1,988
edits
Drawing or Sculpting Forbidden Images: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Drawing or Sculpting Forbidden Images (view source)
Revision as of 20:01, 6 April 2020
, 6 April 2020→Human Images: photography and wax
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) |
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) (→Human Images: photography and wax) |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
Another facet of Lo Taasun Itti prohibits producing images of humans for even decorative purposes if they protrude,<ref>Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 141:7)</ref> as the word Itti is darshened to be read Oti - "Do no create Me."<ref>The Sefer Chinuch 39 explains that we are all created with Tzelem Elokim - not that we have Hashem's body literally, but that our intellect stems from him. Rabbeinu Bechayeh (Shemot 19:20) quotes the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 1:1 who says similarly, and the Ritva (Rosh Hashanah 24a) explains that Oti is a refence to the vision of Hashem that Moshe Rabbeinu saw in his Nevuah. The Shach (Yoreh Deah 141:21) notes this, as well. Some (see Rabbeinu Yehonatan and Nimukei Yosef cited in the footnotes to Sefer HaChinuch ibid) write that Oti is a refrence to Moshe Rabbeinu.</ref> | Another facet of Lo Taasun Itti prohibits producing images of humans for even decorative purposes if they protrude,<ref>Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 141:7)</ref> as the word Itti is darshened to be read Oti - "Do no create Me."<ref>The Sefer Chinuch 39 explains that we are all created with Tzelem Elokim - not that we have Hashem's body literally, but that our intellect stems from him. Rabbeinu Bechayeh (Shemot 19:20) quotes the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 1:1 who says similarly, and the Ritva (Rosh Hashanah 24a) explains that Oti is a refence to the vision of Hashem that Moshe Rabbeinu saw in his Nevuah. The Shach (Yoreh Deah 141:21) notes this, as well. Some (see Rabbeinu Yehonatan and Nimukei Yosef cited in the footnotes to Sefer HaChinuch ibid) write that Oti is a refrence to Moshe Rabbeinu.</ref> | ||
# The prohibitions of construction and possession only apply to whole images of humans, also known as a "Partzuf", not partial ones.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh Deah 141:7). See Mabit (vol. 2 Yoreh Deah 35) and Shach (Yoreh deah 141:32) who read Tosafot as disagreeing with this principle.</ref> That said, the Poskim debate the definition of partial. Most argue that "Partzuf" means the whole body<ref>Rosh (Avodah Zarah 3:5), Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 141:7)</ref> and further debate that even omitting or removing a finger or limb suffices,<ref>Beit David (Yoreh Deah 74), Chatam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 6:6), Yechave Da'at 3:64, Yabia Omer (vol. 10 Yoreh Deah 58:6)</ref> while others argue that half the body must be removed, not just a minor appendage.<ref>Kisseh Eliyahu (Yoreh Deah 141:7), Rav Pe'alim (vol. 4 Yoreh Deah 10). Rav Ovadia (Yabia Omer vol. 10 Yoreh Deah 58:6) argues that their read of Shulchan Aruch is not correct and the Halacha follows the Beit David.</ref> Others argue that "Partzuf means" any figure that has a fully etched out face.<ref>Ritva (Avodah Zarah 42b), Samag (Lavin 22) quoted by Maharshal, Perishah (Yoreh Deah 141:37), Taz (Yoreh Deah 141:15). Shach (Yoreh Deah 141:32) says that one is stringent is praiseworthy. The Maharit YD 35 argues that we should follow the Samag and brings a proof from Tosfot Yoma 54b.</ref> This has relevance to coins with faces minted on them.<ref>Pitchei Teshuvah (Yoreh Deah 141:10) quotes She'elat Yaavetz 170 is who is very strict based on his readings of the aforementioned Rosh, Avnei Yashfeh 1:151</ref> However, if the image is only of one full side of a human (known by some as "profile"), it is permissible according to all opinions.<ref>Ben Ish Chai (Shanah II, Masei 10), Halichot Olam vol. 7 pg 285, Masei 4-5, Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 141:2, 7)</ref> | # The prohibitions of construction and possession only apply to whole images of humans, also known as a "Partzuf", not partial ones.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh Deah 141:7). See Mabit (vol. 2 Yoreh Deah 35) and Shach (Yoreh deah 141:32) who read Tosafot as disagreeing with this principle.</ref> That said, the Poskim debate the definition of partial. Most argue that "Partzuf" means the whole body<ref>Rosh (Avodah Zarah 3:5), Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 141:7)</ref> and further debate that even omitting or removing a finger or limb suffices,<ref>Beit David (Yoreh Deah 74), Chatam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 6:6), Yechave Da'at 3:64, Yabia Omer (vol. 10 Yoreh Deah 58:6)</ref> while others argue that half the body must be removed, not just a minor appendage.<ref>Kisseh Eliyahu (Yoreh Deah 141:7), Rav Pe'alim (vol. 4 Yoreh Deah 10). Rav Ovadia (Yabia Omer vol. 10 Yoreh Deah 58:6) argues that their read of Shulchan Aruch is not correct and the Halacha follows the Beit David.</ref> Others argue that "Partzuf means" any figure that has a fully etched out face.<ref>Ritva (Avodah Zarah 42b), Samag (Lavin 22) quoted by Maharshal, Perishah (Yoreh Deah 141:37), Taz (Yoreh Deah 141:15). Shach (Yoreh Deah 141:32) says that one is stringent is praiseworthy. The Maharit YD 35 argues that we should follow the Samag and brings a proof from Tosfot Yoma 54b.</ref> This has relevance to coins with faces minted on them.<ref>Pitchei Teshuvah (Yoreh Deah 141:10) quotes She'elat Yaavetz 170 is who is very strict based on his readings of the aforementioned Rosh, Avnei Yashfeh 1:151</ref> However, if the image is only of one full side of a human (known by some as "profile"), it is permissible according to all opinions.<ref>Ben Ish Chai (Shanah II, Masei 10), Halichot Olam vol. 7 pg 285, Masei 4-5, Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 141:2, 7)</ref> | ||
# Dolls and toys that are full images of humans may be purchased even if they protrude, because some say the chashad (concern people will suspect one) of worshipping human images no longer applies, plus everybody knows that dolls are not worshipped in general, they are not made in a permanent way, and they are "mevuzim" since they are thrown around and get dirty with play. The same goes for selling them.<ref>Yabia Omer (vol. 3 Yoreh Deah 8, vol. 10 Yoreh Deah 58:6 page 372), Yechaveh Da'at 3:64, Halichot Olam (vol. 7 pg 281, Masei 3), Mekor Chaim 265:7, [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=52140&st=&pgnum=161 Binyan Av 1:37] based on Nachal Eshkol 3:50, Maharit YD 35, Pri Hasadeh 3:38, and Netsiv (Emek Shaylah 57:3).</ref> However, some recommend ruining a limb or part of the face, such as the nose.<ref>Shiurei Beracha (Yoreh Deah 141:2), Nehar Mitzrayim (Hilchot Avodah Zarah 2), Teshuvot veHanhagot 1:804, Shevet Halevi 7:134:1, Avnei Derech 6:112</ref> Some even permit manufacturing them, as well.<ref>Rav Ovadia (Yabia Omer (vol. 3 Yoreh Deah 8) originally prohibited manufacturing them, but then seems to have retracted and permitted manufacture as well (Halichot Olam vol. 7 pg 281, Masei 3). See also , [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=52140&st=&pgnum=161 Binyan Av 1:37].</ref> | # Dolls and toys that are full images of humans may be purchased even if they protrude, because some say the chashad (concern people will suspect one) of worshipping human images no longer applies, plus everybody knows that dolls are not worshipped in general, they are not made in a permanent way, and they are "mevuzim" since they are thrown around and get dirty with play. The same goes for selling them.<ref>Yabia Omer (vol. 3 Yoreh Deah 8, vol. 10 Yoreh Deah 58:6 page 372), Yechaveh Da'at 3:64, Halichot Olam (vol. 7 pg 281, Masei 3), Mekor Chaim 265:7, [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=52140&st=&pgnum=161 Binyan Av 1:37] based on Nachal Eshkol 3:50, Maharit YD 35, Pri Hasadeh 3:38, and Netsiv (Emek Shaylah 57:3).</ref> However, some recommend ruining a limb or part of the face, such as the nose.<ref>Shiurei Beracha (Yoreh Deah 141:2), Nehar Mitzrayim (Hilchot Avodah Zarah 2), Teshuvot veHanhagot 1:804, Shevet Halevi 7:134:1, Avnei Derech 6:112</ref> Some even permit manufacturing them, as well.<ref>Rav Ovadia (Yabia Omer (vol. 3 Yoreh Deah 8) originally prohibited manufacturing them, but then seems to have retracted and permitted manufacture as well (Halichot Olam vol. 7 pg 281, Masei 3). See also , [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=52140&st=&pgnum=161 Binyan Av 1:37].</ref> | ||
# This prohibition applies to oragami, as well.<ref>Avnei Derech 6:113</ref> | # This prohibition applies to oragami, as well.<ref>Avnei Derech 6:113</ref> | ||
# It is permitted to draw a two dimensional drawing of a person, therefore, it is permitted to take a picture of a person.<ref>The Ramban Avoda Zarra 43b s.v. dakshinan holds that it is forbidden to draw a two dimensional image of a person. However, the Rambam Avoda Zara 3:11 holds that it is only forbidden if it is three dimensional. That is also the opinion of the Rosh Avoda Zara 3:5. Shulchan Aruch 141:5 codifies the opinion of the Rambam.