Mishneh Torah, Circumcision 2

Sugya Map

• Core Issue: The functional eligibility of the mohel and the ontology of the milah act. Does the mitzvah reside in the action (the cutting) or the state (the resulting removal of the foreskin)?
• Nafka Mina:
  • Can a non-Jew or disqualified person perform a milah ab initio?
  • If performed by a non-Jew, is it bedi'avad valid (kavua)?
  • Does metzitzah constitute an integral part of the mitzvah or a post-operative medical requirement?
• Primary Sources: Mishneh Torah, Milah 2; Avodah Zarah 27a; Shabbat 137b; Yoreh De'ah 264.

Text Snapshot

• Source: Mishneh Torah, Milah 2:1-2.
• Text: "Circumcision may be performed by anyone... A gentile, however, should not be allowed to perform the circumcision at all. Nevertheless, if he does so, there is no need for a second circumcision."
• Nuance: Rambam uses the term lo yimol klal (should not circumcise at all). The Yitzchak Yeranen notes the word klal is technically redundant but serves as a ribui—precluding all classes of non-Jews, even those already circumcised (like Ishmaelites), because the act of a goy is fundamentally discordant with the mitzvah of Brit.

Readings

1. The Ohr Sameach (R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk)

The Ohr Sameach engages in a brilliant chakirah: If a circumcision is performed on its proper time (the eighth day), and a disqualified person (e.g., a non-Jew or an apostate) performs the initial cut, but a qualified Jew completes it—is the mitzvah fulfilled? He posits that if the milah is "not yet done," the completion by a Jew might be viewed as the true start. He compares this to shechitah; if a non-Jew begins the cut, the animal becomes nevelah, and a subsequent cut by a Jew cannot rectify it. However, he distinguishes milah: since the foreskin still exists, the mitzvah is not yet "lost" like nevelah. He concludes that if the entire foreskin is intact, we must wait for a qualified Jew to perform the entire act.

2. The Yitzchak Yeranen (R. Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik)

The Yitzchak Yeranen offers a structuralist defense of Rambam’s ruling that a goy's milah is bedi'avad valid. He rejects the Kessef Mishneh’s reliance on lishmah (intent). Instead, he invokes the logic of Tosafot in Bechorot 34a: even when the Torah forbids an act (lo ta'aseh), if the physical result is achieved, the status changes. Just as a mum (blemish) caused by a forbidden act still renders an animal a ba'al mum, the physical state of being "circumcised" is an objective reality. Even if the mohel violated the prohibition against a non-Jew performing the act, the status of the child as mahul is legally fixed. The mitzvah is not "the act of the mohel," but "the state of the child."

Friction

The Kushya

The strongest kushya arises from the status of metzitzah. Rambam writes, "Any [mohel] who does not perform metzitzah should be removed from his position" (2:2). If metzitzah is merely a medical safeguard (as the Tiferet Yisrael suggests), why is it elevated to a disqualifying factor for the mohel? Conversely, if it is a constitutive part of the mitzvah (Halachah leMoshe miSinai), why does the Rambam treat it as a medical necessity for "danger"?

The Terutz

The terutz lies in the Rambam's unique synthesis. The mitzvah of milah is a three-fold process (milah, pri'ah, metzitzah). The danger of infection is not "external" to the mitzvah; the mitzvah is a divine ritual that includes the physiological preservation of the covenant. To perform milah without metzitzah is to perform a truncated mitzvah. The mohel is removed not just for "medical negligence," but for liturgical incompetence—he has failed to complete the ma'aseh mitzvah as defined by the oral tradition.

Intertext

• Exodus 4:25: The archetype of the flint knife (tzor). Rambam grounds the permissibility of any cutting instrument here. The Prishah links this to the historical elevation of iron after David’s victory over Goliath, bridging the gap between the archaic flint and the Rabbinic preference for iron/steel.
• SA Yoreh De'ah 264:1: The Rama adds a significant stringency: an apostate (mumar) is categorically disqualified. This aligns with the Ohr Sameach’s concern regarding the "sanctity of the agent." While the Yitzchak Yeranen views the act as an objective transformation, the Rama insists on the agency of the covenantal participant.

Psak/Practice

In modern practice, the Rambam serves as the threshold for bedi'avad validity. While we maintain the hiddur of a learned, observant mohel, the halachah remains that if a milah is completed, it is binding. The meta-psak heuristic here is the distinction between ma'aseh (the act) and toza'ah (the result). Because the milah creates an indelible change in the status of the child, the halachah is highly reticent to demand a second "blood-drawing" (hatafat dam brit) unless the first attempt objectively failed to expose the crown.

Takeaway

The Brit Milah is not merely an act of surgery, but a transformation of status; the mohel is a conduit, but the covenant is the goal. Thus, the law distinguishes between the prohibition of the agent and the validity of the result.