Daf Yomi Shabbes 124: Lechem Ha’Panim

Ex 25:30

Lev 24:5

בשר ם" ע ל מש ו ת כ ה : ל : א Rashbam on Exodus 25:30:1

םחל פ נ םי - יפל וטושפ : םחל וארה י נפל י ,םירש םחל ,האנ :ביתכדכ תחקלו תלס תיפאו התוא 'וגו . :ביתכו אשיו אשיו :ביתכו . 'וגו תאשמ תאמ ינפ ו .םהילא :ביתכו הנחלו ןתי הנמ תחא .םיפא קלח הפי הרעקמ ינפלש הנקלא הבושחה נש םינתו םינתו נש הבושחה הנקלא ינפלש הרעקמ הפי קלח .םיפא תחא הנמ ןתי הנחלו :ביתכו .םהילא ו ינפ תאמ תאשמ נפל י לעב ,תיבה יכ תא הנח בהא - ךכל םיפא .בושח 'הו רגס המחר - ךכל הנמ תחא אלו םיתש אלו נמ תו הברה הברה תו נמ אלו םיתש אלו תחא הנמ ךכל , םחל פ נ םי . ומכ הנינפל ויהש הל םינב תונבו יבה וה ננל מ

means that the quality of the bread was נפ םי According to the plain meaning of the text the word such that it was fit to be served, to be displayed for approval to ministers and kings.

In other words: “beautiful, first rate bread.” Compare Leviticus 24,5 “take choice flour and bake are נפ םי of it twelve loaves, etc.” Other verses in which gifts are associated with the expression ,He served portions to them from his (Joseph’s“ , אשיו תאשמ תאמ וינפ םהילא found in Genesis 43,34 the viceroy) table.”

Clearly a reference to the choicest which was served in the palace…

• Historical background of muktzeh • The Gemara provides the historical development of muktzeh. Nechemiah ben Chachaliah enacted the restrictions of muktzeh in the days of Bayis Sheini because people were lax in Shabbos observance. Initially the decree was extremely strict, and only three commonly used keilim were permitted to move.

As shemiras Shabbos improved, the Rabanan eased their restrictions numerous times, as a Beraisa they permitted movement of additional keilim, then they – תה י ר ו ו ח ורז וריתהו ורזחו וריתהו ,teaches further permitted and they further permitted, until the only keilim that could not be moved at all .muktzeh for fear of monetary loss , הצקומ תמחמ ורסח ן סיכ were

There is a machlokes between Abaye and Rava regarding how the restrictions were lifted.

2 רַמָא יִבַּר נֲח :אָניִ יֵמיִבּ הָיְמֶחְנ ןֶבּ הָיְלַכֲח תיֵנְשִׁנ הָנְשִׁמ ,וֹז :ביִתְכִדּ םיִמָיַּבּ״ הָמֵּהָה יִתיִאָר היִב דוּ הָ רוֹדּ כְ ִ םי תוֹתִּ גּ שַּׁ בּ בַּ תָ תָ בַּ שַּׁ בּ תוֹתִּ גּ םי ִ כְ רוֹדּ הָ דוּ . מוּ ְ ִ ב אי ִ םי ָ ה ֲﬠ ״תוֹמיֵר

Rabbi Ḥanina said: This mishna was taught in the days of Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah, a period when many stringent decrees were issued with regard to Shabbat prohibitions, as it is written:

In those days saw I in Judah some treading winepresses 15 וט םיִמָיַּבּ הָמֵּהָה יִתיִאָר הָדוּהיִב םיִכְרֹדּ - on the sabbath, and bringing in heaps of corn, and lading ִגּ תוֹתּ בַּשַּׁ בּ תָ מוּ בְ איִ םיִ רֲﬠָ ה תוֹמֵ עְ ו מֹ סְ םיִ םיִ סְ מֹ עְ ו תוֹמֵ רֲﬠָ ה םיִ איִ בְ מוּ תָ בַּשַּׁ בּ תוֹתּ asses therewith; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all לַﬠ - םיִרֹמֲחַה ףַאְו - ןִיַי םיִבָנֲﬠ ,םיִנֵאְתוּ ,םיִנֵאְתוּ םיִבָנֲﬠ ןִיַי manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on לָכְו - ,אָשַּׂמ םיִאיִבְמוּ ַלָשׁוּרְי ,םִ םוֹיְבּ םוֹיְבּ ,םִ ַלָשׁוּרְי םיִאיִבְמוּ ,אָשַּׂמ the sabbath day; and I forewarned them in the day wherein ;תָבַּשַּׁה ,דיִﬠָאָו םוֹיְבּ םָרְכִמ יָצ .דִיצםרכמםיבּ,יﬠאו;ַַָ they sold victuals.

There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, who brought in 16 זט םיִרֹצַּהְו וּבְשָׁי ,הָּב םיִאיִבְמ גאָדּ לָכְו - fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto ֶמ ;רֶכ םיִרְכוֹמוּ תָבַּשַּׁבּ יֵנְבִל ,הָדוּהְי ,הָדוּהְי יֵנְבִל תָבַּשַּׁבּ םיִרְכוֹמוּ ;רֶכ .the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem בוּ ִ שׁוּרי ָ ָ ל ִ .ם וּיִב

“In those days I saw in Judea some treading winepresses on Shabbat and bringing in heaps of grain and lading donkeys with them; as also wine, grapes, figs, and all manner of burdens which are brought into Jerusalem on the Shabbat day. I forewarned them on that day when they sold food” (Nehemiah 13:15).

Since the people treated the sanctity of Shabbat with disdain, Nehemiah instituted many stringencies with regard to all the halakhot of Shabbat in order to educate the people to observe Shabbat.

. רַמָא יִבַּר :רָזָﬠְלֶא נָק ,ןיִ ,תוֹלְקַמוּ ,אָרְטְסוּלְגּ הָכוֹדְמוּ — לּוּכּ ָ ן דוֹק םֶ תַּ ה רָ תַ לֵ כּ םיִ וּנְשִׁ נ םיִ לֵ כּ תַ רָ תַּ ה םֶ דוֹק ן ָ לּוּכּ

Rabbi Elazar said: The mishnayot that deal with the topics of rods, poles, the thick end [gelostera] of the bolt in a door lock, and a mortar were all taught before permission to move utensils on Shabbat was adopted. At that time, moving most utensils was still prohibited and only a small number of utensils whose primary function was for a permitted use were permitted to be moved. The Gemara cites the relevant mishnayot.

. ןיִנָק — :ןַנְתִדּ אֹל רוּדּיִס ןיִנָקַּה אֹלְו ןָתָליִטְנ הָחוֹדּ תֶא תָבַּשַּׁה תֶא הָחוֹדּ ןָתָליִטְנ אֹלְו ןיִנָקַּה רוּדּיִס אֹל :ןַנְתִדּ

Rods: Golden rods were placed between the loaves of showbread in the Temple to support the loaves and to aerate them. At that time, moving the rods was prohibited because they were considered to be set-aside, as we learned in a mishna: Neither arranging the rods nor moving them overrides the prohibition of set-aside on Shabbat.

RASHI

אל ס י ד ו ר קה נ י ם - יהש ו ינתונ ן תכרעמב םחל םינפה יב ן הלח הלחל ןדירפהל סנכיל חורה ןהיניב אלש ושפעתי : , אלו אלו , : ושפעתי אלש ןהיניב חורה סנכיל ןדירפהל הלחל הלח ן יב םינפה םחל תכרעמב ן ינתונ ו יהש ןתליטנ - ןמ הכרעמה :הנשי החוד, תא שה תב - אלא נ כ נ ס ש"עב ו נ ו לט נקה םי רחמלו קלסמ הכרעמה הנשיה רדסמו רדסמו הנשיה הכרעמה קלסמ רחמלו םי נקה השדחה אלב נק םי יאצומלו תבש סנכנ ו נ ןתו נקה םי יב נ ןהי ז ו נשנ תי םדוק רתיה נמ י ן ושארה ן אהד ןתכאלמ רתיהל רתיהל ןתכאלמ אהד ן ושארה ן י נמ רתיה םדוק תי נשנ ו ז ןהי נ יב םי נקה ןתו נ ו סנכנ תבש יאצומלו םי נק אלב השדחה : רסאקו והל ךרוצל ג ןפו ךול ה סק

4 Tosafos

אל ס י ד ו ר ק נ י ם - ג"עא יאד ן תובש שדקמב המכ םיתובש ןחכשא שדקמב גש ורז םימעפ ךרוצל יכ אכה נקב י ם תולקמו תולקמו ם : פל י יהש ו ללחמ םי תא תבשה א ילח ה יפ ◌ַה ּ ָק ְנ...ןיִנ ִט ָלי ָת ן …Arranging the rods

The showbread does not override the prohibitions of Shabbat. They were removed on Shabbat eve and replaced between the loaves after Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin U’Musafin 5:11).

The Sefer Ha-Chinukh (Mitzvos Asei #20)enumerates two positive mitzvot found in Parashat Teruma. The first is to build the Beit Ha-Mikdash as a site for offering sacrifices and assembling all Am Yisrael on the three yearly festivals.

Following the opinion of the Rambam (Sefer Ha-Mitzvot – mitzvat asei 20), the Chinukh maintains that this mitzva also encompasses the requirement to build the various parts of the Mikdash, such as the altar, candelabra and table.

The Ramban (glosses to Sefer Ha-Mitzvot – mitzvat asei 37) disagrees with the Rambam and argues that we should count building the Mikdash as a single mitzva, and the fashioning of the various parts, such as the ark and the "kapporet" (cover), as separate mitzvot. He contends that since sacrifices can be offered even without these appurtenances, the Mikdash obviously constitutes an independent mitzva.

The Ramban agrees, however, that some parts of the Mikdash are not to be counted as individual mitzvot. He writes that if a given item is needed as a prerequisite for the performance of a specific mitzva, then we should not count it individually.

Therefore, the Ramban did not count the Shulchan (table) as an independent mitzva. Since there exists a mitzva to place Lechem ha-panim ("show-bread") on the Shulchan, building the Shulchan is merely a prerequisite (hekhsher mitzva), and not an independent mitzva.

The second mitzva enumerated by the Chinukh is to arrange the "Lechem ha-panim." Here too, he follows the formulation of the Rambam in his listing of the mitzvot. In the brief version of the Rambam's list printed at the beginning of Mishneh Torah, the Rambam writes

.( מש ו ת כ ה , ל ) " ריִדְּסַהְל םֶחֶל לוּ נוֹבְ הָ פִ ל נְ ֵ י 'ה כְ בּ לָ בַּשׁ ,תָ נֶּשׁ מֱאֶ :רָ ו" נְ תָ תַּ ָ לַﬠ לֻשַׁ ה חְ ןָ חֶ ל םֶ נָ פּ םיִנ ֶח ָח ַֻהלﬠָתּ ָנ ":ָמא ֶ ת ַ ָכ היֵנ ִלה וְֹל

To set show bread and incense before the Lord on Sabbath. Ex. 25.30.

mitzvat asei 27 "to arrange the bread and frankincense before God every Shabbat, as it says, 'place Lechem ha- panim on the table always'."

The Ra'avad (ad loc.) asks, why did the Rambam not count the sacrificial offering of the frankincense and the consumption of the " " as separate mitzvot?

Although the Chinukh and others have suggested various reasons for this mitzva, it is interesting to note that the Rambam seemed perplexed about this issue. In his discussion of the rationale for various mitzvot, he writes (Guide, 3:45), "But the Shulchan and the bread which is always on it… I do not know the reason."

Likewise, the Ari printed in many siddurim which many recite or sing at the Shabbat morning meal, he writes, "He will reveal to us the reasons of the twelve loaves." The Ari, like the Rambam, was unable to determine the underlying reason behind the mitzva of Lechem ha-panim.

The Ra'avad understood that the Torah actually presents three mitzvot related to the Lechem ha- panim:

1) to arrange the Lechem ha-panim on the Shulchan; 2) to burn the accompanying frankincense; 3) to eat the loaves.

To explain the Rambam's position, the Kesef Mishneh (Rav Yosef Karo) notes (ad loc.) that neither the burning of the frankincense nor the eating of the loaves was stated in the Torah as an imperative.

Apparently, he felt that the offering of the frankincense was merely a prerequisite act ("matir") permitting the Lechem ha-panim for consumption by the kohanim. The Torah then added that if the kohanim do eat the bread, they must do so "in a holy place."

ישרשמ ,הוצמה ונוצש לאה ךורב אוה הוצמ תידימת םחלב יפל ובש היחי ,םדאה לעו ןכ ךירצ ילא ו יהל תו הכרבה הכרבה תו יהל ו ילא ךירצ ןכ לעו ,םדאה היחי ובש יפל םחלב תידימת הוצמ אוה ךורב לאה ונוצש ,הוצמה ישרשמ וצמ הי וב ,דימת ךותמו וניקסע וב םיקל ילע ו תוצמ םשה ךרבתי היהי וצרה ן הכרבהו םילח ונילע ו ךרבתי וניעמב , יכי ,וימ רת נל יחהרה צההה ךבי ש ומ ל יל ב נקעךתו ,ית בה צ לכב השועש וב םדאה וצר ן םשה ךרבתי וב אוה .ךרבתמ יפלו לכ ינע ן ינעו ן םישיש תמגמ ינפ ו יתובשחמו ו יקסעו ו ויסו ויושמ נ ממםשש נו ןיעל יל ךבמאה בךבי ש ןורםא ו שע רבדב הוצמ ןהיפל יעמ ן הכרבה נ עבו ילע ו . ןכו יתאצמ 'במרהל ' ן ורכז נ ו הכרבל תמורת( הכ )דכ נעכו י ן המ ורמאש רא מ עו )כה מר( כב ונוכ ברל תצ ןו .ויעעונ כב ןימ הפ ומרד ורכז םנ הכרבל 'ר( ה' זט )א ואיבה נפל י רמע ,חספב ידכ וכרבתיש םכל האובת ,תודשבש וכסנ נפל י םימ ,גחב ידכיכ גבםמ פ וס תדב אב כרבתיש ו םכל ימשג הכרב הנשב האבה , עקת ו פל נ י ושב רפ לש יא ל , דכ י ל ז רכ תדקע י קחצ . ו לע םחלה הזה ומצעב מע ז םל עו .קצי דע ר כ ,לי ל ר ש ל ועת אה הש כב יש םל וכבי ורמא הליגמ( וכ )ב יכ נפמ י אוהש שימשת הוצמה ובו השענ וצר ן ,לאה התיה הכרבה הקבד וב יב .רתו לכו דחא ןמ מדאלו .ת ב בהב כב תה לה צ שנ וו ומ יש וש פ י ) ו לג( ומ . נהכה םי עיגמש ול נממ ו פכ לו היה עבש היה לו

Sefer HaChinukh 97:2

It is from the roots of this commandment that God, blessed be He, commanded us the constant commandment of the bread, on account that through it a man lives; and as a result, [the commandment] is needed by him for blessing to always be found in [his bread].

And from our involvement in it to fulfill the commandment of God, may He be blessed, the [Divine] will and blessing will descend upon us, and that which is similar to it will be blessed. And according to each and every matter upon which he places the conglomeration of his focus, his thoughts and his activities by way of a commandment - according to them, a similar blessing will emerge upon him.

And so I have found [in] Ramban (Ramban on Exodus 25:24). And [it] is like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 16:1), "Bring the omer (barley offering) in front of Me at Pesach, in order that the grain in the fields will be blessed for you; pour the water in front of Me on the Festival (Sukkot), in order that the rains of blessing will be blessed for you in the coming year; blow the ram's horn (shofar) in front of Me, in order to remember the binding of Yitzchak."

And they said about this very same bread (Megillah 26b) that because it is an accessory of the commandment, and through it the will of God is done, blessing would cling to it more. And [so] each one of the priests who had from it coming to him would be twice as satiated.

7 Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter

Definition 1. An item that’s primarily used for permitted purposes is called Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter. 2. A vessel of any size or weight is considered a vessel even if it’s not usually moved during the week and isn’t Muktzeh. However, if one doesn’t move it during the week because one’s afraid of it breaking it’s considered Muktzeh Machmat Chisaron Kis. 3. It’s permissible to move or touch a Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter item for any purpose. However, even Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter may not be moved for no purpose at all.[3] However, foods and seforim may be moved even without purpose as these items are not muktzeh at all.

Hacham Ovadia clarifies that foods which are prohibited to eat on shabbat are also prohibited to handle (tiltul).1 He rules that a Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter may be moved even for purposes that serve the vessel itself such as to prevent it from breaking or being stolen.

Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 18) explains that this type of purposes includes any purpose for the movement (as is evident by the inverse case). However, concludes S”A, it’s forbidden to move Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter for no purpose.

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 85:8 agrees. Our Daf quotes a Tosefta discussing the historical development of the prohibition of tiltul keilim. The Gemara explains that virtually all keilim were included in the initial prohibition and these keilim could not be moved even litzorech gufo or litzorech mikomo.

However, as time went on, chazal ultimately permitted movement of a kli shemilachto li’isur litzorech gufo or litzorech mikomo and a kli shemilachto liheter even meichama l’tzeil

Beis Yosef (308:4) quotes the Maggid Mishna (Shabbos 25:3) who infers from the Rambam that while a kli shemilachto liheter is the most lenient type of kli, it may not be moved shelo ltzarich klal.

Maggid Mishna explains that this emerges from the Gemara, as the Gemara’s phraseology “meichama ltzeil” seems to limit the permissibility to cases that protect the item.

A further proof that a kli shemilachto liheter cannot be moved shelo litzorech klal is brought from the Gemara’s conclusion on 124a that the shelves containing the Lechem ha’Panim could not be moved in order to freshen the bread since the bread will not become stale in the interim if these shelves are not handled.

This indicates that one needs a sufficient tzorech in order to move a kli shemilachto liheter 2

1 Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 3, Page 1; S”A 308:4 2 see also Chiddushei haRan 124a and Ridvaz on Rambam Tmidim Umusafim 5:11. Shitah Lran 123b s.v. mah li and 126b s.v. ki are lenient to move a kli shemelachto lheter for no purpose. Ran meyuchas Lritva 123b and Ritva 123b forbid it.

The items that fall under the restriction of muktzeh are divided into various categories, each one subject to different laws. The following are the three most comprehensive groups:

• Set apart due to a prohibited use. An item or utensil whose primary function is for an activity forbidden on Shabbat (e.g., writing instruments, tools, appliances). • Set apart due to value. An expensive item or utensil (whose primary function is for an activity forbidden on Shabbat) that one is careful never to use for anything other than its specific function, so as to ensure its value will not decrease (e.g., expensive musical instruments, expensive electronics). • Set apart by its very definition. An object or substance that has no inherent function, and is not an instrument or tool (e.g., rocks, money, lumber, vegetation, soil, inedible food, animals).

Purpose of Handling:

The motive why a given item is being handled also plays a role in determining if, and how, it may be moved. With regard to muktzeh, there are four reasons why an item can be handled:

• To use the object for an activity permissible on Shabbat (e.g., a fork to eat with it, a cup to drink from it, or a hammer to crack open nuts). • To use the place where the item was lying (e.g., to move an item lying on a chair for the purpose of sitting there). • To protect the item (e.g., to remove it from a place where it may be subject to damage or theft). • For no need at all (e.g., toying with a fork).

Pesachim 37a: Is Baking Matza Like Baking the Temple Showbread?

תיב ללה יריתמ ן המכו תפ הבע רמא בר וה אנ חפט ןכש יצמ נ ו םחלב נפה םי חפט חפט םי נפה םחלב ו נ יצמ ןכש חפט אנ וה בר רמא הבע תפ המכו ן יריתמ ללה תיב

And Beit Hillel permit one to bake bread in this manner.

The Gemara asks: And how much thickness is required for the matza to be considered thick bread?

Rav Huna said: This category includes matza that is a handbreadth thick. The proof is as we found by the shewbread, which could not be leavened, and which was a handbreadth thick.

This daf opens with a baraita that records a disagreement between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai.

The topic of debate is pat ava – whether thick matza can be baked on the holiday of Pesah.

Beit Hillel permits such baking to be done; Beit Shamai forbids it.

Rav Huna interprets the expression pat ava to be similar to the size of the leshem ha-panim – the showbread in the Temple – which was also matza and was one tefah (handbreadth) thick.

R Yosef objects to the comparison on a number of levels:

• We know that the kohanim in the Temple were quick about their work. • The dough was always well-kneaded. • The firewood in the Temple was always very dry. • The ovens were very well heated. • The ovens in the Temple were made of metal, not clay. • Given the severity of the prohibition against eating hametz, and the difficulty involved in baking thick matza properly, even if it was done in the Temple for the leshem ha-panim, how can Beit Hillel permit it on Pesah for the general public?

In explanation of this baraita, one suggestion that is raised (either by Rav or by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) is that pat ava does not mean to bake a thick cake; rather it means to bake a large amount at one time.

The Gemara points out that if we understand pat ava this way, the potential problem would not be specific to Pesah, but it is a general issue of possibly baking unnecessarily on Yom Tov.

Rabbenu Yehonatan explains that if this is, in fact, the point of disagreement, Beit Shamai forbids it lest some of the bread or matza will be left over and will be used after Yom Tov is over, creating a situation where preparations for the regular weekday were done on the holiday. Beit Hillel would argue that the baking process works better when a large amount is baked, so having leftovers is of no concern.3

3 Steinsaltz daf Yomi Pesachim 39

חרוא יח םי ׳ה:ס״ת םי יח חרוא

. ןיֵא ןיִשׂוֹע חַסֶפְבּ תַפּ הָבָﬠ חַפֶט (ה)

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 460:5

One should not make bread (matzah) on Passover that is thicker than a tefach (between 3.5 and 4 inches).

חרוא יח םי ׳ד:ס״ת םי יח חרוא

. :הָגַּה שֵׁיְו תוֹשֲׂﬠַל תוֹצַּמַּה ,ןיִקיִקְר אֹלְו תַפּ הָבָﬠ רָאְשִׁכּ ,םֶחֶל יִכּ ןיֵא ןיִקיִקְרָה רֲהַמְמ ןיִ ץיִמְחַהְל ןיִ רֲהַמְמ ןיִקיִקְרָה

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 460:4

Rema: Some are of the opinion that it is better to make the matzot thin, and not thick like regular breads, for thin [matzot] are not as quick to rise.

ראב ה י בט א ו חר ח י י ם ׳ח:ס״ת ם

גהנמה ןתושעל יבועכ עבצא 'ב ה' י ' ד' .( 'עו ' ז םיכמוס תושעל הב יצ ירו ן 'בו ח' החומ םהב דע דואמל 'ע ש' ) . קר י ק י ן (ח) : יס ' 'צ ' ו'' 'י Be'er Hetev on Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 460:8

Thin. The custom is to make them the thickness of a finger ...

By the 17th century, the widespread custom was to make matzah thinner than the handbreadth mentioned in the Talmud.

Rabbi Hillel ben Naphtali Tzvi (1615–1690), known for his legal work Beit Hillel, writes that that the custom was to make matzah thinner than normal bread and as thick as an etzba (finger).8 There seem to be two reasons for the thinning of matzah over the years:

11 Although the students of Hillel ruled that matzah could be up to a handbreadth thick, there is in fact another opinion in the Talmud, that of Rabbi Yosef, which defines a “thick matzah” simply as thicker or larger bread.

Ritva,4 writes that since no actual measurement was given in the Talmud in regard to Rabbi Yosef’s opinion, one should be careful that the matzah used for the Seder not be thick at all. Accordingly, he cites the custom to use only “thin matzah” for the Seder.

Chasam Sopher5 if one were to use the same ovens for thin matzah and for soft, thick matzah, the hot oven would quickly heat the outside, making it look well baked but leaving it unbaked, and possibly chametz, on the inside.

Rav Ariel Ovadiah6

The Gemara in Pesachim2 recounts an argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, whether one is allowed to bake a “thick loaf” on Pesach or not. The Gemara offers two ways to understand what this “thick loaf” is referring to: either it is literally a thick loaf, which Beis Shamai forbids because of a suspicion of Chometz and Beis Hillel permits, or, it refers to baking many loaves of bread, and the prohibition according to Beis Shamai has to do with unnecessary exertion on Yom Tov, not with the suspicion of Chometz.

The Gemara discusses what is the maximum thickness that would be acceptable according to Beis Hillel and cites the Lechem Ha’Panim (which was also non-Chometz) as proof that the width of a Tefach is acceptable.

However, some Amoraim take issue with this comparison, because it may be that the special equipment and techniques used in the baking of the Lechem Ha’Panim were effective in preventing it from leavening.

However, we, who do not use that equipment and those techniques, cannot be assured that a loaf will bake thoroughly without leavening at the width of a Tefach (appx. 3-4 inches). The Gemara does not conclude with any clear maximum limit.

Does the Gemara Imply any Limits?

The Tur quotes this Gemara as a source to allow baking many loaves of [non-Chometz] bread on Pesach. Clearly, the Tur is following the Gemara’s second explanation that a “thick loaf” does not mean thick in the literal sense, rather it means that one may not bake many loaves according to Beis Shamai, and L’Halacha we follow Beis Hillel who permit it.

4 Pesachim 36b.

5 Responsa of Chasam Sofer, Orach Chaim 121.

6 https://matzav.com/what-is-the-proper-thickness-of-matzah/

12 The Beis Yosef comments that obviously this Halacha does not pertain only to Pesach but also to other Yomim Tovim, as we previously explained.

Still, the Beis Yosef wonders, why did the Tur not mention that one may not bake a Tefach- wide Matzah, as this Gemara seems to imply.

The Beis Yosef quotes Rabbenu Yerucham who also understood from this Gemara that there must be at least a Tefach limit on the thickness of a Matzah.

It seems that the Beis Yosef deemed this to be the opinion of the Tur as well and was therefore bothered by the Tur’s omission of this Halacha.

Accordingly, the BeisYosef rules in Shulchan Aruch “One may not bake Matzah that is a Tefach wide”.

Nonetheless, the Bach and the Magen Avraham claim that the Beis Yosef’s proof from the Gemara is unfounded. This is because the Gemara eventually refutes the explanation that a “thick loaf” means literally a thick loaf. Hence, we are left with no source to limit a Matzah’s thickness.

The Magen Avraham also cites the fact that none of the Poskim – aside from the Beis Yosef and Rabbenu Yerucham – mention this Halacha. Therefore, he rules that even a Tefach-thick Matzah is acceptable.

However, the Bi’ur Halacha is extremely critical of the opinion of the Magen Avraham, claiming that the reason why the Gemara does not conclusively understand a “thick loaf” to mean thick in the literal sense, is only because of the flawed analogy to the Lechem Ha’Panim.

Obviously, this logic still stands, and there cannot be any comparison between the Lechem Ha’Panim, which was baked a Tefach-thick in the Beis Ha’Mikdash, with great care and diligence, to our Matzos, which are baked by all Jews, without the equipment and know-how that was at the disposal of the experts in the Bais Ha’Mikdash.

The Bi’ur Halachah contends that although the maximum thickness of a Matzah remains unclear, nevertheless, the Gemara clearly implies that we should follow stricter measures for common Matzos then what was acceptable for the Lechem Ha’Panim.

Accordingly, some Rishonim use this logic to prove the exact opposite point than that of the Magen Avraham.

The Ritva writes in the name of the Ra’ah, that once we had proved in the Gemara that we cannot learn the parameters of a Matzah’s thickness from the Lechem Ha’Panim, and since the Gemara does not offer an alternative measurement, we must not make any thick Matzah, even less than a Tefach. This, writes the Ritva, is the source for the custom to make thin Matzos for the Seder. Similarly, the Bi’ur Halacha quotes the Rashba and the Ohr Zarua who concur with the Ritva.

Thus, the implication of our Daf depends on the following three opinions:

a. Beis Yosef and Rabbenu Yerucham: One can bake Matzah up to a Tefach thick, which is the very least we can derive from the Gemara. b. Magen Avraham: A Tefach-thick Matzah is acceptable, because we have no clear indication from the Gemara that there is any limit. c. Rashba, Ritva, Ra’ah and Ohr Zarua: One should refrain from baking any thick Matzah, even less than a Tefach, because there is no indication from the Gemara what the limit is and therefore we must be stringent.

The Rama’s Opinion

To determine the practical Halachah, we must examine the words of the Rama on this issue very carefully. The Rama9 writes:

“ יכ יא ן יקיקרה ן ירהממ ן ץימחהל , שיו תושעל תוצמה ןיקיקר אלו תפ הבע ראשכ םחל “

“One should make the Matzos as thin-breads, not thick like the usual bread, because thin-breads do not leaven quickly”.

It seems as though the Rama is siding with the Rashba and Ritva quoted above. Especially, given .a thick loaf, a clear reference to the Gemara in Pesachim – ” תפ הבע “ the Rama’s expression of One can claim that the Rama’s choice of expression is meant to imply that the ideal thinness must also be less than the one mentioned in that Gemara – a Tefach.

However, the Bi’ur Halacha seems to understand that the Rama is not discussing a normal scenario, arguing that – based on the location of the Rama’s comment – he is only discussing shaped or molded Matzos.

Such Matzos are more susceptible to becoming Chometz, due to the baker’s involvement with their shaping, and must therefore be made thin. Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berura [written by the same author as the Bi’ur Halacha] seems to understand that the Rama is referring to all Matzos, not just shaped and molded ones.

A look at the Darchei Moshe (the Rama’s long commentary on the Tur, usually the source for his comments on the Shulchan Aruch) may reveal what the true intention behind the Rama’s ruling.

In Darchei Moshe, the Rama cites two reasons that one should bake the matzos thin and not thick: a. Abudarham in the name of Ra’avad in Drashos: a Matzah should be a Lechem Oni (bread of affliction), thus by making it thin it is more similar to a poor man’s bread. Similarly, or a very ( לח ו ט ) the Gemara in Pesachim11 says that one may not make a scalded12 Matzah .as these are more luxurious forms of bread ,( שא י הש )large Matzah b. Mahari Weil: thick Matzos may become Chometz more easily. c.

14 These sources prove that the Rama meant to rule out thick Matzos even if they are not molded or shaped.

We are left, then, with a dispute between the Beis Yosef and the Rama.

According to the Beis Yosef, one may make a Matzah – l’chatchila – up until tefach-thick, as he explicitly rules in Shulchan Aruch; however, according to the Rama, one must make “thin” Matzos as the Abudarham, Mahari Weil, Rashba and Ritva hold.

We must now clarify according to the Rama two essential points.

Firstly, which Matzos should be thin. Whereas the Mahari Weil and others are concerned about a thick Matzah not baking well enough – a concern that applies to all Matzos consumed on Pesach – the Abudarham’s reason only pertains to the Seder night Matzos, which must be akin to a poor man’s bread.

Secondly, while the Beis Yosef, Magen Avraham and others argue about a specific width, the Rama simply states that the Matzos must be thin without giving any directive as to how thin is thin.

Miracles: The Lechem Ha’Panim not getting stale was presented by the Kohanim as an indication of God’s Love for Israel.

Chagiga 26b

יאמאו ילכ ץע יושעה תחנל אוה יאו נ ו לבקמ האמוט אלא דמלמ יהיבגמש ן ותוא יארמו ן וב ילועל םילגר םחל םחל םילגר ילועל וב ן יארמו ותוא ן יהיבגמש דמלמ אלא האמוט לבקמ ו נ יאו אוה תחנל יושעה ץע ילכ יאמאו פה נ י ם ו א ו רמ י ם םהל ואר םכתביח ינפל םוקמה וקוליס ורודיסכ ר"אד עשוהי ןב ול י סנ לודג השענ םחלב םינפה םינפה םחלב השענ לודג סנ י ול ןב עשוהי ר"אד ורודיסכ וקוליס םוקמה ינפל םכתביח ואר םושל םחל םוח יב םו וחקלה ( מש ו א ל א כ א , ז ) ורודיסכ ךכ וקוליס רמאנש וקוליס ךכ ורודיסכ

…They (the Kohanim) used to lift it and show thereon to the Festival pilgrims the Showbread, and to say to them: Behold the love in which you are held by the Omnipresent; it is taken away (at the end of the week) as (fresh as) it is set down. For R. Yehoshua b.Levi said: A great Miracle was Performed in regard to the Showbread: As (fresh as) It was when set down, so was it taken away. For it is said: (I Shmuel 21:7) “So the priest gave him Holy Bread; for there was no bread there but the Showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.”

RITVA

…It seems that at the time of the placement and the removal [of the Lechem Ha’Panim] it was so hot to the point that steam would rise from it, like bread first being taken out of an oven… it would be impossible for them [the pilgrims] to see this miracle from afar other than by means of what we have pointed out.)

(R. Silverberg7 A number of writers have suggested that the lasting freshness of the Lechem Ha’Panim symbolized the long-lasting impact of the visit to the Beit Ha’Mikdash and of the experience of standing in God’s Presence. When the people came for the Regalim and were able to experience the special joy and exhilaration of the site of the Shechinah, they might become disheartened by the knowledge that they would soon return home to their regular routine.

They could easily feel distressed over the fact that they received the inspiration of the Beit Ha’Mikdash only three times a year and spent the rest of the year engaged primarily in the pursuit of a livelihood through their engagement in mundane work.

The Kohanim in the Mikdash therefore sought to encourage the people by assuring them, “Siluko KeSiduro” (it is taken away [as fresh] as when it was set down)– we are all capable, to one degree or another, of maintaining the “freshness” and enthusiasm of an inspirational experience.

The emotional effects of the visit to the Beit Ha’Mikdash would likely not retain their intensity throughout the coming months, but they would not entirely disappear, either. By making a commitment to inject the Kedusha represented by the Temple into their daily routine, the people had the opportunity to preserve at least some of the excitement and elevation they experienced during their festival celebration in the Mikdash, and thereby raise their lives to a higher level of religious devotion.

It is interesting to me that a miracle that benefits only the Kohanim, since they are the ones that are consuming the Lechem Ha’Panim, is presented to the Jewish people, who have come to Yerushalayim to fulfill the Mitzva of Aliya LeRegel, as an indication to them of God’s Love and Concern for them!

I love the way he highlights the issue her reflecting the status of the priestly cast. I did not print his answer which was pious and reductive.

Hassidic themes play on the role of bread, eating and the sanctity represented by the Lechem ha’Panim, the table as an altar and the sacredness of consumption

7 https://yaakovbieler.wordpress.com/2019/05/13/lechem-hapanim-representing-religious- enthusiasm/#:~:text=We%20have%20learnt%3A%20Ten%20miracles,the%20fire%20of%20the%20wood%2D

Sfas Emes Emor 18

תשרפב םחל נפה םי יב םו תבשה נכרעי ו וכ ' . ביתכד וכל ומחל ימחלב יהל תו תלבק עפשה ןמ םימשה הקובד שרושב שרושב הקובד םימשה ןמ עפשה תלבק תו יהל ימחלב ומחל וכל ביתכד . ' וכ ו נכרעי תבשה םו יב םי נפה םחל תשרפב לעה י ו ן ו ה ו א פ נ י מ י ו ת .עפשה אתיאדכו זב ק"הו נעב י ן י םו תבשה ג"עאד אלד דרי וב ןמה מ"מ לכ יאכרב ן האעיבשב האעיבשב ן יאכרב לכ מ"מ ןמה וב ילת י ן .ש"ע הזו 'קנ םחל םינפה ימינפ תו םחלה יתכדכ ' אל לע םחלה ודבל יחי ' וכ ' אצומ יפ 'ה איה .הרותה זמרו רבדל רבדל זמרו .הרותה איה 'ה יפ אצומ ' וכ ' יחי ודבל םחלה לע אל ' יתכדכ םחלה תו ימינפ םינפה םחל 'קנ הזו .ש"ע ן י ילת יתכד ' םתה נפ םי נפב םי רבד ה ' . אכהו כ ' םחל נפ .םי שרושו םחלה ןמ םימשה עפשנש ק"שב לע לכ ימי השעמה חכב חכב השעמה ימי לכ לע ק"שב עפשנש םימשה ןמ םחלה שרושו .םי נפ םחל ' כ אכהו . ' ה רבד םי נפב םי נפ םתה ' יתכד הרותה אוה יפכ תנכה י"נב נש ןתי םהל .הרותה ומכו שיש ן"ג םירדס ירואד אתי לכבו תבש רדס השרפ תרחא תאירקב תאירקב תרחא השרפ רדס תבש לכבו אתי ירואד םירדס ן"ג שיש ומכו .הרותה םהל ןתי נש הרותה ומכו ןכ םימשב אתיאדכ זב ק"הו ו .להקי יהו י נ ו הרותהש הלוכ יתומש ו לש ה"בקה לבא רדסה הנתשמ לכב השרפ השרפ לכב הנתשמ רדסה לבא ה"בקה לש ו יתומש הלוכ הרותהש ו נ י יהו .להקי ו ק"הו זב אתיאדכ םימשב ןכ ומכו הרותה לכו תבש םיפוריצב נוש .םי ומכו ןכ זמרה םחלב נפה םי יב םו תבשה ונכרעי . יפכו רודיס "יה ב תולח ורדיסש י"נב יב םו םו יב י"נב ורדיסש תולח ב תבשה ךכ ךשמנ עפשה ןמ .םימשה יתכדכו ' םימכ םינפה םינפל וכ ' איהו יחב ' הרות פ"עבש .בתכבשו 'כו פ"ב יב םו םו יב פ"ב 'כו .בתכבשו פ"עבש הרות ' יחב איהו ' וכ םינפל םינפה םימכ ' יתכדכו .םימשה ןמ עפשה ךשמנ ךכ תבשה .תבשה שיד תבש אליעלמ אתתל ו שי יאתתמ יאליעל אתיאדכ זב .ק"הו ןכלו רמא 'כה יפכ תכירע י"נב םחלה יב םו םו יב םחלה י"נב תכירע יפכ 'כה רמא ןכלו .ק"הו זב אתיאדכ יאליעל יאתתמ שי ו אתתל אליעלמ תבש שיד .תבשה תבשה אתורעתאב אתתלד ומכ ןכ יב םו תבשה אליעלמ אתתל יהי ' רדסב הזה ש"מכו א"מב זמרה ורודיסכ ךכ וקוליס . קלסך וויכ מהאמ "כ ההרס 'יי תלאיל הרותהו הנתמ י"נבל יפכו םתגרדמ ךכ הלגתמ םהל .הרותה שיד םיעבש נפ םי הרותל נפו םי נפל .םי לכבו תבש שדחתמ שדחתמ תבש לכבו .םי נפל םי נפו הרותל םי נפ םיעבש שיד .הרותה םהל הלגתמ ךכ םתגרדמ יפכו י"נבל הנתמ הרותהו עפשה חכב .הרותה שדחמ[ ובוטב ב"מ אוה הרותב 'קנש בוט תבשבו 'כש יב ' בוט תודוהל ו הז זמרה ןמזנ הל תשה א א ארותפב ]אתדח ומכו תועובשב נש הנתי וב הרות שי יתש .םחלה לכבו תבש איה הגרדמ הטמלש ב"י תולח ןכש הרותה הרותה ןכש תולח ב"י הטמלש הגרדמ איה תבש לכבו .םחלה יתש שי הרות וב הנתי נש תועובשב ומכו ]אתדח ארותפב תשרפתמ ו נ תנתו יח םי זמו ו ן הגרדממ הגרדמל דע ז"הוע . ו ב"י םילובג ו ב"י תושקב הלפתבש םה םידומע ותחתה נ םי םי נ ותחתה םידומע םה הלפתבש תושקב ב"י ו םילובג ב"י ו . ז"הוע דע הגרדמל הגרדממ ן ו זמו םי יח תנתו נ ו תשרפתמ : שבש ו שר ה ע ל י ו ן כ מ ש" מב " א"מ "מכ ןוילעה ש ב The term Lechem Ha'Panim refers to the P’nimiut (internal spirituality) and the shefa (spiritual nourishment) that descends from heaven.

Therefore, it occurs on Shabbat, the day which influences the entire week. And the similar message in the Temple from which the entire world derived spiritual sustenance from the showbread.

Indeed, it is through Israel that the world receives the divine shefa.

Now the talmud teaches that children, livelihood and food are not dependent upon effort rather upon luck (mazal). Also, the livelihood of a person is determined from Rosh Hashanah.

For all blessings come from Shabbes and from there, disperse to the world of materiality.

Through her (Shabbat) and in Her merit the sustenance is proportioned in boundaries and constricted. However, Israel receives its sustenance from the Source dependent upon mazal and receive on Shabbes the blessings for the whole week without boundaries or measure.

This is the meaning of the Lechem HaPanim on Shabbat which is the P’nimiut of the bread which is dependent upon the mazal. The talmud states: (Menachot 96b)

לע ןחלשה רוהטה רוהט ללכמ ( ארקיו ,דכ ו) ןחלש ימנ לטלטמ אלמ ןקירו שירדכ שיקל רמאד שיר שיקל יאמ ביתכד יאמ שיקל שיר רמאד שיקל שירדכ ןקירו אלמ לטלטמ ימנ ןחלש אד י אכ אמט מ כיא The Gemara answers: The Table is also carried both full and empty, i.e., even when the shewbread is upon it, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. This is as Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall set them in two arrangements, six in an arrangement, upon the pure Table before the Lord” (Leviticus 24:6)? The term “the pure Table” teaches by inference that there is a case where the Table becomes impure, and therefore the Torah states that the Table must be pure when the shewbread is set upon it.

17 This is made to rest but that raise it for the pilgrims who come three times a year etc., meaning the whole order of Temple service is for the sake of Israel (who is the conduit for the shefa to spread to the world) by raising the showbread to its supernal source, and never does the order remain the same.

Reb Zadok Hakohen

“As long as the temple existed, the altar atoned for a person. Now, each person’s table atones for them” says the Talmud (Menachot 97). The Talmud here is prescribing a surprising role to eating, and to the home.

Redemption happens not despite eating, but through it. The temple is not inherited by the synagogue, but by the home – your dining room table, to be specific.

Nowhere is the connection between our tables and the Temple more pronounced then on Shabbat, with meals the focal point of the day (not synagogue…).

Obviously, Hallah takes the place of the Lechem ha’Panim (indeed, Kabbalists would use 12 loaves of challah on Shabbat, just like in the Temple).8

8 Ishael Zion http://www.bronfman.org/node/185

Reb Zadok’s Shabbat eating is an eating that pervades the entire body. Like the purifying waters of the mikveh, the food rushes through the entire organism, redefining it, bringing it fresh life, resetting our body to the “manufacturer’s settings”. Meir Shalev, in his novel Four Meals describes such an experience:

I couldn’t imagine that food could give such profound and poignant pleasure. Not only my tongue and my palate, but also my throat and my guts and my fingertips sprouted tiny taste buds. The smell filled my nose, saliva flooded my mouth, and even though I was still a child, I knew I would never forget the meal I was eating. (Meir Shalev, Four Meals, pg. 189

Reb Zadok’s Shabbat eating is an eating that is able to “reset” the world, a return to the world of divine and human expectations as they were in Eden, before human weakness was manifested by the snake.

Shabbat eating allows us to return to ourselves the way we imagined ourselves, to our highest aspirations for ourselves. Lechem ha’Panim is indeed “Show bread” – the bread that shows an ideal image of the world, of ourselves. As we eat it on Friday night, we can again imagine ourselves as our highest selves, and immediately we are redeemed.

Why did the Bread of the Internal never go stale? Real bread, like deep dreams and aspirations, become stale ever so quickly, as we become jaded and cynical.

9 Four Meals: A Novel – July 9, 2010 by Meir Shalev (Author), Barbara Harshav (Translator): Originally written in Hebrew and set in what is now Israel, the story starts at the end of the First World War and gives the reader a picture of a small Jewish village which was not unlike stories I've read about villages in Europe around that time in history except that the weather, the foliage and the crops were all indigenous to Palestine. This is a story of a boy with a strange name, Zayde and his mother, Judith, who believed a boy with such a name, is protected from all evil. The mother, Judith, has three lovers, all of which fill the role of Zayde's father. We never find out who Zayde's real father is. Magic, loss, love and miracles form the fabric of the life of a child in small village in Israel.

Hence the image of an “Internal Bread” that will never go stale is so necessary.

On Shabbat we are invited to reach back to the “Bread of the Inside”, that place inside that never goes stale, where dreams are “as warm as when they were baked.”

And this is perhaps why the bread can never be taken off the golden table of our psyche: if we were ever to live in a world where the ever-fresh bread did not exist, our life too would become as stale as week old bread.