Siman 263

If the infant is yellow with any kind of yellowness, whether like an egg yolk or like herbs or like the sky, it is a sign that his blood has not yet settled in him, and we do not perform milah on him until his blood settles in him and his appearance returns to be like other infants. For when the blood has not yet come into him he is very weak, and he lacks strength and is quick to weaken and die (Rashi, Shabbat 134a). And likewise if he is found to be red, it is a sign that the blood has settled in him, but the blood has not spread throughout his entire body. Rather, the blood stands between the skin and the flesh, and when they perform milah on him, all his blood exits (ibid.). Therefore, we do not perform milah on him until his blood is absorbed into his limbs. The Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that one must be very careful in these matters, for we do not perform milah on a child where there is a concern of illness, as danger to life overrides everything. For it is possible to perform milah at a later time, but it is impossible to restore a soul of Israel forever. Thus far their words.

The matter is simple: immediately once the blood has descended into him and is absorbed into the limbs, they may circumcise him, and in this case it is not applicable to wait seven days from the day he recovered; even though this has spread throughout the entire body, nevertheless, this is not an illness at all, but rather it is so from the essence of creation. For we see tangibly that every infant, when born, his body tends toward paleness, and especially to a paleness like the sky, because the blood does not descend into him from the beginning of his birth, but rather afterward, in a day or two or three, etc., and his appearance changes. And this infant, the blood did not descend into him even on the eighth day, but immediately when the blood descends into him—he is healthy like all healthy people. And so it is implied from the silence of the wording of the poskim, and especially from the wording of the Gemara there, where Abaye said to wait until the blood descends into him and they shall circumcise him, see there. And if it should enter your mind that seven days are required, he should have said so. Therefore, I am astonished at some of the great authorities who wish to be stringent to wait seven days afterward, as I have seen one of the authors who wishes to say so (Knesset HaGedolah in the name of Ya'akov Koppel and Tuv Ta'am VaDa'at). And these are astonishing words. And according to their words, regarding an infant in whom the blood descended on the third or fourth day, they would wait seven days, and according to this, for the majority of births the milah would not be on the eighth day. For it is a minority of a minority that the blood descends in them on the first day of his birth.

And know that that which we wrote, that this is not an illness, this is as appears from the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And so it appears from the wording of the Shas, Rashi, and the Ran, who wrote that blood has not yet been formed in him, see there. However, the wording of the Rambam in the first chapter, law 17 (Rambam, Laws of Milah 1): A minor who is found on his eighth day to be excessively yellow etc., and similarly if he was excessively red as if they dyed him etc., because this is an illness etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote that this is a disease, and he also added the wording "excessively." Indeed, the Rambam also holds like all the poskim, and that which he added the wording "excessively" is simple, for ordinary red or ordinary yellow is from the nature of creatures, people who are red or yellow, as we see tangibly. Therefore he wrote "excessively," meaning: more than what is accustomed. And because of this he calls it "illness," because such is not the nature of most children, that their blood should not settle until after the eighth day. And that which he added a further explanation regarding red, to say "as if they dyed him," is because in the appearance of redness there are many varieties, therefore he described it with the dyeing of blood, which is the reddest blood. But nevertheless, even according to the Rambam it is impossible to say at all that they should wait seven days from when he recovers, as is explained from the wording of the Shas, and also from his own words this is explained. And one of the great Acharonim proved from his wording that he does not require seven days (Bach), and such is the primary ruling. And it is simple that even if the change from red or yellow is in part of the body, or even in one limb—we do not perform milah on him until the appearance returns. And so too if part of him is red and part of him is yellow. For we have already explained at the end of siman 262 that as long as there is any change—we delay the milah, and as I wrote there in section 10 in the name of the Gaon and the Ittur, see there. And so too if he is excessively white, or excessively weak, or they did not tie the umbilical cord properly and blood came out of it—we delay the milah until he strengthens properly. And so too if he is unable to nurse from the breast—we delay until he begins to nurse. And so too anything similar to this, according to the sight of human eyes.

It is stated in Yevamot (Yevamot 72a): On a cloudy day when the clouds are many, and on a day of the southern wind when the south wind blows – we do not perform milah on it. But nowadays, since the masses have become accustomed to it, "The Lord preserves the simple." And it is also stated there previously that due to the weakness of the journey, when one arrives exhausted from the road – we do not perform milah, see there. And not one of the poskim brought this matter. And the reason: since the masses have become accustomed to it. And also the weakness of the journey is only relevant when the mother walked with him on foot, similar to the wilderness mentioned in the Gemara there. Furthermore: if they truly see some weakness in the infant, it has already been explained that they should not perform milah on him until he becomes strong. However, the Nimukei Yosef in the name of the Ritva wrote at the beginning of the chapter "Ha-Arel" in the name of his teacher: that one who does not wish to perform milah on a cloudy day – the permission is in his hand, and he does well not to rely on "The Lord preserves the simple." And the same law applies that it would be proper not to perform milah on Shabbat when it is cloudy. Thus far his words. Our teacher Yerucham wrote: A cloudy day or a day in which the south wind blows – it does not prevent one from performing milah on him, for "The Lord preserves the simple." But the exertion of the road, meaning that he is ill from the exertion of the road – they do not perform milah on him until he is healed. Thus far his words. And there is one who wrote that anything that is not in the body of the infant, such as when he wishes to set out on a journey – they do not delay the milah for his sake, just as we do not delay for the blowing of the winds (Beit Yosef in the name of our teacher Manoach).

And behold, it is clear that one does not delay the milah in order to set out on a journey; rather, one circumcises him. However, it seems to me that it is automatically forbidden to take the infant with him to set out on a long journey until the milah is healed, for perhaps he will be endangered by this. But to travel in a carriage is perhaps permitted, for he is placed in one spot and covered with pillows and blankets as is customary. And also when they brought him from the journey in a carriage, it appears that there is no weakness here. And this requires the understanding of those expert in the body and the appearance of the infant. Indeed, regarding what the Nimukei Yosef wrote, that on a cloudy day one has the permission to delay the milah, we have never heard of this. For behold, we find that based on the principle "The Lord preserves the simple," we are lenient even in a voluntary matter, such as to let blood on the eve of Shabbat, as we say at the end of the chapter "Mipanin," and all the more so regarding the great mitzvah of milah. And proof for the matter is that not one of the poskim happened to mention this—learn from this that we do not listen to him. And such is the simple custom, and it is not to be changed.

A woman who circumcised her first son and he died, in that the circumcision weakened his strength and he died because of the circumcision, such as if he died some days after the circumcision; and likewise the second, when she circumcised him he died because of the circumcision—she shall not circumcise the third, for she has established a presumption that her sons die because of circumcision. And even though a presumption requires three times, nevertheless, regarding a matter of mortal danger, our sages, of blessed memory, ruled (Yevamot 64b) that with two times it is a presumption. And there is no difference whether the offspring are from one husband, or whether each offspring is from a husband of his own, such as if she was divorced and married another. For the primary factor depends on the woman, because the blood in the offspring is from the woman and not from the man, as his father provides the white and his mother provides the red (Niddah 31a). Therefore, regarding a woman, we are also concerned for a familial concern in this manner, such as if Rachel circumcised her son and he died because of circumcision, and Leah her sister also circumcised and he died—their third sister shall not circumcise anymore, for sisters establish a presumption. That is to say: just as one woman creates a presumption, so too two sisters establish a presumption, because we are concerned that perhaps by their nature they are thus. And it appears that even if the mother of these sisters gave birth to males, and they circumcised them and they lived, nevertheless, because of the concern of mortal danger, we are concerned that perhaps in her daughters an abundance of blood was influenced, until because of this those born are full of blood, and because of the circumcision the blood will flow from them and they die. For in the Gemara and in the poskim we have not found a distinction whether their mother gave birth to males or did not give birth—deduce from this that it is all one. And perforce one must say as I have written. And it is simple that they must be sisters from their mother as well.

And how should they act regarding the newborn who cannot be circumcised? The Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote to wait for him until he grows and his strength is fortified. Thus far his words. And it appears in my humble opinion that the intention is not until he is an adult of thirteen years and one day, for how is this dependent on that? Rather, until he grows slightly in years, and his strength is fortified according to the eyes of the experts, and there is no fixed measure for this matter. And I saw one who explained until thirteen years, and it is not clear to me at all, and the primary view is as I have written. And if they see weakness in him even after thirteen—they should not circumcise him. Furthermore, I saw one who investigated if there is a practical difference between whether the woman circumcises or another. And all these are idle words, and there is no practical difference in this. (And the Noda BiYehuda, second edition, siman 165, also ruled to circumcise at three years, see there.)

And behold, from the language of the Rambam and the Tur it is explicitly clear that the matter depends on the woman and not on the man, and so it is implied in the Gemara. And the reason is because the matter depends on her, as I have written. Therefore, a man whose son was circumcised and died due to circumcision, and a son was also born to him from another woman and also died—we do not fear this, and the third son may be circumcised. And so the author of the Agudah performed a practical act, and the child lived (Bach). However, there are those who say that the same law applies to a man (Beit Yosef in the name of our teacher Manoach). And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was concerned for this opinion, and wrote in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 263:2), and this is his wording: And the same law applies if one man circumcised his first and second son, and they died due to circumcision—he shall not circumcise the third, whether they were from one woman or from two. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And there are those who disagree, and they hold that it is not relevant to a man but only to a woman. And it appears that in a doubt involving lives, one should be lenient. Thus far his words. And there is one who says that there is no doubt here at all (Bach).

And I have seen the great authorities (Noda BiYehudah ibid. and Yeshuot Yaakov) who wondered about the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote that she should not circumcise the third until he grows and his strength is fortified, for from where do we have this to say so? For in the Gemara we say plainly "the third she shall not circumcise," which implies forever? And as a slight proof for this is from what is common in the Shas, "an uncircumcised man whose brothers died due to circumcision," which implies that he remains uncircumcised forever. And I say that from the Shas they deduced this. For behold, in the incident of Rabbi Natan who went to the coastal cities, and a woman came who circumcised two and they died, and the third she brought before him and he gazed at him and saw that he was green, and he commanded to wait until his blood falls into him and they circumcised him and he lived, and likewise with red. And it is difficult: behold, Rabbi Natan did not see the previous two to know for what reason they died, and from where was he certain that the two were circumcised while they were green or red? Perhaps it was due to the cause of their mother? And this cannot be said, that he asked her and she told him so, for behold, this is not explained in the Gemara. And if we say that Rabbi Natan understood this from the third child, it is difficult: for shall we judge in matters of mortal danger from the later to the earlier? And the later was only one child.

Rather, the clarification of the matter is certainly as follows: The Torah commanded to circumcise on the eighth day from his birth, and presumably we are confident that no mishap will occur from the circumcision. We have no reason to harbor any concern when the child is healthy and whole, except when he is ill. But if the deficiency is due to the previous sons, the Torah commanded to search for some cause. Therefore, Rabbi Nathan was compelled to examine the third child, for if not so, who compelled him to examine, and should he not have attributed it to the mother? Rather, it is certain that one must search for the cause. And when he found regarding the third that he was yellow or red—he attributed it to this cause. Therefore, we hold that one may not circumcise him when he is yellow or red. And if so, deduce from it and within it that when they do not find a specific cause for this child, one must perforce attribute it to the mother. But we do not attribute more than the previous sons who died, meaning that we see that this woman’s children are ill as eight-day-olds, but not more than eight-day-olds. And the matter is an a fortiori argument: for if in the incident of Rabbi Nathan, where he did not see the previous sons, he nevertheless attributed it to yellowness and redness—how much more so in a general case: where we knew that eight-day-olds who were circumcised died—we have no reason to attribute it to more than eight-day-olds. However, we have no fixed time for this, and therefore we attribute it to what is common, that they are weak in their infancy. Consequently, when they have grown a bit and their strengths have been fortified— the cause has departed. This is the reasoning of our teachers, and it is clear with the help of Heaven. And that which we find in the Gemara, an uncircumcised man whose brothers died due to circumcision—this is when they circumcised them in their adulthood and they died, and so wrote the Tosafot at the beginning of Chullin, see there. (Chullin 4b, starting with "who died." And they wrote: Alternatively, on the eighth day, for example, they peered and saw that their blood was absorbed within them. Thus far their words, which implies that in such a case one never circumcises. It can also be said that their intention is when he did not become strong even in his adulthood. And it can further be said that they took their first answer as primary.)

However, one must wonder why the Rambam and the Tur omitted this matter of sisters establishing a chazakah. The Rif also omitted this at the end of the sixth chapter of Yevamot; see there. It appears to me that this is because we say there, Rava said: Now that you have said sisters establish a chazakah—a man should not marry a woman from a family of lepers, nor from a family of epileptics. And this is when it has been established three times. The Rambam wrote this law in the twenty-first chapter of the Laws of Forbidden Intercourse, and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer, see there. The Nimukei Yosef wrote: That even though regarding danger we hold that a chazakah is established with two times, nevertheless, regarding a family ailment, everyone agrees that only with three times is there a concern; see there. According to this, according to the words of Rava, the law of sisters is not similar to the law of the woman herself, and also it is not specifically sisters, but rather all members of the family. Therefore, our teachers omitted it since sisters are not specific, and they wrote the essence of this law in another place. And when there is a chazakah of three times—there is no novelty here. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote that the law of sisters regarding milah is also two times, would explain that Rava was only stating a general comparison. But the Rif, the Rambam, and the Tur would explain as I have written (so it appears in my humble opinion). And it appears to me that to uproot the chazakah, if it was established with two times—it is uprooted even with one time if she gave birth to a third child, and they circumcised him and he lived. And if with three times—it is not uprooted except with three times, as with vestot in siman 189; see there. And one may also say that they ruled like Rav Ashi that mazal is the cause, and automatically the law of sisters is nullified. And as for the fact that they were concerned regarding marriage into a family of lepers, it is because there is no necessity, and he may marry another.

