- This topic has 103 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
@daasyochid. See the note at the most bottom left of the page.
He seems to be saying that the top was rounded but not the bottom of the branches.
No depiction of the menorah shows that, and more importantly, it’s against the gemara, so that can’t be what the אבן עזרא means.
מנחות כ”ח ע”ב
אמר שמואל משמיה דסבא גובהה של מנורה שמנה עשר טפחים הרגלים והפרח ג’ טפחים וטפחיים חלק וטפח שבו גביע וכפתור ופרח וטפחיים חלק וטפח כפתור ושני קנים יוצאין ממנו אחד אילך ואחד אילך ונמשכין ועולין כנגד גובהה של מנורה וטפח חלק וטפח כפתור ושני קנים יוצאין ממנו אחד אילך ואחד אילך נמשכין ועולין כנגד גובהה של מנורה וטפח חלק וטפח כפתור ושני קנים יוצאין ממנו אחד אילך ואחד אילך ונמשכין ועולין כנגד גובהה של מנורה
Also, using the same reasoning, that if the מעשה חושב and חכמת המשכן had seen the picture drawn by the רמב”ם, they would have changed their minds, you could similarly argue that had the רמב”ם seen all of the evidence, he would have agreed that it was round.
Does anyone know who wrote the אור ישראל?
“untucked shirts and beards which is a chabad reference to meshichistim”
Naaaah. Plenty of lubavitcher bochurim from all varieties have their shirts untucked. Plenty of mishichistim have their shirts tucked in. If that is your litmus test your not gonna get very accurate info.
Shishkabab, I never knew you were such a fierce chabad opposer. I mean, I knew that there are some people here that aren’t exactly fond of Chabad, but your comments completely threw me off balance.
“you are a prime example of the brainwashed propaganda spewing lubavitcher.”
Whoa, that’s vicious alright.
“I saw an article on col on a peace meeting between lubavitch and belz. Comments were so hateful “we will never forgive them” and ” when belz change their golden menorah on the aron kodesh to a chabad/rambam menorah then we will know there is peace. REALLY!!”
For the record, most comments on col are written by bored kids sitting at home looking for some interest in their lives; There are some people like that here too.
“And for the record you pointed out untucked shirts and beards which is a chabad reference to meshichistim and you tried to invalidate them as a typical chabad mindset.”
Untucked shirts and beards do not exclusively refer to meshichistim; It is a Chabad thing in general.
and not all Lubavitchers are mishichistim. (you learn something new everyday. Your welcome)I think the only one being fed propaganda here is you. Lubavitchers don’t boast about other people learning tanya or going to the Ohel as you say. We completely respect other minhagim, chasidic sects and Rebbeim outside of chabad just as it says in the Torah v’ohavta L’reiacha k’mocha.
poilishers that you see praying at the Ohel or 770, came of their own volition, whether to fundraise, or to Daven at the hailiger Rebbe’s shul. They realize and understandon their own the holiness of the Rebbe and the effect their prayers there have on them.
There was never any deal “you come Daven at our shul, we come Daven at your shul”
they chose to come there and good for them. but why do we have to go and travel to the belzer rebbe’s shul just because they came to us?think about it for a moment and then get back to me.
Litvish, we’ve had plenty of threads recently (now closed) that show that many others have had similar experiences with Chabad. It really doesn’t do you any good to keep repeating them. Maybe in other cases you can say they play the victim unfairly, but look, you started this thread, not them. Of course they’re going to defend their shittos.
I’m with Uber. I’m interested in where that came from about the first menorah being straight, but the second curved. That’s not just a Chabad thing?
RE: the shape of the menorah in 770 and around.
There can be a billion and one reasons why it was more convenient to buy a curved Menorah rather than straight.
To name a few: cheaper; was the only one left in the store; didn’t want to spend money on a menorah so they picked one up that they found lying around; there was another menorah that you didn’t notice which was straight and the curved one were to appease the people who had the minhag of having a curved one; The scatterbrained tzfatim (whom Iv’e explained are not your example of a Lubavitcher. they are a radicalized group of youth who go crazy all the time. never confuse a Tzfati with a regular Lubavitcher.) were not paying attention and they bought the wrong one etc.
Litvisherchossid, as you may have noticed, I’m not exactly a Lubavicher, but your ranting is really way over the top.
This is a barrier to achdus which noone else has to deal with until they come along.
Do you really think your incessant ranting will increase achdus?
I do know some Lubavicher chassidim, and I don’t get the impression that they’re particularly arrogant. Yes they do think their ways are correct. I don’t have a problem with that per se, except for the parts that have veered from normative Judaism.
I don’t know about “holier”, but they do probably have the best nigunim.
Litvishchosid: I am all too familiar with the Chabad/Crown Heights world. I know exactly to what you are referring, but it isn’t doing us any good to be going on about it like this. There is unquestionably a Chabad “custom” to go around telling everyone that their menorahs are wrong for being curved and that they’re based on carvings by Roman idolaters rather than the Rambam, etc. But this thread has largely done the opposite of what you probably wanted.
1) Other archeological evidence was brought up to show it’s not just the arch of Titus with round branches. This just corroborates Chabad’s argument that we’re paskening from archeology instead of Rishonim, which would be wrong.
2) By a simple count, you’ve thrown more punches on this thread than them. So, solely within the context of this thread, it’s hard to claim we’re the victims.Also, word of advice, if reading Chabad websites is what puts you in this mood, stop doing it.
“Does anyone know who wrote the אור ישראל?”
Uber,If you are referring to the above link, its a Journal (monthly or quarterly) with many contributing Rabanim, scholars , manuscripts, etc. You can find most of it on Hebrewbooks. The one I posted has two write-ups on the above topic. One is pro and one is against. (just click on the link and scroll further…)
If you are referring to a Sefer, there are few. One that comes to mind is from Rav Yisrael Salanter.
“This just corroborates Chabad’s argument that we’re paskening from archeology instead of Rishonim, which would be wrong.”
Nev,Sorry. You are misreading the posts, you should read the write-up that Daas posted in entirely .
In summary –
a) The Curved branches has been the shape that all Klal Yisrael has identified the Menorah with — for the past 2000 yrs plus.
b) There are definitely many Rishonim and Gadolei M’forshei Achronim (Ibn Ezrah, Maseh Choshev etc) supporting it.
c) The very Rambam mentioned can be interpreted in diff ways, that still does not conflict the above mesorah.
d) Archeology supports the above pshatim, the minhag and all Rishonim that uphold that it is indeed curved.
Note – if the Rambam would have been 100% clear that it is diagonally shaped you would have had a point. Now that all evidence points the other way, we assume the pshat in Rambam is not like Chabad understood.
we assume the pshat in Rambam is not like Chabad understood
How do you deal with the fact that his son says the Rambam held that the branches were straight?
“How do you deal with the fact that his son says the Rambam held that the branches were straight?”
Daas,
I too was under the same impression (as on my earlier posts…) that that is the definitely how Rav Avrhom was learning. But the above post does have some valid points. Please refer to this page:He is basically saying that “straight and not “b’alchson” does not pertain to the shape of the very branches, rather, it is to reject the pshat that says that the branches came up kind of like a Shabbos candelabrum / פמוטים / Leichter we have…
Gaon: Sorry, I should have been more specific. I did not mean that we actually ARE paskening from archeology. And, yes, I noticed that DY’s post was the correct form of rebuttal. What I was trying to say is that arguing against the Chabadniks by ONLY saying “they’ve now found coins etc. with round branches” is falling right into their trap.
Litvish: I don’t disagree with your points. And our experiences are very similar. Weirdly enough, I very recently saw that same Belz article you referenced and the comments (and it’s not a recent article I don’t think). The point is, if a less learned arbitrator saw this thread, they might think, “hm, those Litvaks really are antagonistic towards Chabad, and they really do attribute signifigance to the arch of Titus over the Rambam.”
I tried saying something in my defense but mods did not allow comment to be posted.
Trying to publicly berate the gadol hador is not a defense.
He is basically saying that “straight and not “b’alchson” does not pertain to the shape of the very branches, rather, it is to reject the pshat that says that the branches came up kind of like a Shabbos candelabrum / פמוטים / Leichter we have…
Nice.
