Selected and Adapted by Rabbi Dov Karoll

Quote from the Rosh Yeshiva The well-known Gemara ( 88a) tells us that God coerced the Jewish people into accepting the by suspending Mt. Sinai over them "like a cask." Why was this necessary? After all, they themselves declared, "We shall do and we shall obey"! The Maharal explains that God forced them to accept the Torah because it is the foundation of the world; there is no world without Torah . For this reason, the Torah is a necessity and has to be imposed; without it, the world would revert to chaos ... . People today do not sufficiently emphasize the element of obligation in relation to mitzvot. Instead, they prefer to fulfill the Torah's requirements out of a sense of "connection," rather than as an "obligation." The Maharal teaches us that there is no world without Torah, and therefore we observe the Torah because we must. We must not lose sight of the element of obligation and develop a sense of the ontological dependence of the world on the Torah . However, we may also offer another answer as to why God coerced the nation. Prior to their acceptance of the Torah, Bnei Yisrael were required to observe very few mitzvot, while after the revelation at Sinai they were suddenly obliged to follow all 613 - i.e., to live a life of Torah and mitzvot. Bnei Yisrael might have regretted their commitment when they understood how many laws would now govern every aspect of their lives. God had to coerce them so that the quantity of mitzvot would not prevent them from accepting the Torah, and so that they could not change their minds once they realized what they had taken upon themselves. -Harav Yehuda Am ital zt"I - Matan Torah "Lest You Forget What You Have Seen" Based on a Sicha by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein zt"I

Based on: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lest-you-forget-what-you-have-seen-O

Take heed to yourself, and guard your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life, but teach them to your children and your children's children: the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Chorev, when the Lord said to me, "Gather the people to Me, and I will make them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children." (Dev. 4:9-13) According to the Ramban (Sefer Ha-mitzvot, added asei 2), the above verses describing the remembrance of ma'amad Har Sinai, the revelation at Sinai, constitute a positive commandment. In his Torah commentary on this passage, he expands this notion, explaining that this teaches that we must be extremely careful to remember the source of all the mitzvot. Additionally, we are charged to recall the experience of ma'amad Har Sinai, the thunder and lightning, the experience of "His glory and His greatness," hearing His words from the midst of the fire. We are charged to transmit this experience to our descendants throughout all future generations. Our remembrance of ma'amad Har Sinai takes place at 2 planes. First, there is the perpetuation of the memory of the event itself. This needs to take place both on the cognitive plane, recalling and understanding the events, as well as on the experiential, existential planes. It needs to penetrate to your innermost self. You need to re-experience the awe and power of ma'amad Har Sinai, feeling it in the depths of your personality. The description of ma'amad Har Sinai in Tehillim captures some of this power: "God, when You went out before Your people, when You marched through the wilderness, the earth shook, the heaven dropped at the presence of God, even Sinai itself, at the presence of the Lord, the God of Israel." (68:8-9) Clearly, it was an overwhelming experience. Furthermore, the revelation at Sinai represented a high level of prophecy for Moshe at one level, and the nation as a whole rose to an extremely high level in their relationship with God upon accepting the Torah at another. This can be seen from the striking parallel between the Torah's descriptions of Moshe's level of prophecy - "whom God knew face to face" (Devarim 34:10) - and the people's experience at Sinai - "God spoke to you face to face in the mountain out of the fire" (Deva rim 5:4). Beyond the power of the experience itself, the receiving of the Torah was also a crucial formative stage for the Jewish people, enabling the very emergence of the Jewish people as a nation. Moshe refers to the day of ma 'amad Har Sinai as "Yorn ha-kahal, the day of the assembly" (Dev. 9:10, 10:4, 18:16). While this phrase could be taken to mean "a day on which the assembly was gathered," in context, it seems to mean far more. It was a day when the Jewish people grew into an assembly. God tells the people prior to ma 'amad Har Sinai, "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Sh . 19:6). Aside from the implications regarding the royal and priestly status of the nation, this verse indicates that the Jewish people will be regarded as a nation, a unit integrally connected to God. Ma'amad Har Sinai, therefore, serves as a crucial stage in the development of the Jewish people into a nation. The relationship between God and the Jewish people reached a climax at ma'amad Har Sinai. The Gemara (Ta'anit 26b), based on a verse in Shir Ha-shirim (3:11), portrays ma'amad Har Sinai as the "marriage day" between God and the Jewish people. In remembering the revelation at Sinai, we are called upon not only to re-experience the events of the revelation itself, but to attempt to attain greater closeness to God. Through the unbounded acceptance, and tireless studying, of the Torah, we can hope to achieve this goal in an ongoing way. We need to "take heed" and "guard" the experience of ma'amad Har Sinai, allowing it to pervade our personalities and our service of God, bringing us ever closer to Him . [This sicha was delivered on leil Shavu'ot, 5762 (2002). Adapted by Dov Karoll] Shavuot Redemption in Megillat Ruth By Harav Yaakov Medan

