Yes to Brit Mila Simply Because We Are Jews

This article was written by Tal Gilad in Hebrew and was published first in Walla on November 29^th, 2013, during a public debate that was raging over on the subject of Brit Milah  which ensued following a fine imposed on a woman who refused to have her son circumcised. It was translated into English by Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks.

I am circumcised. My son is circumcised. Anyone that I know in my close surrounding is circumcised. I presume that with certainty even though I never checked. Not one of us remembers his circumcision as a horrible and traumatic event since we were only eight days then and no one remembers anything of that age.

A baby eight days old does not possess enough awareness to be afraid of what they are about to do to him, develop trauma or treat this pain as no more than a momentary unpleasant discomfort. He does not fear the consequences it might bear on his sex life, on his masculinity or his male identity. He does not see it as an attack on his legal rights as a human being. He does not know anything about any of these issues. All he knows is that it hurts during that moment and then it stops and that is all because he is merely eight days old. That is why the ceremony is performed when he is eight days old.

I do not wish to enter the issue of the penalty which the rabbinical court decreed. I do not know all the details and wish to avoid the issue of whether any institution has the jurisdiction to impose that. That is not the topic.

Brit Mila (circumcision) is a directive that Jews have been following for four thousand years. It does not cause any medical problems (possibly the opposite) and poses no national or personal tragedy that is imprinted on  the memory of our genetic code.

I need to confess that I, too, was nervous during the Brit Milah of my son. I also remember that I felt like hitting everyone. The bottom line, however, is that we are Jews and it would be more stupid and selfish if, because of my belligerence he will have to face this predicament of whether to do or not do it at the age of twenty, with all the fears that were mentioned earlier which are nonexistent at the age of eight days. I do not wish to mention another faith which performs this ceremony when the boy is thirteen, when one is fearful and is forced to go through that. This way, it is one unpleasant minute for the baby, one nervous minute for the parents and over.

It is by far less worse than other events that the child undergoes in his life, starting with birth, a scary experience in itself, through ear aches, teething aches, inoculations, fear and sadness during those moments when a determined brave mother who refuses to circumcise her son goes out to have a good time because it is her right and no one will decide for her. There are other more traumatic events in a person’s life such as, the first day in the nursery, kindergarten and a whole host of occurrences which are far less pleasant than Brit Milah which one overcomes and continues to grow.

And no contentious organization sees in it anything that hurts the child’s rights.
That is so, perhaps since it does not carry the intoxicating  scent of was against religious imposition and no one can bask in the words, “primitive ritual.”

By the way, interesting to notice that part of the primitive and cruel People that lives in America do the same to their children without the noise and the commotion and human rights. Oh, those cruel Gentiles 😉

When Does A Belief Become Part Of A Nation’s Historical Timeline?

The following article was written by Tal Gilad a Yisraeli journalist. It was translated into English by Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks

It seems that there is no point anymore in addressing the question as to whether there was an Exodus from Egypt or not, since this issue and any opinion about it is affected mainly by agenda. Those who despise anything related to religion / faith (or in fact loathe anything other than Macchiato) qvell in the yearly opportunity to mock the entrenched myth, and whoever is for Bibi is also for Moses. For some reason, the two go hand in hand/ Yes, of course it is a generalization and I know that also on the Right there are those who scorn faith and currently hold haughty rational positions. That’s ok.

I have no doubt that the Exodus from Egypt did take place since we have no reason to believe it did not. What is unusual in a story about a People which wanders from one place to another? Had I wanted to invent an impressive myth about our origin, the last thing that would have jumped into my mind would be to describe us as a bunch of nebechs who had run away from their masters and on the way did some ugly deeds as the Tanach tells us. It would have been far more exciting to tell how the first Man fought an evil dragon but during the battle bumped into a bush which tore off his foreskin. And while he was hurting and bemoaning, a voice came out of Heaven and said: “Oh, Man, do not cry and do not despair, for this circumcised one will become a great nation.” A rain of children started to pour from Heaven and they became the People of Yisrael who overcame the dragon. And since then, we perform circumcision to commemorate the victory and we eat Matzot because the First Man broke the dragon’s head with a wooden board.

We can invent a hundred stories like this, per day. And indeed, there are plenty of such stories in other people’s mythologies.

The Exodus from Egypt does not fulfill the criterion of an unfounded tale. Remove the parts with miracles, if you wish, or reduce the number of people to a mere few thousands, still what is unreasonable about it? “There is no archaeological evidence.”

There is evidence,, however, it cannot be connected, with any certainty, to the Exodus from Egypt. Archaeology is a young discipline. About Egypt, in general, there is still much that is unknown. “No skeletons.” A skeleton erodes and crumbles in a matter of a few decades. What we find, occasionally, are a million years old fossils, lucky skeletons which were surrounded by conditions that allowed them to mix with the minerals and thus survived. Otherwise, the whole planet would be covered with human and animal skeletons.

The story of the Exodus from Egypt is detailed, long and filled with ups and downs and unpleasant details. Were it just a Harry Potter story, no one would have celebrated it every year, actually twice, Pesach and Sukkot. It is fair to assume that not everything happened exactly as told but its nucleus sounds entirely realistic.

Even the Egyptians had a somewhat incensed version of the story of the Exodus. Manetho, an Egyptian historian on the 3^rd century, B.C.E., claimed that the Children of Yisrael are the Hyksos, foreign rulers who were expelled out of Egypt in the 16^th century B.C.E. In ancient Egypt, “The lepers’ libel,” which claimed that the Children of Yisrael were forcefully banished since they were lepers, was circulated, Yuck.

Ok, let us leave a typical narrative of “no way have I lost,” the kind we  hear from our surrounding nations who continue to assert their victory even without their teeth and withn their head is stuck downward in a barrel. The fact is that the narrative refers to that tale. 

In Hebrew there are quite a few words which originated in ancient Egypt, including the name “Moshe (Moses)” which simply means “son.” The suffix, “messes” was commonly used in in ancient Egypt. One of the names that is related to Egypt is Ramsses II, who according to some researchers is the Pharoah mentioned in the Book of Exodus. Circumcision, which Jews practice to signify our unique covenant with G-d,  was customary in Egypt before we adopted it.

The Greek historian, Heroditus, states that “the Syrians who lived in Palestine” (The Jews who lived   and worked in the coastline area which was named after the Philistines) circumcise their sons in the Egyptian tradition, unlike other nations in the region.

Papyrus Ipower, the ancient Egyptian papyrus, describes events, some of which astonishingly resemble the ten plagues, which means that if it were a legend – it originated in Egypt. Ancient Egyptian wall paintings portray Semitic Peoples arriving to Egypt, nothing unusual about it, the Hyksos, likewise, were Semitic. Egypt’s protectorate spread all the way to Northern Eretz Yisrael, albeit shaky.

It all points to a strong bond between Am Yisrael and Egypt.

Were this story not related to religion, the tables would have been turned: the Left would have basked with great pleasure in the story of the Exodus from Egypt and see it as yet another proof that from the onset came from another Land. In fact, the average Leftist might have a dilemma here – who does it hate more, the Jewish faith or Eretz Yisrael. Hatred towards religion gains strength here in Yisrael because it is imprinted in our blood for many more generations. So let us say this – if the Right and the observant Jews insist that we came from Egypt, then perhaps it is true.

Some of us are not only Jews, we are also Jewish

This article was written jointly by Roger Froikin and Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks

As far as we are concerned, there is a difference between the two. They are not always one and the same.

A Jew, according to the Oxford definition is “A member of the people and cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins through the ancient Hebrew people of Israel to Abraham.”

We are not going to enter a debate here on who is a Jew. This definition merely addresses what a Jew is.

That same source defines Jewish as :” Of or relating to the Jews or their culture or religion.”

What begs to be concluded from these two definitions is that in order to be Jewish, one needs to be a Jew first. To be born a Jew or to become a Jew, one is automatically admitted into the Covenant that G-d entered with Avraham.

The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional Covenant. G-d made promises to Avraham in Bresheet (Genesis) 15:18-21. That Covenant which requires nothing of Avraham deals mainly with the dimension of the Land that G-d promised to him and his descendants. The rite itself as described in Bresheet 12:1-3 reinforces the notion that it is an unconditional one as it is G-d alone who passes between the pieces of animals after causing Avraham to fall into a deep sleep. The sign of this Covenant is the Brit Mila, the ceremony of circumcision (Bresheet 17:9-14). All males in the Avrahmic line were to be circumcised so that they bear a lifelong mark of it upon their flesh. Any descendant of Avraham who is denied or refuses circumcision was naturally declared and destined to be outside of G-d’s Covenant. Entering the Avrahamic Covenant is one of the conditions of being a Jew.

There is another Covenant that every Jew enters either upon birth or when becoming one. It is one that has shaped Am Yisrael and our Jewish people into who we are today. It is the Mosaic one, the one we entered with G-d at Mount Sinai. Unlike the Avrahamic Covenant, this one is a conditional one.

