MORE ON GOADS AND NAILS HOWEVER, the above-mentioned verse, [“The words of the wise are like goads, and like implanted nails are the sayings of the masters of collections…”], requires further investigation. First, why is “goads” written in the plural? Could Koheles not have used this word in the singular? How can we better explain and determine the ideas hinted at in this verse?

Second, why does Koheles compare [well-organized laws] to nails? They should have been compared to plants in a vineyard that are [well-arranged] in rows of two, which would better express the main intent of the verse. Certainly, there must be a deep meaning [intended by] the word “nails.”

Third, [if it is true], as described above, that “goads” relates only to the “wise,” [who make inferences,] while “nails” relates to the “masters of collections,” it would have been better for Scripture to state, “The words of the wise are as goads; the masters of collections are as implanted nails.”¹

footnotes: ¹ Note the differences in the order of descriptive phrases in relation to the “Masters of Collections” and the sages.

One must therefore translate this verse as [follows]: “The words of the wise are like goads and implanted nails; like goads and implanted nails are the masters of collections.”² [This manner of translation is similar] to how our sages applied exegesis in Tractate Bava Metzia 61a, to explain [two terms denoting interest], neshech and tarbis.³ and tarbIsa. Neshech is literally “that which is bitten,” as it refers to how interest bites into the borrower’s assets. Tarbis, which means “increase,” refers to the increase of the lender’s assets that result from the interest he collects. The Talmud in Bava Metzia states that the two terms refer to interest coming from both loans of money and food. This is derived by applying a similar method of translation to the verse in Lev. 25:37. “You shall not lend him your money with neshech, [nor with] marbis shall you lend him your food.” The Talmud states that it would have been better to write, “You shall not lend him your money with neshech, nor your food with marbis,” without inverting the order of what is being lent (money and food) with the terms that describe the type of interest (marbis and neshech). The Talmud therefore concludes that neshech and tarbis must be read twice and are connected with both the first and second clause. The verse would then read, “You shall not lend him your money with neshech or marbis, nor with neshech or marbis shall you lend your food.” [That there is such a grammatical rule is evident] by its application in numerous locations, such as explained there by the Tosafos, s.v. Kari Beih.⁴ 20a, Pesahim 21b and Hullin 114b. Therefore, [based on my translation of the verse in Koheles], there are two advantages to both the “wise” and the “masters of collections” [conveyed by the words “goads” and “implanted nails”] that need to be addressed.

footnotes: ² The Netziv argues for a grammatical rule that when a verse has two clauses with two defining clauses, and the order of the first clause and its defining clause is reversed with respect to the second clause (as in: clause 1, defining clause 1; defining clause 2, clause 2), then the defining clauses must be applied to both clauses. Since the verse states, “The words of the wise (clause 1) are like goads (defining clause 1) and like implanted nails (defining clause 2) are the sayings of the wise (clause 2),” the verse should be read as follows: clause 1, defining clauses 1 and 2; defining clauses 1 and 2; clause 2. This explains why the verse was not more clearly stated as follows: “The words of the sages are as goads and those of the masters of collections are like implanted nails.” ³ The Torah uses two different terms to denote interest, neshech ⁴ Tosafos cites several places where this grammatical rule has been applied in the Talmud, such as Tractates Avodah Zarah

We will begin by expounding the [two advantages] of the “Wise,” in connection with what is stated in Tractate Sanhedrin 34a: R. Assi asked R. Yohanan, “If two [different judges] based their decisions on the same reasoning [but cited] a different verse [as the source of their reasoning], what is the law?” [R. Yohanan answered], “We consider the decisions of these two judges as being only one vote, [since a single law cannot be inferred from two different verses].” What is the source of the [rule stated by R. Yochanan]? Abbaye said, “This is learned from the verse, ‘One thing has God spoken, these two have I heard, that strength belongs to God.’⁵ [This verse teaches us] that one verse can produce many laws, while one law could not be derived from more than one verse.”⁶ The Academy of R. Yishmael taught, “[pertaining to the verse] ‘as a hammer that breaks the rock into pieces,’⁷ just as a hammer can produce many sparks,⁸ as sparks. The Netziv’s interpretation of this verse will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10. so can one verse [be interpreted] to produce many laws.”

footnotes: ⁵ Psalms 62:12. ⁶ The interpretation of this verse in Psalms 62:12 is that one statement from God (“One thing has God spoken”), can have various interpretations (“These two have I heard”), where God would not use extraneous words to express one concept or thought. ⁷ Jer. 23:29. The complete verse is, “Behold, My word is like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters a rock.” ⁸ The Netziv translates nitzotzos

[We must analyze this gemara] in order to understand it properly, for the rule itself [that one verse can be interpreted in various ways to derive many laws], is, in turn, derived from two different verses. [However], it is impossible to understand the gemara in this manner, for it states immediately above that a single rule or law cannot be derived from more than one verse. Therefore, the [two different verses] actually reflect two different aspects of this rule. There is one situation in which there is no disagreement among those who interpret the verse in numerous ways. For [although] they may derive various interpretations from the same verse, each agrees [that the other scholar’s] interpretation is valid. For example, regarding the verse, “You shall not eat [the sacrifices] with the blood,”⁹ the Toras Kohanim¹⁰which is also known as the Sifra, is a tannaitic midrash halachaon the Book of Leviticus. [on that verse] and Tractate Sanhedrin 63a derive numerous prohibitions.¹¹ and Tractate Sanhedrin cite five different prohibitions inferred from these words: 1) not to eat sacrificial meat before its blood has been sprinkled; 2) not to eat the flesh of an unsanctified animal before it dies; 3. not to offer a “meal of comfort” (first meal eaten by the mourners after a funeral) to relatives who are mourning the death of a person executed by the Sanhedrin; 4) if one is a member of a Sanhedrin that sentenced a person to death, not to eat that entire day; 5) if one is a stubborn and rebellious son; not to eat in a manner that will cause him to shed blood. All these [inferences] are derivations of the true law; none contests [the validity] of the other. In addition, it is possible that the same sage can derive many laws from one verse. [Tractate Sanhedrin] 103b states that “Menashe taught fifty-five different approaches to understanding Toras Kohanim¹² literally means “Priestly Laws.” In this context it is the Book of Leviticus. [Leviticus], while Ahav derived eighty-five different approaches, and Yerovam derived one hundred and three different interpretations.”

footnotes: ⁹ Lev. 19:26. ¹⁰ Toras Kohanim, ¹¹ Toras Kohanim ¹² Toras Kohanim

In this manner we can explain the verse, “One thing has God spoken, these two have I heard….” For we have heard [received], two laws that [tell us] what to practice. In truth, there is not a single verse from which one cannot derive many different interpretations. This is stated in Tractate Eruvin 21b in which R. Hisda says in the name of Mar Ukva, “Pertaining to the verse, ‘His locks are wavy,’¹³ one may derive numerous mounds of laws from each stroke of the letters.”¹⁴ This [responsibility to derive numerous laws from a single verse] was given to the sages, and they must determine whether any other possible derivations can be made from a verse. Because of this, Koheles compared the sayings of the “wise” to goads, for each and every facet [of the sages’ inferences] is a goad of its own. Every interpretation [of the “wise”] indicates a path [that man should take], which [in turn] brings life to the world, as it teaches man how he should behave.¹⁵ [This interpretation] explains well [why] the word “goads” [is plural].

footnotes: ¹³ Song of Songs 5:11. ¹⁴ See explanation in note 4. ¹⁵ This is similar to the goad that guides an animal like an ox as to the path it is to take, which in turn enables the animal to help sustain the world.