Conference taveng::bagels

  (Sorry about that... something happened while I was saving the
  note. Anyway I'll carry on)
  
  Especially in my fiances case where it is not at all necessary.
  
  	In talking with our Rabbi who has in our opinion very sensible
  views on Judaism and religion as a whole, he agrees that it is
  quite a lot to ask someone, and that sometimes it is easy to
  concentrate on specific details and forget what Judaism is really
  all about.
  
  	What are your views on this matter?
  
  
  Ruth Kehela.

    There has been a lot of noise lately from a few non-Jewish circles
    (or rather from non-Semitic circles) about how "crude" and medically
    unnecessary a circumcision is.  Well, maybe there is no medical
    justification for it anymore, but from all other aspects, at least
    for us it is.
    
    Circumcision is the most basic form of renewing our Brit(covenent)
    with G-D.  That's how it is done, from the time of Abraham up to
    the present.  There really can be no divergence about this.  I take
    offence when some people describe circumcision as "barbaric" or
    otherwise.
    
    David

    Along those lines, David, I have also heard people
    say how they heard about some European Jews who
    torture animals by slitting their throats and letting
    them bleed to death.

		    Ignorance Know no Bounds

  I am still not convinced, David.  You say it is the most basic
  form of renewing our covenant with G-d, but what does that mean?
   Surely G-d is more concerned that we and any converts obey the basic ten
  commandments and other laws governing the way we act, rather than
  insisting on this ordeal?  Surely THAT is what is the most
  important requirement of us as Jews, the rest being cosmetic?
  
  I am not saying that ALL these types of laws are now obsolete,
  but I do feel that there is room for argument as far as this
  issue is concerned...

    re:-1
    
    I think that you have to get a copy (if you don't already have one)
    of the Pentateuch(The Five Books of Moses, I recommend the edition
    by R'Hertz - it has simultaneous translation), and refer back to
    the portion pertaining to the birth of Isaac.  In it you will find
    the specific commandment relating to circumcision.
    
    Yes, there are many ways in maintaining our covenent with HaShem,
    but circumcision is a contract between Am Yisrael and G-d, you wouldn't
    want to be known as someone who welches on a contract, do you?(:-)
    I don't know why people get so upset by the idea of circumcision,
    it is one of the rituals that renews our people for eternity.
    
    David

    
< Note 143.4 by JOCKEY::FOURGL >
                               -< Re note 143.2 >-

   Surely G-d is more concerned that we and any converts obey the basic ten
  commandments and other laws governing the way we act, rather than
  insisting on this ordeal?  Surely THAT is what is the most
  important requirement of us as Jews, the rest being cosmetic?

    
    Are you sure that's what G-d wants? Have you spoken with him lately?
    Which part of His law did he say was obsolete?
    
    			Fred
    

    For a circumscision to be Kosher a drop of blood must be drawn.
     I would check with several Moyels as to what they require beyond
    the drop of blood.
    
    

    Please accept a comment from a Goy.  Medically the incidence of
    cirvical cancer is lower among wives of circumcised males.
    Sexually, the exposure has a minor reduction in sensitivity,
    thereby prolonging sex acts.  My wife can testify.

    I believe that the requirement that a circumcision must draw a drop
    of blood refers to having the operation done (say, for a convert)
    a second time, on a man who is already circumcised or who has no
    foreskin (it happens!).  I think that if the man is not already
    circumcised, just drawing a drop of blood isn't enough...

  Something keeps happening with the message writing and I keep
  losing my messages.  Not to worry I hope this one arrives safely...
  
  
  As far as I know, the reason that wives of circumcised males
  get less cervical cancer is due to the fact that circumcised
  males are statistically cleaner - stands to reason, as the foreskin
  can be a dirt trap if not cleaned regularly.  But what about
  those men with little or no foreskin who wash regularly and are
  perfectly healthy?  Why should they have to go through such a
  painful ordeal in order to become Jewish?
  
  I am still not convinced that this is necessary.  All this nonsense
  about drawing drops of blood etc. sounds at best old-fashioned,
  and at worst, yes, barbaric to me.
  

    re:-1
    
    If it wasn't for some of those "old-fashioned" rituals we wouldn't
    be sitting here writing these notes.  Again I beg to differ with
    the term "barbaric" in relation to circumcision.
    
    Rituals sustain and regenerate a religion, and since Judaism is
    a major component of the Jewish people, then it's rituals need to
    be maintained or we might as well close up shop.
    
    David 

    re: .2, .13: As someone who is Jewish and father of a son, I'm
    going to add my thoughts on the subject:

    Inflicting pain on an infant (who knows nothing about Torah or
    covenants or anything) is cruel and, yes, barbaric. It used to
    be thought that newborns were unaware, blind, deaf, unable to
    feel pain. But the more we learn about newborns the more we
    realize that they are actually quite alert, and see and hear
    (and feel pain) as sharply as adults. So, "briss" is quite a
    cruel introduction to this world of ours!
    
    I'd advise prospective parents, even Jewish parents, to read about it, 
    or better yet, attend a briss and listen to the infant's screams of 
    agony, before making the decision about their own child.
    
    As for the case of a grown man who is converting, I'm not going
    to give advice one way or the other. In that case, he is undergoing
    the pain by his own choosing, so I have no objection to that.
    
    	- Rich

    Sounds like another case of R/C/O (Reform Conservative Orthodox)...

	    

    Regardless of all the arguments people are generating on this
    issue, it all boils down to one thing. Faith. If the Bris
    (Covenant) is not important to you it will be very easy to make
    excuses (it's cruel, it's barbaric, it's painful). On the other
    hand, if the Bris is important to you, it is impossible to
    envision the idea of an uncircumcised Jew. 
    
    			Fred
    

    re:.14
    
    Yes, of course we are inflicting a moment of pain and suffering
    upon an eight-day old infant, but if we don't go through with Brit
    Mila(Covenent of the Word)then we have to endure a lifetime of knowing
    that haven't fulfilled one of our most basic commandments.  I don't
    care if you call yourself Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox, if
    we discard the ritual of circumcision then you might as well take
    your family and join up with the nearest Universalist church.
    
    I know that for a free-thinking Aphikoris such as myself I sound
    somewhat dogmatic here, but I feel very strongly about the maintenance
    of such rituals.  I don't even think that the Reform movement has
    "improvised" this.
    
    David

    A very fresh newborn is a curious creature.  Its circulation is
    feeble at the extremities, and this apparently affects sensation.  
    I know of one newborn boy who SLEPT through his circumcision.
    So if you do it early enough, it may not be painful at all.  Of
    course, this may depend on the individual baby.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Having gone through two Brits with my sons, I do not feel I was at all
    cruel to them. First of all, medical evidence indicates that the
    eighth day is the most appropriate time to do this. It appears that
    there is some peak in the amount of certain chemicals in the blood
    which make it less painful and/or less subject to infection. I'm
    afraid I do not remember all of the details.
    
    Secondly, as part of the ceremony, the infant is given a wine soaked
    piece of cloth or gauze to suck on. This certainly acts as pain
    killer and calmitive. In addition, most mohels use a local anesthetic
    to further deaden the pain.
    
    The healing process proceeds extremely quickly in an infant, and
    unless their is an infection due to not keeping the circumcision
    clean by changing the dressing regularly, the penis heals in a matter
    of only a few days. I suspect that the baby undergoes more pain
    with a severe case of diaper rash than he does from the circumcision.
    
    It appeared to me that the most annoying part of the ceremony to
    my two sons was not the actual circumcision, but being strapped to
    the board used to keep them immobile. This is what caused the most
    outcry.

    No matter how painful we may THINK it is to our babies, I could
    not imagine foregoing this most important part of our religion.
    I know of many parents, particularly mothers, who had to leave the
    room, rather than watch. But I do not know of any who felt it should
    not be done.
    
    Jack

    I realize that this is a side-issue to some extent, but someone
    insinuated that the Reform movement does away with circumcision.
     That's not the case (though there may be isolated instances - just
    as I noticed a few months ago that the local super-liberal Reform
    congregation - not the one we belong to! - was offering LOBSTERS
    as the top prizes at their fund-raising bingo games!).  I just saw,
    in one of the Reform movement's magazines we get, an add for a course
    for Reform mohels - it is a several week course, and of course you
    have to be a pediatrician (or, I think, a urologist).
    
    On the other hand, it is permissible (even if the family is not Reform)
    to delay the bris if the life of the child is at risk at that early
    age, or to not perform it at all if necessary (for example, a hemophiliac).

    Re. 20
    	In the Torah it says that if the first 2 sons bleed to death
    from a circumcision then the third and subsequent sons do not have
    to be circumcised. Please remember that in the 'old' days one had
    many children. Also since we now have methods of determining
    hemophiliacs should that section of the Torah be adhered to.

    (My mother recieved the above line as a baby announcement !)
    
    My uncle was a mohel.  He used to save all the foreskins,
    and after he retired, he asked a friend of his, who was
    a leathersmith, to make something for him.
    
    Several weeks later, the leathersmith hands my uncle a small
    item.
    
    "What's this ?  My lifesavings, and you only make me a wallet ?"
    
    "Calm down.  You rub it, it becomes a suitcase !"
    
    
    
    *** sorry ***
    
    /Eric

    Re .22
    
    Most people don't realize how lucrative it can be doing
    circumcisions.
    
    For each circumcision, the mohel gets $50 to $100, plus tip.
    
    
    [A non-Jewish friend of mine asked if Jews had anything like
    born-again Christians who get re-baptized, etc. {And let's not get
    off into political-theological sidelines here.} I said there wasn't
    anything like that, and besides, I didn't think I could stand another
    cirumcision.]
    
    -Bruce
                                            

     
     re .23:
     
     > the mohel gets $50 to $100, plus tip
     
     He gets to keep the tip?
     
     --Mr Topaz

    In the Boston area the going rate is about $150-250!
    
    We had twin sons last summer.  The first mohel we arranged with
    for the bris was going to charge $225 each.  That included his
    quantity discount.  He said he would sign a claim if I wanted to submit
    it to my insurance company, but since we belong to an HMO, ritual
    circumcisions are not covered. 
            
    He became sick a few days before the bris, and we had to scramble
    to find someone else.  It turned out to be lucky for us, since
    the second mohel charged only his single rate of $140 for both.
        
    The next time I anticipate I will save any money by having twins
    is for the Bar Mitzvah. :-)
        
    It was never a question whether we would circumcise our boys or not. 
    Even as a reform Jew, it's not one of the mitzvot I would consider
    open to reinterpretation, nor would anyone I know.  I'm not sure what
    my feelings would be if we were not Jewish, perhaps it is barbaric.
    It's just not an issue. 
        
    During the ceremony itself I had an immense feeling of pride, that
    my children were being accepted as part of the community.  My wife
    hid.

  I have always maintained that I would circumcise any future sons
  of mine, no matter what.  This proceedure may or may not be
  exceedingly painful, but at least at such a young age it is a
  far less complicated operation, and I do agree that perhaps it
  is better for men to be circumcised on the whole.
  
  However, I maintain that for the adult male, converting to Judaism,
  this procedure is somewhat unnecessary and painful.  What matters
  is his inner self and his thoughts on Judaism.  I am inclined
  to believe that he may have second thoughts about a religion
  that insists on "drawing blood" from converts.....
  
  As for the money-making mohels, well I must confess that I have
  never given it a thought.  I suppose it might be dangerous asking
  one for a discount....
  
  - Ruth.

    For a quick peek at how seriously c. was alleged to be, read the
    book "The Source" by Mitchner.  In one part he describes the scene
    where a son so admires the Greeks running the games (this was maybe
    500 Before Current Era), that he has his circumcision reversed.
    No, I do not wish to discuss details.  At the next games he strips
    off clothes (they competed baretail) and is applauded by the Greek
    crown.  Papa grabs a club and kills him.  Noisicmucric is blasphamy.
    Good book, but a bit long.

    My wife's sister and her husband just had a boy and the circumcision
    is scheduled for next monday. I was curious what would have happened
    if the baby's birth was such taht the bris would have been during
    Rosh Hashana. I came to find out (my dad knows all) that even 
    Yom Kippeur (the most holy day of the year) does not keep a
    bris from happening on the eigth day (couse you can't feast until
    the next day!!!!
    
    
       Secondly in reference to note 143.21...Arnie I believe that
    referenceis in the Talmud not the 5 books..
    
         jeff

    I think that the circumcision ALWAYS has to occur on the 8th day,
    no matter what day that turns out to be, unless there are medical
    reasons why it must be postponed (I know someone whose son is a
    hemophiliac; I don't recall how long they waited to do the circumcision).

    	I heard a speaker last night talking about Jewish trivia. He
    said that in the British royal family, all the boys must be circumcised
    by a moyel and not just a surgeon. Also the royal family has to
    pay for the briss personally rather than the money coming from the
    government.
    
    	Do any of you Brit-yids know about this?
    

.30 probably is using the term "briss" tongue in cheek, but it's worth pointing
out that since the mitzvah only applies to Jews, Prince Charles's circumcision
(assuming that he had one) would not be considered a brit (bris) milah,
no matter who did the cutting.

    Tiss true normally. Prince William is an exception though. Lady
    Di decided that she didn't care too much for the idea so he got away.
    
    The operation is known to be carried out by a real Mohel, though
    of course there is no blessing.
    
    Malcolm

    So, *WHY* do they use a real mohel instead of just any surgeon?
    Aren't the members of the British royal family sort of required
    to be members of the Anglican church?  Does that church require
    circumcision?

re .30 [Arnie Polikoff]

                -< Bonnie Prince Charlie is not all there! >-

>    	I heard a speaker last night talking about Jewish trivia. He
>    said that in the British royal family, all the boys must be circumcised
>    by a moyel and not just a surgeon. Also the royal family has to
>    pay for the briss personally rather than the money coming from the
>    government.
    
>    	Do any of you Brit-yids know about this?
    
     Yes, I knew about this, and confirmed it this morning with my father. 
The Royal Family, for years, had a mohel (* not a surgeon *) come to the  
palace to do the Royal cut.

     Now wait for this, Arnie - in the 40's and 50's the mohel's name           
was Pollakoff (sp?) and he was the mohel at the Royal Northern Hospital
in London.  According to my father, whenever there was a brit to be done  
by Mr. Pollakoff, the surgeons would specially announce to the medical 
students "This morning the Rabbi will perform a circumcision, you should
all come along to see it".

   [  In answer to .33 the Royal Family probably realized that a mohel
does the job faster and better than a surgeon. ]

    Apparently, Princess Diana (Bonnie Prince Charlie's better half)
vetoed the idea for her two sons William and Henry, pronouncing the 
ceremony "cruel".
 
    BTW - Arnie you missed a real pun when you wrote "briss" ; you 
should have written Brit. 
 
Jonathan Wreschner  (born in Britain, brought up in Australia and 
                     resident for the past 18 years in Israel) 

    The head of the Royal family is also the head of the church of england.
    It all goes back to Henry 8th and a small argument he had with Rome.
    I expect they use someone who is also a *real* mohel because he'll
    (not sexist - have you exer seen a female one!) have lots of
    experience in this operation. For the Royal family there is *no* 
    religious significance.

    Malcolm

I am still catching up in this conference ... in fact, I'm overjoyed to be
responding to a discussion that is "only" 1 year dead. However, the incident
I'm reporting is over 8 years old, so I hope that makes up for it.

At birth, one of my twins was sick and had to be hospitalized for about 3 weeks.
According to the mohel (Dr. Gaynor - well known but now retired in the
Framingham area) it was OK for us to postpone the brit for the healthy twin
until both could be done together. It appears that the rule concerning the
eighth day can be broken for almost any medical reason.

My mom tells me that the name of the mohel that did me was Mr. Penes (sp?).

David

    >"I expect they use someone who is also a *real* mohel because he'll
    >(not sexist - have you exer seen a female one!) ..."
    
    Actually, though I have never seen one (they are rare), I've certainly
    read about them: there was a recent class given in Boston for surgeon's
    who wished to become mohels.    At lease one of the names of the
    folks who took the class was a woman: I remember because--well,
    wouldn't you?
    
    :-)
    Tamar

Can anyone recommend a mohel in the Chelmsford/Billerica (MA) area?
Thanks,
Amy

    Cantor Peseroff in Peabody is the only mohel who has been doing it
    for a long period of time.  He did my grandson and called my daughter
    afterwards.  He is available afterwards for comfort and advice on the
    various worries that can plague mothers. Call him at 508-532-6068.
    
    

    There are Biblical references about circumcision.  It is an understood
    requirement.
    Abraham is recuperating from his circumcision when the angels visit him
    and he welcomes them.  He has just become Abraham instead of Abram (his
    uncircumcised name)
    
    Moses' house suffers from a plague until his wife Zipporah (sp?)
    circumcises their son and shows him the foreskin.  The plague stops.
    The implication is pretty obvious about the necessity of the Bris
    ..."If you will follow my commandments, I will bring you rain in 
    its season....." (etc.)  says the prayer after the Shema.
    
    Moses talks about "his uncircumcised tongue", meaning that he stutters
    and cannot talk to the Pharoah properly.  Uncircumcised means that he
    is inadequate to be a leader and argue the case of freedom for the
    Jewish people. Because Moses has an uncircumcised tongue, he is told
    to use Aaron as his mouthpiece.  This is a rather poetic way to talk
    about things but there is a lot of interpretation around the meaning of
    this.
    
    
    
    Maybe it's barbaric and certainly I couldn't stand it at my own son's
    and grandson's bris, but there is something to knowing this is
    something that's been done since Abraham and that it is so closely tied
    to History and Legend...Religion and Identity *are* primitive things
    and very primordial.  Health reasons notwithstanding, this is a very
    old and deep thing and not to be lightly discarded.