Tazria: Beyond Comprehension?

Are there matters beyond comprehension? The Torah Portion Tazria’s Circumcision Commandment, when viewed in context, may be one of them.

Appearing in Leviticus, the commandment was promulgated post-Exodus and pre-entry into the Promised Land.

In a general biblical perspective, a circumcision commandment should be something benign. The instruction was: “[a]nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” Leviticus 12:3. Nothing within it suggests controversy. In fact, Tazria’s commandment bares similarity to the earlier Genesis circumcision commandment.

In Genesis, Abraham’s covenant with the Lord leans heavy on the act of circumcision. It commands: “[a]nd you shall be circumcised at the flesh of your foreskin, and it will become a sign of the covenant between you and me.” Genesis 17:11.

Genesis, as well, goes beyond Leviticus to offer both purpose and vision. It commands that: “[a]nd at eight days old every male shall be circumcised among you through your generations.” Genesis 17:12

Genesis goes beyond the act’s significance to address consequence. The text indicates that the uncircumcised “will be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.” Genesis 17:14.

Stepping outside the Torah into the Book of Joshua, readers are met with controversy. Before entering the Land of Israel, the Lord tells Joshua to circumcise the Children of Israel again. Book of Joshua 5:2.

The Book of Joshua is aware of the act’s controversial nature. It states: “[t]his is the reason why Joshua circumcised [them]: The entire people that had gone forth from Egypt- the males- had died in the Wilderness on the way, after they went forth from Egypt. All the people that went forth were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the Wilderness on the way, after they went forth from Egypt were not circumcised…”

This controversy is well-known. One commentator attempted to address this controversy via literary analysis. Other commentators off unsatisfactory explanations.

Holding the text at face value, there is no escaping that was circumcision mandated in Leviticus. Given Tazria, one would have assumed that the Children of Israel born after the portion would have been circumcised. Thus, the passages are problematic.

The Take Away

Rather than attempt to explain the text, understanding that text’s motivation may offer enlightenment.

In Genesis, beyond the covenant, circumcision served to unify. The group, including slaves and others incorporated into Abraham’s family, were all to be circumcised. Thus, the Patriarchal Family’s entire social strata became part of the collective via circumcision. This act separated them from the greater Canaanite communities.

The Book of Joshua offers up a different but similar motivation. Joshua led a formed nation of number of mixed multitude was going to enter the Canaanite land. In contrast, Abraham led a family and was outnumbered. Both needed unity. Both had a make-up of different social strata.

Thus, with Genesis and Joshua, the circumcision’s goal, in part, was to create unity. In contrast, Tazria’s commandment in Leviticus describes the act in an individual. It is not overtly intended to stoke unity or camaraderie.

In either Abraham or Joshua’s circumstance, unity and identity are created by the act. Circumcision is the shared experience for all male group members. This notion is not lost in modernity. Some military personnel tattoo themselves to bond themselves to their unit.

Conclusion

Appreciating this motivation, a question is raised. Is it possible Joshua’s group consisted of others who joined the Children of Israel in the Wilderness? If so, was the mass circumcision intended in part to incorporate them at a time when unity was existential?

With this in mind, was the mass circumcision intended to not set anyone apart? Was it an attempt to create a unified collective?

Be well!

Please like, follow, comment or share.