1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules 'ha'Noder mi'Shovsei Shabbos Asur b'Yisrael v'Asur b'Kutim'. Kutim would ...

1. ... also be incorporated if one were to be Noder 'me'Ochlei Shum' ...

2. ... but not if he was Noder 'me'Olei Yerushalayim'.

(b)The significance of 'Ochlei Shum' is - that it is a Takanas Ezra to eat garlic on Erev Shabbos, because it increases the possibility of conceiving for Talmidei-Chachamim, whose Onah is on Friday night.

(c)'Shovsei Shabbos' cannot mean ...

1. ... those who observe Shabbos - because then why does the Tana not include even Nochrim who observe Shabbos (even though they are forbidden to do so).

2. ... those who are commanded to observe Shabbos - because then, why does the Tana conclude 'ha'Noder me'Olei Yerushalayim ... u'Mutar b'Kutim', seeing as they too, are included in the command of 'Aliyas ha'Regel' three times annually, just like the rest of Yisrael.

(d)So Abaye explains 'Shovsei Shabbos' to mean a. that they commanded to observe Shabbos and b. that they fulfill it (including Kutim, but excluding Nochrim); 'Ochlei Shum' too, which the Kutim used to fulfill, includes Kutim and excludes Nochrim; whereas 'Olei Yerushalayim' excludes Kutim too (since 'Aliyas ha'Regel' is a Mitzvah which the Kutim did not fulfill).

2)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah states ...

1. ... 'Konam she'Eini Neheneh mi'Bnei Noach, Mutar b'Yisrael'. A Yisrael is not included in the term 'Bnei Noach' (despite the fact that they are descendants of Noach) - because from the time that Avraham 'sanctified himself', he and his descendants left the realm of 'Bnei Noach'.

2. ... 'Konam she'Eini Neheneh l'Zera Avraham, Asur b'Yisrael u'Mutar b'Ovdei-Kochavim'. Despite the fact that both Yishmael and Esav were direct descendants of Avraham, the Tana does not include them in Zera Avraham - because Hash-m said to Avraham "Ki b'Yitzchak Yikarei Lecha Zara" - "b'Yitzchak", 'v'Lo b'Yishmael'; "b'Yitzchak", 'v'Lo Kol Yitzchak'.

(b)Someone who is Noder not to receive benefit from Jews, must pay more than the market price for whatever he purchases from them and sell to them for less. This is only the case however, if the Noder forbids Hana'ah on himself. Should he forbid the Mudar's property on himself or vice-versa, then all business transactions with him will be forbidden, irrespective of how much either of them pays.

(c)If he declared a Neder forbidding Jews to benefit from him or vice-versa - he must sell to them for more than the market price and pay less for what he buys.

(d)'v'Ein Shom'in Lo' means - that nobody is obligated to sell to him (and lose). (Some even have the text 'Im Shom'in Lo'.)

3)

(a)We might have thought (in the latter case) that the Neder will not pertain to property that he purchases only after the Neder has been declared - because it is a 'Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam' (something that is not yet in the world and on which no transaction is valid).

(b)This is not the case however - because the Tana is speaking when he forbade himself on the property (and not the reverse), and he is in the world.

(c)It would be if he said for example 'Konam Peiros Dekel shel Peloni Alai' (forbidding next year's crop of dates of so-and-so date-palm on himself) or the fruit that he is about to purchase (both of which are considered not in the world as regards transactions), or if he said 'Konam Nechasai Alecha' or 'Konam Nechasecha Alai' (restricting the Isur to property that they already own).

(d)Whether if a person forbids his property on others, and then exchanges some of it for other property - the new property is considered like fruit that grows on a forbidden tree (and is forbidden like the tree itself) or not, will be discussed later in Perek ha'Shutfin.

4)

(a)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. The Tana needs to tell us this - because we would otherwise have thought that, like a case where someone swears not to sleep for three days, where he receives Malkus and is permitted to sleep immediately (because the Shevu'ah is impossible to keep), his Neder is invalid and he is permitted to transact with Jews, because, due to the difficulty of transacting only with Nochrim, his Neder is considered impossible to keep.

5)

(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 - because the one who gains from the purchase is the purchaser. Consequently, when he takes the object to inspect it he resembles a borrower (who has all the benefits), and a borrower is Chayav for Onsin.

(b)Shmuel must be speaking specifically in a case when the price of the object is fixed, as we established in Bava Basra - because that is when the purchaser is confident that he will buy it, but not if it is not.

(c)The problem with Shmuel from our Mishnah 'she'Eini Neheneh mi'Yisrael, Mocher b'Pachos' is - that, according to him, the Tana ought to have said 'Mocher Shaveh b'Shaveh' (i.e. for the market value, seeing as it is the purchaser alone who benefits).

6)

(a)What makes ...

1. ... 'a bad sale' (where the object that is being sold is of inferior quality) solely the benefit of the seller (if he sells it at market price) is - the fact that the purchaser can easily find its equivalent, whereas the seller will have difficulty in selling it).

2. ... 'a good sale' (where the object is of superior quality) solely the benefit of the purchaser (if he buys it at market price) is - the fact that the seller can easily sell it, whereas the purchaser will have difficulty in finding its equivalent.

(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, said 'Loke'ach b'Yoser', and if the object is inferior, why should he not be permitted to pay the market price for it. The other objection is - from the Seifa 'she'Yisrael Nehenin Li ... u'Mocher b'Yoser'. Now if we are speaking of an inferior object, why should he not be permitted to sell it at market price (which is more than its real value)?

(c)And we reject the suggestion that in the Seifa, the Tana is referring specifically to 'a good sale' on the same grounds. So, to reconcile Shmuel with our Mishnah, we establish the Mishnah by a regular article (where both the seller and the purchaser benefit) and Shmuel when it is 'a good sale' (where it is the purchaser alone who benefits, as we explained earlier).

