Rav Chaim Kanievsky: Menorah Was Not Round
Rav Chaim Kanievsky, a Lithuanian Gadol considered by many to be the leading Posek in the Orthodox-Jewish world, recently wrote a Halachic response in which he asserted that the branches of the Menorah in the Beis Hamikdash were not round – a point famously iterated by the Lubavitcher Rebbe several decades ago.
From Matzav.com:
In light of this week’s parsha, Behaaloscha, which discusses the lighting of the menorah in the Bais Hamikdosh, the discussion of whether the branches of the menorah were round or polygonal was presented to Rav Chaim Kanievsky.
Throughout the generations, it was thought that the branches were circular. A dispute arose after the discovery of a manuscript of the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah, with a drawing of the menorah as straight. Experts claimed that despite the drawing, the Rambam never entertained the possibility that the branches were not rounded.
However, in response to a question posed by Rabbi Shmuel Boruch Genuth, Rav Chaim Kanievsky was reported as saying that those who draw the branches of the menorah in a round fashion are mistaken.
Rav Chaim’s response to Reb Shmuel Boruch actually reflects his opinion as recorded in his sefer Baraisa L’meleches HaMishkan (page 28), where he says that “ in all the pictures the branches of the menorah are drawn as round, but thus would seem to be a mistake, as Rashi in Chumash has written that the branches were diagonal.”
Milhouse
And yet several contemporary pictures, by people who had seen the actual menorah, show the arms as rounded; the more detailed ones show them not as perfect half-circles, but as half-ellipses. The premise of the Rebbe’s sicha is that the only basis for the depiction of round arms is Titus’s arch; the Rebbe was offended by the idea that we would defer to such a source. But that isn’t the case. The evidence for rounded arms does not come from Titus’s arch at all; and it’s overwhelming.
We only have two rishonim who expressed an opinion on the matter: Rashi and R Avrohom ben HoRambam. Both held the arms were straight. The Rambam’s own opinion is not known; R Avrohom did not hear it from him, but gave it as his own opinion. No other rishon even discusses the matter. (You will find modern books claiming that the Ibn Ezra held they were round; those writers are guilty either of careless reading, or of not bothering to check the source for themselves at all.) But neither of them actually saw the menorah, or any contemporary drawings of it, or had any mesorah on the matter; they were relying on sevara.
mob
It has already been pointed out by people more scholarly then either of us, that the menorah depicted in the arch of Titus was not the menorah of the bais hamikdash.
K
The Ibn Ezra at Shemos 25:32 (is lengthy yet clear) that the menorah had curved branches – “qanim: ‘agulim’ “arukkim,” Also in 25:37 (haqatzar) “hashisha ne’erakhim zeh ‘ahar zeh
bahatzi ‘iggul.”
Besides the Arc of Titus, there are PLENTY of OTHER early sources for rounded branches of the menorah.
First and foremost the coins ancient coins of Mattitya Antigonos,
Second, drawings found in on walls of ancient Yerushalmi homes that existed in time of Bayis Sheini (open to touyrist today),
Third, the paintings from the walls of the Dura-Europos Synagogue,
Fourth, a drawing found in a catacomb in Venosa, Italy, dating back to the
first century, at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/menorahVenosa.jpg
Till recently, NO ONE interpreted Rashi as a source to straight arms of the menorah. It is only AFTER the fact that in hindsight it became convenient to say so in Rashi.
At best, it is machlokes Rishonim, as many aother machlokes. The Rambam indeed is a possek, but the source is from his drawing in Pirush Hamishnayus. Many times he himself does not pasken in the Yad like his own Pirush Hamishnayus.
awacs
Milhouse, you’re questioning the Rebbe?
Milhouse
K, you have carelessly misread the ibn Ezra (both versions).
awacs, the Rebbe’s entire point was that we should not be deferring to the arch of Titus. His premise was that this was the only source for the rounded arms, and he was quite right to protest against Jews deferring to it, especially against two rishonim. I can only assume he was unaware of the archaeological evidence, and had he been aware of it he would have withdrawn his objection. Rashi and R Avrohom ben HoRambam were certainly unaware of it, becuase none of it had yet been discovered.
