Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 1

Sugya Map

Issue

The locus and nature of the mitzvah of milah and its associated karet. Is the karet for the performer's failure or the subject's uncircumcised state?

Nafka Mina(s)

• Whether a father who fails to circumcise his son incurs karet.
• The ongoing obligation of milah for the individual himself beyond the eighth day or if the father failed.
• The role of Beit Din in ensuring milah.

Primary Sources

Bereishit 17:14 ("ערל זכר... ונכרתה"), Vayikra 12:3 ("ביום השמיני ימול"), Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Milah 1:1-3, Kiddushin 29a.

Text Snapshot

"מצות עשה היא למול, ועונש כרת למי שלא מל, שנאמר 'ערל זכר אשר לא ימול את בשר ערלתו ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה'. מצוה על האב למול את בנו... הוא אינו חייב כרת, שאין כרת אלא על הערל עצמו." (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Milah 1:1)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The Rambam's precise phrasing shifts from the active "למול" (to circumcise) for the mitzvah itself and the father's role, to the passive "למי שלא מל" (one who is uncircumcised) and "הערל עצמו" (the uncircumcised person himself) when discussing karet. This subtle yet crucial distinction hints at a dual aspect of the mitzvah.

Readings

Rambam

Articulates a fundamental distinction: the active positive commandment rests upon the father (or master) to perform the milah on the son/slave. While neglecting this is a severe transgression ("ביטל מצוות עשה"), the father does not incur karet. Karet is reserved solely for the ערל עצמו – the uncircumcised individual. (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Milah 1:1)

Tzafnat Pa'neach

Expounds on this duality, proposing that milah has three facets: a) the singular deed of removing the foreskin; b) the ongoing quality of being circumcised; and c) the negative quality of not being uncircumcised. The karet is affixed to the latter two, emphasizing the enduring state of arlah rather than merely the failure to perform the initial act. This also implies Bal Te'acher does not apply to the arel himself for the mitzvah of being circumcised, as it's an ongoing state, not a one-time performance with a deadline. (Tzafnat Pa'neach on Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 1:1:1)

Friction

Kushya

How can the father's failure to perform such a "great and severe mitzvah" (Rambam, Commentary on Mishnah, Shabbat 19:6) be exempt from karet, a punishment typically reserved for grave transgressions, while the arel himself does incur karet for a state he may not have chosen?

Terutz

The Rambam's distinction highlights that milah encompasses two distinct chiyuvim. The father's obligation is a chovas gavra (personal obligation) to perform the mitzvah of milah for his son on the eighth day. The karet, however, is a chovas cheftza (obligation on the object/body) or an inherent chovas gavra on the individual to be circumcised, derived from the verse referring to the "uncircumcised male." The father's sin is in failing to perform an action, whereas the arel's sin (if intentional) is in maintaining a state of imperfection vis-à-vis the covenant.

Intertext

Pesach

The Torah prescribes karet for one who fails to bring the Paschal offering (Bamidbar 9:13), and the Gemara (Yevamot 71b-72a) explicitly states that an arel is disqualified from partaking in Korban Pesach. This parallel underscores milah as a foundational prerequisite for other mitzvot, and that the karet is tied to the state of arlah which excludes one from the covenantal community, not merely the failure to perform the initial act.

Psak/Practice

This distinction dictates that the mitzvah to remove arlah is not solely the father's. If the father fails, the Beit Din is obligated to circumcise the child (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Milah 1:2). If the Beit Din also fails, the individual becomes personally obligated upon reaching bar mitzvah (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Milah 1:3). This highlights milah as an essential, communal imperative to ensure no uncircumcised male remains within Klal Yisrael.

Takeaway

Milah is a multi-layered mitzvah: a specific act of covenantal entry, and an ongoing state of belonging. Karet punishes the failure to embody this latter, existential dimension, not merely the omission of the initial deed.