TALMUD
Lecture 7: Two more views on Ben Nannas
By: Rabbi Sidney Slivko
We have been discussing the ruling of Ben Nannas who said neither the storekeeper nor the worker take and oath. Rather they can claim from the employer what they deem appropriate. This week, I want to share excerpts from two notes I received from a student before Pesah. The first formed the basis of our most recent on-line discussion. The second provides food for thought in areas of comparative religion and common traditions. Please read them carefully and share your thoughts with me via e-mail (I will pass them on to the rest of the list) or in our forum at:
http://www.jewish-world.org.il/est/index.htm.
Gila writes as follows:
"Both rulings suggest that the parties to the dispute will work things out either rather than take an oath or because they are not allowed to take an oath. It may be that the message is somewhat different, and it is to the owner, namely: if and when you do business, do it in a business-like manner -
- you have to pay your own worker or ensure that he is paid personally;
- if you involve a 3rd party in your business, do it by contract;
- before you do business with someone, know who they are.
"It puts the owner at the centre, but in a different way: he is going to have to explain that the mess-up was his responsibility and if they don't let him know discreetly who is not telling the truth, he will be out of pocket. This is justice, but it allows him to put HIS case to them either separately or together and beg their understanding."
Regarding the discussion on Gila's letter, here are excerpts from the recent discussion:
Rachmiel> On first reaction, I like that idea. the owner does have a responsibility to make sure that the employee gets paid and when a third party is trusted messes can occur.
Werner> I also like it. It puts the employer in the shoes of his worker. He can't just say go elsewhere, don't bother me, I paid you.
SSlivko> I also like it. It seems to relate to the ideas underlying the gemara later in
Bava Metzia about hiring workers to do a job and what the employer is required to compensate and how they can eat on the job or how the owner has to specify what he will pay them otherwise they can make demands which seem outrageous but are really within the limits of the original agreement.
[The Mishnah in the beginning of the seventh Chapter relates a story of the son of Yohanan ben Matyah who hired workers and said I will feed you. His father said if you don't specify, even if you give them a feast fit for a king it's not enough.]
Werner> That sounds rather outrageous, but I guess in business, you have to be
accurate or it can mislead.
Rachmiel> That actually seems reasonable to me, the employer needs to spell out his compensation so that expectations do not get out of line.
SSlivko> Think, also, in terms of marriage, how careful the Hakhamim were to limit the type of ring used for kiddushin (no gems, pure gold, etc.)
Rachmiel> The employer then has the responsibility to be sure that his terms are spelled out clearly, and in the above case, it is his responsibility to ensure that his employee is indeed paid.
SSlivko> Yes. And this is consistent, too, with Ben Nannas who demands integrity
throughout. The employer demonstrated "lack of integrity" (not that he lied, but his words did mislead). We should always watch what we say.
Werner> Then according to BN, this is a consequence, not a punishment.
SSlivko> Good way to put it, Werner.
Rachmiel> But the Gemara seems to be trying to deal with the situation after the fact. The employer now must make a decision about who speaks the truth and
what to do.
In other words, the employer has to deal with the consequences of his misaction, as Werver so eloquently pointed out.
SSlivko> Good point, Rachmiel. Now he must intervene where he did not before. Take responsibility which he should have done before (he could have given the worker a credit slip.)
Robert wrote:
"…Some of the comments that you included in your "Conclusion" to the discussion in TALMUD #6 reminded me of some words that Jesus was said to have taught his disciples as they are put down in Matthew. As this is an intercultural study, I hope that it's alright to refer to them - and I do so only to suggest that already even while the Second Temple was still standing that there were Jewish teachers that argued much as we did in our discussion:
- 5:25 Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. ...
- 5:33 * "Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.'
- 5:34 But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God's throne;
- 5:35 nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
- 5:36 Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
- 5:37 * Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.'
"While I am well aware that the above may not come from the Talmud, it may illustrate the way halacha was interpreted by early Jewish followers of Jesus, and it also may illustrate the way Early Christians and Jews influenced each other in their halachic interpretations and rulings....for what it's worth."
Regarding Robert's insightful analysis, I point out that we see the thoughts of Ben Nannas in a new light refracted through the lens of Matthew's text. Ben Nannas is prescribing Hassidut as the norm of religious behavior. Not to be confused with our modern-day version, Hassidut as presented in the Talmud is behaving "lifnim mishurat hadin", that is, beyond what the law requires.
The following case in Bava Kama 103b may shed some Talmudic light on the matter:
A Hassid once made a purchase from two people and he didn't know from which one he purchased. He came before Rabbi Tarfon* Rabbi Tarfon told him "Put the money among the two of them [let them work it out] and go". He then came before Rabbi Akiva who said to him "You have no recourse but to pay each of them".
This is but one example of how the Hassid behaves vis a vis the requirements of the Torah (the Law) on society and what he considers his own personal requirements. While we have no sources for Jesus' teachings other than the Christian texts, it does shed some light on the similarities and the differences between his views and the views of the scholars of the Talmud.
The Talmud does incorporate the view of the Hassid in its range of religious behavior. The key word, however, is "range". In the Talmud, we have the options of being a Hassid, that is, living the life of the holy man (what we would popularly term "a saint") or being a "regular guy" who, while not an inveterate sinner, is by no means a saint. As we said last week, "elu v'elu divrei Elohim hayyim" - both options are expressions of the words of the Living God. In fact, the very act of dispute brings the words of God to life.
Jesus' words seem to leave no room for options or dispute.
Jesus' goal is to elevate from regular guy to saint. Like the teachings of Essenes and other sects, Jesus' teachings demonstrate that strict purity and fastidious saintliness are not extremes but the desired norm. And, unlike his admonitions to the Pharisees** that "The Sabbath was made for man", Jesus' sermons on taking oaths (and other practices, too) actually seem to say that man must adapt to the Law, even if it means going against his own nature.
JOIN US THIS SUNDAY AT 4:00 PM JERUSALEM TIME FOR OUR ONLINE TALMUD LEARNING GROUP IN THE CHAT ROOM OF THE VIRTUAL CONGRESS AT
http://www.jewish-world.org.il/vcongress/.
CLICK ON "Online Chats" TO ENTER. WE WILL CONTINUE WITH OUR DISCUSSION OF THE GEMARA IN BAVA METZIA, 2b-3a.
*Rabbi Tarfon, was a colleague, possibly a teacher, of Akiva, who lived during the destruction of the second temple. He was known for his concern and kindness to others and scrupulous observance. On one occasion the Mishnah mentions that while on a journey he lay down on the side of the road when it came time to recite the evening Shma, following the school of Shammai. He was attacked by bandits. When he complained to his colleagues they responded "You deserved worse for not having followed the teachings of the school of Hillel". The Hassid in the story may have been Rabbi Yehuda b. Illai who was a student of R.Tarfon, since it was not uncommon for students of one Rabbi to go to another Rabbi for a second opinion.
** Which, in his day, might possibly have included Rabbi Tarfon, or at the very least, on of Rabbi Tarfon's teachers.