From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: My Heritage
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:47:07 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


           -=> Quoting Robert A. Levene to Bill Carlson <=-
 RAL> From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
 RAL> Message-ID: <9209081629.AA13855@aplpy.jhuapl.edu>
 >>    Nope.  Though you didn't have exactly a Brit-Millah according to
 >>    Torah, (since it was a medical circumcision), you still are
 >>    circumcised and a Jew.
 RAL> Please, let's not confuse the guy: 1.  He is circumcised
 RAL>                                    2.  He is Jewish
 RAL> 3.  He has NOT fulfilled the commandment of "bris milah"
 RAL> through his medical circumcision.
                             -BC> Reply <BC-
     Yes, let's not confuse the guy.  He has not fulfilled the halachah
     of Brit-Millah, yet he HAS fullfilled the Mitzvah of Brit....
 >>  ...  This "re-circumcision" business, applies
 >>  only to proselytes/converts to Judaism, from the Gentiles, who are
 >>  already circumcised, and would include shedding a single drop of
 >>  blood.  That is not necessary for a natural born circumcised Jew
 >>  anyway, so you don't have to worry about it.
 RAL> Totally wrong.  This step *is* necessary for every Jew who has
 RAL> not had a "bris milah," both converts and natural born.
                              -BC> Reply <BC-
      Nope.  You are absolutely incorrect.  There is only one recored
      case of a "medical" circumcision in all of Scripture and Rabbinic
      lit..  And when it was done, it was accepted by HaShem!  That was
      when Moshe was going to be killed by G-d for failing to
      circumcise his son through Zipporah.  Medical I say, as Zipporah
      did it, not as a 'Mohel', not in regard to the Mitzvot, and not
      in the proper time - yet, it was accepted by HaShem and saved
      the live of Moshe.
           Another reason that, (as far as I know), you will not find
      this discussed in Halachic lit.; is that during those days that
      Mishnah - Talmud, etc..., were being written, the problem was
      not one of re-circumcision, invalid circumcision, etc...., it was
      one of 'UN-circumcision/removing the marks of circumcision'.
      This became quite popular by the 1st century AD/Ce for diaspora
      Jews, as the Greek/Roman cultures, considered circumcision
      obscene, and would not enter into trade with a circumcised Jew,
      and they were outcast from society.  So..., many, by one of
      three surgical procedures, sought to 'remove the marks of their
      circumcision'.  Rebbe Sha'ul/Paul warns against this in the
      New Covenant, and it just wasn't a kosher thing to be doing :-)
           The only other example I can recall, comes from modern
      times, when in Israel some of the Orthodox were refusing to
      marry and recognise the Ethiopian Jews, until they were re-
      circumcised, and converted to Orthodoxy, as they didn't have/
      regard the Talmud, and therefore their lifestyle/completion of
      the Mitzvot, would have not been in accord with halachah.  There
      was an extreme public outcry to this, and those particular
      Rabbis were told basically to go fly a kite - we've been Jews
      for 1,000's of years, without the Talmud, and without the Israeli
      Orthodox, and we shall continue to be Jews without them, was the
      responce.  And as far as I know, the condition was dropped.
           Then there are Russian Jews who never have been circumcised.
      Conclusion..., a Jew who is not circumcised, - should be.  A Jew
      who was circumcised, but not in accord with halachah, - does NOT
      have to be re-circumcised!  A totally non observant Jew, whether
      he recalls, or even knows, if his circumcision was in accord with
      halachah or not, can become as Orthodox as the Brooklyn Rebbe
      himself - if he simply takes that course.  There is not "re-
      circumcision", for him who is born of a Jewish mother, and was
      circumcised prior.  And if you disagree - please show me in
      HALACHAH - (not some obscure commentary), where it is so.
... B'rasheet haya HaDavar vHaDavar haya et HaEl*him vEl*him haya HaDavar    
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG