ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 94
MENACHOS 94 - has been dedicated to the memory of Max (Meir Menachem ben
Shlomo ha'Levi) Turkel, by his children Eddie and Lawrence, and his wife
Jean Turkel/Rafalowicz. Max was a warm and loving husband and father and he
is sorely missed by his family.
(a) We already cited the Beraisa, which learns from "Korbano" that all the
Shutfim are required to perform Semichah. We would have thought they are
not - because if Tenufah, which extends from Shechted animals to live ones,
yet it is confined to just one of the Shutfim, how much more so Semichah,
which is confined to Shechutin only.
(b) And now that the Torah writes "Korbano", we might have thought that each
Shutaf must perform Tenufah, too - with the reverse 'Kal va'Chomer' from
Semichah, where this is indeed the case, in spite of the fact that it is
restricted to Shechutin (which Tenufah is not).
(c) We answer, that this is not possible. They could not all perform
1. ... simultaneously - because that would entail a Chatzitzah (the hands of
one Shutaf interrupting between the hands of another Shutaf and the Korban.
2. ... one after the other - because the Torah writes "Tenufah", and not
(a) The Mishnah in Tamid describes the procedure, should the Kohen Gadol
wish to bring the Korban Tamid on to the Mizbe'ach. When they reached
halfway up the ramp, the S'gan, who stood at his right as he did so - held
him by the arm and accompanied him to the top of the ramp.
***** Hadran Alach 'Sh'tei Midos' *****
(b) One of the nine Kohanim would then hand him the sections of the Korban
that he had carried up to there, and the Kohen Gadol would perform Semichah
on them before tossing them on to the Makom ha'Ma'arachah. Then the next
Kohen would hand him the sections that he had carried ... (and so on).
(c) The Kohen Gadol had the option, if he so wished - of just performing
Semichah, and handing the sections to another Kohen to toss on to the Makom
(d) Abaye reconciles this with our Mishnah, which precludes Korbenos Tzibur
from Semichah - by attributing this Halachah to the esteem of the Kohan
Gadol (and not to a Din in the Korban).
***** Perek Sh'tei ha'Lechem *****
(a) Our Mishnah draws a distinction between the baking of the Sh'tei
ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, both of which were kneaded one by one -
in that the former were baked one by one too, whereas the latter were baked
two by two.
(b) To ensure that the Lechem ha'Panim remained intact, both swhen they were
being baked and when they were removed from the oven - the Kohanim would
bake then in a baking-mold, and transfer them immediately into another mold
after removing them from the oven (where they remained until they were
placed on the Shulchan on the following day).
(a) The Beraisa learns from ...
1. ... the Pasuk "Sh'nei Esronim Yih'yeh ha'Chalah *ha'Echas*" - that the
Lechem h'Panim had to be kneaded one at a time.
(b) Whereas from the Pasuk there ...
2. ... the word "Yih'yeh" (which is otherwise superfluous) - that the same
applies to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.
1. ... "Ve'samta Osam", the Tana learns - that the Lechem ha'Panim must be
baked two at a time, and from ...
(c) We learn the latter D'rashah - because to teach us the former one, the
Torah could have written "Ve'samtam".
2. ... "Osam" - that only they are baked two at a time, but not the Sh'tei
(a) We have discussed the baking molds used for the Lechem ha'Panim in the
oven, and those that were used after they were removed. A third set of molds
was used - to place the loaves in whilst they were still dough (prior to the
(b) The Beraisa learns this from the Pasuk "Ve'samta Osam" - since the Torah
writes "Ve'samta Osam", rather than 'Ve'nasata Osam' (Tosfos DH 'Ve'samta
(c) After removing the loaves from the oven, they could not return them to
the first set of molds - because the baking will have caused them to swell
(a) According to Rebbi Chanina, the Lechem ha'Panim were baked in the shape
of an open box with the two sides removed. Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that
they were shaped like a rocking boat (i.e. like a letter 'vee' [but with a
less acute angle]).
