B"H

Quote: "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."

Aharon, Shalom!

As far as Rambam's drawing is concerned, illustrations are not always meant to be taken literally. Sometimes they stress only a general idea. In our case, Rambam was simply illustrating that branches projected equally from a central shaft, and were built with nodules, &c. Keep in mind, too, that Rambam never saw the Menorah. On the other hand, those who built the "Arch of Titus" had indeed seen the Menorah.

Sincerely,
David

It seems that the depiction of the menora on the arch of Titus cannot be an accurate depiction of the menorah built by Moshe Rabbeinu. The Torah describes the menora as having "gevi'im, kaftorim and perachim", and they are all notably absent in the depiction on Titus' arch.

B"H

Dear Peretz,

Welcome to the GY. As for your statement, I think it only underscores the truth of what people say, viz., that a man sees only what he wants to see. I call all members of this forum to witness the facts. Let every man judge for himself. The picture of the relief shown in the aforescribed link, shows its "givi'im" (גביעם). They are bowl-like structures at the top of each branch of the seven-brached candlestick. The relief was partly damaged, so some of these "bowl-like" structures appear to be broken. The same "givi'im" would have carried the pure, beaten olive-oil.
The picture of the relief also shows its "kaftorim" (כפתורים). They are the rounded nodules, or knops, built towards the center of each branch. They appear to be separated by grooves.
As for the "perachim" (פרחים), or flowers, it would appear that these were more intricate and smaller in design, and embossed on either the knops themselves, or the lower part of the central shaft where it begins to widen as it tapers to its base. It is hard to determine precisely what represents the flowers in this picture, since we are talking about a relief which has undergone the effects of time, as seen by its chips and broken-places, and general wear. Perhaps one would have to visit Rome to get a close-up view of the same.

Sincerely,
David

Wasnt there more than one Menorah during the time of the story of Chanukah, To replace the golden Menorah which had been stolen,they made a Menorah

with iron and coated it with zinc or tin./from wood.
later when they could afford it they made a Menorah of silver and finally after awhile they were able to make one of gold.

maybe the design could differ because ther was more than one, maybe one was different from the others in designs?

Dear David,
Thank you for the warm welcome.
However, the pasuk Shmos 25:33-34 explicitly says that there were 3 gevi'im on each branch and 4 on the center stem. The picture definitely does not show more than one bowl per stem. Furthermore, Rashi there says that the gevi'im were purely decorative and did not serve to hold the pure oil. That was the purpose of the neiros.
Regarding the kaftorim, the following pasuk says that there was a kaftor at the meeting point of each branch with the main stem. No such protrusion is visible in the picture of Titus' arch.
Regarding the perachim, It is again explicit there that they were both on the main stem and also on the individual branches. None of this is at all visible in the picture.
Of course none of this proves the contrary that the menora had diagonal branches, just that the arch of Titus is not a conclusive proof of the exact structure of the menora. It could be that the sculptor did not even see the menora himself.

Shimon,
The gemora in Menachos says that only a menora made of gold requires "gevi'im, kaftorim and perachim". Therefore, it is posible that the menora depicted is one of the other ones you mentioned. I can't imagine that from a stone scupture it is possible to determine if it was ment to depict a golden menora or one made of a different material.

Peretz

B"H

Peretz, Shalom!

The description given of the Menorah (Shemos 25: 33-35) would still not present a difficulty with us. The Menorah which was made by Moses was stored away by the prophet Jeremiah shortly before the destruction of the first Temple. This is affirmed by several sources, though not all sources agree as to where, exactly, was the place of its storage. The Tent of the Convocation (אוהל מועד) was stored away with it, as also the ark of the covenant (ארון הברית). Some say that they were taken into Babylon; others say they were placed in an underground vault on the Temple Mount; while others say they were placed in a cave in one of the mountains of Mount Nebo in trans-Jordan (eastward). Since that time, they have never been retrieved by the people.

The Menorah which was used at the time of the second Temple, and which is shown in the relief at the "Arch of Titus," was a different Menorah, and not the same one built by Moses. We do, indeed, find references in the Writings that there were several lampstands (besides the main lampstand) that were placed by king Solomon in the holy sanctuary. This is all one explanation.

You wrote: "Regarding the perachim, It is again explicit there that they were both on the main stem and also on the individual branches. None of this is at all visible in the picture."

Still, there is no proof here, for the reasons stated in my previous post. The relief obviously shows wear in certain places, besides being broken in other places.

