Parshas Korach 5786
- Torah Tavlin
- Jun 18
- 3 min read
חולין דף מז: "מתו מחמת מילה"
A woman was מל her first son and he died. She was מל her second boy, he died. She now brought her third son and asked R’ Nosson if she should give him a ברית מילה? He replied, “I saw the baby was red, so I told her wait until it subsides (it gets absorbed into his body) and then give him a ברית.” [ד"ה שלישי] תוס' says we see from here ר' נתן holds like רבי that after 2 times is a חזקה and he told the mother to wait because there is a חזקה of מיתה. The מהרש"א asks: how does תוס' know the פסק of ר' נתן was based on חזקה, maybe it was purely because the baby was red? Also, the Gemara [שבת קלד.] brings this story as proof that redness in a baby is a סכנה for מילה? The מהרש"א answers: If חזקה wasn’t a deciding factor, why did ר' נתן mention that her first 2 boys died from מילה? Rather the פשט is: until now ר' נתן didn’t hold that redness is a problem, but when he saw the first 2 boys were also red and died, he said wait because 2 times makes a חזקה that redness is a סכנה. Once the דם is absorbed in the body, מילה may be done. From this פסק, the Gemara [שבת] learns that דם שלא נבלע is a סכנה and it was learnt from this story where ר' נתן used חזקה to establish this fact. The משנה [יבמות ע] says an ערל may not eat תרומה. Rashi says the ערל we are referring to is a כהן that didn’t get a ברית מילה because of מתו אחיו מחמת מילה. Tosfos agrees with רש"י, but תוספות ישנים brings ר"ת that holds, if one didn’t get a ברית because of מתו אחיו then since it is a סכנה for him, he is not considered a ערל. The ערל referred to in this Mishnah is one that is a משומד לערלות. [קובץ הערות ס' מח', יט'] ר' אלחנן explains: Rashi and Tosfos both hold one who can’t have a bris because of מתו אחיו is considered an אונס and although אונס is alwaysפטור, the bottom line is that he doesn’t have a milah and is still an ערל and אסור to eat תרומה. Just like if one was a אונס and didn’t have a knife available to perform the bris, we wouldn’t say since he is a אונס he’s מותר to eat תרומה, so too here, although he is a אונס and פטור from ברית מילה, he is still considered an ערל. ר"ת holds that the אונס of פיקוח נפש is different than other אונסים, in that it takes away the entire mitzvah. Just like a baby, prior to 8 days old does not have a מצוה of ברית מילה, in a case of פק"נ one doesn’t have a mitzvah at all.
The [יז' אות א'] מנחת חינוך says: even according to ר"ת, this is only if there was never a time where he could’ve gotten a מילה. If there was a time where he was ראוי למילה but didn’t get one, even if he is in a situation of סכנה, ר"ת would agree (to תוס' ורש"י) that he is an ערל. If one was מל his son before the 8th day, he wasn’t מקיים מצות מילה, but he is not עובר anything [שם ב' אות כב'] and after day 8 the baby is considered מהול. Also, this is not considered being מבטל a מצות עשה, because before day 8 there is no mitzvah and to be considered a ביטול, the מצוה has to be here. However, we would dissuade him from doing this as he is losing out on fulfilling a מצות עשה.