Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 25, 2022 | ืืณ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 31

This month’s learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs in loving memory of Shira’s grandfather, Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v’Malka, on his 73rd yahrzeit, for Shira’s father, Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v’Menucha Sara, on his 1st yahrzeit, and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on shas Mishnayot this month and will become a bar mitzvah on his great grandfather’s yahrzeit).ย 
Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah and Michael Dickson on the occasion of the bar mitzvah of their son Dan, this Shabbat.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Audrey and Jake Levant. “Mazel Tov to Michael and Deborah Dickson on the occasion of their son, Danโ€™s, bar mitzvah this Shabbat in Raanana.”
The next few Mishnayot discuss language used in a vow that would refer to Jews, Cutim (Samaritans) or gentiles. What language refers to which groups of people? If one vows not to benefit from Jews, one cannot purchase or sell items for them for the actual price but must need to take a loss. How does this law fit with Shmuel’s law regarding the responsibility of a potential buyer for accidental damage, which indicates that the buyer always benefits, and not the seller? This would mean that the seller could sell for the actual price as the real benefit is not the seller’s. How is this issue resolved? If one vows not to benefit from circumcised people, the vow obviously refers to all Jews, even those who are not circumcised. Likewise, uncircumcised refers to all gentiles, even if they are circumcised. The Mishna quotes several verses proving this and also several statements stressing the importance of the Mitzva of brit milah, circumcision.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืฉื•ื‘ืชื™ ืฉื‘ืช ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืžืื•ื›ืœื™ ืฉื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื

MISHNA: One who takes a vow that deriving benefit from those who rest on Shabbat is forbidden to him is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew, and he is also prohibited from deriving benefit from Samaritans [Kutim] because they are also Shabbat observers. One who takes a vow that deriving benefit from those who eat garlic on Shabbat night is forbidden to him is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew, and he is also prohibited from benefiting from Samaritans. However, if one takes a vow that deriving benefit from those who ascend to Jerusalem is forbidden to him, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew, but he is permitted to benefit from Samaritans because they do not ascend to Jerusalem, but rather, to Mount Gerizim.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืฉื•ื‘ืชื™ ืฉื‘ืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืžืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืช ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื’ื•ื™ื ื ืžื™ ืืœื ืžืžืฆื•ื•ื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืฉื‘ืช

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression in the mishna: Those who rest on Shabbat? If we say that the one who took the vow intended to render forbidden deriving benefit from those who uphold Shabbat, i.e., who actually observe it, why mention specifically that he is prohibited from deriving benefit from Samaritans; even benefit from other gentiles who are Shabbat observers should also be prohibited? Rather, the intention of the tanna was to refer to a case where one took a vow that deriving benefit from those who are commanded about observing Shabbat is forbidden, and this tanna holds that the Samaritans are considered true converts, commanded to observe Shabbat.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืžืขื•ืœื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืืžืื™ ื•ื”ื ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If he takes a vow that deriving benefit from those who ascend to Jerusalem is forbidden to him, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew but permitted to derive benefit from Samaritans. Why? But arenโ€™t Samaritans commanded to ascend just like other Jews?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืชืจืชื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ื ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื•ืœื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ

Abaye said: It is teaching about those who are commanded and actually perform a mitzva, and the mishna is to be understood as follows: In the first two clauses of the mishna, which concern Shabbat observance and eating garlic, both Jews and Samaritans are included because they are commanded and actually perform the mitzva. However, with regard to gentiles, those who perform these mitzvot have the status of those who perform the mitzva but are not commanded to do so. Therefore, the one who took the vow is permitted to derive benefit from them. Concerning the case of those who ascend to Jerusalem, a Jew is commanded to keep this mitzva and performs it, while Samaritans are commanded but do not perform it, so he is permitted to derive benefit from them.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื

MISHNA: If one says: The property of the descendants of Noah is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, he is permitted to derive benefit from a Jew but prohibited from deriving benefit from the nations of the world.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื™ ื ืคื™ืง ืžื›ืœืœ ื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉ ืื‘ืจื”ื ืื™ืชืงืจื• ืขืœ ืฉืžื™ื”

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And is a Jew excluded from the category of the descendants of Noah? They are also descendants of Noah. The Gemara answers: Since Abraham was sanctified and designated to possess a unique role in the world, all his descendants are called by his name and are no longer termed the descendants of Noah.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœื–ืจืข ืื‘ืจื”ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื

MISHNA: If one says: The property of the offspring of Abraham is forbidden to me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew but permitted to derive benefit from the nations of the world.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืฆื—ืง ื™ืงืจื ืœืš ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื™ืฆื—ืง

GEMARA: Concerning the mishnaโ€™s ruling that the one who takes such a vow is permitted to derive benefit from the nations of the world, the Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there Ishmael and his descendants, who are also Abrahamโ€™s offspring? Why isnโ€™t deriving benefit from them forbidden as well? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to Abraham: โ€œFor in Isaac shall seed be called to youโ€ (Genesis 21:12), which demonstrates that the descendants of Ishmael are not termed the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there Esau and his descendants; they are also offspring of Abraham, since they are descendants of Isaac? The Gemara answers that the words โ€œin Isaacโ€ mean that some of Isaacโ€™s descendants, i.e., the children of Jacob, are included in the offspring of Abraham, but not all the descendants of Isaac.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ื•ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื”ื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ื•ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืŸ ืœื™ ื™ื”ื ื” ืœืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื

MISHNA: If one says: The property of a Jew is forbidden to me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, he may purchase items from a Jew for more than the market price and may sell items to a Jew for less than the market price, so that he does not derive benefit from the transactions. If one says: Benefit from me is forbidden to a Jew, he may purchase items from a Jew for less than the market price and may sell items to a Jew for more than the market price, so that he does not derive benefit from the transactions. But although this would be permitted, they do not listen to him, i.e., people will generally not agree to deal with him in a manner that causes them a loss in every transaction. If one says: The property of a Jew is forbidden to me, and for that reason I will not benefit from them, and my property is forbidden to a Jew and they will not benefit from me, in this case he may benefit from the nations of the world but not from a Jew, and a Jew may not benefit from him.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื›ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืื•ืžืŸ ืœื‘ืงืจื• ื•ื ืื ืก ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ื”ื ืืช ืœื•ืงื— ื”ื™ื

GEMARA: Shmuel said: In the case of one who takes a vessel from a craftsman to examine it, and an accident occurs to it while it is in his hand, e.g. it broke, the one who examined it is liable to pay for the damages. Since the one examining the item could have completed the sale at any time, he is treated like a borrower while he examines it, as all the benefit is his. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Shmuel holds that in every sale the primary benefit belongs to the buyer. The buyer benefits much more than the seller, and therefore he must pay for accidents.

ืชื ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืœื ื•ืื™ ื”ื ืืช ืœื•ืงื— ื”ื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื“ืจืžื™ ืขืœ ืืคื™ื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Shmuelโ€™s statement: We learned in the mishna that if one says: The property of a Jew is forbidden to me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, he may sell items to a Jew for less than the market price. The Gemara infers: He may sell at a lesser price, but selling the items at a price equal to the market price is not permitted. But if the primary benefit of the sale is to the buyer, then even selling the items at a price equal to the market price should be permitted. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a sale that lies in his face, i.e., an item that arouse no interest among potential buyers. In that case, the seller benefits from the sale even the item is sold at market value, and this is prohibited.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืื™ืžื ืจื™ืฉื ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื”ื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ [ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช] ื•ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ื•ืื™ ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื“ืจืžื™ ืขืœ ืืคื™ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, say the first clause of that halakha: He may purchase items from a Jew for more than the market price. If the mishna deals with a case where the seller is glad to sell, why does the buyer need to pay more? He should be permitted to pay the market value. Furthermore, say the latter clause of the mishna: If one says: Benefit from me is forbidden to a Jew, he may purchase items from a Jew for less than the market price and may sell items to a Jew for more than the market price. But if it is referring to a sale that lies in his face, then even if he sells at the price equal to the purchase price he has more benefit than the buyer, and it should be permitted.

ืกื™ืคื ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื—ืจื™ืคื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืืœื

The Gemara answers: The latter clause is referring to the opposite case, in a keen [แธฅarifa] sale, i.e., one in which the merchandise arouses keen interest among potential buyers. Therefore, the buyer benefits if he pays the market price. The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the latter clause is referring to such a case, why should the one who took the vow purchase it for less than the market price? Even at the price equal to the purchase price it should be permitted, since the merchandise is selling well and the seller derives no benefit from it. Rather,

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ืžื™ืฆืขื ื•ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื—ืจื™ืคื

it must be that the mishna is dealing with an average sale, which is neither of particularly low quality and difficult to sell nor of particularly high quality and in high demand. Therefore, when it is sold at the fixed price, it cannot be said that either the buyer or seller benefits. Consequently, the one taking the vow must lower the price when selling to those forbidden by the vow and add to the price when buying from them. And by contrast, the case of Shmuel is referring to a keen sale, in which a sale at the fixed price is considered to be primarily beneficial to the buyer.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื›ืœื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืชื’ืจ ืœืฉื’ืจืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื—ืžื™ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื ืžืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืžืžื ื™ ืื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืš ื“ืžื™ื”ื ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืš ืœืคื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ืช ื”ื ืื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ื ืื ืกื• ื‘ื”ืœื™ื›ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that taking an item from the seller to inspect it before purchase is considered like borrowing it. In the case of one who takes utensils from a merchant in order to send them to his father-in-lawโ€™s house as a gift and says to the merchant: If they accept them from me I will give you their value, and if they do not want them, I will give you a sum of money according to the value of the financial benefit that I received from them, i.e., I will pay something for the benefit that I received from showing my father-in-law that I want to honor him, then if an accident occurs to the utensils on the way to the house of the father-in-law and they are broken, the buyer is liable to pay because he has the status of a borrower.

ื‘ื—ื–ืจื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ

But if the father-in-law did not want them and returned them to the seller, and an accident occurred on the return trip, the buyer is exempt because he is like a paid bailee. Since the father-in-law decided not to accept them, and the prospective buyer no longer benefits from them, he is not considered to be a borrower, but rather, a paid bailee of these utensils, and a paid bailee is exempt in the case of an accident.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืกืคืกื™ืจื ื“ืฉืงืœ ื—ืžืจื ืœื–ื‘ื•ื ื™ ื•ืœื ืื™ื–ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืื™ืชื ื™ืก ื—ืžืจื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื ืื ืกื• ื‘ื”ืœื™ื›ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ื–ืจื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara relates: There was a certain middleman [safseira] who took a donkey to sell but it was not sold, i.e., he was unsuccessful in finding a buyer. While he was in the midst of returning the donkey to its owner, an accident occurred to the donkey. Rav Naแธฅman then obligated him to pay for it. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naแธฅman from this baraita: If an accident occurred while on the way, he is liable to pay; if it occurred on the return trip he is exempt. Since the case involving Rav Naแธฅman occurred on the return trip, why did Rav Naแธฅman obligate him to pay?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ืกืคืกื™ืจื ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืื™ืœื• ืžืฉื›ื— ืœื–ื‘ื•ื ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื‘ื‘ื ื“ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ืžื™ ืœื ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื”

Rav Naแธฅman said to him: The return trip of a middleman is like the trip there, and an item is not considered returned until he actually gives it to its owner. This is because were he to find someone to sell the donkey to even at the door of his house, would he not sell it? Therefore, he retains the status of a borrower. However, in the case of bringing a gift to a particular person who does not accept it, the sale is nullified, and the prospective buyer has only to take care of the item until it is returned to its owner, which gives him the status of a paid bailee.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœืขืจืœื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืขืจืœื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืžื•ืœื™ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื

MISHNA: If one says: Benefiting from those who are uncircumcised is konam for me, he is permitted to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews because they are not regarded as uncircumcised, but he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world.

ืฉืื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœืžื•ืœื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืขืจืœื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืžื•ืœื™ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืขืจืœื” ืงืจื•ื™ื” ืืœื ืœืฉื ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื•ื™ื ืขืจืœื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืจืœื™ ืœื‘ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ืคืœืฉืชื™ ื”ืขืจืœ ื”ื–ื” ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืคืŸ ืชืฉืžื—ื ื” ื‘ื ื•ืช ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ืคืŸ ืชืขืœื–ื ื” ื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืขืจืœื™ื

Conversely, if he said: Benefiting from those who are circumcised is konam for me, he is prohibited from deriving benefit even from uncircumcised Jews and he is permitted to derive benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world, as the term uncircumcised is used only to name the nations of the world, as it is stated: โ€œFor all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heartโ€ (Jeremiah 9:25), and it says: โ€œAnd this uncircumcised Philistine shall beโ€ (Iย Samuel 17:36), and it says: โ€œLest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumphโ€ (IIย Samuel 1:20). These verses indicate that ordinary gentiles are referred to as uncircumcised, regardless of whether they are actually circumcised.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืื•ืกื” ื”ื™ื ื”ืขืจืœื” ืฉื ืชื’ื ื• ื‘ื” ืจืฉืขื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื•ื™ื ืขืจืœื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื ื›ืจืชื• ืขืœื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ืจื™ืชื•ืช

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The foreskin is repulsive, as is evident from the fact that the wicked are disgraced through it, as it is stated: โ€œBehold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will punish all them that are circumcised in their uncircumcision: Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that have the corners of their hair polled, that dwell in the wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heartโ€ (Jeremiah 9:25), which indicates that there is an element of disgrace associated with the foreskin. Rabbi Yishmael says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that thirteen covenants were sealed with regard to it, for the word covenant appears thirteen times in the biblical passage that discusses circumcision (Genesis, chapter 17).

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื—ืžื•ืจื”

Rabbi Yosei says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that it overrides the strict halakhot of Shabbat, as circumcision is performed even if the eighth day following the birth of a son occurs on Shabbat, despite the fact that circumcision violates the prohibition of labor on Shabbat.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉืœื ื ืชืœื” ืœื• ืœืžืฉื” ื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ืขืœื™ื” ืžืœื ืฉืขื”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa says: Great is the mitzva of circumcision, as is evident from the fact that the punishment of Moses the righteous for not circumcising his son when he was capable of doing so was not postponed for even a full hour (see Exodus 4:24โ€“26).

ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ื ื’ืขื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืขืฉื” ืื‘ืจื”ื ืื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื ื ืงืจื ืฉืœื ืขื“ ืฉืžืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืชื”ืœืš ืœืคื ื™ ื•ื”ื™ื” ืชืžื™ื

Rabbi Neแธฅemya says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that it overrides the prohibitions associated with leprosy. If leprosy is found on the foreskin of an infant, although it is generally prohibited to cut the afflicted area, it is permitted to do so to perform the mitzva of circumcision. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that despite all the mitzvot that Abraham our Patriarch did, he was not called wholehearted until he circumcised himself, as it is stated at the time that the mitzva was given to him: โ€œWalk before Me and you should be wholeheartedโ€ (Genesis 17:1).

ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉืืœืžืœื ื”ื™ื ืœื ื‘ืจื ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืืช ืขื•ืœืžื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื” ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืื ืœื ื‘ืจื™ืชื™ ื™ื•ืžื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ื—ืงื•ืช ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืืจืฅ ืœื ืฉืžืชื™

Alternatively, so great is the mitzva of circumcision that if not for it the Holy One, Blessed be He, would not have created His world, as it is stated: โ€œThus says the Lord: If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earthโ€ (Jeremiah 33:25), and the covenant that exists day and night is the covenant of circumcision, as it is always found on the personโ€™s body.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื›ืœ ื–ื›ื™ื•ืช ืฉืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื ืขืžื“ื• ืœื• ื›ืฉื ืชืจืฉืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืคื’ืฉื”ื• ื”ืณ ื•ื™ื‘ืงืฉ ื”ืžื™ืชื•

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that all the merits that Moses our teacher accrued when he performed mitzvot did not protect him when he was negligent about performing the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the Lord met him and sought to kill himโ€ (Exodus 4:24).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืก ื•ืฉืœื•ื ืฉืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื ืชืจืฉืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ืœื” ืืœื ื›ืš ืืžืจ ืืžื•ืœ ื•ืืฆื ืกื›ื ื” ื”ื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื‘ื”ื™ื•ืชื ื›ืื‘ื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืžื•ืœ ื•ืืฉื”ื ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืœืš ืฉื‘ ืžืฆืจื™ื ืืœื ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ื ืขื ืฉ ืžืฉื”

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Heaven forbid that Moses our teacher was neglectful of the mitzva of circumcision. Rather, this is what he said: If I circumcise the child now and depart to begin my journey, it is a danger for the child, as it is stated: โ€œAnd it came to pass on the third day, when they were in painโ€ (Genesis 34:25), which indicates that the pain of circumcision lasts for several days and the child may be in danger while in pain. If I circumcise him immediately and wait three days and only then embark on the journey, this is problematic, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to me: โ€œGo, return into Egyptโ€ (Exodus 4:19), i.e., go immediately. For these reasons Moses did not circumcise the child immediately, but no neglect existed on his part. But according to this explanation, for what reason was Moses punished?

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 29-35 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue discussing the power of the spoken word. When someone makes a vow against benefiting from...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Gefet 47 – A Neder and an Aggada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BLWWoP_M8E&feature=youtu.be
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 31: Labeling People

More mishnayot! One - a person who makes a vow not to benefit from those who "rest" on Shabbat -...

Nedarim 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 31

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืฉื•ื‘ืชื™ ืฉื‘ืช ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืžืื•ื›ืœื™ ืฉื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื

MISHNA: One who takes a vow that deriving benefit from those who rest on Shabbat is forbidden to him is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew, and he is also prohibited from deriving benefit from Samaritans [Kutim] because they are also Shabbat observers. One who takes a vow that deriving benefit from those who eat garlic on Shabbat night is forbidden to him is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew, and he is also prohibited from benefiting from Samaritans. However, if one takes a vow that deriving benefit from those who ascend to Jerusalem is forbidden to him, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew, but he is permitted to benefit from Samaritans because they do not ascend to Jerusalem, but rather, to Mount Gerizim.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืฉื•ื‘ืชื™ ืฉื‘ืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืžืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืช ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื’ื•ื™ื ื ืžื™ ืืœื ืžืžืฆื•ื•ื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืฉื‘ืช

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression in the mishna: Those who rest on Shabbat? If we say that the one who took the vow intended to render forbidden deriving benefit from those who uphold Shabbat, i.e., who actually observe it, why mention specifically that he is prohibited from deriving benefit from Samaritans; even benefit from other gentiles who are Shabbat observers should also be prohibited? Rather, the intention of the tanna was to refer to a case where one took a vow that deriving benefit from those who are commanded about observing Shabbat is forbidden, and this tanna holds that the Samaritans are considered true converts, commanded to observe Shabbat.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืžืขื•ืœื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืืžืื™ ื•ื”ื ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If he takes a vow that deriving benefit from those who ascend to Jerusalem is forbidden to him, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew but permitted to derive benefit from Samaritans. Why? But arenโ€™t Samaritans commanded to ascend just like other Jews?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืชืจืชื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ื ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื•ืœื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืชื™ื ืžืฆื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ

Abaye said: It is teaching about those who are commanded and actually perform a mitzva, and the mishna is to be understood as follows: In the first two clauses of the mishna, which concern Shabbat observance and eating garlic, both Jews and Samaritans are included because they are commanded and actually perform the mitzva. However, with regard to gentiles, those who perform these mitzvot have the status of those who perform the mitzva but are not commanded to do so. Therefore, the one who took the vow is permitted to derive benefit from them. Concerning the case of those who ascend to Jerusalem, a Jew is commanded to keep this mitzva and performs it, while Samaritans are commanded but do not perform it, so he is permitted to derive benefit from them.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื

MISHNA: If one says: The property of the descendants of Noah is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, he is permitted to derive benefit from a Jew but prohibited from deriving benefit from the nations of the world.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื™ ื ืคื™ืง ืžื›ืœืœ ื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉ ืื‘ืจื”ื ืื™ืชืงืจื• ืขืœ ืฉืžื™ื”

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And is a Jew excluded from the category of the descendants of Noah? They are also descendants of Noah. The Gemara answers: Since Abraham was sanctified and designated to possess a unique role in the world, all his descendants are called by his name and are no longer termed the descendants of Noah.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœื–ืจืข ืื‘ืจื”ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื

MISHNA: If one says: The property of the offspring of Abraham is forbidden to me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from a Jew but permitted to derive benefit from the nations of the world.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืฆื—ืง ื™ืงืจื ืœืš ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื™ืฆื—ืง

GEMARA: Concerning the mishnaโ€™s ruling that the one who takes such a vow is permitted to derive benefit from the nations of the world, the Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there Ishmael and his descendants, who are also Abrahamโ€™s offspring? Why isnโ€™t deriving benefit from them forbidden as well? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to Abraham: โ€œFor in Isaac shall seed be called to youโ€ (Genesis 21:12), which demonstrates that the descendants of Ishmael are not termed the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there Esau and his descendants; they are also offspring of Abraham, since they are descendants of Isaac? The Gemara answers that the words โ€œin Isaacโ€ mean that some of Isaacโ€™s descendants, i.e., the children of Jacob, are included in the offspring of Abraham, but not all the descendants of Isaac.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ื•ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื”ื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ื•ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืŸ ืœื™ ื™ื”ื ื” ืœืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื

MISHNA: If one says: The property of a Jew is forbidden to me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, he may purchase items from a Jew for more than the market price and may sell items to a Jew for less than the market price, so that he does not derive benefit from the transactions. If one says: Benefit from me is forbidden to a Jew, he may purchase items from a Jew for less than the market price and may sell items to a Jew for more than the market price, so that he does not derive benefit from the transactions. But although this would be permitted, they do not listen to him, i.e., people will generally not agree to deal with him in a manner that causes them a loss in every transaction. If one says: The property of a Jew is forbidden to me, and for that reason I will not benefit from them, and my property is forbidden to a Jew and they will not benefit from me, in this case he may benefit from the nations of the world but not from a Jew, and a Jew may not benefit from him.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื›ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืื•ืžืŸ ืœื‘ืงืจื• ื•ื ืื ืก ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ื”ื ืืช ืœื•ืงื— ื”ื™ื

GEMARA: Shmuel said: In the case of one who takes a vessel from a craftsman to examine it, and an accident occurs to it while it is in his hand, e.g. it broke, the one who examined it is liable to pay for the damages. Since the one examining the item could have completed the sale at any time, he is treated like a borrower while he examines it, as all the benefit is his. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Shmuel holds that in every sale the primary benefit belongs to the buyer. The buyer benefits much more than the seller, and therefore he must pay for accidents.

ืชื ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืœื ื•ืื™ ื”ื ืืช ืœื•ืงื— ื”ื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื“ืจืžื™ ืขืœ ืืคื™ื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Shmuelโ€™s statement: We learned in the mishna that if one says: The property of a Jew is forbidden to me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, he may sell items to a Jew for less than the market price. The Gemara infers: He may sell at a lesser price, but selling the items at a price equal to the market price is not permitted. But if the primary benefit of the sale is to the buyer, then even selling the items at a price equal to the market price should be permitted. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a sale that lies in his face, i.e., an item that arouse no interest among potential buyers. In that case, the seller benefits from the sale even the item is sold at market value, and this is prohibited.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืื™ืžื ืจื™ืฉื ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื”ื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ [ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช] ื•ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ื•ืื™ ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื“ืจืžื™ ืขืœ ืืคื™ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, say the first clause of that halakha: He may purchase items from a Jew for more than the market price. If the mishna deals with a case where the seller is glad to sell, why does the buyer need to pay more? He should be permitted to pay the market value. Furthermore, say the latter clause of the mishna: If one says: Benefit from me is forbidden to a Jew, he may purchase items from a Jew for less than the market price and may sell items to a Jew for more than the market price. But if it is referring to a sale that lies in his face, then even if he sells at the price equal to the purchase price he has more benefit than the buyer, and it should be permitted.

ืกื™ืคื ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื—ืจื™ืคื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืœื•ืงื— ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืืœื

The Gemara answers: The latter clause is referring to the opposite case, in a keen [แธฅarifa] sale, i.e., one in which the merchandise arouses keen interest among potential buyers. Therefore, the buyer benefits if he pays the market price. The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the latter clause is referring to such a case, why should the one who took the vow purchase it for less than the market price? Even at the price equal to the purchase price it should be permitted, since the merchandise is selling well and the seller derives no benefit from it. Rather,

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ืžื™ืฆืขื ื•ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื—ืจื™ืคื

it must be that the mishna is dealing with an average sale, which is neither of particularly low quality and difficult to sell nor of particularly high quality and in high demand. Therefore, when it is sold at the fixed price, it cannot be said that either the buyer or seller benefits. Consequently, the one taking the vow must lower the price when selling to those forbidden by the vow and add to the price when buying from them. And by contrast, the case of Shmuel is referring to a keen sale, in which a sale at the fixed price is considered to be primarily beneficial to the buyer.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื›ืœื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืชื’ืจ ืœืฉื’ืจืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื—ืžื™ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื ืžืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืžืžื ื™ ืื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืš ื“ืžื™ื”ื ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืš ืœืคื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ืช ื”ื ืื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ื ืื ืกื• ื‘ื”ืœื™ื›ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that taking an item from the seller to inspect it before purchase is considered like borrowing it. In the case of one who takes utensils from a merchant in order to send them to his father-in-lawโ€™s house as a gift and says to the merchant: If they accept them from me I will give you their value, and if they do not want them, I will give you a sum of money according to the value of the financial benefit that I received from them, i.e., I will pay something for the benefit that I received from showing my father-in-law that I want to honor him, then if an accident occurs to the utensils on the way to the house of the father-in-law and they are broken, the buyer is liable to pay because he has the status of a borrower.

ื‘ื—ื–ืจื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ

But if the father-in-law did not want them and returned them to the seller, and an accident occurred on the return trip, the buyer is exempt because he is like a paid bailee. Since the father-in-law decided not to accept them, and the prospective buyer no longer benefits from them, he is not considered to be a borrower, but rather, a paid bailee of these utensils, and a paid bailee is exempt in the case of an accident.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืกืคืกื™ืจื ื“ืฉืงืœ ื—ืžืจื ืœื–ื‘ื•ื ื™ ื•ืœื ืื™ื–ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืื™ืชื ื™ืก ื—ืžืจื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื ืื ืกื• ื‘ื”ืœื™ื›ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ื–ืจื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara relates: There was a certain middleman [safseira] who took a donkey to sell but it was not sold, i.e., he was unsuccessful in finding a buyer. While he was in the midst of returning the donkey to its owner, an accident occurred to the donkey. Rav Naแธฅman then obligated him to pay for it. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naแธฅman from this baraita: If an accident occurred while on the way, he is liable to pay; if it occurred on the return trip he is exempt. Since the case involving Rav Naแธฅman occurred on the return trip, why did Rav Naแธฅman obligate him to pay?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ืจื” ื“ืกืคืกื™ืจื ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืื™ืœื• ืžืฉื›ื— ืœื–ื‘ื•ื ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื‘ื‘ื ื“ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ืžื™ ืœื ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื”

Rav Naแธฅman said to him: The return trip of a middleman is like the trip there, and an item is not considered returned until he actually gives it to its owner. This is because were he to find someone to sell the donkey to even at the door of his house, would he not sell it? Therefore, he retains the status of a borrower. However, in the case of bringing a gift to a particular person who does not accept it, the sale is nullified, and the prospective buyer has only to take care of the item until it is returned to its owner, which gives him the status of a paid bailee.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœืขืจืœื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืขืจืœื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืžื•ืœื™ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื

MISHNA: If one says: Benefiting from those who are uncircumcised is konam for me, he is permitted to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews because they are not regarded as uncircumcised, but he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world.

ืฉืื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœืžื•ืœื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืขืจืœื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืžื•ืœื™ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืขืจืœื” ืงืจื•ื™ื” ืืœื ืœืฉื ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื•ื™ื ืขืจืœื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืจืœื™ ืœื‘ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ืคืœืฉืชื™ ื”ืขืจืœ ื”ื–ื” ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืคืŸ ืชืฉืžื—ื ื” ื‘ื ื•ืช ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ืคืŸ ืชืขืœื–ื ื” ื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืขืจืœื™ื

Conversely, if he said: Benefiting from those who are circumcised is konam for me, he is prohibited from deriving benefit even from uncircumcised Jews and he is permitted to derive benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world, as the term uncircumcised is used only to name the nations of the world, as it is stated: โ€œFor all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heartโ€ (Jeremiah 9:25), and it says: โ€œAnd this uncircumcised Philistine shall beโ€ (Iย Samuel 17:36), and it says: โ€œLest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumphโ€ (IIย Samuel 1:20). These verses indicate that ordinary gentiles are referred to as uncircumcised, regardless of whether they are actually circumcised.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืื•ืกื” ื”ื™ื ื”ืขืจืœื” ืฉื ืชื’ื ื• ื‘ื” ืจืฉืขื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื•ื™ื ืขืจืœื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื ื›ืจืชื• ืขืœื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ืจื™ืชื•ืช

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The foreskin is repulsive, as is evident from the fact that the wicked are disgraced through it, as it is stated: โ€œBehold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will punish all them that are circumcised in their uncircumcision: Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that have the corners of their hair polled, that dwell in the wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heartโ€ (Jeremiah 9:25), which indicates that there is an element of disgrace associated with the foreskin. Rabbi Yishmael says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that thirteen covenants were sealed with regard to it, for the word covenant appears thirteen times in the biblical passage that discusses circumcision (Genesis, chapter 17).

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื—ืžื•ืจื”

Rabbi Yosei says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that it overrides the strict halakhot of Shabbat, as circumcision is performed even if the eighth day following the birth of a son occurs on Shabbat, despite the fact that circumcision violates the prohibition of labor on Shabbat.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉืœื ื ืชืœื” ืœื• ืœืžืฉื” ื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ืขืœื™ื” ืžืœื ืฉืขื”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa says: Great is the mitzva of circumcision, as is evident from the fact that the punishment of Moses the righteous for not circumcising his son when he was capable of doing so was not postponed for even a full hour (see Exodus 4:24โ€“26).

ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ื ื’ืขื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืขืฉื” ืื‘ืจื”ื ืื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื ื ืงืจื ืฉืœื ืขื“ ืฉืžืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืชื”ืœืš ืœืคื ื™ ื•ื”ื™ื” ืชืžื™ื

Rabbi Neแธฅemya says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that it overrides the prohibitions associated with leprosy. If leprosy is found on the foreskin of an infant, although it is generally prohibited to cut the afflicted area, it is permitted to do so to perform the mitzva of circumcision. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that despite all the mitzvot that Abraham our Patriarch did, he was not called wholehearted until he circumcised himself, as it is stated at the time that the mitzva was given to him: โ€œWalk before Me and you should be wholeheartedโ€ (Genesis 17:1).

ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉืืœืžืœื ื”ื™ื ืœื ื‘ืจื ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืืช ืขื•ืœืžื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื” ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืื ืœื ื‘ืจื™ืชื™ ื™ื•ืžื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ื—ืงื•ืช ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืืจืฅ ืœื ืฉืžืชื™

Alternatively, so great is the mitzva of circumcision that if not for it the Holy One, Blessed be He, would not have created His world, as it is stated: โ€œThus says the Lord: If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earthโ€ (Jeremiah 33:25), and the covenant that exists day and night is the covenant of circumcision, as it is always found on the personโ€™s body.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื›ืœ ื–ื›ื™ื•ืช ืฉืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื ืขืžื“ื• ืœื• ื›ืฉื ืชืจืฉืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืคื’ืฉื”ื• ื”ืณ ื•ื™ื‘ืงืฉ ื”ืžื™ืชื•

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that all the merits that Moses our teacher accrued when he performed mitzvot did not protect him when he was negligent about performing the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the Lord met him and sought to kill himโ€ (Exodus 4:24).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืก ื•ืฉืœื•ื ืฉืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื ืชืจืฉืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ืœื” ืืœื ื›ืš ืืžืจ ืืžื•ืœ ื•ืืฆื ืกื›ื ื” ื”ื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื‘ื”ื™ื•ืชื ื›ืื‘ื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืžื•ืœ ื•ืืฉื”ื ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืœืš ืฉื‘ ืžืฆืจื™ื ืืœื ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ื ืขื ืฉ ืžืฉื”

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Heaven forbid that Moses our teacher was neglectful of the mitzva of circumcision. Rather, this is what he said: If I circumcise the child now and depart to begin my journey, it is a danger for the child, as it is stated: โ€œAnd it came to pass on the third day, when they were in painโ€ (Genesis 34:25), which indicates that the pain of circumcision lasts for several days and the child may be in danger while in pain. If I circumcise him immediately and wait three days and only then embark on the journey, this is problematic, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to me: โ€œGo, return into Egyptโ€ (Exodus 4:19), i.e., go immediately. For these reasons Moses did not circumcise the child immediately, but no neglect existed on his part. But according to this explanation, for what reason was Moses punished?

Scroll To Top