Avodah Zarah 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

But the minim

the priests of idolatry whether they are Jews or whether they are gentiles

and the informers

those who inform against their fellow Jews to the gentiles

and the apostates

those who habitually transgress certain prohibitions

were

lowered

into a pit so that they would die,

and they were not brought up

to save them if they fell there

Rashi explained this in this manner. However, the Rambam, in chapter 4 of the Laws of a Murderer, halakha 10, wrote that the minim are Jewish idolaters. It requires examination why Rashi specifically mentioned priests. He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan: How can you say that they lower the apostate into a pit but do not bring him up from there, when

I teach

that with regard to what is written in the Torah [Deuteronomy 22:3,

“for every lost object of your brother”—

to include the apostate

for he too is included among your brothers , and one is commanded even concerning his lost property.

And you say: They were lowering

the apostate so that he would die

The Tosafot raised a difficulty: Although one must return his lost property, nevertheless, one does not bring him up from the pit. And so we find concerning one who informs on others to violent authorities [Bava Kamma 119a]: Although it is prohibited to destroy his property, even so, one lowers him and does not bring him up. If so, we see that there is no necessity to link these matters to one another. And they answered: From the verse “for every lost object of your brother,” we learn that one must return and save the body of every Jew, just as there is a mitzva to return his property. With regard to this inclusion, there is no distinction between an apostate and any other Jew. Therefore, by the law of returning a lost object, he must be brought up. See also the Ritva concerning this matter. Rather, you must say

erase

it must be deleted

from here, the apostate

and exclude him from this law. Certainly, he is not lowered to his death.

The Gemara asks

: Could he not have answered him

he should answer him and distinguish that

here

when they are commanded concerning his lost property, the matter refers to

an apostate who

eats unslaughtered animal carcasses out of appetite

that is, when he desires meat and has no meat before him other than the meat of an unslaughtered animal and eats it—this is an apostate out of appetite, since he eats because of his desire

?

But

in the statement of Rabbi Abbahu that they lower the apostate and do not bring him up, the matter refers to

an apostate who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses in order to anger.

Even when kosher meat is before him, he specifically chooses unslaughtered meat, and he is not included in the category of “your brother.” If so, why did he not answer him in this manner?

The Gemara answers

: He holds that

one who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses in order to anger

is not an apostate; rather,

he is a min.

Since he eats this meat in order to rebel and anger!

It was stated: With regard to an apostate

who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses in order to anger,

they disagree

they disagreed concerning his status

Rav Aha and Ravina.

One of them

said: One who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses

out of appetite—

he is an apostate.

But one who eats

in order to anger—

he is a min.

And the other one

said: Even

one who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses

in order to anger, also

also

he is an apostate

and not a min.

If so, one must ask

: But who is a min? -

This one:

one who worships the stars!

This is difficult

: He raised an objection: If he ate one flea or one mosquito

for a person does not eat them out of appetite, since they are repulsive

—he is an apostate.

But,

yet

here

one who eats a flea or a mosquito,

as

he does this

in order to anger.

If so, according to one of them he is a min,

yet it teaches: an apostate?

The Gemara answers

: There

in the case of one who eats a flea or a mosquito, he is not an apostate who acts in order to anger. Rather,

he wishes

he wants

to taste the taste of a prohibition

to taste something forbidden, out of curiosity to taste something that a Jew never tastes. And he is an apostate out of appetite.

It was cited above in a beraita

: The Master said—

the minim, the informers, and the apostates

—were lowered but were not

brought up.

The Gemara raises a difficulty

: Now

we have just said that

we lower him

into a pit in order to kill him.

Is it necessary to state that he is brought up?

Is it necessary to teach that one does not bring him up to save him?

The Gemara answers

: Rav Yosef bar Hama said that Rav Sheshet said—the statement of the beraita, “he is not brought up,”

is necessary

only with regard to

if there was a step

a step

in

the ground of the

pit—

he drags it

he drags it out and removes it from the pit.

And this is what the beraita means when it says that he is not brought up: Even the possibility of climbing out of the pit is prevented from him.

The Jew does not remove the step without any pretext. Rather—

he takes hold of a pretext.

He finds a pretext and an excuse for removing the step from there.

And he says

the Jew says to the one who is in the pit

: “Do not

let wild animals descend upon you”—

I am removing this step so that wild animals will not descend to you and kill you. Once he has supplied a pretext for his action, he removes the step from there.

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say

they both said: The statement of the beraita, “he is not brought up,”

is necessary

only with regard to

if there was a stone at the mouth of the well

into which he fell

, he covers

the pit with it so that he cannot emerge, and

he says,

he says to him

: “To let the animals pass over it”

I am covering the pit so that my animals can pass over the pit without falling into it!

Ravina said:

The statement of the beraita that “he is not brought up” is necessary only with regard to the following case:

If there was a ladder

inside the pit

—he removes it

from there so that the person cannot climb up it. And what pretext does he give him?

He says: I need

I want

to bring down

the

son of my son

my son

from the roof,

and therefore I need the ladder.

The Sages taught: A Jew may circumcise an idolater for the sake of

the purpose of

a convert.

This permission to circumcise him for the purpose of conversion comes

to exclude

to exclude circumcision

for the sake of a worm,

in order to remove a worm that he has in his foreskin and from which he wishes to be rid

—no!

This is prohibited, since we learned: One does not bring them up and one does not lower them. It is prohibited to perform an act intended to save or heal a gentile. And a gentile may not circumcise a Jew, because

they are suspected of bloodshed, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: A gentile may circumcise a Jew when others are standing over him.

But when he is alone with him—

no!

And Rabbi Meir says: Even when others are standing over him, also not

he is not permitted to have the circumcision performed by a gentile, since

sometimes

at times

he angles the knife,

he tilts the knife during the act of circumcision

, and makes him

he makes the circumcised infant into a

“one whose organ has been severed.”

He cuts off part of the organ [from above the corona, toward the body], and as a result the child cannot father children.

The Gemara asks

: And

does

Rabbi Meir hold that a gentile may not

circumcise a Jew?

And he raises a contradiction,

and this is contradicted by what we learned in a beraita

: A city in which there is no Jewish physician, but there is a Samaritan physician, and

there is also

a gentile physician—

the gentile physician should circumcise

the Jew, and

he should not circumcise

him, that physician

the Samaritan,

this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: A Samaritan should circumcise, but a gentile should not circumcise,

because a gentile is suspected of bloodshed!

If so, we see that Rabbi Meir is not concerned about bloodshed, and this is difficult from his statement above?!

The Gemara resolves this

: Reverse it!

Reverse the opinions, and they are as follows:

Rabbi Meir says: A Samaritan should circumcise,

but not a gentile,

because of the concern of bloodshed.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

He should circumcise him,

a gentile,

but not a Samaritan.

But the Gemara asks

: And

does

Rabbi Yehuda hold that a gentile is entirely acceptable,

that he may circumcise?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived that circumcision performed by a gentile is invalid—

as it is stated

[Genesis 17:9]

“And you shall keep My covenant,”

and we learn from this that only one who is himself a member of the covenant, who is commanded in this mitzva of circumcision, may perform circumcision; but one who is not a member of the covenant may not circumcise?!

Therefore, the Gemara retracts its resolution and says

: Rather, in fact, do not reverse the opinions;

indeed, the opinions are not reversed. Rabbi Meir is the one who holds that a gentile is fit to circumcise, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that he is disqualified.

As for the contradiction we raised—that here, in the beraita, Rabbi Meir holds that a gentile may not circumcise because of the danger, while in the other beraita Rabbi Meir holds that he is fit to circumcise—the Gemara answers

: And here,

in the beraita that states that Rabbi Meir prohibits having the circumcision performed by a gentile physician

, with what are we dealing,

what is the case?