This Week's Article

Not Having a Brit Millah

Keritut (1:1) | Yisrael Bankier | 5 hours ago

Masechet Keritot begins my listing the thirty-six prohibitions that are punishable with karet. Karet is considered a severe punishment and exactly what it is, or even the types of karet, is discussed in the Rishonim. The necessity of listing the prohibitions is because if one violated one of them inadvertently (be'shogeg), they would be obligated to bring a korban chatat. The exception is the two positive mitzvot for which the punishment of karet is also applied -- offering the korban pesach and having a brit millah. We shall focus on the latter.

A question that is debated is when is one liable to karet for not having a brit millah. The Rambam (Milah 1:2) rules that if one decidedly did not have a brit millah, everyday he is violating the positive mitzvah. Nevertheless, he is only liable to karet if he died having deliberately chosen not to have a brit millah.

The Raavad however disagrees. Instead he maintains that when a person deliberately does not have a brit millah, every day that passes, he is "standing in a karet prohibition".

The Kesef Mishnah explains that according to the Raavad, the individual is fit for the punishment of karet of the category where ones years are reduced. If, however he has a brit millah, he will exempt himself of this punishment. He notes that since he can redeem himself, he is not "completely" obligated in karet. Nonetheless since he is violating the mitzvah by not having a brit, he is standing in the prohibition of karet and worthy of punishment. Regarding the position of the Rambam, the category of karet cannot be life shortening, since he is only liable if he died deliberately uncircumcised. Consequently, the punishment must be of a spiritual nature.

The Minchat Chinuch (2) provides an additional practical difference. He maintains that according to the Rambam, if at the time the person died he finally wanted to have a brit millah but it was out of his control (he was be'ones) then he would be exempt. According to the Raavad however, since he was immediately liable, being be'ones towards the end of his life will not help.

The Chazon Ish (Nashim 148) cites the Shitah Mekubetz who deals with the following question. The Gemara taught that one is not obligated to bring a korban chatat for inadvertently violating the mitzvah of not having a brit millah because it is not actively violated. The Tosfot asks, that the reason appears unnecessary. The Gemara should have taught that one is not liable because once he learns of his mistake, he can simply have a brit millah, thereby removing (or preventing) the issue of karet? This question applies to both the Raavad and *Rambam'*s understanding.

The Chazon Ish then cites the Shitah Mekubetzet who answers, that it was still necessary for the Gemara to provide this reason because of the following case. If the person subsequently became a saris making it impossible to have a brit millah, then he would be liable to karet according to all opinions. It was therefore necessary to teach that even in that situation, if it came about be'shogeg, the person would not be liable to bring a korban chatat.

The Griz cites a similar question of the Tosfot: what practical difference is there that the punishment is karet for millah, considering that it is only applied after the person died?¹ The Griz provides a different practical difference -- the par helem davar shel tzibur. Recall that there is a special korban that must be brought by the Sanhedrin, if they ruled in error regarding a detail of a prohibition that is punishable with karet and most people followed this ruling. He explains that the practical difference is that this korban would need to be brought for an errant ruling regarding brit millah. He is not bothered that an individual would not practically be able to bring a chatat², because for the par helem davar shel tzibur it is only important that it relates to a mitzvah that is punishable with karet.

¹ The question appears to be based on the Rambam's understanding, whereas the Tosfot's answer is in line awith the Raavad's.

² It appears that the Griz does not accept the Shitah Mekubetzet's understanding since he explains that if the member was severed, it would be ones and only liable according to the Raavad.

Download

Calendar