or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Circing just the tip of the foreskin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Circing just the tip of the foreskin - Page 2

post #21 of 69
I'm Jewish, and when we decided not to circ Ari, I did a lot of research.

What I found was that circumcision as it was originally described in the bible, was removing any skin that went past the tip of the penis. That is the circumcision that Abraham performed upon himself at the age of 99 - for those who believe bible stories.

Later, it was too easy for Jews to hide their circumcisions by stretching their foreskins to appear longer than they were. I understood they were doing this to avoid death in war with Greeks, but I could be wrong about that. In a list of things you can do if you want to get into heaven, stretching your foreskin to appear uncircumcised is listed. Apparently it was a serious offense.

So, they changed the rites of circumcision to what Jews now perform at the bris. The entire foreskin is removed. Not sure if we believe God changed the rules, or if man did. But, that's why Jews circumcise this way, it was the (later edition of the) commandment.

Funny how I grew up attending bris ceremonies and never thought it was odd. It was what I knew. Then I became a Jewish mom, and I couldn't do it. And the more I learned about it, the less I could even stand to hear about it or attend a bris. My son is a Jew because he was born to a Jewish mom. If he wants to be circumcised, whether for relgious or any other reason, he can decide that later.

And I agree that there are people who use religion to justify have their sons circumcised. Just because you belong to a religion doesn't mean you don't have a choice. It's your son who doesn't have a choice, his choices are taken away at 8 days old. Judaism isn't a cult - you don't have to perform a public bloodletting to 'belong.' Thankfully!

Take care,
post #22 of 69
Perhaps slightly T but the circumcision.net site is so offbase....the whole bit about it being "almost painless" and how the nerves of babies at 8 days old aren't fully developed is simply mind-boggling. http://www.circumcision.net/Painless.htm That's exactly the same reasoning that led doctors to perform open-heart surgery on unanesthetized babies for years. Completely and totally disproven scientifically. And having been cut by some pretty sharp blades myself in the past, I'm here to tell you it hurts like . If babies are falling asleep immediately after the circ it's because they're in a pain/trauma induced sleep, not a natural sleep.

:

Speaking of rivers in Egypt....

Sorry, but if you're going to do this, at least face up to the realities of it.
post #23 of 69
I disagree with all circing, but "get" why religious Jews, like Colorful Mama, choose to do it. However, what I think the OP was referring to was people who aren't truly religious claim that is why they circ, kwim? I know LOTS of people that fit this description. Essentialy, what it boils down to, it that they do it because everyone does (so they think); yet use their heritage as a justification.


Kristi
post #24 of 69
I think the OP isn't about non-religious or non-observant people who circ their sons; it's asking why, if the original ritual as performed by Abraham and his descendants was done one way, then years later the religious leaders decreed it be done a different way to prevent "passing," observant religious people now have it done the "new-fangled" way as opposed to the "originally God-commanded" way.
post #25 of 69
Ah, got it Thanks!


Kristi
post #26 of 69
Thread Starter 
Exactly what I meant Quirky, thanks!!!
post #27 of 69
My sister had both her boys circumcised - they're fairly religious. What bothered me more than the fact that they were doing it, was all the bullshit the mohel was giving as fact. We heard that there were no nerve endings, and how 8 days is the best time, etc.,. We heard how the babies are only crying because they are hungry and cold, and not because of any pain. He spoke about it not causing any long-lasting harm, etc.,.

In my mind, he's justifying and excusing what he does. Why not talk about the supposed beauty of following this ancient commandment, about the Jewish bond you're creating, etc.,? It always bothered me that this mohel says the same thing at every single bris, that it's crap, and that he doesn't make it a joyous occasion.

Not that I think there's anything joyous about a bris, but if that's what the parents are deciding, let's not lie about it and say it doesn't hurt. It's like he thinks the people gathered 'round are morons.

Sorry, not sure where that tirade came from!
Take care,
post #28 of 69
Just like lawyers, teachers, doctors, street sweepers ... there are good mohels and not-so-good ones. zaftigmama, perhaps your sister should get a different mohel if she has brises for more boys. Sounds like the one she keeps using doesn't "get" it, either.




Thanks, DaryLLL, for your correcting particular historical "anomalies" in a previous post attempting to explain historical questions.

At the simplest, Frank, you're at least a thousand years off, though ... by 800 CE the Jews weren't being invited to participate in anything Olympian in any way ... unless oppression was an Olympic event back then. And the Greeks weren't who they used to be by then, either.













In re the OP and the size of the cut ... have read very different things about it in both directions. But am not sure why anyone against circumcision in any form would be for a different sized cut? Isn't any cut at all offensive to you?
post #29 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by merpk
In re the OP and the size of the cut ... have read very different things about it in both directions. But am not sure why anyone against circumcision in any form would be for a different sized cut? Isn't any cut at all offensive to you?
I'm against any type of female genital mutilation, but I'd much rather see a Type I done than a Type III done. Similarly, I'm against any type of MGM but if there's a milder form that complies with religious obligations than I'd rather see that done than the more severe form.

Types of FGM
post #30 of 69
The answer to the original question is YES you're right, but I can't seem to find the link I have about that at the moment. If you go to http://www.infocirc.org/methods.htm you can see the difference between the Mogen method and the other two as to how much it removes. Arrgh, that link I had had the whole history of how it got from a little to a lot but basically it said something about some Jews only nominally circumcising to as to resemble Gentiles on purpose and then some Rabbis mandating more radical circumcision (all the way up the shaft) so as to leave no doubt. In my religion, however, excess mutilation is forbidden and if I ever have a boy I'll do the "snip off the tip" thing and NOT the Gomco or Plastibell methods.

JM.02

Umm Zaynab
(note-- I have to change my sig line, Aishah is now 5 months)
post #31 of 69
Can someone point me to a historical source that says that Jews used to cut off only the tip of the foreskin? I am not aware of any traditional Jewish source that says this is the case, but I'll ask dh when he gets home if he knows of something I don't.
post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by merpk

At the simplest, Frank, you're at least a thousand years off, though ... by 800 CE the Jews weren't being invited to participate in anything Olympian in any way ... unless oppression was an Olympic event back then. And the Greeks weren't who they used to be by then, either.
The Jews wanting to compete in the games would have begun in the Hellenistic period, after Alexander conquered most of the Med region, ca 300 BCE and on from there.

My source says there was a Greek style sports gymnasium right next to the Temple in Jerusalem at one point. And all the young guys wanted to go play, even priests.

Ah the good old days of nude sports!
post #33 of 69
Here's a link that discusses the history of Jewish Circumcision. I'll put in bold the relevant parts, and you can certainly check out the whole site. Here's what it says:

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

The Jews adopted circumcision as a religious ritual6,8,13,16 and preserved this prehistoric practice into modern times.8,13,16 The circumcision of Abraham removed only the very tip that extended beyond the glans of the penis. 6,15,20,26 Moses and his sons were not circumcised. (Exodus 4:25) Although Moses apparently prohibited circumcision during the 40 years in the wilderness,13,16 (Joshua 5:5) Joshua reinstituted circumcision at Gilgal after the death of Moses.13,16 (Joshua 5:2-10) It is interesting to note that after the Israelites were circumcised, they immediately became soldiers in Joshua's army for the conquest of Palestine. (Joshua 6:1-3)

In contrast to the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans placed a high value on the prepuce.29 The Romans passed several laws to protect the prepuce by prohibiting circumcision.29

Much later in the Hellenic period, about 140 C.E., the circumcision procedure was modified to make it impossible for a Jew to appear to be Greek.6,16,23 A radical new procedure called peri'ah was introduced by the priests and rabbis. In this procedure the foreskin was stripped away from the glans, with which it is fused in the infant (See Normal.), in a painful procedure known today as a synechotomy. More foreskin was removed than before and the injury was correspondingly greater. With the introduction of peri'ah the glans could not easily be recovered and so no Jewish male would easily be able to appear as Greek.6,16,23


Hope this helps.
Take care,
post #34 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by zaftigmama
Hope this helps.
This, like everything else I've found, just states it as a fact without citing any source! Dh came home and he states that circumcision has two parts - removing the foreskin and exposing the foreskin by removing the underlying membrane. He says that it is this second part that used to not be done, but he knows of no source that states there was less skin of the foreskin removed.
post #35 of 69
Did you check out the footnotes? See this one, for example:

Quote:
The presence of the foreskin was regarded as a blemish, and perfection was to be attained by its removal (cf. Ned. 31b). The generation born in the wilderness, however, was not circumcised, an omission repaired by Joshua (Jos. 5.2-9). Many Hellenistic Jews, particularly those who participated in athletics at the gymnasium, had an operation performed to conceal the fact of their circumcision (I Me. 1.15). Similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, in which period a prohibition against circumcision was issued. It was probably in order to prevent the possibility of obliterating the traces of circumcision that the rabbis added to the requirement of cutting the foreskin that of peri'ah (laying bare the glans).

To this was added a third requirement, metsirsah (sucking of the blood). This was originally done by the mohel (circumciser) applying his lips to the penis and drawing off the blood by sucking. For hygienic reasons, a glass tube with a wad of cotton wool inserted in the middle is now generally employed, or the blood is simply drawn off by the use of some absorbent material.
Citation:
Circumcision. In: (Eds) R. J. Zwi Werblowsky & Geoffrey Wigoder. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/JewishEnc/
post #36 of 69
Sorry, I should have been more clear about the site itself. At the bottom of the page is a list called Holdings, I would have called it a bibliography. It's what all those numbers are referencing in the article I highlighted. There are are over 30 books and articles referenced. Most, if not all, have hyperlinks, so it should be relatively easy to find what you are looking for.

I'm sure there are other sites, this one just seemed so comprehensive.

Take care,
post #37 of 69
Your link stating the Moses did not circ his sons is contradicted by the biblical verse I quoted on the last page.

Well, it was the boy's mother (Zipporah, Moses' wife) that did it, apparently to save Moses' life from being taken by YHWH. It is a strange little anomaly.

But in any case, at least one of Moses' nameless sons was circed, before the exodus.

I still do not believe Jews were trying to compete in games in the supposedly Hellenistic period, CE, more than 100 yrs after Rome destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews. It seems to me things were too touchy at that point between the 3 religious groups, Jews, Pagans and Xtians, for there to be much inter-faith friendly sports competition.
post #38 of 69
At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Moses} [2] and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched {Moses'} feet with it. [3] "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. 26 So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said "bridegroom of blood," referring to circumcision.)

The quote you gave actually never says Moses was circumcised. It says, if I understand it, that the foreskin was touched to Moses' feet. But it was an infant that was circ'ed. Not Moses. I think it's common biblical knowledge that Moses and his followers in the desert weren't circumcised. When I do any research about Jews not being circumcised, that's always one of the first facts I find.

I don't think it much matters if Moses was circumcised. And I don't think it really matters how much skin was removed then, vs. now. I just wish people would stop circumcising their infants, for religious reasons, cosmetic reasons, or esp. if they don't have a reason.

Take care,
post #39 of 69
I did not say Moses was circed. I said one of his sons was, acc to the verse cited.

Your link said Moses and his sons were not circed. My verse contradicts this.

Why Zipporah did it (and why God wanted to kill Moses right after his comission) is perhaps commented on in Talmud?

Oh, where is dado?
post #40 of 69
Quote:
To this was added a third requirement, metsirsah (sucking of the blood). This was originally done by the mohel (circumciser) applying his lips to the penis and drawing off the blood by sucking.
OKay, we won't even get INTO the Freudian significance of these actions.........

Not that circ. in and of itself isn't totally Freudian in nature, but, HOLY COW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Circing just the tip of the foreskin