Teugels Circumcision

7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION: THE BIBLE, ITS READERS, AND ITS READERS’ READERS LIEVE M. TEUGELS According to Gerhard Von Rad and other Christian biblical scholars of his generation, ancient Israelite male circumcision was a random sign of the covenant; 1 piercing the earlobe could have done the job just as well. Considering the physical and psychological effects of circumcision, 2 the fact that it is performed on the 1 E.g. Gerhard von Rad and John Bowden, Genesis: A Commentary, 5th impr. rev. ed., Old Testament Library (London: SCM, 1981), 201; cf. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington [etc.]: Indiana University Press, 1990), 141–46. See also the anthropologist Arnold van Gennep, Les rites de passage: étude systématique des rites (1909; réimpr., Paris: Picard, 1981), 103–4. Van Gennep equates circumcision with other “mutilation rites” such as a tattoo, or knocking out a tooth, that serve to aggregate a young person to a group by leaving a trace that cannot be repaired. 2 This is not intended as a statement in favor of or against circumcision. A “psychological effect” can be, for example, that a man derives a sense 197 198 LIEVE M. TEUGELS male sexual organ would make it a strange choice for a random covenantal symbol. In fact, this understanding of circumcision as an indiscriminate sign completely ignores the role of sexuality in circumcision and in religion as such. In Jewish traditional sources, the explanation and justification of male circumcision includes reflections on sexuality and differentiation between the sexes. Sexuality includes the biological aspects of procreation, fertility, and sexual health, while differentiation between the sexes is very important in traditional Jewish sources, if only for the sake of organizing religious duties and family life. 3 The contemporary hermeneutic category of “gender” can address social aspects of sexual differences, and while we can approach ancient texts through the lens of gender, we need to keep in mind that for the ancients, “gender” was not a concept, and the problems that we associate with it (for example discrimination) may not have been their concerns, at least not consciously. For the sake of convenience, however, I will use the term “gender” in this paper to refer to social differences between the sexes as presented in the sources, as do other authors. 4 of identity from circumcision. The views of Philo and other antique authors that will be discussed in this paper imply that circumcision has (positive) physical and psychological effects. That circumcision has negative effects has recently been claimed by Jewish groups, such as the Jewish Peaceful Parenting group, which advocates the “Brit Shalom,” an alternative welcoming ritual for boys and girls. See “Alternative Bris Options,” Judaism & Circumcision Resources, Peaceful Parenting, http://www.drmomma.org/2009/06/circumcision-jewish-fathers-making.html. See also Jewish Circumcision Resource Center, http://jewishcircumcision.org. 3 Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, “Regulating the Human Body: Rabbinic Legal Discourse and the Making of Jewish Gender,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 270–294. 4 See the title of chapter 6, “The Fruitful Cut: Circumcision and Israel's Symbolic Language of Fertility, Descent, and Gender” in EilbergSchwartz, The Savage in Judaism. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 199 Next to (biological) sexuality and the differences between the sexes, covenant and identity are two other aspects that are central to most Jewish discussions of circumcision. Already in the Hebrew Bible, circumcision was established as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen 17). Identity became an important aspect of this practice, because in encounters with other cultures that do (Egyptian, Islamic) or don’t (Greek, Roman, Christian) perform circumcision, internal and external explanations and justifications for circumcision were required. I have thus far distinguished four categories through which one may analyze circumcision: sexuality, gender, covenant, and identity. With these in mind I will examine a variety of traditional Jewish sources and contemporary studies that bear on attitudes towards circumcision. Even though most sources ask questions related to the four aspects that were already outlined, they answer these questions in a number of different ways. For example, some sources employ circumcision to define the differences between the sexes, while other sources blur these distinctions. Though some sources focus on the relationship between covenant and circumcision, others seem to avoid this topic altogether. Moreover, some modern readings of ancient sources address issues in ancient texts that are not discussed in other analyses, which can lead to widely different assessments of the compositions in question. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, I will demonstrate how fertility, in its broadest sense, is a major, and possibly the main, aspect of circumcision in traditional Jewish sources, including the Hebrew Bible. This focus on fertility explains why the mark of the covenant was circumcision of the male sexual organ and not another random sign, pace Von Rad. 5 Second, I will show how the use of “sources” does not guarantee scholarly unanimity. This is, of course, not a new insight, but in this particular case, the way the ancient sources are read yields a remarkable variation in conclusions about the “Jewish” view on sexuality and gender. 5 See note 1. 200 LIEVE M. TEUGELS The traditional Jewish sources upon which this paper focuses are Philo of Alexandria’s writings on circumcision, samples of rabbinic midrashic readings, and samples of medieval mystical texts, all of which are based on biblical texts about circumcision and related topics. These are all sources that are regularly quoted in contemporary discussions of Jewish “exegetical” texts on circumcision. That being said, the discussion of ancient Jewish sources presented in this paper is far from exhaustive: for example texts from Dead Sea Scrolls and Targumim are missing here. What is obvious, yet often overlooked, is that the contemporary, secondary texts are doubly hermeneutic: they are modern readings of ancient readings of the biblical text. A study such as this involves a good deal of quotation. For the sake of clarity, I indent all quotations and, in addition, I use italics for ancient sources in order to distinguish these from modern readings. 1. PHILO’S “GENDER BIAS” What is the meaning of the words, “There shall be circumcised every male of you, and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin” (Gen 17:10–11)? I see two circumcisions, one of the male, and the other of the flesh; that of the flesh is by way of the genitals, while that of the male, it seems to me, is by way of the reason. For that which is, one might say, naturally male in us is the mind, whose superfluous growths it is necessary to cut off and throw away in order that it may become pure and naked of every evil and passion, and be a priest of God. Now this is what He indicated by the second circumcision, stating (in) the Law that “you shall circumcise your hardness of heart,” (Deut 10:16) which means your hard and rebellious and refractory thoughts, and by cutting off and removing arrogance, you shall make the sovereign part free and unbound. (Philo, QG 3.46) 6 6 The translation of all Philo texts in this study is from the Loeb Classical Library. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 201 Not unlike the rabbinic sages after him, Philo reads the double reference to circumcision in two subsequent verses in Genesis as containing a special meaning: circumcision “in the flesh of your foreskin” must mean something else than circumcision “of the male,” otherwise Scripture, which does not include superfluities, would not have repeated it. Typical of Philo’s allegorical reading, he states that the “foreskin” refers to physical circumcision, whereas “the male” refers to the mind. As an additional prooftext, Philo quotes Deut 10:16, which uses circumcision in a metaphorical sense. Maren Niehoff comments on Philo’s smart choice of the latter verse, as this figurative reference to circumcision is exceptional in the Torah (but rife in the Prophets). 7 In the above-quoted passage … Philo both interprets the double reference to circumcision in Gen 17:10–11 and quotes the only Pentateuchal reference to circumcision as a metaphor. This allows Philo to introduce a strong gender bias and to highlight the parallelism of the two Scriptural categories of circumcision, one of the foreskin, the other of the heart. 8 Niehoff elaborates on Philo’s reading of Gen 17:10–11 in more detail: Philo relies in this passage on ancient medical opinion and cultural stereotypes in order to construct the male as mind. Circumcision then involves an excision of superfluous and by implication feminine accretions to the intellect. The mind is thus restored to its original virility and purity. Circumcision in fact may be said to reverse the creation of Eve, allegorized by Philo as passion, while restoring Adam, the virile mind, to his freedom and hegemony. 9 7 Maren Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity: Philo, Origen and the Rabbis on Gen 17:1–14,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 10, no. 2 (2003): 89–123. 8 Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 96. 9 Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 95. 202 LIEVE M. TEUGELS Philo’s reading of Gen 17 indeed shows that he “reads” the male as mind, and that circumcision stands metaphorically for the removal of superfluous elements (thoughts?) from the mind. How can we deduce that these “accretions” are “by implication” feminine and that Philo introduces a “strong gender bias” with this reading? Niehoff refers to Philo’s reliance on knowledge of “the ancients,” and to his own medical notions and gender constructs, which she discusses in another work. 10 In particular she refers to his commentary on the biblical creation story, particularly the creation of the woman (Gen 2:22). 11 But since no created thing is constant, and things mortal are necessarily liable to changes and reverses, it could not but be that the first man too should experience some ill fortune. And woman becomes for him the beginning of blameworthy life. For so long as he was by himself, as accorded with such solitude, he went on growing like to the world and like God …. But when woman too had been made, beholding a figure like his own and a kindred form, he was gladdened by the sight, and approached and greeted her. She, seeing no living thing more like herself than he, is filled with glee and shamefastly returns his greeting. Love supervenes, brings together and fits into one the divided halves, as it were, of a single living creature, and sets up in each of them a desire for fellowship with the other with a view to the production of their like. And this desire begat likewise bodily pleasure, that pleasure which is the beginning of wrongs and violation of law … (Philo, Creation 13. 151–52) Based on this text, Niehoff calls Eve—according to Philo—a “harmful addition to Adam,” and the passions a “harmful addition to the mind.” 12 Yet, desire and passion result from the encounter between man and woman, and, interestingly, are fed by their similarity. The theme of the two “halves” that reunite, known from the 10 Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 95 note 24; Maren R. Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture, 1st ed., Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 86 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 18–19. 102–105. 11 Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 96 note 25. 12 Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 96. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 203 Plato’s androgyne, is also found in rabbinic literature. 13 It is a strong expression of the idea that man and woman belong together, and the fact that Philo refers to this idea shows that the desire for this unification is not bad in his eyes, but a necessity of life, if only to ensure its continuation. However, the resulting bodily pleasure, which kindles other pleasures, is what brings harm to humanity. In the continuation of this text, the connection between the female and—harmful—pleasure is explicitly made: Pleasure does not venture to bring her wiles and deceptions to bear on the man, but on the woman, and by her means on him. This is a telling and well-made point: for in us mind corresponds to man, the senses to woman; and pleasure encounters and holds parley with the senses first, and through them cheats with her quackeries the sovereign mind itself. (Philo, Creation 13. 165) If we read closely, it becomes clear that “man” and “woman” are images for “mind” and “senses,” and that both exist in all humans, regardless of their sex. Is this a “strong gender bias”? It is certainly a dualist view, and the male is associated with values that Philo appreciates more than those he associates with women. 14 Yet this is allegorical language; “gender bias” would imply that Philo is talking about actual men and women. When he does so in the context of circumcision, he states, remarkably, that women don’t need circumcision because they are less prone to sexual desire! 15 13 See e.g. Gen. Rab. 8:1; Lev. Rab. 14:1. Different ideas of the primordial androgyne, the “spiritual androgyne” of Philo, and the “corporeal androgyne” of the Palestinian midrash, are discussed in Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture, The New Historicism: Studies in Cultural Poetics, no. 25 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 35–46. 14 See also his Alleg. Interp. 2.24–25; 38; 49–50. 15 An extensive study on this topic is Shaye Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? (Berkeley-London: University of California Press, 2005). Esp. on the “advantage” of women over men as to sexual desire, according to Philo, see p. 145. 204 LIEVE M. TEUGELS Why does He command that only the males be circumcised? … The first of these is that the male has more pleasure in, and desire for, mating than does the female, and he is more ready for it. Therefore He rightly leaves out the female, and suppresses the undue impulses of the male by the sign of circumcision. (Philo, QG 3:47) In a study on circumcision and the “carnal Israel” 16 Daniel Boyarin distinguishes between “allegorical” and “midrashic” anthropology, the first exemplified by Philo, and the second by the rabbis. Like Niehoff, he quotes from Philo’s allegorical reflections on the biblical account of the creation of man and woman: man would stand for mind, and woman would stand for the senses. In this and other studies, Boyarin elaborates on how this anthropology coincides with different hermeneutics and opposing theories of language, exemplified by rabbinic and Hellenistic biblical interpretation. Hellenistic authors such as Philo give prevalence to the male, the mind, meaning, and the spiritual, over the female, the body, language, and the material. To top off these conclusions, Boyarin writes the following: It is from here that a historical vector begins that will ultimately end up in phallogocentric versus as-a-woman reading. 17 Because, in this study, Boyarin starts with Philo and does not advance further in time than late rabbinic midrashim, one can only conclude that, for him, Philo’s writings include the germs for “phallogocentric” readings, which came to full bloom in his and 16 Daniel Boyarin, ‘“This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel’: Circumcision and the Erotic Life of God and Israel,” Critical Inquiry 18, no. 3 (Spring 1992): 474–502. On p. 474 Boyarin announced that this would be included in his (then) forthcoming Boyarin, Carnal Israel., but it wasn’t, apart from scattered passages. Therefore I refer to the earlier study in this paper. 17 Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 477. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 205 Paul’s Christian followers. 18 The rabbinic sages, on the other hand, perform, for Boyarin, an “as-a-woman reading.” I agree with Niehoff and Boyarin that Philo’s reading of biblical texts, and indeed his anthropology, is dualistic and androcentric. However, I find the first element in the word phallogocentric rather surprising to describe an author whose interpretation is, in Boyarin’s words “ascetic in content.” 19 Indeed, as we have seen, Philo promotes circumcision as a means to reduce excessive male passion. The remarkable preference for the word “phallus” (which I understand to be an erect penis), over “penis” when addressing circumcision is found, among others, also in Eliott Wolfson, whose work I will address further. 20 As to the other end of the “vector,” with respect to rabbinic-midrashic literature, the label “as-a-woman reading” is questionable. My analysis of some midrashic texts about circumcision in the next section will demonstrate why I believe this to be the case. 18 I cannot elaborate on this important issue here. Several of Boyarin’s works develop this dichotomy further, see e.g. Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); Daniel Boyarin, Sparks of the Logos: Essays in Rabbinic Hermeneutics, The Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 11 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003). 19 Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 477–486: “What we see, then, in Philo is a typical middle Platonist interpretation of the meaning of circumcision. It is middle Platonist both in its form and in its substance: in its form because it is allegorical in structure and in its substance because it is ascetic in content.” 20 Eliot R. Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation: From Midrashic Trope to Mystical Symbol,” History of Religions 27 (1987): 189–215. The opposite preference of “penis” over “phallus” is elaborated in Daniel Boyarin, “Jewish Masochism: Couvade, Castration, and Rabbis in Pain,” American Imago 51, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 3–36. See also Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1994). 206 LIEVE M. TEUGELS 2. CIRCUMCISION AND VISIONS OF GOD IN MIDRASHIC AND MEDIEVAL MYSTICISM Consider the following late midrashic text: All Israelites who are circumcised will come into the garden of Eden, for the Holy Blessed One placed His name on Israel, in order that they might come into the garden of Eden. And what is the name and the seal which He placed upon them? It is ShaDaY. The shin, he placed in the nose, the dalet, in the hand, and the yod in the circumcision. (Midrash Tanchuma Printed, Tzav, 14) 21 About this passage, Daniel Boyarin writes: In contrast to Paul and his followers, for whom the interpretation of circumcision was a rejection of the body, for the Rabbis of the midrash it is a sign of the sanctification of that very physical body; the cut in the penis completes the inscription of God's name on the body. It speaks of circumcision as a transformation of the body into a holy object. … This is, of course, an entirely different hermeneutic structure from Platonic allegorizing because, although a spiritual meaning is assigned to the corporeal act, the corporeal act is not the signifier of that meaning but its very constitution. 22 Boyarin highlights the carnal, corporeal conception of circumcision upheld by the rabbinic sages as opposed to the Platonic, Philonic, allegorical readings from which we already quoted some examples in the first section. However, “as a woman” it is hard to identify with the blunt saying that opens the passage: All Israelites who are circumcised will come into Paradise. This can only refer to half of the Israelites. The idea that women don’t fit in here does not even occur to the rabbinic mind. 23 Compare this to Philo’s 21 Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 491. My translation. Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 491–92. 23 Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 496 suggests that females don’t need to be circumcised (in order to see God) because they don’t have the “blemish” of the foreskin to start with. 22 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 207 statement that women do not need to be circumcised because they are less prone to desire and therefore don’t need to be cut. This is not to say that the rabbis are more androcentric than Philo. What I mean is that, despite excellent insights into the dynamics of ancient texts, modern scholars, no less than the ancients, read their own models and concerns into the texts they interpret. Deconstruction theory has taught us that this cannot be avoided. For this reason, it may be beneficial to apply a hermeneutics of suspicion not only to ancient texts, but to the modern readers of those ancient texts as well. Returning now to Midrash Tanchuma, the theme of the yod that is introduced in the passage above plays an important role in later mystical speculations about revelation and visions of God. The yod refers to the opening of the penis that always remains visible after the prepuce is removed by circumcision. A passage from the Zohar, quoted by Eliot Wolfson, expounds on this idea: Come and see: before Abraham was circumcised he was closed and concealed from every side. When he was circumcised he was opened with respect to everything and was not closed or concealed as before. This is the mystery, as we have taught, “And he [Abraham] was sitting at the opening of the tent,” (Gen 18:1) for the yod was revealed. (Zohar 2:36a) 24 This text makes it clear that it is the “opening” of the yod that enables the corresponding “opening” towards the divine through revelations and visions. The following passage puts this in reciprocal mystical terms: when the (hu)man reveals his “opening” to God, God will also open himself to the mystic: Everything is dependent upon the opening of the phallus 25 (pum amah) which is called yod. And when the yod is revealed, the opening of the phallus, the upper Hesed [Mercy] is revealed … 24 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 200. 25 This is Wolfson’s translation. The Zohar uses the word ‫ אמה‬which simply means “member”. See note 20. 208 LIEVE M. TEUGELS and this [gradation] is not called Hesed until the yod is revealed … Come and see: Abraham was not called complete with respect to this Hesed until the yod of the phallus was revealed. And when it was revealed, he was called complete, as it is written, “Walk before Me and be complete.” (Gen 17:1) (Idra Rabbah, Zohar 3:142a) 26 A common thread in these mystical texts is that circumcision enables, and is even a sine qua non for, visions of the divine and mystical experiences. This idea is in nuce already present in the following interpretation of Gen 18:1 in the classical rabbinic Midrash Genesis Rabbah. The base verse reads: “And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day.” This happens after Abraham circumcised himself, as related in chapter 17. The pertinent interpretation from Genesis Rabbah reads: It is written, “This, after my skin will have been peeled off, but from my flesh, I will see God.” (Job 19:26) Abraham said, after I circumcised myself many converts came to cleave to this sign. “But from my flesh, I will see God,” for had I not done this [circumcised myself], on what account would the Holy Blessed One, have appeared to me? “And the Lord appeared to him.” (Gen. Rab. 48:2) 27 Boyarin comments on this text: The physical act of circumcision in the flesh, which prepares the male Jew for sexual intercourse, is also that which prepares him for divine intercourse. It is difficult, therefore, to escape the association of sexual and mystical experience in this text. 28 26 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 205 note 54. 27 Translation Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 492. Variations on this interpretation are found in Gen. Rab. 47:10 and 48:9. 28 Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 493. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 209 This implies the intrinsically sexual notion of circumcision in the rabbinic view. That circumcision is a condition for sexual intercourse is not self-evident, not as such and not from this rabbinic text, and Boyarin does not explain the source of this assumption in this study. I want to focus here, however, on Boyarin’s “divine intercourse.” If we conceive of intercourse as happening between a male and female partner, then one of these partners needs to take the “female” role. As we will see, Boyarin and Wolfson, who also discusses this text, 29 draw conclusions from this text, not necessarily the same, as to the gender of the partners involved in this mystical intercourse. A second midrashic text, quoted by both scholars, stands out for its “gender” ambiguity. “O, Daughters of Zion, go forth, and gaze upon King Solomon, wearing the crown that his mother made for him on his wedding day, on his day of bliss.” (Song 3:11) It speaks about the time when the Presence rested in the Tabernacle. “Go forth and gaze,” as it is said, “And all the people saw and shouted and fell on their faces.” (Lev 9:24) “The daughters of Zion [tsiyyon] 30,” those who were distinguished [metsuyyanim] by circumcision, for if they were uncircumcised they would not have been able to look upon the Presence. … Thus Solomon said, “O Daughters of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon,” the King who desires those who are perfect, as it is written, “Walk before Me and be blameless” (Gen 17:1), for the foreskin is a blemish upon the body. (Num. Rab. 12:8) 31 The identification of the “daughters of Zion” with the circumcised (male) Israelites requires some interpretation. This is how Wolfson explains it: 29 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 192–93. In fact Wolfson’s study is the older one and quoted by Boyarin. 30 Here and in other citations of this article I have added the transcriptions of the Hebrew text. 31 Translation Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 493–94. 210 LIEVE M. TEUGELS The author of this midrash, in a remarkable reversal of the literal sense of the text, interprets the “daughters of Zion” as referring to those [males] marked or “distinguished” (metsuyyanim, an obvious play on the word tsiyyon) by circumcision. Clearly, daughters cannot be so distinguished; thus the midrashic reading effectively effaces the literal sense. 32 Whereas Wolfson reads the midrash as “effacing the literal sense,” Boyarin emphasizes that the rabbis intended their midrash to be read “carnally,” i.e. literally. 33 The verse of Song of Songs that refers to King Solomon’s wedding is taken, then, as an interpretation of the wedding between God and Israel described in Leviticus. This, however, is where the complications begin. By a typical midrashic pun, King Solomon [Shelomoh] is turned into God, the king who requires perfection [shelemut]. If the male partner is God, then the female partner must be Israel. Accordingly, the “Daughters of Zion” are Israel. But this also results in a gender paradox, for many of the Israelites who participated in that divine vision were men. Those very Daughters of Zion are accordingly understood as males. … 34 He concludes that: [c]ircumcision is understood by the midrash as feminizing the male, thus making him open to receive the divine speech and vision of God. … 32 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 197. I have adapted the transcription of Hebrew to the SBL general purpose style utilized in this study. 33 Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 493: “It is, of course, this very moment of the refusal of allegorization on the part of the rabbis, their explicit resistance of being allegorized…” 34 Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 494. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 211 This interpretation can be supported as well by various Rabbinic texts that refer to the Torah as feminizing its devotees. 35 Boyarin’s solution for this “mystical intercourse” is the feminized male. This is in line with his view of the feminized rabbinic sage, as demonstrated in his other work. 36 Conversely, Wolfson views at least part of the mystical experience as involving the feminine side of God. Unlike Boyarin, Wolfson continues his textual inquiry into medieval mystical compositions in which the idea that circumcision is a prerequisite for visions and mystical experiences is further developed into an “intricate theosophic structure.” 37 He quotes from yet another Zoharic interpretation of Gen 18:1: “And the Lord appeared to him.” R. Abba said: Before Abraham was circumcised he was closed. When he was circumcised all was revealed and the Presence [Shekhinah] rested upon him in its completeness. (Zohar 1:98b) 38 Whereas Boyarin identifies the circumcised Jew as the female partner, Wolfson, reading the Zohar, introduces the idea of the Shekhinah—the feminine Presence of God—as the female partner in this intercourse: The treatment of this midrashic theme in the Zohar must be seen in light of a central category in the kabbalistic (especially Zoharic) conception of religious perfection: man’s relation to God, particularly the Shekhinah, the feminine hypostasis of 35 Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 495. See e.g. Daniel Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkely: University of California Press, 1997), and Daniel Boyarin, “Why is Rabbi Johanan a Woman? Or, a Queer Marriage Gone Bad: ‘Platonic Love’ in the Talmud,” in Authorizing Marriage? Canon, Tradition and Critique in the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions, ed. Mark D. Jordan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006). 37 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 198. 38 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 198. 36 212 LIEVE M. TEUGELS God and the last of the divine emanations (sefirot), is viewed in a decidedly sexual manner. 39 Wolfson’s analyses of the mystical texts, and in fact mystical intercourse, are, however, more complicated than this. 40 Eventually, the mystical experience enabled by circumcision will allow God to show his masculine side: Even before his circumcision Abraham merited some vision of the divine realm. This is implied in the above passage: “When he was circumcised all was revealed to him etc.” That is, prior to the circumcision there was, at best, a partial vision of God. 41 This point is explicitly made in the Zohar: “The word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [ba-mahazeh].” (Gen 15:1) What is the meaning of “in a vision”? This is the vision [or mirror, Aramaic: heizu], the gradation in which all images [deyuqnin] are seen [’ithazyan]. R. Shimeon said: Before Abraham was circumcised, one gradation spoke with him. And which one was it? It was the “vision” [mahazeh]… When he was circumcised all the gradations rested on this gradation and then it spoke with him ... Before he was circumcised those gradations did not rest upon him to speak [to him]. (Zohar 1:88b–89a) 42 Wolfson identifies the “vision” mentioned here with the Shekhinah, the feminine presence of God: 39 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 198. 40 Eilberg-Schwartz’s book God’s Phallus is entirely devoted to the complicated nature of the relationship, often expressed in erotic terms, between a (male) God and his (male) Israelite lovers. 41 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 199. 42 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 199. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 213 The divine gradation referred to as the “vision” is the last of the sefirot, the Shekhinah, so named because this gradation is a prism that reflects all the upper colors or forms. Prior to his circumcision, therefore, God spoke to Abraham through the intermediary of the Shekhinah. Indeed, even after the circumcision God continued to speak with Abraham through the Shekhinah; however, in the latter case the vision was complete, since all the upper gradations rested upon or stood over the Shekhinah in the moment of revelation. 43 Wolfson agrees that this is confusing: One senses the tension in the mind of the author of the Zohar, struggling to clarify the difference in vision accorded to Abraham before and after his circumcision. The biblical term used in connection with God’s appearance to Abraham (before the circumcision) is mahazeh, vision, which is understood kabbalistically to be a symbol for Shekhinah, the prism in which all the forms are reflected. Yet the Zohar makes the claim that before his circumcision Abraham did not converse with the Shekhinah in Her fullness, that is, as reflecting all the upper lights. 44 This identification of the mahazeh with the Shekhinah is not selfevident, and Wolfson quotes other commentaries (Shimeon Lavi, Cordovero), 45 which he deems insufficient, 46 that distinguish between the two. In his view, however, the Shekhinah itself underwent a change because of the circumcision of Abraham. In other words, circumcision causes a change in the nature of the divine itself. This is called “theurgy.” The theurgical effect is that the 43 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and 199. 44 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and 200. 45 See Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, tion,” 200–01, footnote 37. 46 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and 201. Textual Interpretation,” Textual Interpretation,” and Textual InterpretaTextual Interpretation,” 214 LIEVE M. TEUGELS circumcision enables God to unite his feminine and his masculine sides. Thus, because of his circumcision, Abraham is able to receive a full theophany and thus experience the masculine and feminine sides of God. At the same time—and this is the theurgical effect—these two sides of the divine get a chance to unite, in a sort of inner-divine intercourse. Wolfson explains further that the “vision” equals the “secret of the covenant” (brit—also the term for circumcision): According to the Zohar, the covenant in its totality comprises two aspects, masculine and feminine, the ninth and tenth sefirot, Yesod (“Foundation”) and Malkhut (“Kingship”) or Shekhinah. The “vision” [mahazeh], spoken of as the raza diberit, “secret of the covenant,” corresponds to only one of these aspects, the Shekhinah. Prior to Abraham’s circumcision he could not possibly have merited a complete theophany, but only a partial one related exclusively to the feminine hypostasis of God: the “secret of the covenant,” the “vision,” the “lowest gradation.” After the circumcision, however, Abraham experienced the masculine and feminine aspects of God, for by means of circumcision one enters into both gradations. Only by appropriating the two dimensions could Abraham experience the full theophanic image. … However, the circumcision of Abraham also has a theurgical dimension, for it effects a change in the nature of the divine: just as in the fulfilment of circumcision one joins the masculine and feminine potencies in oneself, so too one brings about such a unification above. 47 The “androgynous nature of circumcision,” i.e. the fact that it has a male and a female aspect, is related to the double procedure involved in the operation: milah (incision of the foreskin) and peri’ah (uncovering of the corona): 47 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 201–02. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 215 The process of circumcision, the removal of the foreskin and the uncovering of the corona, is a disclosure of the secret. In the disclosure of the phallus, through the double act of circumcision, the union of the masculine and feminine aspects of God is assured. “When the holy sign [Yesod] is uncovered it overflows and the bride [Shekhinah] … then stands in completeness and her portion is illuminated.” 48 Wolfson elaborates further on this divine unification, involving the Divine Phallus. When the foreskin is removed and the phallus uncovered, then the corresponding limb above, the divine phallus or Yesod, likewise is uncovered. 49 To be sure, Wolfson discusses a chronologically broader range of texts than Boyarin. Yet in spite of this, it can be concluded that Boyarin emphasizes the feminization of the male Jew effectuated by circumcision, whereas Wolfson stresses the eventual uncovering of the masculine side of the divine. Wolfson’s consistent use of the term “phallus” for the (circumcised) penis, whether of the mystic or of God himself, enhances this difference with Boyarin, who contrasts the midrashic readings with Hellenistic “phallogocentrism.” Eilberg-Schwartz, whose insights I will discuss shortly, remarks that circumcision “gives the male member the appearance it has when erect.” 50 This author as a rule does not use the word “phallus” but rather “organ” and “member,” yet his remark might reveal an intuition reflected in Wolfson’s use of the term. It might confirm that circumcision is essentially about fertility, in particular of the male. 48 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 212. 49 Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation,” 214. 50 Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 144. 216 LIEVE M. TEUGELS 3. PATRILINEAL CONTINUITY AND MALE APPROPRIATION OF FEMININE POWERS Because both males and females experienced visions of God at the crossing of the Red Sea, so a midrash in the Mekhilta, 51 Boyarin infers that, according to the rabbinic sages, females do not need to be circumcised in order to see God. He admits that there is undoubtedly an apologetic tendency in his (not the rabbis’) suggestion, in that this would demonstrate that women are included in Judaism, but suggests that: The androcentrism of this formation is of course not affected by this reading. Its valence may, however, be somewhat reoriented, for circumcision and subincision are understood in many cultures to produce feminized men. While it seems, therefore, that circumcision in ancient Judaism emphasizes the male-male genealogical connection, it may nevertheless have been understood not as exclusion of the female so much as inclusion of the male in filiation. Similarly, the persistent reference to the foreskin as a blemish may be understood as a reading of circumcision as an operation that renders men more like women by removing that blemish. On this reading, circumcision, within this Jewish cultural formation, has something of the valence of couvade. 52 This quote is dense with information: “the male-male genealogical connection” refers to the patrilineal genealogy of the Bible. The “inclusion of males in filiation” is problematic, at least in postbiblical times, because Jewish identity is traditionally matrilineal. According to Boyarin, this problem is circumvented, or solved, by “rendering men like women” or “producing feminized men.” Circumcision would be a factor in this and hence function as a kind of couvade—a ritual practiced by certain communities, 51 E.g. Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata 3: “‘This Is My God and I Will Glorify Him.’ R. Eliezer says: Whence can you say that a maidservant saw at the sea what Isaiah and Ezekiel and all the prophets never saw?” 52 Boyarin, “This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel,” 496–97. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 217 such as the Basques, in which men take to the bed in a dramatic enactment of pregnancy and birthing. Circumcision is thus not meant to exclude females (most notably from the covenant, and from being “Israelites”) but to include males. This is in line with the presentation of the foreskin—which women lack—as a superfluous part of the body. I will not elaborate on the thought that women lack not only the foreskin but the entire member to which it belongs, and that Judaism, as opposed to certain trends in early Christianity, never took up more radical measures to make men like women. 53 On the contrary, manhood is in Judaism intrinsically connected with fertility and procreation, and so is circumcision, starting with the covenant of Abraham as described in Gen 17, a text in which the intrinsic connection between the covenant, circumcision and “exceeding” fecundity and proliferation is repeated over and over. I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will multiply you exceedingly.” … As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you 53 These topics are combined and connected in Boyarin, “Jewish Masochism.” In this study, published in a journal for psycho-analysis, Boyarin suggests that couvade, and castration, but also the obsession with the phallus, are all sides of the same male envy of the female powers of giving birth and lactating. Circumcision, not mentioned in this study but treated similarly by Boyarin in other studies as we have seen, would fit this picture too. Boyarin claims that the phallus myth, which presents the male as perfection, and intends to make women envious of men, functions in Greek, Roman, and dominant European culture (including Freud’s psychoanalysis), whereas couvade worked as an equivalent in rabbinic Judaism. In appropriating the feminine powers of procreation, rabbinic Judaism was no less woman-unfriendly than Greek culture; the envy is just expressed in a different, in fact more direct, way and less as its “mythic opposite”. 218 LIEVE M. TEUGELS exceedingly fruitful … Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. (Genesis 17:2–11) 54 That circumcision has to do with proof of fatherhood and patrilineage is elaborated, in different yet converging ways, in studies by Natan Margalit and Howard Eilberg-Schwartz. 55 Both focus on the priestly class of writers who were responsible for many of the crucial ideas and texts about circumcision in the Hebrew Bible, as well as a number of sections that deal with procreation, sexuality, and genealogical lists. 56 Margalit adopts Boyarin’s idea of male appropriation of female areas (such as the certainty of parenthood), and claims that the rabbis did this in order to exclude women from these domains. 57 I wish to take up Boyarin’s suggestion that the idea of male envy of feminine reproductive capacities has enormous explanatory power, specifically in understanding the classic texts and institutions of Judaism. … I wish to explore male envy of the feminine power of birth, not specifically focusing on the pain of birth, but, rather, on the powerful idea of generation, of bringing life into the world. 58 Whereas “envy” does not necessarily include an effort to steal the envied object, in discussing the rabbinic rules that women are 54 New American Standard Bible. Natan Margalit, “Priestly Men and Invisible Women: Male Appropriation of the Feminine and the Exemption of Women from Positive TimeBound Commandments,” AJS Review, 2004, 297–316; Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 141–76. 56 Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 167 lists Gen 1:22; 9:1, 7; 17:2, 3, 10; 28:3–4; 35:11–12; 48:4; Exod 1:7. 57 Cf. Boyarin, “Jewish Masochism.” Cf. note 53. 58 Margalit, “Priestly Men and Invisible Women,” 298–99. 55 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 219 excluded from “positive time-bound commandments” (m. Qidd.1:7), Margalit claims that this is a major component of the rabbinic discourse of gender: the male appropriation of the feminine into their own identities, and the resultant exclusion of women from those areas of appropriation. 59 In The Savage in Judaism, Howard Eilberg-Schwartz convincingly argues that Judaism, which, like Christianity, is usually not considered the topic of anthropology, bears many similarities with so-called “savage” communities (which are traditionally considered the object of anthropology) “when it is passed under the gaze of anthropological inquiry and cross-cultural analysis.” 60 In his chapter on circumcision (“The Fruitful Cut”), he does just that by comparing Jewish circumcision as represented in its traditional sources (the Bible, the rabbis, and Philo) with other, mainly African, circumcision rites and practices. The following insights struck me as particularly relevant for this discussion 1. Circumcision is a symbol of the covenant, not just a sign; and the covenant is a covenant of procreation, fertility and fecundity. … circumcision is described as an ’ot of the covenant (Gen 17:11). Examples of how the priests use this Hebrew word in other contexts indicate that it means “symbol” not “sign.” A symbol differs from a sign in that it has properties that make it appropriate for the content which it signifies … Since circumcision is described as a symbol of the covenant between Abraham and God, one is led to the conclusion that the practice has an intimate connection with the content of that covenant. The centerpiece of this covenant is God’s promise that Abraham will have vast numbers of descendants … Given the covenant’s overwhelming emphasis on Abraham’s fecundity, one can agree with Isaac (1964, 453) that “the cutting of a generative organ involved in Abraham’s covenant is an 59 60 Margalit, 297. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, ix. 220 LIEVE M. TEUGELS appropriate symbol for a covenant made with the generations and dealing with offspring.” It is an appropriate symbol because in this community the male organ is viewed as the primary vehicle by which reproduction and intergenerational continuity are ensured. 61 2. Cutting away the foreskin is a symbol of fertility, like the “circumcision” of fruit trees. The same root is used in the Bible to refer to fruit from young trees and the foreskin, namely the verb ‘arla and the noun ‘orla (e.g. Lev 19:23). Circumcision symbolically enables the proper functioning of the organ; hence also the expressions “uncircumcised heart, ears, lips” etc. that are used in the Bible. … The symbolic equation of an uncircumcised male and a young fruit tree rests on two, and possibly three, associations: The fruit of a juvenile tree is proscribed just like the foreskin of the male organ. Furthermore, a male who is uncircumcised and not part of the covenant equation is infertile like an immature fruit tree. Finally, this symbolic equation may draw part of its plausibility from an analogy between circumcision and pruning. Cutting away the foreskin is like pruning a fruit tree. Both acts of cutting remove unwanted excess and both increase the desired yield. 62 By extension, the removal of a man’s foreskin symbolically enables the penis to more effectively discharge its divinely allotted task. That task, as suggested by the content of the covenant, is to impregnate women and produce offspring. 63 Eilberg-Schwartz notices relevant similarities between Philo and the rabbis. Like Philo, the rabbis see circumcision as fundamentally linked to issues of procreation, and draw analogies between circumcision and horticultural practices. 61 Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 146–48. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 152. 63 Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 149. 62 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 221 Philo’s understanding of circumcision as signifying the shaving off of ignorance finds no support in Israelite writings. However, for our purposes it is significant that Philo saw an analogy between pruning fruit trees and circumcising the male organ. Both acts remove unnecessary excess. 64 Eilberg-Schwartz refers to this text by Philo: Why does he order all slaves to be circumcised, those born in the family and also those who are bought? (Gen 17:12) … and those are bought which can be changed for the better by teaching and instruction. Each of these has its appropriate employment, and requires like a plant to be cleared and pruned in order that the good and fruitful parts may acquire constancy; for fertile plants produce many superfluous things by reason of their fecundity, and those superfluities must be cut away; but those who are taught by instructors cut away their ignorance. (Philo, QG 3:50) Similarly, in Genesis Rabbah, we find the following internal dialogue of Abraham, in which he compares his circumcision with the pruning of a tree: “And I will make my covenant.” (Gen 17:2) R. Huna said in Bar Kappara’s name: Abraham pondered and drew an inference: ‘orlah (foreskin) is said here (Gen 17: 11), and ‘orlah occurs in reference to a tree (Lev 19:23): just as ‘orlah in the case of trees refers to the place where it yields fruit, so ‘orlah employed in reference to man means the member which produces offspring [fruit]. Said R. Hanina to him: Had then reasoning by analogy already been given to Abraham? Surely not! But [he learned it from God’s promise]: “And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly”: hence, with [that member through which] “I will multiply thee exceedingly, I will make my covenant between me and thee (Gen 17:2).” (Gen. Rab. 46:4) 65 64 Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 154–55. H. Freedman and M. Simon, Midrash Rabbah, vol. 1, Genesis (London; New York: Soncino Press, 1983), 391. 65 222 LIEVE M. TEUGELS 3. Circumcision is a symbol of male kinship and effectuates the male line of descent. This was especially important in priestly circles. Circumcision frequently displays and solidifies lines of male descent … The issue of doubtful paternity presents a serious problem to societies structured by patrilineal descent … Various rituals overcome this problem by enabling men to assert intergenerational ties to their male descendants. … 66 The priestly office was transmitted patrilineally from father to son… 67 The association between the male organ and the idea of kinship made the penis doubly appropriate as the spot for the symbol of God’s covenant. God had promised to make Abraham fertile and provide him with a successful progeny. As we have seen, the removal of the foreskin symbolizes the fertility of the organ. But the cut also suggests that this lineage, represented by the penis, is set apart from others. In this way, circumcision symbolizes and helps create intergenerational continuity between men. It graphically represents patrilineal descent by giving men of this line a distinctive mark that binds them together. 68 4. Circumcision, carried out on the eight day, distinguishes between men and women, and moves the male child from the female to the male domain. The fact that circumcision sets up an opposition between men and women makes sense in terms of what we know about the priests’ conception of genealogy … the priests suppress the names of women in their genealogies … Circumcision is one of the rituals that justifies this fiction. It provides physical evidence of kinship ties between men. Moreover we shall see 66 Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 162–63. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 165. 68 Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 171. 67 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 223 that the blood of the male infant is spilled precisely at the moment when he leaves the state of impurity caused during childbirth by the blood of his mother. After seven days have elapsed from the birth of a son, a mother enters a lesser state of impurity (Lev 12:4) … Although Israelite circumcision is not a rite of passage into manhood, it is a rite that marks the passage from the impurity of being born of woman to the purity of life in a community of men. … For the priests, the salient dimension of the covenant was the fact that a male was born into it. Entrance into the covenant was not a mature, reflective decision of adult life. It is for this reason that circumcision is performed as close to birth as possible. … As a ceremony of birth, Israelite circumcision did not incorporate themes of virility and social maturity. But it did symbolize the initiate’s fertility. As the priests saw it, a boy’s procreative powers were granted by God as a privilege for having been born into Abraham’s line. 69 Eilberg-Schwartz’ analysis demonstrates, convincingly in my opinion, that male circumcision in Judaism serves a deeply human concern to forge a bond between males and establish male lineage. In the patriarchal society of ancient Judaism, “the people,” or “the Israelites,” were generally synonymous with “the men.” This, in combination with the need to establish male lineage by artificial means, because of the lack of absolute certainty about the paternity of a man, made circumcision a logical sign. Like Eilberg-Schwartz, Margalit suggests that in the Hebrew Bible, this concern was especially held by the priests, responsible for the relationship with the deity and particularly focused on genealogy, as the priesthood itself was transmitted patrilineally. With Boyarin, Margalit shares the insight that circumcision, because it is performed exclusively on males, is one form of male appropriation of the female-dominated domain of procreation. 70 69 70 Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 174–75. Margalit, “Priestly Men and Invisible Women,” 298. 224 LIEVE M. TEUGELS CONCLUSIONS Despite the differences within and between ancient interpretations of the biblical source texts on circumcision, and the modern readings of both the biblical and the ancient Jewish sources, one thing stands out: Jewish circumcision is related to male sexuality, including, but not limited to, fertility. That circumcision is performed on the male procreative organ is an ’ot, a sign and a symbol, of a covenant that centers around fecundity and proliferation of the people, two features that eventually go back to fertility. Such an understanding of circumcision is clearly incongruous with the ideas of earlier biblical scholars who argue for the randomness of a rite simply meant to mark an individual as a member of a larger group. 71 To be sure, Jewish circumcision did and does serve this purpose as well, yet in ancient Israel, it did not set Jews apart from many of their neighbors, including the Egyptians. Therefore just as for other peoples that performed circumcision, it stands to reason that for the ancient Israelites this rite served as a sign, even a sacrifice to God, to actuate what was most important for them: to become a people as numerous “as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore.” (Gen 22:17) The medieval mystical texts analyzed by Wolfson show yet another connection between the sign of circumcision and sexuality, which is not directly related to procreation: namely, the act of intercourse in itself, even with the divine and within the divine. Additionally, through my analysis of contemporary authors’ arguments, I have shown that the same ancient Jewish texts can yield opposing interpretations with regard to circumcision and gender. The rite of circumcision is, based on its description and interpretation in ancient texts, variously “read” by modern authors as feminizing men, on the one hand, and as creating a bond between males and emphasizing their masculinity, on the other. Descriptions of mystical experiences, reserved for circumcised men, are “read” as turning the male mystic into the female sexual partner of the masculine God, and alternatively, as triggering God 71 See note 1. 7. CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALITY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION 225 to show his feminine side, the Shekhinah, by engaging in mystical intercourse with the male mystic. From this brief study, it is evident that the Latin maxim interpretatio cessat in claris—interpretation stops in the face of clarity—, does not yet apply to the topic of circumcision. BIBLIOGRAPHY Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. ——. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. The New Historicism, no. 25. Berkeley [etc.]: University of California Press, 1993. ——. “Jewish Masochism: Couvade, Castration, and Rabbis in Pain.” American Imago, 1994, 3–36. ——. Sparks of the Logos: Essays in Rabbinic Hermeneutics. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism, v. 11. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003. ——. “‘This We Know to Be the Carnal Israel’: Circumcision and the Erotic Life of God and Israel.” Critical Inquiry, 1992, 474– 502. Cohen, Shaye. Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? BerkeleyLondon: University of California Press, 2005. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism. Boston, MA: Beacon, 1994. ——. The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism. Bloomington [etc.]: Indiana Univ. Press, 1990. Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva. “Regulating the Human Body: Rabbinic Legal Discourse and the Making of Jewish Gender.” Pages 270–94 in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Ch. E. Fonrobert and Martin S Jaffee, 2007. 226 LIEVE M. TEUGELS Freedman, H., and M. Simon. Midrash Rabbah. London; New York: Soncino Press, 1983. Gennep, Arnold van. Les rites de passage: étude systématique des rites. Réimpr. Paris: Picard, 1981. Margalit, Natan. “Priestly Men and Invisible Women: Male Appropriation of the Feminine and the Exemption of Women from Positive Time-Bound Commandments.” AJS Review, 2004, 297–316. Niehoff, Maren. “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity: Philo, Origen and the Rabbis on Gen 17:1–14.” Jewish Studies Quarterly, 2003, 89–123. Niehoff, Maren R. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. 1st ed. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Rad, Gerhard von, and John Bowden. Genesis: A Commentary. Rev. ed., 5th impr. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1981. Wolfson, Eliot R. “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation: From Midrashic Trope to Mystical Symbol.” History of Religions 27 (1987): 189–215.