Nedarim 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who vows

to receive no benefit

from grain

—he is

forbidden

to derive benefit from anything, even if it is not grain but is midagan—that is, it is gathered from the field by placing it in a threshing floor, in a heap, like grain.

Therefore, he is also forbidden

to derive benefit from dry Egyptian beans

, since they too are gathered from the field by placing the beans in a heap,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And

if the

Sages

disagree with him and

say:

A person who forbids himself from deriving benefit from grain does not intend the manner in which produce is gathered, but rather he intends grain produce; therefore,

he is forbidden only the five species

ordinarily considered grain.

They are: wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt.

Rabbi Meir says:

Only

one who vows

and takes upon himself a prohibition against deriving benefit

from produce,

who did not use the word grain in his wording but rather said produce,

is forbidden only the five species.

For when he says “produce,” he does not intend everything gathered into a heap, but only the five species of grain.

But one who vows from grain,

he is

forbidden everything

whose manner of gathering is by means of a heap.

Since he said “grain,” he intends everything that is midagan, that is, gathered by means of a heap.

But he is permitted

to derive benefit

from the fruit of trees and from vegetables,

which are not gathered by means of a heap—and therefore are not included in the language of his vow.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that according to Rabbi Meir, one who vows from grain intends everything gathered into a heap. The Gemara says about this:

This is to say,

we have heard from the words of the Mishna that according to Rabbi Meir,

“grain”

means everything

that

is midagan.

Rav Yosef raises an objection

from a verse in II Chronicles [chapter 31], concerning King Hezekiah, who strengthened his generation in knowledge of the laws of separating terumot and tithes, as it is stated there:

“And when the word spread

[that the Israelites had become accustomed to the laws of terumot and tithes],

the Children of Israel increased

in bringing terumot and tithes from

the first

of the grain, wine, and oil, and all the produce of the field in abundance.” And so on.

Since the verse distinguishes between “grain” and “all the produce of the field,” it follows that other things are not included in “grain,” and that “grain” refers only to the five species of grain!

And if you say

that

“grain” means everything

that

is midagan,

then according to your words, all the produce of the field gathered into a heap is included in grain. If so,

what is the meaning of “when the word spread, they increased

grain, wine, and oil, and all the produce of the field”?

Once the verse said that they brought grain, all the types of produce of the land that are midagan were included in that term. What, then, does the verse add by saying “and all the produce of the field”?

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

Actually, grain includes everything gathered into a heap, and this includes all the produce of the field as well.

What the verse comes to add by saying that the Children of Israel brought produce of the field is

to include

that they also brought

the fruit of trees and vegetables,

which are not gathered into a heap and are not included in “grain”; the verse teaches that the Children of Israel brought terumot and tithes from those as well.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Meir says: One who vows from produce, etc.”

That is, according to Rabbi Meir, when a person forbids himself from produce, he is forbidden only the five species of grain.

But when he forbids himself from grain, according to the Sages he is forbidden only the five species of grain, whereas Rabbi Meir holds that he is forbidden everything gathered into a heap.

The Gemara discusses: What is the halakha according to the Sages when a person forbids himself using the expression “produce”? Do they agree with Rabbi Meir that he is forbidden only the five species of grain, or do they disagree with him?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone agrees,

both the Sages and Rabbi Meir,

that one who vows from produce is forbidden only the five species.

It was taught likewise

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan:

And the Sages and Rabbi Meir are in agreement

, although they disagree concerning one who forbids grain,

that one who vows from produce is forbidden only the five species.

And we object:

It is obvious

that “produce” refers only to the five species and no more. Why, then, did Rabbi Yohanan have to say that according to the Sages one is forbidden only the five species when he vows from “produce”?

And we answer:

Lest you say

, I might have said that a person who forbids himself

produce

intends

everything, and that anything which grows is forbidden.

and that everything that grows would be forbidden to him,

It teaches us

Rabbi Yohanan

that it does not mean everything,

but only the five species are included in the term produce.

Rav Yosef raises an objection,

for apparently the verse cited above indicates that the word produce includes more than the five species of grain, as the verse states:

“And when the word spread, the Children of Israel increased”

and

so on,

and later it says that they brought the produce of the field in abundance. This indicates that many types are called produce, as it says, “the produce of the field in abundance.” Why, then, did we say that only the five species are included in the word produce?

Rava said:

There is a distinction between the verse and the Mishna.

In the Mishna it says

“produce,”

and this is a matter

by itself,

whereas the verse speaks of

“produce

of the

field,”

and this is a matter

by itself—produce refers only to the five species, whereas the produce of the field includes many species.

—

The Gemara relates an incident involving

the son

[literally: his son] of

Mar Shmuel, an administrator,

who instructed in his will

that they should give thirteen thousand dinars

—that they should give thirteen thousand dinars

to Rava, from the produce

[the Aramaic translation of the word “produce” is alalta]

of the Nehar Panya

—the produce that grew in Nehar Panya.

Rava sent

the question

before Rav Yosef:

“Alalta

—what is called by this term?”

He said

to him

Rav Yosef: It is the Mishna!

The uncertainty can be resolved from what is written in the Mishna concerning the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages:

“And they are in agreement that one who vows from produce is forbidden only the five species.”

It is proven that produce means the five species, and he should collect his debt from the five species.

Abaye said to him: Is it comparable?

The law of the Mishna is not comparable to the case before us!

When a person says

“produce,” it means

in his words

only the five species.

But here, he did not use the word “produce” itself, but its translation,

“alalta,”

and the expression does not refer only to the five species, but

means everything.

Therefore, he can collect his debt from everything that grows from the ground.

They brought his words before Rava—

they brought before Rava Abaye’s statement that alalta includes everything,

and

he said

about this, Rava:

“This is not what I was asking, for

a person who says

‘alalta’

means

everything

that emerges from the ground

by his words,

and concerning this I had no uncertainty at all, for I certainly concede this law to Abaye.

What I was uncertain about

was this that I was asking:

Can he collect his debt from the money that comes from the

rent

of

houses

that are rented out

and

from the

rent

of

ships

that are rented out?

What is the law?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say, since they depreciate

—their value decreases, and sometimes they are rented for less, so

they are not alalta.

Since he used the expression alalta, he intends something that rises and appreciates, and not something that depreciates?

Or perhaps, since their depreciation is not known

—the depreciation is not so noticeable and is therefore not significant,

it is alalta,

and this rent can be considered alalta?

This was Rava’s new uncertainty.

And this uncertainty

the Sages stated before Rav Yosef

and asked him what the law was, in order to answer Rava.

He said

to them, Rav Yosef: “The earlier question about which he was uncertain I resolved for him from the Mishna, but he disagreed with me and adopted Abaye’s view. If so, he does not listen to me at all.

And since he does not need us, why did he send to us?”

In any event, he does not listen to me.

From Rav Yosef’s words, Rava understood that

Rav Yosef was offended.

Rava heard

that Rav Yosef was offended,

and he came before him on the eve of Yom Kippur

—he came to Rav Yosef’s home on the eve of Yom Kippur in order to appease him.

He encountered his attendant

—he saw Rav Yosef’s attendant,

who was mixing a cup of wine before him

—who was about to mix a cup of wine for Rav Yosef.

He said to him

Rava said to the attendant:

“Give it to me, so that I shall mix it for him”

—so that he would mix the wine for Rav Yosef.

He gave it to him

—the attendant granted Rava permission,

and he mixed the cup of wine himself.

The manner in which Rava mixed the wine with water differed from the way the attendant was accustomed to doing it. Rav Yosef sensed this when

he was drinking,

and

said

to those present:

“This mixture resembles the mixture of Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Hama.”

Rav Yosef sensed that this was not the wine’s usual taste, as his attendant ordinarily mixed it for him; rather, it resembled Rava’s mixture.

His attendant said to him

—Rav Yosef’s attendant said to Rav Yosef: It is indeed so;

it is he

who prepared this drink.

Rav Yosef heard this and summoned Rava to enter before him. Rav Yosef wanted to rebuke Rava for disagreeing with him despite being his student, and he wished to warn him to be exceedingly humble.

Therefore

he said to him

Rav Yosef said to Rava:

“Do not sit down on your feet until you explain to me the meaning of this matter”

—until you explain the meaning of the verse:

“What is the meaning of that which is written: ‘And from the wilderness, a gift; and from the gift, an inheritance of God; and from the inheritance of God, the high places’?”

For these are not merely place names marking the route along which the Children of Israel traveled, since there is no place called Mattana. And it is also difficult: if this were the meaning, it should have said, “from Mattana to the inheritance”; what, then, is the meaning of the Torah’s wording, “an inheritance of God”?

He said to him

Rava said to Rav Yosef: The verse comes to teach:

“Once a person makes himself like a wilderness, which is ownerless and open to all,

then, as a result,

the Torah is given to him as a gift.

This is learned from

what is stated, “and from the wilderness,”

and immediately following it,

“a gift.”

And once

a person merits this because he has made himself like a wilderness,

that it was given to him

the Torah

as a gift,

he also merits that

it becomes an inheritance of God

—the Torah becomes an inheritance for him.

This is learned from

what is stated, “and from the gift,”

and immediately following it,

“an inheritance of God.”

And once

a person merits

that it becomes an inheritance of God,

he also merits that

he rises to greatness,

as is learned from

what is stated, “and from the inheritance of God,”

and immediately following it,

“the high places.”

All this a person merits because he humbles himself, is humble rather than arrogant, and makes himself like a wilderness.

And

by contrast,

if he elevates himself

and becomes arrogant,

the Holy One, blessed be He, humbles him.

This is learned from

what is stated,

“and from the high places,”

and immediately following it,

“the valley,”

as he descends from the high place to the low valley.

And he is punished further:

not only that, but they sink him into the ground

—they make him an exceedingly lowly person, like the threshold of a door, which is trampled by everyone.

This is learned from

what is stated

in the verse after “from the high places, the valley”:

“and it overlooks the face of the desolation.”

The reason Rav Yosef asked Rava to explain all these verses was so that Rava would state their meaning himself, recognize the disgrace of arrogance, and humble himself, since Rav Yosef had seen a flaw in Rava in that he had disagreed with him.

Rava continued explaining the verses:

And if

this person

retracts

his arrogance and humbles himself,

the Holy One, blessed be He,

again

raises him up.