MORE OF THE TORAH VIEW ON SCULPTURE
July 9, 2014Beis Moshiach presents more of the Rebbe’s correspondence with the internationally renowned sculptor, Chaim Yaakov (Jacques) Lipchitz, and others on the issue of making statues. Part 2
By the Grace of G-d
11th of Teveth, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. & Mrs. Ernest Weill
886 Alpine Drive
Teaneck, New Jersey
Greeting and Blessing:
I duly received your letter of December 21st with the enclosed reproduction of Mrs. Weill’s sculptures, which are returned herewith as requested.
Although the art of sculpture is not in my domain, I, nevertheless, take the liberty of making the following observations in connection with the subject matter of our discussion when you were here, namely, with regard to the Baal-Shem-Tov.
To be sure, an artist has the prerogative of certain so-called artistic license, and may use his imagination in a work of art representing a person according to his mind, especially where no authentic likeness exists, as in the case of the Baal-Shem-Tov, for the pictures purportedly representing the Baal-Shem-Tov are not his likeness but of another one of the Baalei-Shem. However, I can safely assume that in your sculpture you wished to represent in a symbolic way the ideological person, namely, the founder of the Chassidic movement. Hence, as we have touched upon the subject, though not quite adequately, it should be borne in mind that the soul of Chassidism is ecstasy and inspiration, and the ability to see even in simple material objects the Divine “Spark” and the Divine “Light” which is their true reality. Such ideas would be reflected, as might well be imagined, in rather refined facial features, which express a longing for the sublime together with profound inner spiritual strength, coupled with serenity and gentleness. Thus, one would imagine the Baal-Shem-Tov to be of a patriarchal type, with a flowing beard and, perhaps, disheveled locks of the head, crowning highly refined facial features, etc. I would also like to emphasize another feature which is characteristic for the teachings of Chassidism, namely, the interest in and tender care of the Jewish child, which could be personified in the Baal-Shem-Tov holding the hand of a small child. Incidentally, it is well-known that the Baal-Shem-Tov’s first activities, even before he revealed himself, was as a teacher of very young children. Of course, the sculpture may be intended only to reproduce his head or bust, without accompanying figures.
I have no doubt that you had your own reasons for choosing to personify the Baal-Shem-Tov in your particular way, and I would like to know your motivations.
In connection with the above, I am enclosing a copy of my recent message, in which there is a reference to the work of the Baal-Shem-Tov.
I send you my prayerful wishes that the change in direction relating to your work, of which we spoke, should come about in a much easier and more gratifying way than you might expect at first.
Hoping to hear good news from you,
With blessing,
By
By the Grace of G-d
12th of Adar, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. and Mrs. Ernest and Erna Weill
886 Alpine Drive
Teaneck, N.J.
Greeting and Blessing:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 28, with further reference to the subject of sculpture in accord with the Torah, Torath Chayim. You raise the question whether the traditional interpretation of the Torah should still be accepted, or should one rather go back to the source and seek another interpretation.
I believe I touched upon this topic during our conversation, but I will attempt to clarify it.
Even a cursory glance at the Torah (I mean the Pentateuch) leads one to the inevitable conclusion that together with it there came down to us also a broader explanation or interpretation, without which it would often be meaningless. Take, for example, the commandment of putting on T’fillin, which is given in the Torah in the words, “And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand and for frontlets between thine eyes.” Obviously, accompanying this written precept there was an oral explanation as to how this precept was to be fulfilled in practice, pertaining to the phylacteries themselves, to the manner of their being put on, etc. Similarly in regard to all matters of the Written Torah. Moreover, considering the profound wisdom contained in the Torah, which is conceded by all, it is surely unthinkable that it would prescribe precepts the application of which was a mystery.
From this inevitable conclusion, namely, that the precepts given briefly in the Written Torah were simultaneously expanded orally, there follows necessarily also the conclusion that those who first received this oral explanation transmitted it to their children, and the latter to theirs, and so on, from generation to generation.
Since, further, it is an historical fact that there has never been a break in Jewish history, and that despite the dispersion and exile (or because of it), there has always been a continuity in Jewish history, with many hundreds of thousands of Jews always surviving and carrying on the Jewish tradition, the authenticity of it must be accepted without a doubt, for it would contradict all common sense to suppose that anyone could have radically changed the tradition under such circumstances.
Now, to the point raised in your letter. If it is true, as stated above, that the Written Law was accompanied by an expanded Oral Law, it certainly stands to reason with greater force that the Ten Commandments, which marked the inauguration of the Torah, were adequately explained. Thus when the Torah states, “Thou shalt not make unto thyself other gods…any graven image…” the people were certainly told unequivocally what was meant by these words. All the more so, having just been liberated from Egypt, where idolatry was so widespread, and where so many different cults and idols were worshipped, idols and images of all description, in sculpture, in drawing, relief, etc., representing forms of humans, animals, plants, insects, etc., as we now know from papyri, excavations, and so on. In other words, precisely in this field there would be the most detailed instructions as to what was prohibited and what was not.
From all that has been said above, it is clear that the traditional interpretation of the Torah must be accepted as authentic, and if some detail of it seems incomprehensible, we may inquire after an explanation of it, but it is no ground for considering the interpretation itself as faulty.
I emphasize this point because the subject under discussion is an art which is connected with the basic prohibition of idolatry, and which, on the other hand, if utilized in [a] way which accords with the Torah, could have a strong impact on the emotional world of the sensitive beholder and inspire him. At the same time, it is a well-known principle of our Living Torah, that the end does not justify the means. Since the end of the art of sculpture is to evoke the highest emotions, it can best be achieved if and when the means and methods correspond in the maximum degree to the Torah.
My experience in similar situations, though not in the field of sculpture, has been to convince me that where the individuals in question have resolved to be guided by the Torah, they found their road much easier than anticipated and it has brought them more peace and harmony than they thought possible.
Hoping to hear good news from you, and wishing you a Happy Purim,
With blessing
By the Grace of G-d
11th of Nissan, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. Chaim Yakov Lipchitz
168 Warburton Ave.
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Greeting and Blessing:
I received your letter of the 27th of March, with the enclosure.
You write that there must be an outlet for special talents, including that of the art of sculpture, among Jews, and you mention the eruption of such outlets in recent generations.
It is true, of course, that such talents seek expression, but the Shulchan Aruch provides ample room for such expression, without infringement of the Torah. You, yourself, are an example of it, at any rate as far as those sculptures or reproductions of your work which I have seen. It is the duty of the Jew to recognize that his creativity and special talents were bestowed upon him by G-d. Whether or not he harmonizes such talents with the Torah, depends upon the artist himself. The same applies to every field of human endeavor, not only art, but also science. A case in point is the field of medical science, which a priori should be used exclusively for the benefit of humanity. Yet, we have seen to what depth of degradation German doctors sank during the period of German supremacy in recent years, when German doctors used their medical skill and science to devise means of torture and destruction for innocent victims, men, women, and children.
Returning to the question of sculpture, or other art, the crucial point is that of approach and attitude. If there is a recognition that such talent is a gift from G-d, Who, together with this gift, has given the instructions, then surely the proper medium of expression will be found that is consonant with the Torah, and is therefore good, both for the artist as well as for humanity at large. Having touched upon this matter personally when you were here, I am sure I need not further elaborate on it.
Approaching the Festival of Pesach, I send you and your family my prayerful wishes that the Festival of Our Freedom bring you and yours true freedom from anxiety material and spiritual, and from anything which might distract from serving G-d wholeheartedly and with joy.
Wishing you and yours a kosher and happy Pesach, and hoping to hear good news from you always.
With blessing,
M. SCHNEERSON
Your kind donation, having come at this time when our Maos Chittim (Passover relief) Fund is especially active, it was ear-marked for this cause, and may it stand you and yours in good stead.
Enclosed is a copy of my Passover message, which I am sure will be of interest to you, especially in the light of our discussion.
By the Grace of G-d
28th of Iyar, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. Chayim Yaakov Lipschitz
168 Warburton Ave.
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Greeting and Blessing:
This is to confirm receipt of your letter in which you refer to the issue of the proposed “Sculpture Park” in Jerusalem. I must confess that I was surprised to note your attitude toward this matter, and I trust that you will not take it amiss my objections. I believe you have not been fully informed on this subject.
The opposition to this project does not emanate from any particular party only, but is widespread indeed. Even non-religious circles are opposed to it. Unfortunately we live in such a materialistic world that material considerations prevail over others, so that contrary points of view are hushed up in the press.
