Previous daf

1)

(a) We already cited the Beraisa, which learns from "Korbano" that all the Shutfim are required to perform Semichah. We would have thought they are not - because if Tenufah, which extends from Shechted animals to live ones, yet it is confined to just one of the Shutfim, how much more so Semichah, which is confined to Shechutin only.

(b) And now that the Torah writes "Korbano", we might have thought that each Shutaf must perform Tenufah, too - with the reverse 'Kal va'Chomer' from Semichah, where this is indeed the case, in spite of the fact that it is restricted to Shechutin (which Tenufah is not).

(c) We answer, that this is not possible. They could not all perform Semichah ...

1. ... simultaneously - because that would entail a Chatzitzah (the hands of one Shutaf interrupting between the hands of another Shutaf and the Korban.
2. ... one after the other - because the Torah writes "Tenufah", and not 'Tenufos'.

(a) The Mishnah in Tamid describes the procedure, should the Kohen Gadol wish to bring the Korban Tamid on to the Mizbe'ach. When they reached halfway up the ramp, the S'gan, who stood at his right as he did so - held him by the arm and accompanied him to the top of the ramp.

(b) One of the nine Kohanim would then hand him the sections of the Korban that he had carried up to there, and the Kohen Gadol would perform Semichah on them before tossing them on to the Makom ha'Ma'arachah. Then the next Kohen would hand him the sections that he had carried ... (and so on).

(c) The Kohen Gadol had the option, if he so wished - of just performing Semichah, and handing the sections to another Kohen to toss on to the Makom ha'Ma'arachah.

(d) Abaye reconciles this with our Mishnah, which precludes Korbenos Tzibur from Semichah - by attributing this Halachah to the esteem of the Kohan Gadol (and not to a Din in the Korban).

3)

(a) Our Mishnah draws a distinction between the baking of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, both of which were kneaded one by one - in that the former were baked one by one too, whereas the latter were baked two by two.

(b) To ensure that the Lechem ha'Panim remained intact, both swhen they were being baked and when they were removed from the oven - the Kohanim would bake then in a baking-mold, and transfer them immediately into another mold after removing them from the oven (where they remained until they were placed on the Shulchan on the following day).

(a) The Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "Sh'nei Esronim Yih'yeh ha'Chalah *ha'Echas*" - that the Lechem h'Panim had to be kneaded one at a time.
2. ... the word "Yih'yeh" (which is otherwise superfluous) - that the same applies to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

(b) Whereas from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Ve'samta Osam", the Tana learns - that the Lechem ha'Panim must be baked two at a time, and from ...
2. ... "Osam" - that only they are baked two at a time, but not the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

(c) We learn the latter D'rashah - because to teach us the former one, the Torah could have written "Ve'samtam".

(a) We have discussed the baking molds used for the Lechem ha'Panim in the oven, and those that were used after they were removed. A third set of molds was used - to place the loaves in whilst they were still dough (prior to the baking).

(b) The Beraisa learns this from the Pasuk "Ve'samta Osam" - since the Torah writes "Ve'samta Osam", rather than 'Ve'nasata Osam' (Tosfos DH 'Ve'samta Osam").

(c) After removing the loaves from the oven, they could not return them to the first set of molds - because the baking will have caused them to swell in size.

6)

(a) According to Rebbi Chanina, the Lechem ha'Panim were baked in the shape of an open box with the two sides removed. Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that they were shaped like a rocking boat (i.e. like a letter 'vee' [but with a less acute angle]).

(b) The problem with Rebbi Yochanan vis-a-vis ...

1. ... the Bazichei Levonah is - where they then placed the Bazichei Levonah, since, seeing as the top loaves (like those beneath it) came to a point in the middle, the bowls would be hanging from two opposite points of the walls of the top loaves (instead of being firmly placed inside them).
2. ... the placing of the Kanim (the canes) is - how the two outer canes would sit firmly on the loaves, which came almost to a point at the top of the vee, and which would allow them (the Kanim) to move around.

(c) To resolve ...

1. ... the first problem - the Kohanim would cut a ledge into each of the top loaves, on which the Bazichin were placed (see also Rabeinu Gershom).
2. ... the second problem - they would attach a small piece of dough at those two points, to which the Kanim would stick.

(a) The ...

1. ... 'S'nifin' were - four wide (board-like) posts, two standing side by side along the length of the Shulchan.
2. ... Kanim - were twenty-eight golden half-canes (fourteen for each row of loaves) that were placed three (or two, as will be explained later), across the width of the Shulchan on the top of each loaf.

(b) According to Rebbi Chanina, the S'nifin supported the loaf - by holding it tight on its vertical sides (and preventing it from caving in), and on its horizontal side, by means of the Kanim, as we will explain shortly. Note, that the Lechem ha'Panim, the S'nifin and the Kanim will be explained in more detail later in the Perek.

(c) The problem, in this regard, according to Rebbi Yochanan is - that the shape of the loaf would prevent the S'nifin from supporting it, other than at the tips of the 'Vee', in which case it would not be fully supported, and would be likely to fall.

(d) We solve the problem - by ascribing to the S'nifin a roundish shape (like a series of six semi-circles ['de'Agil Lehu Me'agel']), each one holding one loaf at the top and at the bottom (one on each side of the Shulchan).

(a) The purpose of the golden half-canes was - to allow air to pass between the six loaves in each row (to prevent them from becoming moldy.

(b) According to Rebbi Chanina, it was necessary (in spite of the flat shape of the base of the loaves) to have the posts as well - so that the grooves cut into them would support the half-canes, which in turn, would then support the loaves, preventing them from weighing down on each other and breaking.

(c) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal explains how the S'nifin stood. According to Rebbi Yochanan, it was necessary for the S'nifin to stand on the table - for the rounded shape to support the vee-shaped loaves, as we explained.

(d) According to Rebbi Chanina, this was not possible - since the size and shape of the loaves caused them to extend to the edge of the Shulchan. Consequently, they stood on the floor, flush with the Shulchan (but extending upwards way above it).

(a) Rav Yehudah explains - that the (weight of) the loaves supported the Shulchan, and the (shape of) the Shulchan supported the loaves.

(b) This supports the opinion of - Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) We ask on Rebbi Yochanan however from another Beraisa, which describes the bee-hive looking (see Tosfos DH 'Ke'miyn Kaveres) baking-mold in the oven. The Tana refers to its shape as - a sort of square tableau (a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(b) We amend the Beraisa however - by restricting that description to the opening, which was deliberately made wide to enable placing the loaves into it with ease. But the actual shape of the mold was like a vee (conforming with Rebbi Yochanan).

(c) Finally, we cite a Beraisa, which specifically describes the Lechem ha'Panim as 'Ke'miyn Sefinah Rokedes' (in support of Rebbi Yochanan). When, with reference to the S'nifin, the Tana writes 'Mefutzalin me'Rosheihen Ke'miyn Dakranim', he means - that the Kanim, which protruded from the S'nifin, had sorts of branches sticking out from them ...

(d) ... to hold the loaves and keep them from falling.