Q&A: A commandment fulfilled through a transgression in circumcision
A commandment fulfilled through a transgression in circumcision
Question
A case that happened: the sandak, a Torah scholar and judge in Israel, said to the baby's father before the circumcision, "I decree upon you not to look at the circumcision," because he recognized that he is uneasy around blood.
The baby's father looked at the circumcision despite the sandak's warning.
1) Is the circumcision valid? (and does it not require drawing a symbolic drop of covenantal blood?)
2) Did the baby's father fulfill the commandment, and do we not say that this is a commandment fulfilled through a transgression?
3) Independently of this question, is there any case of a commandment fulfilled through a transgression in circumcision that would require drawing a symbolic drop of covenantal blood? (aside from a circumcision performed by a gentile, or at night, or before the eighth day)
Answer
Where did this question come from? Is the sandak the Holy One, blessed be He, that he can decree things upon people? And even if, astonishingly, he made his serving as sandak conditional on that, then the circumcision was done without a sandak. So what? There is no obligation at all to have a sandak.
With regard to a commandment fulfilled through a transgression, it does indeed seem that one would need drawing of a symbolic drop of blood, because the act of circumcision is invalidated. However, this depends on the view of the Minchat Chinukh regarding one who sits in a stolen sukkah. Tosafot asked why a verse is needed to invalidate a stolen sukkah; it should follow from the fact that this is a commandment fulfilled through a transgression. And the Minchat Chinukh explains that had there been no verse, then although he would not have fulfilled the commandment, he still would not have eaten outside the sukkah. The verse invalidates the sukkah. According to his approach, there is room to argue that the act is indeed invalidated, but the circumcision is still valid. But most later authorities disagreed with the Minchat Chinukh, and even according to the Minchat Chinukh himself one can distinguish between sukkah and circumcision. There the commandment-act takes place inside the sukkah, whereas here we are speaking about the creation of the circumcision itself.
Bottom line: although I have not checked the matter all the way through, it seems that in such a case one would need drawing of a symbolic drop of blood.
Discussion on Answer
He violated nothing. There is no obligation whatsoever to obey anyone who is not the Sanhedrin. Certainly not regarding prohibitions he invented out of his own head.
I am asking theoretically, in order to understand the meaning of this idea of a commandment fulfilled through a transgression: if the Sanhedrin had told the baby's father not to look at the circumcision itself, then even in that case the circumcision would still be valid and there would be no need for drawing a symbolic drop of blood, right?
Because the baby's father's seeing it is not connected to the commandment and does not detract from it or add to it.
The meaning of what idea? There is no issue here. If they had imposed a condition on the circumcision that it be seen, then when the condition is not fulfilled the circumcision does not count. If it is not a condition, then not.
That's it. I'm done with this strange discussion.
Thank you, Rabbi, for the quick answer.
Can one also say that the case that happened is not in the category of a commandment fulfilled through a transgression at all, because the commandment of circumcision itself is not connected to the baby's father seeing it, since whether or not the baby's father saw it, the circumcision is valid?
And therefore, at most the baby's father violated a rabbinic instruction by not listening to the judge, but the baby's father did fulfill the commandment and the circumcision is valid?