Musar for Nedarim 75:17
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> וזן את אשתו ואת בניו אף על פי שהוא חייב במזונותן ולא יזון את בהמתו בין טמאה בין טהורה רבי אליעזר אומר זן את הטמאה ואינו זן את הטהורה אמרו לו מה בין טמאה לטהורה אמר להו שהטהורה נפשה לשמים וגופה שלו וטמאה
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, <i>And his return was to Ramah: for there was his house</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 17. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> Whereupon Raba observed, wherever he went, his house went with him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he travelled about with all the retinue and baggage of his house: this could be done only by a wealthy man. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> (Raba said: A greater thing is said of Samuel than of Moses: for in the case of Moses it is stated, <i>'I have not taken one ass from them'</i> implying even for a fee;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> but in the case of Samuel, he did not hire it even with their consent, for it is written, <i>And they said, thou hast not defrauded us, nor taken advantage of our willingness</i>.)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amos VII, 14. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> Amos, because it is written, <i>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</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amos VII, 14. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> which R. Joseph translated: Behold, I am the owner of flocks, and possess sycamore trees in the valley.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.] ');"><sup>37</sup></span> Jonah, as it is written [<i>and he found a ship going to Tarshish</i>:] <i>so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jon. I, 3. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> 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 <i>denarii</i>. 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, <i>And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him</i> [… <i>two tables of testimony</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 18. This shews that the two tables (i.e., the Torah) were made a gift to him. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. AND HE MAY SUPPORT HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN, THOUGH HE [THE MUDDAR] IS LIABLE FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> BUT HE MAY NOT FEED HIS BEASTS, WHETHER CLEAN OR UNCLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a fattened animal has more value than otherwise; hence it is a direct benefit to the muddar. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since it may be eaten, he directly benefits by its fattening ');"><sup>42</sup></span> BUT AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL