Avodah Zarah
The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz)
27a
OI) ANN TON AY VRPT IT NNN DT AM RBI
ann
We are dealing with an expert physician, who will not risk his reputation
by harming a child. This is similar to that which Rabbi Yohanan said, as
when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi
Yohanan says: If the physician was considered a recognized expert, it is
permitted for one to be healed by him. When Rabbi Meir said that an
‘Aramean may circumcise a Jewish boy, he was referring specifically to a
doctor who is known for his expertise.
Sma) maT NX ba DRI WNT aT PEW oMD ATA 37 7301
ATP aT AT OT 77 Ow) Yaw oie DxAw Di XD
The latter clause of the baraita states that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a
Samaritan may circumcise a Jewish infant. The Gemara asks: And does
Rabbi Yehuda actually hold that it is permitted for a Samaritan to
perform circumcision? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A Jew may
circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not be allowed to
circumcise a Jew, because he circumcises him for the sake of Mount
Gerizim; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.Sa xox maw> mina yo md gn yon a1 or 23719 RN
naw xynw oy pm
Rabbi Yosei said to him: And where do we find that the mitzva of
circumcision from the Torah must be performed for the sake of
fulfilling God’s will? Rather, a Samaritan may continue to circumcise
Jews until his soul leaves his body, i.c., until the Samaritan dies, and
thete is no room for concern. But Rabbi Yehuda explicitly states above
that circumcision may not be performed by a Samaritan
"NTN TTD IIT NWP NPT NIP YD PDONTD TN dd NON
RWI TT ATT eT AT
Rather, actually you should reverse the opinions in the baraita as we
reversed them initially. And as for the difficulty raised with regard to
one statement of Rabbi Yehuda against the other statement of Rabbi
Yehuda, that opinion, that a gentile may not perform circumcision, is
actually the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Conversely, the first
baraita, which is reversed and therefore cites Rabbi Yehuda as maintaining
that an Aramean may perform circumcision, is referring to Rabbi Yehuda
bar Ilai. Accordingly, the different opinions reflect a dispute between
tannaiim rather than a contradiction.
TW MIdDID Tawa AH py WX VWI ANP a7 INT
sawn ona nx ane) 9" Tob‘The Gemara cites a proof that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi a gentile is not qualified to perform circumcision. As it is taught
in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: From where is it derived
with regard to circumcision performed by a gentile that it is not valid?
The verse states: “And God said to Abraham: And as for you, you shall
keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their
generations” (Genesis 17:9).
roy can dian AY PNT ATP AIT NOVY OND NTO I IN
Duy Dian
§ It was stated that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda
circumcision must be performed for the sake of fulfilling a mitzva,
whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that no particular intention is necessary. The
Gemara analyzes these opinions. Rav Hisda said: What is the reasoning
of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “And when a stranger shall sojourn
with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord let all his males be
circumcised” (Exodus 12:48). It can be inferred from the verse that the
males must be circumcised “to the Lord,” i.e., for the sake of fulfilling
God’s will. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei?
It is written: “He must be circumcised [bimmol yimmol]” (Genesis
17:13). The usage of the doubled verb teaches that circumcision may be
performed by anyone.
Sinn 2no7 m2 TPR Dns nop NAT DA TD DNA TPR
O78 a wD ANN AAT wyThe Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, isn’t
it written: “To the Lord let all his males be circumcised,” which
indicates that circumcision must be performed for the sake of fulfilling
God’s will? The Gemara answers: That is written with regard to
Passover. According to Rabbi Yosei, the phrase “to the Lord” is referring
to the previous mention of the Paschal offering, rather than to
circumcision. Accordingly, the verse should be read: “Will keep Passover
to the Lord.” The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi
Yehuda, isn’t it also written: “He must be circumcised [bimmol
yimmol],” indicating that circumcision may be performed by anyone?
The Gemara answers: The Torah spoke in the language of people, i.c.,
the doubled verb is the usual style of the Torah, which does not serve to
teach a novel halakha.
awa XBPIDNT TOD wAW Idd Taya Any pia WwIMrRX
Sup dian pnp ca Aw PI. AX ANN) WN 37
§ The Gemara continues discussing the issue of circumcisions performed
by gentiles. It was stated: From where is it derived with regard to
circumcision performed by a gentile that it is not valid? Daru bar
Pappa says in the name of Rav: This is derived from a verse, as it is
stated: And God said to Abraham: “And as for you, you shall keep My
covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations.”
And Rabbi Yohanan says that it is derived from the verse: “He must be
circumcised [bimmol yimmol].” According to Rabbi Yohanan, this verse
teaches that a Jew must be circumcised by one who is already circumcised.ya WORT ND PPD NDR DA MAN Dim aT APPA OND
RDO AWN NA DN TT RIK DY
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two
opinions? There is a practical difference between them with regard to a
circumcised Arab or a circumcised hill person [gavnuni]. According to
the one who says that the halakha that a Jewish infant may be
circumcised only by one who has been circumcised himself is derived
from the verse: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],” there is
reason to permit an Arab or gavnuni to perform the circumcision, as they
are circumcised. And according to the one who says that circumcision
may not be performed by a gentile is derived from the phrase: “You shall
keep my covenant,” there is no reason to permit an Arab or Gibconite to
perform circumcision.
DOW! YO TIT URW ANP NT RDN diy D7 TART NAY
2a dy AR ROOR DDD “TW ya TON) DRI? Soya IMA
vat pan NoT RMD PANT
The Gemara raises an objection: And is it so, according to the one who
says it is detived from the verse: “He must be circumcised [bimmol
yimmol],” that a Jew may not be circumcised by a gentile, that there is
reason to permit a circumcised gentile to perform circumcision? But
didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 31b): With regard to one who
vows: Deriving benefit from those who are uncircumcised is konam for
me, he is permitted to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews becausethey are not regarded as uncircumcised, but he is prohibited from
deriving benefit from the uncircumcised of the nations of the world?
Apparently, even though some gentiles are circumcised, they are
nevertheless considered as those who are uncircumcised.
qed me 8 ao Dana PHS nw ONTW? AMP RIN RON
n> Due dian WoT jko> NDR awn om. nN ANN
Rather, there is a difference between them with regard to a Jew whose
brothers died due to circumcision, and as a result, they did not
circumcise him. According to the one who says that the halakha is
derived from the verse: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant,”
there is reason to permit such a person to perform circumcision, as he is a
Jew. According to the one who says that the halakha is derived from the
phrase: “He must be circumcised [bimmol yimmol],” there is no reason
to permit this Jew to perform circumcision, as he is not circumcised
himself.
Soya WON Obie ATI Nw onp nm xy Dey dian Tah
yan ban NYT wyR RMOX MIDI TW da IMM YNWwW
yor pant
The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: And is it so that according to
the one who says that the halakha is derived from the verse: “He must be
circumcised [bimmol yimmol],” there is no reason to permit an
uncircumcised Jew to perform circumcision? But didn't we learn in a
mishna (Nedarim 31b): With regard to one who vows: Deriving benefitfrom those who are circumcised is konam for me, he is prohibited from
deriving benefit even from uncircumcised Jews and he is permitted to
derive benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world.
Apparently, even though some Jews are not circumcised, they are
nevertheless considered as those who are circumcised.
TWNT RDO WAWN NID NN ANN 77D TW AMPA RDN NON
NOADT NOD TAWRT NDR Duy Dan ad) wn Tn na Kd
wnt
Rather, there is a difference between these two opinions with regard to a
woman. According to the one who says that the halakha is detived from
the verse: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant,” there is no
reason to permit a woman to perform circumcision, as a woman is not
subject to the mitzva of circumcision, and therefore she is not included
in those who must keep God’s covenant. And according to the one who
says that the halakha is derived from the verse: “He must be circumcised
[bimmol yimmoll,” there is teason to permit a woman to perform
circumcision, as a woman is considered as one who is naturally
circumcised.
AME APM (a> ,7 naw) PNA NP AWK WORT JRO? NIN
WPRD TINT NIM Wa mp AIM Wns APM Wa mp Ww
TW NNN TUNNNT PR YNN NPR MYIN TI RPINN
r7VaaNIThe Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation: And is there
anyone who says that a woman may not perform circumcision? But isn’t
it written: “Then Zipporah took [vattikkah] a flint and cut off the
foreskin of her son” (Exedus 4:25). This verse explicitly states that a
circumcision was performed by a woman. The Gemara answers that one
should read into the verse: And she caused to be taken [vattakkah], i-c.,
she did not take a flint herself. But isn’t it written: And she cut off
[vattikbrot]? Read into the verse: And she caused to be cut off
[vattakbret], as she told another person to take a flint and cut off her
son's foreskin, and he did so. The Gemara provides an alternative
explanation: And if you wish, say instead: She came and began the act,
and Moses came and completed the circumcision.
pron PR mwdI MD ND YAN pa TT PRE AN N79
Dax oni a oe DIM PRA IT IIT DPA bd2 1A
opad wa xd
MISHNA: The mishna discusses the issue of accepting certain
professional services from a gentile. One may be treated by gentiles,
provided that it is monetary treatment, but not personal treatment.
