נדרים לא

נדרים לא

מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִשּׁוֹבְתֵי שַׁבָּת — אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בַּכּוּתִים. מֵאוֹכְלֵי שׁוּם — אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בַּכּוּתִים. מֵעוֹלֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם — אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּתָּר בַּכּוּתִים.

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.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״שׁוֹבְתֵי שַׁבָּת״? אִילֵּימָא מִמְּקַיְּימֵי שַׁבָּת, מַאי אִירְיָא בַּכּוּתִים? אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹיִם נָמֵי! אֶלָּא מִמְּצֻוִּוים עַל הַשַּׁבָּת.

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.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״מֵעוֹלֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם״ — אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּתָּר בַּכּוּתִים, אַמַּאי? וְהָא מְצֻוִּוים נִינְהוּ!

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’t Samaritans commanded to ascend just like other Jews?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה קָתָנֵי. בְּתַרְתֵּי בָּבֵי קַמָּיָיתָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכוּתִים — מְצֻוִּוין וְעוֹשִׂין, גּוֹיִם הָהוּא דְּעָבְדִי — עוֹשִׂין וְאֵינָם מְצֻוִּוין. בְּעוֹלֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם: יִשְׂרָאֵל — מְצֻוִּוין וְעוֹשִׂין, כּוּתִים — מְצֻוִּוין וְאֵינָם עוֹשִׂין.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לִבְנֵי נֹחַ״ — מוּתָּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם.

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.

גְּמָ׳ וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִי נָפֵיק מִכְּלָל בְּנֵי נֹחַ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיקַּדַּשׁ אַבְרָהָם, אִיתְקְרוֹ עַל שְׁמֵיהּ.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ ״שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לְזֶרַע אַבְרָהָם״ — אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּתָּר בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם.

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.

גְּמָ׳ וְהָאִיכָּא יִשְׁמָעֵאל! ״כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע״ כְּתִיב. וְהָאִיכָּא עֵשָׂו! ״בְּיִצְחָק״, וְלֹא כׇּל יִצְחָק.

GEMARA: Concerning the mishna’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 isn’t there Ishmael and his descendants, who are also Abraham’s offspring? Why isn’t deriving benefit from them forbidden as well? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to Abraham: “For in Isaac shall seed be called to you” (Genesis 21:12), which demonstrates that the descendants of Ishmael are not termed the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Esau and his descendants; they are also offspring of Abraham, since they are descendants of Isaac? The Gemara answers that the words “in Isaac” mean that some of Isaac’s descendants, i.e., the children of Jacob, are included in the offspring of Abraham, but not all the descendants of Isaac.

מַתְנִי׳ ״שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל״ — לוֹקֵחַ בְּיוֹתֵר וּמוֹכֵר בְּפָחוֹת. ״שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל נֶהֱנִין לִי״ — לוֹקֵחַ בְּפָחוֹת וּמוֹכֵר בְּיוֹתֵר, וְאֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. ״שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לָהֶן וְהֵן לִי״ — יֵהָנֶה לְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם.

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.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלִי מִן הָאוּמָּן לְבַקְּרוֹ וְנֶאֱנַס בְּיָדוֹ — חַיָּיב. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר הֲנָאַת לוֹקֵחַ הִיא.

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.

תְּנַן: ״שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל״ — מוֹכֵר בְּפָחוֹת, אֲבָל שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה — לָא. וְאִי הֲנָאַת לוֹקֵחַ הִיא — אֲפִילּוּ שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה! מַתְנִיתִין בִּזְבִינָא דִּרְמֵי עַל אַפֵּיהּ.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Shmuel’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 arouses no interest among potential buyers. In that case, the seller benefits from the sale even if the item is sold at market value, and this is prohibited.

אִם כֵּן אֵימָא רֵישָׁא: לוֹקֵחַ בְּיוֹתֵר. וְעוֹד, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל נֶהֱנִין לִי״ — [לוֹקֵחַ בְּפָחוֹת] וּמוֹכֵר בְּיוֹתֵר. וְאִי בִּזְבִינָא דִּרְמֵי עַל אַפֵּיהּ — אֲפִילּוּ שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה!

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.

סֵיפָא בִּזְבִינָא חֲרִיפָא. אִי הָכִי לוֹקֵחַ בְּפָחוֹת? אֲפִילּוּ שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה! אֶלָּא

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

מַתְנִיתִין בִּזְבִינָא מִיצְעָא, וְדִשְׁמוּאֵל בִּזְבִינָא חֲרִיפָא.

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.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: הַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּלִים מִן הַתַּגָּר לְשַׁגְּרָן לְבֵית חָמִיו, וְאָמַר לוֹ: אִם מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן מִמֶּנִּי — אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ דְּמֵיהֶם, וְאִם לָאו — אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ לְפִי טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁבָּהֶן. נֶאֶנְסוּ בַּהֲלִיכָה — חַיָּיב.

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’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.

בַּחֲזָרָה — פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר.

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.

הָהוּא סַפְסִירָא דִּשְׁקַל חֲמָרָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי וְלָא אִיזַּבַּן. בַּהֲדֵי דַּהֲדַר, אִיתְּנִיס חַמְרָא, חַיְּיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: נֶאֶנְסוּ בַּהֲלִיכָה חַיָּיב, בַּחֲזָרָה פָּטוּר.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזָרָה דְסַפְסִירָא — הוֹלָכָה הִיא. דְּאִילּוּ מַשְׁכַּח לְזַבּוֹנֵי — אֲפִילּוּ אַבָּבָא דְבֵיתֵיהּ מִי לָא מְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ?

Rav Naḥman 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.

מַתְנִי׳ ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱנֶה לָעֲרֵלִים״ — מוּתָּר בְּעַרְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָסוּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם.

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.

״שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱנֶה לַמּוּלִים״ — אָסוּר בְּעַרְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמוּתָּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. שֶׁאֵין הָעׇרְלָה קְרוּיָה אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי כׇל הַגּוֹיִם עֲרֵלִים וְכׇל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל עַרְלֵי לֵב״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיָה הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי הֶעָרֵל הַזֶּה״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״פֶּן תִּשְׂמַחְנָה בְּנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים פֶּן תַּעֲלֹזְנָה בְּנוֹת הָעֲרֵלִים״.

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

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: מְאוּסָה הִיא הָעׇרְלָה, שֶׁנִּתְגַּנּוּ בָּהּ רְשָׁעִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי כׇל הַגּוֹיִם עֲרֵלִים״. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה, שֶׁנִּכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת.

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: “Behold, 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” (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).

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת חֲמוּרָה.

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.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה — שֶׁלֹּא נִתְלָה לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה הַצַּדִּיק עָלֶיהָ מְלֹא שָׁעָה.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa 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 4:24–26).

רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה — שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הַנְּגָעִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה, שֶׁכׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁעָשָׂה אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ לֹא נִקְרָא שָׁלֵם עַד שֶׁמָּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָמִים״.

Rabbi Neḥemya 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: “Walk before Me and you should be wholehearted” (Genesis 17:1).

דָּבָר אַחֵר: גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה — שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הִיא, לֹא בָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שָׂמְתִּי״.

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

גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה, שֶׁכׇּל זְכִיּוֹת שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לֹא עָמְדוּ לוֹ כְּשֶׁנִּתְרַשֵּׁל מִן הַמִּילָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה׳ וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ״.

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa 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: “And the Lord met him and sought to kill him” (Exodus 4:24).

אָמַר רַבִּי: חַס וְשָׁלוֹם שֶׁמּשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ נִתְרַשֵּׁל מִן הַמִּילָה, אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַר: אָמוּל וְאֵצֵא — סַכָּנָה הִיא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיוֹתָם כֹּאֲבִים וְגוֹ׳״. אָמוּל וְאֶשְׁהֶא שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים, הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָמַר לִי ״לֵךְ שֻׁב מִצְרָיִם״. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶעֱנַשׁ מֹשֶׁה —

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: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain” (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: “Go, return into Egypt” (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?