Yoma 76a (עו.) — the Talmud in English

Alternatively: “Man ate the bread of the mighty”

This refers to Joshua,

who waited for Moses near the boundaries of Mount Sinai when he ascended the mountain,

for whom it descended

there

manna corresponding to all of Israel.

It is written here, “

the bread of the mighty

man.”

And it is written there,

Numbers 27:

“Take for yourself Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom there is spirit.”

And we challenge this:

But say: “

this ‘man’ is

Moses, as it is written

concerning him [Numbers 12]:

“Now the man Moses was exceedingly humble.”

And we answer:

One derives the meaning of “man” from “man,” but one does not derive “man” from “and the man.”

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s students asked him: Why did manna not descend for Israel once a year?

He said to them: I will give you a parable. To what can this be compared? —

To a mortal king who had one son. He allotted him his sustenance once a year, and the son would visit his father only once a year.

He then arose and allotted him his sustenance every day, and the son would visit his father every day.

So too Israel

in this regard:

one who had four or five sons would worry and say: Perhaps manna will not descend tomorrow, and they will all be found dead of hunger.

Thus they all directed their hearts toward their Father in Heaven.

Alternatively: because they ate it while it was hot.

Alternatively: because of the burden of the journey.

Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Yishmael, and the Elders were once sitting and engaged in the passage concerning the manna.

Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i was sitting among them.

Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i responded and said: The manna that descended for Israel was sixty cubits high.

Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Moda’i!

From where do you derive this?

How long will you continue piling up arguments and bringing them against us?

He said to him: My teacher, I am expounding a verse.

It is stated in the Book of Genesis [chapter 7]:

“The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.”

Perhaps you will say that the waters rose everywhere to a height of fifteen cubits above the ground. That cannot be so:

could it be that

it is possible that

fifteen cubits

the waters rose

in the valley, fifteen

cubits above the ground, while the waters rose

on the mountains?

Could water —

row by row,

rows of rows, like high and low walls,

stand?

But water stands at a level line!

Furthermore:

if the waters rose fifteen cubits above the ground everywhere —

how could the ark have risen?

How did the ark climb and reach above the tops of the mountains?

Rather,

first

all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, until the waters became level with the mountains,

so that the water level reached the tops of the mountains.

And afterward,

then

fifteen cubits upward

from the mountaintops

the waters prevailed.

And which measure is greater, the measure of goodness or the measure of punishment?

You must say: The measure of goodness is greater than the measure of punishment.

With regard to the measure of punishment, it says

Genesis 7:

“And the windows of heaven were opened.”

For these are only two openings.

With regard to the measure of goodness,

in the description of the descent of the manna

it says

Psalms 78:

“He commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven; He rained manna upon them to eat, and gave them the grain of heaven.”

How many openings are there in the

length of a

door? —

Four openings.

And once two doors were opened, each containing

four

openings,

there are here eight

openings opened in heaven for the descent of the manna.

That is, the measure of goodness represented by the manna was four times the measure of the evil of the Flood.

It follows that the manna that descended for Israel was sixty cubits high,

a measure four times the fifteen cubits of the waters of the Flood.

It was taught in a beraita: Isi ben Yehuda says: The manna that descended for Israel continued growing and rising, until all the kings of the East and the West could see it.

As it is stated

Psalms 23:

“You prepare a table before me in full view of my adversaries; my cup is overflowing.”

Abaye said: Infer from this: David’s cup,

David’s cup

for the World-to-Come,

upon which he will recite Birkat HaMazon in the World-to-Come [Maharsha] —

holds one hundred twenty-one log.

As it is stated: “My cup is overflowing.”

The numerical value of “overflowing” is this amount.

And we challenge Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i, who derives the height of the manna from the height of the waters of the Flood:

That is not comparable!

There,

in the Flood, the rains fell

for forty days.

Here,

with regard to the manna, it descended only for

one hour.

There is another distinction:

There,

in the Flood it descended

upon everyone.

Here,

with regard to the manna,

upon Israel alone.

And it was much more than they needed,

and such a great measure, a height of sixty cubits of manna, exceeded what they required.

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i —

a gzera shava,

“opening, opening”

concerning the opening of the windows of heaven

he derived.

Just as, when the windows of heaven were opened during the Flood, water descended to a height of fifteen cubits through two openings, so, with regard to the manna, it descended through eight openings [which are four times the number of two openings], to a measure of sixty cubits.

We learned in the Mishna: On Yom Kippur,

eating is prohibited.

Rav Ḥisda asked [see Tosafot]:

These five afflictions

mentioned in the Mishna —

correspond to what?

What is their source?

He said,

answering this,

Rav Ḥisda

himself:

They correspond to the five expressions of affliction in the Torah.

A.

“And on the tenth

of the seventh month there shall be a sacred convocation for you, and you shall afflict your souls” [Numbers 29].

B.

And “But on the tenth

of the seventh month … and you shall afflict your souls” [Leviticus 23:27].

C.

“It is a Shabbat of complete rest

for you, and you shall afflict your souls” [Leviticus 23:32].

D.

And “a Shabbat of complete rest

it shall be for you, and you shall afflict your souls” [Leviticus 16:31].

E.

“And it shall be for you

a statute for all time: in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, you shall afflict your souls” [Leviticus 16:29].

And we challenge Rav Ḥisda:

These

afflictions mentioned in the Mishna — are there really only

five!?

But

after all,

we learned six

afflictions

in the Mishna [

eating, drinking, bathing, anointing, wearing shoes, and marital relations]!?

And we answer:

Drinking —

is included within eating.

For Reish Lakish said: From where do we know that drinking is included within eating —

as it is stated

in Deuteronomy 14, with regard to second tithe: :

“And you shall eat before the Lord your God the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil.”

“Your wine” —

wine

it is,

and it calls it ‘and you shall eat.’

And we reject this proof:

From where

can you bring proof that this verse calls drinking eating?

Perhaps

it is referring to one who

ate

the wine

by means of anigron,

which is a mixture of wine in food: he put the wine into food, the food acquired the taste of wine, and he ate it?

The Gemara explains that “anigron” or “aksigron” means something into which the flavor of another substance has been imparted.

For Rabba bar Shmuel said: “Anigron” —

water

of cooked spinach.

Water in which spinach was cooked [boiled], giving the water the taste of spinach.

“Aksigron” —

the water of all cooked vegetables [

water in which other vegetables were boiled].

Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: From here

we learn that drinking is included within eating:

For it is stated with regard to the money of second tithe, in Jerusalem [Deuteronomy 14]:

“And you shall spend the money on whatever your soul desires: on cattle and sheep, on wine and on strong drink.”

“Strong drink” —

it is a drink, and the Merciful One calls it ‘and you shall eat’!

And we reject this proof:

From where

do you have proof?

Perhaps here too

it is referring to one who

ate

the strong drink

by means of anigron,

having mixed the strong drink into food and eaten it.

And we answer:

The Merciful One wrote “strong drink,”

whose meaning is

something

a thing

that intoxicates.

When strong drink is mixed into food, it does not intoxicate; necessarily, then, the verse is not referring to strong drink mixed into food, and it is thereby proven that drinking is included within eating.

And we reject this once again:

Perhaps

when one eats

Ke’ilite fig [

the name of a place; the verse is referring to a fig from there, which is intoxicating]!?

For it was taught in a beraita: If one ate a Ke’ilite fig and drank honey and milk,

which are intoxicating substances,

and entered the Temple \-

he is liable

to receive lashes for entering the Temple while intoxicated.