Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.
Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.
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 aresponsum 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.