Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In Chapter 1, Halachah 5, the Rambam attributed the composition of the text of all the blessings to Ezra and his court, the Anshei K’nesset Hagedolah.

The previous chapters described the birkat hanehenin, the blessings recited in acknowledgement of the benefit received from food or fragrance, based on the principle, “it is forbidden to receive benefit from this world without a blessing.” In this chapter, the Rambam mentions other blessings that are recited in connection with events, sights, or news that are out of the ordinary. By reciting a blessing over these occurrences, we focus our awareness on the Divine origin of everything that occurs in this world.

See Halachot 19-25.

The words, “Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the World,” which are used to begin blessings.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 4, which states that these blessings were instituted “to remember the Creator at all times and to fear Him.”

Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Piskei Siddur 12:2) also mentions purchasing a new house.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 223:4) states that the blessing should be recited when the article is purchased and not when it is first used. One feels greater satisfaction when purchasing the article than when using it.

This also refers to articles that are new for the purchaser (e.g., a used car). The world “new” is intended to exclude articles that were sold and repurchased (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.:3).

As mentioned in Halachah 7, this blessing is associated with “all benefits that a person appreciates alone.” Similarly, it is recited in praise of God for allowing us to fulfill certain mitzvot.

According to the Rambam, this refers to articles acquired through inheritance. If one has already purchased such an article, one should not recite a blessing. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:3, based on the decisions of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher), however, states that the blessing should be recited even when one had purchased such articles before.

This decision is based on the Rambam’s analysis of Berachot 59b-60a.

Tosafot, Berachot 58b, states that this refers to a friend who is dear and whose sight brings one satisfaction.

The Mishnah Berurah 225:2 mentions opinions that maintain that if one has heard news of one’s friend’s well-being or received a letter from him during this period, the blessing should not be recited. Note, however, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi’s Piskei Siddur 12:11, in which he negates these opinions, stating that a person feels genuine satisfaction only when he sees a friend face to face.

Thirty days is considered a significant period regarding various matters of Torah law.

Although the Panim Me’irot states that the words “our Lord, King of the universe” need not be mentioned, the consensus of halachic opinion (see Mishnah Berurah 225:3) is that they should be recited.

Berachot 58b states that just as a dead person is forgotten after a year’s time, so, too, a friend whom one has not seen for such a period is as if he has ceased to exist.

The Shulchan Aruch (O”C 225:3) states that it is customary to recite the blessing before partaking of the fruit.

Whether of trees or of the earth. For example, Eruvin 40b states the blessing should be recited over squash.

The Rama (Orach Chayim 225:6) states that the blessing should be recited even if the fruit has two seasons a year in which it grows. The intent is to exclude fruits and vegetables that grow throughout the year. Therefore, at present, when many fruits are available throughout the year, the blessing shehecheyanu should not be recited over them.

Eruvin, loc. cit., emphasizes that we are not obligated to recite this blessing (Mishnah Berurah 225:9).

The Rama (Orach Chayim 225:3) writes that a person who did not recite the blessing the first time he saw the fruit may recite the blessing when he sees it a second time. The Mishnah Berurah 225:13 supports this opinion, noting that, at present, it is customary not to recite the blessing until one partakes of the fruit. Nevertheless, should one taste the fruit without reciting the blessing, it should not be recited at a later time.

This halachah is complemented by Halachah 7, which explains that the blessing hatov v’hametiv is recited when the positive nature of the tidings affect others as well as oneself. If the favorable tidings are individual in nature, the blessing shehecheyanu should be recited. The Rambam mentions hatov v’hametiv in this halachah, because he is referring to—although not quoting exactly—the text of the Mishnah, Berachot 9:2.

As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 9, this same blessing is also recited when different wine is served during a meal.

This blessing has the implication that, although one personally feels upset over the event, one realizes that since everything is controlled by God and He is “the true Judge.” Therefore: a) the occurrence, however tragic, was just, and that b) ultimately, it is intended for the good. God, Who is truly good, cannot be the source of evil.

Shehecheyanu or hatov v’hametiv.

The Hebrew word translated as “your might,” מאודך, is related to the word, מאוד, meaning “very.” This implies that this is a dimension of love above the ordinary.

Loving God is one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. (See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:1-2.) The verse cited above is the proof-text for that commandment. Thus, the mitzvah to love God includes this “extra dimension of love.”

This halachah is based on Berachot 9:5. Because of the deep message communicated by that mishnah, it is worthy to quote it and the Rambam’s commentary upon it: We are obligated to bless [God] for undesirable occurrences in the same manner as we bless [Him] for desirable occurrences. [This is implied by Deuteronomy 6:5]: “And you shall love God, your Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might”—“With all your heart”: with both your inclinations; the good inclination and the evil inclination; “With all your soul”: even if it takes your soul; “With all your might”: with all your money. Alternatively, the expression בכל מאדך [can be associated with the words בכל מדה and interpreted to mean] for every measure that He deals you be very, very thankful to Him.
On this mishnah, the Rambam comments: [The mishnah] states: In the same manner as one blesses Him for good... [i.e.,] one should accept them with happiness, overcome one’s feelings, and compose one’s mind when reciting the blessing Dayan ha’emet to the extent that one should appear in the same state as when reciting the blessing hatov v’hametiv. Our Sages declared... “Everything Heaven does is for good.”... Although many matters may originally look unfavorable, ultimately they will bring great good. Conversely, there are many things which, at the outset, appear good, and ultimately are very bad. Therefore, an understanding person should not become aggrieved when beset with difficulties... because he does not know the ultimate outcome. A person should concentrate his thoughts [on the following objective] and ask God [for it to be realized]: That everything that happens to him in this world, both positive and unfavorable occurrences, should be with the intent of bringing him the ultimate happiness, [a portion in the world to come].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 9:3, based on Berachot 60a), the Rambam gives an example of such a situation: A person who found a lost object in Eretz Yisrael in Talmudic times. The Romans would punish anyone who did not deliver a lost object he discovered to the government authorities. Thus, one could ultimately be reported for having found a lost object and be forced to pay an exorbitant fine for it. Nevertheless, at the time the object is found, it is an obvious good.

The Rambam (ibid.) exemplifies this situation as follows: A person’s fields were flooded, damaging his crops. Although the fact that his fields were watered will ultimately prove advantageous, he should recite Dayan ha’emet, since, immediately, he suffered a loss.

The Rishon LeTzion relates that the Rambam’s choice of phraseology implies that even when one is certain that the opposite quality will ultimately become manifest, one should recite the blessing appropriate for the situation at present.

Rabbenu Asher maintains that even if one owns a field individually, if there are other Jews in the area who will benefit from the rain, one should recite hatov v’hametiv.

Significantly, this blessing does not begin: “Blessed are You, God....”

One continues, reciting the text of the Nishmat prayer recited on Sabbath mornings.

The Bayit Chadash and the Rama (Orach Chayim 221:1) state that it is not customary to recite this blessing in European countries. Since rain is plentiful there, people do not appreciate it as much. Nevertheless, should there be a drought in these countries, this blessing should be recited (Mishnah Berurah 221:2).

Ta’anit 6b, the source for this halachah, describes this situation metaphorically, “when the groom goes out to greet the bride.” (See also Berachot 59b.)

The same holds true for other circumstances that are, simultaneously, of both a positive and undesirable nature. For example, Rama (Orach Chayim 223:1) mentions the recitation of the two blessings (shehecheyanu and Dayan ha’emet) when a man’s wife dies after giving birth to a son.

