Daf Ditty Yoma 17: Showbread

Cranach Workshop, Ahimelech gives David the shewbread

(Ahimelech gibt David die Schaubrote),
woodcut, King James Bible 1534.
29.8×21 cm. MBK Gr-3.1041

1
2
Rather, must one not conclude from it that that the mishnayot in tractate Middot are in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from
it that this is so.

§ In an additional attempt to resolve the contradiction with regard to the Chamber of the Lambs,
Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitzḥak, said: This chamber was removed from the corner, as it was not
actually in the corner of the Hall of the Hearth but was located along the middle of the western
side of the hall. And therefore, for one who comes from the north, the chamber appears to him
to be in the south of the hall; and for one who comes from the south, the chamber appears to
him to be in the north of the hall.

3
4
The Gemara comments: In any event, it is reasonable to say that this chamber was closer to the
southwest corner than it was to the northwest corner. From where does one arrive at that
conclusion? From the fact that we raise a contradiction between the mishna in tractate Tamid,
where we learned that the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared stood in the northeast
corner, and the mishna in tractate Middot, where we learned that the chamber in which the
shewbread was prepared stood in the southeast corner.

5
And we resolve the contradiction based on what Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The
Master in tractate Middot envisions the chambers as one coming via the right, from the south to
the east, then to the north and then to the west. And the Master in tractate Tamid envisions the
chambers as one coming via the left, from the south to the west, then to the north and then to the
east. Both agree with regard to the location of the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared;
they merely describe that location from different perspectives.

Granted, if you say that the Chamber of the Lambs was actually closer to the southwest corner,
that is how Rav Huna resolves the contradiction between one mishna discussing the shewbread
and the other mishna discussing the shewbread. However, if you say that the Chamber of the
Lambs was in the northwest corner, ultimately, what is the resolution with regard to the
shewbread? Even if you envision the path from the other direction, the Chamber of the Seals
interposes between the Chamber of the Lambs and the chamber where the shewbread is prepared.
Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Chamber of the Lambs was indeed in the
southwest? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

6
The Gemara questions the assertion that one tanna envisions the chambers as one coming via the
left. But didn’t the Master say: All turns that you turn should be only to the right, which in
certain cases is to the east? Here the turns are to the left. The Gemara answers: This restriction
applies only in the course of performing the Temple service; however, here, it is a mere
reckoning, and no priest actually proceeded that way from one chamber to the other.

7
§ It was taught in the mishna: As the High Priest sacrifices any portion that he chooses first and
takes any portion that he chooses first. The Sages taught in a baraita: How does the High Priest
sacrifice any portion that he chooses first? If the High Priest so desires, he says: This burnt-
offering, I am sacrificing, or: This meal-offering, I am sacrificing. That is sufficient, and the
High Priest does not participate in a lottery.

How does the High Priest take any portion that he chooses first? The High Priest says: This sin-
offering, I am eating, or: This guilt-offering, I am eating. And he may even take one loaf of
the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. He may take four or five of the twelve
shewbread loaves that are distributed to the priests every Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says:
The High Priest always takes five of the twelve shewbread loaves, as it is stated:

8
 ‫ ַוֲאָכֻלהוּ‬,‫ט ְוָה ְיָתה ְלַאֲהֹרן וְּלָבָניו‬ 9 And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall
,‫ ִכּי ֹקֶדשׁ ָקָדִשׁים הוּא לוֹ‬:‫ְבָּמקוֹם ָקֹדשׁ‬ eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy unto him of the
{‫ }ס‬.‫עוָֹלם‬-‫ָחק‬--‫ֵמִאֵשּׁי ְיהָוה‬ offerings of the LORD made by fire, a perpetual due.'
Lev 24:9

“It shall be for Aaron and his sons and they shall eat it in a sacred place” From the fact that
Aaron and his sons are listed separately, it is derived that half of the loaves were given to Aaron,
or the High Priests who succeeded him, and half were given to his sons.

Since, as explained below, only ten of the loaves were actually distributed, the High Priest received
five.

9
Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

The Gemora had (16b) cited a Mishnah in Middos (5:1-2), which states that the entire Courtyard
was one hundred and eighty-seven amos long and one hundred and thirty-five amos wide.

This is referring to the Inner Courtyard, which incorporated the Israelite’s Courtyard and the
Kohanim’s Courtyard. The Courtyard measured from east to west one hundred and eighty-seven
amos, and this section consisted of the area where the Israelites walked as they wished for an area
of eleven amos, and the area where even kohanim unfit to do the avodah would walk for another
area of eleven amos. The area also included the mizbeiach which occupied an area of thirty-two
amos, the area between the Ulam and the mizbeiach which measured twenty-two amos, and the
Heichal which was one hundred amos long. There was an area of eleven amos behind the chamber
of the kapores, which was the Holy of Holies.

The holy of Holies was in the rear of the Bais HaMikdash, so there were eleven amos between the
rear of the Bais HaMikdash and the western Wall of the Courtyard that were unoccupied. The

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Yoma_17.pdf

10
Courtyard measured one hundred and thirty-five amos from south to north, and consisted of the
following sections: the ramp of the mizbeiach and the mizbeiach occupied an area of sixty-two
amos. From the mizbeiach to the slaughtering rings was an area of eight amos.

The area of the rings occupied twenty-four amos. From the rings to the tables where the innards
of the offerings were rinsed was an area of four amos. From the tables to the dwarf-pillars was a
space of four amos. From the dwarf-pillars to the northern wall of the Courtyard was an area of
eight amos. The remainder of the one hundred and thirtyfive amos was from the area between the
ramp and the southern Courtyard and the area occupied by the dwarf-pillars.

The Gemora asks: Now, if it would enter your mind that the Tanna of the Mishnah in Middos is
Rabbi Yehudah, it would not be possible for the mizbeiach to be situated in the middle of the
Courtyard (opposite the entrance to the Heichal), for the Mishna had just indicated that the majority
of the mizbeiach was situated in the southern portion of the Courtyard (for there was a space of
sixty two and a half amos from the Northern Wall to the mizbeiach; it emerges that only five amos
of the mizbeiach was situated in the northern half of the Courtyard)!?

The Gemora proves from here that the Tanna of the Mishna in Middos is Rabbi Eliezer ben
Yaakov.

Rav Adda the son of Rav Yitzchak is of the opinion that the Chamber of the Lambs extended both
towards the northwest and southwest corners of the large Chamber of Fire.

There is a contradiction in Mishnayos.

The Mishnah in Tamid says the Chamber of Lambs was in the northwest corner and the Mishnah
in Midsos says that it was in the southwest corner. In order to answer this contradiction, Rav Adda
says the Chamber of Lambs ran along the west side of the large Chamber of Fire. It was quite long,
however, and extended to the north and towards the south. It appeared to someone who entered
from the north that the Chamber reached the southwest corner. Likewise, it appeared to someone
entering for the south that the Chamber reached the northwest corner. The Mishnayos are speaking
from the perspectives of people entering the Chamber from opposite sides.

In reality, the Chamber of Lambs was closer to the southwest corner. Rav Adda continues: The
Mishnayos list the other chambers. The Mishnah in Middos establishes the Chamber for making
the lechem hapanim in the southeast. The Mishnah in Tamid only reveals the position of the
Chamber of Lambs. [It, however, does list the names of the three other chambers. It is assumed
that the list follows a particular order.

The first Chamber mentioned is the Chamber of Lambs, which it states, is situated in the
northwestern corner of the Courtyard. It is assumed that the particular order mentioned is based
upon the chamber one would meet first when he is outside, and then the next listed would be the
one he meets when he is proceeding to the right. Accordingly, the chamber where the lechem
hapanim was made, the one which was listed fourth, would be at the northeastern corner.]

11
Rav Huna the son of Rabbi Yehoshua answered: The Tanna of the Mishnah in Middos was listing
the chambers in the order from left to right, whereas the Mishnah in Tamid is listing it from right
to left. Now, if the Chamber of Lambs was primarily in the southwest corner, the answer regarding
the Chamber of the Lechem hapanim makes sense (for the first chamber mentioned, the Chamber
of lambs, was situated in the southwestern corner, then the fourth chamber mentioned, the
Chamber of Lechem hapanim was in the southeastern corner); but if, however, the Chamber of
Lambs was really in the northwest, there would be no answer to the contradiction!? This proves
that the Chamber for the lechem hapanim was indeed primarily in the southwestern corner of the
Courtyard.

One is allowed to list items from left to right.

The Gemora notes: Even though we have a general rule that one should always turn towards the
right and to the east, this is true only when actually performing the Temple service (such as the
application of blood on the mizbeiach). When one is listing the different chambers of the Temple,
it is permissible to list in a leftward direction.

The Kohen Gadol has precedence over all other Kohanim.

The Gemora cites a braisa: The Kohen Gadol can decide to sacrifice whichever korban he wants.
He can say, “This olah I will offer,” or, “This minchah I will offer.” He can also choose to eat
whichever korban he wants. He can say, “This chatas I will eat,” or, “This asham I will eat.” if it’s
a korban designated for Kohanim to eat such as chatas or asham.

There is a disagreement between Rebbe and the Sages whether the Kohen Gadol is always entitled
to half the the bread which is baked as an offering or is only entitled to half of the two breads baked
as offering for Shavuos (Shtei HaLechem).

The Sages said that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to one loaf of the two loaves offered on Shavuos,
or four or five loavesfrom the lechem hapanim. [This works out to a little less than half of the
bread divided amongst the Kohanim.] Rebbe holds that the Kohen Gadol is always entitled to five
loaves which, according to his calculations, are always half the loaves which is divided amongst
the Kohanim.

The Proper Direction for Lighting Chanukah Candles

Our Gemora has a rule that one should always go to the right in the Temple service. The Poskim
understand that this rule applies also to the lighting of the Chanukah candles. Therefore, the
Shulchan Aruch rules that one starts lighting with the left most candle and continue towards the
right.

The Taz understands the expression in our Gemora, “All your turnings should be towards the right”
differently. He believes it means that one must always start at the right most point. It therefore,
comes out according to the Taz that one move towards the left. Accordingly, the Taz rules that one
should start lighting Chanukah candles from the right most candle and move towards the left.

12
Cutting Fingernails

The Rema (O”C 260:1) writes that one should be careful not to cut their nails in order. Instead,
they skip a finger. They begin with the left hand, and start with the fourth finger, following the
order 4,2,5,3,1. Then they cut the nails on the right hand, and they begin with the index finger.
Thus, the order is 2,4,1,3,5.

In the Teshuvos B’tzel Hachachmah, he asks: Why by the cutting of nails do we deviate from the
usual manner of the rest of the Torah, where we give prominence to the right hand? Shouldn’t we
cut the nails on the right hand first?

He answers based upon our Gemora which states that all turns that one makes should be to the
right, and one cannot turn to the right if he begins at the right. Therefore, on the contrary, one must
begin with the left hand, in order to fulfill the principle of “turning to the right.”

This, as a matter of fact, is giving prominence to the right – by turning towards the right. With this
he explains our custom of lighting the lights of Chanukah, where we start on the first night of
Chanukah by lighting the candle which is situated on our right most side. This is because on the
second night, we start with the second candle and then we “turn to the right” and light the one
which is on the most right side.

THE "LISHKAS HA'TELA'IM" IN THE "BEIS HA'MOKED"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara addresses a contradiction between the Mishnah in Tamid (3:3) and the Mishnah in
Midos (1:6). The Mishnah in Tamid says that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was on the northwest side of
the Beis ha'Moked, while the Mishnah in Midos says that it was on the southwest side.

The Gemara offers several answers. Rav Huna answers that the Mishnah is Midos expresses the
opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, who indeed argues with the Mishnah in Tamid.

Rav Ada brei d'Rav Yitzchak (17a) answers that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was "Aktzuyei Mekatzya."
When one stood in the south, the Lishkas ha'Tela'im appeared to be in the northwest. When one
stood in the north, it appeared to be in the southwest. The Rishonim explain this in different ways.

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-017.htm

13
(a) RASHI (DH Rav Ada), the RA'AVAD (in Tamid), and the ROSH (in Midos) explain that the
Lishkas ha'Tela'im was "elongated" and occupied almost the entire western side of the Beis
ha'Moked. Consequently, when one looked from the north it appeared that more of the Lishkah
was in the south, and when one looked from the south it appeared that more of it was in the north.
The VILNA GA'ON in Tamid (3:3) suggests that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was elongated for an
important reason. The southern part of the Beis ha'Moked (the side closer to the Azarah) was not
sanctified, according to the Mishnah in Midos (1:6; see Rashi to 15b, DH Shtayim), while the
northern half was sanctified. If the entrance to the Lishkas ha'Tela'im would have been in the south,
opening into the Azarah, the entire Lishkah would have been sanctified because it was accessed
from a sanctified area (the Azarah). However, it would have been inappropriate for the Lishkas
ha'Tela'im to be sanctified, because live animals were kept there and the presence of their
excrement would have been disrespectful to a holy area. Therefore, the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was
extended to the north, so that its entrance opened into a non-sanctified area (the northern side of
the Beis ha'Moked). Since it opened into a non-sanctified area, the entire Lishkah itself had no
sanctity.

(b) RABEINU CHANANEL (in his first explanation) and the ARUCH in the name
of RABEINU MOSHE HA'DARSHAN suggest that "Aktzuyei Mekatzya" means that the
Lishkas ha'Tela'im was "set away" from the corner of the Beis ha'Moked, positioned nearly in the
center of the western side of the Beis ha'Moked (but slightly towards the south, as the Gemara
concludes). Therefore, when one looked from the north, the Lishkas ha'Tela'im appeared as though
it was in the southwest corner, since it was still a considerable distance away. When one looked
from the south, it appeared to be in the northwest corner.

(c) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR seems to understand that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im indeed was in the
southwest corner of the Beis ha'Moked, but the southern wall of the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was not
the southern wall of the Beis ha'Moked. Rather, the Lishkah's southern wall began at the corner of
the Beis ha'Moked and protruded north into the Beis ha'Moked at an angle as it extended towards
the east. Therefore, to one who entered from the south it seemed as though the Lishkas ha'Tela'im's
main area was more towards the north, and to one who entered from the north the Lishkah's main
area appeared to be more towards the south.

(d) The RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos to Midos 1:6) explains that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was
in the southwest corner of the Beis ha'Moked, and the Beis ha'Moked was in the northwest of
the Azarah. He understands that the Mishnah in Tamid which positions the Lishkas ha'Tela'im in
the northwest does not refer to an area in the Beis ha'Moked, but rather to an area in the Azarah.
While this explanation brilliantly resolves the contradiction between the Mishnayos, it is a novel
explanation of which the Gemara makes no mention. (In fact, the RIVA (cited by Tosfos to 17b,
DH v'Ha) asks why the Gemara does not offer this answer.)

RABEINU CHANANEL here proposes the same explanation as the Rambam. (Some words seem
to be missing in our edition of his commentary.) Rabeinu Chananel apparently understands that
this is the intention of the words, "Aktzuyei Mekatzya." The Lishkah was "set into a corner" from
two different perspectives. (See CHAZON ISH OC 126:16.)

14
Alternatively, the Rambam and Rabeinu Chananel may understand that when the Gemara
continues and says, "u'Mistavra...," it rejects the answer of "Aktzuyei Mekatzya" and asserts that
the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was entirely in the southeast part of the Beis ha'Moked. Since the Gemara
does not explicitly address how this assertion can be reconciled with the Mishnah in Tamid, the
Rambam and Rabeinu Chananel propose their explanation for what the Gemara must mean.

The Beraisa states that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to "four or five" of the twelve Chalos of the
Lechem ha'Panim. Abaye explains that the Tana of the Beraisa follows the opinion of the Rabanan
who maintain that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to less than half of the total of the products
distributed to the Kohanim in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Since the twelve Chalos of Lechem ha'Panim
are normally divided among the two Mishmaros (the incoming one and the outgoing one), the
Kohen Gadol is entitled to five Chalos, since that is just less than half of the total number of Chalos.
Why, though, does the Beraisa mention that he may take "four or five" Chalos?

Abaye explains that the Beraisa's statement that the Kohen Gadol may take four Chalos follows
the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that when the incoming and outgoing
Mishmaros divide the Chalos, the new Mishmar receives seven and the old Mishmar receives five.
Two Chalos are always reserved for the new Mishmar as a reward for closing the doors of the
Azarah which were opened by the outgoing Mishmar. Since the two Mishmaros, according to
Rebbi Yehudah, divide only ten of the Chalos, the Kohen Gadol takes just less than half, which
is four. He does not share the Chalos that are given as a reward; he shares only those Chalos which
are given as part of the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

The GEVURAS ARI asks that the Gemara assumes that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the
outgoing Mishmar must give two Chalos to the incoming Mishmar, which leaves only ten Chalos
from which the Kohen takes just less than half (i.e. four). However, the reason why the new
Mishmar receives seven Chalos and the old Mishmar receives five is not because the old Mishmar
gives two to the new Mishmar as a reward. Rather, each Mishmar originally was entitled
to six Chalos, and the old Mishmar gives only one Chalah to the new Mishmar. In that way, the
old Mishmar receives five and the new Mishmar receives seven. Consequently, the Kohen Gadol
should be entitled to half of all of the Chalos which are not used as a reward. Since only one is
used as a reward, that leaves eleven from which the Kohen Gadol is entitled to take just less than
half. Accordingly, even Rebbi Yehudah should agree that he receives five Chalos, and not four!

The GEVURAS ARI answers that it is true that eleven Chalos, and not ten, are divided among
the two Mishmaros, and, in theory, the Kohen Gadol should receive five Chalos even according to
Rebbi Yehudah. However, if he were to receive five Chalos, it would not be evident that he is
entitled to just less than half. One might mistakenly think that perhaps the Kohen Gadol is entitled
to receive exactly half, and that is why he receives five Chalos. Although half of eleven is five and
a half, it is not respectful to give the Kohen Gadol an incomplete loaf, and therefore he receives
five, but normally he receives exactly half of the total amount that is distributed to the Kohanim.
In order to show that the Kohen Gadol is entitled only to less than half, but not to exactly half, he
is given only four Chalos according to Rebbi Yehudah.

The Gevuras Ari assumes that the extra Chalah which the incoming Mishmar receives is granted
to them by the outgoing Mishmar from their own portion (as a reward for closing the doors for

15
them). Accordingly, all twelve Chalos are divided, and that is why the outgoing Mishmar receives
five and the incoming Mishmar receives seven (the outgoing Mishmar gives one of "their" Chalos
to the incoming Mishmar). However, if all twelve Chalos are divided, the Kohen Gadol still
receives five Chalos (one less than half). Once he is given five Chalos, seven Chalos are left to be
divided among the two Mishmaros. Each Mishmar should receive three and a half Chalos, and the
outgoing Mishmar should give one of those to the incoming Mishmar as its reward. (The reward
should not be lessened by the amount that the Kohen Gadol took.)

It seems that it is not the outgoing Mishmar which gives of its own portion to the incoming
Mishmar. Rather, it is a "Tenai Beis Din" -- a stipulation that Beis Din established in the
distribution of the Chalos -- that the incoming Mishmar receives two extra Chalos. Accordingly,
those Chalos are given to the incoming Mishmar before all of the Chalos are divided, and thus
only ten remain to be divided. The Kohen Gadol is entitled to less than half of those, which is four.

WHY THE KOHEN GADOL RECEIVES LESS BECAUSE OF THE "MISHMAR

HA'MIS'AKEV"

The Beraisa states that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to "four or five" of the twelve Chalos of the
Lechem ha'Panim. Rava explains that the Tana of the Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi, who
maintains that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to half of the total of the products distributed to the
Kohanim in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Tana of the Beraisa also follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah,
who says that two Chalos are given to the incoming Mishmar as a reward for closing the doors of
the Azarah. Consequently, the Kohen Gadol receives half of the ten Chalos that remain, or five
Chalos.

When the Beraisa says that the Kohen Gadol receives "four or five" Chalos, it refers to a case of a
"Mishmar ha'Mis'akev." In such a case, the Mishmar ha'Mis'akev receives two Chalos, and thus
only eight are left for distribution, of which the Kohen Gadol receives half, or four Chalos.

The Mishmar ha'Mis'akev is a Mishmar (or group of Mishmaros) who either remained in the Beis
ha'Mikdash for an extra day at the beginning of the week, after their term of service was over (for
example, when Yom Tov concluded on Thursday, they remained until Sunday), or who came a
day early to the Beis ha'Mikdash at the end of the week (for example, they arrived on Friday when
Yom Tov began on the following Monday) and had to remain there over Shabbos. That Mishmar
is not included in the normal division of the Chalos of Lechem ha'Panim, which are divided among
the Mishmaros that are present in the Beis ha'Mikdash on Shabbos (the incoming and outgoing
Mishmaros). Rather, they receive only two Chalos. The rest are divided among the two Mishmaros
on duty.

The GEVURAS ARI and MAHARSHAM ask that the Mishmar ha'Mis'akev, the Mishmar that
stays behind, is not required to be there. On the contrary, they are not supposed to be there, as
Rashi implies. Why, then, should the Kohen Gadol receive less than he would normally receive as
a result of that Mishmar? Instead of diminishing the Kohen Gadol's share, we should diminish that
Mishmar's share. Why does the Kohen Gadol receive less because of them?

16
The GEVURAS ARI answers that the Rabanan enacted that the Mishmar that stays behind
receives two Chalos. It is not because they deserve it; rather, it is purely due to the generosity of
the Rabanan who made the enactment for their benefit. They receive the Chalos by virtue of a
Takanah, and not because of an apportionment (Chalukah), while the other two Mishmaros and
the Kohen Gadol receive their share through an apportionment. Just as the Rabanan have the
authority to diminish the amount of Chalos which the other two Mishmaros receive (as a result of
their Takanah), they also have the authority to diminish the amount of Chalos which the Kohen
Gadol receives.

The High Priest Chooses His Portion

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

In the second perek of Massekhet Yoma we will learn how the different jobs in the Temple were
divided up among the kohanim who were working in the Mikdash at a given time. As we learned
earlier (14a), the Mishna in our perek teaches that during the week before Yom Kippur it is the
Kohen Gadol who burns the ketoret, arranges the menorah, and sacrifices the korban tamid
(“perpetual” daily offering) on the altar.

The Mishna adds that throughout the year it is the prerogative of the Kohen Gadol to choose which
korbanot he wants to sacrifice and be the first to choose his portion from the korbanot. The Gemara
on our daf quotes a baraita that describes how the Kohen Gadol would walk through the Temple
and claim the right to sacrifice a given korban by saying, "I will sacrifice that Olah" or "I will
sacrifice that Minha." He chooses what portion he will receive by saying, "I will eat that Hatat" or
"I will eat that Asham."

Similarly, he receives one of the two loaves that are brought on Shavu'ot and four or five of the
loaves of shewbread that is distributed weekly from the shulhan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's position
is that he always gets five, since he deserves half of the ten loaves that are distributed, based on
the passage:

‫ ַוֲאָכֻלהוּ ְבָּמקוֹם‬,‫ט ְוָה ְיָתה ְלַאֲהֹרן וְּלָבָניו‬ 9 And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat
‫ ֵמִאֵשּׁי‬,‫ ִכּי ֹקֶדשׁ ָקָדִשׁים הוּא לוֹ‬:‫ָקֹדשׁ‬ it in a holy place; for it is most holy unto him of the
{‫ }ס‬.‫עוָֹלם‬-‫ָחק‬--‫ְיהָוה‬ offerings of the LORD made by fire, a perpetual due.'
Lev 24:9

"And it shall be for Aharon and his sons," which he understands to mean that Aharon (the High
Priest) shares equally with his sons (the other Kohanim).

3
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

17
The Rashash points out that there is support for the idea that the Kohen Gadol received five loaves
of the lehem ha-panim from the story related in Sefer Shmuel (21:4) when David is running away
from King Sha'ul, and arrives in Nov, the city of kohanim.

Upon asking for food, Akhimelekh, who was apparently the Kohen Gadol at the time, tells David
that he only has "holy bread." David agrees to take the lehem ha-panim (after assuring Akhimelekh
that his men are in a state of ritual purity), and he receives the five loaves that he requested.

Rabbi Jeremy Rosen writes:4

There were many different opinions in the Talmud as to the layout of the Second Temple and, in
the case of the last few pages, the myriad surrounding courts and chambers that made up the
complex. In our daf, the sages continue to discuss the chambers surrounding the Hall of the Hearth,
chambers visited by the high priest in the course of his duties on Yom Kippur. One point of
confusion is the location of the Chamber of Lambs, where sacrificial lambs were pent up before
the slaughter. (We are not told specifically why different animals were kept in different chambers
— perhaps for the practical reason of minimizing possible cruelty between species.)

We learned yesterday that there are four chambers surrounding the Hall of the Hearth, though two
different mishnahs identified them slightly differently. Both mishnahs however mention a
Chamber of Lambs and our Gemara tries to pinpoint the precise location. (You will see in
the Tosafot commentary diagrams of different floor plans that illustrate the conflicting opinions.)
The Gemara suggests that there really is no discrepancy between the two mishnahs in identifying
the location of the Chamber of Lambs, it is simply that each mishnah “walks” through the rooms
in a different order. Middot begins at the southwest corner and moves counterclockwise, Tamid
begins at the same corner and proceeds to the left, in a clockwise direction. At this point, the
Gemara raises a concern that has plagued us before: What about the no left turn rule?

But didn’t the master say: All turns should be only to the right, to the east?

This restriction applies only in the course of performing the Temple service; however, here,
it is a mere reckoning.

In other words, the description in Tamid is acceptable because it is not actually the path walked by
the priest for ritual purposes — it is just the way the mishnah described the rooms.

(Incidentally, another Tosafot on today’s page deals with the more complicated contradiction
between the two mishnahs — the fact that they do not agree on the identification of all four rooms.
That Tosafot resolves the contradiction by saying that there were actually six rooms in total
surrounding the Hall of the Hearth and each mishnah described only four of them.)

A great deal of Jewish ritual today is inspired by Temple practice. This principle of never turning
to the right has many different practical applications in Jewish law in the present. According to

4
Myjewishlearning.com

18
the Shulchan Aruch, in going up to the ark or the bimah in a synagogue one ought to go up on the
right side and down on the left. When the priests bless the congregation, they turn first to the right.

When one takes the four species, the arba minim, to shake on Sukkot we shake first on the right.
At the end of the Amidah when walking back at Oseh Shalom, one bows first to the right. You
should even, according to Jewish law, tie the right shoelace first.

When one walks together with one’s teacher or parent one should always place them on one’s right
side out of respect. There is an argument too about the Hanukkah lights that one should start
lighting from the right (though this is not a prevailing custom).

The idea of preferring the right hand, as we’ve discussed, goes back a long way in human history,
and continues to resonate today. And perhaps not more profoundly than when the Torah speaks of
the “right hand of God.”

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:5

As we are taught in our daf (Yoma 17b), the Kohen Gadol has priority rights to offer any sacrifice
he wishes as well as the first right to take any portion to eat, as the Beraita teaches us: “How does
he exercise his priority rights to offer any portion? He says, “I will offer this Olah”, or “I will offer
this Mincha”. And how does he exercise his priority rights to take any portion? He says, “I will eat
this Chatat”, or “I will eat this Asham” etc.”

And why is this significant? Because unlike a regular Kohen who, as we are told later on in the
Massechet (Yoma 25a) is assigned their role in terms of which sacrifice to offer by means of a
lottery, the Kohen Gadol himself can choose decide which offerings to first offer and which of
those he will eat.

However, if – as the Beraita states - the Kohen Gadol does have priority rights, then why are we
told that he makes these various declarations of “I will offer this Olah” or “I will eat this Chatat”?
Who is the Kohen Gadol talking to?

According to the ‘pshat’, he is talking to the Anshei Mishmar – meaning the Kohanim who are on
duty during that time. However, there is another way of understanding these declarations - which
is that the Kohen Gadol is actually talking to himself. And why? Because when a person is involved
in an important activity, they often are bolstered by the chizuk (encouragement) they receive from
others, and when they are working on their own, they need even more chizuk - which often has to
come from themselves.

Given this, it is possible to interpret these declarations as a form of self-encouragement and self-
coaching by the Kohen Gadol for himself, to help him work through, and feel confident in, the
choices and actions he is taking.

5
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

19
Sefer notes that the examples used to illustrate the privileges of the Kohen Gadol
are varied. Regarding exercising his right to officiate over an offering, the examples used are an
olah and a minchah. In illustrating his choosing to take a portion to eat, though, the examples used
are a chattas and asham.6

Why did the Baraisa not use the same examples throughout? The illustration of officiating uses an
olah and a minchah. An olah is completely burned on the Altar. So, too, we infer that the minchah
discussed is one which is totally burned on the Altar. This refers to a minchah of a kohen, as we
find (Vayikra 6:16). This teaches us a fascinating halachah.

The Kohen Gadol has the right to step in and take over the processing of an offering, even if it is
the personal offering of the kohen who would otherwise be officiating. Normally, the family group
of kohanim who are serving have priority status in officiating at the service. The exception to this
is where a kohen comes and brings his own offering.

The kohen-owner is allowed to bring his own offering, and the current family kohanim do not take
charge (see Bava Kamma 109b). The Kohen Gadol, however, is special, in that he can take over
and officiate even at the personal offering of another kohen.

We might also assume that the privilege of the Kohen Gadol to take the first portion only applies
to an offering in whose service he participated. This would be an extension of the normal halachah
that the kohen who officiates at an offering has a mitzvah to eat from it. Although all other kohanim
may also eat from it, their pieces may be even less than a ‫ כזית‬.

The kohen who officiates, however, must fulfill the mitzvah by eating at least a ‫ כזית‬from the meat.
The lesson of our Gemara, however, is that the Kohen Gadol may eat from any edible offering,
even though he did not participate in the service of that offering at all.

This is hinted at in the fact that the Baraisa did not illustrate the halachah of the ‫ סיפא‬using the case
of olah, and it changed the type of offering (chattas or asham) in describing the privilege of his
partaking of any portion he wished.

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20017.pdf

20
Kesef Mishna (1) writes that in the Rambam’s opinion the Kohen Gadol has the first right to take
the nicest portion, even when he did not officiate at its service. This is similar to the honor that
non-kohanim must accord Kohanim (2) based on the Mitzvah of “‫ וקדשתו‬- and you shall sanctify
him.” Nonetheless, there is a difference between these two cases. The mitzvah to honor the Kohen
Gadol is a mitzvah to honor the person himself, whereas the obligation to honor Kohanim refers
to the collective group of Kohanim and not necessarily a specific person.

Therefore, according to some Poskim (3) if there is one serving plate, as is commonly found in
yeshivos, non-kohanim only have to defer to one Kohen because once they have deferred to a
Kohen they have fulfilled their duty to honor Kohanim. Once the mitzvah is fulfilled they do not
have to allow all of the Kohanim to take before them.

Similarly, there are Poskim who opine (4) that blemished Kohanim or Kohanim who are minors
are considered Kohanim for the mitzvah of “and you shall sanctify him.” Although they are not fit
to work in the Beis HaMikdash the mitzvah will still apply since they are part of the group of
Kohanim.

Mark Kerzner writes:7

7
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma17.html

21
On all the days of the year other than Yom Kippur the High Priest does not do the
regular daily Temple duties - unless he wants to. In that case, he has the right to say, "I
will offer this burnt offering," or "I will offer this flour offering," or "I will eat this sin-
offering," and so on.

For more special offering he is entitled to a portion of it. For example, he can have one
lamb of the two brought on Shavuot. The special "Bread of Vision," which induced
mystical visions, was distributed among the Kohanim on every Shabbat. Of these
twelve breads he takes four or five. Now, this division is not logical. In the first case he
was entitled to exactly half, and in the second - to less than half. Also, what does "four
or five" mean?

However, in this rule we have a mixture of different opinions. First, there is one that
says that the High Priest can have up to half of the total - based on the Torah's phrase,
"To Aaron and his sons," which is understood as "half to Aaron and half to his sons."

Another opinion is that he takes less than half - that is the "four or five" out of twelve.
However, it could also be that all agree that he takes less than half; as far as one loaf on
Shavuot - it would not be polite to break it. There is also an opinion that two of the
twelve breads of vision are given as a reward for the closing of the gates, and the
remaining ten are divided between the rest - this explains the "four" as less than half of
ten.

22
Background to David’s interaction with Achimelech: I SAM 21

After the destruction of the Sanctuary in Shilo in the days of Eli the Priest, the Sanctuary was re-
established in the city of Nov , which was entirely given over to Cohanim (priests). Achimelech,
who ministered as the High Priest in the Sanctuary, is identical with Achiyah mentioned in I
Samuel 14:3 (see also 22:9).8

David was in flight from Saul when he came to Nov - alone and unarmed, and apparently starving
to the point of being in mortal danger. Numerous halachic questions surround David's eating of
the "holy" bread in the Sanctuary since Achimelech stated that there was no "profane" bread
(=CHULIN) available. RaDaK (on v 6) offers his father's opinion that the bread that Achimelech
gave David was from the loaves of a TODAH (thanksgiving) offering, which are permitted to a
ZAR ("stranger", non-Cohen) as long as he is ritually pure (and this is why Achimelech tactfully
checked that David had not been with his wife recently, which would have made him defiled with
TUM'AS KERI, vv 5-6).

However, RaDaK evidently prefers the more obvious though halachically difficult PSHAT of this
passage, adopted by the Talmudic sages (Menachos 95b), which is that the "holy bread" that
Achimelech gave David was actually the LECHEM HAPONIM ("showbread") from the Golden
Table in the Sanctuary. Twelve new loaves were placed on the Table each Shabbos, while the

8
https://www.azamra.org/Bible/I%20Samuel%2020-21.htm

23
loaves that had sat there for the previous week were removed and divided up between the High
Priest (who took six loaves) and all the other priests (who shared the rest; see Leviticus 24:5-9.)

The priests were only allowed to eat the showbread AFTER the incense in the golden spoons that
sat on the table side by side with the bread all week had been burned on the Altar (as the AZKARA,
"memorial" Lev. 24: 7 - for the Altar had no share in the showbread itself). This is the meaning of
David's words to Achimelech (v 6) "and it is by way of profane" - i.e. the incense had ALREADY
BEEN BURNED, thereby releasing the bread for consumption.

David went on to say, ".even if today it had been sanctified in the ministering vessel" (ibid.)
meaning that in any case, even if this was the new bread that had only just been sanctified for
putting on the golden table, he would still have been permitted to eat it because of SAKONAS
NEFOSHOS - a danger to life. All the commandments of the Torah (except for the prohibitions
against idolatry, murder and fornication) are suspended if there is a danger to life.

RaDaK also explains why Achimelech could not provide David with any other bread despite the
fact that there must have been bread somewhere in the city of Nov. Nov was a city of priests,
whose main food is Terumah. The penalty for a ZAR who eats Terumah is death at the hands of
heaven, and although David would have been permitted to eat Terumah because of SAKONAS
NEFOSHOS, it is preferable, where there is a choice, to feed the person in danger with the less
serious of two prohibited items. While a ZAR is also forbidden to eat the Showbread, doing so
does not carry the penalty of death at the hands of heaven like Terumah.

Thus it was that David, although not a Cohen, tasted from the LECHEM HAPANIM, the "bread
of the inner face", which remained hot on the Sanctuary Table for over a week from the day it was
baked before Shabbos until the time the priests ate it on the following Shabbos (v 7 as explained
in Menachos 96b). The heat of the bread is the same as the heat of the sun which God took out of
its "scabbard" after Abraham circumcised himself and sat at the door of his tent "in the heat of the
day" (Gen. 18:1). Circumcision strips off the thick concealing outer ORLAH foreskin from the
world, exposing and revealing the inner PNIMIUS ("interiority") that governs everything. The
"heat" of the sun of revelation burns up all God's enemies (see Likutey Moharan I, 30:9).

The Talmud (Menachos 95b) comments on the enormous good that comes from feeding a needy
person even a mouthful. If Jonathan had had the good sense to provide David with a couple of
loaves of bread when he fled, the priests of Nov would not have been slaughtered, Do'eg the
Edomite would not have been driven out from the life eternal, and Saul and his three sons would
not have been killed.

As it was, David, who was starving and in mortal danger, had no choice but to stop at the Sanctuary
to eat the LECHEM HAPONIM, and while there he was seen by the sinister DO'EG, who as
discussed previously is emblematic of Torah brilliance turned perverse. Thus he was called an
Edomite, not only because Edom was the name of his town, but also because he was jealous of
David, who was called ADMONI ("ruddy"), and because he ruled that the priests of Nov should
be massacred, that David's wife could be given to another man and that Agag should not be killed
- he turned everyone's face red with shame in face of his "brilliant" rulings and tried to consume
David's merits like the red thread that swallows up the merits of Israel (Yalkut).

24
The text states that Do'eg was "NE-ETZAR before Hashem" (v 8) - i.e. he was "detained" at the
Sanctuary in Nov. NE-ETZAR also carries the connotation of "was closed up, constipated" - the
Sages taught that Do'eg did not purify his body of waste when he studied, and this was the reason
for his perversity (See Likutey Moharan I, 61.)9

;‫ ַהֹכֵּהן‬š‫ֲאִחיֶמֶל‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫ב ַוָיּב ֹא ָד ִוד ֹנֶבה‬ 2 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and
‫ ַויּ ֹאֶמר לוֹ‬,‫ ִלְקַראת ָדּ ִוד‬š‫ַוֶיֱּחַרד ֲאִחיֶמֶל‬ Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said unto
.š‫ ֵאין ִאָתּ‬,‫ ְוִאישׁ‬,Ÿ‫ַמדּוַּﬠ ַאָתּה ְלַבֶדּ‬ him: 'Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?'

š‫ ַהֶמֶּל‬,‫ ַהֹכֵּהן‬š‫ג ַויּ ֹאֶמר ָדּ ִוד ַלֲאִחיֶמֶל‬ 3 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest: 'The king hath
‫ֵיַדע‬-‫ ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֵאַלי ִאישׁ ַאל‬,‫ִצַוּ ִני ָדָבר‬ commanded me a business, and hath said unto me: Let no
,Ÿ‫ָא ֹנִכי ֹשֵׁלֲח‬-‫ַהָדָּבר ֲאֶשׁר‬-‫ְמאוָּמה ֶאת‬ man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee,
-‫ ֶאל‬,‫ַה ְנָּﬠ ִרים יוַֹדְﬠִתּי‬-‫; ְוֶאת‬Ÿ‫ַוֲאֶשׁר ִצ ִוּיִת‬ and what I have commanded thee; and the young men have
.‫ ִני ַאְלמוֹ ִני‬¥‫ְמקוֹם ְפּ‬ I appointed to such and such a place.

-‫ ֲחִמָשּׁה‬Ÿ‫ָיְד‬-‫ֵיּשׁ ַתַּחת‬-‫ ַמה‬,‫ד ְוַﬠָתּה‬ 4 Now therefore what is under thy hand? five loaves of
.‫ ַה ִנְּמָצא‬,‫ְתָּנה ְבָיִדי; אוֹ‬--‫ֶלֶחם‬ bread? give them in my hand, or whatsoever there is present.'

‫ֶלֶחם‬-‫ ֵאין‬,‫ָדּ ִוד ַויּ ֹאֶמר‬-‫ה ַוַיַּﬠן ַהֹכֵּהן ֶאת‬ 5 And the priest answered David and said: 'There is no
,‫ֶלֶחם ֹקֶדשׁ ֵישׁ‬-‫ִאם‬-‫ ִכּי‬:‫ַתַּחת ָיִדי‬-‫ֹחל ֶאל‬ common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; if
{‫ }פ‬.‫ ֵמִאָשּׁה‬š‫ ִנְשְׁמרוּ ַה ְנָּﬠ ִרים ַא‬-‫ִאם‬ only the young men have kept themselves from women.' {P}

-‫ ִכּי ִאם‬,‫ַהֹכֵּהן ַויּ ֹאֶמר לוֹ‬-‫ו ַוַיַּﬠן ָדּ ִוד ֶאת‬ 6 And David answered the priest, and said unto him: 'Of a
,‫ ְבֵּצאִתי‬,‫ָלנוּ ִכְּתמוֹל ִשְׁלֹשׁם‬-‫ִאָשּׁה ֲﬠֻצָרה‬ truth women have been kept from us about these three days;
š‫ ֶדֶּר‬,‫ ְוהוּא‬:‫ַה ְנָּﬠ ִרים ֹקֶדשׁ‬-‫ַו ִיְּהיוּ ְכֵלי‬ when I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy,
.‫ ִכּי ַהיּוֹם ִיְקַדּשׁ ַבֶּכִּלי‬,‫ ְוַאף‬--‫ֹחל‬ though it was but a common journey; how much more then
to-day, when there shall be holy bread in their vessels?'

‫ָהָיה ָשׁם‬-‫ ִכּי ל ֹא‬:‫ ֹקֶדשׁ‬,‫לוֹ ַהֹכֵּהן‬-‫ז ַו ִיֶּתּן‬ 7 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread
‫ֶלֶחם ַהָפּ ִנים ַהמּוָּס ִרים‬-‫ִאם‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫ֶלֶחם‬ there but the showbread, that was taken from before the
‫ ְבּיוֹם‬,‫ ָלשׂוּם ֶלֶחם ֹחם‬,‫ִמִלְּפֵני ְיהָוה‬ LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.-
.‫ִהָלְּקחוֹ‬ -

I Sam 21:2-9

9
From this point on in the narrative David is a fugitive from Saul’s court. During this time, Saul’s active pursuit of David forces
him to be constantly on the run. But this seeming hardship is in fact a blessing that in these trying times prepares David to be King
of Judah and Israel. In our text David must rely on his wits (that is, falsely represent himself to the priest at Nob) in order to obtain
needed food and weapons. While David’s lie is troubling, the text invites us to see God’s support of his anointed in these mundane
activities. David eats the holy bread of the Presence and wields the deeply symbolic holy sword of Goliath, rendered sacred as the
spoil of the holy war in chapter 17.

25
 The Prohibition of Bamot
Rav Yitzchak Levy writes:10

We will examine Israel's worship of God during the time that the Mishkan stood in Nov.

"I Am Come to Sacrifice to the Lord"

Following God's rejection of Shaul, God sends Shemuel to Yishay of Bet-Lechem to anoint his
son David as king of Israel. Upon hearing these instructions, Shemuel asks God as follows:

How can I go? If Shaul hears it, he will kill me. (I Shemuel 16:2).[1]

And God responds:

Take a heifer with you, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord. (ibid.)

This implies that Shemuel's statement that he came to Bet-Lechem to sacrifice to God would have
been an acceptable explanation of his arrival in that city. As is stated in the commentaries to this
passage, during the period that the Mishkan stood in Giv'on, bamot were permitted and one could
offer a sacrifice wherever one so desired. Indeed, it may have been Shemuel's practice to offer
sacrifices in the places that he visited, as Scripture attests to the building of an altar in Rama:

And he went from year to year in circuit to Bet-El, and Gilgal, and Mitzpa, and judged
Israel in all those places. And his return was to Rama; for there was his house, and there
he judged Israel; and there he built an altar to the Lord. (7:16-17)

It is possible that he built altars in other locations that he visited, even though this is not explicitly
mentioned in the text.

10
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lecture-251-history-divine-service-altars-lxi-%E2%80%93-prohibition-bamot-xxxviii

26
This proposal stems only from the fact that God's suggestion to Shemuel serves as a cover story
that would have been accepted by the people of Bet-Lechem. On the other hand, the fact that in
actual practice the people of Bet-Lechem trembled at Shemuel's coming (16:3) can be understood
in accordance with the view of the Ralbag, that they thought he was bringing a heifer whose neck
is broken, which is brought when a murdered person's body is found outside a town and it is not
known who caused his death, rather than a sacrifice offered to God.

Moreover, it should be noted that Shaul as well was anointed king at the time of a feast
accompanying a sacrifice, as is explicitly stated: "For he came to day to the city; for the people are
making a sacrifice today in the high place" (9:12).

In addition, when David escapes from Shaul as he flees from Nayot in Rama, David says to
Yonatan as follows:

And David said to Yonatan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to
sit with the king at the meal: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field until the
third day at evening. If your father should miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave
of me that he might run to Bet-Lechem his city; for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all
his family. (20:5-6)

The Radak explains (ad loc.): "It was their customary practice for the members of a family to bring
peace-offerings one day during the year. And so it is stated with regard to Elkana: "to offer to the
Lord his yearly sacrifice" (1:21) (v. 7, s.v. zevach ha-yamim).[2]

It follows from these various sources that it was customary to bring peace-offerings once a year,
and to invite all one's family members to participate in the feast. This is also implied[3] by the
account recorded in the beginning of the book of Shemuel about how Elkana would offer a sacrifice
every year when he went with his family on a pilgrimage to the Mishkan, which stood at that time
in Shilo. It stands to reason that after Shilo was destroyed and bamot were once again permitted,
the family heads would offer their annual sacrifices at the bama in their respective cities.

"Sanctify Yourselves and Come with Me to the Lord"

27
 And Shemuel did that which the Lord spoke and came to Bet-Lechem. And the elders of
the town trembled at his coming, and said, Come you in peace? And he said, In Peace: I
am come to sacrifice to the Lord: sanctify yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice
(zevach). And he sanctified Yishay and his sons and called them to the sacrifice (zevach).
(16:4-5)

As part of the invitation that he extended to the people to come and participate in the sacrifice,
Shemuel tells them to first sanctify themselves. The Torah states in the book of Vayikra that one
must sanctify and purify himself before consuming sacrificial meat:

‫ ִמֶזַּבח‬,‫תּ ֹאַכל ָבָּשׂר‬-‫כ ְוַהֶנֶּפשׁ ֲאֶשׁר‬ 20 But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-
-‫ ָﬠָליו‬,‫ ְוֻטְמָאתוֹ‬,‫ַהְשָּׁלִמים ֲאֶשׁר ַליהָוה‬ offerings, that pertain unto the LORD, having his uncleanness
.‫ ֵמַﬠֶמּיָה‬,‫ ְו ִנְכ ְרָתה ַהֶנֶּפשׁ ַהִהוא‬- upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Lev 7:20

But the person that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain to the
Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people.

It is important to emphasize that the term zevach can refer either to a sacrifice or to a feast. It may
be suggested that Shemuel explicitly invited the elders of the town to the feast accompanying the
sacrifice, whereas Yishai and his sons he also invited to stand together with him at the time of the
sacrifice.

The Ralbag offers a different explanation of the fact that Shemuel sanctified only Yishai and his
sons:

"And say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord." According to this, this means that when he
comes to Bet-Lechem and it becomes clear to them that a corpse was not found there on the
ground, he should say to the townspeople that he came to sacrifice to the Lord, and this is
very reasonable, and for this reason you find that Shemuel sanctified from among the people
of Bet-Lechem only Yishay and his sons so that his secret not be revealed.

28
The words, "And he sanctified Yishay and his sons," should be understood to mean that Shemuel
commanded them to sanctify themselves, similar to what happened at Mount Sinai: "And the Lord
said to Moshe, Go to the people, and sanctify them" (Shemot 19:10).[4]

David's Arrival in Nov the City of the Priests

After it becomes clear beyond all doubt that it is Shaul's intention to kill David, David flees, and
his first stop is Nov the city of the priests.

This is the first explicit mention in Scripture of the Mishkan's presence in Nov after the destruction
of Shilo (which is not stated explicitly in the book of Shemuel, but only
in Tehillim 78 and Yirmeyahu 7).

In our discussion of what happened in Nov, we wish do deal with three matters:

1. The showbread.

2. Goliath’s sword.

3. Ahimelech’s inquiry of God.

These matters do not relate directly to Israel's spiritual state and worship of God during this period,
but they are connected to three questions relating to the essential nature of the Mishkan and the
great bama in Nov. First, what is the possible non-sacred use of the showbread, and under what
conditions is such use permitted? Second, what is the meaning of the connection between the sword
of Goliath and the great bama; is the great bama the expected and appropriate place for storing
that sword? And third, what are the parameters governing usage of the Urim and Tumim; for whom
may they be used, for what questions, and to what extent does it depend on the king?

It is not our intention to expand on the chapter's background, on the chapter's significance in the
framework of the relationship between Shaul and David, on David's conduct with respect to
Achimelech, or on his direct or indirect responsibility for the destruction of the city of Nov and
the slaughter of Achimelech and the eighty priests. These are matters for a separate shiur. We wish

29
to deal with matters that will help us better understand various aspects of the worship of God at
the Mishkan, in this case, at the great bama in Nov.

The Non-Sacred Use of Showbread

David arrives in Nov hungry and without any weapons. He deceives Achimelech and tells him that
he has come on an urgent secret mission on behalf of the king, and therefore he could not stock up
on food or weapons.

The verses record the conversation between David and Achimelech as follows:

Now therefore what is under your hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or
whatever there is. And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread in
my hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from
women. And David answered the priest, and said to him, Of a truth women have been kept
from us as always when I am on a journey, and the vessels of the young men are holy,
(although it is a common journey,) how much more today where there will be hallowed
bread in their vessel. So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there
but the showbread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in its place on
the day when it was taken away. (21:4-7)

A major question that arises here is how David could have eaten showbread. Surely it is explicitly
stated:

-‫ָכּל‬-‫ ט ְוָהָיה ַביּוֹם ַהְשִּׁביִﬠי ְיַגַלּח ֶאת‬9 And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all
‫ְזָקנוֹ ְוֵאת ַגֹּבּת‬-‫ר ֹאשׁוֹ ְוֶאת‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ ְשָׂﬠרוֹ‬his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all
-‫ ְיַגֵלַּח; ְוִכֶבּס ֶאת‬,‫ְשָׂﬠרוֹ‬-‫ָכּל‬-‫ ְוֶאת‬,‫ ֵﬠיָניו‬his hair he shall shave off; and he shall wash his clothes, and
.‫ ְוָטֵהר‬--‫ְבָּשׂרוֹ ַבַּמּ ִים‬-‫ ְוָרַחץ ֶאת‬,‫ְבָּגָדיו‬ he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

Lev 14:9

"And it shall be Aharon's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most
holy to him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpetual due."[5]

30
The Ralbag and the Radak's father suggest that "the hallowed bread" refers to loaves that
accompany a thanksgiving offering (see Vayikra 7:11-12). A portion of those loaves are eaten only
by priests and their wives, but the rest may be eaten by non-priests as well, provided that they are
ritually pure. This interpretation is difficult because Scripture itself refers to the bread as
showbread. Showbread falls into the category of holy of holies, and in general can be eaten only
by pure priests in a holy place.

Achimelech has no non-hallowed bread to offer, but only hallowed bread, and that with a condition
that he stipulates with the young men. (Achimelech means to include David himself in his question
but does not mention him specifically as a show of respect). It is reasonable to assume that anyone
arriving at the Mishkan or at the great bama would remove from himself all impurity.

The verse implies that the incident took place on Shabbat, because it is on Shabbat that the old
showbread is removed and replaced by fresh showbread. Let us examine Rashi's answer ad
loc.[6] As for the non-sacred use of the showbread, he writes: "When it is removed from the table
and the bowls [of incense] are burned, they are close to being non-hallowed, as it is no longer
subject to the prohibition of trespass, once it is permitted to the priests" (v. 6, s.v. vehu derekh).

Secondly, regarding David's eating of the holy showbread: "And even if it had been first
consecrated on the table today, he would have had to remove it from there and feed it to him, as
he was overcome by ravenous hunger and in danger." That is to say, according to this
understanding, this was a situation of mortal danger (piku'ach nefesh),[7] which sets aside all
prohibitions.

And similarly, the Radak (ad loc.):

Even if Achimelech had no non-hallowed bread, was there nowhere in the city non-hallowed
bread that David could borrow from one of the city's residents, so that Achimelech had to
give him hallowed bread? … Since [the city] was entirely inhabited by priests, and no
Israelite dwelled among them, the entire city consisted of people who could eat teruma,
and teruma for non-priests is a sin subject to the death penalty. And one whose life is in
danger because of hunger may be fed food that is prohibited to him, if we have nothing
permitted. And from among two prohibited foods, we feed him the one with the lighter
prohibition. Therefore, Achimelech gave him showbread removed from before God, as it is

31
 not subject to the prohibition of trespass after the bowls of incense are burned, and David
certainly arrived before Achimelech on a weekday.

Goliath’s Sword in the Mishkan at Nov

And David said to Achimelech, and is there not here under your hand a spear or a sword?
For I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king's
business was urgent. And the priest said, the sword of Goliath the Pelishti, whom you did
slay in the valley of Ela, behold it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the efod: if you will
take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, there is none like
that; give it to me. (21:9-10)

Following David's victory over Goliath, the verse states: "And David took the head of the Pelishti
and brought it to Jerusalem; and put his armor in his tent" (17:54).

The Radak (ad loc.) explains:

This refers to the rest of his weapons, but not his sword, for the sword he put in the Tent of
Meeting in Nov, as it says below: "Wrapped in a cloth" (21:10).[8] It was there as a
reminder of this great miracle, and anybody who came to the Tent of Meeting in Nov to offer
sacrifice or to pray would see it and remember the miracle and offer thanks to God, blessed
be He, and direct his heart to Him, and magnify his trust in him. (s.v. sam be-ohalo)

As for the note, "behind [or: after] the efod," the Radak (21:10) offers two explanations:

The first:

It is possible to explain that it hung behind the place where the efod and the choshen rested.

The second:

After inquiring for him through the efod, that is, after he inquired for him about his way
through the efod of the choshen, afterwards he said to him that he should take this sword.
As Doeg said to him: "And he inquired of the Lord for him" (22:10). And so too Shaul said
to Achimelech: "And you have inquired of God for him" (22:13). And Achimelech did not

32
 deny this, but rather said: "Did I then begin to inquire of God for him" (22:15). In my
opinion, this explanation is right, but it is not the plain sense of the verse, based on its
location…."[9]

The presence of Goliath’s sword at the great bama in Giv'on is based on the understanding that
God is "a man of war" (Shemot 15:3), that is, victory in battle comes from God. Just as the ark is
taken out to the battlefield when necessary, so the enemy's sword is placed to rest in the Mishkan,
to publicize the miracle and to attribute thereby the great victory to God Himself.

The Inquiry of God

Targum Yonatan understands that "behind the efod" means: "after inquiring through the efod."
While it is true that the Radak understands the verse not in its plain sense, let us examine what he
says regarding the conversation between Doeg the Edomite and Achimelech before Shaul:

And he inquired of the Lord for him, and gave him food, and gave him the sword of Goliath
the Pelishti…

Then Achimelech answered… Did I then begin to inquire of God for him? Be it far from me: let
not the king impute anything to his servant, nor to all the house of my father; for your servant knew
nothing of all this, less or more. (22:10-15)

The Radak explains:

To tell him the way he should go and he fled from before me. And according to the Midrash
(Shochar Tov 52, 5): I made him king, as inquiry through the Urim and Tumim is made only
for the king, the av bet din and one who is needed by the community (v. 13, s.v. ve'sha'ol lo).

This is the way R. Yosef Kara explains the words of Doeg:

This is what Doeg said to Shaul: Achimelech made David king during your lifetime, for
inquiry is made through the Urim and Tuvim only on behalf of the king and the community.

The Ralbag explains Ahimelech’s answer to Shaul as follows:

33
 Shaul thought that his inquiry of God was whether he would succeed in his rebellion against
Shaul, defeating him in battle. And Ahimelech’s answer was that far be it from him, as he
knew nothing of this matter. Whatever he did, he did thinking that David was the most
faithful of Shaul's servants and the most obedient to him. (v. 11, s.v. Achimelech ben Achituv)

"Did I then begin to inquire of God for him?" That is to say, Did I then begin to inquire of
God for him that you suspect me of this? Surely several times I inquired of God for him as
your agent on the matter of Israel's wars, as he took Israel out to battle and brought them
back. (v. 15)

In other words, relying on the words of Doeg the Edomite Shaul suspects that Achimelech was
helping David, making use of the Urim and Tumim in order to rebel against Shaul. Achimelech
answers that he knew nothing and suspected nothing of David, as he was one of Shaul's most loyal
men. What is more, he had often in the past inquired of God for David before he went out to battle
on behalf of Shaul, and for this reason Shaul should not be suspicious of Ahimelech’s intentions.
But it is clear from the text that Doeg related what happened in a way that would raise Shaul's
suspicions.

Shaul's verdict follows from his understanding of David as having rebelled against him, the king,
and of Achimelech as having assisted him to realize his objective by inquiring of God on his behalf.
According to the Halakha, inquiry by way of the Urim and Tumim can be made only on behalf of
the king, the av bet din, and somebody who is needed by the community. Here, according to Shaul's
suspicions, Achimelech grants practical recognition to David's right to rule as king.

In this shiur we examined what took place at the great bama in Nov during the time
that bamot were permitted. We examined the story of David's flight to Achimelech the priest, and
we related briefly to three issues: David's eating of the showbread, the significance of the presence
of Goliath’s sword in the Mishkan, and the significance of Ahimelech’s inquiry of God. They point
to the general spiritual atmosphere, including what was done at the great bama in Nov during the
period when bamot were permitted. At the beginning of the shiur, we also discussed Shemuel's

34
arrival to anoint David as king, to offer sacrifices to God, and to sanctify himself in anticipation
of the sacrifices.11

NOTES

[1] Unless noted otherwise, references to Biblical verses relate to I Shemuel.

[2] See also Metzudat Ziyyon and R. Yosef Kara, ad loc.

[3] This is also the understanding of Yehuda Kil in his Da'at Mikra commentary (I Shemuel 20:6).

[4] In this framework we have not related to the meaning of the term "spirit of God," the plain meaning of which is "spirit of

bravery," the meaning of the removal of the spirit of God from Shaul and its resting on David from the day that he was anointed

king, the matter of the playing of music which allows for the removal of the evil spirit, or the symbolic and practical meaning of

God being with Shaul or David.

So too we have not related to the words of Chazal in Zevachim 54a, that in Nayot in Rama Shaul and David were engaged in the

beauty (noyav) of the world, which according to Rashi means that they were involved in searching for the site of the Temple in the

Torah. (According to the plain sense of the verses, David comes to Shemuel, after he anointed him as king, so that he might advise

him how to deal with Shaul.) The significance of this is that even before actually ascending the throne in practice, David dreamed

of building the Temple and searched for its location together with the prophet Shemuel.

[5] As for mention of five loaves, it might be (and this is the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Yoma 17b) that this is the portion of

the High Priest from the twelve loaves of showbread.

[6] Rashi's position is based on Menachot 95b.

[7] See also Yoma 83a and Yerushalmi, Yoma 8:5.

11
Translated by David Strauss

35
[8] The Radak connects this expression "wrapped (lota) in a cloth" to "And he wrapped (vayalet) his face" (I Melakhim 19:13) and

"the covering (penei ha-lot)" (Yeshaya 25:7). Ralbag explains: "Hidden and covered in a cloth."

[9] Regarding the efod, he raises another possiblity:

"Alternatively, this efod is not the efod of the choshen, but rather a linen efod, which was a garment worn by the priests and servants

of God, as it says: 'Eighty five persons that did wear a linen efod' (22:18); and it is written: 'And David was girded with a

linen efod' (II Shemuel 6:14). And this sword hung behind these garments. And this is correct."

Rabbi Avrohom Sebrow writes:12

It seems that sitting in the left lane, engine idling, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so you can
make a left-hand turn is wasteful not only of time and peace of mind, but also of gas and therefore
money. This realization motivated UPS to limit the number of left-hand turns its drivers make.

In 2006, according to Heather Robinson, a UPS spokeswoman, route-planning software that

reduced left turns helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes, which has
resulted in savings of roughly 3 million gallons of gas. In 2012, by using routing technology and
avoiding idling at lights for left-hand turns, UPS was able to avoid 98 million minutes of idle time.

Lehavdil, we find a similar preference for right turns in halachah. However, right off the bat we
should note that it is for a totally different reason. The right was preferred even it did not save any
time. Our daf states (Yoma 17b), “All turns that you turn should be a right towards the east.”
The Mizbeiach in the Beis HaMikdash was square, with a ramp beside it. When the kohein walked
up the ramp, he was facing north. To his left was the western side, which had the Heichal and
Kodesh HaKedashim; to his right was the eastern side with most of the courtyard. If a kohein
wanted to perform avodah in the southwest corner of the Altar, he would walk up the ramp, turn

12
http://www.5tjt.com/doing-the-right-thing/

36
right, walk to the southeast corner, and continue all the way around the Altar until he reached the
southwest corner.

The Gemara states the reason is that one should always turn right onto the Mizbeiach. (This is
derived from verses in Tanach.) If the kohein were to make a left onto the Altar at the top of the
ramp, the route would be much shorter. However, the halachah is that when it comes right down
to it, we prefer a circuitous route of right turns around the Altar rather than making a left. The
subsequent turns are right turns, since the kohein is facing the Altar. So if the kohein wants to go
left, he makes five rights. Simply turning left would be dead to rights. (There are three significant
exceptions to this rule, and the Gemara explains that in those situations a right was not possible.)

The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 141:7) rules that during k’rias haTorah when the gabbai tells you to
step right up for an aliyah, you should take the shortest route to the bimah and not specifically the
route that would take you to the right side of the bimah. The Mishnah Berurah, quoting the
Acharonim, offers two explanations. The first is that it’s downright tircha d’tzibbura to keep the
congregation waiting for you to take a longer route. The congregation has a right to their pursuit
of snappiness.

The second is that when you are called to read the Torah, you should get right on it. That
demonstrates how dear the Torah, your birthright, is to you. So, if the shortest route takes you to
the left of the bimah, that’s the righteous path to choose.

If the path to the left and right of the bimah are equidistant, the Shulchan Aruch rules that you
should enter the bimah on the right side. The bimah is representative of the Altar. Just as on the
Altar we instructed the kohein to enter on the right, so too we instruct the person getting an aliyah
to enter the bimah on the right.

37
The Vilna Gaon concurs that the Shulchan Aruch is certainly right on when he gives preference to
entering the bimah on the right. However, the Vilna Gaon forthrightly states that the upright person
who gets an aliyah should hang a right on his path to the bimah even if it is a longer route. As
explained above, the bimah is representative of the Altar. The kohein was on the right track when
he took the longer route to the right of the Altar instead the shorter left route. So, too, the Vilna
Gaon reasons that the person heading to the bimah should take steps in the right direction and enter
the bimah on the right, even if it takes longer.

This article will certainly not decide who is right in this machlokes, but it is worth noting that the
Mishnah Berurah does not even mention the Vilna Gaon’s opinion. It would seem that you are
within your rights if you head to the left of the bimah if that is the shorter route.

The Mishnah Berurah notes that the halachah may very well be different for the chazan who is
carrying the sefer Torah from the Aron Kodesh to the bimah. He perhaps should enter the bimah
on the right side even if it is the longer route. It is improper for the tzibbur to wait for one individual
who is getting an aliyah while he takes the longer route to the right. There is, however, nothing
improper about the tzibbur directing their appointed messenger to take a longer route. Also, the
person getting an aliyah takes the shorter route to the left to show that he holds the Torah dear, and
his heart is in the right place. His path is taking him towards the Torah. However, the chazzan is
holding the Torah right off the bat. So, he can take the longer route to the right without showing
any disrespect to the Torah.

All right already, we know that when it comes to the Altar or the bimah the right is preferred. But
if your GPS is failing, and you don’t rightly know which way to turn, should you turn right? The
Talmud simply states (Yoma 17b), “All turns that you turn should be a right towards the east.”
One can be forgiven for assuming this to be a rule for life. The Mishneh Halachos points out that
the Gemara clearly states in response to a question that this rule “only applies to Temple service.”
When you’re driving, choose any direction, as long as you have the right of way.

38
39