reach”

Hassidic derivatives of idol worship and the creative imagination

Rebbe Nachman associates the notion of false idols with the imaginative faculty
and its tendency to create images, lustful at that, citing the Zohar.

Likutei Moharan 72:4:7

12
In truth, for someone with spiritual awareness, this is immense foolishness. He in no way considers
his not having undesirable thoughts from this as an accomplishment, nor has he any need
whatsoever to throw and shake his head. Just as for the majority of people these thoughts of
idolatry are foolishness and madness, promiscuous thoughts are foolishness for him.

Thus, we find in the Zohar (III, 84a)

that when Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai happened to see some beautiful women, he said, “Turn not to
false gods” (Leviticus 19:4)—for they are the aspect of false gods; just as idolatrous thoughts are
universally recognized as foolishness, these promiscuous thoughts are likewise foolishness and
madness.

His disciple Reb Nosson (as usual) brings this down from the mythical level to the mussar level:

Likutei Halochos

13
For Reb Nosson, the craving the desires of this world is akin to serving idols since
once is thereby substituting form for matter instead of the reverse. True to medieval
notions (we will discuss this concept elsewhere)

Dura Europos Synagogue: Western Wall (Yale Univ. Art Gallery)

The Art in Dura-Europos3

Prof Hagith Sivan4 tells us about the history of this unique archeological find from the 3rd century.
Despite rabbinic prohibition regarding visual art, here is evidence for flourishing art in a
synagogue.
Like a Near Eastern sleeping beauty, the city of Dura Europos had been lying undisturbed, covered
by a layered blanket of sand, for 1700 years. The site, which can be found in modern day Syria on
its border with Iraq, was discovered by sheer accident in 1920, when a group of British soldiers
bivouacked in a ruined desert fortress overlooking the Euphrates. To their surprise, their efforts
at camouflaging unearthed ancient wall paintings in a wonderful state of preservation. The
paintings are so remarkable, it is sometimes called the Syrian Pompeii.

3
Joseph Gutman’s The Dura-Europos Synagogue, published by Rowman & Littlefield.
4
https://www.thetorah.com/article/retelling-the-story-of-moses-at-dura-europos-synagogue

14
They duly reported the find, adding that these should be seen by an expert. There was indeed an
expert available, none other than the great American orientalist James Henry Breasted (1865–
1935), who happened to be in the area busy with his own survey. Breasted spent a single day at
Dura. The outcome was an entire volume, published in 1922, the spearhead of both many
excavations and countless publications focusing on the site.5

A Brief History of Dura Europos

The modern name Dura Europos reflects the fortress-town’s double heritage. Dura, a Semitic
word meaning “dwelling, enclosure, or fort,” was the name used by the town’s Aramaic speaking
population. Europos was the name bestowed by the Greek-Macedonian general, Seleucus I
Nicator, who founded it, naming it after his birthplace, a Macedonian city of that name. (In ancient
times it was called one or the other.)

In a history that spans some five centuries, Dura Europos changed several hands between several
empires, not an uncommon destiny of strategic locations along a contested zone.

Seleucid Greek—Established around 300 B.C.E. by Macedonian forces under Seleucus I Nicator,
Dura Europos was settled by remnant of the Macedonian armies commanded by Alexander the
Great together with local Arameans, and was ruled by the Seleucids for nearly two centuries

Parthian—Between 113 B.C.E. and 165 C.E., Dura was under Parthian rule, a prolific period that
witnessed the construction of numerous temples to various Semitic deities

5
In 1932, American archeologist Clark Hopkins unearthed one of the greatest archeological discoveries of the 20th century: a
synagogue located in what was the desert city of Dura-Europos (now part of present-day Syria). This remarkably well-preserved
synagogue contains walls painted with images of people and animals from the Hebrew Bible.

15
Roman—In 165 C.E., the Romans under Emperor Lucius Varus, conquered the area near the
Euphrates, and the city became home to a Roman garrison, which defended this area as the new
eastern border of the Empire.

Sassanian-Persian—In 256 C.E., after barely a century of Roman control, Dura Europos was
conquered by the rising Sassanian empire. It was abandoned, never to be settled again.

Isolated for almost Two Millennia

Dura Europos sits on the bank of the Euphrates yet is inaccessible from the river and solely by
land. Approaching the town would have entailed crossing an arid territory without ready means
of sustaining an army. After its conquest by the Sasanid-Persians, the town was abandoned, and
remained uninhabited until modern times. The sands of the desert covered it so effectively that
only an incidental trench digging during WWI revealed a corner of it

Many structures, including the earliest known Christian baptistery (a small building used for
baptisms), were found at Dura. The excavations also revealed countless wall paintings, ordinarily

16
an art that time does not treat kindly, in different architectural contexts. In addition, a variety
texts in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Parthian, and Middle Persian and on a variety of media shed
precious light on the inhabitants of this city—soldiers and civilians. Different groups had their
own sanctuaries and rituals. By far, the most significant discovery was that of the synagogue.[9]

The Synagogue of Dura Europos

We have no idea when Jews first settled in the area, and in general, know very little about the
Jewish community there. They may have arrived with the Roman garrison but we do not know
whence they had hailed. Their presence, however, is well attested through the community’s
spectacular synagogue.

When it was remodeled in 245 C.E., a mere decade before the city succumbed to the Sassanians,
the synagogue’s walls were decorated with paintings of biblical scenes.[10] These include Ezekiel’s
famed vision of the valley of the dry bones; the ark of the covenant in the land of the Philistines;

17
the tribes of Israel around the well of Miriam; Elijah and the prophets of the Baal; a battle scene
(between the Israelites and the Philistines?); and Jacob’s dream—in brief, an astonishing and
tantalizing selection that continues to bedevil contemporary scholarship.

None of these scenes are labelled. Thus, while the interpretation of several panels is fairly secure,
that of others is open to speculations. Above all, there is no agreement regarding the overall
message or agenda of the paintings nor the Judaism practiced in this remote spot on the Euphrates.

The synagogue is unique. No other Diaspora synagogue has delivered such a full program of
biblical images. No other synagogue around the entire ancient Mediterranean contains such an
array of paintings, not even the pictorial mosaics that decorated the floors of synagogues in Roman
Palestine, such as the synagogue in Huqoq. We know of no other Jewish community that
encouraged, to the same extent, synagogue attendees not only to listen but also to feast their eyes
on biblical stories.

An Aramaic inscription helps to date the synagogue to 244 C.E., when a group of exiled Jews
would have formed a community of worshippers in what was then a Roman trade city, settling
there with a melting pot of Greeks, Byzantines, Persians and Christians.

The large-scale art in the synagogue helps to dispel the myth that Judaism historically prohibited
visual images. Indeed, the often-misunderstood second commandment–which prohibits “graven
images”–refers specifically to the creation of idols, not to artistic pursuits in general. This
commandment was interpreted differently in different times and circumstances–sometimes more
literally and sometimes more loosely. The murals in the Dura-Europos synagogue lead us to
believe that early rabbinic Judaism may have acknowledged and even celebrated visual art as a
vehicle for honoring and transmitting sacred texts.

The 28 paintings in the synagogue include depictions from the Five Books of Moses (Torah), such
as a painting of the akedah (binding of Isaac); a vine resembling the Tree of Life described in
Genesis; the patriarch Jacob blessing his sons; and scenes from the Exodus. In addition, murals
depict a lyre player, whom many scholars interpret to be King David, a portrait of the prophet
Elijah, and scenes from the Book of Esther.

In examining the paintings, scholars have tried to deduce how the people who created them saw
their connection to the text and its application to their lives as Jews.

18
For example, four panels containing portraits of Moses show the Jewish leader in white robes with
his palms open. Around the time these were created, Christian artists were painting portraits of
Jesus in their churches, and so the Jewish artists may have been attempting to create a Jewish hero
or leader of the same scale.

Sometimes the placement of the art also gives us clues about the practice of Judaism at that time.
The portraits of the Book of Esther, for example, are on the wall where the women’s benches were
located. The Babylonia Talmud records that it is compulsory for women to attend the reading of
the Book of Esther each year–possibly explaining those paintings’ placement.

Aphrodite Getty Museum

The Problem of Art : Historical Consideration

19
Ranane Dine writes thoughtfully in The Traditional Sources of Jewish Iconoclasm—Or not?6

The Second Commandment in Exodus 20 (repeated in a slightly different formulation in

Deuteronomy 5), “You shall have no other gods besides Me. You shall not make for yourself a
sculpted image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the
waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Exodus 20: 4-5), would
play an outsized role in conversations about Judaism and visual arts, but similar injunctions against
the creation of images appear six other times in the Chumash, all in the context of idol worship.
The most elaborate of them is Deuteronomy 4:15-18:
‫ ִכּי ל ֹא‬:‫ ְלַנְפֹשֵׁתיֶכם‬,‫טו ְו ִנְשַׁמ ְרֶתּם ְמֹאד‬ 15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves--for ye
‫ ְבּיוֹם ִדֶּבּר ְיהָוה ֲאֵליֶכם‬,‫ְתּמוָּנה‬-‫ ָכּל‬,‫ְרִאיֶתם‬ saw no manner of form on the day that the LORD spoke
.‫ ִמתּוֹ‹ ָהֵאשׁ‬,‫ְבֹּחֵרב‬ unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire--
Deut 4:15
For your own sake, therefore, be most careful—since you saw no shape when the Lord your God
spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire—not to act wickedly and make for yourselves a sculptured
image in any likeness whatever: the form of a man or a woman, the form of any beast on earth, the
form of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the form of anything that creeps on the ground, the
form of any fish that is in the waters below the earth.

In contrast, other verses call for the construction of various beautiful objects and spaces,
particularly in reference to the Mishkan, and later on, the Beit ha-Mikdash in Jerusalem.

The iconoclasm of the Second Commandment stands in stark contrast with the praise of Betzalel
and the other craftsmen drafted to build the Mishkan who are described as being filled with

,‫ִהים‬e‫ רוַּח ֱא‬,‫ ג ָוֲאַמֵלּא ֹאתוֹ‬3 and I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in
-‫ וְּבָכל‬,‫ ְבָּחְכָמה וִּבְתבוָּנה וְּבַדַﬠת‬understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of
.‫ְמָלאָכה‬ workmanship,
Ex 31:3

“divine spirit of skill, ability and knowledge” The Tanakh therefore presents us with a profound
tension: visual art can both glorify God and lead to the terrible sin of idolatry.

Already in the Mishnah, however, one sees a softening of the condemnatory language used for
image making in the Tanakh. The third chapter of Avodah Zarah reports an argument regarding
the permissibility of images: “

6
https://thelehrhaus.com/commentary/a-religion-without-visual-art-the-rav-and-the-myth-of-jewish-art/

20
All images are forbidden because they are worshipped once a year. So [said] Rabbi Meir. But the
Sages say, only that which bears in its hand a staff or a bird or a sphere is forbidden. Rabban
Shimon ben Gamliel says: That which bears anything in its hand [is forbidden]”

M. Avodah Zarah 3:1

Although Rabbi Meir would ban all images because of their use in idol worship, the majority
opinion bans only a selected group of objects. The argument in this Mishnah demonstrates that
there was no unified opinion among the Tannaim regarding the place of images, and that the
majority believed that most images were fairly harmless.
Later on, in the same chapter, a story is adduced regarding Rabban Gamliel, who would bathe in
the Bath of Aphrodite despite the presence of a statue of the goddess.

When challenged by “Proklos, the philosopher” about this practice, Rabban Gamliel responded
first that the statue of Aphrodite was not the purpose of the bathhouse and had rather come into his
“territory.” Rabban Gamliel goes on, explaining that also only those sculptures that are treated as
gods are problematic, thus allowing him to bathe before the merely decorative statue of Aphrodite
(Avodah Zarah 3:4).

Following from these Mishnaic sources, the halakhic codifiers chose not to condemn all art forms,
but rather specified which particular images were problematic.

Rambam (see above) wrote in his Mishneh Torah that the

21
“prohibition against fashioning images for beauty applies only to the human form and, therefore,
we do not fashion a human form in wood or plaster or in stone … However, if the form is sunken,
or of a medium like that of images on panels or tablets or those woven in fabrics, it is permitted”
(Avodat Kokhavim 3:10).

Rambam also allowed for the creation of images of non-human beings, viewing only figural art as
potentially problematic.

Rav Yosef Caro (see above Tur) also allowed for the creation of images of non-human forms,
while offering the opinion that figural art is limited only to “an image of the head or of the body
without the head” (Yoreh De’ah 141:7).

These halakhic sources show that the Second Commandment was not considered by the rabbis to
be a blanket ban on all visual art—indeed these sources show that there was some variation in
interpretation when it came to the permissibility of images. Although the biblical text did,
according to some authorities, limit the type of images allowed, rabbinic interpretation of the
Second Commandment attempted to balance the fear of idol worship with appreciation for visual
art.

In reality, the lives of most Jews throughout history have been full of visual art. Although Jews
did not embrace the “high art” tradition of Western Europe until the modern period, Jewish
communities created visual cultures that suited their needs. Jews were often barred from the
Medieval craftsmen guilds, and they lacked the cathedrals and courts that stimulated the creation
of so many of the greatest masterpieces in Western art history. Instead, Jewish life was surrounded
by a different, yet still rich, visual culture: from painted synagogues in Eastern Europe to
illuminated medieval manuscripts, from elaborate silver work for Torah scrolls to
nineteenth century Jewish genre paintings.

22
One medieval rabbi, Profiat Duran of Spain7, potently combined love of Torah study with
appreciation of the visual. He believed that scholars should study from illuminated manuscripts
and in beautiful study halls, because “people’s love and desire for the study will increase. Memory
will also improve … with the result that the soul will expand and be encouraged and strengthen
its powers.”8 Along with the marginalia and ownership notes that adorned medieval parchments,
illustrations could contribute to a reader’s interaction with holy books. Duran’s advocacy for
beautifully illustrated texts and architecturally pleasing centers of learning undercuts the cliché
that Judaism is a religion solely of the book—for Duran, the learning of “the book” was
strengthened through aesthetic appreciation. Visual beauty contributes to Torah study rather than
competing with it.

The tradition of rabbinic portraiture similarly calls into question the assumption that Jewish law
forbids the making of images, particularly figurative images. Emerging in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries in Italy and Amsterdam, rabbinic portraits became common in books and
even in Jewish homes in the modern era.

7
Profiat Duran (c. 1350 – c. 1415) (Hebrew: ‫)פרופייט דוראן‬, full Hebrew name Isaac ben Moses ha-Levi; was a physician,
philosopher, grammarian, and controversialist in the 14th century. He was later sometimes referred to by
the sobriquet Efodi (‫ )האפודי‬through association with his two grammars entitled "Ephod." In official records he also appears under
his converso Christian name Honoratus de Bonafide.
8
Profiat Duran of Spain quoted Vivian B. Mann, ed. Jewish Texts on the Visual Arts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000), 14.

23
Although there were originally some halakhic reservations regarding the creation of rabbinic
portraits, especially among Hasidim, pictures of rabbis “became a standard commodity” within
traditional Jewish households by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, particularly with the
advent of photography and other technologies that allowed for the easy creation and spread of
these images.9 The popularity of rabbinic portraits shows that Jews sought to create religious
homes and lives that were aesthetically beautiful, finding art in their religion and their religious
leaders, rather than in spite of them.

Philosophical and Art Historical Sources of Jewish “Artlessness”

Christian thinkers and theologians had long discussed the issues of image-making, idolatry, and
the Second Commandment—these issues were central, for example, to many disputes during the
Protestant Reformation.

The place of “Judaism” within these discussions was complex. While many thought that
contemporary Judaism lacked the visual splendor of Catholicism, they also associated particularly
biblical Judaism with materialism and visual opulence. Beginning in the late eighteenth century,
however, Christian scholars chose to emphasize image-hating biblical sources when discussing the
relationship between Judaism and art, ignoring or unaware of the Jewish sources that tempered
the Tanakh’s iconoclastic language.

Art and the Visual in the Writing of Rabbi Soloveitchik

Wariness towards the visual seeped into twentieth century Jewish thought: three of the period’s
most influential Jewish philosophers, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, and Emmanuel Levinas,
all proclaimed that Judaism is traditionally non-visual. Levinas, for example, like Kant, considered
the Second Commandment the ultimate ethical command of Judaism.10 Rabbi Joseph B.
Soloveitchik, unsurprisingly, was not immune to this way of thinking. He wrote his doctorate on
Hermann Cohen, an opponent of religious images.

The Rav’s disdain for religious art is made clear in his 1964 article “Confrontation.” In typical
fashion, he established a binary between two different types of persons in the article: confronted
man versus non-confronted man. For him “confronted man” is someone who has discovered the
transcendence of God and the limited nature of man—at the moment of confrontation “man
becomes aware of his singularly human existence which expresses itself in the dichotomous
experience of being unfree, restricted, imperfect and unredeemed, and, at the same time, being
potentially powerful, great, and exalted, uniquely endowed, capable of rising far above his
environment in response to the divine moral challenge.”11

9
Richard I. Cohen, Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 152.
10
Melissa Raphael,. Judaism and the Visual Image: A Jewish Theology of Art (London: Continuum, 2009)
11
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “Confrontation,” Tradition 6 (Spring-Summer 1964): 5–29.

24
For the Rav, Jews are doubly confronted, meeting God while living as a minority within a larger,
different faith community (this is the essay where he outlines his opinions on interfaith dialogue).
“Confronted man” is contrasted with the “non-confronted man” who does not realize “his
assignment vis-à-vis something which is outside of himself” and also lacks awareness “of his
existential otherness as a being summoned by his Maker to rise to tragic greatness.” The non-
confronted man is an aesthete who indulges in the visual and the sensual, stopping him from
discovering the moral call of God:

The hêdoné-oriented, egocentric person, the beauty-worshipper, committed to the goods of sense
and craving exclusively for boundless aesthetic experience, the voluptuary, inventing needs in
order to give himself the opportunity of continual gratification, the sybarite, constantly discovering
new areas where pleasure is pursued and happiness found and lost, leads a non-confronted
existence. At this stage, the intellectual gesture is not the ultimate goal but a means to another end
– the attainment of unlimited aesthetic experience. Hence, nonconfronted man is prevented from
finding himself and bounding his existence as distinct and singular. He fails to realize his great
capacity for winning freedom from an unalterable natural order and offering this very freedom as
the great sacrifice to God, who wills man to be free in order that he may commit himself
unreservedly and forfeit his freedom.

Art and images, beauty and aesthetic experiences, are not part of religious faith or Jewish
worship. Instead, they stand in opposition to godliness and transcendence, enslaving the non-
confronted man to pleasure and cheap gratification.

The Rav’s tune does change a bit when he discusses the importance of beauty and aesthetics in
prayer. The book Worship of the Heart, a collection of the Rav’s teachings on prayer, includes
a chapter discussing religious aesthetics. It begins with familiar language downplaying the spiritual
significance of aesthetic experiences: “The aesthetic performance is not anchored in any
transcendental eternal sphere. It is a thoroughly this-worldly phenomenon, which lays no claims
to the beyond.”12 But the Rav goes on to discuss a point where the religious and the aesthetic meet,
allowing the aesthetic to be raised “to the plane of transcendental.”

