Previous daf

1)

(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).
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.

(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 ...

1. ... the snake - arranged that, wherever it goes, its food is always on hand.
2. ... Cana'an - arranged that whatever his master eats and drinks, he eats and drinks.
3. ... Chavah - ensured that the men still run after her (and are willing to sustain her).
4. ... 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.

(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 also round.

(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 to ...

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).

5)

(a) The Man would fall ...

1. ... outside the tents of the Tzadikim.
2. ... for the average Jews - just outside the camp.
3. ... for the Resha'im - far from the camp.

(b) The Man would fall ...

1. ... for the Tzadikim - in the form of ready-baked bread.
2. ... for the average Jews - in the form of ready-baked cakes.
3. ... for the Resha'im - food that still needed to be ground.

(c) With the Man there fell ...

1. ... women's cosmetics (in the form of dough) that required grinding.
2. ... 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.

7)

(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 days.

(b) The Torah writes in connection with the Man "Vayishtechu Lahen Shato'ach".

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).
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.

(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 "Ka'asher Tzivisicha").

(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 proportions.
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.