Question: If Abraham was commanded to circumcise his descendants on the eighth day, why do Arabs – who claim to descend from Abraham through Yishmael – wait until their children are 13 to circumcise them? I am aware that this is a matter of little consequence to our people. Nevertheless, this inconsistency is one that piques my curiosity.
M. Goldman
(Via E-mail)
Summary of our response up to this point: We started our discussion by citing the source for the commandment to circumcise a baby boy – Genesis 17:9-14. These verses are verbose, which teaches us how significant a brit milah is and hints at the great reward in store for those who fulfill it.
We noted that Abraham was 99 years old when G-d commanded him to circumcise himself and his household. His son Ishmael was 13 at the time. The Torah specifies that a circumcision should be performed on the eighth day of a boy’s life (as long as he is in good health, as the Talmud explains).
Last week, we discussed chavalah, the prohibition against damaging oneself or one’s property, and suggested that gentiles who circumcise themselves may be violating this prohibition. We cited the case of Keti’ah b. Shalom, a gentile who hurriedly circumcised himself with the intention of converting to Judaism right before he was killed by the Romans and merited life in the world to come as a result.
The Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 10:10) states that if a member of B’nei Noach wishes to perform a mitzvah (other than their seven), we do not prevent him. We also noted that it is possible that there is no issue of chavalah in our time since it has been proven that circumcision is healthy.
* * * * *
The Abrabanel (to Parshat Lech Lecha) asks numerous regarding brit milah. Several are pertinent to this discussion.
1) “Why is the circumcision referred to as brit – a covenant? Is it possible for a nursing infant of eight days to make a covenant with the creator of the world considering that he is an infant and lacks intelligence? He has not himself chosen to do so. And yet, the Torah (Genesis 17:9-15) refers to circumcision such as a brit, a covenant, and ot brit, the sign of the covenant.”
2) “What is the reason behind this command insofar as all G-dly actions derive from G-dly wisdom and they have a purpose that is known and totally necessary, as the [Rambam] explains in Moreh Nevuchim. Yet, I do not see how milah perfects one’s character, nor do I see how it promotes righteousness.”
3) “If a circumcision brings about she’leimut, wholeness, and the foreskin is a matter of disgust before G-d – as R. Eleazar B. Azariah (Nedarim 31) states, ‘The foreskin is loathsome since it is a term of opprobrium for the wicked…’ – then why was this command to remove the foreskin not given to Adam, G-d’s very creation? Alternatively, why was Adam born an aral – uncircumcised – and not like all the animals and beasts, which are born without a foreskin?”
The Abrabanel answers the first question by explaining that G-d’s brit covenant includes giving the land of Canaan to Abraham’s progeny as an inheritance. Thirteen years passed from the birth of Ishmael until the issuance of the commandment of circumcision to inform Abraham that the land would not be granted to Ishmael (and his descendants), but rather would be granted to Isaac (who would be the first to be circumcised at eight days old). G-d gave this inheritance to Abraham, and it is the responsibility of each Israelite father to grant this inheritance in turn to his newborn son. The two are tied one to the other with the covenant and the land. The brit milah enables the child to become an inheritor of this legacy. (The sages rule [Ketubbot 11a] that “zachin l’adam shelo b’fanavi” – we act to benefit a person even in his absence – i.e., without his knowledge, which explains why we can perform a brit on an eight-day old child.)