Q&A: Obligations in Circumcision
Obligations in Circumcision
Question
The Tzofnat Pa’neach (in his responsa, 152) distinguishes between 3 obligations in circumcision: “1) that he be circumcised, 2) that he be circumcised [i.e. in a circumcised state], 3) that he not be uncircumcised.”
What is the logic behind distinguishing between “that he be circumcised” and “that he not be uncircumcised”? Seemingly those are completely equivalent.
Answer
On your view, there is no difference between a prohibition and a positive commandment. What is the difference between a prohibition against doing labor and a commandment to rest? See Maimonides in the sixth root, and at length in our article on that root in the book Yishlach Sharshav.
Discussion on Answer
That’s exactly what I was referring him to. It’s in the article on the sixth root.
Hmm. And the book is even on the site in digital form:
https://gabihazut.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Shorashem_1-13-6-2018-%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%94-%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%AA.pdf#page=475
And now I also see it in the column:
But I have a tradition, passed down in writing from Rabbi Zevin, that when the Rogatchover analyzes something he always gives explicit practical ramifications. And I wouldn’t build on the general wording “to be circumcised” versus “not to be uncircumcised,” which is the general distinction between a positive commandment and a prohibition; rather, there are two separate laws here: “to be circumcised, type 1” and “to be circumcised, type 2.” I tried now to read inside the responsa there (on HebrewBooks), but as usual it’s impossible to decipher quickly. From a quick glance, though, it does seem that there he finds real distinctions for each law—on whom it is incumbent, when it is incumbent, and what exactly the law requires one to do.
I once read this Rogatchover (maybe in Personalities and Methods by Rabbi Zevin), and I remember that an “arel” is not the same as “not circumcised”; there is a difference between the terms, and the distinction is an ordinary, “coarse” one.
It’s possible to be circumcised yet still uncircumcised (if he was circumcised and then the foreskin grew back), and it’s possible to be not circumcised and yet not uncircumcised (if he was circumcised without the letting of covenantal blood). Not circumcised and uncircumcised is a regular baby; circumcised and not uncircumcised is a regular circumcised person. So “circumcised” is a verb form (passive) in the past, while “uncircumcised” is an adjective (in the present), and there’s also a difference in the legal parameters (the bloodletting).
That is, there’s no need to reach pathological cases (someone born like a brain in a jar, for example, in which case he is neither circumcised nor uncircumcised) or spiritual status (“circumcised” is a commandment to be at plus-five status, while “not uncircumcised” is a commandment not to be at minus-five status), which as far as I remember is how the Rabbi explained somewhere the difference between a prohibition and a positive commandment.