The Dutch Jewish Circumcision Debates of the Nineteenth Century: The Medicalization of a Religious Rite

(1)

The Dutch Jewish Circumcision Debates of the Nineteenth Century

The Medicalization of a Religious Rite

Master thesis Middle Eastern Studies: Hebrew and Jewish Studies, University of Amsterdam June 2018

Student: Paulien Post

Student number: 11318457

Supervisor: dr. B.T. Wallet

Second reader: prof. dr. I.E. Zwiep

(2)

(3)

Abstract

During the nineteenth century the rite of circumcision became a hotly debated issue in several Jewish communities across Europe. All European countries followed their own path in the circumcision debates, depending on the country’s political situation and social conditions. Extensive material in the Dutch archives proved that nineteenth century circumcision debates were also present in the Netherlands. This thesis describes and analyzes the Dutch circumcision debates of the nineteenth century. Moreover, by analyzing the Dutch circumcision debates, this thesis explores the developing (religious) self-‐definition of the Dutch Jewish community.

The Dutch circumcision debates were exclusively concentrated on the improvement of the hygienic and medical circumstances of circumcision. The hygienic and medical debates had far-‐ reaching effects on the rite of circumcision; from 1820 onwards, the highest (secular) administrative authorities of the Jewish community centralized the rite, circumcisers were trained and licensed, strict protocols applied to the surgical part of circumcision and ultimately, the traditional rite of circumcision was even altered to meet the latest hygienic standards. Though the influence of hygiene was undeniable, both parties tried to find the balance between the hygienic and religious aspects of circumcision. Every time hygienic measures where introduced, religious measures were introduced as well.

The highest administrative authorities perceived the rite of circumcision as a religious rite with medical aspects that required regulations. This tendency was also visible in the larger Jewish community; Jewish parents became more concerned with a safe performance of the surgery than with the correct performance of the religious prescriptions. Unlike the administrative authorities, the chief rabbis considered circumcision a mainly religious rite. They valued the medical aspects of circumcision in a different way; almost during the whole nineteenth century, they have denied the medical aspects of the rite. That way, they tried to prevent that the medical aspects of circumcision would overshadow the religious importance of the rite.

The clashing perceptions of circumcision ultimately led to a power struggle between administrative and religious authorities. Administrative authorities advocated for the alteration of the traditional rite of circumcision in order to improve its hygienic circumstances. However, traditionally, rabbis had the last word on religious matters. Nonetheless, administrative authorities permitted themselves to enter the domain of the rabbis. The chief rabbis have attempted to hinder reform of the rite. They hoped to maintain their authority and they tried to preserve Orthodox Judaism. However, at the end of the nineteenth century, the rabbis drew the shortest straw. Whereas during the first half of the nineteenth century the chief rabbis controlled the way the rite of circumcision was performed, it were the administrative authorities that took almost full control over the rite at the end of the century.

(4)

.

(5)

Introduction

The Supreme Commission for Israelite Affairs, having received a missive from the Commission for the Supervision of the Religious Circumcisions from the resort of Groningen in which the Supreme Commission is being notified that by them the license of the Religious Circumciser Meijer Mozes Cohen in Groningen is being withdrawn and deactivated. [The Supreme Commission] has considered it necessary to inform this to all Commissions for the Supervision of the Religious Circumcisions within the State in order to never admit him as Religious circumciser by a Commission again. 1

In 1827, an emergency meeting of the board of the Commission for the Supervision of the Religious Circumcisions of Groningen took place. The commission had received an alarming complaint from Isaak Elias Wallinga, father of the newborn baby Levi Wallinga. On 5 April 1826, the eight-‐day-‐old boy Levi underwent his circumcision. The officially licensed circumciser Meijer Mozes Cohen carried

out the circumcision.2_{The
result,
however,
was
disturbing;
Levi’s
wound
was
swollen
and}

suppurating. When the wound would not heal, his father took him to the doctor in town. He came with a distressing diagnosis: Levi was infected with a venereal disease. The doctor concluded that the

disease had first appeared on the boy’s genitals.3

During the circumcision of Levi, circumciser Cohen had practiced metzitzah b’peh, the suction

of the circumcision wound by using the mouth. The suction of the wound constitutes the last step of circumcision and the method of oral suction was the common practice of that time. The suspicion arose that Cohen had suffered from a venereal disease that he had transmitted to the boy through oral suction. In consultation with the doctor, Wallinga submitted an official complaint at the Commission for the Supervision of the Religious Circumcisions in Groningen. The complaint came almost one year after the unfortunate incident. Circumciser Cohen was a relative of his wife, which made the case a highly personal and sensitive matter. Eventually, influenced by his physician, Wallinga decided that the possible danger that circumciser Cohen formed, outweighed his whish to

keep good family relations.4

The case resulted in more than three years of correspondence, disputes and medical research. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that, although it did not have the resources to prove that Cohen suffered from a venereal disease, no risk should be taken when it comes to the health of children. Cohen was officially suspended from his function as circumciser in July 1829. He handed

1 _{Loosely
translated
by
the
author:
‘De
Hoofdcommissie,
ontvangen
hebbende
eene
missive
van
den
Commissie
van
toezigt} over de kerkelijke besnijdenissen voor het Synagogaal ressort van Groningen waarbij aan de Hoofdcommissie wordt kennis gegeven dat door dezelve het brevet van den Kerkelijke Besnijder Meijer Mozes Cohen te Groningen is ingetrokken en buiten effect gesteld. Heeft noodig geoordeeld aan alle Commissien van toezigt over de Kerkelijke besnijdenissen binnen het Rijk hiervan kennis te doen dragen, ten einde dezelven nimmer door eene Commissie als Kerkelijk besnijder zal worden toegelaten.’ National Archives (NA), The Hague, Hoofdcommissie tot de zaken der Israëliten (access number 2.07.01.05), inventory number 57, letter number 220.

2_{The
family
name
Wallinga
also
appears
as
Wallega.}

3_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
48,
letter
number
249.} 4_Ibid.

(8)

over his license and assured he would never perform a circumcision again.5_{Levi
had
passed
away
at}

the age of one year.6

The unfortunate case of Cohen was one of the earliest cases in the Netherlands in which a direct link between oral suction and a contagious disease was reported. Cohen had the questionable honour to be the first circumciser who got suspended for this reason. However, the infection of the boy did not yet lead to significant discussion within the Dutch Jewish community. The main reason for that was that a Jewish public sphere, with sufficient (democratic) channels of communication to raise such a topic, did not yet exist. All that would change just a few decades later. Between 1860 and 1890, circumcision and its hygienic aspects formed the centre of debate within the Jewish community. The Dutch circumcision debates offered an arena in which different factions within the Jewish community fought over the balance between religion and hygiene.

The Rite of Circumcision

Most religious communities hold a set of ceremonies that mark major events in life, such as birth, adulthood, marriage, and death. These rites of passage mark a person’s transition in his or her social life. During these rites one leaves behind his former social identity and adopts a new one. Circumcision has proven to be an essential rite for men in order to be accepted as a member of the Jewish community. Traditionally, by undergoing the act of circumcision, the Jewish male newborn is initiated into the Jewish community. After undergoing the rite, the boy will be identified by the

community as being fully Jewish.7

The rite of circumcision, called brit milah (covenant of circumcision), is a religious commandment. In the Book of Genesis, God commands Abraham, and the male generations that would follow, to practice circumcision:

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. _{Throughout
your
generations
every
male
among
you
shall
be
circumcised}

when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. (Gen. 17:10-‐14 New Revised Standard Version)

Jewish law historically insisted on the centrality of the rite of circumcision, for the reason that circumcision serves as the sign of the covenant between God and the Jewish people. As a result of the

5_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
57,
letter
number
220.}

6_{From
the
documents
it
does
not
become
clear
whether
Levi
Wallinga
died
from
his
disease.
The
infant
mortality
rates
in
the} nineteenth century were high; half of the children passed away before reaching the age of one year. Groninger Archieven, Groningen, Burgerlijke stand Groningen/registers van overlijden (1634), inventory number 2646.

(9)

rite’s importance, the only legitimate reason to abandon circumcision, according to the Talmud, is if

the boy had already lost two brothers due to the act of circumcision.8_{Furthermore,
in
accordance}

with the biblical command (Leviticus 12:2), the circumcision ceremony is always held on the eighth day of the newborn’s life. Even if the eighth day falls on Shabbat or on a holiday, the circumcision takes place. Postponement of the rite is only allowed if the boy’s health is at risk. In that case, the infant will be circumcised as soon as he is sufficiently healthy.

At the day of the circumcision, the newborn is brought to the synagogue or any other suitable

place to perform the rite. Although customs may differ from community to community, the circumcision rite always consists of a couple of necessary elements in order to be deemed valid. Customary, the newborn is passed between selected relatives attending the rite. Eventually, the father will hand over his son to the person honored with the role of the sandek, the person who holds the baby on his lap during the circumcision. Several blessings are recited before the circumciser (mohel) will perform the actual circumcision. The surgical part of the rite has to exist of three important elements, namely: the removal of the foreskin (milah), the uncovering of the glans (peri’ah) and the suction of the blood from the wound (metzitzah). After the surgical aspect, additional prayers are recited and traditionally, the boy will receive his name.

European Circumcision Debates

Despite the fact that Jewish law considers circumcision an essential Jewish rite, during the nineteenth century the practice of circumcision became a hotly debated topic in the Netherlands and in its surrounding countries. In all countries the circumcision debates followed their own path, depending strongly on the country’s political situation and social conditions. However, three factors have been crucial to the debates all over Western Europe.

First of all, the circumcision debates were influenced by the process of Jewish emancipation. Between the end of the eighteenth century and the early twentieth century, Jewish communities in Europe experienced an era of emancipation, the legal recognition of Jews as equal citizens. The emancipation made an end to economic and political disabilities, quotas and inequities that applied

to Jews.9_{The
circumcision
debates
were
most
fiercely
fought
in
Germany.
The
German
circumcision}

debates were largely determined by the long and bitter struggle for emancipation. German Jews experienced a period of both legal improvements, and repeated and severe setbacks until their emancipation in 1871. In order to demonstrate their worthiness of citizenship and to accelerate the process of emancipation, a large part of the Jewish community had started mimicking German middle-‐class culture. By the midcentury, this group of assimilatory Jews grew rapidly in number. A small but significant group who desired complete integration in German society, attempted to meet

8_{Robin
Judd,
Contested
Rituals:
Circumcision,
Kosher
Butchering,
and
Jewish
Political
Life
in
Germany,
1843-‐1933
(Ithaca:} Cornell University Press, 2007), 4.

9_{Benzion
Dinur,
“Emancipation”,
in
Encyclopaedia
Judaica,
edited
by
van
Michael
Berenbaum
en
Fred
Skolnik,
2}nd_{ed.,
vol.
6} (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), 374–86.

(10)

emancipation’s demands by criticizing, or by even by fully rejecting, the rite of circumcision; some German Jews started to think of circumcision as a rite that separated Jews from non-‐Jews. This group asked for the abandonment of circumcision in order to get rid of the particularistic features of

Judaism.10_{The
call
for
abandonment
of
the
rite
was
exemplary
for
the
German
debates;
neither
in}

France, nor in the Netherlands a clear movement that called for the abandonment of the rite existed. Because of the relatively easy and early emancipation of French and Dutch Jews at the end of the eighteenth century, the demand for the reform of the rite of circumcision was less urgent and

therefore less radical.11

Another feature that influenced the circumcision debates was the reconfiguration of the meaning of Judaism and Jewishness. In pre-‐modern times, the Jewish communities throughout Europe had experienced a high degree of autonomy. Jewish law defined life, which was religious, political and cultural in nature. But with the achievement of emancipation, Jews had become individual citizens of the modern nation-‐state; and from the perspective of the modern nation-‐state, Jews did no longer have to be defined as Jews. In order to define the meaning of Judaism in modernity, Jewish intellectuals discussed the question whether Judaism could be redefined in terms

of religion. This question was a direct result of the emancipation.12_{The
concept
of
Judaism
as
a}

religion was particularly highly developed in Germany. After the German unification and the Jewish emancipation in 1871, German political leaders started to promote a vision of German homogeneity in which Protestant culture had to connect all German residents. German Jews started to mirror the contemporary religious standards. By the eighteenth century, the dominant view of that time was that religion belonged to the private domain; religion referred mainly to personal belief or faith which was by definition individual and personal, whereas religious rites such as circumcision had a

strong outward and communal dimension.13_{As
a
result,
circumcision,
an
outward
practice,
was}

increasingly considered an unwanted and out-‐dated practice. This idea became visible in the growing number of German Jews who did no longer feel the need to practice circumcision in order to identify themselves and others as being Jewish. Circumcision therefore became a way of discussing the

definition of what made one Jewish.14

Lastly, the growing awareness of hygiene and public health caused resistance towards the

practice of circumcision. The awareness of hygiene played a major role not only in Germany, but also in France and the Netherlands. In order to limit circumcision incidents, the demand for the training and licensing of circumcisers increased. Besides, the rite of circumcision became associated with infections and contagious diseases such as syphilis, herpes and tuberculosis. Therefore traditional methods of circumcision, such as the removal of the foreskin by using a fingernail and the practice of

10_{Judd,
Contested
Rituals:
Circumcision,
Kosher
Butchering,
and
Jewish
Political
Life
in
Germany,
1843-‐1933,
28–35.}

11_{Jay
R.
Berkovitz,
Rites
and
Passages:
The
Beginnings
of
Modern
Jewish
Culture
in
France,
1650-‐1860
(Philadelphia:} University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 192–96.

12_{Leora
Faye
Batnitzky,
How
Judaism
became
a
religion:
an
introduction
to
modern
Jewish
thought
(Princeton:
Princeton} University Press, 2011), 1–11.

13_{Batnitzky,
1.}

(11)

oral suction, came under attack. No longer were these methods considered to be in accordance with

the latest medical and hygienic standards.15_{Rapidly,
the
growing
awareness
of
hygiene
led
to
the}

medicalization of the rite of circumcision; physicians were highly involved in the hygienic regulations that were introduced in all three countries. A tension between physicians and religious authorities

arose; physicians entered a field that formerly exclusively belonged to the religious authorities.16

Research Question

Even though the circumcision debates in the German and French communities have attracted considerable attention from scholars, the Dutch Jewish circumcision debates of the nineteenth

century, that were certainly present, have never been researched in its totality.17_{The
Dutch}

circumcision regulations and debates have been partially studied by historians Bart Wallet and Tsila Rädecker.

In Nieuwe Nederlanders Wallet studied the policies of the Dutch government and highest Jewish administrative authorities of the first half of the nineteenth century. By analyzing these policies, he aimed to study the nature of Jewish integration into Dutch society. In his research, Wallet also included the establishment of the first Dutch circumcision regulations of 1820. He observed that the first circumcision regulations were not merely introduced to improve the quality of the circumcisers. The circumcision regulations were also an attempt to centralize the rite. That way, the highest administrative authorities of the Jewish community acquired insight in the national circumcision affairs. The tendency to centralize and control the rite, did not only apply to

circumcision; administrative authorities tried to centralize all aspects of Jewish life.18

Also Rädecker analyzed the earliest circumcision regulations in her dissertation Making Jews Dutch.19_{Besides,
she
explored
the
first
circumcision
debates
of
the
mid-‐nineteenth
century.
Rädecker}

concluded that the circumcision debates offered an arena in which discourses on religion, medicine, civilized behavior and government policy were discussed. She analyzed how Jewish rituals, such as circumcision, were redefined in religious and medical terms and how religious rituals became a locus for power struggles within the Jewish community.

15_{Berkovitz,
Rites
and
Passages:
The
Beginnings
of
Modern
Jewish
Culture
in
France,
1650-‐1860,
142–55.}

16_{Eberhard
Wolff,
“Medizinische
Kompetenz
und
talmudische
Autorität.
Jüdische
Ärzte
und
Rabbiner
als
ungleiche
Partner} in der Debatte um die Beschneidungsreform zwischen 1830 und 1850”, in Judentum und Aufklärung; jüdisches

Selbstverständnis in der bürgerlichen Öffentlichkeit (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 119–49.

17_{On
the
German
circumcision
debates,
see
Klaus
Hödl,
“Die
Deutschsprachige
Beschneidungsdebatte
im
19.
Jahrhundert,”}

Aschkenas 13, no. 1 (January 8, 2003); Robin Judd, Contested Rituals: Circumcision, Kosher Butchering, and Jewish Political Life in Germany, 1843-‐1933 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007); Eberhard Wolff, “Medizinische Kompetenz und talmudische

Autorität. Jüdische Ärzte und Rabbiner als ungleiche Partner in der Debatte um die Beschneidungsreform zwischen 1830 und 1850,” in Judentum und Aufklärung: Jüdisches Selbstverständnis in der bürgerlichen Öffentlichkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002). On the French circumcision debates, see Berkovitz, Rites and Passages: The Beginnings of

Modern Jewish Culture in France, 1650-‐1860.

18_{Bart
Wallet,
Nieuwe
Nederlanders:
de
integratie
van
joden
in
Nederland
1814-‐1851
(Amsterdam:
Bakker,
2009).}

19_{Tsila
Rädecker,
“Making
Jews
Dutch:
Secular
discourse
and
Jewish
responses,
1796-‐1848”
(Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen,} 2015).

(12)

Although both scholars offer an interesting perspective, the information provided on the developments of the rite of circumcision in the Netherlands proved to be incomplete and sometimes incorrect due to missing documents. A complete analysis of the Dutch situation on circumcision, however, would offer a new West European perspective on the circumcision debates of the nineteenth century; a perspective in which Reform Judaism did not get a foothold and in which the nationalization of the Jews went relatively quick and easy. This leads to the following research question:

How and in which contexts did the Dutch Jewish circumcision debates of the nineteenth century develop and what does this debate tell us about the developing (religious) self-‐definition of the Dutch Jewish community during the nineteenth century?

The course of the Dutch Jewish circumcision debates of the nineteenth century will be studied in its totality for the first time. Therefore, this thesis will first of all have a descriptive function in order to gain insight in the development of the Dutch Jewish circumcision debates. The discussion will be placed in its specific Dutch contexts and will be compared to the situation in the neighboring countries. The developments of the debates depended for a considerable part on the national political situation. However, the debates in neighboring countries did influence the Dutch debates as well. Both the French and German debates were closely followed. Moreover, this thesis will analyze the changing perception of circumcision adopted by the Dutch Jewish community.

In order to answer the research question, I studied various Dutch archives and publications including the National Archives in The Hague and the Amsterdam City Archives. The Archives of the Hoofdcommissie tot de zaken der Israëliten (Supreme Committee of Israelite Affairs) at the National Archives give an insight in the earliest circumcision regulations and its controversies from 1820 until 1870 by means of letters and minutes of deliberations and decisions. Later circumcision regulations and debates are mainly found at the archives of the Nederlands Israëlitisch Kerkgenootschap (NIK) (Dutch Israelite Congregation) at the Amsterdam City Archives. Furthermore the Amsterdam City Archives include the archives of the Nederlands Israëlietische Hoofdsynagoge (Dutch Israelite Head Synagogue) and the Portugees-‐Israëlietische Gemeente (Portuguese Israelite Congregation) that give an understanding of how national regulations and debates of circumcision were perceived on a local level. Furthermore, the Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad, digitally available at the online database Delpher, offers an oversight of the general course of the Dutch circumcision debates and the sensitivity of the debate among its readers.

This thesis is divided into three chapters and follows the chronological order of the various

stages of the Dutch circumcision debates. The first chapter will discuss the first period of of Dutch circumcision regulations from 1820 to 1860. This period is characterized by the introduction of the first national regulations considering circumcision, the strict enforcement of the regulations and the slow rise of the presence of physicians in the circumcision rite. Whereas in neighboring countries the

(13)

circumcision debates reached their highest point in this period, the Dutch Jews experienced a time of relative tranquility. The second chapter will discuss the first real circumcision debates of 1863 in which the criticism on the practice of oral suction stood central. As I will demonstrate, the religious authorities had the last say in this discussion; the practice of oral suction was preserved. However, in the the third chapter it will become clear that despite their firm resistance, the rabbis were not able to stop the trend of the medicalization of circumcision rite at the end of the nineteenth century. By that time the Dutch circumcision debates reached its highest point and firm discussions found place within the whole Jewish community. The practice of oral suction eventually became prohibited from

(14)

Chapter 1 The First Circumcision Regulations (1820-‐1860)

With the proclamation of the Batavian Republic in the year of 1795, the legal status of the Dutch Jews would change forever. The Batavian Republic was a French satellite state based on the principle of liberté, egalité, fraternité. As a result, the Dutch Jews were recognized as equal citizens and acquired equal citizenship in 1796. The emancipation had far-‐reaching implications for the Jewish community; the Dutch Jews became a religious minority under state authority and lost their former semi-‐

autonomous status.20_{After
the
defeat
of
Napoleon
in
1813,
monarch
William
I
was
installed.
In
1815}

William I became the king of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Under the reign of William I, the equal citizenship for the Dutch Jews was preserved and the process of the centralization of the Jewish community, which had already commenced during the French Period, continued.

From 1817 the whole Jewish community, which included both the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, was organized according to a hierarchical structure; the community was divided into districts that largely corresponded with the borders of the Dutch provinces. Each district had a Hoofdsynagoge (supreme synagogue) that was responsible for the implementation of regulations applying to the Jewish community within their region. Within a district, the Hoofdsynagoge governed the smaller Ringsynagogen, and the Ringsynagogen oversaw the smallest Bijkerken. In principle, all Hoofdsynagogen had their own chief rabbi. The rabbis had the authority on the religious domain and

had to be consulted on religious matters.21_{On
top
of
the
hierarchically
structured
community
stood}

the Hoofdcommissie tot de zaken der Israëliten (Supreme Commission for the Israelite Affairs), a governmental organization. The Hoofdcommissie stood in close contact with the Dutch government; it advised the minister of ecclesiastical affairs on national Jewish matters. Until the mid-‐century, the policy of the Hoofdcommissie was fixated on the centralization of the Jewish community, which also

had its effect on the rite of circumcision.22

To understand how the Dutch circumcision debates developed during the nineteenth century it is important to understand the structure and developments of the circumcision regulations. This chapter starts with a description of how the Hoofdcommissie professionalized and centralized the rite of circumcision by introducing regulations and examinations for all Dutch circumcisers. Next, I will discuss the changing perception of the rite of circumcision within the Dutch Jewish community; traditionally, circumcision was considered an important religious rite, but during the first half of the nineteenth century the rite slowly became to be interpreted as a medical procedure. It was the start of a changing balance between religion and medicine regarding the rite of circumcision. To conclude this chapter I will compare the Dutch circumcision developments with the international circumcision

20_{Rädecker,
“Making
Jews
Dutch:
Secular
discourse
and
Jewish
responses,
1796-‐1848”,
1–2.} 21_{Wallet,
Nieuwe
Nederlanders:
de
integratie
van
joden
in
Nederland
1814-‐1851,
118–19.} 22_{Wallet,
50–53.}

(15)

debates. During the first half of the nineteenth century, the Dutch Jews followed a different path than the neighboring French and German communities.

1.1 National Affairs: The Circumcision Regulations of 1820

Why would I not confess straight out that I feel aggrieved by this treatment, because not only did I take charge of this function until this day with good success to eleven children, unselfishly and with good conscience, but I also demonstrated that compassion for my fellow men was in all cases, and also in this one, my aim.23

In the summer of 1820, circumciser Meijer van Lissa from the city of Middelburg wrote an indignant letter to the Hoofdcommissie in response to the introduction of the circumcision regulations, issued by king William I on 20 June 1820. As a result of these regulations, exams for all Jewish circumcisers were introduced. All prospective circumcisers had to partake in the newly established exams to become a legally recognized circumciser. However, experienced circumcisers were exempted from the exams. Before the end of the year, all congregations in the country had to declare its active circumcisers to the Hoofdcommissie. Those circumcisers, who were recognized by both the local congregation and by the Hoofdcommissie for having practiced the act of circumcision for more than half a year without incidents, received their certificate of recognition. By obtaining the certificate, a circumciser was allowed to continue his function after the year of 1820 without further

examination.24_{The
circumcisers
that
were
not
declared
to
the
Hoofdcommissie
before
the
end
of
the}

year were considered unqualified and had to partake in the newly established exams, just like all

other prospective circumcisers.25

The regulations were introduced to reduce circumcision incidents caused by unskilled and

inexperienced circumcisers. An inventory of 1819 of circumcision incidents, commissioned by the Hoofdcommissie, exposed several accidents caused by unskilled circumcisers across the country. In several districts, incompetent circumcisers had irreversibly mutilated boys, because of a lack of knowledge and skills that were required to perform a proper circumcision. Other districts were

unaware of incidents in their communities, but supported the idea of examination.26_The

circumcision regulations ware made possible by the mutual efforts of the government and the Hoofdcommissie. The exams had to prevent future disasters by eliminating the unqualified circumcisers.

23_{Loosely
translated
by
the
author:
‘Waarom
zoude
ik
ook
niet
ronduit
bekennen,
dat
ik
mij
verontwaardigt
vinde
door
deze} behandeling, want niet alleen heb ik tot heden deze functie, en met goed sucses reeds bij elf kinderen belangloos en met goed geweten waargenomen, maar zelfs blijken gegeven, dat liefde tot mijnen evennaasten in alle gevallen zoo ook in deze, steeds mijn oogmerk was.’ See NA, Hoofdcommissie tot de zaken der Israëliten, inventory number 21, letter number 414.

24_{Certainly
seventy-‐five
circumcisers
were
declared
to
the
Hoofdcommissie
of
which
most
circumcisers
received
a
certificate} of recognition. See NA, Hoofdcommissie tot de zaken der Israëliten, inventory number 21 and NA, Hoofdcommissie tot de zaken der Israëliten, inventory number 22.

25_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
22,
letter
number
713.} 26_{Wallet,
Nieuwe
Nederlanders:
de
integratie
van
joden
in
Nederland
1814-‐1851,
150–151.}

(16)

Although the regulations were overall positively received, not all practicing circumcisers were pleased with the newly established requirements. The introduction of legally issued licenses worked to the disadvantage of several practicing circumcisers. By introducing the certificate of recognition, the Jewish community could also eliminate the already practicing circumcisers that were considered

unqualified.27_{This
led
to
the
indignant
letter
of
Van
Lissa.
The
disillusioned
circumciser
realized
that}

he would not receive his desired certificate of recognition that would ensure his future as a circumciser. Van Lissa already had a questionable reputation; he had been accused of poorly

executed circumcisions in the past.28_{Additionally,
in
1820,
just
with
the
announcement
of
the
new}

regulations, Van Lissa was even held accountable for the death of a boy who passed away almost two weeks after his circumcision. According to Van Lissa himself, the complaint came from ‘envious community members.’ In several letters Van Lissa hoped to convince the Hoofdcommissie of his capabilities, but without success: the Hoofdcommissie agreed with the temporary suspension of Van Lissa. Furthermore, the Hoofdcommissie decided that the case had to be investigated before Van Lissa could receive a license. The investigation would only start in the year of 1821, which was too

late to receive a certificate of recognition.29_{There
is
no
indication
that
Van
Lissa
continued
his}

function as circumciser after the introduction of the exams.

Also the congregation of Steenwijk experienced difficulties with circumciser Salomon van

Gelder from the small neighboring village of Oldemarkt. The congregation was not sure whether to grant Van Gelder a certificate. He had functioned as a circumciser for a long period of time, but also Van Gelder was not free from controversies. In the past, the chief rabbi had warned all congregations

in his district not to let their sons get circumcised by Van Gelder.30_{In
case
of
doubt,
the}

Hoofdcommissie consistently drew a strict line; if there was a considerable suspicion of incompetence, the circumciser was not granted a certificate. Consequently, Van Gelder was no longer

allowed to perform circumcisions as long as he did not partake in the exams.31_{Therefore,
in
1822,}

Van Gelder did partake in the exams. He officially obtained his circumciser’s license.32

For other reasons the Hoofdcommissie had to interfere in Rotterdam’s plans with the young circumciser I.S. Sanders. The congregation of Rotterdam had declared the new and inexperienced Sanders to the Hoofdcommissie. Though Sanders might have thought that he found a way to avoid the exams, the Hoofdcommissie was relentless. The Hoofdcommissie was aware of Sanders’ inexperience and did not give permission to hand over the certificate; also Sanders had to wait until

he could partake in the new exam if he wished to become a circumciser.33

27_{A
circumciser
could
declare
himself
at
the
Hoofdcommissie
to
request
the
certificate
of
recognition.
However,
a} circumciser always needed the approval of his local congregation. In general, when the congregation did not approve, the circumciser did not receive the certificate unless the Hoofdcommissie judged otherwise.

