Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 2-3

Sugya Map

• Core Issue: The fundamental requirements and procedural halachot of Brit Milah, focusing on the agent, the act, its components, and its interaction with Shabbat and Yom Tov.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The validity of milah performed by an unqualified individual (e.g., nochri, woman, arel Yisrael, slave, minor) and subsequent hatafat dam brit.
  • The precise definition of a valid milah (e.g., tzitzim hame'akvim vs. she'einam me'akvim, the necessity of pri'ah and metzitzah).
  • The scope of milah's ability to supersede Shabbat and Yom Tov prohibitions, particularly concerning machshirim (preparatory acts) and Rabbinic shvut.
  • The correct formulation of berachot for various mohalim (father vs. shaliach) and recipients (son, convert, slave).
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Milah, Perek 2-3.
  • Talmud Bavli: Avodah Zarah 27a, Shabbat 137b, Yevamot 71b, Pesachim 92a, Bechorot 34a.
  • Talmud Yerushalmi: Yevamot 8:1, Berachot 9:3.
  • Tanakh: Bereishit 17:1-21, Shemot 4:25, Yehoshua 5:2, Yirmiyahu 9:25.
  • Rishonim/Acharonim: Ra'avad, Kessef Mishneh, Maggid Mishneh, Tosafot, Sha'agat Aryeh, Chatam Sofer, Shulchan Aruch, Rema, Perach, Ohr Sameach, Yitzchak Yeranen, Tzafnat Pa'neach.

Text Snapshot

The Rambam's exposition in Hilchot Milah provides the bedrock for understanding the halachot of circumcision, delineating both the agent and the act with characteristic precision.

1. Who performs milah?:

הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָמוּל, אֲפִלּוּ עָרֵל בִּקְדֻשָּׁתוֹ וְעֶבֶד וְאִשָּׁה וְקָטָן. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אָדָם גָּדוֹל, כָּשֵׁר. אֲבָל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים לֹא יָמוֹל כְּלָל. וְאִם מָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָמוּל שֵׁנִית. Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 2:1 This line is a veritable tour de force, listing those who may circumcise lechat'chila (initially) and bedi'avad (post-facto). The nuance here is crucial: "אפילו ערל בקדושתו" – even an uncircumcised Jew who is kadosh (i.e., not a mumar l'arlut). The Rambam's use of "כלל" (at all) regarding a nochri not circumcising, immediately followed by "וְאִם מָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָמוּל שֵׁנִית" (but if he did circumcise, there is no need to circumcise again), sets up a significant tension. Is the nochri's act truly pasul lechat'chila if it holds bedi'avad validity? The Kessef Mishneh and Yitzchak Yeranen grapple with this.

2. The components of milah:

כֵּיצַד הִיא הַמִּילָה? קוֹטֵף אֶת הָעוֹר הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת רֹאשׁ הָאֵבֶר עַד שֶׁיִּגָּלֶה כָּל רֹאשׁ הָאֵבֶר. וְאַחַר כָּךְ פּוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַקְּרוּמִית הָרַכָּה שֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִן הָעוֹר בְּצִפָּרְנָיו וּמַחֲזִירָהּ לְצִדֶּיהָ עַד שֶׁיִּגָּלֶה בְּשַׂר הָעֲטָרָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹצֵץ מְקוֹם הַמִּילָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא כָּל הַדָּם הַמֻּבְלָע בְּמָקוֹם רָחוֹק, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא לִידֵי סַכָּנָה. Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 2:2 This passage precisely details the three essential steps: milah (cutting the foreskin), pri'ah (tearing and exposing the glans), and metzitzah (suction to remove blood). The Rambam's emphasis on metzitzah due to sakanah (danger) is noteworthy, and his subsequent ruling in 2:3 that a mohel who omits it should be removed underscores its perceived criticality. The statement "וְאַחַר כָּךְ פּוֹרֵעַ" (and afterward he tears) emphasizes the order, making pri'ah distinct from milah itself.

