English translation — בשלח ג

Sicha 3<pg>77</pg>

A.

On the verse<sup>1</sup>

"Six days you shall gather it, and on the seventh day is Shabbos, it will not be on it" Rashi: "And on the seventh day is Shabbos — it is Shabbos,

the manna will not be on it,

and the verse comes only to include Yom Kippur and Festivals."

And its source is in the exposition of Rabbi Elazar HaModai in the Mechilta on the verse: "Six days you shall gather it,

Rabbi Yehoshua says we learned that it does not fall on Shabbat; on a Festival from where? The verse says "Shabbat"<sup>2</sup>

it shall not be on it,

Rabbi Elazar HaModai says we learned that it does not fall on Shabbat; on a Festival from where? The verse says "not"<sup>3</sup>

it shall be on it on Yom Kippur from where? The verse says "Shabbat it shall not be on it".

But Rashi changed from the exposition of Rabbi Elazar in several details: a)

In the Mechilta there is a teaching by itself for a Festival and a teaching by itself for Yom Kippur,

unlike Rashi who includes them together,

b)

In the Mechilta it precedes a Festival to Yom Kippur<sup>4</sup>,

whereas Rashi precedes Yom Kippur<sup>5</sup>

to a Festival.

c)

In the Mechilta a Festival is learned from what is said "it shall not be on it",

and Yom Kippur from what is said "Shabbat it shall not be on it",

and Rashi's language is "the verse did not come",

meaning that the entire verse as a whole comes to include Yom Kippur and a Festival.

And simply,

the foundation for these changes is: according to the exposition of the Mechilta,

the cessation of the manna on Yom Tov and Yom Kippur is not in the category of its cessation on the Sabbath day

(and likewise its cessation on Yom Tov and Yom Kippur are two different categories of cessation),

but according to Rashi they are all in the same type.

And it is also emphasized in the heading in Rashi "And on the seventh day is Sabbath",

about which he explains "Sabbath it is, the manna will not be in it

(and continues)

And the verse came only to include Yom Kippur and festivals"

(for since it was already said "for today is a Sabbath to the Lord,

today you will not find it in the field<sup>6</sup>,

six days you shall gather it",

it must be said,

that the verse came only to include Yom Kippur and Yom Tov),

and it is found,

that Yom Kippur and Yom Tov are learned together from the verse "And on the seventh day is Sabbath etc."

And the explanation of the matter: according to the Mechilta,

that the manna did not descend on Yom Kippur and on Yom Tov is because these days are also special and holy days distinguished from the rest of the days of the week

(the weekdays)

[And since the holiness of Yom Kippur is divided from the holiness of Shabbat,

and likewise the holiness of Yom Tov is divided from the holiness of Yom Kippur,

therefore a special teaching is needed for each one]

; whereas according to Rashi, that it did not descend on these days is because of the category of "Sabbath" in them,

since they are also included in the Sabbaths of the Lord<sup>7</sup>.

And this is also the reason that Rashi preceded Yom Kippur to Yom Tov,

because on Yom Kippur it is more obvious that it is called "Shabbat"⁸.

2.

And behold, the Tosafot wrote in many places⁹,

that there is a me-<pg>78</pg>

Authorities disagree whether the manna fell on Yom Tov.

That which is explained regarding Shabbos

(the seventh day)

"And He blessed..

and He sanctified¹⁰,

He blessed it with manna and sanctified it with manna"¹¹

(that on Shabbos the manna did not fall)

It implies that only on Shabbos it did not fall, but on Yom Tov it fell¹²,

Whereas according to the exposition of the Mechilta "On Shabbos it shall not be, to include Yom Kippur,

it shall not be, to include Yom Tov"¹³,

the manna did not fall on them.

But Rashi in his commentary on the Torah brought both expositions: on the verse¹⁴

"And He blessed..

and He sanctified" he explained "He blessed it with manna, that all the days of the week an omer per head fell for them, and on the sixth a double portion of bread,

and He sanctified it with manna, that it did not fall at all on Shabbos",

And together with this he brought in our parshah

(as above)

that the manna did not fall on Yom Kippur and festivals.

And according to the above, it is understood,

that according to Rashi's method, that the manna did not descend on Yom Kippur and Yom Tov is not because of the holiness of the day that is in them in their own right

(that they too are distinguished from the days before them and after them in being holy convocations),

but rather because of the category of "Shabbos" that is in them¹⁵.

3.

And it can be said that there is a practical difference in halachah,

and with an introduction:

In the obligation of lechem mishneh it is written in the Rif

that its obligation on Yom Tov is like on Shabbat,

"For Rabbi Abba said: A person is obligated to break bread on two whole loaves on Shabbat. What is the reason? 'They gathered double bread' is written

And the Sages explained that on festivals as well we require breaking bread on two loaves like on Shabbat, for the primary obligation on Shabbat is because the manna did not descend on Shabbat, but rather it descended on Shabbat eve in double portions, and on festivals as well it did not descend, but rather it descended on the eve of the festival

[on the eves of festivals]

in double portions just as it descended on Shabbat eves, therefore we require to break bread on Yom Tov on two whole loaves as we are obligated on Shabbat."

And behold, the Rambam brought the obligation of lechem mishneh on Shabbat and Yom Tov two times,

in Hilchot Berachot and in Hilchot Shabbat: in Hilchot Berachot

he wrote "On Shabbatot and on festivals one is obligated to break bread on two loaves; he takes both of them in his hand and breaks one of them",

and in Hilchot Shabbat

he wrote briefly "And one must establish each meal of the three on wine and break bread on two loaves, and likewise on festivals."

And although simply it appears that it is the same law and he abbreviated his language in Hilchos Shabbos because he relies on what he wrote previously in Hilchos Berachos,

it seems to me,

that they are two laws regarding the obligation of lechem mishneh.

For this obligation can be explained in two ways:

a)

This is the law regarding the Shabbos meal,

that the definition of a meal is by establishing it on bread,

and since the Shabbos meal is an important meal, therefore one is obligated to establish it on lechem mishneh.

b)

The obligation of lechem mishneh is a law regarding the breaking of the bread,

for from the laws of breaking the bread that one must bless and break on a whole [loaf],

except that on Shabbos an additional dimension is added to the concept of "whole,"

that because it is an important day, behold "&lt;pg&gt;79&lt;/pg&gt;

Shleimus" bo hi lechem mishneh,

And therefore one must break the bread on lechem mishneh²⁰.

And one can say the practical difference simply between the two manners: if it is a law in the breaking of the bread,

this pertains only at the time of the blessing and the breaking of the bread^*20,

but not so if it is a definition in the importance of the meal,

this pertains to the entire meal,

and therefore there must be two loaves on the table during the meal,

and it is a mitzvah

(from the choicest)

to eat from both of them²¹.

And based on this, one can say,

that what the Rambam wrote this law in two places,

in the Laws of Blessings and in the Laws of Shabbat,

it is because he holds that both are present in it,

that there are two definitions in the obligation of lechem mishneh,

both from the law of breaking the bread and from the law of the Shabbat meal

(and Yom Tov).

And this is the difference between the two laws in the Rambam: in the Laws of Blessings he brought the obligation of lechem mishneh in continuation of the laws of breaking the bread,

that the beginning of the law is "It is a mitzvah from the best to break a whole loaf,

if there was a whole loaf of barley and a broken piece of wheat, he places the whole one inside the broken piece and breaks from both of them in order to break from wheat and from the whole one",

and in continuation of this he brings "On Shabbats and on Yom Tovim one is obligated to break on two loaves,

he takes both of them in his hand and breaks one of them",

meaning that from the laws of breaking the bread one is obligated on Shabbat and Yom Tov to break on two loaves&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;.

And in the laws of Shabbos, it stands in the law of the second regarding lechem mishneh,

from the aspect of the importance of the meal in this,

precisely his language "a person is obligated to eat three meals on Shabbos etc. and he must establish each meal of the three on wine and break bread on two loaves",

that from the laws and statutes of three meals on Shabbos there is an obligation to establish them on wine and break bread on two loaves.

And therefore he did not add here

(what is said in the laws of blessings)

that he breaks only one loaf,

because this is only from the aspect of the law of breaking the bread,

and not in the establishment of the meal

(as above).

And according to this, there is another practical difference: In the Maggid Mishneh to Hilchos Shabbos there, he brought regarding the obligation of Lechem Mishneh "and a Gaon wrote, as long as he is dining,"

i.e., that this obligation is in every meal that he eats on Shabbos²³.

And superficially, this is from the aspect of the law of breaking the bread that is in Lechem Mishneh²⁴,

for then every time that he<pg>80</pg>

eats on Shabbos and Yom Tov he needs to break bread on two loaves,

but the obligation of Lechem Mishneh from the aspect of the law of the Shabbos meal, one could say that it is only in the obligatory meals,

the three meals of Shabbos²⁵

(and not if he adds additional optional meals).

4.

And now we must examine the obligation of lechem mishneh on Yom Tov,

whether also in it there are these two laws or not,

And with an introduction:

The source of the law of lechem mishneh is in Tractate Shabbos²⁶

: "Said Rabbi Abba: On Shabbos a person is obligated to break bread on two loaves, as it is written lechem mishneh,

Said Rabbi Ashi: I saw Rabbi Kahana who took two and broke one; he said 'Laketu' is written; Rabbi Zeira would break bread on all the loaves of the meal'"²⁷.

And this sugya is also brought in Tractate Berachot&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

after the laws of breaking the bread whether it is on the pieces or on the whole loaves,

and it says "a God-fearing person fulfills both of them..

he places a broken piece inside the whole loaf and breaks..

Rava said: everyone agrees on Pesach that he places a broken piece inside a whole loaf and breaks; what is the reason? 'bread of poverty' is written",

and it continues afterwards "R' Elazar said etc.'".

And one can say simply,

that this is the source for the words of the Rambam that in the obligation of lechem mishneh there are two definitions,

from the aspect of the laws of breaking the bread and from the aspect of the law of the Shabbos meal&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

that this is the difference between the two sugyas of Berachot and of Shabbos: in Tractate Berachot there it stands in the laws of breaking the bread as above,

and from this we learn that the obligation of lechem mishneh is from the aspect of the laws of breaking the bread&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

; and the sugya of Tractate Shabbos there is

(mainly)

in the laws of Shabbos meals&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

from which it is understood,

that the obligation of lechem mishneh is a definition in the Shabbos meal.

And behold, the Tosafos wrote&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

"And the essence of the statement of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

in the chapter "Kol Ktivei" is only to bring there

(in Berachos)

after Pesach to say that there is needed there a third matzah because of lechem mishneh, and one is obligated to break bread on two loaves both on Shabbos and on Yom Tov,

for if not so, why did he bring there the statement of Rabbi Chiya,

and so ruled the Rif that one is obligated to break bread on two loaves on Yom Tov, and the reason is because lechem mishneh used to descend on the eves of Yomim Tovim."

And it is found,

that in the sugya of tractate Ber&lt;pg&gt;81&lt;/pg&gt;

chos was innovated,

that the obligation of lechem mishneh is also on Yom Tov.

And based on this, one can say,

that this that the obligation of lechem mishneh on Yom Tov is learned specifically in the sugya of Berachos,

is because according to the shita of the Shas,

that which we learn the obligation of lechem mishneh from Shabbos is only regarding the definition of lechem mishneh from the aspect of the laws of breaking the bread

(with which we deal in Maseches Berachos there),

but not from the aspect of the definition of the Yom Tov meal

(with which we deal in Maseches Shabbos there,

in the laws of the Shabbos meal).

And the explanation of the matter: In the obligation of breaking bread there is no difference between Shabbos and Yom Tov&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;,

and therefore it is logical to say,

that just as in breaking bread of Shabbos it must be on two loaves,

so too it is on Yom Tov; however, regarding the matter of the meals of Shabbos and Yom Tov,

we find several differences between them,

for since on Shabbos even the melacha of food preparation is forbidden,

and there must be great preparation for the meal from before Shabbos,

behold it is found,

that the Shabbos meal has more importance and fixedness than the Yom Tov meal which can be prepared on that same day&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore there is room to say,

that the Yom Tov meal does not obligate the fixedness of the meal on two loaves.

And according to this, it can be said,

that this depends on the distinction between the Mechilta and Rashi's commentary on the Torah

(mentioned above)

:

According to Rashi,

that the fact that the manna did not descend on Yom Tov is due to the aspect of Shabbat inherent in it,

similarly, regarding the obligation of Lechem Mishneh

(which is derived from the absence of the manna's descent on Yom Tov),

the aspect of the obligation of Lechem Mishneh on Yom Tov is exactly like the obligation on Shabbat,

which has two aspects,

both from the laws of breaking the bread and from the&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

obligation of the meal&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

; but according to the Mechilta,

which has a separate teaching that the manna did not descend on Yom Tov,

then also the obligation of Lechem Mishneh on Yom Tov that derives from this,

is not equal to the obligation of Lechem Mishneh on Shabbat in all respects,

for the obligation of Lechem Mishneh on Yom Tov is only from the law of breaking the bread,

and not from the obligation of the Yom Tov meal.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Beshalach 5728)