28_{Wallet,
Nieuwe
Nederlanders:
de
integratie
van
joden
in
Nederland
1814-‐1851,
151.} 29_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
21,
letter
number
414.} 30_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
21,
letter
number
453.} 31_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
269,
letter
number
453.} 32_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
58,
letter
number
119.} 33_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
269,
letter
number
539.}

(17)

To coordinate the observation of the circumcisers, ten Commissien van Toezigt over de Kerkelijke Besnijdenissen (Commissions for the Surveillance of the Religious Circumcisions) were installed. In Amsterdam, two commissions were established: one for the Sephardic and one for the Ashkenazi community. In The Hague, one commission was installed in which the Sephardic and Ashkenazi community cooperated. The other seven Ashkenazi commissions were set up in the cities of Rotterdam, Amersfoort, ‘s-‐Hertogenbosch, Nijmegen, Zwolle, Leeuwarden, Groningen and Maastricht. In this manner, a Commissie van Toezigt was installed in all Hoofdsynagogen, except for the city of Middelburg where the Jewish community was considered too small. Therefore, the Commissie van

Toezigt of Rotterdam took care of the circumcisers in the district of Middelburg.34_{Each
commission}

consisted of six members. The president of the concerned district fulfilled the function as chairman and the secretary of the district served as the secretary of the local Commissie van Toezigt as well. Moreover, three experienced circumcisers took part in every commission, next to one officially licensed physician who was a member of the regional Provinciale commissie van geneeskundig onderzoek en toevoorzigt (Provincial Commission for Medical Research and Surveillance). The physician was the only member in the board who did not have to be Jewish. All members of the

commissions were declared to and approved by the Hoofdcommissie.35_{Despite
the
religious}

importance of circumcision, the chief rabbis, who controlled the religious domain, did not have a seat in the Commissien van Toezigt.

In the year of 1821, after one year of preparations, the Commissien van Toezigt came into

function.36_{From
that
moment,
the
new
system
was
fully
functioning.
Every
year,
the
members
of}

each commission came together in the month of June. June was the month in which candidate circumcisers were examined. If a candidate wished to be examined at another time of the year,

permission was needed from the Hoofdcommissie.37_{As
a
rule,
candidate
circumcisers
submitted}

their application to the chairman of one of the Commissien van Toezigt. The application had to include a birth certificate (for only men from the age of 20 and up were allowed to practice the function of circumciser) and a letter from an officially recognized circumciser, stating that the applicant had observed at least eight circumcisions during the last year and had gained sufficient insight in the act of circumcision to partake in the exams. Besides sufficient knowledge of the surgical part of circumcision, the candidates needed to acquire adequate knowledge of the ritual prescriptions regarding circumcision. The exam included a theoretical test on the knowledge of anatomy, surgery, wound care and religious prescriptions. In principle, the theoretical exam was enough to receive a license to circumcise. However, if a commission had any doubts about the

34_{“Naamlijst
der
verschillende,
besturen,
geestelijken
en
godsdienst
onderwijzers
bij
het
Israëlitisch
Kerkgenootschap
in} Nederland”, 1844, https://books.google.nl/books?id=sqdiAAAAcAAJ&hl=nl&authuser=0&pg=PP2#v=onepage&q&f=false, consulted on 6 June 2018.

35_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
22,
letter
number
754.} 36_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
22,
letter
number
713.} 37_{NA,
Hoofdcommissie
tot
de
zaken
der
Israëliten,
inventory
number
62,
letter
number
750.}

The Dutch Jewish Circumcision Debates of the Nineteenth Century: The Medicalization of a Religious Rite