(For the riddles, please see back page)
- According to Chizkuni, because Lot’s father, Haran, died in Uhr Kasdim in the furnace meant for Avraham, Avraham felt responsible for taking care of Lot. Alternatively, the Zohar (12:5) says that Avraham saw through Ruach HaKodesh [divine spirit] that King David would ultimately descend from Lot, so he wanted to take care of him.
- The Chida (Midbar Kadmois, Ma’areches 1, ois 48) quotes a Medrash which says that Avraham Avinu was scared to perform a bris on himself and: בא עקרב ועקצו וחתך ערלתו – “A scorpion came and bit him and removed the orlah”. The Chida writes, that this is hinted at in the pasuk: וימל את בשר ערלתם בעצם היום הזה, the word בעצם is roshei teives ב עקיצת ע קרב צדיק מל – “With the bite of a scorpion a Tzadik is circumcised.”
However, the Yalkut Shimoni (Nechemia, remez 1071) writes: Avraham was too scared to cut himself. Hashem then took His hand and held Avraham’s hand and cut the orlah together with Avraham, like it says: וכרת עמו הברית – “he cut with him the bris”, i.e. Hashem took Avraham’s hand, and they did it together.
There is a third opinion in the Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer (Perek 29) which says: Shem the son of Noach performed the bris of Avraham Avinu and his son Yishmoel.
Is there any way to reconcile these seemingly contradictory opinions?
The Gemara in Yevamos (71b) teaches, that the mitzvah of priah [peeling off the epithelium and uncovering the atara] wasn’t given to Avraham Avinu. Tosfos points out however, that although he wasn’t commanded, he certainly did it, as he kept the entire Torah even the mitzvah of eruv tavshilin.
Based on the above, the Otzar Pelois HaTorah suggests that Avraham Avinu’s bris took place as follows: First Hashem took Avraham’s hand and cut together with him the skin that needs to be cut; then a scorpion came and was porah, peeled the skin that needs to be peeled; then Shem the son of Noach did metzizah [sucked the incision site to ensure a new blood flow to the area]. Based on the above, it comes out that all three peshotim are true.
- i) The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. 3, Perek 49) and Rabbeinu Bechayah answer, that if we wait until the child gets older, the mitzvah may not get done. (A good to tip for life)
- ii) The Rambam offers a second answer, that the pain of a bris is much less on a young child whose skin is very soft and whose body is not yet properly developed. (See Rambam inside for a third answer)
- iii) The Shenos Chaim (Parshas Tazria) answers: We are not 100% certain that the child will become a gadol [grown up] and he may die beforehand. If we don’t perform a bris milah when he is young, he may lose out on the mitzvah altogether, which would be tragic.
- iv) R’ Shlomah Kluger (Chochmas HaTorah, Tazria 67) writes: The mitzvah of milah is like the mitzvah of bikkurim, and as soon as the child is born we give away a portion to the Ribbono Shel Olam to show that we understand that a new child is nothing to do with us, and is a complete chesed from Hashem. (The difficulty with this approach is, why by girls we don’t an equivalent).
- v) The Divrei Yatziv writes: The Torah knows the way people work and knows that if one doesn’t perform a bris when the child is young, the child won’t be able to keep Torah and mitzvos, and he will act like a non-Jew. Bris milah is the foundation of Yiddishkeit, like people say, when we do a bris “migeit um yiddishein”, we are making him Jewish. Since the only way to become Jewish is with a bris, we don’t wait.
- From the fact that Hashem commanded Avraham (Bereishis 17:15), “As for Sarai your wife, do not call her name Sarai, for Sorah is her name,” the Radak derives that a husband is permitted to call his wife by her first name. On the other hand, when Sorah referred to Avraham, she said (18:12): אד ני זקן – and my master is old – instead of אבר הם זקן– and Avraham is old, which indicates that a woman may not call her husband by his first name, as the Torah says (3:16) that a man rules over his wife and is considered her master. However, Rav Betzalel Stern (Shu"t B'tzeil Hachochmah 1:70) notes that he did not find this novel opinion and practice mentioned in any legal sources.
