Menachos Daf 94 מנחוס דַף 94

The next Mishnah compares the relative stringencies of semichah and תנופה. The stringency of semichah is שאחד מניף לכל החברים – that one owner can wave a korban for all partners, ואין אחד סומך לכל החברים – but one cannot lean on the korban for all partners. The stringency of תנופה is that it is performed even on קרבנות ציבור, even on shechted korbanos, and on nonliving items (e.g., לחמי תודה), in contrast to semichah. A Baraisa darshens "קרבנו" – his sacrifice, לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה – to include all owners of a korban for semichah. Without a passuk, we would have derived from a kal vachomer that if תנופה, which is required even for some shechted korbanos, still can be performed by one owner for the others, certainly this should have applied to semichah. The Gemara asks that since "קרבנו" requires semichah by every owner, a reverse kal vachomer should require תנופה by every owner!? It answers that this is impossible: if they would all perform תנופה simultaneously, there would be a חציצה between the korban and the other owners; they cannot perform תנופה one after the other, because the Torah said to perform "תנופה" (singular), and not multiple תנופות.

The eleventh Perek begins: שתי הלחם נילושות אחת אחת – the Two Loaves (of Shavuos) are kneaded one by one ונאפות אחת אחת – and baked one by one. The לחם הפנים are kneaded one by one, but baked two by two. ובדפוס היה עושה אותן – He would make [the לחם הפנים] in a mold; כשהוא רודן – when he would remove them from the oven, נותנן לדפוס כדי שלא יתקלקלו – he put them in another mold, so they would not become ruined. A Baraisa darshens: ושמת אותם – and you shall place them, meaning בדפוס – in a mold. שלשה דפוסין הם – There are three molds used in preparing the לחם הפנים: (1) it was placed into a mold while it was dough, to form the shape of the לחם הפנים (as discussed below), (2) there was a sort of mold which contained it in the oven, and (3) when he removed it from the oven, he placed it in a mold so it would not be ruined. It could not be returned to the first mold, because it had expanded through baking.

Amoraim argue about the shape of the לחם הפנים. Rebbe Chanina says: כמין תיבה פרוצה – it was shaped like an open box (with its cover and two walls removed). Rebbe Yochanan says: כמין ספינה רוקדת – it was shaped like a fast ship, tapering at the bottom and both ends. The Gemara asks, according to Rebbe Yochanan’s opinion, where the בזיכין would rest, since the לחם has no level area? It answers that the Kohen would fashion a resting place in a wall of the לחם before baking it. It asks where the outer קנים – rods would rest (since the לחם ended in tapered edges), and answers: מורשא עביד להו – he made protrusions of bits of dough on the ends of [the לחם]. The סניפין – [prop] attachments of the שולחן were able to support the לחם, according to Rebbe Yochanan, because דעגיל להו מיעגל – they were circular, formed around the bottom of the לחם. The Gemara then asks, if the לחם was like an open box, why did it need the support of the סניפין? It answers: אגב יוקרא דלחם תלח – because of the bread’s weight, [the lower לחם] could break. The Gemara adds that according to this opinion, the סניפין rested on the ground.