עד ממחרת השבת השביעית תספרו חמשים יום והקרבתם מנחה חדשה לה' ממושבתיכם תביאו לחם תנופה שתים
Until the morrow of the seventh week you shall count fifty days; and you shall offer a new meal-offering to Hashem from your settled places you shall bring bread of elevation, Two Loaves. (Vayikra 23:16-17)

QUESTION: Why did the meal-offering brought on Shavuot consist of Two Loaves, and why is it referred to as “minchah chadashah” — “a new meal-offering”?

ANSWER: The Festival of Shavuot commemorates Hashem’s giving of the Torah and its acceptance by the Jewish people.

A loaf of bread is an allusion to Torah. The Sages (Chagigah 14a) interpreted the words of King Shlomo “Lechu lachmu belachmi” — “come partake of my bread” (Proverbs 9:5) to mean Torah study. The Two Loaves represented the Written and Oral Torah.

The word “chadashah” — “new” — is used to emphasize that the Jewish people should view the Torah as if newly given each day. Thus, there is a process of constant renewal, inspiring a Jew to study Torah and observe mitzvot with fresh vigor and enthusiasm.

(זהר ח"א, דף ר"ס ע"א - כלי יקר)


סלת תהיינה
They shall be fine flour. (Vayikra 23:17)

QUESTION: Why was the Omer offering of barley while the Shtei Halachem — Two Loaves — consisted of wheat?

ANSWER: Hashem’s intent in the redemption from Egyptian bondage was that we ultimately receive the Torah, as He stated to Moshe, “When you will take the people out of Egypt, you will serve G‑d on this mountain” (Shemot 3:12).

In Egypt the Jews sunk to the lowest level of contamination. In order to be worthy of receiving the Torah, they needed to undergo a 49 day period of refinement. Accordingly, the Sefirah prayers state that the purpose of counting the Omer is “so that the souls of Your people Israel may be cleansed from their defilement.”

Barley, due to its coarseness, is primarily animal food (fodder) while wheat is mainly consumed by humans. The Omer, which is offered on Pesach, was of barley, alluding to the need for man to elevate and refine his animalistic soul, which is the driving force for material pursuits.

Upon leaving Egypt the “animal” in man — domination by his materialistic and evil desires — was in full strength. Therefore, an offering consisting of animal fodder was a message that ‘the call of the hour’ was to subdue one’s animalistic soul and elevate it and approach nearer to the service of Hashem.

After seven weeks of refinement this was achieved. The individuals reached the level of Adam — man — as described by King Shlomo “The spirit of man is the one that ascends on high” (Ecclesiastes 3:21). Thus, the offering of the day consists of wheat — a food reserved primarily for humans.

(לקוטי שיחות חל"ב ע' 134)


חמץ תאפינה
They shall be baked leavened. (Vayikra 23:17)

QUESTION: Why did the Omer-offering consist of matzah while the Shtei Halechem was made chametz?

ANSWER: Matzah is a very simple bread. It consists only of water and flour. Chametz is more sophisticated. In addition to water and flour there can be also spices, oil or other liquids added, which give the bread a particular taste.

In Chassidic literature, matzah represents the concept of the kabbalat ol way of serving Hashem. This means, absolute submission to His requests, to the extent that one faithfully observes Torah simply because it is His Torah and it is what He requests the Jew to do. The individual’s intellect and other faculties play no role in his dedication to G‑dliness. Further, he does not deviate even if his wisdom and understanding may dictate otherwise.

Chametz, which has more taste, corresponds to the way of serving Hashem based on ta’am v’daat — taste and understanding. A person serves Hashem out of his conviction of His exalted loftiness and through achieving spiritual comprehension and delight in G‑dly matters.

Elementary service of Hashem commences with kabbalat ol. The individual lacks learning but resolves to conduct his life according to the directives of Torah. Afterwards, as he elevates himself on the spiritual ladder and progresses intellectually in the comprehension of Hashem’s holiness he achieves the level of Divine service through ta’am vda’at — taste and understanding.

Thus, on Pesach the Omer-offering was of matzah — which represents the serving of Hashem based on kabbalat ol — absolute submission — corresponding to the low spiritual level they were at the time. On Shavuot, however, when they reached the spiritual heights of “man” and achieved ta’am vada’at — taste and understanding — of G‑dliness, the offering was of chametz, which is a food that has taste to it and signifies that approach of serving Hashem.

(לקוטי שיחות חל"ב ע' 134)

* * *

The Lesson of Mount Sinai

Alternatively, when Hashem was preparing to give the Torah to the Jewish people, the highest mountains came praising their majestic appearance and said that the Torah should be given upon them. Hashem disregarded them all and selected Sinai, the lowest mountain, thus emphasizing that He preferred humility (see Sotah 5a). If Hashem wanted to accentuate the importance of being humble, why didn’t He give the Torah on level ground?

Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, the founder of Chabad Chassidut, in his work Likkutei Torah (Bamidbar) explains it in the following way:

The difference between the earth and a mountain is that people tread easily upon earth but not on the rocky and steep slopes of a mountain. By giving the Torah on the lowest mountain, Hashem conveyed the lesson that the Torah Jew should be proud of his convictions and not permit himself to be trampled or stepped upon.

Of King Yehoshafat it is said, “And his heart was lifted up in the ways of G‑d” (II Chronicles 17:6). Though he did not permit himself to be impressed by his great wealth and honor, he was proud to walk in the path of Hashem.

Thus, Hashem selected a mountain and specifically Sinai for the giving of the Torah to teach us the importance of both humility and pride in one’s Torah observance.

Proud of Torah Convictions

The difference between chametz and matzah is that matzah is flat while chametz rises. Thus, matzah is analogous to humility, while chametz represents conceite and pride.

Hashem advocates humbleness and despises conceit (Sotah 5a). The only exception is when it comes to Torah. In regard to observance and living a Torah-true life one should not be meek and retiring but rather lofty and proud of one’s attachment to Torah.

The Shtei Halechem — Two Loaves — represent the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. Hence, it is most appropriate that on Shavuot which commemorates “z’man matan Torateinu” — “the time of the giving of the Torah” — to make an offering consisting of chametz. This emphasizes that in regard to Torah (and only then) should one be proud of his tenacious attachment to Hashem and His Torah.

(עטרת שלמה – ר' שלמה הראשון זצ"ל מבאבוב)


ושני כבשים בני שנה לזבח שלמים
And two lambs in their first year as a sacrifice of a peace-offering.(Vayikra 23:19)

QUESTION: What was unique about these two lambs of shelamim — peace-offering — as opposed to all other peace-offerings?

ANSWER: 1) Normally, peace-offerings were a karban yachid — an offering made by an individual. The peace-offerings of Shavuot were a karban tzibbur — a communal offering. Incidentally it was the only one of its sort.

2) In all peace-offerings the eimurim — innards — were burned on the altar. The breast and thigh were given to the kohanim, and the remaining meat was eaten by the owner. Regarding the communal peace offerings of Shavuot, all the meat of the animal, in addition to the breast and thigh, was eaten entirely by the kohanim.

The reason for this distinction is that all shelamim — peace-offerings — were considered kadashim kalim — sacrifices of lesser sanctity. These peace-offerings, however, were considered kadeshei kadashim — sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity — and thus, they were similar to the Two Loaves which could only be consumed by the kohanim.

(רמב"ם תמידים ומוספים פ"ח הלי"א, ועי' כ"מ)


והניף הכהן אתם על לחם הבכרים תנופה לפני ה' על שני כבשים
The Kohen shall wave them upon the first-fruits breads as a waving before Hashem upon two lambs. (Vayikra 23:20)

QUESTION: How many times was the waving of the two lambs of peace-offering and the Two Loaves performed?

ANSWER: A unique aspect of the two lambs and the Two Loaves is that the waving process was done at two separate times.

1) The normal procedure with all peace-offerings was that after they were slaughtered the breast, thigh and fat were waved before Hashem (see Vayikra 7:10, 10:30). However, before these two lambs were slaughtered they were waved before the altar alive together with the Two Loaves.

2) Upon completion of the ritual slaughtering, the blood would be sprayed and the animals were skinned and cut up. This time, only the breast and thigh of the lambs were waved before the altar by the Kohen together with the Two Loaves. Afterwards, the inner parts would be offered on the altar.

The Kohanim received the breast, thigh and the remainder of the meat.

They were also given the Two Loaves. The Kohen Gadol would take one of them and the second was divided among all the Kohanim of the 24 groups of Kohanim (Mishmorot) who came to work in the Beit Hamikdash during Yom Tov. They could be eaten until the following midnight.

(עי' רמב"ם הל' תמידים ומוספים פ"ח הלי"א)


והניף הכהן אתם ... לפני ה' על שני כבשים
The Kohen shall wave them as a waving before Hashem upon two lambs. (Vayikra 23:20)

QUESTION: What is the significance of waving the Two Loaves upon the two lambs?

ANSWER: According to the Zohar (Vol. I, 260a), the Two Loaves represent the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.

A distinction between the two is that for Oral Torah study, comprehension is a must. One has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Torah study if he lacks understanding. On the other hand, one fulfills the mitzvah of studying Written Torah even when only reading without comprehending the words (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Talmud Torah, ch. 2) Hence, the Written Torah is analogous to kabbalat ol — serving Hashem by absolute submission — and the Oral Torah to ta’am vada’at — [serving Hashem by] taste and understanding.

In the animal kingdom sheep are by nature a weak species and their apparent bashfulness indicates their inherent trait of bittul — a non-assuming and self-effacing nature.

Waving the Two Loaves (the Written and Oral Torah) together with the lambs is a message that regardless how lofty the spiritual service of ta’am vada’at may be, nevertheless, one must constantly bear in mind that the fundamental ingredients of the service of Hashem are bittul and kabbalat ol — humility and absolute submission. One’s learning Torah (ta’am v’da’at) must be permeated with bitul and kabbalat ol (the concept of na’aseh venishma — doing before study and comprehending).

(לקוטי שיחות חל"ג ע' 134, לקוטי תורה פ' אמור)


על לחם הבכורים תנופה לפני ה' על שני כבשים
Upon the first fruit breads, as a waving before Hashem upon two loaves. (Vayikra 23:20)

QUESTION: What is the procedure if only the Two Loaves are available and not the lambs?

ANSWER: Normally, following the waving of the lambs with the loaves, the loaves were eaten by the Kohanim. If there were no lambs Two Loaves would be waved and then they must be left overnight so that they will become invalidated due to linah — sleeping — (i.e. not being eaten during the day and left to “sleep” over the night). Afterwards they are taken out to the place of burning.

The Rabbis forbade consuming the loaves and required burning them out of concern that in the coming year when lambs would be available people would erroneously conclude that just as last year the loaves were eaten though there were no lambs offered, similarly the loaves may be eaten this year without waving them with the lambs and without waiting for the slaughtering of the lambs and the offering of the blood on the altar.

According to the Rambam, the Rabbis enacted that the loaves should not be eaten to avoid a situation in which the following year when lambs will be available, they will not be offered because people will think that the offering of the lambs is only optional, and again offer Two Loaves without any lambs.

Since in reality these Two Loaves are Biblically perfectly valid, and the Rabbis enacted a gezeirah — decree — forbidding their consumption, they cannot be burned immediately after the waving, because it is forbidden to destroy holy food which is designated for human consumption. Thus, they can be burned only after being invalidated due to their remaining overnight.

(מנחות מ"ו ע"ב, רבינו גרשום, רמב"ם תמידין ומוספין פ"ח הלט"ז)


Burning vs. Eating

QUESTION: The Kohanim fulfill a mitzvah when they eat the holy foods offered in the Beit Hamikdash — what authority do the Rabbis have to prevent them from eating the Two Loaves that were offered without the lambs?

ANSWER: There can be no comparison between kum ve’aseh — actively violating a Torah prohibition — and shev v’al ta’aseh — merely refrain from performing (sit and refrain, lit.). Though the Rabbis would not institute a decree which involves actively transgressing, they do, however, when they consider it necessary or advisable as a precautionary measure, institute decrees that one refrain from actively doing a certain mitzvah (see Berachot 20a, Yevamot 90b).


Eating vs. Burning

QUESTION: When would the Two Loaves not be burned even if they were offered without lambs available?

ANSWER: Torah instituted a seven year cycle of laws pertaining to agriculture in Eretz Yisrael. The seventh year is Shemittah — release. During this year the people must refrain from working the fields and allow all produce that grows on its own accord to be taken by the public. (These are known as sefichim (Vayikra 25:5).)

Though the Two Loaves may halachically be made with grain harvested during the previous year, that is only if there is none from the current year; otherwise, it should be made of grain of the current year (Rambam, Temidin Umusafin, 8:2). Consequently, in the Sabbatical year the Two Loaves were made, if available, from sefichim — grain which grew on its own accord from seeds dropped inadvertently during the harvesting of the previous year’s crop.

Regarding such produce the Torah (Vayikra 25:7) says “The resting of the land shall be yours le’achlah — to eat.” The Gemara (Menachot 74a) says “le’achlah velo lisereifah” — it may be used only for eating but not for burning.

Thus, in the seventh year when the Two Loaves were made of grain of the Sabbatical year and lambs were not available, the Two Loaves would be eaten. For in such an instance the Rabbis would not enact their decree because to burn it would be a kum ve’aseh — actively transgressing a Biblical law.

(מנחת חינוך מצוה ש"ז)


אין מביאין מנחות וביכורים ומנחת בהמה קודם לעומר, אם הביא פסול, קודם לשתי הלחם לא יביא אם הביא כשר
We may not bring meal-offerings, Bikkurim (of wheat and barley) or the meal-offering of an animal sacrifices from the new crop before the omer is offered. Before the Two Loaves are offered one may also not bring any of these offerings from the new crop. However, if one did bring, it is valid. (Menachot 68b)

QUESTION: The purpose of the Omer offering on Pesach was to make the new crop permissible for general consumption, and the Shtei Halechem — Two Loaves — offered on Shavuot would make the new crop permissible for offerings in the Beit Hamikdash. Why are we so stringent in regard to bringing meal-offerings before the Omer and lenient when it comes to Shtei Halechem?

ANSWER: The following are some of the ways to explain the distinction:

1) Minimized Prohibition of Chadash

The prohibition of chadash — new produce — in the Beit Hamikdash before Shtei Halechem is part and parcel of the prohibition of chadash for human consumption prior to the Omer. Once the Omer was offered, the new crop became permitted to the populace but remained forbidden for the Beit Hamikdash offerings. Since after the Omer-offering there is already a release from the general prohibition of chadash with regard to the general public, the prohibition became minimized even in regard to the Beit Hamikdash, to the extent that bidi’eved — after the fact — a meal offering of new crop is valid even if it was brought prior to bringing the Two Loaves.

(רשב"א)

2) Two Prohibitions vs. One

Alternatively, the prohibition of chadash prior to the bringing of the Two Loaves is an independent prohibition which is not derived or related to the prohibition of chadash prior to the Omer-offering. Nevertheless, there is a law that items used in sacrifices must be “mimashkeh Yisrael” — “items permitted for Jews to eat” — and if they are not, the sacrifice would be invalid even bedi’eved (Pesachim 61a). Since prior to the Omer-offering chadash is prohibited to all Jews, it is not considered mimashkeh Yisrael. Consequently, a meal-offering consisting of chadash, before the Omer was offered, is invalid even bidieved — post factum.

After the Omer is brought, however, it is already mimashkeh Yisrael but it is subject to its own prohibition of chadash which would restrict its use lechatchilah — from the beginning — but it would be valid bidi’eved. (The reason for this is because all prohibitions related to kadeshim — holiness — can cause something to be invalid only when the prohibition is repeated twice in the Torah, which is not the case with Shtei Halechem.) Therefore, meal-offerings of chadash before the Omer are invalid (since they are not mimashkeh Yisrael), but before the Two Loaves they are valid bidi’eved.

(טהרת קודש על מנחות)

3) Lacking Just in Title

Alternatively, the Omer-offering is a matir — it makes permissible the use of chadash — the new crop. Until it is offered the Torah prohibits it, as is stated “You shall not eat bread and parched meal and plump kernels until this very day until you bring the offering of your G‑d” (Vayikra 23:14).

However, nowhere in the Torah is there an explicit prohibition against making offerings from the new crop before the Two Loaves. It only states that on Shavuot the Two Loaves should be a “new meal offering” (ibid. 16). Thus, the reason for the prohibition of bringing meal offerings from the new crop is only because then the Two Loaves of Shavuot will not be minchah chadashah — a new meal offering.

Consequently, if an offering consisting of the new crop was made before the Omer it is disqualified since the Torah clearly prohibits it to be eaten. However, offering new crops before the Two Loaves is not a deficit in the offering per se, only a deficit and lack in the Two Loaves that henceforward the Two Loaves will not be called “a new offering.” Therefore, if it happened, the premature offering is valid.

Practical Novel Insight

According to this explanation, it may be that in the event that an offering was made prior to the Two Loaves it would already be permissible (not only bidi’eved) to offer additional meal-offerings from the new crop since they will not change the fact that there will be no new offering on Shavuot.

(שפת אמת על מנחות – עי' לקו"ש חל"ב ע' 133 שמבאר השלש הסברות בנוגע לשתי הלחם שהם שלשה אופנים בעבודה והנהגת הנפש)


ומקרבין תרין נהמין כחדא וחמץ אתוקדא בינייהו בנורא דמדבחא
And they would offer Two Loaves together, and the Chametz — leaven — would be burned in the fire of the altar. (Zohar, vol. 2, 183b)

QUESTION: The Shelah, in the beginning of Tractate Shavuot, states the same thought in the name of the Kabbalistic sefer, Tola’at Yaakov, by Rabbi Meir Ibn Gabbai. This is, however, enigmatic; the Two Loaves were not burned, rather one was eaten by the Kohen Gadol while the other was divided up among the Kohanim?

ANSWER: Though normally the Two Loaves were not burned, there is a possibility, according the halachah, that the Two Loaves could be burned.

The Rambam (Temidim Umusafim 8) rules that normally the two lambs were burned on the altar and the Two Loaves were eaten. However, if the lambs were lost and were unavailable to be offered, then the Two Loaves were offered on the altar in their stead.

(שער הגלגולים, בסופו, והובא בהגהות הנדפסות על גליון הזהר)

The Lubavitcher Rebbe observed that while halachically this is correct, to say that the Zohar and the Shelah were referring only to such an unique situation, which is highly unlikely, is somewhat difficult to accept. Therefore, he offers the following rather simple explanation.

The Gemara (Menachot 57b) expounds the pasuk “For any leavening or any honey you shall not burn from it as a fire offering to Hashem” (Vayikra 2:11), to mean that any offering from which the sacrificial part was already cast to the fires of the altar is subject to the prohibition “you shall not burn.” That is, if one burns the meat that should be eaten, after the fats and innards were already offered, or if one burns a part of the remaining meal-offering after the kometz was offered, he transgresses the Biblical prohibition of “not burning the remainders” once the altar-part of the offering was properly burned.

The Gemara (ibid.) cites as an example for this: “If one burned a part of the Two Loaves” — he violates the prohibition of not burning the part which should be eaten after the sacrificial part was already cast to the fires of the altar.

An obvious difficulty is that only parts of the two lambs were offered on the altar, so it is understandable that the remaining meat of the two lambs are “leftover” which may not be offered. However, in the case of the Two Loaves, no part of it is offered on the altar, so why should this transgression apply if one burned part of the Two Loaves?

The dispel this apparent difficulty, Rashi explains that the Gemara is speaking of a case where one already offered the fats (innards) of the two lambs which come together with the loaves, “ukegufan dami” — “they (the Two Loaves and the lambs) are considered as one sacrificial entity.” Thus, the burning of the lamb parts included in it the burning of the loaves.

Henceforth, the Two Loaves are considered as “leftover” of the lamb offerings which must be now eaten by the Kohen Gadol and the other Kohanim serving in the Beit Hamikdash during Shavuot. Should one offer them on the altar (after having offered the lamb parts,) he will have transgressed “any offering from which the sacrificial parts was already offered, you shall not burn [its leftover].”

Consequently, when the Zohar speaks of the Two Loaves and says that the chametz is burnt on the altar it is in actuality echoing the Gemara’s statement that the offering of the two lambs on the altar, which is part and parcel of the Two Loaves, is considered a simultaneous offering of the Two Loaves, which were chametz.

(תשובות וביאורים לכ"ק אדמו"ר קובץ ליובאוויטש חוברת ג', אג"ק ח"א, קס"ג, ורשימות חוברת קמ"ז)