Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 2-3

Sugya Map

• Issue: The qualification of a mohel to perform milah (circumcision), specifically the controversial case of an akum (gentile), and the b'dieved (post-facto) validity of such a milah.
• Nafka Mina(s): Whether an akum's milah fulfills the mitzvah, necessitating hatafas dam brit (drawing a drop of covenantal blood) or a complete re-circumcision. This hinges on the requirement of milah lishmah (intent for the sake of the mitzvah).
• Primary Sources: Rambam, Hil. Milah 2:1; Avodah Zarah 27a; Shabbat 137b; Pesachim 92a.

Text Snapshot

Rambam, Hil. Milah 2:1: "אבל עכו"ם לא ימול כלל. ואם מל אינו צריך למול שנית."

• Dikduk/Leshon: The emphatic "לא ימול כלל" (a gentile should not circumcise at all) conveys an absolute prohibition l'chatchila (ab initio). The immediate concession, "ואם מל אינו צריך למול שנית" (but if he did circumcise, no need to circumcise again), creates a striking tension, implying b'dieved validity despite the initial, unequivocal ban.

Readings

• Kessef Mishneh (R. Yosef Karo): Explains the Rambam's position by suggesting that milah does not require lishmah. As long as the physical act of removing the foreskin is performed, the milah is valid, regardless of the mohel's intent or religious status. (Sefaria f.n. 8; Yitzchak Yeranen on Hil. Milah 2:1:2).
• Ohr Sameach (R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk): Grapples with the Kessef Mishneh's explanation. He raises the sugya of Tzipporah and Moshe in Avodah Zarah 27a, where Rava implies an unqualified individual's milah might be incomplete or invalid, requiring a kasher (qualified) person to finish. He questions whether an akum's initial cut can ever constitute a valid mitzvah act, or if it merely accomplishes the physical removal without spiritual efficacy. (Ohr Sameach on Hil. Milah 2:1:1).

Friction

• Kushya: The core difficulty lies in reconciling the Rambam's absolute prohibition against an akum performing milah ("לא ימול כלל") with his b'dieved validation ("אינו צריך למול שנית"). How can an act be entirely forbidden yet retroactively effective?
• Terutz (Yitzchak Yeranen): Rejects the lishmah-centric explanation. He clarifies that "לא ימול כלל" is an issur (prohibition) directed at the akum performing the act. However, the ma'aseh milah (the physical act of circumcision) itself, once completed, is valid b'dieved. He draws a parallel to Tosafot (Bechorot 34a s.v. וכי קניס; Chullin 115a s.v. כל שתיעבתי), where an act performed in violation of an issur may still achieve its intended halachic outcome if the physical deed is correctly executed. The prohibition is on the doer, not necessarily on the efficacy of the act. (Yitzchak Yeranen on Hil. Milah 2:1:2).

Intertext

• Avodah Zarah 27a: The Gemara discusses a woman's qualification to circumcise, citing Tzipporah's act. Rava's statement that if Tzipporah began the milah and Moshe completed it (אתיא איהי ואתחלא ואתא משה ואגמרה) suggests that milah begun by a pasul may not be fully recognized until completed by a kasher.
• Pesachim 92a: Discusses instances where Rabbinic decrees (shvut) are not superseded even for milah on Shabbat (e.g., carrying a knife through a carmelit without an eiruv). This underscores that while milah is paramount, it is bounded by halachic parameters, including who performs it and under what conditions.

Psak/Practice

• The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 264:1) rules that if an akum performs milah, hatafas dam brit (drawing a drop of covenantal blood) is required. This is the accepted practice, acknowledging the physical removal of the foreskin but symbolizing the spiritual completion of the brit by a qualified Jew.

Takeaway

The Rambam's ruling on akum milah highlights a fundamental halachic distinction between the absolute l'chatchila prohibition against an act and its b'dieved validity. It underscores that while the physical act of milah may be achieved, the full spiritual fulfillment of the mitzvah requires a qualified Jewish agent.