Based on: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/redemption-megillat-ruth

A challenge in studying Megillat Ruth is placing it in the context of Tanakh, in order that it not remain an isolated episode. Several verses in the Megilla hint at the connection, especially at the end when we read about the link between Ruth and King David. This, according to several , is the reason that we read this Megilla on Shavu'ot, since on this day King David was born and died. It is clear, however, that there is room to expand on the connection between King David and the Megilla. In the last 2 chapters of Ruth, the word "ge'ula" (redemption) is repeated quite a few times. "For you are a redeeming kinsman ... I am a redeeming kinsman, there is another redeemer closer than I ... if he will act as a redeemer, good! Let him redeem . But if he does not want to act as redeemer for you, I will do so myself," and many other times. The word ge'ula hints at a connection to King David, as we will explain. The connection may exist not only at the end of the Megilla but also at the beginning, where we are told of the punishment of Elimelekh and his family. Although Elimelekh's sin is not explicitly recounted, his punishment is clear - he dies, and his sons die without bearing children. His wife is old and cannot have any more children. In other words, the family is cut off from the land of the living. All we know about Elimelekh is that he left his country during a famine; if we view this act in a historical context, we can gain insight into the reason he was punished. While Elimelekh and Naomi connect us to the family of Yehuda, the royal tribe of Israel, Ruth links us to the family of Moav, descended from Lot. Lot's story is similar to that of Elimelekh - during years of famine, when there was not enough food for Lot's and Avraham's livestock together, Lot left the land and traveled to Sodom, which was apparently located east of the Jordan River. If so, he traveled out of Israel. The location of Sodom is not fully known, but the city of Tzo'ar, one of Sodom's neighboring cities where Lot lived after the upheaval, appears in Yirmeyahu (48:34) in a prophecy on Moav. On this interpretation, Lot left Avraham's house for a land that became known as part of Moav. Lot's departure constituted not only a geographic exit from Israel but also a cultural and religious exit, from the Godly nation of Avraham to a foreign nation, from Avraham's way of life (which followed the path of God, a way of charity and justice) to its opposite, the Sodomite way. According to Chazal, Lot declared: "I do not want Avraham and his God." Elimelekh repeats the same act, and there is no doubt that it has the same significance; as Chazal say, "One who lives outside of Israel is like one who has no God." Elimelekh's sons marry non-Jewish women (according to Rashi and Ch azal , again st lbn ). He

2 becomes immersed in foreign culture, and, essentially, he leaves Avraham and his God, attaching himself to the culture of Moav. For this reason, his punishment is also so great. Lot in his time was punished in a similar manner - his wife dies, his sons-in-law and married daughters are destroyed, and he remains an old man with daughters who cannot marry. Elimelekh, too, leaves behind a wife who cannot bear children, and 2 daughters-in-law whom no man in Israel will come forward to redeem. We have already pointed out that in Meg ii lat Ruth there is a meeting between the House of Yehuda and the family of Lot. We find a similar sin with a similar punishment regarding Yehuda. Although Yehuda did not leave the country and did not abandon his father's culture, he did force this fate onto his brother Yosef, causing him to leave his father's home and culture with the intent that he should become defiled by the culture of a foreign nation. The punishment exacted of Yehuda is similar to that which befalls both Lot and Elimelekh. Immediately after selling Yosef, Yehuda marries; his wife later dies, his 2 sons die, and he presumes that his third son cannot perform the act of (levirate marriage) with his daughter-in-law. He is left without any assured continuity. The common bond to all 3 cases is that there is a near total loss of family, with a last minute resolution through an act of yibbum. Regarding Yehuda, this is mentioned expressly in the text. Regarding Lot, there is a hint to it. Prof. Benno Jacob notes a linguistic anomaly in the statement by Lot's daughter: "And there is not a man on earth to consort with us (aleinu)" (Ber. 19:31) . In Hebrew, the word "aleinu" is unusual; usually the word "eleinu" would be used in this context. The only other time that "aleinu" appears in a similar context is regarding yibbum: "Yevamah yavo aleha - Her husband's brother shall unite with her" (Dev. 25:5) . As such, this hints that yibbum was at the heart of Lot's daughters' attempts to revive their father's seed and rebuild the name of the family that perished. In the third case, Boaz and Ruth, there is no yibbum expression, but the text states, "So as to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his estate" (Ruth 4:5), similar to the desired outcome of yibbum, "shall be accounted to his dead brother, that his name not be blotted out in Israel" (Dev. 25:6). In all 3 cases, a non-standard yibbum-like solution emerges. None is yibbum between the brother of the deceased and the widow; rather, we have a father (Lot) and daughter, a father (Yehuda) and daughter-in-law, and the father's brother (Boaz) with the father's daughter-in-law. These irregular, surprising yibbum acts return the families to the land of the living. But there is another noteworthy point here - the return of the lost person to his property. Sodom, a land of wickedness, was given to Moav as an inheritance: "I have assigned it as a possession to the descendants of Lot" (Devarim 2:19). In the case of Yehuda, Yosef is the lost son who returns to his family, and the place from which he was dispossessed of his inheritance - Dotan Valley - is given later as an inheritance to his descendants, the daughters of Tzelofchad. There they resurrect their dead father's name, along with the name of Yosef, who had been exiled by brothers. The most prominent case of return to lost property appears in our Megilla, where the acquisition of Ruth overlaps with the purchase of the field. "When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moavite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased" (Ruth 4:5) . Redemption thus occurs when the name of the deceased is resurrected on his property. Parallel to this, in Parashat Behar we find the term redemption used with regard to the return of the freed slave to his property and the return of family estates in the year. When a slave, who sold himself to a foreigner and went out from amongst his nation, is returned to his property, that is called redemption. The prophet Yechezkel (chap. 36) describes the redemption of the nation of Israel in a similar manner. First, the nation will return to the land of its inheritance. Immediately afterwards, God purifies Israel: "I will sprinkle pure water on you and you will be pure" (36:25). Here, the parallel to the red heifer is clear (and thus these verses are read as the haftara of Paras hat Para) - purification from the impurity caused by contact with the dead. After these verses comes the chapter on the dry bones, "I will cause breath to enter you and you shall live" (37:5) . Thus, the redemption of the nation of Israel begins as the redemption of the land, and on the redeemed land the dry bones arise and live. The land, the inheritance, links man to eternity. The days of the land are "like the days of the world" (as Ras hi explains in Para shat Ha'azinu), and even though man's days are limited, his connection to the land gives him eternal life. When a person is rooted in his property and passes it to his son and grandson, only then does he taste immortality. Cain's punishment for the murder is that "You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth" (Bereishit 4:12). In parallel, when the nation of Israel is punished with exile, when it is evicted from the land of the living, it turns temporarily into a "dead" nation until the redemption of the bones, the resurrection of the dead on his property. The same rooting in the land is described by the verse: "For the days of My people shall be as long as the days of a tree" (Yeshayahu 65:22). The tree embodies eternal existence, as described in lyov (see 14:7-9). Even after the tree has dried out, it can still revive itself through its attachment to the land. But the death of man, who is not attached to the land, is an eternal death.

3 Man's existence depends on passing his property to his sons or to those who come in their place due to yibbum. We have mentioned 3 stories: the first (Lot) is the story of the birth of Moav. The second is the story of the birth of the House ofYehuda. The third is the story of the meeting between the 2 - between Ruth (Moav) and Boaz (Yehuda). The unifying theme is the resurrection of the name of the dead on his property. This is redemption, and this is the goal of the House of David - to reestablish the People of Israel on its land. When all hope is gone, there is still the possibility of yibbum, even in an irregular manner, allowing the name of the deceased to be resurrected on his property. Shavuot: The Ten Commandments

Learning to Say No By Elyakim Krumbein

Based on: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shavuot-learning-say-no

