Hi All,
Milah, Periah, and Messisa: These are the different kinds of circumcision as practiced historically in Judaism. This post is not meant to debate the issue of infant circumcision or the issue of whether health benefits can be derived from this practice. So, please do not cut and paste wads of information claiming that it prevents AIDS or other STDs. I am not a Biblical scholar, so I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable could shed further light on the history of this practice beyond what I will present.
“...Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be
circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign
of the covenant between me and you.”
Gen. 17:10-11 RSV
The following excerpts are from the book The Joy of Uncircumcising (copyright 2002, presented for educational purposes only, edited for length) by Dr. Jim Bigelow. I have no doubt that the writer is biased as can be discerned from the title of his book. But, is his information, as presented below, correct?
Milah
Milah is the first step, after prayers, of ritual circumcision. It consists of cutting off the protruding tip of the typical infant foreskin (4). Historically, this was to be done with a flint knife, certainly from the time of Joshua (5).
The History of Milah. The Scriptures state simply that God told Abraham to circumcise himself and all of his offspring and slaves who were eight days of age or older. And, “in the selfsame day,” Abraham did it (Gen. 17:23 KJV). The act which Abraham performed was, in fact, milah—the symbolic removal of the tip of the foreskin. This relatively simple form of circumcision was practiced by the Jews for approximately 2,000 years, throughout the whole of the Old (and, for that matter, the New) Testament era. No other feature was added to the rite until sometime around 140 A.D. (6).
The Results of Symbolic Circumcision. The physiological results of this form of circumcision are significant to our understanding of the history of foreskin restoration. As noted earlier, the foreskin and the glans are typically fused together at birth and are actually a single organ at that stage of development. Therefore, when the ancient circumciser cut off only the protruding tip of the typical infant foreskin with a single cut, a great deal of the natural foreskin would have been left intact. Such a penis would have continued to go through its natural developmental stages. That is, the remaining foreskin would have separated from the glans naturally over time. This process would have left the glans with many of its natural features— texture, sensitivity, etc. Such a penis would also have had a rather ample remnant of foreskin. And, since the frenulum would not have been directly or intentionally destroyed, the foreskin remnant would most likely have stayed in place and continued to cover a substantial portion of the glans, particularly when the penis was flaccid. It is, indeed, this very fact which allowed ‘renegade’ Jews for approximately 2,000 years to effect a rather simple and convincing foreskin restoration, or re-covering of the glans.
Periah
Periah is the second step or procedure in ritual circumcision. After cutting off the end of the infant foreskin, periah consists of tearing and stripping back the remaining inner lining of the foreskin off the glans and then, by the use of a sharpened fingernail, removing all such mucous tissue including the excising of the frenulum.
The History of Periah. Jewish historians differ as to exactly when this second step was introduced into ritual circumcision. Few historians, however, disagree as to why it was introduced: circumcision without it was simply too easily disguised!
We will discuss the various situations in which Jews sought to appear uncircumcised and the ancient social and economic benefits of being uncircumcised when we discuss the history of foreskin restoration in Chapter 7. It is enough to say here that the rabbis sought to put an end once and for all to Jews passing themselves off as uncircumcised males by elongating the remaining remnant of their foreskin. The rabbis’ solution was to so entirely obliterate the foreskin that any Jew so circumcised would not be able to disguise “the seal of the covenant.”
Dr. Kohler, in the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA (1964), states that “the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba, instituted the ‘periah’ (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value.” If his conclusion is correct, periah would have become universal in about 140 A.D. (8).
It is interesting to note, from an historical point of view, that by these calculations all biblical Jews—both Old and New Testament—would have been circumcised in the less radical, symbolic style of milah. This being the case, no biblical reference to circumcision ever refers to or indicates the more radical style of circumcision which is now practiced by modern-day Jews or by the American medical profession.
The Results of Radical Circumcision. We can be sure that the results of the new form of circumcision were relatively uniform. It was declared that if the remaining shaft skin was excessive (any fold of skin against the corona) or if there were any ‘shreds’ of the mucous tissue left, the child was to be recircumcised. The rabbis were taking no chances! (9).
Further, the loss of all mucous tissue results in severe receptor nerve loss which, in turn, results in a significant loss of sensual sensations. This overall dulling of sensation has led some Jewish historians to speculate that circumcision was intended to curb the sexual appetite (10). Such intentions may well have been in the minds of the later Jewish rabbis who instituted periah; however, such an explanation would not hold true for the earlier, simpler style of circumcision which Jews practiced for the first 2,000 years of the covenant.
Messisa
A variety of spellings can be found for this term: Mezziza, Mizizah, or Metzitzah. It is the third and final step in ritual circumcision. It consists of the mohel taking the bleeding penis into his mouth and sucking out the first drops of blood:
Now follows the exsuction of the wound in such a manner that the mohel takes the circumcised member into his mouth and with two or three draughts sucks the blood out of the wounded part. He then takes a mouthful of wine from a goblet and spurts it, in two or three intervals, on the wound (11).
The History of Messisa. This procedure was added to the ritual during the Talmudic period (around 500-625 A.D.). It was never universally adopted by all Jews, but certainly the more Orthodox Jews incorporated it into their observance of the rite. The procedure was later altered by some observant Jews who substituted a glass tube for the suction rather than mouth-to-genital contact (12). As late as 1916, however, in New York City, mohels were threatened with loss of certification for “sucking the wound with the mouth” (13). On the other hand, in London, as late as 1961, the Initiation Society of London recommended the use of a glass tube and warned that: “One who does not perform Metzitzah must be debarred from acting as a mohel” (14). It should be pointed out that the practice of messisa has all but disappeared in the Jewish circumcision rite, although it is still reported in some ultra-Orthodox groups (15).
The Consequences of Messisa. In all likelihood there are no permanent effects on the physical characteristics of the circumcised penis from this procedure. There have been recorded, however, adverse effects so far as disease is concerned. In 1950, Dr. Eugene Hand, a supporter of circumcision, reported 41 cases of Jewish infants contracting tuberculosis from mohels (16). And Bryk reports an array of diseases and even deaths which are attributed to infected mohels performing messisa throughout the years (17). There seems little doubt that, among observant Jews, messisa will be the first aspect of ritual circumcision to be universally replaced by symbolic representation rather than physical compliance.
4. Wallerstein, Edward, CIRCUMCISION: AN AMERICAN HEALTH FALLACY, New York, Springer Publishing Co., 1980, p. 158.
5. Hand, Eugene A., M.D., “History of Circumcision,” JOURNAL OF MICHIGAN STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, vol. 49, no. 5, May 1950, p. 573.
6. Kohler, Kaufmann, Ph.D., “Circumcision,” p. 93.
8. Kohler, Kaufmann, Ph.D., “Circumcision,” p. 93.
9. Edwardes, Allen, EROTICA JUDAICA, New York, The Julian Press, Inc., 1967, pp. 114-117.
10. Maimonides, Moses, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED, New York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1956, p. 378.
11. Bryk, Felix, SEX & CIRCUMCISION, North Hollywood, CA, Brandon House, 1967, pp. 49-50.
12. Weiss, Charles, “A Worldwide Survey of the Current Practice of Milah (Ritual Circumcision),” JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES, January 1962, p. 47.
13. “Circumcision, A Guide to the Methods to be Employed by Mohalim,” New York: Department of Health, City of New York, cited by Edward Wallerstein in CIRCUMCISION: AN AMERICAN HEALTH FALLACY, p. 159.
14. Snowman, L.V., “The Surgery of Ritual Circumcision,” 3rd ed., cited by Edward Wallerstein in CIRCUMCISION: AN AMERICAN HEALTH FALLACY, p. 159.
15. Wallerstein, Edward, CIRCUMCISION: AN AMERICAN HEALTH FALLACY, p. 159.
16. Hand, Eugene A., M.D., “History of Circumcision,” p. 574.
17. Bryk, Felix, SEX & CIRCUMCISION, p. 55.
For what it is worth, I have searched for milah, periah, and messisa in the 2005 Watchtower Library CD-ROM and found nothing. Perhaps, if there is anyone from the Writing Department at the Watchtower Society reading this, you could remedy this situation with a Young People Ask article like "Why Do I Get Painful Erections?" But, I digress. Are there any of you scholars out there willing and able to add to this information from the good doctor I have quoted above? Thanks for reading.
Dave