From: Hank

Dear Rabbi,

Since an important part of fulfilling the mitzvot is having the right intention while doing so, how come we do brit milah on boys when they are infants when they have no say in the matter (in fact, if we asked them, they’d probably refuse)? Wouldn’t it be better for men to fulfill the mitzvah when they are at least bar mitzva so they could fulfill the mitzva willingly?

Dear Hank,

As you know, the reason we do circumcision is because G‑d commanded Abraham to perform this mitzva and perpetuate it among his descendants. The command from G‑d to Abraham was two-fold: He simultaneously commanded Abraham to circumcise himself, while also commanding him to do so to the male members of his household. Regarding his son Isaac and his progeny, G‑d told Abraham that they must be circumcised specifically on the eighth day of life.

From here we learn that a Jewish father is required to circumcise his Jewish son as an infant on the eighth day; but if he hasn’t done so for whatever reason, he is required to do so until the child comes of age, from which time the person himself becomes responsible to do so.

Now, as you note, intention is extremely important. That’s why, according to ancient teachings, although Abraham intuited the mitzvot before they were given, and actually preformed them, he refrained from becoming circumcised until he was commanded. Since it’s something that’s only done once, he preferred to do so with the right intention, the foremost of which is intending to fulfill G‑d’s will.

However, the mitzva as commanded by G‑d to Abraham regarding the descendants of Isaac was that a Jewish father is commanded to do brit mila on his Jewish son. That’s the father’s mitzva, for which he is required to have intention. This may be compared to other obligations a Jewish father has regarding his children like supporting them and teaching them Torah, even though these are obligations that the child will assume upon coming of age.

Your suggestion that if we “asked” the infant he would most probably say no is an interesting point, but not necessarily true. So you ask, “Who would willingly undergo circumcision?” Thousands of Jews from the former Soviet Union where brit mila was forbidden but are now free to be Jewish are the answer to that question. If the infant was really able to understand, his answer would also be yes. This covenant is an integral expression of his being Jewish – if not from day one, at least from day eight.

That being said, even if one was circumcised as an infant, there is still a way to fulfill the mitzva as an adult. Our sages connect the following verse to brit mila: “I rejoice over Your statutes as one who finds great spoil” (Psalms 119:162). The Chatam Sofer notes a contradiction in the wording: “finding” implies happening upon something with no effort of one’s own; “spoil” is something one obtains through the efforts of battle. He explains that “finding” refers to the fact that an adult “finds” himself already circumcised from childhood: while the mitzva has been performed on him, he’s done nothing to perform the mitzva himself. The verse therefore enjoins him now as an adult to “battle” the drive to bastardize the brit by upholding and maintaining its sanctity. In this way, rather than circumventing it, he confirms his commitment to the covenant.