A letter in this week’s issue of the Flatbush Jewish Journal decries a recent stricture the newspaper adopted. It seems that a few weeks ago, a letter writer questioned the newspaper’s publication of a full picture of the sun in its weather report. The editor consulted with a rabbinic advisor and changed its practice, now publishing only a partial picture. This week, a writer complained about this “chumra” attitude:
There is no reason why we have to place extra chumras on anyone. These chumras take a lot away from the newspaper. Then when people see so many children going off the derech these days they begin to wonder why.
I agree that new chumros are improper but this is not what we are discussing. Not everything unrecognizable is a chumra. Just because “I’ve never heard of it” doesn’t mean it’s some newfangled idea. It only means that you’ve never heard of it or, more likely here, you learned it but forgot it. In this case, it is an explicit law, based on a famous Gemara and codified and observed throughout the generations, even while acknowledging changing circumstances.
The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 28a) states that Rabban Gamliel maintained pictures of the moon at different phases in order to use in questioning witnesses of the new moon. The Gemara questions how he could keep such pictures, since it is biblically prohibited to make such pictures and rabbinically prohibited to keep them. The conclusion is that R. Gamliel had special permission in order to issue halakhic rulings (le-havin u-le-horos).
In other words, we are forbidden to make or keep images of items that are worshipped by pagans. The Gemara repeats and expands on this in Avodah Zarah (42a-43b). The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Avodah Zarah 3:11) and Shulchan Arukh (Yoreh De’ah 141:4) rule accordingly, with all the appropriate details.
In the sixteenth century, the the Shulchan Arukh was written, very few if any people worshipped the sun, moon and stars. The rabbis recognized this and questioned whether the law still applies. The author of the Shulchan Arukh, in his Beis Yosef (ad loc., sv. umk”m ani), quotes R. Yerucham who says that this only permits us to benefit from such pictures, and not make or own them. However, the Beis Yosef infers from Tosafos (Avodah Zarah 43b sv. shani) that the rule applies today in its entirety.
Therefore, the Shulchan Arukh allows for no leniency today. The Rema (ad loc.) quotes R. Yerucham’s leniency but adds that some people are strict. The Shakh (ad loc., no. 16) argues that we should be lenient today and allow owning non-worshipped images, but not making them. The Shakh (ad loc., nos. 17, 23) adds that you also may not ask a gentile to make such images for you.
This law forbidding making images of the sun, moon and stars is quoted by subsequent codes, such as Chokhmas Adam (85:3) and Kitzur Shulchan Arukh (168:11). While perhaps a leniency can be constructed based on the view quoted in Darkei Teshuvah (ad loc., no. 27), that making such an image is only forbidden when done in a “serious” way. While this definition requires clarification, I am not aware of any halakhic authority who follows that line of argument. Certainly, it would qualify as a leniency, and would not render the baseline rule a chumra.
With all the wonderful aspects of the Orthodox community, there is also much to criticize. Among that is the common confusion between law, custom and stringencies. Ironically, the letter on this subject is an example of this phenomenon for failing to properly make this distinction. Rather than decrying this fulfillment of an explicit halakhah, I suggest the writer complain about the unjustifiable disappearance of modestly dressed women’s pictures from many Jewish newspapers.
UPDATE: See this article by R. Michoel Zylberman on the subject: link
avi: By definition a bust is not full body…
Hence the heter!
And which community would actually refuse to have maariv if it was later?
I don’t even understand the question. Early Maariv is easy to justify. Rishonim justified a tartei de-sasrei.
avi – eventhough via the rosh busts are ok the halacha is an arm falls off a statue is still against halacha to keep it (so its interesting that the rosh would say that a bust is ok). also, in the gemera there is no discussion of a full body rather persuf adam – face of a human
The dragon reference has been seen by some as a reference to the menorah in the Mikdash having same on its base, but not in the fully realized way they were shown in Roman religion.
gil – “If you aren’t willing to say “How do we relate to this halakhah?” ”
of course its how we relate to it. i am also interested in how the halacha evolved or morphed from an avoda zara society to now and what changes among the poskim happened and why. i think historical context is helpful to understand some of the issues of the rishonim and achronim. also, looking around and seeing via observation what is done today. i think there is a difference among many religious folks and the question is out of ignorance or otherwise (and is there an understanding to rely on). just imagine the issues if you have a child that is in art school.
avi – btw, it is the ritva that first extended this issur – human forms – to include ink (including paint) in the late 13th century. he actually divorces the issue of creating and owning since no one worships idols anymore and maintains its ok to own them but not create them (i am assuming full form statues).
“Who says we are meikel on this? I think it is a well established custom to either not own statues or to somehow deform them.”
Similar to the “we dont eat giraffes b/c we dont know where to shecht them” myth. In reality, we dont eat giraffes because its impractical, nothing to do with hilcohos shechitah.
Same thing with busts and statues. Most people dont own them, because most people can’t afford them. The proof is that everyone keeps plastic figurines without deforming them. Because they’re cheap. If statues were cheap, people would also keep them sans deforming them.
I had a thought over Shabbat: Something I’ve noticed recently is the trend to change the images of the Shevatim found in shuls so they show no animals (this affects Yehuda, Yissachar, Dan, Naftali, Yosef, and Binyamin). I can only imagine this is some “Avoda Zara” related concern, never mind that according to the Midrashim, the *Shevatim themselves* had no problem putting them on their flags (i.e., *Moshe Rabbenu* had no problem with it, just had he had no problem having animal images in the Mishkan). One interesting result is that this sometimes (but not always*) results in a reversion to the “original” Yissachar picture, i.e., a sun and a moon (based on a pasuk in Divrei Hayamim)- there in all their glory in shul, so that there’s no donkey. Go figure.
*Sometimes they pick truly baffling images. I’ve seen a set of hands (Human hands! Horrors! Maybe they’re gloves.) on a book for Naftali. Huh? That is in the OU Center in Jerusalem. I forget their Yissachar picture, but it’s neither a donkey nor a sun and moon.
Oh, and shuls for centuries had no problem showing suns, moons, stars, donkeys, etc. for the shevatim. Ditto haggadot illustrating “Achad Asar Mi Yodea,” etc.
[...] Weather Censorship [...]