Regarding one born circumcised, opinions are numerous: The Bahag and the Tosafot ruled that it is not necessary to draw from him the blood of the brit, and we are not concerned at all that it might be a pressed orlah, meaning, perhaps the skin is attached to the flesh and he is still uncircumcised. For such is the plain implication of the Gemara in Shabbat (Shabbat 135a). But the Rif, the Rambam, and our teacher Chananel ruled that it is necessary to draw from him the blood of the brit, for we are concerned that it might be a pressed orlah. And the Rambam ruled in the third chapter that one does not recite the blessing over the milah, since it is a matter of doubt. However, the Ri ruled that we do recite the blessing, for over a doubt regarding a Torah commandment we recite a blessing. And Rav Hai Gaon ruled in practice that it is necessary to draw from him the blood of the brit, and thus we hold.

This is the wording of the Tur in the name of the Gaon: Thus the early rabbis agreed, that it is necessary to extract from him the blood of the covenant. However, it must be done gently, and the matter requires very careful examination with the hands and with the sight of the eyes, and not with an iron instrument so as not to cause him distress. And one does not recite the blessing over the circumcision unless a suppressed orlah is visible to him. And they observe and are careful how they circumcise him, and they wait for him a long time. And they are not concerned for the eighth day, so that they do not bring him into danger. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, that it requires very careful examination, the examination is of the organ, lest they find in him a suppressed orlah. Therefore, one should not examine this with iron but rather with his hands and gently, so that he does not damage it (Perishah). And it is obvious that such a circumcision does not override Shabbat or Yom Tov. However, if they found a suppressed orlah—it overrides Shabbat, and all the more so one recites the blessing over it, provided only that it is certainly a suppressed orlah (see Shach subsection 4). And know that sometimes the orlah is slightly open, and they call this "born circumcised," but it is not so. For one born circumcised, the organ must appear as it does after the milah and the periah, and therefore the extraction of the blood of the covenant from him requires careful consideration so as not to damage him. And to the mohelim this is known.

And know that regarding the matter of one born circumcised there are great questions. For behold, from the language of the poskim, and likewise from the language of the Shas in Shabbat there, it is explained that one born circumcised, according to the one who holds that it is necessary to draw from him the blood of the brit, it is because of the doubt that perhaps it is a suppressed orlah. Therefore, it does not override the Shabbat, and does not require a blessing. But if so, why do we say in Yevamot (Yevamot 72a) that one born circumcised may eat terumah, and so wrote the Rambam in the seventh chapter of Terumot (the Rambam, Laws of Terumot 7), for behold, he is a doubtful uncircumcised person? And more difficult than this is that there (Yevamot 71a) Rabbi Akiva derived from the verse "a resident and a hired hand shall not eat of it" which is written regarding the Pesach offering to include etc., and a minor who was born circumcised. And he holds it is necessary to draw from him the blood of the brit, see there. Behold, we include it from a verse, and not because of doubt. And likewise in the Yerushalmi of Shabbat (chapter nineteen, halacha 2) we say: Rav said: "He shall surely be circumcised" – from here for one born circumcised that it is necessary to draw from him the blood of the brit, see there. Behold, he derived it from a verse.

It appears to me that this is the presentation of this halacha: For certainly Rava Elazar and Rabbi Akiva disagree there in Yevamot, as Rabbi Akiva holds that one born circumcised requires by Torah law to have a drop of blood drawn, etc., and he is a complete uncircumcised person. And Rabbi Elazar holds there that he does not need to have a drop drawn, and he is like one who is circumcised. And that which is taught there, that one born circumcised may eat terumah—follows Rabbi Elazar. Now, according to the rules of the Shas, we should have ruled like Rabbi Akiva, for the halacha follows Rabbi Akiva over his colleague. However, the Rambam ruled like Rabbi Elazar based on the sugya in Shabbat there, where the Tannaim also disagree on this matter. And Rav and Shmuel disagreed there: for Rav said the halacha follows the first Tanna, that Beit Hillel hold he does not need to have a drop drawn. And Shmuel holds there that the halacha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that even according to Beit Hillel he must have a drop drawn, and we hold like Rav in matters of prohibitions. Therefore, he ruled like Rabbi Elazar and not like Rabbi Akiva. And proof for this is that in the seventh chapter of Terumot (Rambam, Laws of Terumot 7), the Rambam wrote: An uncircumcised kohen is forbidden from eating terumah, and we learn this from "resident and hired servant" regarding the Pesach offering, see there. And that derivation—Rabbi Elazar derives it in Yevamot there, and they have already raised this difficulty against him (Mishneh LaMelech and Lechem Mishneh in the tenth chapter of the Laws of the Pesach Offering (Rambam, Laws of the Pesach Offering 10)). However, according to what I have written, it works out well, and therefore he also ruled that he may eat terumah.

And behold, according to this, there is no need at all to extract from him the blood of the brit. And consequently, we are not concerned with the Yerushalmi because it contradicts our Gemara, as Rava says the opposite. However, in Shabbat there, Rabbah and Rav Yosef disagree, for Rabbah said we are concerned lest it be a suppressed orlah, and one must extract from him the blood of the brit. And it is merely a stringency of rabbinic origin, and therefore he ruled that it does not require a blessing. And this is the intent of the Rif there, who wrote that even though Rav and Shmuel disagree etc. – the law is established according to the later authorities etc., and the halakha is like Rabbah that we are concerned lest it be a suppressed orlah etc. Thus far his words. That is to say: certainly regarding the primary law we hold like Rav and like Rabbi Eleazar, but nevertheless, regarding the extraction of the blood of the brit, we are concerned lest it be a suppressed orlah. And even though it is a slight concern, as the vast majority do not have a suppressed orlah, and therefore regarding terumah we are not concerned, yet regarding the extraction of the blood of the brit we are concerned. And this is what the Gaon said, that they should examine very thoroughly etc., that is to say: to examine perhaps they will find a suppressed orlah and they will circumcise with a blessing. And if not – they circumcise him without a blessing. (See Mishkenot Yaakov siman 61 who raised a difficulty from that of terumah, and based on this he wanted to say that the extraction of the blood of the brit is a commandment unto itself, see there. And it is not at all clear. But according to what I have written, everything is settled well. Examine and you will find it simple.)

An infant who died before eight days, or after eight days and was not circumcised due to his weakness—they circumcise him at his grave with a flint or a reed. This is not for the sake of the mitzvah of milah, for there is no mitzvah for the dead, but rather to remove the loathsome orlah. They do not recite a blessing over the milah, but they give him a name for a memorial, so that they will have mercy upon him from Heaven and he will live at the resurrection of the dead. This matter is a tradition from the Geonim, as the Tur wrote, see there. And it follows that one should not do this on Yom Tov, even on the second day of Yom Tov. For regarding a corpse—the rabbis treated it like an ordinary weekday matter, as it is forbidden to bury a nefel on Yom Tov, and it is forbidden to move it. There is one who says that from thirty days and onward, for whom one mourns—they remove his orlah on the second day of Yom Tov (Ba'er Heitev in the name of the Rash Halevi). And if they forgot to remove the orlah—they may dig up his grave and circumcise him (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And if they buried him with his mother—they do not open the grave. And regarding the law of burying nefalim on Yom Tov, it was explained in Orach Chaim siman 526, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is forbidden to circumcise an idolater not for the sake of conversion even on a weekday. Thus far his words. And there are those who wrote the reason is so as not to place upon him the seal of the holy covenant (Taz and Levush). And there are those who wrote that specifically for free it is forbidden, but for payment, where he does this for the sake of healing—it is permitted (Shach subsection 8). And know that the opinion of the Rambam in the tenth chapter of Kings (Rambam, Laws of Kings and Their Wars 10) is that the descendants of Keturah are obligated in circumcision. And today, since the descendants of Ishmael have become mixed with the descendants of Keturah—they are all obligated in circumcision, see there. And according to his words, an Israelite may circumcise an Ishmaelite. But the opinion of Rashi in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 58a) is not so, see there. And one of the great authorities wrote at length to prove according to the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory (Sha'agat Aryeh, siman 49). And one who wishes to rely on the opinion of the Rambam—one does not protest against him. And it is obvious that even according to his words, they were not commanded regarding peri'ah.