Avodah Zarah 27a — the Talmud in English

With an expert physician!

And since he is an expert physician, we do not fear that he will cause the circumcised person to become one whose membrum is cut, since the expert physician is concerned for his good name and is careful that a mishap should not issue from his hand.

And just as we find,

when Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: If

this gentile physician was

an expert for the public—

it is permitted

to circumcise with him.

And now the Gemara discusses the words of Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids circumcising with an idolater physician but permits it with a Samaritan physician—

And the Gemara raises an objection:

A

nd

does Rabbi Yehuda hold that a Samaritan is acceptable,

that he is good for circumcising?

But it was taught in a beraita: An Israelite circumcises a Samaritan, but a Samaritan may not circumcise an Israelite, because he circumcises for the sake of

the idolatry found on

Mount Gerizim—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yose said to him:

There is no deficiency in the Samaritan’s circumcision, since

and where have we found

that there is an obligation of

circumcision from the Torah

that must be performed with intent

for its own sake, for the sake of this mitzva, so that if the circumciser intended for another matter, such as for the sake of idolatry, the circumcision would be invalid?!

Rather,

certainly there is no deficiency in the Samaritan’s circumcision, a

nd he circumcises

and

continues

all his days

until his soul departs.

And it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda’s view is that a Samaritan is invalid to circumcise, and not as we learned in the earlier beraita.

Therefore, the Gemara answers differently:

Rather, in truth, reverse it,

indeed, we reverse the positions

as we reversed them initially,

that Rabbi Yehuda’s view is that an idolater is valid for circumcision but not a Samaritan, since it is not the way of a gentile to circumcise for the sake of idolatry. Whereas Rabbi Meir’s view is that a Samaritan is valid, but not an idolater.

A

nd as for

what is difficult—a contradiction from the words

of Rabbi Yehuda against Rabbi Yehuda,

from Rabbi Yehuda against Rabbi Yehuda,

for here Rabbi Yehuda says that a gentile is valid, whereas above Rabbi Yehuda invalidated the circumcision of a gentile by the scriptural decree, “And you shall keep My covenant,” and not a gentile—one may say that that view

there,

which holds that a gentile is invalid for circumcision, is the view

of Rabbi Yehuda the Prince!

And not the view of Rabbi Yehuda cited here.

And from where do we know that this is indeed the view of Rabbi Yehuda the Prince?

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda the Prince says: From where is it derived that circumcision

by an idolater is invalid?—

The verse says [Genesis 17:9]

“

And you shall keep My covenant.”

And if so, Rabbi Yehuda’s view is indeed that an idolater is valid to circumcise, whereas Rabbi Yehuda the Prince’s view is that he is invalid!

And now the Gemara discusses Rabbi Yehuda’s view, which invalidates the circumcision of a Samaritan because he circumcises for the sake of the idolatry on Mount Gerizim, and Rabbi Yose objected to him: We have not found that the mitzva of circumcision must be performed for its own sake. The Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda’s reason:

Rav Hisda said: What is the reason

for the view

of Rabbi Yehuda,

who invalidates the Samaritan’s circumcision?—

For it is written [Exodus 12:48]: “When a convert dwells with you and performs a Passover-offering to the Lord, every male shall be circumcised for him.” And this is read as follows:

“For the Lord”—

he shall circumcise,”

the verse teaches that the circumcision must be for the sake of the Lord. Therefore a Samaritan is invalid, since he does not circumcise for the sake of the Lord; but a gentile is valid, since he does only what the Israelite commands him, and circumcises according to his command, and not for the sake of anything else.

A

nd if

Rabbi Yose

would expound it as follows: It is stated [Genesis 17:13]:

“He shall surely circumcise,”

and from the repetition of the word we learn an amplification, to include every person who is valid for circumcision.

But the other one

has an objection according to Rabbi Yose:

Does it not say,

for it is written

“For the Lord”—

he shall circumcise,”

and this implies that he must circumcise for the sake of the Lord?

And the Gemara answers according to Rabbi Yose:

That

verse, “For the Lord he shall circumcise,”

is written concerning the Passover-offering.

It was stated concerning the Passover-offering, that the making of the Passover-offering should be for its own sake.

And the other one also,

Rabbi Yehuda, who validates the circumcision of a Samaritan,

has the verse “He shall surely circumcise,”

and what does the verse come to include according to Rabbi Yehuda?

And the Gemara answers according to Rabbi Yehuda that there is no necessity to learn and include an additional law from this, but rather

the Torah spoke in the language of human beings,

whose manner is sometimes to repeat themselves in their speech!

It was stated: From where is it derived that circumcision

by an idolater

is invalid?

