Previous daf

1)

(a) When they asked Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai why the Man needed to fall daily, why it could not fall just once a year, he answered them with a parable to a king who arranged for his son to be sustained on an annual basi. When he saw however, that he only saw him once a year - he began sustaining him daily, so that he would be able to see him every day. Hashem too, fed Yisrael daily with their portion of Man, so that, out of concern for themselves and their families, they would subjugate themselves before Hashem daily, to ensure their own and their families' survival.

(b) Alternatively, answers the Gemara, how on earth would they manage transport a year's stock of Man?

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar ha'Moda'i, the Man was piled sixty Amos high.

(b) If *two* skylights produced water that rose fifteen Amos above the mountains, then the *eight* skylights contained in the two doors described in Tehilim through which the Man fell, would produce Man sixty Amos high.

(c) One reason that the fifteen Amos that the water of the flood must have risen above the mountain-tops, is because otherwise, it would have meant numerous expanses of water, each one, fifteen Amos higher than the ground- level of that particular spot (a fact which is inconceivable). The other reason is that, had that been the case, how would the ark have been able to proceed?

(d) If not for the 'Gezeirah Shavah' of "Pesichah" "Pesichah" from the Flood - how could we learn the Man which fell for only a *brief spell* each day, and only for *Yisrael*, from the waters of the Flood, which fell for *forty days*, and on the *entire world?*

(a) Isi ben Yehudah derives from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Ta'aroch Lefanai Shulchan *Neged Tzorerai*" - that, so high did the Man pile up, that the kings of the east and the west could see it.

(b) Abaye learns from the word "Kosi *Revayah*" that David ha'Melech's cup in the World to Come will contain two hundred and twenty-one Lugin (1326 egg-volumes) - the numerical value of "Revayah".

(a) The five Inuyim listed in our Mishnah correspond to the five times that "Te'anu" or "ve'Inisem" are mentioned in the Torah (in Pinchas, Emor and Acharei-Mos).

(b) The Tana lists *six* Inuyim, because he also includes drinking, but in fact, eating and drinking are counted as one.

(a) We try to prove that drinking is included in eating, from Ma'aser Sheini, where the Torah speaks about eating the Ma'aser of corn, wine and oil. We reject that however, on the grounds that the Torah could well be speaking when one ate the wine and the oil in the form of a food called 'Anigron'.

(b) Neither is there a proof from the fact that the Torah speaks about spending one's Ma'aser Sheini money for wine and Sheichar (something which intoxicates) - and intoxicating wine loses its potency when it is added to Anigron - because the 'Sheichar' there might be referring to a certain type of intoxicating fig called a Deveilah Ke'ilis (i.e. a fig that grew in Ke'ilah).

(c) We finally learn that "Sheichar" in this context means intoxicating wine, and not 'Deveilah Ke'ilis' - from a 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Sheichar" "Sheichar" from Nazir.

6)

(a) We conclude that "Tirosh" means wine and the Beraisa 'ha'Noder min ha'Tirosh, Asur be'Chol Minei Mesikah, u'Mutar be'Yayin', implying that Tirosh means other sweet things and not wine - refers specifically to Nedarim, where we follow the vernacular (and people tend to call other kinds of sweet drinks 'Tirosh').

(b) Before arriving at that conclusion, we presume 'Tirosh' to mean grapes.

(c) We then interpret the Pasuk in Zecharyah "ve'Tirosh Yenovev Besulos" - to mean 'the product of xcdsv grapes' (i.e. wine).

(d) We then prove from the Pasuk in Hoshei'a "Zenus ve'Yayin ve'Tirosh Yikach Leiv" - that Tirosh cannot mean grapes, because grapes do not intoxicate.

(a) Wine is called ...

1. ... 'Yayin" - because it brings much punishment and crying to the world (from the word 'Vay').
2. ... 'Tirosh' - because of its acronym 'Kol ha'Mi*s*gareh Bo Na'aseh *Reish* (meaning that anyone who becomes addicted to it, becomes poor).

(b) Wine has two sides to it; for someone who knows when to stop drinking, it can lead to wisdom. Consequently, Rav Kahana explained that if one merits it, wine turns one into a leader ('Na'aseh Rosh' - *without* a 'Resh'); whereas if he does not, he becomes impoverished ('Na'aseh Reish' - *with* one).

(c) Rava explains the dual connotation of "ve'Yayin *Yesamach* Levav Enosh" (of a 'Sin' and a 'Shin') - in a similar vein to the previous question: for someone who merits it, it makes him happy; whereas if he does not, it will destroy him (like 'Meshamemo' - make him desolate).

(d) It was wine and spices that made Rava clever.

(a) We learn that not washing and not anointing are considered an Inuy, from Daniel, who refrained from anointing himself as well as from meat, wine and 'Lechem Chamudos'. 'Lechem Chamudos' means wheat -bread made from clean, good-quality flour.

(b) We know that not bathing and not anointing, are considered Inuy - because the angel Gavriel told Daniel that from the day that he undertook to afflict himself by doing these things, his words were accepted.

(c) The Pasuk in Daniel however, mentions only anointing. We initially learn that bathing too, is considered an Inuy, from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Vatavo ka'Mayim Bekirbi u'che'Shemen be'Atzmosai" - because just as the oil is applied externally (in the form of anointing), so too, is the water (in the form of *bathing* - and not *drinking*).

(a) The Mishnah in Shabbos learns from the above Pasuk that, with regard to Yom Kipur, we say 'Sichah ki'Shesi'ah' - meaning that someone who anoints himself (with oil - or any other liquid) is Chayav on Yom Kipur as if he had drunk it.

(b) This disproves the previous source for washing - because from here we see that a. "ka'Mayim be'Kirbo" refers to taking water *internally* (and not *externally*); and b. we learn anointing from washing (and not vice-versa, as we explained above).

(c) We ultimately learn that not bathing too, is considered an Inuy - from the extra Lashon in Daniel "ve*'Soch* Lo Sachti" (when it could have written "ve'Lo Sachti").