« Let Them Have More Babies?! | Main | 3 Satmar Hasidim Sentenced In Fraud Worth Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars »

July 31, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dovid

>I'm glad that you can rule the risks "minimal" and ignore the majority of infectious disease specialists who feel MBP is a very real danger.

The experts in fact did not comment on it. The four articles by 22 doctors who have never done a paper on neonatal herpes (despite one them having done over a thousand papers including one on the cost of vomiting) 17 who have neve even done a paper in herpes, the remaining are mostly on testing methods, zoster or geriatric herpes. The experts, whitley, kimberlin, prober, arvin, yeager, brown, mertz, stanberry, nahmias, wald, ashley, roizman, etc. who have a few hundred years of neonatal herpes experience between them, use the same factors that Rucin, distel, and gesundheit, et al use to indict the mohel, to describe textbook maternally transmitted herpes. Lorrie Rubin in particular is a slime ball because he cites medical papers that state the exact opposite of what he writes. Tendler and gesundheit do the same. read the article, and read the references. They tell two very different stories.

Shmarya

I'm glad that you can rule the risks "minimal" and ignore the majority of infectious disease specialists who feel MBP is a very real danger. You're also ignoring the majority of poskim who say MBP was originally done for MEDICAL reasons and that today MBP has no medical value but does present real harm and danger.

AV

A while back I read about an Israeli survey of uncircumcised Russian Jews that got circumcised as adults in Israel.

The Israeli survey concluded the following:

1. Russian Jews that had positive feelings for Judaism tended to report their sexual sensations intensified after the circumcision, while those who had negative feelings against Judaism tended to report their sexual sensations reduced after the circumcision. The conclusion was the circumcision itself is (generally) neutral with regard to overall sexual sensititivy.

2. However, the survey pointed out that there was a difference between the Israeli traditional method of circumcision using the "shield", versus the modern medical proceedure using a "clamp". The shield method seems neutral overall, but the medical clamp method does seem to diminish overall sensitivity somewhat.

My guess is: the medical clamp method strives to make a "perfectly circular" cut that removes more of the frenulum, which is extremely important for sensitivity, whereas, the shield leaves more of the frenulum intact?

If someone is familiar with this Israeli survey, please supply a link to it. As said, I read about the survey but not the survey itself, and would like to.

AV

If I understand the argument correctly: Parents may desire a traditional MBP. But the child has no choice about whether or not to undergo the risks involved. Even if these risks are negligible.

I feel the argument is an important consideration but not a decisive one.

First, the risks concerning MBP are remote. Parents must take all kinds of calculated risks concerning their children. Theres no way around this.

Should parents not take their kids to soccer practice because of risk injury? More, I want my kids to take gymnastics and martial arts - sports that are surely more dangerous than soccer! Should I not do this because of the "risks"? I feel the benefits outweigh the risks.

Parents have to decide the costs-and-benefits of everything they do on behalf of their kids.

Second, the benefits of being Jewish are enormous. The sense of belonging and identity, of lifelong social support, even the greater likelihood of financial support in times of emergency, etc. are all incalculable benefits that parents can confer to their children when choosing to raise them as Jews.

In my opinion, Judaism also grants children the advantages of the most powerful spirituality possible, that BALANCES infinite ideals with practical realism, that preserves richly complex strategies that have survived the test of time while ALSO (!) being on the cutting edge of human progress, and that coordinates the benefits of BOTH collective efforts AND individual rights and freedoms. Judaism is astonishingly robust, diverse, adaptable and beautiful. And insightful. And valuable.

And in my opinion, Ha'Shem has a special purpose for Jews, and it is wonderful to include my kids in this.

Similar to folk medicine, complex traditions survive the test of time BECAUSE the tradtions are SUCCESSFUL. If they werent successful they wouldnt have survived! Jewish traditions confer all kinds of benefits we arent even aware of yet.

Third, for me Kabala is meaningful. When circising my future son(s), I will take precautions to reduce the risk of a Mohel having infections, still I will request the traditional MBP.

My spiritual intention for doing the circumcision is just as important to me as doing it. The MBP tradition makes the circumcision even more meaningful for me and strengthens the spiritual force of my family.

Shmarya

Right. And the dead and maimed babies? They get to suffer, dies and experience Hashem in a very different way then the rest of us, don't they?

AV

Not all mitsvot are equal - some have higher priorities than others - and mitsvot can conflict with eachother in certain scenarios. Debate helps us do mitsvot as wisely as possible.

Tora is infinite.

There can be many different ways of doing Tora. All of them can be true simultaneously. "Tora has seventy faces." Each "presence" of Tora reveals Ha'Shem thru a distinctive aspect of our world.

A plurality of various local customs benefits all Jews. Even different streams of Judaism (like Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc.) can be good. Each approach to Tora achieves a different but necessary function.

It is wrongminded to try force Tora to converge into a finite conformity. It is a sin to suppress plurality. If Tora only has "one face", then it isnt the fullness of divine revelation.

Jews who value tradition provide a necessary service for the rest of the Jewish people. Jews who value experimentation also provide a necessary service for the rest of the Jewish people.

Judaism is like technology. Technological progress requires both standardization and innovation. These requirements conflict with eachother, but we need both to flourish.

We must fight for our own right to follow the halakhic rulings that we ourselves value. At the same time, we must fight for the right of other Jews to follow different halakhic rulings that they value.

When our finite way of being Jewish conflicts with other finite ways of being Jewish, then all of us become one, in a way that transcends our limitations, and we experience Ha'Shem who is infinite.

Shmarya

it seems the status quo in halakha says: A Mohel traditionally does B'Pe, but if the parents of a baby request otherwise, then a Mohel can use an alternative method, such as thru a glass tube. Shouldnt everybody be happy with this status quo?

Not if the parents want MBP and the baby catches herpes from the mohel and is maimed or dies.

AV

It is a mitsva to debate halakha. Debate forces us to deepen our understanding of Tora and of the best way to apply Tora in our evolving world.

Meanwhile, it seems counterproductive and less holy to insult fellow humans personally (calling eachother "ignorant", "backward", "Kofer", etc.).

Perhapse it is especially important for Jews to love one another, because Jews seem prone to disagree with other Jews. We must remember to love especially those who we disagree with.

With regard to Mtsitsa, it seems the status quo in halakha says: A Mohel traditionally does B'Pe, but if the parents of a baby request otherwise, then a Mohel can use an alternative method, such as thru a glass tube. Shouldnt everybody be happy with this status quo?

Shmarya

Do you always have these reading comp problems?

The first quote is me QUOTING another commenter. The second is me RESPONDING to him.

If what you mean to say is that there was a very rudimentary understanding (an educated guess would be almost an overstatement) of disease transmission and germs at the time of the Vienna outbreak, and that somehow equates the the vastly superior knowledge we have today, so that allows you to say that rabbis at the time of the Vienna outbreak – even rabbis living far away in a scientific and medical backwater like the Sedei Hemed – therefore knew with certainty that disease could be transmitted through MBP but MANDATED MBP nonetheless – if that is what you mean you are foolish.

Your lack of understanding of this issue, based on your lack of secular knowledge (and a pretty stong lack of religious knowledge, as well) is simply astounding.

Edious

Shmarya:

"I am already familiar with Dr. Sprecher's article. While there certainly are events where infections were contracted and are highly likely are attributable to metzizah b'peh, much of it is specualation…

No, it is informed analysis based on germ transmission and other information not available at the time of those outbreaks.

And, as Dr. Sprecher notes, major poskim urged the stopping of metzitza b'peh, not because it looked bad but because, in the best medical opinion they had available, it was bad. And that medical opinion was and remains correct"

WAS AND REMAINS(meaning they had knowledge)


Buddy do you contradict yourself on a daily basis?

Shmarya

You certainly have the right to disagree. However, even a brief check on the state of medical science then as compared to now, and the state of medical science in the Middle East under the Ottoman Empire, will prove my points.

Edious

This is where we reach an impasse; you don’t know what he knew, it’s your own foolish deductions which I highly disagree with.
I will let the readers of this blog judge on the merits of what I say, the facts stand and any minor research will clearly show that you are intellectually dishonest, my point has been made.
Use you’re vile and non respectful tone on someone who cares, I proved my point quite well, this conversation is over.

Shmarya

You are simply ignorant.

Some doctors thoght disease was transmitted through MBP (in that case, TB). The Sdei Hemed disagreed.

The Sdei Hemed was WRONG.

Did he really understand disease transmission? No, he did not, because little was known about it at that time and he lived far away from the enlightened world.

That you are too ignorant to understand even this is truly sad.

Edious

“He knew that some doctors said it but he did NOT understand the medical science behind it”
How can you know what he knew and did not know? Again you have a serious issue with blurring the lines of facts and your opinion, this is a opinion with again ZERO -yes the digit-basis, where do you come up with these things?
And they can test.
I think everyone can see that your deductions a tad off.
I’m turning you into a Shoteh, can’t take full credit for that, it have been a long process since you started this blog.

Shmarya

If you could read Hebrew, you would know that again HE OBVIOUSLY KNEW THAT YOU CAN TRANSFER DISEASES ORALLY BY STATING THE WARNING, AND THE CAUSE.
What part of that reasoning don’t you understand? He knew, period
Shows he did know of these medical issues.
And in spite he said to go ahead with it.

He knew that some doctors said it but he did NOT understand the medical science behind it.

you say I have no secular learning (which you have no idea what I know or don’t know, seems to be your major hang up stating things you don’t have a clue about)

I based my judgment on your writings which show a clear lack of secular knowledge.

Anyway, you're turning the Sdei Hemed into a shoteh.

Edious

Your really acting like a infant, I am showing you that he knew, your saying he couldn’t have known, I am showing you he Cleary says he knows, you say I have no secular learning (which you have no idea what I know or don’t know, seems to be your major hang up stating things you don’t have a clue about) and on we go in circles, you say we cant test, medical people say we can test, then you go back to you secular garbage, we need to change you neurological system somehow.

edious

If you could read Hebrew, you would know that again HE OBVIOUSLY KNEW THAT YOU CAN TRANSFER DISEASES ORALLY BY STATING THE WARNING, AND THE CAUSE.
What part of that reasoning don’t you understand? He knew, period
Shows he did know of these medical issues.
And in spite he said to go ahead with it.

Shmarya

1. You don't understand what you are reading. They had no idea of the CAUSE of those diseases. In some cases, sores on the mouth, for example, some people thought that by limiting direct contact with the mouth, you could limit the disease transmission. But they did NOT know why this is true, and they did not know about other ways of catching the same virus, like through skin to skin contact, through mucous membranes, etc.

The rest of what you write is completely wrong. Why? Because you do not understand even the simplest level of disease transmission and prevention. You have no real secular education. You don't have the knowledge base to even realize your errors.

Edious

I’m sorry type in Google testing for STD, you will see there is plenty you can test for, you can even test for genetic diseases that have not “come to life” like lung cancer.
Second the article will clearly show that they had knowledge of diseases, they know they came through certain acts, but the cure they could not fine, until 1900 which they knew the exact cause. Sdei Chemed lives in that time and mentions not only the possibility of diseases, but how they are transferred “illicit acts”.
Again we are talking of specific issues that can arise from MBP, there are plenty of diseases that they have found recently, I am talking about possible diseases that can come through MBP, most were known for a long time.

Shmarya

Read the link my friend, you will see that so-called “secular education” garbage you spew is not going to help you here.

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/4_1%20Famour%20Diseases%20in%20History.htm

Okay, help me here. What is it you see on that page that you think supports your case?

Shmarya

Testing doesn't work because the virus won't show when it is dormant, but it "comes to life" so to speak, without warning.

That and other reasons make testing much less effective than needed.

Edious

Read the link my friend, you will see that so-called “secular education” garbage you spew is not going to help you here.

Edious

What bothers me in your whole rant, is that instead of saying lets go test the Mohelim to be on the safe side, like we are with other diseases, once a month the Mohel goes gets a extensive test and uses mouthwash and we are good to go, holding up the chance that this is what the sages wanted, no you go right ahead to abolish it and to destroy Jewish tradition. May we merit true justice, for those who are out to destroy us, in Gemara terms “sonei yisreal”.

Shmarya

Second they knew the causes of most of them but not the cure.
It was not theory, give me a break, it was very much practical and the causes were well known…

This is so foolish. They had no idea of the cause or of how the transmission process worked.

You did not have a secular education of value (if you had one at all). You do not realize this, I'm sure, but to those who have a secular education, what you write is truly foolish.

Shmarya

Pointing out that syphilis existed and was a known disease at that time proves nothing.

It was well-known in antiquity, as well.

Again, you confuse the earliest discovery of germ theory with standard medical practice, and you confuse the most advanced parts of the world – Western Europe and the US – with the least, including the backwater the Sdei Hemed lived in.

Edious

“And none of this would matter anyway. The Sdeai Hemed had no medical or scientific training and was therefore not qualified to pasken sakan nefashot with regard to it”

You have zero proof to this, ZERO, you do not know what he knew or didn’t.
In fact by mentioning the possible issues you see that he had an idea of the possibilities.

Second they knew the causes of most of them but not the cure.
It was not theory, give me a break, it was very much practical and the causes were well known but the vaccine and cures were not yes discovered, in fact it was much more scary back then versus now, they should have been more careful not less.

Edious

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/4_1%20Famour%20Diseases%20in%20History.htm


They knew more they you think, again the cure was hard to come by, but the hazards were well known.

Shmarya

And none of this would matter anyway. The Sdeai Hemed had no medical or scientific training and was therefore not qualified to pasken sakan nefashot with regard to it.

Shmarya

Edious –

Like much else of what you write, you have a fact corect but not the entire picture.

Disease transmission was not well understood until the end of the 19th century, and that understanding was found ONLY in western Europe, the US, etc. – NOT in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

You confuse scientific theory in its earliest stages with medical teaching and practice.

Edious

Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895) was a French chemist best known for his remarkable breakthroughs in microbiology. His experiments confirmed the germ theory of disease, also reducing mortality from puerperal fever (childbed), and he created the first vaccine for rabies. He is best known to the general public for showing how to stop milk and wine from going sour - this process came to be called pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of microbiology, together with Martinus Beijerinck, Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. He also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, most notably the asymmetry of crystals.


Anyhow you see that around 1875-1900 there was a great awarness of these type of things-may God protect us- that most people knew about and was well published, excepilly sexally and/or oral issues that arise, but its obvious that our sages choose what the torah says in the face of science.

Edious

Robert Koch was the first scientist to devise a series of proofs used to verify the Germ Theory of Disease. Koch's Postulates were first used in 1875 to demonstrate anthrax was caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthrasis. These postulates are still used today to help determine if a newly discovered disease is caused by a microorganism.

Edious

Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seedlike entities that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances.

Microorganisms were first observed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, who is considered the father of microbiology.

The Italian Agostino Bassi is often credited with having stated the germ theory of disease for the first time, based on his observations on the lethal and epidemic muscardine disease of silkworms. In 1835 he specifically blamed the deaths of the insects on a contagious, living agent, that was visible to the naked eye as powdery spore masses; this microscopic fungus was subsequently called Beauveria bassiana in his honor.

Again 200 years ago or more!

Edious

A sexually transmitted disease (STD) is an illness caused by an infectious pathogen that has a significant probability of transmission between humans by means of sexual contact, including vaginal intercourse, oral sex, and anal sex. Increasingly, the term sexually transmitted infection (STI) is used, as it has a broader range of meaning; a person may be infected, and may potentially infect others, without showing signs of disease. In addition, "disease" seems to have much more of a negative connotation than "infection." Some STIs can also be transmitted via the needles used in IV drug use, as well as through childbirth or breastfeeding. Sexually transmitted diseases have been well-known for hundreds of years.

HUNDREDS OF YEARS

Edious

Were understood? They are still being understood.
But they were known, as he clearly mentioned.
Besides what secular knowledge they had, is unknown, they didn’t have to prove anything to you.

Shmarya

Are you so stupid that you diont even read the English translation I did?
He actually mentioned the chance of medical issues in his letter.

And here your lack of a secular education shows again, Edious.

He wrote that letter BEFORE germ transmission, infectious disease, etc. were understood.

Shmarya

after the mila the mohel wraps something tightly around the wounded area which causes the skin to heal in that position. It is rare but not unheard of that the wrapper falls off to soon and if that happens it can look as though the person is uncircumcised. In short it is quite possible that it was easier to "reverse" a mila in those days because of the post mila care that was different.

That makes sense, unlike what emeslyakov posted.

Edious

Shmarya,
Are you so stupid that you diont even read the English translation I did?
He actually mentioned the chance of medical issues in his letter. Read 11 which I translated and get back to me. Also The Tiferes Yisrael says you should do it orally.

The following is from Tiferes Yisrael:

“which we don’t do now because of the change of nature , because there in the case of washing since our natured changed to the point where we don’t need it whatsoever, but in our case all doctors agree that by sucking the wound the limp wont swell and even though in the northern countries it is not as dangerous as in the middle east where the weather is hotter , but it is still possible in the northern countries for the limp to swell. Although the doctors say you can help the swelling by putting a towel of fluid (???) or a towel soaked of cold water but since they say sucking the wound also helps we only have to words of out sages, for even in the words of torah which It did not make a difference which way you did such and such they would be stringent and do as the sages did like we see Rava used beets and rice since it left the mouth of Rav Huna; that is, Rava wished to demonstrate that the Halachah followed the opinion of Rav Huna, and therefore went out of his way to use a beet and rice as the two cooked foods on his Seder plate. It seems to me that you should not suck hard on shabbos for in the Talmud it says” this Mohel who does not suck” its possible we don’t suck at all, but since we do then you should spit a little vinegar? Alcohol? That is in your mouth on the wound to close and gather the blood vessels to seal the wound which you opened through sucking” end quote from the Tiferes Yisrael”

Shmarya please read the English!

Sdei Chemed showing knowledge of possible illness:
“I swear that the person who heard this read this is reading this wrong and the story was such that someone had protested to the court that through the sucking it brings illness to the child in a case where the Mohel has some disease (herpes, aids, God forbid we should accuse this of the Mohel) which he transmits to the child during sucking of the wound”

They still use leeches for frozen limbs, the leeches’ sucks out the clotted blood.

Anon

Shmarya, spoke to a mohel last night and he told me that even under current practice there is sufficient skin left to pull down and to make it look like a person is uncircumcised. He said that the much of the lack of flexibility (for lack of a better term) that is common today is because after the mila the mohel wraps something tightly around the wounded area which causes the skin to heal in that position. It is rare but not unheard of that the wrapper falls off to soon and if that happens it can look as though the person is uncircumcised. In short it is quite possible that it was easier to "reverse" a mila in those days because of the post mila care that was different.

emeslyaakov

Using a glass tube for the metzitzah is not the same as eliminating metzitzah b'pheh. It is doing it in a different way.

As for your proof that they used to cut off less, otherwise they couldn't have "reversed" it until they invented tape is ridiculous. Anyone who wanted to look good for the games could have done a couple of stitches. It could be that your mohel cut off more than required. This is more likely to happen with a nontraditional mohel trying to eliminate the p'riah as a separate act, by cutting everything off at once.

The amount required to be removes is the amount which leaves the entire atara free of foreskin when the penis is in the erect state.

If that is the amount that was removed, then one can easily make it appear uncircumcised. There may be difficulties during an erection, but I can't really see any kind of a reversal after removing part of the foreskin except by narrowing the opening in the surrounding skin in order to keep the glans covered. This will inevitably cause difficulties at the time of an erection.

Sorry for being a bit graphic, but really stop the nonsense.

I am very Hareidi. I trained as a mohel though I have only done about 40 brtitot. My teacher z"l, one of the very big hareidi mohelim in jerusalem always used the tube on nonhareidi kids because he did not want to get disease.

How do you think those mohelim got herpes? You think from messing around? i think they got it from some kid.

You Shmarya have shown time after time that you reject the Torah. Why is it important to you that others reject it also? If the Torah is not from Hashem (r"l) or there is no Hashem (r"l), then none of this stuff matters, and everyone should do exactly what he likes, as long as he is willing to accept the consequences. Perhaps you are a bit insecure in your cephirah, and so you want company?

Shmarya

Every one of those rabbis was surely aware of the directive to
safeguard health and Chamira sakanta m'Isurah. They consulted the
prominant doctors of the day and were aware of STD's and infectious
diseases that many times threatened whole communities.

1. Many did NOT contact the "prominent doctors of the day" because many, like the Sdei Hemed, lived in areas where there were NO prominent doctors.

2. The "prominent doctors of the day" had no real knowledge of disease transmission, germs, and infection control.

The rst of what you write is, charitably, crap.

avi

Shmarya,

The problem is that people like you who know zero about G-d and Halacha
want to destroy Judaism and create a new religion called Shmaryism with Shmarya
as the god we all worship.

As I've said all along you have a Lubavitcher Rebbe complex. The problem is that your only chassidim are the misfits on this blog.

BTW, Thanks Edious for presenting and translating the S'dei Chemed. Also thanks for citing and presenting the various views and sources for this complicated and sensitive subject.

Shmarya, your statement that it is "wise for some to consider returning to Jewish
ritual circumcision as it was practiced before the rabbinically mandated change" trashes all the rabbis you call to your defense.

Every one of those rabbis was surely aware of the directive to safeguard health and Chamira sakanta m'Isurah. They consulted the prominant doctors of the day and were aware of STD's and infectious diseases that many times threatened whole communities.

This will always be a personal matter that will have adherants on both sides.

BTW, while not advocating Talmudic healing procedures:

pigeon:
I personally know someone who to this day swears that the "pigeon" cured his hepatitus.

leech:
The leech has long been used in medicine, although today its use is mainly
limited to limb reattachment procedures instead of the wide-ranging medical
use in the past. Leeches have proven highly effective at preventing venous
congestion after the surgical re-attachment of fingers, toes, ears and other
parts of the body. ( wiki)

Cumin:
The Cumin herbal plant has a long history. Since ancient times, it has been used as an herbal medicine and spice.

The cumin herbal plant can also be used as a medicine. It has healing properties that, when combined with other drugs, can cure wounds. The stimulating ointment will then be applied externally as a form of plaster on the stitches and wounds. With these applications of the cumin herbal plant, it is no wonder why it is still in use today.

With its rich history proving its effectiveness, there is no doubt that this herbal plant is the best herbal medicine there is.

http://herbal-future.com/news/news/cumin-plant-as-herbal-medicine.html


Regards,

Avi

Anon
Anon

"I know. The question is how you make the cut w/o a clamp, etc.

The only answer I see is that less was cut off."

While all mohels use a clamp today, that was not true pre-WWII. I understand that even as recently as 20 years ago in the U.S. a number of the old school mohels did not use clamps. Some would justify their decision not to use a clamp on the notion that the clamp causes pain and that they did not want to cause pain to the baby before it was actually necessary as part of the mila.

Anon

"Had any blood let recently?"

Bloodletting was not discredited. It has proven effect for certain conditions, including hypertension - though it many of its historical uses were discredited. It is simply that the effect of bloodletting is simply by far inferior modern medicine so it is no longer used. Incidentally, bloodletting is still used in modern day hospitals in some very rare circumstances.

"Wave any pigeons?"

How can you say the pigeon procedure was discredited. Don't you know that the pigeon died in the process so obviously the procedure effectively transferred the disease from the homan to the pigeon? (I don't suppose the fact that pressure was applied to the pigeon which would cause its heart to stop beating had anything to do with the pigeon dying?)

Shmarya

I know. The question is how you make the cut w/o a clamp, etc.

The only answer I see is that less was cut off.

Peter

Shmarya, this is tangential to the discussion, but a stone flake can be extremely sharp.

Shmarya

Normal, educated rabbis do not hold the Hatam Sofer's teshuva to be a forgery. All available evidence points to it being real.

The issue is whether metzitza is done for health reasons or is part of the mitzva of mila. Most poskim hold it is done for health reasons.

Once that is established, we must ask what possible health reasons come from this? The answer is none do. MBP only adds risk. There are no health benefits.

It is wrong – criminally wrong – to rely on Talmudic medicine.

Do we put cumin on the circumcision wound?

Had any blood let recently?

Use any leeches?

Wave any pigeons?

Need I keep listing these discredited procedures?

MBP is no different than blood letting, etc.

Another simple point you miss is that people like the Sdei Hemed had no secular education, no knowledge of even simple medicine of his day. And they certainly knew nothing of disease transmission, germs, and infection control.

In short, you cannot assume they would insist on MBP if they had the facts we have today. In fact, most clearly would not. The Tiferet Israel is a good example of the latter.

The problem is that people like you who know zero about disease transmission and infection control make decisions based on 1500 year old folk medicine.

Every baby that dies, every baby that is maimed is on you head.

Edious

From the forged letter and/or rare case it would seem that orally is not superior what so ever to the tube or at all, and Metzitza is not at all mandatory period, that’s why everyone (meaning Pokim and people who follow halcha)holds it’s a rare case and or forgery, that metzitza is not essential.

Edious

Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor (cited in the aforementioned Sdei Chemed) and Rav Zvi Pesach Frank (Teshuvot Har Zvi Y.D. 214) adopt a compromise approach. These authorities permit performing Metzitza orally by using a glass tube. Rav Zvi Pesach, though, cautions that this technique is not simple and requires training to perform properly. On the other hand, the Avnei Neizer objects to using a glass tube. He notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 2:2) and Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 264:3) write that Metzitza must extract the blood from the "furthest places." The Avnei Neizer contends that this cannot be accomplished when using a glass tube. Nevertheless, many Mohelim perform Metzitza using a glass tube because of health concerns. Indeed, Dr. Abraham (Nishmat Avraham 4:123) reports that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach permits performing Metzitza with a glass to avoid concern for AIDS.
It does not mean that the tube is “lechatchila”. It means that if you are in a situation where you cannot do it orally you may use a tube, or if your are paranoid with AIDS (The Lubavitch Rebbe says the same thing as do ALL POSKIM THAT THERE ARE CASES WHERE YOU CAN USE THE TUBE)
All Poskim agree that best case is to do it orally, all also agree that there are cases you can use the tube.
Where they argue is what is the reason and HOW MUCH BETTER IT IS TO DO IT ORALLY, meaning HOW strict shall you be with it, of course it is better but the degree is in question.
Shmarya do you understand now?

avrohom

Lawrence,

I initially thought not to make a big deal from the whole mbp debacle and i thought that it enegenders ill feeling, so live and let live. But when scotty comes down with his antibris song aligning with antisemites gives me the hunch that we should put the foot down whenever they want to mess with a finger of minhag yisroel.

I know that many of you think that the chumros bring more resistance andmore antisemtic feelings...but i start seeing the opposite: were it not for the staunch opposition to the scotties of the world bris as we know would of long ago be forgotten.

while i was traveling today i heard a sheiur from R Rakkefet he mentionedthat once he heard someone saying to the Rov: had the Chassam Sofer not be so staunch with the chadash assur min haotrah the reform would not be so bold in becoming soreformed. THe Rov replied: maybe had the CS not fought so hard against them they would gain everything...

From the scotties of the blogosphere we see the need to stand strong against any change in tradition...let yiddishe kinderlech be given the temimut thatplain emunoah pshutuoh offers to a yidishe taste in yiddishkeyt andnot the animal loverand the SSdefenders overnight take away Hashem Elokey Yisroel from Am Yisroel andTOrat YIsroel

Yisroel Veorayto VEKudsha BRich HU kuloh chad!!!!!!!

Shmarya

A mitzva of refuah, not a mitzva of mila.

Shmarya

Again, your arrogance and your ignorance is astounding.

You do not understand the sources you have seen, and you are not skilled enough to follow the links you've been given and see the cited sources.
Do you even know who Rabbi Mordechai Halperin is?

Edious

The ketzot does state that it is for Helath but he says its a mitzvha.

