A woman redeeming her son
Shalu’ Rabbi
Do you have anything written about a woman redeeming her son? I would be happy to
And another question
I don’t see anyone who says that the baraita only states that circumcision and redemption are not obligations on the mother, but if she wants to – she is allowed. Because the baraita is not a baraita that she is forbidden. What am I missing??
See Maharach 8:611, who wrote that if the father is not circumcised, it is obligatory for the mother to be circumcised (I think he learned this from Tzipora, Moses’ wife). The simple explanation is that she is obligated by law (like everyone in Israel) and not under a complete obligation like the father. In any case, it is clear that according to his view, the woman can be circumcised but is not obligated. Indeed, in the simplified version of the Gemara in Kiddushin, it only says that she is not obligated.
But in “Z” 27a, it seems that there is a disagreement among the Amoraim (Rav and Riyotch), and it is said there that it is considered as a circumcision. And in “Tudah ‘Isha'”, there, they wrote that the halachah according to Rav that a woman is not kosher to circumcise, and they cited the ruling of Riyotch that she is kosher. See there that they interpreted the issue of kiddushin for both systems.
Although we must discuss here the issue of shilichot, on the part of someone who is not in the Torah of the Word, there is no shilichot regarding him. In the Gemara in the Book of Zechariah, we see that a source is being sought to disqualify a Gentile by circumcision, which means that it is not enough that he is not in the Torah of the Word. If so, then so is the case with a woman. We need to check there in the commentators, and so on. Simply speaking of shilichot, all of these are truly invalid, and the discussion is only as words on their own part. In particular for the Rishonim who do not require shilichot by circumcision at all (Torah of the Day and Maharash of the 8th and others). And perhaps if a woman is considered mixed, then she is in the Torah of the Word (at least if the mitzvah is to be mixed. If the mitzvah is the act of circumcision, then apparently not. And the Rishonim, Rambam, and Tur disagreed on this regarding tzitzin, which do not hinder according to Beit Halevi and the Giza).
And another question [third email] Do you understand the exclusion of the woman from these commandments?
I see that there is a dispute between Sh”ch and T”z whether a bi”d can redeem or not. And the Tez method is that it is not because there is also a debt party here, because when he grows up he will be able to fulfill it with his own money and himself. Why don't they say this in the word? Even there when he grows up he will be able to do it himself, although there is not necessarily a matter of money here
Why the exclusion? No one from Israel belongs to all the mitzvot. Everyone has their roles. Israel is not allowed to offer sacrifices, and a lay priest is not allowed to serve as a high priest, and so on. The halakhic rule is that those who are not in the Torah of the word do not engage in it. And since you are asking me about circumcision, ask me about Talmud Torah. There are those who will circumcise the son, but who will teach instead of the woman?
It seems to me that at the basis of the issue of the father's commandment over the son is the perception that the father must prepare his son for life, and this includes redemption and circumcision and art and Talmud Torah and bathing him in water. We see that circumcision is not a ritual mitzvah, but rather the preparation of the son for life (to bring him into the covenant of Israel).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
