[1] 331/1 As the verse states “And on the eighth day circumcise his foreskin” The word “day” is expounded to include even Shabbos. [ibid]

[2] Such as the infant was ill and could not be circumcised on his eighth day. [ibid]

[3] 331/4 The reason for this is because it is possible to circumcise the child after Shabbos without diminishing any fulfillment of the Mitzvah, as in any event it will not take place on its proper time whether it is done on Shabbos or after. [ibid] Meaning pushing it off one more day due to Shabbos does not lessen one’s quality of performance of the Mitzvah once it is past the 8^th day. For this reason it must be delayed until after Shabbos.

[4] 331/5

[5] Between sunset and nightfall. [Siddur as rules Geonim and so is the custom of all Jewry today; This ruling is in contrast to the ruling of Admur in the Shulchan Aruch in 331/5 and 261/5. Practically according to Admur in the Siddur Bein Hashmashos only begins a few minutes [between 3 and 5 minutes-see Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos Miluim p. 99] after the visual sunset. The start of Nightfall varies in each area. An expert Rav is to be contacted in cases of any doubt as to the Halachic definition of the time the child was born.]

The ruling of Admur in the SHU”A 331/5: In the Shulchan Aruch Admur rules like the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam [unlike the Yereim/ Geonim] that Bein Hashmashos begins 15 minutes prior to nightfall, which in turn begins only 72/96 [depending on calculation of Mil in Admur] after sunset. Hence for up to 56.5-78 minutes after sunset it is still considered day for all purposes. Thus if a child was born during this time on Erev Shabbos he is to be circumcised the next Friday. If he was born at this time on Shabbos he is to be circumcised on Shabbos. The reason we are not stringent like the opinion of the Yireim in this case to suspect that perhaps it is already after Shabbos when he was born is because no one in these provinces are accustomed like the Yireim regarding Melacha on Erev Shabbos, hence there is no need at all to be stringent here and push off the circumcision due to their opinion. [ibid; No mention of the opinion of the Geonim is made by Admur in his Shulchan Aruch. Now although in 251/5 Admur rules regarding one who accepted Shabbos before Plag Hamincha of Rabbeinu Tam, to be stringent like Yireim, perhaps there it is different as by one accepting Shabbos at that time he has shown that he suspects for the opinion of the Yireim. Alternatively in that case there is nothing to lose by being stringent while here if one is stringent the Bris will be delayed from its proper time according to the main opinion.]

Other Poskim: The Shach [Yoreh Deah 266/11] brings the Maharahm Alshiker which rules to be stringent like the Geonim and push off the Bris if the child is born on Shabbos anytime between sunset and nightfall [of Rabbeinu Tam]. [This is unlike the ruling of Admur in the Siddur which rules completely like the Geonim that if born after nightfall of Geonim on Erev Shabbos, the Bris is to be done on Shabbos even though it is still Friday according to Rabbeinu Tam.] Birchei Yosef [brought in M”B 331/14] writes that the custom has spread like the Geonim in all Eretz Yisrael.

[6] As we do not override the Shabbos prohibitions if there is question as to whether the Mitzvah is to be performed that day. [ibid] As there is doubt as to whether Bein Hashmashos is part of the previous day or the coming day. Hence if born on Bein Hashmashos of Erev Shabbos the coming Shabbos is questionable whether it is the child’s 8^th day or 9^th day. In the case the child was born on Bein Hashmashos of Motzaei Shabbos it is questionable if the coming Shabbos is the 7^th or 8^th day.

[7] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/6 for a discussion in Poskim on the exact definition of the head coming out. Is it defined as having come out once it exists the Prozdor to the Beis Hachitzon, or is it only considered to have come out when it enters to the actual air of the world. The custom is like the latter opinion. [Chasam Sofer Yoreh Deah 167; Sidrei Taharah 194/26; Pischeiy Teshuvah 266/8]

[8] It is disputed in Poskim as to how one is to measure the majority of the head. Is it the majority of the forehead, or the entire forehead. [see Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/6]

[9] Regarding a child which was born breached [leg first] then when majority of the body exits it is considered to have been born. Practically once the naval has come out majority of the body is considered to have exited. [see Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/6]

[10] Such as a case that the mother had difficulty pushing the child out.

[11] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/6 in name of Migdal Oaz [Yaavetz]

[12] Pischeiy Teshuvah 266/8

[13] 330/8; 331/3

[14] The Michaber Yoreh Deah 266/11 rules it is forbidden to circumcise an 8th month child which has not developed its hair and nails. This is brought as the first opinion in Admur in 330/8. The reason for this is because the child is Muktzah.

The Rama [ibid] however rules it is allowed to circumcise the child if there is doubt as to whether he was born in 7^th or 8^th month as perhaps he was born on the 7^th and is considered a live child. However if it is certain the child was born the 8^th month then even according to the Rama the child is not to be circumcised. Practically the custom is to circumcise even in such a case as we do not know for certain when she became pregnant with the child. Nevertheless Admur concludes as stated above that this is not to be done, even when it is a true doubt as to which month the child was born, as in a case of dispute it is better to act in a passive manner. [ibid]

[15] Minchas Yitzchak 4/123; Kinyan Torah 3/42; Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 155 rule that today all premature babies, even in 8^th month may have Shabbos desecrated on their behalf. Nevertheless since there are medical issues involved in circumcising a child prematurely, practically we do not circumcise any premature child. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/4]

[16] Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/4; see Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 2/121 that if a child is in an incubator he is considered ill and cannot be circumcised until 7 days have passed after he is removed.

[17] 331/6

An Androgenus is a person born with the both the male and female genitals.

[18] As there is doubt in the status of his gender [ibid] and we do not overrule the Shabbos prohibitions in a  case of doubt. [331/5]

[19] 331/6

[20] Which is defined as an unapparent foreskin, even if the foreskin is only undetectable when the child has an erection. [ibid]

[21] As although he is required to have blood dripped from his foreskin area, nevertheless since this is not a clear Biblical requirement it therefore does not overrule the Shabbos prohibitions. [ibid]

[22] 331/6

[23] As there is doubt as to whether an infant born through Caesarean is required to be circumcised immediately, or on his 8^th day. The reason for this is because the Torah juxtaposes the command of circumcision on the 8^th day to a woman’s impurity due to the birth, and since such a woman did not become impure due to the birth perhaps the obligation to circumcise on the 8^th day does not apply. [ibid] [Background: The Gemara [Shabbos 135] suggests that a child born to a mother who did not become impure in the process is not required to be circumcised on the 8^th day. Hence it does not override the Shabbos prohibitions.]

[24] 331/6

[25] As there is doubt as to whether an infant which was converted is required to be circumcised immediately upon the conversion, or on his 8^th day. The reason for this is because the Torah juxtaposes the command of circumcision on the 8^th day to a woman’s impurity due to the birth, and since such a woman did not become impure due to the birth perhaps the obligation to circumcise on the 8^th day does not apply. [ibid]

[26] 331/6

[27] Two foreskins, one over the other.

[28] As there is doubt as to whether an infant which was born with two foreskins is required to be circumcised on his 8^th day, as the Torah states “Circumcise his foreskin” which refers to a single foreskin. Therefore although such a child is to be circumcised on the 8^th day due to doubt it nevertheless does not override the Shabbos prohibitions due to this mere doubt. [ibid]

[29] Known as a Mumar.

[30] Michaber Yoreh Deah 266/12

[31] Piskeiy Teshuvos 266/14

[32] The Bedek Habayis rules that nevertheless the child may be circumcised on Shabbos while the Shach [266/9] Taz [266/16] rule it is forbidden to circumcise the child on Shabbos

[33] Mahrsham 2/156; Sheivet Haleivi 4/132

[34] Pischeiy Teshuvah Yoreh Deah 266/14 rules he is to be circumcised on Shabbos. Mahrahm Shik [Even Haezer 20] and Beis Yitzchak [Even Haezer 29/11] rule the child may not be circumcised on Shabbos as some Poskim hold he has the status of a gentile and needs conversion, as well as that he is probably no better than the child of a Mumar/Mumeres.

[35] Yoreh Deah 266/13

[36] Yoreh Deah Shach 266/17

[37] Minchas Yitzchak 3/35; Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1/156

[38] A) It is a mere Grama b) This can lead others to push off doing their Bris on time. C) Perhaps a non-religious person will do the Bris improperly.

[39] Mahrshag 2/24; Sheivet Haleivi 4/132 and 135

[40] See Minchas Yitzchak 3/35

[41] Brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/1

[42] Mahrsham 1/209; Beis Yitzchak 42; Beis Shearim 120; Minchas Yitzchak 2/75

[43] Avnei Neizer 2/392; Chayeh Adam 68/19 leaves this matter in question

[44] SSH”K 42 footnote 245

[45] Minchas Yitzchak ibid

[46] Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/5

[47] As rule Geonim

[48] Minchas Elazar 1/23; Divrei Yoel 18; Igros Moshe 4/62; Sheivet Haleivi 1/49; 4/132; Beir Moshe 2/61

[49] Har Tzevi Yoreh Deah 248

[50] Har Tzevi Yoreh Deah 248

[51] Rav SZ”A brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/7

[52] As this is not the natural way of becoming impregnated and the verse states “a woman when she Tazria and has a son…” regarding Milah on the 8^th day.

[53] 331/1

[54] As Periah is included within the Milah process. [ibid]

[55] It overrides the Shabbos prohibition [of causing  wound] being that not doing so can lead to danger to the child. [ibid]

^[56] This refers to a dressing or pad which has ointment smeared over it which is then placed on the wound

[57] Although applying a poultice was forbidden even in a case of illness that does not involve danger, here it is allowed as giving treatment to the area is considered to be a case of danger. [ibid]

[58] As the area that was circumcised can become lethally dangerous if not properly treated. [ibid]

[59] As one must even mix the oil and wine ointment together before Shabbos, even though doing so on Shabbos is a Rabbinical prohibition.

[60] For example, back in the day when they would place crushed cumin and wine mixed with oil on the area, then before Shabbos one would need to crush the cumin and mix the wine with oil. [ibid]

[61] Thus is they forgot to crush the cumin before Shabbos they would be allowed on Shabbos to chew it until it is crushed. Similarly if the wine/oil mixture was not prepared before Shabbos it would have to be placed separately, one after the other, onto the area in order to do it with an irregularity. However one would not be allowed to mix it on Shabbos. [ibid] As for the reason why it is allowed to do so with an irregularity even before the circumcision, seemingly this is because a child has a status of a Choleh Sheiyn Bo Sakana towards which all Rabbinical prohibitions may be done with an irregularity.

[62] Such as one is unable to chew the cumin and must thus grind it in its normal fashion. [ibid]

[63] 331/7. It may not be implied from Admur 331/1 which only mentions this Halacha with regards to grinding the cumin and not regarding mixing the oil that he holds that Rabbinical prohibitions may be done, as it is always permitted to do a Rabbinical prohibition with a Shinui for the sake of one who is bedridden, and a child has the status of one who is bedridden. Vetzaruch Iyun as prior to the Milah, the child does not need this treatment, so how can it be allowed to enter the child into this situation. In any event Admur states explicitly in 331/7 that Rabbinical prohibitions may not be done if they could have been done before Shabbos.

[64] As Mila preparations that involve Shabbos transgressions do not override the Shabbos prohibitions being that they could be done before Shabbos, and it is only the Mila itself which overrides. Now although if the treatments are not given they could jeopardize the child’s life and hence indeed override Shabbos, nevertheless this is only after the fact. However initially it is forbidden to enter the child into this state of danger, hence allowing the treatment. Thus it is forbidden to go through with the circumcision. [ibid]

[65] Although Admur writes this case to be referring to one who did prepare the ointment before Shabbos and after the circumcision it spilled, nevertheless obviously it is not coming to exclude a case that one transgressed and did not prepare the ointment before Shabbos, as it is a matter of life and death for the child.

