circumcision, to his own congregation, but could not expect that individual to be looked upon as a Jew by others in the Jewish community.’
Professor Moses Mielziner felt that this matter needed to be decided by a rabbinic body not by individuals, as otherwise it would lead to chaos within the Jewish community. He personally felt that circumcision was required, otherwise it might also lapse as a ritual for Jewish children born to Jewish parents.
Rabbi Emmanuel Schreiber looked at the entire question from a modern historical perspective and mentioned the Reform Society of Frankfurt which had eliminated the requirements for circumcision altogether for Jews in 1842. This had elicited a very strong negative reaction. Some forty-one rabbis wrote in opposition; others stated that although such a child would be considered as a Jew, it should not be permitted to participate in congregational life until circumcised. In the final analysis, Schreiber left it to the convert himself to decide upon circumcision.
Rabbi Max Landsberg indicated that circumcision should be eliminated for proselytes; Rabbi Gottheil felt milah was a barrier which should be removed as did Rabbi A. Moses, while Rabbi S. Hecht felt that such a change should be made only after the most careful deliberation.
Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler did not respond directly to the question but simply defended the ritual of circumcision as a religious symbolic rite; he had dealt with this matter earlier in Pittsburgh . Rabbi M. Samfield replied with a lengthy statement in which he advocated the elimination of circumcision while Rabbi
Spitz felt that circumcision was essential.
119