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.
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 cited the Mishneh L’Melech’s question on the Rambam’s view: If the descendants of Keturah were included in the mitzvah of milah, why did Abraham ultimately disinherit them? There is no question if we adopt Rashi’s view (that only Keturah’s sons, but not their sons, were obligated to have a brit) because “inheritance” refers to something that one has the ability to pass on to further generations.
Rashi explains that because a second Torah source is necessary to include the sons of Keturah in the mitzvah of circumcision (see the Gemara), it is evident that only they, but not their progeny, are included in this mitzvah. But this is only possible if their status as Abraham’s children was somehow lacking – which explains why Abraham did nothing wrong in disinheriting them.
We looked at two possible explanations, according to the Rambam’s view, for why Abraham disinherited Keturah’s children. 1) The laws of inheritance only became binding when G-d gave the Jewish people the Torah on Mt. Sinai. Therefore, Abraham did nothing wrong by not following these laws.
2) Abraham already gifted all his possessions to Isaac before his marriage to Rebbekah. In other words, by the time Abraham married Keturah, he had no possessions left to bequeath. He did, however, give her children a large amount of money as a gift before he passed away.
The Sforno explains that Keturah’s sons were not actually Abraham’s children, but Keturah’s from a previous marriage. If so, no inheritance was expected. This is also consistent with Rashi’s opinion that Keturah’s descendants aren’t required to have a brit. We noted, though, that the Rambam would not agree, since he maintains that Keturah’s descendants are required to have a brit.
We discussed the biblical prohibition against an Ammonite or Moabite entering the Jewish nation and noted that it is not upheld nowadays since Sennaherib, king of Assyria, mingled all the nations and we don’t know who belongs to which nation.
The Rambam writes that the Egyptians in his times were not necessarily descendants of the original Egyptians. They therefore may convert and marry Jews. Yet, he states that the sons of Keturah were interspersed with the sons of Ishmael, which suggests that they were interspersed only with each other. Perhaps, these two nations together are synonymous with the Arabs today. Indeed, the descendants of Keturah and Ishmael were not sent into exile by Sennaherib but much earlier by Abraham.
Last week, we asked why Abraham, if he kept all the mitzvot even before they were given, waited until such an advanced age to circumcise himself and his household. The Ramban explains that Abraham knew that he would eventually be commanded to do so and wished to wait for that command. Furthermore, Abraham held back because of the general admonition against a person harming himself or others (Bava Kamma 90b). He therefore waited for G-d’s command.
* * * * *
Let us look at another command that Abraham and Isaac fulfilled together: the Akeidah. Years after this event, G-d entreats Isaac (Genesis 26:2): “Al teired mitzroyma, shchon ba’aretz asher omar eilecha – Do not descend to Egypt, dwell in the land that I shall indicate to you.” Why shouldn’t he descend to Egypt? The Midrash explains that G-d told Isaac that since he had been offered up as a sacrifice on an altar, it was not proper for him to leave the land of Canaan. Even though Abraham did not ultimately slaughter Isaac, G-d considered Isaac a “sacrifice” for the rest of his life and Isaac therefore was not allowed to leave the Holy Land.
Just how did this come to be? From the verses in Parshat Vayera it would seem that the Akeidah was an arbitrary severe test that was thrust upon Abraham and Issac by G-d. Hadn’t Abraham already passed nine tests (see the commentaries of Rashi and Rambam to the Mishnah Avot 5:3)? Was there need for G-d to further test his loyalty and subservience – especially after he had circumcised himself? Was it really necessary for G-d to ask him to sacrifice the son whom He had promised would be his heir?
“Va’yehi achar hadevarim ha’eleh v’haElokim nisa et Avraham va’yomer eilav Avraham va’yomer hineni. Va’yomer kach no et bin’cha et yechidecha asher ahavta et Yitzchak v’lech lecha el eretz hamoriah v’ha’alehu shom l’olah al ached heharim asher omar elecha – And it happened after these things that G-d tested Abraham and said to him ‘Abraham,’ and he replied, ‘Here I am.’ And He said, ‘Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, bring him up there as an offering upon one of the mountains which I shall tell you’” (Genesis 22:1-2).
Rashi (Genesis 22:1) refers us to both the Gemara (Sanhedrin 89b) and Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 55:4), where we find a dispute regarding the events that led up to Abraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice. It was either Satan (through his accusations) or Ishmael (through his boasts) who precipitated this last test. In its discussion, the Gemara focuses on the words “after these things” in Genesis 22:1. Ultimately it is one of the views expressed in the Gemara regarding what precipitated the test of the Akeidah from which we will extrapolate an answer to our question.
(To be continued)
