Circumcision of Jewish Adult

A Jewish boy of the Nazi period was not circum cised as an infant. The father disappeared. The mother is troubled. Must she insist upon the circum cision of this thirteen-year-old boy in order that he be officially and unmistakably a Jew? I am not raising the question here of the wisdom of the action or of its effects on the boy, but of Jewish law. (From Rabbi Philip Bernstein, Rochester, New York)

This question amounts to this: If a boy grows up uncircumcised, is he to be considered a Jew or not? Of course, if he is uncircumcised because his brothers died from circumcision (i.e., hemophilia, etc.), then, as the Talmud says, this person is a perfect Jew. He is not required to be circumcised (see b. Chullin 4b). The law requires that such an uncircumcised brother, when he grows up and if he is adjudged well, should be circumcised. But Rabbenu Yeruchem, pupil of Asher ben Yehiel, a much-quoted medieval authority, says that if when he grows up he is afraid to be circumcised, even so he is to be considered a Jew in every way. (Quoted by Joseph Caro to the Tur, Yore Deah 2.)

Rabbenu Yeruchem continues, saying that if his uncircumcision is not due to fear but simply to his refusal, then he is a Mumar l’arolos, that is, a “conscious violator of the commandment of circumcision.” If a man consciously refuses to be circumcised, he has committed a sin. It was his father’s sin until the boy became thirteen; after the boy passes thirteen it is the boy’s sin. (By the way, it is not his mother’s sin, since a mother is not in duty bound to provide for the circumcision of her son [b. Kiddushin 29a].) But suppose it is a sin. Suppose he is a conscious violator of this commandment, a Mumar l’arolos. How does that affect his status as a Jew? Do we not say, in general, following the Talmud, “Although he has sinned, he is still a Jew”? (b. Sanhedrin 44a). Or is this particular sin a special sin (like the public violation of the Sabbath) that outweighs all others and affects a man’s essential status as a Jew?

In discussing this matter, we must distinguish between opinions uttered in times when there was special propaganda against circumcision and normal times when there is none. There were two such periods of special propaganda among Jews against circumcision. One was in Hellenistic times, when the Hellenists in the gymnasium tried to nullify their circumcision; the second was at the beginning of the Reform movement in Germany, when a group of young Reformers in Frankfurt declared that circumcision was unnecessary. Both circumstances evoked vehement reaction. The Hellenistic anticircumcision period—and the memory of it—drew forth the following statement (in Avoth, chap. III, 15) by Rabbi Elazar: “He who profanes holy things or despises the festivals and shames his neighbor, or annuls the covenant of Abraham or misinterprets the Torah, has no portion in the world to come.” With regard to the German opposition to circumcision, many of the Orthodox rabbis wanted to declare the objectors non-Jews, and, as a matter of fact, the Orthodox congregation in Frankfurt, under Samson Raphael Hirsch, later excluded them from membership. One of the vehement responsa on the side of strict dealing with the noncircumcisers was the famous one by Joseph Saul Nathanson (Sho-el U-mayshiv, Part II, sec. 3, #64); when asked whether a boy whose father had refused to circumcise him may be called up to the Torah at thirteen, he answered that such are not to be considered part of the community. Somewhat earlier, Z’vi Hirsh Chayes, of Zolkiev, in his “Minchas Kano’oth” (11 b ) denounces all those in Germany, especially in Frankfurt, who refuse to circumcise their sons.

But a little nearer to our time, Solomon Schick, although equally Orthodox, says (Rashban I, 67) that these earlier rabbis went beyond the line of the law. They have a right, he said, to make a strict judgment, as they did in times of emergency in order to “build a fence” (i.e., discourage sinners), but they have no right to make such a decree a permanent law for the future.

Recognizing that these stricter judgments in times of anticircumcision propaganda may be justified temporarily as a “fence” but do not constitute the actual law, what, then, is the actual law? The Talmud (in Chullin 4b, 5a), discussing the fact that “all may act as schochtim, including the uncircumcised Jew,” makes it clear that this refers to a Jew who consciously refuses circumcision (a Mumar l’arolos). The Talmud concludes that a mumar with regard to circumcision is only a mumar against one commandment and therefore may be a schochet. The Shulchan Aruch therefore says that such a mumar is to be trusted and does not need even to have the knife examined or to be watched while he slaughters. The only people who are not to be trusted are those who violate the entire Torah or are mumar to idolatry or violators of the Sabbath in public. Other than these sins, the mumar against one commandment only is to be trusted in other commandments. In other words, he is a Jew in every regard except that he is a sinner in this one regard. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah II, 7.)

The status of uncircumcised Jews is clear, for example, in the question of whether they may be buried in the Jewish cemetery. For a full discussion of this question, see Greenwald, “Kol Bo Al Avelus,” pp. 194-95. He mentions one rabbi who wished, for the sake of “making a fence,” to relegate the bodies of the uncircumcised to the borders of the cemetery (to the fence). However, Elazar Deutsch, of Bonyhad, the great Hungarian Orthodox authority, when asked about the burial of two uncircumcised sons of a Jewish woman and a Christian man, said: “It is obvious that we are in duty bound to bury them in the Jewish cemetery, for even if uncircumcised, they are still Jews [being children of a Jewish mother]. They are sinners as to circumcision [Mumar l’arolos], but they certainly are part of the community of Israel.” (Duda’ay Ha-sodeh #72.) But he adds that we do not bury them “alongside of the righteous,” that is, in an honored part of the cemetery.

David Hoffmann (Melamed L’ho-il, Yore Deah 79), the famous Orthodox authority in Berlin in the past generation, was asked whether one may officiate at the marriage of a conscious neglector of circumcision (Mumar l’arolos). He says that one certainly may, for this man is a mumar against only one commandment, and he quotes the “Magen Avraham” (to Orah Hayyim 128, paragraph 54), saying that such an uncircumcised person, if he is a Cohen, may even stand up on the Duchan to bless the people. Of course, Hoffmann adds, in times of emergency one may exclude them, as was done in the Orthodox congregation in Frankfurt, but otherwise the law is clear that they are Jews in every way except for this sin. In fact, the clearest statement on the matter was made by one of the great classic authorities, David Ibn Zimri, chief rabbi of Egypt (sixteenth century; Radbaz III, 451). He speaks of the Marranos who desire to return to Judaism, and he says that they may return without circumcision or the ritual bath. His words are:

[The lack of] circumcision does not hinder him from entering the congregation. For behold, if he marries, his marriage is true marriage [Kiddushin]. For behold, he is not a stranger [a ben Nechor] since he is returning to the faith of Israel. He is a “mumar” concerning only one sin, namely, circumcision. Therefore he is a Jew in every sense. But it is a sin if he continues uncircumcised. Therefore he should be circumcised now.

In the case that you mention, it is easy to understand how this refugee boy and mother are troubled and uncertain about their duty. Maimonides says that circumcision was purposely ordained to take place in infancy, for were it ordained for later life, the commandment would be neglected, since parents would have learned to love their child more than they do a new infant; and as for the boy himself, he is afraid of the pain, whereas an infant does not anticipate it. (See More Nevuchim III, 49.)

Nevertheless, if his parents have neglected to have him circumcised and he himself neglects it, it is incumbent upon the Beth Din of the city to have him circumcised. In other words, it is incumbent upon the rabbi to use all persuasion; but even should persuasion fail, the person concerned is a Jew in every way.