What is the purpose of the Menorah
The following seems to uncover two distinct views regarding the menorahs function and relationship vis a vis the shulchan
The Torah, when dealing with the krashim k'la'im etc, consistently discusses the southern side first, then the northern, western and eastern sides, in that order, seemingly granting the southern side preeminence. Conceived of as the right side which is always given prominence—east being face forward. Otoh, as in well known, the highest level of avodah is limited to the northern side of the azarah (tzafon mizbaiyach)—the left. So which is the more important side—south or north? Right or left?
I think we need to differentiate between God's perspective and orientation vs our own. Regarding the mishkan and chatzer, with HaShem as yoshev keruvim facing east, the south is viewed as His right, whereas regarding our avodah—which is performed facing God—our right is north hence its elevated kedusha with regard to avodah.
The keilim—which represent our service—are prioritized with the north, shulchan is in the north and menorah—which is subservient to the shulchan as a provider of light for it and whose placement is dependent upon it—is in the south—our left.
Seemingly placing the Shulchan on a higher pedestal than the menorah (wherever the Torah treats of them Shulchan is dealt with first)
So far so good
However there is a serious issue with Rambam that wherever he mentions them—and I have not been able to find any exception—he deals with the menorah first—in direct opposition to the Torah!
Maybe the following can be suggested: in Rambams thinking the keilim are included in the mikdash (included in v'asu li mikdash etc), ipso facto just like the southern side of the structure is more important as it is consistently treated first the keli that is placed on that side—the menorah—necessarily needs to reflect that same status as is it part of the mikdash (I actually found an explicit statement by Seforno that says just that, shemos 26:35 ושמת את השלחן מחוץ לפרכת
– אחר שסדר את הכסא בפנים, סדר לפניו חוץ לפרכת שולחן ומנורה הבאים לכבוד יושב הכסא, וסדר את המנורה בימין, והשולחן בשמאל, כאמרו ״ארך ימים בימינה, בשמאולה עשר וכבוד״ (משלי ג׳:ט״ז).)
This is all fine and well (hopefully) in a vacuum, however, aside from the Torah consistently placing the Shulchan first, we need to deal with the fact that it’s utility seems to be in providing illumination for the table, necessarily granting the table primacy,
see rashbam to shemos 25:31 להאיר על השולחן
However, this conception (of menorah serving Shulchan by providing light) does not seem to be agreed upon by all, none other than Rashi interprets the pesukim as meaning that the light from the 6 branches should be directed towards the middle lamp (which is conceived of as the menorah proper), see Rashi to shemos 25:37 והעלה את נרותיה והאיר אל עבר פניה – עשה פי ששת הנרות שבראשי הקנים היוצאין מצידיה מסובין כלפי האמצעי, כדי שיהו הנרות כשתדליקם מאירים על עבר פניה – מוסב אורם אל צד פני הקנה האמצעי שהוא גוף המנורה.
It seems to turn on the following: there’s a disagreement recorded in BT menachos 98b about if the length of the menorah and Shulchan faced each other (east-west placement) or if they were placed on a north-south axis with them being on one line
If one holds they faced each other then one can say that the מול פני המנורה that is being illuminated is the Shulchan, whereas if one assumes that they did not then it is no longer reasonable to say that the menorahs light is meant for the table, as it isn’t facing it, leading to the other reading (rashis), see daas zkeinim to the above pasuk: והאיר – פי' והאירה המנורה אל השלחן שכנגד פניה של מנורה כדכתיב בפרשת ותכל וישם המנורה באהל מועד נכח השלחן מכלל דלהאיר על השלחן היתה המנורה וכן כתיב בפרשת בהעלותך אל מול פני המנורה דהיינו שלחן יאירו שבעת הנרות והפשט הולך כמ"ד ממזרח למערב היתה מונחת דאז יכול להיות דכל פיות של נרות פונות לצד השלחן אבל למ"ד שמצפון לדרום היתה מונחת אז צ"ל שהאמצעי פונה למערב והאחרים פונים לאמצעי לא נראה כל כך שלהאיר על השלחן היתה נעשית ולא תוכל לפרש והאיר כפשטיה (אלא כ?)דפירש רש"י as well as ri bchor shor there
If the menorah is oriented north-south with the middle light primary (westward facing) and the other six secondary to and facing it then it does not not seem to be connected to the shulchan
There’s a disagreement recorded in BT chagigah 26b regarding if one can remove the menorah from its place (opposite the Shulchan) with the issue being if the Torahs stipulation that the menorah be placed across from the Shulchan means that it needs to be there whenever the Shulchan is there (and since the Shulchan always needs to be there so too the menorah), or that it’s just a conventional way of indicating where the menorah should be placed albeit unnecessary for it to be there vis-à-vis the shulchan at all, which would allow for its temporary removal when it’s lights aren’t burning, see there
It seems reasonable that the opinion that forbids its removal holds that they faced each other, with the menorah there to provide light for the Shulchan and fully dependent upon it, ipso facto one can’t remove the menorah from before the Shulchan. Otoh, if one holds that they weren’t facing each other, with the menorah providing light to the bayis at large, then it’s sensible to say that the Torah is merely using the Shulchan to tell us where the menorah should be but not that it is connected to the Shulchan in any intrinsic way, allowing for its temporary removal
Assuming all the above is correct, Rambam is on record as stating (beis habechirah 3:12) that the menorah was situated along a north-south axis וְכֵן נֵרוֹת הַמְּנוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד רֹחַב הַבַּיִת בֵּין הַצָּפוֹן וּבֵין הַדָּרוֹם ,(oddly, he has the Shulchan perpendicular to the menorah, see nodah byhuda oc responsum 122), additionally, see there halacha 8 which explains the pesukim like Rashi שֵׁשֶׁת הַנֵּרוֹת הַקְּבוּעִים בְּשֵׁשֶׁת הַקָּנִים הַיּוֹצְאִים מִן הַמְּנוֹרָה כֻּלָּן פְּנֵיהֶם לַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁעַל קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה וְזֶה הַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי פָּנָיו כְּנֶגֶד קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא נֵר מַעֲרָבִי which is all to say that the menorah isn’t across from the Shulchan to serve it by providing light, rather the middle lamp—which is the core menorah—is westward facing with the other six secondary neiros facing it
Rambam (Moreh 3:45) writes as follows regarding the menorah: “וכן עשו מנורה לפניו רוממות וכבוד לבית, כי הבית שנרות דולקים בו תמיד והוא מוסתר בפרוכת יש לו בנפש רגש גדול, וכבר ידעת הדגשת התורה את הדעה על רוממות המקדש ויראתו, כדי שיהא לאדם התפעלות שפלות הרוח והכניעה בעת ראייתו ואמר ומקדשי תיראו, והשווהו לשמירת שבת חיזוק ליראת המקדש."
” That’s to say that the Rambams rationale for the menorah is in service of the bayis at large, no mention of the Shulchan. Rambam, by his own admission, doesn’t even know what to make of the table “אבל השולחן ושיהא עליו לחם תמיד איני יודע לכך טעם, ולא מצאתי עד כה לאיזה דבר איחסהו"
This all being the case we’ve done away with the apparent indications in the Torah of the menorah playing second fiddle to the Shulchan
Ultimately, what emerges for Rambam, alongside Rashi, contra the plain meaning of the pesukim, is a picture of the Menorah in which it is in no way subservient to or dependent upon the Shulchan, paving the way for potentially granting the Menorah supremacy over the Shulchan, which Rambam indeed seems to accept, by consistently treating it prior to the shulchan, in direct contravention to the Torah.
I think we need to differentiate between God's perspective and orientation vs our own. Regarding the mishkan and chatzer, with HaShem as yoshev keruvim facing east, the south is viewed as His right, whereas regarding our avodah—which is performed facing God—our right is north hence its elevated kedusha with regard to avodah.
The keilim—which represent our service—are prioritized with the north, shulchan is in the north and menorah—which is subservient to the shulchan as a provider of light for it and whose placement is dependent upon it—is in the south—our left.
Seemingly placing the Shulchan on a higher pedestal than the menorah (wherever the Torah treats of them Shulchan is dealt with first)
So far so good
However there is a serious issue with Rambam that wherever he mentions them—and I have not been able to find any exception—he deals with the menorah first—in direct opposition to the Torah!
Maybe the following can be suggested: in Rambams thinking the keilim are included in the mikdash (included in v'asu li mikdash etc), ipso facto just like the southern side of the structure is more important as it is consistently treated first the keli that is placed on that side—the menorah—necessarily needs to reflect that same status as is it part of the mikdash (I actually found an explicit statement by Seforno that says just that, shemos 26:35 ושמת את השלחן מחוץ לפרכת
– אחר שסדר את הכסא בפנים, סדר לפניו חוץ לפרכת שולחן ומנורה הבאים לכבוד יושב הכסא, וסדר את המנורה בימין, והשולחן בשמאל, כאמרו ״ארך ימים בימינה, בשמאולה עשר וכבוד״ (משלי ג׳:ט״ז).)
This is all fine and well (hopefully) in a vacuum, however, aside from the Torah consistently placing the Shulchan first, we need to deal with the fact that it’s utility seems to be in providing illumination for the table, necessarily granting the table primacy,
see rashbam to shemos 25:31 להאיר על השולחן
However, this conception (of menorah serving Shulchan by providing light) does not seem to be agreed upon by all, none other than Rashi interprets the pesukim as meaning that the light from the 6 branches should be directed towards the middle lamp (which is conceived of as the menorah proper), see Rashi to shemos 25:37 והעלה את נרותיה והאיר אל עבר פניה – עשה פי ששת הנרות שבראשי הקנים היוצאין מצידיה מסובין כלפי האמצעי, כדי שיהו הנרות כשתדליקם מאירים על עבר פניה – מוסב אורם אל צד פני הקנה האמצעי שהוא גוף המנורה.
It seems to turn on the following: there’s a disagreement recorded in BT menachos 98b about if the length of the menorah and Shulchan faced each other (east-west placement) or if they were placed on a north-south axis with them being on one line
If one holds they faced each other then one can say that the מול פני המנורה that is being illuminated is the Shulchan, whereas if one assumes that they did not then it is no longer reasonable to say that the menorahs light is meant for the table, as it isn’t facing it, leading to the other reading (rashis), see daas zkeinim to the above pasuk: והאיר – פי' והאירה המנורה אל השלחן שכנגד פניה של מנורה כדכתיב בפרשת ותכל וישם המנורה באהל מועד נכח השלחן מכלל דלהאיר על השלחן היתה המנורה וכן כתיב בפרשת בהעלותך אל מול פני המנורה דהיינו שלחן יאירו שבעת הנרות והפשט הולך כמ"ד ממזרח למערב היתה מונחת דאז יכול להיות דכל פיות של נרות פונות לצד השלחן אבל למ"ד שמצפון לדרום היתה מונחת אז צ"ל שהאמצעי פונה למערב והאחרים פונים לאמצעי לא נראה כל כך שלהאיר על השלחן היתה נעשית ולא תוכל לפרש והאיר כפשטיה (אלא כ?)דפירש רש"י as well as ri bchor shor there
If the menorah is oriented north-south with the middle light primary (westward facing) and the other six secondary to and facing it then it does not not seem to be connected to the shulchan
There’s a disagreement recorded in BT chagigah 26b regarding if one can remove the menorah from its place (opposite the Shulchan) with the issue being if the Torahs stipulation that the menorah be placed across from the Shulchan means that it needs to be there whenever the Shulchan is there (and since the Shulchan always needs to be there so too the menorah), or that it’s just a conventional way of indicating where the menorah should be placed albeit unnecessary for it to be there vis-à-vis the shulchan at all, which would allow for its temporary removal when it’s lights aren’t burning, see there
It seems reasonable that the opinion that forbids its removal holds that they faced each other, with the menorah there to provide light for the Shulchan and fully dependent upon it, ipso facto one can’t remove the menorah from before the Shulchan. Otoh, if one holds that they weren’t facing each other, with the menorah providing light to the bayis at large, then it’s sensible to say that the Torah is merely using the Shulchan to tell us where the menorah should be but not that it is connected to the Shulchan in any intrinsic way, allowing for its temporary removal
Assuming all the above is correct, Rambam is on record as stating (beis habechirah 3:12) that the menorah was situated along a north-south axis וְכֵן נֵרוֹת הַמְּנוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד רֹחַב הַבַּיִת בֵּין הַצָּפוֹן וּבֵין הַדָּרוֹם ,(oddly, he has the Shulchan perpendicular to the menorah, see nodah byhuda oc responsum 122), additionally, see there halacha 8 which explains the pesukim like Rashi שֵׁשֶׁת הַנֵּרוֹת הַקְּבוּעִים בְּשֵׁשֶׁת הַקָּנִים הַיּוֹצְאִים מִן הַמְּנוֹרָה כֻּלָּן פְּנֵיהֶם לַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁעַל קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה וְזֶה הַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי פָּנָיו כְּנֶגֶד קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא נֵר מַעֲרָבִי which is all to say that the menorah isn’t across from the Shulchan to serve it by providing light, rather the middle lamp—which is the core menorah—is westward facing with the other six secondary neiros facing it
In bias mikdash (9:7) Rambam writes that the neiros can be removed from the mikdash for a non kohen to light them. Rambam holds that the neiros were part of the menorah proper and chiseled from the same ingot (beis habechirah 3:6), thus apparently of the opinion that the menorah need not always be situated opposite the shulchan.
Rambam (Moreh 3:45) writes as follows regarding the menorah: “וכן עשו מנורה לפניו רוממות וכבוד לבית, כי הבית שנרות דולקים בו תמיד והוא מוסתר בפרוכת יש לו בנפש רגש גדול, וכבר ידעת הדגשת התורה את הדעה על רוממות המקדש ויראתו, כדי שיהא לאדם התפעלות שפלות הרוח והכניעה בעת ראייתו ואמר ומקדשי תיראו, והשווהו לשמירת שבת חיזוק ליראת המקדש."
” That’s to say that the Rambams rationale for the menorah is in service of the bayis at large, no mention of the Shulchan. Rambam, by his own admission, doesn’t even know what to make of the table “אבל השולחן ושיהא עליו לחם תמיד איני יודע לכך טעם, ולא מצאתי עד כה לאיזה דבר איחסהו"
This all being the case we’ve done away with the apparent indications in the Torah of the menorah playing second fiddle to the Shulchan
Ultimately, what emerges for Rambam, alongside Rashi, contra the plain meaning of the pesukim, is a picture of the Menorah in which it is in no way subservient to or dependent upon the Shulchan, paving the way for potentially granting the Menorah supremacy over the Shulchan, which Rambam indeed seems to accept, by consistently treating it prior to the shulchan, in direct contravention to the Torah.
In a few places the Torah seems to elevate the Menorah above the Shulchan. The first two pesukim of parashas tetzaveh (Shemos 27:20-21) discuss procuring oil for the menorah sans any mention of the shulchan. Later on in Emor (vayikrah 24:1-4) the Torah basically repeats those pesukim verbatim, placing obtaining the oil necessary for kindling the Menorah prior to acquiring flour the shulchans arrangement. In both places the Torah specifies that the kindling should be done "לפני ה", no mention of throwing light on the table. In the beg of bahaaloscha as well (bamidbar 8:1-4) the Torah discusses the menorah exclusively.
The above mentioned disagreement regarding which way the menorah is placed, is actually relevant nowadays. There is a custom to light the menorah in shul, as it is a mikdash me’at, in commemoration of the chanukah miracle which occurred in the actual mikdash. Which way to position it? It depends on how you decide the menorah was positioned in the mikdash.
To end off, lighting a chanukah menorah on its own, with a Shulchan nowhere in sight, is a very peculiar phenomenon according to the conception that it is there to serve the shulchan, as ostensibly you can’t have it without the Shulchan, as that is it’s raison d'être; it seems to jive better with Rashi and Rambams schema of a menorah independent of the Shulchan there to bring honor to HaShems house.
The above mentioned disagreement regarding which way the menorah is placed, is actually relevant nowadays. There is a custom to light the menorah in shul, as it is a mikdash me’at, in commemoration of the chanukah miracle which occurred in the actual mikdash. Which way to position it? It depends on how you decide the menorah was positioned in the mikdash.
To end off, lighting a chanukah menorah on its own, with a Shulchan nowhere in sight, is a very peculiar phenomenon according to the conception that it is there to serve the shulchan, as ostensibly you can’t have it without the Shulchan, as that is it’s raison d'être; it seems to jive better with Rashi and Rambams schema of a menorah independent of the Shulchan there to bring honor to HaShems house.
Comments
Post a Comment