Avodah Zarah 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

By an expert physician!

Since he is an expert physician, there is no concern that he will render the circumcised person one whose urethra is severed, since the expert physician is concerned for his good reputation and is careful that no mishap emerge from his hands.

And similarly we find:

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: If

this gentile physician

is an expert known to the public—

it is permitted

to have the circumcision performed by him.

The Gemara now discusses Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, who prohibits having the circumcision performed by an idolatrous gentile physician, but permits having it performed by a Samaritan physician—

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

if

Rabbi Yehuda holds that a Samaritan is acceptable,

that it is proper to have the circumcision performed by him,

but it was taught in a beraita: A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan, but a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew, because he circumcises for the sake of

the idolatry located on

Mount Gerizim—

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei said to him:

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

where have we found

that there is an obligation of

circumcision according to the Torah

that must be performed with the intention

for its own sake, for the sake of this mitzva, so that if the circumciser intends it for some other purpose, such as for the sake of idolatry, the circumcision is invalid?!

Rather,

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

he circumcises

and

continues

all his days

until his soul departs.

It is thus evident that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is that a Samaritan is disqualified from performing circumcision, and not as we learned in the earlier beraita.

Therefore, the Gemara resolves the matter differently:

Rather, actually reverse the opinions,

indeed reversing the positions

as we reversed them initially,

namely, that Rabbi Yehuda holds that an idolatrous gentile is fit to perform circumcision but a Samaritan is not, since it is not the way of a gentile to circumcise for the sake of idolatry. Rabbi Meir, by contrast, holds that a Samaritan is fit, but an idolatrous gentile is not.

And

what

is difficult

as a contradiction between

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda—

that here Rabbi Yehuda says that a gentile is fit, whereas above Rabbi Yehuda disqualified the circumcision performed by a gentile based on the verse, “And you shall keep My covenant,” but not a gentile—we can say that

that

opinion that holds that a gentile is disqualified from performing circumcision is the opinion

of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi!

It is not the opinion of the Rabbi Yehuda mentioned here.

And from where do we know that this is indeed Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion?

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: From where is it derived that circumcision

performed by an idolatrous gentile is invalid?—

The verse states [Genesis 17:9]

“

“And you shall keep My covenant.”

And if so, Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is indeed that a gentile is fit to perform circumcision, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion is that he is disqualified!

The Gemara now discusses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who disqualifies a Samaritan’s circumcision because he performs it for the sake of the idolatry on Mount Gerizim. Rabbi Yosei challenged him: We have not found that the mitzva of circumcision must be performed for its own sake. The Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning:

Rav Hisda said: What is the reason

for

Rabbi Yehuda,

who disqualifies a Samaritan’s circumcision?—

As it is written [Exodus 12:48]: “And when a convert resides with you, and he will perform the Passover offering to the Lord, every male among him shall be circumcised.” And we read it as follows:

“For the Lord—

circumcised,”

the verse teaches that the circumcision must be performed for the sake of the Lord. Therefore, a Samaritan is disqualified, since he does not circumcise for the sake of the Lord. A gentile, however, is fit, since he does only what the Jew commands him to do and circumcises according to his instructions, and not for the sake of anything else.

But

if

Rabbi Yosei

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

“He shall surely be circumcised,”

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

But the other one,

the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, may be challenged:

Isn’t it written,

for it says,

“For the Lord—

circumcised,”

which implies that one must circumcise for the sake of the Lord?

The Gemara answers according to Rabbi Yosei:

That

verse, “For the Lord—circumcised,”

is written with regard to the Passover offering.

It was stated with regard to the Passover offering, that the offering of the Passover sacrifice must be performed for its own sake.

And the other one likewise,

Rabbi Yehuda, who deems a Samaritan’s circumcision valid,

what does “he shall surely be circumcised”

come to include according to Rabbi Yehuda?

The Gemara resolves this according to Rabbi Yehuda: There is no necessity to derive an additional law and include anything from this repetition. Rather,

the Torah speaks in the language of human beings,

who sometimes repeat themselves in their speech!

It was stated: From where is it derived that circumcision

performed by an idolatrous gentile

is invalid?

Daru bar Pappa said in the name of

Rav: It is stated [Genesis 17:9]

“And you shall keep My covenant,

you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.” From this we learn that only you—the Jew—who are commanded to keep the covenant, are fit to perform circumcision.

And Rabbi Yohanan

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

“He shall surely be circumcised,

the one born in your household.” From this we learn that only one who is included in “he shall surely be circumcised,” namely, one who is circumcised, may circumcise others. But gentiles, who are not circumcised, may not circumcise.

The Gemara asks:

What difference is there between them,

what practical difference results from these two reasons?—

An Arab who is circumcised, and a Gavnuni

[a member of a nation that circumcised themselves ]

who is circumcised—

there is a difference between them.

With regard to whether these people are fit to circumcise others, there is a difference between the reason stated by Daru 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 disqualification of a gentile’s circumcision is the verse

“He shall surely be circumcised”—

there is!

A valid circumcision can be performed even by an Arab or a Gavnuni, since they are circumcised.

And the one who says,

Daru bar Pappa in the name of Rav, who holds that the source for the disqualification 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 Jews, and not these people, who have no covenant with God. Their circumcision is merely ordinary circumcision, which they perform on their own, and is therefore invalid.

The Gemara continues and asks:

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

is an Arab or a Gavnuni indeed fit to circumcise a Jew?

But didn’t we learn:

One who says:

“Konam,”

I am prohibited by a konam prohibition [which is a formulation of a vow],

“I derive benefit from the uncircumcised!”

[meaning that I am prohibited from deriving benefit from the uncircumcised]—

it is permitted

for him to derive benefit

from uncircumcised Jews, but it is prohibited

for him to derive benefit

from circumcised gentiles.

Apparently,

it is evident from this that

even though

these gentiles

are circumcised,

they are circumcised, nevertheless

they are considered as though they are not circumcised.

They are regarded as entirely uncircumcised.

And if so, how does the Gemara consider them circumcised, and on this basis allow them to circumcise Jews?

Therefore, the Gemara rejects the practical difference mentioned above between the two derivations concerning a gentile’s circumcision, and establishes a new practical difference between them—

Rather, there is a difference between them

with regard to

a Jew whose brothers died because of circumcision,

and they did not circumcise him,

since he is exempt from circumcision—in this case there is a difference between these opinions:

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

there is.

He is fit to perform circumcision, since he is a Jew 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 be circumcised”—

there is not.

According to him, since ultimately he is uncircumcised, he is disqualified from circumcising others!

But the Gemara asks:

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

is a Jew who was not circumcised because his brothers died because of circumcision indeed disqualified from circumcising others?

But didn’t we learn: “Konam,”

I am prohibited

“from deriving benefit from the circumcised”

[from those who are circumcised],

it is prohibited

for him to derive benefit

from uncircumcised Jews, but it is permitted

to derive benefit

from circumcised gentiles.

Apparently,

it is evident from this that even

although they are not circumcised,

these Jews are uncircumcised, nevertheless

they are considered as though they are circumcised,

they are regarded as circumcised! If so, how can it be said that since he is uncircumcised he is disqualified from circumcising others, when he is considered circumcised?!

Therefore, the Gemara rejects this practical difference as well, and establishes another practical difference between the derivation of Daru bar, son of Pappa, in the name of Rav, and the derivation of Rabbi Yohanan.

Rather, there is a difference between them

with regard to the following question—

a woman,

whether she is fit to perform circumcision or disqualified.

According to the one who says

[Daru bar Pappa in the name of Rav]

“And you shall keep My covenant”—

there is not.

She is disqualified from performing circumcision because

a woman is not included in the category of those obligated in circumcision, since

the mitzva of circumcision does not apply to her.

But

according to the one who says

[Rabbi Yohanan]

“He shall surely be circumcised”—

there is.

A woman is fit to perform circumcision because

a woman—

is considered as though she is circumcised.

She is considered circumcised because she has no foreskin.

And the Gemara is surprised:

But is there

such a view as that of

the one who says

who holds that

a woman is not

fit to perform circumcision?

But it is written [Exodus 4:25]

“And Zipporah took a flint,

and cut off the foreskin of her son.” This proves that Zipporah herself performed the circumcision?

The Gemara resolves this: Do not read the expression as “and she took” [with the tav vocalized with a ḥiriq], meaning that she took a flint and performed the circumcision herself. Rather,

read in it

read it as

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

The Gemara asks:

The Gemara asks:

But it is written, “and she cut off

the foreskin of her son,” implying that she herself cut it off and circumcised her son!

The Gemara resolves this: Do not read it as “and she cut off,” meaning that she cut it off herself. Rather,

read in it “and she cut off” [with the tav vocalized with a pataḥ and the reish with a tzeirei], meaning that she cut off the foreskin through an agent.

For she said to another person,

she told another man to do so,

and he did,

and performed the circumcision.

Alternatively,

there is another way to explain the matter:

She came and began,

she came and merely began the circumcision,

and then he came,

and then

Moses came and completed it,

he completed the circumcision.

If so, we have no proof from Zipporah that a woman is fit to perform circumcision.

The difference between the views concerning the source for disqualifying a gentile from performing circumcision depends on the status of a woman. And this is in accordance with the Gemara’s conclusion.

Mishna:

We learned above the restrictions requiring one to distance oneself from a gentile because of the danger to life posed by seclusion with him, both in a house and on the road.

The Mishna now adds that the prohibition applies not only to being in the mere presence of a gentile. Even when one makes contact with a gentile for purposes of medical treatment, a haircut, or the like, there is danger, lest while attending to the Jew’s body, he kill him.

The Mishna specifies where there is danger and one must distance himself from the gentile, and in which situations and under what conditions there is no need for concern:

One may receive medical treatment from them

from gentiles

for treatment of property, but one may not

receive medical treatment from them

for treatment of persons [the Gemara below will explain what is meant by treatment of property and treatment of persons].

And

And

likewise, one may not

have one’s hair cut by them at their establishments

anywhere,

even not in the public domain, when passersby can see them, in which case, seemingly, there is no concern that he might kill him. Even so, it is prohibited, because we are concerned that while cutting the hair, the gentile barber might cut off the Jew’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 one may not

have one’s hair cut by them when that gentile is cutting it

in private,

without the presence of others.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One may receive medical treatment from them for treatment of property, but not for treatment of persons.

The Gemara discusses this:

What

is meant by

treatment of property, and what

is meant by

treatment of persons?

If you say,

if it is said that

treatment of property

is treatment

for payment,

for monetary compensation, and therefore it is permitted for a Jew to receive treatment, since the gentile physician will be concerned about his fee and will not kill him.

Whereas

treatment of persons

is

free of charge [and it is called treatment of “persons” because the gentile does it of his own accord, even without receiving payment]. This treatment is prohibited because the gentile has nothing to lose, and he will kill him—

Behold, this explanation is impossible. Since if so,

This explanation cannot be correct. For if so,

let the Mishna state

it should formulate its ruling:

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

Why, then, does the Mishna use the expressions treatment of “property” and treatment of “persons”?

Rather, perhaps you will say that treatment of property

mentioned in our Mishna is

a matter

an illness or wound

that has no

danger.

And it is called treatment of property because it involves nothing but monetary expenditure.

And treatment of persons—

it is treatment of

a matter that involves danger.

This explanation, too, cannot be correct, because—

And Rav Yehuda said: Even treatment of a shoulder incision,

a minor treatment involving an incision in the shoulder made by a practitioner for the purpose of bloodletting ]—

we do not receive treatment from them,

we may not receive treatment from them, since we are prohibited from placing ourselves in the hands of a gentile for any medical purpose, even the least serious—

If so, what, then, is treatment of property?

Rather, treatment of property

mentioned in our Mishna is treatment of

his animal,

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

Whereas

treatment of persons

means treatment of

his body,

the body of a Jew, which is prohibited to have performed by a gentile.

And this is what Rav Yehuda said: Even treatment of a shoulder incision,

a minor treatment involving an incision in the shoulder—

we do not receive treatment from them,

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

Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said:

It is indeed prohibited to receive medical treatment from a gentile,

but if he told him

the gentile physician told him that

a certain drug is good

effective

for him

to cure 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 follow his advice and take the drug he recommended.