Last Shabbos Parshas Bo, Rashi explained that if brothers died from milah, it isn't performed on next son and that son cannot eat korban Pesach. 47b Tos (Shlishi) proves our gmara is going with shittah 2X (bros died) is catzakah. Why does Rashi explain that in the time period R Nassan waited for the blood to be absorbed into the flesh and the danger of milah would dissipate - that we don't do milah bc it's not one of 3 one gives up life for b/c let's say milah would generally be a mitzvah one is required to sacrafice life for, in case of two brothers previously dying from milah, that should already establish that there is no mitzvah of milah for the next son and not to do it. This question is predicated upon caes of chatzah brothers died, that there is no milah for next son b/c he will die and needn't forgo life for milah, but rather that such chazakkah establishes that the entire mitzvah of milah doesn't start or impose itself on that next son.
DANIEL GRAY, TORONTO Canada
Daniel, you seem to be grappling with the chakirah:- is Milah "Dechuyah" when it endangers life or is it "Hutrah"?
1) Let me expalin. If it is "Dechuyah" that means that if doing Milah represents a danger to a person's life, then this person does have a Mitzvah to do Milah, but he has a bigger Mitzvah to guard his own life, so he is not allowed to do Milah because it is forbidden to endanger one's own, or someone else's life, and the latter prohibition is more serious than the Mitzvah of doing Milah.
However, if Milah is Hutrah in a case of danger to life, this means that there is a total Heter not to do Miah; this peron has no Mitzvah whatever to do Milah.
2) I would like, with great trepidation, to suggest that possibly the Rambam is of the opinion that Milah is Dechuyah in case of danger. My diyuk is from Rambam Hilchos Milah 1:18 who writes
"One may only do Milah on a baby who has no sickness, because danger to life overrides the entire Torah. It is possible to do Milah later on, but it is never possible to restore a Nefesh of Yisroel".
3) The question is why does the Rambam write "It is possible to do Milah later on"? And what would be the Halacha with a person who has a life-long illness and one can expect that it will always be dangerous for him to do Milah?
It could be argued that it is possible to infer from the Rambam that such a person, who otherwise would never perform Milah in his life, is allowed to put himself in danger for Milah. If I am on the right lines, the Rambam would hold Dechuyah because if he would hold Hutrah, this person would be totally removed from the entire Mitzvah of Milah.
4) On the other hand we can argue that Rashi holds that Milah is Hutrah where any danger is involved, which is why Rashi writes that it is only for the 3 cardinal transgression that there is ever any Heter to put one's life in danger.
I must stress that what I wrote above requires a lot of further thought, and I am certainly not paskening anyhting Chas veShalom, but just thinking out loud.
Follow-up reply:
1) Firstly, I must correct the citation I give above for the Rambam. It should be 1:17 not 1:18. Apologies.
2) I found once (I cannot remember how I found this) another source that seems to suggest that if someone wants to put himself in danger to fulfil the Mitzvah of Milah (in a scenario where waiting will not lessen the danger and therefore there is no possible way of performing the Mitzvah without danger) he is permitted to do so.
3) Again, I stress that one should not rely at all practically on what I am writing here. It is merely a theoretical discussion.
4) The source is the Sforno on Devarim 33:9. The Torah praises the Shevet of Levi "For they guarded your word, And kept your Bris". Sforno writes that Levi was not makpid on the life of his sons, in order to keep the word of Hash-m, which is the Mitzvah of Milah of the sons, even though many of them died as a result, as the Gemara Yevamos 72a states that it was dangerous to perform Milah in the wilderness becauase the northern wind did not blow.
5) To be honest, Daniel, it is not clear to me what your original question was, but at any rate I am suggesting that the reason Rashi writes here that there are only 3 things one has to sacrifice one's life for (and Milah is not one of them) is to deny the pshat that I have written above. Rashi maintains that even if a person will never in his life be able to perfom the Mitzvha of Milah because of danger, he is still not allowed to do Milah.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
I found, bs'd, that one of the Achronim learnt a similar pshat in the Rambam to the one I suggested.
1) This is in Teshuvas Beis Yitzchak (by Rav Yitzchak Shmelkas zt'l) Yoreh Deah 2:90:8. Firstly he cites Teshuvas Chasam Sofer Yoreh Deah #245 who learns in the Rambam that it would seem that if afterwards the baby will still be endangered by Milah, nevertheless one may do Milah. However Chasam Sofer writes that he does not understand this, because it is only the 3 cardinal aveiros for which one is allowed to endanger oneself.
2) Beis Yitzchak suggest a solution. He sends us to Yoma 85b and Rashi there. The Gemara there is looking for a source that Pikuach Nefesh overrides all the Mitzvos (with the exception of the big 3). Rabbi Elazar learns this as a Kal veChomer from Milah. Milah is performed on just one of the 248 organs of the body but it is performed on Shabbos. Kal veChomer that to save the entire body one may desecrate Shabbos. Rashi writes that one should break Shabbos to do Milah because Milah carries with it the punishment of Kores later on, if one does not do it.
3) Beis Yitzchak writes that it appears from Rashi that the Mitzvah of Milah is in itself a Mitzvah of Pikuach Nefesh. If one does not do Milah this leads to kores, which is a sort of death. Therefore in the same way that one should break Shabbos to save a physical life, so too one can break Shabbos to save the baby from the spiritual death of Kores.
4) This is why the Rambam implies that one does Milah later on even if this involves danger; because to be uncircumcised is also dangerous, so one is allowed to put the baby in a physical danger, in order to protect him from the Kores danger.
5) And this is why Shevet Levi did Milah in the desert, because even though there was a physical danger since there was no north wind; on the other hand they knew there was the danger of Kores if they did not do Milah.
Dovid Bloom
Thank you very much. I bumped into R Tzvi Berkowitz Ram Ner YISROEL Baltimore who said he he recollects he has notes on this Rashi and also recollected there is a revelant Rambam (maybe it will turn out to be yours below) but needs to find his notes to recollect details.
According to Rambam, why did Moshe cheshbon that he cannot give milah to his son immediately before traveling as that would pose danger- he should have taken the risk!?
Daniel
There may be a few ways of answering this question.
1) The most simple way could be to say that even if one learns in the Rambam that one is allowed to put oneself into danger if Milah will not be possible safely at a later stage, nevertheless the Rambam never said that one is obliged to enter this danger; rather that it is merely permitted if one loves the Mitzvah of Milah so much that one is prepared to take the risk.
2) Secondly, if we say that the Rambam learns like Rashi's pshat in Chumash, it is very understandable why he did not do milah immediately before travelling; because this is exactly what the Rambam writes:- if you can wait, you must wait, because you could always do the milah a little later on, whilst one can never recover a lost life.
3) In addition, if we say that Rambam holds like Rabeinu Chananel on Yoma 85b; that Hashem wanted to kill the baby (not to kill Moshe, as Rashi writes on Chumash); we can also say that Rambam learns like Rabeinu Chananel; that originally Moshe did not understand that the reason Hashem wanted to kill the baby was because Milah had not been done. As soon as Moshe knew this, he performed Milah immediately.
Wishing you a very meaningful Tu beShvat
Dovid Bloom