Menachos 96

Today's daf is menaches daf tzadik vov and we are at the Mishnah five lines from the top of daf tzadik vov on menachot. So the Mishnah the minchas chavitin that the kohen gadol used to bring every day machatzis o ba'ayiker half in the morning u'machatzis o ba'erev and half in the evening v'lishason v'arichason v'afiyason bifnim. In other words, in the previous Mishnah we had a a three-way machlokes the tanna kamma, Rabi Yehudah and Rav Shimon exactly where the shtei halechem and the lechem hapanim were prepared. Did they have to be prepared in a klishores inside the azarah or were were they dafka prepared outside of the azarah? Says the Mishnah that machlokes is only with regards to the shtei halechem and the lechem hapanim but as it relates to the minchas chavitin everybody agrees lishason the kneading, v'arichason the forming, v'afiyason and the baking all had to be done inside the azarah. Additionally, but deches as a Shabbos the deches Shabbos. Tchinason v'harakadasan staying that but grinding the wheat to have the flour for the minchas chavitin v'harakadasan or sifting it which also involved melacha Shabbos tchin and merakid respectively einan doches as a Shabbos they're not doches Shabbos. Why? Kal omer Rabi Akiva says the one one of the many places in Shas where the Gemara quotes Rabi Akiva who said kol melacha she'ef la'asosah me'erev Shabbos einah doches Shabbos. Any melacha that can be done before Shabbos is not doches Shabbos. It's only the she'ef la'asosah me'erev Shabbos melacha that cannot be done before Shabbos it's then that's doches Shabbos. So although it's true that minchas chavitin technically was doches Shabbos but only aspects of it that had to be done on Shabbos. So for example, the lishah, the aricha and the afiyah had to be done on Shabbos. Why? Cuz being that they were done in a klishores had to be done erev Shabbos they would have became pasul b'linah. But the tchin and the merakid which did not have to be done on Shabbos will not be doches Shabbos. So this is even though the minchas chavitin is doches Shabbos Rabi Akiva's shitah is only the components that have to be done on Shabbos. But the components that do not have to be done on Shabbos will not be doches Shabbos. Where else does Rabi Akiva come up in Shas? In perek Rabi Eliezer d'milah. Milah is doches Shabbos. Rabi Akiva says only parts of milah that have to be done b'zmanah. So for example, where as Rabi Eliezer holds that you're allowed to cut a branch to make a a knife on Shabbos Rabi Akiva says no that's something that you could have done on erev Shabbos. Milah itself which has to be done by yom hashmini so that's a dovar she'ef la'asosah me'erev Shabbos. That's going to be doches Shabbos. But any component of a melacha that's doches Shabbos, if that particular component could have been done before Shabbos the halacha is it's not doches Shabbos. Another halacha kol menachos o menachos. Meaning not the shtei halechem u'lechem hapanim not even the minchas chavitin but your typical ordinary mincha mincha the halacha is yesh bahem ma'aseh k'li bifnim v'ein bahem ma'aseh k'li b'chutz. They had to be done in a klishores all the preparation and it had to be done bifnim. Shtei halechem u'lechem hapanim arkan shivah tfachim it was seven tfachim long each one of the breads v'rochban daled tfachim they were four tfachim wide v'karnoseha arba etzba'os and they had corners we'll see more about that in the Gemara and each corner four corners were four etzba'os. So it was seven tfachim long by four tfachim wide plus there were four corners each one was four etzba'os. Lechem hapanim arkan yud was 10 tfachim long v'rochban ches tfachim five tfachim wide v'karnoseha they too had corners and the corners were sheva etzba'os they were seven etzba'os. Rabi Yehudah says lo yitita a good way to remember sir Rabi Yehudah haya nosein bahem simanim. What were the simanim? Zad dad yud hey. Zad dad is the shtei halechem zayin seven tfachim long, daled four tfachim wide and daled each one of the karnoseha each one of the corners were four etzba'os. As it relates to the second siman that's referring to the lechem hapanim. It was yud hey it was 10 long by five wide and the zayin was also referring to the corners each one was seven tfachim. So this is clearly Rabi Yehudah's shitah. Rabi Yehudah in the gadol shel Pesach was haya nosein bahem simanim d'tzach dash b'yachad. So clearly that was not a one off Rabi Yehudah where one time Rabi Yehudah was nosein bahem simanim. But this clearly was minhago shel Rabi Yehudah. So Rabi Yehudah here too gave simanim zad dad yud hey. Ben Zoma says ben Azai u'Rabi Akiva u'Rabi Yehudah u'Rabi Shimon the five night time. The Torah refers to the lechem as lechem hapanim. So why is it called lechem hapanim? Says ben Zoma lechem panim she'yiyu lo panim. Poshet it sounds like it should have panim should have a face. So Rashi says two pshatim what that means. One pshat Rashi says the fanos. We're going to see later in the Mishnah that the way the lechem hapanim were made they were folded over. So if you've seen a picture of lechem hapanim you know they had two walls on the two sides of the lechem hapanim. So those two walls that the fanos is the panim. Mishnah acharina another pshat Rashi says she'yiyu lo pinim. It's not lechem hapanim it's lechem hapinim. She'yiyu lo pinim obviously it had corners. Heinei heinacharonos those are the corners that the Mishnah just referred to. Hashulchan arko yud v'rochbo chamishah the shulchan was 10 tfachim long by five tfachim wide. Lechem hapanim arko yud v'rochbo ches the lechem hapanim was also 10 tfachim long by five tfachim wide. Now the lechem hapanim were set up it was two base cholis and there were two marachos there were two piles each one had six. Now if the lechem hapanim had the same dimensions as the shulchan the shulchan is 10 by five and each one of the breads is 10 by five so how in the world are you going to have two piles of lechem hapanim? One pile you could have. The lechem hapanim is the exact same size as the shulchan. So says the Mishnah the way it was done was nosein arko keneged rochbo shel shulchan. You took the length of the lechem hapanim which is 10 tfachim and you put it along the width of the shulchan which was five tfachim. But that doesn't work because the length of the lechem hapanim is twice the size as the width of the shulchan. So here's the punchline. Zei koifelt v'chaim me'eichan u'v'chaim me'eichan. You created two walls on the lechem hapanim each wall was two and a half tfachim. If each wall is two and a half tfachim so now the length of the lechem