Edious

Your is too.
Tziz elizer? Shamrya be honest do you even know who these people are? your a big joke quoting without even realizing that they quote these people out of context and your left with the bag of crap. its quite funny.
Please give me exact places to look up.
I could not find the Ketzot and the other people the mention obviously disagree so you need more sources.

Shmarya

You arrogance and your ignorance is astounding.

Edious

RCA? They just might know how to read hebew. RCA or Sdei Chemed, Mahram Shik, Avnei Nezer, Aruch Hashluchan? Chaim Noah? Do you know how to Pasken? Cause if you did you would pasken like the above people
Most non-hasidic American haredi Poskim? Haredi? Non Hasidic? Im confused but please give me a posek earlier then 60 years ago please! Read above post.
Third The Netziv I don’t have so if you can get it for me I would be happy but till I see his words it seems its one big hoax like the ketzoz.

Shmarya

Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.

Tzitz Eliezer.

Edious

I cannot find the ketzos hachoshen so please can you quote from him? It seems that I can not find one posek who says its medical besides the Chasham Sofer which was a rare case.

Shmarya

And, again, you fail to address the issue of what MBP is.

It is NOT a part of the mila, not a biblical mitzvah or any mitzva. It falls under the halachot of refuah.

Shmarya

You don't know nearly as much as you think:

1. The entire RCA.

2, The Netziv.

3. Rabbi Hildisheimer.

4. Most non-hasidic American haredi poskim.

Edious

Sorry but you cant even skim through a Sdei Chemed so don’t get on me that I don’t know how Halcha works, I do and as far as I learn there is no one that say that now when you can you should do it with a tube, I haven’t found one respectable Posek that says this.

Edious

Obviously there were cases that one was allowed to use a tube, in a hospital or a in a reform community where it would be hard to do just the bris and so on, but everyone agreed to when you can you should do it orally, but to abolish it completely no one hold this.

Shmarya

I'm not sure what you are quoting but you obviously do not understand how halakha is paskined,

Further, you do not understand who Rabbi Halperin is.

Again, those who insist on MBP do so either for kabbalistic or political reasons.

The issue is how much risk to life or risk of injury is necessary to void the kabbalistic demand.

This you do not address.

The political demand is moot and has no bearing on halakhot of refuah.

Edious

“I heard this from many righteous rabbis that were involved in the heat of the debate, at the time of the printing of this letter. I myself, am undecided if this letter even came from the Master R’ Chasam Sofer, and even if true, he took it back since he did not print it in he’s Responsa”

The Sdei Chemed was present at the time and gives first hand testimony of Rabbis that said that it was a rare case.

Secondly you said there are disciples that say it is authentic and you did not quote one.

You want me to quite I cant translate the whole think so download the PDF and read chapter 13 where he says that its mandatory and he says the letter the Chasam Sofer is wrong, Rabbi Moshe Schick, the Maharam Shik, one of the most prominent students of the Chasam Sofer, states in his book of Responsa, She’eilos U’teshuvos Maharam Shik (Orach Chaim 152,) that the Chasam Sofer gave the ruling in that specific instance only and that it may not be applied elsewhere.

I also found someone who translates the Aruch HaShulchan:

From Aruch HaShulchan 244:19 [my translation]:
After peri'ah is metzitzah and this is for the betterment of the baby that he draws the milah orally in order to extract the blood from distant locations in order that the baby should not be endagered. Chazal said a professional who does not perform metzitzah is removed since it is a danger to the baby. [There's a typo in the AH. It's R. Papa in Shabbat 133b]. One draws very well until the bleeding stops. Be aware that there are those today who contend it is better to not do metzitzah directly with one's mouth rather with some sponge that absorbs the blood. We are not agreeable with them and we do not listen to them. Our rabbis, the wise ones of Shas, were experts and were wiser than these. However, this is surely that he who does the metzitzah has a clean mouth without any disease and clean teeth.

And knock down the Avnei Neizer:
Other Acharonim (Teshuvot Maharam Schick Y.D. 338 and Teshuvot Avnei Neizer Y.D. 338) insist that Metzitza constitutes an integral component of the Milah process and is not merely a health concern. The Avnei Neizer emphasizes the significance of Metzitza from the perspective of the Kabbalah.

The sefer Mitzvas Hametzitzah by Rabbi Sinai Schiffer of Baden, Germany, states that he is possession of letters from 36 major Russian (Lithuanian) Rabbis that categorically prohibit Metzitzah with a sponge and require it to be done orally. Among them is Rabbi Chaim Halevi Soloveitchik of Brisk. It is interesting that of all the students of Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik and the many times he was asked to be sandek, only Rabbi Schachter seems to remember this prohibition

The book was originally published in German, Die Ausübung der Mezizo, Frankfurt a.M. 1906; It was subsequently translated into Hebrew, reprinted in Jerusalem in 1966 under

Shmarya

T"herefore, reports that the original
manuscript copy of the Responsum, currently in the possession of a
London-based descendant of the Ḥatam Sofer, bears a notation—
hora’at sha’ah—purportedly emanating from the Hatam Sofer’s son or a
disciple of his, do not add one iota of credence"

Why not analyze it to see if Is authentic?


Because the handwriting is NOT the handwriting of the Hatam Sofer and does NOT match the handwriting of the teshuva itself.

Shmarya

Here's a brief list from Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Halperin, a defender of MBP and a leading haredi authority on medical halakha:

http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/article/8987
Metzitzah as a religious obligation is mentioned in the mystical portions of the Torah.12 In the last two centuries, as well, a number of famous posekim have declared that an attack on the tradition of metzitzah is tantamount to an attack on the mitzvah of brit milah itself.13 Nevertheless, many posekim, including the Chatam Sofer, the Ketzot Hachoshen, the Netziv of Volozhin,14 the Avnei Nezer15 and more recently, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and the Tzitz Eliezer, have ruled that the purpose of metzitzah is solely medical.

Edious

T"herefore, reports that the original
manuscript copy of the Responsum, currently in the possession of a
London-based descendant of the Ḥatam Sofer, bears a notation—
hora’at sha’ah—purportedly emanating from the Hatam Sofer’s son or a
disciple of his, do not add one iota of credence"

Why not analyze it to see if Is authentic?

Shmarya

In other words, QUOTE and CITE exactly where the Magharam Shiff writes that the Hatam Soferr told him a)Never to stop MBP, b) That the teshuva circulated in the Hatam Sofer's name is false, and c) that MBP is an ESSENTIAL PART of the mitzva of mila.

Can't do that, can you?

Edious

I read it ten times and all he says Is logical but does not quote one posek who says its authentic, I repeat not one posek in the past 80 years says it was authentic and a general ruling.

Shmarya

I think you're having some reading comprehension issues.

Edious

""did not receive any direct information on this issue from his revered
teacher,77 for if he had, he most certainly would have mentioned
it at some point in the two Responsa that he composed
regarding MBP"

He did. This guy is twisting truth, shmarya did you learn from him?

Shmarya

It's linked above in the comments and then in the post as well.

Edious

Link please.
Second he brings proof that it is authentic? Shmarya I don’t want to catch you twisting the truth again.

Shmarya

Read the Sprecher article. Lots of quotes for you.

Edious

And not modern day, I want a major Posek who lived at least 60 years ago, now a days these people don’t know how to read and they claim its authentic.

Edious

I want a person who says that this is authentic.
I want the link and the quote anything less Is a embarrassment

Edious

As for your sources, I linked them several times already. Perhaps you should try reading them.

Go ahead five them to me now.

Edious

Sdei Chemed
11) you should know that there are people who justify their claim by stating that there is a letter from the Chasam Sofer that was written in he’s name which he wrote to he’s student and he write that sucking is not mandatory. I swear that the person who heard this read this is reading this wrong and the story was such that someone had protested to the court that through the sucking it brings illness to the child in a case where the Mohel has some disease (herpes,aids, God forbid we should accuse this of the Mohel) which he transmits to the child during sucking of the wound, and they bring proof to this until the rouling in the court was such that one cannot legally do metzitza and milah, but will do only as the doctors state. So the student sent hes master what he should do in this case and asked he be granted permission not to do metzitza the procedure should no be taught to those that are not careful and who knows what dangers for the nation can cause out of one isolated case where it was done, so the Chasam Sofer gave him permission. As soon as this letter was shown to the people who were protesting in the court, they got very happy because they now had a letter from the Chasam Sofer saying it does not have to be done, they printed it straight away to cause problems and stumbling blocks in the Jewish nation God forbid.
I heard this from many righteous rabbis that were involved in the heat of the debate, at the time of the printing of this letter. I myself are undecided if this letter even came from the Master R’ Chasam Sofer, and even if true he took it back since he did not print it in he’s Responsa."""

Anon

>"Instituted in the times of Joshua" is a Talmudic way of saying, It is very old, we're not sure where it is from, but it is not d'orita (biblical).

My understanding is that it was undisputed that periah was performed in the times of Joshua when they reinstituted mila (which was not observed by many/most/all [?] in the midbar). The dispute is just whether it is part of the mila guideliness as set out by halaca l'moshe m'sinai or if Joshua instituted it.

Anon

>"Instituted in the times of Joshua" is a Talmudic way of saying, It is very old, we're not sure where it is from, but it is not d'orita (biblical).

My understanding is that it was undisputed that periah was performed in the times of Joshua when they reinstituted mila (which was not observed by many/most/all [?] in the midbar). The dispute is just whether it is part of the mila guideliness as set out by halaca l'moshe m'sinai or if Joshua instituted it.

Shmarya

And the Sdei Chemed says it is not aunthetic and he is a serious
scholar.

And so were those who opposed him.

I'd also point out the ther Sdei Hemed has ZERO evidence or proof that it is a "forgery." He just did not like the ruling and could not imagine the Hatam Sofer writing it.

As for your sources, I linked them several times already. Perhaps you should try reading them.

Edious

He was he’s main disciple and a genius. Are you really serious?
And the Sdei Chemed says it is not aunthetic and he is a serious scholar.
Give me Poskim! I want a list.

Anon

>And you have many, many poskim who do and did hold the MBP is NOT a part of mila and can be dropped.

Shmarya, I suspect this is what you meant, but for the sake of clarity - many of the poskim who hold MBP can be dropped only hold that the "b'peh" part can be dropped not the entire metziza.

>It's discussed in various rabbinic sources regarding Hanukka. Take a look and see if you can find an exact cite.

Not very helpful. If anone knows where it is please post.

Shmarya

Almost no one besides the Maharam Shiff holds that way. It was considered authentic by many other disciples and by most other rabbis and is considered authentic by scholars.

And you have many, many poskim who do and did hold the MBP is NOT a part of mila and can be dropped.

Edious

“” the Ch'sam Sofer as quoted by Shmarya? Or you are saying Shmarya's misquoting?””

Yes that’s exactly what I saying cause he’s main disciple said that the case the Chasam Sofer was talking about is a anomaly and possibly a forgery.

Edious

On the laws of circumcision I have been asked two questions:
Is it possible to abolish circumcision due to the fact that there are doctors who claim that it is harmful to the child?

The reply to this would be, that it is obvious we are not allowed to listen to these so called doctors regarding this matter and G-D forbid to move a iota from what our teachers stated in the Mishnah and Talmud and Poskim, all the Winds of the world cannot move one sliver from what out oral torah transmitted and that which is accepted by all Jews. And if any says to remove even one detail of a letter that was accepted from our oral and true heritage, he is very mistaken and is filling you up with stupidity.

On to the second matter:
That we should judge is its possible not to abolish metzitza b'peh entirely just to modify it slightly, we would like to use modern day medical equipment for the procedure (tube and the like).

At first glance this it does not seem to be an issue. And my humble mind was working on this matter since time I received this query in the year 1892, as I will write the reply to this with god help. I did not respond to the inquirer at the time even though I had a clear permissible ruling regarding this matter. I must admit without shame that I erred in this inquiry, as I will with gods help write down.

Regarding abolishing this completely it is obvious that this is prohibited and I don’t need to write about this. Nevertheless it is proper in my eyes to write a bit about this matter, to take away the reasoning and heart from all those in the world who err in this matter, and although there are many Seforim from Rabbonim Achronim who already dealt with this matter, but as a tail to a lion I will follow in their ways, repeating and editing what they wrote. Should there be one reader who has these Seforim in front of them and it would have been enough to mark and study in these Seforim alone, nevertheless in the light of my heavenly work, although I do not favor my work, nevertheless my work has a major advantage in that it is set out for you like a table, and out of fear that there are cities which these Seforim are not available.

It is very helpful to publicize this matter and may blessings come to those who strengthen the orthodox religion, and so that those who hear this, will fear from breaking down the walls God forbid. There was already an incident in one town that did not know what was written in the Seforim and they wanted to abolish metzitza b'peh entirely because of supposed medical reasoning, being there at the time I strictly protested to this and gave over a few tidbits that were stated in these holy Seforim and thank God I was successful.

I will write the words of the Seforim in small paragraphs so that it should easy to learn.

