Avodah Zarah 27
בְּרוֹפֵא מוּמְחֶה, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִם הָיָה מוּמְחֶה לְרַבִּים — מוּתָּר.
We are dealing with an expert physician, who will not risk his reputation by harming a child. This is similar to that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the physician was considered a recognized expert, it is permitted for one to be healed by him. When Rabbi Meir said that an Aramean may circumcise a Jewish boy, he was referring specifically to a doctor who is known for his expertise.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כּוּתִי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל מָל אֶת הַכּוּתִי, וְכוּתִי לֹא יָמוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּל לְשֵׁם הַר גְּרִזִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The latter clause of the baraita states that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a Samaritan may circumcise a Jewish infant. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda actually hold that it is permitted for a Samaritan to perform circumcision? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not be allowed to circumcise a Jew, because he circumcises him for the sake of Mount Gerizim; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְכִי הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ מִילָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ? אֶלָּא מָל וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נִשְׁמָתוֹ!
Rabbi Yosei said to him: And where do we find that the mitzva of circumcision from the Torah must be performed for the sake of fulfilling God’s will? Rather, a Samaritan may continue to circumcise Jews until his soul leaves his body, i.e., until the Samaritan dies, and there is no room for concern. But Rabbi Yehuda explicitly states above that circumcision may not be performed by a Samaritan.
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם אֵיפוֹךְ כִּדְאָפְכִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הָהִיא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא הִיא.
Rather, actually you should reverse the opinions in the baraita as we reversed them initially. And as for the difficulty raised with regard to one statement of Rabbi Yehuda against the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, that opinion, that a gentile may not perform circumcision, is actually the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Conversely, the first baraita, which is reversed and therefore cites Rabbi Yehuda as maintaining that an Aramean may perform circumcision, is referring to Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai. Accordingly, the different opinions reflect a dispute between tanna’im rather than a contradiction.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְמִילָה בְּגוֹי שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמוֹר״.
The Gemara cites a proof that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a gentile is not qualified to perform circumcision. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: From where is it derived with regard to circumcision performed by a gentile that it is not valid? The verse states: “And God said to Abraham: And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9).
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הִמּוֹל״, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״.
§ It was stated that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda circumcision must be performed for the sake of fulfilling a mitzva, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that no particular intention is necessary. The Gemara analyzes these opinions. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord let all his males be circumcised” (Exodus 12:48). It can be inferred from the verse that the males must be circumcised “to the Lord,” i.e., for the sake of fulfilling God’s will. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei? It is written: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol]” (Genesis 17:13). The usage of the doubled verb teaches that circumcision may be performed by anyone.
וְאִידָּךְ, הָכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הִמּוֹל״! הָהוּא בְּפֶסַח כְּתִיב. וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי הָכְתִיב: ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״! דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, isn’t it written: “To the Lord let all his males be circumcised,” which indicates that circumcision must be performed for the sake of fulfilling God’s will? The Gemara answers: That is written with regard to Passover. According to Rabbi Yosei, the phrase “to the Lord” is referring to the previous mention of the Paschal offering, rather than to circumcision. Accordingly, the verse should be read: “Will keep Passover to the Lord.” The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, isn’t it also written: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],” indicating that circumcision may be performed by anyone? The Gemara answers: The Torah spoke in the language of people, i.e., the doubled verb is the usual style of the Torah, which does not serve to teach a novel halakha.
אִיתְּמַר: מִנַּיִן לְמִילָה בְּגוֹי שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה? דָּרוּ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the issue of circumcisions performed by gentiles. It was stated: From where is it derived with regard to circumcision performed by a gentile that it is not valid? Daru bar Pappa says in the name of Rav: This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: And God said to Abraham: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations.” And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is derived from the verse: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol].” According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this verse teaches that a Jew must be circumcised by one who is already circumcised.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? עַרְבִי מָהוּל וְגַבְנוּנִי מָהוּל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ — אִיכָּא, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִּשְׁמֹר״ — לֵיכָּא.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? There is a practical difference between them with regard to a circumcised Arab or a circumcised hill person [gavnuni]. According to the one who says that the halakha that a Jewish infant may be circumcised only by one who has been circumcised himself is derived from the verse: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],” there is reason to permit an Arab or gavnuni to perform the circumcision, as they are circumcised. And according to the one who says that circumcision may not be performed by a gentile is derived from the phrase: “You shall keep my covenant,” there is no reason to permit an Arab or Gibeonite to perform circumcision.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ אִיכָּא? וְהָתְנַן: קוּנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱנֶה מִן הָעֲרֵלִים — מוּתָּר בְּעַרְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָסוּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם; אַלְמָא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְהִילִי, כְּמַאן דְּלָא מְהִילִי דָּמוּ!
The Gemara raises an objection: And is it so, according to the one who says it is derived from the verse: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],” that a Jew may not be circumcised by a gentile, that there is reason to permit a circumcised gentile to perform circumcision? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 31b): With regard to one who vows: Deriving benefit from those who are uncircumcised is konam for me, he is permitted to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews because they are not regarded as uncircumcised, but he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the uncircumcised of the nations of the world? Apparently, even though some gentiles are circumcised, they are nevertheless considered as those who are uncircumcised.
אֶלָּא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמֵּתוּ אֶחָיו מֵחֲמַת מִילָה, וְלֹא מָלוּהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״ — אִיכָּא, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ — לֵיכָּא.
Rather, there is a difference between them with regard to a Jew whose brothers died due to circumcision, and as a result, they did not circumcise him. According to the one who says that the halakha is derived from the verse: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant,” there is reason to permit such a person to perform circumcision, as he is a Jew. According to the one who says that the halakha is derived from the phrase: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],” there is no reason to permit this Jew to perform circumcision, as he is not circumcised himself.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ לֵיכָּא? וְהָתְנַן: ״קוּנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱנֶה מִמּוּלִים״ — אָסוּר בְּעַרְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּתָּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, אַלְמָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְהִילִי כְּמַאן דִּמְהִילִי דָּמוּ!
The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: And is it so that according to the one who says that the halakha is derived from the verse: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],” there is no reason to permit an uncircumcised Jew to perform circumcision? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 31b): With regard to one who vows: Deriving benefit from those who are circumcised is konam for me, he is prohibited from deriving benefit even from uncircumcised Jews and he is permitted to derive benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world. Apparently, even though some Jews are not circumcised, they are nevertheless considered as those who are circumcised.
אֶלָּא, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ אִשָּׁה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמוֹר״ — לֵיכָּא, דְּאִשָּׁה לָאו בַּת מִילָה הִיא, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ — אִיכָּא, דְּאִשָּׁה כְּמַאן דִּמְהִילָא דָּמְיָא.
Rather, there is a difference between these two opinions with regard to a woman. According to the one who says that the halakha is derived from the verse: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant,” there is no reason to permit a woman to perform circumcision, as a woman is not subject to the mitzva of circumcision, and therefore she is not included in those who must keep God’s covenant. And according to the one who says that the halakha is derived from the verse: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],” there is reason to permit a woman to perform circumcision, as a woman is considered as one who is naturally circumcised.
וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אִשָּׁה לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַתִּקַּח צִפֹּרָה צֹר״! קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״וַתַּקַּח״. וְהָכְתִיב ״וַתִּכְרֹת״! קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״וַתַּכְרֵת״, דְּאָמְרָה לְאִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא וַעֲבַד. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: (אתיא) [אֲתַיאי] אִיהִי וְאַתְחִלָה, וַאֲתָא מֹשֶׁה וְאַגְמְרַהּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation: And is there anyone who says that a woman may not perform circumcision? But isn’t it written: “Then Zipporah took [vattikkaḥ] a flint and cut off the foreskin of her son” (Exodus 4:25). This verse explicitly states that a circumcision was performed by a woman. The Gemara answers that one should read into the verse: And she caused to be taken [vattakkaḥ], i.e., she did not take a flint herself. But isn’t it written: And she cut off [vattikhrot]? Read into the verse: And she caused to be cut off [vattakhret], as she told another person to take a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and he did so. The Gemara provides an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead: She came and began the act, and Moses came and completed the circumcision.
מַתְנִי׳ מִתְרַפְּאִין מֵהֶן רִיפּוּי מָמוֹן, אֲבָל לֹא רִיפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת. וְאֵין מִסְתַּפְּרִין מֵהֶן בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מוּתָּר, אֲבָל לֹא בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינוֹ.
MISHNA: The mishna discusses the issue of accepting certain professional services from a gentile. One may be treated by gentiles, provided that it is monetary treatment, but not personal treatment. And one may not have his hair cut by them anywhere, due to the danger that the gentile will kill him with the razor; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In the public thoroughfare, it is permitted to have one’s hair cut by a gentile, but not when the Jew and gentile are alone together.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״רִיפּוּי מָמוֹן״, וּמַאי ״רִיפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת״? אִילֵּימָא ״רִיפּוּי מָמוֹן״ בְּשָׂכָר, ״רִיפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת״ בְּחִנָּם — לִיתְנֵי: מִתְרַפְּאִין מֵהֶן בְּשָׂכָר אֲבָל לֹא בְּחִנָּם!
GEMARA: What is monetary treatment, and what is personal treatment? If we say that monetary treatment is medical attention provided in exchange for payment, whereas personal treatment is medical attention provided for free, then let the mishna teach: One may be treated by gentiles in exchange for payment, but not for free.
אֶלָּא, ״רִיפּוּי מָמוֹן״ — דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סַכָּנָה, ״רִיפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת״ — דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה. וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ רִיבְדָּא דְּכוּסִילְתָּא לָא מִתַּסֵּינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ!
The Gemara suggests another explanation: Rather, monetary treatment is referring to medical treatment for a matter that poses no life-threatening danger, whereas personal treatment is referring to treatment for a matter that does pose life-threatening danger. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well. But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say: Even with regard to the wound of a bloodletting incision [rivda dekhusilta] we are not permitted to be treated by gentiles. The wound left after bloodletting certainly does not pose life-threatening danger, and yet a Jew is prohibited from having it treated by a gentile.
אֶלָּא, ״רִיפּוּי מָמוֹן״ — בְּהֶמְתּוֹ, ״רִיפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת״ — גּוּפֵיהּ, וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ רִיבְדָּא דְּכוּסִילְתָּא לָא מִתַּסֵּינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ.
Rather, monetary treatment is referring to medical treatment provided for one’s animal, whereas personal treatment is referring to treatment provided for his own body, and this is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says: Even with regard to the wound of a bloodletting incision, we are not permitted to be treated by them.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ סַם פְּלוֹנִי יָפֶה לוֹ, סַם פְּלוֹנִי רַע לוֹ — מוּתָּר.
Rav Ḥisda says that Mar Ukva says: But if a gentile said to him: Such and such a potion is beneficial for this ailment, or such and such a potion is harmful for this ailment, it is permitted to adhere to the gentile’s advice.
סָבַר שַׁיּוֹלֵי מְשַׁאֵיל לוֹ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמַשְׁאִיל לוֹ מְשַׁאֵיל לְאִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא, וַאֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא לְאוֹרוֹעֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ.
The Gemara explains the rationale for this leniency: The gentile thinks to himself that the Jew is asking him for his opinion, and just as he is asking him, he will also ask other people. And the gentile further reasons that if the Jew understands that the gentile provided him with bad advice, that man, i.e., the gentile, will bring harm to himself by damaging his own reputation. It is therefore assumed that the gentile will provide good advice in order to avoid sullying his reputation.
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סָפֵק חַי סָפֵק מֵת — אֵין מִתְרַפְּאִין מֵהֶן, וַדַּאי מֵת — מִתְרַפְּאִין מֵהֶן.
§ The Gemara analyzes a situation in which one may receive medical attention from gentiles. Rava says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that it was Rav Ḥisda who says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If there is uncertainty as to whether a patient will live through his ailment or die from it, the patient may not be treated by gentile doctors, due to the concern that a gentile doctor may kill him. But if it is certain that he will die from his affliction if he does not receive medical attention, the patient is treated by them, as it is possible that a gentile physician will save him.
מֵת? הָאִיכָּא חַיֵּי שָׁעָה! לְחַיֵּי שָׁעָה לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
The Gemara challenges: Even if it is certain that the patient will die if he is not treated, nevertheless, there is value in temporal life, i.e., it is preferable for the Jew to live as long as his ailment permits rather than risking a premature death at the hands of a gentile physician. The Gemara explains: We are not concerned with the value of temporal life when there is a possibility of permanent recovery, and therefore it is preferable to receive medical attention from a gentile despite the risk involved.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דִּלְחַיֵּי שָׁעָה לָא חָיְישִׁינַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם אָמַרְנוּ נָבוֹא הָעִיר וְהָרָעָב בָּעִיר וָמַתְנוּ שָׁם״, וְהָאִיכָּא חַיֵּי שָׁעָה! אֶלָּא לָאו לְחַיֵּי שָׁעָה לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we are not concerned with the value of temporal life? As it is written with regard to the discussion held by four lepers left outside a besieged city: “If we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit still here, we also die. Now therefore come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die” (II Kings 7:4). The starving lepers decided to risk premature death rather than waiting to die of starvation. The Gemara asks rhetorically: But isn’t there temporal life to be lost, in which case it would be preferable for the lepers to remain in their current location? Rather, is it not apparent that we are not concerned with the value of temporal life?
מֵיתִיבִי: לֹא יִשָּׂא וְיִתֵּן אָדָם עִם הַמִּינִין, וְאֵין מִתְרַפְּאִין מֵהֶן אֲפִילּוּ לְחַיֵּי שָׁעָה.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A person may not engage in dealings with heretics, and one may not be treated by them even in a case where it is clear that without medical attention one will experience only temporal life.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֶן דָּמָא בֶּן אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֶׁהִכִּישׁוֹ נָחָשׁ, וּבָא יַעֲקֹב אִישׁ כְּפַר סְכַנְיָא לְרַפּאוֹתוֹ, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְאָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָחִי! הַנַּח לוֹ וְאֵרָפֵא מִמֶּנּוּ, וַאֲנִי אָבִיא מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִגְמוֹר אֶת הַדָּבָר עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ וָמֵת.
The baraita relates an incident illustrating this point. There was an incident involving ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, in which a snake bit him. And following the attack, Ya’akov of the village of Sekhanya, who was a heretic, a disciple of Jesus the Nazarene, came to treat him, but Rabbi Yishmael did not let him do so. And ben Dama said to him: Rabbi Yishmael, my brother, let him treat me, and I will be healed by him. And I will cite a verse from the Torah to prove that accepting medical treatment from a heretic is permitted in this situation. But ben Dama did not manage to complete the statement before his soul departed from his body and he died.
קָרָא עָלָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אַשְׁרֶיךָ בֶּן דָּמָא, שֶׁגּוּפְךָ טָהוֹר וְיָצְתָה נִשְׁמָתְךָ בְּטׇהֳרָה, וְלֹא עָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירֶיךָ, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״וּפוֹרֵץ גָּדֵר יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ נָחָשׁ״.
Rabbi Yishmael recited with regard to him: Fortunate are you, ben Dama, as your body is pure and your soul departed in purity, and you did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: “And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him” (Ecclesiastes 10:8), i.e., one is punished for ignoring an ordinance of the Sages. This incident indicates that it is not permitted for one to accept medical treatment from a heretic even if it is clear that without it he will live only a short while.
שָׁאנֵי מִינוּת דְּמָשְׁכָא, דְּאָתֵי לְמִימְּשַׁךְ בָּתְרַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara explains: Heresy is different, as it is enticing. In other words, it is prohibited to accept medical treatment from a heretic, as one might come to be drawn after his heresy. By contrast, receiving medical attention from a gentile is permitted if it is certain that one will die if he is not treated.
אָמַר מָר: לֹא עָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירֶיךָ, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״וּפוֹרֵץ גָּדֵר יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ נָחָשׁ״. אִיהוּ נָמֵי חִוְיָא טַרְקֵיהּ! חִוְיָא דְּרַבָּנַן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אָסוּתָא כְּלָל.
The Master said above: You did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: “And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him.” The Gemara asks: But ben Dama was also bitten by a snake, even before this declaration of Rabbi Yishmael, so how can he be considered fortunate? The Gemara explains: The snake mentioned in the curse of the Sages is different, as it has no remedy whatsoever. Although ben Dama was bitten by a snake, he could have been healed.
וּמַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר? ״וְחַי בָּהֶם״ — וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בָּהֶם.
The Gemara asks: And what would ben Dama have said? What verse did he intend to cite as proof that it was permitted for him to be healed by a heretic? The verse: “You shall therefore keep My statutes, and My ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). This teaches that one should live by God’s mitzvot, and not that he should die by them. This verse serves as a source for the halakha that one may violate a prohibition in order to save a life.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּצִינְעָא, אֲבָל בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא — לָא. דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לָאָדָם ״עֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְאַל תֵּהָרֵג״, שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹד וְאַל יֵהָרֵג? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְחַי בָּהֶם״ — וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בָּהֶם. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קׇדְשִׁי״.
And why does Rabbi Yishmael disagree with ben Dama? He maintains that this matter applies only in private, but in public one may not transgress a prohibition even to save a life. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael would say: From where is it derived that if oppressors say to a person: Worship an idol and you will not be killed, that one should worship the idol and not be killed? The verse states: “He shall live by them,” and not that he should die by them. One might have thought that this applies even in public. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:32).
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל מַכָּה שֶׁמְּחַלְּלִין עָלֶיהָ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אֵין מִתְרַפְּאִין מֵהֶן, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל
§ The Gemara examines various circumstances in which one is permitted to receive treatment from a gentile. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to any injury for which Shabbat is desecrated, one may not be treated by gentiles. And there are those who say that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to any
