## Avodah Zarah Daf 27a

###### Avodah Zarah 27a:1
[Avodah Zarah 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:1)

בְּרוֹפֵא מוּמְחֶה, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִם הָיָה מוּמְחֶה לְרַבִּים — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:2
[Avodah Zarah 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:2)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כּוּתִי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל מָל אֶת הַכּוּתִי, וְכוּתִי לֹא יָמוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּל לְשֵׁם הַר גְּרִזִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:3
[Avodah Zarah 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:3)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְכִי הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ מִילָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ? אֶלָּא מָל וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נִשְׁמָתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:4
[Avodah Zarah 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:4)

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם אֵיפוֹךְ כִּדְאָפְכִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הָהִיא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:5
[Avodah Zarah 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:5)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְמִילָה בְּגוֹי שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמוֹר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:6
[Avodah Zarah 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:6)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הִמּוֹל״, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:7
[Avodah Zarah 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:7)

וְאִידָּךְ, הָכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הִמּוֹל״! הָהוּא בְּפֶסַח כְּתִיב. וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי הָכְתִיב: ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״! דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:8
[Avodah Zarah 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:8)

אִיתְּמַר: מִנַּיִן לְמִילָה בְּגוֹי שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה? דָּרוּ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:9
[Avodah Zarah 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:9)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? עַרְבִי מָהוּל וְגַבְנוּנִי מָהוּל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ — אִיכָּא, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִּשְׁמֹר״ — לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:10
[Avodah Zarah 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:10)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:11
[Avodah Zarah 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:11)

אֶלָּא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמֵּתוּ אֶחָיו מֵחֲמַת מִילָה, וְלֹא מָלוּהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״ — אִיכָּא, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ — לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:12
[Avodah Zarah 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:12)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:13
[Avodah Zarah 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:14
[Avodah Zarah 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:14)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:15
[Avodah Zarah 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:15)

**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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:16
[Avodah Zarah 27a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:16)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״רִיפּוּי מָמוֹן״, וּמַאי ״רִיפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת״? אִילֵּימָא ״רִיפּוּי מָמוֹן״ בְּשָׂכָר, ״רִיפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת״ בְּחִנָּם — לִיתְנֵי: מִתְרַפְּאִין מֵהֶן בְּשָׂכָר אֲבָל לֹא בְּחִנָּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:17
[Avodah Zarah 27a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:17)

אֶלָּא, ״רִיפּוּי מָמוֹן״ — דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סַכָּנָה, ״רִיפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת״ — דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה. וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ רִיבְדָּא דְּכוּסִילְתָּא לָא מִתַּסֵּינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:18
[Avodah Zarah 27a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:18)

אֶלָּא, ״רִיפּוּי מָמוֹן״ — בְּהֶמְתּוֹ, ״רִיפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת״ — גּוּפֵיהּ, וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ רִיבְדָּא דְּכוּסִילְתָּא לָא מִתַּסֵּינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 27a:19
[Avodah Zarah 27a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/27a:19)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ סַם פְּלוֹנִי יָפֶה לוֹ, סַם פְּלוֹנִי רַע לוֹ — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.