The Dangers of Circumcision as found in the Talmud

My prior Circumcision  post briefly mentioned the dangers of circumcision and more.

This post will briefly cite medical opinion and the Talmud itself documenting the dangers of the procedure.  

The medical opinion is for modern medicine. The point I am making through out this post is that in ancient times without adequate medical knowledge, tools,  antibiotics, ... circumcision had significantly higher rates of death and illness. It was a dangerous procedure. And there are severe complications occurring today ! 

Medical Opinion

From 'Circumcision of Infant Males' by The Royal Australasian College of Physicians September 2010 Paediatrics & Child Health Division

"Most complications of circumcision are minor, but some can be severe. The overall reported rate of complications after circumcision is variable, but depending on the situation
in which it is performed and the precise definition of complication, the complication rate is generally believed to be between one and four percent"

"Infant circumcision without analgesia is unacceptable practice in Australia and New Zealand." 

"Some of the risks of circumcision are low in frequency but high in impact (death, loss of penis); others are higher in frequency but much lower in impact (infection, which can be treated quickly and effectively, with no lasting ill-effects)."

{ETA 2/19/2014 In ancient Israel circumcision was performed with flint knifes.  Anesthesia, antibiotics and pain killers were probably non existent or not too effective even if any were used.}  

The Talmud

Shabbath 134a

"Abaye also said: Mother told me, If an infant is too red, so that the blood is not yet absorbed in him,28 we must wait until his blood is absorbed and then circumcise him. If he is green, so that he is
deficient in blood,29 we must wait until he is full-blooded and then circumcise him. For it was taught, R. Nathan said: I once visited the Sea-towns,30 and a woman came before me who had circumcised her first son and he had died and her second son and he had died; the third she brought before me. Seeing that he was [too] red I said to her, Wait until his blood is absorbed. So she waited until his blood was absorbed and [then] circumcised hini and he lived; and they called him Nathan the Babylonian after my name. On another occasion I visited the Province of Cappadocia,31 and a woman came before me who had circumcised her first son and he had died and her second son and he had died; the third she brought before me. Seeing that he was green, I examined hini and saw no covenant blood32 in him. I said to her, Wait until he is full-blooded; she waited and [then] circumcised him and he lived, and they called him Nathan the Babylonian, after my name."

The commentary notes:

“(28) Into his limbs, but it is still so the under-surface of the skin. This makes circumcision dangerous.
(29) Lit., the blood has not yet fallen into him’.
(30) Tyre, etc.
(31) A district of Asia Minor.
(32) The blood which circumcision causes to flow is so designated. Thus circumcision would be physically dangerous,
and furthermore even if performed it would be inadequate, as covenant blood is required.”

So by careful observation and probably  loss of infants some of our ancestors developed some rudimenatry medical knowledge when circumcision may be dangerous and fortunately some infants may have been spared a gruesome death.  

{ETA 2/18/2014 There is a minor typo in the above Soncino year 5771 edition regarding the word 'hini', which should have been 'him'.} 

Yevamoth 64b

"For it was taught: If she circumcised her first child and he died,25 and a second one who also died,25 she must not circumcise
her third child; so Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, said: She circumcises the third, but must not circumcise the fourth child. But, surely, the reverse was taught;26 now which of these is the
latter?27 — Come and hear what R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: It once happened with four sisters at Sepphoris that when the first had circumcised her child he died; when
the second [circumcised her child] he also died, and when the third [circumcised her child] he also died. The fourth came before R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who told her, ‘You must not circumcise [the
child]’ .28 But is it not possible that if the third sister had come he would also have told her the same!...."

"In the case of circumcision, one can well understand [why the operation is dangerous with some children and not with others] since the members of one family may bleed profusely46 while those of another family may bleed little;...."

These paragraphs establish Jewish infants were dying from circumcision and the operation was dangerous.

Gittin 57b

Updated thru 11/25/2014

"R. Joshua b. Levi said: [The verse, ‘Yea, for thy sake we are killed all the day long’] can be applied to circumcision, which has been appointed for the eighth [day]."

Levi is referring to the first part of  Psalms 44: 23 Nay, but for Thy sake are we killed all the day; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Per Levi our infants were at risk from dying and some were dying  from circumcision.

{ETA 11/25/2014 Regarding Gitten 57b - Rashi and the Maharsha both say there is an increased risk of death to the infant from the circumcision.} 


Sanhedrin 110b

"It has been said: An infant — from when may he enter the future world?....R. Nahman b. Isaac said: From its circumcision, for it is written, I am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up; while I suffer thy terrors I am distracted.32"

Rabina says from circumcision our infants could die.

Avodah Zarah 27a

"We must therefore say that they differ in the case of an Israelite whose brothers died in consequence of circumcision, so that he was not circumcised."

When there were deaths in a family from circumcision a brother need not be circumcised.

PESOCHIM - 69a

"Rabbah said: According to the words of R. 
Eliezer,22 [if there is] a healthy infant,23 one 
may heat water for him to strengthen him24 
and to circumcise him on the Sabbath, since 
it is fit for him. [If there is] a sickly infant,25 
one may not heat hot water for him to 
strengthen him and to circumcise him, since 
it is not fit for him.26 

Said Raba: But if he is healthy, why does he 
need hot water to strengthen him? Rather, 
said Raba, all are regarded as invalids in 
respect to circumcision: both in the case of a 
strong infant or a sickly infant...."

Raba explains a danger of circumcision for any infant.

Also see  my post  Circumcision and Miamonides

Circumcision by the Jews on the eighth day of life = Proof of God ?

Updated thru 1/27/2018

Some Rabbis argue how did the Torah know that the 8th day is the best day to circumcise? 

The Rabbi then provides the following response: 

 [Holt and McIntosh, in Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has peculiar  susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life. …  Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to  the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination (1953, pp.   125-126). It has been shown that it is on the fifth through the seventh days of  the newborn male’s life that vitamin K is present in adequate quantities for blood clotting. On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present is above one-hundred percent of normal (the only day in the male’s life in which this will be normally be the case). Therefore, the 8th day is the perfect day to do the circumcision … when the Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

The Rabbi then asserts the Torah had secret medical knowledge, and therefore it is god given.]

We must reject such a conclusion.

Other cultures did circumcise infants, some even on day 8. 

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition 1910-1911: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences ..., Volumes 5-6  Under Circumcision: "Some tribes in South America and elsewhere are said to perform the rite on the eighth day, like the Jews." ;  "Circumcision was known to the Aztecs (Bancroft, Native Races, vol. iii.), and is still practiced by the Caribs of the Orinoco and the Tacunas of the Amazon". 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4391-circumcision "The Caribs of the Orinoco and the Tacunas of the Amazon practise the rite, as well as the Automecos, the Salivas, and the Guemos, who perform it on the eighth day, the earliest time recorded among savage tribes".

From Medical Record, Volume 93 January 5,1918 - June 29, 1918 edited by George Frederick Shrady, Thomas Lathrop Stedman "The Susus near Timbuctoo and the Guemos of South America are also said to perform the rite [circumcision] on the eighth day."
 Should we assert these tribes had secret divine knowledge as well ?

Although some cultures circumcised on day 8, most did it closer to puberty. In other words, most cultures were not intending circumcision to be done as soon as possible. Maybe if that was one of their goals, day 8 would be more prevalent.

Lets assume that for Vit K and prothrombin reasons day eight is best (I did not check Holt Pediatrics or later medical texts. I doubt that on day 9 or 10 the levels drop, or if they do it is probably  by an insignificant amount.).  But what about other medical complications. If those are considered day 8 may not be the best day. It is more likely no day ever is best because of pain and potential medical complications, especially in ancient times.

Lets assume that day 8 is the best from a clotting perspective. That would be an average best. There is significant variability around that average, for even on the eighth day many infants will have low clotting factors making circumcision an even more dangerous procedure.  I shudder to think of all the infants that died a slow horrible death from circumcision. The ways of  the Lord are a true mystery.  

But even if we assume day 8 is the best overall date from a medical viewpoint, it still does not imply secret knowledge. Could not the ancient jews find by trial and error that day eight was one of the better days. 

Moreover, ancient jews may have found within 6 days is too early (from experience ) and also the first six days may be off limits because the six days of creation. 

Circumcision is found to relate to creation myths and fertility cults in some cultures.  For example "The general trend of the evidence suggests that circumcision was practiced in the Sudan, as well as in Egypt, from time immemorial, that it had nothing to do with considerations of health, that it had a religious significance, and that it was originally connected with some kind of phallic worship." per the book OSIRIS AND THE EGYPTIAN RESURRECTION VOLUME II SIRIS AND THE EGYPTIAN RESURRECTION BYE.A.WALLIS BUDGE.

And "According to Egyptologist, E. A. Budge ('The Gods of the Egyptians': Dover Publications), there was a very early God of Circumcision whose job was to maintain the fertility of the Nile banks. Another early Egyptian myth contended that God circumcised himself and the blood from his penis fell and created the universe. This myth is thought by some to be the progenitor of the blood cults in which animals were sacrificed, as seen in the blood covenants of some modern Semitic religions. (http://www.circlist.com/rites/egypt.html)"

Interestingly the Falashas perform circumcision on day 7 as seen in the circumcision article from the Jewish Encyclopedia . Was seven one of the original days of Jewish circumcision ?  So we are left with day 7 and later. Day 7 was the Sabbath of creation, so that day could have become questionable, plus further trial error may have shown day 8 or later is better.

Perhaps certain morphological changes in the genital region take place around day 8, but I plead ignorance on this issue.

It is certainly plausible a combination of experience and or  superstition or even pure chance coincidentally landed on one of the better days for circumcision, just like it did for some other cultures. Saying day 8 somehow implies secret knowledge and therefore a god is not compelling at all. 

Males are born with foreskin for likely good biological reasons, therefore it should not be cut off without good reason, not to mention the medical dangers. So why would the Torah write Yahweh wants Jews to perform a dangerous operation ? It truly makes no sense from a humanitarian viewpoint.  One defense to circumcision maybe it provided some medical benefit in ancient times in the middle eastern climate. But no where in the Torah is that justification provided.

Circumcision is a very ancient practice and considering the body organ and the early Egyptian myths it suggests something related to creation, procreation and thus fertility cults and their sacrifices. The number 7 is ubiquitous in the Torah. Future posts will suggest that 7 was related to the moon cycle of 28 days and likely the sun or moon cult or fertility cults  from which Judaism evolved from. 

The Golden Bough by James Frazer , abridged edition 1979, page 75 "The Dieri also imagine that  the foreskins taken from the lads at circumcision have great power of producing rains". [Dieri of Central Australia].

Theodor Reik's  book  Mystery on the Mountain 1959. Page 90  "G. A. Barton assumes that circumcision was, in the beginning among the Semites, probably 'a sacrifice to, or a mark of consecration to the goddess of fertility, and was designed to secure her favor in the production of  offspring.' Semitic and Hamitic Origins (London, 1934), pp. 98 ff.

We find G-d telling Abraham in  Genesis 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee...11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of 
your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.who will make Abraham fruitful.

The promises of fecundity in Genesis is reminiscent of fertility  cults.

See The dangers of circumcision as found in the talmud