A “Sculpture Park” in Jerusalem is quite incongruous with the character of the Holy City, which has a tradition of holiness, not only for Jews but also for gentiles, for a period of the past 4000 years. It has always been the symbol of monotheism, free from graven images in any shape or form. You surely know, as anyone else, how much blood was shed by the Jews for the preservation of this sacred status of the city when the Romans tried to make it Aelia Capitolina. Thus, even from the point of view of esthetics and art, a public display of this kind would not only be in bad taste, but a real dissonance.
I will cite the opinions of some prominent Jews on this project. These are just a few of many similar expressions, and I bring only these as no one can accuse them of “religious bias.”
These opinions were excerpted from interviews published in the weekly Panim el Panim, No. 54 (16th of Iyar, 5720):
The poet Nathan Zach:
Whether we like it or not, Jerusalem serves for very many people as an active historic symbol, which is still valid today. The basic principle of monotheism, including the ban on the graven and molten image, has in the course of generations been woven into this symbol… It is very characteristic that we who at every opportunity bring to the headlines of the press new archeological finds… shut ourselves up behind our “secularism” when we are called upon to display a little respect for our past…
(Nathan Zach, who nicknamed the project “Terah’s Park” (an allusion to the idolatry of Terah, Abraham’s father), cites the young sculptor Yehiel Shemi and others who could certainly not be called “reactionaries” who are equally opposed to the project.)
Gershon Jack, an educational authority, explains his opposition as follows:
We bring up our children to feel proud of our people and its uniqueness of tradition. These are values which have been formed over thousands of years of our history. We cannot uproot ourselves from it all. One of the centers of our national sensitivity is Jerusalem. How can we desecrate it?
David Zakkai:
A person like me, generally speaking, does not consider sculpture as a forbidden art. However, there are two compelling reasons why we should oppose the Sculpture Park in Jerusalem: a) With all our heretical views, Jerusalem is a unique city. As for me, whenever I go up to Jerusalem, the Holy City, I am overcome with emotion and never cease thinking: I am in Jerusalem! For three thousand years of its history, Jerusalem has established its peculiar attitude toward the graven image. Many Jews died, many were the rebellions and much blood was shed, all because of graven images. We must not destroy this attitude. b) A closed museum might be understood; even then – no sculptures of a christological character. But the issue is a public Sculpture Garden – to make Jerusalem a world center for sculpture. This is a violent contradiction to the whole character of Jerusalem…. Moreover, we are only a part of our Jewish people… a very substantial part, who see a transgression in this. We have a responsibility to those Jews also. The would-be benefactor should be told that not all gifts can be accepted unconditionally!
Prof. Dov Saden:
I need not call upon the honored commandment, ‘Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image’… but judging by the noisy publicity of the donor and especially the recipients… demanding to make it a central aspect of the city… Here there is room for apprehension. Jerusalem’s central character cannot be changed by an accidental collection of a stranger and strange spirit, even if he be a Jew. Its centrality comes from within and is intrinsically its own… To establish as its center a collection of statues which had been accumulated by the caprice of a pampered individual – would mean to fix the character of the city not compatible with its character…. It is not a question of attitude toward the art…. If I were asked, What could more fittingly characterize the inner aspect of Jerusalem, I would say a “House of T’Nach (Bible)” – to exhibit the Bible in all its editions, translations, exegeses in all languages….
Uri Avneri, Editor of Olam Hazeh (a radically “modernistic” publication):
I am opposed to compulsory religion of any kind. I am also opposed to hurting the feelings of others…. Were the State of Israel… to decide to create a national museum for the art of sculpture, and the exhibits were to be chosen by an authoritative body, I would welcome it (though I should ask myself whether Jerusalem is the right place for such a museum). However, what is happening here is that an alien “benefactor” who has made an impromptu collection of sculptural merchandise of third and fourth rank, has donated it to Israel, and so, quite by accident, would be created a museum of doubtful merit…. The artistic education of Israel should not be subjected to such accidental donations…. As for Jerusalem, each city has a character of its own, emanating from the city’s national and religious history. I am not sure that the Sculpture Garden fits into this character (of Jerusalem)….
