From the cloud-enshrouded summit of Mt. Sinai the warning has rung out down the generations, “You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image or any likeness…” (Exodus 20:4). We stand warned not only against idol-worship but — in the same package — against all graphic and plastic art whatever and wherever. To our great good fortune, halakha has stayed its hand and not banned all such works of art for all time, neither artists from making them, nor spectators from taking pleasure in them. But before we probe more closely into what may and may not be done let us take our probe to the arguments of the prohibitionists, for the scope of their vetoes depends not a little on the nature of the arguments they use. In the opinion of the great Maimonides (1135-1204), the grounds for the ban are, quite simply, “so that those easily led astray shall not mistake them for idols”¹ or “think that what is merely represented is real”.² In other words, the purpose of the ban is to act as a ‘fence around the Torah’, a preventive, so that the beauty of image or object shall not seduce “those easily led astray” into idolatry. Not only into the straightforward worship of idols but also into adoring the god by way of adoring his images.³

ART IS PRETENSE, DECEPTION, AND LIES
Turning to the first of the Jewish philosophers, Philo of Alexandria, (c. 20 B.C.E. – c. 50 C.E.) we are given two more grounds for the ban on the arts of painting and sculpture. Firstly, that fine art of any kind ― and how much more so when used to beautify a vessel of silver or gold ― by the very qualities of its craftsmanship awakens man’s inborn cupidity: the point of banning it being to curb this urge to accumulate and worship wealth. The biblical injunction, “Do not turn to idols…” (Leviticus 19:4) Philo interprets as saying: Do not see in riches, wealth and treasures an exalted or divine achievement and do not waste your time pursuing them.⁴ Secondly, it is also of the nature of fine art to pretend, deceive and lie: for the real it substitutes an imaginary reality of a beauty and fascination to seduce men into preferring the imaginary to the real and the false to the true.⁵
Others have found their grounds for banning fine art by inferring from minor to major: If the sages say of a man who halts his study to take pleasure in the view of a pretty tree or a handsome field, that he puts his very soul at risk (Mishna, Avot 3:7), how much more must this be true of the man whom a beautiful picture or handsome statue causes to break off his studies?⁶ In the same way beautiful illustrations in books of prayer or on synagogue walls or on the curtain covering the Ark of the Law are liable to distract men from their prayer and devotions.⁷ MaHaRaM of Rustenburg (R. Meir Baer Baruch, 1215-1293) wrote: “I have been asked if the men who illustrate books of prayer with the images of beasts and birds are right to do so, and I reply that to my mind they are not right for from looking at these forms people will turn aside from directing their hearts to their Father in Heaven” (Tosefot Yoma 44a).
General considerations ---- the threat fine art offers to a contented life or to the purity of truth or to proper devotion to study and prayer ---- lead to general prohibitions. For to general considerations it is quite immaterial what the subject or goal or idea of a work of art is, or the way it is normally used. The peril of the work is its very artistic value, its beauty and power to seduce and convince. But with the special consideration of the danger of idol-worship this is not the case: a work of art made for the cult is not the same as one made for decoration only, just as an object used, or capable of being used, for idol-worship is not the same as one having attraction neither for idols nor their worshippers. The talmudic rulings on images are motivated, declaredly, by fear of idol-worship. And despite this, the sages — and this was not their way when matters of religion were in question —  saw no reason to impose a general ban on all images of any kind, lest there even be one among them capable of being used for idol-worship, on which grounds better get far away from it and all like it to forestall the possibility of transgression by error. On the contrary, they drew nice distinctions between images carrying the smell of idol-worship and images that aroused no such fear. Did they do so from close acquaintance with idol-worship and cultic vessels⁸ or from their love of ornamental beauty, not wanting to deprive the Jewish people of the delight in beauty other than from very present necessity? ---- I do not know.

Maimonides’ Sweeping Ban
According to the Maimonidean synopsis, halakha rules as follows: “It is forbidden to make any image for ornament - even though it is not for idol-worship, for it is said: ‘With me you shall not make gods of silver nor make for yourselves gods of gold’ (Exodus 20:20): That is to say, [it is forbidden to make] figures of sliver and gold even if intended only for decoration, so that those easily led astray shall not mistake them for idols. But it is only the human form that we are forbidden to make for decoration. Thus, the figure of a human being must not be rendered neither in wood, nor plaster, nor stone, provided that the figure is in high-relief like the sculptures and figures in palaces and like places; and whoever makes such a figure is punished with lashes. But if the figure is in bas-relief or painted, such as pictures on boards or tablets or woven in tapestry — it is permitted. If a signet-ring has a human figure on it in high-relief it is forbidden to wear it. If the figure is in bas-relief the ring may be worn but not used for sealing because the impression it would make would be in high-relief.
It is also forbidden to make images of the sun, moon, stars, constellations and angels for it is written: ‘With me you shall not make …’ (Ex. 20:20), that is, you shall not make figures of My attendants who minister to Me on high; such figures may not be made even on tablets. Figures of four-legged beasts and other animals — with the exception of man — and of trees, plants, etc. may be made, even if the figures are in high-relief.” ⁹
Take note how this halakhic ruling opens with an inclusive ban: “It is forbidden to make any image for ornament…” But after the shock of the rule come the exceptions to the rule, the forms and images that, in spite of everything, are yet permitted to us. And even before the permitted forms are set out what do we learn but that even the main ruling — the ban on making any image for ornament — is in itself radically restricted, for the ban refers only to images of the human form. The fact is that in Maimonides’ mind the ban on rendering the human form was so central as to justify his own sweeping all-inclusive formulation, that decorative forms of any kind were forbidden. Man, as it were, was the one great subject of figurative art and all the rest of its subjects but figures in his retinue.

What is a Face?
Even as to “rendering the human form” there is some doubt what exactly is meant: Maimonides seems to rule that any rendering of the human form, part or whole, comes under the ban. But the talmudic verse on which his ruling is based is actually worded as follows: “[the likeness of] all faces is permitted except for the human face” (Babylonian Talmud (BT) Avoda Zara 42b) and “face” usually means the face in its usual sense, as we see from “Why are not all faces alike? To stop cheaters” (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 8:6). We may conclude then that the ban applies only to the human face or head. And it was perhaps the doubt on this point that led R. Menachem Hameiri (1249-1315) to attempt to define what a face is for our purposes. His formula runs: “ ‘Face’ — any image of a living being which carries its head higher than its body, such as man, mammals and birds — to be distinguished from any image of a living being whose head is level with its body, such as fish, snakes, dragons and other creeping things”¹⁰.
This original and surprising definition does not get us much further forward and for practical purposes its application is subject to more doubt. And even if we conclude from it that “face” refers to the whole body, we still do not know if the ban applies only to the whole body or also to any part of it. R. Asher ben Yekhiel (1250-1327) ruled that it was permitted to render the human head but not a complete figure, that it was not the human form as such that was forbidden but “only the full figure”¹¹ This far-reaching curtailment of the ban on the human form was endorsed by R. Asher’s son, R. Yaakov Ba’al Haturim (1270-1343) and thence entered no less than Yosef Caro’s Shulkhan Arukh itself as an accepted and established ruling: “Some say that there is no prohibition on [rendering] the human form…unless the whole figure, with all organs and limbs, is rendered: if only the bust or the torso is painted there is no prohibition, whether the image be a found one or [you] made [it yourself]” (Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 141:7). And R. Moses Isserles [in his authoritative extension of the Shulkhan Arukh] added the comment that that was indeed the practice followed.
Although Maimonides did not include this curtailment of the ban in his codification of halakha, there is common ground between him and R. Asher and his followers in that neither limited the ban to the human face alone, as the talmudic authority quoted above seems to require. Indeed we are told that even with respect to images known to have been used for idol-worship fragments of them could be used for decorative purposes, with the exception of a complete hand or foot, which remained forbidden “because suchlike things are worshiped” (Mishna, Avoda Zara 3:2) and it stands to reason that if parts of an idol can be put to decorative use then parts of the human body most certainly can.

We have seen that Maimonides draws a key distinction between images in high-relief and in bas-relief. While sculpted images leave no room for doubt, for by definition they are made to project, what is the status of images painted on cloth or wood or on stone or plaster walls? Maimonides gave as examples of images in high-relief “the sculptures and figures in palaces and like places” and of bas-relief images “pictures on boards or tablets or woven in tapestry”. All of the latter are considered “painted images”: from which we must infer, it seems, that where the coloring matter or other materials are not absorbed, as in painting in oils on cloth, then the image “is in high-relief” but where coloring matter or other materials are visible but absorbed, the image is considered “bas-relief”. So that not only may we not sculpt the figure of a man but we may not paint it in oils or any other non-absorbing substance.

Making Them is Forbidden, Taking Pleasure in Them is Not
Let us keep it clear in our minds that by no means is making statues and forbidden images the same as taking pleasure in looking at them: even if the statue or image may not be made, the esthetic pleasure from it is permitted, as long as it can be presented as an object of ornament alone and no indication of idol-worship can. And when can an indication of idol-worship be alleged? When “they hold in their hand any form of staff or bird or orb (Mishna, Avoda Zara 3:1) or sword or crown or ring” (BT, Avoda Zara 41b) or when they have been set up in villages and not in a city square (BT, Avoda Zara 41a), for ignorant villagers have no thought of statues for decorative purposes but are mad to set up images for worship and cult. Further, while a statue standing in a city square may be considered merely ornamental, this is not so if it stands “at the entrance to the city” (BT, Avoda Zara 40a) or holds in its hand any cultic implement.  These distinctions explain how Rabban Gamliel could take delight in a nude statue of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, standing in the bath-house at Akko where he liked to bathe. “She came into my place, not I into hers. No one had said: let us make a bath-house as decoration for Aphrodite but let us make an Aphrodite as adornment for a bath-house” (Mishna, Avoda Zara 3:4). The same principle applies to the statues of kings in many places. BT Avoda Zara 43b reports even a famous synagogue (in Nehardea) in which a statue of the emperor was erected without this causing any of the sages to cease praying there. There was nothing bad or forbidden in looking at the statue, even “in reverence” provided no thoughts of idol-worship were present.¹²
Statues are large pieces of sculpture while portrait busts, other heads and painted portraits, without regalia or setting or other trappings, are usually small. There are busts, nonetheless, made for ornamental purposes which are prohibited even so. These are “heads spouting water in cities” that is heads used decoratively on wells and fountains, or as Rashi explains it, “hollow human heads, in which a jet of water entering from behind passes through it to shoot out of the mouth”. The halakhic ruling is that no one may put “his mouth to the head and drink, because he appears to be kissing an idol” (BT Avoda Zara 12a and Rashi’s commentary). But he may, it seems, solve the  problem by taking the water into his cupped hands and drinking from them (Tosefta Avoda Zara 6:6).
Very different from Rabban Gamliel’s attitude is the standpoint of other rabbis who have thought right to explicitly proscribe even esthetic pleasure: “Inscriptions under an image or portrait must not be read on the Sabbath, and the portrait itself must not be looked at even on a weekday, for we have been told: ‘You shall not turn to idols’. And how do the Rabbis teach this? R. Khanin has said [that it means]: You shall not turn unto what you conceive in your own minds” (BT Shabbat 149a).
Rashi explicates “inscriptions under an image” as follows: ‘For instance, someone who paints on a wall a strange animal or the portrait of a person or some deed, such as David’s battle against Goliath, will then inscribe underneath: ‘This is a picture of such and such an animal or the portrait of such and such a man or woman’. The “idols” we must not turn to, says Rashi, are “desecrations” and “what you conceive in your own minds” he understands as “[gods] you make from the reasonings of your own mind and which are a desecration to you”.
The last talmudic passage cited (BT Shabbat 149a) comes from the Babylonian Talmud. The parallel passage in the Jerusalem Talmud offers slightly different grounds for the prohibition:
“ ‘You shall not turn to idols’ — that is, You shall not turn aside to worship them; R. Yehuda says, You shall not turn aside to even see them” (JT Avoda Zara 3:1).

May One Use a Portrait as a Seal?
Reading “inscriptions under images” on the Sabbath was banned out of fear “lest people read money bills” and has no bearing on our concerns here¹³; but the ban on looking at portraits even on weekdays, flies in the face of the permission granted to take pleasure in forms and images made for ornamental purposes and, as such, was questioned by the Tosafists (talmudic commentators) as early as the 12th and 13th centuries. Again, they saw no choice but to curtail the ban to images made for the purpose of idol-worship (Shabbat 149a). Maimonides too forbids reading “inscriptions under an image” on the Sabbath only and does not add any ban on looking at portraits even on weekdays¹⁴. Elsewhere, however, in forbidding the reading of the many books “written by the heathen for their worship” he does add: “and even looking at a picture of a made image is forbidden, for it has been said: ‘You shall not turn to idols’¹⁵. But this only means that Maimonides is taking “You shall not turn to idols” in its literal sense and the images not to be looked at are only those of actual idols, following R. Yehuda’s ruling quoted above: “You shall not turn aside to even see them”.
It was the custom as early as the talmudic period to sign letters and bills with a seal bearing some engraved image or portrait: others would even sign with a small drawing in place of a signature. We know that Rav signed by drawing a fish, R. Khanina (110-140 C.E.) with a palm branch, and Rabba Bar  Rav Hona (270-320 C.E.) with a boat-sail, and the whole world acknowledged the drawing as their signature. But not everyone has gained the renown of these sages and their signature-drawings. An ordinary Jew might also suddenly take a fancy to sign with a drawing instead of his name and might choose for the purpose his own portrait head. And since everyone did not have the talent for drawing that these sages clearly had and could not draw his own portrait he would take his needs to a professional portraitist to have the portrait engraved on a signet-ring or seal.
The status of these rings too was adjudicated by halakha, as we saw earlier (p.3). In the matter of defining exactly what ‘a portrait’ was, while some rabbis thought it synonymous with ‘face’, others thought it referred specifically to the portrait heads on signet-rings. 

For Pleasure No, For Instruction, Yes
Let us leave the faces and portraits of men and women and turn to non-human forms and images. We have seen that it is forbidden to make the forms of “the sun and moon, stars, constellations and angels for these are the servants of the Almighty on high” (p.3). But the Mishna tells us that Rabban Gamliel the Elder (President of the Sanhedrin in its last years before the Destruction) had “pictures of moons”, that is drawings of the moon in its different phases, set out “on a chart on the wall of his upstairs room” which he would use to interrogate unlettered witnesses to a sighting of the new moon: “Did you see it like this or like this?” (Mishna Rosh Hashana 2:8) How can we square Rabban Gamliel’s drawings of the moon, one of the servants of the Almighty (it makes no difference whether he made them himself or had them made for him) with the proscription against them? After all, not only are we forbidden to make them but even to take pleasure from them and we are also told that anyone finding objects with a sun or moon on them “should throw them into the Dead Sea”, (Mishna Avoda Zara 3:2), that is, get rid of them lest they begin to give him pleasure. The problem was solved by the rabbis ruling that pleasure was one thing and instruction another: “if for pleasure then all such forms and images are prohibited; if for the purposes of study, all are permitted (BT Avoda Zara 43b), as is it is written: ‘You shall not learn to imitate the abhorrences of those nations’ “ (Deuteronomy 18:9). You shall not learn to do like them but learning for the purposes of understanding and teaching is something else. From then on one could paint the sun and moon and constellations and stars not only to teach Jews the ways of idol-worship but also, reasoning from major to minor, for the purposes of teaching astronomy, constructing moon tables and studying meteorology, and most certainly for teaching the art of painting and drawing¹⁶. Many expressed surprise at Maimonides’ stand on the issue, for he was the only one of the great adjudicators not to permit making images of the sun and moon and the constellations and stars even for the purposes of instruction, maintaining a comprehensive prohibition admitting no exceptions. For all that, the halakhic ruling is a final one and states perfectly clearly that “for the  purposes of study, understanding and teaching - all are permitted” (Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 141:4).

Writing on the Sabbath - with Water and Powder - Is Permitted
The profession of “painter” is discussed as early as the Mishna: R. Akiba, one of the greatest of the tannas (judges and interpreters of the Law) of the post-Destruction generation, knew of them that they had “powders with which they painted in black, white and the colors in between” (Mishna Nogim 2:1) and that “painters were artists who painted decorative images”¹⁷. And let it not be assumed that they confined their work to objects and vessels, cloth and other such materials: they were mostly engaged beautifying house interiors. 
However, since wall-paintings in houses have the capacity to evoke esthetic delight the sages “who were of that generation” set down a ruling that “after the destruction of the Temple no building may be built with walls molded and painted like a king’s palace: house walls may be covered with plain plaster but a space opposite the doorway one cubit by one cubit shall be left unplastered”¹⁸. This halakha was based on the talmudic ruling that at this time, houses were not to be “plastered and molded and decorated with colored images” (BT Baba Batra 60b) All houses? - no, only newly built ones: if a man bought a house already plastered and molded and decorated “he was not obligated to strip the walls”.
On Sabbath, need it be said, painting is forbidden (BT Shabbat 103b) but the opinion has been expressed that the ban applies only to the making of a complete image, on the authority of: “Making an image with a tool comes under the ban, on the analogy of ‘striking with a hammer’, and also every case of bringing a work to completion, on the same analogy” (BT Shabbat 75b). “But where a work is not brought to completion it does not come under the ban. However, the halakha is that even a single blow with a hammer [i.e. making part of an image] comes under the ban¹⁹. Nevertheless, we have discovered one exemption from the rule which should bring some consolation to those enthusiastic artists who even on the holy Sabbath cannot find it in them to restrain their passion for painting: “Painting with bean or turmus husks does not come under the ban” (Tosefta Shabbat 11:14) (Turmus is a kind of bean: I have no idea how one paints using its husk but apparently someone managed it.) Where does this exemption come from? — from the Mishna ruling that one may write on Sabbath using “liquids, fruit juices, roadside dust or ink-drying powder or anything transient” (Mishna Shabbat 12:5). Maimonides explicates: “Writing [on Sabbath] does not come under the ban unless one uses a lasting medium, such as ink, and writes on a material that holds writing, such as leather, parchment, paper or wood; but writing in a non-lasting medium… or on plant skin or anything else which does not hold writing does not come under the ban. To come under the ban both the medium and the material written on must be of the lasting kind”²¹ What must we conclude but that both author and artist can enjoy the Sabbath as they please — provided that the imagination of the one not rise to anything higher than penning in fruit juice and the fancy of the other to an ambition more elevated than painting in bean-shells.

Man and God as Artists
For a fine summary of the halakhic status of our pleasure at made forms and images we can do no better than go to MaHaRaM of Rustenburg: “With paintings that are mere concoctions of color lacking any reality there is no fear, if only because they are not ‘in high-relief’; and I think that even Jews are permitted to make colored images without transgressing [the commandment ] ‘You shall not make for yourselves any sculptured image’ for what is forbidden is to make a complete bust emphasized in shashar [a bold red color used in ancient times] but using a mix of colors is permitted.”
Let us, as our forefathers did, conclude with some lines from aggada [ancient tales and legends]. That the sages of aggada cherished a great fondness for portraits and images of all kinds is abundantly clear. Not only did they aver that the Creator in His Glory made a portrait of Jacob in the seat of holiness (lest He forget his seed) (Numbers Rabba), but they even invented ‘the portraits of Eve’, portraits of a pure and unsurpassed beauty. These ‘portraits’ were handed down from generation to generation by the ‘great ones of each generation’ and, it was said, no matter how much beauty one of Eve’s daughters may have inherited from her, it was not to be measured and would for ever remain immeasurable except against the standard set by the great mother’s beauty, as shown in her ‘portrait’. “And the girl was exceedingly beautiful” (Avishag the Shunamite, 1 Kings 1:4) - Aggada glosses “even to the [level of the] beauty of ‘Eve’s portrait’”; “…for she was very beautiful” (Sarai, Abraham’s wife, Genesis 12:14) — “more beautiful even than Eve’s portrait” (Genesis Rabba 40).
Another portrait tale is the story of the painter commissioned by a king to immortalize his handsome countenance: Says the artist to the king: “Lord King, how can I achieve a mere painting to match so much glory?” The king replies: “Your paints are yours, the glory is mine” (Exodus Rabba 50:5). In other words, you do whatever you can with your paints and brushes and leave the matter of the glory to me.
Another saying of our sages was: When the king is in the city “people call out to him and he does something”; when he is not in the city, “his portrait is there but the portrait cannot do what the king can do”(Song of Songs Rabba).
The creation of man in the image and likeness of God has been likened to a flesh-and-blood king who has had his portrait bust carved: breaking the bust detracts from the king’s dignity; likewise, spilling human blood stains the glory of God (Mechilta, Jethro 8).
And how shall we compare a flesh-and-blood artist with the divine hand? “When a man paints a picture on a wall he does not have the power to give it spirit and breath and bowels and intestines, but when the Holy One creates one form from another and endows it with spirit and breath and bowels and intestines (BT Berachot 10a) then, as it is said, ‘there is no rock (tzur) like unto our God’ (1 Samuel 2:2) — which some read as “There is no artist (tzayar) like unto our God!”