-After engaging with a fair, honest, and critical reading of the sources and prior Rabbinic rulings, where should circumcision fall in relation to other importantly held values? Why?
-In light of our answer to the above, how should we approach cases related to circumcision? Would your answers differ if the person is born Jewish or if they wish to convert and why? How would medical and psychological dynamics influence your thinking?
-Who is the Brit Milah for? The parents? The community? or the child?
- When is the precise point in the conversion process when a person becomes a Jew? Is it at circumcision or immersion? Or another part? What does kabalat ol mitzvot look like in a practical sense?
(ו) וְהִפְרֵתִ֤י אֹֽתְךָ֙ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֔ד וּנְתַתִּ֖יךָ לְגוֹיִ֑ם וּמְלָכִ֖ים מִמְּךָ֥ יֵצֵֽאוּ׃ (ז) וַהֲקִמֹתִ֨י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֜י בֵּינִ֣י וּבֵינֶ֗ךָ וּבֵ֨ין זַרְעֲךָ֧ אַחֲרֶ֛יךָ לְדֹרֹתָ֖ם לִבְרִ֣ית עוֹלָ֑ם לִהְי֤וֹת לְךָ֙ לֵֽאלֹהִ֔ים וּֽלְזַרְעֲךָ֖ אַחֲרֶֽיךָ׃ (ח) וְנָתַתִּ֣י לְ֠ךָ֠ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ֨ אַחֲרֶ֜יךָ אֵ֣ת ׀ אֶ֣רֶץ מְגֻרֶ֗יךָ אֵ֚ת כׇּל־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן לַאֲחֻזַּ֖ת עוֹלָ֑ם וְהָיִ֥יתִי לָהֶ֖ם לֵאלֹהִֽים׃ (ט) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם וְאַתָּ֖ה אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֣י תִשְׁמֹ֑ר אַתָּ֛ה וְזַרְעֲךָ֥ אַֽחֲרֶ֖יךָ לְדֹרֹתָֽם׃ (י) זֹ֣את בְּרִיתִ֞י אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּשְׁמְר֗וּ בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֥ין זַרְעֲךָ֖ אַחֲרֶ֑יךָ הִמּ֥וֹל לָכֶ֖ם כׇּל־זָכָֽר׃ (יא) וּנְמַלְתֶּ֕ם אֵ֖ת בְּשַׂ֣ר עׇרְלַתְכֶ֑ם וְהָיָה֙ לְא֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית בֵּינִ֖י וּבֵינֵיכֶֽם׃ (יב) וּבֶן־שְׁמֹנַ֣ת יָמִ֗ים יִמּ֥וֹל לָכֶ֛ם כׇּל־זָכָ֖ר לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶ֑ם יְלִ֣יד בָּ֔יִת וּמִקְנַת־כֶּ֙סֶף֙ מִכֹּ֣ל בֶּן־נֵכָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֛ר לֹ֥א מִֽזַּרְעֲךָ֖ הֽוּא׃ (יג) הִמּ֧וֹל ׀ יִמּ֛וֹל יְלִ֥יד בֵּֽיתְךָ֖ וּמִקְנַ֣ת כַּסְפֶּ֑ךָ וְהָיְתָ֧ה בְרִיתִ֛י בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֖ם לִבְרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם׃ (יד) וְעָרֵ֣ל ׀ זָכָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־יִמּוֹל֙ אֶת־בְּשַׂ֣ר עׇרְלָת֔וֹ וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מֵעַמֶּ֑יהָ אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י הֵפַֽר׃ {ס}
(6) I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you; and kings shall come forth from you. (7) I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to come. (8) I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God.” (9) God further said to Abraham, “As for you, you and your offspring to come throughout the ages shall keep My covenant. (10) Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. (11) You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. (12) And throughout the generations, every male among you shall be circumcised at the age of eight days. As for the homeborn slave and the one bought from an outsider who is not of your offspring, (13) they must be circumcised, homeborn and purchased alike. Thus shall My covenant be marked in your flesh as an everlasting pact. (14) And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from kin; he has broken My covenant.”
