in my view you are incorrect in attributing the the round menorah to the more traditional aesthetics than the diagonal one. this is not about "curves" (ala Art Deco), but about geometry. a pure round menorah is just as "Bauhaus" as the diagonal one, only much better designed.
yea, but we are not really talking about the same thing. yes, modernism eschewed decorations for decorations' sake, but I am talking about the skeletal structure itself, the round (circle-based) menorah is a superior design, modern or traditional, with or without the ornaments on top.
to me the diagonal branches make no aesthetic or functional sense at all, but that was not Rambam's (and Rashi's) view:
yes, in some ways the Rambam's drawing was schematic (as it shows the various elements of the branches "spread apart"), but the glaring problem with attributing a mere schematic approach to the diagonal branch structure of the drawing is that the base of the menorah is drawn with a compass, which could have just as easily been employed in drawing the branches as the ruler was, unless Rambam meant not to do that quite purposefully.
That's an interesting point. I don't know if he had access to a compass or template. Or if his compass was limited in diameter, like all compasses do. Upon closer view, all round shapes in the drawing are drawn with the assist of some tool. So it is obvious that the author couldn't draw a curved line by hand.
I tend to think it was a template. Note the small round cups that is not trivial to do with every compass.
In my view, it adds even more credence that this is only a diagram. The author of the sketch had trouble with curves. Particularly difficult concentric curves. Where the problem compounds by having to draw all decorations at separate angles.
Who is the author of the sketch? I always thought it was Rambam's son, not Rambam himself.
PS It was definitely a template, not a compass. Not possible to draw small circles with a compass.
1. I am under the impression that the drawing was by Rambam himself and that Avraham ben haRambam commented on it (writing from memory, so...)
2. I do not know whether the small circles were traced via a cut-out ("template") or done with a compass, but the base is large and appears to have been done with compass. I see no difficulty in doing the same thing with the branches. and why do say there is any particular difficulty with drawing concentric circles (again, not "curves", but simple circles, this is important)? you stick the compass needle into one place and draw three circles, one equally lager than the next — what could possibly be simpler than that?
I started with the assumption that it was a template, not a compass, but then I looked at historic compasses and they definitely can do a small circle.
My point about decorations still stands, though. Whomever done the sketch was an unskilled drafter. And it would have been an almost insurmountable challenge to draw all these bells, along the curved arms of the menorah.
He had enough trouble with the straight arms. This bolsters my guess that this was only a digram and never meant to represent an actual view of the menorah.
the term "curved arm" is misapplied and creates unneeded notion of complexity — these branches (certainly the ones needed for a schematic) could have been simple compass-made circles which are super easy to make and it's equally easy to place small circles on top of them, no special skills required at all.
Interesting that in Bet Shearim there is a straight Menorah (Catacomb 4; see website below and search Menorah). But it is obvious that the OVERWHELMING majority of depictions, the Menorah is curved.
What I found interesting is a curved Menorah from the first century CE found in Phanagoria, Russia. Note, that in one of the pictures, it is the oldest Star of David that I have found.
In the first and second grade, my parents bought me a gold marker, and I spent many classes drawing the Menorah as well as I could.
There's something about insisting on straight arms despite(nay *davka*) tradition and culture (and your own lying eyes)that perfectly encapsulates Chabad.
Maybe you can expound on this by highlighting the seeming Chabad obsession with the ~45° angle: the menorah, 770 (favorite icon), the kvetch at the front of the fedora.
If by "goyishkeit" you mean it doesn't matter how the menorah actually was built, I concede. If you mean that the chances of the sculptor of the Titus Arch actually seeing one, doesn't matter compared to Rashi and Rambam 1000 years later, I again concede.
"Luboml. Interesting plates on the left."
These plates are simply reflectors design to project light towards the congregants.
Just recently I saw this type of plates in the Altneu Shul in Prague.
A collection of similar plates can be found here:
https://cja.huji.ac.il/search.php?submited=submited&free_text=reflector
Fascinating, so the sandbox in front of the plates is where they would put the candles. Updated the post.
in my view you are incorrect in attributing the the round menorah to the more traditional aesthetics than the diagonal one. this is not about "curves" (ala Art Deco), but about geometry. a pure round menorah is just as "Bauhaus" as the diagonal one, only much better designed.
Modernism didn't forbid curves, but definitely preferred straight utilitarian lines. Certainly, lines bare of ornaments or decorations.
And Chabad menorah, the way it is mass-produced, is the most utilitarian shape possible, contrary to the thousand of years of Jewish tradition.
yea, but we are not really talking about the same thing. yes, modernism eschewed decorations for decorations' sake, but I am talking about the skeletal structure itself, the round (circle-based) menorah is a superior design, modern or traditional, with or without the ornaments on top.
to me the diagonal branches make no aesthetic or functional sense at all, but that was not Rambam's (and Rashi's) view:
yes, in some ways the Rambam's drawing was schematic (as it shows the various elements of the branches "spread apart"), but the glaring problem with attributing a mere schematic approach to the diagonal branch structure of the drawing is that the base of the menorah is drawn with a compass, which could have just as easily been employed in drawing the branches as the ruler was, unless Rambam meant not to do that quite purposefully.
That's an interesting point. I don't know if he had access to a compass or template. Or if his compass was limited in diameter, like all compasses do. Upon closer view, all round shapes in the drawing are drawn with the assist of some tool. So it is obvious that the author couldn't draw a curved line by hand.
I tend to think it was a template. Note the small round cups that is not trivial to do with every compass.
In my view, it adds even more credence that this is only a diagram. The author of the sketch had trouble with curves. Particularly difficult concentric curves. Where the problem compounds by having to draw all decorations at separate angles.
Who is the author of the sketch? I always thought it was Rambam's son, not Rambam himself.
PS It was definitely a template, not a compass. Not possible to draw small circles with a compass.
1. I am under the impression that the drawing was by Rambam himself and that Avraham ben haRambam commented on it (writing from memory, so...)
2. I do not know whether the small circles were traced via a cut-out ("template") or done with a compass, but the base is large and appears to have been done with compass. I see no difficulty in doing the same thing with the branches. and why do say there is any particular difficulty with drawing concentric circles (again, not "curves", but simple circles, this is important)? you stick the compass needle into one place and draw three circles, one equally lager than the next — what could possibly be simpler than that?
I started with the assumption that it was a template, not a compass, but then I looked at historic compasses and they definitely can do a small circle.
My point about decorations still stands, though. Whomever done the sketch was an unskilled drafter. And it would have been an almost insurmountable challenge to draw all these bells, along the curved arms of the menorah.
He had enough trouble with the straight arms. This bolsters my guess that this was only a digram and never meant to represent an actual view of the menorah.
Sort of note to self...
the term "curved arm" is misapplied and creates unneeded notion of complexity — these branches (certainly the ones needed for a schematic) could have been simple compass-made circles which are super easy to make and it's equally easy to place small circles on top of them, no special skills required at all.
Interesting that in Bet Shearim there is a straight Menorah (Catacomb 4; see website below and search Menorah). But it is obvious that the OVERWHELMING majority of depictions, the Menorah is curved.
What I found interesting is a curved Menorah from the first century CE found in Phanagoria, Russia. Note, that in one of the pictures, it is the oldest Star of David that I have found.
See: https://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=56424
The date is wrong there, it is not 3-5 century but 6-9. Very interesting
https://dzen.ru/a/ZPHv904wMn8BIkEs
In the first and second grade, my parents bought me a gold marker, and I spent many classes drawing the Menorah as well as I could.
There's something about insisting on straight arms despite(nay *davka*) tradition and culture (and your own lying eyes)that perfectly encapsulates Chabad.
Do not mix it with Chabad, it is the Rebbe idea. In a sense, that Chabad doesn't have ideas besides the Rebbe's ideas, it is Chabad.
Maybe you can expound on this by highlighting the seeming Chabad obsession with the ~45° angle: the menorah, 770 (favorite icon), the kvetch at the front of the fedora.
If you mean the rooflines of the 770, it was the building they acquired, not designed.
Of course. But it is what it is now. Things evolve that way. The kvetch in the hat was also not designed to make a certain angle...
I don't know about the kvech, but the design of 770 has nothing to do with Chabad.
Neither does the design of Lipsker's Aron. I thought we're talking de facto.
If by "goyishkeit" you mean it doesn't matter how the menorah actually was built, I concede. If you mean that the chances of the sculptor of the Titus Arch actually seeing one, doesn't matter compared to Rashi and Rambam 1000 years later, I again concede.
Temple Institute, influenced by the Israeli Menorah. But they came up with their model, reading the same text.