Parshat Emor is the first time the lechem hapanim is described in the Torah. In Parshat Terumah (Shemot 25:30), describing the shulchan, the Torah first mentions the lechem hapanim, but does not describe what it is.
After the Torah describes the menorah in Parshat Terumah (Shemot 25:31), it follows shortly after in Tezaveh with a description of what oil to light it with (Shemot 27:20). After the Torah describes the mizbe’ach haketoret in Parshat Tetzaveh (Shemot 30:1), it follows shortly after (23 pesukim later) with a description of what the ketoret is. Why does the Torah wait another 12 parshiot, all the way until Parshat Emor, to describe the lechem hapanim? Why not simply follow the description of the shulchan with the description of the lechem hapanim, in Parshat Terumah, or shortly after?
The Zohar HaKadosh (Part B, 154a) resolves a debate in the Gemara, which tries to determine what is the essence. Is the shulchan the essence (Zevachim 87a), or is the lechem hapanim (resting on the shulchan) the essence (Menachot 100a)? The Zohar says that the shulchan is the essence, and he compares it to a tree, the lechem hapanim to its fruit. Without the “tree” there can be no “fruit.”
Following this train of thought, one might say that the parshiot of the Mishkan in Sefer Shemot focus on the “trees.” They describe the shulchan, the menorah and the mizbe’ach haketoret in intricate detail, but focus less on the “fruits” of these “trees” – i.e the lechem hapanim, the oil for the menorah and the ketoret for the mizbe’ach haketoret. They focus on the “permanent” structures and less on the transient, ever replenished “ingredients/raw materials” which are associated with these vessels.
Except, as we see above, this is not entirely true. The Torah does describe the oil for the menorah and the ketoret for the mizbe’ach in close proximity to the vessels themselves in Sefer Shemot. All three are in the category of “temidin,” regular offerings in the Mishkan. So why is the lechem hapanim the exception?
One might say that the menorah and the ketoret were “temidin,” while the lechem hapanim was only switched once a week, on Shabbat. However, although it was only switched once a week, the lechem hapanim was on the shulchan every day, a korban in itself, a repeating miracle that occurred each day anew.
So, the question remains – why wait until Parshat Emor, and specifically after the section of the festivals (Vayikra, chap. 23) to describe the lechem hapanim?
The Rokeach (Hilchot Purim, siman 240) asks this question. Why are the festivals followed by paragraphs discussing the oil for the menorah and then the lechem hapanim? The Rokeach says that the festivals listed in Emor are all the festivals that are de’orayta – from the Torah. However, by immediately following the festivals with the parsha of the oil for the menorah and the lechem hapanim, the Torah is also hinting to the festivals which are de’rabanan, through the oil – Chanukah, and the lechem hapanim – Purim. The association of oil to Chanukah is obvious, but not necessarily the connection between the lechem hapanim and Purim. The Rokeach says that the lechem hapanim conjures up the image of a seudah, a feast, which is reminiscent of Purim – Achashveirosh’s feast and our Purim feast, during which bread is eaten.
This is an incredible perush of the Rokeach and explains why the lechem hapanim is mentioned in Parshat Emor, but it does not explain why the lechem hapanim was not detailed in Shemot, like the oil and the ketoret.
To understand why the lechem hapanim is not detailed in Sefer Shemot and why the Torah waits 12 parshiot until Emor to describe it, we have to examine the exact positioning of the paragraphs of the lechem hapanim (and the oil for the menorah) in our parsha. The positioning here in Emor can best be described as a lechem hapanim/oil “sandwich.” The two “slices of bread” on both sides of the sandwich are the section of the festivals on one side, and the section of Shemittah on the other side.
Both these sections symbolize recognition and gratitude toward Hashem. We celebrate the festivals to declare that Hashem is Master of the Universe and to thank Him for various things, for taking us out of Egypt, for giving us the Torah, for giving us rain, etc. We observe Shemittah also to recognize that Hashem is the source of all our sustenance and to thank Him for the bounty He provides.
In the middle of the “sandwich,” the filling, as it were, we find the paragraphs of the oil for the menorah, the lechem hapanim and the paragraph about am Yisrael sinning. These are, according to the Rokeach, indicative of the festivals de’rabanan – Chanukah and Purim. The reason we have these festivals in the first place is because of Am Yisrael sinning. If Am Yisrael would not have sinned, the first Temple would not have been destroyed, the Greeks would never have desecrated the second Temple, and the story of Chanukah would never have happened. If Am Yisrael would not have sinned, the first Temple would have not been destroyed, and the story of Purim would never have taken place.
The placement of the de’rabanan festivals sandwiched between the sections of recognition and gratitude, shows us the correct context. They are a tikkun, reparations for lack of recognition and gratitude to Hashem.
Parshat HaShavua Trivia Question: How did the sin of Am Yisrael mock the lechem hapanim?
Answer to Last Week’s Trivia Question: How did the Kohen Gadol select which goat was for Hashem and which one was for Azazel?
Two plates of gold, one with the word “le’Hashem” and the other with the word “le’Azazel” written on them, were placed in a wooden ballot box and mixed together. The Kohen Gadol, standing facing the two goats, (without looking) inserted both hands into the box, each hand picking up one of the plates. The plate in the right hand was the fate on the goat to his right and the plate in the left hand was the fate of the goat to his left.
