Monday, July 7, 2014

Walter Block and Rafi Farber on Circumcision

-----Original Message-----
> > From: Rafi Farber >
> > Sent: Fri 6/27/2014 9:35 AM
> > To: Walter Block
> > Subject: Circumcision
> >
> > Hi Walter -
> >
> > It is a rather strange coincidence that on the very day that my first son
> > is born, the top article on LRC is Don't Mutilate Your Baby Boy by Walter
> > Block.
> >
> > It weighs on me and I can't dispute that a bris on an 8 day old baby
> > violates the NAP. I can only argue that God commanded me to, though
> that's
> > not a demonstrable position, I know.
> >
> > Nevertheless I will do it.
> >
> > One of the only things left that really disturbs me about a full
> > libertarian society and advocating for it is that religious Jews in such
> a
> > society would be compelled by force not to circumcise their children. I'm
> > not sure how to get around that. Would that theoretically be the case in
> > the world we are trying to build?
> >
> > I'm having trouble coping with that, and no, abandoning such a central
> > Jewish practice I don't think is going to happen for me.
> >
> > I was hoping he'd be born circumcised (it does happen rarely) but it was
> > not to be. Even if he was I'd still have to prick him and draw blood, so
> it
> > wouldn't help logically anyway.
> >
> > But anyway, a healthy baby boy, everyone is doing fine.
---

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Walter Block < > walterblock@business.loyno.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Rafi:
> >
> > Maazel tov. Wonderful. Congratulations. A healthy baby is wondrous.
> >
> > I am a Jew. An unbeliever, but a Jew nonetheless. I'm also a libertarian.
> > I'm more of the latter than the former.
> >
> > I was circumcized, but I am now convinced, thanks to my co author who
> > initiated this article, that this is child abuse.
> >
> > Is it ok if I share this correspondence with others?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Walter
---

-----Original Message-----
> From: Rafi Farber
> Sent: Fri 6/27/2014 11:12 AM
> To: Walter Block
> Subject: Re: Circumcision
>
> Yes, of course. I agree from an athiest libertarian perspective, it is
> child abuse. I will be abusing my child. I admit it. I'm not happy about it
> and I'm not at peace with it.
>
> But I do actually believe God has told me to do this to my child, and if it
> would ever theoretically come to circumcision over following libertarian
> law, I will circumcise, and even theoretically fight back with force if
> someone tried to stop me from doing it, and would support any other Jew
> fighting for his right to do the same to his child.
>
> The fierce loyalties in both directions are disturbing, and I can't think
> of another example where the NAP and Judaism are so clearly opposed to each
> other.
>
> But in the end, I believe God trumps the NAP, though I believe God has
> commanded me to follow the NAP in (almost) every other case I can think of.
> There may be other minor exceptions, but I can't think of any that I can't
> interpret away.
>
> Circumcision I can't. It's a violation and God commands me to do it. It
> really tears me apart.
---

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Walter Block < walterblock@business.loyno.edu> wrote:

>
>
> Dear Rafi:
>
> Yes, this is indeed an area where Judaism and libertarianism diverge.
> Sharply.
>
> Do you believe that God told Abraham to kill his son, Isaac?
>
> Suppose God told you to kill your new born son. Would you do it? I know
> what I would do if God told me to kill my son. I'd tell God to F off. I'd
> use all my (limited) power to disobey Him.
>
>
> Is it ok if I share this correspondence with others?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafi Farber
Sent: Fri 6/27/2014 11:23 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Circumcision

That's the next logical question. I do believe that God told Abraham to
kill his son, historically speaking.

Even if one wanted to argue the story is not historical, a possible
reading, I would say that the story is still from God and therefore tells a
truth about Him, namely that he doesn't actually want children to be
murdered by their parents for His sake, which is also evident in the
prohibition against passing one's child through fire and singing him (in
Deuteronomy, called Molech worship, a big No No)

So yes, if God told me to kill my son I would do it (after ruling out
hallucinating etc.), expecting that He would stop me at the last second,
since that is what the Torah has told me about God's nature through that
story.

If He didn't stop me at the last second and I actually killed him I would
probably go insane. I don't know what would happen to me, but it wouldn't
be pretty.

But I wouldn't tell God to F off.


---
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Walter Block wrote:


shall I keep this correspondence private between us, or may I share it with others?

---

From: Rafi Farber
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 1:23 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Circumcision

You can share it with whoever you want. I have nothing to hide, pretty secure in my views and beliefs, and I think it'll be good for more libertarians and potential converts to see what I (and other libertarian Jewish parents no doubt) am struggling with.

Rafi




30 comments:

  1. > Do you believe that God told Abraham to kill his son, Isaac?

    Since Walter (presumably) does not read Hebrew, I can say that the answer to this is no.

    God commands Abraham to bind Isaac up for/as an offering. There is an obvious implication that Abraham is to carry it through to completion, though it is never explicitly said.

    Further, Walter has zero understanding of Jewish tradition, so to opine on it AS A JEW is really pathetic. He has not learned the Bible, the commentaries on the Bible, the Talmud, its commentaries, or any of the numerous and well-known works written over thousands of years. A massive corpus that actually does address his questions and concerns over matters such as this.

    At least his position on circumcision has some internal consistency. His views of abortion on the other hand, do not and are sickening. Abortion is absolutely a violation of the NAP without question, yet he is obsessed with it and comments on it ad nauseum. Conception is a (likely) outcome of pregnancy, even when utilizing reliable forms of birth control. To excuse abortion is to deny agency to the man and woman involved in the act of conception.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Walter has zero understanding of Jewish tradition, so to opine on it AS A JEW is really pathetic. He has not learned the Bible, the commentaries on the Bible, the Talmud, its commentaries, or any of the numerous and well-known works written over thousands of years."

      Block is not opining on the subject "AS A JEW", but as a libertarian consistently applying the NAP. He mentions that, "I am a Jew. An unbeliever, but a Jew nonetheless. I'm also a libertarian. I'm more of the latter than the former."

      "A massive corpus that actually does address his questions and concerns over matters such as this."

      Can you point to something that addresses the practice of circumcision as a form of abuse? I am sure it would be an interesting read.

      "At least his position on circumcision has some internal consistency. His views of abortion on the other hand, do not and are sickening. Abortion is absolutely a violation of the NAP without question, yet he is obsessed with it and comments on it ad nauseum."

      To say Block is obsessed with something because "he comments on it ad nauseum" is a little tough to swallow, as Block makes many, many comments on many, many subjects. Block is a prolific author, speaker, and activist- he likely has talked about abortion more than many scholars, other than perhaps theologians or those more singularly focused on the subject of abortion. One could also say Block is "obsessed" with the subject of privatizing roads! But, roads are not as polarizing a subject as abortion; a prolific volume of commentary on roads will not seem an obsession. Besides, one being obsessed with something is not to say one is wrong about the subject, per se.

      "Conception is a (likely) outcome of pregnancy, even when utilizing reliable forms of birth control. To excuse abortion is to deny agency to the man and woman involved in the act of conception."

      I assume by "conception" you mean "intercourse". What about the case of rape? When the rapist plants his seed in the female's body against her will, is she now obliged to provide her body (i.e. her property) to carry the baby to term?

      Delete
    2. Shimshon, someone told me that since child sacrifice was common at that time, the meaning of the story is that Abraham was the first person to break this awful tradition. That is why God sends the angel to stop him, as a metaphor for these sacrifices to end. Is this your opinion as well?

      Delete
    3. Freedom Mom, really it depends on how far you want to go. The beginning of the episode has God "testing" Abraham. Does God not know how Abraham will react? Perish the thought! Of course He knows.

      The test is for Abraham. It goes against his very nature. Jewish sources ascribe to him the embodiment of chesed (roughly, kindness). Does his faith transcend that? And transcend everything he has been teaching others? To the point of risking total isolation and becoming a laughingstock?

      As far as other comments. Jewish law does indeed forbid abortion in the case of rape. The very question and its wording indicate a concept of self-ownership that is foreign to the idea that we are God's creations. Further, as Jews, we were freed from bondage to humans by God himself. We're not robots, but you could say, in a perhaps poorly worded way, that we are now God's servants. But that's how it has always been historically. We have no choice of having a master. But is that master human or divine? Having even the barest awareness of history makes the answer fairly obvious, I should hope. It's a fairly libertarian position, actually. A truly free society could never exist except among people who have an internal moral compass.

      Block does comment excessively (very much so) on abortion and as a staunch defender of it. A subject that most other hard-core (thin?) libertarians seem to side with me on (who are far from theologians), based on my own cursory rundown. His position on abortion, unlike other issues, strikes me as dogmatic. It is fixed and will not change. That's not a reasoned argument.

      As far as Rafi, give the guy a break. He's struggling. I applaud his choices given that his understanding is fairly low (which I don't think I'm insulting him by pointing out what he says himself). Probably less learned than me. And I make no claims of especially deep knowledge myself. I am a simple lay Jew like him.

      Delete
    4. As far as I can tell, Block's abortion stance is completely libertarian (i.e. logical) and also fairly pragmatic.

      If you are pro life, you're in a pretty shoddy situation currently, right?

      So even though you might disagree on principle, you would save many more lives by adopting Block's position, which is "eviction" rather than "abortion".

      All you pro lifers lover the un-born so much, that, clearly, you will invest in technology that would save pre-mature fetuses after they were evicted, at younger and younger ages, right?

      It's like debating minarchism and anarchism. If we're moving in the same direction, let's carpool.

      Delete
    5. Shimshon,

      Thanks for elaborating a bit on your view of abortion. I can better understand where you are coming from because of it...

      "Jewish law does indeed forbid abortion in the case of rape. The very question and its wording indicate a concept of self-ownership that is foreign to the idea that we are God's creations. Further, as Jews, we were freed from bondage to humans by God himself. We're not robots, but you could say, in a perhaps poorly worded way, that we are now God's servants. But that's how it has always been historically. We have no choice of having a master. But is that master human or divine? Having even the barest awareness of history makes the answer fairly obvious, I should hope. It's a fairly libertarian position, actually."

      This concept is clearly not a libertarian position, Shimshon. Property rights are crucial to the NAP- which is totally irrelevant without self-ownership. We do not "have no choice of having a master" as you say. I have no master except myself- the sole owner of the property surrounding my soul (my body), at least not that I am able to conceive of as a human being. I cannot own property if I do not own myself, and any wealth I acquire via my labor as owner of my body cannot truly be owned by me. I this scenario, the NAP is useless!

      "A truly free society could never exist except among people who have an internal moral compass."

      This is precisely what the thick vs. thin libertarian debate is all about. Your concept of morality may differ quite a bit from mine, but as long as we can agree to keep our mitts off of each other and each other's stuff, there is absolutely no violation of the NAP. For example, you may think circumcision is a perfectly moral act, while I think it is immoral. But, as long as you are not going to try to circumcise me (please don't!), I have no problem with you!

      Getting back to the original topic (circumcision), I am guessing you would say that God commands people to circumcise their infant boys, therefore it is just. Can you elaborate more on parents circumcising their infant boys, and how you don't think it is a violation of the NAP?

      Delete
    6. Steve, regarding abortion, please explain how changing my position would save more lives. I never said I was "pro-life" nor did I use the label. I would say that such a label is more of a political ploy anyway. Walter's "evictionism" is just splitting hairs. I'm not interested in a "debate" in the issue, nor is one even really necessary. What may be debatable is how much involvement the state should have. Certainly at the Federal level, no libertarian worth his salt would say it should ANY say on it. Do you disagree with that?

      From my perspective, as a Jew living in Israel, elective abortion is a death cult. It is certainly not a life-affirming position. It's bad for the woman who has one and it's bad for the "society" that she is a part of. The death cult of abortion is the final destination of feminism, a far more damaging ideology than Communism or Nazism could ever hope to be. It is a holocaust on par with the carnage wrought in the two world wars of the twentieth century. It should sicken and disgust every civilized individual.

      To me, the NAP is life-affirming. It is the opposite of abortion, and to conflate the two is, at best a logical fallacy of the worst sort.

      Rick, regarding circumcision, as I said, for Jews it is a "religious" rite, and really has no bearing on non-Jews. If non-Jews choose to do it or not has no interest to me. My take is the non-religious justifications for it are very weak and thus would violate the NAP. Even for Jews, I don't have specific citations at my disposal, but there is no question it is discussed in sources like the Talmud. Because yes, you are indeed mutilating a baby that has no say in the matter. Just because we do it doesn't mean we shy away from the hard questions.

      As far as the idea of self-ownership goes...for Jews it is quite clear. It is spelled out in the Hagada which we read every Passover. If God didn't free us from slavery in Egypt, we would still be slaves today. That has many different layers of interpretation. If not to Pharaoh, then another master. And even not enslaved bodily, then in mind. God freed us from human bondage, but we are still His servants. Still, Judaism does hold that all of humanity is obliged to follow seven broad categories law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah).

      The likes of John are not even worthy addressing in discussion, as his highly charged language indicates a clear hostility and lack of interest in any kind of dialog. He sounds like most atheists. Childish and pathetic.

      Delete
  2. The large uncorrected lie here is that god told anyone to do anything. There is no god. There is no word of god. That some moron would mutilate an infant and claim that his invisible god told him to, merely demonstrates that we yet live in an age of superstitious savages who continue to preach sacrifice and faith, the two "virtues" that tyrants most need their victims to adopt.

    I wonder sometimes about the Jewish culture. They are said to be smarter than the rest of us and I can believe it when I focus on Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, Walter Block. But when I look at jews in general and their love of authoritarian parasitism (communism), how hated they have made themselves in one country after another, what they have turned Israel into, and their primitive savagery toward their own infants, I do indeed wonder about their stupid culture and their (general) intelligence.

    This Rafi Farber strikes me as childishly stubborn and not intellectually honest at all. What he is saying is that his stinking faith trumps all morality. Faith simply means believing whatever you are told to believe because of who told you to believe it. It means believing what ever you want to believe. That means doing anything you want to anyone you want to do it to. It means to have no objective principles at all. Such mad thinking does, indeed, explain much of the evil in the world, committed in the name of loyalty to the superstitious rubbish called religion stuffed into children and punctuated, in the case of the Jews and Moslems, with genital mutilation of the young.

    And Rafi the Jewish pervert wants us to sympathize with his being conflicted because his invisible, nonexistent god told him to commit his nasty, sadistic crime. To hell with Rafi and to hell with the Jewish religion, along with all other expressions of faith and sacrifice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you have much to learn...

      god

      Delete
    2. "you have much to learn...
      god"

      1amspartacus,
      You probably fail to appreciate the irony that YOU have to speak for a god (suggesting that s/he is either incapable of speaking for herself or (more realistically) simply fails to exist). Unless you are god, which gives me a new appreciation for the movie "300".

      Delete
    3. As a victim of Jewish supremacism, bravo. This is why I argue that religion is government and government is religion. Both involve the arbitrary violation of the rights of the individual. Religion mandates that crimes be committed if some fictitious deity commands as such. Government mandates that crimes be committed simply because a piece of paper, or an obscene process such as democracy, commands as such. For the record, Jewish supremacism involves more than just the Jewish religion. There are plenty of secular (agnostic or atheist) Jews who believe that Male Genital Mutilation is not so much a law of God, but rather a Law of the Jewish People. But that is just classic racism. Jewish babies do not have the right to intact genitals just because they are of Jewish descent. One's ethnicity cannot alter morality, just as a false belief cannot alter morality. I am incensed that helpless babies are condemned to suffering torture, mutilation, and rape just because of the ethnicity of their parents. It is disgusting. Frankly, such child molesters should be sterilized.

      Delete
  3. That should be "conception and pregnancy are a likely out of sex..."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is piercing a baby girl's ears also a violation of the NAP?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaron,

      Good question, I think!

      My wife and I just had our first child a little over four months ago, and I remember right at the end of her pregnancy the question occurred to us- should we circumcise our child?! We bizarrely hadn't even considered this, and dove into the question from both the health and moral perspective. We asked our midwife about it, and she said it would not be a health risk if we decided to leave our baby uncircumcised. So, that was a relief, and left us with the other side of the equation.

      We felt that it was unfair to make this decision for our baby, and because one can choose to be circumcised later in life that it would be better for the child to decide (when one can make such decisions for one's self) what to do. Fortunately,........wait for it.........

      It's a girl! So, all this fretting was for naught!

      We will let her decide if she would like her ears pierced, thank you very much!...

      Delete
    2. Ha! We recently had to deal with the same question and our midwife said the same as yours. Ultimately I was not convinced by the many arguments against, nor do I consider neonatal circumcision an initiation of force.

      I give little care to imaginary "rights" or whatever. My faith is most important but Rothbard, Mises and Block among others have helped me better understand the bible and it's message.

      Block is more learned than I. I get his logic but I find the reasoning suspect when it one says killing a child through abortion (or even starvation) is justified but you can't justifiably decide on a little cosmetic surgery for your son (it is just a flap of skin).

      I believe the Bible is G-d's word (is very libertarian), that I belong to G-d (as does my son) and is not a violation of the NAP. If it is, I'll continue to feed my son as atonement. :)

      Delete
    3. "but I find the reasoning suspect when it one says killing a child through abortion (or even starvation) is justified but you can't justifiably decide on a little cosmetic surgery for your son"

      Aaron, I think you make a good point.

      One has to wonder if in Block's mind there is a difference between abuse and a NAP violation. I haven't thought much about it myself, but speaking off the cuff, you might be able to make a reasonable argument that here is....(refer to my post here http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/the-problem-with-jeff-tuckers-view-on.html)

      For example, if I call someone a litany of foul names...it might be considered verbally "abusive" yet not a NAP violation...

      Anyway, I still like your point...there seems to be something inherently wrong with the logic that it wouldn't be a NAP violation to starve your kid...but it would be abuse if you circumcise him...lol...it must lie in the distinction between abuse and what constitutes a NAP violation.

      Block's circumcision viewpoint seems even more interesting in light of his defense of spanking in his debate with Molyneaux....it's all very perplexing to me(for now).

      Delete
  5. In reference to circumcision, John Howard is spot on. This primitive ugly "tradition" is so unnecessary. My guess is that Rafi Farber is worried about what others (immediate family and friends) might think. Perhaps he is concerned about his sons future in the "boys locker room" and what others might say. "God commands me to do it" is like saying "The Devil made me do it". Shame on you for giving in to such an ongoing ugly tradition. It is time to stand up and fight for the rights of your newborn son. If you don't, you're a already starting out as a bad father by not protecting his rights. This is not your body, it is his.

    ReplyDelete
  6. An honest atheist would admit that, sans a universally applicable morality, the NAP is a nice but completely non-binding code of conduct (and just as arbitrary as any other code). Atheism by definition is amoral. Individual atheists can indeed be moral. Calling themselves "moral" or "good" however is absurd, as there is no standard other than their own to use such words. It is a parasitic morality in that atheists tend to adopt the moral code of the host culture they are part of.

    Walter is on the side of the libwaps on the subject of abortion. That should be all you need to know. A cursory glance at the extensive roster of LRC contributors would lead the casual reader to conclude that abortion is actually a settled issue and the consensus is it is wrong. Perhaps the state should not be involved either way. But it is a clear violation of the NAP.

    See Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0041D8428) for further info on just how...irrational...atheism is.

    Circumcision...it is a religious rite. In hindsight, having been reared in the US, it is indeed odd that it was so widely practiced among Christians there, uniquely in the West. I think at its height, something like 85% of boys were circumcised. I have no problem whatsoever with non-Jews bemoaning or agitating against the practice. There is no rhyme or reason for it to continue. Its health benefits are not "settled."

    ReplyDelete
  7. An honest theist would admit that, sans a universally applicable morality, that his superstitions provide him with a nice but completely non-binding code of conduct (and just as arbitrary as any other code). Theism by definition is amoral. Individual theists can indeed be moral. Calling themselves "moral" or "good" however is absurd, as there is no standard other than their own to use such words. It is a parasitic morality in that theists tend to adopt the moral code of the religious culture they are part of, then claim that it is handed down by their imaginary god, that god being an invention of that very same religious culture.

    Religion is nothing more than a rhetorical gimmick designed to bolster the opinions of parasites and bullies in the eyes of their victims. Do as I say, not because I say it, but because god says it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "See .....for further info on just how...irrational...atheism is."

    Labeling people "irrational" and then referring everyone to a book they must purchase in order to back up your stupid insult is rather lacking in substance, is it not? Atheism is not a belief or belief system. It is merely the lack of one single belief: the belief in a god. It is irrational to claim that the lack of a single belief is irrational since the mere lack of evidence is all that is required to provide a base for the Atheist's lack of belief. It would be absurd to claim that all Atheists have been presented with your (overwhelming) evidence and have rejected it. You have no way to know that. All you know is that they do not agree with you. Your position amounts to saying that irrationality amounts to disagreeing with your superstitions.

    This may not be the proper forum for the Atheist / Theist debate, but were we to debate the question, you would lose the debate rather quickly. Telling people to go read a book doesn't win debates. Misrepresenting the Atheist position doesn't win debates.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't see why Rafi is torn on this issue. By definition, God *owns everything* and therefore whatever he commands is not in violation of the NAP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do understand. Rafi finds it difficult to accept that G-d would command him to violate the NAP. If I understand him correctly, he believes that the NAP is a corollary of G-d's existence, rather than independent of it. He may also feel that he can demonstrate that the essence of G-d's word (through the Torah) is the NAP. So, no G-d = no NAP. I don't believe he was ever torn in a practical sense, only in an intellectual sense.

      Delete
  10. Regarding The Irrational Atheist, the book I mentioned. I highly recommend it. It is not an apologetic for Christianity (although there is an appendix that is, it is not the point of the book). It addresses the arguments many prominent and well-known atheists make in support of atheism...and smashes them to bits.

    Atheists are usually loud-mouthed, obnoxious jerks (Walter Block is a very rare exception; if RW considers himself one too - I am not clear on this - then he is another). Richard Dawkins admits to having formulated his atheist beliefs in childhood, and has not had any new insights since. Tell me please. Does this sound mature? How many people still hold fast to the immature and usually poorly formulated beliefs one held as a child decades later?

    I know where I stood as a child and teenager. As a 47 year old man with a wife and several children, I can you that were I to hold fast to those beliefs today, I would be considered a real lightweight. And I wasn't even an atheist then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Atheists are usually loud-mouthed, obnoxious jerks."

      So ironic, it needs no comment.

      Delete
    2. "The large uncorrected lie here is that god told anyone to do anything. There is no god. There is no word of god. That some moron would mutilate an infant and claim that his invisible god told him to, merely demonstrates that we yet live in an age of superstitious savages who continue to preach sacrifice and faith, the two "virtues" that tyrants most need their victims to adopt."

      Indeed. There is not a single word you have written that doesn't drip with venom. "Loud-mouthed, obnoxious jerk" is a charitable description in your case.

      Delete
    3. Venom, in the defense of the innocent, is no vice. Truth will always appear obnoxious to the deceitful. As for volume, you are making things up again, but then that is the essence of religion, isn't it?

      Delete
  11. A lengthy summary of the book is available as a free download. You have no need to purchase a book.

    http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  12. "And while I am a believer, a non-denominational evangelical Christian to be precise, my purpose in writing this book is not to defend God, or even to argue for the truth of my particular religious faith. Instead, I intend to defend those who are now being misled into doubting their faith or are fooled into feeling more secure in their lack of faith on the basis of the fraudulent, error-filled writings of these three men. I do not make this triple charge of fraudulence lightly, nor is my doing so a fearful response to their churlish disregard for what to me and millions of other individuals is the central element of human existence.

    "There is simply no more fitting description of the cerebral snake oil that Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are selling to the unwary reader--and the media--under the false label of science and reason. I am confident that no one, not even the most purely rational, ├╝ber-skeptical agnostic or card-carrying ACLU atheist, will take serious exception to my charge by the time they finish this book."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shimshon - one kiyum of a bris is itself the violence of the act. Take the case of a child born circumcised. Hataft dam brit is still necessary. Wounding for the sake of wounding is without question a violation of the NAP.

      Tiyuvta deShimshon Tiyuvta.

      Rafi

      Delete