Seth Lipsky's Circumcision Lies

The editor of the New York Sun and founding editor of the English language Forward has another episode in which he can't seem to tell the truth.

Seth Lipsky

Seth Lipsky's Circumcision Lies
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

The New York Sun is a small, largely inconsequential (and now online only) newspaper that was Seth Lipsky’s project after being booted out of the Forward years ago.

He helped found two other papers before that, The Asian Wall Street Journal and The Wall Street Journal Europe. Lipsky is also a former member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and the paper's former foreign editor. And Lipsky also works as an adjuct professor at Columbia University's School of Journalism.

Lipsky is a genius at spotting and developing raw writing talent, and he’s a wonderful painter.

But Lipsky – who, to be clear, is not Orthodox – is also dishonest and is, quite often, a fool.

For example, in May he came out in support of haredi rabbis who want to decide which allegations of child sexual abuse in their communities should be reported to police or ACS, and which should be dealt with by the rabbis in house. He wrote this even though there is a long and documented history of these very same haredi rabbis covering up cases of child sexual abuse, protecting pedophiles and harassing victims and their families.

This complete disregard by Lipsky for the safety of children continued today with the Sun’s editorial against NYC’s proposed (and now passed) informed consent law for Jewish ritual circumcisions involving metzitzah b’peh (MBP), the direct mouth-to-bloody-penis sucking done by some mohels immediately after removing the baby's foreskin.

The purpose of MBP is, to paraphrase halakhic sources, “to draw blood from the furthest parts of the body.” And that was done to prevent an imbalance in the body’s system of “humors” and to prevent “stagnation” of the blood.

In his book The Healing Hand——Man and Wound in the Ancient World, Guido Majno explains what “humors” are and what the ancients thought their role was in health and illness. Here is the relevant excerpt as quoted by Shlomo Sprecher in Mezizah be-Peh–Therapeutic Touch or Hippocratic Vestige?, published in Hakira several years ago:

The Greek physicians studied disease primarily by giving it a lot of thought [as opposed to observation]. The result was an overall, synthetic, but wholly imaginary theory of disease, in which the basic disturbance, and therefore the treatment, was always of the same kind, even in the case of a wound. The reasoning went about as follows. In nature everything is balanced. ““Too much”” or ““too little”” causes an imbalance, which is disease. The actual components of the body that may go out of balance are the celebrated four humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. In the normal body these humors are harmoniously mixed; disease ensues if they are mixed in the wrong proportions, or if they become unmixed…[A]ny pain or lump could be explained as a ““distemper”” or disharmony of the blend…[B]lood was regarded as the worst offender, because it was liable to spill out easily and therefore to ““stagnate.”” This was supposed to be dangerous, because one of the key propositions in Greek medicine maintained that stagnating blood will decay…and in decaying, it might even become pus…the parts around the wound will develop spasms, attract blood, become soaked with it, and decay. The beauty of this thought (corruption originates around the wound), however wrong it may sound today, is that it shows how the Greeks struggled to explain the mechanism of what we call infection——or in their terms, corruption. They could have no idea that the cause was something [micro-organisms] deposited on the surface of the wound. Therefore, using their principle that ““stagnating blood decays,”” they rationalized that the trouble had to arise all around the wound: blood was attracted there, and turned into pus. This thought is stated or hinted at may times in the Collection [Hippocratic Corpus]; for instance, ““all wounds draw their inflammation and swelling from the surrounding parts, because of the blood flowing into them. In every recent wound…it is expedient to cause blood to flow from it abundantly, for thus will the wound and the adjacent parts be less attacked with inflammation…when the blood flows they become drier and less in size, as being thus dried up. Indeed what prevents the healing…is the decay of the blood.

The concept of bodily humors was originated by Hippocrates and his students. But it became the gold standard for medical care when it was adopted by the greatest physician of antiquity, Galen, who lived in Alexandria during the 2nd Century C.E. – exactly at the time the rabbinic authors of the Mishna lived.