Readings

1. The Paradox of the Gentile Mohel: Ma'aseh vs. Gabra

The Rambam's seemingly contradictory ruling regarding a nochri performing milah – "אֲבָל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים לֹא יָמוֹל כְּלָל. וְאִם מָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָמוֹל שֵׁנִית." (Circumcision 2:1) – has generated a rich ma'arachah of lomdus. How can an act be prohibited "at all" (klal) lechat'chila, yet be completely valid bedi'avad?

The Kessef Mishneh (ad loc. s.v. "אבל עובד כוכבים") attempts to resolve this by suggesting the Rambam's position hinges on whether milah requires lishmah (for the sake of the mitzvah). If milah does not require lishmah, then the nochri's physical act of removing the foreskin, even without kavanat mitzvah, could be sufficient bedi'avad. However, the Kessef Mishneh himself notes that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (27a) implies nochri milah is pasul (invalid), leading to the requirement of hatafat dam brit (drawing a drop of blood) in Shulchan Aruch. This tension suggests the Kessef Mishneh's explanation is, at best, partial.

Enter the Yitzchak Yeranen (on Circumcision 2:1:2 s.v. "ואם מל אינו צריך"). He strongly challenges the Kessef Mishneh, finding it "מגומגם בדעת רבינו" (unclear in the Rambam's view). His chiddush posits that the Rambam indeed holds that a nochri's milah is pasul lechat'chila due to the scriptural imperative ("המל ימול" or "ואתה את בריתי תשמור") which implicitly excludes a nochri. However, once the physical act (ma'aseh) of milah has been performed, the Rambam considers the mitzvah fulfilled bedi'avad, even though an issur (prohibition) was transgressed by having a nochri perform it.

The Yitzchak Yeranen explains this through the lens of issura d'gabra (prohibition related to the agent) versus issura d'cheftza (prohibition related to the object/action itself). The nochri is an improper agent for the mitzvah, but the ma'aseh milah itself (the cutting) is intrinsically valid. The prohibition is "איסור מבחוץ" (an external prohibition) on the person performing the act, not an inherent flaw in the act that would invalidate it.

He brings several parallels from Tosafot to support this distinction:

• Bechorot 34a (s.v. "ומי קניס"): Tosafot discuss the halacha that if one blemishes a bechor (firstborn animal) with a mum (blemish) b'yadayim (intentionally), one transgresses an issur of "לא תעשה מום בקדשים." Yet, bedi'avad, the bechor is considered blemished and permitted to be eaten. The ma'aseh of blemishing, though prohibited to perform b'yadayim, still creates the status of a ba'al mum. The issur is on the act of blemishing, not on the status of the bechor.
• Chullin 115a (s.v. "כל שתיעבתי"): Tosafot explain that an animal born with a mum is permitted. If one causes a mum b'yadayim, it's prohibited, but the animal is still permitted. The issur is on the cause, not the effect.

Applying this to milah, the Yitzchak Yeranen argues that the physical act of removing the foreskin, which is the essence of milah, has occurred. The issur that a nochri performed it is an external issur related to the gabra, but it doesn't negate the ma'aseh of milah itself. Therefore, no second milah is required. This elegantly resolves the Rambam's wording, suggesting the "לא ימול כלל" is a lechat'chila instruction, while "אינו צריך למול שנית" describes the bedi'avad reality.

The Yitzchak Yeranen further references the Maharam Tzanet (Responsa, Ch. 1, Siman 69) and the Sefer Mishpat Shalom (Hilchot Milveh v'Loveh, Perek 8), who apply a similar logic regarding din Torah (Torah law) adjudicated in arka'ot shel goyim (gentile courts). If the gentile court's judgment aligns with din Torah, the judgment stands, despite the issur of going to gentile courts. The Maharam Tzanet cites numerous sugyot to support this, leading the Yitzchak Yeranen to express surprise that Tosafot in Bechorot wasn't cited there, as it's a stronger parallel.

This chiddush provides a robust yesod (foundation) for understanding why certain prohibited acts can still achieve their desired halachic outcome bedi'avad, by distinguishing between the validity of the ma'aseh and the permissibility of the gabra or the kavanah.

2. Gmar Milah on Shabbat: The Ohr Sameach's Inquiry into Machshirim and Mitzvat Zahir

The Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:1-3:2) outlines what docheh Shabbat (supersedes Shabbat) for milah. He states that milah, pri'ah, metzitzah, and even returning to remove tzitzim hame'akvim (disqualifying tzitzim) after an interruption all supersede Shabbat. However, machshirim (preparatory acts) like making a knife or bringing it from a reshut harabbim (public domain) do not. This distinction forms the basis of a profound inquiry by the Ohr Sameach.

The Ohr Sameach (on Circumcision 2:1:1 s.v. "אבל עו"ג לא ימול כלל") raises a specific safek (doubt) concerning milah b'zmanah (circumcision at its proper time, i.e., the 8th day, which docheh Shabbat). If there's a kasher (qualified) mohel who can only finish the milah (e.g., pri'ah or removing tzitzim hame'akvim), and a pasul (unqualified) mohel (like a nochri or mumar l'arlut) who can start it, should the pasul mohel begin so the kasher can finish, or should we wait for a kasher mohel to perform the entire milah? This question is particularly acute on Shabbat.

The core of the Ohr Sameach's analysis revolves around the concept of gmar milah (completion of the milah) and whether the initial act by a pasul individual is considered part of the mitzvah or merely a machshir. If the entire milah is seen as a single, indivisible mitzvah, then perhaps the pasul beginning would taint the whole, necessitating waiting for a kasher. However, if gmar milah is itself a distinct mitzvah, then completing it with a kasher might be preferred.

He cites Shabbat 137b and Yevamot 71b, which describe pri'ah as Halacha leMoshe miSinai, and milah without pri'ah as "כאילו לא מל" (as if he did not circumcise). This suggests pri'ah is integral to the milah. Moreover, the Rambam's ruling (3:1) that one returns to remove tzitzim hame'akvim on Shabbat, even after interruption, indicates that the essence of milah is tied to its completion.

The Ohr Sameach then explores a scenario: If a nochri performs the initial cut, and tzitzim hame'akvim remain, does the act of removing these tzitzim by a Yisrael docheh Shabbat? He distinguishes between milah where the initial act was completely pasul (e.g., nochri cut that left tzitzim) and a milah where the initial cut was kasher but tzitzim remained.

He brings a Gemara from Avodah Zarah 27a concerning Tziporah's milah of Eliezer. The Gemara suggests that Tziporah "אתחלה" (began) and Moshe "אגמרה" (finished) the milah. This implies that even if the hat'chala (beginning) was by a woman (whom some Tannaim consider pasul), the gmar mitzvah by a kasher is valid and constitutes a complete mitzvah. This supports the idea that facilitating gmar mitzvah by a kasher is preferable to waiting.

However, the Ohr Sameach then pivots to a crucial distinction: Is the pasul act (e.g., by a nochri) considered a machshir for the mitzvah, or is it part of the mitzvah itself? If it's merely a machshir, then like other machshirim (e.g., preparing a knife), it might not docheh Shabbat if it could have been done previously. He references Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 1:8, which discusses ketzirat ha'omer (harvesting the Omer) on Shabbat. Even if the harvesting could have been done ma'amul (the day before) in a non-ideal way, it still docheh Shabbat if its proper time falls on Shabbat. This is because the mitzvah is to perform it b'zmanah.

The Ohr Sameach concludes that if the hat'chala by the pasul person itself isn't a mitzvah at all (e.g., if we consider nochri milah utterly devoid of kedushah from the outset), then it's akin to a machshir that could have been done before Shabbat (i.e., waiting for a kasher mohel). Therefore, it wouldn't docheh Shabbat. Only the actual ma'aseh mitzvah performed by a kasher docheh Shabbat. This intricate discussion highlights the granular halachic distinctions between a mitzvah's core act, its preparatory stages, and the agent's qualification, especially when intersecting with Shabbat prohibitions.

