(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nedarim 31

NEDARIM 31 - dedicated anonymously in honor of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, and in honor of those who study the Dafyomi around the world.


(a) 'ha'Noder mi'Shovsei Shabbos Asur be'Yisrael ve'Asur be'Kutim'.
Would K utim also be incorporated if one were to be Noder ...
  1. ... 'me'Ochlei Shum'?
  2. ... 'me'Olei Yerushalayim'?
(b) What is the significance of 'Ochlei Shum'?

(c) Why can 'Shovsei Shabbos' not mean ...

  1. ... those who observe Shabbos?
  2. ... those who are commanded to observe Shabbos? What problem would that create with the Seifa ('me'Olei Yerushalayim')?
(d) So how does Abaye explain 'Shovsei Shabbos' to accommodate all three cases?
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states ...
1. ... 'Konem she'Eini Neheneh mi'B'nei No'ach, Mutar be'Yisrael'.
How come that a Yisrael is not included in the term 'B'nei No'ach', seeing as they are descendents of No'ach?
2. ... 'Konem she'Eini Neheneh le'Zera Avraham, Asur be'Yisrael u'Mutar be'Ovdei-Kochavim'.
Considering that both Yishmael and Eisav were direct descendants of Avraham, why does the Tana not distinguish between them are other 'Ovdei-Kochavim'?
(b) Someone who is Noder not to receive benefit from Jews, must pay more for whatever he purchases from them, and sell to them for less.
In which case will all business transactions with them be forbidden, irrespective of how much either of them pays?

(c) What must he do if he declared a Neder forbidding Jews to benefit from him, or vice-versa?

(d) What is the meaning of 've'Ein Shom'in Lo'?

(a) Why might we have thought (in the latter case) that the Neder will not pertain to property that he purchases only after the Neder has been declared?

(b) Why then, is that not the case?

(c) In which two cases will it indeed be so?

(d) Should he forbid his property on others, and then exchanges some of his property for other property, does the second property then become forbidden?

4) The Mishnah concludes with the case of someone who declares that he will neither receive any Hana'ah from all Jews nor they from him must enact all his business transactions with Nochrim.
Why does the Tana need to tell us this? Is it not obvious?


(a) Shmuel says that someone who takes an object from the manufacturer to inspect before purchasing it in order to examine it, and breaks it, is obligated to pay.
Why is that?

(b) Why must Shmuel be speaking specifically in a case when the price of the object is fixed, as we established in Bava Basra?

(c) What problem do we have with Shmuel from our Mishnah 'she'Eini Neheneh mi'Yisrael, Mocher be'Pachos'? What ought the Tana to have said, according to him?

(a) What makes selling an object at market price ...
  1. ... 'a bad sale' (where the object that is being sold is of inferior quality) solely the benefit of the seller?
  2. ... 'a good sale' (where the object is of superior quality) solely the benefit of the purchaser?
(b) We reject the suggestion that the Tana is referring specifically to 'a bad sale', on the grounds that the Tana, in the same breath, says 'Lokei'ach be'Yoser', and if the object is inferior, why should he not be permitted to pay the market price for it? What other objection do we raise to that suggestion?

(c) We reject the suggestion that in the Seifa, the Tana is referring specifically to 'a good sale' on the same grounds.
So how do we establish the Mishnah on the one hand, and Shmuel, on the other, to reconcile the two?

(d) Did we really believe that it was possible to establish our Mishnah by a 'bad sale' or 'a good sale'?

Answers to questions



(a) The Beraisa refers to the case of someone who purchases objects from a store to take to his in-laws.
What does he stipulate with the store-keeper?

(b) What is the Tovas Hana'ah in this case?

(c) Why is he obligated to pay, should an O'nes occur on his outward journey? What do we prove from here with regard to Shmuel's previous Halachah (regarding someone who receives an object for inspection)?

(d) What sort of Din does he have on the return journey? Would he be Patur, come what may?

(a) If someone forbids Hana'ah on himself from 'Areilim' (or forbids them to have Hana'ah from him), whom does he include and whom does he exclude?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Ki Chol ha'Goyim Areilim, ve'Chol Beis Yisrael Arlei Lev"?

(c) Why do we then need to quote the Pasuk in Shmuel ...

  1. ... "ve'Hayah ha'P'lishti ha'Arel ha'Zeh" to teach us the same thing?
    What is wrong with the previous Pasuk?
  2. ... "Pen Tismachnah B'nos ha'Pelishtim, Pen Ta'aloznah B'nos ha'Areilim, to teach us the same thing again?
(d) From which of these Pesukim does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah extrapolate the Torah's disgust of the Orlah?
(a) The Mishnah continues to list the various praises and advantages of B'ris Milah. According to Rebbi Yishmael, it is praiseworthy due to the many covenants that Hashem made on account of it.
How many covenants does the Torah mention in Parshas Lech Lecha?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "u'va'*Yom* ha'Shemini Yimol B'sar Orlaso", from which Rebbi Yossi extrapolates the praise of Milah?

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah cites the fact that Moshe almost lost his life the moment he delayed circumcising his son.
How does ...

  1. ... Rebbi Nechemyah derive it from the Pasuk in Tazri'a " ... Yimol *B'sar* Orlaso"? What does this Pasuk teach us?
  2. ... Rebbi (or Rebbi Meir) derives it from the Pasuk in Veyeira "His'halech Lefanai ve'Heyei Samim"? What does this Pasuk teach us?
(a) The final praise listed in our Mishnah ('Davar Acher') cites the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Koh Amar Hashem, Im Lo B'risi, Yomam va'Laylah Chukos Shamayim va'Aretz Lo Samti".
How do we learn the greatness of Milah from there?

(b) Some add an additional source "Hinei Dam ha'B'ris" (mentioned at Matan Torah).
What do we learn from there?

(c) How can we connect B'ris Milah to that Pasuk, seeing as it refers to the blood of the Korban that they sacrificed at Har Sinai, and not to the B'ris Milah at all?

(a) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah in our Mishnah. According to him, Moshe was not lax regarding the Milah at all. In fact, his delay in delaying it was perfectly justifiable.
In what way was it justifiable? What was Moshe's reasoning?

(b) He quotes the Pasuk "Vayehi ba'Yom ha'Shelishi bi'Heyosam Ko'avim ... ". Can we infer from there that the pain on the third day is more intense than on the other two days?

(c) If Moshe was not lax in delaying the B'ris per se, then why did the angel nearly kill him?

(d) How would he have been able to complete his journey to Egypt as Hashem had commanded him had he performed the B'ris Milah in the hotel?

(a) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the angel did not threaten Moshe at all.
Then what is the Parshah talking about?

(b) How does he prove this from Tziporah's statement "Ki Chasan Damim Atah Li"?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,