Academic Writing:

Following is my final paper, which I wrote on the topic of circumcision for a Responsa Class (minus most of the Hebrew) at the Aleph Ordination Program, for Rabbi SaraLeya Schley who guided me through the process.

There are seven parts, and it’s very long, so please skip what seems inaccessible!

January 5th, 2022

Part I: Introduction

For this paper, I will be examining and discussing the mandate for a male convert to Judaism to be circumcised. With the awareness that there is a whole movement in the Jewish world against circumcision, with many parents choosing to forgo it for their baby boys, I will not be addressing this issue here. The debate for the purposes of this paper is for a man who wishes to be Jewish, feels Jewish, participates fully in Jewish life, but has very specific circumstances that I believe need to be addressed.

It is a case very personal to me, and while I could use this paper as a place to argue for this one particular individual, the issue of conversion for grown men who are not circumcised is one that has affected and challenged many, many more, and has possibly caused much damage. The kind of damage I am talking about is mostly emotional, which is where my focus will be, but of course can not be separated from the physical.

My sh’eila:

Knowing that conversion to Judaism is a serious commitment that should not be taken lightly, the question is: can an exception be made to the Jewish mandate of circumcision based on the particular history and life circumstances described below, and should the standards for the convert be different or the same as those born to Jewish parents?

Some of the questions I will address here are:

1. How important is circumcision in Tanakh onwards to the rabbis and Jewish identity?

2. What is the halachic definition of a Jew in terms of lineage and parentage?

3. If you are mumar l’orlot (לעורלות מומר), in what ways does that limit what a man can do halachically and how does that apply to the case laid out here?

4. Why has circumcision historically been such a taboo question to discuss?

5. Have exceptions ever been made and under what circumstances?

6. Besides circumcision, what other signs of the covenant are mentioned and given to the Jewish people in the Torah and why is that of circumcision given more attention than the others when considering the obligations of a Jew in the covenantal relationship between Jews and God?

7. How might we approach my sh’eila from a Jewish Renewal/Paradigm Shift angle and is that even necessary in order to make a change in the way we approach conversion?

Part II:

My case study:

I have to be completely honest that the case I am about to discuss is a conundrum I have been thinking about and working on since before I began my rabbinical studies--meaning for the past seven or eight years. It is very personal for me because it involves my husband!

Here is a man, now in his early 60’s, born in South America into poverty in the early 1960’s, raised Catholic, who has wanted to be a part of the Jewish community since we met and married--for over thirty years. As a teenage immigrant to the U.S. his first American friends were Jewish; they were the outcasts together in a town in Pennsylvania. And when we met, he loved that I was Jewish. Before we even got married, he immediately agreed to raise our children Jewish. He never went back on, reconsidered, or regretted in any way this promise he made to me over thirty years ago.

At the same time, until around ten years ago, when I found a particular synagogue that inspired great passion in both of us and we began attending services together weekly, he had never felt completely welcome in any Jewish community. Because of the incredible open-hearted welcome he felt there, being allowed to accompany me for an Aliyah and to perform certain mitzvot like hagbah, he became inspired to study Judaism in a way he had never done before.

Until the pandemic interrupted our weekly attendance at synagogue, he had completely integrated himself into all aspects of synagogue life and activities over ten years. He often stated that he had always felt drawn towards Judaism, and though he was brought up in a typically anti-Jewish environment under Catholocism in Ecuador, he never held the prejudices he was brought up with.

Since we became a part of that community, he began to identify spiritually as Jewish, wearing a yarmulke and tzitzit daily, laying tefillin. He has said many times that he felt he had a “Jewish soul.” Though it felt strange to me that he was not circumcised, I was brought up in a very liberal Jewish family who (on the surface) didn’t care about my marrying a non-Jew, so it didn’t even occur to me to ask him to convert or become circumcised. In fact, though he suggested conversion many times over the years, I repeatedly discouraged him. For me, being a ger toshav was enough.

I only seriously began feeling the weight of its importance to me less than ten years ago, when I became immersed in a community that offered something I’d never experienced before in Judaism and that didn’t treat him as an outsider or a second-class citizen. I knew that his conversion would require circumcision and I felt that being circumcised as an adult would be an undue burden on him, especially given his background.

You see, my husband was born with a cleft lip and palate for which he has undergone 27 surgeries in his lifetime, from infancy through adulthood. When he was born, little was known or available on how to repair it, especially in Ecuador and with his family’s financial challenges. His mother went through great hardships and sacrifices to emigrate to the United States and eventually bring him to Montefiore Medical Center in New York City where the most work was being done in this area. At the time, even the best doctors were still learning how to perform these surgeries, so it required many more procedures then than it would now.

My husband has suffered greatly as a result of the surgeries. There were some years, he recalls, that so much surgery was performed on him that the doctors were afraid to put him to sleep fully, and the amount of anesthesia given barely masked the pain; he was essentially awake. When I met him he had still one more surgery that would correct the nasality that still remained when he spoke; after a lifetime of struggling to be understood by others because of it, he badly wanted to undergo this last procedure. I supported him in doing it, and when I saw the recovery and how very painful and difficult and long it was, I could only imagine what a lifetime of dozens of these had meant for him, even more so with little anesthesia.

As a result of this tremendous amount of trauma, though he has made the decision over and over again over the past years to go ahead with circumcision, when push came to shove, he ultimately decided against it.

For a long time it was a source of deep sadness and pain for him that he could never be completely accepted into the covenant of Judaism by other Jews if he was not circumcised, though he has lived his entire 30-plus year marriage essentially as a Jew. He has joked about it with male friends in the synagogue, but I know this is serious for him. I feel it as a source of deep pain and sadness for him.

Having explored it with the rabbi of the shul we belonged to these past ten years, the answer was that he would have to be circumcised no matter what; hatafat dam brit would have been a possibility for conversion if he were already circumcised.

What’s more, he has supported me and my rabbinical studies with a full heart, never begrudging me the financial sacrifice rabbinical school has been for our family. And like I said before, he has also supported me completely in raising our two daughters Jewishly.

Though he continues to follow all the rituals and participate fully with me in Jewish ritual, I see that he has lost some of his inspiration for converting. The obstacle of circumcision has led to a general feeling of rejection and exclusion.

Thus, I repeat my question posed for the purposes of this paper: can an exception be made due to his very unique circumstances?

I am well aware that I am speaking of a practice so deeply entrenched in the Jewish psyche that it can barely be questioned. At the same time, with a growing movement against circumcision in progressive Jewish circles, it feels to many Jews outside this movement that Judaism is being threatened as a whole. I also understand that making exceptions to such a time-honored practice sets what can easily be considered a dangerous precedent.

In the following pages, I will attempt to address the history of circumcision as it relates to the rabbis and the feeling of threat to Judaism by exploring some parts of Jewish history that I think are key to understanding why even making an exception to circumcision is such a taboo subject. Including this history will be important to my conclusions.

Of course, I will explore whether it is possible to make an exception in my husband’s case based on prior rabbinic rulings, but I believe I will have to call on “Paradigm Shift” to make my argument complete. At the same time, an important question that comes up often in Jewish Renewal movement is, if we are constantly pushing the boundaries of Judaism, as we do in Jewish Renewal, what are the limits and where do we stop? Since I understand this as a really huge thing that I can not answer, I am not here to challenge circumcision as a whole as it pertains to claiming Jewish identity, but rather I bring a very narrow question about one particular person: my husband.

Part III:

What Does Torah Say about circumcision?

Before discussing the specific case in question here, I give you some original sources from Torah so often quoted stating that circumcision is a covenantal obligation:

From Genesis 17:11, we have: ּ׃You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.

From Genesis 17:12-14, there’s this: 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, they must be circumcised, homeborn and purchased alike. Thus shall My covenant be marked in your flesh as an everlasting pact. And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin; he has broken My covenant.

According to the Torah, I should have never married my husband without his agreeing to convert to Judaism and be circumcised first, as is illustrated below in Gen. 34:14-15 and the (very gory) story of Shechem and what has been interpreted as the rape of Dina: “...and (they) said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us. Only on this condition will we agree with you; that you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised.” (Gen. 34)

Then there is the story of Tzipporah from Exodus 22-26:Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: Israel is My first-born son. I have said to you, “Let My son go, that he may worship Me,” yet you refuse to let him go. Now I will slay your first-born son.”At a night encampment on the way, the LORD encountered him and sought to kill him. So Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his legs with it, saying, “You are truly a bridegroom of blood to me!” And when He let him alone, she added, “A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.” Sefaria (More on this later!)

The above story from the Torah illustrates God’s wrath and ability to both condemn and redeem. Though the text is confusing and unclear at best, totally cryptic at worst in its context, Moses has apparently neglected his duty to circumcise his son and the boy will be killed as a result. With the threat of death, Tzipporah saves her baby with the stroke of a piece of flint.

As we shall see later, this salvitic aspect of circumcision is picked up by the rabbis who run with it.

Part IV:

What Other Covenantal Signs are Given in the Torah?

I think it is significant that circumcision is not the only sign of the covenant given to the Jewish people. In fact, the covenant is made manifest by several “signs”/אותות in Torah texts.

In my opinion, this is an important consideration when looking at the case I am bringing forward. In fact, a few chapters before Gen. 17, God makes a promise and a covenant with Abraham that has no connection whatsoever with circumcision, nor is it mentioned. This appears in Genesis 15 after a war in which Abraham has won out. Abraham has a conversation with God about the fact that he has no offspring of his own as heirs, God takes him outside and tells him to look up at the sky, for as numerous as the stars are, so shall be his offspring, and that he will inherit land that belongs to others at the moment. Abraham wants to know how he will know all this, and God tells him to bring out some animals which he cuts in two, except the bird. Abraham falls into a deep sleep and God speaks to him in a dream, telling him that his people will be enslaved for four hundred years, but then God will free them and bring judgment against the enslavers, and the Jews will inherit the land as promised.

This is the first promise/brit/covenant God makes with Abraham, even before circumcision is mentioned: ַOn that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I assign this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: Sefaria Gen. 15:1

Also before Gen. 17 is the story of Noah, the flood and destruction of the world and the “ot brit” God makes with him. God’s regret is so great that he sets a bow in the clouds as a reminder to never again destroy all life on earth: ַI will maintain My covenant with you: never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” God further said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between Me and you, and every living creature with you, for all ages to come. I have set My bow in the clouds, and it shall serve as a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow appears in the clouds, I will remember My covenant between Me and you and every living creature among all flesh. Genesis 9:12-15

Although the bow in the clouds is not a sign of a covenant made solely with the Jewish people but rather with all life on earth, I still think it is important to remember that it is a promise made to Noah, a man chosen by God and representing the beginnings of a covenantal relationship God is beginning with the Jewish people.

Finally, God states that the Sabbath will be a sign/ot brit of the covenant between him and the Jewish people: ְThe Israelite people shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout the ages as a covenant for all time: it shall be a sign for all time between Me and the people of Israel. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He ceased from work and was refreshed. Exodus 31:16-17

Now we will look at what the Rabbis had to say about all this.

Part V:

What the Rabbis said in Talmud/Midrash

Though we did not see any sign of this in Torah, and Moses himself was not the one to circumcise his own son, it is stated several times that it is the obligation of the father to fulfill this obligation.

There is a discussion in Talmud, Kiddushin 29a:11, regarding the obligation of the father to circumcise his son: 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). Sefaria link to Kiddushin 29a

In addition to the above stipulations, circumcision was so important that the rabbis concluded that it even needed to override Shabbat. The activities involved in the procedure would normally be considered forbidden on Shabbat, yet they place it on a par with the mitzvah of saving a life on Shabbat in the texts below.

The following three sections are derived from Shabbat 132a:

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta: From where is it derived that saving a life overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says it is derived from the mitzva of circumcision: Just as circumcision, which pertains to only one of a person’s limbs, overrides Shabbat, all the more so it is an a fortiori inference that saving a life, which is a mitzva that pertains to the entire person, overrides Shabbat. In each, as if its time passed, it is void, unlike the mitzva of circumcision, which can be fulfilled at a later date if the child is not circumcised on the eighth day. Rather, this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as the verse says: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), indicating that he is circumcised on the eighth day even if it falls on Shabbat. ְAnd Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse says: “And on the eighth day…shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), which means that the child is circumcised on the eighth day whenever it occurs, even on Shabbat. As for another topic regarding circumcision, the following from Mishne Torah refers to the time when Jews were living under Hellenic rule and Jewish men felt the need to hide their identity and blend in completely as a way of protecting themselves. Such a need gave rise to the practice of Jewish men pulling and stretching their foreskins to hide their circumcision. In opposition to this practice, the ancient rabbis had something to say about it, calling such a practice an “abomination” in this translation: ְThe foreskin is regarded as an abomination, for which the gentiles are condemned in Scripture, as it is said "For all the nations are uncircumcised (Jer. 9-25). An important institution is Circumcision. For the Patriarch Abraham was not called perfect till he had circumcised himself, as it is said, "Walk thou before me; and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between Me and thee" (Gen. 17:1-2). Whoever neglects the covenant of our ancestor Abraham, and retains the foreskin or artificially obliterates the marks of circumcision, even if he has acquired much knowledge of the Torah and practices good deeds, will have no portion in the world to come. Sefaria In Mishne Torah, Moses Maimonides has the following to say: The foreskin is regarded as an abomination, for which the gentiles are condemned in Scripture, as it is said "For all the nations are uncircumcised (Jer. 9-25). An important institution is Circumcision. For the Patriarch Abraham was not called perfect till he had circumcised himself, as it is said, "Walk thou before me; and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between Me and thee" (Gen. 17:1-2). Whoever neglects the covenant of our ancestor Abraham, and retains the foreskin or artificially obliterates the marks of circumcision, even if he has acquired much knowledge of the Torah and practices good deeds, will have no portion in the world to come. (Italics added) Mark how strictly the observance of Circumcision is to be regarded. Moses, although he was on a journey did not receive indulgence a single hour for neglecting this duty. In connection with all the precepts of the Torah, three covenants were made with Israel; as it is said "These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded … beside the covenant which He made with them in Horeb" (Deut. 28:69). And in the next section it is said "Ye are standing this day all of you before the Lord your God … that thou shouldst enter into the covenant of the Lord thy God" (Deut. 29:9-11). Three covenants are here mentioned. But in connection with Circumcision, thirteen covenants were made with our ancestor Abraham: "And I will make My covenant between Me and thee" (Gen. 17:2); "As for me, behold, My covenant is with thee" (ib. 17:4); "And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee" (ib. 17:7); "for an everlasting covenant" (ib. 17:7); "And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant" (ib. 17:9); "This is My covenant which you shall keep" (ib. 17:10) "And it shall be a token of a covenant" (ib. 17:11); 12 "And My covenant shall be in your flesh" (ib. 17:13); "for an everlasting covenant" (ib. 17:13); "he hath broken my covenant" (ib. 17:14); "And I will establish My covenant with him" (ib. 17:19); "for an everlasting covenant" (ib. 17:19); "But My covenant I will establish with Isaac" (ib. 17:21). There is another long discussion between rabbis about this practice of stretching the flesh of the circumcised penis in Yevamot 72a:7. Here there is a reference to the dangers of re-circumcision to an adult male, dangers that might come from infection or damage the penis in any way that might interfere with his fathering (more) children, as explained by Adin Steinsaltz (Koren Talmud Bavli, Koren Publishers Jerusalem, Commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, The Noe Edition, Yevamot, Part Two, C. 2011, p.20), yet the conclusion is still that the man must reverse his reversed circumcision: The Gemara explains: The amora who raised the question erred due to the latter clause of that same baraita, which states: Rabbi Yehuda says: He should not be circumcised because it would be dangerous for him to do so. His colleagues said to him: But weren’t there many who had drawn their residual foreskins forward and subsequently were circumcised a second time in the days of ben Koziva, otherwise known as bar Kokheva, and they fathered sons and daughters. Such re-circumcision is necessary, as it is stated: “He must surely be circumcised [himmol yimmol]” (Genesis 17:13), the double verb form indicating: Even one hundred times. And furthermore, it says: “He has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14), which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward (italics added). (sefaria)

Not only did “the rabbis” and Jewish philosophers like Maimonides find the foreskin abhorrent and disgusting (as do many Americans today), there are many stories, as in The Book of Legends, Sefer Ha-Aggadah, Legends from the Talmud and Midrash (Edited by Hayim Nahman Bialik and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky, Translated by William G. Braude, Schocken Books, 1992), that illustrate almost a magical connection between circumcision and the life of a 13 baby boy, not so different from the story of Tzipporah averting the wrath of God and saving her son’s life through performing circumcision on him. Some are about the angel of death that almost takes life away and then has mercy (p. 273:358, Sefer Ha-Aggadah).

Another is a story of a particular Caesar speaking to Rabbi Tanhum, proposing that the Jews and the gentiles become “as one people.” In the midrash, R. Tanhum states that it is an impossibility to become uncircumcised, and proposes that the gentiles join the Jews by circumcising themselves. This is perceived as a defiance by Caesar, and R. Tanhum is thrown into a pit with wild animals, yet he is not devoured! When a “certain heretic” speaks, this person is thrown into the pit and is devoured by the animals (p. 256:500).

The meaning is clear: the circumcised will be saved by God.

Another story of this magical kind of thinking–and teaching–involves a man walking along the road who looks so ragged, R. Akiva confronts him and asks if he is human or a demon. The man tells a tragic story of his son not being circumcised, presumed to be the reason for the tragic life of this man, or more true to the story, his looking like the living dead; this man had left a pregnant wife and the mother had neglected to circumcise the boy. R. Akiva then searches from town to town, finds the boy and has him circumcised. The boy is ultimately called to the Torah for his bar mitzvah: “The instant the man’s son recited, ‘Bless ye the Lord who is to be blessed forever and ever,’ his father was taken out of Gehenna and brought into the Garden of Eden (p. 572:318, Sefer Ha-Aggadah).”

I find this last story fascinating in its depiction of a man who has abandoned both mother and son as indistinguishable from a dead man, even worse, a demon—essentially being described as the walking dead. Through his actions, he neglected his main duty towards his son of making sure he is circumcised, and is thus condemned to suffer eternally, it would seem, until his son is saved by the great R. Akiva. So important is this duty that the famous R. Akiva searches far and wide for the boy and not only saves the child, but also the man who has committed such a sin of neglect.

To the rabbis, humans (meaning, men) were not complete until they were circumcised. In the section titled The Deeds of the Sages in The Book of Legends, Sefer Ha-Aggadah, Legends from the Talmud and Midrash (Hayim Nahman Bialik and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky), there is a story that illustrates this idea of a pagan philosopher who asks R. Hoshaia, “If circumcision is so beloved [of God], why was the mark of circumcision not given to Adam at his creation? R. Hoshaia replied: ‘According to your reasoning, why should a man like you shave the hair of his head [with which he was born], but at the same time leave the adult hair of his beard intact?’” The argument goes on between the two and ends with R. Hoshaia replying: “So observe that everything that was created during the six days of creation needs finishing: mustard needs sweetening,...wheat needs grinding, and even man needs finishing (p. 276:383).”

Another story from the same Sefer is of R. Ishmael who said, “Great is the precept of circumcision, for ‘covenant’ is mentioned in connection with [Torah] thirteen times. R. Yose said: Great is circumcision, for it even sets aside the rigor of the Sabbath. R. Meir said: Great is circumcision, for notwithstanding all the precepts that our father Abraham, had performed, he was not called ‘perfect’ until he circumcised himself, as is said, ‘Walk before Me as hitherto, and in addition be thou perfect’ (v.17:1)...Rabbi [Judah I, the Patriarch] said: Great is circumcision, for it is equal in importance to all precepts in the Torah (p.455:498).”

Yet another refers to verse 17:2, quoting R. Levi who addresses a Roman noblewoman who is worried about any defects the emperor might find in her, and goes on to compare the 15 emperor to God’s response to Abraham, “So, too, the Holy One said to our father Abraham, ‘You have no defect other than this foreskin. Remove it, and you will be free of imperfection (p.456:499, Sefer Ha-Aggadah).”

Bringing us to more recent history in his responsum of 2015, What is the Halakhic Status of an Uncircumcised Jew? Responsa in a Moment, Rabbi Prof. David Golinkin addresses the question of the parents’ obligation to circumcise their son.

Golinkin mourns the fact that, “in our day, there are many Jewish men and boys who have not had a brit milah.” Golinkin seeks to answer the question of whether “an uncircumcised Jew (can) have an aliyah, serve as a shaliach tzibbur (prayer leader), have a Bar Mitzvah, a Jewish wedding or burial.” One of his biggest questions is whether it “makes a difference if he or his parents refused to circumcise him for ideological reasons or if he is an uncircumcised jew as he was prevented from having a brit milah [circumcision] by outside forces, such as the Soviet regime?”

Golinkin is comparing two types of parents. First, he is referring to those who have taken a stance against circumcision as a covenantal sign for various reasons, perhaps believing it to be an institution no longer relevant to our time and thus having refused to circumcise their sons. On the other hand, Golinkin is referring to families who lived in the Soviet Union where it was dangerous to live as a Jew and have any outward sign that could make it even moreso. This could be compared to Jewish men during the Hellenic period, which I will talk about later, who would stretch and pull their foreskins over the corona of the penis in order to hide their circumcision and thus their Jewishness. Rabbi Golinkin wonders how stringent or relaxed we need to be around such cases and how other rabbis have ruled, which is a really important consideration for my argument.

Golinkin begins with some of the more stringent rabbis who ruled very strictly regarding a Jew who did not want to circumcise his son, one of whom is Samuel David Luzzato, a famous Bible commentator (Trieste and Padua, 1800-1865). Luzzato stated, “a person who violates the brit of Abraham our Forefather he is like an apostate against the entire Torah… one does not count him in the minyan and one does not call him to the Torah’ (ibid.).” He also quotes Rabbi Yosef Shaul Nathanson (Lemberg, 1810-1875) who “ruled that since Abraham our Forefather and his sons after him were commanded regarding circumcision (Genesis 17) and our Jewish religion stems from Abraham, ‘whoever is uncircumcised is no longer part of Judaism.’” Rabbi Nathanson also relied on Midrash Tanhuma (Mishpatim, paragraph 5), saying “that whoever is not circumcised may not study Torah ‘and since he may not attain Torah, he is not part of the Jewish religion.” Golinkin also quotes Rabbi Salomon Abraham (Zalmen) Trier, Chief Rabbi of Frankfurt am Main, who said that “the father who walks around in his guilt and does not allow one to circumcise his son out of contempt, on purpose, out of heresy against the Torah, is a heretic and has left Klal Yisrael [the collective Jewish people] and is disqualified from giving testimony and from taking an oath” (quoted byRabbi Weiss, p. 27, Golinkin).”

Also from Golinkin’s responsum is Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (Frankfurt am Main,1808-1888), whose legacy is Modern Orthodoxy and “stated in a letter to Rabbi Trier in 1843 that a person who said that Shabbat and Brit Milah are not required mitzvot and…performed a public act ‘cannot be counted among Klal Yisrael… for those people, since they removed themselves from the collective, denied [God] and are not counted among the 17 congregation. And the rabbis are obligated… to push those people [away] from all rights in the life of the community.’ (Rabbi Hirsch, Shemesh Marpei, p.187) (Golinkin).”

Finally, Golinkin quotes a rabbi that has a less stringent opinion, R. Yitzhak Elhanan Spectorin, who in his Responsa Rabi Azriel, Orah Hayyim-YorehDeah, Tel Aviv,1969,No. 5 : “...behold, according to law, we have an established principle that ‘an apostate regarding circumcision (mumar l’orlot) is not an apostate for the entire Torah,’ as is explicit in Hullin fol. 5a, in Yoreh Deah 2:7 and in the Shakh to Yoreh Deah 264, subparagraph 4… and therefore, according to law, he should be counted for a minyan and for all the above [i.e., aliyot and Bar Mitzvah] and therefore we should not distance them...Therefore, in my opinion, one should not distance them entirely… In other words, according to the Talmud and Jewish law, it is permissible for an uncircumcised boy to be counted in a minyan, to have a Bar Mitzvah and to have aliyot and this will, hopefully, draw him closer to Judaism until he returns entirely.”

Another rabbi referred to by Golinkin who shares Luzzato’s opinion above and is a contemporary of Luzzato’s is “Shir (Rabbi Shlomo Yehudah) Rapoport (Av Bet Din of Prague, 1790-1867) [who] stated that “every Jewish man who did not circumcise [himself] or will not circumcise his son from this day onward… will not be considered just an apostate regarding circumcision (mumar l’orlot) but rather, as he is in truth, a denier of the Jewish religion”(ibid.).”

What are these rabbis talking about and what are they referring to when they say that one is an “apostate regarding circumcision,” (mumar l’orlot) as opposed to an “apostate against the entire Torah,” (mumar ha-kol haTorah).

In the Torah and to the rabbis, one of the worst things one could do was worship idols. While the rabbis differentiate between those who deliberately contradict the commandment to circumcise the flesh of a male, they also offer an exception, which is exactly the question Golinkin brings forward.

Following is the original quote from Chulin: לימא מסייע ליה הכל שוחטין ואפילו כותי ואפילו ערל ואפילו ישראל מומר האי ערל ה"ד אילימא שמתו אחיו מחמת מילה האי ישראל מעליא הוא אלא פשיטא מומר לערלות § 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. Sefaria link to Chullin 5a

This text illustrates that there are exceptions to the circumcision rule and that being uncircumcised does not deprive a male from his membership in the Jewish community as a Jew; being uncircumcised only makes him a “transgressor” in this one aspect. He can still be a ritual slaughterer, and even if he is an idol worshiper, which is considered the worst transgression of all for a Jew.

The exception to circumcision that is made refers to the circumstances of a parent who has lost more than one boy to circumcision most likely due to hemophilia; the parents may decide not to circumcise subsequent boys in order that they may live, and they are still fully considered Jews. In other words, circumcision, though commanded by God in Torah, does not determine Jewishness from a halachic point of view.

Despite this understanding that circumcision does not determine a male’s membership in the Jewish community, there are still very strong reactions to the uncircumcised. For instance, Golinkin quotes another rabbi from the early 18th Century who gives another “typical” reaction: “...if one has to keep a Sefer Torah far from filth because of disgrace, how much the more so must it be kept far from the touch of an uncircumcised Jew, for there is nothing more ma’us [loathsome – see Zevachim 22b and elsewhere] than a foreskin.”

It’s interesting to me that the above rabbi quotes from Zevachim. The text discussion from Zevachim is a long one between rabbis comparing and arguing about two precepts in Torah regarding circumcision, one regarding circumcising the flesh and the other of circumcising the heart. The idea of circumcision of the heart appears in both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah:

In Deut. 10:16, when Moses is giving his final words to the Israelites before they enter the Promised Land, he repeats the following of commandment from God: Cut away/circumcise, therefore, the thickening/foreskin about your hearts and stiffen your necks no more. Later, in Deut. 30:6 we have: ּThen the LORD your God will “circumcise” your heart and the hearts of your offspring to love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul, in order that you may live. A variation of this is repeated in Jeremiah 4:4: Circumcise your hearts to the Lord Following is the Zevachim text into which the rabbis bring quotes from Ezekiel that also refer to the above: The mishna teaches that a priest who is uncircumcised disqualifies sacrificial rites he performs.

The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive this? Rav Ḥisda says: We did not learn this matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher; rather, we learned it from the words of the prophet Ezekiel, son of Buzi: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me” (Ezekiel 44:9) ומנלן דמחלי עבודה דכתיב )יחזקאל מד, ז( בהביאכם )את( בני נכר ערלי לב וערלי בשר להיות במקדשי לחלל את ביתי: And from where do we derive that he desecrates the service after the fact? As it is written: “In that you have brought in strangers, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My Sanctuary, to profane My house” (Ezekiel 44:7). תנו רבנן בן נכר יכול בן נכר ממש תלמוד לומר ערל לב אם כן מה תלמוד לומר בן נכר שנתנכרו מעשיו לאביו שבשמים ואין לי אלא ערל לב ערל בשר מנין תלמוד לומר וערל בשר The Sages taught: The verse states “stranger”; one might have thought that this is referring to an actual stranger, i.e., a gentile. Therefore, the verse states: “Uncircumcised in heart,” to indicate that it is referring to a priest rather than a gentile. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Stranger”? It is referring to one whose actions are considered estranged from his Father in Heaven, i.e., an apostate, who sins regularly. And I have derived only that one uncircumcised in heart is unfit to serve; from where is it derived that one uncircumcised in flesh is unfit as well? The verse states: “Or uncircumcised in flesh.” וצריכי דאי כתב רחמנא ערל בשר משום דמאיס אבל ערל לב דלא מאיס אימא לא ואי אשמעינן ערל לב משום דאין לבו לשמים אבל ערל בשר דלבו לשמים אימא לא צריכי:

The Gemara notes: And both phrases in the verse are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only: “Uncircumcised in flesh,” one might think that only he is unfit because he is disgusting in that he possesses a foreskin, but concerning one uncircumcised in heart, who is not disgusting, I will say that he is not unfit. And had the verse taught us only that one uncircumcised in heart is unfit, one might think that only he is unfit, because his heart is not directed toward Heaven, but one uncircumcised in flesh, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, I will say that he is not unfit. Therefore, both phrases are necessary. Zevachim 22b

This is a really interesting text for at least two reasons. First, the rabbis do indeed refer to the foreskin as “disgusting,” yet it also says that one uncircumcised in flesh but whose heart is directed towards heaven is not unfit to perform sacrificial rites. But the text leaves the reader confused; the conclusion is that both circumcision of the heart and of the flesh are necessary. “Therefore” does not logically follow the previous statement. Either this is a misprint, or it points to the fact that the rabbis valued intention, or kavanah, as much as they valued the acts or mitzvot.

Another important question is why the rabbis are even discussing this at such length? As I will show later on, Christian practices and beliefs and the relationship between Christianity and Judaism had a great impact on the rabbis, what they valued and emphasized and why.

To understand the Zevachim text completely, it is important to understand that this discussion was happening at a time when Jewish practices were being called into question by the new Christian Church. The Christian Testament of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans reinterprets the original Hebrew Bible texts from Deuteronomy and Jeremiah thus: “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God (Romans 2:28-29).”

This statement is problematic for Jews whose religion puts great emphasis on mitzvot, which are acts that one performs in order to show their commitment to God. In the next section, I delve more deeply into this history.

Part VI.

Jewish History and Circumcision

I begin my historic exploration from a different perspective with Lawrence Hoffman’s book, Covenant of Blood; Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism (University of Chicago Press, 1996), in which Hoffman discusses the taboo against questioning circumcision.

He begins by pointing out that in Germany in the 19th Century, when the Reform movement was just beginning, rabbis were challenging all kinds of things in Judaism. Hoffman says: “Rabbis apparently found it possible to commit nothing less than liturgical surgery on their time-honored prayer book; they could cancel age-old mourning and wedding customs; they even declared the Talmud no longer binding. They had no trouble dispensing with Hebrew and cutting off their ties to a Jewish Land of Israel. They would even think seriously of declaring a marriage with a non-Jew ‘not forbidden.’ But they could not even consider abrogating circumcision. Moreover, they could not even agree that males who are not circumcised are still Jews! Nowhere else, to the best of my knowledge, were the reformers so adamantly tied to their past as in the case of circumcision (p. 9).”

So says Lawrence Hoffman.

The reformers even proposed moving the Jewish Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but circumcision could not be touched! Hoffman points out that with the Enlightenment and the Jewish Emancipation, the “spirit of the age...promoted reason and scientific research (p. 4).” Despite the unwillingness to “touch” circumcision, there was a group of laymen (yes, they were, of course, men!) that went so far as to “declare the age-old rite of circumcision null and void (p. 5).”

They dared to state that “circumcision should no longer be considered binding in that it was neither a mitzvah (commanded by God) nor even a desirable symbolic act...Brit milah...seemed to clash with the program of Jewish emancipation and acculturation. As an act performed upon the body, circumcision seemed both irrational and physical whereas post-Enlightenment Jews saw their religion as wholly rational and spiritual, a thing for the mind and for the soul, a matter of deep logical appreciation and high aesthetic appeal. ‘Primitive’ tribes practiced circumcision. Did that make Judaism undivested of the custom primitive also (p. 5)?”

This is fascinating to me because in my experience, many Jews still worry about being seen as primitive. How we are perceived as a people has a long history in itself, as we can see when Hoffman continues: “Since Christians in nineteenth-century Germany rarely had their children circumcised, Jewish insistence on doing so had the necessary effect of setting Jewish men apart from non-Jewish men at the very time when Jews wanted to emphasize their similarities rather than differences (p. 5).” Part of the perception at the time was tied to the Jewish community being called out for cases of infant mortality said to be traced back to mohalim “trained in the medieval manner of apprenticeship and recognized informally by the traditional Jewish community (p. 6).”

Who are we as Jews? How do we know we are Jews if we are not circumcised? What makes us different? These are the questions Jews have been asking for eons. Attacks on Judaism and its practices were not new, of course, but circumcision was one subject very difficult to broach publicly because it felt, and still feels, like a cornerstone of our identity.

Therefore, then as now, some who questioned it learned to do so privately in letters to each other, as we see in the next paragraph. One member of the Society for Reform, Rabbi Abraham Geiger, considered the founding father of Reform Judaism, identifies the turmoil being evoked by the questioning of circumcision: “‘It aroused the greatest antagonism by attacking at once the rite of circumcision.’”

Geiger, though he states that he was not a former lover of the Reform Society, still questions circumcision as a necessity, naming it as “a barbarous bloody act with sanctity in former days (that) has no significance for us (p. 6-7).” Since he was also politically astute, he did not make this statement public because he was afraid of “(alienating) potential supporters of reform (p. 7).”

Referring to circumcision as a barbarous, bloody act is not unfamiliar to those opposed to circumcision today. The arguments and the feelings have not really changed much in either camp, which I find very interesting.

The other thing I find fascinating is that in our current environment as well, those who question it feel the need to do so very carefully as well for fear of alienating themselves or their movement from the rest of Judaism.

Again, I am not saying that I am a proponent of abolishing circumcision altogether. I am here to explore the question and see where it takes me. Studying the history of it and the different camps helps me to put it in historical context and come to my own conclusions, if that’s possible.

If we go way back in Jewish history, as Prager and Telushkin do in Why the Jews? (2003 edition), the authors state that the “first recorded antisemitic persecution in the post-biblical 25 period” took place in 167 B.C.E with Antiochus Epiphanes (p. 69) because “the Jews rejected his claim to being ‘god manifest…(and he) sent an emissary to Judea ‘in order to force the Jews to transgress the laws of their fathers and not to live according to God’s commandments’ (Maccabees II 6:11). He renamed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem after Zeus Olympus, prohibited the observance of the Sabbath and the rite of circumcision (italics added), and forced the Jews to participate in the festival procession in honor of Dionysus.” (p. 69).

Going forward with our history, with the inception of Christianity, Jews and Judaism continued to be vilified and this vilification took on new meaning. It is easy to see how the Church built up a case that pitted the entire world against the Jews. It is no mystery, though many seem to continue to be mystified, if one looks carefully at the gospels, how Jews have been singled out. With the early Church, the practices of the Jews began to be seen as especially strange and unnecessary and to be generally derided as superfluous in order to be in a “right relationship with God (The Misundertood Jew; The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, Amy-Jill Levine, HarperCollins, 2006, p. 69).” Jews as well as gentiles were now promised eternal life and the erasure of sin could all be accomplished without becoming Jewish, which meant not being circumcised, which simplified things for the gentile followers of Jesus, making immersion in a mikveh sufficient.

This is the argument the rabbis entered into in Zevachim, as illustrated above. As Christianity developed, says Amy-Jill Levine, “decisions had to be made. If Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah and Gentiles who believed the same were to worship together--if they were to celebrate together the meal that had become the hallmark of the new community--policies needed to be established...Do Jews and Gentiles in the church remain distinct, or should there be…just ‘one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father’ (p.72)?”

Naturally, “Among the essential questions the emerging churches faced were matters of diet and circumcision...lack of circumcision and the proclamation that all foods are clean would distinguish the church from its Jewish origins (p. 72).” This passage about “one body and one Spirit” hints at the story of the caesar who challenged Jews to join them, yet were not interested in their becoming “as one” but rather were interested in erasing Jews as a people! Amy-Jill Levine hints that what could have been a benign development turned into something horrific. As Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin explain in Why the Jews? The Reason for Anti-Semitism, “The Jews were not merely another group of non-Christian pagans; if it were not for the Jews, there would be no Christianity. Jesus was an observant Jew. All his apostles were Jews. The Jewish Bible was the entire basis for the messianic claims made for Jesus...Yet it was the Jews who rejected Jesus’ claims...The founders of Christianity felt that they were confronted with a terrible fact--the Jews, merely by continuing to be Jews, threatened the very legitimacy of the church...Since the existence of the Jews and Judaism challenged the legitimacy of the church, the church had to deny the legitimacy of the Jews and Judaism (p. 75, Why the Jews?, Prager & Telushkin, Touchstone, 1983).”

What began very early on in Christianity, before there was even a “Church,” was anti-Judaism, and with a vehemence. Not only were circumcision and kashrut demeaned, but the Jews themselves were vilified as “Christ killers.” Christian anti-Judaism was canonized in phrases like this one in Matthew 27:25: “Let his blood be on our heads and the heads of our children,” which amounts to Jews accepting responsibility for the Crucifixion, making “every Jew in every age” a murderer of God (p. 76).

The Gospel of John, dated as written long after Jesus died, is probably the best example of the vilification of the Jews, and attributes the accusation of the Jews as “the Devil” to Jesus himself. This theme was “expanded and spread throughout the Roman Empire by the early church leaders...beloved figures in church history (p. 27 77)” such as John Chrisostom and Bishop Ambrose, figures who were later declared saints by the Church, yet preached restrictions and violence against Jews. All of this eventually led to the Crusades, the Medieval libels against the Jews, and the murder and plunder of hundreds of thousands of Jews and their communities over 1,500 years.

Were the rabbis “sensitive”? Are Jews “sensitive” about being asked to compromise their beliefs, practices and rites?

I think we can all agree that after such a history, it is fair to feel defensive.

The result, though, is also a kind of “doubling down” in Judaism in general. It’s push-back. Thus, we can understand when the later rabbis discuss whether immersion (mikveh) is sufficient for a person to convert to Judaism that this would be a problem for them; setting ourselves apart from Christians is a very important issue. Judaism and the rabbis asked, what makes us different and unique?

Based on my own analysis, this question is the basis for so much of our Jewish practice. The result is that, throughout time, because of our practices, Jews have been singled out, separated and then also forced to live in ways that limited their mobility and ways of earning a livelihood. We tend to think of the Enlightenment as the beginning of true freedom for the Jews and their particular way of life and worshiping God. But the fact is that when the possibility of Emancipation for the Jews became a reality, the trauma was deep, the oppression and restrictions still very real. What happened as a result of the Emancipation was assimilation into Christian society in a way that forced Jews to compromise their traditions and ways of life in order to (hopefully) be accepted and recognized as human beings.

The objective of the reformers in Europe was ultimately to make the Jews more Christian, not to show them respect as Jews. In my recent study of the period of the Jewish Enlightenment, I was shocked to learn the details of it. In our common understanding, this was a huge advance of freedom for the Jews, but the reality is much more complicated. In The Charter Decreed for the Jews of Prussia in 1750 of Frederick II, which speaks for “Jewry of Prussia” is an “Explanation of the Causes for the further Regulation of Jewry,” begins by speaking of “various faults and abuses among the licensed and tolerated Jews.” “Out of a feeling of most gracious paternal provision” it goes on to make a list of continued restrictions on the “Protected Jews” of Prussia in terms of where they are allowed to live and what trades they are and are not allowed to participate in. A very specific list of “Jews...to be tolerated,” severely restricts the numbers and types of communal Jewish officials for the capital of Berlin. As was typical in history, “the entire Jewry of (a) town (was) officially to be held responsible for” the crime of one. The only change, really, is “the Jew is thought to be no longer a ward of the king, but instead a subject of the state.” (p. 21-25, The Jew in the Modern World, A Documentary History, Edited by Paul Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz, C. 2011, Oxford University Press) The Edict of Tolerance of 1782 proclaimed by Joseph II speaks of the “favors granted to the Jewish nation” which is to be an amendment to a 1764 document of Jewish Regulation with the “goal to make the Jewish nation useful and serviceable (my italics) to the State, mainly through better education and enlightenment of its youth as well as by directing them to the sciences, the arts and the crafts,” and goes on to “grant and order” an expansion of rights “with respect to external tolerance.” Meanwhile, they have “no intention by virtue of these new ordinances to increase the number of the members of the Jewish religion in Vienna or in general elsewhere in Our states; nor do we wish to bring foreign [Jews] here without important cause and special merits recommending them. Rather we expressly wish that the number of Jews, and the 29 manner in which they are tolerated...will remain unchanged.” They “graciously” allow “tolerated Jews” to send their children to the Christian primary and secondary schools.” (p. 42-45, Ibid)

In the Edict of Tolerance for the Jews of Galicia in 1789, also by Joseph II, though more freedom is granted, the number of rabbis allowed in various districts continues to be restricted, and “written and spoken knowledge of the German language...is compulsory for Jews, no youth will be allowed Talmud study, wherever there is a German school, unless he can prove with a certificate from a German teacher that he attends a German school on a regular basis and has taken advantage of the instruction he receives there…” Even the marriage of a Jew to another Jew is not allowed unless he has studied German! (p. 46-48, Ibid)

In general, in the words of a Jesuit priest, Abbe Gregoire, though, the attitude is that “the Jews...are incapable of being reformed, because they are absolutely worthless (p. 54).”

Document after document, both by Christians and Jews, illustrate the need for Jews to give up their culture, their religion, their way of life; It is very clear that Jews are not only “allowed” but encouraged and even forced to assimilate into Christian society, and only then can they hope to finally be granted respect as human beings. The Jews are pushed against a wall, again and again put in a position of defending themselves, accused of having “separated” themselves always through their “strange” practices and unwillingness to intermingle with Christians, when in fact it was the laws of these countries that strictly kept the Jews in check.

Having re-examined all this history, I realize that it is no wonder that Jews remain on the defensive. We have been asked to compromise our beliefs and practices for eons, to mold ourselves to a dominantly Christian culture and society. Today, Jews are forced to make choices about participating in soccer games, farmers markets and protests vs. “observing Shabbat,” to give but a few small examples, and most Jews don’t even think about the implications of this.

Though I would not exchange the freedom and education we have inherited from and since the Enlightenment, I can also see that my ideas about being Jewish, even my family’s attitudes towards Judaism and towards Orthodoxy, carry a large measure of prejudice, self-disdain and shame that were taught, instilled and passed down through so many generations. To be Jewish is different enough; to be Orthodox, I was taught, is to be an outcast, to be weird.

Thus, exploration of this history has given me more of an understanding and sympathy for the rabbis. I now have greater respect for what they were grappling with in terms of Jewish identity. I can understand the digging in of the heels. This greater understanding has helped me come to the conclusion that I would not suggest that circumcision should be outlawed altogether, though I would want to allow space for discussion and opposition and for adult Jewish men to make a choice based on their own needs and circumstances.

I would also not say that my husband’s circumcision should be lightly forgone. While I share the sentiments of some of the reformers of Germany of the 19th Century that there is an element of “barbarism” to circumcision and that it is an outdated rite, I also wonder how much of the current attitudes in some progressive Jewish circles and movements towards circumcision are the result of Christian cultural influence.

The question remains: when do we stop compromising? I am personally offended by rabbis like Nathanson, quoted above by David Golinkin in his responsum, who insist on excluding uncircumcised boys from Judaism despite the fact that there is no halachic ruling stating that circumcision is what determines that you are a Jew. He is excluding uncircumcised men as “no longer part of Judaism,” and that they should not be allowed to study Torah, making it impossible to even attain Torah, even if they wanted to when the presumption that the male in question was born to Jewish parents.

I understand that to officially join Judaism there is halacha that states that he must be circumcised, but I still ask the question: can my husband not “attain Torah,” despite his not being circumcised? How has the world changed since then, and what are some paradigmatic shifts that might warrant my husband’s acceptance as a full-fledged Jew without this time-honored practice?

On the other hand, lest we think of circumcision “simply” as a life-cycle ritual comparable to female life-cycles but the male counterpart, Lawrence Hoffman makes an intricate argument with deep study in his work, Covenant of Blood: “Circumcision was no life-cycle ceremony for a newborn; it was a ritualization of male status within Judaism. Understanding gender as a social category that defines the set of roles appropriate to each sex, we can say that circumcision’s primary meaning was social, not biological. It affirmed (1) the admission of a baby boy into the covenant, (2) at the hands of his male sponsor, preferably his father. Moreover, except for the mother, it is men alone who are featured in all the rabbinic stories about circumcision...Circumcision was a rite of masculine status bestowal in which one man, the father, initiates a man-to-be, his son, into the covenant with God (conceived of as a man). Other men who witness the event acknowledge that the father has done his duty while at the same time reminding him that his covenantal mentor relationship with his son is not over. Twice more will the father do his covenantal duty vis-a-vis his son: introducing him to Torah (the sacred content of the covenant) and marrying him off (so that he can have his own male children and extend the covenant one more generation)...We might mistakenly jump to the conclusion that circumcision is just the first life-cycle ceremony of a Jewish child who just happens in this instance to be a boy, and that he will later grow up and 32 enjoy other ceremonies that (unlike this one) he will share with girls. We would be guilty of misreading this rite as the first of many that celebrate the life cycle of an ‘individual,’ whereas, in fact, my very point is that it was not the generic life of a universal ‘individual’ but the covenantal life of a man that was being celebrated...Circumcision in the rabbinic system of meaning is the first ritualized display of what matters--not individual people, but the corporate covenant of Torah that transcends them all, and thus, secondarily, the men who carry its sign stamped upon their flesh (p. 80-81, Covenant of Blood).”

I understand that what Hoffman says about “what matters” as referring to the Jewish people as a whole might be construed as a little disdainful perhaps. Hoffman is worried about the individual, which is a very modern concept.

Yet, so am I.

I live in the modern world as well. But Hoffman goes on to show that the Talmud addresses specifically a father’s obligation toward his son. Hoffman also sets out to prove that “circumcision depended on a doctrine of sacrifice (p. 7),” which the reformers of Frankfurt “deplored,” naming it a “medieval vestige rooted in habit and fear.”

Naming it as worse than unnecessary (my words), the question of how this rite could “make a child (correction--boy--my words again!) Jewish” was answered by his parentage--namely, the mother.

Yet, as Hoffman makes the case, the rite of circumcision was about male lineage in the sacrificial and elite system of the ancient Jewish world. The conflict between the system of rabbinic Judaism and our current desire to update an ancient system that serves us in today’s world is well understood. And every generation has done this and is expected to do this in Judaism. This is the rabbinic tradition, after all. Also understood is that Jewish Renewal, along with Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Judaism, believes in the equal rights of women when it comes to mitzvot, honors and 33 participation in synagogue life and religious leadership (Women and Mitzvot, Rabbi Pamela Barmash, 2014).

I ask: how much more so that we should extend the welcoming attitude to men who have specific challenging circumstances when it comes to being welcomed into the Covenant? We already know that Jewish converts are expected to answer to higher standards than the born Jew. The status of one born Jewish is never questioned, for instance, whether he has any Jewish learning, keeps kosher or not, or even if he is circumcised, as is illustrated on ReformJudaim.org, Rabbi Mark Washofsky, Ph.D., who received and answered the following question as quoted below: Is it the policy that men must be circumcised prior to conversion? My 8-year old son wasn't circumcised. My husband is Jewish, I'm not. I would prefer for him to make his own decision when he is older, or when it can be done with a local anesthetic.

The answer from the rabbi was: Jewish law prescribes several rites for conversion. A male proselyte is circumcised, and both male and female proselytes immerse in a mikveh (a ritual pool) or other suitable body of water. If the male was already circumcised before his conversion, a drop of blood is taken from the spot that was once covered by his foreskin. This procedure is known as hatafat dam b'rit. Conversion is not simply a choice of a new belief system, but a decision to join a historical community that defines itself in ethnic and national as well as religious terms. Circumcision is the eternal sign of the covenant (b’rit) between God and the descendants of Abraham. However, circumcision does not create Jewish identity. A boy who is born Jewish is a Jew, even if his parents do not have him circumcised during infancy. While we would encourage him to become circumcised upon reaching religious majority, we treat him as fully Jewish with respect to bar mitzvah and other community rites (my italics).”

The important thing here is that “circumcision does not create Jewish identity.”

If this is so, then why should circumcision be an unquestionable rite for a covert, especially in the case of a traumatized male? It makes total sense to me that a rabbi could allow a male to come up to the Torah for his bar mitzvah ceremony without being circumcised, as was the case of one rabbi quoted by Golinkin in his Responsum who found the following exception to extreme stringency regarding circumcision: “Rabbi Arthur Neulander (New York, 1896-1988), the Chair of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement (CJLS), discussed our topic in 1956 in the case of a woman and her son in Sao Paulo, both Holocaust survivors. The woman refused to circumcise her son because she had saved him twice during the Holocaust period precisely because he was not circumcised. Rabbi Neulander ruled in the name of the CJLS that, in general, one must demand circumcision before a Bar Mitzvah ceremony. It is possible to be lenient in that specific case only if a competent medical authority determines “that a psycho-pathological case exists, in which instance it might be wise to waive temporarily the necessity for milah.’”

In the spirit of the rabbinic tradition, I would say that this prior ruling sets a precedent for my husband’s case, which I would say could be categorized as a “psycho-pathological case,” related to trauma. I think the stipulation that it be “temporary,” and postponed until he is ready to make the decision himself, would be the ethical thing to do in this case. Of course, in the case of the Holocaust survivor, this boy may grow up to make his own decision, which is his prerogative.

My husband is also capable of changing his mind in the future, and he may, but to welcome him into the Covenant without the stipulation of circumcision might help him feel closer to and more passionate about going through with it. Having the freedom can sometimes have that effect. Also, though Neulander’s attitude and that of many of the rabbis quoted above comes from a fear of losing Jews to Judaism and speaks of “evil ways,” it contains some crucial information that can be extended to our case here.

If we want to build a new type of Judaism, I would agree that leaving fear behind is crucial. Fear takes the joy out of everything. And, as Rabbi Hannah Dresner says in her t’shuvah in quoting Reb Zalman, “...we are challenged to create a modern Judaism that is compelling… without being dogmatic (Dresner, Hannah, Senior Halacha Project 2012 on Shalom Bayit, p.28).”

Part VII: Conclusion

My husband has found Judaism compelling, but feels rejected and excluded by this bit of dogmatism around circumcision. (I wonder if it’s possible to have a rabbinic ruling that counteracts dogmatism as a halachic idea?)

In summary, for the following reasons, I argue that my husband should be allowed to defer circumcision and complete his conversion by mikveh alone until such a time that he is ready, but I also argue on behalf of others who struggle with the requirement to be circumcised:

1. I believe that Eliezer Berkovits’ principles of halacha of K’vod Habriot (human dignity) and Ha Yashar v’Hatov, the primacy of the ethical, both come into play here. To disregard a person’s history of pain and trauma is an affront to human dignity and is a question of ethics.

2. My husband’s case is similar to the case of a person who is not circumcised for medical reasons due to psychological stress. Though I could argue for Berkovits’ halachic principle of Halacha hasha’at, or a ruling for a particular moment, I would like to expand this beyond my husband alone. I am sure that my husband is not the only man who has wanted to convert but was not allowed to do so without either hatafat dam brit or circumcision and who had good reasons to do so. Becoming circumcised is a complicated and difficult procedure very different from that of an infant’s.

3. My husband’s conversion with or with circumcision would have no effect on his children being halachically considered Jewish. Their mother is Jewish and according to classic halakhic codes, female lineage is what determines the Jewish identity of the children, whether within marriage or outside of marriage: “‘When an unmarried woman becomes pregnant through a promiscuous relationship, we ask her: ‘What is [the status of] this fetus’ or ‘...this child?’ If she replies: ‘It is the child of a man of acceptable lineage; I entered into relations with an Israelite,’ her word is accepted and the son is acceptable.[This applies] even if most of the inhabitants of the city in which she engaged in relations are of unacceptable lineage (see MishnaTorah Issurei Biyah 15:11).”

4. There are three signs of the covenant and circumcision is only one of them. Circumcision does not define a Jew. Other peoples have and do use circumcision as part of their religious identity. It is not unique to Judaism. Here is an adult man who practices and participates in Judaism as his only religion, yet this one requirement keeps him on the outside from within as a ger toshav. He is committed to Judaism, as he has shown in our 30 year marriage. Year after year, I turned him away in the same way that a beit din might have, without knowing I was doing that. And year after year, he has remained committed, bringing up the idea of conversion again and again.

5. Dogmatism is not helpful or useful to the modern Jew. In fact, it turns many away. Fear and trauma produce more dogmatism. Being dogmatic about circumcision should be included in consideration of this case.

6. If we truly believe in total equality for males and females and we hold them as equally valuable, then we should not hold the male convert to a different standard than a female convert, making it that much more difficult for a male because circumcision might be an obstacle.

7. The above applies to converts vs. born Jews as well; though making a commitment to Judaism is a serious one, we should not hold converts to higher standards than we hold born Jews. Why should lineage be all that matters? This is problematic and should be questioned.

8. If we take Lawrence Hoffman’s argument that male lineage was based on a sacrificial system, a covenant that required blood, what does that say about circumcision in today’s world? The sacrificial system of animals ended with the destruction of the Temple, and I believe if you asked most people today, they would be opposed to bringing that back as cruel and unconscionable as sacrificing humans. To my husband (and to me), the idea of being circumcised feels very cruel. I would add that it is unconscionable to subject a grown man to such a painful, difficult and complicated procedure, one that is much more challenging than circumcising a baby boy according to all medical professionals. And again, why should a man be required to go through something so painful in order to show his commitment to Judaism where a female would never be subjected to such a thing?

As a final note, if I hadn’t found a rabbi who would agree to officiate my wedding to my husband back in 1986 (which was very difficult), my guess is that I would have turned my back on Judaism. I was a secular Jew at the time, and the fact that there were only three rabbis in the entire New York metropolitan area who would perform intermarriage at the time was a shock to me. This is how removed I was from the observant Jewish world at the time. I most likely would have felt so hurt and rejected for my choice of a husband that I might have decided not to raise our children Jewish. This is exactly what this rabbi said he had seen happen many times. Ultimately, I believe I would not be on a rabbinic path now. If we refuse to recognize the changes that are happening in the Jewish world and make it so hard for Jews to marry non-Jews or for people to convert, it turns people away from Judaism where they might just come towards it. If we are concerned about preserving Judaism, then it’s time to get beyond the mentality of exclusion and fear, and enter a paradigm shift of inclusion and affirmation.