Friction

1. The Rambam's Nochri Milah: A Kushya on Hatafat Dam Brit

The Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Milah 2:1 presents a conceptual friction that has perplexed Acharonim:

אֲבָל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים לֹא יָמוֹל כְּלָל. וְאִם מָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָמוּל שֵׁנִית. Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 2:1

The kushya arises from the juxtaposition: on the one hand, a nochri "לא ימול כלל" (should not circumcise at all), implying his act is fundamentally pasul for the mitzvah. On the other hand, "וְאִם מָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָמוּל שֵׁנִית" (if he did circumcise, there is no need to circumcise again), which suggests the act is halachically sufficient, at least bedi'avad, to confer the status of mahul.

This creates a tension with the accepted psak found in the Shulchan Aruch and Rema. The Rema (YD 264:1), reflecting a prevalent minhag and the opinion of Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 27a), rules that if a nochri circumcised a Yisrael, one does need to perform hatafat dam brit (extraction of a drop of blood) without a beracha. This act of hatafat dam brit is precisely what is done when a Jew is born mahul (without a foreskin) or when a convert was previously circumcised prior to conversion. The need for hatafat dam brit implies that the nochri's act, while physically removing the foreskin, did not fully establish the brit and the halachic status of a mahul Yisrael.

If the nochri's milah were truly valid bedi'avad as the Rambam's "אינו צריך למול שנית" seems to imply, why would any further halachic act (like hatafat dam brit) be necessary? This kushya suggests a deeper conceptual difference between the Rambam and other poskim regarding the nature of milah itself. Does milah primarily involve the physical removal of the foreskin, or does it require a kavanah and an agent with kedushah (holiness)?

The Kessef Mishneh (ad loc.) attempts to explain the Rambam by suggesting milah does not require lishmah (intent for the sake of the mitzvah). However, this explanation is weak, as it doesn't fully reconcile the Rambam's strict "לא ימול כלל" with the bedi'avad validity, nor does it account for the widespread minhag of hatafat dam brit. The Yitzchak Yeranen (on Circumcision 2:1:2) forcefully argues that the Kessef Mishneh's approach is "שגבו ממני" (beyond my comprehension), especially since the Rambam himself doesn't mention hatafat dam brit in this context, which is a kum v'aseh (positive action).

Best Terutz (from Yitzchak Yeranen): The Yitzchak Yeranen offers a compelling resolution by distinguishing between the ma'aseh (the physical act) and the gabra (the agent). The Rambam holds that the ma'aseh of milah – the cutting of the foreskin – is halachically effective in changing the status of the child from arel to mahul, even when performed by an unqualified nochri. The prohibition "לא ימול כלל" is an issur (prohibition) directed at the nochri (or against a Yisrael allowing a nochri to perform the act), an "איסורא מבחוץ" (an external prohibition) that pertains to the agent. It is an issur b'ma'aseh (prohibition in the doing) but not an issur b'cheftza (prohibition in the object/outcome) that would invalidate the result.

This terutz means that while one transgresses a prohibition by allowing a nochri to circumcise, the child is nonetheless considered mahul because the essential physical condition for brit milah has been met. The Yitzchak Yeranen cites Tosafot in Bechorot 34a (s.v. "ומי קניס") which states that even if one creates a mum (blemish) in a kodshim (sacred animal) b'yadayim (intentionally), thus transgressing an issur, the animal is still considered ba'al mum and is permitted. The issur is on the act of blemishing, not on the status of the animal. Similarly, for milah, the issur is on the nochri performing it, but the ma'aseh of removing the foreskin is effective.

