Explanation: This is not an absolute proof, for they were absolute Tzadikim.

Explanation: The loaf is [the volume of] six eggs. Take half [of the Pundiyon] for the grocer (who baked the loaf. For the remaining half Pundiyon, one can buy a quarter Kav of wheat; this is the volume of six eggs.)

Note: Tosfos connotes that if not for the grocer's profit, the volume of the loaf would equal the volume of the wheat from which it was made. Perhaps this was true for their bread, which was stuck to the wall of the oven and did not rise much. It is difficult to say that "a loaf of six eggs" refers to a loaf made from six eggs. In Eruvin (82b-83a), the Gemara contrasts the size of the loaf of R. Yochanan ben Brokah (based on the price of wheat) and of R. Shimon (two ninths of a Kav). It says that the Shi'urim for Beis ha'Menuga, Tamei food to disqualify one who eats it, and Tum'as Ochlim, are respectively a half, quarter and eighth of the loaf. It does not say that the volume changes from wheat to bread, not to resolve the difference between the Tana'im, and not regarding the Shi'urim that depend on the size of the loaf!

This is the amount [of bread] for two meals, like it says in Eruvin (82b).

Question (Ri): In Shabbos (118a), it connotes that it is normal that [an Oni] has a meal with him;

Citation (118a): When [the Oni] leaves [the city], we send him with a meal, so he will not leave with nothing.

Summation of question: If so, why do we give to him two meals? One meal suffices for him. The meal he has with him he will eat immediately, and the meal that they give to him now, he will take it with him!

Answer (Ri): We do not distribute the Tamchuy (food given to Aniyim) at night, for one cannot tell to whom they gave and to whom they did not give.

Support: It seems that they give to him 'needs of the night.' It explains that this is a bed and felt to put under his head, but we do not give to him a loaf!

This is why we give to him two meals. He eats one at night, and one is for tomorrow, so he will not leave empty.

The reason he should not leave empty is because one who has bread in his basket is [calm,] unlike one who does not have. If he has, [even without eating it now] he does not feel so hungry.

Suggestion: Perhaps the reason [why we give to him two meals] is lest he will not reach a city of Yisraelim [before he must stop traveling tomorrow evening], so he will have what to eat.

Rejection: If we were concerned for this, we should give to him three meals, for also at night they will not give to him even when he reaches Yisraelim, for we do not distribute the Tamchuy at night!

Suggestion #1: Perhaps really, we distribute [the Tamchuy at night], and we give to him two meals, for we are concerned lest twice he will not reach Yisraelim (before night)!

Suggestion #2: We are concerned [lest he will not reach Yisraelim] only once. We give to him the second [meal] so he will have bread in his basket!

Rejection: If so, how does it say there we escort him with one meal? If there is concern lest he not reach Yisraelim, we should give to him two [to leave with them]!

Conclusion: Therefore, what I explained is correct. (He eats one at night, and one is so he will not leave empty.)

Explanation: On Shabbos afternoon [we give to him three meals]. The two meals that we gave to him yesterday on Erev Shabbos, he ate one on Shabbos night and one Shabbos morning;

The three meals that we give to him on Shabbos, he eats one on Shabbos for Seudah Shelishis, one on Motza'ei Shabbos, and the third remains with him tomorrow on the way, so he will not go empty. It is not proper to elaborate.

Question (Rashba): A Mishnah (Pe'ah 8:7), brought below (118a) says that if one has food for two meals in his house, he may not take from the Tamchuy;

What is the reason? He eats one immediately, and one at night. If so, he will go empty!

Answer: We must say that "food for two meals" is without the one that he will eat immediately.

Question: When he lodges for Shabbos, why do we give to him three meals? Our Mishnah is R. Akiva, who says that one who has food for 14 meals may not take from the Kupah (money box of Tzedakah);

The Gemara below (118a) asks "who taught this? If it is Rabanan (who say that one must eat three meals on Shabbos), it should say 15 (one eats 15 meals in a week). If it is R. Chidka (who says that one must eat four meals on Shabbos), there are 16!"

It answers that it is R. Akiva, who says that one should make his Shabbos like a weekday (eat only two meals, rather than take Tzedakah).

Answer (Rashba): For the sake of [the extra] Seudah of Shabbos, one should not begin to take [Tzedakah], but if he already needs to take, he takes also for the [extra] Seudah of Shabbos.

Explanation: Rav Papa was a Gabai, and he did not give to him from the Kupah, since he was going to people's doors (begging);

Rav Sama said to [Rav Papa] "if you will not give to him from the Kupah, all the more so others will not give to him!"

We conclude that the Beraisa that taught "we need not give to him from the Kupah" means enough for a meal, but we give a small amount to him.

Implied question: This verse is written regarding [giving for] the Beis ha'Mikdash, i.e. for Bedek ha'Bayis (what is needed for upkeep of the building)!

Answer: All the more so [one should give at least this amount] for Tzedakah.

Explanation: It is obvious to us that he is Metamei [people], like the Mishnah in Kelim teaches;

Citation (Kelim 1:1): The following are Avos ha'Tum'ah - a Sheretz, semen, a Neveilah, a person who is Tamei Mes, a Metzora in Yemei Sipuro (the seven days he counts between the two times he must shave)... they are Metamei people and Kelim through touching, and a Kli Cheres through [entering] its interior.

This is why [it is obvious to us that he is Metamei people, and] we ask 'what is the source that he is Metamei? It is written "v'Rachatz b'Mayim v'Taher"!' This implies that through that Tevilah (before Yemei Sipuro), he becomes Tahor!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He is Metamei only garments that he is wearing.

Question (Rivam): In Toras Kohanim, in Parshas Shemini (4:9), it is proven that he is Metamei even Kelim, even though wearing does not apply to them!

It excludes from "[Yechabes] Begadav" only people and Kli Cheres that he touches!

Explanation #2: Rather, surely he is Metamei Kelim when he moves them, even if he is not wearing them.

Support: It connotes like this, for it says "according to this, what is the source that a Sheretz is Metamei people? Is it not because since it is Metamei Kelim, it is Metamei also people?...

If garments that he is wearing are called connected, what was the question from a Sheretz? Wearing does not apply to it. There, surely we learn a person from garments!

Change of text (Rivam): The text does not say "b'Chiburim" (connected), rather, "Tum'ah of garments is different."

Proof: One who moves a Neveilah is Metamei Begadim, and he is not Metamei people.

Assertion (Rivam): The text does not say "what is the reason? Is it not because Tum'ah b'Chiburim is different?!", for we answer only that there is a difference between Tum'ah of garments and Tum'ah of people.

Support: It connotes that [Rav Sheshes] himself does not ask whether it is Metamei garments and Kelim through touching. He asks only about [being Metamei] people.

Explanation (R. Chananel): This refers to the mother of Rav Achdevoy. Ula calls him the one who perverted the ways of his mother, for he caused her to be disgraced in front of Rav Sheshes;

She was Rav Sheshes' wet nurse, therefore she said "see these breasts that you nursed from!"

Implied question: In several ways Yemei Chaluto are more stringent than Yemei Sipuro, and we do not learn from the Hekesh [to equate them]! (Rashash points out that it is not truly a Hekesh. Rather, it is a Gezeirah Shavah or Mah Matzinu.)

Answer: This is because we cannot totally learn [Yemei Sipuro from Yemei Chaluto], for it says "v'Taher", which connotes that he became Tahor from his previous state [of Tum'ah];

Rather, only for this matter we learn, for they are equal, that people and Kelim receive Tum'ah only from an Av ha'Tum'ah.

Explanation: He soothes Chemah (wrath) more than Moshe did in his Tefilah.

Implied question: Also Moshe gave Tzedakah covertly!

\ Answer: Perhaps at the time [of Moshe's Tefilah] that merit [of covert Tzedakah] already ceased.

Question: In Nedarim (32a), we say that Moshe killed Chemah!

Alternative text: Some change the text to say "and one who gives a Perutah to an Oni and appeases him with words", because it connotes that the verse discusses one who gives Tzedakah, for it says "v'Safek la'Ra'ev Nafshecha v'Nefesh Na'anah Tasbi'a."

Rejection: This is wrong. "V'Nefesh Na'anah Tasbi'a" means that you satiate him with words, i.e. you appease him with words!

Proof: You are forced to say that the text does not say so. According to that text, it should have said that he gets 17 Brachos, i.e. the six above and these 11!