Avodah Zarah 26b — the Talmud in English

But the minim [

priests of idolatry whether they are Jews or whether they are gentiles].

And the informers [

who inform against their fellows to the gentiles]

and the apostates

[ who regularly transgress certain prohibitions] —

were

lowered

into a pit in order that they should die,

but they were not brought up

to save them if they fell there!

He said to him

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

I recite

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

“For every lost property of your brother” —

to include the apostate,

who is also included among your brothers, and we are even commanded concerning his lost property.

And you said: They were lowering

the apostate so that he should die?

Rather, necessarily:

delete

it should be erased

from here “the apostate”

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

The Gemara asks:

Let him answer him

he should answer him and distinguish that

here,

when they are commanded concerning his lost property, it is referring to

an apostate who

eats

unslaughtered carcasses out of appetite [

that is, when he desires meat and has before him only the meat of an unslaughtered carcass and eats it — this is an apostate out of appetite, since he eats because of his appetite].

Whereas

here, in the words of Rabbi Abbahu, that the apostate is lowered and not brought up, it is referring to

an apostate who

eats unslaughtered carcasses to provoke.

Even when he has kosher meat before him, he specifically chooses an unslaughtered carcass, and he is not included within “your brother.” If so, it is difficult: Why did he not answer him in this manner?

The Gemara answers:

He holds —

one who eats unslaughtered carcasses to provoke

is not an apostate, but

he is a min.

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

It was stated: An apostate

who eats carcasses to provoke —

they disagree

they disagreed concerning his law,

Rav Aḥa and Ravina.

One of them

said: One who eats carcasses

out of appetite is

an apostate. But one who eats

But one who eats

to provoke is

a min.

And one of them

said: Even

one who eats carcasses

to provoke, also

also

is an apostate

and not a min.

And if so, one must ask:

But what is a min? —

This is

one who worships idols!

A difficulty is raised:

“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,

and yet

here, one who eats a flea or a mosquito,

one who eats a flea or a mosquito,

for

he does this

to provoke.

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

and it teaches: “an apostate”?

The Gemara answers:

There,

one who eats a flea or a mosquito is not an apostate to provoke. Rather, he

wants

he desires

to taste the taste of a prohibition,

to taste a forbidden thing, out of his curiosity to taste something that an Israelite would never taste. And he is an apostate out of appetite.

It was brought in the beraita above:

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 to kill him.

Is bringing him up necessary?

And must it teach us that one does not bring him up to save him?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Yosef bar Hama said that Rav Sheshet said — the words of the beraita, “one does not bring him up,”

are needed

not to teach this, but only with regard to

if there was a step

a step

in

the ground of the

pit —

he drags it

he drags it and takes it outside the pit.

And this is what the beraita said: one does not bring him up. That is, one even prevents him from having the possibility of ascending from the pit.

And the Israelite should not remove the step without cause, but rather —

he finds a pretext for it.

He should find a pretext and an excuse by which he removes the step from there.

And he said

the Israelite should say to the one in the pit:

“Do not

let beasts descend upon you” —

I am removing this step so that beasts should not descend to you and kill you. And after he provides a pretext for his action, he should remove the step from there.

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said

they both said: The words of the beraita, “one does not bring him up,”

are needed

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 leave, and

he says,

he says to him:

“To let beasts pass over it”

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

Ravina said:

The words of the beraita, “one does not bring him up,” are needed only with regard to such a case:

if there was a ladder

inside the pit —

he removes it

from there so that he cannot ascend by it. And what excuse should he say to him?

He said: “I need

I wish

to bring down

to lower

my son

my son

from the roof

from the top of the roof. And for this reason I need the ladder.”

The Sages taught: An Israelite may circumcise an idolater for the sake of

for the sake of

a convert.

And this permission to circumcise him for the sake of conversion comes

to exclude

to exclude circumcision

for the sake of a morna,

for the purpose of removing a worm that he has in his foreskin and from which he wishes to rid himself —

no!

This matter is forbidden, since we learned: One does not bring up and one does not lower. For it is forbidden to do something that is for the salvation and healing of the gentile. And a gentile may not circumcise an Israelite, because

they are suspected of bloodshed, the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: A gentile may circumcise an Israelite when others stand over him.

But when he is alone with him —

no!

But Rabbi Meir says: Even when others stand over him, also not

it is not permitted to circumcise with the gentile, since

sometimes

times

he bends the knife,

he tilts the knife during the act of circumcision,

and makes him

makes the circumcised infant into a

“crushed male.”

For he cuts off part of the organ [from the corona and above, toward the body], and through this he is unable to father children.

The Gemara wonders:

And

does

Rabbi Meir hold that a gentile may not

circumcise an Israelite?

And he raised a contradiction,

and this is contradicted by what we learned in a beraita:

“A city in which there is no Israelite physician, but there is a Samaritan physician, and

there is also

a gentile physician —

let

the physician

who is a gentile circumcise

him, and let the physician

who is a Samaritan not circumcise,

the words of Rabbi Meir.”

Rabbi Yehuda says: Let a Samaritan circumcise, but let a gentile not circumcise,

because a gentile is suspected of bloodshed!

And if so, we see that Rabbi Meir is not concerned about bloodshed, and it is difficult from his words above?!

The Gemara resolves:

Reverse it!

Reverse the opinions, and this is what they are:

Rabbi Meir says: Let a Samaritan circumcise,

but not a gentile,

because of the concern of bloodshed.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Let

him circumcise him,

the gentile,

but not the Samaritan.

But the Gemara asks:

And

does

Rabbi Yehuda hold that a gentile is acceptable,

that he may circumcise?

But it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived that circumcision 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 himself is a member of the covenant, who is commanded concerning this mitzva of circumcision, circumcises; but one who is not a member of the covenant does not circumcise?!

Therefore, the Gemara withdraws from the resolution and says:

Rather, actually, do not reverse it,

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 invalid.

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

And here,

in the beraita that says that Rabbi Meir prohibits circumcision by a gentile physician,

in what are we dealing,

what is the case?