And one may not have his hair cut by them anywhere, due to the
danger that the gentile will kill him with the razor; this is the statement
of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In the public thoroughfare, it is
permitted to have one’s hair cut by a gentile, but not when the Jew and
gentile are alone together.TDWI WI NPR MWS] IT NI PWD MND 7D
nina xD Dax JDwWa pM prow cu> ona mwp1 17
GEMARA: What is monetary treatment, and what is personal
treatment? If we say that monetary treatment is medical attention
provided in exchange for payment, whereas personal treatment is
medical attention provided for free, then let the mishna teach: One may
be treated by gentiles in exchange for payment, but not for free.
7230 12 WW IIT NWSI 7190 1D PRY IIT paw NOX
Tye jon 8D NNPVOIDT NTT PR TTP WI VaR
The Gemara suggests another explanation: Rather, monetary treatment
is referring to medical treatment for a matter that poses no life-
threatening danger, whereas personal treatment is referring to treatment
for a matter that does pose life-threatening danger. The Gemara rejects
this suggestion as well. But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say: Even with regard to
the wound of a bloodletting incision [rivda dekbusilta] we are not
permitted to be treated by gentiles. The wound left after bloodletting
certainly does not pose life-threatening danger, and yet a Jew is prohibited
from having it treated by a gentile.
ATP AT WNT IPT PI NWI ANT p79 NT NON
yaya ons XY NNYOIDT RTI DN
Rather, monetary treatment is referring to medical treatment provided
for one’s animal, whereas personal treatment is referring to treatment
16
v7provided for his own body, and this is in accordance with that which
Rav Yehuda says: Even with regard to the wound of a bloodletting
incision, we are not permitted to be treated by them.
Yo mp onde 0019 WN ON VAN NAP IW WR TON IT IN
sma) ya onbp 00
Ray Hisda says that Mar Ukva says: But if a gentile said to him: Such
and such a potion is beneficial for this ailment, or such and such a
potion is harmful for this ailment, it is permitted to adhere to the
gentile’s advice
27b
NPINR WPRD PRU PRT DTD PRwn ow 0
PWS] VIN? NIB NTT NAN
The Gemara explains the rationale for this leniency: The gentile thinks to
himself that the Jew is asking him for his opinion, and just as he is
asking him, he will also ask other people. And the gentile further
reasons that if the Jew understands that the gentile provided him with bad
advice, that man, i.e., the gentile, will bring harm to himself by
damaging his own reputation. It is therefore assumed that the gentile will
provide good advice in order to avoid sullying his reputation
OF PDO NY WON NTO ID WN Td NI NY WR NII TWN
JAD PRIN M2 NT) J PROM PR 1 po§ The Gemara analyzes a situation in which one may receive medical
attention from gentiles. Rava says that Rabbi Yohanan says, and some
say that it was Rav Hisda who says that Rabbi Yohanan says: If there is
uncertainty as to whether a patient will live through his ailment or die
from it, the patient may not be treated by gentile doctors, due to the
concern that a gentile doctor may kill him. But if it is certain that he will
die from his affliction if he does not receive medical attention, the patient
is treated by them, as it is possible that a gentile physician will save him
yw xD yw ond qyw on DRA ND
The Gemara challenges: Even if it is certain that the patient will die if he
is not treated, nevertheless, there is value in temporal life, i.c., it is
preferable for the Jew to live as long as his ailment permits rather than
risking a premature death at the hands of a gentile physician. The Gemara
explains: We are not concerned with the value of temporal life when
there is a possibility of permanent recovery, and therefore it is preferable
to receive medical attention from a gentile despite the risk involved.
WK ON (7,72 dba) NIT wen NY Aw MMT NN RI
ord IND RON TVW OM RDN OW UND PVD AVIA Py RII
wen Xo aw
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we are not
concerned with the value of temporal life? As it is written with regard to
the discussion held by four lepers left outside a besieged city: “If we say:
We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall
dic there; and if we sit still here, we also die. Now therefore come, and letus fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live;
and if they kill us, we shall but die” (II Kings 7:4). The starving lepers
decided to risk premature death rather than waiting to die of starvation.
