Daf Yomi Shabbes 124: Lechem Ha’Panim

Ex 25:30

Lev 24:5

1
Rashbam on Exodus 25:30:1‫א‬:‫ל‬:‫רשב"ם על שמות כה‬

‫ וישא‬:‫ וכתיב‬.'‫ ולקחת סלת ואפית אותה וגו‬:‫ כדכתיב‬,‫ לחם נאה‬,‫ לחם הראוי לפני שרים‬:‫ לפי פשוטו‬- ‫לחם פנים‬
‫ חלק יפה מקערה שלפני אלקנה החשובה שנותנים‬.‫ ולחנה יתן מנה אחת אפים‬:‫ וכתיב‬.‫משאת מאת פניו אליהם‬
‫ לכך מנה אחת ולא שתים ולא מנות הרבה‬- ‫ וה' סגר רחמה‬.‫ לכך אפים חשוב‬- ‫ כי את חנה אהב‬,‫לפני בעל הבית‬
‫כמו לפנינה שהיו לה בנים ובנות‬. ‫לחם פנים‬,

According to the plain meaning of the text the word ‫ פנים‬means that the quality of the bread was
such that it was fit to be served, to be displayed for approval to ministers and kings.

In other words: “beautiful, first rate bread.” Compare Leviticus 24,5 “take choice flour and bake
of it twelve loaves, etc.” Other verses in which gifts are associated with the expression ‫ פנים‬are
found in Genesis 43,34 ‫וישא משאת מאת פניו אליהם‬, “He served portions to them from his (Joseph’s,
the viceroy) table.”

Clearly a reference to the choicest which was served in the palace…

• Historical background of muktzeh

As shemiras Shabbos improved, the Rabanan eased their restrictions numerous times, as a Beraisa
teaches, ‫ – התירו וחזרו והתירו וחזרו והתירו‬they permitted movement of additional keilim, then they
further permitted and they further permitted, until the only keilim that could not be moved at all
were ‫מוקצה מחמת חסרון כיס‬, muktzeh for fear of monetary loss.

There is a machlokes between Abaye and Rava regarding how the restrictions were lifted.

2
‫שָּׁבּת‬
ַ ‫ ״ַבָּיִּמים ָהֵהָמּה ָרִאיִתי ִביהוָּדה דּוֹ ְרִכים ִגּתּוֹת ַבּ‬:‫ ִדְּכִתיב‬,‫ ִבּיֵמי ְנֶחְמָיה ֶבּן ֲחַכְלָיה ִנְשֵׁנית ִמְשָׁנה זוֹ‬:‫ָאַמר ַרִבּי ֲח ִניָנא‬
‫וְּמִביִאים ָהֲﬠ ֵרימוֹת״‬.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: This mishna was taught in the days of Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah, a
period when many stringent decrees were issued with regard to Shabbat prohibitions, as it is
written:

-‫טו ַבָּיִּמים ָהֵהָמּה ָרִאיִתי ִביהוָּדה ֹדּ ְרִכים‬ 15 In those days saw I in Judah some treading winepresses
‫ִגּתּוֹת ַבַּשָּׁבּת וְּמִביִאים ָהֲﬠֵרמוֹת ְוֹעְמִסים‬ on the sabbath, and bringing in heaps of corn, and lading
,‫ַי ִין ֲﬠָנִבים וְּתֵא ִנים‬-‫ַהֲחֹמ ִרים ְוַאף‬-‫ַﬠל‬ asses therewith; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all
‫ ְבּיוֹם‬,‫ וְּמִביִאים ְירוָּשַׁל ִם‬,‫ַמָשּׂא‬-‫ְוָכל‬ manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on
.‫ ְבּיוֹם ִמְכָרם ָצ ִיד‬,‫ַהַשָּׁבּת; ָוָאִﬠיד‬ the sabbath day; and I forewarned them in the day wherein
they sold victuals.

-‫ ְמִביִאים ָדּאג ְוָכל‬,‫טז ְוַהֹצּ ִרים ָיְשׁבוּ ָבהּ‬ 16 There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, who brought in
,‫ֶמֶכר; וּמוְֹכ ִרים ַבַּשָּׁבּת ִלְבֵני ְיהוָּדה‬ fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto
.‫וִּבירוָּשָׁל ִם‬ the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem.

“In those days I saw in Judea some treading winepresses on Shabbat and bringing in heaps of
grain and lading donkeys with them; as also wine, grapes, figs, and all manner of burdens which
are brought into Jerusalem on the Shabbat day. I forewarned them on that day when they sold
food” (Nehemiah 13:15).

Since the people treated the sanctity of Shabbat with disdain, Nehemiah instituted many
stringencies with regard to all the halakhot of Shabbat in order to educate the people to observe
Shabbat.

‫ וְּמדוָֹכה — כּוָּלּן קוֶֹדם ַהָתּ ַרת ֵכִּלים ִנְשׁנוּ‬,‫ ְגּלוְּסְט ָרא‬,‫ וַּמְקלוֹת‬,‫ ָק ִנין‬:‫ָאַמר ַרִבּי ֶאְלָﬠָזר‬.

Rabbi Elazar said: The mishnayot that deal with the topics of rods, poles, the thick end
[gelostera] of the bolt in a door lock, and a mortar were all taught before permission to move
utensils on Shabbat was adopted. At that time, moving most utensils was still prohibited and only
a small number of utensils whose primary function was for a permitted use were permitted to be
moved. The Gemara cites the relevant mishnayot.

‫שָּׁבּת‬
ַ ‫ ל ֹא ִסידּוּר ַהָקּ ִנין ְול ֹא ְנִטיָלָתן דּוָֹחה ֶאת ַה‬:‫ָק ִנין — ִדְּתַנן‬.

Rods: Golden rods were placed between the loaves of showbread in the Temple to support the
loaves and to aerate them. At that time, moving the rods was prohibited because they were
considered to be set-aside, as we learned in a mishna: Neither arranging the rods nor moving
them overrides the prohibition of set-aside on Shabbat.

3
‫‪RASHI‬‬

‫לא סידור הקנים ‪ -‬שהיו נותנין במערכת לחם הפנים בין חלה לחלה להפרידן ליכנס הרוח ביניהן שלא יתעפשו‪,:‬ולא‬
‫נטילתן ‪ -‬מן המערכה ישנה‪,:‬דוחה את השבת ‪ -‬אלא נכנס בע"ש ונוטל הקנים ולמחר מסלק המערכה הישנה ומסדר‬
‫החדשה בלא קנים ולמוצאי שבת נכנס ונותן הקנים ביניהן זו נשנית קודם היתר מנין הראשון דהא מלאכתן להיתר‬
‫‪:‬וקאסר להו לצורך גופן‬

‫‪4‬‬
Tosafos

‫ אע"ג דאין שבות במקדש כמה שבותים אשכחן במקדש שגזרו פעמים לצורך כי הכא בקנים ומקלות‬- ‫לא סידור קנים‬
‫לפי שהיו מחללים את השבת‬:
Arranging the rods… ‫ ְנ ִט יָל ָת ן‬...‫ַהּ◌ָק ִנין‬

The showbread does not override the prohibitions of Shabbat. They were removed on Shabbat eve
and replaced between the loaves after Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin
U’Musafin 5:11).

The Sefer Ha-Chinukh (Mitzvos Asei #20)enumerates two positive mitzvot found in Parashat
Teruma. The first is to build the Beit Ha-Mikdash as a site for offering sacrifices and assembling
all Am Yisrael on the three yearly festivals.

Following the opinion of the Rambam (Sefer Ha-Mitzvot – mitzvat asei 20), the Chinukh maintains
that this mitzva also encompasses the requirement to build the various parts of the Mikdash, such
as the altar, candelabra and table.

The Ramban (glosses to Sefer Ha-Mitzvot – mitzvat asei 37) disagrees with the Rambam and
argues that we should count building the Mikdash as a single mitzva, and the fashioning of the
various parts, such as the ark and the "kapporet" (cover), as separate mitzvot. He contends that
since sacrifices can be offered even without these appurtenances, the Mikdash obviously
constitutes an independent mitzva.

The Ramban agrees, however, that some parts of the Mikdash are not to be counted as individual
mitzvot. He writes that if a given item is needed as a prerequisite for the performance of a specific
mitzva, then we should not count it individually.

Therefore, the Ramban did not count the Shulchan (table) as an independent mitzva. Since there
exists a mitzva to place Lechem ha-panim ("show-bread") on the Shulchan, building the Shulchan
is merely a prerequisite (hekhsher mitzva), and not an independent mitzva.

The second mitzva enumerated by the Chinukh is to arrange the "Lechem ha-panim." Here too,
he follows the formulation of the Rambam in his listing of the mitzvot. In the brief version of the
Rambam's list printed at the beginning of Mishneh Torah, the Rambam writes

‫שְׁלָחן ֶלֶחם ָפּ ִנים‬

To set show bread and incense before the Lord on Sabbath. Ex. 25.30.

mitzvat asei 27
"to arrange the bread and frankincense before God every Shabbat, as it says, 'place Lechem ha-
panim on the table always'."

The Ra'avad (ad loc.) asks, why did the Rambam not count the sacrificial offering of the
frankincense and the consumption of the " " as separate mitzvot?

5
 Although the Chinukh and others have suggested various reasons for this mitzva, it is interesting
to note that the Rambam seemed perplexed about this issue. In his discussion of the rationale for
various mitzvot, he writes (Guide, 3:45), "But the Shulchan and the bread which is always on it…
I do not know the reason."

Likewise, the Ari printed in many siddurim which many recite or sing at the Shabbat morning
meal, he writes, "He will reveal to us the reasons of the twelve loaves." The Ari, like the Rambam,
was unable to determine the underlying reason behind the mitzva of Lechem ha-panim.

The Ra'avad understood that the Torah actually presents three mitzvot related to the Lechem ha-
panim:

1) to arrange the Lechem ha-panim on the Shulchan;

To explain the Rambam's position, the Kesef Mishneh (Rav Yosef Karo) notes (ad loc.) that
neither the burning of the frankincense nor the eating of the loaves was stated in the Torah as an
imperative.

Apparently, he felt that the offering of the frankincense was merely a prerequisite act ("matir")
permitting the Lechem ha-panim for consumption by the kohanim. The Torah then added that if
the kohanim do eat the bread, they must do so "in a holy place."

6
 ‫ ועל כן צריך אליו להיות הברכה‬,‫ שצונו האל ברוך הוא מצוה תמידית בלחם לפי שבו יחיה האדם‬,‫משרשי המצוה‬
‫ כי‬,‫ ומתוך עסקינו בו לקים עליו מצות השם יתברך יהיה הרצון והברכה חלים עלינו ויתברך במעינו‬,‫מצויה בו תמיד‬
‫ ולפי כל ענין וענין שישים מגמת פניו ומחשבותיו ועסקיו‬.‫בכל שעושה בו האדם רצון השם יתברך בו הוא מתברך‬
‫ וכן מצאתי להרמב''ן זכרונו לברכה )תרומת כה כד( וכענין מה שאמרו‬.‫בדבר מצוה לפיהן מעין הברכה נובע עליו‬
‫ כדי‬,‫ נסכו לפני מים בחג‬,‫ כדי שיתברכו לכם תבואה שבשדות‬,‫זכרונם לברכה )ר''ה טז א( הביאו לפני עמר בפסח‬
‫ ועל הלחם הזה בעצמו‬.‫ כדי לזכר עקדת יצחק‬,‫ תקעו לפני בשופר של איל‬,‫שיתברכו לכם גשמי ברכה בשנה הבאה‬
‫ וכל אחד מן‬.‫ היתה הברכה דבקה בו ביותר‬,‫אמרו )מגילה כו ב( כי מפני שהוא תשמיש המצוה ובו נעשה רצון האל‬
‫הכהנים שמגיע לו ממנו כפול היה שבע‬.

Sefer HaChinukh 97:2

It is from the roots of this commandment that God, blessed be He, commanded us the constant
commandment of the bread, on account that through it a man lives; and as a result, [the
commandment] is needed by him for blessing to always be found in [his bread].

And from our involvement in it to fulfill the commandment of God, may He be blessed, the [Divine]
will and blessing will descend upon us, and that which is similar to it will be blessed. And
according to each and every matter upon which he places the conglomeration of his focus, his
thoughts and his activities by way of a commandment - according to them, a similar blessing will
emerge upon him.

And so I have found [in] Ramban (Ramban on Exodus 25:24). And [it] is like the matter that they,
may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 16:1), "Bring the omer (barley offering) in
front of Me at Pesach, in order that the grain in the fields will be blessed for you; pour the water
in front of Me on the Festival (Sukkot), in order that the rains of blessing will be blessed for you
in the coming year; blow the ram's horn (shofar) in front of Me, in order to remember the binding
of Yitzchak."

And they said about this very same bread (Megillah 26b) that because it is an accessory of the
commandment, and through it the will of God is done, blessing would cling to it more. And [so]
each one of the priests who had from it coming to him would be twice as satiated.

7
Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter

Definition
1. An item that’s primarily used for permitted purposes is called Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter.
2. A vessel of any size or weight is considered a vessel even if it’s not usually moved during
the week and isn’t Muktzeh. However, if one doesn’t move it during the week because
one’s afraid of it breaking it’s considered Muktzeh Machmat Chisaron Kis.
3.
It’s permissible to move or touch a Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter item for any purpose. However, even
Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter may not be moved for no purpose at all.[3] However, foods and seforim
may be moved even without purpose as these items are not muktzeh at all.

Hacham Ovadia clarifies that foods which are prohibited to eat on shabbat are also prohibited to
handle (tiltul).1 He rules that a Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter may be moved even for purposes that
serve the vessel itself such as to prevent it from breaking or being stolen.

Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 18) explains that this type of purposes includes any purpose for the
movement (as is evident by the inverse case). However, concludes S”A, it’s forbidden to move Kli
Sh’Melachto LeHeter for no purpose.

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 85:8 agrees. Our Daf quotes a Tosefta discussing the historical
development of the prohibition of tiltul keilim. The Gemara explains that virtually all keilim were
included in the initial prohibition and these keilim could not be moved even litzorech gufo or
litzorech mikomo.

However, as time went on, chazal ultimately permitted movement of a kli shemilachto li’isur
litzorech gufo or litzorech mikomo and a kli shemilachto liheter even meichama l’tzeil

Beis Yosef (308:4) quotes the Maggid Mishna (Shabbos 25:3) who infers from the Rambam that
while a kli shemilachto liheter is the most lenient type of kli, it may not be moved shelo ltzarich
klal.

Maggid Mishna explains that this emerges from the Gemara, as the Gemara’s phraseology
“meichama ltzeil” seems to limit the permissibility to cases that protect the item.

A further proof that a kli shemilachto liheter cannot be moved shelo litzorech klal is brought
from the Gemara’s conclusion on 124a that the shelves containing the Lechem ha’Panim
could not be moved in order to freshen the bread since the bread will not become stale in the
interim if these shelves are not handled.

This indicates that one needs a sufficient tzorech in order to move a kli shemilachto liheter 2

1
Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 3, Page 1; S”A 308:4
2
see also Chiddushei haRan 124a and Ridvaz on Rambam Tmidim Umusafim 5:11. Shitah Lran 123b s.v. mah li and 126b s.v. ki
are lenient to move a kli shemelachto lheter for no purpose. Ran meyuchas Lritva 123b and Ritva 123b forbid it.

8
The items that fall under the restriction of muktzeh are divided into various categories, each one
subject to different laws. The following are the three most comprehensive groups:

• Set apart due to a prohibited use. An item or utensil whose primary function is for an
activity forbidden on Shabbat (e.g., writing instruments, tools, appliances).
• Set apart due to value. An expensive item or utensil (whose primary function is for an
activity forbidden on Shabbat) that one is careful never to use for anything other than its
specific function, so as to ensure its value will not decrease (e.g., expensive musical
instruments, expensive electronics).
• Set apart by its very definition. An object or substance that has no inherent function, and
is not an instrument or tool (e.g., rocks, money, lumber, vegetation, soil, inedible food,
animals).

Purpose of Handling:

The motive why a given item is being handled also plays a role in determining if, and how, it may
be moved. With regard to muktzeh, there are four reasons why an item can be handled:

• To use the object for an activity permissible on Shabbat (e.g., a fork to eat with it, a cup to
drink from it, or a hammer to crack open nuts).
• To use the place where the item was lying (e.g., to move an item lying on a chair for the
purpose of sitting there).
• To protect the item (e.g., to remove it from a place where it may be subject to damage or
theft).
• For no need at all (e.g., toying with a fork).

Pesachim 37a: Is Baking Matza Like Baking the Temple Showbread?

‫בית הלל מתירין וכמה פת עבה אמר רב הונא טפח שכן מצינו בלחם הפנים טפח‬

9
And Beit Hillel permit one to bake bread in this manner.

The Gemara asks: And how much thickness is required for the matza to be considered thick bread?

Rav Huna said: This category includes matza that is a handbreadth thick. The proof is as we found
by the shewbread, which could not be leavened, and which was a handbreadth thick.

This daf opens with a baraita that records a disagreement between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai.

The topic of debate is pat ava – whether thick matza can be baked on the holiday of Pesah.

Beit Hillel permits such baking to be done; Beit Shamai forbids it.

Rav Huna interprets the expression pat ava to be similar to the size of the leshem ha-panim – the
showbread in the Temple – which was also matza and was one tefah (handbreadth) thick.

R Yosef objects to the comparison on a number of levels:

• We know that the kohanim in the Temple were quick about their work.
• The dough was always well-kneaded.
• The firewood in the Temple was always very dry.
• The ovens were very well heated.
• The ovens in the Temple were made of metal, not clay.
•
Given the severity of the prohibition against eating hametz, and the difficulty involved in baking
thick matza properly, even if it was done in the Temple for the leshem ha-panim, how can Beit
Hillel permit it on Pesah for the general public?

In explanation of this baraita, one suggestion that is raised (either by Rav or by Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi) is that pat ava does not mean to bake a thick cake; rather it means to bake a large amount
at one time.

The Gemara points out that if we understand pat ava this way, the potential problem would not be
specific to Pesah, but it is a general issue of possibly baking unnecessarily on Yom Tov.

Rabbenu Yehonatan explains that if this is, in fact, the point of disagreement, Beit Shamai forbids
it lest some of the bread or matza will be left over and will be used after Yom Tov is over, creating
a situation where preparations for the regular weekday were done on the holiday. Beit Hillel would
argue that the baking process works better when a large amount is baked, so having leftovers is of
no concern.3

3
Steinsaltz daf Yomi Pesachim 39

10
‫ה׳‬:‫אורח חיים ת״ס‬

(‫ֵאין עוִֹשׂין ְבֶּפַסח ַפּת ָﬠָבה ֶטַפח )ה‬.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 460:5

One should not make bread (matzah) on Passover that is thicker than a tefach (between 3.5 and 4
inches).

‫ד׳‬:‫אורח חיים ת״ס‬

‫ ִכּי ֵאין ָה ְרִקיִקין ְמַמֲה ִרין ְלַהְחִמיץ‬,‫ ְול ֹא ַפּת ָﬠָבה ִכְּשָׁאר ֶלֶחם‬,‫ ְוֵישׁ ַלֲﬠשׂוֹת ַהַמּצּוֹת ְרִקיִקין‬:‫ַהָגּה‬.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 460:4

Rema: Some are of the opinion that it is better to make the matzot thin, and not thick like regular
breads, for thin [matzot] are not as quick to rise.

‫ח׳‬:‫באר היטב אורח חיים ת״ס‬

(‫רקיקין )ח‬. (‫)וע''ז סומכים לעשות בה ציורין וב''ח מוחה בהם עד למאוד ע''ש‬. ‫המנהג לעשותן כעובי אצבע ב''ה י''ד‬
‫סי' צ''ו‬:
Be'er Hetev on Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 460:8

Thin. The custom is to make them the thickness of a finger ...

By the 17th century, the widespread custom was to make matzah thinner than the handbreadth
mentioned in the Talmud.

Rabbi Hillel ben Naphtali Tzvi (1615–1690), known for his legal work Beit Hillel, writes that
that the custom was to make matzah thinner than normal bread and as thick as an etzba (finger).8
There seem to be two reasons for the thinning of matzah over the years:

11
Although the students of Hillel ruled that matzah could be up to a handbreadth thick, there is in
fact another opinion in the Talmud, that of Rabbi Yosef, which defines a “thick matzah” simply as
thicker or larger bread.

Ritva,4 writes that since no actual measurement was given in the Talmud in regard to Rabbi
Yosef’s opinion, one should be careful that the matzah used for the Seder not be thick at all.
Accordingly, he cites the custom to use only “thin matzah” for the Seder.

Chasam Sopher5 if one were to use the same ovens for thin matzah and for soft, thick matzah, the
hot oven would quickly heat the outside, making it look well baked but leaving it unbaked, and
possibly chametz, on the inside.

Rav Ariel Ovadiah6

The Gemara in Pesachim2 recounts an argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, whether
one is allowed to bake a “thick loaf” on Pesach or not. The Gemara offers two ways to understand
what this “thick loaf” is referring to: either it is literally a thick loaf, which Beis Shamai forbids
because of a suspicion of Chometz and Beis Hillel permits, or, it refers to baking many loaves of
bread, and the prohibition according to Beis Shamai has to do with unnecessary exertion
on Yom Tov, not with the suspicion of Chometz.

The Gemara discusses what is the maximum thickness that would be acceptable according to Beis
Hillel and cites the Lechem Ha’Panim (which was also non-Chometz) as proof that the width of
a Tefach is acceptable.

However, some Amoraim take issue with this comparison, because it may be that the special
equipment and techniques used in the baking of the Lechem Ha’Panim were effective in
preventing it from leavening.

However, we, who do not use that equipment and those techniques, cannot be assured that a loaf
will bake thoroughly without leavening at the width of a Tefach (appx. 3-4
inches). The Gemara does not conclude with any clear maximum limit.

Does the Gemara Imply any Limits?

The Tur quotes this Gemara as a source to allow baking many loaves of [non-Chometz] bread
on Pesach. Clearly, the Tur is following the Gemara’s second explanation that a “thick loaf” does
not mean thick in the literal sense, rather it means that one may not bake many loaves according
to Beis Shamai, and L’Halacha we follow Beis Hillel who permit it.

4
Pesachim 36b.
5
Responsa of Chasam Sofer, Orach Chaim 121.
6
https://matzav.com/what-is-the-proper-thickness-of-matzah/

12
The Beis Yosef comments that obviously this Halacha does not pertain only to Pesach but also to
other Yomim Tovim, as we previously explained.

Still, the Beis Yosef wonders, why did the Tur not mention that one may not bake a Tefach-
wide Matzah, as this Gemara seems to imply.

The Beis Yosef quotes Rabbenu Yerucham who also understood from this Gemara that there must
be at least a Tefach limit on the thickness of a Matzah.

It seems that the Beis Yosef deemed this to be the opinion of the Tur as well and was therefore
bothered by the Tur’s omission of this Halacha.

Accordingly, the BeisYosef rules in Shulchan Aruch “One may not bake Matzah that is a Tefach
wide”.

Nonetheless, the Bach and the Magen Avraham claim that the Beis Yosef’s proof from
the Gemara is unfounded. This is because the Gemara eventually refutes the explanation that a
“thick loaf” means literally a thick loaf. Hence, we are left with no source to limit
a Matzah’s thickness.

The Magen Avraham also cites the fact that none of the Poskim – aside from
the Beis Yosef and Rabbenu Yerucham – mention this Halacha. Therefore, he rules that even
a Tefach-thick Matzah is acceptable.

However, the Bi’ur Halacha is extremely critical of the opinion of the Magen Avraham, claiming
that the reason why the Gemara does not conclusively understand a “thick loaf” to mean thick in
the literal sense, is only because of the flawed analogy to the Lechem Ha’Panim.

Obviously, this logic still stands, and there cannot be any comparison between
the Lechem Ha’Panim, which was baked a Tefach-thick in the Beis Ha’Mikdash, with great
care and diligence, to our Matzos, which are baked by all Jews, without the equipment and
know-how that was at the disposal of the experts in the Bais Ha’Mikdash.

The Bi’ur Halachah contends that although the maximum thickness of a Matzah remains
unclear, nevertheless, the Gemara clearly implies that we should follow stricter measures for
common Matzos then what was acceptable for the Lechem Ha’Panim.

Accordingly, some Rishonim use this logic to prove the exact opposite point than that of
the Magen Avraham.

The Ritva writes in the name of the Ra’ah, that once we had proved in the Gemara that we cannot
learn the parameters of a Matzah’s thickness from the Lechem Ha’Panim, and since
the Gemara does not offer an alternative measurement, we must not make any thick Matzah, even
less than a Tefach. This, writes the Ritva, is the source for the custom to make thin Matzos for
the Seder. Similarly, the Bi’ur Halacha quotes the Rashba and the Ohr Zarua who concur
with the Ritva.

13
Thus, the implication of our Daf depends on the following three opinions:

a. Beis Yosef and Rabbenu Yerucham: One can bake Matzah up to a Tefach thick, which is
the very least we can derive from the Gemara.
b. Magen Avraham: A Tefach-thick Matzah is acceptable, because we have no clear
indication from the Gemara that there is any limit.
c. Rashba, Ritva, Ra’ah and Ohr Zarua: One should refrain from baking any thick Matzah,
even less than a Tefach, because there is no indication from the Gemara what the limit is
and therefore we must be stringent.

The Rama’s Opinion

To determine the practical Halachah, we must examine the words of the Rama on this issue very
carefully. The Rama9 writes:

“‫ויש לעשות המצות רקיקין ולא פת עבה כשאר לחם‬, ‫“כי אין הרקיקין ממהרין להחמיץ‬

“One should make the Matzos as thin-breads, not thick like the usual bread, because thin-breads
do not leaven quickly”.

It seems as though the Rama is siding with the Rashba and Ritva quoted above. Especially, given
the Rama’s expression of “‫ – ”פת עבה‬a thick loaf, a clear reference to the Gemara in Pesachim.
One can claim that the Rama’s choice of expression is meant to imply that the ideal thinness must
also be less than the one mentioned in that Gemara – a Tefach.

However, the Bi’ur Halacha seems to understand that the Rama is not discussing a normal
scenario, arguing that – based on the location of the Rama’s comment – he is only discussing
shaped or molded Matzos.

Such Matzos are more susceptible to becoming Chometz, due to the baker’s involvement with their
shaping, and must therefore be made thin. Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berura [written by the same
author as the Bi’ur Halacha] seems to understand that the Rama is referring to all Matzos, not just
shaped and molded ones.

A look at the Darchei Moshe (the Rama’s long commentary on the Tur, usually the source for his
comments on the Shulchan Aruch) may reveal what the true intention behind the Rama’s ruling.

In Darchei Moshe, the Rama cites two reasons that one should bake the matzos thin and not thick:
a. Abudarham in the name of Ra’avad in Drashos: a Matzah should be a Lechem Oni (bread
of affliction), thus by making it thin it is more similar to a poor man’s bread. Similarly,
the Gemara in Pesachim11 says that one may not make a scalded12 Matzah (‫ )חלוט‬or a very
large Matzah(‫)אשישה‬, as these are more luxurious forms of bread.
b. Mahari Weil: thick Matzos may become Chometz more easily.
c.

14
These sources prove that the Rama meant to rule out thick Matzos even if they are not molded or
shaped.

We are left, then, with a dispute between the Beis Yosef and the Rama.

According to the Beis Yosef, one may make a Matzah – l’chatchila – up until tefach-thick, as he
explicitly rules in Shulchan Aruch; however, according to the Rama, one must make
“thin” Matzos as the Abudarham, Mahari Weil, Rashba and Ritva hold.

We must now clarify according to the Rama two essential points.

Firstly, which Matzos should be thin. Whereas the Mahari Weil and others are concerned about a
thick Matzah not baking well enough – a concern that applies to all Matzos consumed on Pesach
– the Abudarham’s reason only pertains to the Seder night Matzos, which must be akin to a poor
man’s bread.

Secondly, while the Beis Yosef, Magen Avraham and others argue about a specific width,
the Rama simply states that the Matzos must be thin without giving any directive as to how thin is
thin.

Miracles: The Lechem Ha’Panim not getting stale was presented by the
Kohanim as an indication of God’s Love for Israel.

Chagiga 26b

‫ואמאי כלי עץ העשוי לנחת הוא ואינו מקבל טומאה אלא מלמד שמגביהין אותו ומראין בו לעולי רגלים לחם‬
‫הפנים ואומרים להם ראו חיבתכם לפני המקום סילוקו כסידורו דא"ר יהושע בן לוי נס גדול נעשה בלחם הפנים‬
‫ ז( כסידורו כך סילוקו שנאמר‬,‫לשום לחם חום ביום הלקחו )שמואל א כא‬

…They (the Kohanim) used to lift it and show thereon to the Festival pilgrims the Showbread, and
to say to them: Behold the love in which you are held by the Omnipresent; it is taken away (at the
end of the week) as (fresh as) it is set down. For R. Yehoshua b.Levi said: A great Miracle was
Performed in regard to the Showbread: As (fresh as) It was when set down, so was it taken away.
For it is said: (I Shmuel 21:7) “So the priest gave him Holy Bread; for there was no bread there
but the Showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was
taken away.”

RITVA

…It seems that at the time of the placement and the removal [of the Lechem Ha’Panim] it was so
hot to the point that steam would rise from it, like bread first being taken out of an oven… it would
be impossible for them [the pilgrims] to see this miracle from afar other than by means of what
we have pointed out.)

15
(R. Silverberg7 A number of writers have suggested that the lasting freshness of the Lechem
Ha’Panim symbolized the long-lasting impact of the visit to the Beit Ha’Mikdash and of the
experience of standing in God’s Presence. When the people came for the Regalim and were able
to experience the special joy and exhilaration of the site of the Shechinah, they might become
disheartened by the knowledge that they would soon return home to their regular routine.

They could easily feel distressed over the fact that they received the inspiration of the Beit
Ha’Mikdash only three times a year and spent the rest of the year engaged primarily in the pursuit
of a livelihood through their engagement in mundane work.

The Kohanim in the Mikdash therefore sought to encourage the people by assuring them, “Siluko
KeSiduro” (it is taken away [as fresh] as when it was set down)– we are all capable, to one degree
or another, of maintaining the “freshness” and enthusiasm of an inspirational experience.

The emotional effects of the visit to the Beit Ha’Mikdash would likely not retain their intensity
throughout the coming months, but they would not entirely disappear, either. By making a
commitment to inject the Kedusha represented by the Temple into their daily routine, the people
had the opportunity to preserve at least some of the excitement and elevation they experienced
during their festival celebration in the Mikdash, and thereby raise their lives to a higher level of
religious devotion.

It is interesting to me that a miracle that benefits only the Kohanim, since they are the ones that
are consuming the Lechem Ha’Panim, is presented to the Jewish people, who have come to
Yerushalayim to fulfill the Mitzva of Aliya LeRegel, as an indication to them of God’s Love and
Concern for them!

I love the way he highlights the issue her reflecting the status of the priestly cast. I did not print
his answer which was pious and reductive.

Hassidic themes play on the role of bread, eating and the sanctity represented by the
Lechem ha’Panim, the table as an altar and the sacredness of consumption

7
https://yaakovbieler.wordpress.com/2019/05/13/lechem-hapanim-representing-religious-
enthusiasm/#:~:text=We%20have%20learnt%3A%20Ten%20miracles,the%20fire%20of%20the%20wood%2D

16
Sfas Emes Emor 18

‫ דכתיב לכו לחמו בלחמי להיות קבלת השפע מן השמים דבוקה בשורש‬.'‫בפרשת לחם הפנים ביום השבת יערכנו כו‬
‫ וכדאיתא בזוה"ק בענין יום השבת דאע"ג דלא ירד בו המן מ"מ כל ברכאין בשביעאה‬.‫העליון והוא פנימיות השפע‬
‫ ורמז לדבר‬.‫ וזה נק' לחם הפנים פנימיות הלחם כדכתי' לא על הלחם לבדו יחי' כו' מוצא פי ה' היא התורה‬.‫תליין ע"ש‬
‫ ושורש הלחם מן השמים שנשפע בש"ק על כל ימי המעשה בכח‬.‫ והכא כ' לחם פנים‬.'‫דכתי' התם פנים בפנים דבר ה‬
‫ וכמו שיש ג"ן סדרים דאורייתא ובכל שבת סדר פרשה אחרת בקריאת‬.‫התורה הוא כפי הכנת בנ"י שניתן להם התורה‬
‫ והיינו שהתורה כולה שמותיו של הקב"ה אבל הסדר משתנה בכל פרשה‬.‫התורה וכמו כן בשמים כדאיתא בזוה"ק ויקהל‬
‫ וכפי סידור הי"ב חלות שסידרו בנ"י ביום‬.‫ וכמו כן הרמז בלחם הפנים ביום השבת יערכנו‬.‫וכל שבת בצירופים שונים‬
‫ וכ' ב"פ ביום‬.‫ וכדכתי' כמים הפנים לפנים כו' והיא בחי' תורה שבע"פ ושבכתב‬.‫השבת כך נמשך השפע מן השמים‬
‫ ולכן אמר הכ' כפי עריכת בנ"י הלחם ביום‬.‫ דיש שבת מלעילא לתתא ויש מתתאי לעילאי כדאיתא בזוה"ק‬.‫השבת‬
.‫השבת באתערותא דלתתא כמו כן ביום השבת מלעילא לתתא יהי' בסדר הזה וכמ"ש במ"א הרמז כסידורו כך סילוקו‬
‫ ובכל שבת מתחדש‬.‫ דיש שבעים פנים לתורה ופנים לפנים‬.‫והתורה מתנה לבנ"י וכפי מדרגתם כך מתגלה להם התורה‬
‫ ]מחדש בטובו מ"ב הוא בתורה שנק' טוב ובשבת שכ' בי' טוב להודות וזה הרמז נזמן לה השתא‬.‫השפע בכח התורה‬
‫ ובכל שבת היא מדרגה שלמטה י"ב חלות שכן התורה‬.‫בפתורא חדתא[ וכמו בשבועות שניתנה בו תורה יש שתי הלחם‬
‫ וי"ב גבולים וי"ב בקשות שבתפלה הם עמודים התחתונים‬.‫מתפרשת ונותנת חיים ומזון ממדרגה למדרגה עד עוה"ז‬
‫ שבשורש העליון כמ"ש במ"א‬:
The term Lechem Ha'Panim refers to the P’nimiut (internal spirituality) and the shefa (spiritual
nourishment) that descends from heaven.

Therefore, it occurs on Shabbat, the day which influences the entire week. And the similar message
in the Temple from which the entire world derived spiritual sustenance from the showbread.

Indeed, it is through Israel that the world receives the divine shefa.

Now the talmud teaches that children, livelihood and food are not dependent upon effort rather
upon luck (mazal). Also, the livelihood of a person is determined from Rosh Hashanah.

For all blessings come from Shabbes and from there, disperse to the world of materiality.

Through her (Shabbat) and in Her merit the sustenance is proportioned in boundaries and
constricted. However, Israel receives its sustenance from the Source dependent upon mazal and
receive on Shabbes the blessings for the whole week without boundaries or measure.

This is the meaning of the Lechem HaPanim on Shabbat which is the P’nimiut of the bread which
is dependent upon the mazal. The talmud states: (Menachot 96b)

‫ ו( שלחן נמי מטלטל מלא וריקן כדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב‬,‫על השלחן הטהור טהור מכלל )ויקרא כד‬
‫דאיכא טמא‬
The Gemara answers: The Table is also carried both full and empty, i.e., even when the shewbread
is upon it, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. This is as Reish Lakish said: What
is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall set them in two arrangements, six in an
arrangement, upon the pure Table before the Lord” (Leviticus 24:6)? The term “the pure Table”
teaches by inference that there is a case where the Table becomes impure, and therefore the Torah
states that the Table must be pure when the shewbread is set upon it.

17
This is made to rest but that raise it for the pilgrims who come three times a year etc., meaning the
whole order of Temple service is for the sake of Israel (who is the conduit for the shefa to spread
to the world) by raising the showbread to its supernal source, and never does the order remain the
same.

Reb Zadok Hakohen

“As long as the temple existed, the altar atoned for a person. Now, each person’s table atones for
them” says the Talmud (Menachot 97). The Talmud here is prescribing a surprising role to eating,
and to the home.

Redemption happens not despite eating, but through it. The temple is not inherited by the
synagogue, but by the home – your dining room table, to be specific.

Nowhere is the connection between our tables and the Temple more pronounced then on Shabbat,
with meals the focal point of the day (not synagogue…).

Obviously, Hallah takes the place of the Lechem ha’Panim (indeed, Kabbalists would use 12
loaves of challah on Shabbat, just like in the Temple).8

8
Ishael Zion http://www.bronfman.org/node/185

18
Reb Zadok’s Shabbat eating is an eating that pervades the entire body. Like the purifying waters
of the mikveh, the food rushes through the entire organism, redefining it, bringing it fresh life,
resetting our body to the “manufacturer’s settings”. Meir Shalev, in his novel Four
Meals describes such an experience:

I couldn’t imagine that food could give such profound and poignant pleasure. Not only my tongue
and my palate, but also my throat and my guts and my fingertips sprouted tiny taste buds. The
smell filled my nose, saliva flooded my mouth, and even though I was still a child, I knew I would
never forget the meal I was eating. (Meir Shalev, Four Meals, pg. 189

Reb Zadok’s Shabbat eating is an eating that is able to “reset” the world, a return to the world of
divine and human expectations as they were in Eden, before human weakness was manifested by
the snake.

Shabbat eating allows us to return to ourselves the way we imagined ourselves, to our highest
aspirations for ourselves. Lechem ha’Panim is indeed “Show bread” – the bread that shows an
ideal image of the world, of ourselves. As we eat it on Friday night, we can again imagine ourselves
as our highest selves, and immediately we are redeemed.

Why did the Bread of the Internal never go stale? Real bread, like deep dreams and aspirations,
become stale ever so quickly, as we become jaded and cynical.
9
Four Meals: A Novel – July 9, 2010 by Meir Shalev (Author), Barbara Harshav (Translator): Originally written in Hebrew and
set in what is now Israel, the story starts at the end of the First World War and gives the reader a picture of a small Jewish village
which was not unlike stories I've read about villages in Europe around that time in history except that the weather, the foliage and
the crops were all indigenous to Palestine. This is a story of a boy with a strange name, Zayde and his mother, Judith, who believed
a boy with such a name, is protected from all evil. The mother, Judith, has three lovers, all of which fill the role of Zayde's father.
We never find out who Zayde's real father is. Magic, loss, love and miracles form the fabric of the life of a child in small village in
Israel.

19
Hence the image of an “Internal Bread” that will never go stale is so necessary.

On Shabbat we are invited to reach back to the “Bread of the Inside”, that place inside that never
goes stale, where dreams are “as warm as when they were baked.”

And this is perhaps why the bread can never be taken off the golden table of our psyche: if we were
ever to live in a world where the ever-fresh bread did not exist, our life too would become as stale
as week old bread.

20