(d)We did not for one moment, believe that it was possible to establish our Mishnah by a 'bad sale' or 'a good sale' - only we cited all the possibilities in order to establish the table of Halachos.

7)

(a)The Beraisa refers to the case of someone who purchases objects from a store to take to his in-laws - stipulating with the store-keeper that he will pay the full value of the articles should they accept them, but only 'Tovas Hana'ah' (for the benefit that he receives from the transaction) should they not.

(b)The Tovas Hana'ah in this case is - what it is worth to him to demonstrate to his in-laws how much he cares for them.

(c)Should an Ones occur on his outward journey - he is obligated to pay in full, because, since he has all the benefit, he has the Din of a borrower, supporting Shmuel's theory (that someone who receives an object from the store-keeper for inspection is Chayav Onsin like a borrower).

(d)On the return journey, however, where he no longer derives any benefit from the article - he no longer has the Din of a borrower, and is therefore Patur from Onsin. He is however, obligated to pay for theft or loss (like a borrower after his allotted time has expired, when he adopts the Din of a Shomer Sachar), due to the principle 'Ho'il v'Neheneh, Mehaneh' (Someone who receives benefit, repays benefit).

8)

(a)If someone forbids Hana'ah on himself from 'Arelim' (or forbids them to have Hana'ah from him) - he includes all Jews, even if they are uncircumcised, but excludes all Nochrim, even if they have been circumcised.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Chol ha'Goyim Arelim, v'Chol Beis Yisrael Arlei Lev" - that even a circumcised Nochri is called an 'Arel'.

(c)We nevertheless need to quote the Pasuk in Shmuel ...

1. ... "v'Hayah ha'Pelishti ha'Arel ha'Zeh" to teach us this - because otherwise, we might have thought that Nochrim are called 'Arlei Lev' (of impure hearts - to conform with the continuation of the Pasuk), but not 'Arelim' Stam (uncircumcised).

2. ... "Pen Tismachnah Bnos ha'Pelishtim, Pen Ta'aloznah Bnos ha'Arelim, to teach us the same thing yet a third time - because the previous Pasuk might refer exclusively to Golyas (whom David presumed was not born Mahul - like the majority of people), whereas this Pasuk refers to all of the P'lishtim, some of whom must have been born circumcised, yet David calls them all 'Arelim'.

(d)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah extrapolates the Torah's disgust of the Orlah - from the Pasuk "Ki Kol ha'Goyim Arelim".

9)

(a)The Mishnah continues to list the various praises and advantages of Bris Milah. According to Rebbi Yishmael - it is praiseworthy due to the thirteen covenants (corresponding to the numerical value of "Hash-m Echad and of "Ahavah") that the Torah mentions on account of it in Parshas Lech Lecha.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "u'va'*Yom* ha'Shemini Yimol Besar Orlaso" (from which Rebbi Yosi extrapolates the praise of Milah) - that one must perform the Mitzvah even on Shabbos (despite the fact that Shabbos is a Lav which carries with it Kares, and which an ordinary Aseh does not generally override).

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

1. ... Rebbi Nechemyah - from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "u'va'Yom ha'Shemini Yimol B'sar Orlaso" - which teaches us that Milah overrides the Lav of removing Tzara'as from one's flesh.

2. ... Rebbi (or Rebbi Meir) - from the Pasuk in Veyera "His'halech Lefanai v'Heyei Samim" - which teaches us that, in spite of Avraham's many Mitzvos, he was not termed 'complete' until he performed the Bris Milah.

10)

(a)The final praise listed in our Mishnah ('Davar Acher') cites the Pasuk in Yirmeyahu "Koh Amar Hash-m, Im Lo Brisi, Yomam va'Laylah Chukos Shamayim va'Aretz Lo Samti" - from which we learn that the entire world was only created on the merit of the Bris Milah.

(b)Some add an additional source "Hinei Dam ha'Bris" (mentioned at Matan Torah), from which we learn - the greatness of Milah, which is compared to all the Mitzvos.

(c)Even though that Pasuk refers to the blood of the Korban that they sacrificed at Har Sinai, and not to the Bris Milah at all - nevertheless, since the whole Torah is referred to as 'Bris' and the Milah too, is called 'Bris', it places Bris Milah on a par with all the Mitzvos (see also Tosfos DH 'Hinei').

11)

(a)Citing the Pasuk in Vayishlach that we just quoted, Rebbi Yosi 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 the Milah was perfectly justifiable - because on the one hand, he learned from the men of Shechem that after an operation of this nature, one is in deep pain on the third day and therefore vulnerable; whereas on the other, he could hardly perform the Milah, wait three days and then go to Egypt, seeing as Hash-m had instructed him to go now.

(b)We cannot learn from the men of Shechem that the pain on the third day is more intense than on the other two days - only that two days of continued pain sap one's strength, and that one is weakest on the third day (so that the pain then renders one more vulnerable, as we explained).

(c)Although Moshe was not lax in delaying the Bris per se - the angel almost killed him for settling into the hotel before performing the Mitzvah of Milah.

(d)He would have been able to complete his journey to Egypt as Hash-m had commanded him, in spite of his newly-circumcised baby - because he was close to the borders of Egypt, and such a short journey would not have posed a threat to the baby's life.

12)

(a)According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the angel did not threaten Moshe at all - but the baby whose Milah was due.

(b)He proves this from Tziporah's statement "Ki Chasan Damim Atah Li" - because there was no reason to refer to Moshe as 'Chasan', whereas her son (whom some say was their first son Gershom, and others say Eliezer, their youngest son), was entering into his first Mitzvah (see Rosh) and it was appropriate to refer to him by this title.