The Gemara asks rhetorically: But isn’t there temporal life to be lost, in
which case it would be preferable for the lepers to remain in their current
location? Rather, is it not apparent that we are not concerned with the
value of temporal life?
o> YODN [7D PRON PRI PPT av OTN ID Rw RODD
nyw
‘The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A person may not
engage in dealings with heretics, and one may not be treated by them
even in a case where it is clear that without medical attention one will
experience only temporal life.
apy xa wna weoAw Oxyaw 9 dw imme ya NOT 122 Tw
Srymau 9 5x) SRymaw 9 pan 897 IMNDID NIDO WD WR
NV) NAW TNT WO NIP NAN INT WD RW MTOR
mov nawi anew 7 aA AX Waa pon Xd
The baraita relates an incident illustrating this point. There was an
incident involving ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, in which
asnake bit him. And following the attack, Ya’akov of the village of
Sekhanya, who was a heretic, a disciple of Jesus the Nazarene, came to
treat him, but Rabbi Yishmael did not let him do so. And ben Dama
said to him: Rabbi Yishmael, my brother, let him treat me, and I willbe healed by him. And I will cite a verse from the Torah to prove that
accepting medical treatment from a heretic is permitted in this situation.
But ben Dama did not manage to complete the statement before his
soul departed from his body and he died.
qnaw ANY WAV JwMW NNT 1A TW Oxvaw | Poy NIP
77) (ny nonP) ONR PAW PwanaT by May Xd AVA
wri usw 472
Rabbi Yishmael recited with regard to him: Fortunate are you, ben
Dama, as your body is pure and your soul departed in purity, and you
did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state
the verse: “And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him”
(Ecclesiastes 10:8), i.c., one is punished for ignoring an ordinance of the
Sages. This incident indicates that it is not permitted for one to accept
medical treatment from a heretic even if it is clear that without it he will
live only a short while.
yyana Jw NRT NwWAT MPN Nw
The Gemara explains: Heresy is different, as it is enticing. In other
words, it is prohibited to accept medical treatment from a heretic, as one
might come to be drawn after his heresy. By contrast, receiving medical
attention from a gentile is permitted if it is certain that one will die if he is
not treated.
Dw TA PND A PAW pyran way by MIA Nd Wa TR
Doo RMON PD POT IIT IN PP Ww NNN] UPR whThe Master said above: You did not transgress the statement of your
colleagues, who would state the verse: “And who breaks through a
fence, a snake shall bite him.” The Gemara asks: But ben Dama was
also bitten by a snake, even before this declaration of Rabbi Yishmael, so
how can he be considered fortunate? The Gemara explains: The snake
mentioned in the curse of the Sages is different, as it has no remedy
whatsoever. Although ben Dama was bitten by a snake, he could have
been healed.
ona new xd ona om (a ym xapn) Tend DORM
The Gemara asks: And what would ben Dama have said? What verse did
he intend to cite as proof that it was permitted for him to be healed by a
heretic? The verse: “You shall therefore keep My statutes, and My
ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5).
This teaches that one should live by God’s mitzvot, and not that he
should die by them. This verse serves as a source for the halakha that one
may violate a prohibition in order to save a life.
227 PAINT NY WOT VaR XvPEI NIT DRVAW Tn
Ox) masa Nay Tay O78? 1) OWN ONW PIN WIN SRvaU
Yoox AD on mw x2 on. om Yn aap ORI aww aan
-wIp ow nx onn Nd (a> a> NIP) YN NOTA
And why does Rabbi Yishmael disagree with ben Dama? He maintains
that this matter applies only in private, but in public one may not
transgress a prohibition even to save a life. As it is taught in a baraita thatRabbi Yishmael would say: From where is it derived that if oppressors
say to a person: Worship an idol and you will not be killed, that one
should worship the idol and not be killed? The verse states: “He shall
live by them,” and not that he should die by them. One might have
thought that this applies even in public. Therefore, the verse states:
“And you shall not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:32)
Dx poy poonaw maa Yo pny oa x AN WDA. AD wR
VOR TI 7272 AIT VaR VANT NPN ID PRIN PR WA
yo
§ The Gemara examines various circumstances in which one is permitted
to receive treatment from a gentile. Rabba bar bar Hana says that Rabbi
Yohanan says: With regard to any injury for which Shabbat is
desecrated, one may not be treated by gentiles. And there are those who
say that Rabba bar bar Hana says that Rabbi Yohanan says: With regard
to any