A Law school professor might call it a “contract of adhesion” in which the terms are presented as non-negotiable and to be accepted by the people. G-d presented His law to Am Yisrael at Mount Sinai as described in Shemot (Exodus) 19:5. Their response was acceptance, saying, “נעשה ונשמע " We shall do and we shall hear!” (Shemot 19:8).

The Mosaic Covenant sets Am Yisrael and the Jewish People apart from other nations. It is in understanding the responsibilities and values that are inherent to the Covenant at Mount Sinai, being motivated by them, identifying with them and acting consistent with them, that turns the Jew into Jewish. It is important to note here, that though some of the values such as social justice and moral code dictated to Am Yisrael, at Mount Sinai are universal, Judaism itself is not universal. It belongs to Jews and Am Yisrael only.

Now, we would bet people reading this so far expect the next paragraph to include an endorsement that Jews become more religious. No, that is not the intent of this essay. Nor is the intent to define who is a Jew or what Judaism is beyond the statements above.

Instead, the idea is to alert Jews to a problem. There are those Jews who have excluded themselves from the Jewish People representing themselves as Jews, when often they are not under normative and historical Jewish definitions. These Jews represent their motivations as Jewish when they are not. These Jews claim their values as Jewish when they are not.

This not a new phenomenon. Only the titles have changed. Throughout history, when Jews have been a minority or under foreign rule, there have been those Jews who saw it in their best interest to join with the powers that be and the group they ruled. They did it, and too often, to prove their allegiance (sometimes required, sometimes not) to their new “friends” by opposing the interests of the Jewish People, by actively negating – or reinterpreting – their connection to the Jewish people.

For instance, in Iberia, between 1200 and 1500, some Jews converted to Christianity so as not to be persecuted. When the Inquisition came in 1492 (1496 in Portugal), many of these converts became the most anti-Semitic people in Christian Spain. Torquemada, the first grand inquisitor, is one example.

In the late 19th Century and early 20th, many Jews in Europe, in an effort avoid being subject to exclusion and persecution, converted to Catholicism, seeking safety and security in a change of ideology, dumping their Judaism for what appeared to them to be “universalism.” Other Jews joined political movements, socialism, communism, trading Judaism for these universalist movements, as if to hide and seek safety in a universal ideology.

Today, we see some Jews acting similarly, but with a bit of a change. It is no longer necessary to hide that one is a Jew. Thus, instead of denying that they are Jews and in order to fit in, they reinterpret what Judaism is and turn it into universal secularism. This way, they create the fiction which allows them remain Jewish under the claim that the ethics of Judaism are indistinguishable from the latest liberal universal definition of secularism. In short, they leave Judaism and Jewish concerns and interests behind to become the Jew who is a believer in whatever the latest fashionable approach to secularism is. Liberalism and all its clichés of the day has become their religion, though they falsely label it Jewish.

So how is this modern manifestation different from the former Jews who were anti-Semites in post 1492 Spain, for example ? Not at all. So, for instance, when we see a “Jewish Voice for Peace” sidind with those who call for the destruction of Yisrael and the murder of Jews, we need to understand what they are. When we see an organization like B’Zelem in Medinat Yisrael (Israel) make an effort to damage Yisrael’s security and give aid and comfort to those that wish it destroyed, because they worry about what Europe thinks, we’ve seen it before.

We have all seen these online debates in which some far left wing Jew that claims to be pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist is called a Kapo by those who oppose him. Not only is that kind of characterization unfair and inaccurate, but it is perhaps not strong enough. “Kapos” became Kapos, because they were trying to survive often when the alternative was death. Those who claim the title “Jew” today, but who ally themselves with anti-Semites, who support murderers of Jews, did not take that position for their own safety or that of their families, but for other reasons that are not nearly as noble. We believe that they are worse than Kapos by any measure.

Frankly, the Jewish nation does not need people who choose to endanger the Jewish people in favor of some left-wing universalist clichés. The Jewish People does not need those who want to solve their psychological and sociological problems by damaging the future for the rest of us. The last thing the Jewish People needs is the kind of Jew who laughs at Jewish heritage and dismisses it in some misguided effort to be liked by gentiles.

In the Passover Hagaddah, there is the allegory of the 4 sons. One of them asks, “what does all this mean to you” as if excluding himself from Judaism, its Heritage, history and its ethical and moral standards. It is those misguided Jews, we believe, that the Hagaddah addresses.

So what should the Jewish people do about these “Jews in Name Only” ?

The first step is to understand what we started this essay with --- that a Jew can choose to be Jewish or not. We, Jews, first and foremost, need to understand that merely being a descendant of the Avrahamic Covenant does not automatically make one a party to the one made at Sinai. Wishing our Jewish brothers and sisters a happy and blessed Pesach.