Product Code Database
The brit milah (, , ; "covenant of circumcision"), or bris (, ), is the ceremony of circumcision in Judaism and Samaritanism during which a newborn male's foreskin is surgically removed. According to the Book of Genesis, God commanded the biblical patriarch Abraham to be circumcised: an act to be followed by his descendants on the eighth day of life symbolizing the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Today, it is generally performed by a mohel on the eighth day after the infant's birth and is followed by a celebratory meal known as a seudat mitzvah.
Brit milah is considered among the most important and central commandments in Judaism, and the rite has played a central role in Jewish history and Jewish culture. The Talmud, when discussing the importance of brit milah, considers it equal to all other mitzvot (commandments). Abraham's descendants who voluntarily fail to undergo brit milah, barring extraordinary circumstances, are believed to suffer Kareth, which, in Jewish theology, the extinction of the soul and denial of a share in the World to Come. (2025). 9781467466097, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 9781467466097 The brit is understood by Jews to signify acceptance into the ongoing covenant between God and the Jewish people, which is why gerim undergo a form of brit to finalize conversion.
Historical conflicts between Jews and European civilizations have occurred several times over brit milah, including multiple campaigns of Jewish ethnic, cultural, and religious persecution, with subsequent bans and restrictions on the practice as an attempted means of forceful assimilation, conversion, and ethnocide, most famously in the Maccabean Revolt by the Seleucid Empire. "In Jewish history, the banning of circumcision ( brit milah) has historically been a first step toward more extreme and violent forms of persecution". These periods have generally been linked to suppression of Jewish religious, ethnic, and cultural identity and subsequent "punishment at the hands of government authorities for engaging in circumcision". The Maccabees victory in the Maccabean Revolt—ending the prohibition against circumcision—is celebrated in Hanukkah. Circumcision rates are near-universal among Jews.
Brit milah also has immense importance in other religions. The Gospel of Luke records that Mary and Saint Joseph, the parents of Jesus, had him undergo circumcision.
Some scholars have argued that it originated as a replacement for child sacrifice.
Leviticus 12:3 says: "And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised."
According to the Hebrew Bible, it was "a reproach" for an Israelite to be uncircumcised.Joshua 5:9. The plural term ("uncircumcised") is used , denoting the Philistines and other non-IsraelitesI Samuel 14:6, 31:4; II Samuel 1:20 and used in conjunction with (unpure) for heathen.Isaiah 52:1 The word ("uncircumcised" singular) is also employed for "impermeable";Leviticus 26:41, "their uncircumcised hearts"; compare Jeremiah 9:25; Ezekiel 44:7, 9 it is also applied to the first three years' fruit of a tree, which is forbidden.Leviticus 19:23
However, the Israelites born in the wilderness after the Exodus from Egypt were not circumcised. Joshua 5:2–9, explains, "all the people that came out" of Ancient Egypt were circumcised, but those "born in the wilderness" were not. Therefore, Joshua, before the celebration of the Passover, had them circumcised at Gilgal specifically before they entered Canaan. Abraham, too, was circumcised when he moved into Canaan.
The prophetic tradition emphasizes that God expects people to be good as well as pious, and that non-Jews will be judged based on their ethical behavior, see Noahide Law. Thus, Jeremiah 9:25–26 says that circumcised and uncircumcised will be punished alike by the Lord; for "all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart".
The penalty of willful non-observance is kareth (making oneself liable to extirpation or excommunication), as noted in Genesis 17:1-14. Conversion to Judaism for non-Israelites in Biblical times necessitated circumcision, otherwise one could not partake in the Passover offering. Today, as in the time of Abraham, it is required of converts in Orthodox Judaism, Conservative and Reform Judaism.
As found in Genesis 17:1–14, brit milah is considered to be so important that should the eighth day fall on Shabbat, actions that would normally be forbidden because of the sanctity of the day are permitted in order to fulfill the requirement to circumcise. The Talmud, when discussing the importance of Milah, compares it to being equal to all other mitzvot (commandments) based on the gematria for brit of 612.Tractate Nedarim 32a
Covenants in biblical times were often sealed by severing an animal,Jeremiah 34:18 and Genesis 15:1–4 with the implication that the party who breaks the covenant will suffer a similar fate. In Hebrew, the verb meaning "to seal a covenant" translates literally as "to cut". It is presumed by Jewish scholars that the removal of the foreskin symbolically represents such a sealing of the covenant."Circumcision." Mark Popovsky. Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion. Ed. David A. Leeming, Kathryn Madden and Stanton Marlan. New York: Springer, 2010. pp. 153–54.
Speculated reasons for biblical circumcision include to show off "patrilineal descent, sexual fertility, male initiation, cleansing of birth impurity, and dedication to God".
An Israeli study found a high rate of urinary tract infections if the bandage is left on too long.
If the child is born premature baby or has other serious medical problems, the brit milah will be postponed until the doctors and mohel deem the child strong enough for his foreskin to be surgically removed.
Eliezer Waldenberg, Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, Shmuel Wosner, Moshe Feinstein and others agree that the child should not be sedated, although pain relieving ointment may be used under certain conditions; Shmuel Wosner particularly asserts that the act ought to be painful, per Psalms 44:23.
In a letter to the editor published in The New York Times on January 3, 1998, Rabbi Moshe David Tendler disagrees with the above and writes, "It is a biblical prohibition to cause anyone unnecessary pain." Rabbi Tendler recommends the use of an analgesic cream. However, lidocaine should not be used because it has been linked to several pediatric near-death episodes.
According to the Western Ashkenazic rite, Nodeh Leshimcha is not recited. Elohim tzivita li-yedidcha bechiracha is recited during the second blessing, and a set of ha-Rachaman prayers, different from the ones in the Eastern Ashkenazic rite, are recited.Western Ashkenazic version of Seder Avodat Yisrael, page 739 (the link is to Otzar HaChochmah, available only to subscribers).
According to Rabbinic interpretation of traditional Jewish sources, (note: section 19.2 from Moed tractate Shabbat (Talmud) is quoted) the 'priah' has been performed as part of the Jewish circumcision since the Israelites first inhabited the Land of Israel.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that many Hellenistic Jews attempted to restore their foreskins, and that similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, a period in which a prohibition against circumcision was issued. The writers of the dictionary hypothesize that the more severe method practiced today was probably begun in order to prevent the possibility of restoring the foreskin after circumcision, and therefore the rabbis added the requirement of cutting the foreskin in periah.
According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, the Torah only commands milah. David Gollaher has written that the rabbis added the procedure of priah to discourage men from trying to restore their foreskins: "Once established, priah was deemed essential to circumcision; if the mohel failed to cut away enough tissue, the operation was deemed insufficient to comply with God's covenant", and "Depending on the strictness of individual rabbis, boys (or men thought to have been inadequately cut) were subjected to additional operations."
In the Metzitzah (), the guard is slid over the foreskin as close to the Glans penis as possible to allow for maximum removal of the former without any injury to the latter. A scalpel is used to detach the foreskin. A tube is used for metzitzah in addition to (the initial cut amputating the akroposthion) and and subsequent circumcision, mentioned above, the Talmud (Mishnah Shabbat 19:2) mentions a third step, , translated as suction, as one of the steps involved in the circumcision rite. The Talmud writes that a "Mohel (Circumciser) who does not suck creates a danger, and should be dismissed from practice".Tractate Shabbos 133bRambam – Maimonides in his "book of laws" Laws of Milah Chapter 2, paragraph 2: "...and afterwards he sucks the circumcision until blood comes out from far places, in order not to come to danger, and anyone who does not suck, we remove him from practice." Rashi on that Talmudic passage explains that this step is in order to draw some blood from deep inside the wound to prevent danger to the baby.Rashi and others on Tractate Shabbos 173a and 173b Kabbalah, Rabbi Shalom Sharabi and Rabbi Isaac Luria, have written that he that performs metzitzah ought to cognizantly endeavor to draw away the 'Yetzer hara' that lay within the blood that is extracted.
There are other modern antiseptic and antibiotic techniques—all used as part of the brit milah today—which many say accomplish the intended purpose of metzitzah; however, since metzitzah is one of the four steps to fulfill the mitzvah,Mishnah Shabbat 19:2 it continues to be practiced by Orthodox Judaism. while traditional Karaite Judaism and Beta Israel never practiced it due to never incorporating the Talmud.
The practice has become a controversy in both secular and Jewish medical ethics. The ritual of metzitzah is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists it as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. Rabbi Moses Sofer, also known as the Chatam Sofer (1762–1839), observed that the Talmud states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic—i.e., to protect the health of the child. As such, the Chatam Sofer issued a ruling to perform metzitzah with a sponge instead of oral suction in order to safeguard the child from potential risks. He also cited a passage in Nedarim 32a as a warrant for the position that metzitzah b’peh was not an obligatory part of the circumcision ceremony. It relates the story that a mohel (who was suspected of transmitting herpes via metzizah to infants) was checked several times and never found to have signs of the disease and that a ban was requested because of the "possibility of future infections". Moshe Schick (1807–1879), a student of Moses Sofer, states in his book of Responsa, She’eilos u’teshuvos Maharam Schick (Orach Chaim 152,) that Moses Sofer gave the ruling in that specific instance only because the mohel refused to step down and had secular government connections that prevented his removal in favor of another mohel, and the Heter may not be applied elsewhere. He also states ( Yoreh Deah 244) that the practice is possibly a Sinaitic tradition, i.e., Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Other sources contradict this claim, with copies of Moses Sofer's responsa making no mention of the legal case or of his ruling applying in only one situation. Rather, that responsa makes quite clear that "metzizah" was a health measure and should never be employed where there is a health risk to the infant.
Chaim Hezekiah Medini, after corresponding with the greatest Jewish sages of the generation, concluded the practice to be Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai and elaborates on what prompted Moses Sofer to give the above ruling.Sdei Chemed vol. 8 p. 238 He tells the story that a student of Moses Sofer, Lazar Horowitz, Chief Rabbi of Vienna at the time and author of the responsa Yad Elazer, needed the ruling because of a governmental attempt to ban circumcision completely if it included metztitzah b'peh. He therefore asked Sofer to give him permission to do brit milah without metzitzah b'peh. When he presented the defense in secular court, his testimony was erroneously recorded to mean that Sofer stated it as a general ruling. The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), which claims to be the largest American organization of Orthodox rabbis, published an article by mohel Yehudi Pesach Shields in its summer 1972 issue of Tradition magazine, calling for the abandonment of Metzitzah b'peh. Since then the RCA has issued an opinion that advocates methods that do not involve contact between the mohel's mouth and the infant's genitals, such as the use of a sterile syringe, thereby eliminating the risk of infection. According to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Edah HaChareidis metzitzah b'peh should still be performed.
The practice of metzitzah b'peh posed a serious risk in the transfer of herpes from to eight Israeli infants, one of whom suffered brain damage. When three New York City infants contracted herpes after metzizah b'peh by one mohel and one of them died, New York authorities took out a restraining order against the mohel requiring use of a sterile glass tube, or pipette. The mohel's attorney argued that the New York Department of Health had not supplied conclusive medical evidence linking his client with the disease. In September 2005, the city withdrew the restraining order and turned the matter over to a rabbinical court. Thomas Frieden, the Health Commissioner of New York City, wrote, "There exists no reasonable doubt that 'metzitzah b'peh' can and has caused neonatal herpes infection....The Health Department recommends that infants being circumcised not undergo metzitzah b'peh." In May 2006, the Department of Health for New York State issued a protocol for the performance of metzitzah b'peh. Antonia Novello, Commissioner of Health for New York State, together with a board of rabbis and doctors, worked, she said, to "allow the practice of metzizah b'peh to continue while still meeting the Department of Health's responsibility to protect the public health". Later in New York City in 2012 a 2-week-old baby died of herpes because of metzitzah b'peh.
In three medical papers done in Israel, Canada, and the US, oral suction following circumcision was suggested as a cause in 11 cases of neonatal herpes.Rubin LG, Lanzkowsky P. Cutaneous neonatal herpes simplex infection associated with ritual circumcision. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal. 2000. 19(3) 266–67.Distel R, Hofer V, Bogger-Goren S, Shalit I, Garty BZ. Primary genital herpes simplex infection associated with Jewish ritual circumcision. Israel Medical Association Journal. 2003 Dec;5(12):893-4 Researchers noted that prior to 1997, neonatal herpes reports in Israel were rare, and that the late instances were correlated with the mothers carrying the virus themselves. Rabbi Doctor Mordechai Halperin implicates the "better hygiene and living conditions that prevail among the younger generation", which lowered to 60% the rate of young Israeli Haredi mothers who carry the virus. He explains that an "absence of antibodies in the mothers' blood means that their newborn sons received no such antibodies through the placenta, and therefore are vulnerable to infection by HSV-1".
In September 2012, the New York Department of Health unanimously ruled that the practice of metztizah b'peh should require informed consent from the parent or guardian of the child undergoing the ritual. Prior to the ruling, several hundred rabbis, including Rabbi David Niederman, the executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg, signed a declaration stating that they would not inform parents of the potential dangers that came with metzitzah b'peh, even if informed consent became law.
In a motion for preliminary injunction with intent to sue, filed against New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, affidavits by Awi Federgruen, Brenda Breuer, and Daniel S. Berman argued that the study on which the department passed its conclusions is flawed.
The "informed consent" regulation was challenged in court. In January 2013 the U.S. District court ruled that the law did not specifically target religion and therefore must not pass strict scrutiny. The ruling was appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On August 15, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision by the lower court, and ruled that the regulation does have to be reviewed under strict scrutiny to determine whether it infringes on Orthodox Jews' freedom of religion.
On September 9, 2015, after coming to an agreement with the community the New York City Board of Health voted to repeal the informed consent regulation.
The laws of conversion and conversion-related circumcision in Orthodox Judaism have numerous complications, and authorities recommend that a rabbi be consulted well in advance.
In Conservative Judaism, the milah l'shem giur procedure is also performed for a boy whose mother has not converted, but with the intention that the child be raised Jewish. This conversion of a child to Judaism without the conversion of the mother is allowed by Conservative interpretations of halakha. Conservative Rabbis will authorize it only under the condition that the child be raised as a Jew in a single-faith household. Should the mother convert, and if the boy has not yet reached his third birthday, the child may be immersed in the mikveh with the mother, after the mother has already immersed, to become Jewish. If the mother does not convert, the child may be immersed in a mikveh, or body of natural waters, to complete the child's conversion to Judaism. This can be done before the child is even one year old. If the child did not immerse in the mikveh, or the boy was too old, then the child may choose of their own accord to become Jewish at age 13 as a Bar Mitzvah, and complete the conversion then. Rabbi Avram Israel Reisner, On the conversion of adoptive and patrilineal children , Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, 1988
Where the procedure was performed but not followed by immersion or other requirements of the conversion procedure (e.g., in Conservative Judaism, where the mother has not converted), if the boy chooses to complete the conversion at Bar Mitzvah, a milah l'shem giur performed when the boy was an infant removes the obligation to undergo either a full brit milah or hatafat dam brit.
Talmud professor Daniel Boyarin offered two explanations for circumcision. One is that it is a literal inscription on the Jewish body of the name of God in the form of the letter "yodh" (from "yesod"). The second is that the act of bleeding represents a feminization of Jewish men, significant in the sense that the covenant represents a marriage between Jews and (a symbolically male) God.Boyarin, Daniel. This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel': Circumcision and the Erotic Life of God and Israel", Critical Inquiry. (Spring, 1992), 474–506.
He attributes four of the reasons to "men of divine spirit and wisdom". These include the idea that circumcision:
There was also division in Pharisees between Hillel the Elder and Shammai on the issue of circumcision of proselytes.
According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day.
According to saying 53 of the Gospel of Thomas,
The foreskin was considered a symbol of beauty, civility, and masculinity throughout the Greco-Roman world; it was customary to spend an hour or so a day exercising nude in the gymnasium and in Thermae; many Jewish men did not want to be seen in public deprived of their , where matters of business and politics were discussed. To expose one's glans in public was seen as indecent, vulgar, and a sign of sexual arousal and desire.
Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman culture widely found circumcision to be barbaric, cruel, and utterly repulsive in nature. By the period of the Maccabees, many Jewish men attempted to hide their circumcisions through the process of epispasm, now known as foreskin restoration, due to the circumstances of the period, although Jewish religious writers denounced these practices as abrogating the covenant of Abraham in 1 Maccabees and the Talmud. After Christianity and Second Temple Judaism Jewish Christian another, Milah was declared spiritually unnecessary as a condition of justification by Christian writers such as Paul the Apostle and subsequently in the Council of Jerusalem, while it further increased in importance for Jews.
In the mid-2nd century CE, the Tannaim, the successors of the newly ideologically dominant Pharisees, introduced and made mandatory a secondary step of circumcision known as the Periah. Without it circumcision was newly declared to have no spiritual value. This new form removed as much of the Preputial mucosa as possible, the frenulum and its corresponding Frenular delta from the Human penis, and prevented the movement of shaft skin, in what creates a "low and tight" circumcision. It was intended to make it impossible to restore the foreskin. This is the form practiced among the large majority of Jews today, and, later, became a basis for the routine neonatal circumcisions performed in the United States.
The steps, justifications, and imposition of the practice have dramatically varied throughout history; commonly cited reasons for the practice have included it being a way to control male sexuality by reducing sexual pleasure and Sexual desire, as a visual marker of the covenant of the pieces, as a Tikkun olam, and as a means to promote fertility. The original version in Jewish history was either a ritual nick or cut done by a father to the acroposthion, the part of the foreskin that overhangs the glans penis. This form of genital nicking or cutting, known as simply milah, became adopted among Jews by the Second Temple period and was the predominant form until the second century CE. The notion of milah being linked to a biblical covenant is generally believed to have originated in the 6th century BCE as a product of the Babylonian captivity; the practice likely lacked this significance among Jews before the period.
According to British explorer Claude Reignier Conder, in their circumcision hymn, Samaritans express their gratitude for a certain Roman soldier by the name of Germon, who was sent by an unknown Roman Emperor as a sentinel over the home of the Samaritan High Priest for his kindness in allowing the process of circumcision to take place. They tried to give him money, but he refused, just requesting to be included in their future prayers instead.
|
|
