Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 11, 2018 | 讻状讜 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Avodah Zarah 27

Study Guide Avoda Zara 27

Can a non-Jew perform a brit mila on a Jew? What are the sources for the different opinions? If there is no Jew available, it is better if a Samaritan (Cuti) performs it or an idol worshipper? Can a woman perform a brit mila? Can a non-Jew perform a medical procedure on a Jew? Can a Jew perform a medical procedure for a non-Jew?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘专讜驻讗 诪讜诪讞讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇专讘讬诐 诪讜转专

We are dealing with an expert physician, who will not risk his reputation by harming a child. This is similar to that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜转讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 诪诇 讗转 讛讻讜转讬 讜讻讜转讬 诇讗 讬诪讜诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诇 诇砖诐 讛专 讙专讝讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讬诇讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诇砖诪讛 讗诇讗 诪诇 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞砖诪转讜

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬驻讜讱 讻讚讗驻讻讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讗

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鈥檌m rather than a contradiction.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讬诇讛 讘讙讜讬 砖讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转讛 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪讜专

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: 鈥淎nd God said to Abraham: And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations鈥 (Genesis 17:9).

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛诪讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇

搂 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 岣sda said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: 鈥淎nd when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord let all his males be circumcised鈥 (Exodus 12:48). It can be inferred from the verse that the males must be circumcised 鈥渢o the Lord,鈥 i.e., for the sake of fulfilling God鈥檚 will. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei? It is written: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol]鈥 (Genesis 17:13). The usage of the doubled verb teaches that circumcision may be performed by anyone.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛诪讜诇 讛讛讜讗 讘驻住讞 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭o the Lord let all his males be circumcised,鈥 which indicates that circumcision must be performed for the sake of fulfilling God鈥檚 will? The Gemara answers: That is written with regard to Passover. According to Rabbi Yosei, the phrase 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 is referring to the previous mention of the Paschal offering, rather than to circumcision. Accordingly, the verse should be read: 鈥淲ill keep Passover to the Lord.鈥 The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 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.

讗讬转诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讬诇讛 讘讙讜讬 砖讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 讚专讜 讘专 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讜讗转讛 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇

搂 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: 鈥淎nd as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations.鈥 And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol].鈥 According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, this verse teaches that a Jew must be circumcised by one who is already circumcised.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 注专讘讬 诪讛讜诇 讜讙讘谞讜谞讬 诪讛讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪专 诇讬讻讗

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: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 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: 鈥淵ou shall keep my covenant,鈥 there is no reason to permit an Arab or Gibeonite to perform circumcision.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讜讛转谞谉 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注专诇讬诐 诪讜转专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讛讬诇讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诇讬 讚诪讜

The Gemara raises an objection: And is it so, according to the one who says it is derived from the verse: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 that a Jew may not be circumcised by a gentile, that there is reason to permit a circumcised gentile to perform circumcision? But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪转讜 讗讞讬讜 诪讞诪转 诪讬诇讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讜讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜讗转讛 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪专 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 诇讬讻讗

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: 鈥淎nd as for you, you shall keep My covenant,鈥 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: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 there is no reason to permit this Jew to perform circumcision, as he is not circumcised himself.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 诇讬讻讗 讜讛转谞谉 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诪诪讜诇讬诐 讗住讜专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诇讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讛讬诇讬 讚诪讜

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: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 there is no reason to permit an uncircumcised Jew to perform circumcision? But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗砖讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜讗转讛 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪讜专 诇讬讻讗 讚讗砖讛 诇讗讜 讘转 诪讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讗砖讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讛讬诇讗 讚诪讬讗

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: 鈥淎nd as for you, you shall keep My covenant,鈥 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鈥檚 covenant. And according to the one who says that the halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 there is reason to permit a woman to perform circumcision, as a woman is considered as one who is naturally circumcised.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转拽讞 爪驻专讛 爪专 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讜转拽讞 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讻专转 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讜转讻专转 讚讗诪专讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜注讘讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗转讬讗 讗讬讛讬 讜讗转讞诇讛 讜讗转讗 诪砖讛 讜讗讙诪专讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation: And is there anyone who says that a woman may not perform circumcision? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen Zipporah took [vattikka岣] a flint and cut off the foreskin of her son鈥 (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 [vattakka岣], i.e., she did not take a flint herself. But isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讗讬谉 诪住转驻专讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讜

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鈥檚 hair cut by a gentile, but not when the Jew and gentile are alone together.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讜诪讗讬 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讘砖讻专 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讘讞谞诐 诇讬转谞讬 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 讘砖讻专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞谞诐

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.

讗诇讗 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讻谞讛 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讻谞讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讘讚讗 讚讻讜住讬诇转讗 诇讗 诪转住讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讘讛诪转讜 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讙讜驻讬讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讘讚讗 讚讻讜住讬诇转讗 诇讗 诪转住讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rather, monetary treatment is referring to medical treatment provided for one鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 住诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讬驻讛 诇讜 住诐 驻诇讜谞讬 专注 诇讜 诪讜转专

Rav 岣sda 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鈥檚 advice.

住讘专 砖讬讜诇讬 诪砖讗讬诇 诇讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪砖讗讬诇 诇讜 诪砖讗讬诇 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇讗讜专讜注讬 谞驻砖讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 讞讬 住驻拽 诪转 讗讬谉 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 讜讚讗讬 诪转 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉

搂 The Gemara analyzes a situation in which one may receive medical attention from gentiles. Rava says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that it was Rav 岣sda who says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪转 讛讗讬讻讗 讞讬讬 砖注讛 诇讞讬讬 砖注讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

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.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇讞讬讬 砖注讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 讗诪专谞讜 谞讘讜讗 讛注讬专 讜讛专注讘 讘注讬专 讜诪转谞讜 砖诐 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞讬讬 砖注讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讞讬讬 砖注讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

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: 鈥淚f 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鈥 (II聽Kings 7:4). The starving lepers decided to risk premature death rather than waiting to die of starvation. The Gemara asks rhetorically: But isn鈥檛 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?

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讬转谉 讗讚诐 注诐 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞讬讬 砖注讛

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.

诪注砖讛 讘讘谉 讚诪讗 讘谉 讗讞讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讛讻讬砖讜 谞讞砖 讜讘讗 讬注拽讘 讗讬砖 讻驻专 住讻谞讬讗 诇专驻讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讞讬 讛谞讞 诇讜 讜讗专驻讗 诪诪谞讜 讜讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讙诪讜专 讗转 讛讚讘专 注讚 砖讬爪转讛 谞砖诪转讜 讜诪转

The baraita relates an incident illustrating this point. There was an incident involving ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 sister, in which a snake bit him. And following the attack, Ya鈥檃kov 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.

拽专讗 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗砖专讬讱 讘谉 讚诪讗 砖讙讜驻讱 讟讛讜专 讜讬爪转讛 谞砖诪转讱 讘讟讛专讛 讜诇讗 注讘专转 注诇 讚讘专讬 讞讘讬专讬讱 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜驻讜专抓 讙讚专 讬砖讻谞讜 谞讞砖

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: 鈥淎nd who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him鈥 (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.

砖讗谞讬 诪讬谞讜转 讚诪砖讻讗 讚讗转讬 诇诪讬诪砖讱 讘转专讬讬讛讜

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.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 注讘专转 注诇 讚讘专讬 讞讘讬专讬讱 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜驻讜专抓 讙讚专 讬砖讻谞讜 谞讞砖 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讜讬讗 讟专拽讬讛 讞讜讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗住讜转讗 讻诇诇

The Master said above: You did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: 鈥淎nd who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him.鈥 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.

讜诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜转 讘讛诐

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: 鈥淵ou shall therefore keep My statutes, and My ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them鈥 (Leviticus 18:5). This teaches that one should live by God鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘爪讬谞注讗 讗讘诇 讘驻专讛住讬讗 诇讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗诇 转讛专讙 砖讬注讘讜讚 讜讗诇 讬讛专讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜转 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻专讛住讬讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 转讞诇诇讜 讗转 砖诐 拽讚砖讬

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: 鈥淗e shall live by them,鈥 and not that he should die by them. One might have thought that this applies even in public. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:32).

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪讻讛 砖诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇

搂 The Gemara examines various circumstances in which one is permitted to receive treatment from a gentile. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to any

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 27

讘专讜驻讗 诪讜诪讞讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇专讘讬诐 诪讜转专

We are dealing with an expert physician, who will not risk his reputation by harming a child. This is similar to that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜转讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 诪诇 讗转 讛讻讜转讬 讜讻讜转讬 诇讗 讬诪讜诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诇 诇砖诐 讛专 讙专讝讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讬诇讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诇砖诪讛 讗诇讗 诪诇 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞砖诪转讜

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬驻讜讱 讻讚讗驻讻讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讗

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鈥檌m rather than a contradiction.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讬诇讛 讘讙讜讬 砖讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转讛 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪讜专

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: 鈥淎nd God said to Abraham: And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations鈥 (Genesis 17:9).

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛诪讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇

搂 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 岣sda said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: 鈥淎nd when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord let all his males be circumcised鈥 (Exodus 12:48). It can be inferred from the verse that the males must be circumcised 鈥渢o the Lord,鈥 i.e., for the sake of fulfilling God鈥檚 will. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei? It is written: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol]鈥 (Genesis 17:13). The usage of the doubled verb teaches that circumcision may be performed by anyone.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛诪讜诇 讛讛讜讗 讘驻住讞 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭o the Lord let all his males be circumcised,鈥 which indicates that circumcision must be performed for the sake of fulfilling God鈥檚 will? The Gemara answers: That is written with regard to Passover. According to Rabbi Yosei, the phrase 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 is referring to the previous mention of the Paschal offering, rather than to circumcision. Accordingly, the verse should be read: 鈥淲ill keep Passover to the Lord.鈥 The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 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.

讗讬转诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讬诇讛 讘讙讜讬 砖讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 讚专讜 讘专 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讜讗转讛 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇

搂 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: 鈥淎nd as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations.鈥 And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol].鈥 According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, this verse teaches that a Jew must be circumcised by one who is already circumcised.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 注专讘讬 诪讛讜诇 讜讙讘谞讜谞讬 诪讛讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪专 诇讬讻讗

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: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 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: 鈥淵ou shall keep my covenant,鈥 there is no reason to permit an Arab or Gibeonite to perform circumcision.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讜讛转谞谉 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诪谉 讛注专诇讬诐 诪讜转专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讛讬诇讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诇讬 讚诪讜

The Gemara raises an objection: And is it so, according to the one who says it is derived from the verse: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 that a Jew may not be circumcised by a gentile, that there is reason to permit a circumcised gentile to perform circumcision? But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪转讜 讗讞讬讜 诪讞诪转 诪讬诇讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讜讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜讗转讛 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪专 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 诇讬讻讗

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: 鈥淎nd as for you, you shall keep My covenant,鈥 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: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 there is no reason to permit this Jew to perform circumcision, as he is not circumcised himself.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 诇讬讻讗 讜讛转谞谉 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诪诪讜诇讬诐 讗住讜专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜转专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诇讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讛讬诇讬 讚诪讜

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: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 there is no reason to permit an uncircumcised Jew to perform circumcision? But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗砖讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜讗转讛 讗转 讘专讬转讬 转砖诪讜专 诇讬讻讗 讚讗砖讛 诇讗讜 讘转 诪讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讗砖讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讛讬诇讗 讚诪讬讗

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: 鈥淎nd as for you, you shall keep My covenant,鈥 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鈥檚 covenant. And according to the one who says that the halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淗e must be circumcised [himmol yimmol],鈥 there is reason to permit a woman to perform circumcision, as a woman is considered as one who is naturally circumcised.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转拽讞 爪驻专讛 爪专 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讜转拽讞 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讻专转 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讜转讻专转 讚讗诪专讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜注讘讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗转讬讗 讗讬讛讬 讜讗转讞诇讛 讜讗转讗 诪砖讛 讜讗讙诪专讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation: And is there anyone who says that a woman may not perform circumcision? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen Zipporah took [vattikka岣] a flint and cut off the foreskin of her son鈥 (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 [vattakka岣], i.e., she did not take a flint herself. But isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讗讬谉 诪住转驻专讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讜

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鈥檚 hair cut by a gentile, but not when the Jew and gentile are alone together.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讜诪讗讬 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讘砖讻专 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讘讞谞诐 诇讬转谞讬 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 讘砖讻专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞谞诐

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.