Hey before I was walking a around ch and I saw so many menorahs in windows. (Which is very unusual) and guess what all of them were round and some even had 3 or 4 in the window
I just thought that I’d throw out there one more question, which I may have implied but didn’t actually ask:
If the 2 Batei Mikdash had different menorahs, then clearly they are both kasher, so how can one of them be “wrong”?
Actually, I was just thinking of Avraham Fried’s Menorah song (yes, a Lubavacher, no less- which mentions that we made one menorah in Moshe’s time, but it was extingushed, and we made one menorah in Shlomo’s time, and that was also extinguished. The source apparently is the Yalkut Shimoni. Why does the Midrash imply that the menorah of the first Beis Hamikdash was different from Moshe’s, that there were 2?
When describing the keilim made for the beis hamikdash in Melachim Alpeh (7:49), the pasuk says Shlomo placed 5 menorahs on the right and 5 on the left- Rashi, Metzudos, Malbim explain that Moshe’s Menorah was in the middle, with 5 of Shlomo’s on either side. Do we know what these looked like, and what happened to them?
There apparently were several menorahs in Bayis Sheini- the Yevanim plundered the one made by Ezra/Nechemia, the chashmonaim replaced it, then Hordus made a new one when he did his renovations. Did all these look alike, and were they based on Moshe’s?Winnie – It is possible that the menorah of Moshe was destroyed/taken by Churban Shilo, like I mentioned before, and the “Menorah shel Moshe”mentioned in shas as in the bais rishon means the “real”menorah, which was lit with a chiyuv (and possibly a bracha) once/twice a day.
About the menorahs in bais sheni, there were three menorahs from the time of the chashmonaim, as we see from the gemara in Rosh haShana (I don’t have a gemara with me, but I’m pretty sure it was on :כד; I’ll try to quote it but I might be off a bit) that they first made it from Shpudim shel barzel v’chipum bbaatz (sticks of iron coated/covered with tin, which sounds like it was probably straight diagonal sticks), heashiru asau shel kesef, chazar vheeshiru asauhu shel zahav.
However, it bears keeping in mind that nothing at all about the menorah is meakev other than the number of neiros (and the amount of oil in them) unless it is made out of gold.There may have also been another menorah made by Talmai, take a look at Josefus (right before the maisah of Chanukah).
There’s lots of speculation/myth as to where the keilim that Titus stole are today. What about all the other Menorahs?
“then clearly they are both kasher, so how can one of them be “wrong”?”
They are indeed kosher as we do not find anyone mentioning the shape of the branches are me’akov. See Rambam below (scroll thru all Halachos in that perek) – there is no mention at all about the shape.
http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rid=7695
The issue in concern is only the fact of how it really was in the mikdash.
Although, it is still hard to understand why the Rambam did not mention in sefer haYad how it was shaped, but in case if it would be posul the Rambam would have certainly mentioned it.@mods
Not only have you not allowed me to present my argument , but then you framed me to make as if i tried berating the gadol hador. Even my subsequent comment, explaining how the previous one wasn’t a beratement and the person i was referring to is not the gadol hador, was not posted.Mods – can you change “(and the amount of oil in them)” in my previous post to “(and the amount of oil they hold)”? Thanks
I wld post a link from only simchas butnit prob won’t be allowed. But the Shliach in Munich u see his menorah is round and in the window.
Okay, litvishe chossid we got the point: you started this thread as a subtle way to launch a surprise attack on Chabad under the mods’ noses (or was it?)
why wasn’t this topic put under the category of “rants” (because that’s all it’s turned into) ?Oh, and while you’re at it, I’d appreciate it if you could change “Josefus” to “Josephus”. Thanks again.
Uber,
Don’t forget Tosefos there:
של ברזל. הא דקרי ליה שפודים משום שלא היו גביעים כפתורים ופרחים אלא א”כ באה זהב כדאי’ בהקומץ רבה (מנחות דף כח. ושם)
As we can see it was all a beDeavod..
Speaking about the Shpidin, The Rogatchover Gaon wants to say pshat that according to the Psikta that says it was 8 shpidin, they were really not mekayim the Mitzvah of the Menorah (as per Bais ha’Bchirah) it was just the mitzvah of Hadlakah. See the two links below. He explains that they lit the Ner haHaravi every day with a fresh shpid as the first one became Tamah being that once used it has a status of a “kli”…
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40659&st=&pgnum=76
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15094&st=&pgnum=428&hilite=
Lçhorah, Titus took everything that he could get. However, take a look at the Avos D’rav Nossan about if he took the menorah. (And just because no one pointed this out yet, yes, there were eleven menorahs in bais sheni as well as bais rishon, as we see both in Yoma and Menachos).
GOAN, have you ever seen a svara for why it was covered in baatz?
(I always thought that it was because of rust, and maybe that tin rusts more slowly that iron (though it does rust as well), but lfi this Rogachover they didn’t use it for more than one day anyway)Also, the lashon of the gemara about their monetary status is a bit funny if it is talking about tumah, as it only should have been for those 8 days (although his pshat can just be an added benefit to using the shpudim).
Uber,
l’fi this Rogachover they didn’t use it for more than one day anyway”
Uber – if you read the first link Halacha Bes – he is clearly going according to the P’sikta that states there were EIGHT shpudim, “shel Barzal”.
He is basically explaining why 8 and not 7 (like the gemarah), he “quotes” the Gemorah in A”Z (43a) saying that there was “no Menorah” at the time (it is basically the same gemorah as in R”H and I figure it is his understanding as well, that according to the answer of the gemarah רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר אף של עץ לא יעשה כדרך שעשו בית חשמונאי אמרו לו “משם ראיה שפודין של ברזל that it is implying that it had no status of a Menorah – simply understood – it is saying that it really wasn’t “Etz” and was only חופין בבעץ from outside and metal on inside, and thus you are permitted to make a private Menorah out of wood )
So he says the 8 were for the purpose of the Ner haMarovi and each night a diff Shpud was used. As per the Gemarah there were only 7 not 8, hence there is a total diff pshat.
I need to read the other link again, and see the back and forth correspondence, perhaps the writer (who was a goan in his own) points out anything…
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15094&st=&pgnum=428&hilite=
No one actually knows the shape of the original menorah nor would that shape apply to the Chanukah menoras we use. In fact, the Chanukah menorah is a relatively modern invention of convenience to keep the lights in an orderly separate group. The menorah is not required to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Chanukah candles; wax or oil.
GOAN – Just making sure that we’re one the same page here, lfi the Rogachover they used 8 shpudim, one per day, as shpudim shel barzel are golmai cli machteches, which, like we see several times in the gemara in Shabbos, are not mekabel tumah until you are machshiv them (this lechora is a kasha on the Rogachover, as it is taloi on machshava, not maaisa), and therefore they were only mekabel tumah after whey were lit, and therefore wouldn’t be tamei.
I would have thought that in a pashut reading of the Rogachover that they only lit one ner, on one shpud, per night, which had a din of the ner maáravi, which was the only ner that they were mechuyav in, as there was no mizbayach. However, then the gemara in r”h is shver, as it is clearly talking about shpudim, and very clearly talking about something that has a din of a menorah (as otherwise there cannot be a problem of lo saásun iti) with 7 branches.
I would be tempted to say that the gemara and psikta are talking about 2 different maamarim, and have nothing to do with each other at all, except that the gemara sounds like R”Y misheard (read? before rebbi?) the mamar and thought that בעץ, baatz, tin, ment biéitz, with wood, and if there were 2 different maisim they could both be true, as the Rogachover’s Chanukah ner didn’t have a din menorah, as he points out himself, and therefore could have been made out of wood (and it couldn’t have just been one pshutei kli eitz, as it needed to have a ner; i.e. a beis kibul).
Which brings me back to my first (sorry, seventeenth) question (I’m still waiting for answers, by the way. They were all serious questions.), why were they coated in tin (unless, of course, what I just speculated is right, and we have 2 seperate maamarim here)?(Side question (#18): l’fi the same Tos from before, how did they clean it out if it was golmei kli machteches and therefore not shel prakim?)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.