Should We End Circumcision As We Know It?

At the end of the day, every couple has to make its own decision, said Rabbi Donni Aaron, head of program designed to train Reform mohels. But, she added, most of the parents she has encountered eventually choose to circumcise their sons, and that trend is unlikely to change any time soon. “If for thousands of years it was clear that the practice was harmful,” she said, “it would have gone away a while ago.”

Without arguing for or against circumcision, and without bringing in the many diseases contracted over the centuries from metzitza b'peh, the oral-to-genital-suction traditionally preformed by the mohel on the bleeding infant immediately after the circumcision cut has been made, or the many children who died or were maimed from infections or loss of blood, I believe the history presented by Rabbi Aaron is incorrect. Here's why:

1. Jews at various times in history voluntarily ceased circumcising their sons. One example that comes readily to mind is during the Hellenistic Age, but there were others, as well.
2. The ritual itself has dramatically changed. Originally, only a small piece of the foreskin was removed. Later, after Jews tried to reverse their circumcisions through various stretching procedures, the rabbis increased the amount of foreskin taken and also ordered the total removal of the underlying membrane. In other words, today's circumcision is a much more radical procedure than the circumcision of the Torah. (I don't have the source for this readily available so reader beware until I can come up with it.)

The Forward notes the growing number of Jewish ant-circumcision activists and the growing number of Jews who voluntarily do not circumcise their sons. Perhaps, in light of #2 above, it would be wise for some to consider returning to Jewish ritual circumcision as it was practiced before the rabbinically mandated change.

That would still fulfill the biblical commandment and it would eliminate many, but not all, of the complaints of the anti-circumcision activists, especially the fear that circumcision reduces sexual feeling and pleasure for both partners.

UPDATE: 3 metzitza b'peh sources after the jump …

The Hatam Sofer:

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

Dr. Shlomo Sprecher's article on the medical and halakhic history of metzitza b'peh:

Download vol_3_sprecher.pdf

Letters in response to Dr. Sprecher's article:

Download mbp_letters.pdf

All three sources are from Hakira: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought, vol. 3. (You can subscribe or purchase individual issues, either at a very cost-effective price.)

Comments

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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”.

[Edious]

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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

“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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.