Dvar Torah at the Bris

Some years ago we posted a collaborative Dvar Torah involving a Chasam Sofer.  I combined it with what we've written in  Bris and Limud HaTorah, added a new twist, and used it at Aharon Tzvi ben Harav Moshe Eisenberg's bris.  (I then improved it further with additions in parenthesis prepared for the bris of Baruch Borenstein's son, Shmuel ben Baruch Eliezer, December 19, 2018, Parshas Vayechi.)

(I asked Howie the other day whether the seuda was going to be milchigs. He recoiled in shock. "Milchik? If anything is a seudas mitzva, it's a bris. Who ever heard of a seudas mitzva that was milchik??

The truth is that he has a good point. The seuda of a bris is uniquely meaningful. Tosfos in Pesachim 114a, and brought in the Rama in 225, says that the Gemara on the previous daf that "someone that doesn't eat by a seudas mitzva is menudeh lashamayim" refers to a seudas bris milah. On this basis, we don't invite to the bris, we inform.  But why davka the seudas bris?
Tosfos:

אין מיסב בסעודת מצוה - היינו סעודת מילה דאמר במדרש דניצול מדינה של גיהנם, וסעודת נישואין בת"ח ובת כהן לכהן, ודוקא שיש שם בני אדם מהוגנין כדאמרינן בזה בורר (סנהדרין דף כג.) נקיי הדעת שבירושלים לא היו מסובין בסעודה אלא כן יודעין מי מיסב עמהם:

Additionally, we have in the Darash Moshe in Beshalach, on zeh eili, that the "hisno'eh lefafanav be'mitzvos" by a bris is doing it besimcha. That simcha, I think, would be the basis for making a festive meal. But again, why specifically by a bris?

Another question, from this week's parsha. Targum Yonsasan says " בך יברך ישראל לאמר ישמך אלהים כאפרים וכמנשה" is the bracha said on the baby at a bris.

וּבָרֵיכִינוּן בְּיוֹמָא הַהוּא לְמֵימַר בָּךְ יוֹסֵף בְּרִי יְבָרְכוּן בֵּית יִשְרָאֵל יַת יְנוּקָא בְּיוֹמָא דִמְהוּלְתָּא לְמֵימָר יְשַׁוִינָךְ יְיָ כְּאֶפְרַיִם וְכִמְנַשֶׁה

 We don't do this, but it was once the minhag. Why is it associated most importantly with the bris?)

The Chasam Sofer brings the Medrash that the Bris is on the eighth day because the baby has to see "Matronissa," Shabbos, before getting the kedusha of the Bris.  He asks that the number should be either seven or nine, but not eight.  If  you need 24 hours of Shabbos, it should be nine, because with eight, you will often not have all 24 hours.  If the baby's born Shabbos afternoon, and the Bris is Shabbos morning,  you might only have eight hours of Shabbos.  So clearly, you don't need all 24 hours of Shabbos.

So if you only need part of Shabbos, seven days should suffice, because you'll always have some Shabbos before the Bris.  The answer has to be that if you only would wait seven days, then if the baby is born Shabbos afternoon and you make the Bris Friday, he will have seen the end of Shabbos but not its beginning.  If he's born on Sunday and you make the Bris on Shabbos, he will see the beginning of a Shabbos, but not the end.  It must be that although he does not need 24 hours of Shabbos, he does need both the beginning and the end of Shabbos.

This is a perfect answer, but it cries out for explanation.

As mentioned by Reb Akiva Eiger in the Teshuvos (42,) Bris Millah is the hechsher for learning Torah.  This is in a Tanchuma and in the Ollelos Ephraim and implicit in the Gemara in Nedarim, that both are necessary to the existence of the world.

There is a machlokes (e.g., Beitzah 15b,) R Eliezer and R Yehoshua how to explain the pesukim that say lachem (for you) and Lashem (for God) by Yomtov.  R Eliezer- either or.  R Yehoshua- half and half.  Rav Elozor says, everyone agrees that on Shavuos you need half and half- it is the day of Mattan Torah!

But why is Mattan Torah mechayeiv half and half?  Adderaba, kulo lashem would be even more appropriate.  It appears that Torah enables a person to take gashmiiyus and make it into ruchniyus.  Only Torah allows us to make this change, to take an inherent conflict and make it harmonize, to resolve the tension between physicality and spirituality.

We find this concept by Milah as well.  Yaakov gave a bracha to Yosef, saying that Klal Yisrael will say Yesimcha Elokim k'Epphraim v'chiMenashe.  Targum Yonasan there says that this is the bracha given by a Bris.  Rav Schwab explains that the idea of Milah is like Mahul, blended, to blend olam hazeh and olam habah and make them into a perfect combination.  Both Ephraim and Menashe.   In fact, when you think about it, it is obvious that the Bris Millah, which is so holy that Eliezer used it in place of a Sefer Torah when he swore an oath, is specifically at the most  gashmiyusdikkeh, animalistic, part of the human body.  Davka there we create the Os Bris Kodesh, because even that part of the body can be a davar shebikdushah.

So we see that both Torah and Milah (which is the machshir for Torah,) enable a person to take gashmiyus and ruchniyus and make them into a perfect combination.  Milah is a charge from the Ribono shel Olam "Be a Malach!  And be a Mentsch!"

With this we go back to the Chasam Sofer.  The beginning of Shabbos means Kiddush, the invocation of mei'ein Olam Haba, the world of pure ruchniyus.  The end of Shabbos means Havdala.  Havdala is not "Goodbye Shabbos."  Havdala is a kind of Kiddush. It is the Kiddush on the Sheishes Y'mei Ha'Maaseh.  It is the means of bringing the perfect kedusha of Shabbos into the chulin weekdays, gashmiyus that is mishtareish in ruchniyus.  Every day we say Rishon beShabbos, Sheini beShabbos.....

Only after a child experiences the kedusha of pure ruchniyus, of malachim, and the kedusha of being mekadeish gashmiyus, only after he sees the life of Ephraim and Menasheh, and the idea of chatzi lashem and chatzis lachem, only then can he have the Bris Millah.

Indeed, the Bach says that Aleinu is the bridge between standing in Tefilla and going out to the world- and after the Bris, we all say Aleinu.  This harmony of the olam ruchni and the olam gashmi is the essence of Bris Milah.

(With this we understand the special chashivus of the seudas habris, which is a mizug of ruchniyus and gashmiyus, a way of infusing gashmiyus with the highest ruchniyus.  This is the unique quality of the bris, and it is expressed davka by making a festive seuda - Fleishik, of course.)

Lech Lecha. Seeking a Mohel or Sandek Who is a Tzadik

I've realized that this is much too long and shmues-y, so here's the short version.

1.  It is beneficial to have a tzadik write your sifrei kodesh and tefillin.

2.  The same is true for the Bris Milah.  You should try to find a mohel and a sandek who are gedolim in Torah and Chesed.

3.  This hiddur may also apply to anything that requires that it be done or made lishma. It might even be true by all chafeitzim that are used for mitzvos.

4.  I have a list of five reasons that there would be a ma'aleh to seek out a tzadik to do certain mitzvos for you.  I can't compress them, you'll have to look at the list.

*

The other day, someone told me a story about the Satmarer Rov.  A Chasid presented this question; given a choice between a pair of  unusually beautiful and mehudar Tefillin that were written by a respected Sofer, or a pair of less beautiful Tefillin that were written by a Sofer who was known to be a great Tzadik, which is better?  I don't remember the Rov's mordant response, which was actually the point of the story, but the bottom line was that the psak was to take the one that was written by the great Tzadik, even though the ksav is less mehudar.

As one who knows me might expect, my initial reaction was to say the opposite.  I thought that as long as the Tefillin are written with the kavanos and dikdukim that are necessary, it makes absolutely no difference in the chashivus of the Tefillin whether they were written by the local kli kodesh or Rav Chaim Kanievsky.  Since when does greater kavana and tzidkus of the sofer make it more mehudar?  Yes, the ma'aseh mitzva was greater, but that doesn't mean that the cheftza shel mitzva is any better.  This is not a shidduch, where zechus avos and familial traits and middos matter.  To the extent you would prefer the shoes made by Chanoch (חנוך תופר מנעלים היה ועל כל תפירה ותפירה היה מיחד יחודים) or dinner that was cooked by a tzadik, over one made by a regular ehrliche yid, to that extent would you prefer his Tefillin.  

My initial reaction was wrong.  

The Aruch HaShulchan in OC 32:42 and the Mishna Berura 32 sk 103 talk about how difficult it is to properly write kisvei hakodesh- the sheimos need special kavana, kesidran, and many many other things that only the greatest sofrim can do.  Ok, so now I understand that the greater Sofer, or at least the more scholarly sofer, can make tefillin that are more mehudar.  Once we know that certain kavana is essential, and that there are kavanos that add even more, then even though the other one is kosher, it is understandable that there can be greater hiddur with greater kavana.

Harav Mordechai Tendler, I'm told, has in his Masores Moshe a story of a similar question asked to Reb Moshe. Reb Moshe answered that it is impossible for a human being to judge who is a greater Tzadik.  If the apparently lesser one had overcome terrible nisyonos, and the other just did what came naturally, then the truth is the opposite of what you think; האדם יראה לענים וה' יראה ללבב, and in the world of truth, עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה.  So as long as you know that both are 100% kosher, it's best to go with the one that has the nicer ksav.

But Reb Moshe was just saying that we cannot know who is the greater tzadik.  If, however, we did know, then the Tzadik's tefillin would be the better choice.

In addition, there is the Gemara in Shabbos 133b about Zeh Keili.  

התנאה לפניו במצוות, עשֵה לפניו סוכה נאה ולולב נאה ושופר נאה, ציצית נאה, ספר תורה נאה וכתוב בו לשמו בדיו נאה, בקולמוס נאה, בלבלר אומן וכורכו בשיראין נאין

The question is, what does כתוב בו לשמו mean?  Lishma is not just hiddur, it is me'akeiv.  Because of this question, R' Yaakov Karliner, the baal Mishkenos Yaakov, in his sefer Kehilas Yakov, in Pesachim 64, wants to say that the whole halacha that the Sheimos in a Sefer Torah have to be written lishma is because of the din of hiddur mitzva, just that in this case, hiddur is me'akeiv, a tremendous chiddush.  But other achronim, for example, Rav Gifter, say pashut, that you see from this Gemara that besides the regular din of lishma that is me'akeiv in a sefer, there is another din of writing it "lishma," l'sheim Hashem, and this makes it into a more mehudardikkeh sefer.

So you have a strong proof that writing it with deeper kavana makes it into a sefer that is more mehudar, in line with the Aruch HaShulchan and Mishna Berura..


I'm not sure this is true by other mitzvos that have a din of Lishma, such as Matza and Tzitzis. There, it''s a simple yes or no, and greater kavana doesn't matter.  Here, it's not just a din of lishma.  The kavana creates the kedusha of the sheimos and the sefer, the kavana is a part of the cheftza shel Mitzva.

Note: please see Update I, where I bring the Netziv.

*

The reason I"m writing about this in Parshas Lech Lecha is because of the mitzva of Millah in our parsha.  Does it matter if the Mohel and the Sandek are tzadikim? 

(In case you think Sandeka'us is trivial, please see the Darkei Moshe in 265:11, who brings from the Maharil that the Sandek has kedima for the aliyah that morning-
דיפה כח הסנדק מהמוהל לקרות בתורה קודם המוהל, דהסנדק המחזיק הילד על ברכיו הוי כאילו בנה מזבח והעלה עליו קטורת.  The Tshuvos Chasam Sofer OC 119 explains that the Sandek has two maalos- he helps in the act of milah, and he becomes a mizbei'ach for that moment.  See also the Toras Chaim I have in Update II.)

Bishlema by Sefer Torah, we saw that the manner of writing makes a difference in the quality of the sefer.  

Bishlema by korbanos, we find that people would seek out a tzadik for the performance of the avoda of their korban.
 Sefer Chasidim 761:

אם יש בעיר שנים צדיק ושאינו צדיק הגון ושאינו הגון שיודעים לתקוע בשופר יתנו להגון לתקוע ובלבד שלא יהיה מחלוקת בדבר ויראי שמים לא היו מוסרים קרבנותיהם אלא לכהנים צדיקים

But that could be because the other is doing it on your behalf, so you want the act of doing the mitzva, the maaseh mizvah, to be more mehudar, and doing it with greater kavana makes it a better ma'aseh mitzvah.  

But by Milah, all you care about is the result.  Who says that having a tzadik do the milah makes the result any more chashuv?  As I said above, does it matter who tied your tzitzis, as long as it was done le'sheim mitzvas tzitzis?  Are tzitzis that were made by a tzadik any better than tzitzis that were made by a regular trustworthy person?  On the other hand, it could be that by Milah also, the ma'aseh is being done as a shlichus, so you would apply what the Sefer Chasidim says.  Although there are those that learn that the Rosh holds there is no shelichus by milah, the Tur in 265 says from the Baal HaItur that the father should stand net to the Mohel and state that he wants him to do his shelichus, as we find by korbanos.  In fact, it is possible that the din of standing there that we find by Korbanos and Milah means it is more than just the regular din of shelichus, it could be that the ma'aseh becomes yours as well.

I don't have time to do this thoroughly, but here are the basics.  It should be enough.

1.  The Rama in YD 264:  ויש לאדם לחזור ולהדר אחר מוהל ובעל ברית היותר טוב וצדיק  from the Or Zarua.  (I bring the Or Zarua at the end.)

2. Reb Chaim Kanievsky in Derech Sicha page 64:

השפעת הסנדק על התינוק

 על גודל השפעת הסנדק על התינוק סיפר הרב שליט"א נכנס אלי אדם עם שני ילדיו האחד נראה הגון והשני נראה גוי גמור זה שנראה טוב אבא זצ"ל היה הסנדק שלו ואילו אצל השני אינו רוצה לומר מי היה הסנדק שלו.   החזו"א הקפיד שהסנדק יהיה הגון 

Along the same lines, from a different book.  This is actually a well known story, if that proves anything.  (I don't understand the story, because the father has the right to be mochel on behalf of the child, and there was no kinyan, just an invitation.  The Levush here says the following:

ואם נתן המוהל ובעל ברית לאחד, אסור לחזור בו. מיהו, אם חזר בו, הוי חזרה, ואין מועיל בזה אפילו ק"ק [קבלת קנין] שאינו אלא קניין דברים ודבר שאין בו ממש, ואין קניין חל עליו. מכל מקום, החוזר בו עובר משום "שארית ישראל לא יעשו עוולה ולא ידברו כזב". וזה הוי דבר כזב. ומותר לקרותו רשע. אבל אם נשבע לו או נדר תקיעת כף, כופין אותו שיקיים שבועתו ותקיעת כף.

And we all know the Ketzos and others in CM 382.  But that doesn't matter.  It's a well known story.)

הובא מעשה בספר בית ישראל באיש אחד שכיבד את הגאון בעל חזון אישי בסנדקאות ובליל שימורים שקודם המילה שאלוהו בני משפחתו את מי תכבד בסנדקאות והשיבם שכבר כיבד את החזון איש אך הם הרימו עליו קול צעקה הרי הדוד בא מאמריקה והוא רב וגם שולח לנו כסף מפעם לפעם ואם לא תכבדו בסנדקאות בודאי יעלב ולא יתמוך בנו יותר והלך אבי הבן לחזון איש וסח לו כל המעשה והשיבו החזון איש אלמלי היתה הסנדקאות טובה בשבילי יכול הייתי לוותר עכשיו שיש בסנדקאות טובה לרך הנימול אין אני רשאי לוותר על טובתו של הילד 

3.  Since we pasken like Reb Yosi in AZ 27a,  as the Taz and the Shach bring from the Beis Yosef, that kavanah is not me'akeiv by a bris- as long as a Yisrael shomer mitzvos does it, it's kosher, even if he was mis'aseik, that he did it only for medical or other reasons, it's kosher, if Lishma is not essential, what difference does it make if the mohel/sandek had great kavanos and were tzadikim?  It's even less important than kavana by Tzitzis.

4.  More than that.  It appears that even though Reb Yosi holds in general that Mitzvos tzrichos kavana, he doesn't care if a kusi does the bris l'sheim har Grizim (as the Keren Ora points out in his intro to Zevachim (end of column 2.)  That apparently means that forget about lishma, you don't even need kavana.  So who cares if a tzadik does it?

5.  Reb Boruch Ber Yevamos 2, second paragraph, where he talks about the difference between mitzvos where the act is the mitzva and mitzvos where the result is the mitzva.

6.  By Milah, it could be that it becomes your ma'aseh through shlichus, and the gadlus of the ma'aseh milah is misyacheis to you.  This really is a machlokes between the Shach in CM 382, who says that a father that gets a mohel loses the ma'aseh mitzvah, following in the path of the Rosh (Chulin 6:8,) and the Tevuas Shor that argues and says that in kol hatorah kulah, yeish shliach.  It is possible that this is what the Tur in YD 265 means to say from the Baal HaItur, that by a bris the father should davka stand there and tell the mohel to be his shaliach, because then the shlichus is poeil that the ma'aseh is the father's.
I have to point out, though, that this is a dochack.  Even if there is a din shlichus, and even if the ma'aseh is done by a tzadik, there is no way that his enhancement of the ma'aseh mitzva is misyacheis to you.  He did the mitzva well, he gets schar.  But the din shlichus is not going to make it that you did a ma'aseh mitzva with hiddur.

7.  If #6 is correct, then we have a problem with the Or Zarua.  Why does the Or Zarua tell us to get tzadikim for the bris because otherwise Eliahu HaNavi might not want to come, or because a tahor should do the mitzva with a tahor?  These reasons are specific to Bris Millah, and have nothing to do with the svara of finding a good shaliach?  Doesn't this show that the svara of shlichus is wrong?  No.  It only shows that the Or Zarua holds like the Shach, and not like the Tevuas Shor.



The sof dovor is that it is a beferiusheh Rama/Or Zarua that by Millah also, there is a ma'alah of getting a tzadik to be the mohel and the sandek.  The question remains, why is this the case.  It is not because Milah needs lishma, because it does not.  Is it because of Chavivus Hamitzva?  Kavod?  A metziyus of influence on the child, like Reb Chaim Kanievsky says?  

It is possible that we ought to make a basic distinction between Tashmishei Mitzva and a cheftzah that has kedusha.  Matza and Sukkah and Tzitzis are only Tashmishei Mitzva, and if they're kosher, nothing is added to them by making them with better kavana.  Kisvei Kodesh is kedusha, and to make a chalos kedusha, the kavana in creating it matters.  It is possible that Milah also falls into that category.

My guess is that there is less here than meets the eye, that this is not a din, and my Reb Boruch Ber and Keren Ora are irrelevant:  Who says everything has to have a lomdus?  We simply have a mesorah, as the Levush says, that the character and ruchniyus of the Sandek, and maybe the Mohel, have an effect on the child that is getting a bris.  


So to sum up, the reason we should look for a tzadik to be mohel and to be sandek might be one or all of the following.

1. When you get a mohel, and you stand there and tell him to do your shelichus, the shelichus becomes that the ma'aseh is yours, not just the chalos, because there's no real chalos here that can be misyacheis to the father.  If so, it could be that the greater the ma'aseh mitzvah, the greater the ma'aseh that is misyacheis to the father.  (I heard this svara from Harav Dovid Oppenheimer.) 

2.  Even when there's no din of shelichus, when you arrange to have a mitzva done, you want the ma'aseh mitzva to be done in the best way.  A tzadik's ma'aseh mitzva is more chashuv.  This might even apply to tevillas keilim.  Or maybe it only applies where there is some kind of requirement of lishma

3. A Bris Milah, the אות ברית, is a Davar She'bikedusha, just like a Sefer Torah, and a Davar She'bikedusha that is created by a tzadik is more mehudar.  This only applies to a Cheftza that has inherent kedusha, not to Tashmishei Mitzva, like Tzitzis, Sukkah, or Matza. (Proof- Eliezer's נקיטת חפץ when Avraham Avinu gave him the Shvu'ah.

 4. The ruchniyusdikkeh madreigah of the Mohel and the Sandek have an effect on the ruchniyus of the child.  The greater they are, the more beneficial the effect on the child. 

5.  As you will see from the following update, it is possible that the hiddur of being done with greater kavana even applies to tashmishei mitzva. 

These five svaros are disparate and have clearly different applications.  If you go with 2, then it will apply to tvilas keilim or building a maakah, unless you limit it to cases that have a din of lishma, like baking Matza Shemura.  If  you go with 1, it only applies where there is a din of shelichus, and that is certainly not true by keilim or a sukkah.  If you go with 3, it only applies to devarim shebikedusha like STAM and maybe milah.  5, of course, is universal.

UPDATE I:
An anonymous comment came in that made an excellent point, and I thank the writer, whoever he/she/it may be.  In something posted five years ago on this parsha, (Og and Ulterior Motives) we talked about what the name Og means, the upshot being that the Matza (Ugos Matzos) that Avraham Avinu was making highlighted the difference between a mitzva done with and without good kavana.  What makes it even stronger is that Reb Moshe, in the Darash in Bo (Shemos 12:17) says that the din of ושמרתם את המצות applies to every mitzva in the Torah.  

 ודאי עדיף טובא מה שצריך לעמול ולהתייגע  במעשה המצוה כהילפותא מקרא דושמרתם דמצות שלא סגי במה שנזדמן שאינו חמץ אלא צריך שיהיה בהשתדלות שלא תחמיץ.

Reb Moshe is not talking about lefum tzaara agra.  He is talking about the quality of the mitzvah.  So the answer is, yes.  It does make a difference who writes the St'am, and it makes a difference who the mohel and the sandek are, and it makes a difference who ties your tzitzis, and for all I know, it might make a difference who builds your sukkah and makes your matza. Kosher requires specific kavana in all these cases, and with that kavana it will be kosher.  But if they are done with chavivus and kavana and dveikus, then they are, somehow, a whole different cheftza shel Mitzva. 
IMPORTANT NOTE:
I found that the Netziv addresses this directly and clearly.  He says it's just common knowledge.

העמק דבר שמות  כח ג ד"ה ועשו בגדי אהרון לקדשו

ועשו את בגדי אהרן לקדשו. דאחר שנצטוה אהרן להתקדש נתן המקום לו בגדי קודש שיסייעו לו לדבר. וידוע דכ״ד שבקדושה לבד שטעון עשיה לשמה עפ״י דין עוד כל מה שמכינים יותר הפעולה לשם קדושה מועלת יותר לתכליתה כמש״כ לעיל י״ט ב׳ ובכ״מ מש״ה נצטוה משה שיזהיר להאומנים שהם בעצמם יראי ה׳ לעשות הבגדים באופן שיועילו יותר לקדשו. ובאשר הוא דבר שבלב ע״כ הקדים לומר להם אשר מלאתי את אהרן רוח חכמה והוא יבין וישכיל מכח הבגדים איך שהם פועלים על לבו. היאך נעשו. ומש״ה נצטוה בזה משה בעצמו שידבר אל כל חכמי לב. ולא בצלאל שזה הפרט אינו נוגע לחכמות המלאכה אלא לחכמת המוסר:

UPDATE II
Our local Rambam's baalabus (not a guzma) showed me the Rama in YD 265 that says that davka the Sandek should drink the wine at the bris.  Reb Akiva Eiger earlier in the siman brings the Toras Chaim from the last piece in the tenth perek in Sanhedrin who says this is because the Sandek, being the mitzbei'ach, should drink the wine, so the korban of Milah should have Nesachim.  In the context of our discussion, this underlines the unique character of Milah as being a kind of avodas hakrava (see, for example, Rabbeinu Bachay in Breishis 17:13,) and, as we saw in the Sefer Chasidim, you want the Kohen who does your avoda to be a special Yarei Shamayim.

 לפי שהמילה כקרבן יחשב, כדמשמע במדרש רבה ריש פ' וירא. ר׳ לוי פתה, ושור ואיל לשלמים לזבוח לפני ה; אמר מה אם זה שהקריב שור ואיל לשמי הריני נגלה עליו ומברכו, אברהם שמל עצמו לשמי על אחת כמה וכמה ולכך בשעה שמל אברהם יליד ביתו והעמיד גבעת ערלות והתליעו עלה ריחן לפני הקב״ה כעולה שהוא כליל לאישים כדאיתא במדרש רבה סוף פ׳ לך לך. ומהאי טעמא נראהדמה שמלין בב״ה בצפון לפי שהעולה שחיטתה בצפון.  והיינו דאמ' ליה באבר אחד שנעש׳ בך קרבן אתה מגרה בי אם אומר לי הקב"ה זבח עצמן לפני לשם קרבן אני זובח... וכיון שהילד הנימול נחשב כקרבן כך רגלי הסנדק שמלין עליהן חשוב כמזבח כמ״ש להדיא מהרי״ל ז״ל בהלכות מילה. 

ונראה דלכך נוהגין ליתן כוס יין של ברכה לשתות לסנדק ואין נותנין אותו לתינוק כדרך שנוהגין בכוס יין של קדוש, לפי שהעולה טעונה נסכים שהיו מנסכין יין על גבי המזבח בשעת ההקרבה וכיון שהילד דומה לקרבן עולה והסנדק דומה למזבח לכך נותנין כוס יין של ברכה בגרונו של סנדק דהוה ליה כמנסך יין על ע"ג המזבח. ומהאי נראה דדוקא הסנדק המחזיק את הולד בשעת המילה על ברכיו הוא יחזיקנו ג״כ בשעת ברכה וישתה מן הכוס של ״ן ודלא כאותן שנוטלין את הילד מן הסנדק לאחד שנימול ונותנין אותו לאדם אחד להחזיקו בשעת ברכה והוא שותה כוס של ברכה דאיהו לאו מזבח יחשב ומה לו לשתות כוס של ברכה זו

The Or Zarua inside
Hilchos Milah 107:

וצריך לחפש יהודי טוב לעשותו בעל ברית כדי שיבא אליהו ז״ל וישב על הקטידרא אצלו בשעת המילה כמו׳ש רב שרירא גאון ז״ל מנהג בישראל להעמיד קטידרא מכוסה במעיל אצל בעל ברית משום כבודו של אליהו ז״ל דמתקרי מלאך הברית כדתניא בברייתא דר׳ אליעזר (כנ״ל) בענין ויאמר קנא קנאתי וגו׳ א״ל הקב״ה לאליהו בשטים אתה מקנא על גילוי עריות שנא׳ פנחס בן אלעזר וגו׳ וכאן אתה מקנא על עסק הברית חייך אני אכרות ברית עמך ברית שלום וברית כהונה, ולא עוד אלא שאין ישראל עושין ברית מילה עד שאתה רואה בעיניך. ומיכן נהוג רבנן למעבד מושב כבוד למלאך הברית והוא אליהו זכור לטוב
 וצריך נמי לחפש אחר המוהל יהודי טוב כדאמרינן במדרש חזית המול ימול יבא טהור ויטפל עם הטהור

The Levush here:

 ויש לאדם להדר ולחזור אחר מוהל ובעל ברית היותר טוב וצדיק, שיכוונו במילתו כוונה מובחרת ומעולה, ויגרום שגם הולד יהיה כמותם.

It's Not Ruach HaKodesh

Someone showed me an article this morning that went something like this, changed only to the extent necessary to avoid copyright infringement:

Last week, the mentor of a group of Baalei Teshuva from the US brought them to Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman's house for Chizuk.  Rav Shteinman spoke to them, and then turned to the man who had brought them in and said that two of the visitors did not have a proper bris milah and they should see to it that they have it done al pi halacha.

When this was conveyed to the visitors, two of them said that when they were born, their bris had been done in the hospital by a non-Jewish physician.    Indeed, the halacha is that in such a case, an additional minor procedure has to be done.

Rav Eliahu Mann, who learns with Rav Chaim Kanievsky, related this story to his chavrusa, and asked if this demonstrates that Rav Steinman has Ruach HaKodesh.

Harav Kanievsky responded that Harav Steinman certainly does have Ruach HaKodesh, but this story does not prove it, because "one can tell just by looking at someone's face whether he has a proper bris milah."

I had a similar experience with Harav Yitzchak Grodzinsky many years ago.  Harav Grodzinsky, the son of Harav Avraham Grodzinsky, the last mashgiach in Slabodka (Litteh) is very close with my family.  Thirty five years ago, he visited me at my apartment in Baltimore.  As we sat in the dining room, he pointed to the mezuza on the door to the kitchen and said that he thinks it might be on the wrong side of the door.  I ignored him, because it was obvious to me that it was exactly where it belonged.

Two weeks later, I noticed that the bottom nail of the mezuza case was missing, and I needed to put another nail in.  As I started moving the case around in order to nail it in, I realized that there was no klaf in the case.   The Klaf was simply missing.

I have no idea what happened to the klaf.  I bought it from a sofer, I put it up myself, and where it disappeared to I have no idea.  But lemaiseh, it was not there.  As far as the halacha of where to place the mezuza, I was 100% right.  But only Rav Grodzinsky looked at it and knew there was something wrong with it.  I suppose it's the same thing.  It's not ruach hakodesh.  It's just a matter of having spiritual eyes.

There are many stories like this- where people were amazed at a talmid chacham's seeming supernatural awareness that they think is Ruach HaKodesh, but actually is just the result of being a maamin and talmid chacham.  The father of these stories is in Brachos 34a,

תנו רבנן: מעשה שחלה בנו של רבן גמליאל, שגר שני תלמידי חכמים אצל רבי חנינא בן דוסא לבקש עליו רחמים. כיון שראה אותם עלה לעלייה ובקש עליו רחמים. בירידתו, אמר להם: לכו - שחלצתו חמה. אמרו לו: וכי נביא אתה? אמר להן: לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי, אלא כך מקבלני: אם שגורה תפלתי בפי - יודע אני שהוא מקובל, ואם לאו - יודע אני שהוא מטורף. ישבו וכתבו וכוונו אותה שעה. וכשבאו אצל רבן גמליאל, אמר להן: העבודה! לא חסרתם ולא הותרתם, אלא כך היה מעשה, באותה שעה חלצתו חמה ושאל לנו מים לשתות

Then there is the famous story about Reb Shlomo Kluger, that they say over in Parshas Vayeira.

כאשר עלה ר' שלמה קלוגר לכהן ברבנות בעיר ברוד כיבדו אותו בסנדקאות, וראה שמחכים שם ולא ידע למה, שאל אותם למי מחכים עוד, אמרו לו שהאב של הרך הנימול חולה מסוכן והולך למות רח"ל, ולכן מחכים שיוכלו ליתן שמו של הילד על שם אביו המת, וצוה עליהם ר' שלמה שיעשו מיד הברית ולא ימתינו, ואכן מיד לאחר כן הבריא האב לגמרי, והעולם תמהו על הנס הזה, ואמר להם ר' שלמה קלוגר שזה אינו מופת אלא שלקחתי זאת מפרשתנו, שבאו שלושה מלאכים ומלאך אחד בא גם לרפאות את אברהם וגם להציל את לוט שהצלה ורפואה דבר אחד הוא, והשאלה היא, וכי חסר מלאכים למעלה שיבואו שתים אחד לרפאות ואחד להציל, רק התירוץ הוא, שללוט לא היה כלל זכות שיבא אליו מלאך במיוחד להצילו, ורק כיון שכבר בא מלאך לרפאות את אברהם יכול היה כבר גם להציל את לוט, גם כאן כן הוא, שבשביל האב של הרך הנימול לא היתה זכות שיבוא מלאך מיוחד לרפאותו, ומכיון שכבר בא מלאך הברית לצורך הברית, התפללתי שמלאך הברית ירפא באותה הזדמנות גם את האב

Rav Micha Berger sent in an excellent he'ara.  He said that הא גופא- if you can see in a person's face whether he has a kosher bris milah, that is ruach hakodesh!  I responded that he is not seeing the man's neshama, he is just seeing his face, but if you have a refined and thorough kedusha, you become sensitive to things others do not see.  A person with a kosher bris, apparently, has a different face, but only a holy person can see that difference.  It's like fragrance and taste.  A professional "nose" will discern things we are totally unaware of, and a taster will tell you that the milk in the milk chocolate was not perfectly fresh.  We find this concept in the Gemara.  For example, Chagiga 12b:

אמר ריש לקיש כל העוסק בתורה בלילה חוט של חסד משוך עליו ביום שנאמר יומם יצוה הי חסדו ומה טעם יומם יצוה הי חסדו משום ובלילה שירה עמי

and the passuk in Koheles 8:1, חכמת אדם תאיר פניו.  The Ramban also says this in Bereishis 5:1 on זה ספר תולדות אדם.  Speculatively, it could be that this is the yesod of the limud in Yechezkel that an arel has a din of Baal Mum regarding kodshim (Zevachim 22b, and see Magen Avraham 128:sk54 and Igros OC II 33:2.)
The problem is that most of us are so insensitive that we simply don't recognize it when it's in front of us.  עינים להם ולא יראו.  A film of pritzus and nonsense obscures our vision.

It kind of reminds me of the Gemara in Brachos 58a about poor, blind, Rav Sheishes.  Poor, blind, Rav Sheishes could see better than some people with 20/20 eyesight.

רב ששת סגי נהור הוה הוו קאזלי כולי עלמא לקבולי אפי מלכא וקם אזל בהדייהו רב ששת אשכחיה ההוא צדוקי אמר ליה חצבי לנהרא כגני לייא אמר ליה תא חזי דידענא טפי מינך חלף גונדא קמייתא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי אתא מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קאתי חלף גונדא תניינא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי השתא קא אתי מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קא אתי מלכא חליף תליתאי כי קא שתקא אמר ליה רב ששת ודאי השתא אתי מלכא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי מנא לך הא אמר ליה דמלכותא דארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיעא דכתיב צא ועמדת בהר לפני ה' והנה ה' עובר ורוח גדולה וחזק מפרק הרים ומשבר סלעים לפני ה' לא ברוח ה' ואחר הרוח רעש לא ברעש ה' ואחר הרעש אש לא באש ה' ואחר האש קול דממה דקה כי אתא מלכא פתח רב ששת וקא מברך ליה אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי למאן דלא חזית ליה קא מברכת ומאי הוי עליה דההוא צדוקי איכא דאמרי חברוהי כחלינהו לעיניה ואיכא דאמרי רב ששת נתן עיניו בו ונעשה גל של עצמות 

UPDATE:
I mentioned this discussion to Rabbi Shlomo Tennenbaum, (a landmark on the spiritual terrain of psak and yiras shamayim here in Chicago,) and he told me that this question was once asked in a sefer called Divrei or Dvar Yehoshua, from a Rav Aharonson in Tel Aviv- he asked, how could the Arizal identify graves in the Galil, if this has halachic relevance, when there's a לא בשמים היא issue.  He answers that identifying the location of the grave of a tzadik can be done with our physical eyes, if only our eyes were not dimmed by the other things we see and the things we do.  It is not Ruach HaKodesh. It's preternatural, not supernatural.  (Parenthetically, I want to mention that there are other ways to answer the question about the Arizal- for example, the famous discussion as to whether לא בשמים היא applies to determinations of fact.  See Maharitz Chiyus in his תורת הנביאים where he says a navi can determines facts even when the facts affect halacha.  Reb Elchonon in Kovetz Shiurim and the Torah Temima also say this is true.  However, not all agree.  Lo zu mekomo.)



Reb Micha also pointed out that the Litvishe derech is not interested in metaphysical abilities; we are only concerned that we should grow in middos and Torah, and an interest in other things distracts from what is really important.  He's right.  (I remember how surprised I was to hear from my mother that her father, Harav Akiva Berlin HY"D, of the great talmidim of the Talmud Torah in Kelm, was considered to be a baal mofeis by Jews and Goyim alike.)  When I was growing up, I would often hear from my father some variation of "Who cares that ploni is a baal mofeis?  Ehr kehn gut lehrnen!"  So I agree with Reb Micha.  But Rav Kanievsky's response is good anyway.

Pinchas, Bamidbar 28:2. Anshei Ma'amad and Bris Milah

Synopsis: Anshei Maamad are those men who stood- ma'amad- in the Beis Hamikdash during the avodas hakorbanos.  Their primary function was to represent the Jewish People while communal korbanos were brought.  The idea of Anshei Ma'amad is mentioned in the Sifri in our parsha. We don't find the idea of Ma'amad by other mitzvos.  Tosfos Rid in Kiddushin says that an obligation to "see to it that a mitzva gets done" can be more stringent than an obligation to "do a mitzva."  The Ba'al Ha'Itur says that the father should stand near the mohel during the bris just as the Anshei Ma'amad stand in the Beis Hamikdash during the avoda. I am mechadesh that the din of Ma'amad derived in the Sifri from Tishmeru teaches that by avoda there is a din to "see to it that the korban is brought properly," and that requires constant personal vigilance; vigilance cannot be delegated.  This is consistent with the Tosfos Rid's chiddush in Milah.

The Mishna (Taanis 26a) bases the idea of Anshei Maamad on the passuk in our parsha in 28:2.

אלו הן מעמדות לפי שנאמר צו את בני ישראל . . את קרבני לחמי וכי היאך קרבנו של אדם קרב והוא אינו עומד על גביו התקינו נביאים הראשונים עשרים וארבעה משמרות

The Rambam uncharacteristically brings our Mishna unchanged, and says (6 KhM 1)

אי אפשר שיהי' קרבנו של אדם קרב והוא אינו עומד על גביו וקרבנות הציבור הן קרבן של כל ישראל ואי אפשר שיהיו ישראל כולן עומדין בעזרה בשעת קרבן לפיכך תקנו נביאים הראשונים שיבררו מישראל כשרים ויראי חטא ויהיו שלוחי כל ישראל לעמוד על הקרבנות והם הנקראים אנשי מעמד

But Rashi in our parsha brings from the Sifri a slightly different limud,

צו את בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם:  את קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח ניחחי תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו

Rashi-

תשמרו - שיהיו כהנים ולוים וישראלים עומדין על גביו מכאן למדו ותקנו מעמדות

The Sifri inside says

תשמרו   שיהו כהנים ולוים וישראלים עומדים עליהם

The drasha of the Sifri is also brought by Rashi in Megilla and Sotah.
Megila 3a

ד"ה וישראל במעמדן... עומדין על תמידי ציבור בשעת הקרבן כדתנן במסכת תענית תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו היאך שומר אם אינו עומד על גביו תיקנו נביאים הראשונים

Sotah 5a

ד"ה אקורבנייהו...ומצוה על האדם שיעמוד וישמור על קרבנו ונפקא לן בסיפרי מתשמרו להקריב לי במועדו '

The Rav in Mishnayos in Taanis adds an interesting thing, that the mitzva of Shmira is to watch the Kohanim doing the avoda.

תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו לישראל מצוה שיעמדו על הכהנים בשעת עבודה

So let us assume there is a fundamental distinction between the way the Rambam and Rashi learn the din of Maamad.  The Rambam says this din requires the presence of the baal hakorban; Rashi learns that the din requires that the baalim do "shemira" during the hakrava.

The Tur (YD 265) brings from the Baal HaItur that the father should stand near the Mohel during the Bris, because it wouldn't make any sense for one's korban to be brought without him there.  This is also brought in the Mechaber in 265:9.

מנהג שאבי הבן עומד על המוהל להודיע שהוא שלוחו כדאמרינן לגבי קרבן אפשר שיהא קרבנו של אדם קרב והוא אינו עומד על גביו
 שו"ע שם סע' ט'- אבי הבן עומד על המוהל להודיע שהוא שלוחו

The Sifri needs explanation.  Bishlema according to our Mishna and the Rambam who brings our Mishna verbatim, it applies specifically to korbanos.  וכי היאך קרבנו של אדם קרב והוא אינו עומד על גביו.  Bris Mila, as Zohar mentions and Rabbeinu Bachya ( בראשית י"ז, יג) elaborates upon, is like a korban, since blood is spilled in the process, and, neither may be done within eight days of birth.

 מצות מילה היא כענין קרבן וכשם שדם הקרבן לכפרה על המזבח כך דם המילה מכפר וע״כ מצותה ביום השמיני כי הקרבן לא יכשר עד יום ח

But according to the Sifri's drasha that there is a new din of Shemira, what is the idea of Shemira?  What is added to the kiyum hamitzva by doing Shemira?  If shlichus helps, then it helps.  Even assuming there's a concept of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו by mitzvos other than preparation for Shabbos and kiddushin, why isn't this applied to other mitzvos, like hafrashas teruma; and more fundamentally, would standing there mitigate that problem of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו?

(Harav Dovid Oppenheimer of Chicago proposes that in shlichus in general, there is a chkira among the achronim whether it is considered the act of the baalim or the act of the shliach; see section on Shelichus in Sefer HaZikaron for Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz.  If the baalim is standing there, he suggests, everyone would agree that it is considered the act of the baalim, just as the Gemara in Gittin has a hava amina that if chatzer is a yad, it needs to be next to the woman.  I'd like to offer a different pshat.)

Let us think for a moment about the Tosfos Rid in Kiddushin 29a.  The Gemara has a passuk to teach that the obligation to perform mila on one's child only applies to the father but not the mother.  All the rishonim ask, but it's a zman grama, so the passuk is not necessary.  Tosfos Rid answers that if the mitzva on the parent was simply to do an act of milah, since that act is time-related, it would be called Zeman Grama.  But the obligation on the parent is to see to it that the milah is done.  The obligation of "see to it that it gets done" is not time-related.  It begins when the child is born and goes on every moment of the day and night until it actually takes place.  This Tosfos Rid is remarkable for many reasons, among which is that this logic ought to apply to every single zman grama- although tefillin is only on a weekday, the obligation to see to it that I have and wear tefillin is constant, and the same for lulav and shofar.    Additionally, it is amazing that where the act of the mitzva milah is Zman Grama, and would exclude women, that the seemingly more vague and distant obligation to "see to it that it gets done" would be not zman grama and therefore not exclude women- that it would create a greater obligation.

In any case, you see that the Tosfos Rid learns that Milah is different in that it has a defining characteristic that it creates an obligation to see to it that it's done, not only an obligation to do it.  I believe that the Sifri is applying that logic to Korbanos.  The Torah does not merely obligate Klal Yisrael to bring korbanos via kohanim.  They are obligated in a din of תשמרו, and תשמרו creates a new obligation to see to it that it's done.  It's not enough to pay for it, it's not enough to book the best kohein.  תשמרו means that you yourself have to ensure that it's done and that it's done right.

This concept of תשמרו creating a higher level of obligation can be seen by Matza Shmura as well, to the extent that there used to be a minhag to moisten the grain- לתיתה- before milling so that the watchers would have a chance to be vigilant to ensure that no chimutz would result.  Pesachim 35a- אמר רבא מצוה ללתות, שנאמר  ושמרתם את המצות, אי לא דבעי לתיתה, שימור למאי.

For Milah and Matza Shemura and Avodas HaKorbanos, Due Diligence is not enough.  For these Mitzvos the Torah requires Due Vigilance.

I was zocheh to attend a bris mila this week.  My daughter and son in law named their new son Aharon Tzvi after my father zatzal.  One clear character trait of my father was ameilus, and this was known by every one of his chavrusos and business associates and lawyers and employees.  When he decided something needed to be done, he did it בלב ונפש.  He would follow it to the very end, and not rely on anybody.  He could have the best lawyer in Chicago draw a contract or a mortgage, but he would go through it line by line and would often point out important modifications that the lawyer immediately incorporated into his practice.  When he gave tzedaka, he would make sure that it got to the right person and that it was used in the right way.  It goes without saying that when he learned, he learned בלב ונפש.  My father learned with Reb Leizer Platzinsky for most of his thirteen years in Slabodka.  Reb Leizer's grandson bumped into my son in Yerushalayim, and told him that his grandfather told him that at one point, he and my father shared a room.  Reb Leizer was the Alter's grandson, and he was a yachson in the yeshiva, so he had a comfortable bed.  But my father davka slept on the floor, because he decided that if he slept in a bed and was comfortable, it would be harder to get up early to learn.  That is a level of dedication and Ameilus BaTorah that inheres to the concept of תשמרו.  May Hashem give us siyata dishmaya to see Aharon Tzvi and all his siblings and cousins do their avodas Hashem with that level of Ameilus.

Here is big brother Akiva holding Aharon Tzvi  שיחיו עד ביאת משיח צדקנו

Aharon Tzvi wore a cotton kimono at his bris.  Lo these many years ago my mother made it for me and I wore it at my bris, and my kids wore it at their brisos, and theirs wore it at theirs.  It's not the Aderes Eliahu, but it's a nice family tradition.

Be'haaloscha, Bamidbar 19:35. Bris Milah and Learning Torah

Bris Milah is an essential prerequisite for proper understanding of Torah.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reb Akiva Eiger, in his Tshuvos (42) discusses the right of a grandfather to make the Bracha over a bris when the father is not there.  He says the following:

1. The Bracha of "Le'hachniso" is not only on the Mitzva of Milah itself, but an expression of gratitude for the other mitzvos that follow the Bris, such as...to teach him Torah and to find him a spouse, and the grandfather also has the mitzva to see to it that these things are done.
2. The Gemara in Nedarim says that the words "אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי", if not for my Bris, I would not have emplaced the laws of Heaven and Earth, seem to refer equally to Torah and to Bris Milah. 
3.  We find in the עוללות אפרים (written by the author of the Kli Yakar, but not very popular because it's not written with the clarity he developed for the Kli Yakar) that the external Milah is the cause for the spiritual Milah of the heart, which opens the heart and enables it to absorb and understand the wisdom of the Torah.  (and again, since the grandfather has a personal obligation to see to it that the child learn torah, this means that he has a personal obligation to ensure that he gets a bris milah, so he has the right to the bracha.)

הלבוש (סימן רס"ה)כתב דיש מתמיהים למה יברך האב להכניסו, הא המוהל הוא שלוחו, ושלוחו של אדם כמותו, וכיון שהמוהל מברך על המילה מה צורך לאב לברך להכניסו, הרי המילה היא בריתו של אברהם אבינו, ויש מפרשים דברכת להכניסו אינה על המילה רק האב משבח ומברך לד' שמיום ההוא והלאה מוטל עליו עוד מצות אחרות הנגררות אחר המילה,  והם שמצוה לפדותו אם הוא בכור וללמדו תורה ולהשיאו אשה, עין שם... מצינו במתניתין סוף פרק ג' דנדרים גדולה מילה שאלמלא היא לא ברא הקב"ה עולמו, שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי. ואמרינן שם (דף ל"ב) גדולה תורה שאלמלא תורה לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר אם לא בריתי, משמע דאם לא בריתי קאי אתרוויהו על מילה ועל התורה... ויותר נראה דבאמת מילה ותורה שייכים להדדי, וכמ"ש בעוללות אפרים (מאמר שצ"ב) שמילה חיצונית היא סיבה למילה פנימית מערלת לב, כשימול ערלת לבבו אז יהיו חדרי לבו פתוחים להבין ולהשכיל 

So I always wondered, are there any other proofs of the association of Bris Milah and Limud Hatorah?  Of course, there's Birkas Hamazon, where it says "על בריתך שחתמת בבשרנו ועל תורתך שלמדתנו", but that does not prove any causal relationship. But I do have several good, strong ra'ayos, as follows.

(Before the rayos, I want to point out that the Gemara Reb Akiva Eiger brings from Nedarim 32 that says that the world stands on Bris and Torah is mentioned in the Baal HaTurim in the the first word in the Torah, Bereishis.  He says that the outer letters are Bris, and the inner letters are Eish, and Eish is Torah.  So in that structure, the Bris is meigin on the Torah.  But this is not a proof of any kind, just a nice tzushtell.)

 1.  The Tanchuma in Mishpatim (5), which goes like this. 

ואלה המשפטים. זה שאמר הכתוב, מגיד דבריו ליעקב וגו', לא עשה כן וגו'. אונקלוס) הגר בן אחותו של אדריאנוס, היה מבקש להתגייר והיה מתירא מן אדריאנוס דודו. אמר לו, אני מבקש לעשות סחורה. אמר לו, שמא אתה חסר כסף וזהב, הרי אוצרותי לפניך. אמר לו, אני מבקש לעשות סחורה לצאת לחוץ לידע דעת הבריות, ואני מבקש לימלך בך היאך לעשות. אמר לו, כל פרקמטיא שאתה רואה שפלה ונתונה בארץ, לך עסוק בה, שסופה להתעלות ואת משתכר. בא לו לארץ ישראל ולמד תורה. לאחר זמן מצאוהו רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע, ראוהו פניו משתנות. אמרו זה לזה, עקילס לומד תורה. כיון שבא אצלם, התחיל לשאול להם שאלות הרבה, והן משיבין אותו. עלה אצל אדריאנוס דודו. אמר לו, ולמה פניך משתנות. סבור אני שהפסידה פרקמטיא שלך או שמא הצר לך אדם. אמר לו, לאו. אמר לו, אתה קרוב לי ואדם מצר לי. אמר לו, ולמה פניך משתנות. אמר לו, שלמדתי תורה, ולא עוד אלא שמלתי את עצמי. אמר לו, ומי אמר לך כך. אמר לו, בך נמלכתי. אמר לו, אימתי. אמר לו, בשעה שאמרתי לך מבקש אני לעשות סחורה, ואמרת לי, כל פרקמטיא שאתה רואה שפלה ונתונה בארץ, לך ועסוק בה, שסופה להתעלות. חזרתי על כל האומות ולא ראיתי אומה שפלה נתונה בארץ כישראל, וסופה להתעלות. שכן אמר ישעיה, כה אמר ה' גואל ישראל קדושו, לבזה נפש למתעב גוי לעבד מושלים מלכים יראו וקמו שרים וישתחוו למען ה' אשר נאמן קדוש ישראל ויבחרך. אמר ליה סקנדרוס שלו, עתידין אלו שאמרת, שיהו מלכים עומדים מפניהם, שנאמר, מלכים יראו וקמו. הכהו אנדריאנוס על לחיו, אמר ליה, יש נותנין רטיה אלא על גב המכה. עכשיו אם רואין גילורר אחד אין עומדין מלפניו, שהיית אומר שהמלכים רואין אותם ועומדין בפניהם. אמר ליה סקנדרוס, אם כן מה תעשה, טמנהו, הואיל ונתגייר הרגהו. אמר ליה, עקילס בן אחותי עד שהוא במעי אמו היה ראוי להתגייר. מה עשה סקנדרוס שלו. עלה לגג ונפל ומת, ורוח הקודש צווחת, כן יאבדו כל אויביך ה'. אמר ליה אנדריאנוס, הרי מת סקנדרוס, אין אתה אומר לי על מה עשית הדבר הזה. אמר ליה, שבקשתי ללמוד תורה. אמר לו, היה לך ללמוד תורה ולא לימול. אמר לו עקילס, נתת לאסטרטלירוס אנונה אלא אם כן נטל זינו שלו. כך, לעולם אם אין אדם נימול, אינו יכול ללמוד תורה, שנאמר, מגיד דבריו ליעקב (תהל' קמז יט), למי שהוא מל כיעקב. לא עשה כן לכל גוי, משום שהם ערלים. חקיו, זו תורה. 

Akilas' uncle, Hadrian, was shocked that he had been circumcised.  Akilas told him that he did so because he wanted to learn Torah.  His uncle said, you could have learned without making a bris. Akilas answered that it is impossible to learn Torah without having a Bris Milah.  (I believe the Gaon says that Akilas=Onkelos.)

2.  The connection to this week's parsha is that our parsha contains וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן .  The Gemara in Shabbos 116 says that this little piece, separated as it is with the two upside-down nunns, is viewed as a separate book of the Torah.  We derive from this (OC 334:12 and Mishna Berura SK 36) that in certain cases of fire on Shabbos, one may save a sefer Torah if it has 85 letters that are intact, even if they are scattered in many words.  The source for the number 85 is that the smallest "book" of Torah, Vayhi Binso'ah, is 85 letters.  The gematria of the word Milah is, of course, 85.  This is another excellent flag that highlights the association of Bris Milah and Limud Hatorah.  The kedusha of Bris Milah is a Machshir that enables a child to become a Sefer Torah.   I'm sure I am not the first to note this association, but I am not aware of who else has said this, because I'm not a gematria man.  Minor point:  if you are a gematria person, then you can be associated with the idea of Metzitza b'peh.  Peh, פה, the locus of limud hatorah, connected with the bris milah.  Not my department, and as far as I'm concerned we can do away with Metzitza b'peh, but for those of you that like this sort of thing, there it is.  

3.  The Yerushalmi in Sotah about Elisha ben Avuya.  The Yerushalmi says that the great Talmidei Chachamim of Yerushalayim had gathered for Avuya's son's bris, and as they talked in learning, it appeared that a great fire burned around them.  Avuya was frightened and asked, have you come to burn down my house? They answered no, we were just talking Divrei Torah, and the words were happy as at the time they were given at Har Sinai, and so the fire of Mattan Torah appeared.  Nothing to be afraid of, it's just limud hatorah the way it should be.  Avuya was so amazed that he determined to dedicate his son to Torah scholarship.  This was, apparently, an inappropriate reason to learn Torah, and  this self interest expressed itself as a flaw in the child's learning, and since he was such a great and powerful intellect, what might otherwise have been a minor blemish became monstrous and resulted in Elisha ben Avuya becoming an Apikorus.  

The point of the Yerushalmi is that the time of the Bris Milah is the moment that the parameters of the child's potential growth in Torah, the potential of his trajectory, are set.  In the case of Acheir's great potential, this self-interest at the so very important moment of the Bris Milah הבאיש הביע את שמן הרוקח, and he became an apikorus. 

4.  The Targum Yonasan, as explained by Rav Schwab in his Sefer on Chumash.  The Targum Yonasan says that they used to say ישימך אלוקים כאפרים וכמנשה, Yesimcha, at a bris.  Rav Schwab explained that the word Milah is related to mahul, blended.  Bris Milah alludes to the idea that Ruchnius and Gashmiyus are not inherently and utterly incompatible. On the contrary, kedusha and chulin can work together in a synergistic, mutually beneficial relationship.  

The connection to Efraim and Menashe is that Efraim was able become a gadol batorah because he received monetary support from Menashe; the work that Menashe did with the kavana of supporting Efraim was as spiritual as Efraim's Torah.  One might associate this idea with something the Lubavitcher Rebbe constantly says from the Baal Hatnya: that the great chiddush of Mattan Torah was that previously, kedusha and gashsmiyus were incompatible and antagonistic.  With Mattan Torah, gashmiyus itself could become infused with kedusha through limud hatorah and kiyum mitzvos.  If so, we might say that the Bris Milah, the Bris that allows Mehila/mixing, is what enables our limud hatorah to affect our physical being.  To be a true talmid chacham, you have to be mahul- a man that combines the spiritual and the secular, you serve the Ribono shel Olam with the yetzer hatov and with what we call the yetzer hara.

Note, too, the Gemara (Psachim 68b) that 

א"ר אלעזר הכל מודים בעצרת דבעינן נמי לכם מ"ט יום שניתנה בו תורה הוא

and all the achronim ask, if for commemorations of gashmiusdikeh things like sukkos and mitzrayim Reb Eliezer holds you can do kulo lashem, kal vachomer the commemoration of mattan torah!  They answer that the Torah was given to mankind davka because we have the yetzer hara, because we're not malachim, and we can be mekadeish gashmiyus.  If so, the idea of Milah/mahul repeats the idea of Mattan Torah requiring davka that we not entirely divorce ourselves from gashmiyus, but that we find a way to make gashmiyus holy.

If you think about it for half a second, you'll realize that this "allusion" only might seem novel because it's so obvious that we don't even notice it any more.  It is the most obvious symbolism of the Bris Millah.  The location of the bris teaches precisely this idea, that what seems to be tumah and arayos can become kedusha and tahara.  

And of course, this is directly related to the excellent vort we said in the Chasam Sofer about the child needing to experience both Kiddush and Havdala before his bris.

Tazria. Bris Mila on the Eighth Day. An Excellent Collaboration and דבר תורה לברית מילה

THIS WAS UPDATED ON JULY 25 2021

AFTER A RECAP OF HOW THIS IDEA DEVELOPED AMONG SEVERAL CONTRIBUTORS, YOU WILL FIND A CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD DESCRIPTION OF THIS DVAR TORAH AS IT SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO AN AUDIENCE. IT IS VERY, VERY, VERY, GOOD.

In last year's post on this parsha, I brought a Medrash (cited by the Taz) that says that the reason Mila is on the eighth day, and the reason an animal cannot be brought as a korban till the eighth day after its birth, is that they must experience the passage of Shabbos.  Only then, only having been elevated by the Kedusha of Shabbos, can they be used in the service of the Ribono shel Olam.

In as perfect an example of stimulating collaboration as one could hope for, the comments that came in developed an outstanding vort.  I had a Medrash, Eli brought up a question on the Medrash, I brought a Chasam Sofer that answers the question but I didn't understand the svara of the Chasam Sofer, then I suggested a possible approach, and great unknown provided a conceptual framework that sheds light upon the entire discussion.  This is how it unfolded, followed by a recap.

Eli wrote...A bit off topic, but this Medrash had me long wondering - why the 8th day. Had Bris been the 7th day, Shabbos would also be always included. If you think that the answer is we need a full 24h Shabbos, think again. What if a baby is born Shabbos afternoon and the Bris is in the morning?
March 31, 2011 11:18 AM

I responded...(.....)The Chasam Sofer in his Teshuvos OC 102, dealing with the opinion (of the Italian Mekubalim) that kiddush levana should be at least seven days after the molad, brings in our Medrash. He addresses your point, and says that evidently, the bris, or the idea of Pnei Matronisa, requires two things: Experiencing the beginning of a Shabbos, and experiencing the end of a Shabbos: כניסת מטרוניתא ויציאת מטרוניתא.
From the formal logic perspective, his answer is fine. From the "why on earth would that make sense" perspective, nu nu.
March 31, 2011 11:52 AM

I added...I was thinking about what I said, that it's hard to see a svara in what the Chasam Sofer said, and here's what occurred to me.
The din of זכרהו בכניסתו וביציאתו, to make some sort of kiddush when Shabbos begins and when it ends, pashtus, is a simple din of kavod- like saluting an honored guest when he arrives and when he leaves. But it is possible that there is one particular kedusha that happens at the onset and another at the conclusion of Shabbos. It's not just Hello and Goodbye.
Even the shittos that hold not like the Rambam, who hold that havdala is entirely miderabanan, don't necessarily disagree with the concept, they just hold that there's no din kiddush on yetzias Shabbos.
March 31, 2011 12:48 PM

 great unknown said...Kenisas HaShabbos signals the categorical distinction of the Jew from the mundane non-Jewish residents of creation. Yetzias HaShabbos signals a lower level of kedusha which involves Jews being involved in the everyday "la'sheves" of the world - while nevertheless being quantitatively superior to the non-Jew in kedusha - ner la'amim if you will.

Both are necessary elements of the Jewish interaction with and purpose in creation.
I am basing this on a brilliant drosho I heard last Succos in KJBS/Chicago, which covered many more details of this dual havdalah.
March 31, 2011 5:36 PM

 Eli said...In the Shalom Zachar of my second, I (unaware of the Chasam Sofer) suggested that the requirement is to experience Shabbos-night davka. This fits nicely with the fact we observe Shalom Zachar Friday night, a time when people are usually not going out (and that specific night was bitterly cold, btw).
I'm sure gu can explain much better than myself why the מטרוניתא aspect of Shabbos is related to the night part and not the day. One pointer is Ramban Shmos 20:7 which I quote verbatim for lack of unerstanding: "ובמדרשו של רבי נחוניא בן הקנה (ספר הבהיר אות קפב): הזכירו עוד סוד גדול בזכור ושמור, ועל הכלל תהיה הזכירה ביום והשמירה בלילה, וזהו מאמר החכמים (ב"ק לב ב): שאומרים בערב שבת באי כלה באי כלה, באו ונצא לקראת שבת מלכה כלה, ויקראו לברכת היום קדושא רבא (פסחים קו א): שהוא הקדוש הגדול, ותבין זה. "
So whatever that means, the feminine aspect of שבת which is called מלכה, i.e. מטרוניתא, relates to the night, not the day.

To complete the Drush I said that we see the feminine aspect of שבת  is related to שמור  and not זכור, i.e. the passive acceptance of Kedusha, as opposed to our active efforts represented by the Zachor part. As we prepare for giving our newborn the message of R. Akiva (Tanchuma Tazria), that his deeds could achieve greater results than those of Hashem, so to speak, we first need to go through the Shamor part, to recall it's all based on the Kedusha we get from above, passively.

April 01, 2011 3:18 AM

UPDATE MAY 5, 2014:
I got an email today from Lakewood Guy, who just made a bris, and he used this Chasam Sofer and added two excellent things:

The meforshim ask why the mitzvah of shmittah is prefaced by shesh shanim tizra...
It is relatively easy to have an awareness of being involved in avodas Hashem during the shana hasheviis. The trick is, maintaining that awareness during the shesh shanim of zeriia.
Here I used your pshat in the medrash/ chasam sofer - the child must experience a motzai shabbos to realize that avodas Hashem is not limited to shabbos but must permeate the sheshes yimai hama'aseh as well.
Bach in hilchos teffilah (O"C 133) Aleinu is said after teffilah to prepare ourselves for dealing with the outside world. Minhag is to say Aleinu after a bris (seemingly even when the bris is not at the end of a teffilah). Same idea, preparing the child for life outside, with an awareness that even the mundane aspects of life need to be a part of ones avodas Hashem.

Organized into one coherent piece:

The Medrash says that a child has to undergo a Shabbos before his bris.  (This is common to many applications in Kodashim: All the original kohanim before their investiture; the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur; the kohen that does the Parah Adumah; and, of course, every animal korban.  The Abudraham says that the Bris Milah is really a form of hakravas Korban, so it is just another application of this rule of Kodashim.) 

The Chasam Sofer (Tshuvos OC 102) asks, why do you need to wait for the eighth day?  Even waiting for the seventh day will mean that he saw a Shabbos!  So he explains as follows, modified by me for purposes of speaking to a rabbim: 

 If the purpose of the eight days is to ensure that the baby experience Shabbos, seven days should be good enough. 

·        If  he was born on Shabbos, and the bris is on Friday, he saw Shabbos - he saw the second half, the end, of Shabbos.  

·        If he was born Sunday, and you make the bris on Shabbos morning, he saw Shabbos - he saw the whole beginning of Shabbos, Friday night and the morning before the bris.

·        Do not say that the requirement to wait for the eighth day is because he has to have 24 hours of Shabbos, because if he's born Shabbos afternoon, and the bris is Shabbos morning, he only will have had fourteen hours out of twenty four of Shabbos!  

·        So the Chasam Sofer answers that what the child needs is not 24 hours of Shabbos.  What he needs is to experience the beginning of a Shabbos and the departure of a Shabbos.

 

This answer is difficult to understand.  It answers the question perfectly, but it leaves us with more questions that we began with - explaining something perplexing with an answer that is more perplexing. Why would it matter if the child experiences both the beginning and the end of a Shabbos?  Is there something special about the end of Shabbos? Isn't the beginning enough?

Another question:

Many people say that Tuma comes when Kedusha leaves.  The Shem Mishmuel asks, if so, why is there no tuma when Shabbos ends? 

 

Perhaps the idea of the departure of Shabbos is reflected in the halacha of Havdala.  We are not merely saying goodbye to Shabbos, but instead we are being mekadeish a different type of kedusha, the kedusha of after-Shabbos.  great unknown polished this by saying that the kedusha of Shabbos, which we celebrate in Friday night kiddush, is the kedusha of olam haba, of being above Teva.  The kedusha of Saturday night, the kedusha of Havdala, is the kedusha of living in a world of teva, of working, of interacting with the gentile world, and all through it making the world a holier place.

 

This is why the departure of Shabbos does not result in an influx of Tumah.  Tumah only follows the departure of kedusha when nothing is left behind.  The point of Havdala is that when Shabbos ends, and the kedusha leaves, it leaves some of itself behind to be mekadesh the forthcoming week.  Havdala is a type of kiddush.  

 

 It is those two kedushos that are implicit in the Medrash that are essential to being a Jew.  (See Ksav Sofer at end.)  

 

Perhaps you could say that the beginning of Shabbos is the gift of kedusha, the feminine aspect of Klal Yisrael vis a vis Shabbos, when we receive the gift of Kedusha. On Friday night, we receive kedusha, a kedusha that is the source of all kedusha in this gashmiyuskikkeh world. When Shabbos ends, we experience Shabbos in the masculine aspect; we are told to take what we experienced and apply it in the world of Gashmiyus, we are told to disseminate kedusha.

This reminded me of something that happened in my own extended family.  X was going through a very challenging teen age period, and Y was considering hanging out with him motzei Shabbos, not for kiruv, just to chill out.  One of my sons told Y "The same way you wouldn't be mechallel Shabbos, make sure that you're not mechallel motzei Shabbos."

This idea is perfectly suited for presenting at the Seuda of a Bris.  Targum Yonasan by "Be'cha yevareich Yisrael" says that specifically at the Seudas HaBris Klal Yisrael will bentch their children by saying ישימך אלוקים כאפרים וכמנשה.  It powerfully expresses the two important aspects of what the Bris Millah is supposed to symbolize and to strengthen, of what it means to be an eved Hashem: the kedusha of l'maalah min hateva, and the kedusha of teva.    The Jew of Sheishes yamim ta'aseh me'lachtecha, and the Jew of Shabbos la'Shem Elokecha.   Be a Malach; and Be a Mentsch.

A great talmid chacham to whom I told this said it over in his yeshiva, but he said a different pshat in the Chasam Sofer/Medrash.  He said that the lesson of יציאת מטרוניתא is that a Jew has to be ready for change.  It's relatively easy to maintain a high madreiga during the zman, no matter how long the zman is.  But when Bein Hazmanim comes, not everyone can deal with the change.   A child has to learn that a Jew has to be able to tolerate change, to adjust to what is dealt to him.

 

  The Ksav Sofer in Teshuvos OC 45, here, beginning at the end of the fifteenth line, in his explanation of the Gemara in Pesachim 113a המבדיל על היין במוצ״ש מאי היא דמשייר מקידושא לאבדלתא, says something very similar to our pshat in Havdala, which works so well to explain his father's mehalach.  

 

As far as משייר מקידושא לאבדלתא, the Tur (OC 296) brings this Gemara too. that a person should leave wine over from kiddush and use it for Havdala.  We don't have this minhag, because Tosfos learns the Gemara differently, but the Shulchan Aruch Harav brings it down in OC 271:22.)  In any case, the Tur there is very emphatic about the importance of Havdala and brings strong words to that effect from Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer.  

 

AND ADDING LAKEWOOD GUY'S IDEA- 

In parshas Behar, the meforshim ask why the mitzvah of shmittah is prefaced by shesh shanim tizra.

It is relatively easy to have an awareness of being involved in avodas Hashem during the shana hasheviis. The trick is, maintaining that awareness during the shesh shanim of zeriia.

The answer is that we learn from our Chasam Sofer that the lesson of waiting eight days before a Bris Millah is that the child must experience a Motzai Shabbos to realize that avodas Hashem is not limited to Shabbos but must permeate the sheshes yimai hama'aseh as well.

The Bach in hilchos teffilah (O"C 133) says that we say Aleinu after teffilah to prepare ourselves for dealing with the outside world. We also have a minhag to say Aleinu after a bris (seemingly even when the bris is not at the end of a tefilah, and even though we just said Aleinu five minutes ago!). This is the same idea; we are preparing the child to receive kedusha, and we are preparing the child to disseminate the kedusha he received.  We give him a physical mark that imparts the awareness that even the mundane aspects of life need to be a part of ones avodas Hashem.