Circumcision and Naming of Orphan

A father died before the circumcision of his boy. The question was asked: How should the child be named in Hebrew, as the son of his father or the son of his mother? Also, who takes the father’s part in the Brith Mila ceremony? (From Rabbi Nathan Kaber, Altoona, Pennsylvania)

Why should there be any question that the child is named as the son of his father rather than the son of his mother? All the rabbis in the Mishnah and the Talmud carry their father’s name, even though the fathers of many of them, for most of the time that they are quoted, have been dead. It is true that there must be a custom to name a child after his mother, as, for example, Samuel Edels, after a woman, Edel, or Moses Rivkes, or Joel Sirkes. But this was, perhaps, merely the popular identification of the child when the father had died early, and Moses Rivkes is also known as Moses ben Naftali, and Joel Sirkes as Joel ben Samuel Sirkes.

There was of course a custom, not necessarily widespread, to name a person in certain prayers after his mother. Especially in cases where a man was sick and they prayed for him in the synagogue, they would pray for him, let us say, as “Ya’akov ben Rifke.” The reason given for this special use of the mother’s name is the verse in Psalm 116: 16: “I am thy servant, the son of Thy handmaid.” The implication is that in case of special emergency prayer, the mother’s name is used. But nowhere do we find that a person’s father’s name is omitted from that of any legitimate child.

Now, how can the Brith Milah service be conducted, since the father has an indispensable role in it? The mohel, originally the father, circumcised the child himself, as the Talmud states in b. Pesachim lb top. The mohel is the father’s agent and, therefore, the father is to stand by bis side. When the mohel has circumcised and pronounced the blessing, the father is required to pronounce the bless-ing to enter him into the covenant, and so forth. With the father having such an indispensable role, how can the ceremony be conducted if he is not present, or dead?

There is an analogy in the case of the redemption of the first-born, which takes place on the thirtieth day (see Yore Deah 305 : 10). While Isserles says that if the father is dead or absent the child cannot be redeemed, the bulk of the authorities agree with Sabbetai Cohen (the Schach) that if the father is dead, the court has the right to redeem the child and, in fact, the duty to do so. The same is the case with circumcision. The court has the duty, in case the father neglects it, to circumcise the child. Here Isserles, who was dubious in the case of redemption going on in the absence of the father, has no doubt that the circumcision must go on though the father is dead (see Isserles to Yore Deah265:l).

Who, then, shall speak the father’s blessing to bring the child into the covenant, and so forth? Some say that anybody present may do so. Others say that the man who holds the child may do so. Perhaps, by analogy with what is the practice in redemption of the first-born, the grandfather is considered a parent and he may say it. I would suggest that the grandfather be appointed to say it or the one who is the Sandek or, perhaps, the rabbi himself who is the Beth Din.