We can also rectify what appears to be a "discrepancy" between the biblical account and the picture of the relief by saying the following: The bowl-like structures (givi'im) served basically as two functions: One, to hold the receptacles containing the oil at the apex of each branch. This seems to be obvious by the "bowl-shaped" design at the top of each branch. Two, to give the appearance of bowls in the curved branches projecting from the central shaft of the Menorah. This, too, seems to be obvious by the groove-shaped rings insculped in each branch, which gives the clear impression of some "bowl-like" structure. Hence: givi'ah. The number of "bowls" seems to have been lost, though, by what appears to be grooves dividing each bowl. It's still all very speculative. At any rate, the building of the "Arch of Titus" coincides with a time when men still saw, with their naked eye, the Menorah taken as booty from the ransacked city of Jerusalem. This relief, in my opinion, is still more reliable than any other drawing which exists today.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Originally posted by שמעון זאב:
Wasn't there more than one Menorah during the time of the story of Chanukah, To replace the golden Menorah which had been stolen? They made a Menorah with iron and coated it with zinc or tin./from wood. Later, when they could afford it, they made a Menorah of silver and finally after awhile they were able to make one of gold. Maybe the design could differ because ther was more than one, maybe one was different from the others in designs?

Shimon,

This is the first that I've ever heard about the theft of the Menorah by the Grecians. It's highly probable, but do you have a source?

David

David,
First of all, the gemora Menachos 28 says that any menora made of gold must also have kaftorim gevi'im and perachim. So, even if the menora depicted on Titus' arch was not the one made by Moshe Rabeinu it should have had them. Secondly, Rashi in chumash says that the bevi'im were tapered like goblets and not round like bowls.
Regarding Shimon's mention of the stolen menora, the source is also the gemora menachos 28.

quote:

Originally posted by Peretz Moncharsh:
David,
First of all, the gemora Menachos 28 says that any menora made of gold must also have kaftorim gevi'im and perachim. So, even if the menora depicted on Titus' arch was not the one made by Moshe Rabeinu it should have had them. Secondly, Rashi in chumash says that the gevi'im were tapered like goblets and not round like bowls.
Regarding Shimon's mention of the stolen menora, the source is also the gemora menachos 28.

Thank-you, Peretz. My readings from Meseches Menachoth have been primarily in what concerns the profession of a scribe (Mezuzoth, etc.), and the making of the Tzitzith.

The Yemenite Midrash Ha-Gadol (Parashas Behaalosekha) says that it is permissible to make the Menorah used in the Temple sanctuary from substances other than gold, such as silver. This, then, could also explain why (in your opinion) there are no "flowers" or "buttons" on the Menorah shown in the relief. Yet, considering the effects of time on that relief as I have already stated, it is still highly probable that the Menorah depicted in the picture was of gold and had, both, "flowers" and "buttons." The relief shows clear signs of wear, and of something that resembles effaced images. It would only be possible to know this for certain by examining the relief from up-close.

As for "gevi'im" being tapered into goblets, and not shaped like unto "bowls," this is pure semantics. Most chalices that I know of are round in shape. Whether they taper, or do not taper, this still fits the description of "bowl-like structures," especially before that tapering begins.

David

quote:
"As for "gevi'im" being tapered into goblets, and not shaped like unto "bowls," this is pure semantics. Most chalices that I know of are round in shape. Whether they taper, or do not taper, this still fits the description of "bowl-like structures," especially before that tapering begins. "

Rashi Shemos 25:31 writes that the gevi'im were long and narrow, not round.

quote:

Originally posted by Peretz Moncharsh:

Rashi Shemos 25:31 writes that the gevi'im were long and narrow, not round.

Rebbe Peretz,

Two persons sharpen each other's intellect, and I thank-you for maintaining this discussion.

The Gemara in Menachoth 28b says that the "gevi'im" were made like unto Alexandrian glasses (כוסות אלכסנדריים). Have you ever seen an Alexandrian glass from the period of the 1st and 2nd Century C.E.? I certainly have not.
The same Gemara says that the "kaftorim" were made like unto Cretian apples.

From the description that you give, based upon Rashi (Old French: madernes), it would appear that the "gevi'im" were shaped like unto beakers. Rashi goes on to say there (Shemos 25:31) that these "gevi'im" were situate on the branches of the Menorah themselves; viz., three branches to each side, and the central shaft. The Talmud (ibid.) says that there were a total of twenty-two "gevi'im" on the Menorah, and a total of eleven "kaftorim."

Twenty-two divided by six gives us three, with a remainder of four. If we place two "gevi'im" on the central shaft, with a Cretian apple in its center, and three "gevi'im" on each of the two adjacent branches, divided at random by Cretian apples and flowers, and four "gevi'im" on each of the lower branches, divided at random by a Cretian apple and flowers, we are then able to see that the relief of the Menorah (shown in the URL link) would have met very easily the description of the Menorah used in the Temple, and without the designers of that Arch ever having studied our holy books!

From Rashi's description of the "gevi'im," it would appear that they are the ring-like structures shown in the picture. They are, indeed, narrow and long, resembling a plum where it tapers outward from a common line. I particularly call your attention to the ring-like structure at the lower, left-hand branch of the Menorah as shown in the picture of the relief.

All this would tend to support the view that the Menorah depicted in the relief was indeed of gold, and not of some other substance. (I stand corrected, here, that the "gevi'im" were not the "bowl-like structures" at the apex of each branch.)

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham