Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman March 26, 2026 Mishpacha Magazine reports: An…
Art Attack: Was Illustrating Medieval Sfarim Wrong?
Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman
November 27, 2025
The Associated Press reports:
A 15th-century Bible which is considered one of the most spectacular examples of Renaissance illuminated manuscripts went on display in Rome on Thursday…
The two-volume Borso D’Este Bible, which is known for its opulent miniature paintings in gold and Afghan lapis lazuli, was unveiled in the Italian Senate, where it will remain on display until January 16…
The Bible, commissioned by Duke Borso D’Este, was created between 1455 and 1461 by calligrapher Pietro Paolo Marone and illustrators Taddeo Crivelli and Franco dei Russi…
[Alessandra] Necci (director of Gallerie Estense in Modena, where the book is usually kept) said Borso D’Este spent what was then an exorbitant amount of money to create the most expensive book of the time…[1]
In recent centuries, sifrei kodesh illustrated for artistic value are relatively uncommon (with some notable exceptions, including hagados, megillos, and works for children), but in the medieval era, Jews in Christian lands did indeed illustrate sifrei kodesh in a manner similar to that of the Christians. Dr. Yossi Peretz reports on a study that investigated 218 manuscripts, of which 129 (60%) were decorated in various ways, with human images, animal images, and geometric drawings via micrography:
Illustrated manuscripts of Tanach that have survived in our hands from Ashkenazi communities first appear in the 13th century. A third of them (42 manuscripts out of 129) are from this century, about 50% (65 manuscripts) are from the 14th century, and 17% (22 manuscripts) are from the 15th century. With the invention of printing, the phenomenon proceeds to disappear entirely.[2]
Some prominent poskim of the era opposed the illumination of various types of sfarim, not on fundamental grounds, but for pragmatic reasons.
R’ Yehudah Hechasid writes:
One who hires a sofer to write Mesorah notes for a Tanach should stipulate with him not to make drawings in the notes such as birds and wild animals, nor a tree, nor any image, for…and if he makes drawings, how will he see (the notes themselves)?[3]
The Maharam MeiRutenburg was asked why he does not protest against drawings of animals and birds in machzorim, in light of the Mechilta that forbids making images of domesticated and wild animals, birds, fish, and grasshoppers.[4] The Maharam responded that while in his view, such illustration is indeed improper, “for because they gaze at these drawings, they do not direct their hearts in their tfilos to their Father in Heaven,” it does not violate the issur to make images, in light of the Gemara’s dispensation to own images made by others.[5] As he later acknowledges, this is only a justification to own such works, not to make them. But he proceeds to argue that the issur to make images applies only to those that are carved and that protrude from the medium, not to flat images made with coloring agents. (The Maharam discusses additional considerations, but we shall not address them here.)[6]
A very similar teshuvah appears, unattributed, in Tosfos. The first portion of the teshuvah is almost verbatim the Maharam’s, but it sets forth another major basis for leniency even with respect to carved and protruding images: It emerges from the Gemara[7] that the prohibition is limited to certain figures—human beings, celestial bodies, and various angelic entities—and generally excludes animals and most other creatures.[8]
Both teshuvos focus on living creatures, but heavenly bodies pose a much bigger problem: The final leniency in Tosfos obviously does not apply to them, because the Gemara explicitly says that images of heavenly bodies are forbidden. And the allowance for flat images only applies to visibly three-dimensional entities like humans, of which a flat image is not considered a likeness. Celestial bodies, however, do not protrude from their positions in the firmament[9] (or at least do not appear to us to do so[10]), so a two-dimensional image of a star is a sufficiently accurate likeness to be forbidden.
In light of the above, the Taz writes:
Those who draw in machzorim, in Tfilas Geshem, pictures of the mazalos (zodiac signs) are acting improperly…[11]
But the Nekudos Hakessef disagrees:
That which he disagreed with those who draw the twelve mazalos in machzorim, is utterly incorrect, for it is obvious that it is “to understand…and to teach,” and additionally, it is not a tzurah gemurah (full-fledged drawing).[12]
The dispensation for drawings made for learning purposes is set forth in the Gemara:
MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel had the form of various moon shapes on a tablet and on a wall of his upper chamber, with which he would show the simple folk various shapes and say to them, “Did you see the moon like this or like that?”
