Kommentar zu Nedarim 3:13

ארבעה נדרים (vows intended for urging to buy/sell or while bargaining; vows made dependent upon an impossibility/an exaggeration; vows made in error; vows made on conditions unavoidably fulfilled/under compulsion) – all of them will be explained further on.

Introduction The first four mishnayoth of this chapter deal with vows that use valid language but are nevertheless not valid because the person did not really intend for his vow to be valid. The first category is one who vowed in order to give himself or someone else more incentive to do something. This might be like today if someone says “I bet you a million dollars that I will do a certain thing”. If it doesn’t happen, no one expects the person to actually pay a million dollars. People say these things in order to give themselves more incentive.

קונם שאני פוחת לך מן מסלע – KONAM this loaf of bread if I [pay] less to you than a Sela. And a SELA is four Denarim.

Four types of vows the Sages have invalidated: Vows of incentive, vows of exaggeration, vows in error, and vows [broken] under pressure. The first section of the mishnah lists those vows which are not valid. The mishnah and the following mishnayoth will now bring examples of each.

על השקל – it is one-half of a SELA.

Vows of incentive how so? If one was selling an article and said, “Konam that I will not reduce below a sela”; and the other replied, “Konam that I will not add above a shekel” both of them want [a price] of three denarii. In this scenario both the buyer and the seller make vows that they will not budge in their prices. One says he will not go above a shekel (two denarii) and the other says he won’t go below a sela (four denarii). Since their intention was for a price of three denarii, they may agree to that price.

שניהם רוצים בשלשה דינרים – but it was not in their hearts for the sake of a vow, but rather, the seller vowed to urge/encourage the purchaser that he should increase they money, and similarly, the purchaser, in order that the seller should lessen the cost of the purchase, therefore, it was not a vow. But even though that matters that are in the heart are not matters, where a matter can be proven like here, for such is the manner of all sellers and purchasers to do this, we follow after the things that are in the heart.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: Also one who wishes to subject his friend to a vow to eat with him, may say: “Every vow which I may make in the future shall be void”, providing that he remembers this at the time of the vow. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one who wants to get his friend to eat at his place, and vows that if his friend does not do so all of his food will be forbidden to him, should say beforehand that all of his vows that he takes in the future shall be invalid, and then he need not keep his vow. However, when he makes the vow, he must remember that he made the original stipulation that his vows would not be valid. The above explanation of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s statement is according to the words in our mishnah, where it seems as if he is stating one halakhah. However, the Talmud explains that Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob actually says two things. First of all, a vow taken to get another person to eat at one’s place, is a vow of incentive, and therefore need not be kept. Second, a person may state that all future vows will be invalid, and as long as he remembers this statement when he vows in the future, his vows will be invalid. By the way, the latter statement is one of the sources of the practice to nullify future vows at Kol Nidre on Yom Kippur.

ר"א בן יעקב אומר אף כל הרוצה להדיר את חבירו כו' – The Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 23b) that our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: A person who wants that his fellow should eat with him but refuses him and forces him to take a vow, it is the vow intended for urging to buy/sell. And the person that wants that he will not vows will not be fulfilled all year will stand up on Rosh Hashanah and state, “every vow that I will someday make is nullified.” And that he will stand up on Rosh Hashanah is not exact, but rather, the same law applies at every time that he wishes and for every time that he establishes.

ובלבד שיהיה זכור – from the condition at the time of the vow, and his mind/intention is upon the condition that it will be fulfilled, then the vow is nullified. But if he is not reminded of the condition at the time of the vow and not at an interval equivalent to the time of speaking (i.e., the amount of time it takes to say in Hebrew, “Greetings to you, my teacher and rabbi”), from the time that he made the vow, the vow exists/endures. But it is not necessary to state that if he is reminded from the condition at the time of the vow and it is his intention that the condition will be nullified and vow existent, for it is clear that the vow exists. But the laws of oaths and vows are equivalent in this law. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

נדרי הבאי – exaggeration and additional speech, but he himself knows that it was not the case.

Introduction The first section of the mishnah illustrates vows of exaggeration and the second illustrates vows that were made in error.

