More than the sum of one's mitzvot

I'm still in the process of reading through the local Jewish newspaper my parents brought back from Florida. Not surprisingly, me and the elders don't see eye to eye on everything. One of the letters to the editor from a gal named Sylvia, apparently in response to a story on some Jews opting out of circumcision, made our divisions loud and clear:

...For Jews today, there is little discrimination, large acceptance and even a grudging adherence to their faith. So, naturally, it is time for some to trot out the golden calf, and just as naturally for some to come and dance around it.

This golden calf, as you call it- this is what, personal choice? Assimilation? Help me out here.

...[Apparently] some of our Jewish daughters are against circumcision for their babies in order to spare them pain. What a novel idea! Why didn't the Jews set afire in the Spanish Inquisition or the millions of Jews tortured and reduced to ashes in the Holocaust think of this? They would have confounded their enemies! Are they Jews or Christians? Fish or fowl? Think of the pain they would have spared their babies.

So... people should circumcise their babies because all the Jews who died horribly throughout the ages didn't mind? Or is this poor attempt at a guilt-trip more substantive than I'm giving you credit? Maybe something like, "you're a disgrace to those who died because you won't?" or maybe, "they risked being identified and killed, so you choosing not to is some sort of group betrayal or selfish self-preservation?"

Seriously, I ask whether it is ignorance of our history, our teachings, that prompts such outrageous lack of respect for our most important covenant? Is it that they have been taught little, spoiled a lot, and terribly self-indulged that gives rise to such selfish disregard for what makes a Jew a Jew?

Hey lady, how about the fact that maybe they think it's bunk? You can know all about the theology and history of the brit and still not BELIEVE in it- and if you don't, it basically boils down to a cultural decision. Is it so surprising that for some people, nostalgia and cultural attachment might not be enough to justify what is (in their minds) unnecessary surgery? What does being spoiled or indulged have to do with it? Does Sylvia really believe that these couples choosing not to circumcise are doing so because their parents caved and bought them that pony for their sweet sixteen?

Do these people think eating chopped liver and lox and mouthing liberalisms makes them Jews? Do they think chopping away at the bedrock of Judaism is healthy for them and their children? Is it a good thing for Jews in general- for Kol Yisroel? Do they realize that being neither fish nor fowl gets the respect of nobody?

First, Sylvia needs to be careful about throwing around verbs like "chopping" in this context. Second, does she really think that circumcision, in of itself, is the defining trait of Judaism? If so, how do we deal with the fact that millions of non-Jews also practice the rite? How do we address the fact that every Jewish woman in history has NOT been circumcised? Circumcision, in and of itself, does not make or break a Jew, and the modern practices of the 20th century, in which many Jews have non-religious circumcisions (which technically don't count as a full brit) only makes things even more difficult. How are we to deal with all these different groups of Jews who may or may not count, according to Sylvia's narrow definition? Sure, she can claim that bloodless brit advocates may not be religious (they're certainly not frum), and might even go so far as to say that they aren't "good Jews" (though I kind of doubt they care what she thinks). But to say that their kids are being denied membership in the tribe? It's just not the case.

Circumcision is a mitzvah. Hallelujah. So is keeping kosher, observing Shabbat and covering your head (be it with a kippah or a sheitel). Hell, so are sacrifices. But even those who argue that a Judaism without the Temple is incomplete would never claim that all Jews since then haven't really counted. Does she think that walking to shul on Shabbos or eating cholent makes people Jewish, or that someone who drives to shul and eats turkey bacon (maris ayin, don't you know) aren't? Get real. Circumcision is a PART of Jewish practice and identity. Eliminating it from an individual's life does not invalidate them, either as people or Jews. And while young Jews having NO identity may indeed be a problem, circumcision, especially in America, is certainly not the single determinant of identity (which would be like saying one tells fish and fowl apart because one of them has eyes). Furthermore, there are many people in modern society who have multiple or muddled cultural backgrounds- maybe not being clearly Jewish or Irish creates a lack of respect in Sylvia's community (you know how judgmental those old folks can get), but I don't know if it's as endemic as she thinks.

Sylvia continues:

You better believe candidates running for the presidency of this country know the answers to such questions. They are out there, reaffirming their Christian faith before this great nation every chance they get- emphasizing, over and over, their Christian ties.

And THEY'RE the model for our young people? Duplicitous, obsequious politicians who exploit faith and principles to raise their poll numbers? And even if most politicians weren't, well, politicians, why should their behavior be the standard? On what basis should we be looking to them for advice? Yes, not being ashamed of your heritage is a good thing. But let's be honest, Sylvia- circumcision is, out of just about every Jewish practice, one of the most private ones (at least after the fact). By and large, no one's really going to know one way or the other what you had done, and when, and under whose auspices or whether it "really" counts or not. From a communal standpoint at least, this seems to sharply reduce the whole question to a red herring. Indeed, precisely because circumcision is private, not public, most couples' motivations for not circumcising probably come from personal belief and/or apathy, not trying to "pass" as Gentiles- particularly since, at least nowadays, a majority of non-Jews in America are circumcised.

The biggest problem of Sylvia's letter is that she misses the forest for the trees, arguing that a particular rite of the Jewish experience is the defining totality of that experience, implicitly suggesting that a life denied that mitzvah is less than authentic. You could turn that around and apply it to any Jewish life cycle, or really, any mitzvah. Maybe, if you're frum, that worldview actually works- you're basically here as a mitzvah machine, and your primary function is to accumulate bullet-points on your list, fine. But for me, I can't relate. To me, Sylvia's view of any single act as THE single most important Jewish decision (R) is simplistic and demeaning, both to the parents in question but especially to their children. It's reminiscent of TherapyDoc's argument here, and, IMO, flawed for some of the same reasons.

My understanding is that if a Jewish boy is not circumcised according to tradition he is still a Jew, but hasn't fulfilled the commandment of having had a brit milah, meaning he has not accepted the covenant.

A boy who hasn't had a brit hasn't been properly initiated as a Jew. He's not really of the Jewish People. He's not entered the covenant as commanded by the Old Mighty...

Not to contradict the illustrious rabbis of old, but I've got news for you. Regardless of what the law books say, being snipped doesn't determine whether or not you accept the covenant. How many Jews throughout history were given brits according to the "proper" tradition and have actively rejected the covenant? And I find it hard to imagine that there weren't a few Jews over the course of the last thousand years who weren't circumcised and still turned out all right. Again, what about all the exceptions to Sylvia's would-be hard-fast rule? Hospital circumcisions? Women? Is Sylvia herself any less of a Jew for not having this rite? Are Jewish women to be pitied? Here's a question for the super-halachic thinkers: if the brit is the key to Jewishness, what about properly circumcised children who only have Jewish fathers? If the brit is the equivalent to a membership card, what about people that are supposed to be automatically excluded from the club?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I don't accept that Judaism is all or nothing, and I'm certainly not convinced that I have to follow certain practices that have been deemed "super important" by people that have made their own decisions over what to pick and choose. Even the Orthodox, if they're honest, are picking and choosing (or following in the traditions of others who made their own choices). One of the founding principles of Rabbinic Judaism is the legitimacy of interpretation and of looking beyond mere literalism. We don't do sacrifices or have altars anymore because Yochanan Ben Zakkai and his buddies were brave enough to change the system when it needed changing. The key of Ben Zakkai's revolution was not merely in switching observances from the Temple to the home and synagogue, but in saying that this change was legitimate, and declaring that innovation was not automatic heresy. How could he have done that, his peers might have asked. The Temple, with sacrifices and pilgrimages, was what made a Jew a Jew. It says so right in the Torah. Who was Ben Zakkai to do otherwise?

We know what happened to Ben Zakkai and the rabbis. We also know what happened to their counterparts. I'm not saying that Sylvia is going to go the way of the Sadducees, but it's important to realize that while the bloodless brit is new, innovation, even of the radical kind, is not new to Judaism.

Sylvia doesn't have to like bloodless brits (and to be honest, I think they're a little silly), but she should get off her high horse when it comes to determining other people's Jewishness based on what mitzvot they follow. When she starts sacrificing goats with the Samaritans or sitting at home on Shabbat with the lights off like the Karaites, she can get back to me. Until then, she should watch who she casts out of the club for daring to pick and choose.

It's not about being spoiled. It's not about not caring about Judaism or Jewish identity. It's about what people honestly believe and trying to follow through on those beliefs as best as they can. It's about believing that a Jew is made up of more than merely the mitzvot and life cycles they managed to keep and follow and the decisions they're lucky enough to have others decide for them- including brit, bar mitzvah, or a Jewish burial. People like Sylvia can write off "the youth" all they want. I'm sure they're used to it, and they've got thick skins. But I can only hope that regardless of what Sylvia's generation thinks of the parents who choose not to circumcise, they will remember not to hold it against the children affected by the decision. Circumcision is an important issue, as are many questions of modern day Jewish observance. But at the end of the day, these parents are motivated by their personal consciences, their beliefs, and wanting the best for their children. Whatever our positions, on that we can all agree.