</ref> | |||
# Due to the Halachic debate as well as Kabbalistic concerns, when photography first became widespread, many Jews took a strict stance except when necessary or if it was a partial image,<ref>See Darkei Teshuvah (Yoreh Deah 141:35) who writes that both Rav Yaakov Emden and Rav Yonatan Eibeshitz were machmir not to allow people to draw their images even though people would benefit from seeing their face, photographs of even gedolim pictures are terrible, and that one should stay away. This is especially prohibited given the view of the Ramban and Ritva that even flat images are prohibited. [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/795424/rabbi-yonatan-emmett/better-to-take-your-picture-before-postmortem-photography-lehalacha/ The Mahari Azsod famously did not allow anyone to take his picture]. This feeling is echoed by Rav Ovadia Hedaya ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=960&st=&pgnum=240&hilite= Yaskil Avdi (vol. 2 Kuntress Acharon, Yoreh Deah 11]) who instructed a community in Poland whose leader wanted to have all of the kollel member's pictures taken to ensure only those who are identifiable and attending receive their stipends. He agreed that those who do not wish to have their picture taken should not be forced to forgo their stringent custom. The Ben Ish Chai (Shanah II, Masei 9 and Rav Berachot (Maarechet Tzadi, page 130b)) writes similarly that it is permitted according to the letter of the law, but for Kabbalistic reasons one should not be meikel.</ref> but over time that stringency has faded away with only some especially righteous individuals not allowing their picture to be taken. Nowadays, the universal practice is to allow one's picture to be taken and to take pictures of others, especially if the images are not of the whole front or back of the body.<ref>Nehar Mitzrayim (Hilchot Avodah Zarah 3). Yabia Omer (vol. 4 Yoreh Deah 22:3, vol. 11 Orach Chaim 53), Yechave Da'at 3:63, Halichot Olam (vol. 7 pg 282, Masei 4), Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 141:6), Teshuvot veHanhagot 3:263. Rav Ovadia argues that the Ritva was discussing dyed/painted images, because they protrude slightly, but even the Ritva would permit photos, as they are completely flat. He also testifies that the Rabbanim in Yeshivat Porat Yosef were lenient, except apparently Rav Ovadia Hedaya who was missing from a certain group picture. See Shevet HaLevi 7:134:5 who is unsure if a photo is the same as adam that's not protruding, because it happens on its own and Minchat Yitzchak 10:72 who thinks it's obviously prohibited to photograph the sun.</ref> | |||
# It is prohibited to construct a wax figure in the image of a human, but one may visit a wax museum provided the figures were produced by non-Jews. If they were made by Jews, though, some Poskim forbid it due to the Chillul Hashem of religious people coming to see items created in sin.<ref>Teshuvot veHanhagot 3:263, Avnei Yashfeh 1:151 explaining a ruling of Rav Elyashiv</ref> | |||
# One could justify possessing such a human image if it is placed in a public venue, such as a synagogue or cemetery. Although relying on that leniency is discouraged by many,<ref>Chatam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 6:4) see also ibid 6:6. See Beit David Yoreh Deah 75.</ref> poskim cite it to permit on to display a manikin in a store window,<ref>Az Nidberu 8:59 relying on the Chochmat Adam that there is no chashad of Adam nowadays</ref> but many disagree and only allow a bust but not a full manikin.<ref>Halichot Olam (vol. 7 page 285, Masei 4-5), Yalkut Yosef (Yoreh Deah 141:2, 7). Nevertheless, since we're discussing matters of Issurei Deoraita, the Ben Ish Chai (Shanah II, Masei 10) recommends being Machmir.</ref> | # One could justify possessing such a human image if it is placed in a public venue, such as a synagogue or cemetery. Although relying on that leniency is discouraged by many,<ref>Chatam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 6:4) see also ibid 6:6. See Beit David Yoreh Deah 75.</ref> poskim cite it to permit on to display a manikin in a store window,<ref>Az Nidberu 8:59 relying on the Chochmat Adam that there is no chashad of Adam nowadays</ref> but many disagree and only allow a bust but not a full manikin.<ref>Halichot Olam (vol. 7 page 285, Masei 4-5), Yalkut Yosef (Yoreh Deah 141:2, 7). Nevertheless, since we're discussing matters of Issurei Deoraita, the Ben Ish Chai (Shanah II, Masei 10) recommends being Machmir.</ref> | ||
# Some say one would have to give up his life ([[Kiddush Hashem]])) rather than violate this prohibition.<ref>Kol Mevaser 1:14 writes that creating a protruding image of a human is a Biblical prohibition of Lo Tasun Itti which is a detail of Avoda Zara. Therefore, he writes that one should give up one's life to avoid violating that prohibition. He cites the Minchat Chinuch 39. He also cites a story in Josephus (Antiques of the Jew v. 18 ch. 3 n. 1) about a town that opposed the Cesar's decree to put up flags with his image on them and were killed because of that.</ref> | # Some say one would have to give up his life ([[Kiddush Hashem]])) rather than violate this prohibition.<ref>Kol Mevaser 1:14 writes that creating a protruding image of a human is a Biblical prohibition of Lo Tasun Itti which is a detail of Avoda Zara. Therefore, he writes that one should give up one's life to avoid violating that prohibition. He cites the Minchat Chinuch 39. He also cites a story in Josephus (Antiques of the Jew v. 18 ch. 3 n. 1) about a town that opposed the Cesar's decree to put up flags with his image on them and were killed because of that.</ref> | ||
