ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 76
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) 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
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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
(a) Wine is called ...
1. ... 'Yayin" - because it brings much punishment and crying to the world
(from the word 'Vay').
(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*
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).
(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,
(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
(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