Circumcisions versus Brisses - Circumcising Jews, Half-Jews, Non-Jews

As far as I can tell, citizens of the world who circumcise their sons do so for one or more of many possible reasons: as a medical procedure, as part of a religious ritual that is a right of passage, for cultural reasons, for asthetics, or because daddy is circumcised.

I have met doctors who perform circumcisions all the time, and some who do them every now and then. Each one has a method which works for them to achieve the desired result. (Doctors are wonderful people, and they usually specialize in a particular field. As such, I would be wary of doctors who do not do them regularly, simply from word of mouth from other doctors who've told me their colleagues ought to stick to what they know - but that is for a different discussion.)

Mohels find themselves in a unique circumstance. Most mohels (certainly Orthodox mohels) are not physicians, and yet they have what many would consider a medical expertise in a very limited field. Does this make them obligated, under a sort of Hippocratic Oath, to perform circumcisions whenever called upon to do so?

Firstly, mohels are also specialists and should never extend beyond their training. There is circumcision, which is more or less routine, and there are surgeries which require a reconstruction of the penis. A mohel who is untrained should not undertake such a procedure, particularly if the best setting for it is an operating room with general anesthesia.

Secondly, circumcision, particularly on a newborn, is not, objectively, a "necessary" procedure, and in most cases is not life-saving. As to-circumcise or not-to-circumcise is a choice made by parents, mohels are under no obligation to accept the job if they do not want to. (Religious law might require them to in the event there is no one else available, particularly for a bris which must take place on the eighth day -- though obviously if it does not work out on the eighth day, it can be done at the next opportunity, ideally as soon as possible.)

So we come to our question: May a mohel circumcise non-Jewish babies, or is he only allowed to do brisses (as opposed to routine circumcisions)?

Hatafat Dam Brit

With the holiday of Pesach (Passover) approaching, it is appropriate to discuss the connections that bris shares with the holiday - and there are many.

One of them is the role of blood in the covenant.

The name of the holiday of Pesach comes from two sources: A. the Paschal lamb, the offering that was set aside for three days before being sacrificed and eaten by the Jewish people in Egypt, and B. the fact that God "passed over" the homes of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt on the night of the "Death of the First Born."

The Paschal Lamb is called the קרבן פסח - Korban Pesach, and the verb to "pass over" is פסח - Pasach - which is formulated slightly different in the name of the lamb and the holiday itself.

What caused God, or the destroying angel, or the death force to pass over the homes of the Hebrew slaves, the Israelites? If the edict against first borns was only against Egyptians, did the Israelites really need to do anything in order to be bypassed?

The answer to the first question is the blood of the lamb. The Israelites were instructed to put the blood of the lamb on the doorposts and mantle of their homes on the evening of the final plague to cause their houses to be skipped.

The second question is a trick question. Surely God knows the difference between the homes of those He is looking to punish and those He wishes to avoid. That is clear. But the Israelites needed to do something, to indicate they understood what was going on. They needed to show their faith in God, and in Egypt, on that night, their faith was demonstrated through following instructions.

Thus, in Egypt, the people were physically and symbolically saved through the merit of the blood of the Paschal lamb.

While the greater significance of blood is not the scope of this posting - there is much written about it in rabbinic teachings - the general significance of blood is that covenants are forged through it.

To our point - bloodless circumcisions, medical circumcisions and circumcisions pre-conversion

In the event that a baby is circumcised through a bloodless technique - which can be accomplished through the use of certain clamps - the bris is not considered to be "kosher." (This point is worthy of discussion, and I will return to it in a different posting) Of course, once the baby is circumcised, (hopefully) there is no more circumcision to be done.

Circumcisions done either not for the sake of a bris (ie by a doctor), before the eighth day of life, or by a non-Jewish officiant are all not considered to be "covenantal." In order to turn the "circ" into a "bris milah" a minor procedure involving the drawing of blood needs to take place under the proper auspices.

We draw a minimal amount of blood from the circumcision scar, typically using a medical lancet, the sterile pin used for blood tests. Once blood is drawn under the auspices of a bris ceremony, the circumcision is now considered to be a bris according to Jewish law.

(To bring an example from a different religion, and NOT TO COMPARE THE TWO RITUALS, you can pour as much water as you want onto a baby or a convert to Catholicism. But until the water comes in the form of baptism and is done by the right person in the right place, it is considered meaningless.)

The blood we are talking about is absolutely minimal. Most people who experience it as adults (converts, or those who discover they were circumcised in the hospital and want to make sure it is "corrected") feel the significance more than they feel the pin-prick that draws the blood.

Babies upon whom I have done this are usually smiling and cooing through the half second it takes.  Healing time is virtually nothing.