1) Regarding abolishing metzitza b'peh entirely, the Goan Tiferes Yisrael (commentary on the Mishnah) writes in Perek R’ Eliezer D’Milah Mishnah Beis the Mishnah states as follows: you can do all things needed for circmustion, you cut, you tear the foreskin, and you suck the blood out, he write on this (letter 15)”you suck to blood from the wound and even though you are dislodging the blood causing a wound on shabbos nevertheless if you do not to this it can lead to the danger of the blood of the wound which is in the skin and is hot will heat up the limb encircling it and cause the limb to swell. (Although the doctors say now otherwise, that by sucking the blood out you are causing the wound to expand and causing the blood to flow after the procedure like taking out wine from a barrel with a pump, as soon as you finish pumping the tube, the suction will pull the wine and will refill the tube even after you stopped pumping so to the blood will refill the wound and cause it to open up and drip blood long after. To not wonder why we don’t listen to this medical statement even though its against the Talmud since we see that out nature does change (Like the Magen Avrohom 173:2, 179:8, YD 316:3 EH 156) and you would think that we should listen to the doctors is such a case as we do regarding Kerisos (heavenly punishments) And Execution by court, we listen to the doctors (Shabbos 129 A, Yuma 82 A, Nidah 22 B) even when lenient, and all the more so when there is danger involved and they are knowledgably in matters of possible dangers more then we are and we are lenient when it comes to shabbos to suck the wound because of the dangers nevertheless when it comes to modern advice we should not discard the ruling of the earlier Rabbis, it is not comparable to washing of that baby (as I will state in chapter 32)which we don’t do now because of the change of nature , because there in the case of washing since our natured changed to the point where we don’t need it whatsoever but in our case all doctors agree that by sucking the wound the limp wont swell and even though in the northern countries it is not as dangerous as in the middle east where the weather is hotter , but it is still possible in the northern countries for the limp to swell. Although the doctors say you can help the swelling by putting a towel of fluid (???) or a towel soaked of cold water but since they say sucking the wound also helps we only have to words of out sages, for even in the words of torah which It did not make a difference which way you did such and such they would be stringent and do as the sages did like we see Rava used beets and rice since it left the mouth of Rav Huna; that is, Rava wished to demonstrate that the Halachah followed the opinion of Rav Huna, and therefore went out of his way to use a beet and rice as the two cooked foods on his Seder plate. It seems to me that you should not suck hard on shabbos for in the Talmud it says” this Mohel who does not suck” its possible we don’t suck at all, but since we do then you should spit a little vinegar? Alcohol? That is in your mouth on the wound to close and gather the blood vessels to seal the wound which you opened through sucking” end quote from the Tiferes Yisrael.
2) In the Responsa of the Goan Mahram Shiff (Student of the master Chasam Sofer) Yoreh Deah Chapter 244 he writes at length in a response to he’s student Rav Moshe Shutashka question. I will extract a bit of text as it was given to Moshe (referring to Moshe Sofer the author) on Mount Sinai as follows” on your question regarding the congregation they set the takanah of not sucking the wound and the previous Mohel didn’t either and until now you didn’t protest to suck to wound and you ask if you should you do so now and/or reject being the Mohel from now on or continue and not suck as is the takanah there. It is a wonder as to the words in you letter, which you write that it is the takanah, how could something like this be called a takanah? Some people come along and raise their hand and go against the words of the sages that are explicit in the Talmud, Rishonim, Achronim that the sucking must be done, these people come along and say it is dangerous as if they are wiser the sages of the Talmud and Poskim and to nullify the words of the Sages and Poskim because of the vanity that comes from the vapor of their mouths from so called doctors in our times that say you don’t need the sucking, that there is no danger if you don’t do this procedure, which is only a trick and tactic that they leech on the weak minded to teach and abolish all the words of out sages, can such a thing be called a takanah? This is only to crook and nullify to break Peretz “Because he is called Peretz Stubborn” we wise should realize and think about it for even if most doctors say that it is not dangerous- ever tough we already know that we don’t follow to majority when it comes to matters of danger- but they say even further that the odds of danger are one in a billion and zero chance of danger, which they cant possibly know this and our sages were careful even in the slight chance of danger and we don’t go according to the majority of doctors in matter of life and death and we are already allowed to desecrate the shabbos and one much suck the blood due to pikuach nefesh and the Torah says “you shall live with them” so we don’t go according the major medical opinion, and the medical opinions are based on past cases and streaming information that can arise at any moment through test hypotheses and studying the information, since there are possible exclusion to these test we must be careful for if not that case we would follow to majority in all medical cases.
3) Most of the words of the sages are based from the laws Moshe received on mount Sinai which was handed down from generation to generation and all those laws are everlasting and how can we nullify the holy words from God? And it could be that the laws of Moshe are based on some of a minority that believes there is danger and there is a journal ??? That says it is good for the wound as one Mohel testifies that in one case they didn’t to metzitza and the kid got very sick, it also states in many Responsa that one must to metzitza.
4) Back to the matter at hand don’t accept the Mohel who does not to metzitza for three reasons………(im getting tired no one wants to help out?)

Shmarya

I believe that every halachic source that considered this issue took the view that periah is a biblical requirement or that it was instituted in the times of Joshua.

"Instituted in the times of Joshua" is a Talmudic way of saying, It is very old, we're not sure where it is from, but it is not d'orita (biblical)."

Could you publicize the source of the position that jews would try to stretch the foreskin during the 2nd temple.

It's discussed in various rabbinic sources regarding Hanukka. Take a look and see if you can find an exact cite.

Anon

Edious, while the Sdei Chemed is certainly an influential source, the fact is that many accepted poskim allowed people to not do metzizah b'peh over the ages for various reasons. Poskim disagree with respect to the circumstances which warrant not doing metzizah b'peh and you should follow the advice of your rabbi, however claiming that the opposing view doesn't exist among accepted halachic sources is just not true.

Shmarya, the belief that periah or the amount removed was first instituted during the second bet hamikdash is I believe only accepted by anti-circumcision groups. I believe that every halachic source that considered this issue took the view that periah is a biblical requirement or that it was instituted in the times of Joshua. According to the talmud, "mal v'lo para k'ilu lo mal". It is difficult to undertand that statement if periah was first institued during the 2nd temple. I suspect you've been taken for a ride on this one.

Could you publicize the source of the position that jews would try to stretch the foreskin during the 2nd temple. I believe there is once jewish source for this (not the naked statute of David by Michaelangelo) that many understand to mean this but can't recall where it is.

Not sure how the story of Moshe's wife supports this view. If the stone was sharp enough you can do whatever you could do with a knife. if it wasn't sharp enough even an abbreviated brit would be a problem.

Lawrence M. Reisman

Edious:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the S'dei Chemed is not the posek acharon of k'lal Yisroel. And in any case, his work is an encyclopedia of the literature, not a definitive legal code. Now, how do you square your insistance on everyone following the S'dei Chemed's sources with the Ch'sam Sofer as quoted by Shmarya? Or you are saying Shmarya's misquoting?

The Chazon Ish told the father-in-law of a close friend that metzitza be'peh had been abandoned in 19th century Lithuania, and that there were good reasons for having done so. The listener was a bit incredulous, because being Chasidic, he believed it to be an essential part of the milah.

I was at bris performed by Rabbi Mordechai "supermohel" Zimmerman, in which he very clearly did not do metzitzah be'peh. (I was also at brisim where he did). If mohel of his stature could omit the procedure, then there had to be a heter for it, even if I don't hold to it.

DK

What do you mean, Shmarya? Maybe we when it said "sharp stone," it really meant a 20th century Mogen Clamp. And certainly they all performed Metziza b'peh on each other, as dictated in the Talmud!

Shmarya

could you elaborate on your statement
that the "ritual itself has dramatically changed" and that "originally,
only a small piece of the foreskin was removed." It is my
understanding that this is contrary to the unanimous (or close to it)
opinion of all poskim that have addressed this throughout the ages.
(Poskim disagree on whether periah is a required second act or if it
could be combined, but I don't believe there is much dispute on what is
the required end result of the mila.

The first question to be asked is, How did Jews reverse their circumcisions? This is exactly what haza"l say happened. But there was no tape in those days. How would it have been done?

The only answer I've seen that the brit was less severe than what we now do, and there was enough of the foreskin left to enable stretching by other means. This would also fit with the brit done by Moshe's wife in the desert. How else would a brit be done with a "sharp stone" on the spur of the moment in a wilderness? Certainly not a bris that removes all the foreskin and more.

Edious

Dispositive?

Again Lawrence he is a encyclopedia meaning if he thought there was a valid enough opinion that reject he’s notion he would have stated obviously in he’s very knowledgeable database he didn’t see anyone who disagrees.
I’m sorry but the Chozen Ish said not to do it? Weather he had a problem or not is not relevant did he say you don’t need it?
I have newfound respect for you that you did something that every major Posek in the past 3 thousand years said to do, may we have more Jews like you!

Lawrence M. Reisman

Edious:

The S'dei Chemed is certainly persuasive, but he is not dispositive. In other words, just because he says it doesn't make it theonly valid shita in halacha. The Chazon Ish had no problem with the fact that metzitza be'peh was abandoned in Lithuania in the 19th and early 20th centuries. By the way, when my son was circumsized, the mohel did metzitza be'peh.

Nachman

A message to everyone who may get offended by this...

A great radio personality (a non Jew who respected the Jewish religion) once told a self hating Jew who constantly called the talk show to rant on and on about the Jews (and boasted to even having been circumcised) "Go back to the Rabbi he probably did not cut enough..."

Edious

Can someone on this blog please help me translate the Sdei Chemed?
Shmarya wanna help do something productive?
instead of quoting people who don't know what their talking about?

Anon

"You could also ask youself why the entire MO world and almost all of the Yeshiva world (i.e., everybody but the hasidim) did away with metzitza b'peh many years ago."

Shmarya, I don't disagree with you about metzitza b'peh, as I stated earlier it seems logical to me that it was institued for medicinal, not halachic, purposes. However, the statement you made is not accurate. You may disagree, but most rabbis in the yeshiva world do rule that metziza b'peh should be continued. These include the leading Lithuanian rabbis in Israel.

btw, I discussed Dr. Sprecher's article with him a couple of weeks after he wrote it. In short his view is that metzizah b'peh is a real medical concern, there are a few documented cases of transmittal of infection that led to medical problems and logic (based on medical knowledge) leads to the conclusion that in a small minority of cases some infection is transmitted that leads to a medical problem - though in the vast majority of instances no lasting problems. In Dr. Sprecher's view (which I don't disagree with) that is sufficient cause to eliminate metzizah b'peh. However, Dr. Sprecher was very emphatic in his discussions with me that statements that there are widespread transmissions of infection by metzizah b'peh are at best far fetched speculation. Statements, such as Rabbi Tender's, that there are 100s of documented cases are just outright false. One disclaimer, for all those that may seek to insult Dr. Sprecher, he is very emphatic that what he wrote is his personal views, that he is not a posek, that anyone looking for a recommendation should consult with a qualified posek. He is not looking to influence what people do or don't do and just wrote a scholarly article so there is no need to insult him for trying to undermine mila as you believe it should be.

Putting aside metzitza b'peh, could you elaborate on your statement that the "ritual itself has dramatically changed" and that "originally, only a small piece of the foreskin was removed." It is my understanding that this is contrary to the unanimous (or close to it) opinion of all poskim that have addressed this throughout the ages. (Poskim disagree on whether periah is a required second act or if it could be combined, but I don't believe there is much dispute on what is the required end result of the mila.

PL

Here is some more stuff for you to comment on

Isi Leibler's article in todays JPost about the looming haredi disaster and see

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/11/ART1/616/219.html


R. Elyashiv has banned an Avraham Fried concert.

and of course, there is R. Ovadiah Yosef's comments last Sat. night about women.

Shmarya

I am ever mindful of Hashem’s presence (Psalms 16:8), Pressburg, Evening before Thursday, 20th Shevat [5 ]597 (=1837).

Peace, goodness, long days and years of life to my friend, my student, the Rav etc., R. Eleazar S.G.L. Horowitz, may his light shine, Head of Beit Din in the capital city Vienna.

Your valuable [letter] has reached me. You write correctly that we find no requirement to do meẓiẓah specifically with the mouth. Only the mekubalim require this for they say that Divine judgment is softened through mouth and lips. We do not reckon, however, with the “hidden” when there is even a minute danger. The root ץימor ץצמare the same as i n (Proverbs 30:32): [So] patience under pressure [produces strife] and in Judges (6:38) regarding Gideon: and w rung out the dew from the fleece. Rashi explains these as “squeezing out,” to remove force fully. So also do Radak and R. Ibn Ezra explain, ibid. If so, we need to draw the blood from the distant points by whatever method, and one may trust the experts regarding which method is as effective as drawing with the lips. Furthermore, I declare that even if it had been stated explicitly in the Gemara “Draw with the mouth, ” nevertheless this is not part of what validates the circumcision, it is rather for the purpose of medical danger. If one circumcised and uncovered the corona but did not squeeze out the blood, he has already completed performing the commandment; the child may eat Terumah, and his father may arrange the Pascal sacrifice. It is just that the child remain s in danger until one takes measures to extract the blood from distant points. In the Chapter R. Eliezer de-Milah (Shabbat 134b) R. Pappa deduces similarly that a bandage and cumin are necessary to prevent danger . This applies to meẓizah as well. Now as to the bandage and the cumin—we do not use cumin at all, nor the particular bandage mentioned in the Gemara by Abaya and Rava . Thus we see that since it is only for therapeutic purposes we need not be concerned if doctors devise other methods in their stead . The same applies to meziẓah. Even if the Mishnah had mentioned that meẓizah is performed with the mouth we would still be able to substitute something similar. However, they should exhort the expert doctors to testify truthfully whether the sponge has the same effect as meziẓah with the mouth. More than this, according to my humble opinion, we need not be concerned. May Hashem heal you and strengthen you —in accordance with the wishes of your precious soul and the wishes of your devoted friend who desires your constant well- being.

Moshe ha -Katan Sofer of Frankfort-on- the- Main

Go drei a kop with the Hatam Sofer.

Edious

Afraid of the challenge? Cant read Hebrew? I thought you were brilliant in halcha this should be a cake walk for you! Common read it all, it’s quite long but a breeze for you.
I would like to have a serious conversation, but since you obviously don’t know all the details which I assume you are saying you don’t know what the Sdei Chemed says and therefore you don’t even know all the opinions, so in summary don’t know what you’re talking about.

Shmarya

Right. Try reading the sources I mentioned. You'll learn something.

If you do not want to do that, go away.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Failed messiah was established and run in 2004 by Mr. Shmarya (Scott)Rosenberg. The site was acquired by Diversified Holdings, Feb 2016.
.
We thank Mr. Rosenberg for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish Community

.

Comment Rules

  1. No anonymous comments.
  2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.
  3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.
  4. Do not sockpuppet.
  5. Try to argue using facts and logic.
  6. Do not lie.
  7. No name-calling, please.
  8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.
***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Search this site with Google:

6a00d83451b71f69e201b8d1656462970c-250wi

FailedMessiah.com in the Media