Siman 265

The one who circumcises blesses: "Blessed etc. who has sanctified us etc. regarding the milah." And according to the opinion of the Rambam in the third chapter (Rambam Laws of Milah 3), this is when another circumcises. But when the father circumcises, he blesses "to circumcise," see there. For such is the entire give and take of the sugya in Pesachim (Pesachim 7b), see there, that "to circumcise" implies that it is incumbent upon him to circumcise, and this is the father of the son. But another, upon whom it is not incumbent, how can he say that he was commanded to circumcise? Rather, he blesses over the general mitzvah that Israel was commanded in, and this is why he says "regarding the milah," meaning: regarding the mitzvah of milah. And this is the system of the Rambam at the end of the Laws of Blessings (Rambam Laws of Blessings), that for every mitzvah that a person performs for himself, he blesses with the letter Lamed. And its explanation: that this is incumbent upon him. But that which another performs for him, he blesses with "regarding," see there. And even though we conclude there that one blesses "regarding the removal of chametz," the Rambam already explained the reason there because this is considered as the past, for from the moment he resolved in his heart to nullify the chametz, the mitzvah was performed, see there. And over the past it is impossible to bless with a Lamed, for with a Lamed it implies the future (see Beit Yosef and Bach).

But the approach of Rashi and Tosafot and most of our teachers is that the father of the son also recites the blessing "on the milah." And they hold that according to the conclusion of the Shas there, "on" also implies the future. This is the wording of Rashi there: And regarding milah as well, the father of the son is no different from any other person, for it implies the future, and "on milah" is also equivalent to "to circumcise." Thus far his words. That is to say: that seemingly, granted that it also implies the future, nevertheless "to circumcise" is better to indicate that he is obligated to circumcise this one; he wrote that "on milah" is also equivalent to "to circumcise" in this matter as well. (And in this he intended the precision of the Tosafot, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.) And it is a logical reason, for just as "on the milah" implies the mitzvah that all of Israel were commanded in general, so too he was commanded specifically regarding this child. And so wrote the Tur and our teacher, the Rema, and so is the widespread custom, and one should not change it. However, certainly if he recited the blessing "to circumcise," he has fulfilled his obligation.

Since the obligation of the mitzvah upon the father to circumcise his son is greater than that of the general community of Israel, who are commanded to circumcise every uncircumcised person among them, they therefore instituted an additional blessing for the father, which is: "to bring him into the covenant of Abraham our father." The Rambam wrote there: Therefore, if the father is not there, others do not recite this blessing. There is one who ruled that the beit din or one of the people recites it, but it is not proper to do so. Thus far his words. However, all the Rishonim did not write so. This is the wording of the Tur: It is the custom in all places that the one who holds the child recites the blessing. And so wrote the Ra'avad. Thus far his words. Such is the custom, that the sandak recites this blessing. The reason the mohel does not recite it is because the mohel has his own blessing, and it is proper to distance oneself from reciting two blessings over one mitzvah unless it is a case of necessity, such as when the father circumcises by himself, for then he recites both of them. But when the father is not the mohel, it is better that another should recite it. Furthermore, the legs of the sandak are like an altar, and therefore it is fitting for him to recite this blessing. That is to say: the one being circumcised is like an offering upon the altar, and through this he enters into the covenant of Abraham our father. There are some among the early authorities who said that when the father himself circumcises, he should indeed not recite "to bring him in," for we do not find two blessings over one mitzvah (Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Manoach). But the custom is not so. However, in any event, from this there is proof for what I have written, that therefore the mohel should not recite this blessing when the father is not present. I have seen many who toiled over this reason. In my humble opinion, it appears as I have written.

Some of the early authorities asked: What is the nature of this blessing? And where do we find two blessings on one mitzvah? Some wrote: Since the mohel, even without the father, is also relevant to the mitzvah of milah, as it is incumbent upon all of Israel to circumcise a Jewish infant, therefore the rabbis instituted another blessing for the father. Therefore, if the father performed the circumcision and only recited the blessing "to bring him in" – it is sufficient. However, since they already instituted for the mohel to recite the blessing "on the milah" – he should not change it, and he recites two (Hagahot Maimoniyot in the name of the Rash). And some wrote that this blessing was instituted because the father is commanded regarding his son to circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, and to marry him to a woman – this blessing comes to hint that from this day forward these mitzvot are incumbent upon him (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rada). And some wrote that this is not a blessing on the mitzvah but rather a blessing of thanksgiving, that he thanks and praises the Holy One, Blessed be He, for commanding us regarding milah (Bach), just as the Tosafot wrote this reasoning in Pesachim there. But the Tosafot wrote this regarding another matter, and for this it is not sufficient: for where do we find a blessing on a mitzvah and a blessing of thanksgiving on the same thing? And some wrote: that just as we find regarding tefillin two blessings, one for the beginning of the mitzvah and one for its end, so too here: one for the milah, and one for the completion of the mitzvah, which is the periah (ibid.). And this is no comparison at all, for the tefillin of the hand and of the head are two mitzvot, which is not the case with milah and periah – it is one mitzvah. Furthermore: how can one recite the blessing on the periah "to bring him into the covenant of our father Abraham"? For periah was not given to our father Abraham, as is stated in the seventh chapter of Yevamot.

In my humble opinion, another reason appeared evident, because one must ask regarding the Torah's command to circumcise a son eight days old: Granted that the obligation is upon the father, but nevertheless, the essence of the mitzvah is in the body of the infant. And behold, the Torah exempted a minor from all the mitzvot, so why did the Torah impose the mitzvah of milah upon the body of a minor, and did not impose this mitzvah for the time when he himself becomes obligated in mitzvot from thirteen years and onward? However, the reason is that if this mitzvah were like other mitzvot, meaning only a private mitzvah—certainly the Torah would have decreed so. But the essence of this mitzvah is that through the mitzvah he enters into the sanctity of the collective of Israel, and enters under the wings of the Shekhinah, and the Torah decreed this: that immediately when a male of Israel is born, he shall enter into the holy covenant. And this is called "the covenant of our father Abraham," for this is explicit in the Torah in the portion of milah, as it is written: "And God said to Abraham: And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep between Me and you and your seed after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of a covenant between Me and you. And he who is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations." And the verses are repetitive and require explanation.

And it appears to me that this is the explanation: behold, the Holy One, Blessed be He, made a covenant with Avraham and his offspring regarding this mitzvah. And aside from his primary offspring, namely Yitzchak, he was commanded to circumcise Yishmael and all the members of his household as well, as is explicit in the Torah. But the covenant He made with his offspring—namely Yitzchak and his offspring forever—is not similar to the covenant of Avraham himself, and his offspring that he had then, and all the members of his household. That is to say, for Avraham and his offspring of that time, the covenant was made that they should be circumcised then, namely as they were men. Therefore, the Torah specified that Yishmael was circumcised at thirteen years of age, to teach that he did not enter the covenant from the day of his birth. But with Yitzchak and his offspring, He made a covenant that from the day of their birth they should enter the holy covenant, as soon as only eight days pass over them.

And this is the explanation of the verses: "And God said: And as for you etc., you and your offspring after you throughout their generations." Meaning: Behold, I am establishing a covenant with you and with your offspring throughout their generations. And what is the covenant? "This is My covenant etc. every male among you shall be circumcised." Meaning: through circumcision you shall enter into the covenant. And afterward He explains that the covenant of him, and his current offspring and all the members of his household, is not similar to the covenant for the generations of Isaac and his offspring. And He says: "And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of a covenant between Me and you." Meaning: the covenant that I am establishing with you and with the members of your household is that you shall now circumcise yourselves, and through this you shall enter into the covenant, and this is "between Me and you." But for your generations, "at eight days old he shall be circumcised," My will is that they shall enter into the holy covenant from the eighth day of their birth. And it emerges that this mitzvah is incumbent upon the infant, except that he lacks the capacity of mind. Therefore the father and all of Israel were commanded.

And according to this, I say that the blessing "to enter him" is a completely different blessing, and it is as if the infant were reciting it. That is to say, first one recites the blessing "on the circumcision" as with all mitzvot, and afterwards we bless for that which the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded—to bring an Israelite child from the day he is born under the wings of the Shekhinah, unlike all other mitzvot which a person is not commanded in until he becomes an adult. And it is not over the essence of the circumcision that we recite this blessing, but rather that through this mitzvah, this soul enters under the wings of the Shekhinah and enters into the covenant of the collective of Israel, which is the covenant of our father Abraham that the Holy One, blessed be He, established with him. Therefore, the public responds: "Just as he has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, etc.," meaning: since the essence of entering under the wings of the Shekhinah is Torah and good deeds, we therefore bless him that he should reach this state. And incidentally, they also say "to the chupah," and this too is a mitzvah.

And according to this, the third blessing also works well: "Who sanctified the beloved from the womb, etc." For seemingly there is no reason for this third blessing. For what and why, given that they have already recited two blessings? However, according to our words it works well, for the first blessing is over the essence of the mitzvah, and the second is over his entry into His holy covenant under the wings of the Shekhinah. And they accorded honor in this blessing to Abraham our father, because with him the Holy One, blessed be He, established the covenant. But according to our words, we were sanctified through the sanctity of Isaac who was circumcised at eight days old, whereas Abraham was an old man of ninety-nine years. Therefore, we recite this blessing and give praise and thanks to Hashem that just as "He sanctified the beloved from the womb," and he is Isaac according to the explanation of the SeMag and the Hagahot Maimoniyot (see Beit Yosef). And they hinted at this in that which is written, "And My covenant I will establish (Akim) with Isaac," for A-K-I-M is the acronym for "Asher Kadesh Yedid Mibeten." And also according to its plain meaning it is settled, for the Holy One, blessed be He, brought him tidings regarding Isaac, and before he was born He said to him, "And My covenant I will establish with Isaac" – behold, he was sanctified from the womb. "And a statute He placed in his flesh," meaning: that the statute of milah He placed in his flesh, that is, in his body from the day of his birth. "And his offspring He sealed with the sign of the holy covenant" – also from the day of their birth like Isaac. And according to this, all three blessings work well.

Regarding the blessing "concerning the milah," it appears that one must bless prior to the milah, according to the law of all blessings which are recited prior to their performance. I have seen mohels who bless at the time of the cutting. One of the great authorities complained about this (Chachmat Adam). But I say that there is no cause for complaint here, and on the contrary, they act well. First: since they conclude the blessing at the completion of the cutting—this is "prior to its performance," just as with the blessing of "Hamotzi" where one concludes it at the completion of the cutting of the bread. As we say in Berakhot (Berakhot 39a): the blessing must conclude with the bread. And even though we rule that one blesses and afterwards breaks the bread, the Tosafot already wrote there that this means he should not separate the slice from the loaf, but not that he should bless before the cutting. And so we hold in Orach Chaim at the beginning of siman 167, see there. Furthermore, the completion of the mitzvah is the periah, and if so, even if he cuts before the blessing, it is still prior to its performance. I saw one who wrote that if the one performing periah is another person—he should intend to fulfill his obligation with the blessing of the one who cuts, and this is correct. And see that the custom practiced by our mohels is aligned with the truth of the Torah, for I found in the Tashbetz (Part Two, siman 277) who complained to the contrary about those who bless before the milah, and this is his wording: Whatever is possible to bring the blessing closer to the mitzvah—it is proper to do. According to this, to cut the foreskin and then bless is better, so that he may perform periah close to the blessing. For cutting the foreskin is not the completion of the mitzvah, as one who performed milah but did not perform periah is as if he did not perform milah etc. and so we are accustomed to cut the foreskin and bless etc. Thus far his words. It turns out that the way of our mohels is the middle path, and is built upon the foundation of the law, and so it is proper to do.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: The one who circumcises recites the blessing, etc., and the father of the son recites the blessing between the cutting of the orlah and the periah: "Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to enter him," etc. Thus far his words. And the reason for this: For behold, the Tur wrote that the Rashbam instituted that the father should recite the blessing before the circumcision, as "to enter him" implies the future, and also one must recite the blessing prior to their performance. And Rabbeinu Tam wrote that it is not necessary. And Rav Sar Shalom wrote that he should not recite the blessing until after the circumcision, since it is performed by another, and so wrote the author of the Ittur. And my master, my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote: It is good to recite the blessing immediately after the circumcision, before the periah is performed, and it is properly considered "prior to their performance," etc. Thus far his words. That is to say: That Rabbeinu Tam was not particular about how to act, for "prior to their performance" applies only when the one reciting the blessing performs the mitzvah himself, and not when it is performed by another. And even though "to enter him" implies the future, nevertheless this blessing is nothing other than a blessing of thanksgiving. And he does not recite the blessing over what is being done now, but rather praises and thanks the Holy One, blessed be He, for commanding us regarding the circumcision (Tosafot and Ran ibid.). And Rav Sar Shalom was specifically particular to recite the blessing after the circumcision, for since it is performed by another, how can he recite the blessing beforehand, lest the other retract? Therefore, he should recite the blessing after the circumcision, and "prior to their performance" is not required here for the reason that has been explained.

Therefore, the Rosh, of blessed memory, came to rectify all matters and to satisfy all opinions, which is to recite the blessing after the cutting but before the peri'ah. For now there is no concern that the mohel will retract, and it is also "prior to their performance," since before the peri'ah the mitzvah is not completed. And consequently it is implied from this that when the father himself circumcises – he recites both blessings before the circumcision, and afterwards he shall perform the circumcision and the peri'ah (Taz, subsection 1). And even according to what I wrote, that the mohel should recite the blessing during the cutting, nevertheless here it is impossible to do so, for if he were to do so and recite the blessing "to bring him in" before the peri'ah – the circumcision would fill with blood, and it would be difficult to perform the peri'ah, and it would cause pain to the infant. Furthermore: behold, he is preoccupied with finding the peri'ah, and how could he interrupt and recite a blessing (ibid.). And to recite the blessing while searching for the peri'ah is impossible. And it is not similar to the cutting, obviously. Therefore, he shall recite both of them before the cutting.

We have already written that when the father is not here, the sandak recites the blessing "to bring him in." Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that this is also the law when the father is here but does not know how to recite the blessing. Thus far his words. And certainly so it is. But nevertheless, we have not heard this, for even if he is an ignoramus—behold, they can recite it with him, and such is the custom. And know that there is one who wrote that when the child is an orphan from a father, and the father of his father is here, that he should recite the blessing "to bring him in" and he takes precedence over the sandak (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And it is a logical reason: for behold, it is a mitzvah to teach the son of his son Torah, all the more so is it a mitzvah upon him to bring him into the covenant of Abraham our forefather. However, when the father is alive and is not in his home, for then it is not incumbent upon the father of the father—the sandak takes precedence (it seems to me).

The father and the mohel, when they recite the blessings, must stand, as it is written, "shall be circumcised for you," and we derive this from the omer, where it is written, "And you shall count for yourselves." This is merely an asmachta, and the primary reason is out of honor for this great mitzvah. Since this is like receiving the Divine Presence—to bring a Jewish soul under the wings of the Shekhinah—it is obvious that they must stand. And even all the people present at the milah should stand, and there is an allusion to this as it is written: "And the people stood in the covenant" (II Kings 23:3). And such is the custom. However, the sandak sits on the chair, for he must hold the child on his knees, and he is in the place of the altar and is compelled to sit, for while standing the milah would not be performed well, as is understood. The custom is that immediately when they bring the infant, the mohel says: "Baruch haba." There is in this an allusion to Elijah, the angel of the covenant, as it is found in the Midrashim that the Holy One, Blessed be He, promised him that he would be present at every brit milah. Therefore, in his honor, immediately when he says "Baruch haba"—all the people stand. And it is a beautiful custom. Know that in the Zohar at the end of "Lech Lecha" it is explained that the father of the son says: "Happy is the one You choose and bring near to dwell in Your courts." And those standing there conclude the end of the verse: "May we be sated with the goodness of Your house, Your holy temple." And it was very stringent regarding this, see there. In our locales the custom is not so; rather, the mohels say this verse. Certainly it is proper to act according to the Zohar, but the custom is not so. (And an adult who is circumcised, if he can recite the blessing "to bring him in" himself, how good it is, as the Beit Yosef wrote regarding the forced converts, see there.)

And immediately when the father finishes the blessing "to bring him in," all those standing there say: "Just as he has entered the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, the wedding canopy, and good deeds!" This is the version in the Gemara there, and so we say. However, in the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, the version is: "Just as you have brought him into the covenant, so may you bring him into Torah, etc.," see there. And there is no strictness in this, except that their version is addressed to the father, and our version is in the third person regarding the child. For certainly when the father is not present, it is not relevant to speak in the second person, and therefore they did not differentiate in this, to always say it in the third person (Shach, subsection 3). And there is one who wishes to differentiate between those who see the father and those standing at a distance who do not see him (Taz, subsection 2). But the custom is not so.

And after the completion of the milah, the periah, and the metzitzah, the father of the son or the mohel or one of the people stands and takes a cup of wine in his hand and recites the blessing "borei peri ha-gafen." And if there is no wine, he should take other beverages. And the matter of the cup: because it is necessary to say the blessing "Who sanctified the beloved from the womb." And it is praise and thanksgiving to the Holy One, Blessed be He, and we do not say a song except over a cup, and it is a cup of joy. And among us the custom is that the mohel recites this blessing. And when there are two—one performs milah and one performs periah—the one who performs periah should say it since he has just finished the mitzvah, as we learned in Berakhot (Berakhot 42b) that the one who recites the blessing over the wine is the one who recites the blessing over the incense (Taz, subsection 6). And if there were three—the one who performs metzitzah recites the blessing because of the reason that has been explained. And there is another reason as it is stated in Megillah (Megillah 24a): The one who reads the Haftarah in the Prophets is the one who recites the Shema. And it is explained in the Gemara: because of honor, for since he made himself available for a matter that is not of honor, they instituted this for him for honor (Rashi). And here too, since metzitzah is not considered anything compared to milah and periah, it is proper to give him this blessing. And such is the custom. But milah and periah are equal. And on the contrary, it seems to me that periah is superior to the cutting, for with it the mitzvah is completed. And I have seen mohels who consider the cutting to be greater than periah, and it appears to me that it is not so. And some have the custom to also take a myrtle in their hand, and to smell it and recite the blessing of fragrance. And such is not the custom among us, and we are not accustomed to myrtles as they are not common among us.

And he recites the blessing of "Who sanctified the beloved from the womb" as written in the prayer books. It contains an opening with "Blessed" and a closing with "Blessed," because it contains two matters: praise and thanksgiving, and prayer, as we say in it: "Therefore, as a reward for this, Living God, our portion, our Rock, commanded to rescue etc." It is thus a long blessing, and therefore we also conclude it with "Blessed." And one must say "tzivah" – the tzadi with a patach and the vav with a tzeirei. This is unlike those who say the tzadi with a chirik and the vav with a kamatz, for that would be a prayer for the future (Shach, subsection 5). And so it is explicitly stated in the Bahag, and this is his wording: "Living God, may He be our portion to rescue etc." And one should not wonder that we speak in the second person, and afterwards we say "for the sake of His covenant" in the third person, because such is the version of all blessings, second person and third person, like "You are He." For the Holy One, blessed be He, is revealed more than all that is revealed, and hidden more than all that is hidden. And these matters are ancient. And when the mohel recites this blessing, he must wash his hands beforehand and rinse his mouth, so that he may say it in cleanliness. (See Taz, subsection 6 in the name of the Beit Yosef, that when he places the wine in the mouth of the infant he does like "Shaddai," see there.)

And after the blessing they say a prayer: "Preserve this child, etc.," and they give him a name. From the essential law, one should drink the cup after the blessing, and afterwards say "Our G-d, etc., preserve this child, etc.," for the blessing has concluded. Nevertheless, the custom is not so, and they drink after the prayer and after the naming, because the request for mercy upon the infant is not considered an interruption (Beit Yosef), and we consider it one matter. And when he reaches "In your blood, live" – he places some of the wine in the mouth of the infant. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the sandak drinks the cup; see there at the end of section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 265, 4). But among us, the one who recites the blessing drinks, like every cup where the one who recites the blessing drinks it. And the custom when the father is not alive is to say "Preserve this child for his mother," and afterwards they say "May the father rejoice in Gan Eden." And if the mother has also died, they say: "Preserve this child for his father, and let his name be called in Israel." And they say: "May the father rejoice and the mother exult in Gan Eden." And if the father is alive, he says: "Preserve this child for his father, and let his name be called, etc., may the father rejoice in the offspring of his loins, and may his mother exult in Gan Eden." A minor who was born circumcised, and a convert in ancient times who converted while circumcised, and one must draw from them the blood of the brit as I wrote in siman 263, and since this is due to doubt as I wrote there – therefore it does not require a blessing. But regarding "to bring him in," and "Who sanctified the beloved from the womb," some say it is required (Tur). And some say it is not required (Rashba and Ran, and see Shach subsection 8). And consequently, a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently. And we have already written that what we call "born circumcised" is not precise, and a truly born circumcised child is not common. Similarly, for an androgynos, one does not recite the blessings over his circumcision, because he is not a certain male. And in this case, it is obvious that "to bring him in" and "Who sanctified" are also not required. But a tumtum who was torn open and found to be a male – they recite all the blessings. Similarly, when returning for shreds that invalidate the circumcision – they recite all the blessings, for the blessings they already recited were in vain. But one should not say the prayer "Preserve this child," for they have already prayed for him. But when returning for shreds that do not invalidate, and similarly for one whose prepuce was drawn forward, or if they are correcting for the sake of appearance – it does not require any blessing.

A mamzer is like an Israelite regarding all mitzvot, except that he is forbidden to marry a daughter of Israel. And one recites over him the blessing of milah, and "to bring him in," and "Who sanctified the beloved etc." until "Who seals the covenant." However, one does not seek mercy for him, which is the prayer "preserve this child etc.," for it is not pleasing to the holy Israelites that mamzerim should be preserved among them. And one publicizes at the time of his milah that he is a mamzer. And the Maharil wrote that one circumcises him in the courtyard of the synagogue before the entrance of the synagogue, whereas the fit ones are circumcised inside near the entrance. And now there are few who circumcise in the synagogue, but rather in their homes. And it is written that it is customary to call him "Kidor" based on the verse "For they are a generation (ki dor) of perversions etc." And one is not a mamzer except from a married woman or from other forbidden relations. But one born from an unmarried woman is not a mamzer, and Heaven forbid to call him a mamzer. And a star-worshipper who comes upon a daughter of Israel—the status of the child is like an Israelite. And conversely, an Israelite who comes upon a star-worshipper—the status of the child is not like an Israelite. And one born from a maidservant likewise does not have the status of an Israelite. And all this was clarified in Even HaEzer. And for any offspring in whom there is a trace of transgression—one does not say the verses "Happy is he whom You choose etc."

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 265:4): On Yom Kippur and on the four fasts – one should not recite the blessing over the cup. However, on three of the fasts in which a woman after childbirth does not fast – he may recite the blessing over the cup and the woman after childbirth shall taste from it, if she hears the blessing and intends not to interrupt with speech between the hearing of the blessing and the drinking of the cup. But on Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Av, when the woman after childbirth cannot drink (according to the custom written in Orach Chaim siman 554, see there; and examine and you will find it simple) – we do not recite the blessing over the cup. And on Tisha B'Av we also do not bring myrtle, for the same reason that we do not recite the blessing over spices on a Saturday night upon which Tisha B'Av falls. Thus far his words. And it is not a necessity that it should be forbidden on Tisha B'Av to smell spices (Shach, subsection 12). And that which we do not give the cup to children who do not fast is based on the Gemara at the end of the third chapter of Eruvin, that we do not recite the blessing over the cup on Yom Kippur and give it to a child, because we fear that he will come to be habituated and drink even when he grows up. And here too we fear regarding the cup of milah, even though it is not similar, for there it is a fixed occurrence, but milah on Yom Kippur is not a fixed occurrence. Therefore, in truth, we do not practice this way, as will be explained in the next section.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And some say that one recites the blessing over the cup on all fast days, and they give it to small children (so it should be said). And such is the custom. And on Yom Kippur they give it to the circumcised infant, as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 621. And some say that even when it is not a fast day they fulfill the obligation in this manner. However, we do not practice thus; rather, the sandak drinks when it is not a fast day. Thus far his words. That is to say: when he is the one reciting the blessing over the cup. And even though a cup of blessing requires drinking a cheekful, and the circumcised infant drinks only a little – we are not concerned regarding this cup, for it is not required by the core law but rather because "one only says song over wine." And it is obvious that when the mother is not fasting due to her weakness, they give her the cup if she is able to drink. However, when they circumcise in the beit knesset and she is not present – they shall act as has been explained. And it seems to me that now they also give the cup to small children to drink on Yom Kippur.

From what has been explained, we have learned that even the baal brit himself is obligated to fast on all four fasts, and the fast is not pushed aside because of the joy of the milah, even though it is his yom tov. For this reason, we rule in Orach Chaim siman 559 regarding Tisha B'Av that was pushed to Sunday and a brit milah occurred on it, that the baal brit does not fast on it, see there. And certainly regarding the other fasts which are more lenient, where it could be said that even there they only permitted it after midday, as is explained there. Furthermore: a pushed fast is different, as it is more lenient. But another fast that occurs on its proper day is more stringent than a pushed Tisha B'Av regarding this matter. However, according to this second justification, on a pushed Seventeenth of Tammuz or a Tzom Gedaliah pushed to Sunday, he would not need to fast. But they did not practice this way. And it must be said that they took the first justification as primary. However, even after midday they did not practice to eat. And even on a pushed Tisha B'Av we do not practice to eat. And the custom now is to complete the fast even on other fasts that were pushed (Magen Avraham there, subsection 11). And one should not ask regarding what our teacher, the Rema, wrote there in siman 686 regarding Ta'anit Esther that was moved earlier to Thursday and a brit milah occurred on it, that they should not fast and should fast on the next day, see there—what is the relevance of completing the fast on the next day? For even on a pushed Tisha B'Av one does not need to complete the fast on the next day, and certainly on Ta'anit Esther which is more lenient? For it can be said that they are not comparable: for on an earlier Ta'anit Esther, by law they should have fasted on Erev Shabbat and not on Thursday, as is understood. But because they did not want to establish the fast on Erev Shabbat, they moved it earlier to Thursday. Therefore, during a milah, he is obligated to fast the next day on Erev Shabbat which is the primary obligation of the fast, but not because he is obligated to complete the fast of another day when he was not obligated to fast on the day of the fast. (See Taz there, subsection 2, that even on a pushed Ta'anit Esther they should fast. And such is the custom.)

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote: One who has two infants to circumcise—he shall recite one blessing for both of them. And even if two people are circumcising—the first shall recite the blessing over the milah and it counts for the second as well. And the second shall recite "Who sanctified the beloved," and it counts for the first as well (and regarding "to bring him in," each father recites it for himself). And even if the boy is not before him at the time of the blessing, since his mind is on him, provided that he does not divert his attention in the meantime. [Hagah:] But if he spoke in the meantime, or if his mind was not on the second from the beginning—he must recite "Who sanctified the beloved" over the first, and return and recite the blessing over the milah of the second. And specifically if he spoke of matters that are not for the needs of the milah, but regarding the needs of the milah—it is not an interruption. And even if he forgot and recited "Who sanctified the beloved" after the first—he does not need to return and recite the blessing over the milah (of the second), for a blessing is not an interruption, as has been explained in siman 28 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 28) regarding the matter of covering the blood. (And it is obvious that he should recite "Who sanctified the beloved" over the second by itself after its milah, for it is impossible to precede this blessing before the milah.) And if the two children belong to one man, the father says "to bring them into the covenant of Abraham our forefather" (one blessing for both of them). And likewise he says: "Preserve the children." And he should prepare all the needs of the milah for each one by itself, such as the candle that they light—he should make for each one a candle by itself. Thus far his words. And it is obvious that this deals with when they circumcise both of them in one room.

There is one who raised a difficulty regarding what I wrote, that when his intention was not on the second, the second requires a blessing for itself, for behold above in siman 19 regarding the matter of shechitah they ruled that even when his intention was not on the second—he does not need to bless (Shach, subsection 15). And we have already explained there in section 14 that this is no comparison at all, for milah is not as common as shechitah, as is understood; therefore we require his intention, see there (and this is the intent of the Perishah, see there). And there is one who raised a difficulty: why in Even HaEzer siman 61 regarding the matter of two bridegrooms did they write that because of the evil eye one must bless for each one for himself, and why did they not fear this also regarding milah (Taz, subsection 11)? However, it is not comparable, for there it is required ab initio that the second bridegroom also stand there and hear the blessing, and therefore the evil eye is relevant to this. But here, they will bring the second infant into this room after the milah of the first, and the evil eye is only relevant when both are together (ibid.). Furthermore: there they are adults, and bridegrooms and brides and groomsmen and the celebrations of bridegroom and bride—the evil eye is relevant to this, which is not the case regarding milah.

However, even regarding milah now, the custom is to circumcise each one individually, and the blessings for each one individually. The great authorities have already written that in a place where there is no custom to circumcise both with one blessing—it is better to recite a blessing over each one, because for the most part there are delays and interruptions between one milah and the second, and they converse in between with idle matters (Bach and Shach ibid., and so wrote the Yam Shel Shlomo chapter six siman 9). Aside from this, there is reason to doubt the essence of this law, for we do not perform mitzvot in bundles, as is found in Sotah (Sotah 8a). One of the great authorities has already elaborated on this (Magen Avraham siman 147 subsection 11). In my humble opinion, it appears that regarding a mitzvah whose obligation is today, "bundles" is not applicable, for it is the obligation of the day. Our sages, of blessed memory, only spoke regarding women suspected of adultery and lepers and the like, which are not specifically the obligation of this day, see there. But milah whose time has arrived—"bundles" is not applicable, for the reason for "bundles" is so that it should not seem to him like a burden, such that he desires to be exempt from the load, according to the explanation of Rashi there. And this is not applicable to a matter that one is obligated to perform only today. And should you say he should perform the second one after an hour? Behold, the zealous are early for mitzvot.

Regarding two circumcisions on one day for two people, and this one requests to circumcise first and that one requests first, and there are not two pairs of mohels here—the custom is to circumcise first the one who was born first on that day. And even though in truth there is no practical difference, since the obligation arrives on the eighth day for both of them as one, nevertheless, in order to avoid dispute, it is good to do so. And it is obvious that a circumcision in its proper time precedes one that is not in its proper time. However, if they brought the infant whose circumcision is not in its proper time, and they have not yet brought the one whose circumcision is in its proper time—they should circumcise him and not wait for the one whose circumcision is in its proper time. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 265:6): Where it is possible, we perform the circumcision with ten, and where it is not possible, we perform it with fewer than ten. Thus far his words. That is to say: according to the law, it does not require ten, as with all mitzvot. However, ab initio it is a mitzvah to perform it with ten, as this is a publicizing of the matter, as is common in the Shas: "Gather ten for me." And furthermore: since the infant is entering into holiness, and for holiness ten are required. And the custom is to be meticulous that there should specifically be ten. However, when it is impossible—there is no hindrance in the matter. And in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 19) it is explained that ten are required. And see in section 37.

According to the opinion of the Rambam in the third chapter (Rambam, Laws of Milah 3), the father is required to recite the blessing of "shehecheyanu." And even though the mohel performs the mitzvah—one's agent is like oneself. And since it is a mitzvah that is not frequent—it is like that which comes from time to time, for which one recites "shehecheyanu," as he wrote at the end of the Laws of Blessings; see there. And so they practiced in all the Land of Israel, Egypt, Syria, and all their surroundings. There are those who wrote that specifically when the father performs the circumcision himself he recites "shehecheyanu," but there is no sufficient reason for this matter. However, in all our provinces, the custom is not to recite "shehecheyanu" over circumcision at all, and the early authorities have already exerted themselves over this. Some wrote that it is because of the pain of the infant, but this does not seem correct (Hagahot Maimoniyot). And some wrote for the reason that it is a doubtful nefel, but this does not seem correct (ibid.), for we follow the majority of births which are viable. And also the Rashba in a responsum (siman 245) wrote that he did not find a proper reason why we do not recite the blessing, only that they treated it like an optional blessing. See there where he wrote that all this is not sufficient. But we have seen that the Shas did not mention "shehecheyanu" among the blessings of circumcision. And in all the mitzvot such as sukkah, lulav, Chanukah lights, megillah, and redemption of the son—the Shas counts the blessing of "shehecheyanu," and from this our teachers the Tosafists inferred that circumcision does not require "shehecheyanu" (Sukkah 46a). And they wrote the reason that they only instituted it for a mitzvah of joy; see there. And this too is not understood, for behold we perform circumcision with joy, as it is stated in Shabbat (Shabbat 130a). And perhaps the intention is that it is true that we perform it with joy, but nevertheless it is a mitzvah performed through blood, as it is stated in the Midrashim that the verse "for Your sake we are killed all the day" refers to circumcision, and it is not appropriate to recite "shehecheyanu." And this is what the early authorities meant regarding the pain of the infant, and their intention is according to our words. But the Rambam was not concerned with this, for also regarding the blessing of shofar it is not found in the Shas to recite "shehecheyanu," and despite all this we recite the blessing. And here too it is so. (And in the Beit Yosef, Orach Chaim, beginning of siman 585, he brought from the Rosh in the name of the Raviyah that in the Yerushalmi one should recite "shehecheyanu" over the shofar; see there. And in our versions it is not found even in the Yerushalmi in any place. And also in the Tosefta, chapter "HaRo'eh," this is not found, neither regarding circumcision nor regarding shofar.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in these lands the custom is not to recite the blessing "shehecheyanu" even when the father himself circumcises his son. Unless he circumcises his firstborn son whom he is obligated to redeem—he recites "shehecheyanu" at the time of the circumcision, and does not recite it at the time of the redemption. But when he is exempt from the redemption—he does not recite "shehecheyanu." Thus far his words. And in our times we have not heard of this custom, and there is also no reason for it at all. And according to his words, if the father is a kohen or a levi, or if his wife is the daughter of a kohen or the daughter of a levi—he would not recite the blessing even over the firstborn. Furthermore, from the Gemara at the end of Pesachim this custom is refuted, see there. (See Shach, small subsection 17, that even from the source of the law from the Maharil it is the opposite. However, to recite "shehecheyanu" for the first time upon the circumcision there is some support from what he wrote in siman 28 to recite the blessing the first time one performs kisuy, see there. Nevertheless, to make it dependent on the redemption requires further study. And see the Darkhei Moshe and the Derishah.)

One does not need to cover the ervah of the minor at the time of the blessing. On the contrary, according to our custom that we bless at the time of the cutting, as I wrote in section 10—behold, they are holding the organ in their hand. For the ervah of a minor is not called ervah, and it is permitted to recite Kriyat Shema facing it, as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 75. And even according to the one who holds there that it is forbidden, because we require "and your camp shall be holy" even regarding the ervah of a minor—behold, since he is engaged in the mitzvah of milah, we read concerning him "and your camp shall be holy," for he is engaged in holiness. And we do not read in this case "and He shall not see in you an unseemly thing" (Shach, subsection 18). However, one must clean the minor of his excrement before he blesses. And even though in Orach Chaim siman 81 it was explained that regarding a minor who cannot eat a kezayit of grain we do not distance ourselves from his excrement, and certainly an eight-day-old infant, nevertheless, it is better to clean him at the time of the blessing, if only because it is a generally repulsive thing.

And know that sometimes the infant urinates at the time they wish to circumcise him. And it appears to me that it is forbidden to recite the blessing at the time he is urinating, for regarding urine we have not found a distinction between a minor and an adult, as the Torah forbade facing the stream of the flow (Berakhot 25a). And we have not found in the Gemara or in the poskim a distinction between an adult and a minor regarding the matter of urine. For granted, regarding excrement, the reason is because the excrement of a minor does not smell, as Rashi explained in Sukkah at the end of the third chapter, see there. But urine, even that of an adult, does not smell, and for this reason it is not forbidden by the Torah except during the time of the flow. But once it has fallen to the ground, it is permitted to recite Kriyat Shema facing it according to the Torah, and only by rabbinic enactment did they require distancing four amot (Berakhot ibid.). And that which they said in Sukkah there: if he can eat a kezayit of grain, one distances from his excrement and from his urine four amot, which explicitly clarifies that before this even his urine is permitted—this refers to after it has fallen to the ground. For the distancing is only rabbinic, and they did not decree regarding a minor. But facing the flow, which is forbidden by the Torah, we have not found a distinction, unless we say that the prohibition of urine during the time of the flow is derived from "and you shall go out there" (Deuteronomy 23:13), as is explained in Berakhot there. And the verse deals with adults who go out to war. And in that verse it is also written "and you shall cover your excrement," and this does not deal with a minor. And the same law applies to urine. And I have not found a clear source for this law, and it requires further study for the practical halacha.

The father of the son stands over the mohel to inform him that he is his agent. And even if he previously commanded him to circumcise, or sent word to him via the attendant, through which he has fulfilled the obligation of agency, nevertheless, he should stand near him at the time of the circumcision. For the circumcision is like a sacrifice, as it is stated in Midrash Vayikra (Parashah 27): The law of man and the law of animal are equal: Man—"And on the eighth day he shall be circumcised," animal—"And from the eighth day and onward it shall be accepted as a sacrifice"; if you brought before Me a sacrifice willingly and with goodwill, it is My sacrifice, etc. Thus far his words. And for every sacrifice, the owners must stand over the sacrifice, as it is stated in Taanit (Taanit 26a): How can a person's sacrifice be offered while he is not standing over it? And therefore they instituted the Ma'amadot, see there.

One places the orlah in sand and ash, and similarly, one spits the blood of the metzitzah into the dust. And if it is Shabbat, they must be prepared from before the day, for if not so, it is muktzeh. It is forbidden to move sand and ash on Shabbat when it is not prepared from the eve of Shabbat, and if he did not prepare it from the eve of Shabbat, he does not need this. And some forbid it even when he prepared it from before the day, as a decree lest he bring dust from outside, for so wrote the Gaon (Bach and Shach subsection 20). However, the world is accustomed to permit it when he prepared it from before the day (ibid.). This matter is an ancient custom, even in the days of Moshe our teacher, as it is brought in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 29). This is his wording: And Israel would take the orlah and the blood, and cover it in the dust of the desert. And when Bilam the sorcerer came, he saw the entire desert full of the orlah of Israel. He said: Who can stand in the merit of the covenant of the blood of milah, which is covered in dust? As it is said: "Who can count the dust of Yaakov." From here they said: One covers the orlah and the blood in the dust of the earth. Thus far his words. And even on Shabbat it is permitted to place the orlah in the dust since he is holding it in his hand at the time of the cutting, for such is the law regarding all muktzeh, that when one holds it in his hand—it is permitted to move it to place it in the location he desires, as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 308. And after he has placed it—it is forbidden to move it. And also if he placed the orlah in a vessel upon the dust, or without dust—it is forbidden to move the vessel, which has become a base for a forbidden object, but rather he should leave it until the evening in its place, as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 310 section 7, see there. And the law of moving the izmel will be explained in siman 266.

It is customary to make a chair for Eliyahu, who is called the "angel of the covenant." And when he places it, he should say with his mouth that it is the chair of Eliyahu. And so it is brought there in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer, that in the days of Achav they abolished circumcision, and Eliyahu arose and was moved by great zeal etc. and Jezebel heard and sought to kill him etc. the Holy One, Blessed be He, revealed Himself to him and said to him: "What are you doing here, Eliyahu?" And he said to Him: "I have been very zealous etc." The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: "You are always zealous etc. by your life, Israel shall not perform a brit milah until you see it with your eyes." From here the sages ordained that they should show honor to the angel of the covenant etc. Thus far his words. (See Taz subsection 12, and among us it is not the custom so.)

Since this chair is for Eliyahu, we therefore strive to be the sandak, to sit on this holy chair and hold the child on one's knees during the milah, and to become like an altar. It is a great and precious mitzvah. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 11 that the power of the sandak is greater than the power of the mohel regarding precedence for the reading of the Torah, for every sandak is like one who offers the incense. Therefore, it is the custom not to give two children (from one father) to one sandak, just as we say regarding the incense: "new ones for the incense." Thus far his words. Great authorities have labored over this, for is it to say that regarding the incense the kohen was not permitted to offer it many times? Rather, they did not give it to him in order to grant merit to everyone. If so, when the father desires it, why can he not give it? Furthermore: behold, there are places where the Rav is the sandak for all children. However, regarding this one may say that the Rav in his city is like the Kohen Gadol, who was able to offer as much as he desired. But what is the comparison to incense? It is like a sacrifice because of the spilled blood, as we brought in section 31 from the Midrash, see there. However, regarding this too one may say according to the Midrash at the end of Parshat Lech Lecha, and this is its wording: Rabbi Aibu said: At the time that Avraham circumcised etc. he stood them in a hill of foreskins etc. and they became wormy, and their scent rose before the Holy One, Blessed be He, like fragrant incense etc. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: At the time that the children of this one come to transgression etc. I will remember for them this scent etc. Thus far its wording. My heart tells me that the essence of the matter is from the hidden things. For we find regarding Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid in his testament, that one should not give to one person to be sandak for two of his sons unless one of them died. Thus far his words. And so it is known that our teacher Peretz, who is the source of this law, was a great sage in the hidden wisdom, and our teacher, the Rema, was also so, and they had this matter according to a secret. However, since in laws it is not appropriate to instruct from hidden wisdom, "and the revealed things are for us and our children," they therefore found a pretext to hang the reason on the incense. And this too is true. Therefore, it is not proper to transgress the words of our teacher, the Rema. (The term "sandak" is a foreign term, as the Aruch wrote in the entry "sandak" that in the Greek and Roman languages it is a patron and advocate. And in Yalkut Tehillim 35 the word "sandikut" is found, see there.)

He further wrote that a woman should not be a sandak for a child where it is possible for a man, because it is like licentiousness. Nevertheless, she assists her husband and brings the child until the beit knesset, and then the man takes it from her and becomes the sandak. But the man can do everything without the woman. Thus far his words. And among us the custom is not so, for the woman does not assist the sandak at all. Rather, this is another honor, that when they bring the child to the house of the milah – women come with the child and stand at the entrance of the room in which they perform the milah, and a woman holds the child on a pillow or cushion, and her husband takes it from her hand, or a young man and a maiden, and he brings it to the place of the chair of Eliyahu. And they call this "kvatter." And it appears to me that this is from the language of "ketoret," as we say in Keritot (Keritot 6b): What is the meaning of the word "ketoret"? Something that rises up [koter]. And Rashi explained: Koter – that it rises straight up like a staff, see there. And since it has been explained that the milah is like ketoret, therefore the one who brings the child near to the milah is called this, for he brings him near to the offering. And through the variation of languages, it was exchanged between "koter" with one vav and "kvatter" with two vavs. And know that the custom among us is that from the kvatter one receives and hands over to another, and another to another, until they hand it over to the one who places it on the chair of Eliyahu. And afterward his father comes, or he honors another in his place, and hands him over to the sandak. And I am concerned about this from what our sages, of blessed memory, said in Eruvin (Eruvin 97b) regarding the Mishnah of a child whose mother gave birth to him in the field, he hands him over to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, even if they are a hundred. And it says there: Even though it is hard for the child's hand [i.e., body] when they hand him over to one another, even so, because of Shabbat it is impossible in another way, see there. And since it is hard for the child, why do we do so? But it is difficult to nullify the custom, for everyone wants to merit the grasping of a mitzvah. "And he who guards etc."

He further wrote that it is the custom of the mohalim to lead the prayers on the day of the circumcision, as it is said: "High praises of God in their throat, and a double-edged sword in their hand." Thus far his words. And they wrote that this homiletical interpretation is not found anywhere, and one should not prevent a mourner from leading the prayers, and anyone who protests against a mourner is as if he robs the deceased. And the reason is because the mohel is engaged in a mitzvah (Shach, subsection 23, in the name of R.M.M.). And among us, the custom is not for the mohel to lead the prayers, and he only says the verses of "Vekharot" with a melody until "Yishtabach," as written in the prayer books. And the verse "High praises of God in their throat" is sung by the chazzan with a melody. And it is customary to light candles in the beit knesset and at the circumcision (Tosafot Sanhedrin 32b), for the lighting of candles is to indicate joy. And furthermore: because the circumcision illuminates the soul of the Jewish man. And in the customs of the Maharil it is written that when he was a sandak, he would practice washing and immersing himself in a mikveh to bring the infant into the covenant in purity, and to light twelve small candles corresponding to the twelve tribes, and a perpetual lamp that would burn for three days, see there. And among us, we do not practice this. And if the mohel is a mourner within the seven days, whether he is permitted to go and circumcise will be explained in siman 393. And if it is permitted for a mourner to be at a circumcision feast will be explained in siman 391, see there.

And they wrote that it is customary to make a feast on the day of the milah. And it is found in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 29): "And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned [higgamel]" – on the day of heh-gimel milah, meaning on the eighth day when they circumcised him, for heh-gimel equals eight (Tosafot Shabbat 130a). And they wrote that it is customary to take a minyan for the milah feast, and it is called a seudat mitzvah. And in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 19) the testimony of the brit milah is with ten. And this is not regarding the feast but rather the essence of the milah. And it is possible that it is for the sake of publicity, for every publicity is with ten (Ketubot 7b). And in our countries, there are few who make a feast, and they only eat some types of sweets: lekach and the like. And because of poverty and the burden of livelihood, they practiced thus. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that anyone who does not eat at a milah feast is as if he is excommunicated to Heaven. And specifically when worthy people are found there, but if unworthy people are found there – he does not need to eat there. Thus far his words. And therefore some are accustomed to command the shamash that he should not invite him to the brit milah feast. But now, in our many iniquities, there is no concern, for for the most part, unworthy people will also be found. But nevertheless, it is proper to go, for it is found in the Midrash that one who eats at a milah feast is saved from the judgment of Gehenna (Tosafot Pesachim 114a s.v. ve-ein, see there). And if it is permitted to make a feast on Erev Shabbat is explained in Orach Chaim siman 249, see there. And he further wrote that it is customary to make a feast and banquet on the night of Shabbat after a male is born, they enter to the infant to taste there, and it is also a seudat mitzvah. Thus far his words. And the wording is not precise, for he begins with "feast and banquet" and concludes with "tasting." And in truth, the custom is not with a feast, only with the tasting of fruits, and they call this "ben zachar." And the next day on Shabbat after the prayer, they enter to the woman who gave birth to give "mazal tov," and they call this "shalom zachar." And they are accustomed not to taste anything, and they say that this is from the regulations of the province so as not to burden the baal berit.

A day of circumcision that falls on a day of the written public fasts – they pray selichot, and say the confession and "Avinu Malkeinu." But they do not say "Vehu Rachum" and nefilat apayim, though they do say "El Erech Apayim." And the psalm "Yaancha" – there are those who say it and there are those who do not say it, and in our practice we say it. And on every day when there is a circumcision they do not say tachanun. And even if only the mohel or the sandak or the father of the son prays in the beit knesset, even though the circumcision is in another place – they do not say tachanun nor "Vehu Rachum." And there are places where in the entire city they do not say it when there is a circumcision in the city, but in our practice they did not follow this custom. And they wrote in the Minhagim that they circumcise before "Aleinu," and they do not remove the tefillin until after the circumcision (Shach, subsection 24). And they also say piyyutim (ibid.). But in our practice they did not follow the custom of piyyutim, and similarly to circumcise before "Aleinu" they do not practice, and similarly regarding the removal of the tefillin, because for the most part they do not circumcise in the beit knesset but rather in the house of the circumcision. And therefore even when they circumcise occasionally in the beit knesset, the custom is not so.