B'rit Milah

NARR 167-169

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

105. A Gentile as a Kevater at a Berit Milah

QUESTION: May a Gentile sister of a convert serve as a kevater or kevaterin? The tradition requires the kevater or kevaterin to present the child in the place of circumcision. Is it appropriate for a Christian to participate in this ceremony? (Rabbi Leonard Winograd, McKeesport PA)ANSWER: Generally three individuals are honored through a special participation in the circumcision ceremony. They are the kevater, and kevaterin and the sandeq. All of these may be appropriately designated as godparents of the young lad. The usual procedure is for the kevaterin to bring the child into the place of circumcision and hand him to the kevater who in turn gives the baby to the mohel. The mohel continues with a brief prayer and then presents the child to the sandeq who may hold the child upon his knees during the circumcision or on a table (Midrash to Ps 36:10; Roqeah 109). The same procedure was used whether the circumcision was held at home or in the synagogue. The custom of having the berit milah in the synagogue may have originated in Persia in the ninth century and may reflect Muslim influence as Islam required circumcision. This custom then spread among both Karaite and Rabbinic Jews (L. Löw Die Lebensalter in der Jüdischen Literatur). Subsequently it was also followed partially among Northern European Jews. The kevater and kevaterin are not mentioned in the early sources at all. Later they play an extremely limited role in the ceremony. They also have no responsibility for any of the social aspects connected with the ceremony which frequently fell upon the sandeq. He provided a meal and other refreshments connected with the berit. In order to prevent this from becoming an unusual burden, some authorities like the Tosafists, and Peretz De Corbeil stated that an individual could serve in this capacity only once. Much later Ezekiel Landau (1713-1793) disagreed and felt that the same individual could be asked any number of times. Landau mentioned that it was the custom in Poland of his time to appoint the local rabbi as the permanent sandeq. He participated in every berit presumably without obligations for the festivities (Nodah Biyehudah I #86). This and later debates on these matters deal only with the sandeq mention no kevater or kevaterin. Christians participated in the ceremony as sandeq in the Middle Ages. The literature also stated that it was inappropriate for a woman to be a sandeq (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 265.11) which confirmed that women filled this role. A Christian as a sandeq was reported in Castro Giovanni in Sicily in 1484 (L. Zunz Zur Geschichte und Literatur p.499). Several medieval church councils prohibited such Christian participation as for example the Council of Terracinana in 1330. Similar statements of prohibition were found in Protestant ordinances; Christians obviously acted in this capacity. The kevater or kevaterin represented an Eastern European tradition as the words indicated and found no echo in the earlier literature. Both of these individuals are incidental to the circumcision itself. As Christians have been honored with the position of sandeq in the Middle Ages there would be no reason to prohibit a Christian from serving as kevater or kevaterin. In this instance it honors a members of a family. Furthermore, participation in the ceremony indicates recognition and acceptance of the fact that this child will be raised as a Jew.July 1987

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 143-144

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

55. Circumcision Other Than the Eighth Day of Birth

(Vol. LXIV, 1954, pp. 78-79)QUESTION: It is common practice now for hospitals to discharge mother and baby within a week after birth. Since doctors and parents prefer to have the circumcision performed in the hospital, I am getting an increasing number of requests to conduct the service before the eighth day. I discussed this matter with one of our leading obstetricians who performs many circumcisions shortly after birth. He has written a paper on the subject in which he seeks to prove by facts and figures that the immediate circumcision of the newborn male is followed by no ill effects. He further states that the procedure is now endorsed by seven-eighths of the community’s pediatricians and all but one of the obstetricians and gynecologists. Is it permissible to have the Berit before the eighth day? ANSWER: It would appear from the approach to the question that, in the mind of the correspondent, there is a close relationship between the testimony of the men of science and the specific question posed. Yet, in reality, the two are in no way related. To the physician, circumcision is a surgical operation indicated by hygienic factors; in Jewish tradition circumcision is a religious rite prescribed in the Mosaic law and designated as a sign of the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 17:11-14). The day on which the rite is to be performed, the eighth from birth, is also specified in the law, although the reason for it is not given and is still unknown (ibid., 17:12; Lev. 12:3). Hence, it is that on the eighth day the Berit Mila is solemnized with a special religious ceremony which–though neither of Biblical nor Talmudic origin–has been scrupulously practiced by our people for many centuries and has served to enhance the significance of this ancient symbolic rite. The question, therefore, is not whether it is physically safe to perform the act of circumcision before the eighth day. The answer to such a question, even if it proves inconclusive, must be left to the men in the medical profession. The real question for us to answer is whether it is wise in this instance to depart from the Biblical law which is universally observed by the Sons of the Covenant. Will circumcision shortly after birth, to which our neighbors presumably submit for hygienic reasons, retain its symbolic significance for us? Shall we not be running the risk of converting a religious rite into just another surgical operation? Have we more to gain from turning hygienists than from remaining religionists? Viewed in this light, the question raised by the correspondent must be answered in the negative. The proposed change is bound to alter, in time, the character of the rite, and it would be sheer folly to persist in an ancient practice and yet have it divested of its religious meaning and purpose. The slight inconvenience involved in returning the baby to the hospital on the eighth day, where the traditional Berit Mila could be properly solemnized, need hardly enter into our consideration of the question. No religious discipline could long endure were we to consult at every step our personal convenience, whether it be of parents, physicians, or hospital superintendents.Israel Bettan

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 170

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

107. A Berit Milah Plate

QUESTION: A family which has seen some berit milah plates in a museum would like to commission one for their grandson, soon to be born. Is there a specific design which tradition suggests? (Allen Levy, San Francisco CA)ANSWER: There is nothing in the traditional halakhic literature which deals with this subject. It is interested in the problems of the berit itself and the various individuals involved. As we turn to the literature on Jewish art objects, we will find a variety of silver plates designed for the berit (A. Kanof Jewish Ceremonial Art, Isaiah Shachar Jewish Tradition in Art, Beverly R. Cohen The Cofeld Judaic Museum, Cissy Grossman A Temple Treasury, etc). Some depicted the berit itself with a large group in attendance, while others dealt with the theme of Elijah and the Messianic Age. Some of the other plates appear to be more personal and referred to family events which were to be stressed for the next generation. Any of these themes or others which the family many suggest would be appropriate.June 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 157

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

97. A Minyan and Berit Milah

QUESTION: Is a minyan required for a berit? (Morris F. Rosenberg, El Paso TX)ANSWER: Reform practice follows the Orthodox tradition in regard to the minyan. It is preferable to have the berit in the presence of ten adults (of course, for us, men or women), but this has not been considered essential (Tur and Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 265.1, see also Itur and Maharil). It is considered of primary importance to have the berit on the appropriate eighth day unless the illness of a child prevents that. This takes precedence over the ability to gather a minyan, and so even if the berit is held only in the presence of the mother and father without any of the other attendants, this is considered perfectly acceptable. Without doubt the custom of having a berit in the synagogue, and even setting aside a special chair for Elijah for this purpose is a way of assuring the attendants of a minyan at the service. So the berit is frequently held in conjunction with the shaharit or minhah service and all those in attendance formed a minyan for both the service and for the berit. For us in the United States it should usually be easy to get a minyan except in the more isolated small communities. If it is possible we should do so. If not, the berit should be conducted in as festive a manner as the circumstances permit.December 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 49-51

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

30. Role of a Godfather in the Circumcision

Ceremony

QUESTION: What is the role of the godfather in the

circumcision ceremony? Is it possible for a godfather to withdraw his consent for this act some

years later? (Rabbi J. Folkman, Columbus, OH) ANSWER: The primary role of

godfather is that of helping at the time of the circumcision. Among oriental Jews where a table

was not used for the circumcision, someone specially designated simply held the child upon his

knees. The Midrash (to Ps. 36.10) stated that each portion of the body was designated for

a mitzvah, and the knees were for holding a child during circumcision (Roqeah

108). This was the practice during the many centuries when the circumcision was held at home

and also subsequently when the ceremony was moved to the synagogue, which seems not to

have occurred before the ninth century in Persia, and probably reflected an imitation of the

Muslim custom to circumcise in the mosque. This custom was then followed by both rabbinic and

Karaite Jews (L. Löw, Die Lebensalter in der Jüdischen Literatur). From there

the custom was introduced to Europe and is mentioned in northern France in the eleventh

century and in Germany in the thirteenth. The Hebrew term used for godfather,

sandeq, is from the Greek and later Latin syndicus. (French,

comprère, German or Yiddish, gevatter, Spanish, padrino,

Hungarian, koma, Hebrew, baal berit). Various midrashim refer to the

sandeq, as did Or Zaruah Hil. Milah in the thirteenth century (for example,

Midrash to Gen. 18.1; Ps. 35.10; Neh. 9.8). The office was discussed by Isserles at length

in a note (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 65.11). As the office is considered an

honor, the individual fulfilling it has to be of good character and pious. He, in turn, possesses

certain rights, as that of being called to the Torah on the day of the circumcision if it fell

on the day when the Torah is read (Maharil 84a). He, of course, sits in the special

chair provided in many synagogues if the circumcision is customarily held there. It

seems that the sandeq was also responsible for certain financial contributions to the

festivities of the circumcision. Usually the meal connected with it was prepared at his expense. In

order to prevent this from becoming an unusual burden, the Tosafists, Peretz De Corbeil and

Judah, the Pious, stated that an individual was only permitted to serve in this capacity once

(Maharil Hil. Milah). Ezekiel Landau (1713-1793) disagreed with this and stated that the

same individual could be asked a number of times. He also reported that in Poland in his time

the rabbi was often appointed as the permanent sandeq and participated in this fashion in

each berit (Nodah Biy’hudah, Vol. I #86). Moses Sofer rejected Landau’s

interpretation and cited astrological reasons for having a sandeq officiate only once in this

role (Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayim #158, 159.) Various opinions were cited by Elijah Gaon

(Beer Hagrah to Yoreh Deah 265). It is possible for women to participate in this

role, although Isserles suggested that this not be done (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah

265.11). Women participated among German Jews, while other Jewish communities

discouraged it. Christians also have assisted in this fashion, as for example, in 1484 in

Castrogiovanni, Sicily (L. Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, p. 499). Several medieval

councils tried to prohibit such Christian participation (Council of Terracinana in 1330). Similar

prohibitive statements are found in Protestant ordinances. In modern times, the role of

sandeq and godfather has sometimes been separated, but there is no basis for this in the

earlier tradition. In all the traditional material there is no discussion whatsoever of any additional

responsibility on the part of the sandeq beyond the circumcision. In other words, his

privileges and his responsibilities end with the ceremony. Therefore, it would not be possible for

the individual to withdraw his participation at a later time.July 1978

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 149-151

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

93. A Circumcision without Parental Consent

QUESTION: A baby boy born to Jewish parents required a one week hospitalization due to a serious illness. The parents indicated that they wished to have the child circumcised but did not want a berit. The grandmother inquired about a berit. The physician who is a trained mohel subsequently circumcised the child. As he performed the medical procedure on the eighth day, he decided to recite the blessing for a berit milah, reasoning that a berit is a mitzvah central to Judaism and that in this case the recital of the blessing was known only to the individual and to God. Was this an appropriate act? (Stanley Berkowitz, Los Angeles CA)ANSWER: As you have appropriately indicated in your letter the berit milah does not affect the Jewishness of this child who is the offspring of two Jewish parents and is Jewish by birth. The obligation of berit milah rests upon the father. It is the duty of the father, or in some instances of the mother, to circumcise the child or to delegate the responsibility to their agent (shaliah). Under some special circumstances a bet din may perform this task for the father. (For full references see W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Responsa #54). We might argue that the berit milah performed by the physician/mohel benefits the child and one may benefit a person even without his consent. That is true only when the individual or those responsible for that person would consent if the situation became known. That is not the case here. We might also follow another line of reasoning which would state that berit milah is a mitzvah which is incumbent upon every Jew and which if not accomplished by the father may be enforced by a bet din (Kid 29a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 261.1) or by the entire Jewish community in the absence of a bet din (Arukh Hashulhan Yoreh Deah 261.2 and Shulhan Arukh 265.1 and commentaries). In other words, one could look upon this mohel as a delegate of the entire Jewish community upon whom the obligation of berit milah rests even without parental consent. This line of reasoning is the one used by the haredi group in Israel for all mitzvot. As they are obligatory upon all Jews they consider it their obligation to enforce the mitzvot with or without the consent of those for whom it is being done. We reject this line of reasoning and have always felt strongly that no form of religious coercion can be permitted. The Jews have fought many battles against religious coercion. In the Middle Ages and in modern times we have struggled against baptisms carried out without the consent of parents by well intentioned Christian maids. In our own century we have fought against Sunday legislation, obligatory prayer in the schools, mandatory attendance at baccalaureate service, etc., so we can certainly not condone religious coercion in this instance either. We would like to persuade the parents in this instance as well as many others to follow the mitzvot and encourage them to provide this minimal beginning of a religious life for their child. The mohel/physician may feel strongly that berit milah is an absolute obligation. Therefore he has good grounds for refusing to do this circumcision unless it is to be done as a berit milah and it may be wise for him to take this road so that his own integrity is not violated. Discussion with the family may change their attitude toward berit milah especially if they had only vague objections to the ritual. The ritual is fundamental to Jewish life and that should be explained fully. If they have strong objections we should honor them, although we believe the parents to be wrong. The physician should not have performed this berit milah.July 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 146-149

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

57. Anesthetic for Circumcision

(Vol. LXXV, 1965, pp. 99-101)

QUESTION: A physician performing a circumcision insisted upon using an anesthetic. Should this be permitted or even encouraged from the point of view of Jewish legal tradition?

ANSWER: This question has been asked a number of times in recent years when the use of anesthetics (even for minor surgery) has come into general use. The question is asked usually with regard to adult converts. Sometimes a convert will not consent to circumcision unless an anesthetic be used. In one case the circumstances were reversed, and the convert insisted that no anesthetic be used because he wanted to feel pain, since he considered the pain to be sacrificial. Sometimes it is asked with regard to children. A Jewish child had not been circumcised in infancy (for reasons of ill health). Now, at the age of five, he is to be circumcised and the mother insists that a local anesthetic be used. Out of these various cases a general attitude has emerged as to the use of anesthetics in circumcision for adults and for children.

Perhaps the first discussion of the question was by Meir Arik, the great Galician authority in the past generation. In his responsa (Imrei Yosher II, 140) he decides definitely in the negative. His arguments are worth notice because they reveal the general mood of the authorities of the time to all new suggestions which may affect the ceremonial laws. He calls attention to the Talmudic debate (in Kiddushin 21b) which deals with the piercing of the ear of a Hebrew slave who refuses to be set free. The Talmud there speaks of sam (an anesthetic medicine). This provides, he said, that the Talmud was well acquainted with such medicines. Yet, since the Talmud does not mention the use of anesthetic medicines in circumcision, it clearly was opposed to their use. Furthermore, he says that the Midrash (Genesis Rabba47.9) tells that Abraham was in pain because of his circumcision, and it was for that pain that God gave him additional reward. Then he concludes with a general statement in the nature of a warning, namely, that we have never used anesthetics in the past and, God forbid, that we should introduce any novelties.

This firm and indignant negative is not shared by the majority of the scholars who have dealt with the question. For example, Bezalel Shafran (Responsa Rabaz, #125) refutes the prohibitory opinion found in the book Sefer Haberit, which insisted that the circumcised must be awake for the reason that the fulfillments of commandments require conscious intention (Kavana). Shafran proves that a child may be asleep during the operation and this fact would not impair the legal validity of the circumcision.

The strongest opinion in favor of the use of anesthetics comes from the famous Rabbi of Kishinev, Judah Lev Zirelsohn (who was murdered by the Nazis). It was he who dealt with the question of the five-year-old boy mentioned above. In his Ma-archei Lev, #53, after reviewing various arguments, he comes to the general conclusion that the Torahnowhere requires pain in the circumcision, and therefore, he agrees in the case mentioned to the use of anesthetics.

Gedalia Felder of Toronto, who has done yeoman service in collecting and organizing the Law and Customs in his four-volume work Yesodei Yeshurun, has now written a special work on adoption, conversion, etc. In this work (Nachalat Tsevi,p. 57) he summarizes the various opinions on this question and also doubts the negative opinion of Meir Arik.

In the light of the above, we may conclude that there is no objection to anesthetics. The law does not insist upon pain in the fulfillment of this commandment. However, to this extent Meir Arik is correct: that we should not introduce novelties unless there is a good reason for them. If the child is likely to be naturally asleep during the operation (as often happens), the law does not require that he be wakened (cf. the opinion of Bezalel Shafran). However, if the operation is done by a doctor, and he insists that an anesthetic be used, then we may assume that he has a good reason for it, and we should not raise any objections. In general, we should not institute the use of anesthetics as a regular procedure, but we should permit them when the surgeon or the parent asks that they be used.

Addendum

You now ask about the popular idea that the wine which is (sometimes) given the infant during circumcision is for the purpose of allaying the pain of circumcision.

It is customary for the Mohel to give a drop or a touch of wine with his fingertip after the two blessings, when the phrase from Ezekiel is used: “Live in thy blood.” This custom is mentioned by Joseph Caro in Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De-a 265.2). Of all the classic commentators, only the Spaniard Abudarham gives an explanation; but his explanation has to do with the sinful Israelites being given to drink the water into which their Golden Calf had been ground. A later commentator tries to connect it with the word “live” in the Ezekiel quotation, and attempts to have the drop of wine symbolize eternal life.

These explanations are obviously forced. One may say that no explanation is given for the drop of wine. Nowadays they sometimes give the child a bit of cloth or cake soaked in wine. This would lend itself to the notion that it was for the purpose of allaying pain. But the texts only speak of a “drop” or a finger touch. This could hardly have any pain-allaying effect, and therefore, this could not be the reason.

For the sake of completeness, it might be added that another taste of wine is sometimes given the child on fast-days at the blessing. The Mohel recites the blessing, but since it is a fast-day, he may not taste the wine. Therefore (in order that the blessing not be a “vain blessing”), a taste of the wine is given to the child (cf. Isserles to Yoreh Dea 265.4, Orach Chayim 621:3). But Abudarham quotes Ibn Gayyat and Maimonides, who object to the practice and who prefer that on fast days the wine blessing be omitted entirely. There is a wide variance in the minhagim about this practice. Some say: Give it to the Sandak to taste; some say: Give it to the young boys present to taste; some say: Give it to the mother; and some say: Give it to the child. Mishna Berura (The Chafets Chayim) to #621, says: It all depends on custom, and each custom has its basis. For a fuller discussion, see Edut LeYisra-elby Jacob Werdiger (Benei Berak, 1963), p. 127, #3.

The present custom of giving the child a wine soaked object to suck, which leads to the notion of allaying pain, is not authentic. Only a drop was used, and pain alleviation is neither mentioned in the sources nor possible.

Solomon B. Freehof

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 145-146

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

56. Circumcision Prior to the Eighth Day

(1977)QUESTION: May the circumcision of a new-born child be conducted prior to the eighth day? Would such a circumcision be considered as fulfilling the religious obligation of circumcising a child?ANSWER: Circumcision is the oldest ritual connected with Judaism. It ties us to Abraham and our beginnings: “God further said to Abraham: ‘As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offerings to come throughout the ages. Such shall be the covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your offspring to follow. Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. At the age of eight days, every male among you throughout the generations shall be circumcised” (Gen. 17:9-13). The commandment is repeated in Leviticus 12:3. This has remained throughout our history as one of the most important commandments, and led to martyrdom already in Maccabean times (I Macc. 1:48, 60). The precise details of the nature of circumcision have been discussed in every Jewish code (Yad, Hil. Mila; Tur, Yoreh De-a 360ff; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 260ff; see also Gates of Mitzvah, pp. 13ff). The ritual itself is done by the father, a Mohel, or a Jewish physician, though any Jew is qualified, on the eighth day after birth (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 262.1). The exact day is most important, and the circumcision should take place on that day, even if it falls on Sabbath or the Day of Atonement, unless illness or weakness of the baby demands postponement. If the circumcision was done prior to the eighth day, it is still considered valid bedi-avad (Asher ben Yehiel to Shab. 135a; Nathaniel Weil, Korban Netan-el, ibid.; Isserles to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 262.1). Others have felt that if the circumcision took place before the eighth day, at least a drop of blood should be taken on the eighth day (Shabatai Cohen to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 262.1; Aryeh Lev, Sha-agat Aryeh, #52). We would consider it valid without that. Circumcision and the accompanying prayers are an act of affirmation of Judaism by the parents. As such, it should be done on the traditional day. The mere surgical act of Mila will not suffice for a Berit Mila. We strongly urge parents to have the circumcision on the eighth day, even if it might take place at home. Hundreds of generations have observed this rite on the eighth day. Through the observance of this ritual on the eighth day, we teach each new generation the importance of the keeping of the covenant of Abraham. This presents only a slight inconvenience to the family and to the Mohel or Jewish physician. If that is impossible, then it should be done as soon after the eighth day as possible. The ritual of circumcision must retain its religious significance and not simply be a hygienic device. For this reason, we continue to stress circumcision on the eighth day.Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzEugene LipmanW. Gunther PlautHarry a. RothRav A. SoloffBernard ZlotowitzSee also:S.B. Freehof, “Circumcision Before Eighth Day,” Reform Responsa, pp. 90ff.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 165-166

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

103. Doubts about a Soviet Berit

QUESTION: A recent Soviet immigrant had his son circumcised at some risk in Russia. Some blessings, as best as they could be remembered, were recited at the ceremony, but without a minyan. The child is now eight years old; should there be a second berit? (Derryl Levi, Chicago IL)

ANSWER: A berit is valid bediavad even if conducted in an irregular manner, without a minyan, or at the wrong time as the references in the earlier responsa demonstrate. We should congratulate this couple on taking the risk of a beritwhen this was very dangerous in the Soviet Union. The child need not go through any other ritual and should proceed with his normal Jewish education.

April 1989.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 48

 

CCAR RESPONSA

 

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

 

28. Berit Milah

QUESTION: Is it Reform

practice to observe the berit milah on the eighth day, or can it be done at the

convenience of the parents by a Jewish or Gentile physician? In addition, should the comparable

naming ceremony for girls also be observed on the eighth day? (Rabbi E. Sapinsley, Bluefield,

WV)

ANSWER: The Biblical statement about circumcising a male on the eighth day

is very clear and is provided in Genesis 17.11 (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 261 ff;

Yad Hil. Milah). Reform Jews observe this practice on the day stipulated. Of course if a

medical reason makes the circumcision dangerous, it may be postponed virtually indefinitely

until the child can be circumcised safely. All traditional authorities agree completely on this. If the

parents do not arrange for a boy’s circumcision as a child, it becomes his responsibility as an

adult.

It is clear as well (A. Z. 26a) that a Jew must perform the actual operation of

circumcision. In the Reform tradition, if no Jewish doctor is available, then a non-Jew may

perform the operation while the rabbi or father recites the appropriate prayers. In fact, someone

totally removed from Judaism [a pagan] would be preferable to an individual close to Judaism

[like a Samaritan] who is a sectarian, according to Rabbi Meir (A. Z. 26b). In his notes to the

Shulhan Arukh, Moses Isserles indicated that a non-Jew might also perform the operation

during a period of duress or danger (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 264.1).

The

treatment of girls, as far as the “covenant” is concerned, varies (S. J. Maslin, Gates of

Mitzvah, p. 15). Many congregations name girls in the synagogue at a Sabbath close to birth

when both parents can attend and participate in the service. This makes the event a happy

congregational celebration. The recently introduced ceremony of “covenant of life” should

probably also occur on the eighth day if we wish to indicate complete equality for girls. As no

medical impediments can arise, and as there is no need to return to a hospital, it is possible to

conduct this ceremony on the eighth day, but postponement for the sake of family convenience

is equally acceptable.

January 1978

 

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