Esau's Milah

The Rabbenu Yona, in his commentary to Sanhedrin, says that Esau did bris milah. He explains the reason is that he would be included in the command to Avraham that his descendants should do bris milah. Even though Esau is excluded from כי ביצחק ולא כל יצחק, that was only established later on. The idea of the establishment of ולא כל יצחק was not said yet is cited by the Briskor Rav in the name of Rav Chayim to explain why the Rambam (Melachim 10:7) cites a different verse to exclude Esau from milah, שהרי יצחק אמר ליעקב ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם לך ולזרעך, מכלל שהוא לבדו זרעו של אברהם המחזיק בדתו ודרכו הישרה והם המחוייבין במילה. Why does he not cites ולא כל יצחק? Because the possuk itself doesn't say Esau is out, maybe Yaakov is out; it is only from the fact that Yaakov is given the mantle to carry on the legacy of Avraham that we know to read ביצחק ולא כל יצחק to exclude Esau, but that is not a given in itself. 

The Daas Zekanim (25:25) cites a Midrash כשראהו אביו אמר עדיין לא נבלע בו דמיו ולא רצה למולו לשמונה ימים כדאמרינן גבי מעשה דשתי נשים שבאו לפני נתן הבבלי וכו׳. כשעבר שנה או שנתיים וראה יצחק שלא החליף מראיתו ידע שזו תולדתו ואפ״ה לא מל אותו אמר הואיל ולא מלתי אותו לשמנה כמוני אמתין עד שיהיה בן י״ג כמו ישמעאל אחי ואמול אותו וכשהיה בן י״ג שנה הוא עכב בעצמו ולא רצה למול והיינו דכתיב אם לא דם שנאת ודם ירדפך. According to the Midrash Esau never obtained a bris milah. But it is clear that Yitzchak did want to give him a bris milah. According to Rabbenu Yona presumably there was no danger in doing the milah, however, if there is a machlokes, it may be explained in multiple ways. 

The Mizrachi (Shemos 4:24) asks how Moshe could delay giving milah to his son, even if there is sakanah, there is no heter of וחי בהם for a gentile to not put himself in danger for the fulfillment of a mitzvah? He clearly assumes that וחי בהם is not said for a gentile, and hence, for a positive fulfillment of a mitzvah, there is no exemption even for life-threatening situations. The Parashas Derachim (Derech Ha'esarim #2) presents several points of argument against the Mizrachi's assertion. He argues on his principle, for he holds even without וחי בהם one does not have to put themselves in danger to fulfill a mitzvah, וחי בהם is only necessary to remove a possible limmud from the cardinal sins that one would have to give up their life (see more about the discussion in הרחבות לפניני הלכה.) Another point he raises is that even if the Mirachi is correct, how can Moshe put someone else in danger to fulfill his obligation? (The Chemdas Yisrael mitzvah 215) says this objection hinges on the nature of the father who does the milah for his son. If it is the obligation of the father, the Parashes Derachim is right, that wouldn't allow him to put his child in danger but if the mitzvah is on the father to fulfill the obligation of his son since he is to young to do it himself, then the father is just acting as the agent of his son who would be obligated himself to put himself in danger to fulfill his obligation and the father can do the milah for him.)  Either one of these points would be in play regarding Yitzchak giving a milah to Esau.  

According to the Midrash why did Yitzchak not do the bris on Esau once he saw there was no more danger, why did he wait untill he was 13? Rabbi Shulman has a fancy approach here.    

The simple read of the Ramban (Lech Lecha 17:6) איננו נכון בעיני שיבשרנו בעת ברית המילה על עשו, והוא אינו מקיים המילה וגם לא נצטוה עליה, כמו שדרשו בסנהדרין (בבלי סנהדרין נ״ט:) כי ביצחק – ולא כל יצחק sounds like Esau did not have any command of milsh. However, he may be referring to after it was established ולא כל יצחק which was not at birth. Either way, the Ramban assumes that Esau did not have a bris at all like the Midrash.  

Ask Her

ויאמרו נקרא לנער ונשאלה את פיה The Midrash says from here we derive one should marry an orphan only if she agrees. The inference from the Midrash is that only for an orphan does one need her acquiescence, since she is the one who is in charge of deciding if she should be married. However, if she has a father, her father can marry her unwillingly. This means that a gentile father has the right to marry off his daughter just like a Jewish father (this is noted by Rav Yosef Engel). However, it is unclear how we know this law applies to gentiles as well?

The Gemarah Kiddushin (3b-4a) explains how we know a father has a right to marry off his daughter. We need a source for this halacha, so how do we know the same law should apply to a gentile? There is a basic chakirah discussed in the Achronim regarding whether the father's right to marry off his daughter is a right the Torah gives him, akin to an automatic shliach for his daughter, or whether the halacha indicates that the father is considered the owner of his daughter, at least vis-à-vis the law of marriage. According to the first way, it is harder to see why we should extend a chiddush of a father's rights to a gentile. According to the second approach, once we see that the father is viewed as the owner of his daughter's marriage rights, that is a halacha in ownership, as a monetary law, and the same law would be true for a gentile. (It is noteworthy that the Maharal in Gur Aryeh on this possuk assumes a gentile does not have the right to marry off his daughter.)

Rashi says on the possuk that one should marry a נערה only if she agrees; he does not specifically mention the context of an orphan. Rav Yosef Engel questions why we need to derive that a woman needs to agree to be married; in every kinyan, both parties need to agree to go through with the kinyan?

The Mesoras Hashas in Kiddushin 2b points out a contradiction in Rashi Kiddushin vs. Rashi Yevamos if the reason for the need for the woman to agree to kiddushin is because of the requirement of דעת מקנה or derived from a possuk of והלכה והיתה לאיש חר מדעתה משמע. Rav Yosef Engel says, according to Rashi in Yevamos, it would seem not to be a law based on דעת מקנה, but a possuk, and that may not apply to gentiles. However, it is difficult to understand why you would not need her to agree to be married because of דעת מקנה? This can only make sense if you assume the woman is not playing an active role in the kiddushin at all but instead she is just מפקר עצמה אצל הבעל as the Ran Nedarim daf 30 says (according to the understanding of the Avnei Miluim in many places.) (The Achronim give different explanations for the Rashi Yevamos that he is being מחדש another din of needing her דעת for kiddushin since in the context of מאמר where there is already a connection between יבם ויבמה then her דעת would not be necessary if not for another din of needing דעת, see Sharay Chayim Kiddushin.)  However, maybe Rashi doesn't mean a halacha; he is just saying we see a proper code of conduct (see also Kiddushin 61b, וצ"ע)?

Too Much Chesed

Rav Kook in פנקס "אחרון בבויסק" (#10) says

אמנם אהבת עצמו במדה הראויה, היא מיסודי חקי המוסר. אמנם שמירה גדולה צריך שלא יבא לביטול העצמיות, ביחוד בישראל, כי נטיית הקודש מאברהם אבינו ע"ה הי' להתפשטות החסד בעולם, ושלא להתגדר לא בגזע ולא בלאם. על כן לא הי' נטיית שמירה כלל לצביון הלאומי לולא עירוב כח אהבת עצמו, שצריך הי' להרכבה זרה, על כן מלכות בית דוד הי' צריך להיות ממואב ועמון, מואב אהבת הגזע, עמון אהבת האומה. בהתרחב המושג הלאומי בימי רחבעם, שכבר נפלג הגזע לשני מטות, יהודה ואפרים, צריך להמצא מושג העממי למען השמירה הצוריית. וזהו מצאתי דוד עבדי, שאמרו חז"ל היכן מצאתיו, בסדום, מקום אהבת עצמו הגדולה ביותר, מלח סדומית שמסמא את העינים. והוא מציאה משתי בנותיך הנמצאות, כדי ליסד יסוד לאומיות עם ישראל בשמירת חטיבה לעצמו. Sometimes chesed has to be reined in otherwise there is no room for prioritizing self. 

Gevurah is actually necessary for chesed to be used properly for if chesed is left unchecked it goes to far and self destructs. This is one of the explanations why rain (chesed) is called gevurot geshamim (see siddur Alter Rebbe) for it is the division of rain into droplets that allows it to be beneficial to the world and not wipe it out. 

Chassidic books say that Yishmael was the פסולת חסד of Avraham. He inherited the middah of chesed but misuses it. Yishmael's chesed does not have the safeguard of gevurah attached to it and therefore, leads to immoral activities.  

The Alter Rebbe (Torah Or Lech Lecha) says that is why we say מגן אברהם, there has to be a block around the chesed of Avraham so that it doesn't go to forces that need to be eradicated.