 |
 |
||||||||||
 |
Back to Question of the Week Q: I attended the Half of the Kingdom panel discussion where Rabbi Goldstein did not have the opportunity to discuss her views on circumcision. [In response to a question about feminist views of circumcision.] I was actually very interested to hear what she had to say on the matter and was disappointed that she didn't have a chance to answer. Rabbi Goldstein, what would you have said? Cheryl |
||||||||||
|
 |
(First of two parts, concluding next week.) A: Some background on the question for those members of the Reb's cyber-shtiebl who are outside the local Toronto data loop. Half the Kingdom is a film produced by the National Film Board of Canada in 1990, which is about the lives and perspectives of Jewish feminists, and which features none other than the Rosh Yeshiva and Director of Kolel, Rabbi Elyse Goldstein. A question was raised by an audience member regarding feminist views of circumcision; as it happens, Rabbi Goldstein didn't get to address the question "live," but has written about it in her book of feminist Torah scholarship, ReVisions. Your ever faithful Reb on the Web is thus humbled and pleased to present to you an excerpt from ReVisions, in two parts, which may spark some interesting comments and thoughts on the topic. For more of Rabbi Goldstein's views on the topic, and a chance to respond with your own thoughts and questions, visit our new "Hot Topic of the Month" Interactive Forum. Rabbi Goldstein writes: As a feminist, and mother of three sons, here are some of the views I presented in my book ReVisions (Key Porter Press) about brit milah [circumcision]. I hope you find them interesting. There is a whole chapter on the symbolism of blood, water, menstruation and circumcision. If you'd like to read more, you can find the book here, or at any major book store or at the Kolel building. These excerpts come from Section Two: "On Blood and Water": Scholars all agree that circumcision may be one of the most ancient tribal practices we have recorded. We know from Biblical and other sources that the Egyptians, Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites all practiced it. Among most it was done at marriage or puberty, as a “sacrifice” to insure fertility. The Talmud calls both a groom and a baby ready for the circumcision by the same word- chatan. The ancient link between removing the foreskin and marriage is further established in the Biblical account of Zipporah and Moses. In Exodus 4:25, after circumcising their son to ward off supernatural danger, she flings the foreskin and cries, “You are a bridegroom of blood- chatan damim- to me.” What is significant in the Hebrew manifestation is the move from adult circumcision to infant circumcision. Its connotations of sexuality and fertility are now enlarged by levels of spirituality. What was a tribal rite to insure fruitfulness now becomes a Divine command, incumbent even upon those who may not live past childhood into marriage, even upon those who may prove to be infertile. Circumcision now becomes a ritual of cleansing through blood, as women experience a ritual of cleansing through water. The foreskin is the extra piece which defiles, which is fruitless, non-useful. Like the “uncircumcised” fruit of trees which cannot be eaten for the first three years (called orlah- the same word for foreskin), the foreskin is unripe, a sacrificial non-necessity. But what of Sarah? She is neither commanded to circumcise nor to be circumcised. If the cutting of the genitals was meant to insure fertility, then surely women- for whom fertility is the guarantor of status- should have to undergo something similar. And if this mark was assign of restrained sexuality, then it is even more striking that the ultimate assurance of female sexual restraint - clitorectomy- is not commanded, nor sanctioned, nor even mentioned. Sarah shares in the blessing but does not have to physically sacrifice for it. If Abraham’s circumcision will signal new fertility, then Sarah’s name change signals the end of her barrenness. As he will be the father of multitudes, so too will she. Perhaps there is here a hint of a brit of the womb? In Genesis 17:15-21, God reiterates just how crucial it is that the Jewish covenant be founded through the offspring of Sarah, not Hagar. “My covenant I will establish through Isaac, whom Sarah will bear.” This is directly juxtaposed with Abraham’s circumcision, a few verses before. Is this Sarah’s brit? All Jewish women, now in that Sarah-lineage, are automatically covenanted. Brit milah is now only half of the covenantal picture; lineage through Sarah is the other. In the words of Moshe Adler, “Every Jew, whether born Jewish or a convert, must pass through the womb of a Jewish woman, or its ritual equivalent, the mikva.” Blood or water. If you miss that womb at your birth, you must recreate it again through the waters of the womb- the mikva. Perhaps then women do have a brit inscribed in their flesh as an everlasting covenant: we see that in covenantal blood not just once, at eight days, but every month. Thus, according to Rabbi Goldstein, women are certainly not excluded from the covenant by not being circumcised, and in fact circumcision itself may, on a primordial level, be related not only to the covenant of Abraham but also the covenant of Sarah. However, Rabbi Goldstein presents an even more radical rethinking of this ancient ritual, which we will see right here next week! Same Reb on the Web time, same Reb on the Web html. . . . and don't forget to check out our Hot Topic of the Month for discussion of this very question. NJL |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
[Home] [Lobby] [Library] [Classroom] [Office] [Lounge] [Gift Shop] Kolel: The Adult Centre for Liberal Jewish Learning
|
 |
|
|
|||
