THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
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.
1) "ZADAD, YAHAZ"
QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches the measurements of the Shtei ha'Lechem and
the Lechem ha'Panim. Each loaf of the Shtei ha'Lechem is 7 Tefachim long, 4
Tefachim wide, and the corner-additions are each 4 Etzba'os. Each loaf of
the Lechem ha'Panim is 10 Tefachim long, 5 Tefachim wide, and the
corner-additions are each 7 Etzba'os. Rebbi Yehudah teaches that mnemonic
device for remembering the measurements of the Shtei ha'Lechem and the
Lechem ha'Panim is the words, "ZaDaD YaHaZ," referring to the 7-Tefach
length, 4-Tefach width, and 4-Etzba corners of the Shtei ha'Lechem (ZaDab),
and the 10-Tefach length, 5-Tefach width, and 7-Etzba corners of the Lechem
2) THE "PANIM" OF THE "LECHEM HA'PANIM"
The TIFERES YISRAEL points out that we are supposed to make Simanim in order
to remember the laws of the Torah (as the Gemara teaches in Shabbos 104a),
and as was the practice of Rebbi Yehudah to do. However, the phrases of the
Simanim must have some connection or implication for the law that we are
trying to remember. Without such a connection, we might easily get confused
regarding which Siman belongs to which law. In what way do the words "Zadad"
and "Yahaz" connote the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, respectively?
If those words have no connection to the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem
ha'Panim, but are merely ways of remembering the specific numbers of the
measurements, how do they help as Simanim? We might confuse them and think
that "Zadad" refers to the measurements of the Lechem ha'Panim, and "Yahaz"
refers to the measurements of the Shtei ha'Lechem! Moreover, without any
intrinsic meaning to the words, we might confuse the Siman itself and think
that it is "Yadad" instead of "Zadad," and "Zahaz" instead of "Yahaz"!
ANSWER: The TIFERES YISRAEL suggests that the words "Zadad" and "Yahaz"
indeed signify, on a deeper level, the Shtei ha'Lechem and the Lechem
ha'Panim, respectively. "Zadad" is an acronym for the words, "Zeh Dad,"
which mean, "This is the bosom." The two loaves of the Shtei ha'Lechem are
like the two sources of an infant's nourishment. By bringing the Korban of
the Shtei ha'Lechem, the Jewish people arouse Divine mercy to grant
nourishment and sustenance to the Jewish people, and to make the land flow
with milk and honey, as the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (16a) teaches, "Bring
before Me the Shtei ha'Lechem on Shavuos, so that your fruits will be
"Yahaz" comes from the word "Hozim," as in the verse, "Hozim v'Shochvim"
(Yeshayah 56:10), which refers to the sinful leaders of the people who act
differently from other leaders in that they "doze off and lie down [and love
to sleep]." This words describes the Lechem ha'Panim, because the loaves are
different from all other loaves in that they are laid to rest on the
Shulchan and are not removed for an entire week, and yet they do not become
Pasul through Linah.
(The TIFERES YAKOV rejects the Tiferes Yisrael's assertion that every Siman
must have some meaningful connection to the law it represents. We find in
many places in the Gemara that Simanim are given that have no intrinsic
connection to the concepts they represent. Rather, it is the brevity and
conciseness of the phrases of the Siman that enable a person to remember
lengthy and complex topics.)
OPINIONS: In the Mishnah, Ben Zoma derives from the verse, "And you shall
place on the Shulchan *Lechem Panim* before Me always" (Shemos 25:30), that
the loaves are to have "faces" ("Panim"). What does the word "Panim" mean?
(a) RASHI, in his first explanation, says that "Panim" means "faces," and it
refers to *walls*. The loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim must have walls that
rise up on each side. Similarly, Rashi on the verse (Shemos 25:30) explains
that the Lechem ha'Panim must have walls rising up on each side, which are
like "faces that see towards this way and that way, seeing the sides of the
Beis ha'Mikdash from each side."
The RAMBAN (to Shemos 25:30) asks that Rashi's explanation describes the
"faces" of the Lechem ha'Panim only according to the opinion that maintains
that they were shaped like a "Teivah Perutzah." According to the opinion
that says that they were shaped like a "Sefinah Rokedes," the loaves
themselves were bent upwards, and there was no specific part of the loaves
that protruded beyond the rest such that it could be called a "face." (This
is not a question according to the shape of the loaf as described by Tosfos.
Tosfos says that after the original incline in walls of the loaf were
formed, the upper part of the walls were bent upwards, to stand
perpendicular to the ground. Those upper bends are the "faces" of the
loaves. The Ramban, however, does not learn like Tosfos.)
We might answer that the form of the Lechem ha'Panim itself is what was
considered the "faces," without the need for any part to protrude, since the
walls of the loaves rose up in order to "look" at the sides of the Beis
(b) RASHI, in his second explanation, reads "Panim" as "Pinim," referring to
corners. These corners refer to the additions that were added to the four
corners of each loaf. This explanation is valid according to both opinion of
how the loaves were formed, since, according to both, corner-additions were
made to the Lechem ha'Panim.
(c) The RAMBAN (to Shemos 25:30) cites the IBN EZRA who learns that "Panim"
refers to the fact that the loaves were "*Lefanai* Tamid," as the verse
says. The Ramban goes on to explain the significance of the "Panim" based on
However, as the Ibn Ezra himself says, this explanation is not consistent
with the words of Ben Zoma in the Mishnah, who says that the loaves "have
'Panim,'" referring to some element that the loaves have, and not referring
to where they are placed.
(d) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos, and in Hilchos Temidim u'Musafin
5:9) gives another explanation. According to his text, the Mishnah reads,
"it shall have *many* Panim," and it means that the loaves should have many
The Rambam's explanation is consistent with his interpretation of the word
"Karnoseha" in the Mishnah. The Rambam explains that "Karnoseha" refers
simply to the thickness (or height) of the bread, and not to protrusions of
dough (horns). Because of its thickness, the Lechem ha'Panim is unlike other
breads (Matzos) that have merely a top and a bottom (two sides). The Lechem
ha'Panim, because of its thickness, looks like a cube, which has six
surfaces. These were the "many Panim" (see MAHARI KURKAS).
(e) The TASHBATZ (1:134) also seems to have the same text as the Rambam in
the Mishnah, but he explains that the "many Panim" refer to the 34 surfaces
of each loaf. The bottom plane has 4 four exposed surfaces (top, bottom,
back, front; the two sides are not exposed, due to the two walls that rise
up from them). The two walls that rise up at the two sides each have 5
exposed surfaces (the back and front of the wall, the two sides, and the
top; the bottom is not exposed, since it is attached to the bottom plane of
the loaf). The four rectangular corner-additions at the top of the four
corners also each have 5 exposed surfaces, for a total of 34. (Mordechai Zvi
(f) The TIFERES YISRAEL suggests that Ben Zoma is referring to the statement
of the Mishnah that follows, in which the Mishnah says that the sides of the
Lechem ha'Panim must be folded upwards. Ben Zoma is saying that the Lechem
ha'Panim should have a "Penim," an "inside," formed by the two sides being
folded up like walls of a container.
3) THE IMMOBILITY OF THE "SHULCHAN"
QUESTION: The Gemara says that the Shulchan is a "Kli Etz he'Asuy
l'Nachas" -- a wooden vessel made to remain stationary, and such a vessel is
not Mekabel Tum'ah. The straightforward understanding of the Gemara is that
since the Shulchan is not moved regularly with the Lechem on it, it is
considered to be a stationary, immobile object and is not considered a Kli.
Even though the Shulchan was moved during the travels in the Midbar, that
movement was done only in order to bring the Shulchan back to its original
place in the new encampment. The Shulchan was not moved in order to bring it
to a *new* place. Therefore, it is not considered to be a vessel that is
moved while both full and empty (see Tosfos).
The RA'AVAD (in Hasagos to Hilchos Kelim 3:1) has a novel understanding of
the Gemara. The Ra'avad says that it is *forbidden* to move the Shulchan
(and not merely that it was not ordinarily moved). Consequently, it is
considered "Asuy l'Nachas," stationary.
What does the Ra'avad mean when he says that it is forbidden to move the
Shulchan? What prohibition is there against moving the Shulchan?
ANSWER: RAV SIMCHAH ZISEL BROIDE zt'l in SEFER SHAM DERECH (Parshas Terumah)
suggests the following explanation. He points out that there is an
interesting order in the Parshiyos that discuss the Mishkan. The vessels of
the Mishkan (Klei ha'Mishkan) are mentioned first, in Parshas Terumah,
together with the parts of the Mishkan itself (with the exception of the
Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav). The Bigdei Kehunah are mentioned next, in Parshas
Tetzaveh. The Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav is then mentioned at the end of Parshas
Tetzaveh. The RAMBAN explains that the reason why the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav was
not included together with the vessels and parts of the Mishkan is because
the purpose of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav was not to be part of the Mishkan, but
rather to be "Lichvod Hashem," for the glory of Hashem. What exactly does
There is a difference between the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav and all of the other
vessels of the Mishkan, such as the Shulchan, Menorah, and Aron. The vessels
of the Mishkan mentioned in Parshas Terumah are an intrinsic part of the
construction of the Mishkan and Beis ha'Mikdash. Without these vessels in
place, the Beis ha'Mikdash is considered to be incomplete. Therefore, they
are mentioned in Parshas Terumah, the Parshah that discusses the
construction of the Mishkan. The Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, in contrast, was not an
essential part of the Mishkan itself. Rather, it was merely a place to be
Maktir the Ketores. This is what the Ramban means when he says that the
Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav was not part of the Mishkan, but was "Lichvod Hashem."
Its purpose was merely to enable the burning of the Ketores, which was done
for the glory of Hashem.
Another question may be asked. When the Torah instructs us how to build the
Shulchan and Menorah, it also mentions that the Lechem ha'Panim shall be
placed on the Shulchan, and the Menorah shall be kindled. Why are these
Avodos mentioned in Parshas Terumah, which deals exclusively with the
construction of the Mishkan? When the Torah instructs us how to build the
Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes, it does not tell us to bring Korbanos on it! A
different Parshah is dedicated to that purpose, just as there are different
Parshiyos that describe the Mitzvah of the Lechem ha'Panim and the Mitzvah
of kindling the Menorah. Why does the Torah mention the Avodos that are done
with the Shulchan and the Menorah as part of their construction?
The answer is that not only are the vessels, such as the Shulchan and
Menorah, part of the structure of the Mishkan, but even the Lechem that is
placed on the Shulchan, and the flames that are lit on the Menorah, are part
of the Mishkan's structure. They are not merely Avodos that are done inside
of the structure; they are part of the structure itself. Without them, the
Beis ha'Mikdash is considered to be unfinished. Therefore, the Torah
mentions these acts in Parshas Terumah, just as the Torah mentions the
placing of the Luchos into the Aron. Just as placing the Luchos in the Aron
is part of the structure of the Mishkan and is not merely an Avodah, so,
too, placing the Lechem on the Shulchan and kindling the flames of the
Menorah are part of the structure of the Mishkan.
Based on this approach, Rav Simchah Zisel explains the intention of the
Ra'avad. The reason why the Shulchan and Menorah are forbidden to be moved
is because if they are not in their proper places, the Beis ha'Mikdash is
considered to be incomplete. (According to this, the Ra'avad will also
prohibit moving the Aron, while he will permit moving the Mizbe'ach
ha'Zahav, since it is not mentioned in Parshas Terumah and is not part of
the structure of the Mishkan.)
(The other Rishonim dispute this point, and maintain that there is no
prohibition to move these Kelim of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Therefore, they
explain that "Asuy l'Nachas" means that it is not ordinarily moved.)
(Mordechai Zvi Dicker)