עבודה זרה כ״ו

עבודה זרה כ״ו

לְבֵי תוֹרְתָּא, פְּגַעוּ בֵּיהּ גַּנָּבֵי, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לְאָן קָאָזְלַתְּ? אָמַר לָהֶן: לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא. כִּי מְטָא לְבֵי תוֹרְתָּא, פָּרֵישׁ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: תַּלְמִידָא דִּיהוּדָה רַמָּאָה אַתְּ! אֲמַר לְהוּ: יָדְעִיתוּ לֵיהּ? יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּלִיהְווֹ הָנְהוּ אִינָשֵׁי בְּשַׁמְתֵּיהּ.

to Bei Torta. Along the way, thieves encountered him, and said to him: Where are you going? Rav Menashe said to them: To Pumbedita, which was farther away than Bei Torta. When he arrived at Bei Torta, he separated from the thieves, who had planned to steal from him. They said to him: You are a student of Yehuda the swindler! Rav Menashe said to them: Do you know him so well that you can accuse him of swindling others? May it be God’s will that these people be subject to Rav Yehuda’s ban of excommunication.

אֲזַלוּ עֲבַדוּ גְּנֵיבָתָא עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין שְׁנִין וְלָא אַצְלַחוּ, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ, אֲתוֹ כּוּלְּהוּ תְּבַעוּ שַׁמְתַּיְיהוּ, וַהֲוָה בְּהוּ חַד גִּירְדְּנָא דְּלָא אֲתָא לְשָׁרוֹיֵה שַׁמְּתֵיהּ, אַכְלֵיהּ אַרְיָא. הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: גִּירְדָּנָא דְּלָא טַיְיזָן, שַׁתָּא (בציר משני) [בְּצִירָא מִשְּׁנֵיהּ].

The Gemara continues: This curse was effective, as the thieves subsequently went and carried out thefts for twenty-two years, but they were unsuccessful. Once they saw that their efforts were for naught, they all went and claimed their curse, i.e., they asked forgiveness and requested that the curse be lifted. But there was one weaver among them who did not come to lift his curse, and a lion ate him. The Gemara notes that this explains the adage that people say: With regard to a weaver [girdana] who is not shy [taizan] but impudent, a year is deducted from his allotted years.

תָּא חֲזִי, מָה בֵּין גַּנָּבֵי בָבֶל וְלִסְטִין דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

With regard to these two anecdotes, the Gemara comments: Come and see what the difference is between the thieves of Babylonia and the bandits of Eretz Yisrael. Although thieves are typically less violent than bandits, the thieves in Babylonia reacted to Rav Menashe’s action by denouncing Rav Yehuda, whereas the bandits in Eretz Yisrael praised the wisdom of Rabbi Akiva.

מַתְנִי׳ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְּיַילֵּד אֶת הַנׇּכְרִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּיַלֶּדֶת בֵּן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֲבָל נׇכְרִית מְיַלֶּדֶת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תָּנִיק בְּנָהּ שֶׁל נׇכְרִית, אֲבָל נׇכְרִית מְנִיקָה בְּנָהּ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ.

MISHNA: A Jewish woman may not deliver the child of a gentile woman, because in doing so she is delivering a child who will engage in idol worship. But one may allow a gentile woman to deliver the child of a Jewish woman. Similarly, a Jewish woman may not nurse the child of a gentile woman, but one may allow a gentile woman to nurse the child of a Jewish woman while the gentile woman is on the Jewish woman’s property.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְּיַילֵּד אֶת הַנׇּכְרִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּיַלֶּדֶת בֵּן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְנׇכְרִית לֹא תְּיַילֵּד אֶת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

GEMARA: The Gemara cites a dispute related to the ruling of the mishna. The Sages taught: A Jewish woman may not deliver the child of a gentile woman because in doing so she is delivering a child who will engage in idol worship. And one may not allow a gentile woman to deliver the child of a Jewish woman because gentiles are suspected of bloodshed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נׇכְרִית מְיַלֶּדֶת אֶת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֲחֵרוֹת עוֹמְדוֹת עַל גַּבָּהּ, אֲבָל לֹא בֵּינָהּ לְבֵינָהּ. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֲחֵרוֹת עוֹמְדוֹת עַל גַּבָּהּ נָמֵי לָא, דְּזִימְנִין דְּמַנְּחָא לֵיהּ יְדָא אַפּוּתֵאּ וְקָטְלָא לֵיהּ, וְלָא מִתְחֲזֵי.

And the Rabbis say: One may allow a gentile woman to deliver the child of a Jewish woman when other women are standing over her watching her actions, but not when they are alone together. And Rabbi Meir says: Even when other women are standing over her one may not allow a gentile woman to deliver the child of a Jewish woman, because there are times when the midwife places her hand on the infant’s temple and kills him by applying pressure to the area, and the act is not seen.

כִּי הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּאֲמַרָה לַחֲבֶרְתַּהּ: מוֹלְדָא יְהוּדַיָּיתָא בַּת מוֹלְדָא יְהוּדַיָּיתָא! אֲמַרָה לַהּ: נְפִישִׁין בִּישָׁתָא דְּהַהִיא אִיתְּתָא, דְּקָא מַשְׁפֵּילְנָא מִינַּיְיהוּ דְּמָא כִּי אוּפְיָא דְּנַהֲרָא.

The Gemara relates a story that validates this concern. This is like that incident involving a certain gentile woman who said to her fellow gentile: You are the midwife of Jewish women, the daughter of a midwife of Jewish women. This was meant as an insult. In response, the other gentile said to her: May as many evils befall that woman, i.e., you, as the number of Jewish infants that I have killed, as I extract blood from them like the foam [ufeya] of a river. This gentile midwife claimed to have caused the deaths of many Jewish children.

וְרַבָּנַן אֲמַרוּ לָךְ: לָא הִיא, בְּמִילְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּאוֹקֵימְתַּהּ.

The Gemara clarifies the opinion of the Rabbis: And the Rabbis, who are not concerned to the same extent as Rabbi Meir, would say to you: That is not so; it was merely through words that the gentile midwife was establishing herself. In other words, she was bragging in order to intimidate her antagonist, whereas in reality she did not kill any infants.

בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תָּנִיק. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תָּנִיק בְּנָהּ שֶׁל נׇכְרִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּגַדֶּלֶת בֵּן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְנׇכְרִית לֹא תָּנִיק אֶת בְּנָהּ שֶׁל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדָה עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נׇכְרִית מְנִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ שֶׁל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֲחֵרוֹת עוֹמְדוֹת עַל גַּבָּהּ, אֲבָל לֹא בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֲחֵרוֹת עוֹמְדוֹת עַל גַּבָּהּ נָמֵי לָא, דְּזִימְנִין דְּשָׁיְיפָא לֵיהּ סַמָּא לְדַד מֵאַבָּרַאי וְקָטְלָא לֵיהּ.

§ The mishna teaches that a Jewish woman may not nurse the child of a gentile woman. The Sages taught: A Jewish woman may not nurse the child of a gentile woman because in doing so she is effectively raising a child who will engage in idol worship. And one may not allow a gentile woman to nurse the child of a Jewish woman because she is suspected of bloodshed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: One may allow a gentile woman to nurse the child of a Jewish woman when other women are standing over her, but not when the gentile woman is alone together with the child. And Rabbi Meir says: Even when other women are standing over her one may not allow a gentile woman to nurse the child, because there are times when she smears poison intended for him upon her breast when she is outside the house, and subsequently kills him with it while nursing.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מְיַלֶּדֶת, בְּהַהִיא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן דִּשְׁרֵי, דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲחֵרוֹת רוֹאוֹת אוֹתָהּ, אֲבָל מְנִיקָה דְּאֶפְשָׁר דְּשָׁיְיפָא לֵיהּ סַם לְדַד מֵאַבָּרַאי וְקָטְלָא לֵיהּ — אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara remarks: And it is necessary for the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis to be stated with regard to both the case of a midwife and that of a wet nurse. The reason is that if the tanna had taught us only the halakha of a midwife, one might assume that it is only in that case that the Rabbis said that it is permitted to allow the gentile to deliver a Jewish infant, because it is not possible for her to kill him, due to the fact that other women see her. But with regard to a wet nurse, as it is possible that she might smear poison upon her breast while she is still outside the house and then kill him with it, one might say that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir that a gentile woman may not be allowed to nurse the son of a Jewish woman under any circumstances.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מְנִיקָה, בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָסוּר, מִשּׁוּם דְּשָׁיְיפָא לֵיהּ סַם לְדַד מֵאַבָּרַאי וְקָטְלָא לֵיהּ, אֲבָל מְיַלֶּדֶת, דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר הֵיכָא דַּאֲחֵרוֹת עוֹמְדוֹת עַל גַּבָּהּ, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן — צְרִיכָא.

And if the tanna had taught us only the halakha of a wet nurse, one might assume that it is only in that case that Rabbi Meir said that it is prohibited for a gentile to nurse a Jewish infant, due to the fact that she might smear poison upon her breast while outside the house and kill him with it. But with regard to a midwife, since it is not possible for her to kill him where other women are standing over her, one might say that Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: It is therefore necessary for this dispute to be stated with regard to both cases.

וּרְמִינְהוּ: יְהוּדִית מְיַלֶּדֶת אֲרַמִּית בְּשָׂכָר, אֲבָל לֹא בְּחִנָּם! אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּשָׂכָר שְׁרֵי מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה.

§ Based on the above discussion, all agree that a Jewish woman may not deliver the child of a gentile woman. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A Jewish woman may deliver the child of an Aramean woman in exchange for payment, but not for free. Rav Yosef said in response: It is permitted in exchange for payment due to the enmity that would be engendered if Jews refused to deliver gentile infants despite being offered money to do so.

סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר: אוֹלוֹדֵי נׇכְרִית בְּשַׁבְּתָא בְּשָׂכָר שְׁרֵי, מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: יָכְלָה לְמֵימַר לַהּ — דִּידַן, דִּמְינַטְּרִי שַׁבְּתָא — מְחַלְּלִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ; דִּידְכוּ, דְּלָא מְינַטְּרִי שַׁבְּתָא — לָא מְחַלְּלִינַן.

Rav Yosef thought to say: Delivering the child of a gentile woman on Shabbat in exchange for payment is permitted due to enmity. Abaye said to him: The concern of enmity does not apply here, because she can say to the gentile: With regard to our own women, who keep Shabbat, we desecrate Shabbat for them; with regard to your women, who do not keep Shabbat, we do not desecrate Shabbat for them.

סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר: אוֹנוֹקֵי בְּשָׂכָר שְׁרֵי מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: יָכְלָה לְמֵימַר, אִי פְּנוּיָה הִיא — ״בָּעֵינָא לְאִינְּסוֹבֵי״, אִי אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הִיא — ״לָא קָא מִזְדַּהַמְנָא בְּאַפֵּי גַּבְרַאי״.

Rav Yosef also thought to say: Nursing the child of a gentile woman in exchange for payment is permitted due to enmity. Abaye said to him: The concern of enmity does not apply, because she can say, if she is unmarried: I wish to get married. And if she is a married woman, she may say: I do not wish to become repulsive to my husband. Since she can provide a reasonable excuse for refusing to nurse a gentile child, the concern of enmity does not apply.

סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר, הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַגּוֹיִם וְרוֹעֵי בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין — אַסּוֹקֵי בְּשָׂכָר שְׁרֵי, מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה.

Rav Yosef thought to say a similar idea concerning that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to gentiles and shepherds of small domesticated animals, one may not raise them out of a pit and one may not lower them into a pit. Rav Yosef suggested that even so, it is permitted to raise them from the pit in exchange for payment, due to enmity.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ ״קָאֵי בְּרִי אַאִיגָּרָא״, אִי נָמֵי ״נְקִיטָא לִי זִימְנָא לְבֵי דַוָּאר״.

Abaye said to him: It is prohibited to raise a gentile from a pit even in exchange for payment, because one can say an excuse to him, such as: My son is standing on the roof and I must go use this ladder to help him down from the roof. Alternatively, he can say to him: A time has been appointed for me to appear in the courthouse [bei davar] and I must attend to this matter. Since the Jew can provide a legitimate excuse for refusing to aid the gentile, there is no need to extract him from the pit.

תָּנֵי רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַגּוֹיִם וְרוֹעֵי בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה — לֹא מַעֲלִין

Apropos the notion of raising someone from or lowering him into a pit, the Gemara notes that Rabbi Abbahu taught the following while standing before Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to gentiles and shepherds of domesticated animals, one may not raise them from a pit,

וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין, אֲבָל הַמִּינִין וְהַמָּסוֹרוֹת וְהַמְשׁוּמָּדִים — מוֹרִידִין וְלֹא מַעֲלִין.

and one may not lower them into a pit. But the heretics, and the informers, and the apostates [vehameshummadim] are lowered into a pit, but not raised out of it.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה ״לְכׇל אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְשׁוּמָּד, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מוֹרִידִין? סְמִי מִכָּאן מְשׁוּמָּד!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Abbahu: I teach that the verse: “And so you shall do with every lost item of your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:3), serves to include the apostate in one’s obligation to return a lost item to another Jew; and you say that one may lower him into a pit? Remove the term apostate from here.

וְלִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ: כָּאן בִּמְשׁוּמָּד אוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת לְתֵיאָבוֹן, כָּאן בִּמְשׁוּמָּד אוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת לְהַכְעִיס! קָסָבַר: אוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת לְהַכְעִיס — מִין הוּא.

The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Abbahu answer Rabbi Yoḥanan as follows: Here, with regard to a lost item, the verse includes an apostate because it is referring to an apostate who eats non-kosher meat due to his appetite, i.e., he succumbs to the temptation. Conversely, there, with regard to raising an apostate from a pit, I am referring to an apostate who eats non-kosher meat to express insolence. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Abbahu holds that one who eats non-kosher meat to express insolence is a heretic, rather than an apostate.

אִיתְּמַר מְשׁוּמָּד, פְּלִיגִי רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא: חַד אָמַר: לְתֵיאָבוֹן — מְשׁוּמָּד, לְהַכְעִיס — מִין הָוֵי, וְחַד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְהַכְעִיס נָמֵי מְשׁוּמָּד. אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ מִין? זֶה הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

§ It was stated with regard to the definition of an apostate that Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree. One says that someone who transgresses a prohibition due to his appetite is an apostate, while one who transgresses a prohibition in order to express insolence is a heretic. And one says that even one who sins to express insolence is considered an apostate. Rather, who is considered a heretic? This is an idol worshipper.

מֵיתִיבִי: אָכַל פַּרְעוֹשׁ אֶחָד אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ אֶחָד — הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּמָּד; וְהָא הָכָא דִּלְהַכְעִיס הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי מְשׁוּמָּד! הָתָם בָּעֵי לְמִיטְעַם טַעְמָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against the opinion that one who sins to express insolence is considered a heretic. The baraita teaches: If one ate a single flea or a single mosquito, he is considered an apostate. The Gemara clarifies the objection: But here it must be assumed that the insect was eaten to express insolence, as it is unappetizing, and yet this baraita teaches that one who eats a flea or a mosquito is an apostate. The Gemara answers: There, he desires to experience the taste of forbidden food, and therefore he is considered to be eating only due to temptation.

אָמַר מָר: מוֹרִידִין אֲבָל לֹא מַעֲלִין. הַשְׁתָּא אַחוֹתֵי מַחֲתִינַן, אַסּוֹקֵי מִיבְּעֵי? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לֹא נִצְרְכָה, שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה מַעֲלָה בַּבּוֹר — מְגָרְרָהּ, דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ עִילָּא וְאָמַר: לָא תֵּיחוֹת חֵיוְתָא עִלָּוֵיהּ.

§ The Gemara returns to the subject of lowering someone into a pit. The Master said: Heretics, informers, and apostates are lowered into a pit but not raised out of it. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Now that it is known that one actively lowers them into a pit, is it necessary to teach that one does not raise them from it? Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said that Rav Sheshet said: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha because it can be inferred from here that if there was a ledge in the pit, a Jew scrapes it off so that the one in the pit cannot ascend from it, as the Jew employs a pretext and says that he is removing the ledge so that animals do not descend upon the one in the pit while he is trapped in the pit.

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: לֹא נִצְרְכָה, שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה אֶבֶן עַל פִּי הַבְּאֵר, מְכַסָּהּ, אָמַר: לְעַבּוֹרֵי חַיּוּתָא עִילָּוַיהּ. רָבִינָא אָמַר: שֶׁאִם הָיָה סוּלָּם, מְסַלְּקוֹ, אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא לְאַחוֹתֵי בְּרִי מֵאִיגָּרָא.

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say a different answer: No, it is necessary to teach this, as it can be inferred from here that if there was a stone at the mouth of the well that one had fallen into, a Jew covers it and says that he is covering the opening in order to pass his animals over it. Ravina said: One can learn from here that if there was a ladder in the pit, a Jew removes it and says: I require the ladder to lower my son from the roof.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל מָל אֶת הַגּוֹי לְשׁוּם גֵּר, לְאַפּוֹקֵי לְשׁוּם מוּרְנָא דְּלָא, וְגוֹי לֹא יָמוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

§ The Gemara discusses the subject of assisting or receiving aid from a gentile in the context of circumcision. The Sages taught: A Jew may circumcise a gentile for the sake of making him a convert. This is to the exclusion of circumcising a gentile for the sake of removing a worm [murna], which is not permitted, as it is forbidden to heal a gentile. But one may not allow a gentile to circumcise a Jew in any situation, because gentiles are suspected of bloodshed. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: גּוֹי מָל אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֲחֵרִים עוֹמְדִין עַל גַּבּוֹ, אֲבָל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינוֹ — לָא. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֲחֵרִים עוֹמְדִים עַל גַּבּוֹ נָמֵי לָא, דְּזִימְנִין דְּמַצְלֵי לֵיהּ סַכִּינָא וּמְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ כְּרוּת שׇׁפְכָה.

And the Rabbis say: One may allow a gentile to circumcise a Jew while others are standing over him and observing his actions, but not when they are alone together. And Rabbi Meir says: Even where others are standing over him it is also not permitted, as there are times when a gentile might tilt the knife and render the Jew one whose penis has been severed, and he will be unable to father children.

וְסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר גּוֹי לָא? וּרְמִינְהוּ: עִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ רוֹפֵא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ רוֹפֵא כּוּתִי וְרוֹפֵא אַרְמַאי — יָמוּל אַרְמַאי וְאַל יָמוּל כּוּתִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָמוּל כּוּתִי וְאַל יָמוּל אַרְמַאי!

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Meir hold that one may not allow a gentile to circumcise a Jew? And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this claim from the following baraita: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean, i.e., a gentile, physician, it is preferable that the Aramean circumcise the Jewish boys of the city and the Samaritan not circumcise them. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is preferable that the Samaritan circumcise the boys and the Aramean not circumcise them. Rabbi Meir holds that it is preferable for an Aramean gentile to perform circumcision despite the fact that Samaritans are considered Jewish to a certain extent.

אֵיפוֹךְ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יָמוּל כּוּתִי וְלֹא אַרְמַאי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַרְמַאי וְלֹא כּוּתִי.

The Gemara answers: Reverse their opinions, so that Rabbi Meir says: It is preferable that the Samaritan circumcise the boys and not the Aramean, and Rabbi Yehuda says: It is preferable that the Aramean circumcise them and not the Samaritan.

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַרְמַאי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְמִילָה בְּגוֹי שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that it is permitted for circumcision to be performed by an Aramean? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived with regard to circumcision performed by a gentile that it is not valid? It 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” (Genesis 17:9). “My covenant [beriti]” here is a reference to circumcision [berit mila], and therefore the verse is teaching that only Abraham and his descendants, i.e., Jews, are qualified to perform circumcision.

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן?

Rather, the Gemara suggests, actually do not reverse it. As for the apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Meir, the Gemara explains: And what are we dealing with here?