MISC section - contents: Q We, in the community of Judaica artists, are confused about
the "kashrut" of Chanukiyot? Do they really have to be in a straight line and be
the same height? The gemara (Shabbat 23b) says that one can put two wicks into one oil cup (ner), and it can count for more than one person. However, if one puts several wicks around the circumference of a bowl and leaves it uncovered, no one fulfills the mitzva because it looks like a medura (torch rather than a flame). It follows from the gemara that when you solve the problem of looking like a medura, it is not a problem that the candles are in a circular position (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 671:3,4, that this is also so for one who is lighting more than several candles according to the number day of Chanuka). How does one ensure that there is not a problem of medura? Several rishonim say that it is sufficient that there be a finger's breadth between the wicks, but others require that the wicks should be in different cups (see Beit Yosef, OC 671). The Rama (671:4) is even more stringent. He says that even if the wicks are in different cups, they should still not be in a circular configuration because it could still look like a medura. The Magen Avraham (ibid.:4) extends this to a zig-zag pattern. This is the source of the common practice that the candles should be in a straight line. However, the Rama himself continues that it is fine to put the candles in a candelabra, because they are not only separate nerot but they are also far away from each other (see Trumot Hadeshen 105 and Pri Megadim, MZ 671:2). If so, zig-zags of different types, which are just an extension of the stringency of a circle, should not be worse than a circle. Thus, there shouldn't be a problem if the candles are far enough from each other that they do not resemble a medura by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the other "fact," that wax candles must be of the same height and the candles' bases must be on the same level, this is also perplexing. Apparently, the first source to require it is the Chayei Adam (154:10), who lived in the early 19th century. He mentions it in a matter of fact manner, when discussing the need for a straight line. It is unclear if it too is somehow related to the medura issue, or if it is for a different reason. (Maybe it's hard to see that they belong to the same lighting- but remember that according to the letter of the law, one candle per household is sufficient). Several modern poskim (Kaf Hachayim, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch) bring his opinion without arguing (the Mishna Berurah does not mention it). If an individual were to ask whether he should light a standard shaped chanukiya or a more innovative one, we would suggest that he conform to the standard practice and not try to make a point of how halachically bold he can be. But you are coming from the point of view of an artist. Most observant people who buy an artistic chanukiya use it for decoration, not lighting. A G-d-fearing artist, though, would not want to cause anyone who might use his chanukiya to forfeit proper performance of his mitzva. But one who follows the letter of the law in designing the chanukiya need not be concerned that some purchasers may not want to be as conservative on the matter as most of us like to be. Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha
sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the entire Hemdat
Yamim at www.ou.org or www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receiveHemdat Yamim
by email weekly, by sending an email to eretzhem@netvision.net.il with the
message: Join Hemdatya –Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is
partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel This is how one must rule over one’s moral qualities: Some shuls do not recite the chapter of Bameh Madlikin on Shabbat Chanuka (Shulchan Aruch). Reason: In the second Mishna of this chapter, R’ Tarfon
disqualifies all types of oil for lighting the Shabbat lamps except for olive
oil. These oils, however, are kosher for the Chanuka lights. Mentioning this
requirement would diminish the honor of Chanuka (Taz). [Ed. note: This custom is
not “popular” in “our” communities (and many communities never say Bameh
Madlikin), but is nonetheless of interest.] The Rashbam answers that it tells something very important about Yosef. He knew that he was on a dangerous mission and that his brothers hated him, but out of his love for his father and a desire to fulfill the mitzva of kibud av va’eim he went anyway. But once he made the effort and didn’t find them where his father said they would be, he could easily have gone back home and said he tried, but they were not there. Instead, Yosef persisted. He found a stranger and asked. He refused to take the easy way out – “I couldn’t find them” – and use it as an excuse to not do something he was afraid of to begin with. We need to learn from Yosef Hatzadik not to be afraid, not to
use excuses not to fulfill mitzvot. How many more American Jews would be living
in Israel today if they adopted this principle and weren’t content to find a
good excuse for not making aliya? - Joel Rebibo, Beit El • TORAH THOUGHTS as
contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's
'Torah Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah The first extant plastic representation of the Menorah that we have is the one that appears on the coins minted by Antigonus- Matityahu (40-37 B.C.E.) the last reigning king of the Chashmona'im dynasty. Similar to other plastic representations of the period, the branches are semi-circular. The Menorah is done in a stylized manner so the decorative details - cups, knobs and blossoms - so lovingly described in Parshat Terumah are not evident. The ornamen- tation described in the Biblical and Talmudic accounts of the Menorah may not be immediately obvious in the Antigonus coin, but the arms do rise to the same height and the proportions are approx. correct. The Antigonus Menorah also seems to have a small sloping base supported by legs. But the legs depicted on the above mentioned coin are problematic and the Talmudic reference does not give a number. Perhaps additional details were available to some of the Rishonim from various non- extant manuscripts and traditions which have since been lost. Rashi comments that the Menorah had a base "and three legs came out from under it." (Shemot 25:31). Rambam in his Hilchot Beit Habechirah (3:2) agrees; "It had three legs." There are many examples of representations of three-legged Menorot in various parts of Eretz Yisrael, the Middle East and Southern Europe from the Roman and Byzantine periods. One of the most famous is the mosaic Menorah on the floor of the Shalom Al Yisrael synagogue in Jericho. Three- legged Menorot have been found carved in tombs in Jaffa, embossed on lamps near the Carmel, in the ruins of Carthage, and even on chiseled stones discovered in the Great Mosque of Gaza! Obviously here was an established authentic tradition based on solid historical facts. Quite a few images of three-legged Menorot were discovered in Italy; in the Jewish Catacombs at Venossa, engraved on a tomb in Bari and even a few in Rome itself. Located in Rome, of course, is that notorious monument erected to celebrate our great defeat: the Arch of Titus. The Romans, under the Emperor Domitian, built the Arch of Titus to commemorate the sacking of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. It features a bas-relief showing Roman soldiers parading through the streets carrying the spoils plundered from the destroyed Beit Hamikdash including the Menorah. But the "Arch of Titus Menorah" - later taken as the symbol of the State of Israel - does not have a three-legged base; it has a solid two-stepped hexagonal base with suspiciously pagan- looking carvings. Is it possible that that is what the Kohanim lit daily in the Beit Hamikdash? Yet most historians and archeologists agree that the friezes engraved on Roman triumphal arches were usually very accurate because they were seen as historical documents and a pictorial record for the future. And there are also definite considerations of style and artistry which would make it highly unlikely that a Roman artist designed the base of Titus’ Menorah. The branched upper part while more or less agreeing with the Talmudic description was totally alien to contemporary Roman design and the huge base with its strange flowery shaft is vastly out of proportion. In addition the two-step base for a candelabrum is exceeding rare in Roman art, which makes it highly unlikely that this particular motif was fabricated for this par- ticular frieze. How can all this be explained? In the chaotic period when the Romans were tightening their hold on E. Yisrael, the Parthans invaded and did much damage to Jerusalem and the Beit Hamikdash. When Herod, with the help of the Roman legions, succeeded in making himself master of the country, he presided over a ruined capital and a despoiled Temple. This helps explain his building mania. When Herod restored the Beit Hamikdash and turned it into one of the architectural wonders of the ancient world, he added many pagan-Roman touches; most notorious, the infamous gold eagle placed over the Temple entrance. The message was clear; here Rome is master. When Herod restored the Beit Hamikdash, it is quite possible he repaired the Menorah which may have been damaged by the Parthans. But as a political statement, he would do it in a Roman style. And the substituting of an outlandish base for legs would not necessarily Halachically invali- date the Menorah! "The omission of one decorative cup invalidates the others (and the Menorah); the omission of one blossom invalidates the others, the omission of a decoration of one kind invalidates the others (Menachot 28b). Nothing is said about the lack of legs invalidating the Menorah! And the ornamentations embossed on the base? Herod embossed Roman eagles similar to the one he positioned on the Beit Hamikdash entrance. And it must be remembered that according to our own tradition eagles (and lions) were placed on the curtains which separated the Heichal from the Kodesh Hakodashim. The sea-monsters or dragons are particularly instructive. The sea-monsters embossed on the base of the Menorah have smooth necks. Only images of dragons with Tzitzim - hair, fringes, spikes etc. - are forbidden to be made. (Avodah Zara 43a). One can almost picture Herod's "religious expert" standing by his side and whispering into his ear what he could and what he could not away with. But no one was really fooled. While the "improved" Herodian Menorah stood in the Beit Hamikdash and after the Destruction was paraded through the streets of Rome and later forever immortalized in stone, everyone remembered what the Menorah was supposed to look like. Samples of Jewish art have been unearthed all over the eastern Mediterranean from the Roman and Byzantium periods. Many of them feature Menorot. Surprisingly, most of them appear with the traditional three-legged base. They do not appear with the massive embossed double hexagonal base even in Rome where the Herodian Menorah carved in stone was constantly before their eyes. May our Kohanim soon be ZOCHEH to light the real three-legged Menorah in the rebuilt Beit Hamikdash. Catriel Sugarman gives illustrated lectures on the Beit
Hamikdash and related topics. He can be reached at (02) 652-7531 or by email:
acatriel@netvision.net.il.
Catriel is in the process of writing a book entitled: Yosef, so close to his destination, loses his way. He could easily have turned back. Yet, like his father before him, he is confronted by an "Ish" - an angel in the guise of man (Targum Yonatan) - or, perhaps, by his conscience. This man directs Yosef to Dotan, a place whose name is associated with the perversion of justice (Rashi). Undeterred, Yosef heads on... Why, when any servant would have sufficed, does Ya'akov send Yosef to inquire of the flock? Why is Ya'akov's elevated name Yisrael invoked when Yosef is sent on his way? And why does the Torah tell us that Yosef left from the Valley of Hevron when the city is situated atop a mountain? As we know, this was no ordinary mission. The depths of Hevron
imply that Yosef's journey was the beginning of the fulfillment of Hashem's
revelation to Avraham, buried in the Cave of Machpela. Only Yisrael, whose name
symbolized the covenant with Hashem, could so have imperiled Yosef. And only
Yosef Hatzaddik, so committed to the dream, could be the one to respond to the
call with "Hinneni" - 'Here I am'. [The Parshat Vayeishev Homepage]
|
