1)

(a)The She'eilah whether the Lechem ha'Panim became Pasul when Yisrael traveled or not is resolved by a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The ...

1. ... first opinion learns from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Yachanu kein Yisa'u" - that just as, at the time of encampment, leaving the Azarah rendered the loaves Pasul, so too, did breaking camp.

2. ... second opinion learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lechem ha'Tamid alav Yih'yeh" - that the loaves remained Kasher, even whilst they traveled.

(b)The latter opinion explains "Ka'asher Yachanu kein Yisa'u" to mean - that just as at the time of encampment, the loaves did not become Pasul unless they were moved from the Azarah, so too, when traveling, they did not become Pasul unless they were moved from the Shulchan.

(c)We still need to explain however - how the first opinion explains the Pasuk "ve'Lechem ha'Tamid alav Yih'yeh".

2)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he solved the problem by qualifying the Machlokes. Both disputants agree, he maintained - that as long as the loaves remained on the Shulchan, they did not become Pasul.

(b)They learn it from - "ve'Lechem ha'Tamid alav Yih'yeh".

(c)The first opinion now learns as before only with regard to where the loaves were removed from the Shulchan. The second opinion now learns from the Pasuk there "Ve'nasa Ohel Mo'ed" - that even when they traveled, the Ohel Mo'ed retained its status, in which case the loaves did not become Pasul, even if they were removed from the Shulchan, as long as they remained within Machaneh Leviyah.

(d)And he explains "Ka'asher Yachanu kein Yisa'u" - simply as instructions regarding the order in which the various Degalim (flags) broke camp.

(e)The second opinion learns from the Pasuk there "Machaneh ha'Levi'im be'Soch ha'Machanos" - what the first opinion just learned from "Ka'asher Yachanu kein Yisa'u".

3)

(a)The Beraisa, discussing various aspects of Halachah when Yisrael broke camp, says that ...

1. ... Kodshim - became Pasul be'Yotzei, and ...

2. ... Zavin and Metzora'in - had to remain within their boundaries (the former outside Machaneh Leviyah, the latter behind Machaneh Dan).

(b)The catalyst that sparks off these rulings is - the rolling up of the Paroches.

(c)According to Rav Dimi, this Tana holds that whilst traveling the Machaneh - retains its status.

4)

(a)We attempt to reconcile this with the second opinion (that does not render the Lechem ha'Panim Pasul be'Yotzei) - by precluding the Lechem ha'Panim from the 'Kodshim' mentioned in the Beraisa.

(b)We reject this suggestion however - because 'Mah Nafshach', if Machaneh Yisrael retained its status whilst traveling, then why did Kodshim become Pasul? And if it did not, then why did the Lechem ha'Panim not become Pasul?

(c)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, quoting Mar, he reinterpreted the two statements of Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua, inasmuch as - both Amora'im agree that Machaneh Yisrael does not retain its status whilst traveling.

(d)And he establishes ...

1. ... the first opinion ('Eino Nifsal") - where the loaves were still on the Shulchan, and ...

2. ... the second opinion ('Nifsal'), where they had been removed.

5)

(a)Abaye proves from the fact that the Beraisa ascribes the P'sul Kodshim (when they traveled) to 'Yotzei' (exclusively) - that once the Pillar of Fire moved in the night, they traveled immediately, without waiting for daybreak ...

(b)... because otherwise, there would be times when Kodshim would be Pasul through Linah, and not through Yotzei.

(c)Abaye needs a Beraisa to teach us this, despite the Pasuk "Laleches Yomam va'Laylah" - which could just as well be speaking only in cases where they began to travel by day ...

(d)... seeing as the Torah puts "Yomam" first.

6)

(a)We ask on this Beraisa however, from another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that once the Paroches was rolled up - Zavin and Metzora'in were permitted to enter the Camp.

(b)Rav Ashi establishes the latter Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer, who learns from the Pasuk in Naso "Viyeshalchu min ha'Machaneh Kol Tzaru'a, ve'Chol Zav ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh" - that wherever a Tamei Meis is obligated to leave the Machaneh Shechinah, a Metzora is obligated to leave Machaneh Yisrael; and conversely, where the former is not obligated to leave, the latter is not obligated either.

(c)Consequently, he rules - that if Zavin and Metzora'in pushed their way into the Azarah in a case of a Pesach that is brought be'Tum'ah (i.e. because most of the Tzibur are Tamei), they are both Patur.

(d)That ruling will extend to our case (where the Paroches was rolled up and they were ready to travel), because - since there was no Machaneh Shechinah, Te'me'ei Meisim (who are permitted to enter the Machaneh Leviyah) were not subject to the Isur of entering the Mishkan be'Tum'ah, and consequently, Zavin and Metzora'in were not subject to one, either.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses the Halachic similarities between the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim. Both of them are kneaded and shaped outside the Azarah - but are baked inside.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah is more stringent than the Tana Kama whereas Rebbi Shimon is more lenient. Rebbi ...

1. ... Yehudah requires the kneading to be performed inside the Azarah, too, whilst Rebbi ...

2. ... Shimon permits even the baking to be performed anywhere in 'Beis Pagi' ...

(c)... (i.e. anywhere in Yerushalayim).

(d)The Tana also compares them - in that they both override Shabbos.

8)

(a)The problem with the Tana Kama, who holds that on the one hand, the kneading and the shaping of the Lechem ha'Panim may be performed outside the Azarah, whereas on the other, the baking must take place inside is - that the first statement seems to hold that the Midas Yavesh does not sanctify even what is fit to be placed inside it, whilst the second statement holds that it does.

(b)When Rava attributed the Kashya to a particularly sharp man, he was referring to Rav Sheishes.

(c)We reject Rava's statement however, by resolving the discrepancy with ease - inasmuch as the Isaron is not Mekadesh), whereas the oven is.

(d)So what Rav Sheishes really asked (that elicited Rava's praise) was from the fact that the baking must be performed inside the Azarah on the one hand (implying that the oven is Mekadesh), and that they do not override Shabbos on the other - creating the problem that the obligation to bake the Sh'nei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim on Erev Shabbos, will automatically cause them to become Pasul be'Linah on Shabbos morning.

9)

(a)Rav Ashi tries to answer the Kashya - by interpreting 'bi'Fenim' as (outside the Azarah, but) in a location where the Kohanim who are 'Zerizin' (alert) are situated ...

(b)... so that they can supervise the baking, to ensure that the Matzos do not become Chametz.

(c)In any event, this means that the loaves do not need to be baked in the oven.

(d)But we consider Rav Ashi's suggestion a joke - because if the Kohanim are needed to supervise the baking, why should they not also be obligated to supervise the kneading and the shaping?

10)

(a)Rebbi Aba bar Kahana remarked that - both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, who argue over whether the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim need to be prepared in the Azarah (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (Rebbi Shimon), derive their respective opinions from the same Pasuk in Shmuel "ve'Hu Derech Chol Af ki ha'Yom Yekadesh bi'Cheli"

(b)Either way, David was criticizing Achimelech for baking the Lechem ha'Panim when he did. According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion he found him baking the loaves on Friday - David asked him why he was baking them 'Derech Chol', since, seeing as the Tanur sanctified the loaves, they would become Pasul be'Linah by tomorrow, in which case, their baking would override Shabbos (which is when he ought to have baked them). Whereas ...

2. ... Rebbi Shimon, according to whom he found Achimelech baking the loaves on Shabbos - asked him why he had not baked them yesterday ('Derech Chol'), since he surely did not think that the Tanur sanctified the loaves, in which case their baking would not override Shabbos.

(c)We refute this explanation however - because, seeing as the Pasuk writes there that the Kohen gave him 'holy bread that had just been removed from the Shulchan', David clearly arrived. not when the loaves were being baked, but after they had been removed from the Shulchan (on Shabbos afternoon.

(d)When David said ...

1. ... ''ve'Hu Derech Chol'' - he must therefore have been referring to the fact that the loaves had been removed from the Shulchan, in which case they were no longer subject to Me'ilah.

2. ... "Af ki ha'Yom Yekadesh bi'Cheli", he meant - that he (Achimelech) would even have been permitted to hand him loaves that had only just been placed on the Shulchan (and which were still subject to Me'ilah), because a Bulmus (a dangerous illness affecting the eyes, caused by starvation) had seized him.

11)

(a)In fact, the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon is - the tradition they had received from their Rebbes as to whether the Tanur sanctifies what is fit for it (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

(b)And the proof for this lies in the Lashon used by Rebbi Shimon - 'Le'olam Hevi Ragil Lomar ... ', indicating that his argument with Rebbi Yehudah is not a matter of how to Darshen Pesukim, but the wording of their respective traditions.