The Duality of the Lechem HaPanim
The instructions for the Lechem HaPanim marks the close of the long unit of laws taught to Moshe from the Ohel Mo’ed. The only major break from the beginning of Vayikra thus far has been the events of the eighth day including the story of the death of
Nadav and Avihu. After the Lechem HaPanim passage, there is the digressive
episode of the blasphemer following which the Torah returns the frame of
reference to Mt Sinai (first verse of parashat Behar) for the conclusion of the
covenant.[1]
What is unique about the Lechem HaPanim
that its description is deferred to this critical juncture?[2]
Lechem Hapanim as covenantal symbol
The words used to describe the Lechem
HaPanim which signifies its underlying importance is ‘Berit Olam’ – eternal
covenant:
בְּיוֹם
הַשַּׁבָּת בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת יַעַרְכֶנּוּ לִפְנֵי ה’ תָּמִיד מֵאֵת
בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִית עוֹלָם׃ (ויקרא כד:ח)
The symbolism of bread is particularly
important in the covenantal context as bread typically comprises the communal feast over
which a covenant is sealed. This is well attested to in the Torah and beyond continues
to this day. For example, when Yaakov enters into the covenant with Lavan they participate
in a joint meal consisting of bread:
וַיִּזְבַּח יַעֲקֹב זֶבַח בָּהָר וַיִּקְרָא
לְאֶחָיו לֶאֱכָל־לָחֶם וַיֹּאכְלוּ לֶחֶם וַיָּלִינוּ בָּהָר (בראשית
לא:נד)
In the case of the Lechem HaPanim, the two
parties to the covenant are God and the Israelite nation. The bread is a tribute from
the entire community of Israel, and the Kohanim consume the bread in their
capacity as God’s representatives, similar to their function in relation to other
offerings.
On the other hand, the bread itself does not touch the Mizbe'ach and – in contrast to
the Korbanot – remains wholly within the human domain (only the frankincense - levonah - was burnt on the Mizbe’ach). From this perspective, the Kohanim eat the bread as
guests at God’s table as representatives of the nation. This aspect is reinforced
by the obvious symbolism of the Kodesh HaKodashim as the inner chamber of God and
the Kodesh – the outer sanctum - as the living room which hosts and feeds
visitors (hence the combination of lampstand, table and bread).
The covenantal dimension of the Lechem
HaPanim is further reinforced by the fact that it was brought on Shabbat
which is also described as a Berit Olam:
וְשָׁמְרוּ
בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּת לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּת לְדֹרֹתָם בְּרִית
עוֹלָם׃ (שמות לא:טז)
As we are discussing Shabbat, the inverse
correlation with the Manna is also worth noting. On Friday man receives a
double portion of Manna from God, whilst on Shabbat man brings a double portion
of his own bread to God. (Each of the twelve loaves were two tenths of an Ephah
which is equal to a double portion of the Manna as fell each Friday.) This
exchange enhances the sense of mutuality expressed by the Lechem HaPanim.
Vayikra – Hitbatlut
to Berit[3]
Given the covenantal function of the Lechem HaPanim, we can answer our question if we consider the overarching theme of Sefer Vayikra.
Sefer Shemot concludes with the unbridgeable gap between
human and the divine. In the raw presence of God, man has no space to exist. When
the cloud descends on the Mishkan, Moshe is unable to enter and, on this somber
note, Sefer Shemot draws to a close. The Mishkan in Sefer Shemot is primarily a
place of revelation reflecting the experience of Mt. Sinai.
Vayikra introduces a new perspective where the
Mishkan is a place where man can express himself in God’s presence through the
Korbanot.[4]
It is not just a conduit for divine revelation, but a place where man reaches
out to God. In the opening verse Moshe needs to be called by God to enter
the Mishkan. The significance of starting the book with this word cannot be overstated.[5]
On the basic level, it highlights the hesitancy and trepidation of Moshe to
enter the divine realm, but on a deeper level it is a philosophical statement that
man can only approach and engage in the service of God because God invites him (and
creates the space for him) to do so.
From this initial inhibition, the intimacy progressively
intensifies. The first instruction Moshe receives relates to the Korban Olah. The
Korban is entirely burnt on the Mizbe’ach and there is no further human
participation. Man seeks to express himself through a Korban but it is through a sense
of total submission and self-negation in the presence of God.
Next are the Menachot comprising various
forms of flour offerings. These are brought in their entirety to the Mizbe’ach in
a process known as hagashah, but part of the Minchah (referred to the 'leftover') then transfers from
the Mizbe’ach to the Kohanim and is consumed in parallel to the Mizbe’ach.[6]
Now is not the place to expand on this point, but many of the laws and much of
the language relating to the Menachot stress this point that the partaking of
the Kohanim - of the Menachot specifically - is a continuation of the Mizbe’ach’s
own consumption. It is for this reason that even the leftover must be eaten as Matzah, just like the Mizbe'ach. That the Minchah is fully consumed by the Mizbe'ach - directly or indirectly via the Kohanim - connects the Minchah to the world of the Olah preceding it.
Even with the Menachot the list splits into
two. The first option is raw flour mixed with oil. The second group of options are processed in some way or another: oven-baked, fried or deep-fried.
The first option corresponds more closely to the Olah which was burnt in its
raw form, whereas the second option includes increased level of human participation,
closer in spirit to the Shelamim which follows thereafter.[7]
The final offering from the voluntary list
is the Shelamim where the human element is even more pronounced. The owner partakes in
the consumption of the Korban and only the innards (fats, kidney and possibly
part of the liver) are burnt on the Mizbe’ach. In contrast to the Menachot, the
part of the Korban earmarked for human consumption does not contact the
Mizbe’ach at all.
If the Olah is the point of departure of Torat Kohanim, then
the Lechem HaPanim can be seen as the final destination. As mentioned above, the Lechem
HaPanim does not contact the Mizbe’ach at all and only the levonah is
offered as a ‘token’ for the bread. The Kohanim break bread at God’s table in
what is symbolic of a covenantal feast between God and the nation. This is
clearly a state of consciousness far removed from the submissive experience of the
Korban Olah.
As noted above, bread is specifically
associated with covenant. With respect to the Korbanot listed in parashat
Vayikra, the only Korban described there in terms of ‘Lechem’ is the Shelamim (see
Lev. 3:11 and 3:16). In contrast to the restricted use early on, in our
parashah the word appears no fewer than 14 times in varying contexts. Multiples
of 7 are often used to point to a draw attention to a keyword and serves here
to imbue the parashah with covenantal overtones. It may or may not be coincidental
– but too tempting not to mention – that 7 of these instances relate the Lechem
to God (Lechem Elokim), and 7 relate to Lechem belonging to man.[8]
Was the Lechem Hapanim Chametz or Matzah?
The above discussion brings us to an
intriguing question. Was the Lechem HaPanim Chametz or Matzah?
The answer is surprisingly unclear as the passage is silent as to which one it is. With every other bread/meal offering or service the Torah makes it clear whether it refers to leavened or unleavened bread. The distinction is generally as follows. In cases where the bread is in contact with the Mizbe’ach (even if subsequently removed like the general case of the Menachot), it must take the form of unleavened bread. When the bread does not engage the Mizbe’ach - as in the case of the Shtei HaLechem - it must be Chametz.
Many salient explanations have been offered as to why Chametz cannot be offered on the Mizbe’ach. Most are connected directly or indirectly to the fact that the production of leavened bread is a product of human intervention and ingenuity. Believed to have originated in ancient Egypt, the leavening of bread is considered a key milestone in the emergence of civilisation. The Mizbe’ach, as already alluded to, involves man submitting himself to God. Human creativity represented in bread production must therefore be restrained when it is brought to the Mizbe'ach.
This being the case, some have argued that the
Lechem HaPanim was Chametz for the simple reason that it did not reach the
Mizbe’ach (not even nominally through the process of kemitzah or hagashah) so there was no reason for it to be Matzah. [9]
Chazal on the other hand, derived that the Lechem HaPanim was Matzah.[10]
The position of Chazal can be conceptually understood in one of two ways.
Either the Matzah requirement is derived directly from the kodesh kodashim status of the bread, possibly derived from the contact with the Shulchan instead of the Mizbe'ach. Indeed, whenever the Matzah requirement crops up in relation to the
Menachot, both the Mizbe’ach connection and the kodesh kodashim status are
refenced making it difficult to discern which one drives the Matzah
requirement (see Lev. 2:11, 6:9-10)
Alternatively (and more likely I believe), they considered that offering the levonah on the Mizbe’ach as a token for the bread provides a sufficient nexus with the Mizbe’ach which transfers the Matzah requirement across to the Lechem HaPanim.[11] The verses themselves deem the Lechem HaPanim to come from the ‘Isheh Hashem’ which is the term used in relation to the Korbanot in reference to the fire of the Mizbe’ach:
וְהָיְתָה
לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו וַאֲכָלֻהוּ בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ כִּי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא
לוֹ מֵאִשֵּׁי ה’ חָק־עוֹלָם׃ (ויקרא כז:ט)
It seems that the ambiguity whether the Lechem HaPanim is bread of the Mizbe’ach (i.e. Matzah) or human bread (i.e. Chametz) is not coincidental. As mentioned, the Kohanim partake of the Lechem HaPanim as representatives of both sides of the covenant. The bread is represented on the Mizbe’ach through the levonah, yet the bread itself does not touch the Mizbe’ach. Herein lies the tension. If it is consumed in conjunction with the Mizbe'ach like other Menachot then it should be Matzah, if it is consumed on the human side (albeit as guests at the divine table) it should be Chametz. From a literary perspective, it therefore does not define itself as Chametz or Matzah; it is both or neither.[12] From the halachic perspective, of course, it must be one or the other. Excuse the science parallel, but the halachic role here is comparable to the observer in quantum physics. Just as the observer causes the wave function to collapse into a definite position, so too halacha negates the duality of the text by crystallising a defined status. In this case, the halachic consensus may determine it to be Matzah, but the literary function of the Chametz-Matzah duality nonetheless conveys the covenantal mutuality.
Lechem and Luchot
In the previous post on the Lechem HaPanim, it was suggested that the Lechem HaPanim displayed on the Shulchan under the light of the Menorah, engages in hidden dialogue with the Luchot which were tucked away in the Aron and protected by the Keruvim on top. As discussed there, the structure of the Aron (and the textual description) parallels the Shulchan, whilst the Keruvim parallel the Menorah. The Lechem and the Luchot also mirror each other in certain respects. Both contain covenantal symbolism, both contain a 2x6 structure, and there is even a linguistic connection.
Yet with all the similarity there is an important difference. The Lechem is displayed by the Shulchan-Menorah combination whilst the Luchot are covered and hidden by the Aron-Keruvim. This reflects the contrasting atmosphere prevailing in each chamber. The Luchot residing in the Kodesh HaKodashim are the ineffable word of God. They are described as formed and inscribed by God (Ex. 32:16), and are a continual symbol of God's revelation to man. In this chamber man is fully subdued. There is no service directly involving the Aron or the Keruvim as man can only stand in awe in the (clouded) presence of the divine. In the Kodesh, however, man dares to be an active. He lights the Menorah and displays the bread he himself has prepared.[13]
In light of this connection between the
Luchot and the Lechem HaPanim, one may further appreciate how the passage of the Lechem
HaPanim - as well as closing out the sequence of laws of the Ohel Mo’ed - provides
the segue back to Mt Sinai and the conclusion of the covenant.
[1] The dispute
between Ibn Ezra and Ramban as to whether the passages are in chronological
order has no material bearing on our discussion.
[2] The instruction for the lighting of the Menorah appears immediately prior to the Lechem HaPanim. Unlike the Lechem HaPanim, however, the lighting of the Menorah was previously described in Sefer Shemot (27:20-21). As discussed elsewhere, there is a close association between the Menorah and the Shulchan and its repetition here should be seen as ancillary to the Lechem HaPanim which is the main focus.
[3] Insights on the placement/structure of the Menachot are based on Torat
HaKorbanot, Yonatan Grossman (Maggid, 2021)
[4] In the words of Grossman (ibid, p.9):
הקורבן לא בא לספק את צרכיו של האל, אלא הוא בא לאפשר לאדם להביע
את עצמו מול קונו לגשת איליו ולהגיש, ולומר לו דבר מה
[5] The significance
of the opening word ‘Vayikra’ and the interaction with the end of Shemot was already
noted in the Midrash:
וַיִּקְרָא אֶל מֹשֶׁה. לָמָּה אָמַר וַיִּקְרָא. אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאָמַר לְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא יָכֹל מֹשֶׁה לָבוֹא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, כְּשֶׁשָּׁרְתָה הַשְּׁכִינָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְלֹא יָכֹל לָבוֹא, לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁכַן עָלָיו הֶעָנָן, וּלְפִיכָךְ קְרָאוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. לֵאמֹר. מַהוּ לֵאמֹר, לֵאמֹר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן. (תנחומא ח:א)
[6] Hagasha is not explicitly mentioned in the
context of the plain flour offering. Chazal transferred the hagasha
requirement across to all the primary Menachot based on the reference in parashat
Tzav.
[7] Such is the
similarity between the plain flour Minchah and the Olah that some considered it
to be the poor man’s option of an Olah and belonging to the previous unit (see
Abarbanel, Lev. 2:1). Aside from the textual problems, however, it has been shown
that the cost of the oil and frankincense would have made the meal offering
more costly than the bird option of the Olah.
[8] This assumes the single reference to Lechem in the passage of the Lechem HaPanim also counts as Lechem Elokim.
[9] Grossman (ibid,
p. 185).
[10] TB.
Menachot 57a. This is the view originally attributed to R' Akiva (and opposed) by R' Yossi Haglili though the positions are later switched. The halacha accords with this view (See Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 12:19) which is also the general view expressed in the Mishnayot (see Menachot 5:1, Sukka 5:7). The view that it is Matzah derives it from the words lo taktiru which is strange since the Lechem HaPanim did not contact the Mizbe'ach directly in any form. This would seem to favour the approach that the Levonah represents the bread on the Mizbe'ach which generates the Chametz prohibition. The Rambam (ad loc), in apparent opposition to the Talmudic exegesis, derives the Chametz prohibition from the words kol ha-minchah instead (see Kesef Mishna ad loc, see also Tosfot Menachot 57a). Either way, it was very airy Matzah since according to TB Pesachim 87a the Lechem HaPanim was a tefach high (cf Rambam Hilchot Temidin uMusafim 5:9). According to the Kesef Mishna's calculation the volume of the base ingredients was far smaller.
[11] The offering of the levonah of the Lechem HaPanim is treated for halachic purposes (piggul, notar, and me'ilah) equivalent to the process of kemitzah of regular Menachot which corresponds to the blood sprinkling of the Korbanot (see Tosfot, TB Me'ilah 7a). The words used in conjunction with the offering of the levonah of the Lechem HaPanim - azkarah - is in fact the same word used to describe the part of the Minchah (i.e. the kemitzah) typically offered on the Mizbe'ach.
[12] It is unsurprising that the Shelamim which also has a connotation of a covenantal feast consists of both Matzah and Chametz loaves where applicable (e.g. Todah and perhaps other instances according to the peshat).
[13] Truth is even in the case of Luchot there is a hint of a partnership (but with God as the dominant party). Moshe is instructed to carve out the tablets himself, the writing is engraved by God:
וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה פְּסָל־לְךָ שְׁנֵי־לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים כָּרִאשֹׁנִים וְכָתַבְתִּי עַל־הַלֻּחֹת אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ עַל־הַלֻּחֹת הָרִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ׃ (שמות לד:א)
No comments:
Post a Comment