When studying Tanakh, a common tool used to arrive at the intent of the verses is locating the "keyword" for a given section. Can we identify a keyword for the Ten Commandments that stand at the heart of the Sinaitic covenant? It seems to me that the most striking candidate is the Hebrew word N7, "You shall not:' However, the very prominence of this little word is liable to make us a bit uncomfortable. From ancient times, the Jewish tradition has been criticized for fostering an authoritarian atmosphere through its great number of negative commandments. The phrase "You shall not" has a bad reputation in our world. It calls for limitation and restraint. It is uttered by an authority who issues commands, and is directed at a person who is free, spontaneous, impulsive and fun-loving, who follows the desires of his heart and soul without causing harm to his fellow man. All the good and beautiful of liberated man, all the freedom of spirit, comes up against the walls of the law. You are not to do as you please, you are not to go where you wish. "You shall not" is the weapon of bureaucrats, of inspectors, of action and thought police, who do nothing but impose restrictions upon the lives of others, this being the source of their power and the secret of their control. How pleasant, on the other hand, it is to say and hear non-stop the word, "Ken, Yes:' "Yes" heralds openness, niceness, and lack of impingement. It signals acceptance of the other and it bestows legitimacy. Everything is kosher and positive, there is room for all, and everyone is entitled to attention and love. Every idea is worthy of execution and realization, every aspiration worth achieving. Why annoy, why confine? Why the pressure? Open yourself! Make room, make way, say "Yes"! It seems to me that the message behind all these negative commandments - in the Torah generally and in the Ten Commandments particularly - may be found in the last Commandment, the strange, unique prohibition of "You shall not covet:' All the other 9 Commandments relate to the foundations of faith and society, to the very basis of the spiritual existence of the people of Israel. Why did God see fit to include among them this minor teaching regarding good character traits? If the goal is improvement of the heart, surely many other commandments could have been included here, such as the prohibition to hate one's brother in one's heart, or to take revenge. Why specifically "You shall not covet"? The answer is that the Torah wishes to reveal its general understanding of the idea of"Lo,""You shall not" or "No:' In addition to teaching us to accept authority, it expects us to try to emulate our Maker, and learn to say "No:' It intimates that all those who are enslaved to saying "Yes;' and for whom the very idea of"No" is foreign to their nature, are the prisoners of a tragic self-illusion. What is that illusion? It is the idea that one can truly be "nice" about everything, and that reality allows for a sweeping "Yes,"that everything is right, and there is nothing wrong. In the real world, it is clear that this is not the situation, and this is proven by that covetous person who covets another person's wife, house or possessions. If one occupies himself with obsessive jealousy about the good fortune of others, does he not - unconsciously but quite clearly - negate himself, his own achievements and merits? Does he not proclaim one big "No" about himself, as if to say: "Whatever I have is worthless, so my soul will not rest until I have taken that which belongs to my fellow"? This prohibition of "You shall not covet" teaches us not only about jealousy, but also an important principle about life and the nature of man. Like it or not, we are "budgeted:' At any given moment, we are limited in our abilities to dedicate attention, time, energy, and the rest of our resources to many different objectives. So, we can never say"Yes"without also saying "No"to something else. Watching television may be a nice activity, and it may have value, but I cannot at the same time learn a page of Gemara or pay attention to my child. We see then that the choice is not between "Yes" and "No:'The question is different: To what do I say "Yes," and to what, consequently, do I choose to say "No:' The foundation of all the Ten Commandments is the "Anokhi''. the "I;' at the beginning. This "I" gives force to all the prohibitions. One who says "Yes, when he should say "No," undermines the "I:' For example, if honesty and integrity are important principles in one's life, and his 4 business partner proposes a small way to cheat his customers, saying, "But