לקוטי שיחות חלק ל׳ - לך לך ג

Parshas Lech Lecha

1. The Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvos: "Mitzvah 215 is that He commanded us to circumcise the son, and this is His statement, exalted be He, to Avraham, 'Every male among you shall be circumcised.'" However, in the enumeration of the mitzvos at the beginning of the Yad (Mishneh Torah) he writes, "To circumcise the son, as it is said, 'And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised'" — which is a verse in Parshas Tazria.

We need to understand the reason for this change: in the enumeration of the mitzvos he brings the source for this mitzvah from the verse in Parshas Tazria, and not (as in Sefer HaMitzvos) from the command that was said to Avraham.

And it is more puzzling still: in the enumeration of the mitzvos the Rambam is precise in his wording, saying "to circumcise the son," which simply means that the obligation is upon the father to circumcise his son [especially as he departed from what he wrote (in general terms) in the heading to the Laws of Circumcision, "to circumcise the males on the eighth day"]. If so, seemingly the Rambam ought to have brought the verse concerning Avraham, where it is evident that the father is commanded to circumcise his son, and not the verse "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised," in which there is no mention that the obligation is upon the father.

At first glance one could say that this change depends on a dispute between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi: in the Bavli they derive the father's obligation to circumcise his son from what is said of Avraham, "And Avraham circumcised his son Yitzchak," while in the Yerushalmi they derive it from what is said, "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised" (for "certainly it is not incumbent upon the infant; it is only upon the father" — Korban HaEidah); and in the Yad the Rambam follows the derivation of the Yerushalmi.

But this itself requires explanation: why did the Rambam in the Yad follow the Yerushalmi and not the Bavli (especially according to the well-known rule that the Rambam brings the simpler derivation — and in the verses concerning Avraham the father's obligation is explicit and (more) straightforward)?

2. Now, simply, one could explain this according to the Rambam's well-known words in his Commentary on the Mishnah, which read:

"Pay attention to the great principle … that everything we refrain from or do today, we do only by the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe our teacher, peace be upon him — not because the Holy One, blessed be He, said it to the prophets before him. For example … we do not circumcise because our father Avraham, peace be upon him, circumcised himself and the members of his household, but because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us through Moshe our teacher that we circumcise as our father Avraham, peace be upon him, circumcised. And likewise with the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve): we do not follow the prohibition of our father Yaakov, but the command of Moshe our teacher, peace be upon him. Do you not see what they said, '613 mitzvos were said to Moshe at Sinai,' and all these are included among the mitzvos."

Therefore, in the Yad, the Rambam did not cite the verse said to Avraham (one of the "prophets before" Moshe), but the one in Parshas Tazria, which is the command that "the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us through Moshe our teacher."

But according to this, it is all the more difficult that in Sefer HaMitzvos he brings the verse concerning Avraham and does not mention the verse in Parshas Tazria at all!

Moreover: in Sefer HaMitzvos the Rambam emphasizes, "and this is His statement, exalted be He, to Avraham, 'Every male among you shall be circumcised'" — that is, not only does he bring the verse concerning Avraham, but he adds and emphasizes that the command to the Jewish people ("He commanded us") to circumcise etc. is the very same command that was given to Avraham — the opposite of the "great principle" in the Commentary on the Mishnah, "that everything we … do today, we do only by the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe our teacher, peace be upon him, not because the Holy One, blessed be He, said it to the prophets before him."

3. This may be explained by first prefacing a further clarification of the Rambam's words above in the Commentary on the Mishnah, regarding which one could seemingly ask:

Since the mitzvah of circumcision incumbent upon us is not the mitzvah of circumcision that our father Avraham was commanded, but its foundation and content is "the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe our teacher, peace be upon him" — why is this mitzvah called "the covenant of our father Avraham," to the point that this name was fixed in the text of the blessing, "to bring him into the covenant of our father Avraham"?

We also find that this mitzvah's connection with the covenant of our father Avraham is mentioned and emphasized in the Yad, where he writes of the great loftiness of the covenant of circumcision and the severity of breaching it: "Our father Avraham was not called complete until he circumcised himself … And whoever breaches the covenant of our father Avraham … And for all the mitzvos of the Torah three covenants were made … while for circumcision thirteen covenants were made with our father Avraham."

And a similar emphasis is found in the Commentary on the Mishnah there itself, which reads: "(We do not circumcise because our father Avraham, peace be upon him, circumcised … but because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us through Moshe our teacher) that we circumcise as our father Avraham, peace be upon him, circumcised." Seemingly, what is the reason for this addition, "that we circumcise as our father Avraham circumcised," after he established that we circumcise only because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us through Moshe? [As in the immediately following passage concerning the mitzvah of gid hanasheh, where the Rambam did not write that "the command of Moshe our teacher, peace be upon him" was not to eat the gid hanasheh just as Yaakov and his sons did not eat it.]

4. The explanation of this may be, simply:

In the "great principle" the Rambam wrote — that our fulfilment of the mitzvos is not because of the commands that preceded the commands given through Moshe our teacher at Sinai — his intent is that the entire obligation upon us to fulfil all the mitzvos comes solely and exclusively from the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe our teacher, without any connection or link to the commands said through "the prophets before him." This, however, does not concern the mitzvos themselves and their essence. It is entirely possible that the definition and essence of the mitzvos after the Giving of the Torah have a connection and resemblance to their counterparts before the Giving of the Torah — even to the point that their essence and content may be one and the same.

In our case — the mitzvah of circumcision: certainly only the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe our teacher obligates us to fulfil this mitzvah, and not the command to Avraham. Yet at the same time, the essence of the mitzvah of circumcision that we were commanded is precisely the covenant of our father Avraham: the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us (through Moshe our teacher) to bring the son (through the covenant of circumcision) into the covenant that He, exalted be He, made with our father Avraham.

It follows that in the mitzvah of circumcision there is a great novelty compared with the other mitzvos that were commanded before the Giving of the Torah:

In the other mitzvos, the mitzvah as it was given at Sinai is a new mitzvah, unconnected with the command that existed before the Giving of the Torah, in the manner of "the Torah was given and the law was renewed." Even where the substance of the mitzvah did not change, the content and meaning of the mitzvah we fulfil have no connection or relation to the mitzvah that existed before the Giving of the Torah. For example, a limb from a living animal: our prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal has no connection to the prohibition of a limb from a living animal that was in force before the Giving of the Torah.

And even with the prohibition of gid hanasheh, regarding which the Gemara states explicitly that "it was written in its place (in Parshas Vayishlach) to let you know for what reason it was forbidden to them" — that the reason we were warned (after the Giving of the Torah) not to eat the gid hanasheh is "(therefore …) because he touched the hollow of Yaakov's thigh at the gid hanasheh" — this is only the reason for the mitzvah: the prohibition of eating the gid hanasheh is a remembrance of the event that befell Yaakov; but in the substance and essence of the mitzvah there is no connection between them.

Not so with circumcision: the connection of this mitzvah that we fulfil to the mitzvah of circumcision of our father Avraham is not merely a reason and a remembrance; rather, it is the very same matter. The content of our mitzvah of circumcision is that we bring the one being circumcised "into the covenant of our father Avraham."

[And this goes even further than what the Bach writes concerning the mitzvah of sukkah, that the intent of the mitzvah — "so that your generations may know that I made the Children of Israel dwell in sukkos when I brought them out etc." — is part of the mitzvah itself, and without this intent "one has not fulfilled the mitzvah properly" (for although Scripture made "many mitzvos" dependent on the Exodus from Egypt, nevertheless in the other mitzvos these are only a reason and a remembrance, whereas in the mitzvah of sukkah this intent is part of the very essence of the mitzvah).

For there, ultimately, it is only an intent and a remembrance, albeit one that is a part and detail of fulfilling the mitzvah; whereas in our case — the mitzvah of circumcision — "the covenant of our father Avraham" is not merely a detail and part of the mitzvah, but is the very essence of the mitzvah: through this mitzvah one brings the one being circumcised "into the covenant of our father Avraham," as above.]

And this is the Rambam's intent in adding "that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us through Moshe our teacher that we circumcise as our father Avraham, peace be upon him, circumcised" — to emphasize the novelty in the mitzvah of circumcision that we fulfil: that the "covenant" effected by our circumcision is the same "covenant" that the Holy One, blessed be He, made with our father Avraham.

One may say that this is emphasized even further by the fact that most of the details of the obligations of circumcision are learned from the verses concerning Avraham, to the point that even the penalty of kares is stated (only) regarding Avraham (and not in Parshas Tazria) — to emphasize that our mitzvah of circumcision is itself "the covenant of our father Avraham."

5. Accordingly, one can explain the reason for the difference between Sefer HaMitzvos, where the Rambam brought the verse concerning Avraham, and the enumeration of the mitzvos at the beginning of the Yad, where he brought the verse in Parshas Tazria:

Among the differences between Sefer HaMitzvos and the enumeration of the mitzvos in the Yad is the following:

Sefer HaMitzvos is not a book of halachah, but only an explanation of the 613 mitzvos — a brief description of each mitzvah, its source in the Written Torah and its laws (in general) in the Oral Torah. So too in our case: since the main section dealing with circumcision is the verses concerning Avraham, from which most of its details are learned, and where the essence of the mitzvah is explained — that it is a "covenant" between the Jewish people and the Holy One, blessed be He (the covenant of Avraham) — the Rambam brings the verse "Every male among you shall be circumcised." That is why he emphasizes there that the command was "to Avraham" — for this is the content of the mitzvah of circumcision, "the covenant of our father Avraham," as above.

Whereas in the enumeration of the mitzvos at the beginning of the Yad — a book of "halachos halachos," laws set out ruling by ruling — the Rambam brings the verse whose main point is (not the essence and definition of the mitzvah, but) the source of the obligation to fulfil this mitzvah as one of the 613 mitzvos said to Moshe at Sinai. And since "everything we refrain from or do today, we do only by the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe our teacher, peace be upon him, not because the Holy One, blessed be He, said it to the prophets before him," it is understood that he must bring the verse from after the Giving of the Torah, which is (simply) "the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe our teacher," for the obligation of this mitzvah takes effect specifically from this verse.

6. This novelty in the mitzvah of circumcision (that the essence of the covenant of circumcision is "the covenant of our father Avraham," which preceded the Giving of the Torah) will be better understood in light of what is explained elsewhere, that the mitzvah of circumcision has two aspects:

a) A particular mitzvah, one of the 613 mitzvos of the Torah.

b) A general matter — a "covenant" between the Jewish people and the Holy One, blessed be He, "This is My covenant … between Me and you" — for the covenant of circumcision pertains to the very essence of the holiness of the Jewish people. One may say that this is also the main intent of the Rambam in what he writes (at the close of the Laws of Circumcision), "The foreskin is repulsive, for the gentiles were disgraced by it, as it is said, 'For all the nations are uncircumcised'" — to emphasize that circumcision pertains to the whole of "Israel" [which is why even a Jewish man who cannot actually fulfil the mitzvah of circumcision (because his brothers died as a result of circumcision and the like) is called "mahul" (circumcised). The reason may be that the designation "mahul" is essentially not because of the act of circumcision, but because of his obligation to enter this covenant, which exists even in one who cannot actually fulfil the mitzvah].

To explain further: the "particular mitzvah" of circumcision is also called a "covenant"; but there are two aspects in the "covenant" between the Jewish people and the Holy One, blessed be He: a) the covenant concerning the fulfilment of Torah and mitzvos; b) the "covenant" and bond between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Jewish people by virtue of the very essence of the Jewish people. And this is the general aspect of the covenant of circumcision: besides being a particular mitzvah (one of the 613 mitzvos of the Torah), it is the sign of the covenant that belongs to the Jewish people. As stated explicitly in the saying of our Sages that the Rambam cites (in continuation of "the foreskin is repulsive …"): "And whoever breaches the covenant of Avraham … even though he has Torah and good deeds, has no share in the World to Come." For the covenant of circumcision precedes the covenant of Torah and good deeds: first there must be the existence of the Jewish people (and the covenant with it), and only afterwards does the covenant of Torah apply.

[One may say that this is the intent of the Midrash, "If a person is not circumcised he cannot learn Torah, as it is said, 'He tells His words to Yaakov' — to one who is circumcised like Yaakov; 'He has not done so for any nation' — because they are uncircumcised." The covenant of circumcision precedes Torah, for Torah and mitzvos were given specifically to the Jewish people and not to the nations of the world, and the Jewish people is bound up with the covenant of circumcision.]

7. This explains why not only did the mitzvah of circumcision begin with our father Avraham, but moreover, the mitzvah of circumcision that we fulfil after the Giving of the Torah is connected with Avraham, to the point that it is called "the covenant of our father Avraham":

"The covenant of our father Avraham" is not the making of a covenant concerning the fulfilment of Torah and mitzvos, for Torah begins from the time of the Giving of the Torah, and as cited above from the Rambam, our mitzvos do not derive from the commands that preceded the Divine utterance at Sinai. Rather, the "covenant" with Avraham — "between Me and you and your seed after you" — is with the Jewish people, for the beginning of the Jewish people is from Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, and from then the covenant and holiness of the Jewish people began

[Not only according to the views that the Patriarchs left the category of the children of Noach, but even according to the views that they did not leave the category of the children of Noach — that applies only to their fulfilment of the mitzvos and the like; but the existence of the Jewish people began with the Patriarchs].

It follows that although our mitzvos are not connected with the mitzvos that preceded the Divine utterance at Sinai, nevertheless the existence of the Jewish people begins with the Patriarchs.

Hence the two aspects of the mitzvah of circumcision: the substance of the mitzvah and the obligation of the mitzvah of circumcision (as one of the 613 mitzvos) do not pertain to the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Avraham, but only to the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe our teacher. But the content of the covenant effected by this mitzvah — which pertains to the Jewish people — is "the covenant of our father Avraham," a continuation of the covenant that the Holy One, blessed be He, made with Avraham: "This is My covenant … between Me and you and your seed after you."

8. Accordingly, another halachah in the Rambam can be explained:

Regarding the blessing over circumcision, the Rambam rules in the Laws of Circumcision: "And the father of the son recites another blessing … 'to bring him into the covenant of our father Avraham.' It is a mitzvah upon the father to circumcise his son, over and above the mitzvah by which the Jewish people are commanded to circumcise every uncircumcised male among them. Therefore, if his father is not there, this blessing is not recited after it. There are those who ruled that the court or one of the people should recite it, but it is not proper to do so."

That is to say: in the Rambam's view, the blessing "to bring him into the covenant of our father Avraham" was instituted specifically for the father of the son, because of his additional and special mitzvah ("over and above the mitzvah by which (all) the Jewish people are commanded") to circumcise his son. Therefore, "if his father is not there, this blessing is not recited after it."

The implication of this is that the fact that through the covenant of circumcision the one being circumcised is brought "into the covenant of our father Avraham" pertains (mainly) to the father's mitzvah specifically.

Some have explained this according to the derivation in Kiddushin that the father's mitzvah to circumcise his son is from the verse "And Avraham circumcised his son Yitzchak"; it follows that the father's mitzvah is connected with "the covenant of our father Avraham" (from whom the father's obligation is derived).

But besides the fact that in the Yad (in the enumeration of the mitzvos) the Rambam brings (as above) the verse in Parshas Tazria and not the verse concerning Avraham, the explanation itself is also problematic: the obligation upon the court, as well as the obligation of the son himself, are also derived in Kiddushin there from the verses concerning Avraham. If so, the obligation of all the Jewish people (the court) and of the son himself would also be connected with "the covenant of our father Avraham," and the father's obligation would be no different from theirs in this respect.

9. However, according to what was explained above regarding the expression "the covenant of our father Avraham," one can explain the connection specifically to the father's mitzvah:

The designation "Israel" depends on birth; it comes to the newborn by inheritance from his father and mother. Because he is a son of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov (and a son of Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah), he automatically possesses the designation "Israel" in actuality [unlike the "covenant" of Torah: although he becomes obligated in Torah and mitzvos automatically by virtue of being a Jewish man (or woman), the actual fulfilment of Torah and mitzvos depends on his choice].

It follows that the essence of the mitzvah of circumcision (that is, its general aspect — "the covenant of our father Avraham") is a continuation of the birth of the son, when he entered (automatically, by virtue of birth) the community of Israel; and the completeness of the designation "Israel" comes to him at the time of the covenant of circumcision (while a woman is regarded as one who is circumcised).

One may say that this is the reason why in the mitzvah of circumcision there is a special mitzvah upon the father, "over and above the mitzvah by which the Jewish people are commanded" [and the plain sense of the wording is that the mitzvah being upon the father is not only because a minor cannot circumcise himself, and therefore the Torah placed this obligation upon the father; rather, it is intrinsically the duty and mitzvah of the father]:

The obligation of all the Jewish people "to circumcise every uncircumcised male among them" stems mainly from the definition of the obligation of the mitzvah: because of the severity of this mitzvah, the Torah placed a duty upon all the Jewish people (the court) "to circumcise every uncircumcised male among them." Whereas the mitzvah upon the father is a continuation of the son's birth: since the son's parents are the ones who brought him into the community of Israel (through his birth), the father must therefore conclude and "complete" in him this entry into Israel, through the covenant of circumcision.

That is why the text "to bring him into the covenant of our father Avraham" was instituted specifically for the father's mitzvah — for the entry "into the covenant of our father Avraham," the completeness of being a Jew, pertains mainly to the father, who brought him into the community of Israel.

(From talks of Purim and 16 Adar, 5747)

Key Lesson

We perform every mitzvah, circumcision included, solely because G‑d commanded it through Moshe at Sinai; yet the bris milah is uniquely called "the covenant of our father Avraham," because its essence is not a commitment to keep Torah but the very bond between G‑d and the Jewish people, which began with the Patriarchs. That essential bond precedes and underlies all Torah and mitzvos. And because a child enters the Jewish people through his birth, it falls to the father to complete that entry by bringing his son into Avraham's covenant, which is why he alone recites that blessing.