The following mitzvah is a transgression in circumcision.
An incident that happened: The godfather, a scholar and dayan in Israel, said to the son’s father before the circumcision ceremony, “I decree that you not see the circumcision” because he recognized that he was averse to blood.
The son’s father looked at the covenant despite the godfather’s warning.
1) Is the covenant kosher? (And does it require preaching)
2) Did the son’s father fulfill the mitzvah and not say the following mitzvah in transgression?
3) Regardless of this question, is there a situation where a mitzvah comes with a transgression in circumcision and they will need to have the blood of the circumcision applied? (Other than circumcision by a Gentile or at night or before the 8th day)
Where does this question come from? And is the godfather the one who can decree things about people? And even Tima made his godfatherhood conditional on this, so the covenant was made without a godfather. So what? There is no obligation to have a godfather.
In the mitzvah that follows a sin, it does seem that blood sacrifice would be required because the act of the covenant is invalidated. Although this depends on the words of the Manach regarding sitting in a stolen sukkah. The Toss asked why a verse was required to invalidate a stolen sukkah, and it was explained to him that this is a mitzvah that follows a sin. And the Manach explains that if there were no verse, then the man did not have a mitzvah, but he still did not eat outside the sukkah. The verse invalidates the sukkah. According to his view, there is room to argue that the mitzvah is indeed invalidated, but the covenant is kosher. However, most of the latter disagreed on the Manach, and the Manach itself also distinguishes between a sukkah and a covenant. There, it is about the act of the mitzvah within the sukkah, and here, it is about the creation of the covenant itself.
Finally, although I didn’t check to the end, it seems that the KGB needs blood transfusions.
Thanks to the rabbi for the quick answer.
Can we also say that the incident that happened is not a mitzvah that results in a transgression at all, because the very mitzvah of circumcision is not related to the son's father's view, because whether the son's father saw or did not see the covenant is kosher
Therefore, at most the son's father violated the mitzvah of the sages by not listening to the judge, but the son's father fulfilled the mitzvah and the covenant is kosher?
He didn't break anything. There is no obligation to obey anyone who is not a Sanhedrin. And certainly not the prohibitions that he created in his heart.
I ask theoretically in order to understand the meaning of the mitzvah: If the Sanhedrin were to tell the father of the son not to see the covenant itself, then in this case too the covenant is kosher and there is no need for preaching, right?
Because the father of the son's vision is not related to the mitzvah and does not lower or raise.
Meaning of what matter? There is no matter. If they imposed a condition on the covenant that they would see it, then when the condition is not met, the covenant did not come into being. If it is not a condition – then no.
That's it. I'm done with this strange discussion.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
