Paternal patterns

This article endeavors to show that Rambams formulation of the famous כשם wish at a bris milah (and possible limitation of its recital) is consistent with his opinion of there being a unique element to a fathers obligation not shared by anyone else

Rambam holds (milah 3:1) that when a father performs the actual milah himself he says "למול" whereas when someone else does it for him the mohel says "על המילה". This coheres with his previously stated opinion (berachos 11:11-13) that employing "ל" vs "על" turns on if one is performing a personal obligation as opposed to assisting another with their own. 

(Compare with geirim in halacha 'ד where all share in the same mitzvah and thus equally say "למול".) 

He then says that the beracha of "להכניסו" is only said by the father, not when beis din or anyone else administers the bris, providing the rationale שֶׁמִּצְוָה עַל הָאָב לָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ יָתֵר עַל הַמִּצְוָה שֶׁמְּצֻוִּין כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּמוּלוּ כָּל עָרֵל שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן. He mentions that others argue (as does Raavad in his glosses), dismissing them. 

Perhaps the explanation of this additional mitzvah that the father possesses over others (that are also tasked with circumcising children should the father be out of the picture for whatever reason or derelict in carrying it out) is that the father has a positive command to do the milah whereas others only need step in to ensure that there aren't areilim in israel, but aren't commanded in milah per se, see the language above as well as earlier in ibid 1:1 וּבֵית דִּין מְצֻוִּין לָמוּל אוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן אוֹ הָעֶבֶד בִּזְמַנּוֹ, וְלֹא יַנִּיחוּ עָרֵל לֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא בְּעַבְדֵיהֶן that seem to support this conception. 

That's to say that the father alone possesses a positive milah obligation, others only possess it negatively. 

I found that צפנת פענח (ibid 3:1) already expresses this idea: ורבינו והר"א ז"ל פליגי אם החיוב על ב"ד רק שלא יהיה ערל או שיהיה מהול דרבינו ס"ל דהחיוב רק שלא יהיה ערל וע"ז לא שייך הברכה דלהכניסו והר"א ס"ל דהחיוב מוטל על כל ישראל שיהיה מהול.

Rambam then continues on in the next halacha (3:2) with: וְאִם הָיוּ שָׁם עוֹמְדִין - אוֹמְרִין "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִכְנַסְתּוֹ לַבְּרִית, כָּךְ תַּכְנִיסוֹ לְתוֹרָה וּלְחֻפָּה וּלְמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים". 

His girsa has this benediction utilizing the second person, ostensibly directed at the father, expressing the wish that just as he has merited to enter his son into the covenant so too may he merit to teach him torah and marry him off etc, with the focus on the father.

The implication is that absent the father the כשם blessing isn't recited.

Biur haGra comments (YD 265:6) on SA's citation of Rambam's version as follows: כשם שהכנסתו כו' – רמב"ם וטור (וכ"ה בתוספתא פ"ו דברכות ובירושלמי שם פ"ט) אבל גירסא שלנו כשם שנכנס כו'. (Rif records the נוכח version, Rosh the נסתר.)

In other words, there is another nusach to the k'sheim prayer (accepted in ashkenazic circles), with the emphasis on the child, ״כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַבְּרִית, כָּךְ יִכָּנֵס לְתוֹרָה לְחוּפָּה וּלְמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים״.

Perhaps it is Rambam l'shitaso that only the father says the blessing of l'hachniso, as only he is commanded in הכנסה לברית per se, he (Rambam) is therefore of the opinion that כשם וכו is articulated to reflect that.

Whereas when others step in, that only need see to it that there aren't any uncircumcised kids running around, that do not make the bracha of l'hachniso, as that would be overstating their obligation, they correspondingly omit the k'sheim prayer as well. 

The other shitah, that allows for l'hachniso even absent the father, apparently of the opinion that all share in the same obligation, with the father merely granted precedence, would presumably adopt the baby centric nusach, and have folks respond with it regardless of if the dad is around or not.

כאשר הצגתי את הקטע הזה לאבי הנערץ, הוא הראה לי שגם הרמב"ם מגביל את שהחיינו לאב (סוף הלכה ג') כשהגאון מווילנא מסביר (יו"ד רס"ה:ל"ד-ל"ה) שזה מתיישב עם דעת הרמב"ם כי עיקר מצוות מילה היא על האב ולדעתו בהלכות ברכות (י"א:י') שרק המצווה אישית במצוה מברך שהחיינו

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sukkos: Pesach in the fall

This piece attempts to uncover an entirely new way of looking at the significance of Sukkos in what essentially amounts to a paradigm shift about the chag Vayikra 23:42-43 בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כׇּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת. לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. There is no other biblical record of our forefathers ever having stayed in booths, certainly not immediately after the exodus. The rishonim (ad loc) quote a disagreement (bavli sukkah 11b) between R Eliezer and R Akiva as to the identity of the pasuk's obscure referent: כי בסכות הושבתי – איזו סכות היו, ר' אליעזר אומר ענני כבוד היו, ר' עקיבא אומר, סכות ממש then saying that it works out acc to R Eliezer but acc to R Akiva what exactly are we celebrating?; see there for various solutions. The rishonim have in common an understanding that the holiday is somehow related to hitherto un
Read more

Are Jews innately unique

This write up attempts to explain why Haman planned for genocide whereas the Greeks opted for religious suppression As reflected in the differing formulations of al hanissim for Purim and Chanuka respectively, Haman was out for Jewish blood whereas Antiochus was for eradicating Jewish rites and rituals.  Practically speaking, Judaism would have been a relic of the past had either of them had their way.  That different approaches were employed may have been a function of most Jews having been religiously observant during the Purim story as opposed to during the Chanukah story when most were already hellenized—easier to annihilate a people than to get them all to change their ways as opposed to by the Chanukah where only a minority were still practicing it made more sense to just stamp out what remaining observance there was than to exterminate an already mostly hellenized nation.   Perhaps a more philosophical approach can be suggested: There's a well known divide amongst Jewish thi
Read more

Zionism done right

This piece attempts to provide some color to a comment of Chazal regarding the Bnos Tzelafchad's חיבת הארץ as well as explain away an apparent inconsistency in a specific Amora's approach to it Bamidbar 27 opens with the daughters of Tzelafchad making their case to share in the distribution of EY by inheriting their sonless father Tzelafachad's portion instead of his brothers. Chazal posit a love for the land of Israel as their motivation, explaining that the reason this narrative is juxtaposed with the previous chapter owes to it being illustrative of an inferred contrast therein that only the men died out in the midbar as only they had cast aspersions on the land (to the extent of wanting to return to Egypt) as opposed to the women that were lovers of the land and wanted to proceed apace even after the report of the spies. Namely, ibid 26:64: וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי with Rash
Read more