hapanim after you created these two walls these two folds so now it was only five tfachim. So you did was is you made from the lechem hapanim which was really 10 by five a bread that was five by five by virtue of the fact that the 10 turned into five because now you have two walls each one is two and a half tfachim. Two and a half plus two and a half is five so 10 minus the two two and a halves you're left with five by five. So you combine up the two five [music] by fives on the shulchan which is 10 by five. And the way you do that is by aligning the length of the lechem hapanim which is now five along the width of the shulchan which is also five. Either way nimtza says the Mishnah arko v'rochbo shel shulchan. Divrei Rabi Yehudah. Zai Rabi Yehudah u'Rabi Meir says hashulchan arko yud beis v'rochbo vov. The shulchan had different dimensions it was not 10 by five but rather it was 12 by six. Lechem hapanim arko yud v'rochbo ches. Rav Meir doesn't argue with regards to the dimensions of the lechem hapanim. So the shulchan was 12 by six the lechem hapanim was 10 by five. So how did you fit the two rows of lechem hapanim on the shulchan? Nosein arko keneged rochbo shel shulchan. Again, you took the length of the lechem hapanim which is 12 and you aligned it with the width of the shulchan which was five. The way to do that would be by being koifelt v'chaim me'eichan u'v'chaim me'eichan. So instead of making walls that are two and a half each the walls were only two each. Thus the lechem hapanim went from being 10 by five to six by five. Cuz each one of the breads has two walls each wall is tfachim two tfachim. So it's 10 minus two minus two so now you end up with six by five that has to be lined up with the shulchan which is 12 by six. And the way it was lined up was now you're going to have the six is lined up against the six because the length of the lechem hapanim is against the width of the shulchan. And the you're going to end up with two tfachim in between the two breads. Now what was the purpose of having the two tfachim in between the two breads? V'tfachim revach b'emtza k'shetehei shetehei ruach menasheves bahem. Like this the wind will be able to blow you want separation between the piles of breads because otherwise it can make the breads spoil. Rav [ __ ] says shnei b'zichrei lavina. Wasn't just there so that there could be air there could be room there but rather the purpose of it was to be able to put the shnei b'zichrei lavina. So they told Rav [ __ ] is that where you put the shnei b'zichrei lavina? But look for a moment doesn't the pasuk say v'nasata al hamarachas lavina zakah? That the two b'zichrei lavina was supposed to be on the top of the two marachos on top of the actual breads. Am Rav [ __ ] it's true it says v'nasata al hamarachas lavina zakah but I read for a moment there's another pasuk that says v'al umasay Menasheh. That Ephraim was on Menasheh. Is that what it means? That shevet Ephraim was al literally on Menasheh? No what it means is next to Menasheh. So so too when it says v'nasata al hamarachas lavina it doesn't mean literally on the maracha but rather what it means is next to the maracha. So either way the Mishnah is saying a chiddush with regards to the lechem hapanim that the breads had to be folded. And the reason they had to be folded was because you had to have these two marachos these two piles of breads they had to somehow fit on the shulchan and there was no way to get it to fit on the shulchan. And although there's a machlokes between Meir u'Rabi Yehudah exactly what the dimensions of the shulchan were was the shulchan 10 by five or was the shulchan 12 by six but regardless the lechem hapanim was definitely 10 by five. And there's no way to get two breads that are 10 by five to fit on a on a shulchan that's either 10 by five or 12 by six. So you were muchrach you had absolutely no choice but to fold the breads. How much were they folded? According to R' Yehuda, it there were two walls, each wall was two and a half twachim. According to R' Meir, there were two walls, each wall was two twachim. Incidentally, how is it possible that this machlokes is R' Meir and R' Yehuda regarding the dimensions of the Mishkan of the Shulchan? Isn't it pesukim in the Torah "Amos arko v'amos rochbo"? Right, it says in the Torah exactly what it was supposed to be. So the Gemara is going to discuss it in the next daf and the Gemara is going to say it's really totally in a bigger machlokes whether all the amos that are mentioned in the context of the Mishkan, were they amos that are made up of six twachim or amos that are made up of five twachim? So ordinarily, an amah is made up of of six twachim, but there is a shita and that is R' Yehuda's shita in our Mishnah that the amos of the Mishkan were not made up of six twachim, rather made up of five twachim. So if the Shulchan was two amos long, it's not two times six, it's two times five. Thus, it's 10 twachim. And if it was one amah wide, it's not six twachim, rather it's five twachim. Either way, the Mishnah continues and says "V'arba amos nifnim shel achav yushav." There were four pillars. We spoke about this previously, they were made up of gold and their job was to support the breads. They stood alongside the Shulchan, they supported the breads. "M'futzal meroshehem." And there were little pegs that were pointing out the size of these boards. "Shehayu samuchim lahem shnayim l'sayder zeh v'shnayim l'sayder zeh." And the purpose of these boards were to lean on the breads to keep them whole. "V'chav es konim." And there were 28 little rods. "K'chatzi konim." It was really half rods. "Chalul." They were hollow. The purpose of them were "Arba'ah l'sayder zeh v'yud daled l'sayder zeh." 14 for one set of six breads and the 14 for the other set of six breads. And they separated each row. And the reason they were the snifim, were m'futzal, the reason they had these pegs was to support these konim that were going to be in between the rows of bread. More about this again in the next daf. The Mishnah continues and says "Lo asu dor konim v'lo natnu vosim d'chei Shabbos." That although so much of the Mishkan and so much of what went on in the Mishkan and the Beis Hamikdash was d'chei Shabbos, but as it relates to taking these konim in and out of the Shulchan itself, they weren't d'chei Shabbos. Now, that's a problem because when was the lechem hapanim removed and placed on the Shulchan? It was always done on Shabbos. So if it was all done on Shabbos and you can't remove the konim or place the konim on the breads and you can't touch the konim on Shabbos, so what did you do? So the Mishnah says "Al nichnas me'aruv Shabbos v'shechton." The konim were removed on erev Shabbos, "V'noistam l'archei Shulchan." They were put next to the Shulchan and then on the day after Shabbos, on Sunday, they would go and they would put it back again. So as much as the konim were there and they played an important role, we'll see the the pesukim in the Torah that talk about these konim, but at the same time there was a short period of time where there were no konim. Because being that the lechem hapanim were going to have to be played with, removed and placed on Shabbos, and on Shabbos you can't touch these konim, they're off limits, so you were much to remove the konim even though the breads are still going to be in the lechem hapanim erev Shabbos and you couldn't put them back up until Shabbos. One final halacha, "Kol hakelaim v'hashulchan v'hamizbeiach arkan l'archei achorai ha'olam." All the kelaim of the mizbeiach, the way they were situated was along the length of the oilam. Either way, a long Mishnah. There were a lot of halachos in the Mishnah and now the Gemara is going to dissect it case by case. "Zokef Gemara kol hamenachos ma'aseh kelim lifnei Hashem." All the menachos had to be prepared in a vainex even though the shtei lechem and the lechem hapanim were machlokes Tanna Kamma and R' Yehuda exactly where they were prepared, were they prepared inside or were they prepared outside, but as it relates to the typical mincha, "Kol hamenachos ma'aseh kelim lifnei Hashem." Zokef Gemara "Shmuel v'Rebbi Zumi na'i." So they asked Rebbi how do you know this? What's the makor? Tanna pasuk in the Torah? "Am lo amsi." He told them although it's true it's not in the Torah anywhere, but I already learned it's a pasuk in Yechezkel. Yechezkel of course said nevuah about Bayis Shlishi and one of the things Yechezkel was shown about Bayis Shlishi is "V'yomer Elai zeh hamakom." He saw the place "Asher yevashlu sham hakohanim." where the kohanim were cooking as a chatas v'es ha'asham. And then he saw the place "Asher yoifu es hamincha." He saw the place where the kohanim were baking the mincha. "L'vilti hotzi el hachotzer hachitzona." And it was very clear that the mincha and the chatas and the asham were not allowed to be removed from the chotzer. Says the Gemara "Mincha domeh l'asham v'chatas." The pasuk equates the cooking of the chatas and the asham to the baking of the mincha. "Mah asham v'chatas t'unah k'li." Just like the asham and the chatas require a k'li shareis, they had to be done dafka inside, "Af mincha nami t'unah k'li." So too the mincha had to be baked inside. And even though this is referring to the baking, but Chazal understood, Rebbi said this is the makor that all the preparations of the mincha had to be done inside. "Shulchan aroch asar amos v'eichal v'eichal asar amos v'chaim machatzah koifel." According to the manda amar that says R' Yehuda that the walls of the lechem hapanim were two and a half twachim each, "Nimtza Shulchan mekadesh chamishah asar twachim amos." It comes out that the Shulchan was mekadesh 15 twachim amos. How so? Because there were six breads that were all getting kedusha from the Shulchan even had the shnei bazichin l'vona according to one manda amar on top of the breads. So you had the six breads, six times two and a half is 15. "V'divrei R' Meir twachim koifel." According to the manda amar that says that each one of the walls was two twachim, "Nimtza Shulchan mekadesh shnei twachim amos." So it's not six times two and a half, but rather it's six times two and as a result what you had was 12 twachim. "V'eich Gemara, is it only 15 twachim or is it only 12 twachim? V'eika konim." What about the poles, those pegs that were in between the rows of breads? Didn't they take up space? So the Gemara says "Shekuim shakulim." They didn't take up any space because they sunk into the breads. So as a result, they didn't take up any added space. "Mai ta'ama d'eich Gemara?" I don't understand. "Mishum m'futzal lechem." Isn't the whole point of the konim to separate between the breads? There should be rows like trays of breads. You don't put one challah on top of another, you separate them with a row. So that if that's the whole point and you tell me now that they sunk in, they didn't even take up any physical space, so it sort of defeats the purpose. So why did we even have them for? "V'eich Gemara, soif soif konim af lechem d'migaba." Didn't it isn't it defeat the purpose? So the Gemara says you're right, "D'maglei portei." No, there was a little bit of space. That little bit of space prevented it from spoiling. "V'eika hu portei." Okay, "N'mona shachit." There's a little bit of space, so then it's not just 12 twachim or 15 twachim that the Shulchan is being mekadesh. The Shulchan is really being mekadesh more than that. So the Gemara says "Keivan d'lo havi tefach." Being that that little bit of space that the konim took up were less than a tefach, it's not considered chashuv and it doesn't go into the equation. Meaning in reality, it's true. The Shulchan was mekadesh more than 12 twachim and 15 twachim respectively according to R' Meir and R' Yehuda. The reason we mentioned 12 and 15 and not more because that little bit of more is insignificant, it's an immaterial number and as a result it wasn't much. "V'eich Gemara, v'eika bazichin l'vona." What about the bazichin l'vona that poshim sham were on top of the breads? The Shulchan was mekadesh that the bazichin l'vona took up space. So the Gemara says "B'gabei d'lechem lo havi asi." They were inside the breads. What does it mean inside the breads? Because the breads had walls, right? So the walls were two and a half twachim or two twachim. The bazichin l'vona was sitting inside the actual bread. "V'eich Gemara." "L'gabei d'lechem havi kain." "V'eika karnois." What about the corners? The Mishnah mentioned that the lechem hapanim had to have corners, seven etzba'os. So l'chora, those corners, seven etzba'os times six, that's going to take up a lot of space. So the Gemara says "Karnois l'gabei d'lechem kaif l'hu." "D'lechem al yona achlei." The way the corners were, they weren't pointing upwards, they were actually pointing inwards. So if you have a picture, you can refer to the picture, but it's not like the corners that were on the Shulchan, that were on the mizbeiach, that were pointing upwards. They weren't up, they were pointing in. As a result, from a height perspective, they didn't add any height to the breads, so the height of the breads remained two and a half twachim or two twachim. "V'eich Gemara, v'eika misgeres." What about the misgeres? So the misgeres was a frame that the Shulchan had. The Torah talks about the misgeres and the Torah says that the misgeres was a tefach. So it's another tefach. You had the misgeres, so poshut, you understand that the frame, "Yistah machshan d'Gemara," is understanding it added a a tefach of height to the Shulchan. So you have the Shulchan being mekadesh the misgeres plus all the breads, so it's not 12 twachim or 15 twachim, it's 13 twachim or 16 twachim. So the Gemara says "K'manda amar." This sugia is going like the manda amar that holds "Misgeres l'matah hoyisa." It's really machlokes whether the misgeres was l'ma'alah or the misgeres was l'matah. This Gemara is going that the misgeres was l'ma'alah. If it was l'matah, then it's underneath the Shulchan. We're talking about how high the Shulchan was mekadesh. "Manda amar misgeres l'ma'alah hoyisa." According to the manda amar that goes, it was held that it was l'ma'alah. So what's he going to say? Says the Gemara "K'krak kudei have a m'frach." "V'lechem b'gabei d'Shulchan havi asi." You have to say that the misgeres was a border. That's what it was. Meaning it didn't take up the entire space of the table, the entire space of the Shulchan, but rather it was more of a border and the border was facing out. A m'frach is somebody that's leaning back. So it was leaning back. The point is we were able to put the breads on the Shulchan without it going on the misgeres. So the misgeres was there, but it was more of an outside frame. It didn't add any height to the breads because it was bending backwards so to speak, it was on the outside. Thus, the breads were not on top of the misgeres adding another tefach to how high the Shulchan was being mekadesh, but rather the breads were directly on the Shulchan. And the Gemara says "K'dei Tanya." It's a m'furesh in a braisa. "Rebbi Yosi ben Rebbi Yosi said l'hayo sham snifim ela line is, you see over here that there's a a whether the maskers was and maskers was another on the topic of the maskers. Maskers was not on top of the right on the bottom of the table. [snorts] A It's going to come out that a table literally a tablet, a something that made out of that's made out of wood that only has a of a if it's turned upside down is going to be and really the background of this is that creates and there is a that says that wood or what was it's only if it has a receptacle. If it's it has a base table. But if it's smooth and there's no base table, that is it's not and we're going to see in a moment that had a that the in the base was and he was bothered. Why was it this if you hold the was so the created a base table. That's the receptacle. The that's around it. Thus it's not looked at creates and being that it's not looked at as creates, it makes sense why it's but according to says the was the matter. So where is the base table? It's Why is it says you know you have to say that being that if you would flip the table upside down the it would have a base table. Table the it's going to be and apparently this was a that that weren't really sure of. Said from this I have a that a table is says the continued and said that if you hold the was the matter. I don't know. I have no not from here or from anywhere else whether or not a table whose whole is the fact that it's would be but the says clearly is implying from his whole smooth that the in the in the base was in fact the why is it so that's if anything the argues I think it should have been you know why because also because isn't the a prototype? Isn't it a classic example of a a that's made out of wood that was also that's made to stay in one place and the is the whole also my time you do since there is a that the only time it's if it's similar to a sack. A metal just like a sack is something that people carry whether it's empty whether it's full but the point is a sack is a I've come to tell them the only time wood is if it's metal. So the is the is bothered that how was the where's the base table? So he said that if the was the matter I understand but if the was the matter it doesn't have a base table and wanted to be that you see from here that table is but the says one second you want the to be forget about whether it has a base table or not. It's a because it's and there's another rule in of the title that wood is only if it's don't you being on but being that the wasn't a so isn't it obvious anyways that it wasn't says the it's not true. The really was a incidentally in light of the raid that we spoke about this morning the wasn't why it wasn't a used to travel by right used to travel we came you saw that was the the first on where the discussed while the was traveling whether the that was on the was it possibly or did it not become possibly either way to one line says a here and says another but regardless it's that the fact that the traveled in the would not be a reason to view it as a thus the is what discussing the being the matter it's a says the a beautiful you know what the is the said my what's trying the that says so the refers to the as a had seems to suggest that it's possible for the to be so what's the is that how would it be it's a creates also that when to be so the in the base would lift up the and they would show the to the what was the purpose they want them to see the bread and they wanted to see them to see that the bread remained fresh. The they would tell them that you see how much loves you look at the miracles that he performs upon them. There was a tremendous miracle that used to happen weekly with the upon them. See upon them remained on the for a week. Usually if you leave bread out for a week you know what it tastes like but that wasn't the way it was with the upon them. Not only was it not only was it fresh it was hot it was like it came right out of the oven. This is a week later. The bottom line is that you see from here that what I mean you see with the the miracle that happened with the upon them but that's not what we need for our what we need for our what's the punch line? The punch line is you see that they used to carry the because when the used to be they would lift up the and and they would show the the fact that it was lifted on that's enough that it shouldn't be viewed as a we look at it as a and it's for that reason it's the matter. That's the how is the matter it's where's the base table? If the was the matter but if the that's the discussion the was isn't this discussion dead on arrival because it's anyways creates the answer is no. Because on they used to lift up the and that made it the matter. So before we go for short arms. The first arm. So we mentioned over here that the used to be lifted. It was lifted when the would come to be over and that makes a beautiful day. We know that the and and the all had poles and the purpose of the poles were to carry the respective stating that the when it describes the poles and the purpose of it the I should say to carry those the uses a different for the than it uses for the and the when the talks about the the says and what was the purpose of the the as the the purpose was to carry the when the talks about the the so the says the had these poles as well the purpose of it was to carry it when the talks about the again that's the word when the talks about the doesn't use the but rather uses the the says in a classic why does the use the word why not the word suggests that it's just going to happen. The thou shall carry the says there was a to carry the when the the says when the came to be it it wasn't a there was a by the it was if you had to carry you carry by the it was if you had to carry you carry it but when it comes to the here the says the is a says and as a result the was the as versus the way the described it with regards to the others the other that's the first arm. The second arm is I saw in the safe in the again this right here is also so there's a safe and over there he has an on this and one of the is that he asks is based on a well known that the in in two places this is in his twice ironically both times it's in one time it's in the the second time it's in the in I says the says that even though we know the many times that there was a to be is it over again and again and again says the that this to be was only once the came to but when the were in the even though there was a and when the came to even though there was no and Shiloh, there was no mitzvah to be regel. The mitzvah to be regel says the Ramban was dafka when the Yidden came into Eretz Yisrael. And the Ramban says it's really doing that way in the pasuk. Shalosh pa'amim bashana yeira'eh kol zchurecha el pnei Hashem Elokecha bamakom asher yivchar. B'chag hamatzos uv'chag hashvuos uv'chag hasukos. But the Torah says bamakom asher yivchar. And the Ramban is not sure why the Torah said that. His second shot, says the Ramban, is Oish sheyavo kan shelo yischayev l'alot l'regel ad asher yivchar Hashem makom l'shichnato. Incidentally, so this chiddush is Yedu'ah in the name of the Ramban. There's a Rashi in Parshas Ki Sisa that's tucked away that not everybody knows. That's one of the places that the Torah talks about the mitzvah to be regel. So it says Shalosh pa'amim bashana yeira'eh kol zchurecha el pnei Adonai Hashem Elokei Yisrael. And in the very next pasuk is Ki oresh [ __ ] mipanecha. V'herchavti es gvulecha. You're going to have a lot of land to settle in, the Jews that is. V'lo yachmod ish es artzecha b'alosecha l'eira'os es pnei Hashem Elokecha shalosh pa'amim bashana. So the Torah's talking about the mitzvah to be regel. And the Torah throws in an interesting preface. Says the Torah Ki oresh [ __ ] mipanecha v'herchavti es gvulecha. What's that to do with the mitzvah to be regel? You're going to have so much place. Wow, the Yidden are going to conquer all this land. Keepush keepush You're going to have all this land that you're going to conquer. V'herchavti es gvulecha. And then again, you have a mitzvah of Shalosh pa'amim bashana to be regel. Says Rashi that you know what the Torah threw in v'herchavti es gvulecha? It's the ta'am. It's the ta'am of the kora. Why does the mitzvah to be regel? V'herchavti es gvulecha like the earlier Rashi that the rochav miBeis Habechirah. You're going to be very far from Beis Habechirah. The ein kol yochlei l'eira'os lifnei Adonai. And it's going to be very hard for you to come visit on a on a regular day. You live far away. You live in Bnei Brak. How are you going to go to Yerushalayim? That's not easy. Lo kacha ani kozevo shalosh r'galim l'alot. So the reason there's a mitzvah to be regel says Rashi is Ki oresh [ __ ] mipanecha v'herchavti es gvulecha. It's because of the chovos hagvul. Of that for precisely that reason when the Yidden were in the midbar, they didn't have the v'herchavti es gvulecha. So it would make sense based on Rashi who's explaining literally a ta'am of the kora. Why does the mitzvah to be regel that it's only related to once the Yidden settled in Eretz Yisrael. So it wouldn't explain why there's no mitzvah to be regel in Naive Givon and Shiloh. But Al Hapanim as it relates to being regel in the midbar they didn't have. So based on that, so the Maggid Mishneh asks that according to the Ramban, which is really a Rashi also in Parshas Ki Sisa, that there was no mitzvah to be regel when the Yidden were in the Mishkan, such a come out in chash. That the Shulchan when it was in the Mishkan was a kli asur l'hanacha. Cuz you would never be metaltel it. Tosfos already asked the kasha. What do you mean? You would be metaltel the Shulchan every time you carried it. Vayeiven sayah Shulchan. Kasha Yachin but they answer. Whatever the Torah says. So it's a little unclear. Tosfos Menachos tzadik vov. Tosfos Chagigah this two roots of the Tosfos kasha. But the bottom line is Tosfos was mechiach from the Gemara that that's not enough of a reason to make it a kli asur l'hanacha. The only thing would be the fact that they used to pick it up in when the Yidden came to be regel. The problem is they weren't they weren't regel in the Mishkan. And this pasuk that the Gemara proved that the Shulchan became tamei is a pasuk in Vayikra perek daled. The same Tosfos brings a Rashi that all the Shulchan was not tahor. Kol hamachalek ketamei. That was the Gemara there. So it's interesting that we're dealing with a pasuk that's describing the Shulchan in the Mishkan. That's the rayos mikabel tumah. And why do we say it was mikabel tumah? Cuz they were metaltel it. When were they metaltel it? In [ __ ] Hamelech's Beis Hamikdash. But who in the Mishkan itself, it was never something that was carried. Thus it would be a kli asur l'hanacha. A fest ta'ar. That's the second ta'ar. [laughter] The third ta'ar is we always pick up the Mishnah in the fifth perek in Pirkei Avos. The Mishnah talks about the ten nisim that happened every day in the Beis Hamikdash. Or not every day, but constantly in the Beis Hamikdash. And the Mishnah does not mention the fact that the Lechem Hapanim remained fresh miShabbos l'Shabbos. Not just that, the Rabbeinu Bachya in Parshas Tzav who has his extended version, we also talk about that all the time, of the yud ches nisim that happened, it's not mentioned there either. So yesh la'ayin, why is it not mentioned? What's particularly interesting is that we mentioned that one of the miracles that happened all the time in the Beis Hamikdash was the Ner Maaravi. The Ner Maaravi was the last one to be lit. It was the last it was the first one to be lit, it was the last one to be extinguished. That was the miracle of the Ner Maaravi. What was the purpose, the punchline of the Ner Maaravi? Eidus l'Shulchan ba'olam she'Haschinah shruyah b'Yisrael. The purpose of it was to say eidus that there was Shechinah. This miracle had a different emphasis. The emphasis of this miracle was Ru'achi bas b'fi amo. So you see that not all miracles were created equally in terms of their purpose, what exactly they're coming to to accomplish. There's a miracle like the Ner Maaravi. What was the purpose of the Ner Maaravi? We were medayek if you remember the Tosfos Yom Tov that it wasn't just that one miracle, but all the miracles that are not mentioned in the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos, the tachlis of it was eidus l'Shulchan ba'olam she'Haschinah shruyah b'Yisrael. But the point is there were miracles the purpose of which was for us personally to benefit from. There were miracles the purpose was to say eidus that there was Shechinah. And then there's a miracle like this. The purpose of the miracle is Ru'achi bas b'fi amo. Just one final ta'ar, the fourth ta'ar, and that is so you see that there was a nes gadol, nes of the Lechem Hapanim, she lo yikaseid uray. That the Lechem Hapanim would remain fresh. Now, one of the things, one of the integral parts of the Shulchan was he had to have kanim. He had to have these poles, shelves, that separated the bread. What was the point? Kedai shelo yisa'uv. Shouldn't spoil. L'chora if there was a miracle happening anyways, so what's the point in having it? What do you need the kanim for? This anyways this is a nes gadol. Nes gadol hayashav, right? This is a nes gadol Rebbi [ __ ] Luria. It's not a small miracle, it's a big miracle. So l'chora if this is a bit there was a big miracle, there's a once the miracle happening every day in the Beis Hamikdash. And anyways wasn't spoiling. So you're going to go ahead and you're going to make kanim. What's the point in making kanim? But of course the answer is the Ramban in Parshas Noach. The Ramban in Parshas Noach asks that if you make a cheshbon and you figure out the dimensions of the teivah and then you factor in that the entire animal kingdom, male and female, plus Noach and the guy and everything fit into this teivah, it was all done al derech nes. So the Ramban says if it was all done al derech nes, then what was the purpose of even having a big teivah? Not just that, as I'll say it, took Noach 120 years to build the teivah. The entire ta'am, says the Ramban, is yafeh she'einah kitanah. V'yismech al hanes. He anyways being someech al hanes. So what's the point? The Ramban says two ta'amim. The first ta'am, says the Ramban, is true. That really Hakadosh Baruch Hu could have made a nes, it should not have taken Noach this long to build the teivah. The reason it took him this long is cuz Hashem wanted people to see Noach building the teivah. They can ask Noach, "What are you doing? Hashem's going to bring a mabul." What's the mabul? One thing is going to He was hoping ulai ya'asu teshuvah, lashon haRamban. Who's going to Maybe Noach would be able to get his generation to do teshuvah. So you're right, based on the nes, it shouldn't have been this way. But there was there was an ulterior motive. But oid, says the Ramban, but there's another shot. Also eiseg gadol. You want to know why Noach made the teivah big? L'mayet hanes. Ki chein haderech b'chol hanisim shebatorah uv'nevi'im la'asos mah sheb'yad adam la'asos. A person is supposed to make hishtadlus even when it comes to miracles. You do whatever you could do. V'ashar yeish b'yad adam la'asos. And you know what do you mean? I'm relying on a nes gadol. So what's the point of my little hishtadlus? Noach's teivah was also a nes gadol. But at the same time, the chein haderech b'chol hanisim shebatorah uv'nevi'im la'asos mah sheb'yad adam la'asos. And the Ramban says if you look at every single nes. I mean the Ramban chooses his words very very carefully. Ki chein haderech b'chol hanisim shebatorah uv'nevi'im. Says the Ramban, look carefully, there isn't one miracle where there isn't an idea of doing some level of hishtadlus to be l'mayet hanes. So putting the kanim in between the breads, these shelves, this is probably the being l'mayet hanes that related to this nes, albeit this nes gadol, regardless. Look the Gemara writes this. Okay. We're in the middle of discussing Rebbi Yochanan's halacha. Rebbi Yochanan had a raya from a pasuk in Parshas Emor that the Shulchan is referred to as a Shulchan atahor mikabel ketamei. You see that the Shulchan was able to be mikabel tumah. And Rebbi Yochanan was bothered that how was it mikabel tumah? Doesn't The Shulchan was made out of wood. And being that it was made out of wood, it has a din of prutei kli eitz. Flat piece of wood. A flat piece of wood is not mikabel tumah. So if the Mishkan was l'ma'alah, I understand. But if the Mishkan was l'matah, then what's the pshat? Elo mai said Rebbi Yochanan l'chora you have a raya from this sugia that a tavla mishnisa a tavla that can be flipped is also going to be mikabel tumah. Incidentally, we went we explained the Gemara based on Rabbeinu Tam's pshat. There's a long Tosfos over here that brings a pshat from Rabbeinu Tam. That's where we explained the Gemara. If you take a look at Rashi, Rashi actually says a a different shot in the Gemara. But regardless ta'am of the Gemara, I don't understand Rebbi Yochanan anyways. Because l'chora if it was made out of wood, which is what it was made out of, it's kli eitz asur l'hanacha. Kli eitz asur l'hanacha is not mikabel tumah. The Gemara answered that it wasn't asur l'hanacha cuz they would metaltel when the Yidden used to come to be regel. But the bottom line is that this whole sugia, this whole amud Gemara, is all predicated on the fact that the Shulchan is wood. Great the Gemara. Is that true? The Shulchan at its core was wood. But it was coated with gold. So afraid the Gemara ta'am l'mayet mishum tzipui. Why don't we say that although at its core the Shulchan was made out of wood, but being that it was coated with gold, we should look at it as zahav. We should look at it as matzlis. And all these halachos, the fact that when it's prutei kli eitz it's not mikabel tumah, the fact that when it's asur l'hanacha it's not mikabel tumah, these are all halachos in wood. But being that this was covered with zahav, it was covered with gold. So, why are we treating it as wood? Maybe we should treat it as gold. Isn't it a Mishnah? Where's this Mishnah? It doesn't sound familiar. Isn't it the 22nd paragraph of Shekalim? A table or a tree or a chair that that either got chopped up or was covered with marble and there's a little bit of wood, a little bit of this wooden table or chair left over. Enough that you could put a a glass, a glass or so the law is it's still tamei. Meaning once a keli loses its status as a keli, even if it was previously tamei, it's no longer tamei. Right, if a keli is tamei and now it's not a keli anymore, it's like it happens to it, it's not a keli. The question over here is this, wooden table for example got chopped into pieces and the question is it's literally hanging by a thread. Is it still a keli? Is it still a table? It still has total Or maybe not. Maybe it it loses its tumah. So, if there's enough space that you could put a cup there, it's considered tamei. >> [laughter] >> Now, you have to have a whole meal over there. Has to be a place you can put a little bread and a side dish. As long as you can put a sudah there, that would be enough for it to be mekabel tumah. But what do you see from here? One of two examples of how the keli would no longer be a keli. How this wooden table would no longer be treated as a wooden table thus it would lose its tumah. Either it got chopped up or it was coated. So, what do you see from here that when you coat something, it takes on a new status. If that's the case, the shulchan which was wood, once it was coated with gold, you should look at it as a kli matzah. That's the Gemara's kasha. But she famous says the Gemara maybe you're going to tell me maybe there's a difference between a coating where you literally nail the coating into the actual wood versus a coating which is a more superficial coating. And based on that you'll tell me that that Mishnah in Shekalim is talking about where they actually they plated it in a in a more significant way. Whereas the shulchan was just plated more superficially with gold. As a result, it retained its status as a wooden keli. But the Gemara says it's not true. Reish Lakish asked this precise question to Rabi Yochanan That Mishnah that talks about a keli being plated and losing its status of tumah. Is it if it's only made only or even if it's any Does it have to be literally banged in or even if it's not? Another question he asked is does the does the rim of the table have to be covered? What if the rim wasn't covered? Does that make a difference? It doesn't matter if it was hacked in or if it wasn't hacked in. It doesn't matter if it was hacked in or if it wasn't hacked in. It doesn't matter if the rim was covered or wasn't covered. It doesn't matter if the rim was covered or wasn't covered. The law always is that once you coat a keli, it takes on a new status again. And the shulchan wasn't it was coated with gold but it wasn't nailed in but you see it doesn't really matter. So again, why are we treating the shulchan as a kli eitz? It's anyways not a kli eitz. It's a kli matzah because of the fact that it was coated with gold. You're going to tell me that the shulchan wasn't made out of ordinary wood. It was made out of atzei shittim. And atzei shittim is very precious, very chashuv. So, being that it's very chashuv, maybe it doesn't become battel even to gold. Wood ordinarily becomes battel to whatever covers it. But atzei shittim is so valuable, maybe that's different. But the Gemara says that's all good. He said the shulchan was axelgos wood that that Mishnah in Shekalim is talking about wood such as axelgos wood which is an inferior quality wood. It's not chashuv thus it becomes battel to whatever's covering it. Mismash. But if it's a more chashuv wood, it doesn't become battel. That's the answer. Atzei shittim is like kli mismash and as a result it doesn't become battel to the gold. That's why it's kli eitz. But who is the one that said and commented on the shulchan? It was Rabi Yochanan. And Rabi Yochanan on the shittah so he said kli mismash not battel. That even chashuv wood becomes battel. So, why was Rabi Yochanan treating the shulchan in the first place as a kli eitz? Should he not have treated it as kli matzah? Says the Gemara shani shulchan you have to say that the shulchan is different. The Rachmana because even though it's true shulchan was made out of eitz, it was covered with gold and in halacha as in Hilchos Tumah v'Taharah as in the 22nd paragraph of Shekalim, we should look at it not as a wooden keli, we should look at it as a golden keli. But this is different. Here is a pasuk in and the pasuk clearly refers to the shulchan as a wooden keli. Eitz sholeh shamosh gavoha eitz is the second time it says eitz. So, the pasuk over here is referring to the mizbei'ach and the shulchan as we'll see in a moment. And the Torah refers to it as a keli that was made out of eitz. So, at the end of the day it's true it was covered with gold but being that Rachmana therefore in halacha from a tumah perspective, we look at it not as a kli zahav but rather as a kli eitz. The Gemara asks that we mentioned this pasuk in so the pasuk starts off talking about the mizbei'ach and then it talks about the shulchan. Right? Umik tzo'av v'argav eitz. Pasach b'mizbei'ach v'sayem b'shulchan. Says the Gemara This matches When it was a the mizbei'ach was mekaper. A yid would bring a korban depending on the korban that's the kaparah he got. But a korban was always mekaper. But now that we don't have a mizbei'ach, so how do you get kaparah? Shulchan The person's shulchan can be mekaper. See, one would have wondered why the pasuk uses the word shulchan referring to the mizbei'ach was somehow interchanging mizbei'ach and shulchan. We don't mean the shulchan shulchan. We're talking about every yid's personal shulchan. That once upon a time you needed the mizbei'ach to be mekaper. But shulchan A person can get kaparah through his shulchan. How do you get kaparah by your shulchan? So, Rashi says the noisein prutah l'ani that if a person gives food, he gives something to an ani, that's the way that he gets kaparah. Tosafos says the same thing. Tosafos sends you to a Gemara in Sanhedrin. It's not It's It's a Gemara in where the Gemara talks about the talks about the the of sharing and giving tzedakah that again through a person's shulchan you invite them and you to your house, you sit down at your table and you them and you do chesed, that shulchan is mekaper in the same exact way in the same exact way that the mizbei'ach once upon a time was mekaper. My good friend Levi showed me a in Parshas Terumah where brings this Gemara and he says two the following. Number one, he says that the shulchan was made up of atzei shittim. Why atzei shittim? Says the word shittim is an acronym. It's shalom, tovah, yeshuah, and mechilah. That through the shulchan a person got shin which is shalom, tes which is tovah, yud which is yeshuah, it's worth repeating this, and mem which is mechilah. And what's the beer says the says the beer is because the shulchan is a mizbei'ach kaparah l'adam. The shulchan the korban The shulchan mekaper l'adam. So, you see from our Gemara the power of a shulchan. And again, not the shulchan but every person's individual shulchan. Every shulchan is atzei shittim. Your dining room table is atzei shittim. How so? Shittim is shalom, it's tovah, it's yeshuah, and mechilah. Then he says the mincha in Tzarfas. He heard that the in Tzarfas Anshei Ma'aseh that were living in France also in the shulchan They had a mincha that they would make from their aron that they were buried in, they would make it from their shulchan. The reason they did it was to show that a person when he goes into the next world all his money and everything that he amassed and accumulated during his lifetime, he's not going to take it with him. That's the only thing that he's going to take. And the that he was on his shulchan, that's what he's going to be able to take along with him. So, says based on this idea that the shulchan is shalom, tovah, yeshuah, mechilah, that the shulchan has this unbelievable that the shulchan has this unbelievable it's the and you see the that a person has when he's And it was for that reason that the mincha in Tzarfas was that they would make their aron from the shulchan. Wrote in his incidentally that he the shulchan. But it's a right here. It's a it's it's a comes goes to the in in Parshas Terumah. Levi told me two stories. One with the He said that there was a a woman that had a tremendous yeshuah from the davened for a woman and she had a tremendous yeshuah and she had a to the so she decided that she's going to buy the a new tallis. What do you buy the So, she bought the a tallis. So, she comes to the and says I can't take it. I feel I'm sorry but I can't take it. And he said that even though his tallis was old and it's and it's not maybe but he said his tallis that he has is going to say for him one day for all the that he and he wants to continue to with his tallis. He wants to be buried with his tallis. So, it could be The other story he told me was is that after was the they were both in the same city. Right? The was a in Dvinsk and the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the was the the chasidishe Rov in in Dvinsk. But either way, Reb Meisimcha was nifter first, and after Reb Meisimcha passed away, the Rogatchover Gaon said that you should take Reb Meisimcha's shtender, and you should make the aron from Reb Meisimcha's shtender. But again, these are maiseh'lech, anecdotes. But really, the source of it is a Rebbi Nachman bar Chiyya, "U'minhag chasidim she'b'Tzfas she'lo osrin b'shulchan aron le'chovero." Again, what's the significance of the shulchan, a person's table? Because that's where he does chesed, that's where he's machnis ore'chim. That's where he has hachnasas ore'chim. And it's for that reason, that's where he's supposed to go. Take a look at the Marsha'n on this Gemara. The Marsha'n says, I think maybe there's another shat over here, based on a Mishna in Pirkei Avos. It's perek gimmel, mishna dal. "Rebbi Nechunya omer, shlosha she'ochlu al shulchan echad." Three people that sit together and they eat at one table, "v'lo amru al divrei Torah," and they don't talk in learning, "k'ilu achlu mizivchei meisim." "She'ne'emar, ki chosam chonef yismach kitz, so ya'avod avodah. Aval shlosha she'ochlu al shulchan echad, v'amru al divrei Torah." But three people sitting on a shulchan, and they do say divrei Torah, "k'ilu achlu mishulchan Hashem makom." It's as if they're eating from the shulchan Hashem makom. "She'ne'emar, vayidaber Elokim zeh hashulchan asher lifnei Hashem." Says the Marsha'n, take a look at that Mishna, and I think that's shat in this Gemara. What does the Marsha'n mean? It's possible what he means. What does it mean, "k'ilu achlu mishulchan Hashem makom"? We know the Gemara says, "Keihanim mishulchan gavo'ah k'zocha." The mizbei'ach is referred to shulchan Hashem makom. When the Keihanim would put the chalavim and the eimurim on the mizbei'ach, the Torah refers to it as achilah. "U'shtei achilos medaber, achas achilas adam, v'achas achilas mizbei'ach." The Keihanim, when they ate, it was mishulchan gavo'ah k'zocha. They were eating mishulchan Hashem makom. Shulchan Hashem makom is the mizbei'ach. "Shlosha she'ochlu al shulchan echad, v'amru al divrei Torah." It's mizbei'ach. It's "k'ilu achlu mishulchan Hashem makom." THEY JUST CREATED A MIZBEI'ACH. They have the mizbei'ach. The mizbei'ach's tachlis is, it's mechaper. Zocher Yisrael that Rebbi Dovid Rashi says this, I would think it'd be a beautiful shat in this Gemara. What did the Gemara say? "Rebbi Yitzchak bar Rebbi Nachman omer Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi Yochai, bishas Beit Hamikdash kayem, when there was a Beit Hamikdash, mizbei'ach mechaper al adam. Aval achshav she'ein Beit Hamikdash kayem, now that there's no Beit Hamikdash, shulchan adam mechaper al adam." But the Gemara's very sossom. What does it mean the shulchan is mechaper? So Rashi and Tosafos both said, if you do hachnasas ore'chim, you're going to get kaparah. It's the mitzvah of chesed. It's the mitzvah of hachnasas ore'chim. Says the Marsha'n, you don't even have to say that. It's a Mishna. You know what it means when you learn Torah on your shulchan? "Shlosha she'ochlu al shulchan echad, v'amru al divrei Torah." What does the Mishna say in Avos? It's "k'ilu achlu mishulchan Hashem makom." If it's "k'ilu achlu mishulchan Hashem makom," it's based on that that a person, regardless of a person learns Torah on his shulchan, and he's machnis ore'chim, he does chesed on his shulchan, there's nothing to talk about. The shulchan one day will say eidus on a person, and that's as it relates to one day. But in this world, the person's shulchan, says Rebbi Nachman bar Chiyya, was made up of atzei shittim. The shulchan in the Beit Hamikdash was made of atzei shittim. And every shulchan has the qualities of atzei shittim. What's shittim? It's shalom, it brings peace, it brings tovah, it brings yeshu'os, it brings mechilah.