Judaism and images
Tonibaruch
I know that halacha forbids to create images. This is a fundamental and
explicit Torah commandment.
I also know that traditionally this commandment has been implemented in a
more stringent way into the Sephardic world rather than in Ashkenazi's.
(i.e. Ashkenazi aggadot were traditionally decorated with animals and plants
while Sephardi decoration is just abstract).
This is commonly interpreted as a difference of environments: Ashkanazi Jews
lived in a Christian society where everything was heavily decorated with
every kind of images, including God's. Sephardim lived in the Muslim world
where images were also forbid. There was no way Jews were less stringent
than Muslim in the interpretation of one of the ten commandments. Probably
somebody will disagree with the fact that a foreign environment may
influence such a way the observance of a Torah commandment, so other
explanations are welcome.
This is the story as I understand it.
Something seems to be changed heavily in the modern world. I see even the
most orthodox Jews don't refrain from painting images of men (not of God of
course). So my question, finally, is:
How is today's halacha about images? Is painting men allowed, is photography
allowed, is sculpture forbid?
And, if a shift in interpretation happened, as it seems to me, when this
shift happened, and why?
Thank you
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> I know that halacha forbids to create images. This is a fundamental and
> explicit Torah commandment.
The topic is discussed in: Rosh Hashana 24b; Minchat Chinuch 39; Rambam
Hilchot Akum 3:10; Yoreh Deah 141:4-8.; gemara in Sanhedrin 7b;
Avoda Zara 40b. As a punishable offense, the image is strictly that of a
human being, not anything else (though the Rambam includes the sun and
the moon as prohibited but not punishable). The Shach YD 141 s"k 30
also prohibits the constellation (stars) all together.
The Rambam indicates that a 3-dimensional image of a human being
and a 2-dimensional drawing of sun and stars, are prohibited. See
the Kessef Mishneh there for a lengthy discussion and the MAHARIT Yoreh
Deah 35. The halacha pesuka (YD 141:4) is that a 3-D image (i.e. sculpture)
of a human, angels, Serafim, Ofanim, the 4-headed animal in Ezekiel
is prohibited, and even a 3-D bas-relief (I think that's the art
term) of the sun and moon are prohibited. But a 2-D drawing would be
permitted.
>
> I also know that traditionally this commandment has been implemented in a
> more stringent way into the Sephardic world rather than in Ashkenazi's.
Very interesting ! Indeed it does taking into account a difference of opinion
of Rishonim (Rambam, RAN, ROSH, Ramban, and Raavad).
>
> (i.e. Ashkenazi aggadot were traditionally decorated with animals and plants
> while Sephardi decoration is just abstract).
>
> This is commonly interpreted as a difference of environments: Ashkanazi Jews
> lived in a Christian society where everything was heavily decorated with
> every kind of images, including God's. Sephardim lived in the Muslim world
> where images were also forbid. There was no way Jews were less stringent
> than Muslim in the interpretation of one of the ten commandments. Probably
> somebody will disagree with the fact that a foreign environment may
> influence such a way the observance of a Torah commandment, so other
> explanations are welcome.
>
> This is the story as I understand it.
>
It's actually more complex and has to do with understanding whether the
prohibition extends to 2-D and 3-D bas relief or only to 3-D sculpture.
> Something seems to be changed heavily in the modern world. I see even the
> most orthodox Jews don't refrain from painting images of men (not of God of
> course). So my question, finally, is:
>
> How is today's halacha about images? Is painting men allowed, is photography
> allowed, is sculpture forbid?
>
See above.
> And, if a shift in interpretation happened, as it seems to me, when this
> shift happened, and why?
>
Josh
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Herman Rubin
Tonibaruch <bri...@despammed.com> wrote:
>I know that halacha forbids to create images. This is a fundamental and
>explicit Torah commandment.
I recall a quote from Hillel; I may have some details wrong.
One time, he was asked what he was doing, and stated that
he was going to the baths, and that this was a mitzvah.
When asked why, he replied that the one who washes the
statue of the king as a respected member of the community.
How much greater, then, was it to was someone created in
the image of God?
Notice that Hillel did not consider the statue of the king
to be prohibited.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> In article <BBE23EB4.14480%bri...@despammed.com>,
> Tonibaruch <bri...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> >I know that halacha forbids to create images. This is a fundamental and
> >explicit Torah commandment.
>
> I recall a quote from Hillel; I may have some details wrong.
>
> One time, he was asked what he was doing, and stated that
> he was going to the baths, and that this was a mitzvah.
>
> When asked why, he replied that the one who washes the
> statue of the king as a respected member of the community.
> How much greater, then, was it to was someone created in
> the image of God?
>
> Notice that Hillel did not consider the statue of the king
> to be prohibited.
No proof at all. This was an analogy, based on common practice in the
general culture. Were I (for some odd reason) to mention Madonna or
Michael Jackson for rhetorical purposes, would you then conclude that
I must be a fan?
-Shlomo-
Tonibaruch
> The topic is discussed in: Rosh Hashana 24b; Minchat Chinuch 39; Rambam
> Hilchot Akum 3:10; Yoreh Deah 141:4-8.; gemara in Sanhedrin 7b;
> Avoda Zara 40b. As a punishable offense, the image is strictly that of a
> human being, not anything else (though the Rambam includes the sun and
> the moon as prohibited but not punishable). The Shach YD 141 s"k 30
> also prohibits the constellation (stars) all together.
Thanks Josh for the precise explanation.
One thing I don't understand. Is painting 2D images of human beings still
prohibited? Which is the case with photography?
I ask because I see MANY images of human beings on orthodox sources.
Photographies, certainly. But also "paintings". The chabad.org website is
full of very nice pictures of human beings.
Thanks
Antonio
Steve Goldfarb
>> When asked why, he replied that the one who washes the
>> statue of the king as a respected member of the community.
>> How much greater, then, was it to was someone created in
>> the image of God?
>>
>> Notice that Hillel did not consider the statue of the king
>> to be prohibited.
>No proof at all. This was an analogy, based on common practice in the
>general culture. Were I (for some odd reason) to mention Madonna or
>Michael Jackson for rhetorical purposes, would you then conclude that
>I must be a fan?
It's an analogy, but another way to say it (assuming the quote is
accurate) is "if it's good to wash an image of the king, imagine how much
better it is to wash an image of God." But that does indeed presuppose
that washing the image of the king is a good thing.
--sg
> -Shlomo-
--
---------------------------------------
Buy my boat!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2443053990
Fiona
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote
> arg...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)) writes:
>
> >> When asked why, he replied that the one who washes the
> >> statue of the king as a respected member of the community.
> >> How much greater, then, was it to was someone created in
> >> the image of God?
> >>
> >> Notice that Hillel did not consider the statue of the king
> >> to be prohibited.
>
> >No proof at all. This was an analogy, based on common practice in the
> >general culture. Were I (for some odd reason) to mention Madonna or
> >Michael Jackson for rhetorical purposes, would you then conclude that
> >I must be a fan?
>
> It's an analogy, but another way to say it (assuming the quote is
> accurate) is "if it's good to wash an image of the king, imagine how much
> better it is to wash an image of God."
Oy gevalt, (as they say in Manchester), Steve the analogy is on man being
*in* the Image of God, not being *an* image of God. It's about personal
cleanliness, not images. But you knew that, didn't you.
Fiona
Steve Goldfarb
>> It's an analogy, but another way to say it (assuming the quote is
>> accurate) is "if it's good to wash an image of the king, imagine how much
>> better it is to wash an image of God."
>Oy gevalt, (as they say in Manchester), Steve the analogy is on man being
>*in* the Image of God, not being *an* image of God. It's about personal
>cleanliness, not images. But you knew that, didn't you.
No, I disagree with you. Assuming the accuracy of the Hillel quote, he is
clearly likening the human body to *an* image of God. Otherwise the
analogy doesn't make any sense -- he's talking about physically washing an
"image of" -- not an "in the image of."
But none of this is an attempt to show that Hillel was claiming that man
is a physical image of God -- the point is to show that Hillel apparently
considered it a "good thing" to wash the statue of the king. Or at least
he's not opposed to the idea.
He could have said "instead of that, you should do this" but he didn't --
he said "it's good you do that, so it's all the better that you do this."
--sg
>Fiona
Fiona
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote
> "Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> It's an analogy, but another way to say it (assuming the quote is
> >> accurate) is "if it's good to wash an image of the king, imagine how
much
> >> better it is to wash an image of God."
>
> >Oy gevalt, (as they say in Manchester), Steve the analogy is on man being
> >*in* the Image of God, not being *an* image of God. It's about personal
> >cleanliness, not images. But you knew that, didn't you.
>
> No, I disagree with you. Assuming the accuracy of the Hillel quote, he is
> clearly likening the human body to *an* image of God. Otherwise the
> analogy doesn't make any sense -- he's talking about physically washing an
> "image of" -- not an "in the image of."
>
> But none of this is an attempt to show that Hillel was claiming that man
> is a physical image of God -- the point is to show that Hillel apparently
> considered it a "good thing" to wash the statue of the king. Or at least
> he's not opposed to the idea.
>
> He could have said "instead of that, you should do this" but he didn't --
> he said "it's good you do that, so it's all the better that you do this."
Whatever.
I could suggest you go learn the text in the original, but I know you won't
and I just can't be bothered persuing this. Reverse Humpty Dumpty, a text
means whatever you want it to mean, neither more nor less, eh? Enjoy.
Fiona
Steve Goldfarb
>> He could have said "instead of that, you should do this" but he didn't --
>> he said "it's good you do that, so it's all the better that you do this."
>Whatever.
I think you mispelled "you're right."
>I could suggest you go learn the text in the original, but I know you won't
>and I just can't be bothered persuing this. Reverse Humpty Dumpty, a text
>means whatever you want it to mean, neither more nor less, eh? Enjoy.
It doesn't matter -- I'm talking about this particular quote, which I have
stipulated is contingent on the accuracy of the quote. You are completely
missing the point here, Fiona.
The question was about images. This text was offered as support that
statues per se are not categorically forbidden, because if they were
Hillel wouldn't have referred to them in this way.
Obviously Hillel was making an analogy, and not asserting that the human
body is in fact a physical image of God. No one is claiming otherwise. But
it's irrelevant to the point regarding the statue of the king.
Micha Berger
: No, I disagree with you. Assuming the accuracy of the Hillel quote, he is
: clearly likening the human body to *an* image of God...
You're confusing the flag for the country.
I never heard this story before, and would prefer to see it inside. However,
it seems like Hillel is saying that one should show respect to the human
form (the flag) because humans (the country) are in the image of G-d.
Part of the problem is the English word "image". M's guide has a long
discussion about what it means to be in His "Tzurah" or like His "Demus".
As do most of the commentaries on the verse in Genesis. This was never
taken to be about physical properties.
-mi
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905 It is two who look in the same direction.
Eliyahu Rooff
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bpir39$kil$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In <bpiqgc$cau$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk> "Fiona"
<fi...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> He could have said "instead of that, you should do this" but he
didn't --
> >> he said "it's good you do that, so it's all the better that you do
this."
>
> >Whatever.
>
> I think you mispelled "you're right."
>
> >I could suggest you go learn the text in the original, but I know you
won't
> >and I just can't be bothered persuing this. Reverse Humpty Dumpty, a text
> >means whatever you want it to mean, neither more nor less, eh? Enjoy.
>
> It doesn't matter -- I'm talking about this particular quote, which I have
> stipulated is contingent on the accuracy of the quote. You are completely
> missing the point here, Fiona.
>
> The question was about images. This text was offered as support that
> statues per se are not categorically forbidden, because if they were
> Hillel wouldn't have referred to them in this way.
>
> Obviously Hillel was making an analogy, and not asserting that the human
> body is in fact a physical image of God. No one is claiming otherwise. But
> it's irrelevant to the point regarding the statue of the king.
>
about attitudes and not statues.
Eliyahu
Zev Sero
> I recall a quote from Hillel; I may have some details wrong.
> One time, he was asked what he was doing, and stated that
> he was going to the baths, and that this was a mitzvah.
>
> When asked why, he replied that the one who washes the statue of
> the king was a respected member of the community. How much greater,
> then, was it to wash someone created in the image of God?
>
> Notice that Hillel did not consider the statue of the king to be
> prohibited.
How do you derive that? Noting a custom of the goyim, and learning
a lesson from the sentiment behind it, is not saying that it's
permitted.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
zs...@free-market.net They go well together, but are completely
different concepts. - James Lileks
Steve Goldfarb
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:20:52 +0000 (UTC), Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>: No, I disagree with you. Assuming the accuracy of the Hillel quote, he is
>: clearly likening the human body to *an* image of God...
>You're confusing the flag for the country.
>I never heard this story before, and would prefer to see it inside. However,
>it seems like Hillel is saying that one should show respect to the human
>form (the flag) because humans (the country) are in the image of G-d.
No, not completely. According to the quote anyway he's saying because it
is good and proper to show respect to a statue because it is made in the
image of a king, then surely it is even better and more proper to show
respect to your own body because it is made in the image of God. That's
the analogy.
Because you do that there, then surely you should do this here.
Not just "because your body is in the image of God..." the analogy
needs to support that concept that it is meritorous to pay respect to
something due to what it represents -- it doesn't assert that fact (with
regards to people) it brings it by analogy.
Which IMO strongly supports the original contention that Hillel didn't
object to the concept of statues of kings. Which is why the original
poster (I forget who, sorry) mentioned it.
>Part of the problem is the English word "image". M's guide has a long
>discussion about what it means to be in His "Tzurah" or like His "Demus".
>As do most of the commentaries on the verse in Genesis. This was never
>taken to be about physical properties.
Of course not, and as I've said three times I never claimed it did, and
this story doesn't support the idea that Hillel thought it did. The story
does, though, support the idea that Hillel didn't seem to have a problem
with having statues of the king around, and further that even taking care
of the statue out of respect for the king was a meritorious thing to do.
Which was the point of the thread. Which everyone seems to be ignoring.
--sg
>-mi
>--
>Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
>mi...@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
>http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
>Fax: (413) 403-9905 It is two who look in the same direction.
Steve Goldfarb
>> Notice that Hillel did not consider the statue of the king to be
> > prohibited.
>How do you derive that? Noting a custom of the goyim, and learning
>a lesson from the sentiment behind it, is not saying that it's
>permitted.
As Hillel said, just as the man who throws his first born son to Moloch is
highly respected in his community, so too should we ...
Can you imagine such a thing?
The Lubavicher Rebbe once said, just as esteemed members of our community
are sure to put statues of the Virgin May in their yards, so too should
we...
Do you think he'd ever have said such a thing?
Now, if the story had quoted Hillel as saying "instead of washing statues
you should be washing yourself" that'd support your point. But that's not
what the original story said.
--sg
>--
>Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
>zs...@free-market.net They go well together, but are completely
> different concepts. - James Lileks
Fiona
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote
> Of course not, and as I've said three times I never claimed it did, and
> this story doesn't support the idea that Hillel thought it did. The story
> does, though, support the idea that Hillel didn't seem to have a problem
> with having statues of the king around, and further that even taking care
> of the statue out of respect for the king was a meritorious thing to do.
>
> Which was the point of the thread. Which everyone seems to be ignoring.
From what we know of the story (if reported correctly, which is suspect), by
mentioning them Hillel is merely acknowledging statues exist, in the context
there is no need for him to comment on their forbidden status as that would
be a tangent from his point and anyway it is well understood by anyone
versed in Torah.
So you could read it thus: If you wash a statue of a king, which is a
forbidden thing made by man, how much more so should you wash a human body,
which is a permitted thing made in the image of the King of Kings, by the
King of Kings.
Fiona
Fiona
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote
> Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net> writes:
>
> >> Notice that Hillel did not consider the statue of the king to be
> > > prohibited.
>
> >How do you derive that? Noting a custom of the goyim, and learning
> >a lesson from the sentiment behind it, is not saying that it's
> >permitted.
>
> As Hillel said, just as the man who throws his first born son to Moloch is
> highly respected in his community, so too should we ...
>
> Can you imagine such a thing?
>
> The Lubavicher Rebbe once said, just as esteemed members of our community
> are sure to put statues of the Virgin May in their yards, so too should
> we...
>
> Do you think he'd ever have said such a thing?
But Steve, there are times when we learn lessons using non-Jewish practice
as an example, one that instantly springs to mind is the Talmud using a
non-Jew who refused to gets keys from under his father's pillow in case he
woke him, as a perfect example of Kibud Av v'Eim.
Fiona
Eliyahu Rooff
"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bpj7f1$o2f$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
had it been a Jew who was honoring his father, as opposed to a non-Jew doing
something forbidden to us. That is, there's nothing "un-Jewish" about
letting a parent sleep.
Eliyahu
Steve Goldfarb
>"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote
>From what we know of the story (if reported correctly, which is suspect), by
>mentioning them Hillel is merely acknowledging statues exist, in the context
>there is no need for him to comment on their forbidden status as that would
>be a tangent from his point and anyway it is well understood by anyone
>versed in Torah.
I agree that the story doesn't support the idea that it'd be OK to *make*
statues.
>So you could read it thus: If you wash a statue of a king, which is a
>forbidden thing made by man, how much more so should you wash a human body,
>which is a permitted thing made in the image of the King of Kings, by the
>King of Kings.
Except in the story he doesn't imply that it's a "forbidden thing, " he
implies it's a meritorious ct. TO wash it, not to make it.
--sg
>Fiona
Steve Goldfarb
>> are sure to put statues of the Virgin May in their yards, so too should
>> we...
>>
>> Do you think he'd ever have said such a thing?
>But Steve, there are times when we learn lessons using non-Jewish practice
>as an example, one that instantly springs to mind is the Talmud using a
>non-Jew who refused to gets keys from under his father's pillow in case he
>woke him, as a perfect example of Kibud Av v'Eim.
Your example supports my case. Even though it's a non-Jew, it's a halachic
act for a Jew that's cited. Which would be the opposite of the examples I
gave. Unless you can find an example where somone cites a forbidden act
approvingly, which might exist I suppose.
--sg
>Fiona
Zev Sero
> He could have said "instead of that, you should do this" but he didn't --
> he said "it's good you do that, so it's all the better that you do this."
He wasn't speaking to people who did `that'; he was speaking to his
(Jewish) students, and teaching them a lesson from the actions of the
goyim, who did `that'. If this is how they treat their kings (whom
they worship as gods), then surely we must treat our Gd at least as
well.
Zev Sero
> It's an analogy, but another way to say it (assuming the quote is
> accurate) is "if it's good to wash an image of the king, imagine how much
> better it is to wash an image of God." But that does indeed presuppose
> that washing the image of the king is a good thing.
He didn't say it was a good thing, he said it was considered a good
thing by those who worshipped the king and put up statues of him.
And so we, who worship Hashem, should treat His images (our bodies)
with respect, and take care of them.
Don Levey
~
> It's an analogy, but another way to say it (assuming the quote is
> accurate) is "if it's good to wash an image of the king, imagine how much
> better it is to wash an image of God." But that does indeed presuppose
> that washing the image of the king is a good thing.
>
>
If we assume that he, as a man, is the image of Gd, then how would he
differ from the king? The king, as a man, would ALSO be an image of
Gd, so his statue would be a copy of a copy, as it were. Washing that
statue would be one more level removed from the image of Gd than washing
the body itself.
--
Don Levey NOTE: spamtrapped address likely to change
Framingham, MA at any moment. Most recent post has best
address.
Zev Sero
> Now, if the story had quoted Hillel as saying "instead of washing statues
> you should be washing yourself" that'd support your point. But that's not
> what the original story said.
Once again HE WAS NOT TALKING TO THE STATUE-WASHERS.
Zev Sero
> Except in the story he doesn't imply that it's a "forbidden thing, " he
> implies it's a meritorious ct. TO wash it, not to make it.
He implies no such thing. He merely learns a lesson from how the
idolaters treat their statues. It's a perfectly Jewish thing to take
lessons from whatever one sees - that's why Gd arranged for one to see
it.
Zev Sero
> No, not completely. According to the quote anyway he's saying because it
> is good and proper to show respect to a statue because it is made in the
> image of a king
He did *not* say that it's good and proper to do so; he merely noted
that the idolaters who put up the statues in the first place, did so.
That keeping a statue clean was one of the ways reverence was paid to
the subject of the statue, and that this was a lesson we could learn
from these idolaters.
> Because you do that there, then surely you should do this here.
NOT because YOU do that there; because THEY do that there.
Don Levey
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>
>
> > No, not completely. According to the quote anyway he's saying
> > because it is good and proper to show respect to a statue because it
> > is made in the image of a king
>
> He did *not* say that it's good and proper to do so; he merely noted
> that the idolaters who put up the statues in the first place, did so.
> That keeping a statue clean was one of the ways reverence was paid to
> the subject of the statue, and that this was a lesson we could learn
> from these idolaters.
>
>
> > Because you do that there, then surely you should do this here.
>
> NOT because YOU do that there; because THEY do that there.
>
>
I admit that I don't find this one satisfying. I've seen many posts
here which boil down to "why should we care what the goyim do?" Is this
now telling us that we *should* care, that we have sources of learning
other than Jewish texts and sages?
Steve Goldfarb
>Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> Except in the story he doesn't imply that it's a "forbidden thing, " he
>> implies it's a meritorious ct. TO wash it, not to make it.
>He implies no such thing. He merely learns a lesson from how the
>idolaters treat their statues. It's a perfectly Jewish thing to take
>lessons from whatever one sees - that's why Gd arranged for one to see
>it.
Who said anything about idolators? I don't see any reference to idolators.
There's a picture of President Washington on the one dollar bill - does
that make all Americans idolators?
I'll help you out -- in order to prove your point, all you have to do is
find an example where a sage learns a positive lesson from a prohibited
act. For example, "see how they eat their pork? that's how we should...
whatever." "See how they sacrifice to their pagan gods? that's how we
should approach such-and-such."
I'm not saying such a thing doesn't exist, but until you find one you
haven't proved your point.
--sg
>--
>Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
>zs...@free-market.net They go well together, but are completely
> different concepts. - James Lileks
Steve Goldfarb
>Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> Now, if the story had quoted Hillel as saying "instead of washing statues
>> you should be washing yourself" that'd support your point. But that's not
>> what the original story said.
>Once again HE WAS NOT TALKING TO THE STATUE-WASHERS.
Sez who?
The original quote was:
"the one who washes the statue of the king as a respected member of the
community." I presume "as" is a typo for "is." It says "the community." Is
that talking about some other community? Could be -- but there's no way to
infer that from the quote.
I stipulated from the beginning that I was talking about the story *as
quoted.* If it is a misquote, you should have said something from the
beginning.
The quote says that members of *the* community, reasonably inferred as
meaning the community to which both Hillel and the questioner belong.
--sg
>--
>Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
>zs...@free-market.net They go well together, but are completely
> different concepts. - James Lileks
R
>
The halacha pesuka (YD 141:4) is that a 3-D image (i.e.
sculpture)
> of a human, angels, Serafim, Ofanim, the 4-headed animal in Ezekiel
> is prohibited, and even a 3-D bas-relief (I think that's the art
> term) of the sun and moon are prohibited. But a 2-D drawing would be
> permitted.
You mean haut-relief (boleit), not bas-relief (shokeia). I'm not
sure that the "halcha pesuka" you cite is universally accepted.
For example: in our main shul "770" there is a large poster that
is put up for Shabbos when we bless the New Month, displaying the
time of the mean conjuction at Jerusalem Solar Time (the "molad")
and the day(s) when Rosh Chodesh will fall. The poster is
decorated with a 2-D representation of a crescent moon. The late
mara de'asra Rab Marlow (z"l) ruled that the crescent moon must
show a split or crack in the middle to avoid showing even a 2-D
depiction that would otherwise look like a real moon.
You will also find that in (most) shuls where there is a tapestry
(paroches) hanging on the Holy Ark with embroidered 2-D pictures
of lions, the custom is that the lions have long curled tongues
sticking out of their mouths so that they will not look like real
lions.
Micha Berger
prohibited to known. Manufacture and ownership are different clauses in
the commandment. It's WRT manufacture that G-d says "do not make any",
with no mention of it being necessarily religious.
:-)BBii
-mi
--
Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"
Yisroel Markov
<s...@panix.com> said:
>In <97ivb.9058$n56....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net> writes:
>
>>Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>
>>> Except in the story he doesn't imply that it's a "forbidden thing, " he
>>> implies it's a meritorious ct. TO wash it, not to make it.
>
>>He implies no such thing. He merely learns a lesson from how the
>>idolaters treat their statues. It's a perfectly Jewish thing to take
>>lessons from whatever one sees - that's why Gd arranged for one to see
>>it.
>
>Who said anything about idolators? I don't see any reference to idolators.
>There's a picture of President Washington on the one dollar bill - does
>that make all Americans idolators?
>
>I'll help you out -- in order to prove your point, all you have to do is
>find an example where a sage learns a positive lesson from a prohibited
>act. For example, "see how they eat their pork? that's how we should...
>whatever." "See how they sacrifice to their pagan gods? that's how we
>should approach such-and-such."
>
>I'm not saying such a thing doesn't exist, but until you find one you
>haven't proved your point.
On a related but slightly different note: there's an episode in IIRC
the book of Malakhim where the Jews of the Northern Kingdom were
besieging a town. They were without much merit at the time, and the
tide of battle apparently turned when the king of the besieged city
sacrificed his son. The siege failed.
IIRC, the Midrash comments that the king took his example from
Avraham, and that the sacrifice was to God rather than to the local
idol. It then quotes God as saying: "These gentiles honor Me more than
the Jews!" as an explanation of why this rather forbidden act worked.
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Micha Berger
: Who said anything about idolators? I don't see any reference to idolators.
: that make all Americans idolators?
I still think the eye-and-pyramid ought to be a real problem. That eye is
supposed to be a pictoral representation of the all seing god. In
a triangle. Trinitarian. Detatched from the universe, because most
Masons of the time (including Franklin and Jefferson, but not Washington)
were deists.
I know of no one who prohibits owning a one USD bill, and yet, I also can't
get an LOR to take me seriously enough to tell me why.
Micha Berger
doesn't have much merit without having access to the original. IMHO.
:-)BBii
-mi
Herman Rubin
Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <dq6vb.7910$n56....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net> writes:
>>> Notice that Hillel did not consider the statue of the king to be
>> > prohibited.
>>How do you derive that? Noting a custom of the goyim, and learning
>>a lesson from the sentiment behind it, is not saying that it's
>>permitted.
Israel was a Jewish state under the suzerainty of Rome.
There were no goyish kings, nor goyish customs which would
be objectionable to the Jews. The Roman procurators may
have decided which Jewish claimants were kings, and which
kohanim were high priests, but respected the Jewish religion.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
Eliyahu Rooff <lro...@shotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Whatever.
I agree that it was more of an allegory, but it contains
the information that Hillel considered washing the statue
of the king, and therefore the existence of the statue, as
not being a prohibited item in itself. Remember that
Hillel lived in a Jewish state; the overall rule may have
been Roman, but the Romans respected the rights to Jewish
practices, and the troops would not bring their standards,
which the Jews might consider idolatrous, to any interior
cities.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>
> The halacha pesuka (YD 141:4) is that a 3-D image (i.e.
> sculpture)
>> of a human, angels, Serafim, Ofanim, the 4-headed animal in Ezekiel
>> is prohibited, and even a 3-D bas-relief (I think that's the art
>> term) of the sun and moon are prohibited. But a 2-D drawing would be
>> permitted.
>
> You mean haut-relief (boleit), not bas-relief (shokeia). I'm not
No, I meant bas-relief (shokeia) ! 3-D (haut-relief) [BOLEIT] is
never permitted.
Look in the Aruch haShulchan for the discussion.
> sure that the "halcha pesuka" you cite is universally accepted.
> For example: in our main shul "770" there is a large poster that
> is put up for Shabbos when we bless the New Month, displaying the
> time of the mean conjuction at Jerusalem Solar Time (the "molad")
> and the day(s) when Rosh Chodesh will fall. The poster is
> decorated with a 2-D representation of a crescent moon. The late
> mara de'asra Rab Marlow (z"l) ruled that the crescent moon must
> show a split or crack in the middle to avoid showing even a 2-D
> depiction that would otherwise look like a real moon.
>
> You will also find that in (most) shuls where there is a tapestry
> (paroches) hanging on the Holy Ark with embroidered 2-D pictures
> of lions, the custom is that the lions have long curled tongues
> sticking out of their mouths so that they will not look like real
> lions.
Josh
Fiona
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote
> I think we're getting to a level of nitpicking about the quote that
> doesn't have much merit without having access to the original. IMHO.
Absolutely! Does anyone know where to find the original text (Herman Rubin
brought it, but I don't suppose he knows where it comes from)? Till then
there is no point in taking any of this further.
Fiona
Tonibaruch
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote on 20-11-2003 14:58:
> In article <BBE23EB4.14480%bri...@despammed.com>, Tonibaruch
> <bri...@despammed.com> writes:
>>
>> I know that halacha forbids to create images. This is a fundamental and
>> explicit Torah commandment.
>
>
> The topic is discussed in: Rosh Hashana 24b; Minchat Chinuch 39; Rambam
> Hilchot Akum 3:10; Yoreh Deah 141:4-8.; gemara in Sanhedrin 7b;
> Avoda Zara 40b. As a punishable offense, the image is strictly that of a
> human being, not anything else (though the Rambam includes the sun and
> the moon as prohibited but not punishable).
> The Shach YD 141 s"k 30
> also prohibits the constellation (stars) all together.
>
> The Rambam indicates that a 3-dimensional image of a human being
> and a 2-dimensional drawing of sun and stars, are prohibited. See
> the Kessef Mishneh there for a lengthy discussion and the MAHARIT Yoreh
> Deah 35. The halacha pesuka (YD 141:4) is that a 3-D image (i.e. sculpture)
> of a human, angels, Serafim, Ofanim, the 4-headed animal in Ezekiel
> is prohibited, and even a 3-D bas-relief (I think that's the art
> term) of the sun and moon are prohibited. But a 2-D drawing would be
> permitted.
>
>
If I understand correctly this esplanation, the drawing of a human being was
permitted by all the Rishonim.
If so, may somebody explain from where the stringent use about the use of
images came in ancient times, even more stringent among the sephardim?
I may be wrong, but looks to me rather clear that the use of images is seen
today in a more liberal way than it was in ancient times. To make a couple
of examples, the chabad.org website is full of human images. My orthodox
aggadah is beautifully illustrated with images of human beings, there are a
moon and a sun, too. This is permitted by rishonim, but was absolutely
unthinkable centuries ago, when only abstaract decorations and maybe some
animals and plants found their way into some books.
Even today, I think that it would be hard to imagine a picture including
human beings decorating the walls of any synagogue.
So I keep to wonder if any evolution in halacha happened in recent times, or
there only is some use that was dropped in recent times.
Thanks you for your courtesy and time.
Antonio
p_al...@hotmail.com
> In article <BBE23EB4.14480%bri...@despammed.com>,
> Tonibaruch <bri...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> >I know that halacha forbids to create images. This is a fundamental and
> >explicit Torah commandment.
>
>
> One time, he was asked what he was doing, and stated that
> he was going to the baths, and that this was a mitzvah.
>
> When asked why, he replied that the one who washes the
> statue of the king as a respected member of the community.
> the image of God?
>
> Notice that Hillel did not consider the statue of the king
> to be prohibited.
Herman, what authority did Hillel have to permit images when the Torah
says not to make any images?
Fiona
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@shotmail.com> wrote
> "Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
The gemara itself goes on to say, if a non-Jew who is not commanded to
respect his parents shows such kavod for his father, how much more so a Jew,
who is commanded to honour his parents, should show Kavod. Simple kal
v'homer regardless of forbidden or not forbidden. The issue Steve borught up
was not wherther things were forbidden or not, but whether the Rabbis wuold
learn from non-Jews, I brought an example to show they did, nothing more.
Fiona
Joseph Hertzlinger
> The topic is discussed in: Rosh Hashana 24b; Minchat Chinuch 39;
> Rambam Hilchot Akum 3:10; Yoreh Deah 141:4-8.; gemara in Sanhedrin
> 7b; Avoda Zara 40b. As a punishable offense, the image is strictly
> that of a human being, not anything else (though the Rambam includes
> the sun and the moon as prohibited but not punishable). The Shach YD
> 141 s"k 30 also prohibits the constellation (stars) all together.
Aren't star charts an important part of navigation?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
>>Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>: No, I disagree with you. Assuming the accuracy of the Hillel quote, he is
>>: clearly likening the human body to *an* image of God...
>
>>You're confusing the flag for the country.
>
>>I never heard this story before, and would prefer to see it inside. However,
>>it seems like Hillel is saying that one should show respect to the human
>>form (the flag) because humans (the country) are in the image of G-d.
>
> No, not completely. According to the quote anyway he's saying because it
> is good and proper to show respect to a statue because it is made in the
> respect to your own body because it is made in the image of God. That's
> the analogy.
>
> Because you do that there, then surely you should do this here.
>
> needs to support that concept that it is meritorous to pay respect to
> something due to what it represents -- it doesn't assert that fact (with
> regards to people) it brings it by analogy.
>
> Which IMO strongly supports the original contention that Hillel didn't
> object to the concept of statues of kings. Which is why the original
> poster (I forget who, sorry) mentioned it.
>
>>Part of the problem is the English word "image". M's guide has a long
>>discussion about what it means to be in His "Tzurah" or like His "Demus".
>>As do most of the commentaries on the verse in Genesis. This was never
>>taken to be about physical properties.
>
> Of course not, and as I've said three times I never claimed it did, and
> this story doesn't support the idea that Hillel thought it did. The story
> does, though, support the idea that Hillel didn't seem to have a problem
> with having statues of the king around, and further that even taking care
> of the statue out of respect for the king was a meritorious thing to do.
For who? Hillel wasn't telling his students to wash those statues. He
noted that in the non-Jewish milieu around them, this action, washing
the king's statue, was part of the government activities.
> Which was the point of the thread. Which everyone seems to be ignoring.
Again, Hillel was not suggesting that his students be the one who
wash the statues. He just noted a lesson to be learned from those
who do wash the statues. (mountain/molehill)
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
So _that's_ the reason for those long curled tongues. I always
wondered about it. Thanks.
Joseph Hertzlinger
<s...@panix.com> wrote:
> As Hillel said, just as the man who throws his first born son to
> Moloch is highly respected in his community, so too should we ...
The purpose of infant sacrifice was to dedicate the child to the
gods. The equivalent would be dedicating your children to God, which
is done by ensuring that they get a Jewish education.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <BBE643B4.1665E%bri...@despammed.com>, Tonibaruch <bri...@despammed.com> writes:
> in article bpih9c$t8b$1...@falcon.steinthal.us, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il at
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote on 20-11-2003 14:58:
>
>> In article <BBE23EB4.14480%bri...@despammed.com>, Tonibaruch
>> <bri...@despammed.com> writes:
>>>
>>> I know that halacha forbids to create images. This is a fundamental and
>>> explicit Torah commandment.
>>
>>
>> The topic is discussed in: Rosh Hashana 24b; Minchat Chinuch 39; Rambam
>> Hilchot Akum 3:10; Yoreh Deah 141:4-8.; gemara in Sanhedrin 7b;
>> Avoda Zara 40b. As a punishable offense, the image is strictly that of a
>> human being, not anything else (though the Rambam includes the sun and
>> the moon as prohibited but not punishable).
>
>> The Shach YD 141 s"k 30
>> also prohibits the constellation (stars) all together.
>>
>> The Rambam indicates that a 3-dimensional image of a human being
>> and a 2-dimensional drawing of sun and stars, are prohibited. See
>> the Kessef Mishneh there for a lengthy discussion and the MAHARIT Yoreh
>> Deah 35. The halacha pesuka (YD 141:4) is that a 3-D image (i.e. sculpture)
>> of a human, angels, Serafim, Ofanim, the 4-headed animal in Ezekiel
>> is prohibited, and even a 3-D bas-relief (I think that's the art
>> term) of the sun and moon are prohibited. But a 2-D drawing would be
>> permitted.
>>
>>
>
>
> If I understand correctly this esplanation, the drawing of a human being was
> permitted by all the Rishonim.
Correct.
>
> If so, may somebody explain from where the stringent use about the use of
> images came in ancient times, even more stringent among the sephardim?
>
> I may be wrong, but looks to me rather clear that the use of images is seen
> today in a more liberal way than it was in ancient times. To make a couple
> of examples, the chabad.org website is full of human images. My orthodox
> aggadah is beautifully illustrated with images of human beings, there are a
> moon and a sun, too. This is permitted by rishonim, but was absolutely
> unthinkable centuries ago, when only abstaract decorations and maybe some
> animals and plants found their way into some books.
>
> Even today, I think that it would be hard to imagine a picture including
> human beings decorating the walls of any synagogue.
>
> So I keep to wonder if any evolution in halacha happened in recent times, or
> there only is some use that was dropped in recent times.
>
> Thanks you for your courtesy and time.
Josh
>
> Antonio
>
Tonibaruch
> Correct.
Josh, please understand I'm not looking to follow with some kind of
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! So you CHANGED the Torah!!!!!
I am sure that, if there was some change in customs (as it seems rather
obvious to me) there must be valid reasons behind and for sure it has been
done with valid orthodox methodology.
I haven't ever found any explanation about this phenomen: books and aggadot
were not illustrated centuries ago and now they are. Technology can't be a
reason, as there is plenty of non-jewish miniated codes produced in the
middle ages.
So I'm TRULY curious to understand this story better. It's not some kind of
R ambush.
Antonio
Harry Weiss
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote on 11/20/2003 14:58:
> > The topic is discussed in: Rosh Hashana 24b; Minchat Chinuch 39; Rambam
> > Hilchot Akum 3:10; Yoreh Deah 141:4-8.; gemara in Sanhedrin 7b;
> > Avoda Zara 40b. As a punishable offense, the image is strictly that of a
> > human being, not anything else (though the Rambam includes the sun and
> > the moon as prohibited but not punishable). The Shach YD 141 s"k 30
> > also prohibits the constellation (stars) all together.
> Thanks Josh for the precise explanation.
> One thing I don't understand. Is painting 2D images of human beings still
> prohibited? Which is the case with photography?
> I ask because I see MANY images of human beings on orthodox sources.
> Photographies, certainly. But also "paintings". The chabad.org website is
> full of very nice pictures of human beings.
The vast majority of sources do allow photographs. There, are however,
some who do not allow it. My paternal grandfather, did not allow
photographs to be taken. (the only pictures we have are his passport
photos)
> Thanks
> Antonio
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Don Levey
>
> I haven't ever found any explanation about this phenomen: books and aggadot
> were not illustrated centuries ago and now they are. Technology can't be a
> reason, as there is plenty of non-jewish miniated codes produced in the
> middle ages.
>
> So I'm TRULY curious to understand this story better. It's not some kind of
> R ambush.
>
> Antonio
>
I seem to recall that depiction of humans is not permitted in Islam.
Quite a bit of Sephardi Jews were, centuries ago, living in areas that
were controlled by the Ottoman empire (though I'm sure some of the
Sephardi amongst us can correct and/or give better details). To keep
the peace between the Jews and the local rulers, it would make sense
that the Jews would adapt their illustrations and decorations to conform
to local mores.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote on 11/23/2003 18:04:
>
>> Correct.
>
>
> Josh, please understand I'm not looking to follow with some kind of
>
> AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! So you CHANGED the Torah!!!!!
>
> I am sure that, if there was some change in customs (as it seems rather
> obvious to me) there must be valid reasons behind and for sure it has been
> done with valid orthodox methodology.
>
> I haven't ever found any explanation about this phenomen: books and aggadot
> were not illustrated centuries ago and now they are. Technology can't be a
> reason, as there is plenty of non-jewish miniated codes produced in the
> middle ages.
We have a facsimile at home of the famous Sarajevo Haggadah from the 14th
Century. It has lots of colored illustrations. Where did you get the
impression that there were no illustrated Jewish manuscripts from the
early Middle Ages ?? You might want to access the 90 year old
online Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com and check
for Jewish Art.
