נדרים סב

נדרים סב

תָּנָא: הוּקְפְּלוּ רוֹב הַמַּקְצוּעוֹת — מוּתָּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם גֵּזֶל, וּפְטוּרוֹת מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת.

The Sages taught: If most of the knives have been set aside, the figs left in the field are permitted with regard to the laws of stealing and are exempt from tithes, since their owners presumably do not want them and the figs are therefore considered ownerless property.

רַבִּי וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִיקְּלַעוּ לְהָהוּא אַתְרָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּקְפְּלוּ רוֹב הַמַּקְצוּעוֹת, רַבִּי הֲוָה קָא אָכֵיל, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא אָכֵיל. אֲתָא מָרְהוֹן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אַמַּאי לָא אָכְלִי רַבָּנַן? הוּקְפְּלוּ רוֹב הַמַּקְצוּעוֹת הוּא! וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן לָא אָכֵיל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, קָסָבַר: מִשּׁוּם סַנְיוּת מִילְּתָא הוּא דְּקָאָמַר הָדֵין גַּבְרָא.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda arrived at a certain place at a time when most of the knives had been set aside. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ate the figs left in the field, but Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda did not eat. The owner of the field came and said to them: Why are the Sages not eating? It is now the period when most of the knives have been set aside. The Gemara notes: But nevertheless, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda did not eat, since he thought that it was only due to embarrassment over the matter that that man said his comment, but he did not really mean to declare his figs ownerless.

רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אִיקְּלַע לְהָהוּא אַתְרָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּקְפְּלוּ רוֹב הַמַּקְצוּעוֹת, הֲוָה קָאָכֵיל, יָהֵיב לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ לָא אָכֵיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֱכוֹל, כָּךְ אָמַר לִי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: הוּקְפְּלוּ רוֹב הַמַּקְצוּעוֹת — מוּתָּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם גֵּזֶל וּפְטוּרוֹת מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

The Gemara relates another incident: Rabbi Ḥama bar Rabbi Ḥanina arrived at a certain place at a time when most of the knives had been set aside. He ate from the figs that were left in the field, but when he gave some to his attendant the latter did not eat. Rabbi Ḥama said to him: Eat, as Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yosei said to me the following ruling in the name of his father: If most of the knives have been set aside, the figs are permitted with regard to the laws of stealing and are exempt from the tithe.

רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ הָהוּא גַּבְרָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּקְפְּלוּ הַמַּקְצוּעוֹת דְּקָאָכֵיל. אַחֲתֵיהּ בְּשַׂקָּא וְשַׁקְלֵיהּ וְאַמְטְיֵיהּ לְמִשְׁדֵּיהּ בְּנַהֲרָא. אָמַר לוֹ: אוֹי לוֹ לְטַרְפוֹן שֶׁזֶּה הוֹרְגוֹ! שְׁמַע הָהוּא גַּבְרָא שַׁבְקֵיהּ וַעֲרַק. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: כׇּל יָמָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק הָיָה מִצְטַעֵר עַל דָּבָר זֶה, אָמַר: אוֹי לִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמַּשְׁתִּי בְּכִתְרָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה.

The Gemara relates another incident: A certain man found Rabbi Tarfon eating figs from his field at the time when most of the knives had been set aside. He placed Rabbi Tarfon in a sack, lifted him up, and carried him to throw him into the river. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Woe to Tarfon, for this man is killing him. When that man heard that he was carrying the great Rabbi Tarfon, he left him and fled. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel: All the days of that righteous man, Rabbi Tarfon, he was distressed over this matter, saying: Woe is me, for I made use of the crown of Torah, as Rabbi Tarfon was only released out of respect for his Torah learning.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכִתְרָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה נֶעְקָר מִן הָעוֹלָם. קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בֵּלְשַׁצַּר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי קוֹדֶשׁ שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ כְּלֵי חוֹל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבָאוּ בָהּ פָּרִיצִים וְחִילְּלוּהָ״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁפְּרָצוּם נַעֲשׂוּ חוֹל — נֶעְקַר מִן הָעוֹלָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״בֵּהּ בְּלֵילְיָא קְטִיל בֵּלְשַׁצַּר״, הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכִתְרָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, שֶׁהוּא חַי וְקַיָּים לְעוֹלָם — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

And with regard to this statement, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever makes use of the crown of Torah is uprooted from the world. This can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If Belshazzar, who made use of the sacred Temple vessels, which had already become non-sacred vessels by that time, as after their forcible removal from the Temple the vessels lost their sanctity, as it is stated in the verse: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22), showing that once the Temple vessels have been robbed they become non-sacred, was uprooted from the world for his actions, as it is written: “On that night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed” (Daniel 5:30); one who makes use of the crown of Torah, which lives and endures forever and whose sanctity cannot be removed, all the more so shall he be uprooted.

וְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, כֵּיוָן דְּכִי אָכֵיל דְּהוּקְפְּלוּ רוֹב הַמַּקְצוּעוֹת הֲוָה, אַמַּאי צַעֲרֵיהּ הָהוּא גַּבְרָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּהָהוּא הֲווֹ גָּנְבִי לֵיהּ עִנְבֵי כּוּלַּהּ שַׁתָּא, וְכֵיוָן דְּאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן סָבַר: הַיְינוּ דְּגַנְבַן. אִי הָכִי אַמַּאי צַיעַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן עָשִׁיר גָּדוֹל הֲוָה, וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְפַיְּיסוֹ בְּדָמִים.

The Gemara returns to the incident involving Rabbi Tarfon. And in the case of Rabbi Tarfon, since he was eating during the time when most of the knives had been set aside, why did that man trouble him? The Gemara explains: It was because someone had been stealing grapes from that man all year, and when he found Rabbi Tarfon he thought: This is the one who stole from me the entire year. The Gemara asks: If so, why did Rabbi Tarfon berate himself? Clearly he was justified in saving himself. The Gemara answers: Since Rabbi Tarfon was very wealthy, he should have sought to appease him with money in order to save himself, rather than relying on his status as a Torah scholar.

תַּנְיָא: ״לְאַהֲבָה אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמוֹעַ בְּקֹלוֹ וּלְדׇבְקָה בוֹ״, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם: אֶקְרָא שֶׁיִּקְרָאוּנִי ״חָכָם״, אֶשְׁנֶה שֶׁיִּקְרָאוּנִי ״רַבִּי״, אֲשַׁנֵּן שֶׁאֶהְיֶה זָקֵן וְאֵשֵׁב בִּישִׁיבָה.

Apropos the story of Rabbi Tarfon’s regret for gaining personal benefit from his status as a Torah scholar, the Gemara cites similar teachings. It is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice, and to cleave to Him” (Deuteronomy 30:20). This verse indicates that a person should not say: I will read the written Torah so that they will call me a Sage; I will study Mishna so that they will call me Rabbi; I will review my studies so that I will be an Elder and will sit in the academy.

אֶלָּא לְמַד מֵאַהֲבָה, וְסוֹף הַכָּבוֹד לָבֹא. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קׇשְׁרֵם עַל אֶצְבְּעֹתֶיךָ כׇּתְבֵם עַל לוּחַ לִבֶּךָ״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נוֹעַם״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ וְתֹמְכֶיהָ מְאֻשָּׁר״.

Rather, learn out of love, as the verse states: “To love the Lord your God.” And the honor will eventually come of its own accord, as it is stated: “Bind them upon your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:3), and it states: “Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17), and it states: “It is a tree of life to those who grasp it; happy is everyone who holds it fast” (Proverbs 3:17). Consequently, one who studies in order to master Torah for its own sake, as reflected in the verse “bind them upon your fingers,” will eventually merit pleasantness, peace, and happiness.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּר רַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: עֲשֵׂה דְּבָרִים לְשֵׁם פׇּעֳלָם, וְדַבֵּר בָּהֶם לִשְׁמָם. אַל תַּעֲשֵׂם עֲטָרָה לְהִתְגַּדֵּל בָּהֶם, וְאַל תַּעֲשֵׂם קוּרְדּוֹם לִהְיוֹת עוֹדֵר בּוֹ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בֵּלְשַׁצַּר שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ אֶלָּא בִּכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ כְּלֵי חוֹל — נֶעְקַר מִן הָעוֹלָם, הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכִתְרָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok says: Do things for the sake of their performance, not for any ulterior motive, and speak words of Torah for their own sake. Do not make them a crown with which to become glorified, nor make them a dolabra [kordom] with which to hoe, i.e., do not use Torah study as a means of earning a livelihood. And this is an a fortiori inference: If Belshazzar, who made use only of sacred vessels that had become non-sacred vessels, was uprooted from the world, one who makes use of the crown of Torah, whose sanctity is permanent, all the more so shall he be uprooted from the world.

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ לְאוֹדוֹעֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא יָדְעִי לֵיהּ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעַבְדְּךָ יָרֵא אֶת ה׳ מִנְּעוּרָיו״, אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן! עָשִׁיר גָּדוֹל הָיָה, וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְפַיֹּיסֵיהּ בְּדָמִים.

Rava said: In a time of need, it is permitted for a person to make himself known in a place where people do not know him. The proof is from what Obadiah said to Elijah in order to identify himself, as it is written: “But I, your servant, have feared the Lord from my youth” (I Kings 18:12). The Gemara asks: But this is difficult with regard to the story about Rabbi Tarfon, who was distraught because he revealed his identity to the man who placed him in the sack. The Gemara answers: The case of Rabbi Tarfon is different, as he was very wealthy, and therefore he should have sought to appease him with money.

רָבָא רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״וְעַבְדְּךָ יָרֵא אֶת ה׳ מִנְּעוּרָיו״, וּכְתִיב: ״יְהַלֶּלְךָ זָר וְלֹא פִיךָ״! הָא — בְּאַתְרָא דְּיָדְעִי לֵיהּ, הָא — בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא יָדְעִי לֵיהּ.

Rava raises a contradiction: It is written that Obadiah spoke highly of himself: “But I, your servant, have feared the Lord from my youth.” And it is written: “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth” (Proverbs 27:2). He answers: This verse is referring to a place where people know him, where he should not praise himself, whereas that verse is referring to a place where people do not know him.

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְצוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְמֵימַר ״צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן אֲנָא, שְׁרוֹ לִי תִּיגְרַאי בְּרֵישָׁא״, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְנֵי דָוִד כֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ״ — מָה כֹּהֵן נוֹטֵל בָּרֹאשׁ, אַף תַּלְמִיד חָכָם נוֹטֵל בָּרֹאשׁ. וְכֹהֵן מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ כִּי אֶת לֶחֶם (ה׳) אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא מַקְרִיב״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ״ — לְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדוּשָּׁה,

Rava said further: It is permitted for a Torah scholar to say: I am a Torah scholar, so resolve my case first, as it is written: “And the sons of David were priests” (II Samuel 8:18). The sons of David could not have been actual priests, as David was not a priest. Rather, the verse indicates that just as a priest takes his portion first, so too, a Torah scholar takes his portion first. And a priest, from where do we derive that he takes his portion first? As it is written: “And you shall sanctify him, for he offers the bread of your God” (Leviticus 21:8). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The phrase “and you shall sanctify him” applies with regard to every matter of sanctity:

לִפְתּוֹחַ רִאשׁוֹן, וּלְבָרֵךְ רִאשׁוֹן, וְלִיטּוֹל מָנָה יָפָה רִאשׁוֹן.

To open the Torah reading first, to recite a blessing first, and to take a fine portion first. When portions are distributed equally, a priest can choose his share first. The verse with regard to the sons of David proves that the same halakha applies to Torah scholars.

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְצוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְמֵימַר: לָא יָהֵיבְנָא אַכְּרָגָא, דִּכְתִיב ״מִנְדָּה בְלוֹ וַהֲלָךְ לָא שַׁלִּיט לְמִירְמֵא עֲלֵיהוֹן״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: ״מִנְדָּה״ — זוֹ מְנָת הַמֶּלֶךְ, ״בְּלוֹ״ — זוֹ כֶּסֶף גֻּולְגָּלְתָּא, ״וַהֲלָךְ״ — זוֹ אַרְנוֹנָא.

Furthermore, Rava said: It is permitted for a Torah scholar to say: I will not pay the head tax [karga], as it is written that the king of Persia wrote to Ezra, with regard to the priests, the Levites, and others who worked in the Temple: “It shall not be lawful to impose minda, belo, and halakh upon them” (Ezra 7:24). And Rabbi Yehuda said: Minda; this is the king’s portion. Belo; this is the money of the head tax. And halakh; this is arnona, a levy on people and their animals to perform physical labor in the service of the ruling authority. Since a Torah scholar is considered equivalent to a priest, as he is also dedicated to a sacred task, this exemption applies to him as well.

וְאָמַר רָבָא: שְׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְצוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְמֵימַר: ״עַבְדָּא דְנוּרָא אֲנָא לָא יָהֵיבְנָא אַכְּרָגָא״. מַאי טַעְמָא — לְאַבְרוֹחֵי אַרְיָא מִינֵּיהּ קָאָמַר.

And Rava said further: It is permitted for a Torah scholar to say: I am a servant of the priests of fire worship and therefore I will not pay the head tax. Rava maintains that a scholar may issue a statement of this kind in a place where the priests of fire-worshippers are exempt from the head tax, because he actually is declaring himself a servant of God, who is referred to as “a devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24). What is the reason that he is allowed to make this statement? He is saying it merely in order to chase a lion away from him, i.e., to avoid suffering a loss.

רַב אָשֵׁי הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהוּא אִבָּא, זַבְּנֵיהּ לְבֵי נוּרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָאִיכָּא ״לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁוֹל״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רוֹב עֵצִים לְהַסָּקָה נִיתְּנוּ.

The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi had a particular forest, and he sold it for its wood to the temple of fire worship. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Isn’t there the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), which prohibits assisting others in committing transgressions? And yet you are providing assistance to an idolatrous cult. He said to him: Most of the wood they use is for kindling, not for their ritual service. Consequently, I need not be concerned that the particular wood that I have sold them will be used for idolatry.

מַתְנִי׳ ״עַד הַקָּצִיר״ — עַד שֶׁיַּתְחִיל הֶעָם לִקְצוֹר קְצִיר חִטִּין, אֲבָל לֹא קְצִיר שְׂעוֹרִין, הַכֹּל לְפִי מְקוֹם נִדְרוֹ. אִם הָיָה בָּהָר — בָּהָר, וְאִם הָיָה בַּבִּקְעָה — בַּבִּקְעָה.

MISHNA: If one takes a vow until the harvest, the vow remains in effect until people begin to harvest. This is referring to the wheat harvest but not the barley harvest. As for the exact date of this event, all is determined according to the place where he took his vow. If he was on a mountain, it is assumed that he referred to the time of the harvest on the mountain, and if he was in a valley, it is assumed that he meant the time of the harvest in the valley.

״עַד הַגְּשָׁמִים״, ״עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ הַגְּשָׁמִים״ — עַד שֶׁתֵּרֵד רְבִיעָה שְׁנִיָּה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ שֶׁל רְבִיעָה. ״עַד שֶׁיִּפְסְקוּ גְּשָׁמִים״ — עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא נִיסָן כּוּלּוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹר הַפֶּסַח.

If one takes a vow until the rains, or until there are rains, the vow remains in effect until the second rain of the rainy season falls. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the time of the second rainfall arrives, even if rain does not fall. If one takes a vow until the rains end, the vow remains in effect until the entire month of Nisan has ended; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Until Passover has passed.

גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא: הַנּוֹדֵר ״עַד הַקַּיִץ״ בַּגָּלִיל, וְיָרַד לָעֲמָקִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִגִּיעַ הַקַּיִץ בָּעֲמָקִים — אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַקַּיִץ בַּגָּלִיל.

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who vows until the summer in the Galilee and subsequently descends to the valleys, even if the summer season has already arrived in the valleys, the subject of his vow remains forbidden to him until summer arrives in the Galilee, in accordance with the mishna’s ruling that the duration of a vow is in accordance with the place where it was made.

״עַד הַגְּשָׁמִים״, ״עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ גְּשָׁמִים״ — עַד שֶׁתֵּרֵד רְבִיעָה שְׁנִיָּה, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת דְּאָמַר ״עַד הַגְּשָׁמִים״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״עַד הַגֶּשֶׁם״ — עַד זְמַן גְּשָׁמִים קָאָמַר.

The mishna states that if one takes a vow until the rains, or until there are rains, he means until the second rain of the rainy season. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the time of the second rainfall arrives. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Zeira said: The dispute is in a case where one said: Until the rains. However, if he says: Until the rain, everyone agrees that he is saying that the vow should remain in effect until the time of the rains, but not necessarily until the rain actually falls.