586 —הדרכה על גיור וברכות לילד שנולד לאב יהודי ואם נכרית

B"H, 25 Nissan, 5710.

Haraha"g vaharaha"ch vavac"h iy"a nu"m etc. Mehoram"m HaKohen Feldman

Shalom u'Vrachah!

The kuntresim surely arrived on time. I hope they will bring the desired benefit, not only for you personally, nor only as someone upon whom many depend, but also for those influenced by you and those in your environment. Thank you in advance if you inform me of good news regarding this.

In response to your letter about a Jew who lives with a non-Jewish woman, they had a son, and the father brought him for circumcision:

a) Regarding what you wrote about circumcising—a conversion circumcision—for the minor based on his father's intent, that it is no less than a non-Jewish minor who is circumcised based on his non-Jewish father's intent (as ruled in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 268:7): I do not see any similarity at all. The non-Jew and his son have a relationship with each other and are called his offspring (see Yevamos 62a and the commentaries there), which is not the case with the son of a Jew from a non-Jewish woman. Even regarding the opinion cited by the Rema in Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 15:10—where it is only rabbinic and as a stringency—there was already wonder expressed. In our case, since the mother wants the child to convert, in my humble opinion he should be converted through the authority of Beis Din.

b) Regarding your question about where the author of Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 268:5 (and similarly in 267:2) derived the text for blessing over converts—in the first blessing—see Bach 267 where this is cited as an old Alfasi version. Surely the author found this elsewhere too; it is worth examining Dikdukei Soferim on Shabbos though I do not have it at hand now. [Nothing relevant was found there regarding our case.]

c) Regarding your statement that you instructed the mohel to recite the first blessing "al ha-milah," contrary to the explicit ruling of the author because of your doubts about this ruling—and adding that Rema YD 265:2 does not distinguish between blessings recited by an ordinary mohel or by the father—and that even here it should be so; and what Rema did not cite in 268 is because he relied on his glosses in 265—this difficulty was also raised and answered by Magen HaElef commentary on Siman 273 vol. II p.404. With all due respect, I disapprove of such conduct—to act against the author’s ruling when we have yet to find an answer to our difficulty. Heaven forbid we should follow such a path which could undermine all foundations. As for comparing this to YD 268, Maharsha’s notes there already clearly explain their difference. It seems that therefore also Korban Nesanel at end of ch.19 Shabbos only questioned from laws of slaves but not from laws of converts (and what he writes there that even regarding slaves each one is like "the father of the son," needs further study). It has already been cited from Shu”t Rema siman 48 that when he learned of Beis Yosef’s ruling regarding wills, Rema strongly disagreed at length—but in that very responsum he writes that he was compelled to act according to Beis Yosef’s ruling without waiting for his questions to reach Beis Yosef or see how he would answer them. If even earlier authorities acted thus…

With wishes for all good things,
Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

P.S.: In Orach Chaim Siman 366 se’if katan 11, Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks why Rema did not comment also in YD 268. His opinion leans toward reciting "al ha-milah." Apparently he did not see Maharsha’s note since he does not mention it.

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies halachic distinctions concerning conversion and blessings for children born to Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers, emphasizing adherence to established rulings and cautioning against personal innovations that could undermine halachic foundations.