The poet Benjamin Gelai:
It is a question of a monument. The monument of Jerusalem is the absence of statues in it. On no account can this be compromised… A Sculpture Garden is something wonderful, but not for Jerusalem… Jerusalem should be a center [of] science, culture, literature and any art but sculpture… This time we, secularists, understand that the religious Jews are right. It must be explained to the man (B.R.) that what he demands is the unconditional surrender of a tradition of 4000 years. He has no moral or ethical justification to insist on his condition.
The poet Nathan Alterman (in Davar):
…One need not be an extremely sensitive person – not even Jewish – to feel and recognize the degree of paradoxality…from any aspect of culture or history… it is difficult to imagine a place less suitable for such a project. Neither Jew nor gentile can ignore (the spiritual essence) of this city; certainly not force upon it such an anti-cultural and anti-artistic breach in the name of culture and art, above all.
I trust the above comments will suffice to put the matter in its proper perspective.
With the approach of Shovuoth, the Season of Our Receiving the Torah, I send you my prayerful wishes for a happy and inspiring festival.
With blessing,
M. SCHNEERSON
Since the transcription of this letter had been delayed, there appeared in the meantime my message for Shovuoth, a copy of which is enclosed. I hope you will find it interesting.
By the Grace of G-d
15th of Tammuz, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. Chaim Yakov Lipchitz
168 Warburton Ave.
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Greeting and Blessing:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 26th. Needless to say, no apology is called for in a case of a difference of opinion, as our Torah, which is called Toras Chaim, has emphasized that the minds of men differ as their faces differ. I hasten to add, however, that I sincerely hope that eventually you will also come to agree with the opinions which I have cited, and which strongly oppose the idea of a Garden of Sculptures in Jerusalem; an opposition which stems not only from the religious point of view, but also from the historical, ethical, etc.
As you surely know, this year is the 200th anniversary of the Baal Shem Tov’s completion of his life’s work. In this connection we recently published the second volume of the Memoirs of my father-in-law of saintly memory, largely dealing with the early history of the Chassidic movement and with the Baal Shem Tov’s forerunners and contemporaries. I requested the office to send you a copy, as I feel certain it will interest you.
Hoping to hear good news from you, with emphasis on good health and a happy frame of mind, two points which the Baal Shem Tov placed among the cornerstones of his system, and with all good wishes,
With blessing,
M. SCHNEERSON
MORE OF THE
TORAH VIEW
ON SCULPTURE
Beis Moshiach presents more of the Rebbe’s correspondence with the internationally renowned sculptor, Chaim Yaakov (Jacques) Lipchitz, and others on the issue of making statues. Part 2
By the Grace of G-d
11th of Teveth, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. & Mrs. Ernest Weill
886 Alpine Drive
Teaneck, New Jersey
Greeting and Blessing:
I duly received your letter of December 21st with the enclosed reproduction of Mrs. Weill’s sculptures, which are returned herewith as requested.
Although the art of sculpture is not in my domain, I, nevertheless, take the liberty of making the following observations in connection with the subject matter of our discussion when you were here, namely, with regard to the Baal-Shem-Tov.
To be sure, an artist has the prerogative of certain so-called artistic license, and may use his imagination in a work of art representing a person according to his mind, especially where no authentic likeness exists, as in the case of the Baal-Shem-Tov, for the pictures purportedly representing the Baal-Shem-Tov are not his likeness but of another one of the Baalei-Shem. However, I can safely assume that in your sculpture you wished to represent in a symbolic way the ideological person, namely, the founder of the Chassidic movement. Hence, as we have touched upon the subject, though not quite adequately, it should be borne in mind that the soul of Chassidism is ecstasy and inspiration, and the ability to see even in simple material objects the Divine “Spark” and the Divine “Light” which is their true reality. Such ideas would be reflected, as might well be imagined, in rather refined facial features, which express a longing for the sublime together with profound inner spiritual strength, coupled with serenity and gentleness. Thus, one would imagine the Baal-Shem-Tov to be of a patriarchal type, with a flowing beard and, perhaps, disheveled locks of the head, crowning highly refined facial features, etc. I would also like to emphasize another feature which is characteristic for the teachings of Chassidism, namely, the interest in and tender care of the Jewish child, which could be personified in the Baal-Shem-Tov holding the hand of a small child. Incidentally, it is well-known that the Baal-Shem-Tov’s first activities, even before he revealed himself, was as a teacher of very young children. Of course, the sculpture may be intended only to reproduce his head or bust, without accompanying figures.
I have no doubt that you had your own reasons for choosing to personify the Baal-Shem-Tov in your particular way, and I would like to know your motivations.
In connection with the above, I am enclosing a copy of my recent message, in which there is a reference to the work of the Baal-Shem-Tov.
I send you my prayerful wishes that the change in direction relating to your work, of which we spoke, should come about in a much easier and more gratifying way than you might expect at first.
Hoping to hear good news from you,
With blessing,
By
By the Grace of G-d
12th of Adar, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. and Mrs. Ernest and Erna Weill
886 Alpine Drive
Teaneck, N.J.
Greeting and Blessing:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 28, with further reference to the subject of sculpture in accord with the Torah, Torath Chayim. You raise the question whether the traditional interpretation of the Torah should still be accepted, or should one rather go back to the source and seek another interpretation.
I believe I touched upon this topic during our conversation, but I will attempt to clarify it.
Even a cursory glance at the Torah (I mean the Pentateuch) leads one to the inevitable conclusion that together with it there came down to us also a broader explanation or interpretation, without which it would often be meaningless. Take, for example, the commandment of putting on T’fillin, which is given in the Torah in the words, “And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand and for frontlets between thine eyes.” Obviously, accompanying this written precept there was an oral explanation as to how this precept was to be fulfilled in practice, pertaining to the phylacteries themselves, to the manner of their being put on, etc. Similarly in regard to all matters of the Written Torah. Moreover, considering the profound wisdom contained in the Torah, which is conceded by all, it is surely unthinkable that it would prescribe precepts the application of which was a mystery.
From this inevitable conclusion, namely, that the precepts given briefly in the Written Torah were simultaneously expanded orally, there follows necessarily also the conclusion that those who first received this oral explanation transmitted it to their children, and the latter to theirs, and so on, from generation to generation.
Since, further, it is an historical fact that there has never been a break in Jewish history, and that despite the dispersion and exile (or because of it), there has always been a continuity in Jewish history, with many hundreds of thousands of Jews always surviving and carrying on the Jewish tradition, the authenticity of it must be accepted without a doubt, for it would contradict all common sense to suppose that anyone could have radically changed the tradition under such circumstances.
Now, to the point raised in your letter. If it is true, as stated above, that the Written Law was accompanied by an expanded Oral Law, it certainly stands to reason with greater force that the Ten Commandments, which marked the inauguration of the Torah, were adequately explained. Thus when the Torah states, “Thou shalt not make unto thyself other gods…any graven image…” the people were certainly told unequivocally what was meant by these words. All the more so, having just been liberated from Egypt, where idolatry was so widespread, and where so many different cults and idols were worshipped, idols and images of all description, in sculpture, in drawing, relief, etc., representing forms of humans, animals, plants, insects, etc., as we now know from papyri, excavations, and so on. In other words, precisely in this field there would be the most detailed instructions as to what was prohibited and what was not.
From all that has been said above, it is clear that the traditional interpretation of the Torah must be accepted as authentic, and if some detail of it seems incomprehensible, we may inquire after an explanation of it, but it is no ground for considering the interpretation itself as faulty.
I emphasize this point because the subject under discussion is an art which is connected with the basic prohibition of idolatry, and which, on the other hand, if utilized in [a] way which accords with the Torah, could have a strong impact on the emotional world of the sensitive beholder and inspire him. At the same time, it is a well-known principle of our Living Torah, that the end does not justify the means. Since the end of the art of sculpture is to evoke the highest emotions, it can best be achieved if and when the means and methods correspond in the maximum degree to the Torah.
My experience in similar situations, though not in the field of sculpture, has been to convince me that where the individuals in question have resolved to be guided by the Torah, they found their road much easier than anticipated and it has brought them more peace and harmony than they thought possible.
Hoping to hear good news from you, and wishing you a Happy Purim,
With blessing
By the Grace of G-d
11th of Nissan, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. Chaim Yakov Lipchitz
168 Warburton Ave.
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Greeting and Blessing:
I received your letter of the 27th of March, with the enclosure.
You write that there must be an outlet for special talents, including that of the art of sculpture, among Jews, and you mention the eruption of such outlets in recent generations.