In other words, Galen insisted that the blood had to be moved from the furthest reaches of the body to the point of the wound to prevent “blood stagnation,” which could lead to conversion of blood to pus – what we would call infection.

Because Galen was the leading physician of his era, the rabbis did what halakha later codified – they followed his medical opinion, even though he wasn’t Jewish and even though the Torah had not mentioned or required it. The rabbis mandated that metzitzah, suction or squeezing out of blood, be done after every circumcision. But while the rabbis mandated that metzitzah should be done, they did not specify how metzitzah should be done.

Eventually, the common practice became metzitzah b’peh (MBP), direct suction from the mohel’s mouth to the bleeding penis, and wine was added to the process to help numb the wound and ease the baby’s pain.

Which is how Seth Lipsky came to intentionally misrepresent MBP as “the oral application of wine, known as the metzitza bipeh” [sic].

To qualify as metziztah, metzitzah b’peh has to involve suction, squeezing or drawing out of blood. If it does not, it is not metzitzah. Spitting wine on the wound is not metzitzah, b'peh or otherwise.

In the same editorial Lipsky also lies about the dangers associated with metzitzah b’peh, which he claims “has been practiced safely for centuries.”

However, quite literally thousands of babies have died from it over those centuries, as FailedMessiah.com documented yesterday.

Lipsky would sacrifice the lives of Jewish babies to advocate for his political points and against politicians he dislikes.

He is a most dishonest and callous man.

Related Post: A Total Eclipse Of The Sun.

Comments

[Deremes]

Do we know who was the first to say that what the Talmud tells us a bris must have Metzitzah that it means B'PEH?

Why if we know that Metzitzah B'peh is dangerous didn't the previous poskim put a stop to it?

[Shmarya]

Do we know who was the first to say that what the Talmud tells us a bris must have Metzitzah that it means B'PEH?

Why if we know that Metzitzah B'peh is dangerous didn't the previous poskim put a stop to it?

Posted by: Deremes | September 13, 2012 at 02:15 PM

IDIOT.

As I've written previously on posts you commented on – including one yesterday – the Sdei Hemed in the mid-to-late 1800s.

Writing at the same time, the Maharam Schick said it *might* be a halakha given to Moses on Mount Sinai, so therefore we have to treat it as mandatory.

Before that it was not viewed as being mandatory and after the claim that it was mandatory was made, it was still banned by rabbis all over Lithuania, in London, in Vienna, and in many other places.

[Deremes]

Oh,i see so you say that Metzitzah was done original B'PEH because what the Talmud tells us it means B'PEH.I thought you said somwhere that Metzitzah does not mean B'PEH.
I know full well that it means b'peh.

[Shmarya]

Oh,i see so you say that Metzitzah was done original B'PEH because what the Talmud tells us it means B'PEH.I thought you said somwhere that Metzitzah does not mean B'PEH.
I know full well that it means b'peh.

Posted by: Deremes | September 13, 2012 at 02:37 PM

Idiot.

If you really mean what you wrote, you truly are one of the dumbest trolls I've ever dealt with.

Process, little man.

The Mishna and Talmud only require metzitzah – NOT metzitzah b'peh.

For the umpteenth time, the Hatam Sofer says MBP is a custom of the kabbalists – meaning it is of Medieval and is not truly ancient.

He allowed MBP to be stopped because it was killing and sickening babies.

After he died, both the Sdei Hemed and the Maharam Schick made their wholly unsupported assertions.

Therefore, shoteh, the first people to say that MBP is mandatory would be the Sdei Hemed and the Maharam Schick.

You are an embarrassment to Satmar and to Torah.

[Bas Melech]

Deremes,
Just because something is or was done, it does not necessarily mean that it is halacha.
MBP in ancient times was a means of cleansing small wounds. Most likely if a mohel doesn't have a pipette, then MBP is permissible. You have to use common sense.

[Deremes]

What an Am haaretz's.
The Talmud requires Metzitzah and you claim it does not really mean b'peh,fine.
Can you tell me in plain simple English WHEN was it defined that it means B'PEH?
if it was banned in many places obviously it was done B'PEH first.
If something is done for generations automatically its mandatory if you know anything about Jewish minhagim.
The Chasam Sofer "allowed" again "allowed" not doing it B'PEH which again means BPEH is first.There was no choice he gave a heter in ONE instance.

[jancsipista]

PrettyBoyFloyd -I told you ver geharget didnt i?

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Deremes | September 13, 2012 at 03:42 PM

To call you an idiot is to insult the intelligence of fools.

The Chatam Sofer makes it VERY clear that "b'peh" is NOT mandatory and that any way of doing metzitzah is fine, as long as DOCTORS APPROVE IT.

He does NOT give a one-time permit. He is VERY, VERY, VERY clear.

The Maharm Schick, however, was dishonest and tried to limit what the Chatam Sofer wrote – but only AFTER the Chatam Sofer died.

And lest you be stupid enough to claim that the Maharam Schick was the Chatam Sofer's student and was there when the ruling was made, that is false. He was a student of the Chatam Sofer as a very young man/teen for four years. He left after getting married and was nowhere near the Chatam Sofer when the ruling was issued or in the years after or before.

[Deremes]

One word,pure Am haaretz's.

YOU can argue with ME about science and you probably know better.But when you argue with me about the Maharam Schick and the Chasam Sofer to call you an illiterate is an insult to dummies.

[Shmarya]

One word,pure Am haaretz's.

YOU can argue with ME about science and you probably know better.But when you argue with me about the Maharam Schick and the Chasam Sofer to call you an illiterate is an insult to dummies.

Posted by: Deremes | September 13, 2012 at 03:59 PM

You're an idiot, little man. We KNOW where the Maharam Schick lived and when he lived there. We KNOW when he learned at the Chatam Sofer's yeshiva. And therefore, we KNOW that what I wrote is true.

I realize this is mind bending for you, but facts are facts, little shoteh, facts are facts.

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

If we now know that blood sucking from the wound is of no medical value, and that was the reason the Talmud gave for doing it, then why bother with the pipette or b'peh?

[SkepticalYid]

Posted by: Shmarya | September 13, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Give it up Shmarya. Even when I've posted data to help him see that conditions have changed in our time, he refuses to let go of his shtuss. His cult-like veneration of rabbis just makes it impossible to get through to him.

[Deremes]

NO NO NO NO You have no clue what you're talking after you say the Mahram Schick was dishonest.To the few posters on FM who are being fooled what Orthodox Jews are all about to them you can also sell them your Mahram Schick Chasam Sofer knowledge.But for folks who know what TRUTH stands for try selling them some other stuff.

[Jack]

Could someone please tell me again, what does MBP stand for, I forgot.

Posted by: Alzheimr | September 13, 2012 at 04:21 PM

metztizah b’peh (MBP), the direct mouth-too-bleeding penis suction done by mohels immediately after removing the baby’s foreskin. It is believed that this is done as sexual gratification to the mohel as well as some perverse action to infect the child to make him feeble minded and pliable to hassi"dick" teachings.

[SkepticalYid]

מגפה b'peh

[Shmarya]

NO NO NO NO You have no clue what you're talking after you say the Mahram Schick was dishonest.To the few posters on FM who are being fooled what Orthodox Jews are all about to them you can also sell them your Mahram Schick Chasam Sofer knowledge.But for folks who know what TRUTH stands for try selling them some other stuff.

Posted by: Deremes | September 13, 2012 at 04:20 PM

I know exactly what I'm talking about. He lied to "protect" "Yiddishkeit" from the Reform Movement and hte Haskalah.

