Avodah Zarah 27b — the Talmud in English

There is no need to be concerned that the gentile might give him harmful advice, because

he reasons that

the gentile thinks that this Jew, who does not want to be treated by him but has come only to ask his advice about the medicine, is afraid of him. Therefore, the Jew

asks him for information,

asking him about the medicine in order to test it,

so that he will give him information,

after he asks him and the gentile answers him,

he gives information to another person,

meaning that the Jew asks another physician, in order to determine whether the gentile physician has in fact given him harmful advice.

And

for this reason, the gentile will not give him bad advice, because he is concerned that

that man came—

the gentile who gives bad advice may harm

himself,

damaging himself and his good name if he gives his customers bad advice.

Rava said that Rabbi Yohanan said—and some say

that this teaching was

said by Rav Hisda in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

If that Jew was suffering from an illness from which he was

certain either to live or to die

as a result,

one may not be treated by them,

by gentiles. Since it is almost certain that the gentile physician will kill him—the gentile is not concerned about killing him, since everyone knows that it is uncertain whether he will live—therefore, it is preferable for him to leave the gentile physician and not undergo treatment from him, in the hope that he might recover from his illness and live.

But if

he was certainly going to die

because of his illness,

one may be treated by them!

Since there is nothing to lose: in any event, he will die from his illness, and perhaps the gentile will now cure him rather than kill him.

The Gemara asks: Even if he was certainly going to die from his illness,

is there not

still reason for the patient to refrain from being treated by a gentile, in order to save at least his

“temporary life,”

the time that remains for him to live? For the patient will not die immediately from his illness; presumably, he will live for another day or two. But if we leave him to be treated by the gentile, the latter will kill him immediately, and the Jew will thereby lose the short period of life that still remains to him?

The Gemara answers:

For temporary life—

we are not concerned.

We do not prevent the possibility of having him treated by the gentile on account of that remaining period of life.

And from where may you say this,

from where do we know to say

that for temporary

life we are not concerned?

As it is written

in the account of the four lepers who sat at the gate of the city of Samaria when it was under siege, in the Second Book of Kings [7:4]:

“If we say, ‘Let us enter the city,’ while there is famine in the city, and we will die there. And if we remain here, we will die. Now, let us go and fall upon the camp of Aram. If they let us live, we will live; and if they kill us, we will die.”

”

.

and is there not temporary life,

since if they entered the city, they would not die immediately from hunger, but only after a day or two?

Rather, is it not

proven from here

that for temporary life—

we are not concerned.

They raise an objection from

what we learned in a beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

“A person may not conduct business with the minim.”

“And one may not be treated by them,”

by the minim,

even for temporary life!?

And there was also

an incident

concerning this,

involving ben Dama, the son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, whom a snake bit. And Yaakov of Kefar Sekhanya,

who was a min, came

to treat him. But he did not allow him

he did not permit

Rabbi Yishmael

to allow that min to treat him.

And he said to him,

ben Dama said to his uncle Rabbi Yishmael:

“Rabbi Yishmael, my brother, let him be,”

that min,

“and let me be healed by him!”

“And I

will also bring proof that it is

a verse from the Torah

—the Gemara will explain below which verse he meant—

that he,

being treated by a min, is

permitted!”

But ben Dama did not manage to finish speaking before his soul departed,

as he said, “It is permitted” —

» —

Rabbi Yishmael recited over him: “Fortunate are you, ben Dama, for your body is pure, and your soul departed in purity

when you said “It is permitted” —a word indicating permission, expressing that the matter is permitted and pure—

and you did not transgress the words of your colleagues!”

For your

colleagues

were saying

—based on the verse in Ecclesiastes 10:8—

“Whoever breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake.”

A person who breaches the fence that the Sages established through their words will be bitten by a snake.

If so, this is difficult: We learned above that we are not concerned about temporary life, and that in a situation of danger one may be treated by a gentile.

The Gemara answers:

Heresy is different,

the ruling concerning treatment by a min is different, since

it draws,

heresy draws a person toward denial and attachment to it. Therefore, every contact with minim must be prohibited, since

one may come to be drawn after them,

a person may be drawn after heresy.

The Gemara now returns to discuss the incident involving ben Dama—

“The Master said,”

Rabbi Yishmael said about ben Dama: “Fortunate are you, for

you did not transgress the words of your colleagues, who were saying, ‘Whoever breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake.’”

The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yishmael not allow him to be treated by the min, and why did he recite over him, “Fortunate are you,” because if he had been treated by the min, a snake would have bitten him as punishment for breaching the fence?

He,

ben Dama himself,

was also bitten by a snake,

for a snake had bitten him. If so, he could also have been saved from the second bite, which would have come upon him because he transgressed the words of his colleagues, by being treated by that min!?

That is, even if he had been bitten by a snake, as the Sages said, “Whoever breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake,” he could have been treated a second time. Why, then, did Rabbi Yishmael recite over him, “Fortunate are you”?

»!?

“The snake of the Sages,”

the snake that bites as a result of the curse of the Sages,

“has no remedy at all,”

there is no cure for it at all; rather, one who transgresses their words is liable to die . Had he been treated by the min, he would ultimately have certainly died from the bite of another snake. And for this bite there is no cure!

We also learned in the account of ben Dama that he wanted to bring a verse from the Torah showing that it is permitted to be treated by a min.

The Gemara asks:

“And what could he have said,”

what verse could ben Dama have cited?—As it is written [Leviticus 18:5]: “You shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall perform

and live by them.”

And we derive from “and live by them”:

“and not die by them.”

Therefore, ben Dama thought that in a case of mortal danger, as he was experiencing, one should transgress the words of the Torah in order to be saved.

And

if

Rabbi Yishmael,

who did not allow him to be treated by the min, holds that

this matter—

the ruling that it is permitted to transgress the words of the Torah in order to be saved—applies only when the act is performed

in private,

without publicizing that they transgressed the words of the Torah in order to be saved.

But

to transgress the words of the Torah

in public is not permitted.

There is no permission for this. Since the act is performed publicly, it constitutes desecration of the Divine Name. It is forbidden to transgress the words of the Torah even in order to save a life when the matter involves desecration of the Divine Name, because the prohibition against desecrating the Divine Name is never set aside, even in a situation of danger to life.

And from where do we know that there is indeed a distinction between an act performed publicly and one performed privately?

As it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael would say: From where do we know that if someone is told, “Worship idols

and do not be killed,”

the ruling is

that he should worship and not be killed?

The verse states, “and live by them”—

“and not die by them.”

One might have thought

that this should be so

even in public.

The verse therefore states

[Leviticus 22:32]:

“And you shall not profane My holy Name.”

A transgression committed in public constitutes desecration of the Divine Name and is forbidden even in a situation of danger to life.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Any injury for which one desecrates Shabbat,

because it involves danger to life,

one may not be treated by them.

But an injury that does not involve danger to life, for which Shabbat is not desecrated, one may be treated by them.

This disagrees with the statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav above, who holds that even for a minor treatment, such as treating a cut, one may not be treated by them.