Mishnah
Mishnah

Responsa for Shabbat 19:6

אֵלּוּ הֵן צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה, בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רֹב הָעֲטָרָה. וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה. וְאִם הָיָה בַעַל בָּשָׂר, מְתַקְּנוֹ מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעָיִן. מָל וְלֹא פָרַע אֶת הַמִּילָה, כְּאִלּוּ לֹא מָל:

These are the tzitzin [strands of flesh remaining from the foreskin] which (if they remain) invalidate milah: Flesh which covers most of the corona. And he (one with such tzitzin) does not eat terumah [if he were a Cohein. For an uncircumcised Cohein is forbidden to eat terumah, it being written in respect to the Pesach offering (Exodus 12:45): "A sojourner and a hired man may not eat of it," and, in respect to terumah, (Leviticus 22:10): "The sojourner with a Cohein and his hired man may not eat the holy thing" — Just as the Pesach offering is forbidden to one who is uncircumcised, so, terumah.] And if he were fat, [so that after the entire foreskin had been removed, the organ still seems to be covered by flesh], it is corrected [i.e., the thickness is reduced with the knife] because of "appearances" [i.e., so that he not give the appearance of being uncircumcised.] If he were circumcised, but the milah were not exposed (by pulling down the membrane), it is as if he had not been circumcised, [and he must go back and expose it, even if he had withdrawn. And as long as he is engaged in circumcision on Shabbath, he cuts both those tzitzin that invalidate milah and those which do not. After he withdraws, he returns for invalidating tzitzin but not for non-invalidating tzitzin.]

Melamed Leho'il Part II

However, who could tell us that [this youth] definitely knew he wasn't circumcised? Does every ‎sixteen-year-old child know the nature of circumcision and the visual difference? Perhaps he was ‎modest and never looked at it his entire life. Think about it [further], due to our many sins there ‎are areas in Germany where the mohelim are severe sinners and do not perform priah [lit. ‎revealing; peeling off thee pithelium]! Many children are therefore as though they were not ‎circumcised [at all], for we learn, "One who circumcised without priah is as if he had not ‎circumcised." (Mishnah Shabbat 19:6)However, none of them know that they are not circumcised; ‎certainly, they are like" children held captive among non-Jews". Further, even if they were to learn ‎afterward that priah is necessary, they wouldn't know that priah had not been performed on ‎them. Moreover: Even if you would say that he knew that he wasn't circumcised and despite that ‎he didn't circumcise himself, one could argue that he did so because he didn't want to pain himself, ‎and not because he kicked[i.e. rejected] the commandment of circumcision. If so, all would agree ‎that he was only a rebel concerning one matter, due to his desires. It seems to me that even in ‎Hungary the custom is not to distance the grave of such a rebel from other graves - in Germany, ‎the custom is certainly not so - and so there is no legal reason to change the youth's burial from the ‎burial of other Jewish sinners. ‎
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse