STATUETTES IN THE SYNAGOGUE

QUESTION:

Two small statues of marble, one of Moses and one of David (almost naked) have been offered to a Conservative synagogue. Should they be accepted and permanently displayed in the lobby of this synagogue? (Asked by J. R. Kohn, Tampa, Florida.)

ANSWER:

IN GENERAL the commandment, “Thou shalt not make any graven images,” would seem to prohibit any sort of statuary. However, this general prohibition of representing actual objects in art is immediately delimited by the laws in the Talmud, Avoda Zara 43b and Rosh Hashonah 24b. There the prohibition is confined to such objects which were in the image of the Divine chariot or entourage as described by Ezekiel. Hence, lions, oxen, eagles and humans were the images which were actually prohibited. In fact, figures of humans were specifically and additionally prohibited. However, even in the cases of the prohibition of these images, the Talmud and the later codes (see especially Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 141 passim) prohibit only three-dimensional objects but not flat objects such as painting and embroidery, and certainly not sunken objects such as intaglio. In the Middle Ages, however, there was some prohibition by certain Franco-German authorities even to decorations of birds and flowers (even though these were not among the specific objects in the image of the Divine entourage and also were not three-dimensional). The reason given by Rabbi Eliakim, who ordered the removal of such decorations from the synagogue in Cologne (11 th century) was that they would distract the worshiper. This concern that the worshiper would be distracted was evoked in the discussion of the lions, often three-dimensional, that were found in certain synagogues as decorations of the Ark. However, even in such a case the lion images were defended if they were not above the Ark where all the worshipers could see them, but down lower where they would not be seen and would not distract the worshipers.

Clearly these statues will not be in the main synagogue where worshipers might be distracted, but in the lobby where no worship takes place. So there would be no objection.

Now the question is: Is it proper, even if it does not distract worshipers, to have a statue altogether in a synagogue? To this it must be noted that it is an actual fact that in one of the most ancient synagogues in Babylon there was a bust of the monarch. This synagogue is discussed in the Talmud in Megilla 29a, Avoda Zara 43b, and in the letter of the Gaon Sherira (10th century) edition Lewin, p. 72. This synagogue which was called Shev V’Yashiv (a name whose meaning is debated) had a most honored origin. The Talmud says it was founded by the exiled King Jehoiachin himself, and he used sacred soil and stones from the Temple in Jerusalem for its foundation; and indeed when the question was asked where does the Shekinah, which follows Israel in its exile, come to rest in Babylon, the answer which the Talmud gives is that the Shekinah rests in this ancient synagogue, Shev V’Yashiv. Furthermore, we are told that the greatest of the early Babylonian Rabbis, Rav and Samuel, worshiped there. Evidently they had no objection at all to the presence of a statue of the emperor in the sanctuary. But the question (by implication) is asked in the Talmud: Should not such a bust or statue be prohibited on the ground that some misguided person might worship it? And the answer that the Talmud gives is that perhaps such a suspicion might arise if the statue were in private premises, but in a public place such as the synagogue, where all the people are together, we need have no such suspicion. So a historic synagogue founded by a king of Judea where the Shekinah reposed and where the great rabbis worshiped without demur, had a statue; and since it was in public, there was no suspicion that it would lead to idolatry.

So if a statue of a heathen king was permitted in this most sacred of ancient synagogues, then certainly it would be permitted to have a statue of the Jewish King David and of the great leader, Moses. The only possible objection would be that the statue of David is virtually naked. It is very likely Michelangelo’s David, which is almost entirely naked. I would think that this then becomes a matter of taste; although, even here, it must be stated that in a public place (as, for example, a bathhouse) where many people are together, the matter of nakedness is not a matter of too strict a concern (see Shulchan Aruch, Even Hoezer 21:5, the note of Isserles). However, if the nakedness would offend the majority of the congregation, even if the statue is in the lobby and not in the synagogue proper and is of a Jewish king, it should not be displayed.

If the statue of Moses is a copy of Michelangelo’s Moses, it has two horn-like projections from the head of Moses. This is based upon the ancient understanding of the verse (Exodus 34:29) that when Moses came down from Mount Sinai his face shone with rays of light, and the Hebrew verse is “Koran or ponov,” in which the word “koran” which means “rays of light” was taken to mean the same as “keran” which means “horns.” But there is no objection to this representation of Moses. Many Hebrew books with elaborate title pages depicted Moses in the same way.

In short, the answer is as follows: There is no basic objection to statues, especially in the lobby where they do not distract from actual worship. There may be a sense of impropriety in the nakedness of the David statue; that must be decided as a matter of taste. There is no objection to the statute of Moses.