Aligned sentence by sentence
{}.
The Rabbanites obligate circumcision upon one who died, and none of our companions, neither from the Ananites nor amongst any of the sects of the Qaraites, agrees with this. One of the Rabbanites who engages in speculation argues that this obligation is derived from the Torah’s description of circumcision in a general manner that does not delimit circumcision to those alive and none else. If so, we cannot exclude the dead from the commandment of circumcision if the Torah did not do so. In response to this, we can point out first that the Torah also commands that circumcision be performed on the eight day without distinction. Thus, according to them, if a child dies on the first or second day, they should wait until the eighth day to circumcise him according to this commandment. However, if “eighth-day circumcision” does not apply to the dead, it follows that circumcision in all of its aspects does not apply to the dead. If they suggest that such a circumcision occur prior to the eighth day, such as the decomposition and rotting of the body, these considerations cannot cancel the general obligation for eighth-day circumcision that has no exceptions. For there are ways to preserve [the child’s corpse] until the eighth day or even beyond as is practiced in some communities for years, like was done with our Master, Joseph.
[ :] [ ] [ :] [ :] [ :] [ ] .
Furthermore, one must respond to them that the Creator, blessed and exalted, said to us (Exodus 34:20) “And the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck...” and also said (Exodus 34:20) “... All the first-born of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before Me empty.” None of these versus specifies if the animal is alive or dead, but is stated generally. Therefore, they must say that if the donkey dies before his redemption, he must still be redeemed as they claim regarding humans that a dead child must be circumcised. If however, they argue that a dead animal cannot be redeemed, say dead humans cannot be circumcised! For there is no difference between these cases, and in a similar manner respond to them with the verse (Leviticus 22:27) “When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; but from the eighth day and thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the LORD.” If the animal dies after two or three days after its birth, it must be kept until the seventh day next to its mother until the end of the eighth day because the Torah does not specify that the animal is alive on the seventh day. And if they want to distinguish between the two verses since it says (Exodus 22:29) “ Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep; seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it Me” and thus the animal must remain with his mother seven days until he is fit to God on the eighth day, say this is a second commandment that does not undermine the first commandment which obligates the animal to be redeemed generally on the seventh day as they argued regarding circumcision’s generality. In any event, a similar defense can be made undermining their view on circumcision. For after the He says (Genesis 17:11) “And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin...” it says (Genesis 17:11) “... and it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and you.” Thus, circumcision is obligatory for those for whom it will mark a sign of the covenant on the flesh; however, a dead person’s flesh cannot be a sign and there is no difference.
[ :] [ ] .
Similarly, one must respond to them with the verse (Leviticus 13:2) “When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests” and also with (Leviticus. 13:9) “When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought unto the priest” and other similar verses. In all of these cases if they die, one must bring them to the priest! And in every case they attempt to distinguish, similar to their argument with respect to circumcising the dead and what is mentioned regarding the “covenant in the flesh,” they are obligated. Thus the zav and menstruant woman and parturient, if they die prior to being washed, must still be washed and a sacrifice brought on their behalf for what they are obligated. And like this there are countless other examples that argue against them such as pouring the “water of niddah” on a corpse-impure if they die before the completion of seven days and shaving the head of the metzora and taking two live birds. If they reply that one who must be circumcised is a child, who is not responsible, and another adult must fulfill the commandments for him, ask them regarding an adult who is uncircumcised! Furthermore, ask them if a child who touches a corpse and then dies and therefore he who is responsible for the child must pour the “water of niddah” on him! If they say that the “water of niddah” is used only to purify an individual, and how can a dead child be purified whose impurity is above all other impurities, say to them that circumcision is intended to be a covenant in the flesh and the dead have no covenant in their flesh! Moreover, say to them do you not argue that if a zav is struck by a seminal emission he must wash in water in order to fulfill the commandment even though he will not be purified? In the same manner, they must pour the “water of niddah” on the dead even though he will not be purified, and there is no difference!
[ :] [ :] .
Furthermore, say to them additionally: if circumcising the dead is obligatory because God does not distinguish between the alive and not others, they must say therefore that one who is obligated to be burned or stoned and then dies before their punishment must still be burned or stoned while dead. If they say that burning and stoning are only punishments applicable to those who are alive, since what punishment can be imposed on the dead, challenge them with the example of the covenant of circumcision. ُThis is a strain on their neck, as we presented in the seventh chapter of the fourth discourse that every commandment has a purpose and reason, and if the reason is canceled the conclusion is canceled as well. And if it is correct that the purpose of circumcision and its reason are the covenant, once the covenant is canceled the circumcision is canceled as well. And like this example we prove against them with (Deuteronomy 25:12) “then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity” and (Exodus 21:6) “then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever” and shaving the head of the nazir and all that is similar to that.