Milhouse
K wrote: Till recently, NO ONE interpreted Rashi as a source to straight arms of the menorah. It is only AFTER the fact that in hindsight it became convenient to say so in Rashi.
That is of course a complete falsehood. EVERYONE who has written on the subject, starting with the Maase Choshev, acknowledges that Rashi held the arms were straight.
Milhouse
There is no machlokes rishonim. Indeed, while it’s not muchrach, the most straightforward reading of the ibn Ezra is that he too thought the arms were straight!
to #1
why dont you provide the other sources that say the menorah was round being that the arch of titus has other problems with the menorah that everyone agrees on
Milhouse
I told you; contemporary pictures by people who had actually seen it. Neither Rashi nor R Avrohom ben hoRambam ever saw the menorah, nor did they have any mesorah about it. They were going on sevara, and that must defer to the eyewitnesses’ own pictures.
To milhouse
First off I take in disgust your public question of the Rebbe, as if you know as much as he.
Secondly, it has been noted that the rounded menorahs depicted in “contemporary” places is in fact the candelabra from the Ezras Noshim and NOT the actual Menorah.
Milhouse
The truth is the truth, and is no respecter of persons. Who exactly “noted” this, and what was their evidence?
Milhouse
The Rebbe’s premise is explicit: “The usual drawing of the menorah (that the six branches are like half-bows) is presumably an imitation of the drawing of the menorah which non-Jews drew in Rome, and on the ‘victory arch’ of Titus yimach shemo!” Note that word “presumably’ (ע״פ השערה). It’s on that basis that he objects so vehemently to Jews deferrring to such a source, especially when our own sources say otherwise.
This shows that the Rebbe was unaware of the archaeological evidence that exists for rounded (but not semi-circular) arms, completely independent of Titus’s arch.
we
have a perfect rashi whos explanation would seem to indicate it was indeed diagonal not round
K
Isn’t it “odd” that the Lubavitcher Rebbe tzt”l, himself very into Rashi, NEVER mentioned Rashi as proff for the straight armed menorah????
Milhouse
What are you talking about? The Rebbe certainly did cite Rashi in that very sicha!
sources for curved branches
All this has been hashed and rehashed many times. For anyone who has really investigated the matter, “Milhouse” and “K” (above) are correct in this.
As for published traditional sources that support the ubiquitous curved-branched representations of the Menorah, R’ Aryeh Kaplan in his notes on the Living Torah (Shmos 25:32), references the Ibn Ezra on Shmos 25:37 and 27:21; Chokhmath HaMishkan 4b; and Maaseh Chashev 7:7.
Milhouse
Kaplan was wrong. Ibn Ezra expresses no opinion on the menorah’s shape. The only two rishonim who speak about it are Rashi and R Avrohom ben HoRambam, both of whom held that the arms were straight. Chochmas Hamishkon and Maaseh Choshev are not rishonim.
sources for curved branches
Double checking now I see that the Ibn Ezra in my Mikro’os Gedolos on those Pesukim does not comment on the branches being curved — but it needs to be checked if there is a more complete version of Ibn Ezra. Even what “K” quoted before is not in my version. It is hard to believe that R’ Kaplan was so far off on this.
Milhouse
Ibn Ezra wrote two commentaries on chumash. One is in the mikro’os gedolos, the other was published as a separate sefer. Both comment on this posuk, so I’m surprised you didn’t notice it. But Kaplan was careless in reading it. He does not say the arms were curved. On the contrary, the pashtus haloshon implies that he held they were straight! (Unlike Rashi, it’s not muchrach in the ibn Ezra; it’s possible to read him in a way that doesn’t comment at all on the matter, but that’s not the most straightforward way to read him.)
You may be surprised at Kaplan’s carelessness, but you can’t dispute it. The ibn Ezra’s words (in both commentaries) speak for themselves.
to # 3 k wrote
See Rambam in Mishne Torah Hilchos Beis Habchira perek 3 in the Frankel edition the drawing is there too!
K
Silly! The drawing was inserted by the publisher. Don’t you know that???
Milhouse
Yes, the Rambam’s drawing is well known, and is in fact depicted in the picture above this article, so I can’t imagine why you thought it necessary to mention it. What is not known is whether the Rambam actually thought that was the menorah’s shape. His son R Avrohom held that it was; but this was his own opinion, not something he heard from his father.
In any case, neither the Rambam nor R Avrohom ever saw the menorah, so their speculations can’t outweigh the archaeological evidence from people who had seen it, and were drawing for people who had also seen it.
to # 8 k and # 9 and others
Advisable and recommended before commenting please just see read and learn the Rebbe’s edited sicha and footnotes on this topic in Likutei sichos vol.21 p. 168 onwards a where Rashi Ibn Ezra Maaseh Choshev Chochmas Hamishkan etc. all quoted and addressed!
K
SOme opine that adarabah, the coins and drawing of rounded menorah prove that the real menorah was not round, since there is a prohibition of making keilim like the klei hamikdosh, it was extended to drawings and minted coins.
to Milhouse
May it be known that many of your sweeping statements are merely your own personal opinions and take, as for instance your statement on archeology verses Rambam etc. etc.
advisable and recommended you too learn the Rebbe’s sicha and notes on this matter.
to 15 k
Who’s “silly”?! just don’t be “lazy” and research the drawing in the Frankel edition
Eye Witness?!!!
Milhouse, Is it your opinion that The Rebbe’s opinion is that The menorah was definitely not rounded (or only that this is the clear uncontested opinion expressed the a Rishon)?
Can you (Mildouse) sight even one “eyewitness” source for the Menorah being rounded?
If not, PLEASE acknowledge your mistake publicly and we will all have more respect for you (and the Rebbe will surely forgive you too, regardless).
PS “Eyewitness” means someone who literally saw the Menorah. BTW, were even all Kohanim able to see the Menorhah? – Think about it! (Am I missing something here?) – Yes there were Many general Menorahs around the Beis Hamikdosh (as mentioned by the Rebbe) but the one we are talking about, WHO HAD ACCESS TO IT? What are your eye witness accounts (which are so compelling that ch”v these are considered significant enough for you to present them as relevant to the subject and as if the Rebbe would have altered his approach on the subject!).
Milhouse
1. Every kohen who served in the beis hamikdosh saw the menorah in the hechal. (Tamid 6:4)
2. There are many authorities who hold that every oleh regel saw the menorah together with the shulchan.
3. As the Rebbe pointed out in the sicha, there is no reason to suppose the other menoros in the beis hamikdosh looked different from the one in the hechal, and every reason to suppose they looked the same.
Archaeology vs. Mesorah
I believe that in Lekutei Sichos vol 26, p.200 – 203, the Rebbe addresses cases where recent archaeological findings contradict the mesora.
He brings a discussion in the Gemorrah (Shabbos 63B) about whether the words “Kodesh LaHashem” that were engraved on the Tzitz, were written on 1 or 2 lines. Even though Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yosi, one of the greatest Chachamim, saw the Tzitz, and it was written on 2 lines, the Tana Kama argues and says that – based on tradition – it should be written on 1 line, and the Rambam and others poskin that it should be written on one (lechatchila).
The Rebbe says that we learn from there that even if we find “evidence” that seems to contradict the Mesorah (likely there referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls), we should not consider that our tradition isn’t correct.
see http://theonlinerabbi.com/sichosonline/parshas-tetzaveh/ for Rabbi Levi Garelik’s shiur on the topic.
zvi lipchik
Meshech v"oleh
14 years ago, I visited Eretz HaKodesh, and did some touring. There was a Judaica Museum near the Kotel. The Menorah had each arm straight, but one part was rising some 20 degrees, and the rest bends and rises some 45 degrees, straight up.
I told the lady there that according to the Rambam, the arms are suppose to be diagonal all the way. She says,”You must be from Chabad.” Then she picked up a Rambam and read from the section describing the Menorah. “Look, it says,’meshech v’oleh'(goes out and rises up). Show me where it says differently and I’ll change it.”
Well, I was kind of embarrased because I did not have on me any sources to refer her to. So I felt compelled to go no further with that discussion, right then and there. Sorry I did not have an opportunity to get the information and follow-up with her.
Milhouse
The Rambam doesn’t say they were straight, and we don’t know how he held. His son R Avrohom definitely held they were straight, as in his father’s drawing.
sources for curved branches
1) Rav Kaneivsky’s opinion for those who are interested can also be found in writing in a very short note at the bottom of the page in his Sefer: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49837&st=&pgnum=30&hilite=
2) For those who are interested see https://www.templeinstitute.org/history-holy-temple-menorah-7.htm for a nice four part article (with many pictures) on the shape of the Menorah’s branches. Interestingly they conclude that the branches were certainly curved, even according to the Rambam.
3) Interestingly, Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, founder of the Temple Institute, states that it really doesn’t matter either way (since the Torah is not explicit about this detail) and with either curved or straight branches the Menorah would be kosher.
4) It seemingly might then be possible that Moshe Rabbeinu’s Menorah for the Mishkan was made with straight branches, but Shlomo HaMelech and everyone thereafter (for which we have all the archaeological artifacts) used the artistic liberty within Halacha and for whatever reason they changed the shape of the Menorah and made it with curved branches… Of course that would be a big Chidush… But maybe in Moshe’s time metalworking was not advanced enough to produce quality curved branches, while in Shlomo’s time they were more advanced and were able to do so.
5) There also may be some support in Chazal that the initial temporary Menorah that the Chashmonoim made upon reentry into the Mikdosh had straight branches, instead of curved. See Menachos 28b, that according to R’ Yosei bar Yehudah the Chashmonoim made a temporary Menorah out of wood, while according to other Rabbonim, they first used iron rods overlaid with tin. Since they had to do this quickly in order to light the Menorah right away, it seems likely that the branches of the Chashmonoim’s temporary Menorah may have been straight rather than curved, even though subsequently, when they had more time and better materials (as it says there in Menochos, next they made a Menorah out of silver, and then out of gold), did they make the more permanent Menorah with presumably curved branches.
sources for curved branches
For completeness, with regard to my last point 5 above, in addition to Menachos 28b this same tradition is also brought in Rosh Hashona 24b and Avodah Zorah 43a, but what I was really thinking of, but did not mention before, was the more detailed tradition brought in Pesikta 2:1 and Megilas Taanis Perek 9, that when the Chashmonoim entered the Beis HaMikdosh they found there eight (or in other versions seven) iron spears which they stuck [in the ground] and lit Neiros on them. Seemingly the iron spears were completely straight, and it appears that they were used for the Menorah in that fashion, without trying to bend and curve them in any way. That was only a temporary Menorah however, and it is evident that previously, and afterwards, a more aesthetically pleasing and fitting golden Menorah with curved branches was used.
To resolve the seeming contradiction of the number of spears used, eight or seven, I have seen it suggested that it may be that only seven spears were stuck in the ground and on them the Neiros were lit, while an eighth spear was used to attach these seven together and unite them, possibly affixed horizontally near the tops of the other spears, as appears in some ancient Menorah representations, so that they should be considered one Menorah instead of just seven detached lights.
The idea that straight branches are fine for temporary use would correlate nicely with my point 4, that in the Mishkon the Menorah branches may have been straight, since the Mishkon was intended to be specifically a temporary sanctuary, not like the more permanent Beis HaMikdosh. This is just speculation however.
IIRC a number of traditional sources, Rishonim included, compare the seven lights of the Menorah to the “seven moving stars,” i.e., the sun, moon, and five visible planets, and they likewise discuss how these all move in curved or elliptical orbits. It seems surprising that no one mentions that this may be why the Menorah may have been made with curved branches, to better allude to the seven moving stars in their orbits, and to include this symbolism in the Menorah in the Mikdosh to teach that all of them were created to be Osos U’l’Moadim and assist us in the service of Hashem.
Also, as brought in many places, the shape of the Menorah was similar to a certain species of plant, the Jerusalem Sage (Salvia hierosolymitana). The more one studies this plant the more similarities and comparisons to the Menorah become apparent. The plant has branches that grow in opposing pairs out of the central stem, and these branches initially grow out at a straight angle, but then they curve as they continue growing and extend upward toward the sun. Here too, at an initial stage, i.e., at the beginning or temporary stage of their growth, the branches extend angularly and straightly, however as they mature to their more permanent adult stage, the branches develop with a definite curvature, which also fits nicely with what I’ve written here.
Milhouse
IIRC a number of traditional sources, Rishonim included, compare the seven lights of the Menorah to the “seven moving stars,” i.e., the sun, moon, and five visible planets, and they likewise discuss how these all move in curved or elliptical orbits. It seems surprising that no one mentions that this may be why the Menorah may have been made with curved branches, to better allude to the seven moving stars in their orbits, and to include this symbolism in the Menorah in the Mikdosh to teach that all of them were created to be Osos U’l’Moadim and assist us in the service of Hashem.
What do you mean, nobody mentions it? If you learned the sicha you’d see that the Maaseh Choshev makes this very point, and the Rebbe points out that it makes no sense, since nobody claims or imagines that the central arm was curved.
Also, as brought in many places, the shape of the Menorah was similar to a certain species of plant, the Jerusalem Sage (Salvia hierosolymitana).
What “many places”? Someone wrote it on Wikipedia, and every other source copied it from there. Name one Jewish authority that makes anything of it.
sources for curved branches
In reply to Milhouse:
What do you mean, nobody mentions it? If you learned the sicha you’d see that the Maaseh Choshev makes this very point, and the Rebbe points out that it makes no sense, since nobody claims or imagines that the central arm was curved.
—– First of all, as you yourself previously replied to me in a comment babove, the Maaseh Choshev was not a Rishon, and here I was mostly intending Rishonim. I also said this was “surprising” because even now it seems likely to me that this must indeed be mentioned somewhere in the works of the Rishonim, and indeed I feel more assured and happy that as you point out the idea really already is mentioned in the Maaseh Choshev, who at least was an early Acharon. Thanks for that.
In addition, upon reviewing the Rebbe zt”l’s Sicha (see Likutei Sichos vol. 21, p. 168, footnote 40, וצע”ג האם יפרש שגם הנר האמצעי יהי’ “כמעט בעיגול”!) it clear that you are misrepresenting the Sicha as the Rebbe does not reject the Maaseh Choshev’s idea due to the central trunk of the Menorah being straight, he only points out that this may present a significant difficulty.
However it seems to me that this objection is not significant and can be explained without difficulty, so allow me to venture an answer for the Maaseh Choshev. First of all this idea of the symbolism of the curved shape of the Menorah’s branches is only meant to be “suggestive” and “symbolic,” so it doesn’t have to be exact and showing complete orbits for all the lights. Indeed nobody says the Menorah is intending to depict the complete orbits of the planets, but at best only being suggestive with approximate half-orbits, and certainly with six out of seven branches being curved we can easily expound this idea after the majority.
[Incidentally, although the footnote used the term “Nair HoEmtzoei,” it is clear from the context that really what is intended is the full central column and trunk of the Menorah, and not specifically the Neir itself at the top, and this demonstrates that when the term Nair is used sometimes it is to be understood more broadly. V’da”l.]
Moreover, if one wants to be even more exact and explicit about the symbolism of the Menorah’s shape, if one presumes that the light on the straight central trunk of the Menorah corresponds to the sun, it is even possible to say from this that amazingly the shape of the Menorah thereby hints that indeed all the planets (including earth) go around the sun, which in the context of the solar system is fixed and unmoving in its position.
Or alternatively perhaps it could be said that the sun itself is not represented at all among the lights of the Menorah, since it is clearly recognizable that it is not in the same category as the moon and planets, it is the source of the light not a reflector of light. But rather the light at the top of the straight central trunk of the Menorah instead eludes to a different planet, i.e., the planet earth, the seemingly immobile earth under our feet, and the shape of the Menorah thereby hints that the earth itself is a planet that shines with the same reflected light of the sun as the other visible planets do. The sun itself would be represented by the fire in the hand of the Kohen with which he kindles all the seven Neiros.
——
What “many places”? Someone wrote it on Wikipedia, and every other source copied it from there. Name one Jewish authority that makes anything of it.
—- Obviously it is not a Wikipedia original idea, but it was publicly noted by professional botanists and Judaic scholars many, many years before the appearance of computers and the internet, and in any case if it makes sense then “accept the truth from anyone who says it” (as you yourself wrote above in comment 11, “Milhouse wrote: The truth is the truth, and is no respecter of persons”).
Also please at least once and a while get your nose out of the Seforim – as the Gemorah advises many times – and “go and see what the people outside are saying,” and similarly with regard to good manners and good behavior as Pirkei Ovos advises, “Go out and see what is the good way to which a man should cling” – note that is does not say to just “study all the Seforim you can and see what is the good way…,” from time to time it is necessary to go outside the Seforim). And especially in this case, since among the many people who recognize the similarity of this plant to the Menorah are not just “simple people” but rather this includes many reputable experts and Judaic scholars, and especially as we do not need Seforim to tell us whether it is day or night outside, or whether it is rainy or sunny, it is something we can see for ourselves, and anyone with eyes in his head can also see this if he would only open up his eyes.
And one other piece of advice my dear brother, B’mechilas Kvod Toroshcho, please get off your arrogant high horse. You do not know everything. Try to follow the advice of our greatest Jewish authorities and sages that indeed it is possible and even necessary to “learn from everyone,” and that indeed it is necessary to “treat your fellow’s honor as dear to you as your own,” and “let the honor of your student be as dear to you as your own, and the honor of your colleagues be as the reverence for you teacher,” and certainly to treat anyone with well deserved respect even if you learn from him “even as little as a single letter.” My best regards.
Milhouse
You wrote that it is “brought in many places”. In this context that can only mean sifrei kodesh. Why don’t you try citing some of those places? You won’t find any. This whole idea was thought up by an Israeli botanist who noted a resemblance between this plant and the pictures he saw of the menorah. it has no source whatsoever. So how can the plant prove the menorah’s shape?
sources for curved branches
In the context of our discussion here many sources outside of traditional Seforim have played a prominent role, and indeed even you, Milhouse, apparently have no problem to discussing and even taking as “proof” the discoveries of archaeology, so why do you object so strenuously to discussing this plant and what may be discovered about it?
Meanwhile nobody has to accept that that this plant definitively “proves” the menorah’s shape, I don’t know if anyone even claims that, but certainly it does seem to “support” the conjecture, and there are indeed good reasons that this is based on. Don’t forget that much of the symbolism of the Menorah and its decorations are plant-related, with its buds, flowers and branches, and the Torah itself stress many plant-based themes, trees of life and of knowledge, which the Menorah is also said to symbolize, and the flames of the Menorah may ever represent the “burning bush” that discussed in our tradition. Also this is not just an ordinary weed, but it grows throughout Israel and in Jerusalem, and it seems to have medicinal properties and produces a pleasant smelling oil that may even have been used for the holy incense or anointing oil.
—–
To conclude on the subject of the Chashmonoim’s iron Menorah, the Temple Institute has an article https://www.templeinstitute.org/history-holy-temple-menorah-19.htm, complete with an artist’s conception of how it appeared, showing completely straight iron branches. Unlike what I presented above that iron spears were used, the Temple Institute apparently interprets the word “Shpudim,” which appears in Pesikta Rabba and Megilas Taanis, not as “spears,” but simply as “bars,” and while they state that eight bars were used, however they interpret that the extra eighth bar was used as the “base” of the temporary, makeshift Menorah, rather than as a stabilizer attaching the other seven bars together at the top.
Also regarding the Pesikta Rabba and Megilas Taanis, and wherever else this tradition may appear, these Midrashim are very brief, and it is not clear how to interpret many aspects of what the Chashmonoim did for their initial Menorah. For example, do the Midrashim mean to say that the Chashmonoim set the spears or bars in their proper place, or that they designated them for use as the Menorah, or that they stuck them in the ground, or that they stuck them together, or does it mean that they attached Neiros to them, or that they hollowed out their tops for placing the Neiros in them. There are various similar interpretations out there. Also it is unclear if the iron spears or bars were somehow covered with wood or with tin, and also whether originally they were made by and belonged to the enemy Greeks or if originally they were made by and belonged to Jews.
May the study of these matters, both in traditional Seform and by utilizing archaeological and scientific discoveries and the like, lead to a revival of the holy spirit of the Chashmonoim and revival of the holy illumination of the Menorah, that we can all live to see once again, with the building of the Beis Hamikdosh BB”A.
whats the problam
the only thing the rebbe wants is for everyone to know that this is the right way so what if their slow they finely got it
Milhouse
The Rebbe’s entire point was that we should not be learning from the arch of Titus Horosho, especially when our own sources say otherwise. He assumed that this was the source for showing the menorah with curved arms. He did not know this for a fact, it was just an assumption (ע״פ השערה). But this assumption was incorrect. Titus’s arch is not the reason Jews throughout the past 2000 years have shown the menorah with curved arms; the true sources are Jewish, and therefore the Rebbe’s objection does not apply.
Eye witness
Anyone who reads the Rebbe’s teachings well will know that the Rebbe is himself an eye witness to the fact that the menorah had straight branches. Great tzaddikim see the source of things as they exist above, and make their statements accordingly. The Rebbe teaches that all the Rebbes of Chabad are neshamos of atzilus who, even while enclothed in a body, primarily experience ruchniyos and have to struggle to deal with gashmiyus. He explained that physical matters and events are mere echos of a higher reality and that those familiar with the higher reality know the truth of the lower reality. This is how he healed the sick and corrected ailments, infirtility, etc. He saw what was wrong above and took steps to correct it below. If you study these and similar teachings well you cannot but conclude that if the Rebbe was so publicly and uncharacteristically adamant about the shape of the menorah and luchos, it was because he could see in the higher reality that this was indeed the case and that the time had come to correct this because of our proximity to the geulah as he explained. This may sound radical to one who has not studied chassidus and especially the Rebbe’s teachings, but if they do they will discover the true radical sublimity of the Rebbeim and their role in revealing radical degrees of divinity as an introduction to the complete redemption. Soon enough the original menorah will be unearthed and restored in the third mikdash by Moshiach, at which point the archeological arguments we now hear will be mute on their own grounds.
Milhouse
Maybe the Platonic Ideal menorah lema’aloh has straight arms, but the one in the actual 2nd beis hamikdosh here lematoh had curved arms (though not semicircular ones, as Titus’s arch depicts them).
It’s extremely unlikely that it will be unearthed; it’s extremely unlikely that it still exists at all. Moshiach will have to make a new one, and we will find out then what shape he will make the arms.
Learn, Learn, Learn
As well as the edited sicha, see the non-edited sicha of Devorim 5741 where great respect is shown for the shita of round branches (based on Kabbala!) and the point is made that as a matter of halacha round or straight is likley not essential.