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן הָאָב חַיָּיב בִּבְנוֹ לְמוּלוֹ וְלִפְדוֹתוֹ וּלְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה וּלְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אוּמָּנוּת וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אַף לַהֲשִׁיטוֹ בַּמַּיִם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְלַמֵּד אֶת בְּנוֹ אוּמָּנוּת מְלַמְּדוֹ לִיסְטוּת לִיסְטוּת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אֶלָּא כְּאִילּוּ מְלַמְּדוֹ לִיסְטוּת לְמוּלוֹ מְנָלַן דִּכְתִיב וַיָּמׇל אַבְרָהָם אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא מַהְלֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ מִיחַיְּיבִי בֵּי דִינָא לְמִימְהֲלֵיהּ דִּכְתִיב הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כׇּל זָכָר וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא מַהְלוּהּ בֵּי דִינָא מִיחַיַּיב אִיהוּ לְמִימְהַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ דִּכְתִיב וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל אֶת בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ וְנִכְרְתָה
The Gemara comments: According to this interpretation, we learn in this mishna that which the Sages taught in a baraita: A father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him, and to redeem him if he is a firstborn son who must be redeemed by payment to a priest, and to teach him Torah, and to marry him to a woman, and to teach him a trade. And some say: A father is also obligated to teach his son to swim. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any father who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry [listut]. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Can it enter your mind that he actually teaches him banditry? Rather, the baraita means that it is as though he teaches him banditry. Since the son has no profession with which to support himself, he is likely to turn to theft for a livelihood. This baraita accords with Rav Yehuda’s interpretation of the mishna. § The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to circumcise his son. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac” (Genesis 21:4). The Gemara comments: And in a case where one’s father did not circumcise him the court is obligated to circumcise him, i.e., if this obligation is not fulfilled by the father it applies to the community as a whole, as it is written: “Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17:10), in the form of a general mitzva that does not apply only to the father. And in a case where the court did not circumcise him the son is obligated to circumcise himself when he reaches adulthood, as it is written: “And the uncircumcised male, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Genesis 17:14).
In following Barmash's teshuvah, the Conservative movement would say that all parents are equally obligated in the commandment of circumcision where it applies.
§ Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav Anan, who says that it is permitted to eat from the slaughter of a Jew who is a transgressor with regard to idol worship: Everyone slaughters, and even a Samaritan, and even an uncircumcised man, and even a Jewish transgressor. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: This uncircumcised man, what are the circumstances? If we say that he is an uncircumcised man whose brothers died due to circumcision and the concern is that he might suffer a similar fate, clearly one may eat from what he slaughters, as he is a full-fledged Jew and not a transgressor at all. Rather, it is obvious that he is a transgressor with regard to remaining uncircumcised, as he refuses to be circumcised. Say the latter clause of the baraita: And even a Jewish transgressor. What are the circumstances? If he is a transgressor with regard to one matter, that is identical to the case of a transgressor with regard to remaining uncircumcised. Rather, is it not that he is a transgressor with regard to idol worship, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan?
(ז) מומר לערלות דינו כמומר לעבירה אחת. ואם אינו ערל אלא מפני שמתו אחיו מחמת מילה הרי הוא כשאר ישראל כשר:
(7) Seif 7 If he is an apostate because of his foreskin, his status is like one who transgresses a specific law. And if he wasn't circumcised due to a fear of death during the circumcision, Indeed he is like the rest of the kosher Jews.*a mumar le'aveirah is worse than pasul le'edut.
1. There is no question that, according to the basic halakhah, it’s permissible for an uncircumcised Jew to have an aliyah because:
a. an apostate regarding circumcision is not an apostate regarding the entire Torah (Hullin 5a; Yoreh Deah 2:7; Shakh to Yoreh Deah264, subparagraph 4).
b. Even a person who has transgressed, as long as he was not excommunicated by a court of Jewish law (something no longer practiced today) he is counted in a minyan (Rabbi Yosef Karo inOrah Hayyim 55:11).
c. A Kohen who marries a divorcee may not recite the Priestly Blessing and may not have the first aliyah, but he may haveanother aliyah (Orah Hayyim 128:40).
d. According to many halakhic authorities, an uncircumcised Kohen may recite the Priestly Blessing (Rambam, Hilkhot Nesiat Kapayim15:1, 6-7; Magen Avraham to Orah Hayyim 128, subparagraph 54; Rema to Orah Hayyim 128:39).
Indeed, this was the ruling of Rabbis Spector, Hoffmann, Weinberg, Freehof and Goldschmidt quoted above in sections III-IV.
2. Rabbi Spector and Rabbi Goldschmidt emphasized that one must attempt to draw such uncircumcised Jews closer to Judaism because otherwise, they will grow even farther away from Judaism.
3. On the other hand, those who ruled strictly did so to build a fence [l’migdar milta] and to fight against those who wished to abolish brit milah.
4. Therefore, “ein l’hakham elah mah she-einav ro-ot“, a local rabbi must rule according to what his eyes see. He must rule strictly or leniently according to local conditions and according to the specific case in front of him. If a person refuses to circumcise himself or his son because he wants to abolish the mitzvah of brit milah, then a rabbi might rule strictly. On the other hand, if a Russian-speaking Jew did not have a brit because his family was cut off from Judaism and the Jewish people for seventy years, he might rule leniently. Or, as Rabbi Yehiel Ya’akov Weinberg wrote above: “And the matter is in the hands of the rabbis who stand guard for the Torah. If they know that by preventing this honor to the father and to the son, he will return them to the good path, then they should prevent them from having an aliyah to the Torah, but if, God forbid, this will cause them to remove themselves entirely from the congregation, then they should draw them close, since, according to law, it is permissible to call up to the Torah both the father and the son.”
(א) זמן מילה לבריא ולחולה ולאנדרוגינוס. ובו ז' סעיפים:
אין מלין עד שתנץ החמה ביום השמיני ללידתו (ומשעלה עמוד השחר יצא) (ב"י ממשנה פ"ב דמגילה) וכל היום כשר למילה אלא שזריזין מקדימין למצוה ומלין מיד בבקר ואפי' מילה שלא בזמנה אינה אלא ביום: הגה עבר ומל בלילה צריך לחזור ולהטיף ממנו דם ברית (ב"י ממשנה שם והגה' מיי') מלו תוך ח' וביום יצא (הרא"ש בפ' ר"א דמילה ושכ"נ מתשו' הרשב"א) ועיין לקמן סי' רס"ד:
(1) א The time of circumcision for the Healthy, Sick and Androginous: We don't circumcise until netz hachamah (sunrise) on the eighth day from birth (and if it was first light it is ok)""mishna 82 megilla"" and all day is kosher for milah but we try to be zealous in the mitzvah and the correct time for the circumsision is in the morning. And even if we do a milah not at its time we don't do except for during the day. Ab) If he is over and circumcises at night he is required to redo it and do hatif dum brit (draw some blood) mishna there Circumcises before the eigth day and during the day is is ok the rosh, in perek Rabbi Eliezer de Milah, Rashba and not as we will learn in 264
Andy's comment: Circumcission is OK before the eighth day after the fact, as long as it wasn't performed at night. However, Isaac Klein rules stringently:
"Since both the Shakh and the Taz and most later authorities require
hattafat dam, we should accept their opinion. We also have the
additional reason to concur with them in order lemigdar milta." From Improperly Circumcised Children and Parents' Synagogue Membership
Rabbi Morris M. Shapiro
May 28, 1981
In summation, I would like to recommend the following:
(1) The parents and the children should be accepted into synagogue membership and given a Jewish education.
(2) The rabbi should try to persuade the parents of the necessity of hattafat dam.
(3) However, the Bar Mitzvah privilege should not be withheld from the children.
(4) Due to the fact that the child is traditionally named during the circumcision service, if the parents refuse to have hattafat dam brit performed, the children should not be named in the synagogue or by the rabbi. Otherwise, we might give the impression that we approve of such improper circumcision.
Rabbi David H. Lincoln
February 15, 1984
Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof, in his Recent Reform Responsa, addresses himself to the question of naming a child when circumcision is delayed due to illness, and state law (Louisiana) requires immediate registration. Rabbi Freehof, in a most fascinating responsum, points out the history of naming. He feels that in biblical times, the child was named at birth: " ... and Leah bore a son, and she called his name Reuben" (Genesis 29:32 ). This at least implies that names were given at birth. Curiously enough, he indicates that the first clear examples of naming a child at circumcision come not from classic Jewish literature, but from the New Testament. One is Luke 1:59, "On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they
called him Zacharias after the name of his father." In Luke 2:21 we find, "and when the eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus." (Thus Christmas, and eight days later New Year's!)
Nowhere in the Mishnah or in the Talmud is there any mention of any requirement or custom to name the child at the brit. The first mention of it is in the Midrashic literature of the Middle Ages in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 48. Speaking of Moses, the text indicates that his parents named him Yekutiel at his circumcision. He also quotes the Tur, Even Ha'ezer
265 in which the lttur of the 12th century speaks of the custom. My own reading of the Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 265: 1, leads me to agree with Dr. Freehof that the naming formula is only stated incompletely as something well known. The conclusion that he arrives at is that at least no violation of law is involved in naming in a synagogue, but merely a divergence in custom.
Rabbi Isaac Klein, in A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, seems to take it for granted that the time for naming is the brit, and mentions no other formula.
There may indeed be nothing wrong in naming a boy in the synagogue, or anywhere else. There is, however, a most serious wrong in not having a ritual circumcision. I do not have to stress the importance of this mitzvah, with all of the ramifications of even setting aside the laws of Shabbat, etc. By allowing naming ceremonies for male children, we are condoning a flagrant denial of our tradition. We cannot be a party to these violations. I suggest that if asked "after the fact," we (1) enjoin the parents to allow hattafat dam; or (2) if they refuse, advise them to give the child a name themselves without involving us in their wrongdoing.
§ During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covenant with God in which they attained their status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required for conversion for all generations. The tanna’im disagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer says that this is a convert, as so we found with our forefathers following the exodus from Egypt that they were circumcised but were not immersed. With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua says that this is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say: Whether he immersed but was not circumcised or whether he was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses. The Gemara questions the opinions in the baraita: But let Rabbi Yehoshua also derive what is required for conversion from our forefathers; why didn’t he do so? And let Rabbi Eliezer also derive the halakha from our foremothers; why didn’t he do so? And if you would say that Rabbi Eliezer did not derive the halakha from our foremothers because he holds one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, i.e., one cannot derive that men do not require circumcision from the halakha that women do not require it, because for women it is a physical impossibility, that claim may be refuted. It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived with regard to the Paschal lamb brought throughout the generations that it may be brought only from non-sacred animals? A Paschal lamb is stated in the Torah in reference to the lamb that the Jewish people brought prior to the exodus from Egypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated in reference to the yearly obligation throughout the generations. The association between them teaches that just as the Paschal lamb stated in reference to Egypt was only brought from non-sacred animals, since prior to the giving of the Torah there was no possibility to consecrate property, so too, with regard to the Paschal lamb stated in reference to the obligation throughout the generations, it may be brought only from non-sacred animals. Rabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derive the possible, i.e., the halakha for the Paschal lamb throughout the generations, where a possibility exists to bring it from consecrated animals, from the impossible, i.e., from the Paschal lamb in Egypt, where it was not a possibility? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Although it was impossible to bring the Paschal lamb in Egypt from consecrated animals, nevertheless, it is still a great proof, and we may learn from it. It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can derive the possible from the impossible. Therefore the original question stands: Why didn’t Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion? The Gemara concedes: Rather, the baraita must be reinterpreted as follows: With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, agrees that the halakha is derived from the foremothers that immersion alone is effective. Where they disagree is with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derives that it is effective from the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees because he maintains that in the conversion of the forefathers there was also an immersion.
Rabbi Steven Saltzman
June 14, 1989
It would seem that the acceptance of the Torah and its mitzvot naturally leads to circumcision, but circumcision would be a senseless act for a proselyte were it not preceded by some intellectual and emotional commitment to Judaism. Infant circumcision presupposes by virtue of family ties subsequent commitment to the covenant. Interestingly, a Jew by birth does not lose his fundamental identity as a Jew if he is not circumcised. Fundamental Jewish identity is mediated by biology, i.e. a
person is born Jewish and nothing including heresy (deviant ideas and beliefs) or apostasy ( deviant practices) can change that biological fact. If a Jew by birth fails either to accept the Torah or to be circumcised, he remains Jewish, because his basic identity as a Jew is biological in nature.
A Jew by choice is in a metaphysical sense being born again. The rituals of conversion are designed to give the Jew by choice that which a Jew by birth already possesses by virtue of birth. The ritual which most resembles birth is immersion in a mikvah. I must agree with Rabbi Joshua in the Baraita who believes that immersion is the decisive act of conversion.
Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer's position is clearly reflected. Milah cannot be the decisive act of conversion. The Tur Y.D. 268 explains that at the mikvah ceremony, the blessing is recited by the proselyte after he emerges from the mikvah. The Bet Yosef explains:
The proselyte may not recite " ... who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to ... " because he is not yet commanded to perform the mitzvot.
Were milah the determining ritual act, as Rabbi Eliezer would have us believe, the proselyte would recite the blessing in the mikvah before immersion, because he would already have undergone circumcision and would indeed be commanded to perform the mitzvot
Rabbi Herbert J. Mandl
October 5, 1994
The Tosafot in Yevamot 47b as well as הנמוק"י והריטב"א all write that if a pregnant woman converts and has a male embryo in utero at the time, that son is born as a Jewish male convert and does not require ritual immersion (and only normal circumcision). Normally circumcision precedes immersion for a convert. This case is different, however, inasmuch as this embryo was immersed with its mother in utero and the child was not fit for a circumcision (as if it were a woman) since it was in utero. From this case we have learned that since it was impossible now to circumcise this child, the immersion alone satisfied the needs of conversion without circumcision at the time the embryo was in utero, inasmuch as at that moment the child was unable to be circumcised as it was in the mother's womb. That case would be somewhat similar to our question where the potential convert could not be circumcised now because of present medical conditions, or theoretically could be circumcised at a later time. That logic can lead one to think that a potential convert who could not be circumcised now could possibly be converted without circumcision and immersion alone would suffice.
Mandl's Conclusions:
1. Under normal circumstances Jewish law mandates for men who convert to Judaism both circumcision (or Hatafat Dam Brit if already medically circumcised) and ritual immersion
in a proper mikvah, in that order.
2. Secondly, if a man had a serious medical threat to life or health which could possibly be resolved at a later time in one's life, or after some type of treatment, then the conversion is postponed for him until that time or circumstance is reached.
Parenthetically, I would add, that based on the views of stringency of Rabbi Hoffman and the Sages (the majority) in the Talmud, Rabbi Kook, the Shridei Eish as well as a statement
conveyed to me by our late professor of codes and rabbinics, Rabbi Dr. Boaz Cohen, of blessed memory, of the Jewish Theological Seminary, in a public lecture on Brit Milah
given in 1968 that "one cannot convert without circumcision" and the fact that the Ponivicher does not decide the issue of whether milah for a gere is tohara (and one should be lenient) or Isur Areilah (and one should be stringent) that such a conversion must be postponed until possible resolution of the medical problems at hand.'
3. If a man has a serious medical threat to life or health which cannot later be resolved in his life, than he should be advised that acceptance into the Jewish faith through Halakhic conversion is impossible for him, and that he be encouraged to follow the seven Noahide Laws and be considered among the "righteous gentiles" of the world.
- In cases of adoption, the Jewish adopting family might not have had legal decision making authority over their child when their kid was younger than 8 days old. (See Nate Crane Teshuva on adoption)
-Lack of access to the procedure (e.g. FSU Jews, but also Jews who were circumcised "improperly," depending on one's opinion, due to lack of access to a mohel, etc.)
-Certain, rare, medical complications (see examples below)
-Personal levels of comfort, belief, struggle with circumcision (see Braver Moss)
-Other reasons that I am sure I am forgetting.
Eric Mayer 1, Daniel J Caruso, Murali Ankem, Mark C Fisher, Kenneth B Cummings, Joseph G Barone
Abstract
Objective: Circumcision is one of the commonly performed procedures on males in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The association of minor anatomic variations of the newborn genitalia in patients with minor circumcision complications has not been previously examined. In this study, we looked for an association between subtle genital anatomic variations and newborn circumcision complications.
Materials and methods: Over an 18-month period, children presenting for circumcision revision were examined for minor variations in genital anatomy. Children referred for other urological problems during the same period comprised the control group. The same physician evaluated all of the children.
Results: During this period, 68 children were evaluated for possible circumcision complications. A confirmed complication was present in 57 infants. Patients with a minor circumcision complication were found to have a 9-fold higher incidence of a prominent suprapubic fat pad, penoscrotal webbing, or being a premature infant as compared to the control group.
Conclusions: Subtle anatomic variations may be associated with a higher incidence of circumcision complications. Physicians performing newborn circumcisions should thoroughly examine the genitalia for these anatomic variations prior to the procedure in order to reduce potential complications.
One of my friends in Urology directed me to some literature about circumcision complications. This gives a very honest picture, in that circumcision is an extremely safe procedure for the vast majority of people. However, we are learning about a few, uncommon but not rare, complications that could come from circumcision based on the anatomy of a person's penis or if they were born prematurely. This leads into Braver Moss's argument that complications are not unheard of, so they deserve to be addressed by halakha even if they are few.
January 1992
Not surprisingly, many Jews find the arguments against circumcision exaggerated and inflammatory. Yet these arguments provide a useful springboard for Jewish inquiry into Brit Milah - for all of them stem from Jewish principles. Concern about a babies' pain echoes the Jewish prohibition against the causing of pain to living things. Opposition to bodily mutilation is based on the Torah's denunciation of pagan practices such as tattooing and cutting the flesh. Concern for medical risk, too, has roots in halacha (Jewish law): Any medical procedure that involves even the possibility of risk to life is halachically forbidden. And the idea of protecting children's rights brings to mind the Jewish principle that the poor and weak should be treated equally ·with the rich and mighty. If even the most inflammatory anti-circumcision arguments reflect ideas originating in Judaism, clearly we ought to address current concerns about the practice.
Pain:
The belief that circumcision pain is insignificant conflicts not only with current medical research, but also with basic Jewish principle. The great sage Hillel summarized Judaism in one succinct statement: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow creature." (Sab. 31a) Additionally, halacha strictly forbids the causing of pain to any living creature. According to the Encyclopedia judaica in both halachic and ethical rabbinical literature "even the necessary inflicting of pain is frowned upon as 'cruel.' Thus, while Brit Milah is considered necessary in Judaism, might it not also be considered cruel? Both Hillel's principle and the illegality of inflicting pain demonstrate that concern for the suffering of others is central to Judaism. With the new evidence that infants feel pain, some are rethinking the circumcision ritual.
Changing Significance:
Brit Milah is intended as a religious event symbolizing the infant's entry into a life of Jewish observance. But many Jews today see circumcision as an end in itself, rather than a means of expressing devotion to God. For example, Jewish parents often opt for hospital circumcisions of their infants without ceremony. Others become "fundamentalists" for the Brit Milah ceremony, then return immediately to lives in which halacha does not play a central role. Some do not even know or acknowledge the covenant.
My own experience as the mother of two sons may not be so unusual. In my sleep deprived stupor, I approached the rite perfunctorily, rather than spiritually. I just wanted to get through it as quickly and unemotionally as possible, and get on with less conflict fraught aspects of child rearing. Both times, I tried to focus on the reasons I had agreed to the circumcision. My sons would be given a permanent mark of their Jewish identity; they would look the way Jewish males have looked throughout most of our people's history. Who was I to break such an ancient and hallowed tradition? There were also personal considerations: In circumcising my sons, I would avoid a major conflict with my husband and almost every otherJew I knew. And my sons would look like their father. I had profound doubts about my decision. But because open discussion of Brit Milah seems to be discouraged in the Jewish community, I experienced my doubts privately and without comfort. (I had not yet begun a dialogue with other Jews who question Brit Milah.) Thus, a rite intended to inspire feelings of Jewish unity evoked in me a sense of loss and alienation. In my heart, I don't believe God wanted me to feel this aloneness, and I don't believe God wanted me to cause my babies pain.
Indeed, my decision had nothing to do with spiritually perfecting my sons, tempering their sexuality, or introducing them into a holy life (all traditional Jewish explanations of the rite's significance). It had nothing to do with the covenant between God and the Jewish people. It had nothing to do with my own relationship with God. Quite the contrary; my sons' circumcisions did not express my own spirituality.
Mohels (ritual circumcisers) and rabbis seem to accept nonreligious and end-oriented motivations for circumcision as a fact of life. One mohel estimates that only ten percent of his clients request his services for purely spiritual reasons. Yet Judaism requires that we perform every commandment ·with our whole heart - that is, with conscious spiritual intent (kavanah). Without kavanah, Jewish life would be reduced to a series of empty rituals.
From a strictly halachic perspective, it is better to go through the motions of fulfilling a mitzvah (commandment) than not to fulfill it at all. But Jewish commentators Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin point out the dangers of end-oriented observance of commandments. If a mitzvah becomes largely an end in itself, rather than a means toward spiritual perfection, what distinguishes its practice from blind idolatry? As Prager and Telushkin put it;
"Halacha is the 'way' to reach a certain place, that place being morality and holiness. Too many Jews who travel the Halakha have forgotten that it is only a way and not the place to which it is supposed to lead. Whoever makes the way into an end is lost 'Sometimes,' said the great hasidic rabbi Menachem Mendl of Kotzk, 'a mitzvah ... becomes idol worship (it, not God and goodness, becomes the end}.'"
Many of us "worship" the circumcision commandment exactly as this passage describes. In doing so, we not only compromise our own religious integrity; we cause a significant halachic problem. By Jewish law, an uncircumcised Jew is subject to karet (divine punishment by premature death). But karet also applies to idolaters - those who worship anything besides God.
Theoretically, then, kar-et could apply to those who "worship" Brit Milah as an end in itself. As startling as it sounds, those who fulfill Brit Milah without proper spiritual intent may face the same punishment as those who do not fulfill Brit Milah at all.
Risk
Many mohels and rabbis argue that circumcision deaths are so rare as to be a nonissue. Besides the fact that we don't know how rare they are, this perspective seems a strikingly un Jewish one. Judaism affirms the sanctity of human life, embracing the idea that every life is of infinite value. Accordingly, it would seem, every loss of life must be considered an infinite loss. Halacha also tells us that since danger to life takes precedence over all else medically, hazardous medical procedures are strictly forbidden. According to Rabbi Bleich, "the halachic rule is that even the possibility of hazard [from a medical procedure] must be treated as a danger."
Some claim that circumcision tragedies occur only at the hands of inexperienced mohels and physicians, and that unforeseeable medical conditions predispose certain
infants to react negatively to the surgery. Neither of these points in any way mitigates the loss of life. No matter what the cause - and no matter what the number- Brit Milah deaths are a serious matter.
Conclusions:
We must also address the reality that Jewish parents are questioning circumcision more than ever before. Some find the pain and risks problematic; some question the point and the ethics of forcing an infant into a covenantal agreement; some take issue with Brit Milah in light of their own lack of spiritual conviction about it. This reality is far from bleak: Each of these concerns reflects a deep regard for Jewish values. Jews are questioning circumcision for Jewish reasons. In my own case, questioning the rite has only deepened my love for Judaism and strengthened my Jewish identity.
Traditionalists argue that Brit Milah should not be questioned because, in the face of intermarriage and assimilation, we simply cannot afford to 'water down' Judaism any further. My own experience does not bear this out. Through my inquiry, I have made more meaning out of my own Jewishness, and learned more of Judaism, than through any other means. If we present. Brit Milah as a closed subject, it seems to me we miss a.
key opportunity to get Jews involved in Judaism. We force many parents either to do their questioning outside the realm of Judaism, or - worse yet - to worship ritual instead of God. Denying that conflicts exist does not strengthen Judaism. It makes Judaism brittle.
Max DuBoff and Dena S. Davis
Among Jews today, both b’rit milah, i.e., infant male ritual circumcision (also called a bris), and circumcision in the hospital remain common. (Data are sparse about exactly how common these practices are. All that is clear is that a vast majority of Jewish males undergo infant circumcision, in both the United States and Israel.) It is not always recognized that these alternatives are distinct; although Jewish religious authorities tend to prefer hospital circumcision to none at all [1], hospital circumcision in some ways rejects the traditional practice of ritual circumcision. Given that only 35% of American Jews affiliate with a synagogue or share a household with someone who does, and only 15% of American Jews consider Jewish law central to their own conception of being Jewish [2], pp 57, 20], many Jews unsurprisingly eschew a ritual context for their male babies’ circumcision [3]. Nevertheless, there are complex historical, social, and cultural reasons why circumcision has remained so popular [4–11].
However, circumcision is not a given among the broader American population. Although up-to-date data are sparse, 58.3% of male babies were circumcised in the hospital in 2010, and around 70–80% of the US male population is circumcised [12, 13]. Many Americans, including Jews, no longer view circumcision as a cultural necessity. Further, there is long-running ethical debate about infant male genital cutting [14, 15]. In this context, in which many Jews already do not participate in traditional b’rit milah and infant circumcision is not automatic, there is reason to explore Jewish infant rituals which do not include circumcision.
...
The question then arises: why do this covenant, this struggle against the larger culture, and this tribe rely on circumcision itself, rather than on Jewish ritual observance overall? It is certainly correct that many have attempted to ban and stigmatize circumcision, even until today [18, 19]. Yet it is not clear that circumcision represents anything particularly Jewish among the many circumcised Jews with little to no religious connection. Our discussion will show that b’rit shalom can satisfy these demands for Jewish ritual observance and devotion no less than b’rit milah can. First, because ritual circumcision is often passed over in favor of hospital circumcision, and many Jews and non-Jews are not familiar with the differences, it will be helpful to explain the elements of ritual circumcision.
...
In some cases, b’rit milah is seen by Jewish communal leaders as an opportunity to religiously engage unaffiliated Jews. However, this process does not obviously rely on circumcision. In any case, among all but the most traditional Jews, it is fair to say that the reasons for performing male genital alteration are made up of religious elements, medical beliefs, familial and communal motivations, a preference for a boy to look like his father, and societal pressures, all mixed in with the prevailing acceptance of newborn male circumcision as normative in American culture.
Before we discuss the development of b’rit shalom, we must note that b’rit milah is defended strongly by the three largest American Jewish denominations (Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox), representing over 60% of American Jews [2, 21–24]. Only one small denomination, Humanistic Judaism, advocates b’rit shalom [25]. Yet, as noted earlier, the reality is that many Jews, including some who affiliate with these denominations, already eschew the ritual of b’rit milah. It is a difficult question how many Jews are interested in a ceremony like b’rit shalom, but increased suspicion of circumcision in American culture makes it likely that many are or might be interested.
Having outlined the history of b’rit shalom, we can move on to its significance. One reason b’rit shalom is significant is that it is an area for liturgical innovation. Without longstanding precedent for the ceremony’s details, b’rit shalom provides opportunities for parents to craft ceremonies that are meaningful to them for welcoming their baby boys, rather than deferring to a mohel or eschewing a ceremony altogether. They can either rely on a guide such as Braver Moss and Wald’s book [43], on a clergy member who will create and/or lead a service, or on their own preferences. This process in some ways picks up on earlier creative Jewish approaches to tradition, such as that of The Jewish Catalog [44, 45]. This flexibility also matches the current situation for covenantal and naming ceremonies for newborn females [7, p 219; 20, 26]. (It is a difficult question, which is far from settled in Jewish life, whether there should be the same sort of ceremony for babies of all sexes. Those who think yes might embrace b’rit shalom, as do Humanistic Jews, but most Jews have so far chosen to hold different ceremonies while making them similar qua the naming of the baby.)
Another reason b’rit shalom is significant is that it provides ritual options for those who now object to circumcision and for those who will in the future. A variety of Jewish ritual and expression is encouraged in many parts of the Jewish world, which b’rit shalom adds to. Prominent Jewish voices, including Julie Pelc Adler, thenDirector of the Brit Milah Program of Reform Judaism, have recommended crafting b’rit ceremonies which use language meaningful to Jews today [46]. Pelc Adler notes that over half the circumcisions performed by Reform mohalim are for families not affiliated with a synagogue. B’rit shalom advocates agree with Pelc Adler’s interest in meaningful ceremonies but disagree that circumcision is necessary. Presumably some of those unaffiliated families, and others who have no contact with a mohel, would prefer a ceremony without genital cutting; b’rit shalom gives them that option, which can be important for an event as significant as welcoming a child into the Jewish covenant.
A fourth reason b’rit shalom is significant is that it contributes to normalizing a variety of views and practices with respect to circumcision. Circumcision has in the past been identified with Jewishness, and there is still significant stigma attached to being uncircumcised, even though many clergy and institutions have an unofficial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to circumcision (conversation between authors and Lisa Braver Moss and Rebecca Wald, August 2, 2021). Braver Moss and Wald are outspoken critics of this sort of policy. Describing their experience tabling about their book Celebrating Brit Shalom at Reform Judaism’s 2015 Biennial gathering, they note:
"[A] few rabbis indicated to us that they were fine with families’ not circumcising, but preferred a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about it. While privacy about such a decision might seem decorous, “don’t ask, don’t tell” conveys the message that there is something to be ashamed of in the decision not to circumcise. Given that the very basis of Reform Judaism is choice, a family should never be made to feel their ritual decision is shameful or “less-than.” (conversation with authors, August 2, 2021)"
Views vary on this topic, of course, across the Jewish world. Most denominations are officially committed to circumcision and thus would object to this goal for b’rit shalom. One of the most prominent Conservative Jewish legal authorities does not see uncircumcised status as a barrier to Jewish ritual participation, except perhaps in cases of circumcision objection [22]. Exclusion from a synagogue over circumcision status remains rare, though Braver Moss and Wald know of multiple recent cases. While it is beyond the scope of this paper whether circumcision should be promoted, it suffices for our purposes that b’rit shalom helps create a better Jewish world for those who are not, and those in the future who will not be, circumcised.
https://rdcu.be/cUBrT
Jericho Vincent
Spring 2021
The Conservative Movement explores this option in a teshuva on trans men and conversion that was adopted in 2017. (I haven’t seen any teshuvos that grapple specifically with genderqueer Jews).
In the view of the Conservative teshuva, since trans men, even those treated with metoidioplasty or phalloplasty, do not have a foreskin, they are treated like men who are nolad mahul, born circumcised. However, as the teshuva explains, the reason the Talmud gives for asking for a hatafas dam, is the concern that the nolad mahul might have what’s called a shema orlah kevushah-- a suppressed foreskin. Since a trans man will never have a suppressed foreskin, the teshuva concludes that neither circumcision nor hatafas dam are required.18 However (emphasis mine):
Some trans men may desire HDB (hatafas dam bris) as a spiritual component of their conversion even though there is no halakhic requirement for this procedure. There is also the possibility that some trans men who are born Jewish may desire HDB and/or immersion as part of their transition process. There is no berakhah associated with HDB, neither for a cis man nor for a trans man, or whether it is done for the purpose of conversion or for someone born Jewish whose circumcision was not a brit milah. Nevertheless, some rabbis/mohalim will offer a blessing without shemu-malkhut, without mention of God’s name or sovereignty, to add a spiritual dimension to the ritual.
According to this line of thought, while you aren’t obligated to have a hatafas dam bris, you are welcome to it-- but it will not be sanctified with the holy name of God.
In this teshuva the authors are trying to walk a fine line between honoring trans men but also making it clear that trans men have vaginas (and trans women have penises), and we must treat those vaginas and penises as medical specimens that require binary organ-specific spiritual care.
They compare this analysis to the treatment a trans person might receive at the doctor, saying: "[A] trans man should be treated like all male patients, but if he needs a pap smear, the physician must do it."
I appreciate the effort put into this inquiry, but I take issue with the entire framing. Trans issues have been appropriated by what philosopher Paul B Precadio call our pharmacopornographic culture-- the integrated collusion of the pharmaceutical industry, pornography industry, and late capitalism in the regulation of our bodies. Why is a Jewish theological inquiry turning to the medical establishment for frames of reference? Surely we are on far safer ground if we approach the body not with the eye of the doctor, but with the eye of the lover.
...
God views you as a lover views their beloved, and since a lover would experience your male genitals as a male penis, it seems natural to me that God experiences your male genitals as a male penis. And so I will reach deeper than the teshuva from the Conservative movement and I will affirm that from what I, this one limited but devoted human being, can understand of the
will of God, if you are a man with a penis, even only sometimes, and you wish to have a bris, you have a right-- no-- a responsibility-- to a bris milah done with haftafas dam that is graced with a full blessing that contains the name of God. Instead of haftafas dam, you may also decide to “cut” the covenant into your flesh with a labia piercing or a piercing of the clitoral hood.