Q&A: Circumcision on the Seventh Day
Circumcision on the Seventh Day
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I once heard a story (maybe fictional) about a child who was born during the Holocaust, and the only way to save him was to hand him over to a Christian family. There was no possibility of waiting until the eighth day in order to circumcise him, and the question was whether to circumcise him on the seventh day, for fear that otherwise he would never be circumcised.
By logic, I would say that he should be circumcised, even though in that way one does not fulfill the commandment of circumcision, because otherwise he would remain uncircumcised and would be liable for karet. And if later in life he discovers that he is Jewish, he could do hatafat dam brit as well.
Is that correct? Does the punishment of karet come from the very fact that there is a foreskin, or from the fact that he did not undergo circumcision properly, and therefore did not enter the covenant of Abraham our forefather?
A practical difference would also arise regarding someone who was born circumcised and did not do hatafat dam brit—would he be liable for karet?
Answer
As I understand it, karet applies to someone who was not circumcised properly, not to someone who has a foreskin. This reminds me a bit of the Minchat Chinukh, who distinguishes between fulfilling the commandment of sukkah and neglecting the positive commandment of sukkah. He argues that if not for the verse that invalidates a stolen sukkah, we would invalidate it only because of “a commandment that comes through a transgression,” and then someone who ate in a stolen sukkah would not thereby be neglecting the positive commandment of sukkah, but he also would not be fulfilling the commandment of sukkah. What you are claiming regarding the foreskin is something similar. Someone who has no foreskin, even if he did not fulfill the commandment, has not neglected it. The later authorities reject the Minchat Chinukh’s words out of hand (although I do not rule it out at all), and regarding circumcision it is hard for me to believe that anyone would say such a thing.
Discussion on Answer
Where else would it be? In the commandment of sukkah.
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Minchat_Chinukh.325.9?lang=he
Seemingly this is similar to the law of covering the blood, where if the wind covered it, one is exempt from covering it. No?
No. Because in covering the blood, there is nothing to cover, and therefore the commandment is void. It’s not that he fulfilled the commandment; rather, he has no commandment. Like a house with no roof, which is exempt from a parapet. But in circumcision there is still a commandment even if he was born without a foreskin: he performs hatafat dam brit.
One might perhaps infer precisely from the verse, “And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin… that soul shall be cut off,” that there is a difference between “uncircumcised” and “who does not circumcise.” In the Passover offering, for example, it says only, “No uncircumcised person shall eat of it.” If that inference is correct, someone who was not circumcised but also did not do hatafat dam brit would still be able to eat from the Passover offering.
From the story of Shechem it is clear that there is something disgraceful in the foreskin itself, since it is obvious that the men of Shechem did not undergo circumcision properly, and yet that was enough for the sons of Jacob (unless we say that this was part of the ruse).
By the way, I found that the Rema says: “Gloss: If he transgressed and circumcised at night, he must go back and draw from him covenantal blood (Beit Yosef from the Mishnah there and Hagahot Maimoniot). If he circumcised within the first eight days but during the daytime, he has fulfilled his obligation (the Rosh in chapter Rabbi Eliezer of Milah, and so too appears from the responsum of the Rashba); and see below, section 264” (Yoreh De’ah 262:1).
It is interesting why he distinguishes between circumcision at night and circumcision within the first eight days.
In any case, from here it is clear that in the case of the story they should have circumcised early.
Where is the Minchat Chinukh?