RRR 99-104

Circumcising Son of Gentile Wife

A Jew married a Christian woman who was not con verted to Judaism. The woman is pregnant. If she gives birth to a son, the father wants the child circum cised, and the mother consents to it. Should the rabbi arrange for this circumcision and participate in the ceremony? (From Rabbi Max Selinger, Cumberland, Maryland)

The above question has been discussed at considerable length in the Jewish legal literature of the last century, inasmuch as quite a number of Jewish men have married Christian women who remained unconverted to Judaism. In a mixed marriage the child follows the status of the mother. Hence, the boy that may be born will be a Gentile boy. Of course, nowadays almost all boys of whatever affiliation are likely to be circumcised by an obstetrician. This would not be a ritual circumcision, but merely a medical circumcision. There is some question, for example, in this regard, whether an Orthodox physician may perform a purely medical circumcision for a Gentile (see Isserles, Yore Deah 263 : 5, and Schach, ad loc). But this question does not concern us. You are asking whether the child may receive Jewish religious circumcision (for the sake of performing the commandment of circumcision, m’shum mitzvas mila) which, of course, involves reciting the blessings provided for the performance of this mitzvah. In other words, this is to be a religious circumcision, not merely a medical one. If it were merely a medical one, the father would not need to ask the rabbi about it. Furthermore, the implications go further than the desire to perform the mitzvah of circumcision, i.e., Jewish religious circumcision. The implication is that this religious circumcision will make the child a Jew; in other words, it is intended, in effect, to be a ceremony of conversion. This is the full meaning of the question.

Let us first consider the question aside from conversion, namely, may we perform the mitzvah of mila (with the blessing) for such a child? It is quite clear that we may do so. The Tur, in Yore Deah 266, states clearly (near the end of the section) as follows: If a Jew marries a non-Jewess and she bears him a son, the child may not be circumcised on the Sabbath. This clearly indicates that he may be circumcised on the weekday. So, also, the Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 266 : 13, says that the child may not be circumcised on the Sabbath. The implication, here too, is clear that he may be circumcised any other day of the week. So, too, David Hoffman, in “Melamed L’ho-il,” Yore Deah 82, says that even if the parents do not intend to have the child take the ritual baths for conversion, nevertheless, the child may be circumcised with the mitzvah of circumcision. Hoffman’s discussion is based upon a related question. He is asked whether, if in later years this circumcised child of a Gentile mother wants to be fully converted to Judaism and will take the ritual bath required, we need also take a drop of the blood of the covenant. To which, as mentioned above, he said that it is not necessary since the original circumcision (of this Gentile child) was for the mitzvah of mila. In other words, it was Jewish religious circumcision. Similarly, Moses Shick, in his responsa Yore Deah 248, says that if both parents consent, it is certainly a fulfillment of the Jewish ritual of circumcision (mitzvas mila).

Some modern authorities, however, doubt whether we should perform this mitzvah for such a Gentile child even though it is permitted. There is a full discussion of this question in the responsa of Marcus Horowitz, who was Rabbi in Frankfurt two generations ago (see his responsa, “Matteh Levy,” vol. II, nos. 54 and 55). He mentions the future problem which may be involved in circumcising such a child. The child, of course, is not yet fully Jewish until he completes the ritual of conversion, namely, the ritual bath. If we do perform this circumcision, the child may grow up believing he is Jewish and may marry a Jewess. Therefore Marcus Horowitz wrote to Isaac Elchanan Spektor, of Kovno, asking his opinion. The reply is embodied in responsum 55. Spektor says that of course the statement of the Shulchan Aruch (that he may not be circumcised on Shabbas) makes it clear that he may be circumcised on other days of the week; but this applies, he explains, only if the father is pious and in all likelihood will raise the child as a Jew; but he adds that since this father is not at all religious, the child will not be raised as a Jew, and therefore we should not circumcise. In other words, Spektor, while admitting that the law permits us to circumcise this child, is making a strict decision because of the present mood of such parents. He thus follows the rabbinic right of “making a fence” (l’migdar milsa). Horowitz considers Spektor’s cautionary answer and concludes that since the law does allow such circumcision, he will try as much as possible to persuade the father to lead a religious life and, therefore, will permit the child to be circumcised. A whole booklet was written on this subject by Shalom Kutno (“U’ch’Torah Yeosey”). He says that each case must be judged individually; and that if the mother will be converted first, then of course there would be no question about permitting the circumcision. Judah Leb. Zirelsohn, the martyred Rabbi of Kishenev, permitted circumcision of children of Jewish fathers and Gentile mothers (“Atze Levanon” 64). He defends this decision in his later book, “Ma’arche Leb,” 55.

From all of the above, it is clear that the law permits Jewish religious circumcision for this child of a Jewish father and a Gentile mother, but that some of the later rabbis feel that there is a danger in permitting this nowadays.

Now, as to the second question: whether such circumcision permitted by the law can be deemed equivalent to conversion. In general, may we convert a Gentile infant? On the face of it, one might say no, since the law requires us to be very careful in explaining to every candidate for conversion exactly what is implied in taking upon oneself “the yoke of the Torah.” It is only if the court is convinced of the candidate’s sincerity that he is accepted and circumcised and bathed. Obviously this whole process of explaining and judging sincerity cannot apply to an infant. Nevertheless, the Talmud (in b. Ketuboth 11a) says that if a mother brings her infant for conversion, the Beth Din converts it. The reason given there is that we are doing a favor to the child and one may do a favor without a person’s direct consent. Besides, the child is pure and, unlike an adult, has not yet tasted the immorality of pagan life and, therefore, need not be so carefully investigated, even if we could do so. Thus it is clear that we may circumcise this infant with the implication or intention of conversion.

But it is here that we diverge from the full requirements of Orthodox law: conversion also requires the ritual bath. If, therefore, the father is not a pious Orthodox Jew, he will never care to complete the process of the conversion of the child. That is why Moses Schick (loc. cit.) says that if both parents agree, then we may convert the child completely; and therefore, also, Shalom Kutno (loc. cit., 3b) says that the mother must herself be converted first before we begin the whole process. However, we in the Reform movement have insisted, even with adult conversion, that the ceremonies involved are secondary, and that the investigation of the candidate’s sincerity and then the careful instruction of the candidate are the essential prerequisites for conversion. Hence, whether the child is later bathed in a mikveh or not, is not, from our point of view, a requisite for his complete conversion. The Central Conference of American Rabbis in its report on Marriage and Mixed Marriage (re cently reprinted) has definitely and formally decided that if a child is entered into our religious school and goes through the school and is confirmed, the education and the influence and the ceremony of Confirmation are to be considered as full conversion.

We, of course, appreciate the spirit which motivates the hesitation of some of the Orthodox rabbis. They fear that full Orthodox conversion will be neglected if the parents are not themselves fully Orthodox. We, too, are concerned with the attitude of the parents. We would ask the parents to promise that the child will receive a Jewish religious education and be raised as a Jew. If both parents agree to that, we should consider this sufficient, since, at all events, the ritual circumcision of such a child is permitted by the law, and the conversion of such a child is permitted by the Talmud.