וְנָֽתַתָּ֧ עַל־הַשֻּׁלְחָ֛ן לֶ֥חֶם פָּנִ֖ים לְפָנַ֥י תָּמִֽיד. Why is this פסוק in the פרשה over here when we are discussing the כלים of the מקדש?
The ספרי in עקב says that the לחם הפנים weren't made in the midbar. The Daas Zekanim in Pekuday asks that the possuk in this week's parsha contradicts this for it says to make the לחם הפנים even in the midbar? He answers that for the chinuch hashulchan it was required. However, he asks that the Gemorah in Menachos 95 is clear that the lechem hapanim was offered in the midbar?
Rav Baskshi Daron (Binyan Av volume 1 #53) explains that we see from the possuk in our parsha that the lechem hapanim isn't just showbread placed on the shulchan, it isn't merely its own offering, its part of the shulchan. A shulchan without lechem hapanim isn't considered a shulchan. Rav Yaakov Elon uses this yesod to answer the Sifri. The Sifri also agrees the lechem hapanim were placed on the shulchan in the midbar, however that is because of the requirement to make a shulchan which includes the lechem hapanim. The intent of the Sifri is that there is no din korban on the lechem hapanim in the midbar. What difference does it make if it was made as part of the shulchan or as a korban? Do you have to burn the bazichin; if the lechem hapanim is there just to complete the shulchan than bazichin may not be required.
Acc. to this peshat we wpuld have to find another explanation for כה:ו which writes שמן למאור בשמים לשמן המשחה ולקטרת הסמים. see daas zekeinim and chizkuni which ask why is שמן למאור בשמים לקטורת mentioned here as everything else there is part of the מלאכת המשכן משא"כ אלו שהם בכלל עבודת המשכן. ועל זה תירצו שגם שמן למאור ובשמים לקטורת הוי בכלל הבנין. acc. to this peshat then flour should have been mentioned on the list of materials necessary for the building of the משכן because we need flour for a true building of the שלחן.
ReplyDelete