Intermarried couple. Mother & son are Jewish. The father is about to convert. The brit is planned for the same day. Who goes first?

Assumption - Baby goes first as his brit should be on the 8th day. The father can postpone his brit, technically.

Would the rules matter if the father wants to be the sandak or wants to make one of the blessings? (I think a separate M.Y. question states that the Sandak must be a Jew.)

  • 1
    There is a general principle of zerizin makdimin, that dictates that mitsvot should be performed as early as possible. This certainly applies to circumcising the son. | The question is, does it apply to circumcising the father.
    – mevaqesh
    Feb 23, 2017 at 15:47
  • 1
    "The father can postpone his brit, technically." Not just technically. He has no obligation on him at all to do anything (other than set up courts, I suppose).
    – Double AA
    Feb 23, 2017 at 15:57
  • 2
    Note the father and son are halachically unrelated so this is no different than any other case of a convert-to-be and a Jew who both seek to be circumcised.
    – Double AA
    Feb 23, 2017 at 15:58

1 Answer 1


The father is not Jewish at the time of the choice, so to make the bris to the son is not a duty for him. If the decision is the decision of the father (not probable) he needs to make for himself the bris, and next as a jewish to make the bris to the child by arvut as Bet Din (1). If the decision is from the Bet din, they need to make first the brit of the child who, because of his actual Jewish status, presents already a duty for the Bet Din, and next to make the bris to the father. See in Siman 268, 1, A ger needs lechatechilla to circumcise before the tevila. Baer Heytev sk 2.

(1): See SA YD 261:

אם לא מל האב את בנו -- חייבים ב"ד למולו. ואם לא מלוהו ב"ד -- חייב הוא כשיגדיל למול את עצמו. ואם לא מל -- חייב כרת: הגה: ובכל יום עוברים בעונשים אלו (טור ובכל בו). ואין מלין בנו של אדם שלא מדעתו אלא אם כן עבר האב ולא מלו -- בית דין מלין אותו בעל כרחו (טור בשם הרמב"ם). ואין האשה חייבת למול את בנה (טור). האב שאינו יודע למול ויש כאן מוהל שאינו רוצה למול בחנם רק בשכר -- יש לב"ד לגעור במוהל זה כי אין זה דרכן של זרע אברהם ואדרבה המוהלים מהדרין שיתנו להם למול. ואם עומד במרדו ואין יד האיש משגת לתת לו שכרו הוי כמי שאין לו אב שב"ד חייבים למולו ולכן ב"ד כופין אותו מאחר שאין אחר שימול (רשב"א סי' תע"ב):‏

The Bet Din has a duty to circumcise a boy who was not already circumcised by his father.

If the Bet Din didn't circumcise him, when he reach the majority, he has a duty to circumcise himself.

We are in habit to circumcise a boy without his father's accord, only if the father does not this himself against the Law of the Tora. In this case, the Bet din circumcise the boy. The woman is not in duty to circumcise her son.

  • The 1st sentence is logical. The rest is new to me. Please provide sources for those.
    – DanF
    Feb 23, 2017 at 17:05
  • @DanF fixed I hope ;-)
    – kouty
    Feb 23, 2017 at 17:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .