Rav Yehuda vs. Rabbi Yehuda
Nedarim 62b
My NJ Jewish Link article for last week is now up. I’ll give the image and hyperlink at the bottom.
The main focus is on the propagation of an idea through a scholastic social network. The idea is: “this particular Tannaitic source was authored by Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who maintains that even vitur (things typically forgiven in normal human interaction) are forbidden by a neder.”
The idea is utilized in various contexts, but we can trace it as follows. Rav Nachman uses it to answer his student Rava’s challenge. Next, it is used in other contexts by Rava’s students, namely Rav Adda bar Ahava II and Ravina I. The scholastic graph can look like this:
The start of the article, though, is about the Sasanian head tax, and R’ Yehuda’s statement, in Nedarim 62b.
אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְצוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְמֵימַר: לָא יָהֵיבְנָא אַכְּרָגָא, דִּכְתִיב ״מִנְדָּה בְלוֹ וַהֲלָךְ לָא שַׁלִּיט לְמִירְמֵא עֲלֵיהוֹן״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: ״מִנְדָּה״ — זוֹ מְנָת הַמֶּלֶךְ, ״בְּלוֹ״ — זוֹ כֶּסֶף גֻּולְגָּלְתָּא, ״וַהֲלָךְ״ — זוֹ אַרְנוֹנָא.
Furthermore, Rava said: It is permitted for a Torah scholar to say: I will not pay the head tax [karga], as it is written that the king of Persia wrote to Ezra, with regard to the priests, the Levites, and others who worked in the Temple: “It shall not be lawful to impose minda, belo, and halakh upon them” (Ezra 7:24).
And Rabbi Yehuda said: Minda; this is the king’s portion. Belo; this is the money of the head tax. And halakh; this is arnona, a levy on people and their animals to perform physical labor in the service of the ruling authority. Since a Torah scholar is considered equivalent to a priest, as he is also dedicated to a sacred task, this exemption applies to him as well.
But is it really Rabbi Yehuda (ben Illai) who says it? In fact, this is an expansion by Koren and Sefaria, and by Artscroll. The Vilna Shas is ambiguous, having R’ Yehuda, and so they expanded it, perhaps based on the Hebrew language employed in the expression. Though that is what you would expect if you are explaining Biblical Aramaic terms.
Here is the Vilna Shas:
However, even the earlier Venice printing had Rav Yehuda, explicitly. Thus:
So too, the Munich 95 manuscript:
And finally, the Vatican 110 manuscript:
Why does it matter? Well, given that the derasha is based on Ezra, and an early Persian king’s covenant with the Jews (who went back to Israel to work in the Temple), the Amora, Rav Yehuda, in Bavel who is dealing with Sasanian taxes, is a good fit, more than a Tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, based in Israel. Unless it is a general purpose derasha exempting from all taxes from all kings, with the force coming from it being a Biblical interpretation.
Funnily enough, the same process that process of expansion that erroneously produced Rabbi Yehuda from the ambiguous R’ Yehuda in Artscroll and Koren also was at play in the Jewish Link. You can read it here. What happened was, I composed the article saying “Rava’s basis is R’ Yehuda’s interpretation.. R’ Yehuda explains… Note I wrote R’ Yehuda. Who is this?” but at first glance this appeared like careless and casual writing. I didn’t make it clear that this was a deliberate choice, so in the course of the editorial process, this was hypercorrected to Rabbi Yehuda. :) Oops!
