.Parshas Lech Lecha
1. At the end of the Laws of Milah[1], the Rambam elaborates on the virtue of the mitzvah of milah: "Over all the mitzvos of the Torah, three covenants were made[2], as it says…; but over milah, thirteen covenants were made with Avraham our father[3]: 'And I will place[4] My covenant between Me and you'" (and he enumerates all the covenants[5], up to) … "'and My covenant I will establish with Yitzchak'[6]."
That thirteen covenants were made over milah has its source — as the Kesef Mishneh notes — in the Mishnah at the end of the third chapter of Nedarim[7]: "Great is milah, for thirteen covenants were made over it."
The Rambam, however, adds to the wording of the Mishnah: a) that the thirteen covenants were made "with Avraham our father"; b) he spells out all thirteen covenants.
Although this is understandable — since it is among the Rambam's principles that he copies the wording of the Mishnah, etc.[8], and as a book of "laws upon laws"[9] he (on a number of occasions) adds to and explains the wording of the Mishnah so that the law should come out explained[10] and clear[11] — nevertheless, our case requires explanation:
The source for the Rambam's words — for "with Avraham our father" and for spelling out the thirteen covenants — is (seemingly) in the Yerushalmi, Nedarim[12], the statement of Rabbi Yochanan bar Mari[13]: "It is written: 'On that day[14] G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying…,' until 'and My covenant I will establish with Yitzchak…'" —
One must understand, however: why does the Rambam omit the first verse that the Yerushalmi cites, "On that day G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying…," especially since that verse appears earlier in the parshah[15]?
2. Simply put: since the Rambam counts thirteen covenants in the passage without the verse "On that day…," it is understood that he holds that this verse is not among them. And the reason is as the Rambam explains in his Commentary on the Mishnah[16]: "The thirteen covenants are the words bris and brisi that are repeated in G‑d's command to Avraham our father concerning the covenant of milah, on one occasion by itself"[17] — and these are only the ones that the Rambam spells out.
Whereas the verse "On that day G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying" speaks of a covenant (a) that was not "on one occasion" together with the other covenants (moreover, it was separated from them by many years[18]), and (b) that was not connected with the covenant of milah, but was the Covenant between the Parts, concerning the giving of the land[19] to the descendants of Avraham[20].
But according to this, it is not understood, on the other hand, why the Yerushalmi does cite the verse "On that day G‑d made…."
Even more puzzling: the statement in the Yerushalmi comes to explain what the Mishnah says, that over milah "thirteen covenants were made" — as that statement in the Yerushalmi concludes, "thirteen covenants" — and if one also counts the verse "On that day G‑d made…," it turns out that there are not thirteen covenants written but fourteen[21]!
3. The commentators offer a number of answers to this:
a) (In the Yerushalmi too) the text should read not the verse "On that day He made…" but the verse "And I will place My covenant"[22], as the Rambam counts. However, we find among the Rishonim[23] that they cite the Yerushalmi in the above version, in which the verse "On that day He made" is counted as one (and the first) of the thirteen covenants — and according to their explanation:
b) According to the Yerushalmi, one does not count one of the other expressions of "covenant" that appear in the passage of milah (the verse[24] "He has broken My covenant"[25]), or one counts the verse[26] "And I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant" as a single covenant[27], not like the Rambam, who counts them as two covenants. Accordingly, it turns out that the Rambam disagrees with the view of the Yerushalmi.
However, one could say this only if there were a source (in the words of our Sages) in which the thirteen covenants are counted in accordance with the Rambam's words; but since one does not find such a source[28], and the only source is the above Yerushalmi,
(The Bavli is unspecific and does not spell out which are the thirteen covenants. It may be said that it relies on the Yerushalmi, which preceded the Bavli in time — but this is not the place to elaborate.)
— it is reasonable to say that between the Yerushalmi and the Rambam there is no dispute, but rather, in the manner of "one master said one thing and another master said another, and they do not disagree."
4. This will be understood by first explaining the last two laws in the Rambam at the end of the Laws of Milah. These are his words (in the first of the two laws): "Repulsive is the foreskin, for the nations[29] are disgraced by it, as it says[30], 'For all the nations are uncircumcised.' And great is milah, for Avraham our father was not called perfect until he was circumcised, as it says[31], 'Walk before Me and be perfect, and I will place[32] My covenant between Me and you…'[33]. And whoever breaks the covenant of Avraham our father and leaves his foreskin or draws it forward — even though he has Torah and good deeds[34] — has no share in the World to Come." And afterwards, in the following law: "Come and see how stringent milah is, for Moshe our teacher was not granted a postponement over it even for one hour, even though he was on a journey. And over all the mitzvos of the Torah, three covenants were made, etc.; but over milah, etc." (as cited at the beginning of section 1).
The source of the details of both laws is the same Mishnah in Nedarim. The Rambam, however, changes the order, and also the wording in a number of respects:
In the Mishnah, after the statement "Repulsive is the foreskin," come these statements, in this order: "Rabbi Yishmael says: Great is milah, for thirteen covenants were made over it. Rabbi Yosei says: Great is milah, for it overrides the stringent Shabbos[35]. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karchah says: Great is milah, for Moshe the righteous was not granted a postponement over it (even[35]) for one full hour. Rabbi Nechemiah says: Great is milah, for it overrides [the laws of] leprous marks. Rebbi says: Great is milah, for with all the mitzvos that Avraham our father performed, he was not called perfect until he was circumcised, as it says, 'Walk before Me and be perfect'"[36].
That the Rambam does not cite here the two statements that milah is "great" in that it overrides Shabbos and overrides leprous marks — one can say that he relies on having already cited them earlier as law, in the Laws of Milah[37]: "Milah at its proper time overrides Shabbos… and whether at its proper time or not at its proper time, it overrides tzara'as."
One must understand, however, why he changes the order regarding the other statements: first, immediately after "Repulsive is the foreskin," he cites the last statement, "Great is milah, for Avraham our father was not called perfect, etc."; after this he cites, as a separate statement, from Tractate Avos[38], "Whoever breaks the covenant of Avraham our father… has no share in the World to Come"; and only afterwards does he set down, in a separate law, the statement in our Mishnah, "that Moshe our teacher was not granted a postponement over it even for one hour"; and at the very end — the first statement in the Mishnah, the virtue of milah that "thirteen covenants were made over it"?
5. Simply, it may be said that the Rambam arranges the order of the statements in accordance with the difference in their content (as the Rambam understands it) — namely, that there are two kinds of virtues here, which he divides into two separate laws:
In the first law (law 8) the Rambam speaks of those aspects of bris milah that relate to the person (gavra) — and this category includes the negative: that "repulsive is the foreskin, for the nations are disgraced by it," and the positive: "Great is milah, for Avraham our father was not called perfect until he was circumcised, etc."; and therefore he continues with the statement from Tractate Avos as well, "Whoever breaks the covenant… has no share in the World to Come," which relates to the person.
In the second law (law 9) the Rambam speaks of the aspects relating to the act and the object (cheftza) of (the mitzvah of) milah, and therefore he cites the other statements of our Sages: "that Moshe our teacher was not granted a postponement over it even for one hour" (a negative matter), and "over all the mitzvos of the Torah three covenants were made, etc.; but over milah thirteen covenants were made with Avraham our father" (a positive matter).
It is not understood, however, why the Rambam makes changes: a) In the Mishnah the wording "Great is milah" is used for both matters: "Great is milah, for thirteen covenants were made over it," "Great is milah, for Moshe was not granted a postponement over it, etc." — The Rambam, in the first law, says (in the Mishnah's wording) "Great is milah, for Avraham our father was not called perfect until he was circumcised, etc.," but in the second law he departs from the Mishnah's wording "great" and says, "Come and see how stringent[39] milah is, for Moshe our teacher[40] was not granted a postponement, etc.," and in continuation he says (with a connective vav) "and over all the mitzvos of the Torah, etc." — from the plain sense of his wording it is implied that the word "stringent" refers also to the second matter, that over milah "thirteen covenants were made" —
Also requiring explanation: b) The Mishnah states only "Great is milah, for thirteen covenants were made over it," without mentioning the advantage of milah over all the mitzvos of the Torah — a point that is brought in the Gemara elsewhere (in Tractate Berachos[41]): "The covenant must precede the Torah, for this one was given with three covenants and that one was given with thirteen covenants."
c) The Rambam does not cite this with the wording (similar to the wording of the Gemara) "the whole Torah—three covenants were made over it (it was given with three covenants)" [as he worded it earlier in the Laws of Berachos[42], where he cites the above statement from Berachos]; rather, he says: "Over all the mitzvos of the Torah, [three covenants] were made, etc."
6. The explanation of this may be said to be as follows:
In bris milah there are two aspects[42*]: a) the general aspect of covenant; b) the covenant as an individual mitzvah.
This is similar to what we find with a number of mitzvos, for example the mitzvah of prayer: the matter of the service of prayer — which is learned[43] from "to serve Him with all your heart"[44], "and you shall serve the L‑rd your G‑d"[45] — is "among the commands that encompass [the whole Torah]"[46]; but within it there is also an individual aspect, which is the command to pray (in speech).
{This is why the Rambam counts the mitzvah of prayer among the 613 mitzvos, even though he writes in the Principles[47] that "it is not fitting to count the commands that encompass the entire Torah," such as prayer; yet he counts it because (as the Rambam says) "it has[46] another specific aspect, which is the command to pray."}
Similarly regarding teshuvah: there is the (general) matter of teshuvah — regret over the past and resolution for the future — which is among the encompassing commands and is bound up with the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven (which is why it is not counted among the mitzvos); and there is the individual aspect of teshuvah, which consists of verbal confession (and this is counted by the Rambam among the mitzvos[48]).
And it is understood that when one fulfills the specific aspect of prayer (— in speech) or of teshuvah (— in verbal confession), one has not only its individual definition but also the general aspect of prayer and teshuvah, which encompasses the entire Torah.
Similarly (and even more so) with bris milah: it is an individual mitzvah, one of the 613 mitzvos; but bris milah is also a general matter — the covenant of the Jews in general, with all their limbs, etc., and in all their affairs, etc., with G‑d; in other words: it is the covenant and the completion of the holiness of Israel[49] in every Jew.
[Similar to how we find these two aspects emphasized in the circumcision of a convert: the general aspect of milah, as a component of conversion, through which he enters the holiness of Israel; and milah as the fulfillment of the individual mitzvah of milah, as the Rogatchover explains[50].]
7. And these are the two laws in the Rambam:
In the first law (law 8) the Rambam speaks of the general aspect, the overall content of bris milah, as it is bound up with the definition of (the holiness of) Israel; and in the second law (law 9) the subject is the individual mitzvah, the specific definition of bris milah.
Therefore the Rambam says in the first law: "Repulsive is the foreskin, for the nations are disgraced by it, as it says, 'For all the nations are uncircumcised,'" by which he means not merely to emphasize the repulsiveness and disgrace of the foreskin, but (primarily) that in this lies the distinction between the nations and the Jewish people — that the "foreskin" is something "by which the nations are disgraced," and what milah accomplishes is that it creates the perfection of Israel and the bond of the covenant of the Jews with G‑d. And this is explained by what the Rambam says afterwards: "Great is milah, for Avraham our father was not called perfect until he was circumcised, as it says, 'Walk before Me and be perfect, and I will place My covenant between Me and you…'": the perfection of Israel, the covenant with G‑d, comes about specifically through milah.
And therefore the Rambam continues in this law and cites the statement from Tractate Avos, "Whoever breaks the covenant of Avraham our father… even though he has Torah and good deeds, has no share in the World to Come," where one sees most strikingly how much bris milah is bound up with the very essence[51] of the definition of (the holiness of) Israel[52].
In the second law the Rambam speaks of milah as an individual mitzvah — that even as an individual mitzvah it possesses an added virtue over all other mitzvos. And this the Rambam emphasizes by changing his wording right at the beginning of the law: "Come and see how stringent milah is" — not "Great is milah," as he says in the previous law (and as in the wording of the Mishnah, as mentioned) —
because here the Rambam speaks of the stringency (in punishment and the like, and nothing more) of milah, milah as an individual mitzvah (and for this the word "stringent" fits) — and in this he brings the two matters: that Moshe our teacher was not granted a postponement over it even for one hour, even though he was on a journey, which shows the great severity of the mitzvah of milah; and a further matter in which one sees how much "milah is stringent" relative to other mitzvos — "and over all the mitzvos of the Torah three covenants were made, etc.; but over milah thirteen covenants were made." That is to say, here he is not speaking of the virtue of milah relative to the Torah as a whole, but relative to each mitzvah (on its own) of all the mitzvos of the Torah: over each one of them "three covenants were made," and "over milah thirteen covenants were made"[53].
Whereas in the Mishnah, where the wording is "Great is milah, for thirteen covenants were made over it" ("great" — as with the word "great" wherever it appears, according to its context: in years, in wisdom, in fear of Heaven, among giants[54], up to "Great is G‑d"[55]), what is meant is the general aspect of milah — how milah is a general matter in the whole of Torah and mitzvos. That is why it is "great" (above the entire Torah and mitzvos) in that "thirteen covenants were made over it" (as opposed to the entire Torah, etc., over which there were only three covenants).
8. Accordingly, one will understand the difference between the Rambam and the Yerushalmi — that the Rambam does not cite the earlier verse, "On that day G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying," although it is cited in the Yerushalmi:
In the Yerushalmi, the statement comes as an interpretation and explanation of the words of the Mishnah, "Great is milah, for thirteen covenants were made over it" — that is, the virtue and "greatness" of milah as a general covenant, which is bound up with the definition of (the holiness of) Israel in general — and to this matter the verse "On that day G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying" also belongs.
The reasoning for this: even though the general covenant with G‑d comes about in practice through the individual covenant, through the fulfillment of the individual mitzvah of milah — "My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant" (similar to what was said above about prayer and teshuvah) — nevertheless, the general covenant is present in every Jew, even in a case where he was (for a reason in accordance with Torah) unable to fulfill the mitzvah of milah in practice. As the Mishnah says in Nedarim: "[If one vows,] 'Konam that I will not benefit from the uncircumcised,' he is permitted [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews and forbidden from circumcised gentiles; 'that I will not benefit from the circumcised,' he is forbidden from uncircumcised Jews and permitted from circumcised gentiles — for the term 'uncircumcised' refers only to gentiles, as it says, 'For all the nations are uncircumcised, and the whole house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.'"
And this explains why the Mishnah brings this statement as a preface to the subsequent statements, "Repulsive is the foreskin… Great is milah, for [thirteen covenants] were made over it…" — to allude that the general covenant is present, in essence, in every Jew, but the completion of the matter, in practice and in revealed form, is effected through the fulfillment of bris milah "in your flesh"[56].
And it may be said that the reason for this is that this is how it was with the first Jew, Avraham our father: the "general covenant" between G‑d and Avraham our father was not made at the time of, and through, bris milah, but many years before — at the Covenant between the Parts, "G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying…," and this was a covenant with Avram and his descendants after him; only afterwards, many years later, came G‑d's command to Avraham that this very covenant must be set "in your flesh" (through the mitzvah of milah).
And therefore it is so with his descendants after him as well: the general covenant between a Jew and G‑d always exists, from the moment he is born — even when his brothers died on account of milah and therefore he was not circumcised[57] — from the moment he is born he is in the holiness of Israel.
Accordingly, it is understood that the thirteen covenants the Rambam enumerates are, in their content, the same as the thirteen covenants counted in the Yerushalmi; but the Yerushalmi prefaces (as an introduction to the matter — not entering into the count within the matter) the verse "On that day G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying…," because it speaks first of milah as a general covenant. That is, since the fact that thirteen covenants were made over it emphasizes that milah is a general covenant between a Jew and G‑d, it therefore cites as an introduction to this the verse that speaks of the general covenant.
The Rambam, however, comes in the second law to say that milah, even as an individual mitzvah, is "more stringent" than all the mitzvos of the Torah, as mentioned. Therefore there is no place here for the verse "On that day G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying," which speaks of the general covenant (even though this too is present in milah); rather, he begins from the verse "And I will place My covenant" until the verse "and My covenant I will establish with Yitzchak" — thirteen covenants, all of which were stated "on one occasion," concerning the individual covenant, as mentioned.
(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Naso and the second day of Shavuos, 5744)
Key Lesson
Bris milah carries two dimensions: it is one of the 613 mitzvos, more stringent than any other individual mitzvah, and it is also the general covenant that binds every Jew, with his whole being, to G‑d. That general covenant was made with Avraham years before he was commanded to circumcise, and so too every Jew stands within the holiness of Israel from the moment of birth. Yet the covenant reaches its completion only when it is set "in your flesh," in actual practice — reminding us that our inborn bond with G‑d must be expressed and perfected through concrete fulfillment of His commands.