[66] 331/2

[67] 331/7

[68] The reason for this is because since these acts can be performed before Shabbos there is no need for them to override Shabbos. [ibid]

[69] A Chaluk is a cloth which has a hole pierced in its middle to be garbed onto the child’s Gid, which is then tightened around the Gid to prevent its skin from covering over the foreskin. Hence this hole may not be made on Shabbos. One may however tie a regular cloth around the Gid without making a hole. Likewise one may carry it with an irregularity through a Rabbinical forbidden domain such as by wrapping it on his finger. [ibid]

[70] Such as to carry the knife or the infant through a courtyard which did not have Eiruv Chatzeiros done. [ibid]

[71] As the Sages upheld their decrees even when a Kareis penalty will ensue due to abiding by it. [ibid]

[72] As the Sages did not decree against Shvus Deshvus in a case which involves a Mitzvah. [ibid]

[73] Such as sharpening the knife, or to carry it through a public domain. [ibid]

[74] A dispute of this matter is recorded in Admur. Some opinions rule it is forbidden to ever ask a gentile to perform a Biblical prohibition even in the case of a Mitzvah. Others however rule that even Biblical prohibitions may be performed through a gentile for the sake of a Mitzvah. Practically although one may not rely on this latter opinion regarding a typical Mitzvah, nevertheless regarding Mila since it itself overrides Shabbos one may rely on their words regarding the prohibited preparations. [ibid]

[75] 331/8

[76] As on the one hand the child can be circumcised at his home, and hence bringing the child to Shul involves no Mitzvah need for which the Sages allowed asking a gentile. This would apply even if the area is merely Rabbinically forbidden to carry in such as a courtyard without Eiruv Chatzeiros. Others however allow asking a gentile to bring the child to Shul [through a merely Rabbinically forbidden area of carrying] as circumcising in Shul will gather greater attendance which thereby beautifies G-d. [ibid]

[77] A Jew is not to carry the child from inside to outside or vice versa, even if another Jew will take the child from his hands before he puts the child down, as nevertheless a Rabbinical prohibition has been performed by this Jew, as he has performed Akirah or Hanacha. [ibid]

[78] 331/11

[79] Hence only minority of his limbs may be bathed in hot water, and only if the water was heated before Shabbos. [ibid see Volume 2 “The Laws of Bathing”]

[80] As all Melachas which occur unintentionally are permitted to be performed by a gentile even if they are inevitably done as a result of the action the gentile was asked to do. Thus although the Melacha of whitening is performed when soaking a cloth in water, one may nevertheless ask the gentile to enter the cloth into the water as the gentile is not being asked to whiten the cloth but rather to soak it.  [ibid]

[81] 331/10

[82] It is defined as Muktzah Machmas Chisron Kis

[83] This follows the ruling of the Taz/Magen Avraham in 331 that even on a Shabbos Bris the knife is Muktzah. However the Rama and Shach Yoreh Deah 266/2 rule that the knife is not Muktzah at all as something cannot be Muktzah for only part of Shabbos.

The M”B 310/15 rules that in a time of need, such as there is suspicion of robbery, one may rely on this lenient opinion to hide the knife even after one already placed it down. The Sheivet Haleivi [4/135] rules likewise saying that majority of Poskim are lenient.

[84] As one may only wash vessels on Shabbos if they have a Shabbos use. [323/6]

[85] Yoreh Deah Pischeiy Teshuvah 266/2

[86] 331/13

[87] As he may come to perform it incorrectly and hence end up desecrating Shabbos for no need. [ibid]

[88] So is implied from Admur. However there are Poskim which allow a father to do so even for the first time. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos 331/9]

[89] We do not claim that if another Mohel is available the father should not do so, due to that he is fixing his child which is Tikkun Keli [ibid] as in truth every Mohel is fixing the child and not just the father. [M”B 331/39]

[90] The Michaber [Yoreh Deah 266/14] rules it is forbidden to have two different people perform the Milah. The Rama however rules that doing so is permitted, although initially one is to be stringent. Many Poskim however argue on this conclusion, ruling that even initially one may have two different people perform the Milah/Periah, and so was the widespread custom in Poland. [M”B 331/36]

[91] M”B ibid

[92] Eretz Tzevi 63

[93] As the Mohel is the emissary of the father and it is hence as if only one person is doing the Milah/Periah. [ibid]