While searching around for an avatar, i got stuck on a question, that maybe someone could helpmout with. i hope this isent foolish, but in 2 differant avatars the 2 tablets were drawn differantly, one rectangular and the other picture rounded tops. is there any significance in these differances or just a product of chance or artistry?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dr,

Avatars
The square tablets are the way the tablets are described in the talmud.
The round at the top tablets are the result of Michaelangelo's influence on the popular conception of the tablets.

Aryeh Shore

Thank you. but i cant understand, if the talmud, as you say, makes them square why would jewish organizations, such as agudath yisroel, draw them rounded?

quote:

Originally posted by dr:
Thank you. but i cant understand, if the talmud, as you say, makes them square why would jewish organizations, such as agudath yisroel, draw them rounded?

What can I say. Michaelangelo had a lot more influence on agudath yisrael than the talmud. Judging from the passover hagadah, up to fourty years ago, most artists used weren't jewish. You can see this in many jewish ceremonial objects (how did the besamim - spice - box become a castle?) In the last ten years ago we see new synagogues with the square form and some even write the letters in the ashurite form rather than the square letters. The switch from ashurite to square letters took place in the time of ezra which is sometime after the torah was given.
My favorate is how a lion became a flea. For some strange reason the Septiguint translate Aruv (one of the plagues as fleas) although all jewish commentators translate it as wild beasts like lions. When I was young the haggadot had a picture of fleas for the plague. However, all modern hagadot show wild beasts.

Aryeh Shore

how about the menorah, is it the same story? if i remember correctly artscroll chumash on rashi depicts the menorah with straight (diagonal) braches and in their stone edition with rounded branches. can you shed light on this differance please.

Well, there is an argument concerning the shape of the menorah. Rashi generally holds it was with straight, diagonal branches while the Ba'alei HaTosafos hold that it was round.

Incidentally, when a prominent Rabbi was granted a visit to the Vatican, he spotted a Menorah that looked exactly as the Ba'alei HaTosafos described it, round and all...

Thats fasinating. when did this visit to the vatican take place, and who was the fortunate Rabbi. How did he gain such accsess?

You don't have to go to the vatican to see that the menorah was round. It is depicted in the arch of titus in the forum. The problem is the one depicted in the arch has a square base which led many artists to depict it as such. That the menorah had three legs is depicted clearly a wall engraving in the "burnt house" in Jerusalem.
There is nothing in the Vatican. The story is of the Rabbi who entered the Roman treasury and saw the zitz, a band of gold the cohen gadol wore on his head. As related in the gemara in succot, in spite of what he saw, the other Rabbis did not accept it and said the tzitz did not appear as he said.

Aryeh Shore

Although i would have to agree with Aryeh that there probably was no such visit to the vatican (sounds more like the Arthur Doyle story to that effect (although he wrote it about Sherlock Holmes and not a Rabbi)), i dont see the basis for the assumption that the menorah was rounded. Indeed, Rashi (Shemot 25:32) as well as a picture hand drawn by the Rabmam indicate the the Menorah was in fact Diagonal. (as for the Tosfot mentioned above, i think it is a common misconception and i havent yet seen that such tosfot acctually exists. (Yair, if you know where it is please provide the sorce for the benefit of us all.)
Besides for the aforementioned problems with the Menorah from the arc, the artist/s may well have depicted other candelabras from the Temple and surronding areas, that were made similar to, but also stricly differant than the Holy Menorah (for halachic reasons). The original post about the Luchot compliments this idea.
Regardless of the reasons, in light of clear direction from Rashi and the Rambam (and lack of any dissenting torah opinions)we would have to conclude tht the menorah was acctullay straight.

quote:

Regardless of the reasons, in light of clear direction from Rashi and the Rambam (and lack of any dissenting torah opinions)we would have to conclude tht the menorah was acctullay straight.

This very technical and I am not sure how much people want to know but the argument goes something like this
All of the rishonim (like menochot 87b) depicted the menorah round and none of them bring the Rashi as a problem.
The renewed interest in straight menorahs came with the publication of the original drawing of the Rambam which shows a straight menorah. However careful reading of the arabic shows that the Rambam clearly is making a sketch with a ruler to illustrate the position of the katorim and does not intend an accurate portrayal.
We have hundred of pictures of menorot some from the time of the destruction of the temple. The earliest show a round bottom of the kaneh becoming straight. No one has a diagonal menorah.


Aryeh Shore

It is abit techincal, but i trust most of the readers should be able to understand the basics. As for the more involed details i hope that we can discuss them between ourselves, and hopfully others will contribute.
I checked Menochot, as you said, but i was unfortunatley not able to find what you were reffering to. There is a disscusion on 98b, which comes with a picture. However the picture is clearly not that of the rishonim, (perhaps of some artist), for a number of reasons,
1. The picture (with rounded braches) is drawn in Rashis commentry, but Rashi clearly declares the braches straight in his pirush on the torah.
2. The same picture apears in the commentry of the rambam, indicating it is obviuosly the insertion of the printer rather then the drawing of any scholar.
3. the Rambams (recently discovered) hand drawn picture was drawn with straight branches.
If you could please direct me the the specific picture your reffering to, i would be grateful.

The rambam does write, as you say, that the drawing is not an acurate depiction, but it is a strech of the imagination to say that he drew the braches straight even tohugh they were rounded. What the Rambam most probably meant was that his drawing was not to scale, but it is accurate in major points such as straight or rounded branches. (the circles in the picture were drawn with a compass, which could have easily drawn round braches, had the Rambam felt that was their shape.)
This could all be considered speculation, but the Rambams son wrote that his father was of the opinion that the branches were straight! That pretty much settles the Rambams opinion.
Although most menorahs have been drawn with rounded branches (perhaps as the luchos have been drawn with rounded tops - unlike the clear teaching of Chazal), R' Kasher in Torah Shlema (vol. 22, appedix 32) cites incidents of ancient gravestones drawn with straight branches.
I am left with the same question i was at the end of the previous post, why insist the menorah was rounded in opposition to the opinion of Rashi and the Rambam?

the picture appears in R. Kapach Parush of the Rambam on the Mishneh. Incidently R. Kapach felt it necessary to redraw the Rambam's picture.
We have the Rambam and Rashi and hundreds of coins and pictures from the time of the temple and a few before the temple which dipict something else.

In this particular discussion every argument (e.g. did R. Avraham the son of the Rambam, actually hear it from his father or just surmised it.) has a counter argument. Since there were many menorahs, I think we can say in this case, everyone is right.

R. Kapach did raise one interesting point. Why do we use the crown of the King of England for keter torah.

Aryeh Shore

as i see this post is pulling away from my origanal question, which is great, i thought it could do with a new, more appropriate name.
please keep un the discussion.

Aryeh: Fair Enough!

Wishing all a Kosher and Happy Chag, and as the Midrash realates, just as the jews of eygpt were redemmed in the merit of them keeping their jewish tounge, dress and name with bending or changing to the host culture, so to nowadays by restoring things to jewish traditions, and not the way non-jewish culture has given them to us (Michelangelos Luchot, Tituses Menorah (an isreali emeblem) etc.) may we to be meritirious.

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
In this particular discussion every argument (e.g. did R. Avraham the son of the Rambam, actually hear it from his father or just surmised it.) has a counter argument.

Sorry, I disagree. If R. Avraham the son of the Rambam, a great talmid chacham, writes so clearly--and he (and Rashi) also knew about the coins etc., then that's far more authoritative and final than any coins, or alleged Vatican visits.

In any case, to read a sophisticated discussion of this issue, see here: http://chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1562

The round menorah is based on the depiction of the jews going into golus on the arch of titus. This is a depiction done by a goy and a goy that hated and did horible things to the jews. the picture of the menorah is based on the Rambam's drawing - the drawing of someone who wrote a sefer of halacha. for those of you that would like to see the picture from the rambam here it is.

sorry posted that before i was finished.
here is the picture of the arch of titus.
another point is that remember the bais hamikdosh was a tremendous structure that was built at a time when candle/oil light was used as a way of lighting a place. even if you want to argue that the depiction on the arch of titus is absolutly accurate who sais that it's of "the menorah". there must have been many menorahs in the bais hamikdosh that where there just to provide light (something that the menorah was specificly not there for). The rambam on the other hand specifies that his drawing of "the Menorah".

B"H
This past Shabbos, we read about the Menorah (i.e. the seven-branched Lampstand). Since it was asked on this thread about the correct shape of the Menorah, we have found the following:

1) The relief on the wall at "the Arch of Titus" in Rome depicts a scene of Roman soldiers carrying away the spoils of the Second Temple, in particular, the seven-branched candlestick, or candelabrum.

2) A drawing in a book of one of the greatest religious exponents and commentators, known as "Kol-Bo" (a student of R. Aharon of Lunil, author of "Orchos Chaim") shows that the Menorah had an octagonal base, similar to that Menorah which was insculped in the wall at "the Arch of Titus" in Rome.

3) By the aforesaid accounts, we learn that the lampstand (Menorah) had a double, octagonal base (eight sides) built all around in the form of a step. The lower base was identical in design to the upper base, only larger in circumference. Each facet of the octagonal base was made with two vertical stiles and two horizontal rails; a top rail and a bottom rail, resembling a protruding frame set against a sunken panel. This said panel seemed to have had some intricate design insculped within it.

3) The Menorah was a solid piece of gold, as it is written: מִקְשָׁה תֵּעָשֶׂה הַמְּנוֹרָה. (Shemos 25:31)

4) By an oral-tradition, the Menorah stood 18 handbreadths high, or approximately, 1 meter and 62 cm., or about five feet and four inches, (Four fingers = 1 handbreadth. Each finger is estimated at 2.25 cm.) This measurement does not include the step-like platform upon which it rested.

5) In overall dimensions, the width of the Menorah was 2/3 that of its height. The lower base was just as wide as the most extreme part of the branches.

6) The central shaft of the candlestick, or candelabrum, bore a lamp which was kept alit always, and from its fire were the other candles lit. This central lamp was called the "Ner Ma'ravi," i.e. "the western-most candle." This name was applied to it because of the reasons we shall presently give.

7) The Talmud (Menachos 98b) carries a dispute between Rabbi El'azar and Rabbi Shimon regarding the position of the Menorah. Rabbi El'azar says that it was positioned in the antechamber of the Temple Sanctuary, running east and west along its south wall. Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, says that it was positioned in the antechamber &c., running north and south at its south wall. The Jewish historian, Yoseph Mathiah, a priest of Aaron's lineage who lived during the latter period of the Second Temple, says that the Menorah was situate obliquely within the antechamber of that edifice to the G-d of our fathers. (see: Antiquities, Book III, chapter VI, vs. 7). This accounts for why the central shaft was considered closest to the west.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

B"H

Those wishing to see a picture of the Menorah (as shown by the relief in the "Arch of Titus") may click into the following URL Link. A picture is worth a thousand words:

http://img239.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thegoldenlampstand4iz.jpg

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Those wishing to see a picture of the Menorah (as shown by the relief in the "Arch of Titus") may click into the following URL Link. A picture is worth a thousand words:

http://img239.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thegoldenlampstand4iz.jpg

Sincerely,
David

Shalom David, if I am not mistaken - the Lubavitcher Rebbe holds in this like the Rambam who says that the Menorrah is to have straight (and not round) branches.

With regards to the luchos, he taught that they were square as well.

quote:

...The Lubavitch Rebbe gave a speech about this week's section eighteen years ago, proving beyond a doubt that the arms of the Menorah were straight and diagonal and NOT rounded as they are commonly pictured. He pointed out that this is the clear opinion of the greatest experts available; Rashi (Shmot 25:32) and Maimonides (Rambam on Mishna chapt 3 Menachos), and that NO ONE of their stature has ever disagreed with them.
http://www.ohrtmimim.org/Torah_Default.asp?id=561
...

quote:

...The generally accepted illustration of the tablets is square on the bottom with rounded, semi-circular tops. While the Written Torah, the five Books of Moshe, does not give any information regarding the shape of the tablets, the Oral Torah, which clarifies and elucidates the words of the Written Torah does give such information. And there is no indication in the Oral Torah that the tops of the tablets were rounded. Indeed, we are specifically told otherwise.
The Talmud (Baba Basra 14a) gives us the dimensions of the tablets: the length of each was six tefochim (handbreadths); width, six tefochim; breadth, three tefochim. From this alone, we see that the tablets were square at both ends (6x6 tefochim),and not rounded at one end. Furthermore, the Talmud continues to inform us that the tablets “consumed” (occupied) 12 handbreadths (6 + 6) of space along the length of the ark in which they were kept. From this we infer that the tablets took up all the space in the ark which they occupied. There were no spaces unaccounted for — as there would be if they were rounded at one end.

Indeed, logic dictates that this must be so. The purpose of the ark was only to contain the tablets. G-d, our Sages tell us, created everything for a purpose. If there was space left in the ark due to the curvature of the top of the tablets, it would constitute a violation of the above principle. There would be unutilized space, a void, useless and unnecessary.

There is absolutely no indication in any Jewish sources whatsoever to suggest that the tablets were rounded at one end. Yet, practically all Jewish organizations depict just such a representation of the tablets. The reason for this is simple: it is a carry-over from unavoidable non-Jewish influence in previous times.
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/sichos-in-english/11/27.htm