I have been offered a statue of a non-kosher animal (a dog). Are there issues
with placing this on a shelf in my living room or by the fireplace? As far as I can
see, there are no religious connotations that come with the statue. Are there
avodah zara considerations given that it is a statue rather than a painting?

I recall my grandfather being at my great-uncle's home one Shabbos afternoon, and his draping a newspaper
over a brass peacock that my great-uncle had as a fireplace ornament. He referred to it
as "Your Uncle Mordy's idol," and put the newspaper over it before davening Mincha. The statue that I have
been offered is the size of a toy dog (about a foot high), and so would stick out if placed by our fireplace.

Indeed there are.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v336/mel...animals0001.jpg

Key word is "statue", not "non-kosher".

What's the difference between a statute and a toy -- that one is for playing with and one is for looking at? When you buy your kids this toy do you have to throw out the non-kosher animals?

A few things. First of all, in terms of hilchot Avodah Zarah, it has nothing to do with kosher vs. non-kosher. [Some communities have issues with children seeing images of non-kosher animals - that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with anything mentioned in Shulchan Aruch].

There is a hierarchy of problematic images, with humans way at the top of the list (along with images of heavenly bodies such as the sun, moon, stars, and perhaps zodiacal images as well), and the other three beasts [eg. lions, which makes a parochet with an image of a lion in shul somewhat problematic, also a nesher and a shor]. But other animals, be they kosher or non-kosher, are less problematic. So a shor, which is a kosher animal, is more problematic than a dog, which is non-kosher.

So the halachot of animals, regardless if they are kosher or nonkosher, are less problematic than those 4 specific animals [humans, lions, nesher, and shor]. But the Devil is in the details, so the poskim discuss if these images are problematic only in 3-D or in relief, and if they are problematic only if they are full body or what. It's complicated and depends whom one asks.

Dolls which are 3-D full body humans, are something that should be way at the top of the forbidden list. That's why Ruchama Shain's doll had its nose chipped off by her dad in All for the Boss.

In any event, there are many poskim who are lenient with regard to children's toys because they are not treated carefully and are clearly not objects of worship, as evidence with the abuse many toys receive. Many of the major recent and contemporary poskim deal with this because 1. it's seemingly an issur d'orayta and 2. so many people do it regardless.

The Yechaveh Daat [R. Ovadyah Yoseph] has a bunch of interesting teshuvot on the topics. In Volume 3, siman 62 deals with a parochet in shul with an embroidered lion, siman 63 deals with whether it's permitted to photograph people, and siman 64 deals with children's dolls.

I'm a little confused . . . but didn't the flags of the shevatim have pictures of animals on them?

Yes. But 2 dimensional images are far less problematic than 3-D statues. Secondly, that's possibly a gezeirat ha-katuv sort of thing.
A painting of a dog is permissible even according to most of the poskim who rule that a 3-D dog is problematic. [Although a painting of a human is more problematic than a painting of a dog].

[Again, I'm talking strictly from a hilchot AZ point of view, ignoring the separate issue some communities have with images of nonkosher animals which is a different topic].

And how about a weather vane that looks like a rooster?

Are birds different than animals in this case?

And what about animals that don't exist like dragons and unicorns?

Birds are the same as animals. A weather vane that looks like a rooster I suppose would be problematic for those who rule stringently regarding 3D animals. I assume those poskim would require that the rooster be visibly disfigured in some way such as by knocking off part of the beak or something.


Interesting question. I have no idea but I assume they would be problematic as well.

I think the image of "drako" is mentioned specifically in Talmud and poskim too.

Unicorns don't exist ?

You really belive that a tachash is a unicorn?

Those are extinct actually, but why do you find that so implausible ?

For one thing, R. Abba quotes R. Yehudah on shabbat 28a as stating that the tachash is a kosher animal, which would exlcude a hoofed unicorn.

That's right. The question, however, is if a darkon mentioned in Avodah Zarah 3:3 is a dragon or not.

You're actually wrong, because there are multiple animals which have been historically identified as a unicorn, some of which are kosher animals.

Thank you. I'm sure it gives you no shortage of pleasure to say that.


However, perhaps I wasn't clear. The question was if the unicorn is a plausible identification of the tachash and if someone is necessarily incorrect if she rejects identification of the tachash as a unicorn. According to the opinion that a unicorn is a horse-like creature with a single horn, and the opinion that the tachash is a kosher animal, it's unlikely that a unicorn is a tachash. There are certainly other opinions, but if someone rejects that a unicorn is a tachash, that someone would certainly have a basis for doing so. My point was to support Goldfish - that her view that a unicorn is not a tachash is not inconsistent with Jewish values.
Yes, some have suggested, for instance that the unicorn of legend is more goat-like with cloven hoofs than horse-like. Or is an oryx, or other kosher animals. I'm well aware of these opinions. The question still remains, however, if the tachash is this goat-like creature either given other "simanim" of the tachash in Chazal literature which may possibly exclude that identification as well. The point, however, is that Goldfish has a leg upon which to stand by rejecting identity of the tachash as a unicorn.

Anyway, if you identify a tachash as a unicorn of any type, kosher or non-kosher, you have a problem since Rashi identifies a tachash as a "teisson" in Yechezkeil which is Old French for badger. And I'm sure you're the last person who would want to contradict Rashi.

There's a very nice chapter on the subject, by the way, in R. Slifkin's Sacred Monsters http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Monsters-Nata...n/dp/1933143185 which attempts to clarify some of the opinions regarding identity of the re'em and the tachash and whether either are reasonably a unicorn.

But truth be told, at the end of the day, we will probably never know the identity of the tachash with certainty until Eliyahu Ha-navi heralds arrival of Mashiach, may his identity be revealed speedily in our days.

I get less pleasure out of it than you do with false humility and spewing forth hundreds of baseless ideas every day based on psychotic delusions/episodes, and incredibly detailed fantastic mental constructions and personal archetypes which you derive from general ignorance and stalk-trolling internet fora (including one for mothers!) and blogs.

Well, going beyond your gratuitous swipe and strawman (including something about your mythical OPS and you'd have a hattrick), Rashi isn't the "final word" on identifying animals anyway. Furthermore, in your rush to 'retcon' your previous post, you forgot to look at Rashi on Shmos 25:5, and רא"ם there.

For people that care, I think wikipedia has a good summary of the possibilities, plus מראה מקומות.

That's actually reasonably accurate. Except for the part about stalk trolling a forum for mothers. Assuming you're speaking of imamother.com, I don't go on that site. Not on principle, it just doesn't interest me. And anyway, what I assume are the good parts are restricted to members, and I can't join since I'm male. I'd also amend "hundreds of baseless ideas every day" to "scores".
But I don't want to nitpick since the substance of your post is reasonably accurate.

By the way, while we're on the topic of this thread, would you mind critiquing post #6 above which was the substantive post of mine in this thread?

Well, outside of making a paroches with animals on it, the zodiac, or images which are in fact used for avodah zarah, I do not think its is complex. The Rambam wrote:
Other Rishonim who seem to endorse this view are the Ran, Mordechai, Rashba, and Shiltei Giborim. The Shulchan Aruch and the Levush copy the Rambam's words nearly verbatim, although the Levush adds mountains, rivers, etc. and says that these items are not problematic because they are not worshiped as avodah zarah. The Shach explicitly supports this view, as well, while the Taz points out that it's problematic to have these images in a synagogue.

Given all this, one is inclined to say that the כה"ג is a daas yachid on this matter. Not a big surprise, considering the Darkei Teshuva brings plenty of unusual opinions, since the purpose of that sefer was to be a guide to הוראה.

Of course, I hope the OP has actually asked a real rav in real life, and is not relying on what internet men on the internet have to say.

As a side question - what if any is the [Talmudic-Rishonic, maybe Zoharic or Acharonic] source of differentiating between imagery of kosher and non-kosher animals ?