(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Menachos 096a: The Kanim of the Lechem ha'Panim
Mark Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
The Gemoro says (bottom of 96a) that there was a gap between each loaf of
the Lechem HaPonim and the canes supporting the level above (to allow flow
of air), yet it seems that the canes rested on the loaves
(thus for example, the top level only had 2 canes since the weight resting
was less).
Any comment?
Kol Tuv
Mark Bergman
Manchester UK
------------
The Kollel replies:
We addressed this issue in our Insights to the Daf. You will find a copy of
our answers below.
Best wishes,
M. Kornfeld
=================
3) THE "KANIM" ATOP THE "LECHEM HA'PANIM"
QUESTION: Rebbi Chanina and Rebbi Yochanan argue about the form in which
the Lechem ha'Panim are made. Rebbi Chanina says that they are made in the
form of a "Teivah Perutzah." Rebbi Yochanan says that they are made in the
form of a "Sefinah Rokedes." The Gemara asks a number of questions on the
opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. One of the questions is that the Mishnah later
(96a) teaches that three golden, half-tube rods were placed atop each loaf
of the Lechem ha'Panim. These rods supported the loaf that was placed on
top of them, and they made a space between the loaves, allowing air to
circulate between them. The Gemara asks that if the loaves were shaped like
a "Sefinah Rokedes," then how could three rods be placed on each one? The
shape of the bread does not allow for more than one rod to be placed on the
loaf! (See Row #4 in Graphic #6, "The Lechem ha'Panim.")
It is evident from the Gemara that the Kanim were supported by the bread.
This is also evident from the Gemara later (97a) which teaches that only
two Kanim were placed below the highest tier of loaves, while three Kanim
were placed beneath the other tiers. The Gemara there says that the reason
for this difference is that the highest tier was supporting much less
weight, and thus two Kanim sufficed. It is clear from that statement that
the Kanim between the lower tiers supported not only the loaves immediately
above them, but also all of the tiers of loaves above that tier.
Accordingly, the Kanim between the loaves must have been supported by the
loaves themselves, and not by any other support that was not resting on the
loaves.
How can this be reconciled with the Mishnah and Gemara later (96a) that
state that there were golden Senifin, panels, that were "branched at their
heads" which served to support the loaves? This implies that the Kanim that
supported each loaf rested on the Senifin, and not on the loaves! (TOSFOS
DH k'Min)
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS (DH d'Samchei) suggests that the Senifin did not support the
Kanim at all. When the Mishnah says that they supported the loaves, this
means that they only provided support to the sides of the loaves to prevent
them from being crushed under the weight of the upper loaves. The Kanim
between the tiers, though, were supported by the loaves alone. What does
the Mishnah mean when it says that the Kanim were "Mefutzalim k'Min
Dukranim," branched like bamboo shoots? Tosfos explains that the word
"Mefutzalim" does not mean "branched," as it means in other places (Yoma
29a, Chulin 59b). Rather, it means "indented" or "peeled" (see RASHI to
Bereishis 30:37).
Tosfos explains that the Senifin covered the entire face of the bread on
each side of the Shulchan (see Row #3 in Graphic #6). The Kanim that
protruded from between the loaves prevented the Senifin from touching the
faces of the loaves. In order to accommodate the Kanim, grooves were made
on the inner side of the Senifin into which the Kanim protruded, while the
remainder of the Senifin pressed directly against the loaves.
According to Tosfos, the grooves which accommodated the Kanim apparently
did not provide support for the Kanim (that is, the weight of the Kanim did
not rest on them), and thus the Kanim had to rest on the loaves. Why,
though, were the Kanim not placed to rest on the Senifin, if doing so would
give more support to the loaves?
Tosfos writes that it is possible that the Senifin did not reach past the
top of the first tier of loaves (see following Insight.) Perhaps the lowest
Kanim *did* rest on the Senifin (in the grooves, or "Pitzulim"). However,
the upper Kanim had to rest on the loaves, since the Senifin did not reach
that high. (See also Tosfos to 96b, DH Misgarto.)
(b) However, RASHI (here, 96a, and in Shemos 25:29) writes that the Kanim
indeed rested on the Senifin. This is also the opinion of RABEINU GERSHOM
(here, and 97a, DH Mefutzalim). This is also the opinion of the RASH and
RA'AVAD (Toras Kohanim, Parshas Emor, 18:4). Why, then, was it necessary
for the loaves on bottom to support to the Kanim?
TOSFOS (DH k'Min) explains that even according to Rashi, who says that the
Kanim were supported at their ends by the Senifin, it was also necessary to
provide support in the middle of each Kaneh in order to prevent it from
cracking in the middle. Thus, the ends of each Kaneh rested on the Senifin,
while the center of each Kaneh rested on the loaf.
If the loaves supported the center of the Kanim, then why was it necessary
for the Senifin to support the ends? The loaves should support the entire
weight of the Kanim! The answer seems to be that the weight of the upper
tiers would have crushed the lower loaves had the Senifin not given partial
support to the Kanim. Thus, the Senifin alleviated the burden on the lower
loaves.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss
