The real logic of circumcision (Jewish Chronicle)

Years ago someone (I forget who) told me it was because of the sand; men who live in deserts are liable to get grit where it most isn’t wanted and where it unfortunately doesn’t turn to pearls. So the religious leaders of the desert folk — who doubled up as wise persons and doctors — transformed a rather radical way of dealing with the possibilities of sub-preputial inflammation, into a supernatural injunction. QED.

In the past few weeks there has been a smattering of brit talk. There was the claim that circumcision diminished the chances of Aids, though safe sex still seems to me to be a better and less contingent option. And there was the news about how an increasing number of Jewish men were reluctant to have their sons circumcised, possibly seeing the operation as a rather violent intrusion.

This chat just got me interested in the why of it all. Of course, to some believers God told Abraham to do it, and what more do you really need to know? But it’s the anthropology and the psychology that are really fascinating here — so if you want a pretend-medical discussion of penile hygiene or (heaven forfend) a women-prefer-X debate on genital aesthetics, look for the appropriate internet site.

All right; God made his covenant with Abraham. So why, any child would ask the ineffable, might a God, creator or created, want that particular covenant? Sand was one answer, both simple and glib, but theologically unsatisfying. There are other hot places where the local religions don’t demand this particular form of sacrifice, or require it later in life, and other body parts one might modify to take account of weather conditions.

Muslims are not enjoined to circumcision by the Koran. The prophets all did it (including, of course, Ibrahim/Abraham) and that provides sufficient precedent, with the operation often being carried out as part of an adulthood ceremony. But mark this, in Islam the practice is also apparently known as “tahara”, or “purification”. Why?

To help readers who might be as ignorant as myself, I began a determined search for the Jewish theological explanation of the brit, covering many websites in the couple of hours I had available. On one, an American mohel explained that circumcision brought together spiritual and temporal in the most obvious way by being performed “on the most physical part”, thus joining the forces of body and soul in serving God.

According to this rationalisation, the physical sort of represents the spiritual, and making an alteration in one part of the physical symbolises the alteration in the spiritual. The mohel argues furthermore that this part is somehow more physical than any other part. More than your finger (see Yakuza), your earlobe, your septum (look it up), and therefore more symbolic. And it is certainly true that pagan religions are devoid of symbols representing the earlobe. Even so, this sounds like an evasion to me, or a euphemism.

So I turned to the “being Jewish” website, which offered this elaboration. “When Adam was created,” it informed me, “he had no foreskin”. This was because, according to the author, everything in the Garden of Eden, such as food and clothing, “was easily accessible”. After the Fall, however, everything became complicated and — being Jewish implied — Adam grew a foreskin. So when God looked around for a covenant with the chosen people, presumably, he decided to make their intimate persons “easily accessible” again.

Why, however, choose a covenant which half the people couldn’t fulfil? It could have been decided that all Jews, male and female, should be shaven-headed. Rabbi Simmons, from “Ask Rabbi Simmons” has a more Melanie Phillips explanation. “In Kabbalistic terms,” he says, “the foreskin symbolises a barrier which prevents growth.” And why is that? Because, explains the rabbi, “it is a foundation of Judaism that we are to control our animal desires and direct them into spiritual pursuits. Nowhere does a person have more potential for expressing ‘barbaric’ behaviour than in the sex drive.”

Freud’s view of castration anxiety might well suggest a boy who believes that, should he sexually misbehave, the Dark Mohel of the Night will come back for the rest. One only has to read Portnoy’s Complaint, however, to know that humanity has once again thwarted the designs of the Almighty.

There is, of course, something else being suggested in all this — something which resonates with another recent debate. Men need the covenant because their rampant sexuality demands to be kept in check, while women have no such requirement. Females can help out, however, by refusing to inflame men’s barbarous instincts. This is the logic of the bris and the burqa — lose one covering, gain another.

Comments

[Ron Low]

Sorry, but the "sand in the foreskin" line is rubbish. Every mammal on earth evolved a foreskin before there was surgery or even soap.

And you speak of Muslims and say all prophets were circumcised, but you should know The Prophet Muhammad was not circumcised. It is said he was born with the birth defect aposthia; apparent lack of a foreskin.

[Lynne T]

Further to Ron's comments, I believe that being born without a foreskin was supposed to be the sign of the Messiah.

If there was any reason for foreskin removal, I'd bet it has to giving males one less excuse for engaging in masturbation, as under Jewish law forbids causing semen to be produced for purposes other than procreation.

As for Islam and circumcision, I have no idea what the Qu'ran actually says, but there sure are a lot of Muslims who think various degrees of female genital cutting is required.

[max bernstein]

it is said that the discarded parts are saved. and made into newspapers leader writers and columnist. i think by what i read lately it must have some truth