קונם אם לא ראיתי – KONAM upon me this loaf of bread if I did no see, etc. (i.e., a snake as s big as the beam of an olive press).

Vows of exaggeration: If one says, “Konam if I did not see on this road as many as departed from Egypt”; “If I did not see a snake [as thick as the] the beam of an olive press. Vows of exaggeration need not be kept, because the person did not really intend to take a vow. His only intention was to exaggerate.

נדרי שגגות – he said, KONAM upon me this loaf of bread.

Vows in error: [If one says, “Konam,] if I ate or drank”, and then remembered that he had; “If I eat or drink” and then forgot [his vow] and ate or drank; “Konam be any benefit which my wife has from me, because she stole my purse or beat my child, and it was subsequently learnt that she had not beaten him nor stolen”; If one saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, “Let the figs be a korban to you,” and then discovered the people to be his father or his brothers. If others were with them: (1) Beth Shammai says: his father and brothers are permitted, but the rest are forbidden. (2) Beth Hillel says: all are permitted. This section teaches the important principle that vows made in error are invalid, and that a person has not broken his vow if he broke it in error. Furthermore, vows made based on false assumptions, such as that one’s wife stole something or beat one’s child, or the false presumption that people eating one’s figs should not be eating them, are also invalid. The final question in the mishnah is whether or not a vow can be half-valid, in other words valid with regard to some people and invalid with regard to others. In the case of the figs, both Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that the brothers and father can eat, because the person who vowed intended to prohibit the figs only to strangers. However, Beth Shammai holds that the figs are prohibited to others who are there eating with them. Beth Hillel holds that since part of the vow isn’t valid, the whole vow is invalid.

אם אכלתי אם שתיתי ונזכר שאכל ושתה – and at the time of the vow he thought that he did not eat and did not drink, it would not be a vow.

קונם שאיני אוכלך לך ואיני שותה, ושכח ואכל ושתה – that at the time that the vow takes place which is at the time of eating and/or drinking, he forgot the vow, it is permitted/annulled, as we derive it from an oath as it is written (Leviticus 5:4): “[Or when a person uttes an oath to bad or good purpose –] whatever a man may utter in an oath – [and though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt in any of these matters -]” that we require that he will be a man at the time when the oath takes place upon him, meaning to say, that he will be mindful from the oath, and the same law applies with regard to a vow.

קונם אשתי נהנית לי שגנבה את כיסו – these are vows made in error, for since it became known that she did not steal from him, it is found that there was no vow.

אלו ואלו מותרין – for a vow that was partially permitted is completely permitted, for he does not want that his vow would take place, but rather, similar to that he made the vow, and since part of it was in made inadvertently in error, all of it is nullified.

מדרי אונסין – that from the initial point, it was not his intention that the vow would come to pass if an unavoidable interference would prevent him, and in a case like this when the matters prove it, the matters of the heart are matters.

Introduction Our mishnah begins to discuss vows broken under pressure. There are actually two types of such vows. Our mishnah discusses the first type, whereby a person made a fully valid vow, but then due to circumstances beyond his control, was not able to keep the vow.

Vows [broken] under pressure: if one subjected his neighbor to a vow to eat with him, and then he or his son fell sick, or a river prevented him [from coming] such is a vow [broken] under pressure. In this case Reuven says to Shimon that Reuven’s things will be forbidden to Shimon if Shimon does not come over to eat at his house. Shimon intends to come but cannot due to his or his son’s sickness, or his inability to cross the river. The mishnah rules that when Reuven made the vow he did not intend for it to be valid if Shimon wanted to come but was prevented by circumstances beyond his control. His only intention was that his things should be prohibited to Shimon if Shimon did not come because he chose not to. Therefore, the vow is invalid.

להרגין – robbers that kill a person and take his money.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the second types of “forced vows”, those made under coercion. While all rabbis agree that one is allowed to make a false vow in order to protect oneself or one’s property, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regard to some of the details.

ולחרמים – thieves that do not kill, and not only this, even that is taught (i.e., the cases in the Mishnah that are in descending order of demonstrability).

One may vow to murderers, robbers, or tax collectors that it [the produce which they demand] is terumah, even if it is not; [or] that it belongs to the royal house, even if it does not. One is allowed to make a false vow that one’s produce is terumah in order to prevent it from being taken away. What is strange here is that the mishnah assumes that while someone might be willing to murder, rob or illegitimately collect taxes, he will not take terumah. Indeed, this is truly hard to imagine; after all, what worse crime is there than murder. Albeck explains that the terumah vow refers only to tax collectors, who would not collect taxes from terumah. He refers to Josephus who says that the Romans allowed terumah to be exempt from taxes. The second false vow referred to is stating that the property belongs to the king. Indeed, it is easier to imagine a murderer or robber fearing taking property that belongs to the king.

ולמוכסין – a customs/tax collector that stands on his own. But a tax-collector that was appointed by the king (i.e., “the state”) whether the king is an Israelite or a non-Jew and takes a specified amount as the law of the kingdom, “the law of the land is the law,” and it is forbidden to flee from the tax-collector, and all the more so, that it is forbidden to take a vow or to swear to him a falsehood/lie.

Beth Shammai says: one may make any form of vow, except an oath; But Beth Hillel says: even an oath. The mishnah now begins a series of debates between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai holds that since oaths are more consequential than vows, one may not make a false oath, even under this type of coercion. Beth Hillel says even false oaths may be made.

שהן של תרומה – even though they kill and steal, we don’t eat something that is forbidden (other than to Kohanim). Alternatively, heave-offering is not important to them because it is not eaten other to pure Kohanim and is sold very cheaply.

Beth Shammai says: he must not volunteer to vow; Beth Hillel says: he may do so. Beth Shammai says that one may not initiate taking the vow. If the murderer or robber did not ask the person to vow that the produce was terumah or belonged to the king, then he should not. Beth Hillel says even if not asked, he may take a vow.

לא יפתח לו בנדר – if the violent man did not ask of him to take an oath, he should not begin with an oath.

Beth Shammai says: [he may vow] only as far as he makes him vow; Beth Hillel says: even in respect of what he does not make him vow. How so? If they said to him, say: “Konam be any benefit my wife has of me”, and he said, “Konam be any benefit my wife and children have of me,” (1) Beth Shammai says: his wife is permitted, but his children are forbidden; (2) Beth Hillel says: both are permitted. Beth Shammai says that the person should only vow exactly what was asked of him by the murderer/robber. If he, upon his own initiative, adds on to the vow, then that which he added has validity. Beth Hillel says he may add on, and just as his vow has no validity regarding that which the murderer/robber told to him to swear, so too the part he added has no validity.

כמה שהוא מדירו ([one takes a vow] only in the matter concerning which a vow is imposed) – if the violent man did not ash of hm to take a vow, he should not take a vow to him other than in what he asked alone, and not take a vow to him in another matter. And ll of these four vows that are taught in our Mishnah, the laws of vows and oaths are equal, but what is permissible in a vow is permissible in an oath and it doesn’t require a release, except for vows of incitement alone, that require release from the words of the Scribes, therefore, an oath is forbidden with them.

הרי נטיעות האלו קרבן אם אינן נקצצות – he saw the storm-wind and was afraid lest it would cut down his plants, and he said, “Lo, these are KORBAN (i.e., dedicated to the Temple) if they are not cut down.” Or he saw conflagration that fell upon the city and was fearful about his cloak lest it would be burned and he states, “Lo this is a KORBAN, if it is not burned.

Introduction This mishnah deals with situations in which a person might attempt to take a vow to prevent either his saplings or his garment from being destroyed. In this case a person dedicates them to the Temple. Generally, when someone dedicates something to the Temple, if it can be sacrificed (such as a cow, sheep or grain) he may not redeem the item by giving money in its stead. However, if it cannot be sacrificed (a donkey, camel or bananas), then a person gives the worth of the item, and the item becomes non-sacred property.

יש להם פדיון – like the rest of the things dedicated [to the Temple], and he can redeem them and purchase with their monetary proceeds a sacrifice. But since he didn’t say, “Lo, these are upon me as a KORBAN,” they are not to be delivered as a sacrifice, but rather, that he will be able to purchase with their monetary proceeds a sacrifice.

[If one says,] “Behold these saplings are a korban if they are not cut down”; or, “This garment is a korban if it is not burnt”, they can be redeemed. If a person sees that something is about to happen to his saplings or to his garment, and he says that if the saplings are not cut down, or the garment is not burnt they should be a korban, they are dedicated to the Temple and they must be redeemed. We do not say that the vow was mistaken because he thought that the saplings would surely be cut down or that his garment would surely burn.

אין להם פדיון – but rather the money is seized in its holiness and the plants return to become holy, for since he said, “until they are cut down,” this is what he said: when I redeem they will return and be sanctified until they are cut down.

[If he says,] “Behold these saplings are a korban until they are cut down”; or, “This garment is a korban until it is burnt”, they cannot be redeemed. If he says that they are a korban “until they are cut down” he cannot redeem them, and if he does try to redeem them, they remain sanctified property. This is because he set a time for how long they are to remain a korban; until that time is up they cannot be taken out of that status. However, according to the Rambam, when the saplings are cut down, they are no longer a korban and he may use them as he wishes.

מותר ביושבי יבשה – for it is nt their practice to go down to the sea.

Introduction This mishnah and the remainder of the chapter deal with a person who vowed that he would not benefit from a certain type of person. These mishnayoth provide definitions who are those types of people.

בכלל יושבי היבשה – for eventually they will go down [to the sea] and to dwell on dry land.

He who vows [not to benefit] from seafarers, may benefit from land-dwellers; [But he who vows not to benefit] from land-dwellers, is forbidden [to benefit] even from seafarers, because seafarers are included in land-dwellers; not those who merely travel from Acco to Jaffa, but even those who sail away great distances [from land]. This mishnah teaches that the term “seafarers” does not include land-dwellers, and therefore if one vows not to benefit from seafarers he may derive benefit from land-dwellers. However, the term “land-dwellers” does include seafarers, because all seafarers occasionally come to land. This is obviously true for seafarers who make short journeys from Acco to Jaffa, but even for those who make long journeys. Therefore, if he makes a vow not to benefit from land-dwellers, he cannot derive benefit even from seafarers.

לא כאלו ההולכים מעכו ליפו – there are those who interpret this as such: That which is taught in the opening clause of our Mishnah: “He who takes a vow [not to gain benefit] from those who go down to the sea, are permitted [to gain benefit] from those who dwell on dry land, which implies, that those who go down to the sea are prohibited [to gain benefit from them], not the like of those who go from Acre to Jaffa, for a person who makes a vow from those who go down to the sea is not prohibited to them, for because of a short distance like this, they are not called, “those who go down to the sea.” There are those interpret: “not like those who go from Acre to Jaffa lon, because hey are included in those who go down to the sea that are prohibited, but also they are called hose who dwell on dry land, but rather, even those sail out of sight, because eventually, they will go down to dry land.

מי שהחמה רואה אותו – for he didn’t say from those who see [the sun].

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who swears that he will not receive benefit from a type of people whom he calls “those who see the sun”.

He who vows [not to benefit] from those who see the sun, is forbidden [to benefit] even from the blind, because he meant those whom the sun sees. “Those who see the sun” does not only mean those who can see but can also mean those who live under the sun, i.e. everybody. Hence he may not benefit from anybody.

אמר בקרחים ובבעלי השיבות – since he didn’t say, “with those who have hair.”

Introduction This mishnah teaches that one who vows not to benefit from “the black-haired” is forbidden to benefit from all men, but not from women and children.

שאין נקראים שחורי הראש אלא אנשים – because the men sometimes cover heir heads and sometimes reveal and blacken their heads that is recognized that they are men, but women always walk and their heads are covered. But the small children, whether boys or girls walk with their heads revealed and they are not recognized as to whether they are boys or girls, and because of this, they are not called, “black-haired,” but rather, the adult men.

He who vows [not to benefit] from the black-haired may not [benefit] from the bald or the gray-haired, but may [benefit] from women and children, because only men are called black-haired. The word “black-haired” is interpreted to be a reference to men, whether or not they have black hair, gray hair or no hair at all. Women are not called “black-haired” because they typically covered their hair. They were called “head-coverers”. Children were called “head revealers” because they went without a head covering. However, men were called “black-haired” because sometimes they covered their heads and sometimes they did not. Furthermore, nearly all men had black hair. Indeed, the only other hair color referred to in the mishnah is gray. No blondes or brunettes in Palestine in the Mishnaic period.

מן שילודים – implying that they have already been born.

Introduction This mishnah deals with someone who swore not to receive benefit either from those born or from those who are to be born.

מן הנולדים – implying those who will in the future be born.

One who vows [not to benefit] from those born may [benefit] from those to be born; from those to be born, he may not [benefit] from those born. Rabbi Meir permits [him to benefit] even from those to be born; But the Sages say: he meant all whose nature it is to be born. We will understand this mishnah better if we take note of the Hebrew. The word “those born” is “yilodim” and “those to be born” is “noladim”. The former term does not encompass the latter, and therefore, if one swears not to receive benefit from “yilodim” he may still receive benefit from those who are to be born, the “noladim”. However, the latter term does encompass the former, and therefore, one who swears not to receive benefit from “noladim” cannot benefit even from those who are already born. Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that one who swears not to receive benefit from those who are to be born, the “noladim,” can receive benefit from those already born, the “yilodim”. To Rabbi Meir both terms are completely distinct. The Sages disagree. One who swears not to receive benefit from the “noladim” does not mean that he will not benefit from those who will be born, but rather from those whose nature it is to be born. This would encompass all of humanity.

מן הנולדים רבי מאיר מתיר אף בילודים (from those who are born) – In the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 30b) it explains that the Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: [those who take a vow] from those who may be born thereafter, are prohibited to those who are already born. Rabbi Meier states, even those who make a vow [to be prohibited] from those who will be born thereafter are permitted to those who are [already] born, in order that one who takes a vow [to be prohibited from those who have been already been born are permitted to those who may be born thereafter.

אלא ממי שדרכו להוליד – as for example, humans and beasts, to exclude fowl and fish who do not give birth but rather lay eggs.

מאוכלי שום – one of ten enactments made by Ezra [the Scribe] that they would eat garlic on Friday evenings, because it increases seed (i.e., semen) and Friday evening is the time for fulfillment of marital duties of Sages (see also Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6).

Introduction According to the Talmud, the Samaritans descend from a group of non-Jews brought to Samaria (the north of Israel) by the Assyrians, see II Kings 17. They are called by the rabbis Cutheans because many of them came from Cuta. There is a debate in the Talmud whether or not there conversion was sincere. They seem to have partially assimilated into Israel. The main difference between Samaritans and other Israelites is that their Temple was, and remains to this day, on Mt. Gerizim. They do not recognize Jerusalem as a place of importance. Besides this difference, they observed many commandments as did the other Israelites, certainly those in the Bible but even some not mentioned in the Bible. Our mishnah reflects these similarities and differences between Israelites and Samaritans. [For more information on the Samaritans see either the Encyclopedia Judaica, or check out The Jewish Encyclopedia, which can be found for free on-line at www.jewishencyclopedia.com.]

ומותר בכותים – they do not make pilgrimage [to Jerusalem]. But even though that this is according to the Torah, because they hare Jerusalem and chose for themselves Mount Gerizim.

He who vows [not to benefit] from those who rest on the Sabbath, is forbidden [to benefit] both from Israelites and Samaritans (. Samaritans and Israelites both kept the Sabbath, and therefore one who swears not to receive benefit from “those who rest on the Sabbath” may benefit from neither. However, he may benefit from non-Jews who do not rest on the Sabbath.

If he vows [not to benefit] from garlic eaters, he may not benefit from Israelites and Samaritans (. According to most commentators, this refers to a custom to eat garlic on Friday evening in order to act as an aphrodisiac, for sexual relations, which are recommended on Friday night. Evidently, Samaritans observed this custom as well.

From those who go up to Jerusalem, he is forbidden [to benefit] from Israelites but from Samaritans ( he is permitted. As stated in the introduction, Samaritans did not worship in Jerusalem. Therefore, one who swears not to receive benefit from those who “go up to Jerusalem” may receive benefit from Samaritans.

מותר בישראל – they have department from the category of the children of Noah/Noahides.

Introduction This long mishnah actually contains several mishnayoth. The first part begins with a definition of the terms “Children of Noah” and “Children of Abraham”. The second part deals with vows not to benefit from Israelites and the third part deals with vows not to benefit from the uncircumcised or the circumcised. The mishnah ends with an ode to the importance of circumcision in Judaism.

ואסור באומות העולם – and even those who are from the seed of Abraham (i.e. Abraham’s other children such as Ishmael or the children of Keturah, etc.).

[If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the Children of Noah,” he may benefit from Israelites, and he is forbidden to benefit from the nations of the world. [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the seed of Abraham,” he is forbidden [to benefit] from Israelites, but permitted [to benefit] from the nations of the world. Technically speaking, all of humanity are the descendents of Noah, for only his family survived the flood. However, the term “Children of Noah” refers to non-Jews (Noahides, as in the “Noahide commandments”) and not to Jews. Similarly, the “Seed of Abraham” could refer to Ishmaelites, Edomites (descendents of Esau). However, it is taken as referring to Jews and not non-Jews. We should note that descent, both physical and spiritual from Abraham was a “hot” issue in Mishnaic times, and we often find it being debated in early Christian texts. In Christian texts we find Christian leaders telling Jews that although they are physical (carnal) descendents of Abraham, they are not his only spiritual descendents. In our mishnah we sees rabbis claiming that only Jews are Abraham’s descendents; non-Jews, although some of them may trace their roots to Abraham, are not actually his descendents. This polemic, which we may hear here between Jews and Christians, will sharpen at the end of this mishnah, which discusses the hottest topic between Jews and early Christians the importance of circumcision.

אסור בישראל – and converts also are within the category of he seed of Abraham, as it is written (Genesis 17:5): “[but your name shall be Abraham,] for I make you the father of a multitude of nations.”

[If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from Israelites”, he may buy things from them for more [than their worth] and sell them for less. [If he says, “Konam] if Israelites benefit from me, he must buy from them for less and sell for more [than their worth], if they will listen to him. [If he says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from them, nor they from me”, he may benefit only from non-Jews. With regard to vows not to benefit from or give benefit to Israelites, the mishnah interprets these vows minimally. One who says that he will not benefit from Israelites is still allowed to buy from them, provided he pay more than the fair price, and sell to them, provided he buy at a higher price. Because he loses out, he is not considered as benefiting from them. One who says that he will not give benefit to Israelites, is still permitted to buy, but only at a price lower than the going rate, and sell, but only at a price higher than the going rate. Of course, in the latter case it will be more difficult to get someone to agree to do so with him. The only one who is totally prohibited from buying from or selling to Israelites is one who vows not to benefit from or give benefit to them. This person could only conduct business with non-Jews.

ומותר באומות העולם – and even with those who are from the seed of Abraham, for only the children of Jacob were called the seed of Abraha, as it is written (Genesis 21:12): “for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued/called for you,” but no all of Isaac/כל יצחק (i.e., Esau).

[If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the uncircumcised”, he may benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised heathens”; [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the circumcised,” he is forbidden to benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised non-Jews, because “uncircumcised” is a term applicable only to non-Jews, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jeremiah 9:25). And it says, “And this uncircumcised Philistine shall be [as one of them]” (I Samuel 17:6). And it says, “Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult” (II Samuel 1:20). Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: The foreskin is loathsome, since it is a term of disgrace for the wicked, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised”. Rabbi Ishmael says: Great is circumcision, since thirteen covenants were made upon it. Rabbi Yose says: Great is circumcision, for it overrides the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Karha says: Great is circumcision for Moses’s punishment for neglecting it was not suspended even for one hour. Rabbi Nehemiah says: Great is circumcision, since it overrides the laws of leprosy. Rabbi says: Great is circumcision, for despite all of the commandments which Abraham fulfilled he was not designated complete until he circumcised himself, as it says, “Walk before me, and be complete” (Genesis 17:1). Another explanation: “Great is circumcision, for were it not for it, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, would not have created the world, as it says, “Were it not for my covenant by day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:35). The term “circumcised” refers to Jews, even to those Jews who are not circumcised, for either legitimate or illegitimate reasons. The term “uncircumcised” refers to non-Jews, even to those non-Jews who did circumcise (it is known that some non-Jews did practice circumcision, for instance Arabs and Egyptians). As a prooftext Jeremiah 9:25 is brought. According to this verse non-Jews are uncircumcised, no matter whom they are. Israelites, however, are circumcised in their foreskins, even if they are not always circumcised in their hearts. We should again note that there may exist a polemic in this mishnah with early Christianity. In Acts 7:51, Stephen says “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart”. In Romans 2:29, Paul says, “Rather, a real person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart it is spiritual and not literal.” We can clearly see the distinction between the Jews and the Christians (who, of course, claimed at the time to be the true Jews). The Jews admit, based on Jeremiah, that they are not necessarily “uncircumcised of the heart”. A Jew still must strive to be better and to obey God’s commands. However, the validity of real circumcision (of the foreskin) is not lessened at all. Indeed, as a sign of God’s covenant, it is the primary commandment. It was certainly, the greatest distinguishing sign between Jew and non-Jew, both in the ancient world and to this day.

שאיני נהנה לישראל – that of Israel.

The mishnah now brings seven statements that emphasize the importance of circumcision. 1. The first of these statements connects to the verse used above from Jeremiah. This is the bridge to the rest of the mishnah. 2. In Genesis 17, the word “berith”, covenant, as in “berith milah”, the “covenant of circumcision”, is stated thirteen times. 3. Circumcision may be performed on the Sabbath, even though it involves the cutting of the flesh which is otherwise prohibited on the Sabbath. 4. In Exodus 4:24, on his way back to Egypt, despite Moses’s great merits, and despite the fact that God had just instructed him to lead the people out of Egypt, God almost kills him for not having circumcised his son. 5. Normally, one may not cut off a spot of leprosy (see Deuteronomy 24:8). However, if the spot of leprosy appears on the foreskin, it may be cut off. 6. Only after circumcision is Abraham called “complete”. 7. This verse mentions a covenant kept day and night. The midrash states that this must refer to circumcision, which exists on a person’s body both day and night. Indeed, were it not for this important commandment, God would not have created the world. There is little doubt in my mind that this long mishnah is aimed either at early Christians who denied the importance of physical circumcision, or at Hellenizing Jews, who refused to circumcise themselves, or “uncircumcised” themselves. Romans often forbade circumcision, and these statements, which may be slightly exaggerated, are meant to encourage Jews to maintain this commandment, one which would not have been easy, for both physical and social reasons, in the ancient world.

שאין ישראל נהנין לי – of what is mine.

ומוכר ביותר. אם שומעין לו – this is the reading, meaning to say, he will sell the thing for more from such as it is of its value, if his fellow wishes to listen to him, and to purchase from him the object for more than what it is worth.

לערלים – the opinion on whomever does not believe in ritual circumcision.

למולים – that believe in ritual circumcision.

מותר בערלי ישראל – as for example, whomever whose brother died on account of [ritual] circumcision.

ואסור במולי אומות – as for example, an Arab who is [ritually] circumcised or a Gibeonite who is [ritually] circumcised.

שלש עשרה בריתות – it is stated in the portion of circumcision (Chapter 17 of Genesis, where the word "ברית"/covenant, is mentioned thirteen times) which is mentioned to Abraham.

שהיא דוחה את השבת – as I is written (Leviticus 12:3): “On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,” and even if [the eighth day is] on Shabbat.

שהיא דוחה את הנגעים – that we expound, "ימול"/shall be circumcised (Leviticus 12:3), and even in the place of a white spot on the skin (eventually one of the symptoms of leprosy), but we don’t have here because of cutting off his white spot, which is part of the negative commandment of (Deuteronomy 24:8): “In cases of a skin affection [be most careful to do do exactly as the Levitical priests instruct you].”