Siman 264

All are fit to circumcise, even a slave, even a woman, even a minor. And regarding a woman there is a dispute in the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 27a). For behold, an idolater is certainly disqualified, as it is written: "And you shall keep My covenant, and your seed after you" – and not an idolater who is not a member of the covenant, and even if he is circumcised – he is considered like one uncircumcised. And there are those who exclude an idolater because it is written "he shall surely be circumcised," and we expound: "he who is circumcised shall circumcise" – and not one who is not circumcised. And according to this reason, a woman is permitted to circumcise, for she is considered as if she were circumcised. And according to this reason, the Rif and the Rambam ruled. But our teachers the Tosafists ruled according to the first reason, and according to this, a woman is disqualified, for she is not a member of the covenant. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who say that a woman should not circumcise. Thus far his words. And even according to this opinion, a slave is fit to circumcise, for behold he is a member of the covenant who is obligated in milah. And the obligation is incumbent upon the master, as I have written in siman 267. And therefore, even though in the entire Torah a slave and a woman are equal, nevertheless in this law they are not equal for the reason that has been explained.

A minor is fit to perform circumcision, as he is subject to the commandment of milah. This is specifically when he knows how to steady his hands and is sharp in his intellect. According to this, it would appear that a deaf-mute and an imbecile are also fit, except that it is impossible to give it to them, since they are not possessed of understanding. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work that it is because a minor will eventually come into the obligation of commandments; see there. According to this, one could say that a deaf-mute and an imbecile are disqualified by the law, for they will not come into the obligation of commandments. Nevertheless, it appears to me that it is impossible to distinguish between them, for in most laws of the Torah, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are equal, and he did not necessarily intend this reason specifically. The primary reason is that they are members of the covenant and are circumcised.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, validated a woman, and nevertheless wrote that if there is an adult Israelite who knows how to circumcise – he precedes them all. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, invalidates a woman as I have written, and wrote regarding this that such is the custom to seek after a man. Thus far his words. And they questioned him, for this is so even according to those who validate a woman (Shach subsection 2 and the Gra subsection 6). For the Rif and the Rosh wrote explicitly in the nineteenth chapter of Shabbat, that an adult Israelite precedes them all. And one cannot say that his intention is that even in a place where there is no man who knows how to circumcise we do not give a woman to circumcise, for if so, how is the phrasing "and such is the custom" relevant to this? For it is an uncommon matter, whether that a man would not be found to circumcise or that a woman would be found to circumcise (Shach ibid.).

And it seems to me that his words are correct, when we examine the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote according to his view that an adult Jewish male precedes everyone. In truth, in the Rif and the Rosh this wording is not found, and this is the wording of the Rif: Therefore, where there is no man etc. and there is a woman etc. it is fine etc. Thus far his words. And the Rambam also wrote: And a woman and a minor may circumcise in a place where there is no man, see there. However, the intent is one: that in a place where there is a man – we do not take a woman to circumcise, for why do we need the woman since there is a man? And it is not because of precedence, but rather that this is the way of the matter. And that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote "is prior" – is not by the law of legal precedence, but rather the way of the matter, as women are of light mind. And according to this, if in this city there is no man who knows how to circumcise, and there is a woman – certainly they are not obligated to send to another city to bring a man. And for this, our teacher, the Rema, added that such is the custom to seek after a man, meaning: if there is no man in this place – they seek to send to another place to bring a mohel, and it has never occurred to allow a woman to circumcise. And regarding this, custom certainly applies, since it never happened even once in any place, and it is common to send for a mohel to another place. And this is why he added "to seek," meaning: even from another city (so it seems to me).

