We find (Orach Chayim 274) that the two breads used for Lechem Mishneh must be complete (Sheleimim), and not, for example, slices for bread.

What is the source for this? We only find in the Gemara a source for having "two" breads rather than one; who says that they have to be Shalem?

Thanks!

Shea West, Jerusalem, Israel

I believe that there is a Shita of the Netziv's Shver (I forget his name) that says that if one comes to the table and the Lechem Mishneh is not Shalem then Klapei him it has a din of a Shalem. I remember hearing this a long time ago but I don't think I saw it inside. I would love to have a Maare Makom for this Shtikl and any appropiate comments to explain his Shita. Thanks.

YB

Do remember that some poskim say that if less than 1 in 48 is missing then it can still be considered shalem, as with challa.

ycd

(a) As for the source of using "Sheleimos," whole loafs - see also Rashi, Pesachim top of 116a (the Gemara of Lechem Oni), who takes it for granted that Lechem Mishnah must be whole. See also Tosfos and the other Rishonim there.

(b) The practice of Rav Yitzchok of Volozhin (father in law of the Netziv) is recorded by the Netziv in his Teshuvos Meshiv Davar 1:21, in a Teshuvah to his son. The Netziv there justifies his father in law's practice to give latecomer guests two slices of Chalah as Lechem Mishnah if there were no complete loaves left. (The Teshuvah is cited and discussed in Shemiras Shabbos k'Hilchasha vol II 55:57, and in Teshuvos Minchas Yitzchok Vol. X #24.)

In short, the Netziv brings the sources mentioned above that show Lechem Mishnah must be complete loaves. He shows that this is not just "Mitzvah Min ha'Muvchar," but rather it is a necessary requirement of Lechem Mishnah. He brings a proof to this (and a source for needing complete loaves) from Menachos 46a, where we see that if Lachmei Todah are broken and not complete they do not count. We see from here that the definition of "Lechem" is "whole loaves."

However, he infers from the fact that the Rif requires a second Matzah along with the broken one that a half a loaf can indeed be considered Lechem Mishnah. If not, what would be the point of adding a second loaf to the broken one, if the second one would not make it Lechem Mishnah anyhow since the first is broken. Obviously a broken loaf can be considered a "Lechem" (if only the "Lechem" of an Ani). He adds that even according to the Halachic view that requires a third, complete, Matzah, if one cannot find a third Matzah he is required to have at least a second Matzah (which is not broken) in order to make Lechem Mishnah. This shows that b'Di'eved one may use broken Chalos for Lechem Mishnah, and seems to contradict what we see in the Rishonim and in the Gemara in Menachos that we just cited.

He concludes that if the Chalah is broken before it is brought before us, it can be considered a "Lechem." However, if it brought before us complete and then broken, it is not considered Lechem. (He brings a parallel to this from a Halachah involving Geneivah u'Mechirah where one sells the animal except for 1/100th of it, in Bava Kama 78.)

(c) Regarding a Chalah that is missing only less than 1/48th - this is also brought in Shemiras Shabbos k'Hilchasa vol II, 55:24* .

Kol Tuv,

Yitzchok Zirkind

Based on Tosfos on Shvous 27b (bottom) says any piece less then a kzaiyis is not considered part of the loaf he says its called "Ei efsher limnoa" that crumbs will be lost. The magen avrohom paskens with thi that you dont need to check chometz on pesach if its less then a kzayis.

Some posken base on this that a loaf missing less then a kzayis can still be called whole