Although we must continually give thanks to God, an individual who undergoes any of the four experiences mentioned below must render a special measure of thanks for prevailing, despite the obvious danger he confronted.
Berachot 54b derives the obligation to give thanks in the four situations mentioned from Psalm 107.
Verses 17 to 21 state:
Foolish transgressors are afflicted because of their sinful ways... they reached the gates of death. They cried
out to God in their difficulty. He saved them from their distress. He sent forth His word and healed them.... Let
them give thanks to God for His kindness [I.e., a sick person who recovers].
Verses 10 to 16 state:
Those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, bound in misery and chains of iron.... They cried out to
God in their difficulty. He saved them from their distress. He... broke their bonds asunder. Let them give
thanks to God for His kindness [i.e., a person who is released from prison].
Verses 23 to 31 state:
Those who go down to the sea in ships.... They saw the works of God and His wonders in the deep.... They cried
out to God in their difficulty. He saved them from their distress. He transformed the storm into stillness, and
the waves were calmed.... Let them give thanks to God for His kindness [i.e., a person who completes an ocean
journey].
Verses 4 to 9 state:
They lost their way in the wilderness, in a desert; they found no city in which to dwell.... They cried out to God
in their difficulty. He saved them from their distress. He guided them in a correct path.... Let them give thanks
to God for His kindness [i.e., a person who completes a desert journey].
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 219:1) offers an acronym for these four situations: חיים, as reflected in the phrase from the Shemoneh Esreh prayer וכל החיים יודוך סלה, “All the living shall give thanks to You forever.” The chet stands for choleh—“a sick person”; the first yud for yissurim—“hardship,” i.e., a person who was imprisoned; the second yud for yam—“sea,” one who completed an ocean journey; and the mem for midbar, “desert,” travelers through unsettled territory.
The blessing should be recited as close to the passing of the danger as possible. Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 219:6) requires that, if possible, the blessing should be recited within three days.

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:8) maintains that this applies to all sicknesses. In contrast, the Rama differs and states that this applies only to illnesses of a serious nature, one’s that would require the violation of the Sabbath laws to save the person’s life. In his Piskei Siddur 13:6, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi suggests following an intermediate opinion, and rules that a person should recite the blessing if he has been confined to his bed for three days.

In his Piskei Siddur 13:5, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi explains that this refers to a complete recovery, when he is no longer in danger.

Rav Yosef Migash (who was the Rambam’s teacher) explains that this blessing was required because, while imprisoned, a person does not have control over his behavior. The Magen Avraham 219:1 states that this applies only when one is imprisoned on a capital charge. Other authorities differ, and state that even when one is imprisoned on a monetary claim, if there is a possibility of danger arising, the blessing should be recited. (See Be’ur Halachah 219.)

At present, questions are raised in this regard concerning an airplane journey which crosses a major sea or ocean. Although there is a certain amount of danger, one is not totally at the mercy of the ocean. The prevailing view among most contemporary authorities, however, is to recite the blessing.

This statement clarifies the Rambam’s opinion on this blessing. As mentioned above, there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the danger one confronts must be one that threatens one’s life, or whether even a slightly dangerous circumstance requires such a blessing.
Berachot (loc. cit.) uses the expression, “those who travel in the desert” for this clause, implying that the blessing is required only after a journey like one through a desert when one’s life is actually threatened. In contrast, the expression “travelers who reach a settlement” does not connote such severe danger. (See Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:7.)

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) mentions an opinion that maintains that if the blessing is recited in the presence of fewer than ten people, the person is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Although other opinions differ, according to the former view, if one knows that it will be impossible to collect ten Jews, one should recite the blessing without a minyan (Mishnah Berurah 219:8).

Accordingly, this blessing is customarily recited at a communal Torah reading. Ten people are required for such a reading, and it is likely that at least two sages will be present. There is, however, no obligation to associate the blessing with the reading of the Torah.

A “congregation” implies a minimum of ten people.

“Elders” refer to sages. The use of the term in the plural implies that at least two sages should be present. If a person cannot find sages to join in the company, he should not omit the recitation of this blessing (Shulchan Aruch).

After the fact, a person is considered to have fulfilled his obligation if he recited the blessing while sitting (Mishnah Berurah 219:4).

I.e., the person acknowledges that he is not worthy of God’s kindness and expresses his thanks for God’s generosity and beneficence.

After the fact, even if they do not respond, the person reciting the blessed is considered to have fulfilled his obligation (Mishnah Berurah 219:5).

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:9) mentions an opinion that states that this blessing should also be recited by any person who successfully confronts a dangerous situation
e.g., an attack by a wild animal or an armed robbery. Since this opinion is not accepted unanimously, the Shulchan Aruch suggests reciting the blessing without mentioning God’s name in these instances. Nevertheless, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Piskei Siddur 13:7) and the Mishnah Berurah (219:32) state that it is customary to mention God’s name in these—and similar—instances as well.

There, the sea split for the Jews during the exodus from Egypt. (See Exodus, Chapter 14.)
Significantly, it is in connection with the splitting of the Red Sea that our Sages (Berachot 54a) derive an allusion to the obligation to recite a blessing in connection with a miracle. When Moses related the miracles of the Exodus to Jethro, his father-in-law, Jethro exclaimed (Exodus 18:10), “Blessed be God Who saved you.”

There, the Jordan split to allow the Jews to cross on dry land. (See Joshua 3:17.)

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 218:9) questions whether it is necessary to recite this blessing only when a miracle beyond the natural order takes place, or whether it should be recited even when one is saved from a dangerous situation through means that appear natural.

The limitation of the blessing to one’s grandchildren is based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 9:1. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:4) uses the expression “all his descendants” when quoting this law, implying that even further generations are required to recite the blessing.
From the Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.), it is apparent that one should also recite a blessing when one sees the place where a miracle occurred to one’s teacher. This law is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:6).

Although the miracle involved only a single individual, since God’s name was sanctified through it, every Jew should recite this blessing. The story of Daniel’s salvation is related in Daniel, Chapter 6.

See Daniel, Chapter 3.

This blessing praises God for His patience in allowing the worship of false gods to continue, despite the fact that it is against His will. The Rama (Orach Chayim 224:1) states that, at present, it is not customary to recite this blessing, since houses of worship for false gods are prevalent wherever we live.

The Magen Avraham 224:8 interprets this to mean beautiful, stately mansions. The Beit Yosef (O”C 224) questions whether this blessing should be recited outside Eretz Yisrael, or in the present era. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi maintains that this blessing should be recited only when seeing synagogues. This is the accepted practice.

Rav David Avudraham explains that in the time of exile, the Jews are compared to a widow, for our marriage relationship with God is not openly revealed.

As mentioned in Halachah 3, this blessing is recited when hearing unpleasant tidings.

The Rambam’s use of the plural is precise. This blessing is not recited when one sees a single grave.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s definition of the world to come in Hilchot Teshuvah, Chapter 8. Others interpret this phrase as a reference to the resurrection.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 224:5) does not mention the need for the people to be in Eretz Yisrael. The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam makes this requirement. The Kessef Mishnah explains that the Rambam’s source is Berachot 58a, which states: “One who sees an ochlosiah should recite the blessing....” The word ochlosiah does not merely connote a multitude of people. It also has the implication that the group shares a bond of unity. Berachot (loc. cit.) states, “There is no concept of an ochlosiah in Babylon,” implying that this level of unity is possible only in Eretz Yisrael.

Berachot interprets this to mean, “Who knows the secrets of these people’s hearts.” Although each of these 600,000 people has a different perspective, God understands them all and brings them all together.

Based on the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7), we can infer that this applies to a gentile scholar, but not to a churchman.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:6) uses the word chalak (endowed), rather than natan (gave). Chalak is related to the word chelek, meaning “part.” Its use points to the connection Torah scholars share with God (see Deuteronomy 32:9).

Berachot (loc. cit.) states that one should endeavor to see gentile kings, so that—by comparison—he will appreciate the virtues of Jewish kings.

Also included in this category are a dwarf, a giant, or anyone with a gross physical deformity.

For this affliction came as a process of Divine judgment. The Ra’avad states that one should recite this blessing only when seeing a person with this condition arouses feelings of sadness. In contrast, should one see a gentile with this affliction, the recitation of a blessing is not in place. This opinion is quoted by the later authorities.

There is a question whether this blessing should be recited over gentiles or not. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 225:10) does not, however, make such a restriction. The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9:1) relates that after seeing a beautiful gentile woman, Rabban Gamliel recited a blessing, praising God for creating her. (See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:4 and commentaries.)
The later authorities mention many restrictions concerning the recitation of this blessing, their intent being that one should recite this blessing only when seeing the most beautiful specimen of a particular species that one has ever seen. Since this is difficult to determine, some authorities suggest refraining from reciting the blessing entirely. See the Mishnah Berurah 225:32.

The intention is the first budding of the trees. Generally, this takes place in the month of Nisan. If, however, the trees bud earlier or later, the blessing should be recited at that time.

Some authorities require this blessing to be recited only over flowering fruit trees.

At present, when one sees lightning and hears thunder, it is customary to recite both blessings. (See Mishnah Berurah 227:5.)

Rabbenu Asher explains that this same principle applies to all the other blessings on unusual sights mentioned in this chapter, with the exception of those mentioned in the previous halachah. This principle is accepted as halachah.

Although the term Yam HaGadol is often used in Talmudic and Rabbinic literature to refer to the Mediterranean Sea, in this instance it is universally accepted that the intent is the ocean.

The covenant made with Noah not to destroy the world with a flood again (Genesis 9:9-17).

Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi’s text of this blessing reads, “the Doer of truth,” thus referring to God. This is the text followed in most communities today.

This phrase is borrowed from Isaiah 46:3.

The moon is a symbol of the Jewish people, and its renewal serves as a promise and a representation of their ultimate renewal in the Messianic age.

It is also customary to recite various Psalms and prayers together with this blessing.

The shining of the moon after its light was hidden alludes to the revelation of the Divine Presence, which is presently hidden from us (Rabbenu Yonah).

The Rambam’s wording implies that it is preferable to bless the moon on the first night. According to Kabbalah, the blessing should not be recited until seven nights have passed (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 426).

According to the published text of Soferim 20:1, this blessing should be recited on Saturday night, while everyone is dressed in their Sabbath clothing. If it is possible, this custom should be followed.

The sun’s revolution in its orbit causes it to change positions in the sky, and twenty-eight years are necessary for it to return to the same place in the sky on a particular date. Thus, according to the opinion that the world was created in Nisan (see Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 10:3 and commentaries), every 28 years, on the first Wednesday after the spring equinox (the anniversary of the sun’s creation), the sun returns to its original position at the time of creation. When we witness this, it is appropriate to praise God for “performing the work of creation.”

The lamb.

At present, it is not customary to recite the blessing on such occasions (Mishnah Berurah 229:9).

I.e., Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. (See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 3:1, 6-7.)

The second half of this verse, “He establishes the border of the widow,” serves as the basis for the blessing recited upon seeing Jewish homes (Halachah 10).

The Mishnah Berurah 230:5 states that it is not customary to make either of these statements at present. In Talmudic times, the construction of the bathhouses presented a real danger of fire. At present, however, that danger has been drastically reduced.

Since a blessing should include mention of God’s sovereignty over the world, it can be assumed that such a phrase should be included in this blessing as well. Nevertheless, the text of this blessing in the siddur of Rav Sa’adiah Gaon reads, “Blessed are You, God, Healer of the sick.” (See the Mishnah Berurah 230:7.)

God’s name and His sovereignty should not be mentioned (Mishnah Berurah 230:4).

Berachot 9:3 states that a person who hears an outcry and exclaims “May it not have come from my house” is considered to have recited a vain prayer. Since the event has already taken place, there is no purpose in such a prayer. (See also Halachah 26.)

Note the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 4:2), where he emphasizes the obligatory nature of this prayer and the prayer mentioned in the following halachah.

The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 110) emphasizes that taking pleasure in someone else’s shame detracts from one’s merit. Therefore, one should pray that one not be the cause of other people committing such an error, nor commit such an error oneself.

Rashi, Berachot 54a, explains that the watchmen and border guards at the gateways to large cities often caused difficulty to travelers. Hence, the need for these prayers and expressions of thanks.

This is the Rambam’s text of tefillat haderech (the traveler’s prayer). The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 110:4) rule that one should conclude this prayer with the blessing, “Blessed are You, God, Who hears prayer.” This is the common practice today.

This halachah concludes the theme mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, that these blessings and statements were instituted “as an expression of praise and an acknowledgement of the Holy One, blessed be He,” “to remember the Creator at all times and to fear Him,” as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

“Our Lord and King of the universe....”

Although the Shema interposes between this blessing and the blessings that precede it, they are still considered as blessings that come in succession to each other. This same rule applies to other blessings, e.g., the blessings Yishtabach and Baruch she’amar and the blessings before and after Hallel.

In this instance, the phrase “Blessed...” which begins the first blessing in the succession, applies to the blessings that follow as well.

See Chapters 8 and 9.

See Hilchot Tefilah, Chapter 7. The blessings mentioned there are equivalent to the blessings recited over fruit.

These blessings are discussed in this chapter.

The blessings mentioned in the previous chapter.

Indeed, most of the blessings mentioned in the previous chapter are structured in this manner.

E. g., the blessing on rain mentioned in Chapter 10, Halachah 5.

The bracketed additions are based on the commentary of the Kessef Mishneh.

I.e., blessings from these categories that both begin and concluded with “Blessed are You....”

See Hilchot Tefillah 12:5. Other examples are the blessings over the haftarah and the blessing over consecrating a wife.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 10. Other examples are Kiddush, Havdalah, and the blessing sanctifying the new moon.

Tefillin represent a mitzvah that we are required to fulfill each day, while sukkah, lulav, and shofar are fulfilled only on the holidays with which they are associated. By mentioning both these types of obligations, the Rambam expresses his point more clearly. It is, nevertheless, worthy of question why the Rambam lists the mitzvot of sukkah, lulav, and shofar in this order. In Hilchot Shofar V’Sukkah V’Lulav, he discusses them in a different order.

See Hilchot Mezuzah 6:1. The Rambam lists ten qualifications a house must have to require a mezuzah. A person may choose to live in a house that does not fulfill all these requirements.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 6:1) derives the obligation to recite a blessing before fulfilling mitzvot as follows: Exodus 24:12 establishes an equation between Torah study and the mitzvot. Therefore, since blessings are recited before Torah study (see Hilchot Tefillah 7:10), a blessing should also be recited before fulfilling a mitzvah. It must, however, be emphasized that this is an asmachtah and the obligation to recite these blessings originates in Rabbinic law and not in the Torah itself.

According to the Rambam, there is one exception to this principle: the ritual immersion of a convert, as explained in Halachah 7. Although other authorities maintain that the blessing before washing hands should be recited after washing and not beforehand, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 2, the Rambam does not agree, and requires that this blessing also be recited before fulfilling the mitzvah.

The Rambam’s statements imply that a blessing should not be recited before fulfilling any of the mitzvot between man and man. The Rabbis have given several explanations why blessings are not recited before fulfilling such commandments: a) A blessing is recited only when a person can fulfill a mitzvah on his own, without requiring the assistance of another person. Many of the mitzvot between man and man require a recipient—e.g., charity cannot be given without a poor man being willing to receive it, a lost object cannot be returned unless its owner accepts it (Rashba, Responsum 18). b) The gentiles are also obligated to give charity and establish a stable society. Hence, they fulfill many of the positive commandments. Thus, the blessing recited before fulfilling a mitzvah, praising God for sanctifying—i.e., differentiating—“us with His commandments” is inappropriate (Torah Temimah).

I.e., mitzvot that we are required to fulfill at a specific time.

I.e., mitzvot that have a voluntary dimension; thus, if one desires to carry within a carmelit on the Sabbath, one must establish an eruv; if one desires to eat bread, one must wash one’s hands.

There are several types of eruvim, as the Rambam explains in Hilchot Eruvin. All are included in the same blessing.

There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam’s statements. Although washing hands before eating has a voluntary aspect, as explained above, we are required to wash before prayer each morning. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.)

The Rambam’s question is: Since these commandments were instituted by the Sages, how can we say that God commanded us to fulfill them?

The Rambam’s statements are based on Shabbat 23a, except that he quotes a different portion of the proof-text mentioned by the Talmud in order to emphasize the positive nature of the Biblical commandment (Kessef Mishneh). Compare also to Chapter 6, Halachah 2, where he quotes another portion of the verse.
(Note the Ramban’s objection to the Rambam’s definition of Rabbinic commandments and the Kiryat Sefer’s resolution of the difficulty in the fifth chapter of his introduction to the Mishneh Torah.)

See Chapter 6, Halachot 2-3, which explain that the obligation to wash after eating was instituted lest a person use Sodomite salt and, after eating, inadvertently pass his hands over his eyes and blind himself. Note also the objection of the Ra’avad to the Rambam’s statements in Halachah 2 of that chapter.

There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam’s statements. In Halachot 9 and 12, the Rambam states that a blessing is recited when one fulfills the mitzvah of constructing a guardrail. On the surface, the purpose of that mitzvah is to prevent danger. This question can, however, be resolved on the basis of Hilchot Tefillah 9:7, which states: “One who says... ‘May He Who showed mercy on a bird’s nest... show mercy on us’... should be silenced, because these mitzvot are God’s decrees and are not [expressions of] mercy.”
Although the obvious reason for the mitzvah of chasing away the mother bird is to show mercy (and the Rambam himself gives such an explanation in the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 38), that mitzvah—and every mitzvah—is ultimately a Divine decree that surpasses human intellect. Any rationale we provide is limited and cannot define the mitzvah in a complete manner.
The same applies in the present instance. Although the obvious reason for constructing a guardrail is to prevent a dangerous situation from arising, this nevertheless represents only man’s conception of the mitzvah. God’s purpose is beyond our comprehension. Therefore, a Rabbinic ordinance like washing after the meal can be considered as having been established because of danger, and, for that reason, a blessing is not recited in connection with its performance. In contrast, with regard to a commandment from the Torah itself, there is no way that we can define the ultimate purpose for its performance and consider it as having been granted us only to avoid danger (Kin’at Eliyahu). [See also Likkutei Sichot, Vol. IX. Note also that although the Rambam and the She’iltot of Rav Achai Gaon mention reciting a blessing over the construction of a guardrail, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 427) does not mention this blessing.]

To explain this concept, using one of the examples cited by the Rambam: When one puts on tefillin, one’s fulfillment of the mitzvah continues throughout the entire time one is wearing them. Therefore, although one should recite the blessing before putting them on, if one did not, it is still proper to do so afterwards, because one is still fulfilling the mitzvah.

The Rambam gives examples of this concept in the following halachah.

Since the mitzvah is already completed, there is no further cause to recite the blessing. On the contrary, according to the Rambam, doing so would be a recitation of the blessing in vain. (See Hilchot Ishut 3:23.)

As he mentions in the previous halachah, the Rambam maintains that this exception applies only regarding the immersion of a convert. Other individuals—e.g., a woman immersing herself to emerge from the niddah state or, in the times of the Temple, a person immersing himself to emerge from other states of impurity—should recite a blessing before immersing. (As the Rambam states in Hilchot Tefillah 4:4, there is no difficulty in a person who is ritually impure reciting prayers.)
Tosafot, Berachot 51a, differ, maintaining that since an exception is made regarding the immersion of a convert, the Sages did not differentiate and required that the blessings for all immersions be recited afterwards. The Rambam’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 200:1), while the Rama follows Tosafot’s view. (See also the commentary on Chapter 6, Halachah 2, which discusses whether the blessing for washing hands should be recited before washing or afterwards.)

Therefore, in this instance, at the outset, the Sages instituted the obligation to recite a blessing after immersion.

The Rambam’s phraseology is somewhat problematic, for it implies that there is a separate mitzvah in making a sukkah or a lulav. His intent, however, is clear. When a mitzvah has two phases—the preparations for performing it and its actual performance—the blessing is recited only before the latter.

The commentaries have questioned the Rambam’s intention in using the phrase “making a lulav.” What has to be made? According to the Rambam (Hilchot Lulav 7:6), we are not required to bind the three species of the lulav together. This question can be resolved, however, because according to Rabbinical decree, it is desirable that the species be bound together (Rav Kapach).

Note the Chatam Sofer (Orach Chayim, Responsum 52), who states that whenever the fulfillment of a mitzvah takes a long time, one should recite the blessing before one completes the last phase. Thus, with regard to the construction of a guardrail, one should recite the blessing before constructing the last portion of the divider. (See also Halachah 4, note 13.)

In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that just as we recite the blessing shehecheyanu over the acquisition of new clothing (Chapter 10, Halachah 1), we recite this blessing over the acquisition of new mitzvot.

According to Ashkenazic custom, the blessing shehecheyanu is not recited over circumcision. See Hilchot Milah 3:3.

The Rambam’s phraseology appears to indicate that it is proper to recite the blessing shehecheyanu when making the sukkah. The common practice, however, in both the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities, is to recite the blessing when fulfilling the mitzvah. One should, however, also have in mind the construction of the sukkah.

For example, he affixes a mezuzah for a colleague.

One may, however, recite shehecheyanu for another individual with the intent that the other person answer Amen, and thus fulfill his requirement for reciting the blessing even when one has already recited the blessing oneself. (See Kessef Mishneh.)

See Sukkah 46a.

For example, mitzvot such as tefillin, shofar, or sukkah.

For example, mitzvot such as mezuzah or constructing a guardrail. The fulfillment of these mitzvot is not an absolute obligation, since, as the Rambam stated previously, one may dwell in a house that does not require a mezuzah or a guardrail. Nevertheless, once one builds such a house, there is an obligatory aspect to their performance.

Since the person is not performing the mitzvah on his own behalf, it is not appropriate that he praise God for commanding us to perform a specific activity. Therefore, he should use the form “... concerning the mitzvah of....”.

A mitzvah that we are obligated to fulfill each day.

This is the blessing recited over the arm tefillin, and over both the arm and head tefillin when one does not speak between putting them on. Should one speak, one should recite the blessing “... concerning the mitzvah of tefillin” before putting the head tefillin on (Hilchot Tefillin 4:6).
The latter statement is problematic for the Rambam: Since the blessing is recited before putting on the head tefillin, it should use the form “... and commanded us to...” rather than “... and commanded us concerning the mitzvah of....”

A mitzvah that, as mentioned in the previous halachah, has a non-obligatory nature. The Torah does not obligate us to wear tzitzit each day. (See Hilchot Tzitzit 3:11.) Nevertheless, a person who wears a garment requiring tzitzit is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah each day.

This blessing is recited before putting on the tallit gadol. As mentioned in the commentary on Hilchot Tzitzit, the Rambam does not mention the custom of wearing a tallit katan at all. It is our custom to recite the blessing “... concerning the mitzvah of tzitzit” for such a garment. It is possible to explain that the form “... concerning...” is used because, generally, we have touched unclean portions of our body before putting on the tallit katan. Hence, the blessing cannot be recited before donning the garment. Accordingly, the form “... concerning the mitzvah...” is more appropriate, as stated in Halachah 15.

A mitzvah that is obligatory in nature, but which can be performed only during a certain time of the year.

It is our custom to recite this blessing even if one began sitting in the sukkah without reciting the blessing, and recited the blessing afterwards. From Halachah 15, however, it does not appear that the Rambam would accept this practice.

The Rambam mentions Shabbat candles and Hallel specifically because these are Rabbinic mitzvot

This is the Sephardic custom. Today, in Ashkenazic communities, the text of the blessing is “... to read the Hallel.”

The Rambam mentions the mitzvot of mezuzah and a guardrail for two reasons: First, as explained in the commentary on the previous halachah, there is a non-obligatory aspect to these mitzvot. Second, as explained in the following halachah, there is a difference whether one performs these mitzvot by oneself or whether one performs them on behalf of another person.

See Halachah 4, Note 13.

The Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah also mention the separation of tithes in this context.

Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 265:2) mentions the Rambam’s opinion, the Rama states that it is customary to recite the blessing “... concerning the circumcision,” at all times.

The Rambam mentions these mitzvot to contrast them with the following halachah, which describes their performance on behalf of another person. It would appear that the Rambam is making the point that one should use the form “... to...” when performing the mitzvah oneself even when, in general, it is more likely that the mitzvah be performed by an agent (Kin’at Eliyahu).

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 289:1) and other authorities mention the recitation of only the blessing “to affix a `.”

Even if he would perform such a mitzvah only on his own behalf, he would use this form, as explained in the following halachah.

See Halachah 3.

In this instance as well, were he to perform the mitzvah only for himself, he would use this form.

As mentioned in Halachot 5 and 6, once a mitzvah has been fulfilled, it is no longer proper to recite a blessing. The mitzvah of lulav, however, represents an exception to the rules stated there. Unlike tefillin or sukkah, the mitzvah of lulav does not continue for the entire time one holds it. Instead, as the Rambam states, as soon as one picks it up, one fulfills the obligation as required by the Scriptural Law (mid’oraita). Nevertheless, it is still permissible to recite a blessing, because the Sages ordained that the mitzvah be fulfilled by carrying out the nanu’im (shakings) of the lulav in the Hallel prayers.
Since this dimension of the mitzvah remains, one may still recite a blessing. Nevertheless, since mid’oraita one has fulfilled one’s obligation, it is not proper to use the form “... to...,” which implies an activity to be fulfilled in the future (Tosafot, Pesachim 7b).

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 651:5) relates that the blessing “... concerning the mitzvah of lulav” should be recited even when one recites the blessing before picking up the lulav.

This refers to an instance when the fulfillment of a mitzvah continues beyond the first moment, and one did not recite the blessing at the outset, as explained in Halachot 3 and 5. According to the Rambam, one should change the form of the blessings in such an instance. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s decision, explaining that we should not change the form of the blessings. It is the Ra’avad’s view that is accepted in practice at present.

There is a distinction between these mitzvot and those mitzvot mentioned in Halachot 11 and 12 that were described as not being obligatory in nature. One is not obligated to live in a house that requires a mezuzah. Nevertheless, should one dwell in such a house, one is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah. In contrast, there is never any obligation to carry out the activities which require one to fulfill the mitzvot described in this halachah.

See also Halachah 3.

The Rambam states in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:1-2:
It is a positive mitzvah from the Torah to destroy chametz.... What is the destruction to which the Torah refers? To nullify chametz within one’s heart and to consider it as dust, and to resolve within one’s heart that he possesses no chametz at all.

Nevertheless, since the Sages required one to search for chametz throughout one’s house (see Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:3), the mitzvah is not completely fulfilled until the search is completed. Therefore, a blessing may be recited.

Hilchot Lulav 7:20-22 relates that while the Temple was standing, willow branches were placed near the altar on each of the seven days of the Sukkot festival, with the exception of the Sabbath. At present, to commemorate that practice, it is customary to take willow branches on the seventh day of the holiday and hit them five times against the ground.

In contrast to the recitation of Hallel on the festivals, which the Rambam (Hilchot Chanukah 3:6) considers a mitzvah instituted by the Sages, the recitation of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh was not uniformly accepted among the Jewish community in Talmudic times. Thus, Ta’anit 28b relates that the great Sage Rav was not accustomed to reciting Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. Rather, it is a custom that was practiced in Babylon for years, and ultimately became universally accepted. Therefore, certain portions are not recited and a blessing is not recited.
The Ra’avad and Tosafot, Ta’anit (loc. cit.) differ and maintain that, in contrast to taking the willow, which is not an involved practice, the recitation of Hallel is worthy of a blessing. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 422:2) quotes the Rambam’s opinion and states that it is the accepted practice in Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, the Rama follows the other view.

Since there was no special sacrifice ordained for each of the latter days of Pesach individually, but rather the same sacrifices were offered throughout the festival, the full Hallel is not recited. The same laws that govern the recitation of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh apply.

The Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries give several examples of such practices:
a) Separating tithes from produce that is classified as d’mai (produce sold by an unlearned person). The Sages required this separation as a safeguard, because they were unsure whether the unlearned person had separated the tithes or not. Although the tithes should be separated because of this doubt, since it is possible that they had been separated previously, a blessing should not be recited.
b) Covering the blood of a k’oi. The Sages were unsure whether such an animal should be classified as a beheimah, whose blood should not be covered, or as a chayah, whose blood must be covered. Because of the doubt, we cover the animal’s blood. We do not, however, recite a blessing (see Hilchot Shechitah 14:4).
c) Dwelling in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. Although it is customary to dwell in the sukkah on this day in the Diaspora, in deference to the possibility that Sukkot actually began on the second day, a blessing is not recited. (See Hilchot Sukkah 6:13.)

The blessing is not recited lest the deed one performs not be necessary, and thus the blessing one recites would be considered as taking God’s name in vain.
Note the question of the Kessef Mishneh concerning the Rambam’s decision (Hilchot Kri’at Shema 2:13) that a person who is unsure whether he recited the Shema should recite its blessings as well.

Sukkah 46a quotes a similar verse and comments, “Each day, respond to Him in a manner that reflects His blessings.” The Rambam appears to be implying that a person should be continuously aware of the kindness God is granting him and respond by blessing Him.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 215) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 2) consider this one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Circumcision and the Paschal sacrifices are the only positive commandments for which the Torah prescribes punishment if they are not fulfilled. In both instances, the punishment is the same (karet).

Premature death at the hand of God (Mo’ed Katan 28a) and a severe spiritual punishment, the “soul being cut off,” and not being granted a share in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1, 5).

The citation of the verse from Genesis is significant. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Chulin 7:6), the Rambam writes that our fulfillment of this mitzvah is not based on God’s commandment to Abraham, but rather on the commandment issued to Moses (Leviticus 12:3), “On the eighth day, the child’s foreskin will be circumcised.” Nevertheless, the commandment to Abraham is still significant, and many particulars concerning circumcision are derived from it.

And not a mother (Kiddushin 29a).

Although when the son reaches the age of bar mitzvah, he is obligated to perform this mitzvah, until that time, the father is responsible for its fulfillment.
The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 2) questions the extent of the father’s responsibility. If the father does not circumcise his son before the latter reaches majority, is the father still charged with the mitzvah (together with the son) or is the son solely responsible for the mitzvah?
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 11) explains that the question is dependent on a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 29a) derives the mitzvah from the verse (Genesis 21:4), “And Abraham circumcised his son, Isaac.” This indicates that the mitzvah is primarily the father’s (although after the son reaches adulthood, he also becomes responsible).
In contrast, the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 1:7) quotes as a proof-text for the mitzvah (Leviticus 12:3), “On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” The Korban Eidah explains that this implies the mitzvah is the son’s. Since he is not able to perform it himself as a youth, however, his father is given the responsibility while the child is a minor.
Likkutei Sichot continues, explaining that the Rambam’s position is obvious from his discussion of the blessings recited for the mitzvot in Hilchot Berachot, Chapter 11. In Halachah 11 of that chapter, the Rambam explains that if one performs a mitzvah on one’s own behalf, one should use the form, “who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to....” In contrast, if one performs a mitzvah on behalf of another person, one uses the form, “... And commanded us concerning....”
Rav Yitzchak ben Sheshet (Responsum 131) notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Bikkurim 11:5) rules that one should recite the blessing “... concerning the redemption of a son,” implying that the mitzvah is not the father’s, but the son’s (merely that as an infant, the son cannot fulfill it). In contrast, in Chapter 3, Halachah 1, the Rambam states that a father should recite the blessing “... to circumcise...,” implying that the mitzvah is his.

Here, the responsibility for the mitzvah is surely the master’s. This circumcision is one of the stages in the process by which the slave attains the status of eved Cena’ani, an intermediate rung between a gentile and a Jew. He is obligated to fulfill all the negative commandments and all those positive commandments that are not associated with a specific time. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:11.)

I.e., a Canaanite maidservant gave birth to a male child.

See Genesis 17:27, which relates that Abraham circumcised both these categories of servants.

Note the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 19:6):
If a person transgressed and did not circumcise his son or his servants born in his home... on the eighth day, he transgresses a very great and severe mitzvah, to which there is no comparison among the other mitzvot. He can never compensate for [the lack of fulfillment of] this mitzvah.
His sin is much more severe than a person who did not build a sukkah on Sukkot, or one who did not eat matzah on Pesach.

This is obvious from the proof-text quoted above.

Kiddushin, loc. cit., interprets Genesis 17:10, “You must circumcise every male,” as a charge to the Jewish court, making them responsible for circumcising every member of the people.

See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:13-14, where the Rambam describes the prohibition against “stealing” the performance of a mitzvah from a colleague, and the fine of ten gold pieces for doing so. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 382:1) explicitly associates this concept with circumcising a person’s son without his knowledge.

The Rambam’s phraseology has raised questions among the halachic authorities. Is his intent that once the father has allowed the eighth day to pass, the obligation falls on the court, or is his intent that only after the father makes it obvious that he does not want to circumcise his son that they become responsible? Similarly, the question has been raised what should be done if the father is unaware that a son has been born to him, or is prevented from carrying out the circumcision by factors beyond his control. Should the circumcision be carried out on the eighth day, or should the family wait until the father returns? See Avnei Nezer (Yoreh De’ah, Responsum 318) and Rav Kapach’s commentary.

The obligation mentioned in the previous halachah falls upon them.

Even if he protests, the mitzvah should be performed.

Tzafenat Paneach explains that there are three aspects to the mitzvah of circumcision:
a) to remove the foreskin;
b) to be circumcised;
c) not to be uncircumcised. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)
The first aspect involves a single deed. The second and third aspects, however, are ongoing qualities that a person continues to possess even after the deed of circumcision is completed. Thus, the Or Zarua quotes Menachot 43b, which relates that when King David entered the bathhouse, he was upset for he was “naked,” without mitzvot. When he remembered that he was circumcised, he relaxed, realizing that he was still involved with the performance of a mitzvah.
This indicates that, even years after his circumcision, he was considered to be fulfilling the mitzvah. In contrast, with regard to the mitzvot of tefillin and tzitzit, although he had just removed them, he was no longer considered to be involved in the performance of these mitzvot.

Some of the manuscript editions of the Mishneh Torah state, “It is as if he negates a commandment.” The mitzvah of circumcision is not negated until the person dies without fulfilling it. Unlike tefillin or tzitzit, where each day a person performs a different mitzvah, there is only one mitzvah of circumcision (Rav Kapach).

As mentioned above, there are two dimensions to the punishment of karet: premature death and the cutting off of the soul. According to the Rambam, a person who does not circumcise himself is liable only for the second aspect of this punishment, since until he dies, it is not known whether he will perform the mitzvah or not (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s statements, stating that each day he does not perform the mitzvah, he is liable for karet and is liable for the punishment of premature death. (Even according to the Ra’avad, were the person to circumcise himself, he would no longer be liable for karet).

But not if he was unaware of the mitzvah or was prevented from fulfilling it by forces beyond his control.

The Rambam’s phraseology raises the question whether a person is liable for karet if he initially failed to perform the mitzvah intentionally, and then was prevented from fulfilling it by forces beyond his control

I.e., the “home-born slave” mentioned in Genesis 17:12.

Such servants are also mentioned in the above verse.

As is a Jewish child. The above verse states that “all those born in your house”—i.e., also slaves—should be circumcised on the eighth day (Rashi, Shabbat 135b).

Since Genesis 17:13 repeats the commandment, “Circumcise all home-born [slaves] and those purchased with your money,” we can assume that there are slaves who are to be circumcised immediately (Rashi, loc. cit.).

Provided, of course, that the surgery will not affect the infant’s health. (Note the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 49, which explains that both physically and spiritually, a child is not ready for circumcision until the eighth day.)

Certain exceptions to the rules mentioned in the previous halachah that are also mentioned in Shabbat 135b.

As explained in this halachah.

As explained in the following halachah.

This is possible when the maidservant herself belonged to one master and the fetus to another (Rambam in his responsa).

The Kessef Mishneh relates that, according to the Rambam, even if the master at first purchased only the rights to the fetus, and then purchased the mother, since she gave birth while in his domain, the slave is considered “home-born,” and is circumcised on the eighth day.

The Rambam compares this to a person who buys a tree for its fruit—i.e., he is not the actual owner of the tree, but is entitled to all the fruit it produces. Similarly, in this instance, the master is not the owner of the maidservant; what he has purchased is the right to her offspring. Therefore, none of the offspring are considered “home-born,” and must be circumcised immediately.

Through immersion in a mikveh, a female maidservant becomes a shifchah Cena’anit and attains the intermediate status mentioned in the Commentary on Halachah 1.
As the Rambam mentions in the following halachah, it is possible to purchase a gentile slave and maintain possession of him or her without changing his or her status in the above manner.

In responsum the Rambam explains that the concept of a “home-born” slave is derived from God’s commandment to Abraham. All the members of Abraham’s household had accepted his beliefs and way of life. In contrast, a slave who is unwilling to accept the mitzvot cannot be considered part of a Jewish household, and her children are not “home-born.”

This shows that the stipulation that she need not be immersed (see the following halachah) is nullified and considered of no consequence. Therefore, she is considered to be part of the household.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s decision and maintains that unless the mother immerses herself before giving birth, the child should be circumcised immediately. Rabbenu Nissim, in his notes to Shabbat 135b, supports the Rambam’s decision, explaining that the Sages did not reach a final ruling on the matter, and hence the more stringent approach should be taken.

Note the difference of opinion in Yevamot 48b, whether this leniency is granted if the slave refuses outright to be circumcised.

Lest he change his mind and accept his status within the Jewish people.

He must, however, agree to accept the seven universal laws mentioned below. Otherwise, he should be killed (Kessef Mishneh).

Rav Kapach maintains that the stipulation was made by the slave’s master. Since the slave is considered to be chattel, his own say is of no concern.

The prohibitions against idol worship, cursing God, murder, theft, adultery, eating flesh taken from a living animal, and the obligation to establish a court system. (See Hilchot Melachim 9:1-2.)

In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6, the Rambam writes that it is forbidden to allow gentiles who do not accept these seven laws to dwell in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, a gentile who does is called a resident alien—i.e., a non-Jew who may dwell among us.

The slave must formally accept the performance of these mitzvot in the presence of a Rabbinic court.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s decision depends on his statement (Hilchot Melachim 8:9) that we must do everything in our power to influence the gentiles to observe these seven laws.

The Jubilee must be observed only when the entire Jewish people are dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, when the tribes of Reuven and Gad and half the tribe of Menasheh were exiled by the kingdom of Assyria (see II Kings, Chapter 16), the observance of the Jubilee was nullified (Hilchot Shemitah V’Yovel 10:8).

Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:1-4 states: With three acts, Israel entered into a covenant [with God]: circumcision, immersion [in the mikveh], and [the offering of] sacrifices.... Similarly, with regard to future generations, when a gentile wants to enter into the covenant, take refuge under the wings of the Divine Presence, and accept the yoke of the Torah, he must undergo circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice.
The phrase “accept the yoke of the Torah” indicates that before performing these deeds, the prospective convert must resolve to fulfill the mitzvot.

Note Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:7 which relates that even if a gentile circumcises himself for the purpose of conversion, it is insufficient.

A superficial cut is made on the shaft of the penis, and a small amount of blood extracted.
The expression “blood of the covenant” is derived from the interpretation of Exodus 24:8, “This is the blood of the covenant which God established with you,” in certain texts of Nedarim 31b and also the Mechilta’s interpretation of Zechariah 9:11, “Because of the blood of your covenant, I have sent forth your prisoners from the pit.”

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:2) states that one should wait until the wound of the circumcision is completely healed before immersing in the mikveh and completing the process of conversion.

Our Sages mention this as a sign of a high spiritual level, citing Moses and Shem (Noah’s son) as examples of children born without a foreskin.

Were we to be sure the child did not have a foreskin, there would be no need for the extraction of blood. The blood is extracted lest the child have a thin foreskin that is not readily noticeable (Shabbat 135a). Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 263:4), which requires the extraction of blood and states that we must inspect such a child carefully—but gently—to see whether he possesses a thin foreskin or not. (Perhaps the expression “thin foreskin” refers to the membrane removed by pri’ah.)
It must be noted that there are Rishonim (see Rashi, Shabbat 134a) who maintain that the extraction of the “blood of the covenant” is not a by-product of a search for a thin membrane, but rather serves an independent purpose: The Jews’ covenant with God is established through their blood.

Note Chapter 3, Halachah 6, which states that a blessing is not recited for this activity.
The Rama mentions several other instances when blood must be extracted: a child who was circumcised before the eighth day (Yoreh De’ah 262:1), circumcised at night (loc. cit.), or circumcised by a gentile (loc. cit. 264:1) should have blood extracted for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvah. (See also the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)

Androgynous is a combination of the Greek words meaning “man” and “woman.” (See Hilchot Ishut 2:24.) Note also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:4, which states:
The status of a tumtum and an androgynous is doubtful. Therefore, the stringencies of both a man and a woman are applied to them, and they are obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress, they are not [liable for] lashes.

Lest he be obligated to undergo circumcision.
See Tiferet Yisrael (Shabbat 19:3), who writes: “There are those who say there is no such thing as an androgynous. Their statements are false.... I beheld such a phenomenon with my own eyes. Twelve years ago, I myself circumcised a child with this condition.”

Shabbat 135a explains as follows: The commandment for circumcision on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:3) is stated directly after the verse that relates that a woman who gives birth becomes ritually impure. Since a woman does not contract ritual impurity when she gives birth by Caesarian section, one might think that the child need not be circumcised on the eighth day. Therefore, the Rambam clarified the matter. (See also Halachah 11.)

This refers to a birth abnormality. Rashi (Shabbat 135b) mentions two interpretations: a person with a single penis that is covered by two foreskins; alternatively, a person with two penises.

. Nevertheless, as explained in Halachah 11, none of the individuals mentioned in this halachah are circumcised on the eighth day if it falls on the Sabbath.

This applies to all circumcisions—those of children, servants, and converts.

This refers to הנץ החמה, the rising of the sun on the horizon.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Megillah 2:4), the Rambam writes that the day extends from dawn to the appearance of the stars. It is preferable, however, to perform all acts that must be carried out during the day after the rising of the sun.
Although according to the Rambam, the day extends until the appearance of the stars, circumcision should be carried out before sunset (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 266:9).

Alot hashachar, the appearance of the first rays of the sun, approximately an hour before the sun itself actually appears on the horizon.

Pesachim 4a derives this concept from the description in Genesis 22:3 of Abraham’s rising early in the morning to perform the akedah.

On the eighth day.

Cutting off the foreskin is otherwise forbidden because it causes bleeding (Hilchot Shabbat 8:7-8).

Shabbat 132a relates that the verse, “On the eighth day, the child’s foreskin will be circumcised,” is a Torah decree, requiring circumcision on the eighth day regardless of the day of the week on which it falls.

The observance of the Sabbath and festivals involves both a positive and negative commandment. Therefore, circumcision, which is merely a positive commandment, does not supersede their observance.

Note Rav Kapach, who asks how is it possible for a sign of tzara’at to be already definitely determined as such by the eighth day of a child’s life.

Tzara’at is a skin condition resembling leprosy. Deuteronomy 24:8 forbids removing such a mark, and Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 308) considers this to be one of the 365 prohibitions of the Torah. (See also Hilchot Tum’at Tzara’at, Chapter 10.)

In contrast to the permission granted to circumcise on the Sabbath, this is not an exception made with regard to circumcision, but rather a general rule that applies throughout Torah law (see Hilchot Tzitzit 3:6).

The “home-born” slaves mentioned in Halachot 3-4. In contrast, slaves who were purchased, and therefore should be circumcised on the day they were purchased (or born), should not be circumcised on the Sabbath.

Kiryat Melech cites Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 29, which relates that Abraham circumcised all his servants on Yom Kippur.
Significantly, Rabbenu Yerucham differs, and writes that only the circumcisions of Jews, and not of their servants, supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 267:2) quotes the Rambam’s view.

See Halachah 5 and commentary.

When the eighth day of such a person’s life falls on the Sabbath, he is circumcised on Sunday, the ninth day of his life.

Since, as stated in Halachah 7, the blood is extracted from him only because of a suspicion that he has a hidden foreskin, this activity does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions.

As explained in Halachah 13, the circumcision is not carried out on the eighth day because of the probability that the child will not live.

See Halachah 7.

Because we are unsure of the nature of the obligation of circumcision in these instances.

They should not be circumcised before the eighth day.

The period between sunset and the appearance of three stars. (See Hilchot Shabbat 5:4.)

Were we to count from the day, it is possible that the circumcision would be carried out before the proper time.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 262:7) states that night depends on the appearance of three stars, and not on when the evening service is recited.

He should not be circumcised on the following Friday, as explained above. Nor should he be circumcised on the following Sabbath (although it is the ninth day of his life).

Thus, he is circumcised on the 10th day of his life. (See Shabbat 19:5.)

The comprehension of this and the following halachah are dependent on the following two Talmudic passages:
[The prohibitions against work on] the Sabbath are superseded for [the circumcision of a child] born in the seventh month, but not for a child born in the eighth month (Shabbat 135a).
A child born in the eighth month is like a stone and may not be carried [on the Sabbath]. His mother may, however, lean over him and nurse him.... Rabbi states: [This is when] his physical features reflect his [lack of development]; i.e., when his hair and nails are not completely formed. [Rabbi’s statements imply that] if [his hair and nails] are completely formed, he is a baby that should have been born in the seventh month, but whose birth was delayed (Yevamot 80b).
From these passages, it appears that the Sages considered that there were two periods of gestation that could produce healthy babies, a seven-month period and a nine-month period. Therefore, a baby who was born in the seventh month was considered to be healthy, and circumcision could be performed on the Sabbath.
In contrast, a baby born in the eighth month was generally considered to be unhealthy. Not only was the baby not to be circumcised on the Sabbath, but moving it at all was forbidden. Since it was likely to die, it was considered to be muktzeh. If, however, a baby born in the eighth month looks healthy, we assume that it should have been born in the seventh month, but its birth was delayed. Therefore, it is considered a healthy baby and it may be circumcised on the Sabbath.
We have used the past tense in the above explanation, because these laws are no longer practiced, and all babies are allowed to be moved on the Sabbath. Tosafot, Shabbat, loc. cit., state that at present, it is no longer possible to determine exactly when a child was conceived, and we therefore do not know the month of pregnancy the mother was in. Furthermore, the advances in medical technology have enabled the lives of many premature babies to be saved despite the fact that, without these new developments, these babies would surely not have survived. At present, it is considered a mitzvah to try to save the lives of any premature babies, even if doing so involves carrying out forbidden labors on the Sabbath.
Also, it must be emphasized that, as stated in Halachot 16-18, a child is circumcised only when it is healthy and there is no danger involved. This is surely relevant with regard to premature infants. Rarely, if ever, would a doctor grant permission for such a baby to be circumcised on the eighth day of his life.

Among the ramifications of this decision are that the child’s mother is free of the obligations of yibbum and chalitzah. (See Hilchot Yibbum 1:5.)

Our translation is based on the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Yibbum 1:5. According to this interpretation, the child’s hair and nails need not be completely formed. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different interpretation. Significantly, however, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 266:11), Rav Yosef Caro accepts the Maggid Mishneh’s interpretation.

According to the Maggid Mishneh’s interpretation mentioned above, this refers to an instance when the child’s limbs are completely formed, but his hair and nails are not. The date of his birth, however, creates a problem, because he appears to have been born in the eighth month.
[With regard to this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) does not accept the Maggid Mishneh’s interpretation. It is, however, quoted by the Rama.]

This rationale is not used to allow the circumcision of a child who was definitely born in the eighth month, because the Rabbinic prohibition of muktzeh is in effect. Although the Sages did not enforce that prohibition in a case of doubt (the present halachah), they did apply it when no doubt about the period of gestation exists (the previous halachah).

Niddah 42b relates that the time when a child’s head emerges is considered the hour of birth.

See Halachah 9, which equates circumcision on festivals to circumcision on the Sabbath. In this halachah, the Rambam is adding that the prohibition against circumcision on the eighth day when it falls on the Sabbath in the various instances mentioned in Halachot 11-13 also applies on festivals.

Since the celebration of the second day of a festival is only Rabbinic in origin, the fulfillment of the mitzvah of circumcision takes priority.
This represents the Rambam’s view. Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that only a circumcision that would be performed on the eighth day, were it to fall on the Sabbath, should be performed on the second day of a festival. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 266:8) quotes Rabbenu Asher’s view, while the Siftei Cohen 266:8 follows the Rambam’s opinion. [Significantly, the Noda biYhudah (Orach Chayim, Responsum 30) and the Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De’ah, Responsum 250) interpret the difference of opinion between the Rambam and Rabbenu Asher as applying only when the circumcision is definitely not being performed on the eighth day. (See notes 10 and 11.) According to their view, even Rabbenu Asher agrees that when a child is born during beyn hash’mashot eight days before the second day of a festival, he may be circumcised on that second day of the festival.

As explained in Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 1:21-24, the rules governing the celebration of the second day of Rosh HaShanah differ from those governing the celebration of the second days of other festivals. The two days of Rosh HaShanah share the same level of holiness, and all the prohibitions that apply on the first day apply on the second, with the exception of the laws of burial. (See also Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:7-8.)

This refers to instances when a child was sick and the circumcision was delayed, and the like.

From the Rambam’s phraseology, it appears that he allows such circumcisions to be carried out on the second day of other festivals.

This applies not only to children who are circumcised on the eighth day of their lives, but also to those (e.g., converts or slaves) who are circumcised when they are older.

Lest the child’s life be endangered. (See Halachah 18.)

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 19:5), the Rambam writes:
Until he fully recovers from his illness and the weakness from his sickness passes. He should wait seven days from the time the weakness passes.... Only afterwards, should he be circumcised.
Thus, we see that the Rambam intends that the person to be circumcised fully regain his health, and then wait an additional seven days.

Our translation is based on the Kessef Mishneh.

I.e., an illness that affects a person’s entire body (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 262:2)

I.e., on the same day of his recovery. Note the Turei Zahav 262:3, which explains that since the circumcision has been postponed, it may be further delayed and should not be carried out on Thursday or Friday, so that the child will not have pain on the Sabbath.

I.e., sicknesses in which the person’s entire body is not affected.

The Rambam is referring to infantile jaundice, which is common in many newborns.

The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De’ah 263) and the Binyan Shlomo interpret the Rambam’s phraseology as indicating that, in contrast to the sicknesses mentioned in the previous halachah, it is not necessary to wait seven days after the child’s recovery in these instances. This is the common practice today.

At present, if the child’s skin color is not normal (regardless of the tinge), it is customary to delay the circumcision.

Shabbat 134a relates that once, a woman approached Rabbi Natan HaBavli while he was visiting a distant community. She explained that her first two children had died after being circumcised, and was concerned whether she should circumcise her third son or not. Rabbi Natan inspected the baby and saw that he was extremely red. He advised that the circumcision be delayed until the child’s complexion returned to the norm. His advice was followed and the child survived. In appreciation, the family named him Natan.

The Turei Zahav 263:1 explains that there are opinions that maintain that this applies to a woman and not to a man, because the condition of a child’s blood depends on the mother and not the father. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 263:2) states that it applies to a father as well.

The P’rishah (Yoreh De’ah 263) emphasizes that the intent is that the child was healthy at the time of the circumcision and there was no other obvious cause for the child’s death.

Generally, a chazakah (presumption that we accept as fact) is established only after a phenomenon repeats itself three times. When, however, there is a question of life and death involved, a chazakah is established after two repetitions. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 9:1.)

The determination of when a child is ready to be circumcised is an individual matter and should be left to the discretion of an understanding physician.

For, as explained above, the condition depends on the mother.

One of the fundamental principles of Torah law is “And you shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5), interpreted by Sanhedrin 74a to mean, “You shall live by them and not die because of them.” With the exception of the prohibitions against idol worship, murder, and forbidden sexual relations, Jewish life is given precedence over the observance of any Torah law.