PORTRAIT BUST IN THE SYNAGOGUE

QUESTION:

The congregation Temple Israel of New York, is planning to place a bust of its late rabbi, William F. Rosenblum, in the lobby of the sanctuary. The specific question is: “Is it proper if this (i.e., the lobby) is to be set aside as a meditative area?” (Asked by Rabbi Martin J. Zion, Temple Israel, New York.)

ANSWER:

THERE IS a great deal of legal material in the literature on the question of pictures and images. I have discussed the question rather fully in Reform Jewish Practice, II, p. 22 ff. However, there are a number of new elements involved in the specific question which is asked here and therefore there should be a separate answer in addition to that given in Reform Jewish Practice. The prohibition against the making of images stems, of course, from the Scriptural statement in Exo dus 20:4: “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image of anything that is in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.” On the face of it, this Biblical verse would prohibit any sort of art work except, of course, the most modern painting and sculpture which is avowedly “non-representational” and purposely does not resemble anything “that is in the heavens above or on the earth beneath.”

However, this general prohibition of representing actual objects in art is immediately delimited by the laws in the Talmud, Avodah Zarah 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, later codes (see especially Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh 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 dec-orations of birds and flowers (although 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 (eleventh 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 threedimensional, 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.

More directly in relation to the question asked here as to setting up the bust of the rabbi, is the 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 Megilah 29a, Avodah Zarah 43b, and in the letter of the Gaon Sherira (tenth century; edition Lewin, p. 72). This synagogue, which was called Shev Veyashiv (a name whose meaning is still 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 Shechinah, which follows Israel in its exile, come to rest in Babylon, the answer which the Talmud gives is that the Shechinah rests in this ancient synagogue, Shev Veyashiv. 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 Shechinah 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.

There is a further limitation to any prohibition that might arise against the plan described in the question asked. Both the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch at the end of Yoreh Deah 141 give the general consensus that what prohibition there might be would apply only to a complete statue with all the limbs, but a partial statue such as a bust is unobjectionable.

Therefore there can be no objection to a bust of the former rabbi for the reasons mentioned above. However, it would be well to consider the various cautionary moods which arose among the later scholars. If the lobby will be used as a sort of a chapel, the statue should not be put where it will be directly in front of the worshipers.