Nedarim 31b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rather, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page position")

the Mishna

is speaking

of an intermediate sale.

For the enjoyment of the seller and the buyer in it is equal.

And

if

that of Shmuel

were speaking

of a brisk sale.

It was taught in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion:

An engaged groom,

who takes utensils from the merchant

in order

to send them

as a gift

to his father-in-law’s household.

And he said

the groom to the merchant:

“If they accept them from me

in my father-in-law’s household, for this gift is suitable for them,

I will give you their value.

And if not,

I will return them to you. And in exchange for the use I made of them, for I showed them my intention to send the gift,

I will give you according to “

the benefit,”

for they showed me gratitude,

which

I had

in them—

If

the utensils were forcibly destroyed

the utensils

while going,

when he carried them to his father-in-law’s household—

he is liable

the groom must pay their value, for since at the time that the groom carries them to his father-in-law’s household all the benefit is his, he is therefore liable for accidents.

But if they did not accept the utensils in his father-in-law’s household, and they were forcibly destroyed

at

the time of

return

to the seller—

he is exempt, because

now all the benefit is not his.

For from now on he has no use for them, since it has become clear that they do not accept them in his father-in-law’s household.

And his status at the time of returning the utensils

is that of a paid bailee,

for he is liable for theft and loss, because through this payment he benefited from the gratitude that his father-in-law’s household showed him for sending the utensils.

And now the Gemara brings an incident involving

a certain broker,

a broker who mediates livestock between sellers and buyers,

who took a donkey,

who took a donkey in order

to sell it,

to sell it on behalf of its owner,

but did not sell it.

While he was returning,

when the broker was about to return the donkey to its owner,

the donkey was forcibly destroyed.

Rav Naḥman obligated him

the broker

to pay

its value to its owner.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from the beraita that we learned here:

If they were forcibly destroyed while going—

he is liable; upon returning—

he is exempt!

He said to him

Rav Naḥman to Rava:

The return of a broker—

is considered going

considered!

Since

if he were to find someone to buy it,

if the broker were to find a buyer who would buy the donkey, then

even

if he were to find the buyer

at the gate of his house,

at the gate of the seller’s house,

would he not sell it to him?

Would he not sell it then?

And from here there is proof that as long as the broker has not returned the animal, he is considered a broker carrying the animal in order to sell it, and since all the benefit is his, he is liable for accidents that happen to it.

The Mishna:

One who says:

“Konam: I am prohibited from benefiting from the uncircumcised”—

is permitted to benefit from uncircumcised Israelites,

for although they have a foreskin, they are not called “uncircumcised,”

but is prohibited

even

from circumcised gentiles,

for although they are circumcised, their name is “uncircumcised.”

And if he said: “Konam:

I am prohibited from benefiting from the circumcised”—

he is prohibited

even

from uncircumcised Israelites,

since they too are called circumcised,

and is permitted to benefit from circumcised gentiles.

Because

the foreskin is called so only with reference to gentiles,

even those who are circumcised.

As it is stated [Jeremiah 9] “

For all the nations are uncircumcised,”

even those who are circumcised.

And

if

the entire house of Israel—

are uncircumcised of heart

they are [as though a layer of foreskin covers their heart, preventing them from hearing the word of the Lord]”.

And

so he

says

in the book of Samuel I [17:36], where David said about Goliath: “

And this uncircumcised Philistine

this.”

Thus David called him uncircumcised, even though he did not know with certainty that he had not been circumcised or had been born circumcised.

And

so he

says [Samuel II 1] “

Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult.”

And within an entire people there are several circumcised men, and nevertheless Scripture called them all uncircumcised.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: The foreskin is loathsome—

for the wicked were disgraced by it,

as it is stated “

For all the nations are uncircumcised.”

Rabbi Yishmael says: Great

is

circumcision—

for thirteen

were stated in the passage of circumcision

thirteen

times

“covenants.”

Rabbi Yosei says: Great is circumcision—

for it overrides Shabbat,

the

severe.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Great is circumcision—

for not “

was delayed”

for him,

for they did not wait

for Moses the righteous because of it,

because of the delay in performing it, even not

a full hour.

And as will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Neḥemya says: Great is circumcision, for it overrides skin afflictions.

They circumcise the infant even if there is a leprous affliction at the place of circumcision, whereas the Torah prohibited removing the affliction from one afflicted with leprosy when it is not for the purpose of the mitzva of circumcision.

Rabbi says: Great is circumcision—

for all the mitzvot that Abraham our father performed were not called “complete

” until he circumcised

himself.

As it is stated [Genesis 17] “

Walk before Me

with the mitzva of circumcision,

and be

thereby

complete”

whole.

Alternatively: Great is circumcision—

for had it not existed, the Holy One, blessed be He, would not have created His world.

As it is stated [Jeremiah 33] “

Thus said the Lord: If not for My covenant, day and night—

the statutes of heaven and earth I would not have established.”

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Great is circumcision—

for all the merits that Moses our teacher performed did not stand by him when he became negligent concerning the circumcision.

As it is stated [Exodus 4] “

And the Lord encountered him, and He sought to kill him.”

Rabbi said: Heaven forbid

to say

that Moses our teacher became negligent concerning the circumcision.

Rather, this is what he said

Moses: If

I circumcise

my son now,

and go out

on the road after he has been circumcised—

It is dangerous

for him for three days.

As it is stated [Genesis 34] “

And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain,”

and so on.

And it follows from here that there is suffering from circumcision for at least three days.

And if

I circumcise and wait three days

until the place of the circumcision heals—

then

the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me [Exodus 4] “

Go, return to Egypt”!

Rather,

if so,

for what reason was Moses punished?