Thanks, Cranky - Sorry about the tone in the first one, but I was … well … cranky. Frustrated, I guess, because it seems that some people swear that they have thought everything through carefully, but they haven’t thought through (nor even looked for research on) the social issues. They go straight to anecdotal evidence, which seems a poor way to make a choice. You can still disagree with me on those points, and certainly your local environment and/or family may play a role, but at least think about the other side, rather than assume ( and rather than reject alternative views out-of-hand). I guess I wish people would examine their assumptions, though I know that is asking a lot. So I get upset, more about the method of analysis than the final decision. Maybe I expect too much, but I find that high expectations are met as often as low ones, so why not aim high?
Leah
I disagree with your basis, though your conclusion may be correct. Circumcision actually does not mean “removing the entire foreskin”, it has only come to imply that. It just means ‘to cut around’, not what or how much. The original rite is a blood rite, NOT a ‘remove the whole thing’ rite (blood shed during the process is considered holy). The original form is less severe, and was changed, possibly in reaction to the tendency (both in the Hellenistic and Hadriatic periods) to hide status as a Jew by training the foreskin forward. I’m betting they were still Orthodox at that point.
It was only when the peri’ah (laying bare the glans) was added as a second requirement of the bris milah that the whole foreskin was removed. Before that, it was possible to conceal the circumcision by ‘drawing the foreskin foreward’ (training it forward?), and, as I already noted, the addition of the peri’ah may have been in response to people hiding their status as Jews, especially during times of persecution (also not unusual for parents to choose not to circumcise during such periods). Since laying bare the glans was not an initial requirement, the amount initially removed was probably fairly small - there isn’t much that is not attached to the glans in most newborns, and actually, that part that is attached later develops into the most sensitive part (all of which would be retained in the old form). The only specific requirement for the degree of circumcision that I can find (in a general search of Jewish history/religion sites) is that the glans not be completely covered by the foreskin. SO it isn’t a ‘you are or you aren’t’ thing in the sense that either you remove the whole thing or you don’t remove the whole thing, it is a ‘you were cut in a proper ceremony at the proper time’ or ‘you were not cut at all’ - of course, the timing of the event is also critical to the meaning (too early makes it meaningless, but later can work okay).
The notes on the addition of the peri’ah comes from the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, New York and Oxford University Press, 1997.
So, if the mitsvah is from the command of G-d to … um, Abraham (I think), to have all males circumcised on the 8th day afer birth, does the mitsvah include or not include the rabbinical changes added later? I can see Orthodox people seeing the peri’ah as not part of the original command, but I don’t know if they would necessarily reject later rabbinical additions - so Orthodox Jews still might well require the full circumcision-with-peri’ah. But less observant Jews may well consider the older form sufficient. IMHO, your conclusion may well be correct, but I don’t think it is for the reasons you give.