tosofos liafukai answers (last answer) "really anytime he didnt get a bris he is chaiv kares so how does that answer the Q its still a kasha acording to the rambam
Aharon adler, Brooklyn ny
Hi Aharon,
I am having difficulty understanding the question. In particular, I am not sure which Rambam you are referring to, nor what point in the Rambam you feel leaves Tosfos' question unresolved.
Could you please elaborate on the question and provide the Rambam you have in mind?
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner
The first or second rambam on the mitzva of mila
Shalom Aharon,
If I have understood your question correctly this time, you are referring to the Rambam (Hilchos Milah 1:2), who writes that one incurs Kares only if he dies uncircumcised. If so, this is a well-known discussion among the Acharonim and is also often a Derashah at a Bris by young fathers!
My grandfather, the Aruch la'Ner (Makos 14a, Tosfos DH l'Afukei), understands that Tosfos' question follows the Rambam, but Tosfos' answer follows the Ra'avad there, who writes that every day the person remains an Arel he stands under the punishment of Kares, although he can still remove it by performing the Milah. This is also how the Kovetz Shemu'os (Shevuos, Os 1), the Or Same'ach (Hilchos Milah 1:2), and the Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 2:26) understand Tosfos.
There are, however, several ways to answer Tosfos' question even according to the Rambam. The Aruch la'Ner suggests that the case may be where the Gid was severed, so that the person can no longer perform a Milah. From that point onward, even during his lifetime, it has already become clear that he will never fulfill the Mitzvah, and he therefore stands under the liability of Kares in a way similar to Tosfos' answer.
A similar point may be connected to the Chazon Ish (Even ha'Ezer 148:29), who explains that according to the Rambam, the Kares is not created only at the moment of death. Rather, it is rooted in the person's earlier intentional neglect; death merely completes the liability.
The Kehilos Yakov (Shabbos, Siman 30) gives a different answer. He explains that the requirement that the Aveirah be one whose intentional violation carries Kares does not mean that the Kares must already have taken effect in practice. It is enough that this is the type of Aveirah which has Kares attached to it. Therefore, even according to the Rambam, Milah may still be considered an Aveirah of Kares.
The Turei Even (Rosh Hashanah 6a) says an even greater Chidush: if a person firmly decides never to perform the Milah, he may be considered liable for Kares immediately. According to that, Milah can be comparable to Avodah Zarah even according to the Rambam, since in such a case the liability is already present.
If, however, I am still not understanding your question correctly, please clarify the point in the Rambam that you have in mind.
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner
Thank you so much but "There are, however, several ways to answer Tosfos' question even according to the Rambam. The Aruch la'Ner suggests that the case may be where the Gid was severed, so that the person can no longer perform a Milah. From that point onward, even during his lifetime, it has already become clear that he will never fulfill the Mitzvah, and he therefore stands under the liability of Kares in a way similar to Tosfos' answer."
Shouldn't that person be chaiv in hatafas dam bris??
Thank you for your follow-up.
The Aruch la'Ner is discussing a case of Nichras ha'Gid, where the organ itself has been severed. In other words, there is no longer any physical possibility of performing a Milah, and certainly no possibility of Hatafas Dam Bris.
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner