‫‪Daf Ditty Shabbes 135‬‬

‫‪"Isaac's Circumcision", Regensburg Pentateuch, c1300‬‬

‫ברוך אתה יי אלהינו מלך העולם‪ ,‬אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו למול את‬
‫הגרים ולהטיף מהם דם ברית‪ ,‬שאלמלא דם ברית לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ‪,‬‬
‫שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה‪ ,‬חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי"‪ ,‬וחותם‪:‬‬
‫"ברוך אתה יי‪ ,‬כורת הברית‬

‫‪Tur Yoreh Deah 268‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
 ‫ ל ֹא ֶנְחְלקוּ ֵבּית ַשַׁמּאי וֵּבית ִהֵלּל ַﬠל נוָֹלד‬:‫ ַרִבּי ֱאִליֶﬠֶזר ַהַקָּפּר אוֵֹמר‬,‫ ְמָנא ָאֵמיָנא ַלהּ — ְדַּת ְנָיא‬:‫ָאַמר ַרב יוֵֹסף‬
‫ ֵבּית ַשַׁמּאי אוְֹמ ִרים‬.‫ ַﬠל ָמה ֶנְחְלקוּ — ְלַחֵלּל ָﬠָליו ֶאת ַהַשָּׁבּת‬,‫ ְלַהִטּיף ִמֶמּנּוּ ַדּם ְבּ ִרית‬I‫שׁהוּא ָמהוּל — ֶשָׁצּ ִרי‬ ֶ ‫ְכּ‬
‫ ָלאו ִמְכָּלל ְדַּתָנּא ַקָמּא ָסַבר ְמַחְלִּלין ָﬠָליו‬.‫שָּׁבּת‬
ַ ‫ ֵאין ְמַחְלִּלין ָﬠָליו ֶאת ַה‬:‫ וֵּבית ִהֵלּל אוְֹמ ִרים‬,‫שָּׁבּת‬
ַ ‫ְמַחְלִּלין ָﬠָליו ֶאת ַה‬
‫שָּׁבּת‬ ַ ‫!?ֶאת ַה‬

There is a tradition that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to a child who
was born circumcised, that one is required to drip covenantal blood from him.

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to whether or not to desecrate Shabbat on his
behalf.

Beit Shammai say: One desecrates Shabbat in order to circumcise him, and Beit Hillel say: One
does not desecrate Shabbat in order to circumcise him.

Rav Yosef concludes: Does this not prove by inference that the first tanna, whose opinion Rabbi
Eliezer HaKappar disputes, holds that everyone agrees that one desecrates Shabbat on his behalf,
and Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disagrees and states that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute that
very matter?

,‫ ְוֹכל ֶשֵׁאין ִאמּוֹ ְטֵמָאה ֵליָדה — ֵאין ִנימּוֹל ִלְשֹׁמָנה‬,‫שִׁאמּוֹ ְטֵמָאה ֵליָדה — ִנימּוֹל ִלְשׁמוָֹנה‬ ֶ ‫ָאַמר ַרִבּי ַאִסּי ׇכּל‬
‫ ״ִאָשּׁה ִכּי ַתְז ִריַﬠ ְוָיְלָדה ָזָכר ְוָטְמָאה ְוגוֹ׳ וַּביּוֹם ַהְשִּׁמי ִני ִימּוֹל ְבַּשׂר ׇﬠ ְרָלתוֹ״‬:‫ֶשֶׁנֱּאַמר‬.

Rabbi Asi stated a principle: Any child whose birth renders his mother ritually impure due to
childbirth is circumcised at eight days; and any child whose birth does not render his mother
ritually impure due to childbirth, e.g., the birth was not natural, but by caesarean section, is not
necessarily circumcised at eight days.

,‫ ֵלאֹמר‬,‫ְבֵּני ִיְשָׂרֵאל‬-‫ב ַדֵּבּר ֶאל‬ 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a woman be
--‫ ְוָיְלָדה ָזָכר‬,‫ִאָשּׁה ִכּי ַתְז ִריַﬠ‬ delivered, and bear a man-child, then she shall be unclean
‫ ִכּיֵמי ִנַדּת‬,‫ְוָטְמָאה ִשְׁבַﬠת ָיִמים‬ seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall
.‫ְדּ ֹוָתהּ ִתְּטָמא‬ she be unclean.

‫ ְבַּשׂר‬,‫ ִימּוֹל‬,‫ ַהְשִּׁמי ִני‬,‫ג וַּביּוֹם‬ 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be
.‫ָﬠ ְרָלתוֹ‬ circumcised.

As it is stated: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven
days…and on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:2–3).

This verse draws a parallel between the two issues, indicating that only a child whose birth
renders his mother impure is circumcised on the eighth day.

2
Yevamot 71a

‫ ד( אמר מר ר"ע אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר‬,‫איש איש לרבות את הערל ואימא לרבות את האונן )ויקרא כב‬
‫ י( א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא אמר קרא‬,‫וכל זר זרות אמרתי לך ולא אנינות )ויקרא כב‬

The Master said above in the baraita: Rabbi Akiva says that it is not necessary to derive by way
of a verbal analogy the halakha that an uncircumcised priest may not eat teruma, as the verse says:

‫ ְוהוּא ָצרוַּﬠ‬,‫ד ִאישׁ ִאישׁ ִמֶזַּרע ַאֲהֹרן‬ 4 What man so ever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath
‫ ַﬠד ֲאֶשׁר‬,‫ַבֳּקָּדִשׁים ל ֹא י ֹאַכל‬--‫אוֹ ָזב‬ an issue, he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean.
,‫ אוֹ ִאישׁ‬,‫ֶנֶפשׁ‬-‫ְטֵמא‬-‫ ְבָּכל‬,‫ִיְטָהר; ְוַה ֹנֵּגַﬠ‬ And whoso toucheth anyone that is unclean by the dead; or
.‫ָזַרע‬-‫ֵתֵּצא ִמֶמּנּוּ ִשְׁכַבת‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר‬ from whomsoever the flow of seed goeth out;

“Any man [ish ish] from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things”
(Leviticus 22:4). The repetition of the word ish comes to include an uncircumcised man and
indicate that he too may not partake of consecrated food.

‫ורבי עקיבא האי תושב ושכיר מאי עביד ליה אמר רב שמעיא לאתויי ערבי מהול וגבעוני מהול‬

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva do with this phrase:

“A sojourner and a hired servant,” as it is not needed for the Paschal lamb? Rav Shemaya said: It
serves to include a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Gibeonite in the prohibition against the
eating of the Paschal lamb. Although they have been circumcised, it is prohibited for them to
partake of the offering.

‫אלא לאתויי גר שמל ולא טבל וקטן שנולד כשהוא מהול וקסבר צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית‬

Rather, the phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” comes to include in the prohibition against
eating of the Paschal lamb a convert to Judaism who was circumcised but did not yet immerse in
a ritual bath, and a child who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin.

Although he does not have a foreskin, he is still seen as lacking the act of circumcision. And he,
Rabbi Akiva, maintains that it is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of
circumcision, in order to usher him into the covenant of Abraham, even though he has no foreskin
that can be removed.

Our Daf discusses hatafat dam brit in two contexts, regarding a child who is nolad mahul (born
circumcised, i.e. without a foreskin) and a convert who was previously circumcised. The Rishonim

3
discuss whether blood should be drawn in other cases of doubt, or when the brit mila was done
improperly, such as a case in which a child has been circumcised at night or before the eighth day.

Meiri writes that when a child is born with no foreskin, as if the bris had already taken place, it is
required to cause “covenantal blood” to flow from him. This is done in case the foreskin is actually
there, but is not recognizable due to its being suppressed and covered over onto the limb. If left
without being removed, we are concerned that this thin piece of skin might later come loose and
cover the limb, leaving the person uncircumcised. This flow of the covenantal blood therefore
requires the removal of a slight layer of skin.

The explanation of Meiri indicates that this procedure is an actual removal of an unnoticed
foreskin, and the child is now allowed to eat teruma, which is otherwise prohibited to be eaten by
an uncircumcised person. This also explains why the Tanna Kama of Rabbi Eliezer Hakappar
allows this to be done on Shabbos, because it is a virtual bris milah for this child.

This explanation also provides us with an insight into the manner in which this procedure is
described by the commentators.

The Geonim tell us that it must be done with great care, and the Terumas Hadeshen (265)
informs us that it requires great skill. If it was merely a scratch of the skin, it would not need
such talent or expertise.

Minchas Chinuch (#284) therefore wonders why Rambam (Hilchos Terumos 7:11) rules that a
child who is born circumcised is allowed to eat teruma even before the covenantal blood is taken.
If, as we have seen, this flow of blood is the removal of the unnoticeable foreskin, why should he
be allowed to eat teruma before it is removed?

The Achronim conclude, however, that the fulfillment of the ‫ ברית דם הטפת‬can be a simple scratch
by a fingernail, and no skin has to be scraped off (see Chazon Ish Y.D. 154).

In fact, if it would be required to peel away any skin, it would be necessary to remove the entire
layer of the suppressed foreskin. However, this skin is not considered a foreskin at all, and the
child can eat teruma. However, we require the flow of a bit of covenantal blood as a mitzvah.1

1. If a child was born circumcise, there is a controversy between Rishonim and Geonim if he
needs hatafat dam berit , or nothing (see in Tur YD 263). the hatafa itself needs no
Beracha, but after the hatafa we say the standard Beracha "lehachnisso, asher kiddesh
yedid mibbeten..." (The opinion of the Baal Hayitur was that the hatafa itself needs a
special brachium as a mila-analogue.)

2. For a convert who is not born "circumcised" but was circumcised before his
conversion, some opinions (Baal Halakhot Gedolot) says that he can no more be
circumcised and there is nothing to do and some else opinion (Rif, Rambam) says that he

1
Daf Digest

4
 needs hatafat dam berit. This hatafa needs to be made carefully without damaging (Tur
YD 263). The hatafa itself needs no Beracha.

RAMBAM: Hil Milah 3

‫ ַאָתּה ְיָי׳‬I‫ ָבּרוּ‬.I‫ ָהעוָֹלם ֲאֶשׁר ִקְדָּשׁנוּ ְבִּמְצוָֹתיו ְוִצָוּנוּ ָלמוּל ֶאת ַהֵגּ ִרים וְּלַהִטּיף ַהָמּל ֶאת ַהֵגּ ִרים ְמָב ֵר‬I‫ֱא“ֵהינוּ ֶמֶל‬
‫״ִאם ל ֹא ְב ִריִתי יוָֹמם ָוָל ְיָלה )ירמיה לג כה(ִמֶמּנּוּ ַדּם ְבּ ִרית ֶשִׁאְלָמֵלא ַדּם ַהְבּ ִרית ל ֹא ִנְתַק ְיּמוּ ָשַׁמ ִים ָוָא ֶרץ ֶשֶׁנֱּאַמר‬
‫שְׂמִתּי״‬ָ ‫שַׁמ ִים ָוָא ֶרץ ל ֹא‬
ָ ‫ֻחקּוֹת‬:

One who circumcises proselytes says the blessing, "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of
the Universe, who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and commanded us to circumcise
proselytes and draw from them the blood of the covenant. For if it were not for the blood of the
covenant, Heaven and Earth would not have endured, even as it is said

‫ל ֹא ְב ִריִתי‬-‫ ִאם‬,‫כה ֹכּה ָאַמר ְיהָוה‬ 25 Thus saith the LORD: If My covenant be not with day and
-‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ֻחקּוֹת ָשַׁמ ִים ָוָאֶרץ‬--‫יוָֹמם ָוָל ְיָלה‬ night, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and
.‫ָשְׂמִתּי‬ earth;

JER 33:25

"Were it not for My Covenant by day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of
heaven and earth" (Jer. 33-25).
‫ ֲאֶשׁר ִקְדָּשׁנוּ ְבִּמְצוָֹתיו ְוִצָוּנוּ ָלמוּל ֶאת ָהֲﬠָבִדים וְּלַהִטּיף ֵמֶהן ַדּם ְבּ ִרית ֶשִׁאְלָמֵלא ַדּם ְבּ ִרית ל ֹא‬I‫ַהָמּל ֶאת ַﬠְבדּוֹ ְמָב ֵר‬
‫ ְלַכסּוֹת ֶﬠ ְרָותוֹ ַﬠד‬I‫ ְוַהָמּל ָאָדם ָגּדוֹל ָצ ִרי‬.‫ ַﬠל ִמיַלת ָהֲﬠָבִדים‬I‫ ְוִאם ָמל ֶﬠֶבד ֶשׁל ֲאֵח ִרים ְמָב ֵר‬.‫ִנְתַק ְיּמוּ ָשַׁמ ִים ָוָא ֶרץ‬
‫ ְמַגֵלּהוּ וָּמל אוֹתוֹ‬I‫ ְוַאַחר ָכּ‬I‫ֶשׁ ְיָּב ֵר‬:

If one circumcises his own bondman, he says the blessing, "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God,
King of the Universe, Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and commanded us to
circumcise bondmen and draw from them blood of the covenant; for if it were not for the blood of
the covenant, Heaven and Earth would not exist. If one circumcises a bondman belonging to other
persons, the formula recited is … "concerning the circumcision of bondmen." When an adult is
circumcised, the private parts must be covered till after the blessing has been said; and then
uncovered while the circumcision is performed.

‫ ְוֵכן ַא ְנְדּרוִֹגינוּס‬.‫ֵגּר ֶשָׁמּל ֹקֶדם ֶשׁ ִנְּתַגֵּיּר ְוָקָטן ֶשׁנּוַֹלד ְכֶּשׁהוּא ָמהוּל ְכֶּשַׁמִּטּיִפין ִמֶמּנּוּ ַדּם ְבּ ִרית ֵאיָנן ְצ ִריִכין ְבּ ָרָכה‬
‫שׁהוּא ֵאינוֹ ָזָכר ַוַדּאי‬
ֶ ‫ֵאין ְמָב ְרִכין ַﬠל ִמָלּתוֹ ִמְפֵּני‬:

If a proselyte had been circumcised before he became a proselyte, or if a male infant was born
apparently circumcised, (i.e. with the prepuce deficient) no blessing is recited when a drop of blood
is drawn from the virile member. So too, no blessing is said at the circumcision of an androgyne
(hermaphrodite), since the subject is not positively (and exclusively) a male.

5
Hil Milah 1:7

‫ ְוֵכן‬.‫שׁ ִנְּתַגֵּיּר‬
ֶ ‫ ְלַהִטּיף ִמֶמּנּוּ ַדּם ְבּ ִרית ַבּיּוֹם‬I‫ ְוִאם ָמל ְכֶּשָׁהָיה ַﬠכּוּ״ם ָצ ִרי‬.‫ר ֶשׁ ִנְּכַנס ִלְקַהל ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל ַחָיּב ִמיָלה ְתִּחָלּה‬
‫ ַא ְנְדּרוִֹגינוּס ְוהוּא ַהָיּלוּד ֶשֵׁיּשׁ לוֹ ַזְכרוּת ְכָּזָכר‬.‫ ְלַהִטּיף ִמֶמּנּוּ ַדּם ְבּ ִרית ַבּיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁמי ִני‬I‫שׁהוּא ָמהוּל ָצ ִרי‬ ֶ ‫שׁנּוַֹלד ְכּ‬ֶ ‫ָקָטן‬
‫ ְוֵכן יוֵֹצא ֹדֶּפן וִּמי ֶשֵׁיּשׁ לוֹ ְשֵׁתּי ָﬠ ְרלוֹת ָמִלין ֶאת ְשֵׁתּיֶהן ַבְּשִּׁמי ִני‬.‫ ָלמוּל אוֹתוֹ ַבְּשִּׁמי ִני‬I‫ ְוַנְקבוּת ִכּ ְנֵקָבה ָצ ִרי‬:
A proselyte must, before he can enter the communion of Israel be circumcised. If, while still a
gentile, he had already been circumcised, it is requisite to draw a drop of blood from the
membrum, on the day when he is received, as a sign of the covenant.

Similarly, if a male infant is born with the prepuce absent, it is requisite to draw a drop of blood
from the membrum when the infant is eight days old. An androgyne that has both male and female
organs is to be circumcised on the eighth day.

So too a male infant delivered by the Caesarean operation, or one born with two foreskins is to be
circumcised on the eighth day.

Tur Yoreh Deah

263

‫נולד כשהוא מהול צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית ומיהו בנחת וצריכ' מילתא למבדקה יפה יפה בידים ובמראית‬
‫עינים ולא בפרזלא דלא לעייק ליה ורואים ונזהרים היאך מלין אותו וממתינים לו הרבה ואין חוששין ליום‬
‫שמיני שלא יביאוהו לידי סכנה‬

268

‫גר שבא להתגייר אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול היה נימול כתב ר"ח שאין לו תקנה אבל בניו נימולין ונכנסין בקהל‬
‫דהא אגייר בטבילה וכגר חשוב להכשיר זרעו אבל לא הוא ובעל הלכות כתב שיש לו תקנה שמטיפין ממנו דם‬
‫ברית ובעל העיטור כתב שאם נולד מהול א"צ להטיף ממנו דם ברית אלא בטבילה לחוד סגי כאשה ואם לא נולד‬
‫מהול אלא שלא נימול לשם גירות כגון ערבי מהול צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית וא"א הרא"ש ז"ל לא חילק אלא‬
‫בכל ענין צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית וכתב עוד אם נכרת הגיד אין מילתו מעכבת מלהתגייר וסגי ליה בטבילה‬
...‫וכ"כ גאון סריס שבא להתגייר נכנס תחת כנפי השכינה כאשה‬

A convert that comes to be converted is not converted until he is circumcised and dipped (in a
mikva) if he was already circumcised write Rabbi H' that he can't be fixed (converted) but his
children can be circumcised and can join the congregation (I think it means that they are considered
as having had a Jewish father) since "a convert that only dipped and did not get circumcised is
considered a convert to permit his children but not himself".

(But) The author of the Halochos Gedolos writes that he can be fixed by taking a drop of
circumcision blood.

The author of the Itur writes that if he was born circumcised (without a foreskin) we do not need
to drip circumcision blood, it is enough (just) to dip him as by a woman, but if he was not born

6
circumcised but he was already circumcised but not to convert I.e. a circumcised Arab (Muslim)
you need to drip from him circumcision blood.

And (but) my master my father the Rosh zal did not differentiate, it (the law) is just any time (all
above cases) you need to drip from him circumcision blood, and he additionally writes, if the organ
was cut off the (inability for) circumcision does not stop him from converting and it enough for
him (just) to dip and so wrote going "a eunuch that comes to converted enters under the wings of
the Shechinah as a woman (without circumcision)...
:

Family circumcision set and trunk, ca. eighteenth century Wooden box covered in cow hide
with silver implements: silver trays, clip, pointer, silver flask, spice vessel.

The Gemara in Yevamos (46a) explains that the source for the obligation of Milah for a convert
is the Milah the Jewish people performed when they left Mitzrayim.

‫ר' יוחנן כאידך לישנא סבירא ליה דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל שאין עולה על שולחן מלכים‬
‫לאכול בו את הפת אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים וטעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי‬

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in this matter in accordance with the opinion
of the other version of what Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Any food
item that lacks sufficient importance such that it does not appear on the table of kings in order
to eat bread with it is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Lupines lack
importance and are therefore permitted even if cooked by gentiles.

And consequently, the only reason to make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla
from eating them is because they are not well versed in Torah, and if they are left to be lax in

7
this regard they will eventually become lax in actual Torah prohibitions; by inference, to those
well versed in Torah, it is permitted.

§ During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the
revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covenant with God in which they attained their
status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the
people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required
for conversion for all generations. The tanna’im disagree as to which aspects of that original
conversion are to be derived for all generations.

Where, though, does the Torah mention that the Jewish people performed Milah when they left
Mitzrayim in order to become Gerim?

The only mention of Milah at the time of the Exodus is the Milah the Jewish people performed in
order to be permitted to eat the Korban Pesach (Kerisus 9a), which was a specific commandment
unrelated to becoming Jewish. (RAMBAN)

RAMBAN and RASHBA explain that the Milah the Jewish people performed in Mitzrayim was
not merely to permit them to eat the Korban Pesach.

Moshe Rabeinu told them to perform Milah in order to accept the Mitzvos upon themselves and
to be "Nichnas Tachas Kanfei ha'Shechinah" -- to become the nation of Hashem.

That is what the Mechilta (Ex. 12:6) means when it says that at the time of the Exodus the Jews
lacked the merit of Mitzvos, and therefore Hashem gave them two Mitzvos to perform -- Milah
and the Korban Pesach (Mechilta Ex. 12:6). Hashem gave these Mitzvos to the Jewish people in
order to make them His chosen nation.

‫ מפני מה הקדים לקיחתו של פסח לשחיטתו ד' ימים? היה רבי מתיא בן חרש אומר ואעבור‬.‫והיה לכם למשמרת‬
‫ ולא היה )יחזקאל ט"ז( ואראך והנה עתך עת דודים‬,‫הגיע שבועתו שנשבע הקב"ה לאברהם שיגאל את בניו‬
.‫ ערום מכל מצות‬.'‫ שנא' שדים נכונו ושערך צמח ואת ערום ועריה וגו‬,‫בידם מצות שיעסקו בהם כדי שיגאלו‬
‫ שנאמר ואעבור עליך ואראך‬.‫ דם פסח ודם מילה שיתעסקו בם כדי שיגאלו‬,‫נתן להם הקב"ה שתי מצות‬
‫ ואומר גם את הדם בריתך שלחתי אסיריך מבור אין מים בו‬.'‫)זכריה ט( מתבוססת בדמיך וגו‬. ‫לכך הקדים הכתוב‬
‫ שאין נוטלין שכר אלא על ידי מעשה‬,‫לקיחתו של פסח לשחיטתו ד' ימים‬

(Exodus 12:6) "And it shall be to you for a keeping": Why does the taking of the Pesach precede
its slaughtering by four days? R. Matia b. Charash says: It is written (Ezekiel 16:8) "And I passed
by you and I saw you, and behold, your time was the time for love":

There had arrived the (time for the fulfillment of the) oath that the Holy One Blessed be He had
sworn to our father Abraham to redeem his children. But they had no mitzvoth to engage in, which
would enable their redemption, viz. (Ibid. 7) "Your breasts were firm" (an allusion to Moses and
Aaron), "and your hair had sprouted" (an allusion to the elders), but you were naked and bare"
(of mitzvoth).

8
And the Holy One Blessed be He gave them two mitzvoth — the blood of the Paschal lamb and the
blood of circumcision to engage in for their redemption. Thus (Ibid. 6) "And I passed by you and
I saw you steeped in your blood." And it is written (Zechariah 9:11) "You, too — By the blood of
your covenant I have sent forth your bound ones from the waterless pit."

Therefore, the Holy One Blessed be He commanded the taking of the Pesach four days before its
slaughtering, for reward is given only for the act.

However, not every man in Mitzrayim needed to perform Milah in order to eat the Korban Pesach.
Although most of the people had forsaken the Mitzvah of Milah until the night of the Exodus, the
tribe of Levi always observed the Mitzvah of Milah

,‫ ל ֹא ְרִאיִתיו‬,‫ט ָהֹאֵמר ְלָאִביו וְּלִאמּוֹ‬ 9 Who said of his father, and of his mother: 'I have not seen
‫ָבָּנו ל ֹא‬-‫ ְוֶאת‬,‫ֶאָחיו ל ֹא ִהִכּיר‬-‫ְוֶאת‬ him'; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew he his
˜‫ וְּב ִריְת‬,˜‫ ִכּי ָשְׁמרוּ ִאְמָרֶת‬:‫ָיָדע‬ own children; for they have observed Thy word, and keep Thy
.‫ִי ְנֹצרוּ‬ covenant.
Deut 33:9

RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 13:2).

‫שֶׁנֱּאַמר‬
ֶ ‫ ָמל אוָֹתם מֶשׁה ַרֵבּנוּ ֶשֻׁכָּלּם ִבְּטּלוּ ְבּ ִרית " )שמות יב מח(ִמיָלה ָה ְיָתה ְבִּמְצ ַר ִים‬."‫ְוָכל ָﬠ ֵרל ל ֹא י ֹאַכל בּוֹ‬
‫שֶּׁבט ֵל ִוי ְוַﬠל ֶזה ֶנֱאַמר‬
ֵ ‫"וְּב ִריְת¡ ִי ְנֹצרוּ" )דברים לג ט(ִמיָלה ְבִּמְצ ַר ִים חוּץ ִמ‬:

Circumcision as it was in Egypt, as it says, "Every uncircumcised person shall not eat of it (the
Passover offering)." Moses our teacher circumcised them, and everyone spurned the covenant in
Egypt with the exception of the Tribe of Levi. On this it says, "Your covenant was withheld."

Accordingly, the men of the tribe of Levi did not need to perform Milah when they left Mitzrayim.
When did they perform a Milah for the sake of conversion? The Milah they performed earlier was
the fulfillment of the ordinary Mitzvah of Milah that was given to Avraham Avinu. It was not done
for the sake of becoming Jewish.

RAMBAN and RASHBA suggest that the men of Levi performed "Hatafas Dam Bris" -- they let
some blood from the place of their Milah for the purpose of conversion. The Gemara understands
that every man who left Mitzrayim performed some form of Milah, either actual circumcision or
"Hatafas Dam Bris."

RAMBAN suggests further that perhaps the men of Levi did not need Milah again because their
original Milah was done to fulfill the Mitzvah of Hashem. (The Ramban later compares the men
of Levi to the women who converted with Tevilah alone.)

The Ramban apparently maintains that a man who already performed the Mitzvah of Milah is
comparable to a man who physically is unable to perform Milah.

9
A man who was born deformed and cannot perform Milah still can become a Ger without Milah
(as Tosfos on 46b, DH d'Rebbi Yosi).

‫תוספות ד"ה דרבי יוסי תרתי בעי‬

‫כתב בה"ג דגר שנתגייר כשהוא מהול צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית וקטן שנולד כשהוא מהול אין צריך להטיף‬
Opinion #1 (Bahag): If one who is already circumcised converts, we must extract [from the place
of Milah] a drop of Dam Bris. If a baby was born circumcised, we need not extract a drop.

‫וטעמא דקטן שלא היתה לו ערלה מעולם אין צריך אבל גר שהיתה לו ערלה ומילתו אינה מילה צריך להטיף דם‬
‫ברית‬

Explanation: Because a baby never had Orlah (foreskin), he does not need Hatafas Dam Bris. The
Nochri had Orlah, and his circumcision was invalid, therefore he needs Hatafas Dam Bris.

‫ומיהו אם נכרת לו כל הגיד ובא להתגייר אין דומה שמילתו מעכבתו מלהתגייר ומודי רבי יוסי בההיא דסגי בטבילה לחודה‬

Distinction: However, if the entire Ever was cut off, and he comes to convert, it seems that Milah
is not Me'akev conversion. R. Yosi agrees that in such a case, Tevilah alone suffices.

‫ור"ח פסק במסכת שבת איפכא מה"ג‬

Opinion #2: In Shabbos, R. Chananel ruled oppositely from Bahag.

‫ ושם( דקאמר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על נולד כשהוא מהול שצריך‬.‫וכן משמע בפרק ר"א דמילה )שבת דף קלה‬
‫להטיף ממנו דם ברית‬
Support: our daf Shabbos (135a), says that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not argue about one
who was born circumcised. All require Hatafas Dam Bris;

‫על מה נחלקו על גר שנתגייר כשהוא מהול‬

They argue about one who converts when he is already circumcised.

‫ונראה שעל זה סמכו ה"ג דסברי להו כאמוראי דהתם דאית להו דקטן אין צריך ובגר סברי כר' יוסי דשמעתין‬
‫דמשמע דהלכתא כוותיה‬
Defense (of Bahag): It seems that Bahag rules like the Amora'im there who do not require Hatafas
Dam Bris for a baby. Regarding a convert, they hold like R. Yosi in our Sugya. It connotes that the
Halacha follows him.

'‫( פליגי רבי אלעזר בר"ש ורבנן בגר שנתגייר כשהוא מהול אם נמול ביום או אפי‬.‫ובפרק הערל )לקמן דף עב‬
‫בלילה‬
R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Rabanan argue about one who converted when he was circumcised,
if he is circumcised during the day or even at night;

.‫אבל כולהו מודו דצריך הטפת דם ברית‬

10
However, all agree that he needs Hatafas Dam Bris.

Similarly, if a man already performed the Mitzvah of Milah, it is not possible for him to perform
Milah again for the sake of Geirus.

The Milah of Geirus is not a new Mitzvah per se; rather, the Mitzvah is to perform an act of
Milah for the sake of Geirus.

If he already performed the Mitzvah of Milah, he cannot do it again for the sake of Geirus. Since
it is impossible for him to perform Milah for the sake of Geirus, the lack of Milah for Geirus does
not prevent him from becoming a Ger.

TOSFOS in Kerisus (9a, DH d'Kesiv) offers a similar answer but with a different logic. Tosfos
suggests that even those who performed Milah because of the Mitzvah given to Avraham did so
for the sake of Geirus and to accept upon themselves the yoke of Mitzvos. Avraham's Mitzvah
was not just to perform Milah, but to do so in order to become a Jew.

TOSFOS (46b, DH d'Rebbi Yosi, and Shabbos 135a, DH Lo Nechleku)

‫והיינו טעמא דבין קטן שנולד כשהוא מהול ובין גר שנתגייר כשהוא מהול דין הוא דשניהם היו טעונים הטפת‬
‫דם ברית אי לאו דדרשינן הכא דקטן אין צריך להטיף ממנו משום דכתיב ערלתו ודוקא בקטן דגלי גלי בגר דלא‬
‫גלי לא גלי‬

Both a baby who is born circumcised and a convert who converts while already circumcised should
logically require having blood taken from them.

The Gemara excludes a baby who is born circumcised from having to undergo this due to the
Pasuk, "Orlaso." However, this is only because there is a Pasuk explicitly excluding him from this.

Since there is no such Pasuk regarding a convert, he does require blood to be taken from him.

‫ור"ח פסק איפכא מה"ג‬

Rabeinu Chananel's ruling is the exact opposite of the Halachos Gedolos.

Tosafos in our daf, quotes RABEINU CHANANEL who rules that even today a circumcised
Nochri who comes to convert does not need "Hatafas Dam Bris" in order to become a Ger.

He maintains that although the Nochri's Milah was a medical procedure devoid of any spiritual
relevance, he is exempt from the requirement of Milah since he physically cannot do Milah again
for the sake of Geirus.

While other Rishonim maintain that for such a Nochri "Hatafas Dam Bris" must be done in place
of Milah, Rabeinu Chananel disagrees. He maintains that "Hatafas Dam Bris" is done only for a

11
child born with a Milah; since he was born that way, there is a different form of Milah for him --
"Hatafas Dam Bris."

For one who was born normal, however, the only valid form of Milah is the removal of the Orlah,
and one who had his Orlah removed already cannot have another Milah.

This approach explains why the tribe of Levi did not need a new Milah for Geirus.2

RAMBAM Hil. Isurei Biah 13:1-2

‫ג׳‬-‫א׳‬:‫ הלכות איסורי ביאה י״ג‬,‫משנה תורה‬

(‫ וקרבן )א‬,‫ וטבילה‬,‫ במילה‬:‫בשלושה דברים נכנסו ישראל לברית‬.

(‫ שכולם ביטלו ברית מילה )ב‬,‫ מל אותם משה רבינו‬."‫ "וכל ערל לא יאכל בו‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫מילה היתה במצרים‬
‫ "ובריתך ינצורו‬:‫ ועל זה נאמר‬.‫"במצרים חוץ משבט לוי‬.

(‫ )ג‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ וקרבן‬."‫ וכבסו שמלותם‬,‫ "וקדשתם היום ומחר‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫וטבילה היתה במדבר קודם מתן תורה‬
‫ ויעלו עולות" – על ידי כל ישראל הקריבום‬,‫"וישלח את נערי בני ישראל‬.

Mishnah Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 13:1-3

(1) There are three ways in which someone enters the covenant: by circumcision, by
immersion, and by a Temple offering.

(2) Circumcision as it was in Egypt, as it says, "Every uncircumcised person shall not eat of
it (the Passover offering)." Moses our teacher circumcised them, and everyone spurned the
covenant in Egypt with the exception of the Tribe of Levi. On this it says, "Your covenant
was withheld."

(3) Immersion was in the desert before receiving the Torah, as is said, "Sanctify yourselves
today and tomorrow; wash your clothes." The offering, as is said, "Send the young ones of
Israel to bring elevation offerings" - and everyone in Israel brought them.

2
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld on our daf and Yevomos 46, Daf Advancement Forum, he adds: “Although this seems to be the opinion
of Rabeinu Chananel according to the way Tosfos quotes his words, Rabeinu Chananel may intend to say something else entirely.
Rabeinu Chananel writes that because there is no "Hatafas Dam Bris" for a convert, a Nochri who is already circumcised cannot
become a convert at all! (See Rabeinu Chananel to Shabbos 135b, where a few words seem to be missing in the version printed in
the Vilna Shas, and see the words of Rabeinu Chananel as cited by the RAMBAN, TUR YD 268, and other Rishonim.) Rabeinu
Chananel enigmatically adds that although his conversion does not entitle him to acceptance as a Jew, children born to him
afterwards are Jews! None of the Rishonim concur with Rabeinu Chananel in this respect.”

12
Our Daf discusses whether a child who is nolad mahul is completely exempt from the mitzvah
of brit mila, or whether hatafat dam brit is necessary.3

The Talmud relates different understandings of a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel
regarding whether it is necessary to perform hatafat dam brit, as well as different opinions
regarding the conclusion.

According to the Tanna Kamma, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to whether a child who
is nolad mahul requires hatafat dam brit.

Regarding a child who was nolad mahul, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,
as Beit Shammai say that it is necessary to draw blood from him, in lieu of circumcision of the
foreskin, and Beit Hillel say that it is not necessary, as he is already circumcised.

The Gemara cites Rav, who rules according to the Tanna Kamma, and relates the following story
in support.

To Rav Ada bar Ahava was born a circumcised child. He inquired after thirteen mohalim, but they
refused to circumcise him, until ultimately, he circumcised his son himself and rendered him one
with a severed urethra.

Rav Ada bar Ahava said: I have it coming to me [I deserve to be punished], as I violated the ruling
of Rav.

According to this position, a child who is nolad mahul is exempt from hatafat dam brit.

Alternatively, R. Shimon ben Elazar offers another interpretation of the debate between Beit Hillel
and Beit Shammai.

R. Shimon ben Elazar said: [That was not the subject of their dispute, as] Beit Shammai and Beit
Hillel did not disagree over the fact that from one who was born circumcised, it is necessary to
perform hatafat dam brit, because they agree that it is a case of a concealed foreskin [i.e., the
child is not actually circumcised; it is just that his foreskin is not visible].

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to a convert who for some reason was
circumcised when he was a non-Jew and converted when he was already circumcised, as Beit
Shammai say drawing blood from him is necessary, and Beit Hillel say drawing blood from him
is not necessary [and he needs only a ritual immersion to complete his conversion].

The Gemara explains that the mohel must draw blood from the child because of orla kevusha, a
concealed foreskin. Shmuel accepts this version of the debate, according to which Beit Hillel
requires a child who is nolad mahul to undergo hatafat dam brit.

3
Rav David Brovsky: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/hatafat-dam-brit-role-drawing-blood-brit-mila

13
However, there is an additional debate whether the obligation to draw blood is based upon the fear
that there may be an orla kevusha, i.e., a doubt, or whether there is definitely assumed to be an orla
kevusha.

Rabba said: We are concerned lest there is a concealed foreskin [and therefore there is uncertainty
whether or not he is considered uncircumcised, and therefore it is prohibited to circumcise him on
Shabbat].

Rav Yosef said: In that case, there is certainly a concealed foreskin [and therefore, it is permitted
to circumcise him even on Shabbat].

The Gemara continues and relates that according to R. Eliezer Ha-kappar, all agree that while a
child who was nolad mahul must undergo hatafat dam brit, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree
as to whether this is performed on Shabbat.

There are four opinions in the Rishonim regarding the final ruling.

Tosafot (s.v. Lo; see also Yere’im cited by Hagahot Maimoniyot, Hilkhot Mila 1:2) rule that
neither a child born without a foreskin nor a convert who was previously converted require hatafat
dam brit.

Rif (Shabbat 53-54) and Rambam (Hilkhot Mila 1:7) rule that hatafat dam brit is required in both
cases.

Ba’al Ha-maor (Shabbat 53b) and Rabbeinu Chananel (Tosafot, ibid.) rule that while a child
born circumcised requires hatafat dam brit, a circumcised conversion candidate does not.

She’iltot and Behag (Tosafot, ibid.) rule that only a convert requires hatafat dam brit.

REMA requires hatafat dam brit when the circumcision was performed at night (262:1) or when
performed by a non-Jew (264:1).

Interestingly, the Rema does not require hatafat dam brit when the circumcision was performed
before the eighth day. The Shakh (op cit), however, disagrees and requires hatafat dam brit in this
case as well, although it is not to be performed on Shabbat.

Summary4

A child born without a foreskin requires only "hatafat dam brit- letting the blood of the covenant."

4
Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: LASER CIRCUMCISION Author(s): J. David Bleich Source: Tradition: A
Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought , FALL 2010, Vol. 43, No. 3 (FALL 2010), pp. 89-109

14
R. Isaac Schmelkes, Teshuvot Bet Yitzhak, (Orach Chayim, no. 36, sec. 1), cites Shakh, Yoreh
De'ah 362:2, in establishing that when there is no foreskin, hatafat dam brit may not be performed
on Shabbat.

On the strength of this distinction between circumcision, which is performed on Shabbat, and
hatafat dam brit, which is not performed on Shabbat, Bet Yitzhak asserts that the two are really
distinct mizvot.5

From which part of the penis is blood drawn during hatafat dam brit?
Avnei Nezer (YD 334) writes that blood should be drawn from “the place where the glans meets
the shaft.” He explains that since the blood is usually drawn from that spot during a regular brit
mila, that is where hatafat dam brit should be performed.

Chazon Ish (Hilkhot Mila 154) claims that blood should be drawn from the atara, the glans.
He claims that this halakha has been forgotten, and mohalim generally draw blood from the area
of care on the shaft, which is no different than “drawing blood from one’s finger.”
In addition, he adds that hatafat dam brit doesn’t need to actually draw blood, but rather, even a
scratch which causes the area to become red or bruised (nitzrar ha-dam) is sufficient.

R. Eliezer Weinberg, in his Tzitz Eliezer (8:28:4), disagrees, as do R. Chayim Elazar Spira (Ot
Chayim Ve-shalom 263:5) and R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Kol Torah 5723). They all accept the
view of the Avnei Nezer, who rules that the blood should be drawn from the shaft, and not the
glans.

R. Asher Greenwald, in his Zokher Ha-brit (16:12) suggests that this should depend on the reason
for performing hatafat dam brit.
If hatafat dam brit is performed on a child who was born mahul, then the hatafat dam brit should
be on the glans, where we fear that there may be an orla kevusha; while if the hatafat dam brit is
performed because of any other doubt, blood should be drawn from the remaining layers of orla,
found at the end of the shaft, below the glans.

The custom is to draw blood from the area above the glans, i.e., the shaft. 6

5
See also R. Yonatan Steif, Teshuvot Mahari Shteifi no. 106 and R. Menasheh Klein, Mai ve-Lo Para (Brooklyn, 5744), chap.
25
6
Although R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l and R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l reportedly ruled that blood should be drawn
from both the glans and the shaft (Sefer Otzar Ha-brit, Vol. 2 page 349), this is not the common custom.

15
Chaim Navon writes on Milah and Covenant:

Circumcision as a sacrifice
The conceptual significance that we have uncovered in circumcision led Chazal to relate to
circumcision as a miniature sacrifice.

Whoever presents his son for circumcision is regarded as if he were a High Priest offering his
meal-offering and libation on the altar. (Yalkut Shimoni, 81)

‫וכשנמול הפרי שעשה טוב במעשיו ונבחר להקריב על גבי המזבח מכאן אתה למד שכל מי שהוא מגיש את בנו‬
‫למילה כאילו כהן גדול מקריב מנחתו ונסכו על גבי המזבח מכאן אמרו חייב אדם לעשות משתה ושמחה באותו‬
‫היום שזכה למול את בנו‬:

One who undergoes circumcision, giving his foreskin to God, is essentially offering God a sacrifice
of sorts. This idea may be connected to one of the laws governing circumcision. A newborn child
is circumcised when he is eight days old. Some have suggested that this parallels a similar law in
the realm of sacrifices:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The law governing man and the law governing an animal are the same. The
law governing man – “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised”

16
 ‫ ְבַּשׂר‬,‫ ִימּוֹל‬,‫ ַהְשִּׁמי ִני‬,‫ג וַּביּוֹם‬ 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be
.‫ָﬠ ְרָלתוֹ‬ circumcised.

Lev 12:3
and the law governing an animal – “[Then it shall be seven days under its dam;] and from the
eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted [for an offering made by fire to the Lord]”

,‫ֵﬠז ִכּי ִיָוֵּלד‬-‫ֶכֶשׂב אוֹ‬-‫כז שׁוֹר אוֹ‬ 27 When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then
‫ְוָהָיה ִשְׁבַﬠת ָיִמים ַתַּחת ִאמּוֹ; וִּמיּוֹם‬ it shall be seven days under the dam; but from the eighth day
‫ ְלָק ְרַבּן‬,‫ ֵיָרֶצה‬,‫ ָוָהְלָאה‬,‫ַהְשִּׁמי ִני‬ and thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by
.‫ִאֶשּׁה ַליהָוה‬ fire unto the LORD.

Lev 22:27

‫ כז( ְוָהָיה ִשְׁבַﬠת ָיִמים ַתַּחת ִאמּוֹ‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬, ‫שִׁאם ְנָגַחתּוּ ִאמּוֹ אוֹ ֶשׁ ִנְּמָצא בּוֹ‬ ֶ ,‫ ֶאָלּא ְכֵּדי ֶשׁ ִיָּבֵּדק‬,‫ְוָלָמּה ִשְׁבַﬠת ָיִמים‬
‫ ִדְּת ִניַנן ַתָּמּן יוֵֹצא ֹדֶפן ֵאין יוְֹשִׁבין ָﬠָליו ְיֵמי ֻטְמָאה ִויֵמי ָטֳה ָרה ְוֵאין ַחָיִּבין‬,‫שׁר ְלָק ְרָבּן‬ֵ ‫מוּם ֲה ֵרי ֶזה ָפּסוּל ְול ֹא ִיְהֶיה ָכּ‬
.‫ ַרִבּי ִשְׁמעוֹן אוֵֹמר ֲה ֵרי ֶזה ְכָּילוּד‬,‫ָﬠָליו ָק ְרָבּן‬

‫ ֶשׁ ִנְּכַנס ִלְמִדיָנה ְוָגַזר‬I‫ ָמָשׁל ְלֶמֶל‬,‫שַׁﬠ ְדִּסְכ ִנין ְבֵּשׁם ַרִבּי ֵל ִוי ָאַמר‬
ֻ ‫ ַרִבּי ְיהוֹ‬,‫ ְוָהָיה ִשְׁבַﬠת ָיִמים ַתַּחת ִאמּוֹ‬,‫ָדָּבר ַאֵחר‬
.‫ְוָאַמר ָכּל ַאְכְסָנִאין ֶשֵׁיּשׁ ָכּאן ל ֹא ִי ְראוּ ָפַני ַﬠד ֶשׁ ִיּ ְראוּ ְפֵּני ַהַמְּטרוָֹנא ְתִּחָלּה‬

‫שֵׁאין ִשְׁבַﬠת ָיִמים ְבּל ֹא ַשָׁבּת ְוֵאין ִמיָלה‬ֶ ,‫שָׁבּת‬ ַ ‫שַׁתֲּﬠֹבר ָﬠָליו‬ ֶ ‫ הוּא ל ֹא ָתִביאוּ ְלָפַני ָק ְרָבּן ַﬠד‬I‫ ָאַמר ַהָקּדוֹשׁ ָבּרוּ‬I‫ָכּ‬
‫ ֲהָדא הוּא ִדְכִתיב‬,‫שָׁבּת‬ ַ ‫ כז(ְבּל ֹא‬,‫)ויקרא כב‬: ‫ ָאַמר ַרִבּי ִיְצָחק ִמְשַׁפּט ָאָדם וִּמְשַׁפּט‬.‫וִּמיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁמי ִני ָוָהְלָאה ֵי ָרֶצה‬
‫ ִמְשַׁפּט ָאָדם‬,‫שׁ ִוים‬ָ ‫ ג(ְבֵּהָמה‬,‫)ויקרא יב‬: ‫ וִּמְשַׁפּט ְבֵּהָמה וִּמיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁמי ִני ָוָהְלָאה‬,‫וַּביּוֹם ַהְשִּׁמי ִני ִימּוֹל ְבַּשׂר ָﬠ ְרָלתוֹ‬
‫ ְוִאם ְבֹּאֶנס ַﬠל‬,‫ ְכּלוַֹמר ִאם ֵהֵבאָת ְלָפַני ָק ְרָבּן ְבּ ָרצוֹן וְּבטוָֹבה הוּא ָק ְרָבּ ִני‬,‫ֵי ָרֶצה‬

Lev Rabba 27, 10

Homiletically speaking, the mitzva of circumcision is like a sacrifice. Just as the blood of a
sacrifice achieves atonement on the altar, so too the blood of circumcision achieves atonement.
For this reason, it is a mitzva on the eighth day, for a sacrifice is not fit until the eighth day, as it
says: “And from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted.” And just as it says about a
sacrifice,

,‫לג ְוָאְכלוּ ֹאָתם ֲאֶשׁר ֻכַּפּר ָבֶּהם‬ 33 And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was
-‫ָיָדם ְלַקֵדּשׁ ֹאָתם; ְוָזר ל ֹא‬-‫ְלַמֵלּא ֶאת‬ made, to consecrate and to sanctify them; but a stranger shall
.‫ֹקֶדשׁ ֵהם‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫י ֹאַכל‬ not eat thereof, because they are holy.
Ex 29:33

17
 “And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made” (Shemot 29:33), for the eating
of a sacrifice is for atonement, so Israel celebrates a festive meal on the day of circumcision.

It is even greater than a sacrifice, for a sacrifice involves a person’s property and circumcision
his body … Therefore, it is regarded for him as a binding and a sacrifice, as if he had bound
himself [as an offering]. As it says:

‫ֹכּ ְרֵתי‬ --‫ִלי ֲחִסיָדי‬-‫ה ִאְספוּ‬ 5 'Gather My saints together unto Me; those that have made a
.‫ָזַבח‬-‫ְב ִריִתי ֲﬠֵלי‬ covenant with Me by sacrifice.'
Ps 50:5

“Those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice” (Tehilim 50:5).

Rabbenu Bachya, commentary to Bereishit 17:13

Another law relating to circumcision may be connected to this idea of circumcision as a

Circumcision is only performed during the day, after sunrise, whether it takes place on the eighth
day, the regular time, or subsequently, from the ninth day and further on, as it says: “On the eighth
day” (Bereishit 17:12) – by day, and not at night. (Rambam, Hilkhot Mila 1:8)

It might be that the reason that circumcision may only be performed during the day is that
circumcision is regarded as a sacrifice, and sacrifices may only be brought during the day:
All sacrifices may only be offered during the day, as the verse says: “On the day that He
commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings” (Vayikra 7:38) – during the day, and
not at night. (Rambam, Hilkhot Ma’ase ha-Korbanot 4:1)

Even Rambam’s formulation of these two halakhot is very similar. Circumcision involves
sacrifice, and so the laws by which it is governed parallel the laws applying to sacrifices.

We have already noted that man is not asked to sacrifice his entire being, as in the case of human
sacrifices, but only his foreskin. A sacrifice, nevertheless, it is circumcision – national covenant

The act of circumcision and the Result of being circumcised

Halakhically speaking, the mitzva of circumcision can be formulated in two different ways: the
mitzva is either to perform the act of circumcision, or to reach the result of being circumcised. This
question seems to be reflected in a Tannaitic dispute in our daf.

There the Gemara cites a dispute between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Rabbi Shimon ben
Eliezer explains that they disagree about a convert to Judaism who had been circumcised while he
was still a gentile, whether or not blood must be drawn from him as a sign of the covenant.
According to this understanding, the school of Shammai maintain that it is not enough that the

18
convert is circumcised; an act of circumcision must be performed. Even if the convert had already
been circumcised, blood must be drawn from him as a sign of the covenant in lieu of actual
circumcision.

The Yerushalmi, as opposed to the Babylonian Talmud, implies that also in the case of an infant
born without a foreskin, the obligation to draw blood of circumcision stems not from a concern
that there may in fact be a “hidden foreskin,” but from a need to perform an act of circumcision:
Rav said: “He shall surely be circumcised” (Bereishit 17:13) – from here we learn that blood must
be drawn from an infant born without a foreskin. (Yerushalmi, Shabbat 19:2)

This is also implied by Rambam who links the law applying to an infant born without a foreskin
to the law applying to a convert who had already been circumcised while still a gentile:

A convert must, before he can enter the congregation of Israel, be circumcised. If, while still a
gentile, he had already been circumcised, a drop of blood must be drawn from him on the day he
converts, as a sign of the covenant. Similarly, if an infant is born without a foreskin, a drop of
blood must be drawn from him when he is eight days old. (Rambam, Hilkhot Mila 1:7)

The implication is that according to Rambam, the fact that a person is circumcised does not suffice;
he must undergo an act of circumcision. As was stated above, Rambam’s formulation implies that
the obligation to draw blood from an infant born without a foreskin does not stem from a concern
that the infant may nevertheless have a hidden foreskin; rather, it constitutes a fundamental law.
This also follows from another law first proposed by Rambam:

An uncircumcised priest is forbidden to eat teruma by Torah law … If he was born without a
foreskin, he may eat teruma. (Rambam, Hilkhot Terumot 7:10-11).

If one who was born without a foreskin is of suspect status, that is, if we are concerned that he may
have a hidden foreskin, surely, he should be forbidden to eat teruma. It is clear, therefore, from
Rambam that if a person is born without a foreskin, we are not concerned that he may have a
hidden foreskin, but blood must still be drawn from him as a sign of the covenant.

Rambam’s ruling implies that one who is born without a foreskin has an intermediate status. He
enjoys the personal status of one who is circumcised, but he lacks an act of circumcision. This
suggests that circumcision is comprised of two aspects: the act of circumcision and also the
result of circumcision, namely, the status of a circumcised person.

It is not clear from what Rambam says here whether the mitzva of circumcision includes an
obligation to achieve the result of being circumcised, but it clear that Halakha considers the result
of circumcision in various contexts. Regarding the allowance to eat teruma, for example, the
critical factor is the priest’s personal status as a circumcised or uncircumcised person.

There is another passage in Rambam, from which it is clearly evident that part of the mitzva of
circumcision involves attaining the status of a circumcised person:

19
The foreskin is regarded as an abomination, for which the gentiles are contemned, as the verse
states: “For all the nations are uncircumcised” (Yirmiya 9:25). Great is circumcision, for the
Patriarch Avraham was not called perfect until he had circumcised himself, as the verse states:
“Walk before me, and be perfect. And I will make my covenant between Me and you” (Bereishit
17:1-2). Whoever neglects the covenant of the Patriarch Avraham and retains the foreskin or tries
to disguise his circumcision, even if he has acquired Torah and practices good deeds, will have
no part in the world-to-come. (Rambam, Hilkhot Mila, 3:8).

Rambam rules that one who tries to conceal the mark of his circumcision, like the Hellenizers in
the days of the Hasmoneans, is regarded for this purpose as one who had never been circumcised.
Such a person certainly performed the act of circumcision, but he then nullified the results of the
circumcision. The fact that he has no part in the world-to-come indicates that his status as an
uncircumcised person is not a side issue regarding teruma, but rather part of the basic objective of
circumcision.

There is a certain halakhic authority who emphasized this aspect of circumcision, the need to reach
the status of being circumcised:

Maharach Or Zaru’a emphasizes the second aspect of the mitzva of circumcision – the quality of
being circumcised. It is certainly possible to understand that there are two layers in the mitzva of
circumcision, and that the father’s obligation focuses on the result, and not on the act.

Conceptually speaking, the twofold need for a circumcisional act and for circumcisional results is
connected to the twofold rationale for circumcision, as was described above. Circumcision is
personally significant as a sacrifice to God, this meaning focusing on the act of circumcision.

Circumcision, however, is also significant as a sign of the covenant between God and the Jewish
people, this meaning focusing on the result of circumcision, the fact that a person is circumcised.
The initial cut may perhaps represent the act of circumcision, whereas the goal of peri’a
(uncovering the corona) is to bring about the result of the person being circumcised. According to
what we have said, we understand why Chazal have stated:

Peri’a was not given to our Patriarch Avraham, as the verse says: “At the time, the Lord said to
Yehoshua, Make flint knives, [and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time]”
(Yehoshua 5:2). (Yebamot 71b)

Only then, in the days of Yehoshua, with the entry into the Promised Land, was the national
covenant with the Jewish people completed, a covenant which finds expression in the fact that the
people are circumcised.

20
 DAM BRIT- THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT7

Both procedures utilizing a clamp and procedures using laser rays, when carried out as designed,
involve no bleeding. The issue is whether bloodletting is an essential element of the mitzvah of
circumcision.

The biblical phrases "in your blood shall you live" (Ezekiel 16:6) and "because of the blood of
your covenant" (Zechariah 9:11) are understood as references to circumcision. Both verses are

7
LASER CIRCUMCISION Author(s): J. David Bleich Source: Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought , FALL 2010,
Vol. 43, No. 3 (FALL 2010), pp. 89-109

21
cited by Mekhiltah 5:28 in support of the statement that our ancestors were given two
commandments, "the blood of the paschal sacrifice and the blood of circumcision," so that they
might acquire merit in order to be redeemed.

The concept of "the blood of circumcision," i.e., dam brit, is reflected in a plethora of midrashic
statements.8

In addition, the Zohar, Parashat Lekh Lekha 75a, depicts circumcision as a form of sacrifice and,
as stated by the Gemara, Hullin 29a, the essence of a sacrifice is the letting of blood.

The question is whether those references are construed as describing a merely symbolic aspect of
the commandment or whether they are to be understood as reflecting a normative requirement and,
if so, whether absence of bleeding invalidates the circumcision.

At the end of the day there are clearly two aspects of the rite, the surgical cut and the drawing of
blood. (see Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik9 who sees one as a positive command and the other as a
negative).

We will return to the motif of blood and sacrifice in Pesachim.

8
Midrash Rabbah, Bereshit 63:18, Shemot 15:13, 17:3, 19:6, Shir ha-Shirim 5:3, 7:5 and Ruth 6:1. See also Ozar ha-Midmshim,
J.D. Eisenstein, ed., I, 146.

9
Dat ve-Halakhah, p. 60, cites reports that R. Chaim ha-Levi Soloveitchik main tained that dam brit constitutes fulfillment of a
mizvah, distinct from that of milah derived from the verse "ve-atah et briti tishmor" (Gen. 17:9) and, indeed, need not be
performed on the eighth. I thank my son in law Uri Adler for the reference.

22