[Avodah] The shape of the Menorah of the Temple

[Zev Sero]

On 9/12/20 7:39 pm, Micha Berger wrote:
>> 2. (in the long IE that's published as a separate book) that the arms were
>> not arranged in a flat vertical plane, as everyone else seems to think, but
>> rather the six arms were arranged in a semi-circle behind and around the
>> seventh one, like half of a chandelier.  This is equally consistent with
>> straight arms and with curved ones.


> No need to site the picture.

What picture?


> Shemos 25:37:
>     And the qadmonim said: For one neir was in the middle, and the six
>     arranged one after the other in half-circle "chatzi agul".
> 
> Saying the half-circle is on the horizontal plane, rather than the shapes
> of the arms, is the only way to salvage the possibility of the IE holding
> the arms were straight.

It is not a "way to salvage" anything.  It is the plain meaning of his 
words.  I resent the accusation that I read it looking for a "way to 
salvage" anything.


> It could also be read as describing your standard curved-arm image of the
> menorah.

No, it cannot. He plainly says the *lamps* were arranged in a 
half-circle, not the arms.  The conventional picture everyone has of the 
menorah (*regardless* of the shape of the arms) has the lamps all in a 
line.   And the reason he gives is that the six arms should be 
illuminating the middle one, which doesn't work if they're all in a 
line.  That's why they're ranged behind it, radiating from it and 
illuminating it.  Otherwise his linking this to the pasuk "El Ever 
Paneha" doesn't seem to make much sense.   As for the shape of the arms 
he simply doesn't comment.


> As can the short IE's comment (v. 32) be read both ways. He says: agulim,
> arukhim, chalalim.
> 
> You assert that the IE means agul in cross-section. I think that's
> presuming your conclusion.

No, it is not.  It is simply reading the words.  His *whole point* is 
that they are like reeds.  And reeds are round in cross section, not in 
length.  They're pipes.  Now that implies they were straight, and that's 
very likely what he means by "aruchim", but I agree it's *possible* that 
he isn't talking about the lengthwise shape, and that in that aspect 
they weren't like reeds after all.


> We may be forced to concude that whatever rishonim may have thought
> about the appearance of the menorah in the Mishkan, in the latter part
> of Bayis Sheini they were using a menorah with curved ones.

Indeed, that conclusion seems inescapable.  I don't recall ever having 
argued against it.  I think it likely that the LR was unaware of the 
archaeological evidence, especially since most of it was discovered 
relatively recently.

His entire point in that sicha was to reject using Titus's arch as a 
source; assuming as he did that that is the major or only source for the 
rounded arms, he felt that giving it credence and basing our depictions 
on it is morally wrong.  But it seems to me from reading the text that 
he would have had no objections to a depiction of curved arms that was 
derived from kosher sources and owes nothing to that treife source.  He 
might not have agreed that such depictions are accurate, preferring to 
stick with the rishonim, but his objection wasn't based on the 
inaccuracy but on the source for it.




-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781
zev at sero.name       "May this year and its curses end
                      May a new year and its blessings begin"