More than one, Less than two

The gemara (Berachot 3b) asserts that the plural language “watches” can signify one and a half. The Minchat Ya’akov (Responsa, 320) derives halakhic significance from this, claiming that the requirement of two challot on Shabbat can be fulfilled even if one of them is incomplete. The Chatam Sofer (Orach Chaim 46) argues with this position, noting that the source for the two challot is understood by the gemara (Shabbat 117b) as being the pasuk “And it shall be on the sixth day when they prepare what they bring, it will be double what they pick every day” (Shemot 16:5). In that context, two loaves clearly refers to two actual loaves, not one and a half. (Parenthetically, the Minchat Ya’akov considers this connection to be an asmakhta, rather than an actual derivation; however, the Taz, O.C. 678:2 understands lechem mishneh to be a biblical obligation). The Reisher Rav, R. Aharon Levine (Birkhat Aharon, 6:3), defends the Minchat Ya’akov, noting that the Talmud never meant to imply that the two loaves are to directly correspond to the double portion that was collected. That collection served a functional purpose, in that no man fell the next day, and would have no relevance to the general Shabbat experience. Rather, the Talmud is commenting on the apparent redundancy of using a plural term for “collecting” and still mentioning “mishneh”. The extra language is thus presumably to include an extra loaf of bread, and it is to this point that the Minchat Ya’akov is applying his understanding, assuming thus that the second loaf is not representational of the actual collected man but of the plural nature indicated by the language of the pasuk.

R. Natan Gestetner (Resp. L’Horot Natan, I, 14), although noting that the opinion of the Minchat Ya’akov is identical to that of the geonim (Responsa HaGeonim Sha’arei Teshuvah 287), nonetheless disagrees with it. In a lengthy responsum on the topic, he dismisses two possible theories for a position like that of the Minchat Ya’akov. The principle of “a partial day is like a full day” (miktzat ha-yom k’kulo), best known from the observance of aveilut, is not relevant to this case. A day, as a unit of time, can be considered complete even at an early point because time is automatic and will ultimately run its course. Further, the rule of rubo k’kulo, stating that most of an item is considered like the entire item, is not helpful here either. That principle only applies when the entire item is present, and the majority of that item is identified with a certain status. Even if it were applicable, though, it still would not be helpful in this case. The Minchat Ya’akov himself describes the desirability of a complete loaf as stemming from the honor of the mitzvah. If that is so, no honor comes from a loaf that is full only in a technical legal sense without any visible qualities of being full.