The Beraita on 3b that Rava cites to prove Met Mitzva precedes Avoda includes the case of one on his way to perform Mila. Now the way I understood the progression in Gemara relates is as follows: Just as the Nazir must bury a met mitzva, thereby cancelling his own personal avoda of nezirut (which is derived from the extra word "ulAchoto"), so too the kohanim should stop their communal avoda in the bet hamikdash when a met mitzva presents itself for burial. Thus, nezirut is the nazir's avoda, korbanot are the kohanim's avoda, and korban pesach is the avoda for the head of household. And for all types of avoda, met mitzva comes first. What is the case of Mila mentioned in the Beraita for as far as we are concerned in terms of proving the law of met mitzva is adif over avoda? Is it only stated here because you cannot omit words when quoting a beraita (and it does not really have to do with proving met mitzva adif)? I have not found a source for this yet, but my thinking !
is this: Mila is ALSO a type of avoda. I do recall reading that the Sandek is likened to the kohen. Through Mila we dedicate our physical body and life to Hash-m, offering the mila itself similar to a korban. I'm sure there are more connections, and if this is true, please help me develop this idea. If not true, or heretical ch"v, please let me know, thanks!
Stephan Azra, Brooklyn, NY USA
I think your Pshat is a very nice one. In fact SHULCHAN ARUCH YD 265:8 states that the father should stand next to the Mohel at the Bris to inform him that he is his Shaliach to perform the Milah. BIUR HA'GRA #40 explains that this is because doing a Bris is equivalent to offering a Korban (Gra cites a source from MIDRASH RABBA VAYIKRA 27:10 which compares the fact that a Korban can only be offered from an animal which is 8 days old to the fact that the Milah is done on the 8th day. See also REMA YD 265:11 who cites what you wrote that the Sandek is like someone who burns incense in the Beis ha'Mikdash). Since Gemara TA'ANIS 27a says that a person's Korban cannot be brought unless he is standing by it, so too the father must stand next to the Mohel.
However the simple explanation of our Gemara is that because someone is going to slaughter the Pesach or circumcise his son he should not leave these Mitzvos even to attend his brother or sister's funeral. Pesach and Milah are both positive Mitzvos which carry the Kares punishment for not performing them (this then is the reason that Milah is mentioned here) so they are more important than going to the funeral. However, if it was a Mes Mitzvah, where no one else was available to bury him, then even Pesach and Milah are overridden. In the case of a Mes Mitzvah even if he was a Nazir, a Kohen or even a Kohen Gadol, he still must become Tamei to bury the Mes Mitzvah (see Rashi DH ULE'ACHOSO). Everything is pushed aside for a Mes Mitzvah - Avodah, Nezirus, Pesach and Milah.
Incidentally, I saw another beautiful explanation about the connection between Pesach, Milah and "Le'Achoso" - "to his sister". TORAH TEMIMAH to Bamidbar 6:7 #57 DH VE'YESH cites SHIR HA'SHIRIM 5:2, "open for me, my sister, my beloved". The Midrash explains that "my sister" refers to the fact that Am Yisrael became a "sister" of Hash-m in Egypt and became joined to Hash-m through the blood of the Mitzvos of Pesach and Milah. Even so these two Mitzvos are both deferred because of the honor of burying the Mes Mitzvah.
KOL TUV
D. Bloom