The Rav uses the term “exalted” to describe the religious search to see and experience God’s
perfect beauty; it is the unique and spiritual experience of the beautiful in regards to the Divine:
“Exalted is only the unattainable and inapproachable, and it can only be experienced if man is
driven toward infinity itself. Truly, only God is exalted since only He is outside finite existence.”

Only the aesthetic experience, often an experience of prayer and worship, can “taste and see” God:
the religious-aesthetic man can perhaps find the exalted God, the rationalist and the ethicist will
always remain at a distance. The Rav focuses particularly on the richly evocative language of
Psalms, how it describes a glorious God and a beautiful world of divine creations. His sense of the
aesthetic is highly literary, there is no discussion of visuality or sight particularly. Although prayer
may be a spiritually rich aesthetic experience, it is one created by language, not by sight. And in
practice, the Rav was uncomfortable with human images adorning prayer spaces, as can be seen

12
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Worship of the Heart: Essays on Jewish Prayer, ed. Shalom Carmy (Hoboken: Ktav, 2003), 51.

25
in his responsum against the inclusion of biblical figures in the stained-glass windows in Cornell
University’s interfaith chapel.

Not only, however, does the halakhic man see the world through the prism of the law, but the law
also colors his vision, adding beauty to what is already the extraordinary in nature. Using the
example of a sunset again, the Rav explains that the halakhic man “will perceive the sunset of a
Sabbath eve not only as a natural cosmic phenomenon but as an unsurpassably awe-inspiring,
sacred and exalted vision—an eternal sanctity that is reflected in the setting sun.”13 This halakhic
visuality allows the observant Jew to see more than natural beauty; halakhic man sees the world
as more magnificent than even the greatest works of art: ( I remember being shocked by this
sentence, I shuddered thinking he could not appreciate a sunset for just what it was, one of the
most beautiful and poignant visions in nature)

In contrast, thinkers like A J Heschel refused this black and white interpretation of halacha.

14

A Jewish Aesthetics
In his “Legal Foundation of a Jewish Aesthetics,”15 Steven Schwarzchild writes:

Treatments of Jewish art invariably feel constrained to begin by discussing whether there even is
such a thing as "Jewish art," and, if there is, how it is to be defined.'

Whatever the answers to these questions may be, this is not the problem to which I want to address
myself here. In raising the question of "Jewish aesthetics," I do not wish to look for the
philosophical principles that undergird the actual activities and products that may be classified
as Jewish art, if any.

Rather, I want to ask whether the philosophico-theological principles which Judaism employs in
looking at and relating to the world as a whole also entail principles that determine its aesthetic
outlook, and, if so, what these latter principles are?

13
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, trans. Lawrence J. Kaplan (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1983), 38
14
6. Man's Quest for God (New York, 1954), "Symbolism," pp. 124ff. See also Ps. 115:8: "Like unto them (the idols) will be their
makers, everyone that trusts in them"; as the believing man is the image of God, so the idolater is the imago of h
15
The Journal of Aesthetic Education , Jan. 1975, Vol. 9, No. 1, Special Issue: Aesthetic Education in Civilization Perspective
(Jan. 1975),

26
I like his use of the Mashal of a king to highlight what esthetic representation might have meant
to the rabbinic imagination:

The Mishnah tells of a king who invited his friends to a banquet. Before they began to eat, they
found themselves sitting at a table covered with a magnificent cloth on which abundant fruit and
viands were depicted. They feasted their eyes so long on these artificial foods that when the real
food was put before them, they had lost all their appetite and fell asleep.

The point made by the law and this legendary exemplification is something that might be called
the aesthetic law of the identity of indifferents: if two objects, the original and its artistic
reproduction, are exactly the same, then art ceases to exist, for in such a case art neither adds to
nor detracts from reality but merely reproduces it. It has thus lost all conceivable function.16

16
Kant applied Occam's razor to this aesthetic question by enunciating "the rational maxim that unnecessary multiplication of
principles is always to be avoided as much as

27
A modern approach that takes the reality of Jewish art and meditates on its validity comes from
MJL!17

Chagall, Modigliani, Frida Kahlo, Jacques Lipchitz–these are just some names of the world’s great
artists whose families of origin were Jewish (or partly Jewish). While the work of great Jewish
artists continue to inspire generations, the concept of “Jewish art” remains a problematic one. The
nagging question is, “What makes Jewish art Jewish?” Is any art created by a Jewish artist included
as Jewish art, or does the theme of the art itself need to have some Judaic inspiration or influence?

