(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Menachos 95



(a) The She'eilah whether the Lechem ha'Panim became Pasul when Yisrael traveled or not is resolved by a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The ...
1. ... first opinion learns from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Yachanu Kein Yisa'u" - that just as, at the time of encampment, leaving the Azarah rendered the loaves Pasul, so too, did breaking camp.
2. ... second opinion learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lechem ha'Tamid Alav Yih'yeh" - that the loaves remained Kasher, even whilst traveling.
(b) The latter opinion explains "Ka'asher Yachanu Kein Yisa'u" to mean - that just as at the time of encampment, the loaves did not become Pasul unless they were moved from the Azarah, so too, when traveling, they did not become Pasul unless they were moved from the Shulchan.

(c) The problem remains however - how the first opinion explains the Pasuk "ve'Lechem ha'Tamid Alav Yih'yeh".

(a) To solve the problem, when Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he qualified the Machlokes. The disputants agree, he says - that as long as the loaves remained on the Shulchan, they did not become Pasul.

(b) The first opinion now learns as before only with regard to where the loaves were removed from the Shulchan (and based on "ve'Lechem ha'Tamid Alav Yih'yeh", he concedes that as long as the loaves were on the Shulchan, they never became Pasul). The second opinion now learns from the Pasuk there "Ve'nasa Ohel Mo'ed" - that even when they traveled, the Ohel Mo'ed retained its status, in which case the loaves did not become Pasul, even if they were removed from the Shulchan, as long as they remained within Machaneh Leviyah.

(c) And he explains "Ka'asher Yachanu Kein Yisa'u" - simply as instructions regarding the order in which the various Degalim (flags) broke camp.

(d) The second opinion learns this from the Pasuk - "Machaneh ha'Levi'im be'Soch ha'Machanos".

(a) The Beraisa, discussing various aspects of Halachah when Yisrael broke camp, says that ...
1. ... Kodshim - became Pasul be'Yotzei, and ...
2. ... Zavin and Metzora'in - had to remain within their boundaries (the former outside Machaneh Leviyah, the latter behind Machaneh Dan).
(b) The catalyst that sparks this off is - the rolling up of the Paroches.

(c) According to Rav Dimi, this Tana holds that the Machaneh whilst traveling - retains its status.

(a) We attempt to reconcile this with the second opinion (that does not render the Lechem ha'Panim Pasul be'Yotzei) - by precluding the Lechem ha'Panim from the 'Kodshim' mentioned in the Beraisa.

(b) We reject this suggestion however - because 'Mah Nafshach', if Machaneh Yisrael retained its status whilst traveling, then why did Kodshim become Pasul? And if it did not, then why did the Lechem ha'Panim not?

(c) So when Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, quoting Mar, he reinterpreted the two statements of Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua. Both Amora'im agree that Machaneh Yisrael does not retain its status whilst traveling.

(d) And he establishes ...

1. ... the first opinion ('Eino Nifsal") - when the loaves were still on the Shulchan, and ...
2. ... the second opinion ('Nifsal'), when they had been removed.
(a) Abaye proves from the fact that the Beraisa ascribes the P'sul Kodshim (when they traveled) to 'Yotzei' (exclusively) - that once the Pillar of Fire moved in the night, they traveled immediately, without waiting for daybreak ...

(b) ... because otherwise, there would be times when Kodshim would be Pasul through Linah, and not through Yotzei.

(c) Abaye needs a Beraisa to teach us this, despite the Pasuk "Laleches Yomam va'Laylah" - which could just as well be speaking only in cases where they began to travel by day ...

(d) ... seeing as the Torah puts "Yomam" first.

(a) We ask on this Beraisa however, from another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that once the Paroches has been rolled up - Zavin and Metzora'in are permitted to enter the Machaneh.

(b) Rav Ashi establishes the latter Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer, who learns from the Pasuk "Vi'yeshalchu min ha'Machaneh Kol Tzaru'a, ve'Chol Zav ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh" - that wherever a Tamei Meis is obligated to leave the Machaneh Shechinah, a Metzora is obligated to leave Machaneh Yisrael; and conversely, where the former is not obligated to leave, the latter is not obligated either.

(c) Consequently, he rules - that if Zavin and Metzora'in pushed their way into the Azarah in the case of a Pesach that was brought be'Tum'ah (i.e. because most of the Tzibur were Tamei), they (the Zavin and Metzora'in) are Patur.

(d) That ruling will extend to our case (where the Paroches was rolled up and they were ready to travel), because - since there was no Machaneh Shechinah, Te'me'ei Meisim (who are permitted to enter the Machaneh Leviyah) were not subject to an Isur of entering the Mishkan be'Tum'ah, and consequently, Zavin and Metzora'in were not subject to one either.




(a) Our Mishnah discusses the Halachic similarities between the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim. Both of them are kneaded and shaped outside the Azarah - but baked inside.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah is more stringent than the Tana Kama. He requires the kneading to be performed inside the Azarah, too.

(c) Whereas Rebbi Shimon is more lenient - permitting even the baking to be performed anywhere in 'Beis Pagi' (i.e. anywhere in Yerushalayim).

(d) The Tana also compares them - in that they both override Shabbos.

(a) The problem with the fact that on the one hand, the kneading and the shaping of the Lechem ha'Panim may be performed outside the Azarah, whereas on the other, the baking must take place inside is - that the first statement seems to hold that Midas Yavesh does not sanctify even what is fit to be placed inside it, whilst the second statement holds that it does.

(b) When Rava attributed the Kashya to a particularly sharp man, he was referring to Rav Sheishes.

(c) We reject Rava's statement however, by resolving the discrepancy with ease. This we do by differentiating between the Isaron (which is not Mekadesh), and the oven (which is).

(d) So what Rav Sheishes really asked was from the fact that the baking must be performed inside the Azarah on the one hand, and that they do not override Shabbos on the other - creating the problem that the obligation to bake the Sh'nei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim on Erev Shabbos, will automatically cause them to become Pasul be'Linah on Shabbos morning.

(a) Rav Ashi attempts to answer the Kashya - by interpreting 'bi'Fenim' as (outside the Azarah, but) in a location where the Kohanim who are 'Zerizin' (alert) are situated ...

(b) ... so that they can supervise the baking, to ensure that the Matzos do not become Chametz.

(c) But we consider Rav Ashi's suggestion a joke - because if the Kohanim are needed to supervise the baking, why should they not also be obligated to supervise the kneading and the shaping?

(a) Rebbi Aba bar Kahana say about Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, who argue over whether the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim need to be prepared in the Azarah (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (Rebbi Shimon), derive their respective opinions from the same Pasuk.

(b) Either way, David was criticizing Achimelech for baking the Lechem ha'Panim when he did. According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion he found him baking the loaves on Friday - David asked him why he was baking them 'Derech Chol', since, seeing as the Tanur sanctified the loaves, they would become Pasul be'Linah by tomorrow, in which case, their baking would override Shabbos (which is when he ought to have baked them). Whereas ...
2. ... Rebbi Shimon, according to whom he found Achimelech baking the loaves on Shabbos - asked him why he did not bake them yesterday ('Derech Chol'), since he surely did not think that the Tanur sanctified the loaves, in which case their baking would not override Shabbos.
(c) We refute this explanation however - because, seeing as the Pasuk writes there "Va'yitein Lo ha'Kohen Kodesh ... Lechem ha'Panim ha'Musarim mi'Lifnei Hashem" (referring specifically to after the loaves had been removed from the Shulchan). In that case, under no circumstances, can David have arrived on the day that the loaves were being baked.

(d) When David said ...

1. ... ''ve'Hu Derech Chol'' - he must have been referring to the fact that the loaves had been removed from the Shulchan, in which case they were no longer subject to Me'ilah.
2. ... "Af ki ha'Yom Yekadesh bi'Cheli", he meant - that he (Achimelech) would even have been permitted to hand him loaves that had only just been placed on the Shulchan (and which were still subject to Me'ilah), because a Bulmus (a dangerous illness affecting the eyes, caused by starvation) had seized him.
(a) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon is - the tradition they had received from their Rebbes as to whether the Tanur sanctifies what is fit for it (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

(b) And the proof for this lies in the Lashon used by Rebbi Shimon - 'Le'olam Hevi Ragil Lomar ... ', indicating that his argument with Rebbi Yehudah is not a matter of how to Darshen Pesukim, but the wording of their respective traditions.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,