It is true, of course, that such talents seek expression, but the Shulchan Aruch provides ample room for such expression, without infringement of the Torah. You, yourself, are an example of it, at any rate as far as those sculptures or reproductions of your work which I have seen. It is the duty of the Jew to recognize that his creativity and special talents were bestowed upon him by G-d. Whether or not he harmonizes such talents with the Torah, depends upon the artist himself. The same applies to every field of human endeavor, not only art, but also science. A case in point is the field of medical science, which a priori should be used exclusively for the benefit of humanity. Yet, we have seen to what depth of degradation German doctors sank during the period of German supremacy in recent years, when German doctors used their medical skill and science to devise means of torture and destruction for innocent victims, men, women, and children.
Returning to the question of sculpture, or other art, the crucial point is that of approach and attitude. If there is a recognition that such talent is a gift from G-d, Who, together with this gift, has given the instructions, then surely the proper medium of expression will be found that is consonant with the Torah, and is therefore good, both for the artist as well as for humanity at large. Having touched upon this matter personally when you were here, I am sure I need not further elaborate on it.
Approaching the Festival of Pesach, I send you and your family my prayerful wishes that the Festival of Our Freedom bring you and yours true freedom from anxiety material and spiritual, and from anything which might distract from serving G-d wholeheartedly and with joy.
Wishing you and yours a kosher and happy Pesach, and hoping to hear good news from you always.
With blessing,
M. SCHNEERSON
Your kind donation, having come at this time when our Maos Chittim (Passover relief) Fund is especially active, it was ear-marked for this cause, and may it stand you and yours in good stead.
Enclosed is a copy of my Passover message, which I am sure will be of interest to you, especially in the light of our discussion.
By the Grace of G-d
28th of Iyar, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. Chayim Yaakov Lipschitz
168 Warburton Ave.
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Greeting and Blessing:
This is to confirm receipt of your letter in which you refer to the issue of the proposed “Sculpture Park” in Jerusalem. I must confess that I was surprised to note your attitude toward this matter, and I trust that you will not take it amiss my objections. I believe you have not been fully informed on this subject.
The opposition to this project does not emanate from any particular party only, but is widespread indeed. Even non-religious circles are opposed to it. Unfortunately we live in such a materialistic world that material considerations prevail over others, so that contrary points of view are hushed up in the press.
A “Sculpture Park” in Jerusalem is quite incongruous with the character of the Holy City, which has a tradition of holiness, not only for Jews but also for gentiles, for a period of the past 4000 years. It has always been the symbol of monotheism, free from graven images in any shape or form. You surely know, as anyone else, how much blood was shed by the Jews for the preservation of this sacred status of the city when the Romans tried to make it Aelia Capitolina. Thus, even from the point of view of esthetics and art, a public display of this kind would not only be in bad taste, but a real dissonance.
I will cite the opinions of some prominent Jews on this project. These are just a few of many similar expressions, and I bring only these as no one can accuse them of “religious bias.”
These opinions were excerpted from interviews published in the weekly Panim el Panim, No. 54 (16th of Iyar, 5720):
The poet Nathan Zach:
Whether we like it or not, Jerusalem serves for very many people as an active historic symbol, which is still valid today. The basic principle of monotheism, including the ban on the graven and molten image, has in the course of generations been woven into this symbol… It is very characteristic that we who at every opportunity bring to the headlines of the press new archeological finds… shut ourselves up behind our “secularism” when we are called upon to display a little respect for our past…
(Nathan Zach, who nicknamed the project “Terah’s Park” (an allusion to the idolatry of Terah, Abraham’s father), cites the young sculptor Yehiel Shemi and others who could certainly not be called “reactionaries” who are equally opposed to the project.)
Gershon Jack, an educational authority, explains his opposition as follows:
We bring up our children to feel proud of our people and its uniqueness of tradition. These are values which have been formed over thousands of years of our history. We cannot uproot ourselves from it all. One of the centers of our national sensitivity is Jerusalem. How can we desecrate it?
David Zakkai:
A person like me, generally speaking, does not consider sculpture as a forbidden art. However, there are two compelling reasons why we should oppose the Sculpture Park in Jerusalem: a) With all our heretical views, Jerusalem is a unique city. As for me, whenever I go up to Jerusalem, the Holy City, I am overcome with emotion and never cease thinking: I am in Jerusalem! For three thousand years of its history, Jerusalem has established its peculiar attitude toward the graven image. Many Jews died, many were the rebellions and much blood was shed, all because of graven images. We must not destroy this attitude. b) A closed museum might be understood; even then – no sculptures of a christological character. But the issue is a public Sculpture Garden – to make Jerusalem a world center for sculpture. This is a violent contradiction to the whole character of Jerusalem…. Moreover, we are only a part of our Jewish people… a very substantial part, who see a transgression in this. We have a responsibility to those Jews also. The would-be benefactor should be told that not all gifts can be accepted unconditionally!
