Nedarim 55a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who vows

to derive benefit

from grain,

he is

forbidden

to derive benefit from every thing, even if it is not grain, but it is “midgan,” gathered from the field by placing it in a granary, in a heap, like grain.

And therefore, he is also forbidden

to derive benefit from dry Egyptian bean,

because its manner of being gathered from the field is also by placing the beans in a heap,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And

if

the Sages disagree with him, and

disagree with him and

say:

A person who forbade himself benefit from grain does not intend the manner of gathering produce, but rather he intends grain produce, and therefore

he is forbidden only [to derive benefit] from the five species

customary of grain.

And these are they: wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt.

Rabbi Meir says:

Only

one who vows

and accepts upon himself a prohibition of benefit

from produce,

who did not say “grain” in his wording, but rather “produce,”

is forbidden only [to derive benefit] from the five species.

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

But one who vows from grain,

he is

forbidden from every

thing whose manner of gathering is by means of a heap.

For since he said “grain,” he intends every kind of thing that is “midgan,” gathered by means of a heap.

And he is permitted

to derive benefit

from the fruits of the tree and from vegetables,

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that according to Rabbi Meir, a person who vows from grain intends every thing gathered in a heap. And the Gemara says about this:

It follows,

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

that “grain”—

every

thing

means every thing that is midgan.

Rav Yosef raises an objection

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

“And when the matter spread

[that the Children of Israel became accustomed to the halakhot of terumot and tithes],

the Children of Israel increased

in bringing terumot and tithes from

the first fruits of

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

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

And if you say

that

“grain” means every

thing

that is midgan,

then according to your words, all the produce of the field gathered in a heap is included in grain, and if so,

what is “when the matter spread,

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

For after the verse said that they brought grain, all the species of the produce of the land that are “midgan” are included in this; what does the verse come to add by saying “all the produce of the field”?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

Grain indeed includes every thing gathered in a heap, and this also includes all the produce of the field.

And what the verse comes to add by saying that the Children of Israel brought from the produce of the field is that it comes

to include

that they also brought from

the fruits of the tree and vegetables,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: One who vows from produce, and so forth:

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

But when he forbids grain to himself, according to the Sages he is forbidden only [to derive benefit] from the five species of grain, whereas Rabbi Meir holds that he is forbidden from every thing gathered in a heap.

And the Gemara discusses: What is the law according to the Sages when he forbade himself using the expression “produce”? Do they agree with Rabbi Meir that he is forbidden only [to derive benefit] from the five species of grain, or do they disagree with him?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone agrees,

both the Sages and Rabbi Meir,

concerning one who vows from produce, that he is forbidden only [to derive benefit] from the five species.

It was also taught so

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan: And

they agree

the Sages and Rabbi Meir, despite their disagreement concerning one who forbade grain,

concerning one who vows from produce, that he is forbidden only [to derive benefit] from the five species.

And we ask:

It is obvious

that “produce” means only the five species and no more; and what did Rabbi Yohanan need to say, that according to the Rabbis they forbid only [the five species] when he vowed from “produce”?

And we answer:

Lest you say,

I would say that a person who forbade

produce

intends

that it means every kind of thing,

and every thing that grows would be forbidden.

He teaches us

Rabbi Yohanan

that it does not mean every kind of thing,

but only the five species are included in produce.

Rav Yosef raises an objection,

for apparently from the verse brought above it follows that the word “produce” includes more than the five species of grain, as the verse says

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

and

so forth,

and afterward it says there that they brought the produce of the field in abundance. It therefore follows that there are many types called produce, as it says “the produce of the field in abundance.” And why 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.

For in the Mishna it says

produce,

and this is a matter

by itself,

whereas the verse speaks of

the produce

of the

field,

and this is a matter

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

Thus, produce refers only to the five species, while the produce of the field includes many species.

And the Gemara recounts an incident involving

the son

of

Mar Shmuel, the administrator,

who commanded in his will

that they should give thirteen thousand dinars

—that they should give thirteen thousand dinars

to Rava, from the produce

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

of the Naher Pania

—the produce that grew in Naher Pania.

Rava sent

the question

before Rav Yosef:

“Alalta—

how is it called?”

He said

to him

Rav Yosef: It is a Mishna!

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

And they agree concerning one who vows from produce, that he is forbidden only [to derive benefit] from the five species.

And it is demonstrated that produce means the five species, and from the five species he should collect his debt.

Abaye said to him: Is it comparable?

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

For when a person says

“produce,” it means

from his words

only the five species.

But here, since he did not say the word “produce,” but rather its translation,

“alalta,”

the intention of his wording is not only the five species, but

it means every kind of thing.

And if so, he can collect his debt from everything that grows from the ground.

They brought him before Rava—

they brought before Rava the words of Abaye, who said that alalta includes everything,

and

he said

about this Rava:

This is not what I was asking, for

a person who says in his wording

“alalta”

that

every kind of thing

that comes from the ground

is meant

by his words; concerning this I had no doubt at all, for certainly I concede this law to Abaye.

But what I did doubt

was this that I was asking:

whether he can collect his debt from the money that comes from

the rent

of the

houses

that are rented out,

and

from

the rent

of the

ships

that are rented out.

What [is the law]?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Do we say, since they depreciate,

for their value decreases and sometimes they are rented out cheaply, if so,

it is not alalta.

Since he used the expression alalta, he intends something that rises and improves, and not something that decreases?

Or perhaps, since their depreciation is not known,

for the depreciation is not so noticeable, it is not significant depreciation, and

it is alalta,

and this rent can be considered alalta?—

And this was Rava’s new doubt.

And this doubt

the Sages stated before Rav Yosef

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

He said

to them Rav Yosef: Behold, the previous question concerning which he had a doubt I resolved for him from the Mishna, and he disagreed with me and held like Abaye; if so, he does not listen to me at all.

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

After all, in any event he does not listen to me?

And from Rav Yosef’s words Rava understood that

Rav Yosef was offended.

Rava heard

Rav Yosef’s offense,

and came before him on the eve of Yom Kippur

—he arrived at Rav Yosef’s house on the eve of Yom Kippur in order to appease him.

He found his attendant

—he saw Rav Yosef’s attendant,

who was mixing before him a cup of wine

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

He said to him

Rava said to the attendant:

Give it to me, that I may mix it for him

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

He gave it to him

the attendant gave Rava permission,

and he himself mixed the cup of wine.

And the manner in which Rava would pour and mix the wine with water differed from what the attendant was accustomed to do, and Rav Yosef sensed it when

he was drinking,

and

he said

to those present there:

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

For Rav Yosef sensed that this was not the usual taste of the wine, as his attendant would usually mix it for him, but rather it resembled the mixing of Rava.

He said to him

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

it is he himself

who prepared this drink—Rava.

Rav Yosef heard this and called Rava to enter before him, and Rav Yosef wanted to rebuke Rava for disagreeing with him despite being his student, and wanted to warn him that he should be extremely humble.

Therefore

he said to him

Rav Yosef said to Rava:

Do not sit on your feet until you have said to me the explanation of this matter

—that you should explain the meaning of the verse:

“What is written: ‘And from the wilderness, a gift; and from the gift, the inheritance of God; and from the inheritance of God, heights’?”

For these are not merely indications of places along the route where the Children of Israel traveled, for there is no place called “Gift”; and likewise it is difficult, for if so, it should have written “from the gift to the inheritance,” and what is the meaning of “the inheritance of God” in the Torah?

He said to him

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

Since a person makes himself like a wilderness, which is open to everyone,

automatically, therefore,

the Torah is given to him as a gift.

And this is learned from what

is stated: “And from the wilderness,”

and adjacent to it,

“a gift.”

And since

this person merited, having made himself like a wilderness,

that it was given to him

the Torah

as a gift,

he also merits that

God becomes his inheritance

—that the Torah becomes for him an inheritance.

And this is learned from what

is stated: “And from the gift,”

and adjacent to it

“the inheritance of God.”

And since

a person merited

that God became his inheritance,

he also merits that he

rises to greatness,

and this is learned from what

is stated, “And from the inheritance of God,”

and adjacent to it

“heights.”

And a person merits all this by virtue of lowering himself and being humble, rather than arrogant, making himself like a wilderness.

And

in contrast to this,

if he raises himself

and becomes arrogant,

the Most High lowers him.

And this is learned from what

is stated

“and from the heights”

and adjacent to it

“the valley,”

for he descends from the high height to the low valley.

And he will be punished with another punishment—

and not only that, but they sink him into the ground

—they make him a very low person, like the threshold of a door that is trampled by every person.

And this is learned from what

is stated

in the verse after “from the heights, the valley,”

“and it looks out over the face of the desolation.”

And the reason Rav Yosef asked Rava for the explanation of all these verses was so that he would state their explanation himself and see the disgrace of arrogance and humble himself, since Rav Yosef saw a flaw in Rava in that he had disagreed with him.

And Rava continues to explain the verses:

And if

this person

repents

from his arrogance and humbles himself,

the Most High

returns and

raises him.