The Torah introduces the Misva of Berit Mila in two contexts. First, in the Book of Bereshit (17:10), G-d commands Abraham Abinu and his descendants, “Himol Lachem Kol Zachar” – that every male must undergo circumcision. Secondly, the Torah instructs in the Book of Vayikra (12:3), “U’ba’yom Ha’shemini Yimol Besar Orlato” – “And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”
The Sefer Ha’hinuch explains that this Misva consists of two components – the removal of the actual foreskin, and “Peri’a” – the removal of the thin membrane underneath the foreskin, to expose the flesh.
Explaining the reason behind this Misva, the Sefer Ha’hinuch offers two approaches. First, he writes, the Berit Mila serves as a physical symbol on the Jew’s body, a distinguishing feature which sets us apart from other peoples. Secondly, the Misva of Berit Mila shows that we were not born perfect, that we need to work to elevate ourselves. The act of circumcision needed to “perfect” the body represents the need to work towards “perfecting” our souls through the performance of Misvot. Just as our bodies are naturally defective, our inner beings, too, are naturally defective and we must constantly strive to improve and elevate ourselves.
The Misva of Berit Mila applies at all times, and in all locations. It is binding only upon men; a mother is not obligated to circumcise her son or see to it that he is circumcised, as this obligation falls solely upon the father.
This Misva is one of only two affirmative commands which carry a punishment of “Karet” (eternal excision from the Jewish Nation) for those who neglect them (the other being the Pesach sacrifice). If one purposefully refused to undergo circumcision, and died without having a Berit Mila, then he is punished with Karet. This refers only to a person whose father did not circumcise him or have him circumcised, and then he grew up and refused to undergo the procedure. A father is not liable to Karet for failing to have his son circumcised.
The Minhat Hinuch poses a fundamental question regarding the nature of an adult’s obligation to undergo Berit Mila. If, for whatever reason, a boy was not circumcised before he reached the age of Halachic adulthood – thirteen – then does the obligation of Berit Mila now transfer from his father to him, or does it remain upon the father? Do we view the child as personally responsible for his Berit Mila, or does the father continue to bear this obligation even after the son turns thirteen and is considered a Halachic adult?
This question, as the Minhat Hinuch discusses, will yield several practical ramifications. First, if somebody “steals” another person’s Misva, by stepping in to perform a Misva which his fellow was to have performed, then he must compensate his fellow ten Zehubim (gold coins) for the lost Misva opportunity. Therefore, we need to establish whether an adult’s obligation to be circumcised is his obligation or the father’s, in order to determine which of them would be considered “stealing” the Misva by performing it instead of the one on whom the obligation rests. Secondly, this question will affect the recitation of the Beracha of “Le’hachniso Bi’brito Shel Abraham Abinu,” which a father normally recites at his son’s Berit Mila. If the father retains his obligation even after the son becomes a Bar-Misva, then the father recites this Beracha even if the Berit is performed after that point. If, however, the obligation is transferred to the son once he reaches the age of thirteen, then the father does not recite the Beracha if the Berit is performed after the child reaches this age.
Finally, this question will determine who must incur the expense of the Berit Mila. If a Mohel must be paid to circumcise the son, then if the father continues to bear the obligation even after the child’s Bar Misva, then he must pay for the Berit, whereas if it becomes the child’s obligation, then the father bears no more responsibility than any other Jew to ensure that the child receives a Berit.
The Minhat Hinuch suggests proving that the Misva remains the father’s obligation, from the discussion of Tosafot in Masechet Kiddushin. The Gemara infers from a verse that women are not obligated to circumcise their sons, and Tosafot raise the question of why a textual inference is necessary. After all, the Misva of Berit Mila takes effect only once the child becomes eight days old, and so this Misva falls under the category of “Misvot Aseh She’ha’zman Gerama” – affirmative commands that apply only at specific times. As a general rule, women are exempt from such Misvot, and it thus seems unnecessary for the Gemara to cite a Biblical source for women’s exemption from this Misva. Tosafot answer that once the eighth day arrives, the Misva of Berit Mila applies at all times, and therefore, it does not fall under the category of “Misvot Aseh She’ha’zman Gerama.” The Minhat Hinuch notes that Tosafot’s answer appears to work on the assumption that the father’s obligation applies forever, and does not end when the child reaches the age of thirteen. After all, if the father’s obligation does end when the child becomes a Bar Misva, then Berit Mila would be considered a “time-bound” obligation, as it applies only for thirteen years. Apparently, the obligation of Berit Mila remains incumbent upon the father as long as he and his son are alive, and it does not transfer to the son when the son reaches the age of thirteen.