Nedarim 31b:8נדרים ל״א ב:ח
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Nedarim 31b:8"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
31bל״א ב

מתניתין בזבינא מיצעא ודשמואל בזבינא חריפא

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.

תניא כוותיה דשמואל הלוקח כלים מן התגר לשגרן לבית חמיו ואמר לו אם מקבלין אותן ממני אני נותן לך דמיהם ואם לאו אני נותן לך לפי טובת הנאה שבהן נאנסו בהליכה חייב

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.

בחזרה פטור מפני שהוא כנושא שכר

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.

ההוא ספסירא דשקל חמרא לזבוני ולא איזבן בהדי דהדר איתניס חמרא חייביה רב נחמן לשלומי איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן נאנסו בהליכה חייב בחזרה פטור

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?

אמר ליה חזרה דספסירא הולכה היא דאילו משכח לזבוני אפילו אבבא דביתיה מי לא מזבין ליה

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.

מתני׳ קונם שאני נהנה לערלים מותר בערלי ישראל ואסור במולי נוכרים

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.

שאני נהנה למולים אסור בערלי ישראל ומותר במולי נוכרים שאין הערלה קרויה אלא לשם נוכרים שנאמר כי כל הגוים ערלים וכל בית ישראל ערלי לב (ירמיהו ט, כה) ואומר והיה הפלשתי הערל הזה (שמואל א יז, לו) ואומר פן תשמחנה בנות פלשתים פן תעלוזנה בנות הערלים (שמואל ב א, כ)

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.

רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מאוסה היא הערלה שנתגנו בה רשעים שנאמר כי כל הגוים ערלים (ירמיהו ט, כה) רבי ישמעאל אומר גדולה מילה שנכרתו עליה שלוש עשרה בריתות

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).

רבי יוסי אומר גדולה מילה שדוחה את השבת חמורה

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.

רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר גדולה מילה שלא נתלה לו למשה הצדיק עליה מלוא שעה

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).

רבי נחמיה אומר גדולה מילה שדוחה את הנגעים רבי אומר גדולה מילה שכל המצוות שעשה אברהם אבינו לא נקרא שלם עד שמל שנאמר התהלך לפני והיה תמים (בראשית יז, א)

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).

דבר אחר גדולה מילה שאלמלא היא לא ברא הקב"ה את עולמו שנאמר כה אמר ה' אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי (ירמיהו לג, כה)

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.

גמ׳ תניא רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר גדולה מילה שכל זכויות שעשה משה רבינו לא עמדו לו כשנתרשל מן המילה שנאמר ויפגשהו ה' ויבקש המיתו (שמות ד, כד)

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).

אמר רבי חס ושלום שמשה רבינו נתרשל מן המילה אלא כך אמר אמול ואצא סכנה היא שנאמר ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים וגו' (בראשית לד, כה) אמול ואשהא שלשה ימים הקב"ה אמר לי לך שוב מצרים (שמות ד, יט) אלא מפני מה נענש משה

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?