Bereishit Rabba 46 Supplementary Texts Use with https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/495856

Howard I. Schwartz - God's Phallus

The title of this book (God’s Phallus) is shocking because the thought of God having a penis is shocking. Most Jews and Christians think of God the father as lacking a body and hence as beyond sexuality. Without a body, God obviously can have no sexual organ.

But from where does the idea of a disembodied God come? What if, historically speaking, it is discomfort with the idea of God’s penis that has generated the idea of an incorporeal God? What if this uneasiness flows from the contradictions inherent in men’s relationship with a God who is explicitly male? This in a nutshell is the argument of this book.

This is why the title “God’s Phallus” is a serious one that points to interesting questions about the nature of religious symbols and the way in which issues of gender, sexuality, and desire are inseparable from them. More specifically, this is a book about divine fatherhood and the ways in which the sexual body of a father God is troubling for the conception of masculinity.

This book explores how tensions arising from the idea of the sexual body of the father God are expressed in the myth and ritual of one religious tradition, namely that of ancient Judaism.

So what are the dilemmas evoked by the maleness of God in ancient Judaism? The first is homoeroticism: the love of a male human for a male God. The issue of homoeroticism arises in ancient Israel because the divine‑human relationship is often described in erotic and sexual terms. Marriage and sexuality are frequent biblical metaphors for describing God’s relationship with Israel. God is imagined as the husband to Israel the wife; espousal and even sexual intercourse are metaphors for the covenant. Thus when Israel follows other gods, “she” is seen to be whoring. Israel’s relationship with God is thus conceptualized as a monogamous sexual relation, and idolatry as adultery.

But the heterosexual metaphors in the ancient texts belie the nature of the relationship in question: it is human males, not females, who are imagined to have the primary intimate relations with the deity. The Israel that is collectively imagined as a woman is actually constituted by men, men like Moses and the patriarchs. And these men love, in ways that are imagined erotically and sensually, a male deity.

Couvade

Wikipedia

Couvade is a term which was coined by the anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor in 1865 to refer to certain rituals in several cultures that fathers adopt during pregnancy.

Couvade can be traced to Ancient Egypt as a "sacred birth custom, of when a child is born, the man experiences the ritual of "labor" in which he takes to his bed, and undergoes periods of fasting and purification, and the observance of certain taboos".^[1]

The Ancient Greek writer Plutarch mentions a report by Paeon of Amathus of a custom in Cyprus honouring the myth of Ariadne (who had died while pregnant) in which a young man would lie down and imitate the crying and gesturing of women during labor.^[2]

The term "couvade" is borrowed from French, which derives it from the verb couver "to brood, hatch"). The term's use in the modern sense derives from a misunderstanding of an earlier idiom faire la couvade, which meant "to sit doing nothing".^[3]

Harvesting and Production of Cinnamon

Cinnamon trees are cut down to stump size when they're around two years old.

©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/HELOVI

Sri Lanka produces much of the world's Ceylon cinnamon, even though the tree is also commercially grown in Brazil, the Caribbean and India. A great deal of cassia cinnamon comes from Indonesia, although the tree is also grown in Vietnam, China and Burma [sources: Britannica: Cinnamon, Britannica: Cassia].

When a cinnamon tree is around two years old, cultivators coppice, or cut back, the plant to the size of a stump and cover it with soil. This technique causes it to grow like a bush, with new shoots emerging out of the sides by the following year. It's these shoots that are used to make cinnamon. Once cut, the shoots are stripped of their bark and the peels are set out to dry in the sun. As this happens, the bark naturally curls into quills (sticks) [source: Indian Institute of Spices Research].

Soncino

7 On this interpretation, which is similar to that of M.K., God assured Abraham that even if circumcision should deter would-be converts, it did not matter. This may therefore be directed against Paulinism, which abolished circumcision in order to facilitate the spread of Christianity. Th. Mah. and Y.T. translate differently: (Even) before I was circumcised, men fought against me; how much more when I am circumcised and so I emphasise the difference between us. Though God's reply, ' let it suffice thee that I am thy Patron, * lends colour to this inter- pretation, it does not on the whole seem very probable.

The 13 Rules[edit]

The thirteen rules were compiled by Rabbi Ishmael b. Elisha for the elucidation of the Torah and for making halakic deductions from it. They are, strictly speaking, mere amplifications of the seven Rules of Hillel, and are collected in the Baraita of R. Ishmael, forming the introduction to the Sifra and reading as follows:

1. Kal va-ḥomer: a minore ad maius - an argument that denotes an inference from smaller to bigger and vice versa (Identical with the first rule of Hillel).
2. Gezerah shavah: an anology or inference from one verse to another (Identical with the second rule of Hillel).
3. Binyan av: Rules deduced from a single passage of Scripture and rules deduced from two passages. (This rule is a combination of the third and fourth rules of Hillel.)
4. Kelal u-Peraṭ: The general and the particular.
5. u-Peraṭ u-kelal: The particular and the general.
6. Kelal u-Peraṭ u-kelal: The general, the particular, and the general.
7. The general which requires elucidation by the particular, and the particular which requires elucidation by the general.
8. The particular implied in the general and excepted from it for pedagogic purposes elucidates the general as well as the particular.
9. The particular implied in the general and excepted from it on account of the special regulation which corresponds in concept to the general, is thus isolated to decrease rather than to increase the rigidity of its application.
10. The particular implied in the general and excepted from it on account of some other special regulation which does not correspond in concept to the general, is thus isolated either to decrease or to increase the rigidity of its application.
11. The particular implied in the general and excepted from it on account of a new and reversed decision can be referred to the general only in case the passage under consideration makes an explicit reference to it.
12. Deduction from the context.
13. When two Biblical passages contradict each other the contradiction in question must be solved by reference to a third passage.

Encyclopedia Judaica

(2) Gezerah shavah: comparison of similar expressions. It is probable that etymologically the word gezerah means "law" – as in Daniel 4:4, 14 – so that gezerah shavah would mean a comparison of two similar laws (Beẓah 1:6; see however S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 193ff.); if the same word occurs in two Pentateuchal passages, then the law applying in the one should be applied to the other. Bergman argues (Sinai 71, 1972) that a gezerah shavah is the application of the laws in one instance to a second instance to achieve a unified legal principle, irrespective of the differences between the cases, more often than not by finding a word that appears in both instances.

For example, the word be-mo'ado ("in its appointed time") is used both in regard to the Paschal lamb (Num. 9:2) and to the tamid, the daily offering (Num. 28:2), which is offered on the Sabbath as well. Thus it can be inferred that the term be-mo'ado includes the Sabbath and hence the Paschal lamb may be offered even on the Sabbath, although work normally forbidden on the Sabbath is entailed (Pes. 66a).

The gezerah shavah, as may be seen from the above example, was originally a purely logical principle. It is reasonable to suppose that a law clearly stated in one passage can shed light on a similar law in a different passage. In the schools, however, the gezerah shavah threatened to become a formal principle whereby a mere similarity in words was sufficient warrant for positing similar laws in the respective passages.

To prevent the abuse of this method, rules were laid down to qualify its use. A man cannot advance a gezerah shavah independently, but must receive it by tradition from his teachers (Pes. 66a); both passages must be from the Pentateuch (BK 2b); the words of the gezerah shavah must not only be similar but also superfluous (mufneh, "free") in the context in which they appear, so that it can be argued that they were placed there for the express purpose of the gezerah shavah (Shab. 64a).

It would appear that the school of R. Akiva disagrees with that of R. Ishmael and does not require mufneh (TJ, Yoma 8:3, 45a).

Similar to the gezerah shavah but not identical with it are the rules of hekkesh ("comparison") and semukhim ("juxtaposition").

Hekkesh refers to the presence of two laws in the same verse, from which it may be inferred that whatever is true of one is true of the other. For example, "Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith" (Deut. 16:3). Although women are exempt from carrying out positive precepts associated with given time, they are nevertheless obliged to eat unleavened bread on Passover since the verse, by combining the two laws compared the duty to eat unleavened bread with the prohibition against eating leaven, which, being a negative precept, is binding on women (Pes. 43b).

Semukhim refers to the juxtaposition of two laws in two adjacent verses. For example, "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live; Whosoever lieth with a beast shall be put to death" (Ex. 22:17, 18). Just as one who lies with a beast is put to death by stoning, so, too, a sorceress is put to death by stoning (Ber. 21b). R. Judah, however, rejects the universal application of the semukhim rule: "Just because the two statements are juxtaposed, are we to take this one out to be stoned?" (ibid). The semukhim rule, according to R. Judah, is to be applied only in Deuteronomy (ibid).

Frenulum - Wikipedia

A frenulum (or frenum, plural: frenula or frena, from the Latin frēnulum, "little bridle", the diminutive of frēnum^[1]) is a small fold of tissue that secures the motion of a mobile organ in the body.

In human anatomy[edit]

Frenula on the human body include several in the mouth, some in the digestive tract, and some connected to the external genitalia.

• Brain: Frenulum of superior medullary velum or frenulum veli
• Digestive tract: frenulum valvae ileocaecalis
• Oral tissue: Frenula of the mouth include the frenulum linguae under the tongue, the frenulum labii superioris inside the upper lip, the frenulum labii inferioris inside the lower lip, and the buccal frena which connect the cheeks to the gum. These can easily be torn by violent blows to the face or mouth, thus a torn frenulum is sometimes a warning sign of physical abuse.
• Penile tissue: The word frenulum on its own is often used for the penile frenulum or frenulum preputii penis, which is an elastic band of tissue under the glans penis that connects to the prepuce (foreskin) to the vernal mucosa, and helps contract the prepuce over the glans.
• Vulvular tissue: In females, genital frenula include the frenulum clitoridis of the clitoris and the frenulum labiorum pudendi (fourchette) where the labia minora meet at the back.

An overly short oral or genital frenulum may require a frenulectomy or frenuloplasty to achieve normal mobility.

Ephesians 2

11Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

14For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.

Jack Reimer - USCJ Blog

If Yitzchak Avinu, Father Isaac, who became legally blind in his old age, were to come into our synagogue and want to daven with us, would we have a large print prayer book available for him?

If Yaakov Avinu, Father Jacob, who was injured in an encounter with a mysterious stranger and limped for the rest of his life as a result, were to come into our synagogue and want an aliyah, would he be able to get up to the bimah here? And if not, if we don’t have a ramp that makes the bimah accessible to the people with disabilities, what would we say to him?

2If Moshe Rabeynu, Moses our teacher, who had a speech defect, were to come into our shul and want to read from the Torah that he gave us, could we handle it without becoming embarrassed if he were to stutter?

Melinda Jones, “Judaism, Theology and the Human Rights of People with Disabilities”

The fact that we are all created in God’s image both unifies us and is evidence that God loves diversity. . . No person is of greater value than another. None are more worthy or more significant than another. We are morally equivalent—different yet equal; the same yet distinct. The shape of our body and the sharpness of our minds are totally irrelevant. People with disabilities are equally valuable, equally important, equally entitled to share in the benefits of society.

Shelly Christensen, Jewish Community Guide to Inclusion of People with Disabilities

There is a midrash that reminds us that we are all created b’tselem Elohim, in the divine image. “A procession of angels pass before each person, and the heralds go before them saying, ‘Make way for the image of God.’” (Deuteronomy Rabbah 4:4) As we open our hearts and our minds to every individual we meet, let us look upon them and know that they are preceded by angels. May we remember that each of us is created in the image of God.

Jacob Artson, “Mensch Blog”

Inclusion isn’t just about me, it is about everyone. I have seen the incredible stress my family has endured because of me, and being excluded from our Jewish community, or having to constantly fight to be accepted as part of it, has greatly magnified our stress. After ten years, we finally [found a synagogue] where people smile at me even if I am sometimes too loud or excited and no one stares at me like I am a piece of trash. The kids engage with me even when they are not getting community service credit for doing so. I often wonder how many non-disabled families have the same experience of feeling ignored in their synagogue. The truth is that a shul that welcomes me is a synagogue where everyone can find a place and people will want to join and be engaged and involved.

Up to here 1st Aug

NOTARIKON (Gr. νοταρικόν; Lat. notaricum, from notarius, "shorthand-writer"), a system of abbreviations by either shortening the words or by writing only one letter of each word. This method is used in interpreting the Pentateuch and is the 30^th of the 32 hermeneutical rules of the *Baraita of 32 Rules. The word is derived from the system of stenographic shorthand used by the notarii in recording the proceedings in the Roman courts of justice (Kohut, Arukh, 5 (1926), 336). The word notarikon occurs only once in the Mishnah (Shab. 12:5). Although there is an opinion that the hermeneutic law of notarikon has biblical authority (Shab. 105a), the Talmud does not use it for halakhic interpretations. It is only employed in aggadah and *asmakhta (support for the halakhah). Nevertheless, there were rabbis who objected to the excessive use of notarikon even in aggadah (Sif. Deut. 1).

The notarikon can be divided into two categories. One kind interprets every letter in a particular word as the abbreviation of a whole word, since "the words of the Torah are written as notarikon" (Mekh. Ba-Ḥodesh, 8). Thus the word נִמְרֶצֶת (nimreẓet, "grievous"; I Kings 2:8) stands for נוֹאֵף, מוֹאָבִי, רוֹצֵחַ, צוֹרֵר, תּוֹעֵבָה (No'ef, Mo'avi, Roẓe'aḥ, Ẓorer, To'evah; "adulterer, Moabite, murderer, oppressor, despised") and the first word of the Ten Commandments, אָנֹכִי (Anokhi, "I") was interpreted to mean אָנָא נָפְשִׁי כְּתָבִית יַהֲבִת (Anna Nafshi Ketavit Yahavit; "I Myself wrote (and) gave [them]" (Shab. 105a).

A second and later application of notarikon consists of breaking up a word into various components. Through this method the name רְאוּבֵן (Re'uven, "Reuben"; Gen. 29:32) becomes ראוּ בֵן (re'u ven, "see (the) son"; PdRE 36) and the word אַבְרֵך (avrekh, "senior adviser"; Gen. 41:43) changes into אָב בְּחָכְמָה ר״ךְ בְּשָׁנִים (Av Be-ḥokhmah, Ra-Kh be-Shanim, "father in wisdom (though) tender in years"; Sif. Deut. 1). Sometimes, one-syllable words are transposed. An example of this is when the noun כַּרְמֶל (karmel, "fresh corn"; Lev. 2:14) is taken to mean רַךְ מֶל (rakh mel, "tender and easily crushed"; Men. 66b). At other times, a word is even transposed although the abbreviation for one of the derived words is missing: מְצוֹרָע (meẓora, "leper"; Lev. 14:2), is therefore taken to mean מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע (moẓi shem ra, "slanderer"), although there is no letter shin in the original word (Tanḥ. Meẓora, 4). Conversely, a letter may not be used at all. Words were interpreted through the principle of notarikon even when the words derived from the original did not necessarily correspond to it. Thus nazuf ("under divine censure") is connected with Nezem Zahav beaF ḥazir ("a ring of gold in the snout of a pig"; Avot 6:2). The rabbis made extensive use of the notarikon and the anagram in the interpretation of dreams (e.g., Ber. 57a), and many analogous usages of them can also be found in Hellenistic writings of the period (S. Lieberman, see bibl.). The use of the notarikon was also widespread in medieval homiletical and kabbalistic writings (e.g., Ba'al ha-Turim by Jacob b. Asher). Through such methods of interpretation many words in the Bible became notarikonim. An example of such kabbalistic interpretation is the taking of the word בְּרֵאשִׁית (bereshit, "in the beginning") to refer to the cosmogenic order בָּרָא רָקִיעַ אֶרֶץ שָׁמַיִם יָם תְּהוֹם (Bara Raki'a Ereẓ Shamayim Yam Tehom; "He created the firmament, the earth, the heavens, the sea, and the abyss"). Another example is to interpret bereshit to mean בְּרֵאשִׁית ("created in six primordial days"; Zohar, Gen. Prologue, 3b). According to the Mishnah, Queen *Helena of Adiabene had a golden tablet made for the Temple on which the portion of the *sotah (see *Ordeal) was written in an abbreviated notarikon manner (Yoma 3:10; 37b).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

I.I. Einhorn (ed.), Midrash Tanna'im, 2 (1838), 34cff.; Frankel, Mishnah, index; W. Bacher, Erkhei Midrash (1923), 86f., 233; S. Krauss, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2 (1893), 512ff.; M. Halperin, Notarikon, Simanim, Kinnuyim (1912); S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1950), 69ff.; M.D. Gross, Oẓar ha-Aggadah, 2 (1961), 796f. (a list of notarikonim).

RULES OF ELIEZER B. JOSE HA-GELILI, THE THIRTY-TWO:

By: Wilhelm Bacher, Jacob Zallel Lauterbach

Rules laid down by R. Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili for haggadic exegesis, many of them being applied also to halakic interpretation.

• 1. Ribbuy (extension): The particles 'et," "gam," and "af," which are superfluous, indicate that something which is not explicitly stated must be regarded as included in the passage under consideration, or that some teaching is implied thereby.
• 2. Mi'uṭ (limitation): The particles "ak," "raḳ" and "min" indicate that something implied by the concept under consideration must be excluded in a specific case.
• 3. Ribbuy aḥar ribbuy (extension after extension): When one extension follows another it indicates that more must be regarded as implied.
• 4. Mi'uṭ aḥar mi'uṭ (limitation after limitation): A double limitation indicates that more is to be omitted.
• 5. Ḳal wa-ḥomer meforash: "Argumentum a minori ad majus," or vice versa, and expressly so characterized in the text.
• 6. Ḳal wa-ḥomer satum: "Argumentum a minori ad majus," or vice versa, but only implied, not explicitly declared to be one in the text. This and the preceding rule are contained in the Rules of Hillel, No. 1. Rules 7 and 8 are identical with Rules 2 and 3 of Hillel.
• 9. Derek ḳeẓarah: Abbreviation is sometimes used in the text when the subject of discussion is self-explanatory.
• 10. Dabar shehu shanuy (repeated expression): Repetition implies a special meaning.
• 11. Siddur she-neḥlaḳ: Where in the text a clause or sentence not logically divisible is divided by the punctuation, the proper order and the division of the verses must be restored according to the logical connection.
• 12. Anything introduced as a comparison to illustrate and explain something else, itself receives in this way a better explanation and elucidation.
• 13. When the general is followed by the particular, the latter is specific to the former and merely defines it more exactly (comp. Rules of Hillel, No. 5).
• 14. Something important is compared with something unimportant to elucidate it and render it more readily intelligible.
• 15. Same as Rule 13 of R. Ishmael.
• 16. Dabar meyuḥad bi-meḳomo: An expression which occurs in only one passage can be explained only by the context. This must have been the original meaning of the rule, although another explanation is given in the examples cited in the baraita.
• 17. A point which is not clearly explained in the main passage may be better elucidated in another passage.
• 18. A statement with regard to a part may imply the whole.
• 19. A statement concerning one thing may hold good with regard to another as well.
• 20. A statement concerning one thing may apply only to something else.
• 21. If one object is compared to two other objects, the best part of both the latter forms the tertium quid of comparison.
• 22. A passage may be supplemented and explained by a parallel passage.
• 23. A passage serves to elucidate and supplement its parallel passage.
• 24. When the specific implied in the general is especially excepted from the general, it serves to emphasize some property characterizing the specific.
• 25. The specific implied in the general is frequently excepted from the general to elucidate some other specific property, and to develop some special teaching concerning it.
• 26. Mashal (parable).
• 27. Mi-ma'al: Interpretation through the preceding.
• 28. Mi-neged: Interpretation through the opposite.
• 29. Gemaṭria: Interpretation according to the numerical value of the letters. See Gemaṭria.
• 30. Noṭariḳon: Interpretation by dividing a word into two or more parts. See Noṭariḳon.
• 31. Postposition of the precedent. Many phrases which follow must be regarded as properly preceding, and must be interpreted accordingly in exegesis.
• 32. Many portions of the Bible refer to an earlier period than do the sections which precede them, and vice versa.

These thirty-two rules are united in the so-called Baraita of R. Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili (see Baraita of the Thirty-Two Rules). In the introduction to the Midrash ha-Gadol (ed. Schechter, Cambridge, 1902), where this baraita is given, it contains thirty-three rules, Rule 29 being divided into three, and Rule 27 ("Mi-ma'al") being omitted.

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890)
William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin, Ed

NOTAE (σημεῖα) in a technical sense means those signs and abbreviations which were used (1) for secret writing, cipher; (2) for rapid writing, i.e. shorthand or stenography.

1. We have frequent mention of the use of cipher, for despatches or letters of an important or compromising nature, at the end of the Republican period. Thus of Caesar's correspondence with Oppius and Balbus we are told by Gallus that there were “litterae singulariae sine coagmentis syllabarum: erat autem conventum inter eos (the writer and his correspondents) clandestinum de commutando situ litterarum.” The cipher used by Caesar was, according to [p. 2.244]Suetonius (Suet. Jul. 56), a simple one, and consisted in making D stand for A, E for B, and so on through the alphabet, “si qua occultius perferenda essent.” The cipher used by Augustus was on the same principle. (Suet. Aug. 88; Becker-Göll, Gallus, 1.62.) Whether the words διὰ σημείων in Cic. Att. 13.3. 2 mean, in cipher, or simply with abbreviations of words (sigla), or in shorthand, is uncertain. The letter to which he refers (13.30) does not seem to be one which particularly requires secrecy, but it is quite possible that he may have sent it in cipher: on the other hand, he may, though less probably, have sent Atticus the copy taken down in shorthand from his dictation. However that may be, we may feel tolerably certain that in Cicero's correspondence cipher was used at least as frequently as in Caesar's.

Jewish Women Move Into a Male Domain: Ritual Circumcision

Female mohels are in high demand.

New York Times March 1, 2020,

When Dr. Amy Brown, a pediatric pulmonologist who lives in Irvington, New York, and is Jewish, found out she was expecting a son, she started asking friends and family about mohels. Traditionally a mohel is a rabbi, a cantor or another religious leader who performs the brit milah, or bris, a circumcision ceremony, on an 8-day-old Jewish boy.

She found the options for her son’s bris less than appealing.

“I learned about one man who had a license plate that said, ‘SNIP IT,’ and I was like, ‘No.’”

A month before her due date and still without a mohel, Dr. Brown read an article about Dr. Dania Rumbak, a pediatrician and a mohel, and felt huge relief, she said, thinking that Dr. Rumbak, as a woman, would bring empathy to a procedure that so often is rote. “Men have this tone of, ‘This is how it has been done,’” she said.

For centuries, the role of mohel was dominated by male religious leaders. As most rabbis and cantors have been male in the past — the Rabbinical Assembly, a Conservative Jewish association, didn’t let women become rabbis until 1985 — men have performed most of the rituals involved in Jewish life.

But that is changing, especially when it comes to the brit milah. Over the past 20 years, a shift has occurred within Conservative and Orthodox Judaism to embrace more doctors and medical professionals as mohels.

And now women — many of them doctors and not necessarily rabbis — are offering a new option, holistic in its approach, for Jewish parents. They have so much business, they said, that they can’t keep up with demand. Some have quit their day jobs to perform the brit milah full time.

A bris can be a challenging experience. It is both ceremony and surgery; the procedure is usually performed by a medical professional these days, but not always. “In the Orthodox world there is a tradition against having physicians trained to do britot to re-emphasize that milah is a religious act, not a medical one,” said Rabbi Gary Atkins, who provides training for mohels.

A bris also tends to be done in front of people. So Dr. Rumbak’s main goal, in addition to the health of the baby, is to make sure her clients — baby, parents and guests — are comfortable with the procedure.

For the bris at Dr. Brown’s house, Dr. Rumbak told the parents that they could call her any time with questions. She did a full exam both before and after the circumcision. And because Dr. Rumbak is a licensed doctor, she was able to give the baby an injection to numb the pain before the procedure. Mohels without medical licenses cannot do this.

For the spiritual part of the ceremony, Dr. Rumbak asked family and friends to read passages, printing out booklets so everyone in attendance could follow along. “Dania was someone who did not follow a script and made it about my family,” Dr. Brown said. “I’ve had three friends use Dania in the two years since.”

Dr. Emily Blake, a mohel in Rockland County, is often asked how long women have been in the bris business. “The honest answer is we’ve been doing this for thousands of years.” In the Old Testament, she pointed out, Moses’s wife Zipporah circumcised his son.

https://jwa.org/blog/mohelet-and-brit-milah#:~:text=Jewish%20scholars%2C%20even%20the%20most,present%2C%20it%20is%20not%20mandatory.

The bris has traditionally been performed by a man, but there is a growing number of mohelot in the United States. Dr. Debra Weiss-Ishai, otherwise known as The Bris Doctor, is a mohelet and a pediatrician in the San Francisco Bay area. According to an article by Sue Fishkoff, there are thirty-five Reform and four Conservative trained mohelot trained in the United States. Another is Dr. Lillian Schapiro of Atlanta Georgia; still another is Dr. April Rubin, an OB-GYN in Washington who has performed around 70 britei milah. Dr. Laurie Radovsky, Dr. Emily Blake and Ilene Gelbaum have also redefined who can perform the bris.

Dr. Rubin sent me a copy of an article she had written about her life as a mohelet, whose concluding sentences seemed particularly appropriate for this forum: “Times certainly have changed. In 1977 my medical school dean warned me that my chosen profession might emasculate my husband. No one has suggested that about my becoming a mohelet.”

Monobazus II was the son of Queen Helena of Adiabene and King Monobazus I. He is known as Monobaz in the Babylonian Talmud.

Like his younger brother Izates bar Monobazus and his mother, Monobazus became a convert to Judaism. He ruled as king of Adiabene after the death of his brother Izates around 55 CE. The date of his death is unknown but he is known to have been alive and on the throne during the First Jewish-Roman War, when he gave aid to the Jewish rebels against the Roman Empire. Two 'kinsmen' of Monobazus, Monobazus and Kenedaeus, fought on the side of the Jews in the battle against Cestius.^[1] The 'sons and brothers of Izates the king' were taken hostage to Rome after the war.^[2]

The Talmud relates that Monobazus: "dissipated all his own hoards and the hoards of his fathers in years of scarcity. His brothers and his father's household came in a delegation to him and said, 'Your father saved money and added to the treasures of his fathers, and you are squandering them.' He replied, 'My fathers stored up below and I am storing up above... My fathers stored in a place which can be tampered with, but I have stored in a place which cannot be tampered with … My fathers gathered treasures of money and I have gathered treasures of souls...' "^[3] King Monobaz also donated handsome gifts to the Temple in Jerusalem. "King Monobaz had all the handles of all the vessels used on Yom Kippur made of gold … He also made of gold the base of the vessels, the rims of the vessels, the handles of the vessels, and the handles of the knives..."^[4]

Queen Helena of Adiabene was also said to be the wife of King Abgarus of Edessa and thus she was also the queen of Edessa.^[5]

Notes[edit]

1. ^ Josephus, War 2:19:2
2. ^ Josephus, War 6:6:4
3. ^ Baba Batra 11a.
4. ^ Yoma 37a,b.

Izates II (Greek: Ἰζάτης, Hebrew: זוטוס בן מונבז; ca. 1-54 CE) was king of the Parthian client kingdom of Adiabene from approximately 30 to 54.^[1] He is notable for converting to Judaism. He was the son of Queen Helena of Adiabene and Monobaz I of Adiabene. Queen Helena was also said to be the wife of King Abgarus of Edessa and thus the queen of Edessa too.^[2]

During his youth Izates was sent by his father to the court of King Abinergaos I of Characene in Charax Spasinu. While in Charax Izates became acquainted with a Jewish merchant named Ananias, who familiarized him with the tenets of the Jewish religion, in which he became deeply interested. Izates married King Abinergaos' daughter Symacho who had been converted to Judaism through the efforts of Ananias. His mother had been previously won over to Judaism without his knowledge. On returning home and ascending the throne on the death of his father (c. 31 CE), Izates discovered the conversion of his mother; and he himself intended to adopt Judaism, and even to submit to circumcision. He was, however, dissuaded from this step both by his teacher Ananias and by his mother, but was ultimately persuaded thereto by another Jew, Eleazar.^[3][4]

For some time Izates enjoyed peace; and he was so highly respected that he was chosen as arbitrator between the Parthian king Artabanus II and his rebellious nobles (c. 39 CE). But when several of Izates' relatives openly acknowledged their conversion to Judaism, some of the nobles of Adiabene secretly induced Abia, an Arab king, to declare war against him. Izates defeated his enemy, who in despair committed suicide. The nobles then conspired with Vologases, King of Parthia, but the latter was at the last moment prevented from carrying out his plans, and Izates continued to reign undisturbed for a total of twenty-four years.

Izates died around 54 CE. His mother Helena survived him for only a short time. He left twenty-four sons and twenty-four daughters. Izates was succeeded by his older brother Monobaz II, who sent Izates' remains and those of Queen Helena to Jerusalem for burial.

Soncino

The verse actually treats of the mother's period of unclean- ness, not of circumcision at all. Mah. suggests that it may have been regarded as superfluous, since its scope is covered by the preceding verses (q.v.), and therefore it was applied to circumcision.

Priah
The izmel, shield and removed foreskin are safely put
aside. The cut edge of the mucous membrane should now be
clearly visible. Often some (and rarely all) of the or-hapriah will
have been removed with the foreskin and in such a case the
remnant is then dealt with in the same way as described below.
The membrane is torn in the centre of the cut edge on
the dorsal side which is done by grasping the or-hapriah firmly
between the nails of the right thumb and index finger, and then
with those of the left hand keeping the hands close together.
When the mucous membrane is firmly grasped in both hands it is
torn downwards away from the centre until the entire edge of the
corona is fully exposed. Where the membrane is short the tearing
may be completed in one movement. However, if the membrane
is long several movements may be required to tear it through
completely.
The mohel should ensure that the mucous membrane has
31
become separated from the entire circumference of the corona
right around to the frenum. Often it is tightly adherent in places
and these adhesions should be separated by pulling down firmly
on the flaps of the mucous membrane. Occasionally the
or-hapriah may have several layers (rather like an onion skin) all
of which must be removed.
When the corona is fully exposed right around its
circumference, the flaps of mucous membrane which have been
peeled off the glans are reflected laterally downwards so that the
torn edges of the mucous membrane lie as close as possible to the
cut edge of the skin, leaving none or only a small area of the shaft
uncovered.
At this stage it is again essential to recheck and ensure
that there is no mucous membrane left adherent to the corona as
this may invalidate the milah. The mucous membrane must be
torn and folded right over, not merely pulled or rolled out of the
way, otherwise it can easily roll back over the glans. Priah is a
skilled procedure and requires much practice before it can be
done proficiently.
There may be occasions when the folded over flaps are
so long that they overlap the skin on the penile shaft, in these
cases it might be necessary to trim the flaps with scissors, so as to
ensure a satisfactory appearance when healed.
Metzitza
The next part is metzitza which consists of the suction of
blood from the wound. This is as vital a part of milah as are the
first two stages described previously.
The dressing is then applied with minimal delay.

Dear Dr Spitzer,

Many thanks for letting me see the draft of the new Handbook for Mohelim.

It’s an extraordinary piece of work and I was particularly struck by the clarity with which you address the need for medical best practice and regular practice. Really really impressive.

I had questions on a couple of things the booklet doesn’t address. They are issues which are increasingly parts of conversations I am drawn into with congregants preparing for milah.

What is the official line on anaesthetic?

I’ve been present at a number of Britot where topical anaesthetic has been applied (by Orthodox Mohelim). I have also seen a number of Reform Mohelim use injected anaesthetic. Should topical anaesthetic be used or avoided? What advice should a member of the Initial Soc give parents about topical anaesthetic? Would, for example, a member of the Initiation Soc be permitted to inject a local anaesthetic on the insistence of the parents? Is this an issue which you approach from a medical or a halachic standpoint? i.e. if the medical literature came to a clear conclusion on the use of anaesthetic would that be something that the Initiation Soc would follow?

Secondly, and forgive me for expressing it this way, I was disappointed with the treatment given to Metzitzah. I know well that the issue is one where ‘clear lines’ have been drawn, but even if I was to accept Metzitzah is ‘is as vital a part of milah as are the first two stages’ (which I would respectfully suggest overstates its importance) it is still strange to see the technicalities receive no treatment whatsoever, especially in the context of the rest of the booklet which is so admirable open and clear.

I am uncomfortable with Metzizah by direct application of the mouth in any circumstance. I’m aware that the RCA and authorities such as Rav Tendler urge abandoning direct Metzitzah. Are you/the Beth Din able or willing to say that Metzizah should only be done with a tube? Should explicit parental permission also be sought before direct application of the mouth is ever done? Is this matter always discussed with parents by those Mohelim who perform direct Metzitzah.

There is Halachic discussion of Metzitzah using a S’fog, gauze pad, i.e. with no direct passing of breath around the penis. From the perspective of sterile medical best practice this would surely be preferable, if Halachically permitted by the Beth Din. I’ve seen use of a S’fog given the Haskamah of the Hatam Sofer. Is use of a S’fog permitted by the Initiation Society?

Certainly the level of sterility surrounding Metzitzah is far lower than anything countenanced in the earlier stages of the process (where you are tremendously clear that sterility is an absolute priority). That, to my mind, only increases the importance of addressing Metzitzah with the same transparent clinical openneness as you address Milah and Priah.

Would you consider giving advice to practitioners about their own oral hygiene if they are about to perform Metzitzah either directly or even with a tube? Should a Mohel use an antiseptic mouthwash? What should a Mohel who, for example, is aware of having cold sores do?

There is, as I am sure you know, a huge amount of literature on the subject. Historically Jacob Katz’s article is tremendously insightful and Philip Sherman, one of the most active Orthodox Mohelim in New York, has also written on the subject bringing a number of Mesorot in the name of significant Poskim. If you are interested I can get copies of either or both pieces to you.

If a conversation would be helpful – I am sure it would help me – or if there is any further support I can offer on the subject, do please let me know,

Blessings and best wishes,

Jeremy

Metzitzah and Danger

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=15018&intcategoryid=4

HaMol Yimol and Women Functioning as Ritual Circumcisors

Responsa in a Moment: Volume 3, Issue No. 9, June 2009

Question: May women serve as Mohalot?

Yoreh Deah 264

Responsum:

1. I) The Biblical Period (Brief references below refer to the Bibliography which follows).
   Circumcision is one of the first mitzvot mentioned in the Torah (Genesis, Chapter 17). Interestingly enough, the second mention of this mitzvah (Exodus 4:24-26) relates how Tzipporah circumcised her son in the encampment on the road from Midyan to Egypt:

At a night encampment on the way, the Lord encountered him and sought to kill him. So Tzipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his legs with it, saying, “You are truly a bridegroom of blood to me!” And when the Lord let him alone, she added, “A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.”

The Sages viewed Tzipporah’s act with favor. In the midrash (Shmot Rabbah 5:8, ed. Shinan pp. 157-158) Tzipporah says: “for behold I have performed the mitzvah“. One could derive from this biblical story that women may always perform a brit or that a woman can do so b’di’avad, after the fact, when there is no choice, e.g. in order to save Moshe’s life.

1. II) The Second Temple Period
   The Book of Maccabees contains a story about women being killed for circumcising their sons. II Maccabees 6:12 relates that two women were murdered by the Greeks-Syrians “for circumcising their sons”. The parallel verse in I Maccabees 1:60-61 says that the women “who circumcised their sons” were murdered “along with those who circumcised them”. This makes it sound like the women told others to circumcise their children. Finally, the Aramaic work Megillat Antiochus, which seems to have been written in Eretz Yisrael sometime between the 2^nd-5^th centuries, says (v. 35-36) that a woman “circumcised her son on the eighth day” and then jumped from the city wall together with her baby and they both died (See Ziv, p. 40 and notes 5-7). Thus, two out of these three sources relate that women circumcised their sons during the Maccabean revolt against the Greek-Syrians. This might indicate that women may perform a britmilah or this might indicate that women performed circumcision only in times of persecution.

III) The Rabbinic Period
1) A baraita which appears in Tosefta Shabbat (6:8, ed. Lieberman, p. 70 and parallel sources) (The parallel sources are Shabbat 134a; Hullin 47b; Yerushalmi Yevamot Chapter 6, fol. 7d and cf. Shir Hashirim Rabbah 7:3 quoted by Ziv, pp. 41-42). talks about a woman who gave birth to male children and they were circumcised and died. “She circumcised one and he died, she circumcised the second and he died” etc. “A story is told of four sisters in Tzippori – the first one circumcised and he died, the second [sister] circumcised and he died, the third [sister] circumcised and he died” etc. The third story is told by the tanna Rabbi Nathan about when he was in Cappadocia (Turkey). “[She] circumcised the first son and he died, the second one and he died” etc.

In all of these cases, it sounds like the mother herself performed the circumcision. Furthermore, these are all cases of l’khathila, before the fact, and not b’diavad, after the fact, as might have been the case in Exodus or in Maccabees.

2) The primary Talmudic source about women serving as mohalotis found in Avodah Zarah 27a:

It has been stated: Whence could it be deduced that circumcision performed by a non-Jew is invalid? Daru b. Papa said in the name of Rav: [From the words,] “And as for thee, thou shall keep my covenant” [Genesis 17:9]; while R. Johanan [deduces it from the words] “himol yimol” [ibid. v. 13 as if it says hamol yimol] – “he who is circumcised shall circumcise”. What is the difference between them?

We must therefore say that the case wherein they differ is that of a woman. According to the one who relies on “Thou shall keep my covenant” [i.e. Rav], the qualification is not there, since a woman cannot be circumcised, while according to the one who relies on “he who is circumcised shall circumcise” [i.e. Rabbi Yohanan], the qualification is there, for a woman is like one who is circumcised. But does anyone hold that a woman is not [qualified to perform circumcision]? Does not scripture say, “So Tzipporah took a flint” [Exodus 4:25]? Read it as if it says “she caused to be taken”. But it also says “And [she] cut off”? Read it as if it says “and she caused it to be cut off”, by asking a man to do it. Or you may say it means that she only began and Moses came and completed it.

Thus, Rav, a first generation Babylonian Amora, would forbid women to perform a brit milah while Rabbi Yohanan, a second generation Israeli Amora, would allow women to perform a brit milah.

Most of those who permit a woman to perform a brit milah base themselves on the well-known Talmudic principle (Beitzah 4a) that when Rav and Rabbi Yohanan disagree, the halakhah follows Rabbi Yonanan. Some also rely on the biblical precedent of Tzipporah.

One of the few sources which prohibits women from performing a brit milah (Tosafot to Avodah Zarah 27a s.v. ishah) says that Rav is correct because his verse is favored by the tanna Rabbi Judah the Prince earlier in the sugya when he forbids non-Jews from performing milah.

1. IV) Medieval Authorities
   In any case, Yaakov Spiegel and Yossi Ziv have examined many medieval codes, midrashim and piyutim written between the 8^th-16^thcenturies and divided them into three groups (Spiegel, pp. 150-154; Ziv, pp. 43-46. I have not repeated the exact references which can be found in their articles in the footnotes). We have added a few additional authorities:
2. A) 13 sources permit women to serve as mohalot l’khathila, before the fact, without any conditions: Rav Ahai Gaon, Sheiltot, Babylon, ca. 750; Sefer Basar Al Gabey Gehalim, late Geonic period; Midrash Lekah Tov; Midrash Sekhel Tov; Midrash Hahefetz; Avraham ben Yitzhak Av Bet Din of Narbonne quoted in Tamim Deim, d. 1179; R. Eleazar of Metz, Sefer Yere’im, France, d. 1198; R. Moshe of Coucy, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, France, d. 1236; R. Yitzhak ben Moshe of Vienna, Or Zarua, Vienna, d. 1250; R. Mordechai ben Hillel Hacohen, the Mordechai, Germany, d. 1298; R. Meir Hacohen of Rottenburg, Hagahot Maimoniot, Germany, ca. 1300; R. Menahem Recanati, Italy, late 13^th century (?); R. Isaiah di Trani the Elder, Italy, 13th century.
3. B) 26 sources permit women to serve as mohalot b’di’avad, after the fact, if there is no man present who knows how to circumcise: R. Shimon Kayara, Halakhot Gedolot, Babylon, ca. 825; R. Amram Gaon, ca. 858 (quoted in Siddur Rabbeinu Shlomo B’r Nattan, Jerusalem, 1995, p. 142); R. Zemach Gaon, ca. 872 (see Spiegel, note 17); R. Yitzhak Alfasi, Morocco and Spain 1013-1103; R. Avraham ben Yithak Av Bet Din of Narbonne, Sefer Ha’eshkol, Provence, d. 1179; R. Yitzhak ben Abba Mari, Sefer Ha’ittur, Provence, d. 1190; R. Aaron Hacohen of Lunel, Orhot Hayyim, Provence, ca. 1300; Kol Bo, Provence, ca. 1300; Rambam, Egypt, d. 1204; R. Eliezer ben Yoel Halevi, Sefer Ra’aviya, Germany, d. 1225; R. Avraham bar Yitzhak Hacohen (see Spiegel, p. 152); R. Ya’akov Hagozer; R. Gershom b”r Ya’akov Hagozer; R. Zidkiyahu ben Avraham Anav, Shiboley Haleket, Italy, 13th century; R. Hayyim ben Shmuel, Tzror Hahayyim, Spain, 14th century; R. Ishtori Hafarhi, Kaftor Vaferah, Israel, ca. 1322; R. Menahem Hameiri, Bet Habehira, Provence, d. 1315; Rabbenu Asher, Toledo, d. 1327; Ritva, Spain, d. 1330 (see Spiegel, note 11); R. Yaakov ben Asher, Arba’ah Turim, Toledo, d. 1343; Rabbeinu Yeruham, Toledot Adam V’hava, Toledo, d. 1350 (see Spiegel,); R. Menachem ibn Zerah, Tzedah Laderekh, Spain, d. 1385 (see Spiegel, ibid.); Rabbeinu Nissim Gerondi, Spain, d. 1380 (see Spiegel, ibid.); R. Israel Alnakawa, Menorat Hamaor, Toledo, d. 1391; R. Yosef ibn Haviva, Nimukei Yosef, Spain, early 15^thcentury; Rabbi Yosef Karo, Shulhan Arukh, Israel, d. 1575.
4. C) 6 sources prohibit women from performing a brit milah:Tosafot to Avodah Zarah 27a; Tosafot Rabbeinu Elhanan ibid.,Tosafot Shantz ibid., R. Yitzhak of Corbeil, Sefer Mitzvot Kattan, France, d. 1280; R. Isaiah di Trani the Younger, Riaz, Italy, d. 1280 (see Spiegel, note 9); and cf. R. Moshe Isseles, Shulhan Arukh, Cracow, d. 1572.
5. V) Why did the strict approach prevail?
   If women in the bible, second temple period and tannaitic period performed brit milah; and if R. Yohanan allowed it and halakhah normally follows R. Yohanan; and if so many medieval halakhic authorities allowed this before or after the fact — then why do we not hear about women actually performing brit milah in the medieval period?

Yossi Ziv (pp. 46-49) tried to clear up the mystery by examining the customs of Ethiopian Jewry which he culled from 38 interviews conducted in Israel in the years 1999-2003. After an Ethiopian Jewish woman gives birth, she is ritually impure for 40 days for a son and for 80 days for a daughter. She leaves her home with the baby and lives outside the village in “a house of a woman in confinement”. Female relatives go with her to help her. Since she and her nursing baby are still impure on the eighth day, she or one of the other women perform the brit milah. It is never done by a man, because he would become ritually impure by touching the baby. On the 40^th day for a boy or the 80^th day for a girl, the mother and baby immerse in a river and become pure.

Ziv surmises that the Ethiopians preserved the original Palestinian customs of ritual purity, as reflected in the ruling of Rabbi Yohanan, that women may perform milah. In Babylon, the laws of purity had already disappeared, hence Rav ruled that a woman may not perform brit milah.

This is an interesting theory, but it does not hold up to careful scrutiny:
1) It is impossible to determine the origin of Ethiopian Jews, but many scholars agree that they were Ethiopians of Agau origin who adopted an Israelite identity at some point. Most of their beliefs and practices have parallels in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. They usually follow Biblical or Apocryphal literature as opposed to Talmudic or medieval Jewish custom (See Steven Kaplan in Michael Corinaldi, Jewish Identity: The Case of Ethiopian Jewry, Jerusalem, 1998, pp. 152-160).

2) There is no hint in Avodah Zarah 27a that there is a connection between the laws of purity and women performing brit milah. Indeed, Rav and R. Yohanan were actually discussing whether anon-Jew can perform brit milah; it is the stam hatalmud or editor of the Talmud who transfers their argument to women and brit milah.

3) If the Ethiopian custom was related to R. Yohanan, the latter would have required women to perform brit milah, not allowed it.

4) Rather, the reason that most rabbis limited the performance of brit milah to women b’di’avad or forbade it seems to be the general tendency by medieval rabbis to prevent women from performingmitzvot which the Talmud allows or even requires them to do. Good examples are tefillin, tzitzit, kiddush on Friday night, and women as the sandak at the circumcision ceremony (Regarding tefillin, see my responsum in my book Ma’amad Ha’ishah Bahalakhah, Jerusalem, 2001, pp. 23-45 = Conservative Judaism 50/1 (Fall 1997), pp. 3-18. Regarding tzitzit, see She’elot Uteshuvot Maharil Hahadashot, No. 7; R. Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, Orah Hayyim, Part 4, No. 49; Aviva Cayam in Jewish Legal Writings by Women, Jerusalem 1998, pp. 119-142. Regardingkiddush, see Rabbi Eliezer Berkowitz, Jewish Women in Time and Torah, Hoboken, 1990, pp. 92-100. Regarding women as thesandak see Daniel Sperber, Minhagey Yisrael, Vol. 1, Jerusalem, 1989, pp. 60-66 and Baumgarten, pp. 65-77).

1. VI) Conclusion
   There is no question that it is perfectly permissible for Jewish women to perform brit milah l’khathila, before the fact. This is based on:
2. a) The precedents of Tzipporah, the Book of Maccabees, and thebaraita;
3. b) The Talmudic sugya in Avodah Zarah 27a – when Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan, the halakhah follows Rabbi Yohanan;
4. c) 13 medieval authorities who rule as per “b”.
5. d) There is no basis for prohibiting this according to Rav;
6. e) there is no Talmudic basis for permitting this only b’di’avad, after the fact, and the ultimate authority in Jewish law is the Babylonian Talmud (See what I wrote in my book Ma’amad Ha’ishah Bahalakhah(above, note 6), pp. 62-64. Some of the Rishonim say that the idea of b’di’avad is based on the story of Tzipporah – but the Talmud makes no such claim).

David Golinkin
Jerusalem
29 Sivan 5769

Born Circumcised

Regarding Moses’ birth, we read that “his mother saw that he was good.” What did she see? One interpretation, cited in several classic sources, is that she saw that he was circumcised and knew that there was greatness in store for him. Being born circumcised was an expression of the otherworldly perfection that characterized the one who would speak face to face with G‑d.

Midrash Tanchuma1 lists Moses among seven special people who were born circumcised. They are: Adam, Seth, Noah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Job.

Avot D’Rabbi Natan2 provides a longer list: Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Balaam, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, Zerubabel, and Job.

Both of these Midrashim, as well as the Talmud3 and Shemot Rabbah4, see an allusion to Moses’ being circumcised in the abovementioned verse. Other interpretations can be found, however, where different significance is attached to these words.

Sotah 12a

Shemot Rabba 2.5

Aposthia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aposthia

Aposthia is a rare congenital condition in humans, in which the foreskin of the penis is missing.[1]: 37–39 

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, E. S. Talbot claimed that aposthia among Jews was evidence for the now-discredited Lamarckian theory of evolution.[2] In his work The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, Charles Darwin also mentioned cases of "born circumcised" babies as "conclusive evidence"[3] for the now-discredited blending inheritance.

It is likely that the cases he described were actually hypospadias, a condition in which the urinary meatus is on the underside of the penis.

Aposthia in Judaism
...

David Levy, former Israeli Foreign Minister and member of Knesset, was born aposthic. Arye Avneri's authorized 1983 biography of Levy notes this:

When David Levy was born ... his mother Sima noticed at once that he was different from other baby boys. He had been born already circumcised, for the foreskin was entirely missing.[citation needed]

The rabbis in Rabat proclaimed that this foretold that Levy would grow up to be a "leader of Israel"

Aposthia in Islam
Some traditions in Islam say Muhammad was born without a foreskin.[5]

5 Sc. R. Eleazar the son of R. Eleazar Hakappar. V. Yeb. 710; Shab. ad loc. 6 Cf. supra, 5.

Naming of an Improperly Circumcised Child

Rabbi David H. Lincoln

February 15, 1984

Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof, in his Recent Reform Responsa, addresses himself to the question of naming a child when circumcision is delayed due to illness, and state law (Louisiana) requires immediate registration. Rabbi Freehof, in a most fascinating responsum, points out the history of naming. He feels that in biblical times, the child was named at birth: " ... and Leah bore a son, and she called his name Reuben" (Genesis 29:32 ). This at least implies that names were given at birth. Curiously enough, he indicates that the first clear examples of naming a child at circumcision come not from classic Jewish literature, but from the New Testament. One is Luke 1:59, "On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they
called him Zacharias after the name of his father." In Luke 2:21 we find, "and when the eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus." (Thus Christmas, and eight days later New Year's!)

Nowhere in the Mishnah or in the Talmud is there any mention of any requirement or custom to name the child at the brit. The first mention of it is in the Midrashic literature of the Middle Ages in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 48. Speaking of Moses, the text indicates that his parents named him Yekutiel at his circumcision. He also quotes the Tur, Even Ha'ezer
265 in which the lttur of the 12th century speaks of the custom. My own reading of the Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 265: 1, leads me to agree with Dr. Freehof that the naming formula is only stated incompletely as something well known. The conclusion that he arrives at is that at least no violation of law is involved in naming in a synagogue, but merely a divergence in custom.

Rabbi Isaac Klein, in A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, seems to take it for granted that the time for naming is the brit, and mentions no other formula.

There may indeed be nothing wrong in naming a boy in the synagogue, or anywhere else. There is, however, a most serious wrong in not having a ritual circumcision. I do not have to stress the importance of this mitzvah, with all of the ramifications of even setting aside the laws of Shabbat, etc. By allowing naming ceremonies for male children, we are condoning a flagrant denial of our tradition. We cannot be a party to these violations. I suggest that if asked "after the fact," we (1) enjoin the parents to allow hattafat dam; or (2) if they refuse, advise them to give the child a name themselves without involving us in their wrongdoing.

Improperly Circumcised Children and Parents' Synagogue Membership

Rabbi Morris M. Shapiro

May 28, 1981

In summation, I would like to recommend the following:
(1) The parents and the children should be accepted into synagogue membership and given a Jewish education.
(2) The rabbi should try to persuade the parents of the necessity of hattafat dam.
(3) However, the Bar Mitzvah privilege should not be withheld from the children.
(4) Due to the fact that the child is traditionally named during the circumcision service, if the parents refuse to have hattafat dam brit performed, the children should not be named in the synagogue or by the rabbi. Otherwise, we might give the impression that we approve of such improper circumcision.

Golinkin's Summary & Conclusions:

1. There is no question that, according to the basic halakhah, it’s permissible for an uncircumcised Jew to have an aliyah because:

a. an apostate regarding circumcision is not an apostate regarding the entire Torah (Hullin 5a; Yoreh Deah 2:7; Shakh to Yoreh Deah264, subparagraph 4).

b. Even a person who has transgressed, as long as he was not excommunicated by a court of Jewish law (something no longer practiced today) he is counted in a minyan (Rabbi Yosef Karo inOrah Hayyim 55:11).

c. A Kohen who marries a divorcee may not recite the Priestly Blessing and may not have the first aliyah, but he may haveanother aliyah (Orah Hayyim 128:40).

d. According to many halakhic authorities, an uncircumcised Kohen may recite the Priestly Blessing (Rambam, Hilkhot Nesiat Kapayim15:1, 6-7; Magen Avraham to Orah Hayyim 128, subparagraph 54; Rema to Orah Hayyim 128:39).

Indeed, this was the ruling of Rabbis Spector, Hoffmann, Weinberg, Freehof and Goldschmidt quoted above in sections III-IV.

2. Rabbi Spector and Rabbi Goldschmidt emphasized that one must attempt to draw such uncircumcised Jews closer to Judaism because otherwise, they will grow even farther away from Judaism.

3. On the other hand, those who ruled strictly did so to build a fence [l’migdar milta] and to fight against those who wished to abolish brit milah.

4. Therefore, “ein l’hakham elah mah she-einav ro-ot“, a local rabbi must rule according to what his eyes see. He must rule strictly or leniently according to local conditions and according to the specific case in front of him. If a person refuses to circumcise himself or his son because he wants to abolish the mitzvah of brit milah, then a rabbi might rule strictly. On the other hand, if a Russian-speaking Jew did not have a brit because his family was cut off from Judaism and the Jewish people for seventy years, he might rule leniently. Or, as Rabbi Yehiel Ya’akov Weinberg wrote above: “And the matter is in the hands of the rabbis who stand guard for the Torah. If they know that by preventing this honor to the father and to the son, he will return them to the good path, then they should prevent them from having an aliyah to the Torah, but if, God forbid, this will cause them to remove themselves entirely from the congregation, then they should draw them close, since, according to law, it is permissible to call up to the Torah both the father and the son.”