When it comes to Haaretz’s recent article titled, “Love it or hate it: Circumcision and its ‘reversal’ in the Ancient World,” there were exceptional parts. It’s a detailed analysis of the practice throughout time and, even as a mohel, I learned a substantial amount.
That’s not to say it was entirely without issue. The controversy around brit milah (circumcision), is both fascinating and informative. Still, when it attempts to make claims about Jewish practice, it appears misinformed and misguided.
The article’s most inflammatory claim is that brit milah used to require less skin removal than is done today. This assertion is based on the Hanukkah story. During that period, Jews hid their circumcision by drawing skin forward in order to assimilate and attend the Greek gymnasiums.
I will admit that this fact has always troubled me. Due to the amount of skin removed in the present practice, it would be almost impossible to reverse. Yet this inexplicable account did not keep me up at night. The world is filled with historical mysteries. For example, scholars still debate how the pyramids were built.
The procedure
There’s also a technical problem in the author’s explanation. The procedure outlined is that an incision was made and then the foreskin was tied above the glans. It’s hard to understand how this would accomplish the goal of assimilation because the tying process would be noticeable to anyone.
However, the academics who solve the Hanukkah enigma, purporting that brit milah has changed over time, have simultaneously created another problem. Judaism is a tradition built on preserving debate. The Talmud is rife with rabbinic conflict; each position is preserved even if it is not the legal victor. The later legal doctrines function the same way – preservation trumps a unified answer.
The requirement of a kosher brit milah has always been a fully exposed glans. The only discussion of a possible change in practice is just before the Children of Israel conquered the Land of Israel in the book of Joshua. Rashi (1040-1105), the major medieval Torah and Talmud commentator, states that this was when the tradition of priah (“uncovering”) began.
There are two steps in the brit milah process – the first is the removal of orlah (the outer skin) and the second is the priah: removal of the inner mucosal membrane. However, the rabbi and commentator Radak (1160-1235) disputes this, stating that both steps were received by Abraham as described in Genesis.
Questionable claims
It’s questionable if either of these comments can be taken at face value because they serve more of a homiletical function, solving textual inconsistencies. Whether priah began with Abraham or Joshua, both positions agree the practice was firmly established over a millennium before the Hanukkah story, and neither suggests any later modifications.
The lack of recorded debate is more than an argument from silence. Even the early non-Jewish accounts such as Josephus, Philo, and Roman legal literature make no mention of a change in the Jewish practice. Additionally, none of the polemical literature detailing the early Christian/Jewish debates cites any alterations, which critics certainly would have exploited. The Hasmonean period is heavily documented, and immediately precedes the Mishnaic/Talmudic period, yet there is no mention of any changes instituted.
Rabbinic respona also pose a problem for the theory that circumcision fundamentally changed over time. Whenever different communities mixed because of forced migration, rabbis received questions about the permissibility of the newcomers’ behavior. The inquiries could be as mundane as if the newcomers should adopt the liturgy of their new location or continue with the practices of their hometown.
There are no recorded conversations discussing varying practices of brit milah. As was previously mentioned, we are the people who preserve debate. If such discussions had occurred, they would exist somewhere.
These historical questions have implications beyond mere academic conjecture. Just as much as the Jewish people have continuously kept the commandment of circumcision throughout the years, the practice has likewise preserved our national identity.
The value of brit milah
The Haaretz piece ends: “Despite the anti-circumcision efforts over the centuries, the practice is clearly thriving, and there is still no consensus about its value.” This statement only applies when viewing the procedure on a worldwide scale. If one were to focus on the Jewish community alone, and perhaps the Muslim community, there is unequivocal value in the rite.
My work as a mohel brings me to all corners of the earth to help people keep this mitzvah. My most recent trip beyond Israel’s borders brought me to a small Jewish community in Europe for the second time. In addition to the work I did for that family, I was able to spend time with those I had worked with previously.
My relationship with them has spanned almost a decade. The mother converted in our beit din (religious court) in Israel and subsequently, I was invited to perform their son’s brit milah; he is now a precocious five-year-old. While detailing his day to me, his father mentioned that when the two walk to school, they make sure to say the Shema (“Hear, O Israel”).
This simple fact was a window into the power of our traditions. That this family continues to have a strong connection to our nation, history, and customs speaks to how the mitzvah of brit milah – unchanged itself across millennia – continues to preserve the Jewish people.
The writer is a rabbi, a wedding officiant, and a mohel who performs ritual circumcisions and conversions in Israel and worldwide. Based in Efrat, he is the founder of Magen HaBrit, an organization protecting the practice of brit milah and the children who undergo it.