(b) The problem with Rebbi Yochanan vis-a-vis ...
1. ... the Bazichei Levonah is - where they then placed the Bazichei
Levonah, since, seeing as the top loaves (like those beneath it) came to a
point in the middle, the bowls would be hanging from two opposite points of
the walls of the top loaves (instead of being firmly placed inside them).
(c) To resolve ...
2. ... the placing of the Kanim (the canes) is - how the two outer canes
would sit firmly on the loaves, which came almost to a point at the top of
the vee, and which would allow them (the Kanim) to move around.
1. ... the first problem - the Kohanim would cut a ledge into each of the
top loaves, on which the Bazichin were placed (see also Rabeinu Gershom).
2. ... the second problem - they would attach a small piece of dough at
those two points, to which the Kanim would stick.
(a) The ...
1. ... 'S'nifin' were - four wide (board-like) posts, two standing side by
side along the length of the Shulchan.
(b) According to Rebbi Chanina, the S'nifin supported the loaf - by holding
it tight on its vertical sides (and preventing it from caving in), and on
its horizontal side, by means of the Kanim, as we will explain shortly.
Note, that the Lechem ha'Panim, the S'nifin and the Kanim will be explained
in more detail later in the Perek.
2. ... Kanim - were twenty-eight golden half-canes (fourteen for each row of
loaves) that were placed three (or two, as will be explained later), across
the width of the Shulchan on the top of each loaf.
(c) The problem, in this regard, according to Rebbi Yochanan is - that the
shape of the loaf would prevent the S'nifin from supporting it, other than
at the tips of the 'Vee', in which case it would not be fully supported, and
would be likely to fall.
(d) We solve the problem - by ascribing to the S'nifin a roundish shape
(like a series of six semi-circles ['de'Agil Lehu Me'agel']), each one
holding one loaf at the top and at the bottom (one on each side of the
(a) The purpose of the golden half-canes was - to allow air to pass between
the six loaves in each row (to prevent them from becoming moldy.
(b) According to Rebbi Chanina, it was necessary (in spite of the flat shape
of the base of the loaves) to have the posts as well - so that the grooves
cut into them would support the half-canes, which in turn, would then
support the loaves, preventing them from weighing down on each other and
(c) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal explains how the S'nifin stood. According to Rebbi
Yochanan, it was necessary for the S'nifin to stand on the table - for the
rounded shape to support the vee-shaped loaves, as we explained.
(d) According to Rebbi Chanina, this was not possible - since the size and
shape of the loaves caused them to extend to the edge of the Shulchan.
Consequently, they stood on the floor, flush with the Shulchan (but
extending upwards way above it).
(a) Rav Yehudah explains - that the (weight of) the loaves supported the
Shulchan, and the (shape of) the Shulchan supported the loaves.
(b) This supports the opinion of - Rebbi Yochanan.
(a) We ask on Rebbi Yochanan however from another Beraisa, which describes
the bee-hive looking (see Tosfos DH 'Ke'miyn Kaveres) baking-mold in the
oven. The Tana refers to its shape as - a sort of square tableau (a Kashya
on Rebbi Yochanan).
(b) We amend the Beraisa however - by restricting that description to the
opening, which was deliberately made wide to enable placing the loaves into
it with ease. But the actual shape of the mold was like a vee (conforming
with Rebbi Yochanan).
(c) Finally, we cite a Beraisa, which specifically describes the Lechem
ha'Panim as 'Ke'miyn Sefinah Rokedes' (in support of Rebbi Yochanan). When,
with reference to the S'nifin, the Tana writes 'Mefutzalin me'Rosheihen
Ke'miyn Dakranim', he means - that the Kanim, which protruded from the
S'nifin, had sorts of branches sticking out from them ...
(d) ... to hold the loaves and keep them from falling.