讗诇讗 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讻谞讛 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讻谞讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讘讚讗 讚讻讜住讬诇转讗 诇讗 诪转住讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 专讬驻讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讘讛诪转讜 专讬驻讜讬 谞驻砖讜转 讙讜驻讬讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讘讚讗 讚讻讜住讬诇转讗 诇讗 诪转住讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rather, monetary treatment is referring to medical treatment provided for one鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 住诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讬驻讛 诇讜 住诐 驻诇讜谞讬 专注 诇讜 诪讜转专

Rav 岣sda 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鈥檚 advice.

住讘专 砖讬讜诇讬 诪砖讗讬诇 诇讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪砖讗讬诇 诇讜 诪砖讗讬诇 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇讗讜专讜注讬 谞驻砖讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 讞讬 住驻拽 诪转 讗讬谉 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 讜讚讗讬 诪转 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉

搂 The Gemara analyzes a situation in which one may receive medical attention from gentiles. Rava says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that it was Rav 岣sda who says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪转 讛讗讬讻讗 讞讬讬 砖注讛 诇讞讬讬 砖注讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

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.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇讞讬讬 砖注讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 讗诪专谞讜 谞讘讜讗 讛注讬专 讜讛专注讘 讘注讬专 讜诪转谞讜 砖诐 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞讬讬 砖注讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讞讬讬 砖注讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

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: 鈥淚f 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鈥 (II聽Kings 7:4). The starving lepers decided to risk premature death rather than waiting to die of starvation. The Gemara asks rhetorically: But isn鈥檛 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?

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讬转谉 讗讚诐 注诐 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞讬讬 砖注讛

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.

诪注砖讛 讘讘谉 讚诪讗 讘谉 讗讞讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讛讻讬砖讜 谞讞砖 讜讘讗 讬注拽讘 讗讬砖 讻驻专 住讻谞讬讗 诇专驻讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讞讬 讛谞讞 诇讜 讜讗专驻讗 诪诪谞讜 讜讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讙诪讜专 讗转 讛讚讘专 注讚 砖讬爪转讛 谞砖诪转讜 讜诪转

The baraita relates an incident illustrating this point. There was an incident involving ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 sister, in which a snake bit him. And following the attack, Ya鈥檃kov 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.

拽专讗 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗砖专讬讱 讘谉 讚诪讗 砖讙讜驻讱 讟讛讜专 讜讬爪转讛 谞砖诪转讱 讘讟讛专讛 讜诇讗 注讘专转 注诇 讚讘专讬 讞讘讬专讬讱 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜驻讜专抓 讙讚专 讬砖讻谞讜 谞讞砖

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: 鈥淎nd who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him鈥 (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.

砖讗谞讬 诪讬谞讜转 讚诪砖讻讗 讚讗转讬 诇诪讬诪砖讱 讘转专讬讬讛讜

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.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 注讘专转 注诇 讚讘专讬 讞讘讬专讬讱 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜驻讜专抓 讙讚专 讬砖讻谞讜 谞讞砖 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讜讬讗 讟专拽讬讛 讞讜讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗住讜转讗 讻诇诇

The Master said above: You did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: 鈥淎nd who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him.鈥 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.

讜诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜转 讘讛诐

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: 鈥淵ou shall therefore keep My statutes, and My ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them鈥 (Leviticus 18:5). This teaches that one should live by God鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘爪讬谞注讗 讗讘诇 讘驻专讛住讬讗 诇讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗诇 转讛专讙 砖讬注讘讜讚 讜讗诇 讬讛专讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜转 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻专讛住讬讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 转讞诇诇讜 讗转 砖诐 拽讚砖讬

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: 鈥淗e shall live by them,鈥 and not that he should die by them. One might have thought that this applies even in public. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:32).

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪讻讛 砖诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪转专驻讗讬谉 诪讛谉 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇

搂 The Gemara examines various circumstances in which one is permitted to receive treatment from a gentile. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to any

Scroll To Top