ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 75
YOMA 59-88 have been dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Simcha
Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife
and daughters. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he
will long be remembered.
(a) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi explain the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Da'agah be'Lev Ish *Yasichenah*" - to mean either that someone who
is worried, should remove it from his mind; or that he should tell his
worry to a friend (who might be able to advise him).
(b) When a human being is angered, he will generally try to avenge his hurt
pride by taking it out of the person who angered him - by interferring with
his source of income. Not so Hashem, who in spite of having cursed ...
2. ... "ve'Nachash Afar Lachmo"- to mean either that whatever a snake eats
tastes like dust; or that whatever tasty foods it eats, it is not satisfied
until it eats some dust.
- ... the snake - arranged that, wherever it goes, its food is always on hand.
- ... Cana'an - arranged that whatever his master eats and drinks, he eats and drinks.
- ... Chavah - ensured that the men still run after her (and are willing to sustain her).
- ... the earth - still invested it with the power to sustain all living creatures.
(a) Rav and Shmuel argue over the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Zacharnu es
ha'Dagah Asher *Nochal* be'Mitzrayim *Chinam*" (concerning Yisrael's
complaint about what seems to be a lack of meat). The one interprets
"Nochal" in its simple sense - in which case it refers to the little fish
which they used to obtain in Egypt from Hefker. The women would find it (by
way of a miracle) in the jugs of water that they drew from the well.
(b) The other one derives from "Chinam" - that it means to marry whoever
they liked (even their relatives), because "Chinam" means unrestricted,
free of Mitzvos. "Asher Nochal" is a discreet way of referring to marital
relations, as we find in a Pasuk in Mishlei.
(c) According to him, the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Gan Na'ul Achosi Chalah"
(which describes Yisrael in Egypt as being free of immorality) - refers to
those cases of incest which were forbidden to gentiles, too (i.e. all those
cases, which the Torah would later punish with Misah bi'Yedei Adam) -
whereas here, it was the cases of incest that were previously permitted to
gentiles and which now became forbitten, that they were grumbling about.
(d) Those who explain "Dagah" to mean 'fish', agree that they complained
about the forbidden relations too, so they will interpret the Pasuk
(written there) "va'Yishma Moshe es ha'Am Bocheh le'Mishpechosav" in the
same way as the other opinion does; namely, crying over the relations whom
they were forbidden to marry.
(a) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi also argue over why, when Yisrael complained,
they referred specifically to the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and
garlic that they ate in Egypt. One says that these were the only foods
whose taste the Man could not resemble - because their taste is harmful to
the babies of pregnant women and feeding mothers.
The Man purified them from sin - inasmuch as it fell day by day.
Consequently, Yisrael, afraid that if they sinned, the Man would cease to
fall, subjugated themselves before Hashem.
(b) The other opinion says - that Man not only tasted like all other kinds
of food, but that it also resembled them in texture etc., with the
exception of these five kinds of food, whose taste the Man resembled, but
not their texture.
(c) The Man was as white as a pearl; the Torah describe it "ki'Z'ra Gad"
('like a coriander seed') - because it was round like one. A flax seed is
(d) According to Tana'im , "Gad" is a derivative of 'Magid' (because it
told them the Din - like in the Pasuk in Tehilim "Magid Devarav le'Ya'akov
... Chukav u*Mishpatav* le'Yisrael") The Man acted as a judge with regard
1. ... whether a baby was a ninth month baby from a woman's first husband
or a seventh month baby from her second one - because the baby, in this
regard, belongs to the father. Consequently, one had only to see by which
husband the extra portion of Man fell to know whose baby it really was.
2. ... whether the defendant had stolen a slave or bought him from his
original owner - by exactly the same method as in the previous answer.
3. ... whether it was the wife who had run away, and the husband still
wanted her - in which case, the Man would fall with the husband's portion;
or whether it was her husband who had sent her away because she committed
adultery (so she stands to be divorced and to lose her Kesubah), in which
case, the Man would have fallen in her father's portion (as if her husband
had already divorced her).
(a) The Man would fall ...
(b) The Man would fall ...
- ... outside the tents of the Tzadikim.
- ... for the average Jews - just outside the camp.
- ... for the Resha'im - far from the camp.
(c) With the Man there fell ...
- ... for the Tzadikim - in the form of ready-baked bread.
- ... for the average Jews - in the form of ready-baked cakes.
- ... for the Resha'im - food that still needed to be ground.
- ... women's cosmetics (in the form of dough) that required grinding.
- ... quails that required cooking.
(a) The Torah writes in Vayakhel (in connection with the donations for the
Mishkan) "ve'Heim Hevi'u Eilav Od Nedavah *ba'Boker ba'Boker*" - to teach
us that they brought precious stones (which fell together with the Man -
which they collected each morning) as a gift for the Mishkan (see next
question - Bach note 4).
(b) Due to the fact that the word "ve'ha'Nesi'im" is written missing a
'Yud', Chazal explain "*ve'ha'Nesi'im* Heivi'u es Avnei ha'Shoham ... " -
to mean that the clouds brought the onyx stones for the Eifod, and the
precious stones for the Choshen (from the River Pishon - see Targum
Yonasan), and deposited them with the princes Man.
(c) "ve'Hayah Ta'amo ke'Ta'am Leshad ha'Shamen. Some explain the word
"Leshad" as if the Torah had written 'Shad' (breast) - meaning that they
enjoyed all kinds of tastes, just like a baby suckling from its mother's
breasts. Others explain it as if the Torah had written 'Sheid' - meaning
that they enjoyed the Man turning into many colors, just like a Sheid (a
demon) tends to do.
(a) The Man fell in the morning, but the quails at night - because one is
entitled to file a complaint when there is no bread (notwithstanding the
unrefined way in which they grumbled), but not when there is no meat
(since meat is a luxury).
(b) We learn from the quails that meat should be eaten at night.
(c) However, one should eat it with a light, as we explained above.
(d) Originally, Yisrael would eat at any time of day, like chickens pecking
at the scraps of food in the trash-heap. Moshe instituted the custom to eat
two meals a day, one in the morning, and one in the evening (presumably, he
did this when he instituted Birchas ha'Zan, with the advent of the Man).
(a) One Pasuk says that the people died as soon as they began eating the
quails, and the other, that they died only thirty days later - the not so
bad amongst them died instantly, the real Resha'im, suffered for thirty
(b) The Torah writes in connection with the Man "Vayishtechu Lahen
1. When Resh Lakish explains that one should read, not "Vayishtechu", but
'Vayishchatu' - he means that Yisrael deserved to be slaughtered (for
complaining to Hashem the way they did).
(c) Rebbi objected to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korcha's explanation - on the
grounds that we already know that quails (like all Kasher birds) require
Shechitah from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Zavachta Ka'asher Tzivisicha", from
which we learn that the Hilchos Shechitah (including that the majority of
*one* of the two pipes of a bird and of *both* pipes of an animal, must be
cut) are Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (otherwise there is no other source for
2. When Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says that one should read, not
"Shato'ach", but 'Shachot' he means that together with the Man, there fell
the quails - to teach us that the quails require Shechitah.
(d) Rebbi therefore explains "Shato'ach" to mean that the quails were
spread out like carpets ('Shati'ach' means carpet).
(a) For the youth, the Man was bread, for the elderly, oil and for the
little children, honey.
(b) "S'lav" (quails) is written with a 'Shin' - 'Sh'lav', but pronounced
with a 'Sin' (as if it was written with a 'Samech') - 'S'lav' - because the
Tzadikim ate it tranquilly ('be'Shalvah'), whereas for the Resha'im, it was
like thorns ('ke'Silvim').
(c) There are four kinds of S'lav: Shichli, Kivli, Pisyuni and S'lav. If
the best is Shichli, the worst, S'lav.
(d) When ...
1. ... the S'lav was placed in a hot oven - it would swell to enormous
2. ... after roasting, it was placed on top of thirteen loaves - all of
which became inedible from the juice which seeped into them from the S'lav.
(a) Every day, Rav Yehudah used to miraculously find quails among his wine-
barrels. Rav Chisda would find them in his wood-store.
(b) Rava's resident-gardener would bring him quails from the marshes each
day. On the day that he did not receive them, he interpreted the Pasuk
"Shama'ti va'Tirgaz Bitni" that he overheard a child quoting, to mean that
Rav Chisda,his father-in-law and Rebbi, had died, and he interpreted it to
mean that he only received the quails on *his* merit, and not on his own.
(c) One Pasuk implies that a layer of dew covered the Man, the other, that
it covered the sand (underneath the Man) - both are right, because the Man
fell between two layers of due, keeping it clean and fresh.
(d) The Man is described as "Dak *Mechuspas*". Resh Lakish explains this
as an acronym, whilst Rebbi Yochanan explains it according to its numerical
value (248). The ...
1. ... acronym of Mechuspas - is 'Nimu'ach al Pisas ha'Yad' ('it melted on
the palm of the hand' - denoting softness and freshness).
2. ... significance of the of the numerical value - is that the Man was
absorbed in the 248 limbs, and that there was no waste (i.e. they did not
need to relieve themselves).
(a) Rebbi Yishmael objects to Rebbi Akiva's explanation of the Pasuk in
Tehilim "*Lechem Abirim* Achal Ish" (i.e. that the Man was the food that
the angels eat) - on the grounds that from the Pasuk in Eikev "Lechem Lo
Achalti u'Mayim Lo Shasisi", it appears that angels (in whose domain Moshe
was when he said this Pasuk) do not eat at all. So he explains "Lechem
*Abirim* Achal Ish" - to mean that 'Ish' ate the bread that was absorbed in
all the limbs (as if the Torah had written "Lechem Eivarim").
(b) Although the Man became absorbed in the limbs, the Torah nevertheless
found it necessary to issue the command of owning a peg, in order to dig a
hole and cover up one's feces, says Rebbi Yishmael, because of the food
that Yisrael would buy from visiting merchants whom they encountered along
the way. Rebbi Elazar ben Perata objects to this however, on the grounds
that the Man would cause that food to become absorbed in the limbs, just as
it caused itself to do.
(c) *He* therefore ascribes the command to prepare a peg to after they had
sinned and grumbled about the fact that they never needed to relieve
themselves - because from then onwards, this miracle ceased to function.
(d) After they sinned, they would relieve themselves exclusively behind the
camp, not in front and not even at the sides - because they did not know in
which direction they would travel; the one thing they did know was that
they would not re-trace their steps.
(a) They complained that the Man would cause their stomachs to swell -
because who has ever heard of someone eating and not defecating? (Perhaps
they thought that it was only at Har Sinai that they were immune to the
effects of the Man, but not after they had left it).
(b) "Lechem Abirim *Achal Ish*" - refers to Yehoshua bin Nun, for whom as
much Man fell as for the whole of Yisrael whilst he was awaiting Moshe's
return at the time that Yisrael were serving the Golden Calf. This means
that the Man fell for the whole of Yisrael on his merit, and that it fell
in his vicinity.
(c) We learn "Ish" from the "Ish" of Yehoshua, rather than from
"ve'*ha*'Ish" of Moshe.