Nedarim 31a (לא.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

One who vows to prohibit himself from those who observe Shabbat—

is prohibited from benefiting from Israelites and is prohibited from benefiting from Samaritans.

Since the Samaritans, who converted, are also commanded regarding Shabbat and observe it.

2. One who vows to prohibit himself from

those who eat garlic on Friday night, as this was the practice of the Jewish people: to eat garlic on Friday night, since it is the time of conjugal relations and garlic increases semen—

is prohibited from benefiting from Israelites and is prohibited from benefiting from Samaritans, since the Samaritans also maintain this practice of eating garlic on Friday night, even though they are not obligated in it.

3. One who vows to prohibit himself from

those who ascend to Jerusalem—

is prohibited from benefiting from Israelites, but permitted to benefit from Samaritans.

Since the Samaritans ascend to Shechem, and not to Jerusalem.

Gemara:

We raise an objection:

What is meant by one who vows to prohibit himself from

“

those who observe Shabbat”?

If you say, if we say that his intention is to prohibit himself from benefiting

from “

those who fulfill the mitzva of Shabbat”—

Why specifically, then, did the tanna state that he is prohibited from benefiting from Israelites and

Samaritans?

But since his intention is those who observe Shabbat,

even

idolaters, as well, if they observe Shabbat, he should be prohibited from benefiting from them!

If so, the tanna should have said: “One who vows to prohibit himself from those who observe Shabbat is prohibited from benefiting from those who fulfill the mitzva of Shabbat,” since this wording also includes those gentiles who observe Shabbat. Why, then, did the tanna state: “One who vows to prohibit himself from those who observe Shabbat is prohibited,” implying that he is prohibited only from Israelites and Samaritans, but not from gentiles who observe Shabbat?!

And we answer:

Rather, one who vows to prohibit himself from “those who observe Shabbat” intends to prohibit himself from benefiting only

from

those who are

commanded regarding Shabbat.

Only Israelites and Samaritans are commanded regarding Shabbat, but not idolaters.

And we ask:

If so, that a person prohibits himself from benefiting, with this expression, from those who are commanded regarding a matter,

say the latter clause:

One who vows to prohibit himself from

those who ascend to Jerusalem—

is prohibited from benefiting from Israelites, but permitted to benefit from Samaritans.

And

why are they permitted?

But Samaritans

are commanded

to ascend on pilgrimage,

are they not!

Abaye said: Our Mishna teaches the case of one who vows to prohibit himself from benefiting from someone who is

is teaching a case of one who vows to derive no benefit from one who is

commanded and performs the mitzva,

it teaches.

In the first two clauses, in the two first clauses of the Mishna, concerning those who observe Shabbat and those who eat garlic on Friday nights—

Israelites and Samaritans are commanded

and perform, and therefore he is prohibited from benefiting from them. But

the idolaters—those who perform that act, those who do so, are in the category of

“those who perform but are not commanded,” and the vower does not intend to prohibit himself from benefiting from them.

But in the final clause,

concerning those who ascend to Jerusalem—

only Israelites

are commanded and perform, whereas

Samaritans are commanded but do not perform, since they do not ascend to Jerusalem, having replaced Jerusalem with Shechem.

Mishna:

One who says: “

Konam: I prohibit myself from benefiting from the descendants of Noah”—

is permitted to benefit from Israelites, who are called “the seed of Abraham” and are not called “the descendants of Noah,”

but is prohibited from benefiting from idolaters, who are called the descendants of Noah.

For only gentiles are called “the descendants of Noah,” and not Israelites, even though the Israelites too are descendants of Noah.

Gemara:

We raise an objection:

But Israelites—

do they leave

the category of “

the descendants of Noah”?

After all, the Israelites too are descendants of Noah!

And we answer:

Since Abraham was sanctified, as he was called “My beloved” —

they were called the children of Israel

by his name, that of Abraham, and they are no longer called the descendants of Noah.

Mishna:

One who says: “Konam:

I prohibit myself from benefiting from the seed of Abraham” —

is prohibited from benefiting from Israelites, but permitted to benefit from idolaters.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But there is Ishmael, who too is the seed of Abraham. Why, then, is he prohibited only from Israelites and not from the descendants of Ishmael?!

And we answer: Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham [Genesis 21]: “

For through Isaac will your seed be called,”

it is written. Your seed will be called only through Isaac, and not through Ishmael! And we further raise an objection:

But there is Esau, who is the seed of Abraham and also of Isaac!

And we answer: The verse states: “For

through

Isaac will your seed be called.” The verse teaches that only through

a portion of

Isaac, namely Jacob, will your seed be called.

And not through

all of Isaac will your seed be called—to exclude Esau.

Mishna:

This Mishna explains that buying and selling are also prohibited for one who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting, since both the buyer and the seller derive benefit from a purchase or sale, according to the types of transaction described below.

Therefore, the Mishna provides a way for one who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting to buy and sell in a manner in which neither the seller nor the buyer derives benefit while they are prohibited from benefiting.

There are three types of transaction: zevina harifa, zevina metzia, and zevina derami al apei.

Zevina harifa is a transaction involving merchandise in demand in the market and selling well. In such a transaction, the benefit of the transaction belongs to the buyer.

Zevina metzia is a transaction involving average merchandise that sells normally, and the benefit of the transaction belongs equally to the seller and the buyer.

Zevina derami al apei is a transaction involving merchandise for which there is no demand, from which the seller is pleased to rid himself.

One who says: “Konam:

I prohibit myself from benefiting from Israelites”—

when he

buys, and derives benefit from the purchase, if he comes to buy an object from another Israelite, he pays him

a

higher price,

more than the regular market price among gentiles, so that he will not derive benefit from this purchase from the Israelite.

And if he

sells an object to another Israelite, he sells it

at a price that is

less than the regular price, so that he will not derive benefit from selling it to an Israelite.

And if he said: “Konam:

Israelites may not benefit from me”

(from me)—

he has no remedy unless he

buys from them

for less than the price, so that they will not derive benefit from selling to him, and

sells to them

for more, so that they will not derive benefit from buying from him.

And the Israelites

will not heed him, to buy from him at an inflated price or to sell to him cheaply!

That is, he has no remedy.

One who says: “Konam:

I prohibit myself from benefiting from them,

the Israelites, and

they may not benefit

from me”—

he may benefit from idolaters.

The novelty of the Mishna is that it does not say that his vow is a vain vow, since he cannot uphold it, as in the case of one who swears not to sleep for three days, whom they lash and who sleeps immediately, because he can benefit from idolaters.

Gemara:

Shmuel said: One who takes a vessel from an artisan in order

to examine it, and if he finds it suitable for him he will pay its value, and if not he will return it to the seller,

and the vessel is accidentally destroyed

while in his possession—

is liable to pay the seller its value [whether because of the purchase price or because he is liable for accidents under the law of a borrower, as will be explained in the following note].

And the Gemara infers:

Apparently,

this is evident from these words of Shmuel:

he holds that the benefit of the transaction—

is the benefit of the buyer.

It is because of the benefit of the transaction that he becomes liable to pay its value when it is accidentally destroyed.

The Gemara raises a difficulty from our Mishna,

as we learned in it:

One who says: “Konam:

I prohibit myself from benefiting from

Israelites”—

sells

to them

for less than

the price.

It is evident from this that he was permitted to sell specifically for less, when he had prohibited himself by a vow from benefiting from Israelites,

but to sell to them

at the same price,

the market price—

was not permitted, since he derives benefit from the sale.

But if we say that the benefit of the transaction

is the benefit of the buyer—

then

even at the same price it should be permitted for him to sell to him, since the seller does not derive benefit from the transaction; only the buyer does!

And we answer:

The Mishna, our Mishna, is speaking

about a transaction of “

merchandise lying on its face” [as though it were lying “on its face”], meaning merchandise that is difficult for the seller to sell. Therefore, if a buyer happens to come along, the benefit of the transaction belongs to the seller; only if he sells it for less does he derive no benefit. One cannot raise a difficulty from our Mishna against Shmuel, who is speaking of a transaction of zevina harifa, involving merchandise in demand, in which the benefit of the transaction belongs to the buyer, and therefore the buyer becomes liable for accidents involving the object.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so, that our Mishna is speaking about “

a transaction of merchandise lying on its face,”

say the first clause:

One who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting from Israelites

buys

from them

for more than the price, so that he does not derive benefit from them! Why must he buy for more than the price in order not to derive benefit, when even if he buys at the regular price he will not derive benefit from the purchase, since he is acquiring an item that is zevina derami al apei, which is difficult for the seller to rid himself of? The benefit of this transaction belongs to the seller, and not to the buyer!

And furthermore, say the final clause: One who says, “Konam:

Israelites may not benefit from me”—

buys

from them

for less, so that the Israelites will not benefit from him,

and sells

to them

for more, so that they will not derive benefit from buying from him.

But if our Mishna is speaking

about merchandise lying on its face—

even at the same price it should be permitted for him to sell to them, since he is the one who derives benefit from selling the merchandise, and not the buyers, whereas he prohibited by his vow their deriving benefit from him; here, the buyers do not derive benefit from him!

And we answer: The first clause is speaking about merchandise lying on its face.

Whereas

the final clause is speaking

about a transaction of merchandise in demand, where the merchandise is sought after and the buyer benefits by purchasing it.

And we ask:

If so, that the final clause is speaking about zevina harifa, there is a difficulty: Why does one who prohibits himself from benefiting them

buy

from them

for less, so that they will not benefit when they sell to him? In zevina harifa, the benefit of the transaction belongs to the buyer and not to the seller. If so, when the Israelites sell to him and he is the buyer—

even at the same price it should be permitted for them to sell to him, since he is the one who benefits, and not they!?