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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 24, 2015 | 讝壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nedarim 31

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘讻讜转讬诐 诪讗讜讻诇讬 砖讜诐 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘讻讜转讬诐 诪注讜诇讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘讻讜转讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诪拽讬讬诪讬 砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讻讜转讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬诐 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪诪爪讜讜讬诐 注诇 讛砖讘转

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪注讜诇讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘讻讜转讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诪爪讜讜讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

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 aren鈥檛 Samaritans commanded to ascend just like other Jews?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛 拽转谞讬 讘转专转讬 讘讘讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜转讬诐 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 讙讜讬诐 讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讬 注讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞诐 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讘注讜诇讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 讻讜转讬诐 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讜讗讬谞诐 注讜砖讬谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 诪讜转专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讜讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 谞驻讬拽 诪讻诇诇 讘谞讬 谞讞 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬拽讚砖 讗讘专讛诐 讗讬转拽专讜 注诇 砖诪讬讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讝专注 讗讘专讛诐 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讬 讘讬爪讞拽 讬拽专讗 诇讱 讝专注 讻转讬讘 讜讛讗讬讻讗 注砖讜 讘讬爪讞拽 讜诇讗 讻诇 讬爪讞拽

GEMARA: Concerning the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the one who takes such a vow is permitted to derive benefit from the nations of the world, the Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there Ishmael and his descendants, who are also Abraham鈥檚 offspring? Why isn鈥檛 deriving benefit from them forbidden as well? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to Abraham: 鈥淔or in Isaac shall seed be called to you鈥 (Genesis 21:12), which demonstrates that the descendants of Ishmael are not termed the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there Esau and his descendants; they are also offspring of Abraham, since they are descendants of Isaac? The Gemara answers that the words 鈥渋n Isaac鈥 mean that some of Isaac鈥檚 descendants, i.e., the children of Jacob, are included in the offspring of Abraham, but not all the descendants of Isaac.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 诇讜拽讞 讘讬讜转专 讜诪讜讻专 讘驻讞讜转 砖讬砖专讗诇 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 诇讜拽讞 讘驻讞讜转 讜诪讜讻专 讘讬讜转专 讜讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谉 诇讬 讬讛谞讛 诇讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讜拽讞 讻诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讜诪谉 诇讘拽专讜 讜谞讗谞住 讘讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讛谞讗转 诇讜拽讞 讛讬讗

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.

转谞谉 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讻专 讘驻讞讜转 讗讘诇 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 诇讗 讜讗讬 讛谞讗转 诇讜拽讞 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讝讘讬谞讗 讚专诪讬 注诇 讗驻讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗诐 讻谉 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 诇讜拽讞 讘讬讜转专 讜注讜讚 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖讬砖专讗诇 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 [诇讜拽讞 讘驻讞讜转] 讜诪讜讻专 讘讬讜转专 讜讗讬 讘讝讘讬谞讗 讚专诪讬 注诇 讗驻讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛

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.

住讬驻讗 讘讝讘讬谞讗 讞专讬驻讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讜拽讞 讘驻讞讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 讗诇讗

The Gemara answers: The latter clause is referring to the opposite case, in a keen [岣rifa] 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,

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讝讘讬谞讗 诪讬爪注讗 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讝讘讬谞讗 讞专讬驻讗

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讜拽讞 讻诇讬诐 诪谉 讛转讙专 诇砖讙专谉 诇讘讬转 讞诪讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪诪谞讬 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讚诪讬讛诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 诇驻讬 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 砖讘讛谉 谞讗谞住讜 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘

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-law鈥檚 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.

讘讞讝专讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专

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.

讛讛讜讗 住驻住讬专讗 讚砖拽诇 讞诪专讗 诇讝讘讜谞讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讝讘谉 讘讛讚讬 讚讛讚专 讗讬转谞讬住 讞诪专讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讗谞住讜 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讞讝专讛 驻讟讜专

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 Na岣an then obligated him to pay for it. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an occurred on the return trip, why did Rav Na岣an obligate him to pay?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝专讛 讚住驻住讬专讗 讛讜诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讚讗讬诇讜 诪砖讻讞 诇讝讘讜谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛

Rav Na岣an 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.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇注专诇讬诐 诪讜转专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

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.

砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇诪讜诇讬诐 讗住讜专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 砖讗讬谉 讛注专诇讛 拽专讜讬讛 讗诇讗 诇砖诐 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讛讙讜讬诐 注专诇讬诐 讜讻诇 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 注专诇讬 诇讘 讜讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛驻诇砖转讬 讛注专诇 讛讝讛 讜讗讜诪专 驻谉 转砖诪讞谞讛 讘谞讜转 驻诇砖转讬诐 驻谉 转注诇讝谞讛 讘谞讜转 讛注专诇讬诐

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: 鈥淔or all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart鈥 (Jeremiah 9:25), and it says: 鈥淎nd this uncircumcised Philistine shall be鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:36), and it says: 鈥淟est the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph鈥 (II聽Samuel 1:20). These verses indicate that ordinary gentiles are referred to as uncircumcised, regardless of whether they are actually circumcised.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗讜住讛 讛讬讗 讛注专诇讛 砖谞转讙谞讜 讘讛 专砖注讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讛讙讜讬诐 注专诇讬诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转

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: 鈥淏ehold, 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 heart鈥 (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).

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讞诪讜专讛

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 谞转诇讛 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讛爪讚讬拽 注诇讬讛 诪诇讗 砖注讛

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 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 4:24鈥26).

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 砖注砖讛 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 诇讗 谞拽专讗 砖诇诐 注讚 砖诪诇 砖谞讗诪专 讛转讛诇讱 诇驻谞讬 讜讛讬讛 转诪讬诐

Rabbi Ne岣mya 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: 鈥淲alk before Me and you should be wholehearted鈥 (Genesis 17:1).

讚讘专 讗讞专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讗诇诪诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 讘专讗 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗转 注讜诇诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讗诐 诇讗 讘专讬转讬 讬讜诪诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讞拽讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 诇讗 砖诪转讬

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: 鈥淭hus says the Lord: If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth鈥 (Jeremiah 33:25), and the covenant that exists day and night is the covenant of circumcision, as it is always found on the person鈥檚 body.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讻诇 讝讻讬讜转 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 诇讗 注诪讚讜 诇讜 讻砖谞转专砖诇 诪谉 讛诪讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬驻讙砖讛讜 讛壮 讜讬讘拽砖 讛诪讬转讜

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 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: 鈥淎nd the Lord met him and sought to kill him鈥 (Exodus 4:24).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 砖诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 谞转专砖诇 诪谉 讛诪讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专 讗诪讜诇 讜讗爪讗 住讻谞讛 讛讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讘讛讬讜转诐 讻讗讘讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诪讜诇 讜讗砖讛讗 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬 诇讱 砖讘 诪爪专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞注谞砖 诪砖讛

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: 鈥淎nd it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain鈥 (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: 鈥淕o, return into Egypt鈥 (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?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 31

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘讻讜转讬诐 诪讗讜讻诇讬 砖讜诐 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘讻讜转讬诐 诪注讜诇讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘讻讜转讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诪拽讬讬诪讬 砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讻讜转讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬诐 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪诪爪讜讜讬诐 注诇 讛砖讘转

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪注讜诇讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘讻讜转讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诪爪讜讜讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

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 aren鈥檛 Samaritans commanded to ascend just like other Jews?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讜讜讛 讜注讜砖讛 拽转谞讬 讘转专转讬 讘讘讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜转讬诐 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 讙讜讬诐 讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讬 注讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞诐 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讘注讜诇讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 讻讜转讬诐 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讜讗讬谞诐 注讜砖讬谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 诪讜转专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讜讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 谞驻讬拽 诪讻诇诇 讘谞讬 谞讞 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬拽讚砖 讗讘专讛诐 讗讬转拽专讜 注诇 砖诪讬讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讝专注 讗讘专讛诐 讗住讜专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讬 讘讬爪讞拽 讬拽专讗 诇讱 讝专注 讻转讬讘 讜讛讗讬讻讗 注砖讜 讘讬爪讞拽 讜诇讗 讻诇 讬爪讞拽

GEMARA: Concerning the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the one who takes such a vow is permitted to derive benefit from the nations of the world, the Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there Ishmael and his descendants, who are also Abraham鈥檚 offspring? Why isn鈥檛 deriving benefit from them forbidden as well? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to Abraham: 鈥淔or in Isaac shall seed be called to you鈥 (Genesis 21:12), which demonstrates that the descendants of Ishmael are not termed the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there Esau and his descendants; they are also offspring of Abraham, since they are descendants of Isaac? The Gemara answers that the words 鈥渋n Isaac鈥 mean that some of Isaac鈥檚 descendants, i.e., the children of Jacob, are included in the offspring of Abraham, but not all the descendants of Isaac.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 诇讜拽讞 讘讬讜转专 讜诪讜讻专 讘驻讞讜转 砖讬砖专讗诇 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 诇讜拽讞 讘驻讞讜转 讜诪讜讻专 讘讬讜转专 讜讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谉 诇讬 讬讛谞讛 诇讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讜拽讞 讻诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讜诪谉 诇讘拽专讜 讜谞讗谞住 讘讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讛谞讗转 诇讜拽讞 讛讬讗

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.

转谞谉 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讻专 讘驻讞讜转 讗讘诇 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 诇讗 讜讗讬 讛谞讗转 诇讜拽讞 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讝讘讬谞讗 讚专诪讬 注诇 讗驻讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗诐 讻谉 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 诇讜拽讞 讘讬讜转专 讜注讜讚 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖讬砖专讗诇 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 [诇讜拽讞 讘驻讞讜转] 讜诪讜讻专 讘讬讜转专 讜讗讬 讘讝讘讬谞讗 讚专诪讬 注诇 讗驻讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛

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.

住讬驻讗 讘讝讘讬谞讗 讞专讬驻讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讜拽讞 讘驻讞讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讛 讘砖讜讛 讗诇讗

The Gemara answers: The latter clause is referring to the opposite case, in a keen [岣rifa] 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,

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讝讘讬谞讗 诪讬爪注讗 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讝讘讬谞讗 讞专讬驻讗

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讜拽讞 讻诇讬诐 诪谉 讛转讙专 诇砖讙专谉 诇讘讬转 讞诪讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪诪谞讬 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讚诪讬讛诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 诇驻讬 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 砖讘讛谉 谞讗谞住讜 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘

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-law鈥檚 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.

讘讞讝专讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专

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.

讛讛讜讗 住驻住讬专讗 讚砖拽诇 讞诪专讗 诇讝讘讜谞讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讝讘谉 讘讛讚讬 讚讛讚专 讗讬转谞讬住 讞诪专讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讗谞住讜 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讞讝专讛 驻讟讜专

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 Na岣an then obligated him to pay for it. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an occurred on the return trip, why did Rav Na岣an obligate him to pay?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝专讛 讚住驻住讬专讗 讛讜诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讚讗讬诇讜 诪砖讻讞 诇讝讘讜谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛

Rav Na岣an 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.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇注专诇讬诐 诪讜转专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

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.

砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇诪讜诇讬诐 讗住讜专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 砖讗讬谉 讛注专诇讛 拽专讜讬讛 讗诇讗 诇砖诐 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讛讙讜讬诐 注专诇讬诐 讜讻诇 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 注专诇讬 诇讘 讜讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛驻诇砖转讬 讛注专诇 讛讝讛 讜讗讜诪专 驻谉 转砖诪讞谞讛 讘谞讜转 驻诇砖转讬诐 驻谉 转注诇讝谞讛 讘谞讜转 讛注专诇讬诐

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: 鈥淔or all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart鈥 (Jeremiah 9:25), and it says: 鈥淎nd this uncircumcised Philistine shall be鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:36), and it says: 鈥淟est the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph鈥 (II聽Samuel 1:20). These verses indicate that ordinary gentiles are referred to as uncircumcised, regardless of whether they are actually circumcised.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗讜住讛 讛讬讗 讛注专诇讛 砖谞转讙谞讜 讘讛 专砖注讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讛讙讜讬诐 注专诇讬诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转

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: 鈥淏ehold, 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 heart鈥 (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).

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讞诪讜专讛

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 谞转诇讛 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讛爪讚讬拽 注诇讬讛 诪诇讗 砖注讛

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 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 4:24鈥26).

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 砖注砖讛 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 诇讗 谞拽专讗 砖诇诐 注讚 砖诪诇 砖谞讗诪专 讛转讛诇讱 诇驻谞讬 讜讛讬讛 转诪讬诐

Rabbi Ne岣mya 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: 鈥淲alk before Me and you should be wholehearted鈥 (Genesis 17:1).

讚讘专 讗讞专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讗诇诪诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 讘专讗 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗转 注讜诇诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讗诐 诇讗 讘专讬转讬 讬讜诪诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讞拽讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 诇讗 砖诪转讬

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: 鈥淭hus says the Lord: If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth鈥 (Jeremiah 33:25), and the covenant that exists day and night is the covenant of circumcision, as it is always found on the person鈥檚 body.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讻诇 讝讻讬讜转 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 诇讗 注诪讚讜 诇讜 讻砖谞转专砖诇 诪谉 讛诪讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬驻讙砖讛讜 讛壮 讜讬讘拽砖 讛诪讬转讜

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 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: 鈥淎nd the Lord met him and sought to kill him鈥 (Exodus 4:24).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 砖诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 谞转专砖诇 诪谉 讛诪讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专 讗诪讜诇 讜讗爪讗 住讻谞讛 讛讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讘讛讬讜转诐 讻讗讘讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诪讜诇 讜讗砖讛讗 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬 诇讱 砖讘 诪爪专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞注谞砖 诪砖讛

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: 鈥淎nd it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain鈥 (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: 鈥淕o, return into Egypt鈥 (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