Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

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> &nbsp; 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

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

If we want to explain the verse according to its simple meaning, we can accept the commentary of the Ran: Since Moses was the "father" of all subsequent prophets and his accomplishments as a prophet were far above the laws of nature, as vividly described in Deut. 34,11 how can we understand that he was afflicted with a physical blemish such as a stutter? He could not even control ordinary nature! How could a person underprivileged by nature rise to become a master of nature?! There is hardly a greater blemish than if someone cannot express his thoughts due to a physical handicap! Man's entire advantage over the animal kingdom is the ability not only to formulate thoughts but to express them! Moreover, we know from a number of sources in the Talmud such as Nedarim 38, and Maimonides, that G–d does not grant the gift of prophecy to people who do not possess physical prowess, wealth, wisdom as well as the virtue of humility and that Moses possessed all of these attributes. How then could Moses be plagued by such a deformity? In Sotah 12, where the verse in Exodus 2,6 in which Pharaoh's daughter finds a crying lad, i.e. Moses, is discussed, we find the description of Moses both as a ילד, young child, and as a נער, a description normally reserved for a boy entering his teens, not for a three months old baby. Rabbi Yehudah explains this to mean that Moses had a voice as strong as that of a נער, though he himself was a ילד. Rabbi Nechemyah questions this by saying that this would be considered as a physical deformity, and that is obviously not satisfactory! What he means is that if a minor blemish is inconceivable in Moses, how could a major blemish such as his difficulty to express himself be acceptable! When the Torah describes the creation of man in Genesis 2,7, we are told ויהי האדם לנפש חיה, which Onkelos translates as man becoming a talking spirit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

Ben Zoma concludes his statement in the Mishnah quoted above by saying: "Who is truly honored? He who honors G–ds creatures" [human beings]. He tells us that just as we have to do our duty by G–d, so we have to do our duty by our fellow human beings. Both obligations rank equally. The same three attributes are also the qualifications that are prerequisites for a person who aspires to become a prophet. Our sages have phrased it thus: "Prophetic spirit does not come to rest on a person who does not combine within himself wisdom, valour and wealth." (Shabbat 92) The source for these requirements is Moses himself who possessed all these attributes. Prophets also need to learn from Moses not to boast about possession of these attributes. Practising humility is an acknowledgment that one does not "possess" these attributes, but has been endowed with them by G–d. The greater the degree of prophecy a man displays, the greater the amount of humility he must practise. This is why Moses could be described as the most humble of all people. The true leader displays these virtues both vis-a-vis G–d and vis-a-vis his contemporaries. Studying Torah in order to be called "Rabbi," etc., is frowned upon. Neither, of course, should one be motivated by the desire to become rich or the desire to exercise authority over people.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse