Menachos, Chapter Eleven, Mishnah 8: we continue with the details of the offering and the eating of the lechem hapanim. As we have already learned, the proper order is that the lechem hapanim and the bowls of frankincense are placed on the Table on Shabbos and are removed the following Shabbos. The bowls contain frankincense that is burned on the Altar, and it is the matir - it is what permits the kohanim to eat the lechem hapanim.
What is the matir:
In animal offerings: the blood - the blood is offered on the Altar, and afterward the meat is eaten in the place where it may be eaten.
In an ordinary meal offering: the kometz - a handful of the fine flour is burned on the Altar, and the rest of the meal offering, the remainder, is eaten.
In the lechem hapanim: nothing of the bread itself goes up on the Altar, and therefore the matir is the bowls alone - the containers of frankincense.
Our Mishnah deals with cases in which the proper order was disrupted, and the discussion focuses on that same trio of disqualifications which carry a special penalty of kares for one who eats from the offering: piggul, nosar and tamei.
The three disqualifications whose penalty is kares:
Piggul: one of the essential services of the offering - generally the matir itself: the sprinkling of the blood on the Altar, the burning of the kometz, or the burning of the bowls of frankincense of the lechem hapanim - was performed with an intention of eating it outside its proper time, that is, an intention to eat the offering after the time allotted for it. This intention renders the offering piggul, and one who eats from it deliberately is liable to kares; if he did so unwittingly, he brings a chatas.
Nosar: an offering that was brought properly, and whose matir was offered according to halachah, but whose remains were left beyond the time allotted - it becomes forbidden to eat, and one who eats it deliberately is liable to kares.
Tamei: an offering that was brought properly and afterward became tamei, or where the person became tamei and ate from it - the penalty is kares.
The fundamental rule in the laws of piggul:
This rule was stressed at length at the beginning of our tractate and at the beginning of Zevachim: an offering does not become piggul carrying liability of kares unless the matir was offered as prescribed - that is, the permitting factor (and in the lechem hapanim: the bowls) was offered exactly as it is meant to be offered. In other words, the disqualifying intention of eating outside the proper time was indeed present, but every other detail was performed properly.
But if other disqualifications became involved - such as a chatas that was performed not for its own sake, or where at the time of the kemitzah or the placement he had a disqualifying intention regarding place, that it be burned in a place that is not fit, or, in the case before us, that the bowls were not resting on the Table all seven days from Shabbos to Shabbos - then the matir itself is disqualified. For this reason, even if the burning was done with an intention of eating outside its proper time, this does not create piggul. The offering is certainly disqualified and forbidden to be eaten by a negative commandment, but one who eats it is not liable to kares. This is the fundamental point of the Mishnah here.
"BaYom haShabbos baYom haShabbos ya'archenu":
The verse teaches that the arranging of the lechem hapanim is done specifically on Shabbos. The bread rests on the Table for a full week: every Shabbos it is arranged, and it remains from Shabbos to Shabbos and is then removed. This law applies both to the loaves themselves and to the two bowls of frankincense. Therefore, if they were not resting there long enough, a disqualification arises.
The first case:
"Sidder es halechem b'Shabbos v'es habazichin l'achar Shabbos, v'hiktir es habazichin miShabbos - pesulah" - he placed the bread on the Table on Shabbos as required, but did not set down the spoons of frankincense until Sunday, and six days later he took the bazichin and burned the frankincense on the Altar. The offering is invalid, since the frankincense was not lying there from Shabbos to Shabbos. And since the matir is invalid, the bread too is invalid and may not be eaten.
"V'ein chayavin aleihem mishum piggul, nosar v'tamei" - and even if one ate from this invalid lechem hapanim:
Piggul: even if at the time of burning the bazichin he had an intention of eating outside the proper time, there is no piggul here, since the bazichin were invalid in any case and the matir was not offered as required.
Nosar: since the loaves were never valid to begin with, they are not subject to the law of linah and do not become nosar.
Tamei: the offerings were not permitted to be eaten even by a ritually pure person, and therefore tumah adds no further disqualification to them, and if he ate them while tamei he is not liable to kareis.
Second case:
"Sidder es halechem v'es habazichin b'Shabbos, v'hiktir es habazichin l'achar Shabbos" - both the loaves and the spoons of frankincense were placed on the Table on Shabbos as required, but he erred and burned the bazichin in the middle of the week, only six days after they were set down, so there were not seven full days from Shabbos to Shabbos. Here too it is invalid, and one is not liable for it on account of piggul, nosar or tumah, for the same reasons explained in the previous case.
Third case:
"Sidder es halechem v'es habazichin l'achar Shabbos, v'hiktir es habazichin miShabbos - pesulah" - he placed the loaves and the spoons of frankincense on the Table in the middle of the week, let us say on Sunday, and six days later he burned the frankincense on the Altar. Everything is invalid as in the previous cases, since there was no "from Shabbos to Shabbos" here.
Here, however, there is a remedy available to him: "Keitzad ya'aseh? Yanichenu l'Shabbos haba'ah" - he should wait. Although on this Shabbos he cannot burn the bazichin, since the bread had not been lying there seven days, he is permitted to leave it on the Table from this Shabbos until the following Shabbos. It turns out that the bread lies there thirteen days, but there is now a "from Shabbos to Shabbos." "She'afilu hi al hashulchan yamim rabim ein b'kach klum" - even though the bread sits on the Table many days, thirteen days, it is valid and there is no problem with this.
In technical terms: there is no question of nosar here, or more precisely, there is no question of linah, of leaving the bread beyond its fixed time, since its time is counted from one Shabbos to the next Shabbos. Placing the bread on Sunday does not begin the count of the time at all; the count begins from the first Shabbos, and only if it remained beyond the second Shabbos would it become invalid. But if on the second Shabbos he burned the bazichin, everything is valid and the lechem hapanim is eaten. And although the Mishnah does not say so, if at the time of burning the bazichin on the thirteenth day he had an intention of eating outside the proper time, the bread becomes piggul and one who eats it is liable to kareis.
The dispute between Rashi and the Rambam regarding this waiting period:
Rashi understood that the kohen does not sit idly for thirteen days: on the first Shabbos, six days after the bread was set down, he must take the loaves and set them down again, for otherwise there is no arrangement on Shabbos at all, and even a monkey could have done this for him and it does not count. It is enough that he remove them and immediately put them back.
The Rambam, however, does not mention this at all, and it is implied from his words that the bread may be left lying there thirteen consecutive days without interruption, with no action required on the first Shabbos. And when the following Shabbos arrives, everything will be valid and in order if he burns the bazichin properly. And apparently the halachah follows the Rambam, and there is no need to take the bread and put it back on that first Shabbos.
In summary: In our Mishnah we learned three cases in which the timing of the arrangement or the burning of the lechem hapanim and the bazichin went wrong, and in all of them the offering is invalid, since "from Shabbos to Shabbos" was not fulfilled in it. And since the matir, the bazichin, was not offered as required, one who eats from the bread is not liable to kareis for piggul, nosar or tumah, but only transgresses a prohibition. In the third case, where the bread and the bazichin were placed together after Shabbos, there is a remedy: to leave them until the following Shabbos, and then "from Shabbos to Shabbos" will be fulfilled in them and they will be valid - and Rashi and the Rambam disagree as to whether a fresh removal and placement are required on the first Shabbos.