[Deremes]

WoolSilkCotton,
If memory serves me the Talmud says if its NOT done then its dangerous and the mohel should be removed from being a mohel.It doesn't say WHY we have to do it.If you know anything how the Talmud is being learned,you can say that its done because of medical reasons or we can say if its not done then its a danger to the baby.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Deremes | September 13, 2012 at 05:12 PM

Ignoramus.

The Talmud says suction or squeezing or drawing out blood (metziztah) has to be done to prevent danger to the baby.

It does N-O-T say the mouth has to be used.

[Deremes]

And who and when did it start B'PEH?
Don't give run round answers like politicians.

[Shmarya]

And who and when did it start B'PEH?
Don't give run round answers like politicians.

Posted by: Deremes | September 13, 2012 at 05:25 PM

I already answered you. Mekubalim in the middle ages.

[baba boooey]

Faafaaafoooey

[Deremes]

So it was always done B'PEH as far as we know?

[seymour]

So it was always done B'PEH as far as we know?

Posted by: Deremes | September 13, 2012 at 05:34 PM

even if that is true since the Talmud says if not done it can be a danger to the baby coomon sense would dictate that noew we know it can be a danger we should not do it

and since the Talmud says MP can be done on shobbos because if not the baby cab be in danger thy only conclusion is that it was done for medical reason.

if they believed it was an integral part of the bris as many claim now then no reason needs to be given why it can be done on shobbos.

the Talmud should just have said, it can be done since it is part of the bris

simple logic

[Yerachmiel Lopin]

my satirical take on Agudah position on MBP: http://frumfollies.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/agudas-yisroel-public-service-announcement-on-safe-milah-satire/

[devora-torah]

seth lipsky a barbaric unctuous cunt.,. he is not alone an deadbeat professor. there are many who are up their bums but are unaware that they are .

[Barry]

Seymour, that is what the problem is.

It is not common sense that tells us that sucking a wound is dangerous to a baby. It is medical science. What common sense tells us, (as Deremes may be trying to point to), is that because the ancients had no idea of hygene, any method of metzizah practiced at the times of the Mishnah would have been filthy and dangerous, so any use of Shmarya of that Mishnah to argue for hygiene makes no sense. Even worse, the science that suggest the metzizah is dangerous when done under insanitary conditions is the same science which suggests that metzizah is useless when done under sterile conditions. It is all the same science. If metzizah is at best useless, then the Mishnah should not have allowed it to be done on Sabbath as is accepted halacha.

It is therefore halacha that requires a Jew not to believe in Germ Theory. A Jew who uses a pipette suggests that the halacha is wrong and all mohellim who have done metzizah on Sabbath throughout history have been mechallel shabbos. That is what Deremes cannot accept and that is why Agudah cannot accept a public act suggesting that germs exist when halacha is based on the idea that they do not. To paraphrase a statement that Deremes no doubts remembers from his youth - Germ Theory and Torah True Judaism are diametrically opposed. To ask Haredim to compromise by the use a glass pipette instead of the mouth at a brit would be similar to suggesting that on Yom Ha'atzmaut, Rabbi Teitelbaum at his tisch should sing Shir Hamalos to the tune of the Hatikva, if he is not prepared to sing its words! It ain't going to happen.

It is not that long ago that Rabbi Weberman published a pamphlet arguing that Jews are obliged to accept geocentric cosmology because Chaim Vital, Jacob Emden and Jonathan Eybeschutz were of the view that Coponikus was a heretic even after his views were accepted by the enlightened world as correct. This aforementioned achromim were each considered greater than the Maharam Shick.

Deremes, bearing in mind Rabbi Weberman's view - are you allowed to believe that the earth rotates and goes around the sun?

[Jeff]

Deremes, bearing in mind Rabbi Weberman's view - are you allowed to believe that the earth rotates and goes around the sun?

Barry, you know the answer to that one. See my comment here:

http://tinyurl.com/8fzha3z