Prof. Dov Saden:
I need not call upon the honored commandment, ‘Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image’… but judging by the noisy publicity of the donor and especially the recipients… demanding to make it a central aspect of the city… Here there is room for apprehension. Jerusalem’s central character cannot be changed by an accidental collection of a stranger and strange spirit, even if he be a Jew. Its centrality comes from within and is intrinsically its own… To establish as its center a collection of statues which had been accumulated by the caprice of a pampered individual – would mean to fix the character of the city not compatible with its character…. It is not a question of attitude toward the art…. If I were asked, What could more fittingly characterize the inner aspect of Jerusalem, I would say a “House of T’Nach (Bible)” – to exhibit the Bible in all its editions, translations, exegeses in all languages….
Uri Avneri, Editor of Olam Hazeh (a radically “modernistic” publication):
I am opposed to compulsory religion of any kind. I am also opposed to hurting the feelings of others…. Were the State of Israel… to decide to create a national museum for the art of sculpture, and the exhibits were to be chosen by an authoritative body, I would welcome it (though I should ask myself whether Jerusalem is the right place for such a museum). However, what is happening here is that an alien “benefactor” who has made an impromptu collection of sculptural merchandise of third and fourth rank, has donated it to Israel, and so, quite by accident, would be created a museum of doubtful merit…. The artistic education of Israel should not be subjected to such accidental donations…. As for Jerusalem, each city has a character of its own, emanating from the city’s national and religious history. I am not sure that the Sculpture Garden fits into this character (of Jerusalem)….
The poet Benjamin Gelai:
It is a question of a monument. The monument of Jerusalem is the absence of statues in it. On no account can this be compromised… A Sculpture Garden is something wonderful, but not for Jerusalem… Jerusalem should be a center [of] science, culture, literature and any art but sculpture… This time we, secularists, understand that the religious Jews are right. It must be explained to the man (B.R.) that what he demands is the unconditional surrender of a tradition of 4000 years. He has no moral or ethical justification to insist on his condition.
The poet Nathan Alterman (in Davar):
…One need not be an extremely sensitive person – not even Jewish – to feel and recognize the degree of paradoxality…from any aspect of culture or history… it is difficult to imagine a place less suitable for such a project. Neither Jew nor gentile can ignore (the spiritual essence) of this city; certainly not force upon it such an anti-cultural and anti-artistic breach in the name of culture and art, above all.
I trust the above comments will suffice to put the matter in its proper perspective.
With the approach of Shovuoth, the Season of Our Receiving the Torah, I send you my prayerful wishes for a happy and inspiring festival.
With blessing,
M. SCHNEERSON
Since the transcription of this letter had been delayed, there appeared in the meantime my message for Shovuoth, a copy of which is enclosed. I hope you will find it interesting.
By the Grace of G-d
15th of Tammuz, 5720
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mr. Chaim Yakov Lipchitz
168 Warburton Ave.
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Greeting and Blessing:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 26th. Needless to say, no apology is called for in a case of a difference of opinion, as our Torah, which is called Toras Chaim, has emphasized that the minds of men differ as their faces differ. I hasten to add, however, that I sincerely hope that eventually you will also come to agree with the opinions which I have cited, and which strongly oppose the idea of a Garden of Sculptures in Jerusalem; an opposition which stems not only from the religious point of view, but also from the historical, ethical, etc.
As you surely know, this year is the 200th anniversary of the Baal Shem Tov’s completion of his life’s work. In this connection we recently published the second volume of the Memoirs of my father-in-law of saintly memory, largely dealing with the early history of the Chassidic movement and with the Baal Shem Tov’s forerunners and contemporaries. I requested the office to send you a copy, as I feel certain it will interest you.
Hoping to hear good news from you, with emphasis on good health and a happy frame of mind, two points which the Baal Shem Tov placed among the cornerstones of his system, and with all good wishes,
With blessing,
M. SCHNEERSON
Reader Comments