Lechem Mishneh on Shabbat and Holidays

 

Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass

 

INTRODUCTION - LECHEM MISHNEH IN THE WILDERNESS

 

     The expression "lechem mishneh" (double bread), which refers to the two loaves that begin the Shabbat meal, has its roots in the Torah.  "On the sixth day," says the Torah with reference to the manna (Shemot 16:22), "they gathered double bread ("lechem mishneh"), two omers for each person ...."  Rashi, in his comment on that verse, says, "They found double - two omers for each person."  "Mishneh" derives from "shenei," two.  He quotes a midrash which says that it was "lechem meshuneh," different bread, with a special taste and smell.  Moshe explained to the people that this double portion of (special) manna fell on Friday because it was not scheduled to fall on Shabbat.

 

     Some of the people of Israel, as the Torah tells, went out to the wilderness to collect manna on Shabbat morning despite Moshe's warning.  The Mekhilta says that they lacked trust in God, for they went searching for more food even though they already had some.  The Chatam Sofer in his commentary on the Torah (and in his Responsa OC 46) raises the possibility that the Jews ate more than normal on Shabbat night because the manna tasted especially good and was especially fragrant.  This caused them to worry that they would not have enough to eat during Shabbat day.  Had the bread not have been blessed - so that even a small amount would go a long way - their worries would have been well founded.

 

     It seems that four breads were baked from the two omers that fell for each individual.  One was eaten on Friday, leaving three for Shabbat.  One was eaten during the night meal, a second during the day meal, and only one was left for the third Shabbat meal.  It seems, therefore, that they did not have "lechem mishneh" for the third meal.

 

SHABBAT 117B - TAKING AND SLICING THE CHALLOT

 

     The gemara in Shabbat 117b mentions a number of customs and opinions concerning lechem mishneh.  "R. Abba says: On Shabbat one must break bread ("botzei'a") over two loaves, for it says, 'lechem mishneh.'"  R. Abba apparently ruled that one must slice both loaves.  Rashi in his commentary, however, explains that "botzei'a" means to make the blessing "ha-motzi," and not necessarily to slice the loaves.  Rashi's comment is used by Hagaon R. Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk as a proof that if one person at the meal makes the blessing over the lechem mishneh, the others need not partake of it; they can eat any bread.  Just as fulfilling the mitzva of kiddush does not require all those present to drink the kiddush wine, the mitzva of lechem mishneh can be fulfilled even without eating the lechem mishneh.  [R. Chaim's approach is quoted in "Masora" volume 4, and is dealt with by HaR. Moshe Shternbuch in Teshuvot U-minhagot part one, section 259.]

 

      The gemara then brings R. Ashi's testimony that R. Kahana (the Rashba's text: R. Huna) used to make the blessing over two loaves and then only slice one of them.  The Torah does not say that they ATE lechem mishneh every meal, but that they GATHERED lechem mishneh.  It is sufficient for us to hold them together, to "gather" the two loaves while making the blessing over them.

 

     The gemara follows with a third statement (our translation follows Rashi's explanation), "R. Zeira would [right after making the blessing] break off enough bread for the entire 'sheiruta.'"  "Sheiruta," explains Rashi, means the whole meal; slicing off such a large piece is an expression of love for Shabbat.  The gemara assures us that we need not worry about appearing gluttonous. 

 

     According to Rashi, then, all of the sages agree that only one of the two breads must be slice.  One maintains that a piece big enough for the whole meal can be slice at that time. 

 

     The Rashba in his commentary on the passage in Shabbat explains "sheiruta" in R. Zeira's statement as referring to all of the BREADS and not, as Rashi maintains, the whole MEAL.  [See my brother R. Yosef Tabory's article, "The Topic of Lechem Mishneh on Shabbat" in the R. Shimon Katz Memorial Volume.  He deals with the meaning of the word "sheiruta" and the identity of the Amoraim mentioned in the passage.]  According to the Rashba, therefore, R. Zeira held that both breads must be slice, while R. Kahana used to only slice one of them. 

 

     According to the Rashba's interpretation of R. Zeira's statement, must one slice BOTH challot or ALL of them, the practical difference being the case of the custom of the Ari zal where ha-motzi is made over twelve challot?  The Gra (Biur Ha-Gra on Shulchan Arukh OC 274) rules like the Rashba's opinion.  The Ma'aseh Rav (#123) records that they once placed twelve challot in front of the Gra on Shabbat evening and he slice all of them.  On the other hand, a responsum of the Rashba himself (part 6, responsum #530) indicates that according to R. Zeira one must only slice two breads.  He quotes R. Shimon ben David's explanation of R. Zeira's approach - not only must the blessing be made over double bread, but slicing the bread must also be double.  As the Mekhilta teaches, all matters concerning Shabbat are double - a double sacrifice, a double command, remember and keep, etc.  Only two of the breads, and not all of them, must be slice.  The Rashba's own ruling is that one should, like R. Huna, only slice one of the challot, as was done in the wilderness, where although they had two breads, only one was eaten, and the others were left for subsequent meals. 

 

     In summary, three approaches to slicing the lechem mishneh present themselves:

1.  R. Kahana (or R. Huna - Rashba's version) says to only slice one of the challot;

2.  R. Zeira according to the Gra (and the simple reading of the Rashba's commentary) says to slice all of the challot;

3.  R. Zeira according to the responsum of the Rashba says to slice two of the challot.

 

The Gra rules according to R. Zeira and the Rashba rules to slice one of them (R. Kahana/R. Huna).

 

PROBLEMS

 

     Even though the gemara indicates that lechem mishneh is modeled after the lechem mishneh of the manna, the parallel seems to break down in several places.  First of all, R. Zeira's approach (according to the Rashba) does not seem to fit the way the Jews ate manna.  They divided up their manna into four portions and ate one on Friday, and one during each of the three Shabbat meals.  Why, then, slice two of the challot when we eat our Shabbat meal? 

 

        Furthermore, following the model of the Jews in the wilderness, there should be no requirement of lechem mishneh at the third Shabbat meal.  By the time the third meal came along, they only had one loaf left.  The Tur, in fact, based on a number of Rishonim, rules that there is no requirement of lechem mishneh at the third meal.  However, the Shulchan Arukh's ruling is difficult.  He holds that there is a requirement of lechem mishneh at the third meal.  The Rama goes even further, quoting the Avudraham, that even if one eats more than three meals on Shabbat, lechem mishneh is required for all of them!  This is surely not in line with the desert model. 

 

A CLOSER LOOK

 

     Answering these questions requires taking a closer look at lechem mishneh.  Until now we have assumed that the mitzva of lechem mishneh entails modeling our Shabbat meals after those of the Jews in the wilderness.  This leaves us with the difficulties we mentioned in the previous paragraph.  Another understanding, however, is implied in the Arukh Hashulchan's discussion of the issue (OC 274) - namely, that all of the bread we eat on Shabbat should be double.  This is based, apparently, on the double nature of Shabbat, as the Mekhilta says - everything about Shabbat is double.

 

HOW MANY CHALLOT TO SLICE

 

     R. Zeira (according to the Rashba) and the Shulchan Arukh and Rama (based on the Avudraham) might be assuming this formulation of the mitzva.  This would explain the need to slice both challot (R. Zeira) and the requirement to have lechem mishneh at the third (Shulchan Arukh) or additional meals (Rama-Avudraham).  Alternatively, however, it is possible to assert - as the Ritva (Shabbat 117b) seems to do - that there is a requirement to have lechem mishneh at the third meal, yet the mitzva is still exclusively connected with the manna.  Accordingly, it is not modeled after how they ate the manna, but is rather a remembrance of the manna itself which fell double.

 

     It is important to bear in mind that the question of the nature and formulation of the mitzva of lechem mishneh stands independent of the question of whether lechem mishneh is a biblical or a rabbinic mitzva.  A number of Acharonim (among them the Chatam Sofer Responsa OC 49 and the Birkei Yosef in his comments on OC 678) deal with this question.  The Magen Avraham (OC 618:10) holds that it is rabbinic, and the verse quoted by the gemara is an "asmakhta" - a support, rather than a source.  The Arukh Hashulchan (OC 174) rules that it is biblical.  Even though it is biblical, the content of the mitzva is not, according to the Arukh Hashulchan, to eat like the Jews in the wilderness, but to eat double bread - lechem mishneh.  If it is rabbinic, whether the sages formulated the practice one way or the other is an open question.]

 

YOM TOV

 

     Based on the above discussion, we may now gain insight into the conceptual side of the controversy amongst the Rishonim about whether there is a requirement of lechem mishneh for Yom Tov meals.  If lechem mishneh requires eating double bread on Shabbat because of its double nature, it makes sense that there is no similar requirement on Yom Tov.  Yom Tov is not necessarily like Shabbat in this respect.  If, on the other hand, the mitzva of lechem mishneh is modeled after or reminiscent of the manna, whether there is a lechem mishneh requirement on Yom Tov depends on whether, in fact, the manna fell on Yom Tov.  Tosafot s.v. Ve-haya ba-yom ha-shishi on Beitza 2b quote conflicting midrashim on the issue.

 

     The Ritva (Shabbat 117b), Orchot Chayim (Hilkhot Yom Tov #2), the Rif and the Shulchan Arukh (OC 529:1) all rule that there is a requirement of lechem mishneh on Yom Tov.  They base their ruling (and the Mishna Berura explains the Shulchan Arukh this way) on the assumption that the manna did not fall on Yom Tov.  We do not know of any authorities who rule that there is no requirement of lechem mishneh because the manna fell on Yom Tov.  The Arukh Hashulchan, though, at first deals with whether there is a requirement at all of bread on Yom Tov, and leans towards the ruling that only grain food over which mezonot is said is required.  In OC 529:4 he rules that there is a mitzva to knead dough for bread on the day before Yom Tov and to have two loaves at the Yom Tov meal.  He might hold that there is a requirement of lechem mishneh on both Shabbat and Yom Tov, but their nature differs.  On Shabbat it is based on Shabbat's dual nature; on Yom Tov there is a rabbinic mitzva because of the manna.  Or he might see Shabbat's lechem mishneh  as based on both issues - duality and manna - and Yom Tov only on the latter. 

 

WOMEN'S OBLIGATION

 

     Based on the above we can investigate the question of whether women have an obligation of lechem mishneh.  The Shulchan Arukh, though he does not mention lechem mishneh specifically, rules (end of OC 291) that women are required to eat three meals on Shabbat.  The Rishonim bring two sources for women's obligation in lechem mishneh.  Rabbeinu Tam (quoted in the Maharam Mi-Rotenberg [Prague] #473) bases it on the principle that applies to Megillat Esther, Chanuka candles, and the four cups on Pesach night - "They were also involved in that miracle."  Thus, Rabbeinu Tam certainly builds on the parallel to the manna.  If he holds that lechem mishneh is a biblical mitzva, his application of the principle is novel - see Megilla 4a Tosafot s.v. She-af hein and compare with Tosafot Pesachim 108b s.v. Hayu be-oto ha-nes and the Chatam Sofer Responsa OC 185).

 

     The Ran (Shabbat 44a in the Rif's pagination) also quotes Rabbeinu Tam, but adds, "There is no need for this, because with regards to all matters of Shabbat men and women are identical."  He might view, in contrast to Rabbeinu Tam, the mitzva of lechem mishneh as not necessarily being based on the miracle of the manna but rather on Shabbat's duality.  It is interesting to note the different formulations of the Mishna Berura and Arukh Hashulchan on this issue.  The Mishna Berura (OC 291:1) writes that "women are also obligated in lechem mishneh because they were involved in the miracle of the manna."  The Arukh Hashulchan (OC 274:4), though, writes, "Women are also obligated to have two breads at their meal because in all matters of Shabbat women are identical to men."  Each of them is consistent with his approach. 

 

     Though we do not find an authority who rules that women are not obligated in lechem mishneh, it could theoretically be maintained in two possible ways.  If lechem mishneh is a biblical mitzva, the principle of "They were also involved in that miracle" might not apply to it.  I heard from Mori ve-Rabi Ha-R. Soloveitchik zt"l in his father's name, that one can distinguish between mitzvot that remember miracles (zekher la-nes) and those that are aimed at publicizing them (see Mesora #2, p. 10).  If lechem mishneh (whether a biblical or rabbinic mitzva) is a remembrance of the manna, and not a vehicle to publicize the miracle then it is not like Chanuka candles and the other examples above.  Therefore, women might not be obligated in lechem mishneh because the principle which obligates them in the other case is not applicable here.  The other way women might have theoretically been absolved from lechem mishneh is if the Ran's assumption that Shabbat obligates men and women identically in all respects is not absolute.  Both of these approaches remain in the realm of the theoretical, though. 

 

     We also do not find an explicit discussion concerning whether or not women are obligated in lechem mishneh on Yom Tov.  According to Rabbeinu Tam, they would clearly be obligated, if the manna did not fall on Yom Tov.  According to the Ran, however, it is unclear.  We find a much broader assertion in the first responsum of R. Akiva Eiger - that women are not obligated in any of the positive mitzvot of Yom Tov.  Based on this approach he rules that women are permitted to fast on Yom Tov.  It would obviously follow, according to this view, that they are absolved from the mitzva of lechem mishneh.  Mori ve-Rabi Ha-R. Soloveitchik zt"l found this passage in R. Akiva Eiger very difficult in light of the Rambam's statement (Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:16) which equates Yom Tov to Shabbat with regards to the mitzvot of kavod and oneg - honoring and enjoying.

 

SUMMARY

 

     There is a dispute about whether lechem mishneh is a biblical or a rabbinic mitzva.  Additionally, a number of issues might be tied to a basic conceptual difference of opinion about whether lechem mishneh is a way of remembering the miracle of the manna, or rather is a directive that all aspects of Shabbat, including our meals, should be double.  This would explain differences of opinion about how many challot to slice, whether there is an obligation of lechem mishneh at the third meal, whether women are obligated in lechem mishneh, and whether there is an obligation of lechem mishneh on Yom Tov.

 

Adapted  from Daf Kesher #537, 18 Adar, 5756, vol.  6,  pp.

128-130.