Siman 331

It has already been explained in Yoreh Deah siman 266 that milah in its proper time overrides Shabbat, and when it is not in its proper time it does not override Shabbat, and we explained there in section 25 that milah is permitted on Shabbat and not merely suppressed; see there. And one performs all the needs of milah on Shabbat: they circumcise, and perform periah, and perform metzitzah, and place upon it cumin that was ground from the eve of Shabbat, and it was explained there that there is no difference between one mohel and many mohalim, and that initially even on Shabbat three mohalim may circumcise: this one cuts, and this one performs periah, and this one performs metzitzah, not like those who are stringent to say that on Shabbat only one mohel should circumcise; see there.

As long as he has not removed his hand from the milah—he returns even for tzitzin that do not invalidate the milah to cut them, and even if he removed his hand from the cutting, as long as he or another is engaged in the periah, it is called "not removed his hand." But after the periah—it is called "removed his hand," for the metzitzah is only because of danger. And what is called tzitzin that invalidate the milah: flesh that covers the majority of the height of the atarah in one place, even if it is very thin, and flesh that covers a minority of the height of the atarah is called tzitzin that do not invalidate. And so too regarding the periah, if he did not perform the periah according to the law—he returns to it even afterward, and so too regarding metzitzah, if he did not perform metzitzah properly or even if he has a doubt whether he performed metzitzah properly or not—he returns and performs metzitzah, according to the law of every doubt of danger which overrides Shabbat. And it appears to me that also regarding the cutting, if he has a doubt whether this is from the tzitzin that invalidate or not, such as when it is difficult to determine if the flesh covers the majority of the atarah or not, and so too regarding periah when there is a doubt—he returns, for since the Torah permitted Shabbat regarding milah, it permitted him until the doubt is removed from his heart whether he circumcised properly or not, for if he did not circumcise according to the law, it would be a desecration of Shabbat not in the place of a mitzvah. And behold, even regarding tzitzin that do not invalidate there is a dispute in the Gemara (133b), and there are those who hold that he returns even for them, see there, but we do not rule accordingly. However, in a case of doubt—certainly he returns. And it is simple that even regarding tzitzin that do not invalidate, after the Shabbat he returns for them.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: An eight-month-old: if his hair and nails are fully formed—we circumcise him on Shabbat (for he is a seven-month-old who was delayed), and if they are not fully formed, even if it is a doubt whether he is a seven-month-old or an eight-month-old—we do not circumcise him, and it goes without saying for a certain eight-month-old. And if he is a certain seven-month-old, even if his hair and nails are not fully formed—we circumcise him. Thus far his words. And there are many discussions regarding these matters, and similarly in the words of the Rambam there are contradictions in this matter, and we have explained it with the help of Heaven in Yoreh Deah siman 266 from section 21 until section 24, and in Even HaEzer siman 156 from section 5 until section 13, see there.

"And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised," and we expound: "On the eighth day" — even on Shabbat, for this word "on the day" is superfluous, and it should have written "and on the eighth," since it refers back to days, as it is written previously: "she shall be impure seven days" (see Shabbat 132b). And this word "his foreskin" is also superfluous, since the location of the circumcision was already explained in Parshat Lech Lecha, and it should have written: "And on the eighth day he shall be circumcised." And we expound from "flesh" regarding the matter of a baheret (133a), that one may circumcise in the place of a baheret, and it was explained in Yoreh Deah there. And from "his foreskin" we expound that specifically a certain foreskin overrides Shabbat, but not a doubtful foreskin, such as an androgynos who is a doubtful male and doubtful female — we do not circumcise him on Shabbat. And similarly not when the time is in doubt, such as if he was born during bein hashemashot, which is after sunset, for immediately after sunset the doubt begins. But before sunset, even if they have already accepted Shabbat, this is not relevant to the time of the circumcision. Now, in the case of one born on Shabbat during bein hashemashot — it is obvious that he is circumcised on Sunday, for even on weekdays in such a case he is circumcised the next day, for perhaps it is not yet his eighth day; but even if he was born on Friday during bein hashemashot — we do not circumcise him on Shabbat, for perhaps it was day and his time was on Friday eve, and it would be a circumcision not in its time on Shabbat, which does not override Shabbat. And there are times when due to doubt he is circumcised on the twelfth day, and it was explained in Yoreh Deah there. And similarly, one born when he is circumcised — we do not circumcise him on Shabbat, and this is also included in "his foreskin," meaning a complete foreskin and not one born circumcised, for even if we are obligated to draw from him the blood of the covenant, nevertheless it does not override Shabbat (135a). And the primary purpose of the verse is for an androgynos and for one born circumcised, for regarding a doubt of time it was not necessary, as we would automatically not desecrate Shabbat by hand out of doubt (Tosafot ibid.). But an androgynos, since we are obligated to circumcise him, and similarly one born circumcised who requires the drawing of the blood of the covenant, I would have said that they should circumcise them on Shabbat — the verse comes to teach us that they should not circumcise them on Shabbat. And the Rif wrote that one born circumcised is a legal doubt whether we desecrate Shabbat for him or not, see there, and according to this it is not relevant to say that we expound it from the verse, and it must be said that the verse is only for an androgynos. (And it requires further study, for Rabbi Yehuda holds in the Mishnah 134b that an androgynos overrides Shabbat, and it is explained in the Gemara 137 that he expounds from the verse "every male" that an androgynos is obligated in circumcision from the Torah, and the Rabbis hold that he is not obligated; if so, even for an androgynos it is not necessary. And the Tosafot 135a at the end of the heading starting with "v'lo" wrote that the primary purpose of the verse is for one born circumcised, see there, and if so, according to the Rif it is difficult and requires further study, and look closely into it).

One born circumcised is defined as such when he appears circumcised even without an erection, for if it is only during an erection—this is nothing. It is a wonder that it is not our custom to examine one born circumcised on Shabbat, for perhaps it is forbidden to circumcise him on Shabbat. It is possible that this is because it is uncommon for him to appear circumcised even not at a time of erection, but if such a case is found, it is certainly forbidden to circumcise him on Shabbat or Yom Tov. Similarly, one born via cesarean section, or a gentile woman who gave birth and afterwards converted (in ancient times)—their circumcision does not override Shabbat, and in the Gemara there we derive these from verses; see there. So too one who has two orlot, which means two skins one on top of the other or two organs (Rashi 135b). And there is one who explained two skins over the periah (Panim Me'irot), and this is a matter of wonder, for this is not recognizable at all, and in many children there are two thin skins over the place of the periah, and this is not a change at all; rather, the intention is regarding the thick skin of the actual orlah, that there is an additional skin (and see Machatzit HaShekel subsection 4).

Milah overrides Shabbat, but not the preparations for milah that could have been done on the eve of Shabbat. Therefore, if one did not bring a scalpel for the milah on the eve of Shabbat—he may not bring it on Shabbat from a reshut harabbim, and it is even forbidden to bring it from a karmelit, even though because of this they will not circumcise him today, for the sages upheld their words even in a case involving karet. Regarding telling a non-Jew to perform a labor or to bring the scalpel, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 6 that if it is a matter that, had an Israelite done it, it would only be a rabbinic prohibition—it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to do it, as it is a shevut deshvut in a place of a mitzvah. But if it were a matter that, had an Israelite done it, it would involve a Torah prohibition—it is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to do it, for we do not override the shevut of telling a non-Jew for the sake of a mitzvah; see there. However, according to what our teacher, the Rema, wrote above in siman 276, that it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to light a candle for him for the Shabbat meal, see there, certainly there is reason to permit it for the sake of milah. And while it is true that there we do not rule accordingly, as I wrote there, nevertheless regarding milah one may rely on this opinion regarding telling a non-Jew to bring the scalpel through a reshut harabbim, or to repair the scalpel when necessary (see Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 5). But by an Israelite himself—it is forbidden with any type of shevut, and certainly to fix the fingernail, as this involves a derivative of a primary labor. Similarly, it is forbidden to bring the infant to the beit knesset even by means of a non-Jew through a courtyard that is not joined by an eruv, and certainly through a karmelit, since they can circumcise him in his home (ibid.). There is one who says that if the mohel removed the knife from his hand, it is then forbidden for him to move it or put it away, as it is muktzeh (ibid.), and similarly it is forbidden to rinse the blood from the knife (ibid.), but we have explained with the help of Heaven in Yoreh Deah there in section 14 and section 15 that it is permitted; see there.

If he did not have cumin ground from the eve of Shabbat, or in our case, if they did not grind the rotted wood that they call "pulver" from the eve of Shabbat—it is forbidden to grind it on Shabbat, but rather he chews it by means of a shinui, and that is with his teeth. And similarly, in a place where it is the practice to apply wine and oil to the milah, and that is where they mix the wine and the oil together and beat them vigorously, if he did not beat them from the eve of Shabbat—it is forbidden to beat them on Shabbat. And similarly, if he did not mix them together from the eve of Shabbat—he shall not mix them on Shabbat, but rather he shall apply each one alone, or when he applies them together, he shall apply them by means of some shinui. And know that all of this is before the milah, but if they already performed the milah and they saw that there is no cumin and no oil and wine—it is obvious that they desecrate the Shabbat for it, for after the milah he is in danger.

There are those who make a type of garment for the pocket after the milah, like a tight pocket that covers the head of the organ until the corona, and one ties it there so that the skin does not return to cover the organ. And if they did not prepare this from the eve of Shabbat—it is forbidden to make it on Shabbat; rather, he wraps a rag over it, and if he does not have a rag in his house, he wraps it on his finger in the manner of a garment to deviate from the manner of carrying it on a weekday, and he brings it through another courtyard even if they did not establish a shittuf together, but through a public domain—it is forbidden (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And this is forbidden even after the milah, for they do not do this for his healing but rather so that the skin does not return to cover the organ, and if they do not do it today, they will do it tomorrow, and what of it.

The Tur wrote: "It is forbidden to tell a non-Jew before the milah to heat water for the sake of the milah, for since it involves a Torah prohibition—they did not permit telling a non-Jew. However, regarding a rabbinic prohibition, such as bringing it through an alleyway that was not joined with a shituf or a courtyard that was not joined with an eruv—it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to bring them. Similarly, if a non-Jew had water that he heated on Shabbat for his own sake, or if an Israelite transgressed and heated them—it is permitted to wash him with them. And even though they forbade washing the entire body even in water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat, regarding milah they permitted it." Thus far his words. It is clear from his words that to bring the hot water via a non-Jew through a public domain is forbidden, but according to what we wrote in section 6, there is grounds to permit it; see there. And all of this is before the milah, but after the milah—he is in danger and everything is permitted, according to the law of a person who is dangerously ill.

The Rambam in chapter 2, law 15 wrote: "One washes him before the circumcision and after the circumcision and on the third day of the circumcision with hot water that was heated on Shabbat, because of the danger." And so he wrote in chapter 2 of Circumcision, law 8, and this is his wording: "In a place where it is their custom to wash the infant—one washes him on Shabbat on the day of the circumcision, whether before the circumcision or after the circumcision, or on the third day of the circumcision that happens to fall on Shabbat, whether washing his entire body or washing the circumcision, whether with hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat or with hot water that was heated on Shabbat, because it is a danger to him." Thus far his words. And his words are puzzling, for before the circumcision the concept of danger is not relevant. However, he himself explained in the responsa to the sages of Lunel that his intention was only regarding the third day of the circumcision (see there in the Kesef Mishneh). And on the contrary, even after the circumcision if there is no hot water prepared—they shall not circumcise and they shall not heat, unless it was spilled after the circumcision, for then it is a necessity to heat. And that which he wrote "before the circumcision" is regarding the matter that they permitted him the washing of his entire body.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9: "In the time of the sages of the Gemara, if they did not wash the infant before the milah, after the milah, and on the third day of the milah with hot water, he was in danger; therefore, they were required to write its law when it falls on Shabbat. But nowadays, they are not accustomed to washing at all, and its law is to wash on Shabbat if they wish according to the law of washing for any person." Thus far his words. That is to say, it is forbidden to wash his entire body, even in hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote concerning it, and this is his wording: "And in these lands, it is the custom to wash him before the mila with hot water that was heated yesterday, and after the mila on Saturday night; and similarly, if it was the third day of his mila on Shabbat and they see there is a need to wash him, they prepare hot water for him from the eve of Shabbat and wash him on Shabbat. And all this is in the ordinary case, but if they see that there is reason to fear danger if they do not wash him after the mila—it is certainly permitted to wash him and to desecrate Shabbat for him, just as it is for any other person who is dangerously ill." Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: that our custom is not like the words of the Gemara that one desecrates Shabbat for the washing after the mila and of the third day, because we maintain that this is not a necessity for the infant. Nevertheless, we do not follow the custom of the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, to forbid the washing entirely even with hot water that was heated from the eve of Shabbat; rather, even before the mila we wash his entire body with this hot water, because we hold that although there is no necessity in the washing, nevertheless it is good for the infant. Therefore, we wash his entire body before the mila, and only after the mila do we wait until the night, because we hold that since they washed him beforehand, he is no longer in need at all until the night, and it is forbidden to wash his entire body. And similarly on the third day, we do not maintain it as a great necessity but only as a benefit, and we wash his entire body by means of hot water that was heated from the eve of Shabbat. And all this is in the ordinary case, but when they see a necessity—one desecrates Shabbat. And it is obvious that they should be careful not to wash by means of a cloth but rather by hand, so as not to come to the point of squeezing. And it has already been explained in Yoreh Deah there, that a person who has never performed a mila should not perform the mila for the first time on Shabbat, and similarly one who has never performed the periah should not perform the first periah on Shabbat, for perhaps he will ruin it and cause a wound not in the place of the mitzvah. But if he performed mila or periah one time—it is permitted on the second time to do so on Shabbat, and even if he is the father of the son, see there; and further several laws of mila on Shabbat were explained there, see there.