everyone does it" - the suggestion is enticing, but if he accepts it, he will be denying himself and his values. Succumbing to the seduction is an act of self-weakening. Saying "No" is act of self-confirmation. This also affects the experience of saying "No:'There are many situations and ways in which people refuse: one can refuse out of fear, out of a desire to avoid confrontation, or out of despair or out of fatigue. But there is a "No" that charges one's batteries, connecting to his inner engine. He can feel the blood streaming through his veins, his feet becoming lighter, and his chest expanding. A person can say "No," and thereby stand on his own, on what he thinks is true. The Ba'al ha-Tanya uses this insight when he discusses the ways to overcome the seductions of one's evil inclination (chapter 25): This, then, is the meaning of the Scriptural text, "But the thing is very nigh unto you .. :' (Deva rim 30:14), for at any time and moment a person is capable and free to rid himself of the spirit of folly and forgetfulness, and to recollect and awaken his love of the One God which is certainly latent in his heart, without any doubt ... Included therein is also fear, that is, the dread of separation in any wise from His blessed unity and oneness, even at the price of life itself and without reason and logic, but purely by virtue of one's divine nature. All the more so where it involves merely the suppression of one's appetites, which is easier than the pangs of death. This thing, i.e., repressing his evil inclination, is easier by far ... It is very easy for a person to restrain and subjugate his nature when he considers deeply that to conquer his nature in all the above, and more, and even to do the very opposite, is by far less painful than the pangs of death - may God preserve us! Yet he would have accepted the pangs of death - preserve us God - lovingly and willingly, only not to be parted from His blessed unity and oneness even for a moment by an act of idolatry, God forbid. All the more lovingly and willingly must he accept upon himself to cleave unto Him forever. Were you to stand, says the Ba'al ha-Tanya, before the absolute choice: Are you with God, or against Him - it is clear to you what you would do. You would refuse to bow down to idols even at the cost of your life. It is always possible to connect oneself to that strength and thus push aside all seductions and enticements. And then something amazing emerges. A person who is totally faithful to himself realizes that he yearns and thirsts for all those "No's" cast upon him by his Creator. He sees in himself that that which defines his most basic essence and desire is the desire to serve the Master of the universe. He lives for this, and he will never give up. For the sake of serving God he will stand up to all the scoffers, and he will be bold as a leopard and strong as a lion. He understands that rebelling against the kingdom of God bears in vain the name "self-realization," and all the lofty declarations are mere posturing. The essence of casting off the yoke of God's kingdom is spinelessly being carried away by trends, by things that lack substance. The holy path is the very opposite. The Torah states: "They are my slaves, whom I have brought out of the land of Egypt" (Vayikra 25:42). And almost in the same breath: "And I have broken the bars of your yoke, and made you walk upright" (ibid. 26:13). If, in light of this insight, we return to that spontaneous, free-spirited person, for whom we felt sorry when he encountered all those "No's" of morality and the commandments - he will look a little different. He will still seem wretched, but not because his craving for freedom is not satisfied, but because he sees it as a principle - an ideology - to be open to every possible turn that he encounters along the way. He will fight for his right to live a life of chance, and erase and forget all that is eternal and permanent. His soul is not large enough to understand freedom in the sense that the Torah sees it: "' Engraved upon the tablets' - Read not cha rut [meaning 'engraved'], but rather cherut [meaning 'freedom'], for none can be considered free except those who occupy themselves with the study of the Torah" (Avot 6:2). The ability to say no with all one's heart and soul, with beaming inner serenity, full of grace and felicity, is the lot of free people, who are people ofTorah. Translated by David Strauss The Sacrifices of Shavuot Shtei ha-Lechem and Kevasim By Rav Moshe Taragin Based on: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/sacrifices-shavuot-shtei-ha-lechem-and-kevasim

The holiday of Shavuot provides an interesting tandem of korbanot - 2 sheep offered as public shelamim and associated loaves of bread known as shtei ha-lechem. Each component possesses unique qualities: the sheep are the only example of standard public shelamim, while the shtei ha-lechem are the only instance of that approaches the proximity of the altar (it is not sacrificed upon the altar but is advanced toward the altar [hagasha] and waved [tenufa] in the vicinity of the altar). Aside from their individual unique qualities, the dynamic between the 2 loaves and the 2 sheep is also singular. Though a nazir also pairs animals and bread, and a standard toda

5 contains these same 2 elements, it is clear that a special dynamic exists between the kivsei atzeret and the shtei ha-lechem. Perhaps the most essential question surrounds the degree of integration between the 2. Are we to view them as one single korban or as 2 associated offerings? Certainly, the lachmei toda (breads of toda offering) are merely accessories to the animals, and the breads of a nazir are also halakhic garnishes to his animal korbanot. Regarding shtei ha-lechem, though, we may impute independent identity. Perhaps the strongest indication of possible independent identity for the shtei ha-lechem stems from a dispute between and Ben Nannas, cited by the mishna in Menachot (45b). According to the latter, shtei ha-lechem may not be offered without the kevasim. Rabbi Akiva disagrees, allowing shtei ha-lechem to be processed even without the kevasim. Presumably, Ben Nannas viewed the breads as an accessory to the sheep, as is the typical function of the accompanying breads of nazir or of toda. By contrast, Rabbi Akiva viewed the breads as an independent offering, viable even absent the animal korban. In fact, according to Rabbi Akiva, without breads, the sheep may not be processed. Rabbi Akiva may view the breads as the central element of the one korban. Instead of lechem merely accompanying the primary korban of sheep, the sheep are viewed as an accompaniment to the breads. Rabbi Akiva's position, in assigning primacy and independent viability to lechem, may be better understood by exploring an interesting debate surrounding shtei ha-lechem that were offered in the absence of kevasim. The gemara in Menachot (74b) claims that these breads are burnt and not eaten by the Kohanim. An earlier gemara cites a debate amongst as to why these breads may not be eaten. Rabba claims that in principle they could be eaten but they are burnt based on purely technical reasons: such consumption will invite future confusion. Rav Yosef disagrees, asserting that eating the breads is fundamentally forbidden without kevasim. This machloket sharpens 2 possible understandings of Rabbi Akiva's position. Rabba believed that shtei ha-lechem are a stand-alone korban that can be offered and even eaten without kevasim. To support Rabba's ruling, a verse is cited which refers to shtei ha-lechem as "bikkurim" - comparing the laws of shtei ha-lechem to those of bikkurim. Designating shtei ha-lechem as bikkurim underscores the independent function of the shtei ha-lechem. Rav Yosef contended that even according to Rabbi Akiva, who believes that lechem may be offered without kevasim, the shtei ha-lechem are mere accompaniments to kevasim. Even though they can be independently offered, they cannot be eaten alone. This may indicate the lechem is an accessory - albeit one which can be offered independent of the central kevasim. Having explored Rabbi Akiva's position that lechem may be offered without kevasim, as well as Rabba's view of Rabbi Akiva - that fundamentally kevasim may even be eaten without kevasim, let us now explore a situation in which the kevasim and lechem become more fully integrated. The gemara claims that after a formal twinning has occurred (zika), the 2 materials become inseparable. Even though Rabbi Akiva allowed offering lechem without kevasim, once zika has occurred they must be offered jointly. The gemara, however, is unsure whether tenufa (waving and lifting) creates this twinning effect or only shechita enables twinning. The issue of what creates twinning may impact the dynamic of the twinning itself. If shechita alone creates twinning, it may cast the twinning as merely logical and abstract; since the 2 materials are not one integral unit, they can only be associated by shechita - which launches the formal ceremony of korban. The delayed inseparability (zika) of the 2 is realized merely ceremonially - as shechita begins and the process advances, each material is necessary. The lechem and kevasim share a ceremony but do not constitute one unit. This position does not portray inherent integration as much as ceremonial correspondence. By contrast, if zika can stem from tenufa as well, this may be a more inherent twinning. Tenufa, though a mitzva, is not a formal element of the korban ceremony. It is a mitzva that precedes the shechita process but does not directly contribute to the process itself. Its capacity to generate zika may be solely based upon its rendering the 2 materials into 1 unit through physical linkage. Tenufa lacks the halakhic connotations of shechita but does impose physical union. By limiting zika to shechita, the gemara may be viewing the linkage in purely ceremonial or abstract terms. By extending zika to include tenufa, the gemara may be stretching to suggest association based on innate integration. The lechem and kevasim are not just 2 parts of a ceremony; they entail an integrated korban. An additional hint may stem from a machloket between Rebbi and Rabbi Elazar regarding the stage at which the bread becomes permissible to eat (assuming kevasim are offered as well). Rebbi asserts that the shechita renders the lechem permissible to eat, whereas Rabbi Elazar claims that only the tandem of shechita and may create this effect. Conventionally, Rabbi Elazar's position seems more plausible. Typically, a korban is rendered 'halakhically edible' through shechita and zerika. If the lechem is fused into one korban with the kevasim, it is likely that the shtei ha-lechem - as well as the kevasim - should be rendered permissible through shechita and zerika as well. If Rebbi believes that mere shechita can permit the lechem to be eaten, perhaps he loosens the fusion between the 2 materials. As the bread is not an integral part of the animal korban, its rules for becoming halakhically edible are distinct. To subscribe, or for comments, questions or sponsorship opportunities, please write us at: [email protected]

6