View source for Moshe and the Luchot in Art/0

<aht-xml>

<page type="Basic">
<h1>Moshe and the Luchot in Art</h1>
<div class="overview">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The three images discussed here all display Moshe with the Tablets of the Covenant, ("לֻחוֹת הַבְּרִית") but at slightly different points in the narrative. In Reni's image,<fn>Reni (1575-1642) was an Italian Baroque painter, known for his classical style and his many religious and mythological scenes.  This painting dates to 1624 and is currently housed in  the Galleria Borghese, Italy.</fn> Moshe simply holds the tablets, while in Tissot's painting<fn>James Tissot (1836-1902) was a French painter who spent the later part of his career painting Biblical scenes. This painting can be found in the Jewish Museum, New York.</fn> he prepares to throw them in response to the sin of the Golden Calf. Chagall<fn>Marc Chagall (1887-1985) was born in Russia to a Chassidic family.  He is one of the most well-known and celebrated modern Jewish artists,  working in a variety of media from painting to stained glass.  Many of his works were inspired by his Chassidic background and relate to religious and Biblical themes.  This painting can be found in the Musée National Message Biblique Marc Chagall, France.</fn> illustrates the next moment, after the tablets have already been dropped. The three artists' depictions of Moshe vary, reflecting their different understanding of his emotions at this juncture. Similarly, their portrayals of the tablets differ, highlighting how little we really know about their shape, size, and what was written on each of them.<fn>For a thorough analysis of the use of the tablets as a Jewish symbol and how they are variously portrayed in art, see גד בן עמי צרפתי, "לוחות הברית כסמל היהדות", עשרת הדברות בראי הדורות, (Jerusalem, 1986): 353-389.</fn></p></div>
<category>Contrasting Images
	<subcategory>Reni
<p>Reni's painting is almost a portrait of Moshe. The majestic leader fills the image, his red robes contrasting with the grey clouds in the sky. He holds one of the long stone tablets against his body and lifts the other above his head. It is not clear if he is reacting to the Golden Calf, or if he is simply calling out to the nation to present them with the tablets.</p>
	</subcategory>
	<subcategory>Tissot
<p>Unlike Reni, Tissot chooses to render Moshe in action, capturing his fury at the sinning nation. Moshe stands on a rock, body arching back, as he prepares to hurl the tablets below. A second figure, presumably Yehoshua, reaches for Moshe's robes, perhaps attempting to prevent the sacred tablets from being destroyed. The scene is set, not amidst lofty clouds, but against a mountainous range. The harsh lines of the stones reflect Moshe's severe response to the Golden Calf.</p>
	</subcategory>
	<subcategory>Chagall
<p>Chagall, like the other artists, opts to portray just Moshe and the tablets without the accompanying nation.  The image is divided on a diagonal with a hint of grey-black clouds filling the left half, and a greenish mountain covering the right.  A dismayed Moshe stands on Mount Sinai, his hands held aloft in a gesture of helplessness.  At his feet lie the still intact stone tablets which have apparently dropped from his hands.</p>
	</subcategory>
</category>
<category>Relationship to the Biblical Text
<p>The artists' choices reflect certain ambiguities in the Biblical text and different possible interpretive stances:</p>
	<subcategory>One or Two?
<p>While Tissot portrays the tablets as two connected blocks of stone, Reni depicts them as two separate tablets.<fn>In Chagall's painting shown here, it is not completely clear whether the tablets are connected or not.  In several of his other images, though, they are more obviously attached.</fn> Which depiction is closer to the Biblical text? The tablets are consistently referred to as "two tablets of testimony" or "two tablets of stone",<fn>See, for instance, Shemot <a href="Shemot32-15" data-aht="source">32:15</a>, <a href="Shemot34-1" data-aht="source">34:1</a>, <a href="Shemot34-29" data-aht="source">34:29</a></fn> suggesting that they were two distinct slabs. Why, then, do Tissot and many earlier artists<fn>Interestingly, the tablets do not make an appearance in Jewish art until the 13th-14th century. G. Zarfati (see note above) suggests that this might be due to their status as a holy artifact which was not supposed to be seen, let alone drawn or sculpted.</fn> depict them as attached? This may be due to the fact that writing tablets in medieval times took the form of diptychs (a two-leaved tablet). Artists naturally worked off contemporary models, leading them to this shape.<fn>  G. Zarfati (see note above) points out that initially there were three separate artistic traditions in rendering the tablets. In Byzantine circles (via Jewish influence), they were usually depicted as a scroll, as artists looked to the Torah scroll as a model.  In Italy, they generally took the form of two separate rectangular stones, as might be deduced from a simple reading of the verses in Shemot.  It was first in French art that the connected tablets with rounded edges appeared.  Eventually, though, the French model won out, pushing other depictions to the side.</fn> Alternatively, the popular assumption that each tablet contained only five commandments<fn>See below that not all agree on this point.</fn> may have led artists to view each tablet alone as incomplete, and, thus, to join the two.</p>
	</subcategory>
	<subcategory>Throwing the Tablets
<p>In Tissot's image, an angry Moshe is about to heave the tablets down below. In Chagall's painting, in contrast, Moshe looks as if he has simply dropped the stones. What really happened? Shemot 32:19 states, "וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָיו אֶת הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר", which is commonly understood to mean that Moshe intentionally smashed the tablets.<fn>This is supported by the <i>piel</i> (intensive) form of the word "וַיְשַׁבֵּר".</fn> <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot32-19" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot32-19" data-aht="source">Shemot 32:19</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, though, suggests that upon seeing the Golden Calf, Moshe's strength left him and the tablets fell from his hands.<fn>The word "וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ", though, is difficult for Rashbam, as it connotes a throwing rather than dropping.&#160; Rashbam attempts to address this difficulty by suggesting that Moshe managed to throw them slightly away from him so as not to drop them on his feet. It is possible that Rashbam's position might be motivated by a discomfort with the idea that Moshe would intentionally destroy the handiwork of Hashem.</fn> Instead of focusing on Moshe's anger, Rashbam and Chagall highlight Moshe's frustration and disappointment with the nation.</p>
	</subcategory>
	<subcategory>Division of the Decalogue
<p>How were the commandments written on the tablets? Of the three artists, only Reni relates to the question. While many assume that there were five commandments on each stone,<fn>See, for example, this <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/haggertymuseum/3903803653/?rb=1">image</a> of the tablets by Chagall, or Rembrandt's famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_079.jpg">painting</a>. Depictions of the tablets in many synagogues atop the ark similarly tend to portray five on each slab.</fn> Reni divides the Decalogue unevenly, displaying "Honor your father..." as the first commandment on the second tablet. What are the origins of such a division?</p>
<p>The Torah actually never states how the commandments were distributed amongst the two stones, and this allows for various possibilities. According to R. Chanina ben Gamliel in the <multilink><a href="MekhiltaBaChodesh8" data-aht="source">Mekhilta</a><a href="MekhiltaBaChodesh8" data-aht="source">Yitro BaChodesh 8</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About the Mekhilta</a></multilink>, there were five on each tablet, with each commandment in some way relating to its partner on the second tablet. The Sages <multilink><a href="MekhiltaBaChodesh8" data-aht="source">there</a><a href="MekhiltaBaChodesh8" data-aht="source">Mekhilta Yitro BaChodesh 8</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About the Mekhilta</a></multilink>, in contrast, suggest that there were ten on each tablet.<fn>This position can be understood in light of what is known about covenants in the Ancient Near East, where a copy of the terms was given to each party.  If the tablets represented the written contract of the covenant between Hashem and His nation, here too, two copies are necessary. Other opinions in the Yerushalmi go as far as to suggest that there were twenty or forty on each tablet, presumably assuming that the commandments were written on the front and back of the stones, or that the stones were a cube with writing on four of its sides.</fn> Reni, here, follows the division of Augustine,<fn>Quaestionum in Heptateuchum libri VII:II:71.</fn> who has the three commandments between man and God on one tablet and the seven commandments between man and man on the other.<fn>According to Augustine, the first commandment combines "I am the Lord…" with "You shall have no other gods…", while the verse of "Do not covet..." actually constitutes two separate commands, one for the house of a fellow man and one for his wife.</fn> For elaboration, see <a href="The Decalogue – Division and Design" data-aht="page">The Decalogue – Division and Design</a>.</p>
	</subcategory>
	<subcategory>Shape and Size
<p>All three artists paint the tablets as curved on top,<fn>See above note regarding different artistic traditions regarding the curved versus rectangular shape of the tablets.</fn> but they differ in the way they envision their overall size. While Tissot and Chagall portray the tablets as a relatively small and square twosome, Reni depicts long and rectangular tablets. The Biblical text is silent on the tablets' shape and size but Rabbinic sources<fn>See the discussion in <multilink><a href="BavliBavaBatra14" data-aht="source">Bavli Bava Batra</a><a href="BavliBavaBatra14" data-aht="source">Bava Batra 14a</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>.</fn> suggest that each was a square, six handbreadths in width and length, and three handbreadths in thickness. It is not totally clear how these measurements are obtained and, in fact, the only known limiting factor is related to the dimensions given for the ark which contained them.<fn>The ark was two and a half cubits in length, a cubit and a half in width, and a cubit and a half in height.  This gives a maximum, but not minimum, size for the tablets.  As it is not clear if the two tablets were placed side by side (as assumed by the Talmud Bavli) or laid one atop of the other, many varying dimensions are possible.  There is also controversy regarding what else was placed in the ark and regarding the amount of handbreadths in a cubit, all of which affect the calculations.</fn> For more, see <a href="Ark of the Covenant" data-aht="page">Ark of the Covenant</a>.</p>
	</subcategory>
	<subcategory>Moshe's Horns?
<p>Chagall portrays Moshe with two horns on his head. These are absent from the other depictions, but are a prominent feature of many renderings of Moshe. In <a href="Shemot34-29" data-aht="source">Shemot 34:30</a>, after Moshe descends with the second set of tablets, we are told, "כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו" (Moshe's skin took on a radiant glow).<fn>Chagall is actually not illustrating this latter descent, but rather Moshe's initial descent with the first set of tablets.  The earlier verses, however, make no mention of "כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו".</fn> The conception that the verse speaks of a horned Moshe stems from the translation in Jerome's Latin Vulgate which renders "קָרַן", as <i>cornuta</i>, or horn.<fn>This is a possible translation of the noun form, קרן, which can be understood as either a beam of light or a horn. In context, though, the verse seems to be speaking of a shining countenance, not a horned Moshe. It is also possible that Jerome himself did not think that Moshe literally sprouted horns, but understood the word "horned" as a metaphor to mean glorified or strong. See <a href="Yirmeyahu48-25" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 48:25</a>, <a href="Yechezkel29-21" data-aht="source">Yechezkel 29:21</a>, and <a href="Tehillim148-14" data-aht="source">Tehillim 148:14</a> where such metaphoric usages can be found.</fn> It is perhaps surprising, though, that Chagall, a Jewish artist, would be influenced by the Vulgate, and it is possible that his source is actually Rashi's comments on the verse.<fn>It is also possible that Chagall was influenced not directly by the Vulgate itself, but rather indirectly from all of the artistic renderings which were influenced by the Vulgate.</fn> When explaining the phrase, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot34-29" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot34-29" data-aht="source">Shemot 34:29</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> also connects the word "קָרַן" to horns, writing: "because the light shone and protruded like horns." If so, Chagall is portraying shining beams, which simply appear like horns.<fn>In some of his <a href="http://glory2godforallthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/moseschagall.jpg">other depictions</a>, this is even more explicit.</fn></p>
	</subcategory>
</category>

</page>
</aht-xml>