(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 96

MENACHOS 96-99 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.



(a) Our Mishnah now discusses the preparation of the Chavitei Kohen Gadol and the other Menachos. The Chavitei Kohen Gadol were kneaded, shaped and baked - in the Azarah.

(b) These preparations also overrode Shabbos. The grinding and sifting, says the Tana - do not override Shabbos ...

(c) ... because as Rebbi Akiva said - 'whatever can be performed before Shabbos does not override Shabbos; whatever cannot, does'.

(d) Our Mishnah rules that preparations of Menachos that are performed inside the Azarah - require a K'li; whereas those that are performed outside - do not.

(e) Based on this principle, the kneading and shaping of the Chavitin took place inside the Azarah. On the other hand, the kneading and shaping of the Menachos took place outside. They did not require a K'li Shareis, as did the Minchas Chavitin, because it could be performed by Zarim, who would sometimes take the K'li outside the Azarah to measure his Minchah, whereas the Minchas Chavitin was performed by the Kohen Gadol (see also Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(a) The Tana goes on to discuss the shape of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim. The Sh'tei ha'Lechem was seven Tefachim by four. The 'Keranos' - (pieces of dough that the Kohanim stuck to the two upper ends of each loaf) were four Etzba'os (finger-breadths) wide.

(b) The width of its Keranos was - seven Etzba'os.

(c) When Rebbi Yehudah gives a Si'man 'Zedad' and 'Yehaz' - he is referring to the dimensions of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, respectively (in acronym form [i.e. seven, four and four, and ten, five and seven).

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah - five Tefachim always make an Amah.

(b) The Lechem ha'Panim was arranged on the Shulchan - the length of the loaves lying across the width.

(c) Even though the loaf was initially ten Tefachim long, it nevertheless fitted across the Shulchan (that was five Tefachim wide) - after the Kohanim folded two two and a half Tefach vertical walls, one at either end of each loaf.

(d) According to Rebbi Meir - six Tefachim make an Amah.

(a) Consequently, the Shulchan was twelve by six Tefachim. The dimensions of the Lechem ha'Panim however - remain the same as according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) Rebbi Meir argues with Rebbi Yehudah regarding the dimensions of the Shulchan, but not with regard to those of the Lechem ha'Panim - because their dispute is confined to the measurements of the Keilim (but not to those of the other accessories of the Beis-Hamikdah [see Sugya at the end of 97a]).

(c) According to him, the Kohanim folded - two Tefachim at each end of the loaf.

(a) The other difference between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah is - that according to Rebbi Meir, two Tefachim space divided between the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim, whereas, according to Rebbi Yehudah, they were placed flush one next to the other.

(b) That space, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir - was to allow air between the two rows of loaves (to present them from becoming moldy).
2. ... Aba Shaul (in addition to that of Rebbi Meir) - was in order to place the two Bazichei Levonah there.
(c) Aba Shaul countered the Kashya from the Pasuk "Ve'nasata al ha'Ma'areches Levonah Zakah", (implying that the Levonah should be placed on top of the loaves, as we explained earlier) and not next to them) - by quoting the Pasuk in Bamidbar "ve'Alav Mateh Menasheh", where "Alav" clearly means 'next to', and not 'on top of'. Likewise here.
(a) We have already partially discussed the S'nifin and the Kanim.
1. Two S'nifin supported each row of Lechem ha'Panim - one on either side of the Shulchan.
2. Fourteen Kanim were needed for each row.
(b) The golden Kanim were shaped - like spliced half-canes.

(c) When the Tana describes the S'nifin as 'Mefutzalos me'Rosheihen', he means - that each S'nif contained fourteen grooves from end to end (see Rashash) to hold the fourteen Kanim.

(a) The Kohanim removed the Kanim from between the Lechem ha'Panim, and put them across the Shulchan (see Tosfos Yom-Tov) on Friday afternoon - because they were Muktzah, and could neither be arranged on the Shulchan to support the new loaves, nor removed from the old ones.

(b) Finally, the Tana states - that all the Keilim in the Beis-Hamikdash (e.g. the Shulchanos) were placed lengthways along its length.

(c) Rebbi learns from the Pasuk in Yechezkel comparing the Minchah to the Asham and the Chatas - that just as the latter two required a K'li bi'Fenim, so too does the former.

(d) We know that the Pasuk is speaking about inside the Azarah, because it writes "Levilti Hotzi el ha'Chatzer ha'Chitzonah", and that the Asham and the Chatas there requires Keilim - because it writes "Asher Yevashlu Sham ha'Kohanim es ha'Asham ... ", and cooking requires a K'li.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan observes that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Shulchan sanctifies fifteen Tefachim above its own level. He arrives at that figure - because it is the sum total of six times two and a half Tefachim (the height of the vertical walls of each loaf).

(b) According to Rebbi Meir, it sanctified - twelve (six times two) Tefachim above its own level.

(c) The ramifications of Rebbi Yochanan's statements - concerns something that is fit to become Kadosh that is held between twelve and fifteen Tefachim above the Shulchan. According to Rebbi Yehudah - it will be sanctified; according to Rebbi Meir - it will not.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan ignores the added space of the six rows of Kanim - due to the fact that they were embedded in the Lechem and therefore took up no space.

(b) The problem with this is - that if it were so, the whole point of the Kanim (to allow air to get to the loaves, to prevent them from becoming moldy), will be lost, rendering them redundant.

(c) We answer that the Kanim were only partially embedded in the loaves, leaving a slight gap between one loaf and the other. And the reason that Rebbi Yochanan does not include the spaces of the Kanim that protruded above the loaves is - because they do not add up to a full Tefach.

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that the Bazichei Levonah were placed on the Lechem ha'Panim, Rebbi Yochanan does not include the depth of the Bazichin - because the Bazichin did not sit on top of the top loaves, but were placed inside them.

(a) The previous Kashya appears meaningless - since the Bazichin were not sanctified by the Shulchan anyway.

(b) Neither does Rebbi Yochanan include the Keranos - since they were not vertical attachments (like the Keranos of the Mizbe'ach), but were affixed to the loaves horizontally (adding nothing to the height above the Shulchan that was sanctified).

(c) Initially, we explain that Rebbi Yochanan does not include the Misgeres (the Tefach-high frame that surrounded the Shulchan), because it was placed lower down on the Shulchan. We nevertheless reconcile Rebbi Yochanan even with those who maintain that it was situated above the Shulchan's surface - by placing the Misgeres outside the Shulchan, whereas the loaves were placed on the Shulchan within the Misgeres.

(d) 'Parkudei Havah Mefarkeda' means - that the Misgeres leaned slightly outwards, leaving space for the Lechem ha'Panim to fit on the Shulchan.




(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa states that the Misgeres, which he maintains protruded above the Shulchan - dispensed with the need for the S'nifin (see Tosfos DH 'Misgarto').

(b) According to the Rabbanan, the Misgeres was placed below the surface of the Shulchan - in which case the Shulchan rested on it (see also Rabeinu Gershom).

(a) A 'Tivla ha'Mis'hapeches' is - a flat surface that can be used on either side with ease (because it has no rim that impedes its use).

(b) Given that a. the Misgeres was below the surface of the Shulchan, and b. the Shulchan was subject to Tum'ah, we can learn from it - that a 'Tivla ha'Mis'hapeches' is Tamei, too.

(c) What makes the Shulchan different than other 'Peshutei K'lei Eitz' (flat wooden vessels) that are not subject to Tum'ah - is the fact that, due to its size, it is fit to lie on, and is therefore Tamei Medras.

(d) If however, the Misgeres was situated above the surface of the Shulchan, we could not learn the Din by a 'Tivla ha'Mishapeches' from it - because the Shulchan the reason that it (the Shulchan) is Tamei may well be due to the fact that it has a Beis Kibul (and 'Tivla ha'Mis'hapeches' would therefore remain a She'eilah).

(a) Nevertheless, we query the Tum'ah of the Shulchan, notwithstanding the above Chumros - because, due to the Torah's comparison of a wooden vessel to a sack, the Shulchan ought to be Tahor - since it is not meant to be moved from its place even when it is full (in the way that a sack is).

(b) And we answer by citing Resh Lakish - who extrapolates from the Pasuk "al ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor" - that it is most certainly subject to Tum'ah ...

(c) ... and he ascribes this to the fact that - the Kohanim would lift it up on Yom-Tov together with the Lechem ha'Panim, to show the people ...

(d) ... that although eight days had elapsed since the loaves had been baked, they were still as steaming hot as they were when they were baked (as Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explained). Note, that doing so is min ha'Torah.

(a) The Mishnah in Keilim speaks about a table or a leather folding-seat (Dulbeki) which broke or which was overlaid with marble. The Tana rules that if one left space for cups (or according to Rebbi Yehudah, for pieces of bread or meat) uncovered - the table ... remains Tamei.

(b) We can extrapolate from there however, that if the table had been completely overlaid - it would be Tahor (because marble [which is after all, a type of stone] is not subject to Tum'ah) ...

(c) ... a proof that we go after the 'Tzipuy' (the overlaying). This poses a Kashya on the Shulchan - which ought therefore to be subject to Tum'ah (even without the Din of Resh Lakish), seeing as it was overlaid with gold.

(d) Initially, we try to answer the Kashya - by establishing the Mishnah in Keilim by a table or a folding-chair ... that is overlaid permanently (e.g. that is nailed); whereas the Shulchan speaks of a temporary job (not joined with nails), so we do not go after the Tzipuy.

Next daf


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