Tuesday, April 10, 2018
The second stage of Brit Milah, which is sometimes accomplished along with the first, is the one that is often used by anti-circumcision people as being "anti-traditional."
They'll often claim that it wasn't originally instructed to Abraham, and therefore doing it is "not what God intended."
I love how they have a hold on "what God intended."
The truth is, they have no blessed idea of what they're talking about, and no business chiming in on Jewish practice, when they are anti-Jewish practice.
The same Talmud that debates and discusses whether Abraham did Periah dictates that there are three stages to a bris procedure: Milah (excising the foreskin), Periah (revealing the glans - either through removal or folding back of the mucosal membrane), and Metzitzah (drawing out blood from the wound).
I bring this up here because in advance of a class I'm giving next week, I came across this comment from the Haktav V'hakabbalah (a commentary on the Torah) on the verse in Vayikra 12:3 which states that when a woman gives birth to a son, on the 8th day of his life he is to be circumcised.
הכתב והקבלה ויקרא פרק יב
(ג) בשר ערלתו. יש לפרשו באחד משני פנים, הא' בשר הוא כנוי לאותו אבר, כמו זב בשרו, החתים בשרו, וערלה הוא שם לעור המכסה את העטרה, והיה ראוי להסמיך ערלה לבשר ולומר ערלת בשר, כמו ונמלתם ערלת לבבכם, והב' בשר הוא עור החופה את הגיד, כי העור נקרא בשר, כמו דבקה עצמי לבשרי שטעמו לרד"ק דבקה עצמי לעורי, ויהיה טעם בשר ערלתו, בשרו הערל. וההבדל שבין הפירושים האלה הוא, אם ניתנה פריעת מילה לא"א אם לא. והענין מבואר יותר ס"פ לך לך.
Rabbi Mecklenburg's comment here discusses how the reading of the verse in question would determine whether Periah was given as an instruction to Abraham.
However, as I've noted before, we don't circumcise because Abraham circumcised. He may have started a family tradition! But we circumcise because we were commanded to at Sinai, in a different covenant which has kept the Jewish people a distinct unit for thousands of years.
Therefore, while the historical debate of Abraham's periah makes for interesting dinner-talk it is completely irrelevant to our practice.
On top of that, I can certainly add that if asthetics are the least bit of a concern to anyone who is either circumcising a child or having oneself circumcised (as an adult, etc), the status of periah's having been done will actually have a significant impact in whether one "looks" circumcised.
I'll leave the pro-con benefit vs no-benefit argument to others to tackle. We circumcise because of our mitzvah and our Covenant. But once we're doing it right (i.e. with periah) it should also look right.
Posted by A.B. at 11:40 AM