I heard an interesting question on Chanukah: There was a young girl who received an expensive American Doll from her grandmother as a Chanukah present. The family had recently learned about a rabbinic halachic concern against even keeping a human-like doll in one’s possession, based on the Torah prohibition of creating human representations, since people may suspect them of worshiping it. The family was unsure whether they were required to disfigure the doll, such as removing its nose or an ear, which would remove this concern. The doll is very expensive (starting at around $150), and the grandmother, who visits occasionally, might feel hurt to see it damaged. If this is indeed the correct halachah, she will certainly understand, but they are uncertain if this is indeed the accepted practice, as they had never heard of anyone doing so. Must they be stringent in this case?
Source For Prohibition
The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (43b) interprets the pasuk (Shemos 20:20): לא תעשון אתי – “You shall not make with Me”, as לא תעשון אותי – “You shall not make Me”, meaning that it is forbidden to craft any human form— which is the way Hashem presents Himself in nevuah.
Initially, the Gemara suggests that the prohibition applies only to creating such figures, not to keeping them if they were made by others (i.e. non-Jews). However, on this the Gemara asks from a case where Rav Yehuda had an item (a signet) made by others, and still Shmuel instructed him to destroy it due to concerns of suspicion. This proves that even possessing such an item is forbidden.
Tosfos learns that initially the Gemara understood that the reason for the prohibition is so that people do not suspect him of “lo sa’asun”, the prohibition of making human or celestial figures. However, the Gemara then answers that R’ Yehuda’s signet had a protruding image, and that it is why Shmuel instructed him to destroy it. The Rishonim explain that this was because people might suspect R’ Yehuda of worshipping it. See also Rosh there (3:5).
Room for Leniency
We see that there is a prohibition to own items which one may suspect that one is serving it as avodah zorah. Is there any room to be lenient?
The poskim bring a number of reasons why there is room to be lenient:
- The Beis Yosef (Yoreh Deah 141) quotes the Ran, who distinguishes between the prohibition of “lo sa’asun” [making the item], which applies even to mevuzin - disgraceful items, and the prohibition of possession, which applies only to mechubadin - respected items. Accordingly, one could argue that most toys - which are not a question of crafting but rather possessing - would not be an issue so long as people are not careful about throwing them on the ground, as they would then be considered mevuzin, which is permitted according to the Ran. See further in Sefer Shaarim HaMetzuyanim B’Halachah (168:2).
- The Maharit (Yoreh Deah 2:25) cites the Rambam, who states that the prohibition of “lo sa’asun” against crafting beautiful figures only applies to permanent items that might lead others to mistakenly take them for avodah zarah. However, temporary items, such as toys or educational tools, are permitted because they will not lead to such mistakes. Based on this, the Maharit writes that figures made for children’s play are permitted since they are not made for permanence. Accordingly, we may suggest that according to Maharit, it would certainly be permitted to keep these items in one’s possession, since there is no prohibition against making them either according to him.
- Additionally, some poskim wish to compare this to another heter given in the Gemara, as cited by the Rema (Yoreh Deah 141:4). The Gemara says that there is no concern for suspicion in public contexts. Since toys and dolls are mass-produced and sold to the public, and everyone knows they are not made for idolatrous purposes, it is as if the public knows about this and thus there is no issue. Although the Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim 1:60) limits this heter to items that belong to the public, and not items that are privately owned but widely known—nevertheless, in the case of dolls and toys, which are explicitly produced for public sale, we may suggest that even he would agree that it is considered “for the public.”
- Furthermore, the Chochmas Adam (85:6) maintains that nowadays, there is no prohibition against possessing human-like forms, since it is universally understood that they are not worshipped.
Many Poskim Are Lenient
Based on the reason highlighted above, many poskim are lenient. For example, in Shu”t Mitzion Tetzei Torah (Volume 1), Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl shlita permits it, as does Shu”t Chayei HaLevi and Shu”t VaYevarech Dovid (1:99).
R’ Moshe Feinstein (as cited in Am HaTorah and Rishumei Aharon, Vol. 1) rules that one may follow the Chochmas Adam’s leniency concerning dolls, without requiring disfigurement. However, he says that it is preferable that one should at least make a minor scratch. Similarly, in Masores Moshe (Vol.3, Yoreh Deah, 78), it is recorded that although the Chochmas Adam’s argument is logical, it nevertheless remains a chiddush, and one should try to be stringent. It further records there that R’ Moshe would advise those who asked to slightly damage the doll, such as removing an ear, as heard from his student Rav Shmuel Fuerst shlita.
Conclusion
Although there are several reasons that one may be lenient—they may be considered “mevuzin” (Ran); they are not made for permanence (Rambam, according to Maharit); they are generally poor imitations; the opinion of Chochmas Adam that nowadays there is no prohibition altogether—nevertheless, it is preferable that one should disfigure the doll to remove any concern. However, in a pressing situation, such as our question, where the grandmother may be insulted and hurt, one may be lenient and leave the doll intact.
(Based on a Teshuvah written by R’ Yaakov Skoczylas)
