QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that each loaf of the Shtei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim must be kneaded separately. The Gemara says that this requirement is learned from the verse, "Shnei Esronim Yiheyeh ha'Chalah ha'Echas" -- "[And you shall take fine flour and you shall bake it into twelve loaves,] two Esronim will be the measurement of the flour for each loaf" (Vayikra 24:5).

Why does the Torah require that each loaf be kneaded separately? Why may the Kohen not knead all of the dough together, and then separate the kneaded dough into loaves? If the act of kneading would be an Avodah, then it would make sense that the Torah requires that every Avodah of each loaf be done separately. However, the kneading of the dough is not an Avodah (and, according to one opinion, the kneading is done even before the dough has been sanctified).

ANSWER: The CHAZON ISH (Menachos 66:4) explains the reason for this requirement as follows. Each of the loaves of the Shtei ha'Lechem must be comprised of a specific quantity of flour, two Esronim. When the loaves are kneaded separately, one can ensure that each loaf has the correct amount of flour that it needs, because when he separates the flour into two parts, he can measure the exact amount for each loaf. However, if one separates the flour only after the dough has been kneaded, then it will be impossible to measure accurately, since the flour has turned into dough and the dough cannot be accurately measured. One part of the dough might be thicker and contain more flour than the other part. Therefore, since the Torah tells us to use two Esronim for each loaf, one must knead each loaf separately in order to be able to measure the exact amount of flour necessary for each loaf.

The Chazon Ish adds that not all Menachos brought as loaves need their Chalos to be separated before the kneading. The Gemara earlier (87b) asks how the flour of the Minchas Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol was divided into twelve parts (see TOSFOS there, DH ba'Meh), implying that the loaves of other Menachos were kneaded together and that it was not necessary to separate the flour into different parts (and then add oil to and knead them).

The reason for this difference between the Menachos is that wherever the Torah commands that the Minchah be divided into parts (such as the Shtei ha'Lechem, Lechem ha'Panim, and Minchas Chavitin which is learned from Lechem ha'Panim), the Torah requires that each part have a specific, exact measure of flour. Therefore, each loaf is an independently-measured part of the Minchah, and each loaf must be kneaded separately. Other Menachos need to be divided into loaves only l'Chatchilah, and they remain valid if they were not divided. For other Menachos, dividing the Minchah into loaves is merely the specific way in which the Minchah is to be offered, and there is no requirement that the quantity of flour in each loaf be exact. For this reason, there is no requirement, even l'Chatchilah, to knead the loaves of other Menachos separately.

QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that the loaves of the Shtei ha'Lechem are baked individually, one at a time. In contrast, the loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim are baked two at a time.

This requirement is difficult to understand. The Gemara in a number of places (see 95b) says that the oven in which the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim are baked is Mekadesh them. If the Torah requires that only one loaf of the Shtei ha'Lechem be baked at a time, and that only two loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim be baked at a time, then how can the oven be Mekadesh them? There is a Halachah that a Kli Shares cannot be Mekadesh a partial amount of the full amount needed for the Minchah ("Ein Kli Shares Mekadesh l'Chatza'in"). A Kli Shares can sanctify only the full amount. How can the oven sanctify only part of the Shtei ha'Lechem and part of the Lechem ha'Panim?

(a) The KEREN ORAH answers that the Mishnah means that each loaf should be placed into the oven separately (or two at a time). The baking of the loaves, however, is done at one time; all of the loaves are baked in the oven together.

The Keren Orah infers this from the verse that the Gemara cites, "v'Samta Osam" -- "You shall place them" (Vayikra 24:6), which implies that the placing of the loaves must be done in the prescribed manner, but the baking is done with all of the loaves together.

Although the wording of the Mishnah is that the loaves "are baked one at a time," the Keren Orah understands that this refers to the general Avodah of the preparation of the loaves, and not to the specific act of baking. The Mishnah refers to the act that the Kohen does -- the act of placing the loaves into the oven. The Kohen himself does not bake the loaves; the oven bakes them. The Mishnah is saying that the act that the Kohen does (placing the loaves into the oven in order to be baked) is done by placing one loaf at a time.

The MAR'EH YECHEZKEL questions the approach of the Keren Orah from the words of TOSFOS who says that the oven used for the Shtei ha'Lechem had room for only one loaf. It is clear that the actual baking itself was done with only one loaf at a time.

(b) The CHAZON ISH (Menachos 66:3) answers differently. The Chazon Ish explains that when the Torah commands that each loaf be baked separately, the Torah is teaching a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that in the case of the Shtei ha'Lechem, each loaf indeed becomes Kadosh in the oven individually, and it is not necessary to bake all of the loaves together in order to sanctify them.

Similarly, with regard to the Lechem ha'Panim, the Torah teaches that the oven is Mekadesh two loaves at a time, and it is not necessary to bake all of the loaves together in order to sanctify them.

However, this answer is also problematic. The Torah says with regard to the Lechem ha'Panim, "v'Samta Osam" -- "You shall place them" (Vayikra 24:6), from which the Gemara derives that two loaves are to be baked together. According to the Chazon Ish, the Torah is teaching that one does not need to bake all twelve loaves together, but that it suffices to bake two together. How is this implied by the words, "v'Samta Osam"? If, without the verse, all twelve loaves would need to be baked together, how does "v'Samta Osam" teach that two may be baked together? Perhaps it means that all twelve must be baked together!

(c) Perhaps one may answer as follows. The Torah teaches that two loaves are required for the Shtei ha'Lechem, and twelve for the Lechem ha'Panim. Each loaf is an independent entity, with its own Shi'ur. Accordingly, each loaf can become Kadosh by itself. The Shtei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim are not like other Menachos, where the prescribed Shi'ur is a Shi'ur for the Minchah in its entirety, and when the Minchah is lacking its Shi'ur no part of it can become Kadosh.

Accordingly, no verse is needed to teach that each loaf of the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim can become Kadosh by itself. The verse is teaching a new law about the baking of the loaves: the loaves of the Shtei ha'Lechem are to be baked one at a time, and the loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim are to be baked [at least] in pairs. (This is similar to the concept discussed by the Gemara earlier (12b; see Insights there): when a Minchah lacks part of its Shi'ur, all parts of the Minchah become Pasul because of "Chaser." In contrast, when one of the Lechem ha'Panim becomes Chaser, only that loaf becomes Pasul because of Chaser. The remaining eleven loaves are Pasul not because each one is considered Chaser, but rather they are Pasul because there are not twelve valid loaves. Only the loaf that lacks its Shi'ur is Pasul because of Chaser. The other loaves are not missing their Shi'ur, and thus they are not Pasul because of Chaser.)

This explains why each loaf can become Kadosh by itself. Since each one has its own, independent Shi'ur, each one can become Kadosh by itself and it is not necessary to be Mekadesh all of the loaves together. The verse is teaching a Halachah in the baking of the loaves when it teaches how many loaves should be baked at a time. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: Rebbi Chanina and Rebbi Yochanan argue about the form in which the Lechem ha'Panim are made. Rebbi Chanina says that they are made in the form of a "Teivah Perutzah." Rebbi Yochanan says that they are made in the form of a "Sefinah Rokedes." The Gemara asks a number of questions on the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. One of the questions is that the Mishnah later (96a) teaches that three golden, half-tube rods were placed atop each loaf of the Lechem ha'Panim. These rods supported the loaf that was placed on top of them, and they made a space between the loaves, allowing air to circulate between them. The Gemara asks that if the loaves were shaped like a "Sefinah Rokedes," then how could three rods be placed on each one? The shape of the bread does not allow for more than one rod to be placed on the loaf! (See Row #4 in Graphic #6, "The Lechem ha'Panim.")

It is evident from the Gemara that the Kanim were supported by the bread. This is also evident from the Gemara later (97a) which teaches that only two Kanim were placed below the highest tier of loaves, while three Kanim were placed beneath the other tiers. The Gemara there says that the reason for this difference is that the highest tier was supporting much less weight, and thus two Kanim sufficed. It is clear from that statement that the Kanim between the lower tiers supported not only the loaves immediately above them, but also all of the tiers of loaves above that tier. Accordingly, the Kanim between the loaves must have been supported by the loaves themselves, and not by any other support that was not resting on the loaves.

How can this be reconciled with the Mishnah and Gemara later (96a) that state that there were golden Senifin, panels, that were "branched at their heads" which served to support the loaves? This implies that the Kanim that supported each loaf rested on the Senifin, and not on the loaves! (TOSFOS DH k'Min)

(a) TOSFOS (DH d'Samchei) suggests that the Senifin did not support the Kanim at all. When the Mishnah says that they supported the loaves, it means that they provided support only for the sides of the loaves, to prevent them from being crushed under the weight of the upper loaves. The Kanim between the tiers, though, were supported by the loaves alone. What does the Mishnah mean when it says that the Kanim were "Mefutzalim k'Min Dukranim," branched like bamboo shoots? Tosfos explains that the word "Mefutzalim" does not mean "branched," as it means in other places (Yoma 29a, Chulin 59b). Rather, it means "indented" or "peeled" (see RASHI to Bereishis 30:37).

Tosfos explains that the Senifin covered the entire face of the bread on each side of the Shulchan (see Row #3 in Graphic #6). The Kanim that protruded from between the loaves prevented the Senifin from touching the faces of the loaves. In order to accommodate the Kanim, grooves were made on the inner side of the Senifin into which the Kanim protruded, while the remainder of the Senifin pressed directly against the loaves.

According to Tosfos, the grooves which accommodated the Kanim apparently did not provide support for the Kanim (that is, the weight of the Kanim did not rest on them), and thus the Kanim had to rest on the loaves. Why, though, were the Kanim not placed to rest on the Senifin, if doing so would give more support to the loaves?

Tosfos writes that it is possible that the Senifin did not reach past the top of the first tier of loaves. (See following Insight.) Perhaps the lowest Kanim did rest on the Senifin (in the grooves, or "Pitzulim"). However, the upper Kanim had to rest on the loaves, since the Senifin did not reach that high. (See also Tosfos to 96b, DH Misgarto.)

(b) However, RASHI later (96a) and in Shemos (25:29) writes that the Kanim indeed rested on the Senifin. This is also the opinion of RABEINU GERSHOM here (and 97a, DH Mefutzalim). This is also the opinion of the RASH and RA'AVAD (Toras Kohanim, Parshas Emor 18:4). Why, then, was it necessary for the loaves on the bottom to support the Kanim?

TOSFOS (DH k'Min) explains that even according to Rashi, who says that the Kanim were supported at their ends by the Senifin, it was necessary to provide support as well in the middle of each Kaneh in order to prevent it from cracking in the middle. Thus, the ends of each Kaneh rested on the Senifin, while the center of each Kaneh rested on the loaf.

If the loaves supported the center of the Kanim, then why was it necessary for the Senifin to support the ends? The loaves should support the entire weight of the Kanim! The answer seems to be that the weight of the upper tiers would have crushed the lower loaves had the Senifin not given partial support to the Kanim. Thus, the Senifin alleviated the burden on the lower loaves.

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that teaches that if the loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim were shaped like a "Sefinah Rokedes," then "the Lechem supported the Senifin, and the Senifin supported the Lechem." The Beraisa uses the singular form when it refers to the loaves ("Lechem"), even though it uses the plural form when it refers to the "Senifin." A similar expression appears in the Beraisa later (95a) that says that "the Senifin supported the Lechem." Why does the Beraisa use the singular form when it refers to the Lechem?

(a) The simple answer is that the word "Lechem" is short for "Lechem ha'Panim," which refers to all of the loaves and not to a single loaf. This seems to be the approach of Rashi and many other Rishonim who do not differentiate between one loaf and the others with regard to which loaves were supported by the Senifin.

However, the Tosefta (11:3, cited by Tosfos here) states that the Senifin supported the "Chalah" and not the "Lechem." The singular term "Chalah" certainly implies that the Senifin supported a singular loaf, rather than all of the loaves.

(b) TOSFOS explains that, indeed, each set of Senifin supported only a single Chalah -- the lowest one, which rested directly on the Shulchan. The upper loaves did not support as much weight and did not need the extra support of the Senifin. Aside from the Tosefta, clear support for this may be found in the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabah 4:14) which says that the Senifin supported the bottom-most loaf.

Tosfos adds (in the end of his comments) that this would be impossible according to the opinion that the loaves were shaped like a Sefinah Rokedes. This is because it was necessary for the Senifin to support each "boat" from toppling over onto its side, since its base was pointed (as the Gemara explains).

Strong support for the thesis of Tosfos may be found in the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabah 4:14). The Midrash teaches that the Senifin were used to support the "bottom-most Chalah" of the Lechem ha'Panim. (The Bamidbar Rabah is a relatively late Midrash, and it is generally not quoted by any of the Rishonim.) However, the Midrash also explains that the Lechem looked like a "Sefinah Rokedes" (which it translates as a "wobbly boat" -- see also the Girsa of our text of the Tosefta to Menachos 11:3). It is evident from the Midrash that even if the Lechem ha'Panim looked like a Sefinah, no Senifin were necessary for the upper tiers. As the commentaries there explain, the Kanim on which the upper tiers rested were apparently bent, to conform to the shape of the sides of the Lechem ha'Panim. Each loaf sat inside the loaf above it, and was prevented from toppling over by the Senifin of the bottom loaf. (This is not the opinion of the Gemara (96a) later in which Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that the loaves were shaped like a Sefinah, teaches that since 2.5 Tefachim of each loaf was folded up, the uppermost loaf reached a height of 15 Tefachim from the top of the Shulchan.)

(c) The RA'AVAD (Toras Kohanim, Parshas Emor, 18:4) explains that the "loaf" to which the Gemara refers is not the bottom loaf, but the top one.

He explains that the weight of the top loaf, when added to the weight of the tiers of loaves below it, would have been too much for the bottom loaf to bear. Therefore, even though the Kanim of the second, third, fourth, and fifth tiers rested directly on the loaves below them, the Kanim of the sixth tier were supported by the Senifin. Apparently, he understands that this is why the Gemara says that the Senifin supported the "loaf."