THE JEWISH LIFE CYCLE
By Steve Israel

CHAPTER TWO - BIRTH CEREMONIES AND LIFE BEGINNINGS

A: BACKGROUND

1. Introduction
2. What's In a Name?
3. Names and Us - Individual and Collective Identity
4. Names as Statements of Parental Identity
5. The Zionist Approach to Names
6. Summing Up the Name Game: Names, Identity and Jewish Continuity
7. Birth Ceremonies: Celebrating Boys…and (Almost) Celebrating Girls
8. The Cutting Edge Ceremony: Introducing the Brit Milah
9. Separating the Elements: The Brit and the Milah
10. Passover for the Ceremony? Those Who Oppose it and Those Who (Surprisingly) Retain it
11. What Does It Mean? The Ceremony and Its Symbolism
12. Personalizing the Ceremony: Parental Additions
13. What of the Women? Birth Ceremonies for Baby Girls
14. New-Old Rituals for Both Sexes
15. A Final Ceremony - And a Final Challenge: Redeeming the Firstborn - Pidyon HaBen
16. Final Words: The Power of Ritual and How to Retain It

1. INTRODUCTION

We continue our expedition through the Jewish life cycle by starting with the individual's journey through life. Having dealt with the attitudes of Jews and Judaism to questions of life, we will explore the practical questions of concrete living.

This section will examine the very earliest period of life, and confront questions of actual ceremonies for the first time we will now. Although these concrete ceremonies root us in the real practicalities of Judaism, they will raise many questions of fundamental importance about values and issues central to the Jewish experience. These are issues that we will explore below. This section will not go beyond the first few weeks of a child's life, but those weeks will be filled with issues and questions directly connected to the ceremonial. Once again, after the general introduction to the various aspects of the subject, we will go on to suggest a number of educational activities that allow us to explore those issues in the educational setting.

2. WHAT'S IN A NAME?

For Jews, as it turns out, an enormous amount.

The first ceremonial act in the life of a child is the receiving of a name, a name chosen by her or his parents. Jews pay a great deal of attention to names, as we can see from our earliest sources. In the previous section we indicated the importance of family in Judaism by making reference to the fact that the first Jewish stories in the Tanach are family stories, and that the first things that we hear about the Jewish People concern families. We can see a similar phenomenon relating to the importance of names.

The first act described in the sacred texts is G-d's act of Creation of the world. There are many versions of the world's Creation in different mythological and religious cultures. It is clearly the archetypal creative act and it is described in different ways in different traditions. The Jewish tradition, however, appears to be unique in connecting the act of Creation to the power of words and names.

It has been observed that in the Jewish description of the creative process, the various acts of Creation are preceded by the word åéàîø- "and He said." Creation proceeds out of words, or pronounciations. According to the tradition at the beginning, there is only G-d. There is no need to postulate a G-d who speaks before creating; G-d could just create, but the word is an essential part of the creative process. More than that: in several instances in the process described in the first chapter of Bereishit, after the creative act of a specific day has been completed, we are told that G-d assigns names to the things He created.

G-d called the light day and the darkness He called night… G-d called the expanse Heaven… G-d called the dry ground Earth and the gathering of the waters he called Seas.
Bereishit 1: 5,8,10.

In addition, one of the primary tasks of the man whom G-d creates in His own image is to assign names to the animals and living creatures that have been created.

Now the Lord G-d had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would call them and whatever the man called each living creature that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.
Bereishit 2: 19-21.

There is something unfinished in the process of Creation without the use of names to fix the identity of each of the things created.
There is considered to be something inherent in the object that, in some way, corresponds to the name that it is given: it is a part of the creative process, not an afterthought. It is hardly surprising that in a culture that opens its sacred texts in this way, enormous power has been connected to the idea of language and naming. It is as if we say to each other on the cultural level: if G-d's first act was to create out of words and to make sure that the right name was supplied to all objects, and if one of Adam's first acts was to name the animals and birds, then we, too, have to take the act extremely seriously.

In more general terms, we should mention that the Jewish tradition has developed a key belief in the enormous power of words. The Jewish tradition is among other things, a textual tradition, one that places enormous importance on the written and the spoken word. Words and names are of primary importance: when we join in that tradition of supplying names to the children whom we have created (according to tradition, with G-d as a silent partner), we are told to take it seriously. When we supply names to our children, we are participating in a ritual act begun by G-d at the beginning of time and continued by the first human being. We are not to take our responsibility lightly.

3. NAMES AND US - INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITY

Names are a key to identity, both individual and collective. Our name tends to be the first thing that we hear and, more often than not, one of the first words that we learn to say. It is rooted throughout life in our concept of ourselves, our self image, the way we see and think of ourselves. It is a way of expressing our individuality, but it is also a way of affirming ourselves as part of a wider group, whether a family, a tribe or a people.

Ultimately, the name that we are given at birth is only a part of the name that we earn for ourselves throughout our lives. The name of a man and a woman will ultimately include much more than the technical name given at birth. It will come to embody the whole set of associations that the individual will accumulate throughout life.

We will be a People with a "good name" or a "bad name." This is reflected in the midrash which talks of the three names that a person receives during his or her lifetime.

There are three names by which a person is called:
One which his father and mother call him,
And one which people call him,
And one which he earns for himself.
The best of all is the one that he earns for himself.
Midrash Tanchuma.

This midrash was expanded by the poetess Zelda who created out of the midrashic suggestion the very powerful poem ìëì àéù éù ùí - "Every Person Has a Name" - in which she enumerates the parts of a person's life and experience that create the name that she or he carries around with them. However, even allowing for that, the basis of the name is the one assigned at birth. Zelda, following the midrash, herself recognizes that axiom, as she opens her observations with the comment that each person has a name given by G-d and by the father and mother. That is the root of the name: that is the root of identity; other names will develop, to be grafted on to the original center, which is the name provided by the parents. The midrash is surely correct when it states that the best of all names is the name that the person earns for him or herself, but the name that the parents give to their child is, and will remain, the basis of the identity of the child/person.

The issue of a name is, however, more complex than that. The names that we confer on our children are not only identity components for the children. They are, first and foremost, powerful statements as to the identity of parents.

4. NAMES AS STATEMENTS OF PARENTAL IDENTITY

Once again, this is borne out in reference to the tradition.

There is a well-known episode in Moses' life when he fled from Pharaoh's wrath, after he realized that his murder of an Egyptian overseer had become known. He sought "asylum" in Midian, after fate played its ironic hand. Having just discovered his strong bond to his People, he was forced to flee into exile with the knowledge that he was unlikely ever to return. At a certain point, he settled down in Midian and married a local woman, Zipporah - indeed a tragedy for a person who has only recently discovered where he really belongs!

The depth of Moses' lifelong feeling of exile is revealed to the reader of his story, however, only when he fathers a child - a son. The name that he gives his son is Gershom (literally, "a stranger there"). The text explains that this is because Moses was "a stranger in a strange land" and the assumption of the text is that the strange land refers to Egypt. Most commentators skip over the story seeing it as a self-evident statement, but further thought should alert us to an intriguing idea.

What sort of a father would call his own son "Stranger"? If Moses indeed did call his own child "Stranger," it is clear that he wanted to pass over his own feeling of cultural alienation in Egypt and in Midian to his child. He wanted Gershom to grow up with the same kind of cultural alienation that Moses himself had experienced through much of his life in two different societies. Any child that grows up with the name "Stranger" is going to have enormous problems fitting into the society where he lives. At some point in his young life, he is going to turn questioningly and perhaps angrily, to his parents, asking why on earth he has been saddled with a name that is not only ridiculous, but also extremely difficult for him. Moses must have been aware of that when he chose the name for his child: no thinking or considerate parent lands a child with a name that is going to make them the object of ridicule for a lifetime!

Moses must have planned the moment when, many years in the future, Gershom would turn round with the question, because he, the father, would have the answer ready, involving an explanation of Gershom's (and Moses') real cultural identity. Moses clearly meant to pass on to his son the feeling of exile, the fact of not belonging: his instrument for doing so would have been a name, and it would have worked. Names given to a child do reflect the cultural identities of the parents, and it is the parents' wish that that identity will be passed down to the child. Names are a weapon in the battle for cultural survival: moreover, Jewish names in Egypt kept the Children of Israel apart.

Moses was not the first to use this ploy. Earlier on, in Bereishit 41, we read about a related act by Joseph of naming his two children by an Egyptian wife with names that reflect his bitterness, despite his prosperity in the alien land of Egypt.

Names are indeed a key to cultural identity, often chosen by Jewish parents to represent the cultural orientation that they hope their child will take.

Jewish children of would-be Hellenizers in ancient Eretz Yisrael and, of course, the Diaspora called their children by Greek names, in order to indicate the desired cultural direction. The perfect example of conflicting cultural directions within a family is found in the story of the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans. If the first generation - the one of the rebellion - received names like Yehudah, Shimon, Yonatan and Eleazar, a couple of generations later we find mixed names such as Yochanan Hyrcanus. Just a short while later, we find that the Jewish name has been totally dropped and the children are called by names such as Hyrcanus or Aristobulus. It does not mean that the parents of the last named did not want their children to be Jewish. It does mean, however, that they wanted them to embrace the Hellenistic culture together with their Judaism and to consider themselves as citizens of a wider cultural universe.

Examples can equally be drawn from recent times. As Jews became increasingly integrated into western host cultures in recent generations, it became very common to give the child two names, a Jewish (Hebrew) name for ritualistic purposes within the Jewish world, and a non-Jewish name to be used in outside society. Is it surprising that in so many cases, the "outside" name became the "real" name with which the child would identify?

Over the last twenty years or so, an interesting counter-trend has developed in parts of the English speaking world. Many parents have returned to giving their children "Jewish names" for use in outside society. These Jewish names are given usually in the form that is most familiar in the outside world. Biblical names, most prominent in this respect, are given in the anglicized form that would be recognized by the outside world (Saul rather than Sha'ul, Joseph rather than Yosef, Noah rather than No'ach). This return to Hebrew names in the vernacular form suggests, once again, a very specific message about cultural identity that the parents wish to convey to their child.

5. THE ZIONIST APPROACH TO NAMES

An interesting variation on this theme was adopted by early Zionists and the Israelis who came after them. Ideologically, names that were associated with the Diaspora - the "Galut" (exile) as it was called - were rejected. In their place came a whole new approach to naming.

(i) Some names were taken from the Bible, reflecting back to the times that the People lived on their own land. These names, needless to say, would be taken in their original Hebrew form.

(ii) Other names were new: they were taken from nature, indicating the newly revived connection with the ancient land and the roots that Zionism wished to put down in the land. Names such as Oren (pine tree), Shaked (almond tree), Haddas (myrtle) or Tal (dew), became very popular.

(iii) A third kind of name represented particular values important to the parents as they thought about the life of their child. Adin (gentle) or Tamir (tall, statuesque) were examples of this.

(iv) A fourth kind of name were those which commemorated particular events that occured around the time of a child's birth. Sinai and Golan are examples of this trend. It is worth mentioning here in parentheses that this is a variation on an old Jewish tradition of naming children born on certain chagim (Festivals) after figures central in the chag. Children born at Purim, for example, have often been called Esther or Mordechai.

In this way, symbolically, names became transmitters of the new cultural and political mesSages associated with Zionism. The old was rejected and the new embraced. A particularly interesting example of the tension between the generations, symbolised by a struggle over the naming of a child, can be found in the wonderful story by Aharon Megged, called, in English, simply "The Name." In this story (see bibliography) a grandfather who wishes to use the name of his soon-to-be-born great-grandchild to commemorate a grandson who died in the Holocaust, encounters fierce opposition from his granddaughter and her husband. The story provides a fascinating study of generational and ideological conflict through the use of a name.

6. SUMMING UP THE NAME GAME: NAMES, IDENTITY AND JEWISH CONTINUITY

The power of names to provide identity, both for the named and for the namer, is explored in a powerful American Jewish story from 1979, "The Woman who lost her Names" by Nessa Rapoport (see bibliography). This story shows us a woman who loses control over the ability to choose both her own use of her name and that of her children. Having lost that control, her own identity as an autonomous human being is called very much into question.

The power of names to preserve cultural identity was recognized by the Sages. There are a series of midrashim which make the point. For example:-

Israel were redeemed from Egypt because they did not change their names. They went down there as Reuben and Shimon and they came back up as Reuben and Shimon. Reuben was not called Rufus nor Judah Julianus, not Joseph Justus. Also because they did not change their language - they continued to speak the sacred tongue.
Midrash: Leviticus Rabbah etc.

In general, names can be understood as extremely important vehicles of group and personal identity. Apart from any aesthetic considerations, it is clear that there are deep questions at work when Jewish parents consider a name for their child.

It is interesting to add another consideration here. We have talked about the cultural significance of names, but we should also emphasize the importance of names as transmitters of family identity and memory. It is an old tradition in many cultures to use names to pass down a sense of continuity within a family. Names are passed down the generations and appear time and time again within a particular family and its history. We see this strongly within the Jewish cultural tradition. It is a valuable tool for Jewish historians who are aided, for example, in connecting different medieval scholars into family chains. Often, we find names that appear several times, perhaps in variant forms, within a single generation as different members of the family commemorate certain significant individuals.

In this respect there is a marked difference in the use of names by Ashkenazim and Sephardim and Eastern Jews. Ashkenazim (Jews who trace themselves back to Central or Eastern Europe) tend only to call children after deceased relatives. Sephardim (Spanish Jews) and Oriental Jews often name their children after living relatives, especially grandparents. Whichever tradition is adopted, both serve the same purpose: the crystallization of family identity and the transmission of that identity to new generations.

There can be no better way of concluding this section on the significance of names than by mentioning a thought put forward by the great German-Jewish thinker, Franz Rosenzweig. Rosenzweig, who came to an appreciation of Judaism and tradition late in his life, made the observation that his parents had given no thought other than aesthetic considerations to their choice of name for him. It was, he observed, as if they had seen a pretty name in the window of a shop and had gone in to purchase it without any thought other than the fact that they liked the name. There was nothing else to his name, he complained: it signified no history, no memory, no associations. He finished by observing wishfully that it would have been good to have been given the name of a holy man or a hero or a family name - anything that resonated with some kind of deeper association beyond the merely aesthetic. A person should be named after somebody or something. Otherwise, he concluded, a name is really only empty breath.

7. BIRTH CEREMONIES: CELEBRATING BOYS… AND (ALMOST) CELEBRATING GIRLS

Let us now turn to the ceremonial frameworks in which naming takes place. Traditionally, this is done at the Brit milah (circumcision) of a boy, and during a brief naming ceremony in a synagogue context for a girl. It is these ceremonies that we must now consider.

There are actually a number of ceremonies connected with the birth of a Jewish child. The Brit milah for a male baby is clearly the central one, but there are a number of others which are worth briefly mentioning. In Ashkenazi communities there is a traditional gathering on the Friday night following the birth of a boy: this is known as a Sholem Zochor (a Yiddishized form of the Hebrew "Shalom Zachar") - welcoming the male. A similar ceremony in oriental communities is often called Shasha or Blada. The idea is to celebrate the safe arrival of the child through the singing and reciting of prayers and other readings, together with the eating of certain traditional foods.

The origin of this is apparently found in the Talmudic dictum, "If a boy is born, peace comes to the world" (Bab. Talmud, Niddah 31b), although there are those who see the origin in another Talmudic source that talks of a group of Sages who met to celebrate the birth of a son and give thanks for the health of the mother. This tradition sometimes takes place on the night before a circumcision, in which case it is combined with another tradition, the Leil Shimurim (a night of watching), which is based on a folkloristic belief that a baby boy is particularly vulnerable to evil spirits on the night before circumcision and must therefore be protected during the night by his guardians.

It is evident that, together with the Brit milah and the accompanying naming ceremony, all of these ceremonies are for boys rather than girls. Therefore we will need to examine the question of female equivalents of these rather elaborate rituals which welcome a boy child into the world and into the tradition. We will do this after we examine the ceremony of the Brit, but, at this point, let us merely point to the fact that the only traditional aspect of the welcoming of a girl is connected to the naming itself. Traditionally, on the Shabbat following the birth, the father is called up to the Torah in synagogue and the name of the baby is announced within the context of the Torah service, when a blessing is recited for the child, together with a wish for the well-being of the mother. This is traditionally followed by a kiddush or a festive meal. In some non-Ashkenazi communities, the ceremony is performed within a home setting, rather than within the synagogue.

8. THE CUTTING EDGE CEREMONY: INTRODUCING THE BRIT MILAH

The Brit milah is perhaps the most strongly observed of all Jewish life-cycle traditions, and certainly one of the most thought-provoking.

There is an enormous irony involved in the Brit ceremony. For many people, the central feature of the Brit is the physical act of circumcision that is performed as part of the ceremony. This is so much felt by many to be the "be all and end all" of the ceremony that, very often, all that happens at the ceremony is the circumcision itself and the attendant brachot (blessings) said privately in a bare hospital room in the presence of the parents and the mohel (ritual circumcizer), or the surgeon (in which case the brachot might well be left out). Even in many public ceremonies, in a room full of people, this same absence of ritual is often the case, with the addition that in a public ceremony, the announcing of the name to those who do not yet know it will likely make a stir.

9. SEPARATING THE ELEMENTS: THE BRIT AND THE MILAH

The irony lies in the fact that the central part of the Brit milah (literally the "Covenant ceremony of the circumcision") is not the milah (the circumcision) but the idea of the Brit (the Covenant). The very fact that we shorten the phrase Brit milah and talk about the "Brit" rather than about the "milah" should alert us to the centrality of Covenant and the fact that the circumcision is the physical mark of a physical act and, as such, is subservient to the spiritual idea of Covenant. This will have important implications when we start to look at the ideas for equivalent female ceremonies that have started to evolve over the last decades. For the moment, however, let us start by examining the central idea of the ceremony, the idea of Covenant.

The idea of a Covenant between G-d and the world generally, and G-d and the Jewish People specifically, is absolutely fundamental to Judaism. There are three major different covenantal moments described in the Torah, each of which is accompanied by a physical concept or symbol.

• The first appears in the aftermath of the Flood, when G-d establishes a Covenant with the world, a promise never to repeat the wholesale destruction of the flood.

Then said G-d to Noah and to his sons with him. "I now establish My Covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature… Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood. Never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." And G-d said: This will be the sign of the Covenant I am making between Me and you and every living creature with you, a Covenant for all generations to come. I have set my rainbow in the clouds and it will be the sign of the Covenant between Me and the earth…"
Bereishit 9: 8-13

• A second specific covenantal moment appears at Sinai as part of the giving of the Law.

Then the Lord said to Moses. Say to the Israelites. "You must observe My Shabbatot (Sabbaths). This will be a sign between Me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord who makes you holy… The Israelites are to observe the Shabbat, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting Covenant."
Shemot 31: 12-16

• The third one relates to circumcision and comes out of a conversation between G-d and Abraham.

Then G-d said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep My Covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is My Covenant with you and your descendants after you, the Covenant you are to keep. Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision and it will be the sign of the Covenant between you and Me. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised… My Covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting Covenant. Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his People. He has broken My Covenant."
Bereishit 17: 9-14

In these three texts we see clearly the centrality of the idea of the Covenant made between G-d and humanity, and the importance of physical symbol to represent the covenantal idea. The symbol itself is always secondary; it is a reminder of the great covenantal relationship - a two sided relationship between two - albeit unequal - forces, G-d and people. This relationship between G-d and the world, and between G-d and the Jews as a specific part of this world, is one of the great basic truths in Judaism. The significance of the circumcision lies in the fact that on each male Jewish body there is a physical reminder of the relationship between G-d and the Jews, a reminder of the idea that there are limits to human ability, potential and autonomy. There are rules: there is a higher truth, a higher morality.

The Brit then is not principally about circumcision, but about belonging to a wider community, participating in a chain of tradition and about a set of responsibilities and obligations towards a set of higher ideas, beliefs and values. The Brit is the moment when the male child joins the wider community into which he has been born and when his place in that tradition is affirmed, with all the attending rights and responsibilities that come with membership in that community. The circumcision, the physical cut in the flesh, means nothing without the consciousness that it is a symbol of the wider meanings inherent in the ceremony.

However, on the other hand, as the physical symbol of that great spiritual truth, it is indeed seen as an absolute bottom line in Judaism. It was the first commandment incumbent upon Abraham. In a sense, in the Jewish traditional and historical consciousness, it is seen as the first real demand on the Jewish family, in a history that developed hundreds of demands that would define the Jew over time and differentiate him from his non-Jewish surroundings. It is hardly surprising that there is a traditional Talmudic opinion that holds that the importance of the Brit milah is equal to that of all the other commandments together, or another rabbinic opinion that only by virtue of the Brit milah does G-d hear the prayers of the Jewish People…

It could quite rightly be pointed out that this is a little much to ask of an eight-day-old boy, who clearly has no say in the matter. Perhaps this is why Jewish folkloristic tradition has suggested the idea that a child spends the months of pregnancy inside the womb studying Torah with the help of angels, who remove the memory of that learning at the moment of birth. Be that as it may, it confirms what we have already seen in relation to naming: the obligation is really that of the parents. The ceremony is about parental identity. They are the ones who are affirming the sense of belonging to the Jewish community.
Officially and ideologically, the identity in question is the child's: in practical terms, we suggest that the identity in question is that of the parents.

10. PASSOVER FOR THE CEREMONY? THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT AND THOSE WHO (SURPRISINGLY) RETAIN IT

In recent years we hear of parents who have decided against the Brit ceremony for their son. In America and in Israel, there are groups of families organized in institutionalized societies who have come out against the Brit ceremony. Their problem is not actually the Brit so much as the milah - the physical mark of circumcision. It is perceived by some as barbarian, as cruelly inhuman, as an assault on the rights of a baby. It is described as unhealthy, as breaking down the body's natural defenses against disease, as something which will inhibit sexual enjoyment at a later stage in life. It is seen as an attack on the body's privacy, on the body's natural beauty and perfection - and on the autonomy of the individual. Entire medical papers have been written defending or attacking the medical implications of circumcision. We cannot enter into these subjects here.

However, it can be suggested that in one important respect those who attack the idea of the Brit milah are correct. It is indeed an attack on the idea that the individual has complete autonomy within life. The irony is that the attack is on the milah; it should really be on the Brit. The Brit - in the sense already mentioned of Covenant with G-d - absolutely suggests that there are limits on individual autonomy and that there are higher values and obligations connected to the group that each of us has. That is what Covenant is all about.

In this context it is worth reflecting for a moment on the vestigial power of the ceremony, even for those who are far away from the tradition and estranged from any traditional Jewish concept of G-d. We can suggest that the power derives, at least partly, from the deep knowledge that the meaning of the Brit is something to do with membership in "the Jewish group." Even for many of those who have no real understanding of the meaning of Covenant and who tend to focus on the circumcision itself rather than the spiritual meaning of the ceremony, there often seems to be some kind of subconscious understanding that participation in this ceremony represents some kind of a bottom line of collective identity. All sorts of other connections with the Jewish collective can be severed, but this is a sine qua non for membership in the tribe.

This perception may stem from some kind of deep underground knowledge that this is what people have died for; that this tradition has been seen as one that must be kept even in the most difficult circumstances.

