I think there’s no point beating around the bush: what is your justification for cutting healthy tissue from an 8-day-old infant, with no evident medical reason whatsoever? Anyone who has read even a little science on the subject knows the benefits are one big zero, and in Europe governments and doctors are coming out against performing circumcision—by a mohel or a doctor, at any stage—because they understand there is no justification for cutting healthy tissue that is essential for normal and pleasurable sexual relations, without anesthesia, while blatantly violating bioethics and democratic values such as the right to bodily integrity, etc.?

Nice that you think there’s no point beating around the bush, so practice what you preach.
My justification is that the Holy One, blessed be He, who created me and him, commanded us to do it. What’s wrong with that kind of justification?
In general, parents dictate many things to their children, many of them irreversible, and some of them harmful (at least in the view of part of the public).

Not a particularly clever answer for a philosopher. Because parents dictate certain things to their children due to their young age and limited experience in this world, some of it unwittingly and out of ignorance, (as is well known, there is no school for parenting), you think it’s okay to castrate eight-day-old babies on the altar of Molech? Are you this liberal about female genital mutilation too? After all, by your twisted method, that could also be done because “the blessed Lord commanded it, and anyway we sometimes make harmful and irreversible decisions in other areas for our children.”

To me, your arguments are what seem absurd, but maybe that’s because of my limited intelligence.
I accept whatever parents do because that is what, in their understanding, should be done. I can of course disagree with them about whether it is in fact needed, but if that’s what they think, then that’s what they should do. Parents also give their child vaccines, and maybe when he grows up he’ll object to vaccines.

Of course parents do things according to their understanding. There is certainly no dispute that parents need to make decisions for their children in a variety of areas: education, culture, religion, health, etc. The question is different: given that this is an obviously unnecessary medical procedure, a crazy practice that Satan himself didn’t invent (circumcision, uncovering, and oral suction), and given our acceptance of fundamental democratic principles like the physician’s oath (“first, do no harm”) and basic principles like autonomy and the right to bodily integrity, isn’t it blatantly immoral to perform this ritual? By the way, I’m not angry at ignorant people who do this. I simply pity them, and even more so their children. I just expect the state not to allow it, just as female circumcision is prohibited, even though there are Muslims who regard it as an inseparable part of their faith and see banning it as classic Western coercion.

I have to say: considering how emphatic and condescending you are, the level of the arguments you present is a bit worrying.
There is no difference whatsoever between circumcision and any other decision. The question is whether you agree that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded it and therefore there is spiritual benefit in it (even if not medical benefit), or not. If you don’t agree, then obviously you won’t make such a parental decision. But if you do (like me), then I see no difference between this and any other decision. Except that this decision is far less dramatic than most other decisions parents make (momentary pain that after a few seconds is already forgotten, and that’s that).
What you expect from the state doesn’t seem interesting to me at all, except that your worldview is astonishingly benighted. You have every right to expect whatever you want and to hold as benighted a view as you like. By the way, in that respect there actually is a similarity between us. I’m not angry at you either; I just pity the ignorance and shallowness you display.

I’ll go back to my first question: does a person who thinks he should cut off his son’s left hand at age 4 days (“spiritual benefit”) morally outrage you? If so, see the entry on circumcision. If not, then you are blatantly an immoral person.

It seems to me that with this foolish analogy, we’re done with the discussion. Good luck.

The analogy is meant to ridicule your faith. Anything that people believe in long enough becomes sacred.

It seems to me that the messages you wrote here don’t need ridiculing. They do that job quite well on their own. All the best.

Do you support female circumcision? Do you think the spiritual benefit also outweighs the medical harm there? Please address female circumcision. And to anyone who thinks there is a difference between the two, I’ll point out that the mildest type of female circumcision is very similar to male circumcision; in both, the foreskin is cut.

Yitzhak,
Society and parents do all kinds of things all over the world. In some places they made children do bungee jumps (which sometimes ended in smashing into the ground when the rope was too long). In other places they did tattooing or some other physical test. In certain countries they artificially elongated women’s necks; in others they bound their feet. In secular society, boys and girls are mixed at a young age and brought into endless competition for the attention of the opposite sex, which leads to nails and studs being stuck into every part of the body, drug use (alcohol is also a drug), and sometimes even murder as a way to attract attention.
We understand that you have attached yourself to the Greek belief in the perfect body, which Europeans also hold. Let us just remind you that this view tried several times to fight the Torah of Israel and circumcision, and it failed. It’s a shame to fail yet again.

A story from the days of the Yevsektsiya: they put on trial a Jew who was a mohel. The prosecutor described the terrible physical and psychological damage that circumcision causes to the infant being circumcised. When he finished, the defendant answered him: “Comrade Prosecutor, I circumcised you when you were eight days old. Is your physical and psychological condition really that bad?” 🙂

Best regards, Shimshon Yitzhak 🙂 HaLevi

I also have criticism of secular society. I think uncontrolled consumption of media content and an obsessive fixation on appearance are a curse. Why, in the name of all the other cursed things people do, should we commit this crime against our children? And for all the cluckers saying “the Torah said so,” there can be a solution to that too. When you understand that something doesn’t fit the times for certain reasons, you change it. Is any of you willing to give interest-free loans as a private business? Even though the Torah explicitly commanded that one may not lend to a Jew with interest, Jews lend to other Jews with interest without any problem, due to enactments made by sages in the past. In addition, there is no proof, to the best of my knowledge, that it is specifically the foreskin of the penis that must be removed. That is not a necessary inference at all. Some interpreted “foreskin” as the foreskin of the heart that must be removed—that is, a person’s evil. When people want solutions, there are solutions. For the rigid and benighted, there is no hope.

Itzik,
I didn’t understand what the problem is. They believe this is the right thing, period. What’s so bad about that? It’s strange to me that the Rabbi didn’t mention the columns on false consciousness (203 and others) that he wrote relevant to this, because in my humble opinion it’s related.
Foreskin as penis is the plain meaning. And it’s also the tradition. And many religions do this and understood it that way. Especially since how can an eight-day-old child circumcise the foreskin of his heart…? Unless you meant some other foreskin inside the body, but if so your question comes right back even if we interpret it as, say, the foreskin of the ear…
Now, you asked about a new or different interpretation of the commandment, and that’s connected to what I asked here just a few days ago. And I also saw you asked why they don’t cut it without anesthesia; that actually seems to me like a good question, because it doesn’t prevent fulfillment of the commandment (maybe it does and I’m not aware). But that’s a side question.
But in any case, according to everyone this depends on the Sanhedrin. Maybe דווקא the Rabbi would support your interpretation of the verse? Just as there are those who support an interpretation regarding male homosexual relations in the verses as only in the context of lust…

In any case,
In my opinion, according to your own view there should be something much worse than cutting off part of someone’s sex organ, and that is teaching someone distorted views!!! If understanding is lacking—what have you acquired?? And what’s more, there are people who suffer all their lives from various false beliefs, and that is much worse than a momentary pain that is forgotten and whose lack is not felt.
And there are people who do not teach their children correct beliefs, and because of this they cause their children to miss not only one world but another world as well—not a temporary world, but an eternal one 😉

Dear Kobi. I oppose circumcision in any form; the issue of anesthesia and the age of circumcision in Judaism make it far more criminal. Enough with this nonsense of “that’s what the parents think.” It’s obvious to me that that’s what the parents think!!! Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. I’m definitely pragmatic and know how to exercise relevant judgment when necessary: for example, I have no problem at all with an adult deciding to circumcise himself. I think it’s extremely stupid, but it’s his right. As for the commandment of circumcision at 8 days, and how can an 8-day-old child circumcise the foreskin of his heart? Indeed, you’re right. I’ll leave the creative interpretation of “8 days” to you. You can, for example, interpret “8 days” as eight years or any other bullshit, the way you interpreted the “six days” of creation as a very long time in terms of divine creation. When I read commentaries on the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), I understand more and more that the commentators rape the text to fit it to their worldview. Rape it a little more to achieve a more modern interpretation of circumcision, please. You’re excellent text-rapists—I trust you.

Yitzhak,

Although as a secular person I would definitely think several times about whether to circumcise my son (I’m not sure the harm is greater than the benefit), I don’t understand your astonishment.
If you believed that God really commanded this, wouldn’t you also consider doing it to your son? As stated, I’m talking about a situation in which you genuinely and sincerely believe that this is a commandment of a being of infinite wisdom.

I’m formerly Haredi, so “faith” is not something strange to me. Let me ask you this: why are you horrified by female circumcision in Africa? Do you know that circumcision can be done in such a way that a woman can still have enjoyable sex, menstruate, urinate, and give birth? It’s possible, according to the lightest version of female circumcision, to cut only the female foreskin—without touching the outer or inner lips and without cutting the clitoris. So why are you still appalled? I’ll tell you why. Because you and I understand very well that such a belief has no moral place in the modern democratic world we believe in. The Muslim makes the exact same arguments. What will you say to him? He too will claim this is coercion. What about witch hunts? People in certain tribes genuinely believe that witches must be killed so they won’t bring bad luck on the whole tribe. Do you want to be liberal there too? I hope you’ll think again, since you define yourself as secular, about circumcising your son (when he is born).
Good evening.

With God’s help, 3 Elul 5779

Mr. Butbul,

I understand that you have an interest in kicking your family where it will hurt them most—by not circumcising your son.

But what did the child do wrong, that because of your score-settling with your family he should grow up without the clear symbol of belonging to the Jewish people, different even from almost all his secular friends, who proudly preserve this symbol of belonging to the Jewish people?

Having a circumcision at an older age is a very painful surgery, unlike at eight days old. So why brand the child with the mark of uncircumcision that will make it very difficult for him to circumcise himself when he will presumably want to do so in adulthood? After all, he will not have “a score to settle” with his grandfathers and uncles. Why should he be ashamed of being uncircumcised even among his secular friends?

Hopefully you will not sacrifice your son’s happiness out of anger at the society you came from and rebelled against!

Best regards, Shatz Levinger

I have no interest in kicking anyone. I was exposed to scientific knowledge on the subject of circumcision, and since I don’t have superstitious beliefs like some of yours, I think there is no need to circumcise for religious reasons. I didn’t leave religion yesterday morning, and I’m not writing from the gut (well, maybe a little; I’m human, so vile acts like circumcision hurt me). I think what you wrote is pure human garbage, and I’ll explain why now:
1. You assume that I’m some angry atheist who opposes circumcision only to annoy people around me. The truth is that I’m already years past the anger stage, and it’s a bit insulting that you don’t give me credit for having read and researched the subject as best I could.
2. My child, when I have one, will not pass under the knife of the mohels/mutilators, and will be raised on liberal and democratic values, among them the right to bodily integrity.
3. Circumcision absolutely does not hurt more at an older age than at 8 days. The opposite is true: infants are circumcised without anesthesia (sometimes they smear on some cream that doesn’t really change anything), because it is dangerous to put a baby under general anesthesia. The baby screams his lungs out and no one listens and no one hears. The foreskin is very strongly attached to the glans at such a young age, and the mohel peels it back with his fingernail with a cruelty reserved for our tribal brothers in Yemen in their circumcision of women.
4. I see value in choice, and from my perspective this cannot be a covenant with God because it is done without consent. When he grows up, my child will be able to decide whether he wants to be part of the tribe and circumcise himself (which I won’t like, but I will בהחלט respect).
5. Circumcision is irreversible. There’s a company in Italy trying to reconstruct foreskin using regenerative medicine, so maybe it will become reversible.

Good evening.

Why do you assume the value of circumcision is the only value? Aren’t there other values in the world? From national tradition and culture to religious commandments… We also find a covenant applying to the future: “And also with him that is not here with us this day.”

In any case, why do you think there are no values that override this? Go out and see that most secular people think this way, so that shows they think there are additional values that override the value of choosing whether to be circumcised, as you define it. If so, where do you get the assumption that this is the highest value? It seems completely arbitrary. Certainly for a heretic (pretender?).

And as I already told you above, a value that from your perspective ought to be much more important would be to secularize the Haredim, and that would also prevent millions of unnecessary circumcisions by “fundamentalists.” But in fact something much more important than an unnecessary circumcision is an entire unnecessary life, where the week’s entertainment for the more open-minded among them is eating cholent on Thursday night…

I also asked a question about this on the site, and I have no reasonable answer except to understand the anger of the person asking.
Out of all the subjects in biblical criticism and in science and philosophy and the development of Jewish law, this is the only topic that troubles me.

Yitzhak,

My horror (a real one!) at female circumcision, and in fact also at traditional Jewish circumcision, is not the focus of the discussion.
Horror is an emotion, and it is not always a good measure of truth. If I believed—after thorough examination and careful judgment—that God had commanded me to do this, I would think one should do things worse than female circumcision.
That seems to me a rational position.
True, it is not certain that I would remain faithful to my rationality precisely because of the emotion in me, and presumably I would not be able to carry out such shocking acts. So what? That would just be an internal contradiction that would arise in me, as it arises in every person in everyday life.

Dear Doron, you and your Rabbi belong to a twisted school that wants to have its cake and eat it too. No rational person believes that God spoke with Moses at Sinai or any of that kind of stuff. There is no logic in the belief that God (King of the universe) gets angry because I masturbate. This is stupidity that only warped people can contain. Your pitiable state cries out. A person who believes that the Torah is of divine origin and not various strange texts composed hundreds of years after the time attributed to the events in them, and not of human and primitive origin (not necessarily bad, just ancient), is a fool. The one acting from emotion much more than me is you (you’re willing to throw reason down the stairs just to remain within the framework of faith). Biblical criticism has shown in black and white that the Torah is full of contradictions. Fragmented chapters. Different writing styles within the same chapter. Words from different periods in the same passage, etc. If after due consideration you concluded that it is true, your judgment is deeply flawed.

Yitzhak,

First of all, thank you for your balanced and measured response.

I ask myself whether it was produced because of your charged past as a Haredi or despite that past. I have no answer.

Fortunately, I have no rabbis and probably never will. I am secular to my very bones.

As I understand it, “Judaism” has not a bad response to all the claims you briefly laid out here in your last comment, and it even seems to me that Michi himself manages to deal with them rationally and convincingly (or with some of them).

The matter is probably completely different from what you think: in my opinion, Judaism’s problem is far more severe than the way you presented it (at least in this framework), but it seems to me that precisely with regard to that, your words contain no reference.

Briefly, I would say that I personally identify a similar pattern of thought in your criticism and in “Judaism” (or what you attribute to it). It is an irrational pattern, and theologically one might perhaps define it as bordering on idolatry.

That said, you were right that I am pitiable and foolish. I won’t take that brilliant determination away from you.

Blessings.

Hi Doron. I see that I assumed (instinctively) that you were a religious person, and I apologize for that. I have no intention of hurting you, but I stand by my view that the various beliefs I mentioned above are foolish in my eyes. I, like Rabbi Michael Abraham, am not a postmodernist. If I think something is immoral, I’ll say it’s immoral and I’ll try to lay out my arguments as best I can. On the subject of circumcision, I think there is a blatant violation here of every democratic, liberal, human value that we would not accept in any other case (female circumcision, witch murder, etc.). If I think something is wicked, then whoever thinks the opposite is holding a position that I think is wicked. Of course I don’t think the truth is certainly with me, but I’m confident enough in what I say to take it into discussion and argue about it fiercely. It would be interesting to know whether the honored Rabbi thinks female circumcision is justified because of the belief of certain Muslims that it brings spiritual benefit or reduces sexual promiscuity, etc.

I already understood that you think certain opinions are foolish. You are certainly allowed to, and regarding some of them I would even agree with you. I just think your reasoning—and, if I may note, your fervor as well—lead your arguments to a less successful place theoretically.

Although I am secular, I very much believe in God and certainly not, heaven forbid, in the Torah of Israel (I couldn’t resist; after all, this is mainly a religious site, and the remnants of my Jewish identity lead me to needle the host setting…).
Therefore I think the assumption of His existence is the basis of all rational thought.

In light of this belief, I think secular democratic liberalism—which I support greatly in many areas, mainly practical ones—cannot serve as a basis for a successful philosophical discussion.

Allow me in this context also to fulfill an unpleasant duty and defend Michi (who for me is not “Rabbi”): I greatly appreciate his abilities and am definitely influenced by many things he has said and written. He too, of course, like every person, has blind spots in his eyes (or in his head), mainly when it comes to understanding the philosophical model behind the myth of the giving of the Torah.

But the important part with him is that he has a genuine passion for rationality (and not rationalism). The answers he gave you regarding circumcision and regarding the analogy you made to female circumcision in Islam seem satisfactory to me.
But maybe he and I are wrong…

With God’s help, 4 Elul 5779

On the moral and medical arguments, see Rabbi Dr. Moshe Rat’s article, “Circumcision,” on the “Ladaat Leha’amin” site of the Yedaya Institute.

Best regards, Shatz Levinger

To Doron: I agree with you that the fervor with which I write sometimes does not serve a systematic philosophical discussion. I’m simply angry and pained over this issue. I have read and am still reading medical articles on the subject, and it is becoming clearer and clearer to me that I do not agree with this practice. There is room to improve the discussion, and I’d be happy to apologize for various harsh words written above to certain people. For style I am willing to apologize to some extent, but not for the substance. I think you do not see much similarity between female circumcision and male circumcision because you are not well-informed on the topic (like most people). I am not claiming that every form of female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, but that there is great similarity between the two practices, both in the reasoning and justification for their existence (“God said so”) and in their harm to male/female sexuality and their autonomy. I bring up female circumcision because it is an example of something very, very similar to what we accept without batting an eyelid. Excellent evening.

As stated, in my opinion the actual harm (and perhaps even measurable harm) resulting from circumcision is not the foundation of this discussion, even if it is an essential part of it. As I understand it, this basic assumption is shared by all of us, even by one who denies it (like you).
In any case, I certainly am not as knowledgeable as you are on the subject.

I do not agree that there is consensus regarding the real harm involved in removing the foreskin. Many see it as a useless appendage that should be removed quickly.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. The heart of the matter, in my view, is not whether there is or is not actual harm resulting from circumcision, nor whether there is or is not consensus about that.
The heart of the matter is what it is rational (and therefore also moral) to expect from a person who understands the harm (most of us, perhaps, as you say, do not understand) and nonetheless chooses to circumcise his son.
I qualified my remarks several times and added that that is not enough and that one must also consider the suffering the circumcised child undergoes. But aside from that qualification, a deep philosophical discussion must begin, in my opinion, with the question of intention or the abstract principle behind the act.
Otherwise there’s no end to it, because every most minor decision a parent makes has or could have some harm.

I would be happy for there to be a systematic discussion about circumcision, even if the conclusions are different from mine. Most people have no interest whatsoever in re-examining the idea of circumcision, and therefore it is not rational. You could almost say they don’t choose to circumcise their children at all, but are simply swept along by the current of prevailing opinion. Choice is between alternatives. When you don’t make information on the topic accessible and present only one side day in and day out, of course people will circumcise. I’d be happy to share a few facts unknown to the public about the foreskin and its functions:
1. The foreskin keeps the penis moist—which gives it its pink, vital color.
2. There are studies saying that the foreskin prevents infections—for example, in infants, the foreskin’s covering of the urethra reduces the chance of feces entering it because of the proximity of the anus to the penis.
3. The foreskin is laced with thousands of nerve endings, which allow masturbation and sexual intercourse to be far more pleasurable and natural than is possible without it. There is testimony from people circumcised at an older age who say their sensitivity during sexual relations dropped by at least half.
4. The foreskin secretes lysozymes and a fluid called smegma that help the body fight bacteria.
5. The pain an infant undergoes is not proportionate pain but pain that can damage parts of the brain, as observed in cases after infant circumcision, where babies completely changed their behavior (which, according to a neurological opinion given in a certain case, testified that the baby underwent severe trauma and was in a post-traumatic state). I could go on writing until tomorrow about how awful, terrible, and disproportionate this is, but I’ll leave it at that for now. I suggest considering the issue very carefully and then deciding. Good night.

Sometimes I can’t understand why Michi doesn’t impose limits on writing comments (and even bothers to reply to them). I’m not sure whether the chatterbox who started this thread has even minimal intelligence or is just a troll trying to provoke. Either way, it’s a shame to reply to the nonsense he spews.

