Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 38a

R. Aha b. Adda said: In the West [i.e., Palestine] the following verse is divided into three verses, viz., And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud etc.⁶

R. Hama b. R. Hanina said: Moses became wealthy but from the chippings of the tablets, for it is written, Hew thee two tablets of stone like unto the first:⁷  their chips be thine.

R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: The Torah was given only to Moses and his seed, for it is written, write thee these words⁸  [and] Hew thee:⁹  just as the chips are thine so is the writing thine.¹⁰  But Moses in his generosity gave it to Israel, and concerning him it is said, He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed, etc.¹¹  R. Hisda objected: And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments?¹²  — He commanded me, and I [passed it on] to you.¹³  [A further objection:] Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me?¹⁴  — He commanded me, and I taught you. Now, therefore, write this song for you!¹⁵  — This refers to the song alone.¹⁶  That this song be a witness for the against the children of Israel?¹⁷  — But only the [Scripture] dialectics [were given to Moses alone].¹⁸

R. Johanan said: The Holy One, blessed be He, causes His Divine Presence to rest only upon him who is strong, wealthy, wise and meek;¹⁹  and all these [qualifications] are deduced from Moses. Strong, for it is written, And he spread abroad the tent over the tabernacle;²⁰  and a Master said, Moses our teacher spread it; and it is also written, Ten cubits shall be the length of the board.²¹  Yet perhaps it was long and thin?²²  — But [it is derived] from this verse: And I took the two tables, and cast them out of my two hands, and broke them.²³  Now, it was taught: The tablss [sic, tables] were six [handbreadths] in length, six in breadth, and three in thickness.²⁴  Wealthy, [as it is written] Hew thee, [interpreted] the chips be thine. Wise: for Rab and Samuel both said, Fifty gates of understanding were created in the world, and all but one were given to Moses, for it is said, For thou hast made him [sc. Moses] a little lower than God.²⁵  Meek, for it is written, Now the man Moses was very meek.²⁶

R. Johanan said: All the prophets were wealthy. Whence do we derive this? From Moses, Samuel, Amos and Jonah. Moses, because it is written, I have not taken one ass from them.³⁸  Now, if he meant without a hiring fee — did he then merely claim not to be one of those who take without a fee?²⁸  He must hence have meant, even with a fee.²⁹  But perhaps it was because of his poverty?³⁰  — But [it is derived] from the verse, Hew thee etc.: the chips be thine. Samuel, because it is written, Behold here I am: witness against me before the Lord, and before his anointed: whose ox have I taken, or whose ass have I taken?³¹  Now, if he meant for nothing — did he then merely claim not to be one of those who take without payment? Hence he must have meant, even for payment. But perhaps it was due to poverty? — Rather from this verse, And his return was to Ramah: for there was his house.³²  Whereupon Raba observed, wherever he went, his house went with him.³³  (Raba said: A greater thing is said of Samuel than of Moses: for in the case of Moses it is stated, 'I have not taken one ass from them' implying even for a fee;³⁴  but in the case of Samuel, he did not hire it even with their consent, for it is written, And they said, thou hast not defrauded us, nor taken advantage of our willingness.)³⁶  Amos, because it is written, Then answered Amos and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son, but I was a herdman and a gatherer of sycamore fruit;³⁶  which R. Joseph translated: Behold, I am the owner of flocks, and possess sycamore trees in the valley.³⁷  Jonah, as it is written [and he found a ship going to Tarshish:] so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it.³⁸  And R. Johanan observed: He paid for the hire of the whole ship. R. Romanus said: The hire of the ship was four thousand gold denarii.

R. Johanan also said: At first Moses used to study the Torah and forget it, until it was given to him as a gift, for it is said, And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him [… two tables of testimony].³⁹

MISHNAH. AND HE MAY SUPPORT HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN, THOUGH HE [THE MUDDAR] IS LIABLE FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE.⁴⁰  BUT HE MAY NOT FEED HIS BEASTS, WHETHER CLEAN OR UNCLEAN.⁴¹  R. ELIEZER SAID: HE MAY FEED AN UNCLEAN BEAST OF HIS, BUT NOT A CLEAN ONE. THEY [THE SAGES] SAID TO HIM, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN UNCLEAN AND A CLEAN BEAST? HE REPLIED TO THEM, THE LIFE OF A CLEAN BEAST BELONGS TO HEAVEN, BUT THE BODY IS HIS OWN;⁴²  BUT AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL

1. Deut. VI, 1. Wilna Gaon deletes this example, as in fact 'these' is read. He substitutes 'eth in As the Lord liveth ('eth — sign of the accusative) that made us this soul (Jer. XXXVIII, 16). In Heb. Zoth (this) and 'eth are similar, differing only in one letter, and this may have caused the error in the text.
2. Jer. LI, 3.
3. Ezek. XLVIII, 26.
4. Ruth III, 12.
5. Wilna Gaon adds the following examples: Ibid. XV, 21 Jer. XXXIX. These are given in Soferim VI.
6. Ex. XIX, 9. [This is not to imply that in Palestine where the whole of the Pentateuch was read in three years, most verses were divided in two or three (v. Rappaport, Halichoth Kedem pp. 10 and 17). It only means that this was one of the few passages in which there existed a difference of division between the Palestinians and Babylonians; v. Blau, JQR, 1896, p. 143.]
7. Ex. XXXIV, 1.
8. Ibid. 27.
9. Ibid. 1.
10. The Torah is thy property.
11. Prov. XXII, 9.
12. Deut. IV, 14. This proves that it was not given to Moses for himself.
13. This is the answer, which interprets the verse thus: And the Lord commanded me at that time, (and I determined) to teach you etc.
14. Ibid. 5.
15. Ibid. XXXI, 19. 'For you' shews that it was given to the Israelites in the first place.
16. But the rest of the Torah was originally given to Moses alone.
17. Deut. XXXI, 19. If the reference is to the song alone, how can that testify against Israel?
18. And he taught them to the people.
19. Cf. Maim. Guide, II, ch. 32. It seems strange that wealth should he regarded as a necessary qualification for prophecy. Poverty was not regarded as a fault, many of the Rabbis being poor (e.g., Hillel, before he became nasi; R. Joshua, the opponent of R. Gamaliel; R. Judah), yet were not thought of any the less. CF. also Aboth, VI, 4. Is it possible that 'wealthy' was included in order to oppose the N.T. teachings which imply that poverty in itself is a virtue? [According to Asheri these qualifications are deemed necessary for the gift of permanent prophecy. This would explain the inclusion of wealth, which dowers its possessor with the sense of independence. the better to proclaim the word of God and which commands greater respect.]
20. Ex. XL, 19.
21. Ex. XXVI, 16. This then was the height of the tabernacle: to have spread the tent over it he must have been extremely tall, and presumably correspondingly strong.
22. In which case he would not necessarily be strong.
23. Deut. IX, 17.
24. These would be extremely heavy and require great strength to handle.
25. Ps. VIII, 6.
26. Num. XII, 3.
27. Num. XVI, 15.
28. Surely he did not pride himself on not being a thief!
29. I.e., he had no need to hire an animal, possessing so many himself. Therefore he must have been wealthy.
30. I.e., having so few possessions that he did not need one.
31. I Sam. XII, 3.
32. Ibid. VII, 17.
33. I.e., he travelled about with all the retinue and baggage of his house: this could be done only by a wealthy man.
34. This implies that he did not compel them to hire him an ass. Yet even when he merely requested it, they might have dissimulated their unwillingness through shame and hired it to him.
35. Ibid. XII, 4.
36. Amos VII, 14.
37. Hence I have no need to turn my prophecy to professional uses. Boker, rendered in the A.V. 'herdman', is here translated 'owner of flocks'. [This is the rendering of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 9, n. 9.]
38. Jon. I, 3.
39. Ex. XXXI, 18. This shews that the two tables (i.e., the Torah) were made a gift to him.
40. This continues the preceding Mishnahs. Tosaf.: this applies according to the Rabbis supra 33b, to maintenance above the minimum necessities, which is all a husband is liable For.
41. Because a fattened animal has more value than otherwise; hence it is a direct benefit to the muddar.
42. I.e., since it may be eaten, he directly benefits by its fattening

GEMARA. R. Isaac b. Hananiah said in R. Huna's name: He who is under a vow not to benefit from his neighbour may give him his daughter in marriage. R. Zera pondered thereon: What are the circumstances? If the property of the bride's father is forbidden to the bridegroom, — is he not giving him a servant to serve him?²  If again the bridegroom's property is forbidden to the father of the bride³  — but even a greater thing was said: HE MAY SUPPORT HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN. THOUGH HE [THE MUDDAR] IS LIABLE FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE;⁴  then you say, He may give him his daughter in marriage! — After all, this refers to the case where the property of the father of the bride is forbidden to the bridegroom, but this treats of his daughter, a bogereth,⁵  [who marries] at her own desire. It was taught likewise: He who is under a vow not to benefit from his neighbour may not give him his daughter in marriage; but he may permit his daughter, a bogereth, to marry him at her own desire.

R. Jacob said: If a man imposes a vow on his son [to do no service for him], in order that his son may study,⁶  the latter may fill a barrel of water and light the lamp for him.⁷  R. Isaac said: He is permitted to broil him a small fish.

R. Jeremiah said in R. Johanan's name: If a man is under a vow not to benefit from his neighbour, the latter may offer him the cup of peace. What is that? — Here [in Babylon] it has been interpreted, the cup drunk in the house of mourning.⁸  In the West [Palestine] it was said: the cup of the baths.⁹

BUT HE MAY NOT FEED HIS BEASTS, WHETHER etc. It was taught: Joshua of 'Uzza said: He may feed his Canaanitish [i.e., heathen] bondmen and bondwomen, but not his beasts, whether clean or unclean. Why so? Because slaves are for service;¹⁰  beasts are for fattening.

MISHNAH. IF ONE IS FORBIDDEN TO BENEFIT FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, AND HE PAYS HIM A VISIT [IN SICKNESS] HE MUST STAND, BUT NOT SIT; HE MAY AFFORD HIM A CURE OF LIFE, BUT NOT A CURE OF MONEY.¹¹

1. Since it may not be eaten, he does not benefit through its fattening.
2. Why is it then permitted? This is on the assumption that the reference is to a na'arah, (v. Glos.), whose labour belongs to her father, and who in turn transfers it to her husband.
3. And R. Huna teaches that he may marry his daughter, though by maintaining her he indirectly benefits her father.
4. So that he could support his daughter even when under her father's roof, and he is not considered as thereby benefiting her father. Surely then it is only too obvious that he may marry her.
5. Over twelve years and six months and one day of age. She is no longer under her father's authority, and the profits of her labour belong to herself.
6. Without interruption.
7. For presumably his vow was not directed against such trifling services, which require very little time.
8. It was customary to drink a special mourner's cup at the meals in a mourner's house. Keth. 8b.
9. It was the custom to drink a cup of some beverage after a hot bath.
10. Consequently their master does not gain anything when one feeds them. This refer, to extra food over the slave's requirements. — Ran.
11. The meaning of this is discussed on 42b.