Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
בְּרוֹפֵא מוּמְחֶה, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִם הָיָה מוּמְחֶה לְרַבִּים — מוּתָּר.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כּוּתִי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל מָל אֶת הַכּוּתִי, וְכוּתִי לֹא יָמוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּל לְשֵׁם הַר גְּרִזִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְכִי הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ מִילָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ? אֶלָּא מָל וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נִשְׁמָתוֹ!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם אֵיפוֹךְ כִּדְאָפְכִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הָהִיא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא הִיא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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).
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְמִילָה בְּגוֹי שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמוֹר״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § 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.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הִמּוֹל״, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
וְאִידָּךְ, הָכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הִמּוֹל״! הָהוּא בְּפֶסַח כְּתִיב. וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי הָכְתִיב: ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״! דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § 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.
אִיתְּמַר: מִנַּיִן לְמִילָה בְּגוֹי שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה? דָּרוּ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? עַרְבִי מָהוּל וְגַבְנוּנִי מָהוּל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ — אִיכָּא, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִּשְׁמֹר״ — לֵיכָּא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
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!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
אֶלָּא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמֵּתוּ אֶחָיו מֵחֲמַת מִילָה, וְלֹא מָלוּהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״ — אִיכָּא, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ — לֵיכָּא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
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!