Aligned sentence by sentence
[] .
Nobody disagrees that only Jews are permitted to circumcise, since this is one of the most esteemed commandments. And if one questions regarding a male who has a child and he is in a place where no Jewish circumciser exists, and he does not know how to circumcise, what must he do? Is it better that a gentile circumcise him, not a member of the religion, or to leave the child uncircumcised until an Israelite can be found to circumcise him? We say that such a person is already transgressing by living in such a location and predicament. However, we say that this is one of the obligations that includes two prohibitions that cannot be performed together, and one cannot cancel the other. We already explained in the thirty-seventh subchapter of the fourth discourse that when this happens, the stricter of the two overrides the other, and there is no doubt that leaving the child uncircumcised is worse than circumcision by a gentile. Since uncircumcision is punishable by death as we noted earlier, and if such is the case circumcision by a gentile is esteemed and preferable and better than leaving him with foreskin.
.
And if he asks “you say that such a circumcision is favorable or not favorable?” We say that such a question lacks foundation, for it is like a case of on the verge of starvation being permitted to eat a forbidden animal (neveilah) in order to remain alive. For the prohibition of murder is stricter than the prohibition against eating forbidden animals. And if someone asks “are you thus saying that eating a forbidden animal is a favorable action?” Such a question is void, since the eating of something forbidden cannot be described as a favorable action. And if one makes such a claim and argues that the necessity and obligation of keeping the soul alive thus transforms the action to be favorable, we also do not reject the notion that such a circumcision is favorable since the necessity and lack of one amongst Israel to circumcise him makes the action favorable.
.
And if one of the Ananites asks and says “is it not the case that an animal slaughtered by a gentile, such a slaughtering is not favorable and it is not permissible to eat it? So too, one who is circumcised by a gentile, his circumcision is not favorable and it is not possible to call this circumcision a ‘covenant’ (brit) and an Israelite must do it again in order to be a ‘covenant?’” We say “Your analogy is not a proper analogy and the proof for this is that if circumcision and slaughter were comparable, permit or obligate a second slaughter if a gentile slaughtered first, as we repeat circumcision completed by a gentile.” If they say “how is it possible to slaughter, when we are talking about cutting the veins of the animal’s neck, and taking its blood, and spilling its blood. If the veins are already cut and the animal is already dead and the blood is spilt, what is left to be returned to?” We say “and likewise how is it possible to repeat the circumcision when circumcision is cutting the existing foreskin, for if the foreskin is already cut and removed, what is there left to cut such that circumcision can be repeated? And there is no difference.”