Daro bar Pappa in the name

of Rav said: It is stated [Genesis 17:9]

“And you shall keep My covenant,

you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.” And we learn from this that only you, an Israelite, who are commanded to keep the covenant, are valid to circumcise.

And Rabbi Yohanan

learned this from what is written [Genesis 17:13]

“He shall surely circumcise

the one born in your house.” And we learn from this that only one who is included in “he shall circumcise,” who is circumcised, may circumcise others. But gentiles, who are not circumcised, may not circumcise.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the difference between them,

what practical difference is there between these two reasons?—

A circumcised Arab, and a circumcised Gavnoni

[a member of a nation that used to circumcise themselves ]

circumcised—

there is a difference between them.

Regarding the validity of these to circumcise, there is a difference between the reason stated by Daro bar Pappa in the name of Rav and the reason stated by Rabbi Yohanan.

The one who says,

Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that the source for the invalidity of a gentile’s circumcision is the verse

“He shall surely circumcise”—

there is!

There is a valid circumcision even when performed by an Arab or a Gavnoni, since they are circumcised.

And the one who says,

Daro bar Pappa in the name of Rav, who holds that the source for the invalidity of a gentile’s circumcision is the verse

“You shall keep My covenant”—

there is not!

Their circumcision is not valid, since only one who is commanded to keep the covenant with God is fit to circumcise Israelites, and not these, who have no covenant with God; their circumcision is merely circumcision that they perform on their own, and therefore it is invalid.

And the Gemara continues asking:

And according to the one who says “He shall surely circumcise,” there is,

is an Arab or a Gavnoni indeed valid to circumcise an Israelite?

But did we not learn,

that one who says:

“Konam,”

it is forbidden to me under a konam prohibition [which is the language of a vow]

“that I derive benefit from the uncircumcised!”

[that it is forbidden for me to derive benefit from the uncircumcised]—

it is permitted

for him to derive benefit

from uncircumcised Israelites, but it is forbidden

for him to derive benefit

from circumcised idolaters.

Evidently,

this proves that

even though

these idolaters

are circumcised,

they are circumcised, nevertheless

they are considered as though they are not circumcised.

They are considered as though they are entirely uncircumcised.

And if so, how does the Gemara regard them as circumcised, and on this basis do they become able to circumcise Israelites?

Therefore, the Gemara rejects the practical difference brought above between the two derivations regarding the circumcision of a gentile, and establishes a new practical difference between them—

Rather, there is a difference between them

the distinction between them is regarding

an Israelite whose brothers died because of circumcision,

and they did not circumcise him,

because he is exempt from circumcision—in this case there is a distinction between these views:

According to the one who says “And you shall keep My covenant”—

there is.

He is valid to circumcise, since he is an Israelite and belongs to the covenant of God; he is merely under duress, and only for that reason is he uncircumcised.

However,

according to the one who says “He shall surely circumcise”—

there is not.

According to him, since in the end he is not circumcised, he is invalid to circumcise others!

But the Gemara asks:

And according to the one who says “He shall surely circumcise,” there is not—

is an Israelite who was not circumcised because his brothers died because of circumcision indeed invalid to circumcise others?

But did we not learn: “Konam,”

it is forbidden to me

“that I derive benefit from the circumcised,”

[from those who are circumcised],

it is forbidden

for him to derive benefit

from uncircumcised Israelites, but it is permitted

to derive benefit

from circumcised idolaters.

Evidently,

this proves that even

although they are not circumcised,

these Israelites are not circumcised, nevertheless

they are considered as though they are circumcised,

they are regarded as circumcised! If so, how can one say that since he is not circumcised he is invalid to circumcise, when he is regarded as circumcised?!

Therefore, the Gemara also rejects this practical difference and establishes another practical difference between the derivation of Daro, son of Rav Pappa, in the name of Rav, and the derivation of Rabbi Yohanan.

Rather, there is a difference between them

the distinction between them is—

a woman,

whether she is valid to circumcise or invalid.

According to the one who says [Daro bar Pappa in the name of Rav]

[Daru bar Pappa in the name of Rav]

“And you shall keep My covenant”—

there is not,

she is invalid to circumcise because

a woman is not included in circumcision, for

the mitzva of circumcision does not apply to her.

Whereas

according to the one who says [Rabbi Yohanan]

[Rabbi Yohanan]

“He shall surely circumcise”—

there is,

a woman is valid to circumcise because

a woman—

is considered as though she is circumcised.

She is considered as though she is circumcised, since she has no foreskin.

And the Gemara is astonished:

And is there

one who holds

according to the one who says

who maintains that

a woman does not

qualify to perform circumcision?

But it is written [Exodus 4:25]

“And Zipporah took a flint,

“and cut the foreskin of her son.” And it is demonstrated that Zipporah performed the circumcision herself?

And the Gemara resolves: Do not read it in the expression “and she took” [the tav with a hiriq], that she took a flint and performed the circumcision herself; rather,

read in it

read this as

“and she took” [the tav with a patah], that she took a flint through an agent, and he performed the circumcision.

The Gemara asks:

But it is written “and she cut

the foreskin

of her son,” and it implies that she herself cut and circumcised her son!

The Gemara resolves: Do not read “and she cut,” that she herself cut it; rather,

read in it “and she cut” [the tav with a patah and the resh with a tzeirei], that she cut the foreskin through an agent.

For she said to another man,

she told another man to do this,

and he did,

and he performed it.

And if you wish, say

another way of explaining the matter:

She came, and began

she came and only began the circumcision,

and he came

and then Moses came,

and completed it,

he completed the circumcision.

And if so, we have no proof from Zipporah that a woman qualifies to perform circumcision.

And the distinction between the methods concerning the source for the invalidity of a gentile’s circumcision is in the law of the woman. And this is in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara.

Mishna:

We learned above the restrictions from which one must distance himself from a gentile because of danger to life through seclusion with him, whether in a house or on the road.

And now the Mishna adds that the prohibition applies not only to merely being with the gentile, but also when one places himself in contact with the gentile for the purpose of medical treatment, or a haircut, and the like; there is danger in this, lest while occupied with the body of the Israelite, he kill him.

And the Mishna specifies where there is danger and one must distance himself from him, and in which situations and conditions there is no need for concern:

One may receive healing from them

from the gentiles

for healing of property. But not

may one receive healing from them

for healing of lives [below, the Gemara will explain what “healing of property” and what “healing of lives” are].

And

also one may not

have his hair cut by them [A0051]]by them,

have one’s hair cut by them [A0052]]at their establishments

in every place,

even not in the public domain, when passersby see them, and seemingly there is no concern lest he kill him; even so, it is prohibited because we are concerned lest during the haircut the gentile barber cut off the Israelite’s head with the razor in his hand,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: In the public domain it is permitted

to have one’s hair cut by them, and there is no need for concern.

But not

shall he have his hair cut by them when that gentile is cutting his hair

alone with him,

without the presence of others.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One may receive healing from them for healing of property, but not for healing of lives.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is

what is

healing of property, and what

what is

healing of lives?

If you say,

if it is said that

healing of property

is healing

for payment,

with monetary payment, and therefore it is permitted for an Israelite to receive healing, since the gentile doctor will be concerned for his payment and will not kill him.

Whereas

healing of lives

is

free of charge

[and it is called “healing of lives” because the gentile does this from his own will, even without receiving payment], and this healing is prohibited because the gentile has nothing to lose, and he will kill him—

Behold, this explanation is impossible. Since if so,

let it teach

it should teach in the Mishna:

“One may receive healing from them for payment, but not free of charge!”

And why does the Mishna use the expression “healing of property” and “healing of lives”

?

Rather, lest you say, healing of property

mentioned in our Mishna is

a matter

an illness or wound

that has no

danger.

And it is called “healing of property” because it involves nothing but an expenditure of money. And

healing of lives—

it is healing of

a matter that has danger.

This explanation too is impossible, because—

But did Rav Judah not say, even the wound of a bloodletter,

a minor treatment, involving a cut on the shoulder that the practitioner makes for the purpose of bloodletting ]—

we do not receive healing from them,

we do not receive healing from them. Since it is prohibited for us to place ourselves in the hand of a gentile for any medical purpose, even the least serious—

And if so, it still must be explained: what is healing of property?

Rather, healing of property

mentioned in our Mishna is healing of

his animal,

which is his property, and there is no prohibition against placing it in the hand of a gentile to heal it.

Whereas

healing of lives,

that is, healing of

his body,

the body of an Israelite, which is prohibited to have done by a gentile.

And this is what Rav Judah said: even the wound of a bloodletter,

a minor treatment involving a cut on the shoulder—

we do not receive healing from them,

we do not receive healing from them, even though there is no danger at all in treating this cut.

Rav Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukva:

Indeed, it is prohibited to receive healing from a gentile,

but if he said to him

the gentile doctor told him that

a certain drug is good

is beneficial

for him

in order to heal a particular illness, and likewise if he told him that

a certain drug is bad for him

for a particular illness—

it is permitted

to heed his advice and to take the drug that he recommended.