GEMARA: But is it permitted to make such forms? But it is written, “You shall not make with me”—you shall not make images of My servants that serve Me on high (i.e., the celestial bodies)…
And if you prefer, say that it was permitted because Rabban Gamliel made the image for the purpose of study, and it is written, “You shall not learn to do [in accord with the abominations of these nations]”—but you may learn these crafts (e.g., sorcery and the making of images of the stars) in order to understand (lehavin) their nature and to teach (lehoros) their laws.[13]
The Sheivet Halevi apparently accepts the Nekudos Hakessef’s application of the lehavin ulehoros exception as normative and cites it as precedent to justify drawing the sun, moon, and stars in the context of studying Parshas Bereishis and Yosef’s dream in Parshas Vayeishev.[14]
Why the Taz did not hold that the dispensation applies to illustrated machzorim is unclear, but it should be noted that while some authorities do construe the allowance broadly, others sharply circumscribe it:
- Rav Hai Gaon limits it (in the somewhat different context of the practice of sorcery rather than making images) to “the Sanhedrin who judge capital cases, rather than us,”[15] although the Chasam Sofer,[16] and seemingly most Acharonim,[17]
- R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld limits it to where the drawing is necessary for “practical” reasons,[18] but R’ Moshe Feinstein disagrees.[19]
- The Minchas Yitzchak is very skeptical about its general applicability: “But who is the one that can say he has reached this level,[20] and is it impossible to teach without this?”[21]
[1]Nicole Winfield and Paolo Santalucia. Bible described as the ‘Mona Lisa of illuminated manuscripts’ goes on display in Rome. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/vatican-renaissance-bible-illuminated-manuscript-51dad7436cd0ecc3654341d459c5d514.
[2]Dr. Yossi Peretz, Lo Sa’aseh Lecha Fesel Kol Temunah (Dvarim 5:8), Parshas Va’es’chanan 5768, #768.
[6]Shu”t Maharam MeiRutenburg (dfus Krimona) siman 24.
[7]See Avodah Zarah 43a-b and Rosh Hashanah 24a-b.
[8]Tosfos Yoma 54a-b s.v. Kruvim detzurasa.
[9]See Tosfos Avodah Zarah 43b s.v. Veha Rabban Gamliel and Rosh Hashanah 24b s.v. Veha Rabban Gamliel. Cf. Ran Avodah Zarah ibid. (19a in Rif pagination)…VehaRambam z”l yeish lo deiah acheress; Kessef Mishneh Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 3:11; and Avodah Brurah (5781) pp. 360-61.
[10]Piskei HaRosh Avodah Zarah perek 3 siman 5. The extension of the prohibition of making images of celestial bodies to even non-protruding images is codified in Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 141:4.
[12]Nekudos Hakessef ibid.
[13]Rosh Hashanah 24a-b (and Avodah Zarah 43a-b).
[14]Shu”t Sheivet Halevi cheilek 7 siman 134 os 8.
[15]Cited by R’ Eliyahu Soloveitchik, “Aval Atah Lameid Lehavin Ulehoros,” Assia 83-84 (volume 21, 3-4) 5768, pp. 26-27.
[16]Shu”t Chasam Sofer Y.D. siman 128.
[17]The Sheivet Halevi cited above, like the sources cited in the following notes, all seem to implicitly assume that the dispensation is not limited to the Sanhedrin.
[18]Salmas Chaim (5698/5736 edition) cheilek 1 (O.C.) siman 72, and cf. ibid. siman 73 os 1 and ibid. (5742 edition) siman 297.
[19]Shu”t Igros Moshe Y.D. cheilek 3 siman 33 s.v. Vehinei kesheoseh lehislameid.
[20]The exact meaning of this phrase is unclear.
[21]Shu”t Minchas Yitzchak cheilek 10 siman 72.
Related Posts