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of the second chapter (Rambam, Laws of Milah 2): Everyone is fit to circumcise, even an uncircumcised person and a slave, etc. Thus far his words. Now, since he wrote simply "even an uncircumcised person" and did not specify specifically one whose brothers died due to circumcision, it implies explicitly that even if he is a transgressor and does not wish to circumcise himself—he is also fit. And this is also the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot there, that even though he is a transgressor, nevertheless he is called a "son of the covenant," for he is capable of observing the covenant but merely does not desire to, but however, he is capable of observing the covenant if he so desires. And according to the one who derives it from "circumcising he shall be circumcised," we say there that an Israelite is considered as if he is already circumcised. Thus far his words (ibid. s.v. "ika").

But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote an uncircumcised Israelite whose brothers died due to circumcision, and it is explicitly clear that a transgressor regarding uncircumcision is disqualified like a star-worshiper. And so wrote our teacher, the Rema, explicitly, and this is his wording: A transgressor regarding the entire Torah, or one who is a transgressor regarding uncircumcision—his law is like a star-worshiper. Thus far his words. That is to say: regarding circumcision this is so, but regarding the entire Torah he is not judged as a transgressor. As we maintain: a transgressor regarding one matter is not a transgressor regarding the entire Torah (Shach, subsection 4). And behold, regarding our teacher, the Rema, it is not difficult, for he ruled that a woman is disqualified from circumcising based on the reason that we maintain that we require a "son of the covenant," as I wrote in section 1. And he holds that a transgressor is not called a "son of the covenant," as the Tosafot wished to say there previously, see there. But the Tur and Beit Yosef who validate a woman, for they hold according to the reason of "he who is circumcised shall circumcise" as I wrote there; and if so, there is no difference between one whose brothers died due to circumcision and a transgressor, as we say in the Gemara there based on the Mishnah in Nedarim, that one who vows "benefit from the circumcised is forbidden to me" is forbidden to the uncircumcised of Israel, see there—and if so, why did they disqualify a transgressor? And I do not know why the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch did not remark on this. (See the novellae of the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger, who raised a difficulty from Tosafot against the Rema. And this is not difficult, as I wrote. Examine and you will find it easy.) And it appears to me that their intention is not that a transgressor is disqualified, for if their intention were so, they would have explained this explicitly. Rather, this is the explanation: that an uncircumcised Israelite whose brothers died due to circumcision is fit to circumcise, and we give him to circumcise, and he is trusted regarding the circumcision. But a transgressor, granted that his circumcision is valid—nevertheless, he is not trusted regarding the circumcision. As we maintain above in siman 119, that one who is suspected regarding a matter has no trustworthiness regarding that matter. And so we maintain above in siman 2, that a transgressor who eats nevelot out of appetite is not trusted by himself regarding the examination of the knife, and an Israelite examines the knife for him, see there. And here this is not applicable, and we fear lest he will not be careful to circumcise properly, and there will remain tzitzin that invalidate the circumcision (so it appears to me).

The Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that if a gentile performed the circumcision – one does not need to return and circumcise a second time. Thus far their words. And there is one who wrote the reason is that we do not find that circumcision in the Torah requires intent (Taz, subsection 3). And it is astonishing, for this is the opinion of the one who validates the circumcision of a gentile in the Gemara there, but we hold that it is disqualified based on the exposition of the verses, as I wrote in section 1. And the Semag wrote that an Israelite must draw from him the blood of the covenant. Our teacher, the Rema, ruled likewise, and wrote that such is the primary ruling. And there are those who wrote that even the Rambam admits in this case that one must draw the blood of the covenant, and he only wrote that one does not need to circumcise a second time (Beit Yosef and Shach, subsection 3). And it is very astonishing, for how is "he does not need to circumcise a second time" relevant? What would he circumcise, for has his foreskin not already been cut? Perforce his intention is that one does not need to draw the blood of the covenant. Therefore, the primary view appears to be as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote himself in his book Kesef Mishneh, because from the sugya in Menachot (Menachot 42a) it implies explicitly that the anonymous voice of the Shas holds that circumcision by a gentile is valid, see there. Therefore, the Rambam relied upon this ex post facto. But we do not hold like the Rambam, but rather like the ruling of our teacher, the Rema.

I have seen many who investigated what the law is regarding those who are disqualified from performing milah, if they began to circumcise and stopped, and a qualified person finished? There is no doubt here, and this matter is explicit in the Gemara there, that it is valid. For it asks there according to the one who disqualifies a woman from performing milah, is it not written: "And Tzipporah took a flint, and she cut off the foreskin of her son"? And it answers in one resolution that she came and began it, and Moses came and finished it, see there. Behold, it is explicit that it is valid in such a case. And it appears more likely in my humble opinion that even if the disqualified person performed the milah and the qualified person performed the periah, since we hold that one who performed milah but did not perform periah is as if he did not perform milah—it is like a case where a disqualified person began and a qualified person finished. And even if we were to distinguish from this, one may rely in this matter on the opinion of the Rambam that it is not necessary to return and perform milah a second time. Nevertheless, one must deliberate on this for a practical ruling.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 264:1): A child who needed to be circumcised within eight days due to danger, there is no difference between an Israelite and an idolater, for anything within eight days is not called "circumcision." However, if there remained tzitzit that invalidate the circumcision, or if he circumcised but did not perform periah—an Israelite shall complete the circumcision on the eighth day or after he is healed. Thus far his words. And it is not understood at all: how can he say that within eight days there is no difference between an Israelite and an idolater? For he himself ruled in siman 262 that one circumcised within eight days does not need to extract a drop of covenantal blood. But regarding one circumcised by an idolater, he ruled that one must extract it. And if so, there is a great practical difference between when an Israelite circumcises him, for then they will not need to extract a drop of covenantal blood from him, and if an idolater circumcises—they will need to extract it. And also that which he said: "However, if there remained tzitzit etc. he shall complete etc. on the eighth etc."—what is he teaching us? It is obvious. (See Shach, subsection 6. And his words are astonishing, for that is according to his own view above in siman 262, and not according to the view of the Rema. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

It appears to me regarding his intention that he has informed us of a great matter, and specifically according to his view above in siman 262. And this is what he means to say: that even according to what he ruled above, that one who was circumcised within eight days does not need to extract the blood of the covenant—this is specifically when he circumcises him for the sake of the mitzvah of milah. But when they need this because of danger—it does not have the status of "milah" at all, and according to everyone they will be required after eight days to extract from him the blood of the covenant. Therefore, if such an incident occurred, there is no practical difference who circumcises him, an Israelite or an idolater. And that which he wrote, that anything within eight days is not called "milah," this is in such a case when they circumcise for healing. And regarding this he says afterward "However etc.", meaning: that you should not say that since in any event we are occupied now with his circumcision because of the danger, and therefore it would seemingly be for us to say that when there remain tzitzin that invalidate the circumcision or the periah, which are not relevant to the illness, we should say that the Israelite should complete it now, and rely on what he wrote in siman 262 that one who was circumcised within eight days—has fulfilled the obligation. And even though there it is ex post facto, we should say that here it is considered like ex post facto, since we are occupied with his circumcision, and we should not need to pain the infant another time. Regarding this he informs us that it is not so, but rather they should leave it until after eight days or after he is healed, for this too is considered like ab initio. (See Taz, subsection 4, who remained with a difficulty on our teacher, the Rema. And according to what I have written it works out well. And in that which we wrote, that in such a case even our teacher, the Rema, admits that it is nothing within eight days, it appears that this is the intention of the Gra, subsection 10, see there. And the words of the Be'er HaGolah are puzzling, see there. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

He further wrote that one should seek out the most good and righteous mohel and ba’al berit. Thus far his words. And "ba’al berit" is the sandak. And certainly it is so, for even though regarding the performance of the mitzvah all are equal, nevertheless, the preparation for the mitzvah, the pure thought, and the proper intention—these are great matters for the mitzvah, and they benefit the infant greatly so that he may enter further into holiness. Therefore, it is proper that the mohel and the sandak should have tefillin on their heads at the time of the milah, to join sign to sign, as tefillin are also called a "sign." And it will be further explained in siman 265.

If the father honored someone to be the mohel or sandak – it is forbidden to retract it, for "the remnant of Israel shall not speak lies." However, if he retracted – it is a retraction. And a kinyan is of no use in this, for it is a mere kinyan devarim. But if he swore to him or gave him a handshake – they compel him to fulfill it. Thus ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 264, 1). And see in Choshen Mishpat siman 204 that even in business dealings, although he can retract when there were only mere words, nevertheless, one who retracts is called "lacking in faith," and the spirit of the sages is not pleased with him, see there. And all the more so regarding the honoring of a mitzvah, where there is no monetary loss, and for the one being honored there is disgrace. Therefore, one must be very careful not to retract, unless it became known to him that he is not a skilled mohel and he fears a mishap, for then even if he swore or gave a handshake – they may annul his oath for him by means of three. And the opening is before him, for had he known that he was not a skilled mohel – he would not have honored him. And one of the great ones wrote that the same law applies if after he honored him, a mohel who is his friend or a tzaddik happened to be available, and had he been here previously he certainly would have honored him – he may retract his word and honor this one. And if he swore – they may annul his oath for him (Taz subsection 5).

If he honored someone several days before the circumcision, and he traveled on his way, and the father thought that he would not arrive by the time of the circumcision and honored another, and afterwards before the circumcision he arrived from the road—the first one shall circumcise him, for certainly he did not retract from the first. And it appears to me that this is when the second has not yet arrived at his house to circumcise or to be the sandak, for if he arrived at his house and the preparation for the circumcision was made—it would be a great disgrace if they take it from him, and great is human dignity. But for the first there is no disgrace even if he also arrived at his house, since he thought he would not arrive. However, regarding the circumcision it is possible that one shall circumcise and one shall perform the periah, but regarding the sandak this is not applicable. And if the father honored one, and the mother honored another—her honoring is nothing, for behold the obligation is upon the father to circumcise his son and not upon the mother, as I wrote in siman 261. And if the father protests against his son being a mohel or a sandak for a certain person—he does not need to listen to him, for the honor of Heaven precedes the honor of his father, and as I wrote in siman 240 (Knesset HaGedolah).

It seems simple to me that if one sent for a mohel from another city—he must pay him his expenses, unless he wrote to him that he should come at his own expense. However, regarding a sandak in such a case, there is reason to doubt whether he must return the expenses to him, for grantedly regarding a mohel he was forced to come, for he feared that there was no other mohel there, or that there was none as skilled as he. But regarding a sandak, it is obvious that he only invited him for the sake of honor, as every person is fit to be a sandak. And if he wanted him to return the expenses—he should not have come. Therefore, it seems to me that he cannot claim his expenses. And it is certain that if he sent for a mohel or a sandak, and then honored another, that he is obligated to return the expenses to him. (See Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 11 in the name of the Chatam Sofer. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

One may circumcise with anything, even with flint, glass, or anything that cuts, except for the shard of a reed, because splinters break off from it and he may come to cause a "crushed testicle." It appears to me that even if one plucked the orlah with his hands, it is valid, for we do not require a vessel for circumcision. The preferred way to perform the mitzvah is to circumcise with iron, whether with a knife or with scissors. And it is the custom to circumcise with a knife. It appears to me that this matter is explicit in Yehoshua, as it is written: "At that time the Lord said to Yehoshua: Make for yourself knives of flint, and return and circumcise the children of Israel, etc." And Targum Yonatan translated: "sharp scalpels." And so Rashi explained, as it is written in Tehillim: "You also turn back the edge of his sword." Since the Holy One, Blessed be He, commanded to circumcise with iron, we learn from this that such is the essence of the mitzvah. And as for that which is written, "And Tzipporah took a flint, etc."—it can be said that because they were on the road, a fine knife was not available to her with which to circumcise.

How does one perform milah? Know that this organ has flesh at its head, and at the connection of the flesh to the organ it is elevated and encircles the organ, and it is called the "atarah." And that circumference is not a straight circle, but rather on the upper part of the organ the atarah extends toward the body, and it progressively shortens on its underside until near the head of the organ (Tur Even HaEzer 5). And in a small child of eight days, due to the smallness of the member, this is not so recognizable, and the orlah is over all of this flesh, until the place where the flesh connected to the organ ends, which is the atarah. Therefore it is written in the Torah "and the orlah of his flesh," because the orlah is over the flesh. And "orlah" is an expression of "clogging," like "uncircumcised of heart," and similarly "their ear is uncircumcised from hearing." That is to say: that the flesh is clogged and hidden within the orlah.

This means that there are two skins over this flesh: one thick skin that is clearly recognizable, and the Torah commanded to cut this thick skin until the place of the atarah. Therefore, the mohel stretches the skin with his fingers above the flesh, so that he does not cut into the flesh. And it is good for this to harden the organ slightly, for through this the stretching will be effective. And he cuts all of the skin as I have written, and not like those who cut only a little at its tip; rather, one must cut all the skin that is until the atarah. However, when the infant is born circumcised—meaning he was not born literally circumcised, but is called such because the organ is open and he appears as if born circumcised—for then the skin is short, and the mohel must be very careful in his cutting to cut moderately around the circumference. And then the cut is small because he was born thus with short skin, and therefore it is open at its tip, and he appears as if born circumcised. But one born literally circumcised only requires the letting of the blood of the brit, meaning: to cut slightly only so that blood will emerge, as I have written in siman 263.

And after the cutting is finished, he shall perform the peri'ah. That is to say, there is still a soft membrane on the flesh below the skin that was cut, and he inserts his fingernails between the membrane and the flesh, and tears it this way and that until the flesh of the atarah is visible. The general rule of the matter: the cutting is so that the entire atarah is revealed, which is the place where the flesh ends, and the beginning of the organ is revealed and emerges from its thick skin. And the peri'ah reveals all the flesh up to the atarah, and it emerges from its soft membrane that is attached to the flesh. And thus the sages taught in the Mishnah of Shabbat, chapter 19, Mishnah 6: If one circumcised but did not perform peri'ah, it is as if he did not circumcise. That is to say: even though our father Abraham was not commanded regarding peri'ah but only regarding the cutting alone, and when the Torah was given peri'ah was stated, as is explained in the seventh chapter of Yevamot, and I would have said that if one circumcised but did not perform peri'ah, granted that he did not fulfill the entire mitzvah, nevertheless he fulfilled half a mitzvah—it comes to teach us that it is as if he did not circumcise at all (Tosafot Yom Tov).

And after the periah he shall perform the metzitzah. And this is for the healing of the infant, for he sucks the milah with his mouth so that the blood will exit from distant places, so that he does not come to a state of danger. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 137b): This practitioner who does not suck—we remove him, for it is a danger to the infant. And one sucks very well until the blood ceases. And know that there are those in our times who say that it is better to perform the metzitzah not with the mouth, but rather with some sponge that absorbs the blood. And we shall not yield to them and we shall not listen to them, and our teachers, the sages of the Shas, were more expert and wiser than they. However, it is certainly so that the one who sucks—he must have a clean mouth without any illness, and clean teeth. And all the more so regarding what we have heard to our heart's sorrow, that in some countries there are those who even do not perform the periah by means of the fingernails, but rather by means of some small machine that performs the periah—certainly it is a wonderous matter, and we must not innovate such novelties. And we shall be like our fathers, and in our country we have not heard this.

The one who performs the metzitzah should be careful that through his lips the atarah is properly revealed. This is because sometimes when the infant is fleshy, it appears as if the skin surrounding the atarah falls downward. Therefore, at the time of the metzitzah, he pushes this skin further and further down with his lips, so that it should not return to fall. And they place upon the milah after the metzitzah a plaster and cumin, or a bandage or medicinal powders that stop the blood. In our countries, they apply powder from decayed wood which they call "pulver." And there are those who apply a cloth with cold water. And only when they apply a cloth, they should be careful that if it has a hem, they should turn it outward and not inward, so that it does not stick to the milah and lead to danger.

There are tzitzin that invalidate the milah, and there are those that do not invalidate it. And "tzitzin" refers to strands that remain from the skin of the orlah. How so? If the skin still covers the high ridge that surrounds between the flesh and the organ, which is the primary part of the atarah and where the revelation of the atarah must be, if the strand of the skin of the orlah still surrounds it on the majority of the circumference, even though it does not cover the majority of the organ—he is still an arel, and one must cut this strand. And likewise, even if it does not cover the majority of the circumference but only a portion of it, provided that it covers the majority of the height of the organ in 그 place—it also invalidates. And for such tzitzin one returns even on Shabbat, for they invalidate the milah. But if there is neither a majority of the height nor a majority of the circumference—they are called tzitzin that do not invalidate the milah, and therefore on Shabbat one does not return for them. But on a weekday one should return even for the tzitzin that do not invalidate, in order to perform this great mitzvah in a beautified manner. For indeed, regarding all mitzvot one must fulfill "and I will glorify Him," all the more so regarding milah.

The Rambam wrote in the second chapter, law 5: A minor whose flesh is very soft and loose, or who was fleshy until he appears as if he is not circumcised, one examines him at the time he has an erection: if it appears that he is circumcised – he requires nothing, but one must repair the flesh from here and from there because of appearances. And if at the time he has an erection he does not appear circumcised – one returns and cuts the loose flesh from here and from there, until the atarah appears revealed at the time of erection. And this matter is from the words of the scribes. But from the Torah, even though he appears like one who is uncircumcised, since he was circumcised – he does not need to be circumcised a second time. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote regarding one who appears circumcised at the time of erection that he requires nothing, and one must repair the flesh from here and from there, this is its explanation: he requires nothing to be cut, but rather they repair by pulling the skin and pressing it backward, and tying it there until it stays and does not return downward. So wrote the Terumat HaDeshen, siman 264. And according to the wording of the Rambam, the Tur also wrote, see there. And so it is in the Shulchan Aruch, see there.

However, our teacher, the Rema, added, and this is his wording: And it is not necessary that most of the atarah be visible at the time of his erection; since he was circumcised once properly, even if only a minority of the circumcised atarah is visible—it is sufficient, and he does not need to be circumcised a second time. Nevertheless, if possible, he should rectify it by pulling the skin and pushing it backward, and tying it there until it stays and does not return downward. Thus far his words. And he added a further leniency, that even at the time of his erection, a minority of the atarah is sufficient. And the reason: since this is only midrabbanan, as the Rambam wrote—we are not so stringent regarding it. And his source is from the Terumat HaDeshen there. And these matters are perplexing: for this is a dispute in Shabbat at the end of the nineteenth chapter (Shabbat 137b), where it is taught in a Baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A child who is fleshy etc. we view him when he has an erection, and if he does not appear circumcised, he must be circumcised, and if not—he does not need to. Shmuel said: We view him when he has an erection, and if he appears circumcised—he does not need to be circumcised, and if not—he must. What is the difference between them? The difference between them is "appears and does not appear." For according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, he does not need to be circumcised, and according to Shmuel, he must be circumcised. See there.

And behold, it is certain that this case where only a minority of the corona is visible is considered "visible and not visible." If so, from where do we have the authority to rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? For the Rif and the Rosh did not decide according to whom the halacha follows. And the Ittur wrote explicitly that the halacha follows Shmuel, for Shmuel did not come to disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but rather he came to teach us the practical halacha (see Beit Yosef). And I saw one who wrote that he holds that the "visible and not visible" of the Gemara refers to when from one side it appears completely circumcised, and from one side it is not visible at all. But when it is visible in a minority of the corona—all agree that it does not require [further circumcision] (Nekudot HaKesef). And I wonder: from where do we have the authority to say so? Furthermore: if so, why did our teacher, the Rema, not bring this law of "visible and not visible"? However, conversely, it is difficult for me regarding the words of the Ittur, for if it is as his words say, the Shas should have said so, as it says earlier in Shabbat (Shabbat 54a): "Now that Shmuel said this etc.," "Shmuel for practical halacha etc.," and similarly in Beitzah (Beitzah 29a). Yet, also conversely it is difficult: is it within the power of Shmuel to disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? And also, it is a great wonder why the Rambam and the Tur omitted this law entirely, and it is explicit in the Gemara.

And in my humble opinion, it appears that the law follows our teacher, the Rema, and I have clear proof from the Ba'al HaHalachot in the laws of milah, who cited the words of Shmuel and afterward the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and wrote regarding it, "and such is the halacha," see there. And it is proof for which there is no rebuttal, for all the words of the Ba'al HaHalachot are words of tradition, as the Rishonim wrote. However, one must further scrutinize the Ba'al HaHalachot, for afterward he wrote: What is the difference between them? Visible and not visible, see there. And it is not understood, for he should have written this before "and such is the halacha." Therefore, it appears to me that these teachers of ours interpreted the words of the Gemara in a different manner than the commentary of Rashi, and there is no dispute here at all, and this is the explanation: that Shmuel explains the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and comes to be lenient. For behold, when part of it is circumcised and part of it is not circumcised, from the beginning it is certainly called "not circumcised," as is understood. And according to this, according to the language of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who begins with "it does not appear circumcised," it should be interpreted in such a case, and this is called "it does not appear circumcised." But Shmuel, who begins with "it appears circumcised," the intention is regarding the part that appears as circumcised, and Shmuel does not come to disagree but rather to explain. And therefore the Ba'al HaHalachot wrote the "what is the difference between them" after the halacha, because they do not disagree. And that which he wrote "and such is the halacha"—it refers to both of them. And therefore the Rambam and the Tur who began with "if it appears circumcised" like Shmuel—the intention is regarding the part of it that appears circumcised. And the words of our teacher, the Rema, are well-settled.

And that which we said, that he does not need to cut anything when he appears circumcised at the time of erection, even a portion of the atarah—this is specifically regarding one circumcised according to the halakhah, but afterwards he appears as if he is not circumcised. However, if he was born circumcised but not completely, such that the skin covers the atarah over most of its height or most of its circumference, even if they drew from him the blood of the brit, if afterwards when he has an erection he does not appear completely circumcised—one must cut from here and from there, until he appears completely circumcised. For this is like an infant who was circumcised, and they left from the beginning tzitzit that invalidate the milah (Bach and Shach subsection 12 and Taz subsection 9). And there is one who is even more stringent, saying that this which we see, that he appears circumcised at the time of erection and we are not concerned for the time when there is no erection, this is regarding one circumcised ab initio completely according to its proper form, and afterwards because he is burdened with flesh he appears as if he is not circumcised, for then we are only concerned for the time of erection. But all those circumcised from their beginning, if they do not appear completely circumcised when there is no erection, even if at the time of erection they appear completely circumcised—it is not effective, and they must cut until he appears completely circumcised even when there is no erection (Beit Yosef in the name of a Sefardic sage). However, in the Yerushalmi there, it says regarding the Mishnah of tzitzit that invalidate the milah, that one examines him at the time he has an erection, see there; it follows that in all of them it is so (Shach ibid.). And there is one of the great authorities who wrote that even regarding one born circumcised, where the skin was pulled afterwards—his law is like one completely circumcised (Sha'agat Aryeh siman 55). And the great authorities wrote that it is proper that at the time of the periah there should be other mohelim present, so that the mohel shall not err. For sometimes there is a very thin skin after the cutting like a "slimul," and the mohel performs periah on it, but the primary skin of the periah he did not perform periah upon. Therefore, one must examine this well (Taz ibid.).