When many people think of the arts as connected to Judaism, they may first think of the literary
arts–and rightly so. Known as the “people of the book,” part of Judaism’s great contribution to
humanity has been its outpouring of texts. But Judaism also has produced a tradition of fine arts
and handicrafts throughout Jewish history. While a prohibition against creating “graven images”
goes back to Biblical days, there is nothing in Jewish law that prevents creativity as it relates
to hiddur mitzvah–literally translated as “making a mitzvah, or commandment, beautiful”–a
concept that has led to a rich heritage of Jewish ceremonial and ritual art. Dating back to ancient
times, artifacts such as tombstones were engraved with Jewish symbols–stars, lions, shields–that
were clearly created for adornment and beauty. From the Middle Ages on, the elaborate traditions
of Jewish art included illuminated ketubot (wedding certificates), ornate silver Torah crowns and
breastplates, and other such items.

Besides hiddur mitzvah, art also has a place in Jewish tradition as a teaching tool. With the
discovery of ancient Jewish archeological sites, such as the synagogue located in the city of Dura
Europus–which is now part of modern-day Syria–we learn that a narrative form of art also existed,
which depicted the figures from Bible stories as a way of sharing and teaching Torah. Whether it
was narrative or ceremonial, Jewish art was, for centuries, deeply intertwined with religious life.
In addition, Jews have had a presence in the world of “art for art’s sake”; in fact, for centuries,
there have been great works of fine art created by Jewish painters and sculptures.

With the European Enlightenment came a change in all of Jewish life–as young Jews were able to
leave their closed communities of the ghettos to study in secular environments, some of them were
drawn to the world of secular arts. Jewish artists studied the works of the great European masters
and began experimenting with a range of styles and forms. While some artists, like Moritz Daniel
Oppenheim, painted work with clearly Jewish themes, many artists who followed him considered
themselves “emancipated” from their Jewish roots and did not make connections between their
backgrounds and their art.

17
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/overview-history-theory-of-jewish-art/

28
 White Crucifixion, Marc Chagall

By the 20th century, Jewish artists lived and flourished in four different art worlds–Russia, Paris,
the United States, and the land of Israel. Jewish artists of the Diaspora–those living outside of
Israel–faced competing pressures: They were pulled to be part of a renaissance of Jewish cultural
life and also to move further away from Judaism in order to seek total artistic liberation. For
example, the well-known painter Marc Chagall was able to incorporate the Jewish world of his
childhood into his unique style of modern art, while other well-known Jewish artists of the time,
such as Amedeo Modigliani, rarely expressed Jewish content in their work.

The major events of the 20th-century for the Jewish people–World War II and the Holocaust and
the birth of the modern State of Israel–had lasting effects on Jewish art in the Diaspora. Numerous
works, such as Chagall’s “White Crucifixion,” attempt to deal with the pain and devastation of the
Holocaust. Many Jewish-American artists–such as Ben Shahn and Leonard Baskin–created an art
intended for a general audience with clear Jewish content.

Among contemporary Jewish artists, there exists a wide spectrum of ways in which they may
express their Jewishness in their art. Judy Chicago, for example, has created bold Jewish feminist
statements with her installation-style art, while Tobi Kahn has used found objects to create
magnificent ritual objects.

29
In fact, the proliferation of Jewish artists specializing in making fine Judaica–from magnificent
ketubot and huppot (marriage canopies) to seder plates and Kiddush cups made of every material
and style–returns us, in a circle, to our heritage of honoring hiddur mitzvah.

Of great interest to me is the visual midrashic art genre. Gabrielle Kaplan-Mayer has written on
this:18

From rabbinic times forward, we have stories and commentaries that record the rabbis’
explorations of and reactions to sacred texts. Termed midrash (investigation, searching out), these
teachings, a form of art in themselves, turn the text inside out, exploring all of its nuances and
commenting on its meaning by answering unanswered questions found in the text.

Midrash is a literary genre that uses allegory and imaginative narrative to fill in those places in the
text where the stories do not feel complete. In the last several decades, many artists, clergy,
educators, and scholars have been creating what they refer to as “contemporary midrash.” Their
work uses the process of investigating biblical and other scared texts to draw out meaning for
people today; to re-animate biblical stories and characters and to add contemporary voices, visions,
and concerns to the legacy of commentary.

Unlike classical midrash, which is a purely literary form, contemporary midrash takes many forms,
including dance, drama, literature, theater, and the visual arts. Because the visual arts have not
always been widely embraced by Jewish religious culture, contemporary fine artists working in
this genre are often charting new territory in using visual images to comment on sacred texts.

Visual midrash can be found in a number of contemporary places: displayed in Jewish art galleries
and museums, illustrating Jewish books, and sometimes as part of a lesson in a Jewish school or
adult-education program. This movement to integrate visual imagery into a dialogue about our
texts and our reactions to them is a deliberate attempt to recognize the power of art to combine our
emotional, intellectual, and spiritual understandings of text.

An example is the work of artist Archie Rand. Rand’s expressive paintings depict biblical
characters–such as Eve, Moses, and King David–in comic-book style frames, with Hebrew text
written in cartoon balloons and boxes. He creates a new visual language that integrates pop-culture
sensibility with serious investigation of biblical dilemmas, challenging the viewer to imagine how
these ancient texts relate to our own moral and spiritual predicaments.

Rand’s biblical characters appear in modern dress, and his juxtaposition of contemporary and
ancient symbols forces the viewer to think about biblical text in a metaphorical manner. One of
his paintings, for example, quotes from Genesis, “And the man gave names to all the cattle and to
the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam no fitting helper was found for
him”; it portrays Eve wandering in a barren land, surrounded by dinosaurs.

Another artist creating visual midrash is Tobi Kahn. A painter and sculptor, much of Kahn’s work
has explored Jewish religion and identity, some of which comments on biblical texts. Kahn says

18
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/midrashic-art/

30
of his work: “Although Judaism has emphasized words, language, and interpretation, I have found
the visual elements of the tradition equally illuminating. For me, the life of the spirit is integrally
bound up with the beauty of the world, with the rituals and symbols that are a Jewish medium to
transcendence. Like language, what we see can be a benediction.

Women and Visual Midrash

Artist Beth Grossman has taken the idea of exploring biblical texts into a new direction; her work
is about recontextualizing history and mythology–creating art that can turn assumptions upside
down. While studying art in Italy, she found herself surrounded by images of an idealized, iconic
Mary–the virgin mother.

That experience, along with her interest in interfaith dialogue, inspired Grossman to explore the
Jewish roots of this Christian icon. Grossman chose to revisit Mary’s story and create art that
portrays her as an unidealized, very human Jewish woman.

When her Mary works have been exhibited, she has invited both Jewish and Christian groups to
view and discuss the meaning of her artwork. As an artist, she is interested in finding common
threads among groups; in this case, she feels it is significant for both Jews and Christians to
remember that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were known, historically, to be Jewish.

Her piece “Mary of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” for example, features a painting of a modern-
looking Mary shielding baby Jesus. Mary is wearing a yellow star, as if she was a Jew in Nazi

31
Germany. The painting is enclosed in a suitcase, filled with yellow stars. Written on the stars on
the left side of the suitcase are stereotypes that the Nazis pinned on Jews, such as “greedy” and
“useless.” The stars on the right are qualities traditionally attributed to Mary, who is also a Jew,
such as “angelic” and “blessed.” The piece’s message or intention is to show the duality of
human beings, how the same woman could have been worshipped or reviled simply by the time
she lived in and the perceptions of those around her.

32