Adar II 5776 / April 2016

Below is the Rabbi Baruch Frydman-Kohl's summary of the recent teshuvah on post-mortem circumcision. To read the full text of the decision, as written by the Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards, click here>>

Question: In the event of the tragedy of a stillbirth or the death of an infant boy, must there be a brit milah, circumcision, before burial? Many male Jews from the former Soviet Union did not have a brit milah as children and, even after emigrating, did not arrange for their circumcision.  When they die, must they be circumcised before burial?

The first mitzvah of the Torah that is particular to our people is the commandment to Avraham:  “My covenant shall be in your flesh as an eternal covenant.” The practice of circumcision has been attacked in the ancient world, within Christian society, under Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism, and in contemporary culture. Yet, with great perseverance and dedication, Jews have continued to place the “seal of the covenant” on our male children at the age of eight days.

There is a standing tradition that were an infant to die before being circumcised, there should be a post-mortem circumcision at the grave. The earliest connection of circumcision to infant death is in a midrash which states that just as Avraham, following his circumcision, sat at the entrance to his tent to welcome people on a hot day, so in the future, he will greet Jews in the world-that-is-coming.

The first legal authority to rule about post-mortem infant circumcision was Rabbi Nahshon bar Tzadok, the head of the Academy of Sura from 874-882. He reports a custom of post-mortem circumcision of infants and indicates that it is to be carried out at the graveside and no blessing should be recited. Rabbi David ben Yosef Abu-Dirham (Spain, c. 1340) adds the custom of bestowing a name on the deceased child.

However, at the end of the eleventh century, the question of post-mortem circumcision was  the subject of a responsum by the three sons of Rabbi Yehiel of Rome - Natan (c. 1035 – 1106), Daniel and Avraham. Based on a decision attributed to a Babylonian gaonic scholar, they state that that this procedure is a non-halakhic custom carried out by women on a deceased child who has no mitzvah obligations, adding that the act is not prohibited, but should not be done. The mitzvot are for the living, not the dead.

However, the custom persisted. The circumcision of deceased infants may have provided comfort and consolation to a mourning family, a reassurance that their deceased baby boy would be visibly Jewish and a hoped for life after death. It was codified by a series of Sefardic rabbis, including Rabbi Yosef Karo (Toledo, 1488 –  Safed,1575), the author of the Shulhan Arukh.

By the middle of the 19th century, post-mortem circumcision of still-births and infants, was common custom throughout all Jewish communities. It may also have had and still may have an important role in consoling bereaved parents. The opportunity to name a child at this time may also be comforting to parents. However, rather than seeing post-mortem circumcision  as having emotional or spiritual benefit, some contemporary sensibilities may recoil from this practice.

In our time, it should not be assumed that the parents automatically approve this practice when they give a hevra kadisha responsibility to prepare the body of the baby for burial. Parents should be consulted and their approval requested. Moreover, there exists sufficient support for the position that this procedure is halakhically unnecessary. It is not required nor should it be encouraged.

Should post-mortem circumcision should be performed on adult males? Some 19th century halakhic authorities ruled strictly, concerned that circumcision was under attack and seeking to protect the primacy of brit milah. Others, concerned about keeping uncircumcised boys and men within the Jewish community, were lenient in this regard, often indicating that brit milah was one mitzvah out of many. While we do not seek to diminish the significance of brit milah or to create alternative rituals to circumcision, in contemporary times we are faced with many Jews from the former Soviet Union who were not circumcised.

In 1993, media coverage disclosed that some burial societies in Israel performed this procedure, without family authorization, in preparation for burial. In response, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, Yisrael Lau, ruled that circumcisions should not be forcibly performed on anyone — whether they are alive or dead. The Chief Rabbinate sees circumcision as a privilege and not something that should be forced on anyone.”  In private correspondence with me, this was reconfirmed as existing policy.

We are in a long-term effort to reclaim Jews from the former Soviet Union. If family members feel that a revered elder has been treated with disrespect by Jewish authorities, they may be reluctant, in the future, to engage with the existing Jewish community and its rabbinic teachers. In addition to this consideration, we have already seen that there is no formal mitzvah for post-mortem circumcision. Funeral directors and rabbis may explain to a family making arrangements for burial that this ritual remains a possible privilege, but that it is not obligatory after death.

Decision

The mitzvah of circumcision is incumbent on all male Jews and remains a great spiritual privilege and significant marker of our heritage and history. Families may be informed of the historic custom of post-mortem circumcision, but instructed that it is not a requirement for burial. A still-born baby or a child who dies uncircumcised may be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Similarly, an uncircumcised adult may be buried in a Jewish cemetery.

Unanimously accepted by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, 27 Adar II 5776 (6 April 2016)