QUESTIONS: Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about whether the Lechem ha'Panim became Pasul (because of Yotzei) each time the Jews traveled in the Midbar and dismantled the Mishkan. In the first stage, the Gemara says that the opinion that maintains that the Lechem ha'Panim did not become Pasul during the travels derives this from the verse, "v'Lechem ha'Tamid Alav Yiheyeh" (Bamidbar 4:7), which teaches that the Lechem ha'Panim was to remain on the Shulchan even during the travels. If the Lechem ha'Panim needed to remain on the Shulchan, then it did not become Pasul. The other opinion agrees that the Lechem ha'Panim was to remain on the Shulchan during the travels, as the verse says, but argues that despite the fact that it needed to remain on the Shulchan, the Lechem ha'Panim still could become Pasul.

(a) At this point in the Gemara, according to the opinion that the Lechem ha'Panim became Pasul during the travels, why did the Torah require that the loaves remain on the Shulchan? If they were Pasul, what point was there in keeping them on the Shulchan?

In the second stage of the Gemara, the Gemara says that everyone agrees that when the loaves were on the Shulchan, they did not become Pasul because of Yotzei. The dispute, according to the Gemara at this stage, involves loaves that were removed from the Shulchan.

In the third and final stage, the Gemara concludes that there is no dispute at all. Everyone agrees that when the loaves were on the Shulchan, they did not become Pasul because of Yotzei, and when the loaves were not on the Shulchan, they became Pasul because of Yotzei.

(b) According to the second and third stages of the Gemara, why is there a difference between loaves that were on the Shulchan and loaves that were not on the Shulchan? In both cases, the Lechem ha'Panim left the confines of the Mishkan when the people traveled! If the entire Shulchan, together with the Lechem ha'Panim, is taken out of the Mishkan or the Beis ha'Mikdash, the loaves become Pasul because of Yotzei. (This is evident from the fact that the Gemara discusses only the status of the Lechem ha'Panim during the travels of the Jewish people in the Midbar. It is obvious that the loaves would have become Pasul if they were taken out of the Mishkan while the Mishkan was standing.) Why should the fact that the loaves were on the Shulchan prevent them from becoming Pasul through Yotzei?

Moreover, in the second stage of the Gemara, what is the reasoning behind the opinion that maintains that even loaves that were removed from the Shulchan did not become Pasul during the travels in the Midbar?

(a) The answer to the first question seems to be that the Torah gives a special commandment to leave the Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan at all times. The Torah says, "Lechem Panim Lefanai Tamid" (Shemos 25:30), teaching that the Lechem ha'Panim should remain on the Shulchan at all times. Under normal circumstances, this verse refers to valid Lechem ha'Panim. However, during the travels in the Midbar, it was not possible to have valid Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan at all times, since the Mishkan was often dismantled and the Lechem ha'Panim consequently became Pasul because of Yotzei. Consequently, in the Midbar there was a different criterion for the type of Lechem needed to fulfill the requirement of "Tamid": even Lechem ha'Panim that was Pasul because of Yotzei qualified to fulfill the requirement that there be Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan at all times. (At no other time, however, was the requirement of "Tamid" fulfilled with Lechem ha'Panim that was Pasul because of Yotzei.) This is the reasoning of the opinion that maintains that the Lechem ha'Panim became Pasul during the travels in the Midbar even when it was resting on the Shulchan.

(b) The Gemara concludes, however, that the verse, "v'Lechem ha'Tamid Alav Yiheyeh," implies that the requirement of "Tamid" is fulfilled only with loaves that are in a state of "Yiheyeh" -- their Kedushah is fully intact (as Rashi writes in DH v'Lechem ha'Tamid). The Torah is teaching that as long as the loaves are on the Shulchan, they retain their Kedushah and fulfill the requirement of "Tamid." Loaves that became Pasul through Yotzei, such as by being removed from the Shulchan during the travels, do not qualify and do not fulfill the requirement of "Tamid."

What is the difference between loaves that were on the Shulchan and loaves that were removed? In both cases, there should have been a Pesul of Yotzei. As mentioned above in the answer to the first question, the Torah requires that the Lechem remain on the Shulchan "Tamid," always. It follows logically that during the time that the Lechem is arranged on the Shulchan, the Pesul of Yotzei does not take effect, in order for the requirement of "Tamid" to be fulfilled. When the Lechem is not on the Shulchan, and the requirement of "Tamid" is not being fulfilled, there is no reason for the Pesul of Yotzei not to take effect.

This reasoning is straightforward. What is the reasoning of the other opinion, which maintains that the Lechem ha'Panim is valid even when it is not on the Shulchan (according to the second stage of the Gemara)?

The Gemara explains that the other opinion derives from another verse that there was no Pesul of Yotzei whatsoever during the travels in the Midbar. The verse says, "The Ohel Mo'ed shall travel" (Bamidbar 2:17), which teaches that the Mishkan (Ohel Mo'ed) is considered the Mishkan even while it travels. Even when the Mishkan was dismantled, the Machaneh ha'Shechinah remained intact, and thus the Lechem ha'Panim never left the confines of the sanctified area at all. Consequently, they did not become Pasul even if they were removed from the Shulchan. (The opinion that maintains that the Lechem ha'Panim did become Pasul during the travels when it was no longer on the Shulchan argues that this verse (Bamidbar 2:17) does not apply to Kodshei Kodashim such as the Lechem ha'Panim.)

The Gemara rejects this reasoning, because if it is true, then all Korbanos of Kodshei Kodashim also should not have become Pasul when the Mishkan traveled. The Gemara quotes a Tosefta, however, which clearly states that Kodshei Kodashim became Pasul, and thus it must be that the Machaneh ha'Shechinah did not remain intact during the travels. Consequently, the Lechem ha'Panim also became Pasul because of Yotzei. Only when the Lechem was on the Shulchan did it remain valid, because of the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of "v'Lechem ha'Tamid Alav Yiheyeh," which teaches that the Pesul of Yotzei does not take effect when the Lechem is on the Shulchan, in order for the requirement of "Tamid" to be fulfilled. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Tosefta that says that when the Mishkan traveled in the Midbar, all of the Kodshim became Pasul because of Yotzei. Abaye infers from the Tosefta that the travels in the Midbar could begin at nighttime. (That is, if the Clouds of Glory would move at night, the people would begin traveling immediately and not wait until the morning.)

What is Abaye's proof from the Tosefta?

(a) RASHI explains that the proof is from the fact that the Tosefta says that Kodshim became Pasul because of Yotzei. If the people traveled only in the morning and not at night, then the Kodshim would have been Pasul because of Linah (being left overnight), and there would be no proof that they were Pasul because of Yotzei.

(b) TOSFOS questions Rashi's explanation. Perhaps they indeed did not travel at night, and the reason why the Kodshim were Pasul because of Yotzei was that the nation traveled later during the day, after the morning. The Kodshim from the Korbanos that were brought in the morning became Pasul because of Yotzei at that time, and not because of Linah.

Tosfos explains instead that Abaye's proof is from the Lechem ha'Panim. The Gemara earlier concludes that the Lechem ha'Panim became Pasul because of Yotzei when it was not resting on the Shulchan at the time that the nation traveled. Tosfos understands that the Gemara refers to Lechem that was removed from the Shulchan at its appropriate time, on Shabbos. Each week on Shabbos, the old Lechem ha'Panim was removed from the Shulchan and the new Lechem ha'Panim took its place. On Shabbos, the nation did not travel, and thus the only way that the Lechem ha'Panim that was removed from the Shulchan could have become Pasul because of Yotzei (and not Linah) is if they traveled at night on Motza'i Shabbos.

How does Rashi answer the question of Tosfos? Perhaps the nation indeed did not travel at night, and yet the Kodshim became Pasul because of Yotzei (and not Linah) because they traveled after noon!

The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH answers that Rashi maintains that the Lechem ha'Panim provides no proof that the nation traveled at night, because when the Gemara says that Lechem that was removed from the Shulchan became Pasul because of Yotzei, perhaps it refers to Lechem that was removed at some time during the week, and not to Lechem that was removed on Shabbos. Accordingly, the travel that invalidated the Lechem might have occurred during the day, and not at night. Rashi therefore explains that Abaye's proof is from the case of meat of Kodshim, and he understands that if the nation traveled only during the day and not at night, then they would have traveled early in the morning, before any Kodshim could be prepared (and the only Kodshim that would become Pasul were the Kodshim from the day before, and they would become Pasul because of Linah and not because of Yotzei).

This explanation is clear. Why does Tosfos not learn like Rashi?

1. The TAHARAS HA'KODESH answers that Tosfos maintains that as long as the Bazichin of the Lechem ha'Panim have not yet been offered, the Lechem ha'Panim does not become Pasul through Yotzei. This is consistent with the view of Tosfos earlier (9a) that the Pesul of Yotzei takes effect only after the Avodah of the Minchah has been performed. For this reason, Tosfos understands that when the Gemara says that Lechem ha'Panim that was removed from the Shulchan becomes Pasul through Yotzei, it cannot refer to Lechem that was removed during the week, since the Pesul of Yotzei takes effect only after the Haktaras ha'Bazichin, which is done on Shabbos.

2. The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH answers that Tosfos maintains that as long as the Halachah requires the Lechem to be on the Shulchan (i.e. during the week), it is not considered to have been removed from the Shulchan (even if it is physically removed). The Lechem is considered removed from the Shulchan only when it is removed when the Halachah permits it to be removed (i.e. on Shabbos).

The logic behind this approach may be that as long as the Lechem is required to be on the Shulchan, the Torah exempts it from the Pesul of Yotzei in order that the requirement of "Tamid" be fulfilled (see previous Insight). Even when the Lechem is not physically on the Shulchan, it does not become Pasul, since it is Lechem that is fit to be used to fulfill the requirement of "Tamid." Only after it has officially been removed (on Shabbos), and there is no more requirement of "Tamid," does the Lechem become subject to the Pesul of Yotzei. This is why Tosfos understands that Abaye's proof is from the Lechem ha'Panim that was removed on Shabbos. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon disagree about where the Avodos of the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim are to be done. Rebbi Yehudah says that every stage of their preparation is to be done inside the Azarah. Rebbi Shimon says that the loaves may be prepared outside of the Azarah, in any part of Yerushalayim.

In the Gemara, Rebbi Avahu bar Rav Kahana says that the basis of their argument is whether or not the Tanur (oven) in which the loaves are cooked is Mekadesh the loaves. (While Rebbi Avahu discusses a different argument between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon -- whether the baking of the Lechem ha'Panim overrides Shabbos -- the basis of that argument is the same as the argument in the Mishnah.) Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the Tanur is Mekadesh the loaves, and therefore the loaves must be baked within the Azarah, because if the loaves are baked outside of the Azarah, then as soon as they attain Kedushah they become Pasul because of Yotzei. Rebbi Shimon maintains that the Tanur is not Mekadesh the loaves, but rather the act of placing the loaves on the Shulchan is Mekadesh them. The loaves may be baked outside of the Azarah, since they will not be made Kadosh by the Tanur and will not become Pasul through Yotzei.

Rebbi Avahu's explanation is very difficult to understand. According to his explanation, Rebbi Yehudah should require only that the baking be performed in the Azarah, since the Tanur is Mekadesh the loaves. Why does Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah say that all of the preparatory acts of the Lechem ha'Panim must be done in the Azarah? Why must the kneading (Lishah) and arranging (Arichah) be done in the Azarah, if the dough at that point is not Kadosh and cannot become Pasul through Yotzei? Rather, it is clear that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it is the measuring utensil, and not the Tanur, that is Mekadesh the flour, and that is why he requires that the kneading and other pre-baking processes be done in the Azarah. Why, then, does Rebbi Avahu say that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the Tanur is Mekadesh the loaves? (REBBI AKIVA EIGER)

ANSWER: REBBI AKIVA EIGER explains that because of this question, it must be that when Rebbi Avahu mentions Rebbi Yehudah, he means the Tana Kama of the Mishnah, and not Rebbi Yehudah. The Tana Kama indeed says that only the baking needs to be done in the Azarah, while the Lishah and Arichah may be done outside of the Azarah. The Tana Kama is the one who maintains that the Tanur is Mekadesh the loaves.

This answer needs further clarification. The text of the Gemara clearly says that Rebbi Avahu explains the dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Akiva Eiger does not suggest a change in the Girsa. Why, then, does he say that when the Gemara mentions Rebbi Yehudah, it really means the Tana Kama?

RAV YITZCHAK MEIR ORBACH in SHALMAS YOSEF (130) answers as follows. From the fact that Rebbi Yehudah requires all of the preparations to be done in the Azarah, it is clear that the preparations cannot be done on Friday or on any other day, and thus they override Shabbos. Since the flour becomes Kadosh when it is measured, if it would be prepared before Shabbos and left overnight, it would become Pasul because of Linah. Therefore, all of the preparations for the loaves must be done on Shabbos.

Rebbi Avahu explains not only why, according to Rebbi Yehudah, all of the preparations of the Lechem ha'Panim must be done inside the Azarah. He also explains why Rebbi Yehudah says that the preparations of the Lechem ha'Panim override Shabbos. Since the Gemara earlier, which discusses the view of the Tana Kama, says that if the Tanur is Mekadesh the loaves, then the baking of the loaves overrides Shabbos, Rebbi Avahu gives this as Rebbi Yehudah's reason for saying that the baking overrides Shabbos.

The obvious question remains. Why do we assume that this is Rebbi Yehudah's reason? Rebbi Yehudah says that all of the preparations of the loaves must be done inside the Azarah. It is obvious that he maintains that the measuring vessel is Mekadesh the flour, and that is why even the Lishah and Arichah must be done inside the Azarah. Perhaps this is also why the baking, and all of the other preparations of the loaves, override Shabbos (for if they are done before Shabbos, the loaves will become Pasul through Linah). Why, then, does Rebbi Avahu say that Rebbi Yehudah's reason is that the Tanur is Mekadesh the loaves?

Rebbi Akiva Eiger's answer may be understood based on the Gemara earlier (51a), which discusses the source for the Halachah that the baking of the Korban Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol overrides Shabbos. Rava says that this law is derived from the verse, "Al Machavas" (Vayikra 6:14), which teaches that the Chavitin must be prepared in a Kli Shares. The Kli Shares is Mekadesh the Chavitin, and thus if the Chavitin are prepared before Shabbos and are left until Shabbos, they become Pasul through Linah. It must be that the baking of the Chavitin overrides Shabbos.

The Acharonim ask why a special verse ("Al Machavas") is needed to teach that the baking of the Chavitin overrides Shabbos. The ingredients of the Chavitin, such as the oil, are already Kadosh by the time the Chavitin is baked. (Everyone agrees that the measuring vessel of the oil ("Midas ha'Lach") is Mekadesh its contents.) Accordingly, the Chavitin cannot be prepared the day before, because its Kadosh ingredients would become Pasul through Linah. Why is the verse of "Al Machavas" needed to teach that the Chavitin cannot be prepared the day before?

As the MIKDASH DAVID writes, the answer must be that there is a difference between the Kedushah bestowed by the measuring vessel used in the preparation of the Minchah, and the Kedushah bestowed by the Kli Shares that the Torah designates for use with this Minchah. The Kedushah bestowed by the measuring vessel can be avoided, when necessary, by measuring the flour and other contents of the Minchah in an alternative vessel that is not Kadosh and that will not render the ingredients Kadosh. In contrast, the Kedushah caused by the Kli that the Torah designates for this Minchah is unavoidable. That Kli must be used, and no other vessel may be used.

Consequently, when preparing a Minchah before Shabbos for use on Shabbos, one can avoid being Mekadesh the ingredients of the Minchah by using an ordinary measuring vessel that does not consecrate its contents. The ingredients of the Minchah will not become Pasul because of Linah, since they are not yet Kadosh. This is why the Gemara earlier (51a) cannot say simply that the preparation of the Chavitin overrides Shabbos because the measuring vessels are Mekadesh the ingredients of the Chavitin. Non-holy measuring vessels may be used, and the ingredients are not Kadosh and cannot become Pasul. Rather, the Gemara must find a new reason for why the Chavitin may be prepared on Shabbos. Rava says that the source is the verse, "Al Machavas." The Torah designates a specific Kli for use with the Chavitin, and thus no other vessel may be used in its place. Since there is no way to avoid making the Chavitin become Kadosh during their preparation, their preparation overrides Shabbos (so that they will not become Pasul through Linah).

The Mikdash David's explanation of the Gemara earlier applies here as well. Since the measuring vessel is Mekadesh the ingredients of the Lechem ha'Panim, of the preparations must be done inside of the Azarah (since the flour would become Pasul through Yotzei if it would be prepared outside of the Azarah). However, this reason does not suffice to explain why the preparations of the Lechem ha'Panim override Shabbos. If the only concern is that the measuring vessel will make the ingredients Kadosh (and subject to Linah), then the flour should simply be prepared in a non-holy measuring vessel before Shabbos! Since Rebbi Yehudah permits the baking of the loaves on Shabbos, there must be a different reason for why the preparations of the Lechem ha'Panim override Shabbos. It must be because the Tanur is Mekadesh the loaves. Since the Torah commands that the Tanur be used to prepare the loaves, one cannot use a non-holy Tanur that will not be Mekadesh the loaves. Since the baking of the loaves must be done in a Tanur which makes them Kadosh (and subject to Linah), it must be that the baking of the loaves overrides Shabbos. Once the Torah permits the baking of the loaves to be done Shabbos, it also permits the other preparations to be done on Shabbos. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)