It helped clear up some of the confusion I had regarding the prohibition against Asher's art. It also seemed as though Asher interacted with a lot more people (Jewish and non-Jewish), and, although it was still told through Asher's point of view exclusively, these interactions made the world more tangible and accessible.

The second book is a lot more narrative in it's, well, narration. The first book seems to be pure gut emotion that relays a story.

He's still subtle though. I'm only about eighty pages in but I wonder if Devorah was allowed to marry such a controversial figure not only because it was Paris, but because she was pretty old to be marrying.

And Asher has softened a lot. For the bulk of the last book he was pretty critical of his Uncle and that hasn't come up at all... and I don't think it's just because of his death.

I think Devorah was allowed to marry Asher because (spoiler) her parents were dead, and her surrogate parents (her aunt and uncle) were the parents of an artist (Max), though not as controversial as one. Also, there is a point make about Asher's daughter that, although she is Ladover, she is also French.

I think the fact that the artisitic tradition is such a part of French history and tradition means there may be different attitudes toward art, even in the French Ladover community. That is, I believe, part of the reason the Rebbe sent Asher to live in France.

I got the impression that, when Rivkeh was sick, Asher's uncle was suggesting that Aryeh consider a divorce from Rivkeh. I returned the book to the library and don't have it, but I recall a lot of phrases like "The boy needs a mother," "You need to continue your life," etc. I wish I could remember it better. I think Uncle Yitzok was suggesting that Aryeh go to the Rebbe about that possibility, which is an extreme situation I think would definitely warrant the consultation of one's spiritual leader.

I didn't get that impression at all. I just looked back at that passage, and the argument there really seems to be about whether or not to go to the Rebbe to ask for advice or blessings. Yitzchok says that their father once went to the Rebbe when he was having problems, and that plenty of people go to the Rebbe when they have a cold, and Aryeh responds, "I'm not such people." The conversation about how Asher need a mother and the "You need to continue your life" statements was when Asher's Aunt Leah was talking to his mother.

Hmm. I may need to get the second book.

There are Hasidim who will literally ask the Rebbe what color to paint their house, or what kind of car to buy. Aryeh shows that its possible to be devoted to the Rebbe and still make your own decisions, even important ones.

I found it interesting when Asher first visits Jacob and Anna is there, that she immediately tells him "art is not for people who want to make the world holy." Then Jacob echoes her sentiments telling Asher that no religious Jew has ever been a great painter. It almost seems like they're warning him as well as challenging him to become that great painter without losing his faith.

It's also ironic that Anna would say the pursuit of art is not about making the world holy considering the fact that a great deal of the art discussed in the book was created by Christian artists with the intention of doing just that.

It's also ironic that Anna would say the pursuit of art is not about making the world holy considering the fact that a great deal of the art discussed in the book was created by Christian artists with the intention of doing just that.

Ironic yes, and from a Hasidic (and really from a Jewish) perspective, wouldn't Anna's statement makes sense, not despite Christian art, but because of what it is as its core?

I am not very far, yet (I do have it and have been trying to catch up, but life isn't cooperating), but help me with Anna's view. Is the following a fair way to deconstruct what could be behind it? Because if so, I don't blame Anna for thinking that.

Christians believe/claim they worship the same G-d as Jews--the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But from the Jewish perspective, Christians don't worship the same G-d, or at the very least, from the Jewish POV, Christians have attributed to G-d, acts and words the Jews do not accept as being from G-d.

At the root of it, in Jewish thought, doesn't it have to be that Christians have accepted a (from the Jewish POV) false Messiah? What's more, Christians say that the one G-d became flesh--came as the messiah, Himself. Isn't a human incarnation of G-d, fairly hard to reconcile to Jewish thought? So much of Christian art is representative of the incarnation in one way or another. From the Jewish perspective, it is false. What would it matter that the Christian artists were inspired to make the world holy with their work? In essence, isn't the Christian representation of this human incarnation of the one G-d blasphemy? Wouldn't it seem profane (not just when a Hassid paints crucifixions, but when even a gentile does), and really, must equal or at least not seem far off from idolatry, right? The Christians are trying to bring holiness into the world via the representation of something that, at its core, must seem profane to Jewish people.

Then, if we consider the atrocities that Jewish people have suffered in so-called Christian lands??? Oy. So religious art, because so much of it is Christian, is far from holy. It's brought something (from the Jewish POV) false into the world, and that false thing is sacred to some of the same people who have persecuted Jewish people, for ages.

If I'm even close, no wonder she wouldn't think art a holy pursuit.

Christians believe/claim they worship the same G-d as Jews--the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But from the Jewish perspective, Christians don't worship the same G-d, or at the very least, from the Jewish POV, Christians have attributed to G-d, acts and words the Jews do not accept as being from G-d.

Actually most Jews do believe that Christians (and Muslims) worship the same G-d. But you're right about Jews not subscribing to the acts and words attributed to G-d in the New Testament. Just as most Christians don't subscribe to the acts and words attributed to G-d in the Book of Mormon.

At the root of it, in Jewish thought, doesn't it have to be that Christians have accepted a (from the Jewish POV) false Messiah?

Well put more simply, if one religion is right, by definition the other ones are wrong to some extent. This does not preclude one viewpoint from respecting alternate viewpoints without subscribing to them.

What's more, Christians say that the one G-d became flesh--came as the messiah, Himself.

I was under the impression that at the outset, many Christians believed that Jesus was a prophet and the messiah but that he was not the son of G-d or G-d Himself, while many others believed he was. Is it universally accepted among Christians now that Jesus was G-d?

Isn't a human incarnation of G-d, fairly hard to reconcile to Jewish thought? So much of Christian art is representative of the incarnation in one way or another. From the Jewish perspective, it is false. What would it matter that the Christian artists were inspired to make the world holy with their work? In essence, isn't the Christian representation of this human incarnation of the one G-d blasphemy? Wouldn't it seem profane (not just when a Hassid paints crucifixions, but when even a gentile does), and really, must equal or at least not seem far off from idolatry, right? The Christians are trying to bring holiness into the world via the representation of something that, at its core, must seem profane to Jewish people.

Just because Judaism doesn't agree with the Christian view of Jesus, it doesn't make Christian art work blasphemy or profane. Certainly a Hasid painting crucifixes is distasteful to his community and would be deemed inappropriate, but not idolatrous. And Asher's family is more upset about the persecution done to Jews under the auspices of Christianity and the cross, and not so much the borrowing from another religion aspect.

And Anna is not an observant Jew and doesn't seem to have any affinity towards any religions. So her statement that art isn't about making the world holy isn't really a reference to Christian art being profane. To me it seemed dismissive of any artistic motives that differ from doing it for the sake of the art itself.

I was under the impression that at the outset, many Christians believed that Jesus was a prophet and the messiah but that he was not the son of G-d or G-d Himself, while many others believed he was. Is it universally accepted among Christians now that Jesus was G-d?

At the outset, yes, and there were a lot of debates and schisms over that issue. I would say that it's now been more or less settled in that direction as a matter of theology, but it's not quite that simple on the ground. Most people, I'd say, have sort of a dual notion - they believe in the 3 in 1, but also conceive of G-d and Jesus as individual entities.

Most people, I'd say, have sort of a dual notion - they believe in the 3 in 1, but also conceive of G-d and Jesus as individual entities.

Sooooo many schisms over this one in the West.

In the East, however, the Orthodox churches were content to consider it a mystery and just looked at us funny while we freaked.