We previously discussed that the mohel – or any shaliach – can recite the brachah when performing the milah, as we see in regard to bedikas chometz and trumos and maasros. We mentioned the opinion of the Yad Ephraim, who establishes that using an emissary is dependent on whether the mitzvah is a requirement on the person (on the gavra), which is regardless of circumstances, or if it is on the object (on the cheftza) and is contingent on a given situation. If it is a mitzvah incumbent on the person, an emissary cannot be used; if it is a mitzvah to be done on a certain object, an emissary can be used, and the emissary can recite the brachah.
EXPLANATION OF RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN
Rav Shlomo Zalman, in his sefer Minchas Shlomo, has another take on this question. He quotes another source in the Magen Avraham that sheds light on this point. The Magen Avraham (167:40) explains that the reason an emissary can recite a brachah on the person’s behalf is based on the concept of arvus – the responsibility every Jew has to ensure that all of his fellow Jews are fulfilling the mitzvos. The Rishonim expound on this concept and explain that one’s responsibility to others goes so far as to say that if one’s fellow Jew has not yet fulfilled the mitzvah, it is as if he himself has not yet fulfilled his mitzvah in its entirety. It is therefore considered as if the person himself was commanded to perform the mitzvah.
THE FATHER STANDING NEXT TO THE MOHEL
Based on the aforementioned explanation of the Acharonim, the brachah is recited by the mohel only because he is a shaliach of the father. We can now gain a deeper understanding in the common practice that the father stands next to the mohel and, in some places, hands the knife to the mohel to make him a shaliach.
The simple reason for this practice is found in the Tur, who compares the bris to a korban, where the owner of the korban was expected to be there. However, based on the above, it is also necessary in order for the mohel to be allowed to recite the brachah, which is only possible if he is a shaliach.
THE OPINION OF THE IGROS MOSHE
Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, in Igros Moshe, seems to have a different viewpoint. He sanctions the mohel’s recital of the brachah even without being an emissary of the father. Rav Moshe discusses an unfortunate scenario of a father who, due to technical reasons, was unaware of the birth of his son and not told about the bris. He discusses a number of questions, including if the bris done without the father is valid and if the name given by the mother is considered permanent.
He then addresses the question of the validity of the brachah recited by the mohel. He asserts that the brachah recited is, indeed, valid, although he may have to pay for stealing the mitzvah and its brachah. Rav Moshe proves this from the Rosh, who compares bris milah to kisui hadam, where the brachah is valid when someone else steals the mitzvah and recites the brachah. We see from here that both kisui hadam and milah are mitzvos that are incumbent on everyone, and, consequently, anyone who is performing the mitzvah can recite the brachah.
However, this seems to be in conflict with the aforementioned opinion of the Yad Ephraim and the Minchas Shlomo, who maintain that the power to recite the brachah is only based on being a shaliach. According to them, if the mohel was not a shaliach, his brachah should be rendered a brachah l’vatalah, an invalid brachah.
IN CONCLUSION
There are a number of ways to understand the reason for the mohel’s recital of the brachah. According to some, it is only because he was appointed as a shaliach. Others disagree. A practical halachic difference between these opinions is if a mohel performing the bris without the father’s appointment can recite the brachah.
RABBI NACHUM SCHEINER