• At the time of the Maccabees in the second century B.C.E., we are told that there were Jews who tried to hide or reverse their circumcision in order to be accepted by the Greek culture and its representatives. However, this was one of the things that provoked the rebellion celebrated for thousands of years at Chanukah.
• At the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion in the second century C.E., our sources tell us that the ban on circumcision was one of the acts that provoked the Jewish rebellion.
• Some of the Judaizing conversos ("Marranos" - Anusim, or crypto-Jews) in Spain tried to keep the tradition and, nearer to our own times, we even hear of attempts to keep the commandment in the impossible conditions of the concentration camps and the death camps. (See the example in "Hasidic tales of the Holocaust," mentioned in the bibliography.)

These vestigial memories of suffering and martyrdom are perhaps the reason why so many parents who are alienated from so many aspects of the Jewish tradition choose to circumcise their sons. It is perhaps also the reason that so many Jews find it difficult to deal with the aforementioned groups that decide to forego circumcision. It is, we suggest, a baseline.

Another reason for the almost universal observation of the Brit ceremony might also be related to the symbolic power of ritual presented in the opening chapter, where we discussed ritual working on a symbolic level to infiltrate people's rational defenses in the deepest way. Possibly, the more unfamiliar, the more surprising, the less everyday the ritual, the more power it has to hold us in its spell. Perhaps, according to this logic, it is precisely the very "otherness" of the ceremony, with its connotations of the tearing of the flesh and the blood wound that cause so many in these days to call barbarian, is what makes so many unwilling to go against it: the power of ritual.

If the Brit is about membership, about belonging, however, it is by no means agreed what one belongs to after the circumcision ceremony.

• For some it is about Covenant with G-d, for others it is about national belonging.
• For yet others, it is a cultural act that marks you as a part of a cultural group.
• But for all, we suggest, it is indeed to do with belonging to something larger than oneself.

11. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? THE CEREMONY AND ITS SYMBOLISM

Let us now explore some of the symbolism of the Brit ceremony and attempt to decode some of the deeper meanings of the ritual. These suggestions are neither conclusive nor exhaustive: we simply focus on a number of moments in the ceremony, in order to try and understand some of its ritual power.

The complete ceremony is brought as a separate file within the sources (text) section. As we examine some of the meanings suggested by the ceremony, we follow the order of the traditional ceremony, limiting our interpretations to this traditional ceremony. At this point, we do not address any additions that the parents might like to add, a subject which will be addressed separately, at a later point.

The first event in the traditional ceremony is that the public is introduced to a chair! This is, of course, that special chair, the chair of Elijah - ëñà àìéäå - that plays an essential part in the ceremony. (The circumcision itself will be performed on, or next to, the chair.)

The role of Elijah as the ever-present witness to the Brit ceremony is an interesting one. In part it, reflects the same reason that brings him to other ritual occasions, primarily the Pesach seder and the Havdalah ceremony. According to the Bible (Second Kings 2), Elijah, the fiery prophet, did not actually die but rather was taken up to Heaven in the midst of a whirlwind in a chariot of fire. As such, he was perceived to have a special relationship with G-d, able to be an intermediary between Jews with their hopes and prayers and G-d. In addition, as a symbol of eternal life, he became another symbol - the harbinger of redemption and the messianic age. For this reason, his presence at different ceremonies is connected with the future messianic hopes of the People represented by that moment. Therefore, we understand that there is a foreshadowing of the messianic age implicit in the Brit.

In addition to this reason, there is another reason given for the presence of Elijah at the Brit ceremony. Some time before his death, we are told (First Kings 19) that Elijah receives a visit from G-d, in which Elijah defends himself and attacks the Israelites for lack of faith: the Israelites have rejected the Covenant (Brit) with G-d, Elijah twice tells G-d. From that perspective, Elijah can be understood as the ideal candidate to be present at every Brit and to check that the Jews are still observing the Covenant.

There is a further interpretation to his presence. There is a tradition that G-d was unhappy with Elijah's wholesale condemnation of the People and as a result, He commanded that Elijah should be present at every circumcision ceremony, to bear witness to the fact that the Jews indeed carry out the Covenant as promised. In this interpretation, the presence of Elijah is a corrective lesson for the Prophet, rather than a check-up for the Jewish People.

Whatever the origin, the presence of Elijah (and his chair!) is seen as essential in the ceremony.

As the new-born babe is brought to the ceremony, the assembled group stand up and cry out a welcome to the child ("!"áøåê äáà). This is the official welcoming of the child into the community of Israel: the child is now part of a wider community than his immediate family. Another circle of belonging has been placed around the individual.

The next occurrence is the symbolic acceptance by the mohel (circumciser) of the responsibility for the circumcision. Traditionally, this is the responsibility of the father and therefore, if the responsibility is to be relinquished by the father to the mohel who stands here as the father's agent, that act must be made clear. This can be understood as reinforcement of the previously mentioned idea about the responsibility of the parents in the process of creating a Jewish child. At a certain point in life, the responsibility will pass to the individual; up to that point, the responsibility for creating a Jew lies with the parents.

Although the parental authority for circumcision traditionally is seen as being vested in the father, there is an extraordinary example of the mother's seizing responsibility for the action. This is in the case of Zipporah, the wife of Moses, who diverted G-d's murderous anger against Moses, by circumcising her son in his place (Shemot 4). (The Ethiopian Jews followed this custom of circumcision by women.) According to traditional commentators, G-d actually wanted to kill Moses because he had temporized regarding the commandment of circumcision and had delayed carrying it out.

At this stage of the proceedings, a number of individuals are honored with specific roles in the holding of the baby prior to and during the act of circumcision. It can be suggested that these individuals, among whom the most important are the Kvatter and Kvatterin, (a specially honored, young, childless couple who help hold the baby when it is brought in and passed on) and the Sandak (the godfather), represent the idea that despite the acceptance of the child by the community as a collective, that collective is itself made up of individuals, some of whom have specific and unique relationships with the new individual member.

This raises two questions:

• Why the surgical intervention on the new-born child? As far as a cut is concerned, the idea of a permanent irreversible mark that cannot be obliterated clearly represents the idea of lifelong membership in the collective. It remains with the individual forever, a physical sign that should act as a permanent mark of identity.

• Why the foreskin? The concept of fertility and pro-Creation are central in Judaism. The idea might well be that the mark is something for all generations and, to emphasize that idea, it is placed on the organ which more than any other denotes the future generations.

In response, another relevant idea should also be mentioned. The Rambam (Maimonides) wrote that the circumcized male should be seen as perfect.

The foreskin is regarded as an abomination… An important institution is circumcision, for the patriarch Abraham was not called perfect till he had circumcised himself, as it is said, (Bereishit 17: 1-2), Walk before Me and be perfect and I will make My Covenant between Me and you."
Mishneh Torah, Bk. 2, 3

The surgical intervention on a Jewish child serves, therefore, as a reminder that none of us is born perfect. We must accept that we have to make conscious changes, or perform certain actions, in order to improve ourselves and the world in which we live. Judaism tells us that we need to be partners in improving the world; the world will not improve, unless we ourselves are active in the process.

Another question often asked is:

Why is the baby so young at the time of circumcision?

There are several possibilities.

• Firstly, it underlines the theme of parental responsibility already mentioned.
• Secondly, it emphasizes the lifetime character of group membership - from birth till death.
• Thirdly, perhaps the passivity of the young and helpless baby is meant to indicate our helplessness in the face of the larger scheme of life.

According to this interpretation, there is an educational idea behind the timing. We are to understand that there are things not in our power; this should serve as a limit to human arrogance and as a message for humility and modesty.

After the milah itself comes the recitation of a blessing that explicitly recalls the commandment to enter the Covenant of Abraham and G-d, and this is followed by the response of those assembled:

As he has entered the Covenant, so may he enter the [study of and the life of] Torah, the marriage canopy and good deeds.

Here, the child comes into explicit contact with the values of the community. These three ideas - Torah, family and good deeds - represent the values of the collective as interpreted by the community itself, in terms of its ambitions for the child. In these two sentences - that in which the Brit of Abraham is mentioned and that in which the response of the community is given - a connection is made between past, present and future. The child is placed in a context of communal time and his place in the collective identity is made explicit.

Interestingly, the next stage in the proceedings is the granting of the name itself. This adds another layer to the identity that the community has already bestowed on the child, affording a sense of personal identity represented by the specific name of the individual child, always, however, placed against the background of family, by adding the father's (and with increasing frequency, the mother's) name.

The circles of belonging, of identity, are beginning to be formed around the child. The child is an individual with an individual name and personality, but the additional circles of identity and emotional support represented by the parents and the community are there to sustain the child and to guide him into a future represented hopefully by the fulfillment of the community most sacred values. This is indeed a deep and special tribal moment, representing the power of the life cycle experience at its peak of effectiveness and symbolic meaning.

The wine that accompanies the Brit is a sign, not just of joy and richness, but announces the ritual nature of the moment. Wine is sanctification, one of the most common features in the rituals of Judaism. Kiddush, Havdalah and the Pesach Seder are just some of the important moments when wine makes its appearance. The associations of common ritual symbols, like the use of wine tend, to transfer from ceremony to ceremony and to emphasize the importance of the moment in ritual terms. This is a sacred time in the life of the individual.

This is emphasized near the end of the ceremony when, following the raising of the wine to the child's lips, a powerful and moving summing up declaration is made.

Lord of the world, may it be Your will to accept in satisfaction and regard favorably [the circumcized child] as if I had brought him as a sacrifice before Your glorious throne. And You, in Your great mercy, send a pure and holy soul by way of Your holy angels to my son ----- the son of ----- who has just now been circumcized in honor of Your great name. May his heart be open like the Temple entrance to Your holy Torah , to learn and to teach and to keep and to do.

This likening of a child to a sacrifice before G-d brings up a host of associations, but the immediate implication is clear. The child is the holy sacrifice given to the service of G-d by the mohel (the priest) and the parents (the pilgrims who provide the sacrifice). The knees of the sandak, or the table on which the circumcision was performed, become the altar and the piece of skin cut off is, indeed, equivalent to the offering burnt in the Temple which was viewed as ascending straight to G-d.

This ends the ceremony with a ritual performance of enormous power, a dramatized re-enaction of the Temple service where G-d accepts the offerings of humanity.

12. PERSONALIZING THE CEREMONY: PARENTAL ADDITIONS

So far, we have attempted to portray the power of the symbols that are employed in the rite of the Brit and, when their full power is understood, it might be felt that they stand alone without any need for augmentation. However, as so often in ritual life, there exists the natural impulse of the parents to make the ceremony their own and it has become very common to embroider the ceremony with many personal readings and other additions in order to create something more personal and more specific.

The enhancement presents no problem in terms of tradition, and parents may choose to do this in different ways, often in consultation with the mohel.

• There are those who build a full ceremony with the Brit in the middle around the Brit itself, with all the permanent components.
• There are others who prefer to keep the two parts separate and have their own ceremony following the conclusion of the "official" one.

Some of the popular components, besides a general welcome to those present, are:

• explanations of the name given and an exploration of its meaning, both to the parents and to the tradition;
• blessings by other members of the family and friends;
• liturgical readings and sections of the Torah or other traditional texts;
• poems or other non-traditional readings, and songs.
  (The bibliography will include at least one guide to such ceremonies and we will include a few particularly popular additions in the text section).

The interaction between the two components of the final service or ceremony can be extremely powerful and moving; even the most cursory reflection will make clear the price that is paid by those who confine themselves to the absolute minimum - the circumcision itself - ignoring the other elements mentioned, whether the traditional ones or the additional, personal pieces.

13. WHAT OF THE WOMEN? BIRTH CEREMONIES FOR BABY GIRLS

A major question that needs to be addressed and mentioned earlier is the question of the ceremony for baby girls. This has become an far more important issue in recent decades, as the role of women in traditional Judaism has been increasingly questioned.

Now that the force of the traditional Brit ceremony has been expounded, it should be clear that the traditional custom of the baby naming ceremony for a girl in the synagogue, the Simchat Bat, (happiness of a daughter), hardly reaches the potential power of the Brit:

• The name of the ceremony itself has none of the serious associations of its male counterpart.
• Even moving the naming ceremony to the eighth day did not offer a parallel significance.

About thirty years ago, an intensive and serious debate began about possible substitutes and equivalent, significant ceremonies that could be developed or adapted for baby girls. Even the modern orthodox circles, which do not openly debate it, have placed greater emphasis on this moment. The premise underlying the whole debate (which continues today) was that new rituals needed to be created to supply the community and the newborn baby girl with a similar ceremonial framework, significance and cushioning to welcome her into the world as a boy receives through the mechanism of the Brit. Many suggestions were made and have been tried out in practice. We bring some of them here, with their various directions and emphases, reflecting the circles, or communities which adopted them.

Many have chosen to concentrate on the idea of Brit rather than of milah, recognizing the subordination of the physical mark to the spiritual power of the occasion. There has led to a number of attempts to develop liturgical responses, which emphasize the power of words and the role of traditional texts in providing the framework of ritual that ushers the newborn child into the requisite relationship with peoplehood, G-d and identity.

Another direction has been to mark the birth with a ritual that connects to other parts of the tradition for women. Prominent among these is the suggestion to link the celebration of a child's birth with the ceremony celebrating the new moon, a traditional Jewish ceremony, understood by many as having special importance for women. This suggestion would be to incorporate the baby naming and acceptance ceremony into the welcoming ceremony for the new moon.

Another idea associated with the adaptation of Jewish symbols associated with women, has been the suggestion to incorporate immersion rituals within a naming ceremony. It is an idea rich in associations that might be thought appropriate in a birth ceremony. There is a long, multi-level association between women and water in many different cultures, including the Jewish. Specifically, the association of mikveh has become largely, although not exclusively, connected with women, (marriage, birth and menstruation).

Moreover, there is the association of welcoming people into Judaism - converts - by a rite of immersion. For men, the conversion procedure includes circumcision as a central part. It can therefore be argued that, although the idea of mikveh immersion is central to all converts of both sexes, it is in a sense a more central part of the conversion process for women and it can be put forward as a good basis for a Covenant ceremony in which the girl child is welcomed into Jewish womanhood. In addition, there is a medieval tradition that when Abraham and Sarah became Jewish, Abraham did it through circumcision, while Sarah did it through ritual immersion. Other ceremonies have also been suggested which incorporate the use of water in different ways.

There have been those who have suggested that there should be some kind of physical equivalent to circumcision within a new ceremony for baby girls. While this is both controversial and remains a peripheral practice, it should not surprise us that this idea of the physical component of a ceremony for baby girls did emerge - and to considerable protest. It is important to address it - and this will be done from the perspective of those who seek to achieve milah for a girl baby, followed by consideration of the objections.

The underlying idea was that a girl should carry with her an irreversible physical mark of the Covenant to remind her and others of her loyalties and her sense of belonging. The preference was for an organ representing associations with fertility and the connections to future generations, and to demonstrate our need to strive for perfection in all aspects of our life, through a physical change. The major suggestion in this direction was radical: hymendectomy, as part of a Covenant ceremony.

The article in which this first appeared was by Mary Gendler, and was published in a 1975 edition of Response magazine. A literary reflection of the same idea, including a description of one such ceremony, appeared soon after in the book, "A Weave of Women" by E.M. Broner, 1978. Other elements are included, beyond this act, which enhance the effect of the ritual. The ceremony, as described, is immensely powerful, conducted entirely within the presence of a diverse group of women. What emerges clearly from these descriptions is that, in this ceremony, the girl-child is being welcomed into the tribe of women, as much as into the tribe of Jews, and that the ceremony is constructed accordingly.

Objections were based on the following premises:

• It was opposed by many who found it unappealing, on spiritual or aesthetic grounds.
• A great number said it was unnecessary.
• Some felt that this act was not parallel in its emotional implications to that of male circumcision.
• For many, there was an association with the traditional reverence for virginity in Judaism. Virginity, for males and females before marriage, is perceived as a central value, so it is understandable that an act to physically mark the reproductive organs of a baby girl would be viewed by many as problematic.
• There were misleading associations with various female "circumcision" ceremonies, which involve dangerous mutilation of the female genital area, practiced in some tribal societies of Sudan and that region.
  As a result, the tendency has been to look elsewhere than the physical in the attempt to develop a meaningful ceremony for girl babies.

All of these suggestions are still new and, with the seeming exception of the last-named, they are in the process of being examined and tried out by different families. It remains to be seen, which, if any of the suggested directions will strike responsive roots among contemporary Jewish families. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the trend towards searching for rituals and ceremonies aimed at providing equal validation for girls will continue to develop and be practiced.

14. NEW-OLD RITUALS FOR BOTH SEXES

In the context of the development of new birth rituals, it is worth noting the fact that recent years have seen more explorations of new rituals for both boys and girls.

Some families have constructed separate welcoming ceremonies for boys and girls alike a few weeks after birth; not, in the case of boys as a replacement for circumcision, but as an additional ritual. The logic here is that after a week of life, the family is in too ragged a state to be able to focus on the rich and deep aspects of ritual. A few extra weeks allow them to become more focused and prepare for their own welcoming ceremonies in a fuller fashion. These ceremonies are created out of a mixture of the previously mentioned elements of Torah and personal ideas, readings and songs.

Another non gender-specific idea which has been suggested builds a ritual ceremony which incorporates the old Eretz Israel Jewish custom of planting trees for the birth of a child, a cedar for a boy and an acacia for a girl. The ceremony is mentioned in Tractate Gittin of the Babylonian Talmud. In the ancient usage, the branches of the tree would be later used in the child's marriage ceremony. As we become more environmentally aware, this is a ritual that will probably become increasingly popular if, sufficiently publicized.

A final suggestion, once again involving the revival of an old European Jewish custom, is the making of a "wimple," a strip of cloth ritualized by the embroidering of blessings or quotes from the Torah, out of the swaddling cloth that has wrapped the baby during the circumcision, or the naming ceremony. In this tradition, the piece of embroidered cloth would accompany an individual through a number of different stages of the life-cycle. Following its initial use as swaddling cloth, in its new incarnation as a long strip of embroidered cloth it can wrap the Torah when the child is brought to synagogue and is old enough to be conscious of the ceremony, or alternatively, for bar or bat mitzvah. Later on in the life cycle journey, the same piece of cloth can be woven into the canopy of the chupah at the wedding ceremony. This custom has started to become known in the communities of North America; it is a particularly beautiful ritual, since it acts as an intermediary between different stages of the life cycle.

15. A FINAL CEREMONY - AND A FINAL CHALLENGE: REDEEMING THE FIRSTBORN - PIDYON HABEN

The last ceremony that we shall address is that known as "Pidyon HaBen" - the ceremony of the redemption of the first born son. This ceremony, performed a month after the birth of a first son, is based on a number of ideas that we find in the Torah. We bring here the relevant quotations.

And the Lord spoke to Moses saying "Sanctify to Me all the first-born males. The first offspring of every womb belongs to Me, both of man and of beast…You are to give over to the Lord the first offspring of every womb."
Shemot 13: 1,2,12

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman... Take the Levites in place of all the firstborn of Israel…The Levites are to be Mine. I am the Lord. To redeem the firstborn Israelites…collect five shekels for each one. Give the money for the redemption… to Aaron and his sons."
Bamidbar 3: 11,12,45,48

Then the Lord said to Aaron…,"Everything in Israel that is devoted to the Lord is yours. The first offspring of every womb, both man and animal, that is offered to the Lord is yours. But you must redeem every firstborn son…When they are a month old, you must redeem them at the redemption price set at five shekels of silver."
Bamidbar 18: 8, 14-16

The basic idea comes from the concept that each firstborn male has a special sanctity in the eyes of G-d. Each firstborn male was to have a special responsibility to serve G-d, just as firstborn animals and fruits were considered ideal gifts and sacrifices for G-d. (This is reflected in the first quotation.)

However, the situation changed, according to the Torah, after the sin of the Golden Calf, where the firstborn Israelites led the immoral and unacceptable rituals around the calf. As a result, we are told, G-d rescinded their special status as those who ministered in a holy capacity and transferred it to the tribe of Levites. From then on, it was only the latter who would provide the priesthood and the other officiators in the Divine rituals.

There was therefore a need to remove the special status of all firstborn sons and to vest it in the Cohanim (priests) and Leviim (other Levites). The firstborn sons appear to have been viewed as still having some residual special holiness and therefore needed to be released in an individual ceremony, which is conducted by a priest. This is the origin of the ceremony called the Pidyon HaBen (which is, therefore, not performed if the baby's father, or mother, is either a Levi or a Cohen).

In this ceremony, the firstborn son is released from his ritual obligation to minister to G-d in a full-time capacity. In exchange for a symbolic sum of money, the firstborn son is "redeemed" from his obligations. He should still serve G-d as every Jew does, but his specific responsibilities and obligations are transferred to the Cohen (priest).

This ceremony, as mentioned is performed on the thirty first day after the birth (unless this falls on Shabbat (Sabbath) and chagim (festival days), when it is delayed). It is considered binding for every non-Levi and Cohen, who is the firstborn son of a mother (the operative criteria here are: born - from a mother's womb). Pidyon HaBen is therefore also irrelevant in two more cases:

• when it is the firstborn son of a father, if that father is married to a woman who has had a son by a previous marriage;
• for a firstborn son born through a Caesarean section, who is not bound, since he does not exit through the womb.

Without analyzing the ceremony in any detail, we shall focus on the obvious symbolism of the ritual. According to Jewish tradition, we are to remember that our first responsibility is to G-d: all Jews are seen as having obligations in this realm, some more than others. Ultimately, there will be those who will dedicate themselves totally to the service of G-d and the People, but all have some responsibility. The firstborn sons of the Pidyon HaBen ceremony represent those who are released from direct ritual responsibility, but who retain their place in the framework of Judaism (e.g.with the Fast of the Firstborn, on Erev Pesach - Passover Eve).

It is hardly surprising that this ritual has a lesser appeal for many Jews today than the Brit milah or naming ceremony and is therefore less observed:

• The idea of primary service to G-d does not appeal to all.
• Indeed, the idea of having a G-d who should be served at all is alien to many Jews today, while that of payment as a release from obligation is also one that some will find unappetizing.

Nevertheless, there is potential meaning that deserves consideration by all of us:

• The concept of higher values, to which we are obligated in service is important.
• The idea that there are limits to our abilities and our appetites is one that, in educational terms, is central to any value system.

It can rightly be maintained that these elements are present in the Brit ceremony, but it is one where they are often lost in the anxieties of the circumcision itself (for a boy) and in all the additional elements that surround the ceremony (such as the naming), in the case of a child of either sex. It could be argued that this Pidyon HaBen can become a purer and more exclusive focus on the idea that all of us should see ourselves as serving G-d, or serving G-dly values.

16. FINAL WORDS: THE POWER OF RITUAL AND HOW TO RETAIN IT

As we reach the end of this unit, we repeat and develop the idea raised in the introductory section and echoed in the previous unit: life cycle ceremonies and moments can be decoded to lay bare a complex and fascinating value system. Some of the values might be problematic for many modern Jews, but the richness of the tradition should serve as a challenge. Even if parts of the values and of the traditional ideas are difficult to some, the aim should be not to ignore them. Rather, the challenge should be to find those values and ideas in the traditional ceremonies with which individuals can identify and to adjust the ceremonies, so that they meet the needs of the individuals and the families in question.

This process of revaluation has been going on inside Judaism for thousands of years, and it prevents ceremonies and traditions from becoming obsolete. As the ceremonies retain their essence, the values attached to them develop in accordance with the changes in the needs of the Jews themselves. This is the basis of a healthy living tradition. In the following units we will see how this process continues to develop in other sections of the life cycle.