Menachos 95
Summary
- The text resumes מנחות דף צה at *ibaya lehu* with a question about whether לחם הפנים becomes פסול יוצא during the משכן’s travels, develops three successive explanations of what the ספק’s practical case is, and then moves to a משנה about where the לישה, עריכה, and אפייה of שתי הלחם and לחם הפנים must be done and how that affects when they become קדוש. The narrative adds אחרונים’ questions about why the סוגיא is asked at all, proposes answers about why bread might remain on the שולחן even if פסול, and later connects the sugya to נוב עיר הכהנים and David’s request for bread. The end of the section highlights a sharp internal difficulty in the משנה about baking inside while not baking on שבת, rejects an attempted resolution, and frames the remaining reconciliation problem, including implications for the Rambam’s reading.
- The text recalls that one opinion describes לחם הפנים as shaped like a ספינה רוקדת, and רב שכטר suggests this underlies the מנהג of braided חלות, because turned upside down they resemble a boat. Others suggest straight long חלות shaped like a ו based on the זוהר’s theme of twelve חלות on שבת, contrasted with round חלות on יום טוב. The Gra is cited as resolving the זוהר’s twelve through three שבת meals with two loaves each and a practice of cutting both loaves, producing twelve cuts, and some רביים are described as placing twelve חלות near לחם משנה.
- The גמרא’s question is framed as whether לחם הפנים becomes נפסל במסעות when the קלעים are removed and the שולחן is moved, or whether remaining on the שולחן prevents פסול יוצא. The text cites תורת הקודש asking why the גמרא does not infer from the fact that they carried the לחם on the שולחן that it cannot be נפסל, and it explains טהרת הקודש’s answer that פסולי קדשי קדשים require שריפה בקודש, so they might delay burning until arriving at a new encampment. The text then records objections that even if burning is delayed, the לחם should still be removed from a כלי שרת, and it offers a ירושלמי-based idea that there remains a מצוה to keep it on the שולחן for ולחם תמיד even if the bread is פסול.
- The text raises the methodological difficulty that מסעות are not future-relevant even with משיח, since the מקדש will not travel, so the issue seems “מאי דהוה הוה.” The text cites תוספות in יומא, חגיגה, and סנהדרין that questions can remain when they clarify פסוקים or convey a לימוד לדורות, as highlighted by ספר מנחת תורה. The text cites נזר הקודש suggesting a link to questions of קדושה and טמאים entering sacred areas בזמן הזה, though it notes the parallel is not straightforward.
- The text presents a מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and רבי יהושע בן לוי, with one saying the לחם is נפסל במסעות and the other saying it is not. The נפסל view is derived from כאשר יחנו כן יסעו, equating נסיעה to חניה so that יוצא applies in travel as it does in encampment. The אינו נפסל view is derived from ולחם התמיד עליו יהיה, reading the לחם’s perpetual status as preserved even during travel, and the text records the give-and-take over how each side answers the other’s פסוק.
- The text reports רב דימי’s framing that everyone agrees that if the לחם is מסודר on the שולחן it is not נפסל, based on ולחם התמיד עליו יהיה. The dispute is recast as applying only when the לחם is מסולק from the שולחן at the onset of travel, with the נפסל side still invoking כאשר יחנו כן יסעו. The אינו נפסל side derives from ונסע אהל מועד that even while traveling there remains an אהל מועד status, and the opposing side reinterprets that phrase as teaching the סדר הדגלים rather than conferring continued sanctuary status.
- The text brings a ברייתא stating that at שעת סילוק מסעות, קדשים become נפסלים ביוצא, and it notes the continued enforcement of sending זבים and מצורעים outside their respective מחיצות even when the משכן is dismantled. The text explains the camp system of מחנה שכינה, מחנה לויה, and מחנה ישראל and applies it to practical contemporary framing about הר הבית, including why immersion helps for זיבה but not for טומאת מת and why entry is limited accordingly. The גמרא initially answers that the ברייתא excludes לחם הפנים, and the text adds תוספות in זבחים and טהרת הקודש’s explanation that מחנה לויה persists in proximity to the ארון because the לוים are present around it.
- The text presents רבין’s conclusion that אהל מועד is not treated as literally continuing during travel for purposes of קדשי קדשים, and that there is no מחלוקת at all. The view that the לחם is not נפסל refers to the לחם being מסודר on the שולחן, while the view that it is נפסל refers to the לחם being מסולק, and both are accepted in their respective cases. The text cites תוספות that ונסע אהל מועד then serves to teach that קדשים קלים are eaten throughout מחנה ישראל or even at times of travel, and it records תוספות’ difficulty from זבחים סא about קדשי קדשים being eaten before erection and after disassembly, with a resolution that the “after” stage may precede removal of the קלעים or movement of the מזבח.
- The text quotes אביי deriving from the ברייתא that there is סילוק מסעות בלילה, because otherwise the פסול would be explained by לינה rather than יוצא. The text records תוספות’ question that travel could have begun midday and still avoid לינה, and it brings the חתם סופר’s association to “לעולם יצא אדם בכי טוב” from פסחים and the broader reasons in ראשונים for avoiding night travel, including hazards, רוחות, and ליסטים, while noting these concerns seem less applicable under ענני הכבוד. The גמרא’s final step is cited as reading ללכת יומם ולילה to show that travel can even begin at night, not only continue from a daytime start.
- The text contrasts two ברייתות, one requiring זבים ומצורעים to remain excluded even when the פרוכת is rolled up for travel and another permitting them to enter then. רב אשי resolves this as a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and רבנן, and the text quotes רבי אלעזר’s דרשה from וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש that exclusion of זבים ומצורעים tracks exclusion of טמאי מתים. The text adds רש״י’s limitation that this only removes כרת liability for one who נדחק ונכנס during פסח הבא בטומאה, while לכתחילה entry remains forbidden.
- The משנה is presented as stating that both שתי הלחם and לחם הפנים have לישתן ועריכתן בחוץ and אפייתן בפנים, and they do not override שבת, while רבי יהודה says all actions are בפנים. רבי שמעון is cited as regularly teaching that both breads are כשרות בעזרה and כשרות בבית פאגי, with תוספות explaining the emphasis as preserving a received tradition not derived from פסוקים. The text records רש״י understanding בית פאגי as ירושלים within the חומה, and the רמב״ם’s פירוש המשניות locating בית פאגי near הר הבית and associating the name with פת בג המלך from דניאל.
- The גמרא’s internal tension is stated as inferring from לישה ועריכה בחוץ that מידת יבש is not מקדש, while inferring from אפייה בפנים that it is מקדש, and the text cites רבה praising רב ששת’s sharpness before dismissing that first formulation by distinguishing that עשרון does not sanctify while the תנור does. The text then states the sharper difficulty: if the תנור sanctifies and baking is inside, yet baking does not override שבת and is done before שבת, the bread should become פסולה בלינה before being eaten. רב אשי’s attempted answer that “בפנים” means merely in a place of זריזין is rejected as ברותא because the חמץ concern would apply more to לישה than to אפייה, forcing consistent placement of all stages. The text closes by asserting that the opening lines of the משנה must reflect two תנאים, notes that the Rambam appears to combine them, and identifies the remaining task as explaining the Rambam’s understanding of the sugya’s conclusion.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions