Who May Circumcise?

The question is frequently asked whether a physician may perform the operation of circumcision for the ritual purpose of inducting a child into the covenant of Abraham. Must it necessarily he a mohel? May a physician circumcise? If he may, must he necessarily he a Jewish physician?

Although many parents nowadays do not hesitate to have a physician circumcise the child, there is frequently disagreement among members of the family as to whether it would not be more proper from the religious point of view to have a mohel perform the operation. Since the physician who circumcises is generally the obstetrician, the question is often still more complicated if he happens to be a Gentile.

The law as to who may circumcise is discussed in the Shulchan Aruch (Yore Deah 264 : 1). There Isserles in his note, quoting from the “Or Zaruah,” says: “A man should seek around to find the best and most pious mohel and godfather” (the term “Baal Bris” here does not mean the father of the child but the godfather, the Sandek). Isserles plainly recommends that one should look for an able and pious man to perform the circumcision. It is not only the mohel who should be a pious man, but so should all who take an important part in the ceremony. This is quite understandable, since this is a Jewish religious ceremony and those who participate are expected to be worthy of their role in it.

The question is, however, whether the piety of the circumciser is an indispensable requirement. Strictly Orthodox Jews certainly believe so. For example, the honorary president of the Agudas Harabonim, Rabbi Eliezer Silver (quoted in “Taharas Yom Tov,” by Yom Tov L. Deutsch, Vol. VIII; see Hamaor for Elul, 1957) says as follows:

I have forbidden physicians, most of whom are not observant Jews, to circumcise; but have only permitted skilled mohelim who are religious to approach the fulfillment of this commandment, I have never consented to be a godfather [Sandek] if the mohel is a physician, even if he were a Sabbath observer and a religious man. Thank God, in my city and in my area they listen to me and they do not permit any physician to perform the circumcision; even the physicians themselves, when they have a son, call on a mohel in this area to perform the circumcision. If a physician who is not observant has circumcised a child, I have commanded that the extra drop of blood of the covenant [Dam Beris] be taken from the child by a pious mohel.

It is clear from the above that Orthodox Jews have a strong preference for a mohel who is Orthodox. But the question is whether piety is a definite requirement of the law or whether it is merely a preference of the completely Orthodox, as would be implied by the language of Isserles when he says one ought to seek for a pious mohel and godfather (Yesh la’chazor).

First, it should be clear that a mohel is not a regular or official Jewish religious functionary, as is, for example, a rabbi, who has to have ordination (Semicha), or a shochet, who has to have official authorization (Kabbala). As a matter of fact, circumcision was a mitzvah which the father himself often performed, or the mitzvah could be given to anyone whom the father wished to honor. The mohel as such has no special status. If, then, a Jewish physician has skill in performing the operation, why should he not be permitted to circumcise?

This question hinges on the question of the physician’s orthodoxy. Of course, if the physician is a pious Orthodox Jew, then there cannot possibly be any objection in the law to his circumcising (since the mohel has no official special status as a functionary). Although an Orthodox rabbi might discourage a family from employing an Orthodox physician (as above), it would be only because the rabbi would want to discourage the use of other physicians who might not be so pious. But aside from such cautionary strictness, there cannot be any serious or basic objections on the part of the most Orthodox families to an Orthodox Jewish physician.

But inasmuch as many physicians are not observantly Orthodox, the question then is, May a non-Orthodox Jewish physician circumcise? In general, from our Reform point of view, we who are ourselves not Orthodox in many of our ceremonial observances can hardly make any objection to a Jewish physician who is no more observant than we ourselves. But we are concerned here with what traditional law (not mere traditional sentiment or preference) would say as to the validity of such a physician circumcising. The Shulchan Aruch, in the section mentioned, discusses who may circumcise and who may not. It says: A woman may circumcise, a minor may circumcise, and even an uncircumcised Jew, if he is uncircumcised because his brothers died as a result of circumcision. Isserles adds the following restriction: A mumar (a violator of the law), if he is a mumar against the entire Torah, or if he is a mumar (a disbeliever) as to the rite of circumcision itself, is to be considered to be like an idolater in this matter (and may not circumcise).

But Rabbi Akiba Eger limits this restriction against the violator of the law. He bases the limitation upon the statement of Chaim Chizkiya De Silva in “Mayim Chaim” #3 (at the end of the book). The restriction is based upon the well-known legal distinction between a violator who violates impudently to provoke the pious, that is, a willful violator (L’hachis) and a violator who merely violates the law out of convenience (L’teovon). It is only the willful violator who, according to the law, may not circumcise. But one who merely does not obey the law because it is diffi-cult for him to do so, or because he is not trained to do so, could hardly be declared ineligible because of his careless nonobservance. The Shulchan Aruch itself is very careful to limit its prohibition against nonobservers by saying that it is only nonobservers of the entire Torah or those who disbelieve in circumcision itself. Of course, those who today would seek to exclude any physician at all would then say that every violator of the Sabbath is considered technically a violator of the entire Torah. Even so, a physician who is involved in saving life certainly is excused for his violation of the Sabbath, since when people are in danger because of sickness, not only may the Sabbath be violated, but it must be violated.

However, the mood of the law would require of us some distinction between Jewish physicians. A Jewish physician who is an avowed atheist or an open mocker of religion should certainly not be permitted to perform a ceremony that is religious in its nature; but a Jewish physician who is merely nonobservant, either because of his profession or because of his training, cannot even, from the point of view of Jewish law, be deemed ineligible to perform the circumcision. A full discussion of the question whether a non-observant Jewish physician (Epikoros) may validly circumcise is given by David Hoffmann, “Melamed L’ho-il,” Yore Deah 80. He first mentions Isserles’ decision to Yore Deah 264, that a mumar is like a complete pagan and that therefore his circumcision is not valid (and an extra drop of blood must be taken to symbolize the covenant). But Hoffmann gives the various opinions against this decision of Isserles, such as Akiba Eger in his notes to Yore Deah and his Responsum #264. (Hoffmann quotes it from “Berith Horishonim.”) Even Chaim Sofer (in “Machenay Chaim” II, 20), who agrees with Isserles, nevertheless says that if no one but a Sabbath violator were available, he would use him.

The more difficult question is that of the Gentile obstetrician circumcising the Jewish child. On the face of it, he certainly may not do so, although his eligibility cannot be too lightly dismissed. It is true that the Shulchan Aruch says that an idolater may not circumcise. Yet we certainly do not consider a Gentile physician an idolater. The status of a Christian in Jewish law is not that of a pagan but of a “son of Noah” (ben Noach). Even without this important distinction, it is not clear even in the case of the ancient pagan that he was forbidden to circumcise. The whole discussion as to a pagan circumcising goes back to the Tosefta in the discussion of the laws of paganism (Avodah Zara III, 12). There we find a discussion between Rabbi Meir and the sages. Rabbi Meir says that an Akum may not circumcise because he is suspected of wanting to destroy the life of the child. Therefore, the rabbis say, he may not be allowed to circumcise if he performs the operation alone, but if others are standing by, he may circumcise the Jewish child. This discussion is carried over in the Talmud in a lengthy debate (in b. Avodah Zara 26b and especially in b. Menachos 42a). This debate in the Talmud is discussed by Joseph Caro in his commentary, “Kesef Mishnah,” to Maimonides (Yad Milah 2 : 1). Jehiel M. Epstein in the “Aruch Ha-Shulchan,” evaluating Joseph Caro’s analysis, says that Caro understands then that the outcome of the Talmudic debate is that a Gentile may circumcise. Maimonides (in Yad Milah 2 : 1) says at first that a Gentile should not circumcise, then adds that if a Gentile does circumcise, no further operation is necessary. In other words, it is not necessary to take a formal “drop of blood of the covenant.” And that, too, is why Joseph Caro himself (in the Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 264 : 1) says that a Gentile should not circumcise, but that if he has circumcised, it is not necessary to recircumcise.

Israel of Kremsier (fourteenth century, in his “Hagahos Asheri” to the Rosh, b. Avodah Zara 27a) says that all the prohibitions against using Gentile physicians apply only if the healing is done by an amateur or without pay, but if it is done by a professional and for pay, then it is absolutely permitted to use him; and there is no danger in his being used. Inasmuch as the whole objection of Rabbi Meir was based upon the danger of willful hurting of the Jewish child, and since the danger does not apply to a professional, who will not harm his profession (see Asheri, ad loc), the law is clear, that a Gentile may circumcise.

But, of course, if circumstances are such that a Gentile doctor is to do the circumcision, then certainly the family should be present, not, of course, for the reason mentioned in the Tosefta (to watch and protect), but to indicate that what the Gentile physician has done is merely the surgical operation, and that the religious ceremony (naming the child and admitting it into the covenant of Abraham) must be performed by the parent or his representative. We accept the actual circumcision as merely an operation, but consider the prayers as the essential part of initiating the child into the covenant.

Insofar as the operation itself is to be considered religious, it is, of course, preferable to have a Jewish physician. Certainly a skilled mohel is acceptable beyond question, but he is not indispensable. A Jewish physician may circumcise and perform the entire ritual, including reciting the prayers. A Gentile physician may circumcise, but the family should be present to conduct the religious service.