Circumcision - why exactly?

[dybmh]

Most European women would find cut the weird option!

But not most Jewish European women? right?

 

[dybmh]

I was assuming she wasn't bothered about him marrying a non-Jew given her non-observance.

It does say a lot about her and her Jewish identity in spite of her non-belief, now that I've had a few moments to think about it.

So, thank you for bringing it up.

 

[Harel13]

It does say a lot about her and her Jewish identity in spite of her non-belief, now that I've had a few moments to think about it.

So, thank you for bringing it up.

I've heard a few times that there are two things most Jews around the world still keep: Passover seder and circumcision. I think that's really impressive.

 

[dybmh]

I've heard a few times that there are two things most Jews around the world still keep: Passover seder and circumcision. I think that's really impressive.

Yup. The Passover Seder. And Circumcision...

A mix of bitter with **hopefully** something sweet in the future....

For circumcision... it's desire that my son continues to be Jewish and does not to fully assimilate.

For Passover....

L'shana haba'ah B'Yirushalayim.....

Edit to add... they are also related in that the Passover Seder, in a lot of ways, is all about the kids: Not assimilating and diligently teaching our children.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You mean why is circumcision the sign, and not dancing a ritual dance, or going on a vision quest, or something? I really have no idea. Maybe a scholar would have something to say. Or maybe we simply don't know God's reason.

The thing is, while it is fruitful to know the reasons for the various mitzvot, we are required to obey whether we understand or not.

 

[Karolina]

Ok, so in all honesty, I hear a lot of circular reasoning - we circumcise because that's what Jews do (just because something has always been done doesn't mean it's a good reason to keep doing it... like say, slavery or withholding the vote from women). Or we circumcise so that no future potential wife, her parents, or her rabbi who would be inclined to discriminate against him could do so (which incidentally is the argument used in parts of Africa where female genital mutilation is practiced. The women who do this to their daughters are afraid that otherwise they will never find a man willing to marry them.) And the one I find strangest of all is the pain factor. Are people seriously under the impression that a procedure that is painful for a grown adult who can mentally prepare himself for it (and undergo the procedure with anesthesia) is in "more" pain than a helpless newborn who never saw it coming? Apparently doctors used to perform all sorts of operations on newborns *without anesthesia* because of the false belief that the baby didn't feel any pain. So the crying, screaming, and writhing his body to get away is ... stretching? Rather, I think the point is that the procedure isn't consciously remembered when undergone by a newborn versus an adult.

I know this may sound harsh to those who value this practice and I do apologize if it's coming across as offensive. I just wanted to take the opportunity to share my own view now that everyone had a chance to share theirs. By the way, here is a link about intact Jewishness that I think would do a much better job countering the practice, since it is coming from within the Jewish experience: Intact and Jewish | Natural Parents Network

One other thought that comes to mind is that circumcision sounds a bit like an idol. If women don't need to undergo a "perfecting" of their bodies, why is it assumed that men are not created perfect as is by God? I'm very confused by the idea that atheists are more welcome in traditional Jewish circles than would be intact Jewish boys and men. It seems that one's "circumcision of the heart" isn't nearly as important as the circumcision of the flesh.

Thank you for letting me share.

 

[Harel13]

One other thought that comes to mind is that circumcision sounds a bit like an idol. If women don't need to undergo a "perfecting" of their bodies, why is it assumed that men are not created perfect as is by God? I'm very confused by the idea that atheists are more welcome in traditional Jewish circles than would be intact Jewish boys and men. It seems that one's "circumcision of the heart" isn't nearly as important as the circumcision of the flesh.

@Karolina, I recommend you read the following article:
Why Circumcise? - The importance of the brit milah
and the two follow-up articles at the bottom.

About this:

By the way, here is a link about intact Jewishness that I think would do a much better job countering the practice, since it is coming from within the Jewish experience: Intact and Jewish | Natural Parents Network

Just because A Jew said something, doesn't make it right.
As for what this person wrote, well, there are a lot of things in life that babies don't get to choose for themselves. What if a baby's parents, for example, are pro-vaxxers, vaccinate their child and that child grows up to become an anti-vaxxer? That child's body has been "poisoned" by their parents without permission! Let's face it, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't want to be circumcised the Jewish way when they're older, in which case - they're missing out on the taking-a-dive-for-Godly-truth part of life. Here are parents pushing their son into the deep end before he realizes what's going on. And these parents, theoretically, are choosing for him - as they choose many other things for him - because they think it's important enough.

 

[Flankerl]

Oh thanks finally a non-Jewish voice about the matter of Jewish circumcision.
We obviously have never heard that before nor do we hear about it every other month.

Really thanks, you have opened my mind.
This is exactly what this DIR is about, non-Jewish opinions about Jewish practices.


And to make it all perfect some Christianity at the end.
Thank you so much!

 

[Karolina]

@Karolina, I recommend you read the following article:
Why Circumcise? - The importance of the brit milah
and the two follow-up articles at the bottom.

About this:

Just because A Jew said something, doesn't make it right.
As for what this person wrote, well, there are a lot of things in life that babies don't get to choose for themselves. What if a baby's parents, for example, are pro-vaxxers, vaccinate their child and that child grows up to become an anti-vaxxer? That child's body has been "poisoned" by their parents without permission! Let's face it, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't want to be circumcised the Jewish way when they're older, in which case - they're missing out on the taking-a-dive-for-Godly-truth part of life. Here are parents pushing their son into the deep end before he realizes what's going on. And these parents, theoretically, are choosing for him - as they choose many other things for him - because they think it's important enough.

Agreed. My point being simply that to circumcise - or not - shouldn't be dictated by one's religion.
Thanks for the link... from it I see this: "The brit milah, ritual circumcision, is a symbol of our partnership with G‑d. Etched in the flesh of our physical bodies, the covenant will never end or be forgotten." This sort of begs the question, is the covenant not between female Jews and G-d at all?

Also this: "G‑d chose the very organ that is the source of life, which can also be chosen to use for the basest acts, as the site to be sanctified with circumcision." This is a very patriarchal statement, if I ever saw one. If anything, I'd argue that the woman's womb is the source of life.

The other two articles actually provide the sort of explanation I find at least intellectually honest. I disagree with the premises, but then I'm not Jewish and so don't have to agree

Also, to my (albeit limited) knowledge, Judaism has evolved in a lot of ways over the millennia. There are so many ways to show one's Jewishness, that no single one of them need to be the one that makes or breaks a person's Jewish identity.

But I recognize that this is not my fight, as I've decided not to convert. Thank you again for engaging in the discussion.

 

[Karolina]

Oh thanks finally a non-Jewish voice about the matter of Jewish circumcision.
We obviously have never heard that before nor do we hear about it every other month.

Really thanks, you have opened my mind.
This is exactly what this DIR is about, non-Jewish opinions about Jewish practices.


And to make it all perfect some Christianity at the end.
Thank you so much!

I'm sorry you feel the need to be smirky about this. I started this thread since I was considering conversion to Judaism, so you know, it was a bit of a relevant topic for me. What attracted me to Judaism in part was the supposed wide range of acceptable opinions among Jews. But now I'm back to earth and realize humans are humans are humans. C'est la vie.

 

[Flankerl]

All that it took to bring you away from your desire to convert was one comment in a Forum?
How ridiculous.

And let me remind you that it was you who brought Christian theology into this, which is sort of a big no-no.

Also you came here to debate, which is simply not allowed as per the rules of the DIR.


So when I see someone in the DIR debating about the validity of Jewish practices with the occasional Christian titbit thrown in I am not amused.

 

[Karolina]

All that it took to bring you away from your desire to convert was one comment in a Forum?
How ridiculous.

And let me remind you that it was you who brought Christian theology into this, which is sort of a big no-no.

Also you came here to debate, which is simply not allowed as per the rules of the DIR.


So when I see someone in the DIR debating about the validity of Jewish practices with the occasional Christian titbit thrown in I am not amused.

I apologise that I did turn this into a debate, you're right, I should've known better. Circumcision is the norm where I live so I reacted defensively for no good reason.

I don't know what Christian reference you're talking about though... The idol thing? I'm basing that on the intro to Judaism class I'm in.

And don't worry, my decision not to convert is not based on a single comment, can or even a single issue. That's just where I happen to have landed as this thread progressed.

But your point about the rules on this DIR are well taken and I'm going to refrain from further comment.

My apologies again.

 

[dybmh]

Ok, so in all honesty, I hear a lot of circular reasoning - we circumcise because that's what Jews do (just because something has always been done doesn't mean it's a good reason to keep doing it... like say, slavery or withholding the vote from women). Or we circumcise so that no future potential wife, her parents, or her rabbi who would be inclined to discriminate against him could do so (which incidentally is the argument used in parts of Africa where female genital mutilation is practiced. The women who do this to their daughters are afraid that otherwise they will never find a man willing to marry them.) And the one I find strangest of all is the pain factor. Are people seriously under the impression that a procedure that is painful for a grown adult who can mentally prepare himself for it (and undergo the procedure with anesthesia) is in "more" pain than a helpless newborn who never saw it coming? Apparently doctors used to perform all sorts of operations on newborns *without anesthesia* because of the false belief that the baby didn't feel any pain. So the crying, screaming, and writhing his body to get away is ... stretching? Rather, I think the point is that the procedure isn't consciously remembered when undergone by a newborn versus an adult.

All of this makes perfect sense.

I know this may sound harsh

It doesn't sound harsh to me. It is honest, and that is beautiful.

One other thought that comes to mind is that circumcision sounds a bit like an idol. If women don't need to undergo a "perfecting" of their bodies, why is it assumed that men are not created perfect as is by God? I'm very confused by the idea that atheists are more welcome in traditional Jewish circles than would be intact Jewish boys and men. It seems that one's "circumcision of the heart" isn't nearly as important as the circumcision of the flesh.

What I am hearing is "striving" to understand and that is an example of engagement with this specific commandment. In my opinion, this is what G-d wants a Jewish person to do with each and every Mitzvah. And I personally would never judge another Jewish person negatively because of the decision they make about any of the Mitzvot. They are all equally important. Each has it's own function. And virtually no one is able to complete them all in a single Lifetime.

I will read the rest of the new responses, now. And bravo for applying your grey-matter to this controversial topic.

 

[Flankerl]

I don't know what Christian reference you're talking about though

It seems that one's "circumcision of the heart" isn't nearly as important as the circumcision of the flesh.

 

[dybmh]

Perhaps the judgement against Karolina is premature?

I do believe that this concept is addressed in the linked article in one of my posts in this thread.

If anyone lead her astray... it's my fault.

 

[dybmh]

yes. post #20.

"[What is the connection between circumcision and the name [of G‑d] Havayah? Besides the physical deed, circumcision reflects a spiritual service. We find two references to this concept in the Torah.] One verse6 declares, “You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart.” The second declares,7 “The L‑rd, your G‑d, will circumcise your heart,” i.e. there are two aspects of circumcision: one [performed by man in his striving to elevate himself] from below to above. [This service] necessitates the circumcision of the heart, i.e., the service of repentance (in Hebrew translated lit. return), as it is written,8 “You shall return to the L‑rd, your G‑d.” [This return is expressed] through the fulfillment of Torah and its commandments, and [will lead to the future redemption,] as our Sages declared,9 “If the Jewish people turn [to G‑d] in repentance they will be redeemed and if not, they won’t be redeemed.”

This comes from the Chabad website.

 

[Harel13]

It seems that one's "circumcision of the heart" isn't nearly as important as the circumcision of the flesh.

If I may: From what I've seen, Christians sometimes feel the need to justify the fact that they don't keep their OT commandments by saying that Judaism has lost its heart by concentrating way too much on the technical, physical aspects of worship, all the way to the most minute of details, rather than the "spirit" of things.
This is a major misunderstanding, in my opinion. Both are important - technical commandments and the more spiritual/less-physical commandments. Each commandment has a purpose, and the concentrating on details is, among other things, a way to ensure that that purpose is carried out in the fullest.

Moreover, one of the core ideas in the commandments is "Acharei ha'peulot nimshachim ha'levavot" - after the actions follow the hearts. When we actually do things, our hearts follow.
When all you've got is theory, even with the best of intentions, sometimes you'll be left with nothing. That's where the physical commandments step in. They allow you to bring those good intentions down to this world and actualize them.
So really, it's not a question of what's more important - they're both very important. In a way, they complete each other. In another way, they deal with different sides of worship.

 

[Tumah]

I am trying to understand why the removal of a healthy part of a human organ came to represent a covenant with God. I'm particularly interested in hearing from those of you who have a more Liberal and less literal understanding of the Scriptures, since I get that the latter would basically say "God told us to and we don't question God". I can respect that.

My Question is, if your tradition has taken a more allegorical approach to scripture interpretation, then why does infant circumcision remain such an ingrained part of your Jewish identity? Especially in the United States, where it does not actually set you apart since it's so common among American gentiles. And what's more, I wonder how exactly would one's private parts set anyone apart from others? It's the most private part of the body that I would imagine most people do not generally share with others. So how can most people tell that you're circumcised and therefore committed to God?

I've read lots of secular rhetoric for and against male infant circumcision when making my decision to leave my son intact, and I really still don't get it. I can appreciate an adult choosing this as a way to show his commitment to God (I guess?) But marking a baby this way seems odd to me. And I don't mean that disrespectfully, I just don't get it, that's all. And I know there's a movement within Judaism (and Islam, which also calls for circumcision) of intactivists, so I'm not completely out in left field questioning this practice.
Thanks for whatever insights you can give me.

I suspect that the answer is simply that because circumcision is so important in religious Law, it's significance passed on to become a part of liberal Jewish culture. Ultimately, it's culturally associated with being a part of the Jewish nation and that's something someone with a Jewish identity is probably not going to so easily give up.

Ok, so in all honesty, I hear a lot of circular reasoning - we circumcise because that's what Jews do (just because something has always been done doesn't mean it's a good reason to keep doing it... like say, slavery or withholding the vote from women). Or we circumcise so that no future potential wife, her parents, or her rabbi who would be inclined to discriminate against him could do so (which incidentally is the argument used in parts of Africa where female genital mutilation is practiced. The women who do this to their daughters are afraid that otherwise they will never find a man willing to marry them.) And the one I find strangest of all is the pain factor. Are people seriously under the impression that a procedure that is painful for a grown adult who can mentally prepare himself for it (and undergo the procedure with anesthesia) is in "more" pain than a helpless newborn who never saw it coming? Apparently doctors used to perform all sorts of operations on newborns *without anesthesia* because of the false belief that the baby didn't feel any pain. So the crying, screaming, and writhing his body to get away is ... stretching? Rather, I think the point is that the procedure isn't consciously remembered when undergone by a newborn versus an adult.

I don't know if the baby doesn't feel any pain at all, but it's pretty clear from the way the baby cries, that it doesn't bother him as much as it does an adult. Once they get food, they're done.

One other thought that comes to mind is that circumcision sounds a bit like an idol. If women don't need to undergo a "perfecting" of their bodies, why is it assumed that men are not created perfect as is by God?

Because the Biblical word for the foreskin is orlah which is the word the Torah uses for something that needs to be avoided and/or removed.
Aside from that, the covenant of the circumcision was about the continuity of the Jewish people as the Jewish people. That's Gen. 17. From the perspective of Jewish Law, it's only men where the continuity of a child as a Jew is in question - a Jewish woman's child is always Jewish. So it does kind of make sense that this commitment to Jewish continuity need to be affirmed among men and not women.

I'm very confused by the idea that atheists are more welcome in traditional Jewish circles than would be intact Jewish boys and men. It seems that one's "circumcision of the heart" isn't nearly as important as the circumcision of the flesh.

That's true to an extent. Without the circumcision of the flesh, it's not going to be possible to circumcise the heart. It's like which is more important to the car: the door to the gas tank or the gas? If the door is sealed shut, no matter how pure your gas is, it's not going to help. On the other hand, the door doesn't actually add anything itself to the running of the car.

 

[dybmh]

@Karolina,

I think that it would be good for you to really try to acknowledge your own feelings about Jewish Male Circumcision by a mohel per Halachic law.

If you feel that it is wrong... so wrong that you would like to right the injustice and convince other Jewish people to "end the evil practice"... I think you should acknowledge that truth. It's OK to feel that way. You are not alone.

But, there is an obstacle to this approach that you need to be aware of. Almost all Jewish men who were circumcised as infants... they / we / me ( yes me ) do not regret it.

I say again. The people whom are being "saved" from the "evil" circumcision... they/us don't want to be saved.

All of the arguments that intend to demonstrate how awful Jewish Male Circumcision is... they all fail. It's because there are too many of us that are circumcised who are happy, and we are not missing our foreskin.

The pain and suffering that I experienced as a baby.... it's true. I'm sure it was awful. But it is impossible for anyone to prove to **me** that I have been damaged by it. I don't feel damaged. None of my Jewish male friends feel damaged. Are you starting to understand why the arguments against Jewish Male circumcision always fall short of being convincing?

The arguments opposing Jewish Male Circumcision are below. What you will see is that each one is very weak and unconvincing to Jewish people. Note: I do not support circumcision unless it is for religion. If it's not for religious reasons.. then yes. It should not be done without the child consent.

That said... here are the arguments opposing Jewish Male circumcision as an infant.

1) The child is harmed by pain and suffering of the procedure.
2) The child is harmed by reduced sexual function
3) It's a slippery slope from male circumcision to female circumcision
4) The child has no choice

If you don't mind, I think it's valuable to go thru each one of these and I'll demonstrate why each one is weak and is not convincing to Jewish people.

It's not about tradition. It's about common sense.

The child is harmed by pain and suffering of the procedure.

In order for this to be convincing to me; one would have to convince me that the pain and suffering of the procedure harmed me. It can't be done. The overwhelming majority of Jewish men do not consider them selves harmed by the pain and suffering of Jewish Male circumcision if it was done as an infant. Yes. I understand the theory behind why people say "it's cruel". But those arguments are hollow unless **I can be convinced that I have been harmed** And that is going to be very hard to do.

The child's is harmed by reduced sexual function.

This argument is not convincing for the same reason that the previous one is not convincing. One would need to convince me that my intimate relationship with my wife is somehow unfulfilling. Good luck with that. I guess I could arrange a heart to heart with Mrs. Dybmh if you would like confirmation that I am not... ahem ... being dishonest about our sex life. All that can be said to me... if one wants to convince me... is "Oh the sex would be so so so much better." I don't want the sex to be "so so so much better." The sex is just fine, great, amazing, fulfilling (you pick the adjective ) thank you very much. I am very happy with it. It's a steep hill to climb to convince me otherwise.

It's a slippery slope from male circumcision to female circumcision.

This argument is an absolute hot mess. And I think that anytime female circumcision is introduced into a discussion/debate about Jewish Male circumcision.... we Jews ( if I may be so bold ) stop listening, we roll our collective eyes, and shake our collective heads in dismay. This is Judaism. There is no slippery slope. There is no commandment to circumcise the girls. That is the worst argument anyone can ever bring. There will never be a commandment in Judaism to circumcise the girls. Bringing it up **ever** in a discussion/debate like this makes the one making the claim appear uninformed about Judaism. And it's kind of like... "why bother talking to this person if they think we circumcise our girls... that will never happen... gee-whiz"

The child has no choice.

This one is the the strongest of the weak arguments. But it's still not convincing. Harel did an excellent job defeating this argument. I don't need to repeat his justification. I know that Tumah has defeated this argument before in a previous thread.

It's the strongest of the arguments because it cannot be denied. Yes the child has no choice. But parents do that all the time. This is why I said in my reply, "If my child sues me, so be it." I understand that some men become obsessed with their missing foreskin and feel robbed of their complete sexual function. I get it. But I just highly doubt that my son will turn out to be one of these foreskin obsessed Jewish men. And as he grows up, and is happy, well adjusted, and seems to have no problems with his sex life... this argument the child has no choice becomes weaker and weaker over time.

Imagine what it's like to tell a Dad, "You shouldn't have circumcised your child, they had no choice." and then that same Dad says, "wait here a moment." And then they retrieve a long line of young men from inside their house. You see, many observant Jewish men have very large families. And that means it's likely that they can point to their 1,2,3,4... sons and ask them point blank: "Are you missing your foreskin?" "What about you, my son, are you missing your foreskin?" But that's just an example where the Dad already has grown young men in the house to query.

Let's say that I have been convinced... just for argument's sake, that I made the wrong choice for my son on principle. OK? Let's role play this. I'm a young Dad. Non-observant, but for what ever crazy reason I convinced my wife to circumcise our son. ( BTW this is a pretty accurate representation of what happened in our family. ) OK? remember that I have 1 son. Not 2,3,4,5. I am young and so is my son. I can't ask him, "Son are you missing your foreskin?" The boy cannot talk yet. And lets say I'm convinced. He didn't have a choice, and that is wrong on principle.

But as the child grows up, I will be able to ask him. And he would probably say no. and then as he grows up he will continue to reaffirm with increasing conviction, "No, I don't miss my foreskin."

increasing conviction over time... not increasing regret over time.

not increasing regret.

the argument becomes weaker over time.

Now. If you can imagine and understand why this argument is weak for someone like me, with only 1 child in a modern assimilated community, can you imagine how much weaker it is when speaking to a whole community of people who have seen boys born, circumcised, married, have their own kids, repeatedly for multiple generations. It's a fail. It's not convincing. Because the children grow up and and will tell you, "No I don't miss my foreskin"

And then all that's left is to try and convince them how much better their sex life would be... and that fails too.

That's it. These arguments have been made against circumcision for at least 2000 of years. If I remember, there's an element of all this in the story of Hannukah ( over 2000 years ago ). The Greeks at that time were adamantly opposed to mutilating the perfection of the human form. I only bring it up to show that these arguments are not new. They're not innovative. And virtually no Jewish person is going to hear them and say, "oh, I never thought of that before" There won't ever be an "ah-hah" moment, or a "gotcha". Do you see what I mean?

So, @Karolina, that is why I think that you should give yourself permission to acknowledge for yourself how you feel about this issue. It's OK not to like it. It's OK to think it's wrong. I don't find it offensive in any way for anyone, Jewish or not, to criticize the practice. The reasons make sense... but they're not convincing. And, they're not new.

If you are, as I said, "striving" to understand, and you are engaging with the Mitzvah ( even if that engagement is critical ) I vote, that's totally fine to come to the Dir, and wrestle with this issue.

But.

If truth be told, the goal is to "save the children". That's never going to work. And it truly doesn't belong in this Dir. I feel like, that was not your original goal when you started this thread. I feel like along the way, your own convictions on this were strengthened. It's no different for me... Just like your arguments in opposition are not convincing to me; My arguments in favor are not convincing to you. That's all. And that is how I interpret all of this. Your feelings are natural. They are not anti-Jewish or offensive. They are honest concerns. I'm fine with all of it.

But i think that it's important for anyone else who happens to be reading this thread to know, all the arguments in opposition have been made before. There is nothing new here. And those of us who do circumcise our **MALE** children as infants are extremely capable of defending the practice. And it all starts with collecting 5,10,100,1000,10,000... etc Jewish men and asking them a simple question: "Do you miss your foreskin?" Until a large majority of those men answer in the affirmative... the practical real answers of these men will always over rule any objection on principle.

But I say again, I find nothing wrong with anything you said in this thread or in how you are striving to understand this controversial subject.

Most sincerely,

 

[dybmh]

One other thought that comes to mind is that circumcision sounds a bit like an idol. If women don't need to undergo a "perfecting" of their bodies, why is it assumed that men are not created perfect as is by God?

Is it really that hard to imagine that men are deeply flawed... I mean look at the 'me too' movement???

Perhaps men need this... perhaps it's medicine. perhaps it's practical?

perhaps we're just a little too cocky.