Pesachim 69 a, b

Today's daf introduces us to Eliezer (the great) through an argument with Abaye.  The substance of their argument has to do with whether the preparation for the observance of a mitzvah can override the prohibition of performing those acts and/or the mitzvah itself on Shabbat.  They are attempting to understand the particular rites performed to facilitate the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb.

What I find fascinating about this argument is the discourse that follows.  The rabbis are very concerned that Abaye and Eliezer disagree with each other so strongly.  Steinsaltz shares with us some of the background of these two scholars - both of them came to study later in life, and both were considered to be great minds.  Eliezer's ability to memorize, his leaning toward Shammai's views, and his ability to concede to the opinions of the majority set him apart.  Abaye was so humble that he said not a word to his teacher Eliezer in their many of years of study together - until this particular argument.

The notion of timing is applied to the rite of circumcision.  When does the obligation to fulfill the mitzvah of circumcision override the rules of Shabbat?  How might this apply to those who wish to partake of the Paschal lamb?  What is the difference between a child and an adult who have not yet been circumcised when they wish to fulfill the mitzvah of eating the Paschal lamb?

I am curious about these rites of circumcision and how they can be managed.  For example, we in a note that a child is not liable if his father (or his father's agent) has not circumcised him before the age of 12.  However, turning 13 and continuing to be uncircumcised does not automatically result in karet.  The logic is that a person can choose to circumcise himself at any time, thus there is no need to punish an adult who might still be circumcised.  However, he is not allowed to partake of the Pachal lamb.

I know more and more people who are choosing not to circumcise their Jewish sons.  Their reasoning is complex, but much of it relies on the notion that a covenant with G-d need not be imprinted in the flesh, particularly the flesh of a human being at our most vulnerable.  Because of assimilation and because of the acceptance of detailed discussion with our children, parents are not terribly anxious about "but he won't look like his dad" or "but he won't look like the other kids in the change room"concerns.  Further, there are other options, including the "brit shalom" that invoke the covenant with no pain or permanent physical mark.

I have very mixed feelings about this rite myself.  Girls are not required to do this and yet we are understood as part of the covenant, right?  Or is our connection lesser than that of men?  If it is the same, why do men require this rite of early potential trauma?  At the same time, circumcision connects boys and men with each other across generations.  Who are we to change that tradition at this particular point in time?  If we choose not to circumcise, are we blocking our sons from their physical, emotional and historical connections with a higher power and with their larger community?

We chose to circumcise our son.  I cannot say with certainty that we would make the same decision if he were born today.  According to today's daf, he would have always had the opportunity to circumcise himself in the future.  Ultimately I believe that the most important piece of this decision making is the decision-making process.  When we act without thought, we are more likely to be cruel to ourselves in the future when we have made poor decisions.  However, when we think carefully about the choices that we make, the future is likely to bring us a more compassionate view of ourselves.  When we are kind to ourselves we give ourselves permission to think through our decisions again, to confirm them at a different time, or to change our minds.