Nedarim 31b (לא:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Rather,

the Mishna is referring

to

an average sale,

in which the benefit to the seller and the buyer is equal.

But

if

Shmuel’s

statement is referring

to a sought-after sale.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel:

An engaged groom,

who purchases utensils from a merchant

in order

to send them

as a gift

to his father-in-law’s house.

And he said

to the merchant:

If they accept them from me

at my father-in-law’s house, meaning that this gift is suitable for them,

I will give you their value.

But if not,

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

I will give you according to

the benefit

that they afforded me,

which

I had

from them—

If

the utensils were forcibly destroyed

during

the journey,

when he brought them to his father-in-law’s house,

he is liable

to pay their value, because while the groom is bringing them to his father-in-law’s house, all the benefit is his, and therefore he is liable for accidents beyond his control.

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

during

the

return

to the seller,

he is exempt, because

now he derives no benefit from them.

For from this point onward he has no use for them, since it has become clear that they will not be accepted at his father-in-law’s house.

And his status while returning the utensils

is that of a paid bailee,

who is liable for theft and loss, because of the benefit he derives from the gratitude expressed to him by his father-in-law’s household for sending the utensils.

The Gemara now relates an incident involving

a certain broker,

a broker who intermediates in the sale of animals between sellers and buyers,

who took a donkey

that he took in order

to sell it,

to sell it on behalf of its owner,

but he did not sell it.

When he was returning,

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

the donkey was forcibly destroyed.

Rav Naḥman obligated

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 during the journey—

he is liable; during the return—

he is exempt!

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Rava:

The return of a broker

is considered a journey,

it is considered so!

Since

if he had found someone to buy it,

if the broker had found a buyer who would purchase the donkey,

even

if he had found the buyer

at the entrance to his house,

at the gate of the seller’s house,

would he not have sold it to him?

Would he not have sold it then?

And from here there is proof that as long as the broker has not returned the animal, he is considered a broker transporting the animal for sale; and since all the benefit is his, he is liable for accidents beyond his control.

Mishna:

One who says:

“A konam: deriving benefit from the uncircumcised is forbidden to me”—

he is permitted to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews,

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

but he is prohibited

even

from circumcised gentiles,

because although they are circumcised, they are called “uncircumcised.”

And if he said: “A konam:

deriving benefit from the circumcised is forbidden to me”—

he is prohibited

even

from uncircumcised Jews,

since they too are called circumcised,

but he is permitted to derive benefit from circumcised gentiles.

Because

the term “foreskin” is applied only in reference to gentiles,

even to 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

is uncircumcised of heart,

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

And

so he

says in the First Book of Samuel [17:36], as David said about Goliath: “

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

And this uncircumcised Philistine

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

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

And

so he

says [II Samuel 1]: “

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

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

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The foreskin is despicable—

for the wicked were disgraced by it,

as it is stated: “

For all the nations are uncircumcised.”

Rabbi Yishmael says: Circumcision is great,

it is

for which

thirteen

mentions were stated in the passage concerning circumcision,

thirteen

times: “

covenants.”

Rabbi Yosei says: Circumcision is great—

for it overrides Shabbat,

the

stringent one.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Circumcision is great—

for

it was not “held against”

him,

as they did not delay

Moses the righteous on its account,

because of the delay in performing it, even not

for a full hour.

As will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Neḥemya says: Circumcision is great, for it overrides the laws of leprous afflictions.

A baby is circumcised even if there is a leprous affliction at the site of the circumcision, whereas the Torah prohibited removing the affliction from a leper when it is not for the purpose of the mitzva of circumcision.

Rabbi says: Circumcision is great—

for all the mitzvot that Abraham our forefather performed were not called “whole

until he circumcised

himself.”

As it is stated [Genesis 17]: “

Walk before Me

in the mitzva of circumcision,

and be

thereby

whole,”

whole.

Alternatively: Circumcision is great—

for had it not been for it, 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—

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

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Circumcision is great—

for all the merits that Moses our teacher possessed did not stand him in good stead when he became negligent concerning circumcision.

As it is stated [Exodus 4]: “

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

Rabbi said: Heaven forbid

to say

that Moses our teacher became negligent concerning circumcision.

Rather, this is what he said:

Moses said: If

I circumcise

my son now,

and I set out

on the journey after he is 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 is understood from here that there is suffering from circumcision for at least three days.

And if

I circumcise him and wait three days

until the site of the circumcision heals—

then

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

Go, return to Egypt”!

Rather,

if so,

why was Moses punished?