An Act of Faith

Life has taken it's toll on blogging, thank God. Our son was born a month ago, and I chose not to repost what I had written the last time this happened. However, I did post the news on my Facebook page, and I was summarily attacked by anti-circumcision advocates who are either self-hating Jews, ignorant Jews or erstwhile anti-Semites. All hiding under the guise of "liberalism." The essential message they share is "I respect your religion until I have problems with your religion." Or perhaps, "You can only observe your religion in the manner that I see fit." Sigh.

As I noted here, Maimonides goes into intricate detail of his view as to why we circumcise our sons. And while one may or may not like his arguments (some of them - certainly when taken out of context, and in either case when not taken in the overall picture of Maimonides' worldview - might be easily misunderstood), I think his view can best be summarized in this one sentence.

No one, however, should circumcise himself or his son for any other reason but pure faith.

It really is as simple as that.

These pages are not really an invitation for debate about the pros and cons of circumcision. The Jewish people do not care if other members of society circumcise, nor do we care if they choose not to circumcise their sons.

For us, the Bris Milah (Covenant over Circumcision) turns the act of circumcision into a Covenental Rite, and the question of the value of the foreskin is not even raised. (There is a very insightful way to understand it if one reads through the Bible (in particular the books of Judges and Samuel) and notes how the words "uncircumcised" or "foreskin" are used).

Bris Milah is an Act of Faith which includes a circumcision. I am truly sorry if that offends people. But our children don't find it offensive (except the self-hating or ignorant Jews as mentioned). And our dedication to this act has outlived all those who were against it before, and it will also outlive the modern day activists.

Achieving Perfection

Every mohel worth his sense tries to get a perfect circumcision every time. Some estimate the foreskin - others (I wish it were many more) use a surgical marker to note where the edge of the foreskin is (I offer for parents to see what this refers to when we meet in advance of the bris).

Any circumcision must account for a little bit of human imperfection - and I love quoting the line of the urologist grandfather who told me, "The penis is a very forgiving organ" meaning that for all the circumcisions that don't look perfect that he sees, most turn out fine on account of the way this organ heals over time.

While I have had my share of "perfect jobs," it would be dishonest for me (or any mohel, or any surgeon) to say that EVERY procedure goes perfectly without a hitch. Many do. But there are those that are a little more complicated. Thankfully, many "hitches" (when they occur) can be corrected, and I try to fix them ASAP after the bris. 

So what is referred to by "Achieving Perfection?"

It is the instruction given to Avraham at his bris! "Avraham - walk before me and become perfect" (some translate perfect as "complete." The Hebrew word is "Tamim" = תמים.)

The perspective of Jews that have always embraced circumcision as a mitzvah is that the act of circumcision makes the Jewish male complete.

[The thought process continues suggesting that women do not need a circumcision because they are created physically complete.]

Anti-circumcision people sometimes argue that a baby is born perfect. What gives us the right to do anything to the child.

It is a good argument. But it is ignorant of Jewish knowledge. Which is why we ignore it.

Parents cut umbilical cords, they cut hair, they cut fingernails, they clean out earwax, they pierce ears, they put injections, blood tests, and in some cases choose surgery as an option for either an emergency reason, or, in some cases, a cosmetic reason (yes! even on babies!). 

So we will continue to aim to achieve the perfection God spoke of in Genesis 17 (and we will not yell at anyone who cuts a "natural" umbilical cord off of its baby owner). That is our goal when we undertake the Bris Milah.

Maimonides on the Reasons for Circumcising II

This is not as much a blog post as it is an attempt at providing a source which has been misused, mistreated, misunderstood, etc. by people looking to sling bris milah under the bridge, and to bury it in mud. 

The previous blog post says all we need to know about Maimonides' view of circumcision. 

This excerpt includes a couple of paragraphs from Maimonides's introductions to "The Guide to the Perplexed" as well as the entirety of the passage which includes to oft-quoted segment in which Maimonides describes what the loss of the foreskin does to a man. 

Of course, as the entire book was written systematically, it is imperative that the paragraph in question NOT be read alone and out of context. It MUST be read in the context of the section being presented here: 3:49 of The Guide - interestingly, this section is entitled "Marriage Laws." 

Maimonides warned in his Introduction that he is talking to the religious person, and to the, in some cases, one intelligent person amongst ten thousand fools. Translation: Not everyone who reads The Guide will understand it. And people who misunderstand it (or who take it out of context) might be included in the group of ten thousand. 

The point of sharing this is simply to be intellectually honest. People who read what they want, and become Maimonideans for an out-of-context quote are not intellectually honest. You can't pick and choose. At least an attempt at consistency is warranted. And to use Maimoindes to bolster your argument, you MUST ALSO KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT, and understand the point he is trying to make, in its totality. What Maimonides says about circumcision is to benefit marriages. And he was preaching to the choir. So, once again, if you don't like circumcision in general, please vent your frustrations elsewhere. 

 All the translations here come from the Friedlander translation, which is available online over here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp003.htm 

 Anything in bold or italicized from here on is my emphasis. With the exception of a very rare comment here and there, the rest of this very lengthy treatise is Maimonides' words (translated) 

Maimonides on the Reasons For Circumcising

There is one reason why we circumcise our sons: Because it is a mitzvah in the Torah.

We don't do it because Abraham did it. He certainly set a precedent and we follow his example. But

as the Rambam (Maimonides) explains in his commentary to the Mishnah Hullin at the end of Chapter 7, EVERY MITZVAH STEMS FROM WHAT MOSES TAUGHT AT SINAI BASED ON GOD'S COMMAND.

פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ז 

[ו] לדעת ר' יהודה האוכל כזית מגיד הנשה של בהמה טמאה חייב שתי מלקיות משום בהמה טמאה ומשום גיד הנשה. ואין הלכה כר' יהודה. ושים לבך לכלל הגדול הזה המובא במשנה זו והוא אמרם מסיני נאסר, והוא, שאתה צריך לדעת שכל מה שאנו נזהרים ממנו או עושים אותו היום אין אנו עושים זאת אלא מפני צווי ה' על ידי משה, לא מפני שה' צוה בכך לנביאים שקדמוהו, דוגמא לכך, אין אנו אוכלים אבר מן החי לא מפני שה' אסר על בני נח אבר מן החי, אלא מפני שמשה אסר עלינו אבר מן החי במה שנצטווה בסיני שישאר אבר מן החי אסור. וכן אין אנו מלים בגלל שאברהם מל את עצמו ואנשי ביתו, אלא מפני שה' צונו על ידי משה להמול כמו שמל אברהם עליו השלום, וכן גיד הנשה אין אנו נמשכים בו אחרי אסור יעקב אבינו אלא צווי משה רבינו, הלא תראה אמרם שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני, וכל אלה מכלל המצות. 

Translation of the two bolded statements:

"You must know that everything we are careful about or do today, we only do it because of a commandment of God [delivered] through the hand of Moshe."
"And we do not circumcise because Abraham circumcised himself and the men of his household. But because God commanded us, through Moshe's hand, to circumcise, just as Avraham, Peace upon him, circumcised..."

So Maimonides makes it quite clear that we have a mitzvah to circumcise. And that the only reason we do so is because of the mitzvah.  

This is an important set up to the next posting, which will specifically target the Jews who are anti-circumcision, who like to take a quote of Maimonides out of context to argue why we should not circumcise.

They do not listen to anything else Maimonides says. They don't read Maimonides at all. And they don't understand what Maimonides writes. But they champion him as the anti-circumcision advocate because of something he wrote, when applying such a moniker to him could not be any further from the truth - stay tuned... for part II

My Article About Bris Milah

I write a weekly column for the Jewish Star in New York - which I reproduce on my Torah/Judaism-focused blog. Last week the topic was Bris Milah - or the Covenant of Circumcision, as it appears in the Torah in Bereshit (Genesis) Chapter 17, Parshas Lekh Lekha.

Here is the link to the Jewish Star      Here is the link to my blog

And here is the text for good measure:

Interesting Stimulus Response

I just came across this article, which includes a link at the end with a response from the "other side" (my side).

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/my-body-my-choice-ban-non-consensual-circumcision

And the response

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/becoming-a-jew-is-dangerous-circumcision-is-the-least-of-it

Were I to respond to the original author (and I might here eventually) [Update: Response Part I, and Response Part II]  I would take issue with a lot of his points. I'll just respond to one here, becomes it is brought up a lot by people who make similar arguments:

The author quotes Maimonides - and takes the same quote that many people who areanti-circumcision like to quote from "The Guide tothe Perplexed" [3.49 (118a), 609] in which Maimonides expressed how circumcisiondecreases physical sensitivity. 

But their quotation of Maimonides is always incomplete, and therefore intellectually dishonest. Maimonides is coming from the perspective that there is a lot more to life than "running like chickens to one's bedroom."

In the part they don't quote, Maimonides outlines why we circumcise. Avraham was the first to recognize the power of the male "drive" and the need to have other pursuits in life [see Hilchot De'ot 3:2]. More importantly, in his day (certainly before any notion of routine circumcision that exists in the United States today), circumcision gave our people a common physical sign of our peoplehood, along with the faith that this is what God has asked of us. 

The covenant forged with Avraham, in which God agreed "to be a God for you and for your children after you" [as described in Bereshit 17] is the source for declaring God's oneness.

[As to Maimonides' real reason for why we circumcise, see here]

Maimonides states unequivocally that the Torah cannot be properly fulfilled without circumcision. He shares three points of wisdom in the process of circumcising at this age: 1. Were we to leave it for the child to do when he grows older, there's a great chance that he wouldn't do it. 2. The long-term pain experienced by an older person, who will add emotional stress to the ordeal, does not compare to the when-it's-over-it's-done experience of a newborn 3. Submitting a newborn to circumcision is much easier than an older child, for whom our love only grows over time, who experiences pain differently and who might remember it.

To Maimonides first point here, the author of the first "Tikkun" article quoted above might say, "That's exactly my point!" But to a Jew who has faith in God and appreciates that life itself is a gift from God, and that our bodies are given to us to house our souls, circumcision is a non-question. [See a discussion on the subject of God's creation versus Man's intervention here]

To the second point (which follows, once we assume circumcision will be taking place), Maimonides is essentially arguing that when a child is newly born, circumcision is not as traumatic as it might be at a later age. As a mohel, my experience echoes such a sentiment. Most babies are calm and cooing minutes after their circumcision, if not resting quite peacefully, and no worse the wear. Contrast this with the father of a baby, who was born in Russia, and told me how grateful he was that this was being taken care of in infancy while he personally was circumcised at age 18 and remembers the pain of the experience as one of the most difficult times in his life ("Couldn't walk for weeks!").

These days, even many Muslims have switched from the older practice of circumcising at 13 or a younger age of childhood, opting for the newborn period, which is far less traumatic and entirely forgettable.

CONCLUSION

I readily admit that in the general culture the to circ or not to circ question is a legitimate one that people can debate. But for Jews who observe this commandment, there is no question, need for further rationale, or discussion to be had (aside from "which mohel," "where will the party take place" and "who is catering").

With blessings for happy occasions and many celebrations of the births of Jewish children, and the occasional bris (on the boys only), may we continue to fulfill God's commandments until the end of time.

News Monitor: Germany - Anti-Semitic or Uber-Liberal?

[UPDATE: Here is the follow up article to what I blogged about below - the 'Outraged Jews Respond']

The Times of Israel reported today that a German court declared circumcision illegal, barring out of medical necessity.

The article states "The case that prompted the ruling took place in Cologne, when a 4-year-old boy, circumcised by a Muslim doctor, began bleeding two days after the surgery and needed to be brought into the emergency room."

If the "Muslim doctor" is really a physician (as opposed to someone like a mohel who is often not a physician), then saying that he is Muslim is really irrelevant. This was a medical procedure and either the operator (if indeed the physician is at fault), or the patient (who may have clotting issues), or the parents (who did not care for the circumcision wound properly) are at fault. And this is to be chalked up as one of the more uncommon statistics. [The doctor was apparently acquitted in the suit - it was the judges who took the case a step further to outlaw circumcision]

I am not saying circumcision is comparable with cosmetic surgery, but elective surgery often brings the desired results, and sometimes it does not. [I am also not raising the argument of whether parents "have the right" to do this to their children. There are enough voices in the medical community arguing that circumcision is either beneficial, good, or not harmful to make the pro-circumcision side a legitimate opinion.]

The article also says "The recent landmark decision will likely draw the condemnation of Jewish and Muslim communities, although official representatives have refrained from commenting so far, saying they first want to study the reasons given for the judgment." Which, I guess, is reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than the judges taking one case and deciding on national policy.

"... the district court rule[d] that the circumcision was a “severe and irreversible interference into physical integrity.”

Physical integrity? There are literally hundreds of millions of males in the world who are circumcised. None of them have "physical integrity?" What on earth are they talking about?

Smoking causes lung cancer: has smoking been banned?
Tanning salons cause skin cancer: has tanning been banned?
Elective plastic surgery can go horribly awry: has it been banned? (talk about "physical integrity"...)
Earrings? Any piercings? Tattoos? Braces? Cavity fillings? catheters? Ear tubes for ear infections? Cochlear implants?

If you live in a world in which people enjoy freedoms and there is officially religious freedom, then responsible circumcision falls into the category of untouchables. As I have written in my "Bris: Not Barbaric" posting - most circumcised people do not put a moment's thought during the day, during any given week, or much at all during any given year to the fact that they are circumcised. There are many women in the anti-circumcision camp, and there are men as well (circumcised and uncircumcised) who play a role in the anti-circumcision camp. And, in general, I think they have a little too much time on their hands.

But governments and courts should stay out of telling people what they can and cannot do. We're not talking about the amputation of a limb. The removal of the foreskin does not change the way the penis functions. It may remove nerve endings and alter the appearance. But it gets rid of phimosis (which ends of helping many babies finally urinate properly), it makes the cleaning of the penis very easy, it removes the possibility of growing smegma, and, down the road, it significantly lowers the incidence of certain STDs and other penile-related diseases. And, of course, a circumcised male can enjoy intercourse and father a child just fine, all without a foreskin.

It's not for everybody, and that's OK. But to "ban it" as official "law of the land" on account of one incident is uber-liberal thinking. I find it ironic that all the people who claim "God made you this way" are usually the ones who have no concept of God, religion, etc who smear religions, religious individuals, and religious choices. But when God is convenient, they use God to bolster an argument, not appreciating the rights of others to understand God the way religions have taught for centuries and millenia.

To ban circumcision otherwise in the 21st century (which usually stems from anti-religious thinking) - this is a 200-years step backwards into the realm of feudal lords, czarist regimes, and fanatical irrational despots who had nothing better to do than impose their own will on the people, or make a religious life that conflicted with the despot's view into a very very difficult undertaking.

Shame on these judges.

News Monitor - being pro bris and anti circumcision (go figure...)

With the San Francisco story a thing of the past (sorry about the cliche), a not-so-new trend is making its way through news outlets and the blogosphere.

Just a few links to bring the idea close to home:
Beyond the bris - the header of the website says: "an increasing number of Jewish people are moving in a more ethical, more humanitarian and more Jewish direction" ---- hmmm... Not sure how getting rid of Torah commandments makes it MORE Jewish. But maybe I'm living in the wrong century.

Circumstitions - They surprisingly invoke this to say circumcision is against the Torah
"N 41 Not imprinting any marks on our bodies
N 45 Not making cuttings in our flesh
- 613 Mitzvos according to Sefer Hamitzvos of Rambam"

I guess they forgot about Genesis 17 and Leviticus 12:3. And, of course, they took both negative commandments out of context (tattoos and cutting ourselves over the death of a loved one) while disregarding that "bris milah" is a positive commandment. I guess you can pick and choose what you want to support your cause when it's convenient.

An article written by Professor Jon Levenson was republished today, and is well worth the read.