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).
The Abrabanel notes that 1) the covenant of milah includes inheriting the land of Canaan. Each Israelite grants this inheritance to his newborn son through brit milah; 2) milah promotes sh’leimut, wholeness, and save a person from descending to gehenna; and 3) Adam at his creation was not drawn to worldly desires, so his foreskin was not a detriment to him. Once he sinned, however, he and his descendants were drawn to worldly desires. That’s why Abraham was given the commandment of brit milah.
Rabbenu Bachya (Genesis 17:23) writes that the Jewish people receive three presents as a result of brit milah: 1) the Davidic dynasty shall never cease; 2) the land of Israel shall be their inheritance forever; 3) and the Divine presence shall dwell in the midst of the Jewish people.
Our unbroken chain of following G-d’s command for thousands of years, without the slightest deviation, since G-d’s covenant with Abraham, gives us, the Jewish people, ownership of this great mitzvah.
Last week, we examined who exactly was given the commandment of brit milah. Was it only for Abraham and his children? Were Keturah’s children included? How about their children? Rashi states that Keturah’s grandchildren were not obligated to have a brit. The Rambam disagrees. He maintains that all of Keturah’s descendants must have a brit. Nowadays, though, the descendants of Keturah are interspersed with the descendants of Ishmael. So even though all these descendants should rightfully have a brit out of doubt (in case they descend from Keturah), if they don’t, we may not execute them since we never give the death penalty for non-compliance of a doubtful obligation.
* * * * *
We refer again to the Mishneh L’Melech (commentary to Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 10:7), who cites the Mishnah (Nedarim 31b) which states: “If someone says, ‘Konam [an expression when making a vow] that I do not benefit from the uncircumcised,’ he may benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised gentiles. If someone says, ‘Konam that I do not benefit from the circumcised,’ he may not benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but may benefit from circumcised gentiles.’”
The Mishnah rules as it does because, as a rule, “circumcised” refers to Jews and “uncircumcised” refers to gentiles – regardless of whether the particular Jew or gentile in question has or does not have a brit. Many verses demonstrate this rule. For example, Jeremiah 9:25): “…for all the gentiles are arelim – uncircumcised.” Arel refers to someone who wasn’t commanded to perform a brit – i.e., a gentile.
This mishnah, however, is problematic according to the Rambam. The Rambam maintains that Keturah’s descendants must have a brit milah. Hence, when someone makes a vow referencing “the circumcised,” the progeny of Keturah should be included. Why, then, does the mishnah rule that “the circumcised” only refers to Jews?
The Mishneh L’Melech finds another difficulty with the Rambam’s view. The reason Ishmael is excluded from Abraham’s inheritance is (as the Gemara explains) because of the words “ki b’Yitzchak yikarei lecha zara – since through Isaac will offspring be considered yours” (Genesis 21:12). However, Keturah’s children were born after G-d said these words to Abraham. These words then cannot exclude Keturah’s progeny and they should rightfully have a portion of Abraham’s inheritance. How could Abraham, who kept the entire Torah before it was given, have disinherited them?
According to Rashi, everything is fine. He maintains that only Keturah’s children (but not their children) had to have a brit. That would explain why they didn’t have a share in the inheritance because when we refer to an inheritance, we really mean the ability to receive that inheritance and pass it on to further generations.
(To be continued)