The absence of hatafat dam brit in the Rambam's text for this case further supports this terutz. If the ma'aseh is complete, no further halachic act is needed. The Rema's ruling requiring hatafat dam brit would then represent a fundamental disagreement, holding that the nochri's act, while physically effective, is halachically deficient in establishing the brit without a supplementary act by a Yisrael.

2. Tzitzim on Shabbat: A Kushya on the Scope of Dechiyat Shabbat

The Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:1-3:2) delineates which aspects of milah supersede Shabbat and which do not:

כָּל דָּבָר הַנָּחוּץ לַמִּילָה דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. מוֹהֲלִין מִילָה וּפְרִיעָה וּמְצִיצָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְסִירִין צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֲפִלּוּ אִם פֵּרֵשׁ. וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְסִירִין צִיצִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אִם לֹא פֵּרֵשׁ. וְחוֹבְשִׁין אוֹתָהּ לְאַחַר מִכָּן. Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 3:1

הֲכָנַת דְּבָרִים הַנְּחוּצִין לַמִּילָה אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 3:2

The kushya here centers on the distinction between tzitzim hame'akvim (disqualifying strands of flesh) and tzitzim she'einam me'akvim (non-disqualifying strands), specifically regarding dechiyat Shabbat.

• For tzitzim hame'akvim, one returns to remove them even after interruption on Shabbat, because "until these strands of flesh are removed, the obligation to circumcise the child on the eighth day has not been fulfilled." (Sefaria note 3 on 3:1).
• For tzitzim she'einam me'akvim, one does not return to remove them if one has interrupted. This implies that once the milah is halachically acceptable, further cutting is not part of the mitzvah proper and thus doesn't docheh Shabbat.

The friction arises from a subtle point: The Rambam (2:6) states that tzitzim she'einam me'akvim should be removed "while the person performing the circumcision is involved in the operation." This suggests it's a hiddur (beautification) or a completion that is desirable. If it's desirable, why does it not docheh Shabbat even when part of the milah process, unlike tzitzim hame'akvim? The strictness of "הכנת דברים הנחוצין למילה אינה דוחה את השבת" for machshirim (preparatory acts) highlights this. Is removing tzitzim she'einam me'akvim considered a machshir, or part of the mitzvah itself? The Sha'agat Aryeh (Responsum 50, cited in Sefaria note 6 on 2:6) even questions Rambam's decision, suggesting it might be forbidden to return for them due to exposing the child to further pain when the milah is already acceptable.

Best Terutz: The distinction lies in the fundamental halachic status of the child after the initial cut but before removing the tzitzim.

• If tzitzim hame'akvim remain, the child is still considered arel (uncircumcised) mi'd'Oraita (by Torah law). The mitzvah of milah has not yet been fulfilled. Therefore, removing these tzitzim is the milah itself, a direct fulfillment of the mitzvah on its eighth day, which docheh Shabbat. This aligns with the principle that the mitzvah itself, b'zmanah, supersedes Shabbat.
• If tzitzim she'einam me'akvim remain, the child is already considered mahul (circumcised) mi'd'Oraita. The mitzvah of milah has been fulfilled. Any subsequent cutting, even if desirable for hiddur or appearance, is not the mitzvah of milah itself. It's a supplementary act. As such, it falls under the category of machshirim or non-essential actions that do not docheh Shabbat. The Rambam's principle (3:2) that "הֲכָנַת דְּבָרִים הַנְּחוּצִין לַמִּילָה אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת" applies here. If one has interrupted, the mitzvah is complete, and further cutting would be a melacha (prohibited labor) for a non-essential purpose.

This terutz is reinforced by the Rema's ruling (YD 264:5) that if the milah is performed during the week, one should remove these tzitzim she'einam me'akvim. This confirms their hiddur status: desirable when not conflicting with Shabbat, but not essential enough to override Shabbat prohibitions. The Rambam's consistent approach is to allow Shabbat to be superseded only for the direct and essential fulfillment of a mitzvah b'zmanah, not for machshirim or hiddurim.

Intertext

1. Milah as the Quintessential Covenant: Bereishit and Yirmiyahu

The Rambam concludes Hilchot Milah (3:13) with a powerful encomium to Brit Milah, framing it as the most foundational covenant. He explicitly enumerates thirteen covenants established with Avraham Avinu regarding milah in Bereishit 17, contrasting it with the mere three covenants mentioned for all other mitzvot at Chorev and Moav (Devarim 28:69, 29:9-11). This highlights milah's unique status as a physical sign of an eternal bond between Hashem and Am Yisrael.

The Rambam further emphasizes the significance by quoting Yirmiyahu 9:25: "כִּי כָּל הַגּוֹיִם עֲרֵלִים!" ("For all the gentiles are uncircumcised!"). This verse, used by the Rambam to describe the "disgusting" nature of the foreskin, underscores the halachic and theological distinction between Jew and gentile that milah establishes. It's not merely a physical act but a spiritual marker that defines national identity. As the Rambam states in Moreh Nevuchim (III:49), milah serves to complete "the perfection of our emotions... to reduce a person's lust and wild cravings," and is a sign of "the oneness of God." This theological framing of milah as a covenant of spiritual and national identity provides the backdrop for the halachic stringencies and leniencies discussed in the Rambam's Hilchot Milah.

2. The Scope of Dechiyat Shabbat: Pesachim and Avodah Zarah

The Rambam's detailed discussion of what docheh Shabbat for milah (Hilchot Milah 3:1-3:6) finds deep parallels in other sugyot concerning mitzvot on Shabbat.

• Rabbinic Shvut vs. Mitzvah B'Zmanah: The Rambam (3:3) rules that even Rabbinic prohibitions, such as carrying in a karmelit or a reshut harabbim without an eiruv, are not superseded for the machshirim (preparatory acts) of milah (e.g., bringing a knife). He states, "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֵרוּב דְּרַבָּנָן אֵינוֹ נִדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי הֲבָאַת אִזְמֵל, הוֹאִיל וְאֶפְשָׁר לַהֲבִיאוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת." This principle is famously found in Pesachim 92a, where the Gemara discusses whether a shvut (Rabbinic decree) is waived for a mitzvah. The conclusion is generally that if the machshir could have been prepared before Shabbat, it does not docheh Shabbat. This establishes a crucial heuristic: Shabbat is only superseded by the mitzvah itself b'zmanah, not by auxiliary actions that could have been done earlier. The Rambam applies this consistently, even to prohibitions of shevut, demonstrating the strength of Rabbinic enactments.

• Woman as Mohelet: Shemot and Avodah Zarah: The Rambam (2:1) states, "וְאִשָּׁה וְקָטָן" (and a woman and a minor [may circumcise]). This lenient position regarding a woman performing milah stands in contrast to the Rema (YD 264:1), who prohibits it based on Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 27a, s.v. "אשה"). The Gemara in Avodah Zarah 27a derives the permissibility of a woman performing milah from Tziporah's act in Shemot 4:25: "וַתִּקַּח צִפֹּרָה צֹר וַתִּכְרֹת אֶת עָרְלַת בְּנָהּ" (And Tziporah took a flint and cut off the foreskin of her son). However, the Gemara then entertains the possibility that Tziporah only began the milah ("אתחלה") and Moshe completed it ("אגמרה"), or that her act was sha'at hadchak (a pressing emergency). The Rambam evidently adopts the straightforward reading that Tziporah's act established a woman's eligibility to perform milah bedi'avad, and even lechat'chila if no adult male is present. This sugya is a classic case study in deriving halacha from narrative and the interpretation of scriptural precedents.

Psak/Practice

The Rambam's rulings in Hilchot Milah have profoundly shaped halachic practice, though not without significant points of divergence, particularly with the Ashkenazic tradition as codified by the Rema.

1. Who may perform Milah:

   • Gentile (Nochri): The Rambam rules that while a nochri "לא ימול כלל" (Milah 2:1) lechat'chila, if he did, "אינו צריך למול שנית" (no second circumcision is needed). However, the accepted halacha following the Rema (YD 264:1) requires hatafat dam brit (extraction of a drop of blood) without a beracha, indicating that the nochri's act, while physically effective, is halachically deficient in establishing the full brit. This is current practice.
   • Woman: The Rambam permits a woman to circumcise "אם אין שם אדם גדול, כשר" (Milah 2:1). The Rema (YD 264:1), however, explicitly rules that a woman may not circumcise, citing Tosafot. The widespread practice in Ashkenazic communities follows the Rema, though some Sephardic authorities are more lenient bedi'avad.
   • Uncircumcised Jew (Arel Yisrael), Slave, Minor: The Rambam permits these individuals to circumcise if an adult male is not present (Milah 2:1). This is generally accepted bedi'avad, although lechat'chila a fully qualified mohel (adult, circumcised Jew) is always preferred.

2. Steps of Milah:

   • Milah, Pri'ah, Metzitzah: All three steps as outlined by the Rambam (Milah 2:2) are considered essential components of Brit Milah. The Rambam's strong statement that a mohel who omits metzitzah "יסירוהו מן המילה" (should be removed from his position) (Milah 2:3) underscores its criticality, traditionally due to sakanah (danger). While the method of metzitzah has evolved (e.g., pipette instead of direct oral suction due to modern health concerns), the underlying principle of ensuring proper blood extraction is maintained.

3. Tzitzim (Remaining Foreskin):

   • While operating: Both tzitzim hame'akvim (disqualifying) and tzitzim she'einam me'akvim (non-disqualifying) should be removed (Milah 2:6).
   • After interruption: If tzitzim hame'akvim remain, they must be removed, as the milah is incomplete. If tzitzim she'einam me'akvim remain, the Rambam rules one "אינו חוזר להסירן" (does not return to remove them) (Milah 2:6). The Rema (YD 264:5), however, rules that if the milah is during the week, one should return to remove them. Current practice generally follows the Rema for weekdays, viewing it as a hiddur.

4. Milah on Shabbat and Yom Tov:

   • The Mitzvah Itself: Milah, pri'ah, metzitzah, and removing tzitzim hame'akvim supersede Shabbat (Milah 3:1).
   • Machshirim (Preparatory Acts): The Rambam is strict: "הֲכָנַת דְּבָרִים הַנְּחוּצִין לַמִּילָה אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת" (Milah 3:2). This includes making a knife, carrying it through a reshut harabbim, or preparing compresses. If these were forgotten, the milah is postponed to the ninth day (Milah 3:4), unless pikuach nefesh (danger to life) dictates otherwise (Milah 3:5). This strictness is generally accepted halacha.
   • Gentile for Shvut: One may instruct a nochri to perform a Rabbinic prohibition (shvut) on Shabbat for the sake of a mitzvah b'zmanah (e.g., bringing a knife through a karmelit), but not a Torah prohibition (Milah 3:7). This is a widely accepted principle.
   • Yom Tov: The Rambam (Milah 3:8) rules that even on Yom Tov, machshirim do not supersede, though leniencies exist for food-related preparations (e.g., grinding herbs if they can be used for food).

5. Blessings: The Rambam's distinction in beracha formulation (e.g., "למול בן" for a father vs. "על המילה" for a shaliach) (Milah 3:9) is noted in the Shulchan Aruch, but the Rema (YD 265:2) states the custom is to always say "על המילה." This reflects a broader Ashkenazic tendency towards standardized berachot. The father's beracha and the Kiddush recited at the brit are central to practice.

Takeaway

The Rambam's Hilchot Milah illuminates the profound tension between the physical ma'aseh and the kedushah of the agent and intent in halachic acts, particularly in the unique case of Brit Milah. His rigorous parsing of mitzvah components and their interaction with Shabbat provides a foundational framework for understanding the hierarchy of halachic priorities and the essence of a divine covenant.