A person who thinks of himself as open-minded apparently lets others speak about things that are hard for him to hear. Why attack the person? Address the issue. What is the nonsense? Did I put an unflattering mirror in front of you? I’m glad. So far not one saint here has answered me whether he is willing to accept female circumcision as a moral thing (“because it has spiritual benefits” or “that’s the custom” or “it reduces sexual promiscuity” or other such tomatoes). Is there a righteous man in Sodom?

I’m pretty sure I’ll regret my comment, almost sure you won’t understand the points (which have already been written to you). What is this comparable to? To a small child who wants to drink bleach. Well then, despite all my liberal patience, I will coerce him and not give him the bottle. Why? Where did the liberal value of “his right to make decisions about his life” go? The answer is simple. Liberal values pale in comparison to the knowledge of the desire for life. Well then, in circumcision too, my knowledge that this is what God wants overrides all the other values.

You can of course disagree with my knowledge of God, but then the debate is whether there is a God or not. Leave out all your nonsense about liberal and moral values. Stop babbling.

Mr. A, you’re talking nonsense. Not letting someone drink bleach is not really similar to mutilating a living sex organ in an 8-day-old infant without anesthesia. I understand that this is your decision and the conclusion you reached after careful thought (I very much doubt your rational decision, since I think you haven’t really examined the alternative and are just talking nonsense). By the way, I have no problem at all with a person who has decided (after deep examination) that he does not want to live. In Switzerland you can commit suicide with the help of organizations like Dignitas and Exit by drinking a cup of poison. Of course not everyone is allowed to commit suicide because “life is hard” or because he broke up with his girlfriend; the person’s request is examined. He has meetings with a doctor/psychologist/psychiatrist, and if he meets the criteria (for example, a person suffering from a chronic non-fatal disease like degeneration, a person suffering from an incurable fatal illness like brain cancer, or a person suffering from severe prolonged depression who does not respond to hospitalization and drug treatment), he is allowed to die in his own way without pain. You are a bully if you think a person should be forced to live after serious reflection.

I knew you wouldn’t understand. And of course you didn’t explain your words—why, in your opinion, I wrote nonsense.

Dear A. I understand that this is probably a new tactic: to tell someone who disagrees with you, “you didn’t understand.” I understood your words very well. You think liberal values pale in comparison to the value of circumcision, which you believe your Father in Heaven commands you to do. It’s not that hard to understand. Don’t flatter yourself too much as though you’re some deep person who’s hard to understand. I completely disagree with you that liberal values pale in comparison to a “religious” value. No living person witnessed the revelation at Mount Sinai, and the evidence for it is very weak at best and laughably ridiculous at worst. I agree that if you think your Father in Heaven commanded you to do it, then you should do it. In that case, I will relate to you as a madman against whom a regional psychiatrist should issue an order, because he is about to harm his child.

Rabbi Yitzhak of Berlin,
What do you think about the claim that morality leads to belief in God?

I don’t agree at all. In my opinion, morality does not necessarily lead to belief in God. I see morality as agreement on basic assumptions and the establishment of a social contract. Of course there are holes, and I have many unanswered questions.

To Yitzhak,

The answer is simple. Everything depends on the greatness of God and what He asks. I assume God wants my good, and cutting off the left hand is not for my good—but if God were to reveal Himself to me and command me directly, and I recognized His power and His desire for my good, I would cut off my left hand in expectation that at some point in the future He would bring me a benefit greater than my left hand + regrow it (like the binding of Isaac). If I didn’t know that would happen, then I wouldn’t obey Him. Female circumcision is less severe but falls into this category. By the way, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Jeremiah not to marry and not to have children. It doesn’t seem Jeremiah had a problem with that.

But circumcision is not too great a request, and so I have no expectation that the foreskin will grow back. And if I recognize the greatness of God (and His desire to do me good), I assume He has the ability to repay me with something good for what I paid. You don’t believe in God, and that’s why this whole discussion comes up. In any case, cutting off the left hand and female circumcision (as permanent commandments and not a one-time prophetic directive) indeed do not sound reasonable to me at all (unlike male circumcision), and if the Holy One, blessed be He, had commanded them, I would think He was stupid or evil, and therefore I would not accept the Torah at all. It’s all a matter of judgment, and that is why the Rabbi responded to you the way he did. Anything can be taken to an extreme. If you had wanted to understand the Rabbi, you could have reached the conclusions I presented here on your own.