This week's Torah content has been sponsored by my friend and colleague, Rabbi Dr. Elie Feder. Rabbi Feder recently published a book called Gematria Refigured: A New Look at How the Torah Conveys Ideas Through Numbers (2022, Mosaica Press). The approach to gematria he presents in this book is neither fluffy nor fanciful, but rational. If you're interested in some sample chapters, click here. If you have a social media platform and are interested in promoting or reviewing Rabbi Feder's book, let me know and I'll put the two of you in touch. The book is available for purchase at Mosaica Press.
Click here for a printer-friendly 1-page version of this article, and click here for an audio version.
 |
| Artwork: "Abstract Painting of Circumcision," by DALL-E |
Lech Lecha: Is Circumcision "Mutilation"?
Most Jews would answer, “No! Of course not!” In truth, this is a machlokess. Sefer ha’Chinuch (Mitzvah #2) writes:
It is known to those who understand that the perfection of man’s [bodily] form requires the removal of the foreskin, which is excess to it. The reason for this mitzvah is that Hashem desired to establish a sign in the bodies of the people He singled out to be called by His name (i.e. Israel) in order to differentiate them from the other nations in the form of their bodies, just like they are differentiated from them in the form of their souls, whose source (i.e. the knowledge we comprehend) and preparedness are not equal. He established this differentiation on the male organ, which is the cause of the preservation of the species, in addition to the fact that it contains a perfection of the bodily form, as we explained. Hashem desired His chosen nation to perfect their anatomy, and He wanted this perfection to come about through human agency – rather than creating man perfect from birth – to allude to him that just as the perfection of his bodily form is through his own agency, so too it is within his power to perfect the form of his soul through proper actions.
Rambam disagrees. He begins his discourse on the reasons for circumcision (Moreh ha’Nevuchim 3:49) by expressly rejecting the Sefer ha’Chinuch’s premise, and then goes on to provide the first of his two explanations:
Some people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man’s bodily form, but everyone can easily reply, “How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially since the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident?” This commandment has not been prescribed as a remedy to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man’s moral shortcomings. The bodily injury (nezek gufani) caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of reproduction. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and can lessen the natural enjoyment … This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment concerning circumcision.
Now if we’re honest, we’ll concede that both Sefer ha’Chinuch and Rambam make factually problematic claims. Modern science sides with Rambam against the Sefer ha’Chinuch: since the foreskin has biological functions, it is therefore not “extra.” However, there is no definitive evidence for Rambam’s claim that circumcision decreases lust or enjoyment. Nevertheless, the ideas reflected in their explanations are true. Circumcision does differentiate us in our bodies, which alludes to the difference in our souls (i.e. our minds), as Sefer ha’Chinuch explained. Likewise, the act of diminishing the male sexual organ symbolically conveys Judaism’s stance on the relationship between body and soul, as the Rambam writes: “indulgence in excessive bodily pleasure deteriorates the soul, and the development of the soul demands a curtailment of bodily indulgences” (Intro to the Mishnah).
Does the Rambam’s view lend support to those who protest circumcision, framing it as a form of genital mutilation? No! To the contrary – such protests vindicate the Rambam’s view, insofar as they underscore the difference between Torah and non-Torah value systems.
sTo “mutilate” means “to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts” (www.dictionary.com), but whether a particular act constitutes mutilation is entirely dependent on one’s value system. A society that values physical appearances will regard cosmetic plastic surgery as an act of beautification rather than mutilation, even though the surgeon physically injures the body. A society that values athletic competition will cheer when football players repeatedly collide against each other, inflicting severe brain injury and irreparable bodily harm. So too, a society that fundamentally regards human beings as animals and values the pursuit of pleasure above all will strenuously object to a procedure designed to reduce sexual pleasure. The same mother who forcibly imposes female beauty standards on her infant daughter by piercing her ears will condemn circumcision as a form of infant abuse.
Thus, the very fact that “non-Jews protest against chukim” (Yoma 67b) like milah ought to be a matter of pride – not shame. Those steeped in materialism will not be able to fathom mitzvos which serve non-materialistic ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment