A NON-LINEAR CHANUKAH MENORAH
QUESTION:
A sculptor in ironwork has recently made a modernistic menorah which is basically a flat metal lattice-work. At the various points where the metal bars cross each other a cup is placed for the Chanukah candle. Thus the menorah, when full of lights, would present a square of lights instead of a line of lights. Is such a non-linear menorah acceptable according to the spirit of the legal tradition? (Asked by V.W.K., Pittsburgh, Pa.)
ON THE FACE of it, such a square instead of linear arrangement of lights for Chanukah is not acceptable. There is considerable tradition behind the usual type of menorah in which the lights are all in one row. Perhaps the earliest mention of the desirability of a linear menorah is in Jacob Moellin (Maharil, fourteenth century) . He noticed that the beadle (shamash) in the synagogue in Mainz had arranged the lights irregularly (or, as he phrased it, “some inward, some outward,” and he told the shamash to rearrange the lights so they should be all in a straight row (Hilchot Chanukah).
Maharil gives as a reason for thus correcting the shamash “that they should not be like a hearth.” This is explained more fully in the Mordecai to b. Shabat 21b (paragraph 988, based upon b. Shabat 23b) who says that if a man had a dish full of oil and placed wicks in a circle around the dish edge, this would not be suitable for Chanukah because it is not really separate lights, but is like a hearthfire (medurah, which is referred to in the Talmud, Sabbath 21b) and therefore he adds, to prevent the lights from looking like one hearth (or bonfire) they should be put in a linear row. Then he quotes Maharil to that effect. This requirement to put the lights in a row is then carried over into the later codes and Isserles cites it in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 671:4) as follows: “One should be careful to put the lights in an even row and not in a circle because that would be like a bonfire” (a hearth).
So it would seem that this lattice-like menorah in which the lights would end up as a square, could be deemed as a sort of a bonfire or a hearth and, therefore, would be unusable.
However, it must be noted that this preference for a linear arrangement stemming from Maharil in the fourteenth century is not to be considered as an actual legal requirement, but only as a preference. Israel Isserlein of Vienna (fourteenth century, Trumat Hadeshen, #105) indicates that the bonfire or hearth arrangement is objectionable only if the effect which it gives is like one combined light (as the various logs would make one combined fire in a hearth). But, he says, a man may use a chandelier (pamot) for Chanukah provided that each light of the chandelier is well separated from the other lights. So this great authority says that what really matters is that the lights should not merge; and that a linear arrangement is not indispensable, provided the lights are well separated as in a chandelier. And, as a matter of fact, Isserles, quoted above, after he says that the lights should be linear, lest it look like a bonfire, also adds that you may use a chandelier, since the lights on it are well separated.
There is, however, another reason for the usual linear arrangement, besides the one that a bunched arrangement looks like a bonfire; namely, the requirement that the lights must be lit going from right to left. Obviously, this is not possible if the menorah is not linear. However this requirement, too, is not an absolute one because there is also a well-established custom of lighting the lights in exactly the opposite way, i.e., beginning from the left of the menorah and adding day by day, moving towards the right. Israel Isserlein in his Trumat Hadeshen, #105, says that in the Rhineland the custom is to put the first light on the left end of the menorah and the second light next to it, and so move on towards the right. But that in Vienna, where he lived, the custom is to put the first light at the right end of the menorah and day after day move towards the left (as we generally do now). This moving, candle by candle, towards the left (or else towards the right) is therefore an undefined regional custom; besides, it has no specific Talmudic basis. Therefore one cannot conclude from it that there must be a specific direction and that only a linear arrangement is acceptable.
Although, therefore, the linear arrangement is customary and may be even preferable, it is not indispensable. Yet before this modernistic lattice-like menorah is acceptable, there are certain definite requirements for the Chanukah lights which are indispensable and which must be met. In the Talmud ( Sabbath 21b) there is a discussion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel as to the sequence of the lights. Shammai says you begin with eight lights on the first day, continue with seven lights the second day, six lights the third day, etc. Hillel says, we begin with one light the first day and move on to two on the second day, etc. We follow the opinion of Hillel in this matter.
However, common to both opinions is that each day’s lights must be distinguishable from the preceding and the succeeding day’s lights. Either by regular subtraction, as Shammai said, or by regular addition, as Hillel said, the progress of the festival must be indicated by the menorah on any day of the festival. If this new menorah shows at a glance how many separate lights are lit, it fulfills this central purpose.
There is another requirement for the Chanukah lights: It is forbidden by law to make any practical use of those lights. You may not even study by them; hence the requirement of having a special light every day called the shamash, or “servant” light, which may be used. Therefore, according to some authorities, this shamash light must be distinguishable from the other lights so that it should be clear which light it is which may be used. Hence, Moses of Przymysl, the prime authority in the sixteenth century on minhagim, and a disciple of Solomon Luria, in his Mateh Moshe., #984, cites the Mordecai that this shamash light should be a little longer than the other lights, or should be placed higher. This is exactly the case in our usual linear menorahs, and is not the case in this latticemenorah. If one cup will be made definitely higher for the shamash light, this new menorah can fulfill the requirements.
Of course the usual linear type of menorah has become traditional and it also fulfills all the requirements of the law; but that fact does not necessarily exclude other possible arrangements for the lights. The acceptability of a new type of Chanukah lamp will depend upon whether or not the new type fulfills the requirements of the law.
If, therefore, this new menorah has its lights well apart so that they do not look like a single bonfire, if the progress from day to day of the eight days of the festival is clear at a glance, and if the shamash is distinguishable from the other lights, there is no real objection to its use for Chanukah.