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
>> Correct.
>
>
> Josh, please understand I'm not looking to follow with some kind of
>
> AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! So you CHANGED the Torah!!!!!
>
> I am sure that, if there was some change in customs (as it seems rather
> obvious to me) there must be valid reasons behind and for sure it has been
> done with valid orthodox methodology.
>
> I haven't ever found any explanation about this phenomen: books and aggadot
> were not illustrated centuries ago and now they are. Technology can't be a
> reason, as there is plenty of non-jewish miniated codes produced in the
> middle ages.
Go access GOOGLE www.google.com for: "illustrated Jewish manuscripts
Middle Ages" and you'll get back a few dozen websites showing how
Jewish manuscripts from the early Middle Ages were illustrated with lots
of figures.
Josh
Zev Sero
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>is prohibited, and even a 3-D bas-relief (I think that's the art
>>term) of the sun and moon are prohibited. But a 2-D drawing would be
>>permitted.
> You mean haut-relief (boleit), not bas-relief (shokeia).
Josh has the right term:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bas-relief
Main Entry: bas-re·lief
Pronunciation: "bä-ri-'lEf, 'bä-ri-"
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from bas low + relief raised work
Date: 1667
: sculptural relief in which the projection from the surrounding
surface is slight and no part of the modeled form is undercut;
also : sculpture executed in bas-relief
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?low%20relief
Main Entry: low relief
Function: noun
Date: 1711
: BAS-RELIEF
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?high%20relief
Main Entry: high relief
Function: noun
Date: circa 1828
: sculptural relief in which at least half of the circumference of
the modeled form projects
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?relief
Main Entry: 1re·lief
Pronunciation: ri-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Old French,
from relever to relieve
Date: 14th century
6 [French] a : a mode of sculpture in which forms and figures are
distinguished from a surrounding plane surface b : sculpture or a
sculptural form executed in this mode c : projecting detail,
ornament, or figures
Chano
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2003Nov2...@mm.huji.ac.il...
The reason for the long curled tongues is to remind us not to talk loshon
horah, otherwise we'll be devoured by lions!!!
Chano
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd
congregation for Birkas Hachodesh. The procedure is similar regarding yaaleh
veyavo, although if it is not Rosh Chodesh but another day on which yaaleh
veyavo is recited, he just exposes the part of his anatomy which is yaaleh
veyavo instead.
IS
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd
Instead, he asks for permission to sit butt naked on their photocopier, and
the cop then presses the button. For Hirsch, this constitutes proper ID.
IS
Zev Sero
> R <rut...@verizon.net> writes:
>>You mean haut-relief (boleit), not bas-relief (shokeia). I'm not
> No, I meant bas-relief (shokeia) ! 3-D (haut-relief) [BOLEIT] is
> never permitted.
Oh. In that case, you're using term incorrectly, as is R.
As the dictionary citations I gave earlier show, bas-relief is
bolet, not shokea. I'm not sure what the correct term for shokea
is, but it's not bas-relief.
Steve Goldfarb
>bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> R <rut...@verizon.net> writes:
>>>You mean haut-relief (boleit), not bas-relief (shokeia). I'm not
>> No, I meant bas-relief (shokeia) ! 3-D (haut-relief) [BOLEIT] is
>> never permitted.
>Oh. In that case, you're using term incorrectly, as is R.
>As the dictionary citations I gave earlier show, bas-relief is
>bolet, not shokea. I'm not sure what the correct term for shokea
>is, but it's not bas-relief.
What about holograms, which are two-dimensional but appear to be
three-dimensional?
(my guess would be "permitted" since a flat drawing can appear 3-D also,
although of course not in the same way as a hologram)
--sg
>--
>Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
>zs...@free-market.net They go well together, but are completely
> different concepts. - James Lileks
--
---------------------------------------
Buy my boat!
http://www.oscodagroup.com/boat
Micha Berger
amoraic period synagogues. On the floor of the synagogue at Beit Alpha
<http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go-visual.asp?MFAJ091v0> the Binding of Isaac
is depicted. All the people are represented, with faces. I don't recall
how completely the angel is. In the center are the figures associated
with the zodiac, which I would have thought is really problematic.
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Chano
"Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd" <serj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpsjmg$1rtopt$1...@ID-98143.news.uni-berlin.de...
Would that be profile or full face? (anyway Ian, I thought you're not here)
Chano
Eliyahu Rooff
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:bpterv$1s5lcv$2...@ID-113975.news.uni-berlin.de...
> More amazing to me is the mosaic work in some of these tannaitic
and
> amoraic period synagogues. On the floor of the synagogue at Beit
Alpha
> <http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go-visual.asp?MFAJ091v0> the Binding of
Isaac
> is depicted. All the people are represented, with faces. I don't
recall
> how completely the angel is. In the center are the figures
associated
> with the zodiac, which I would have thought is really problematic.
>
have problems are things that didn't trouble (or wouldn't have
troubled) the sages, nu?
Eliyahu
Eliyahu Rooff
"Chano" <ch...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bpthuj$80l$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
visit just for that purpose.
Eliyahu
Yisroel Markov
<mi...@aishdas.org> said:
>More amazing to me is the mosaic work in some of these tannaitic and
>amoraic period synagogues. On the floor of the synagogue at Beit Alpha
><http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go-visual.asp?MFAJ091v0> the Binding of Isaac
>is depicted. All the people are represented, with faces. I don't recall
>how completely the angel is. In the center are the figures associated
>with the zodiac, which I would have thought is really problematic.
Perhaps the fact that it's on the floor and thus regularly tred upon
is a mitigating factor? As in, how likely is a Jew to ever worship
something he walks on?
(We do have the concept of sacred ground, but we don't worship ground.
Nor have I ever heard any claims that the custom of kissing the ground
when arriving in Eretz Yisrael constitutes worship.)
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand