Agudath Israel Of America Court Filing Makes False Claims

Agudath Israel of America's Memorandum of Law in support of a temporary stay of NYC's requirement for informed consent before a controversial circumcision procedure can be done lies about the history of the procedure and about its safety.

Metzitzah b'peh performed by a Chabad mohel last month in Brooklyn

Originally published at 7:55 pm CDT 10-17-2012

Briefly, Agudath Israel of America's Memorandum of Law claims that metzitzah b'peh, the direct mouth-to-bloody-penis sucking haredi mohels often do after removing a baby's foreskin, "has been performed safely for millennia."

But this is demonstrably false and Agudath Israel of America knows it. Hundreds, even thousands, of babies dies in epidemics caused by metzitzah b'peh

Agudah is also wrong to claim that metzitzah b'peh has been done for "millennia."

In fact, the ancient Jewish sources that speak about circumcision and metzitzah (squeezing or suction used to draw out liquid from a sold), do not specify how metzitzah must be done, and never refer to it as metzitzah b'peh, and we do not know with certainty when metzitzah began to be done orally. The earliest reference to any type of metzitzah is from circa 200 CE, and it appears to be based on Greco-Roman medical practice of that era.

The texts of that time and of subsequent eras until the late Middle Ages refer to metzitzah as a health measure, and Jewish law viewed it as such and as a procedure separate from the religious ritual of circumcision until the mid to late 1800s when, in reaction to the Reform Movement, some ultra-Orthodox rabbis rhetorically 'elevated' metzitzah b'peh by calling it part of the circumcision ritual itself – even though there are ample proofs in Jewish law against that claim.

These lies alone invalidate the historical basis for Agudah's claims in the lawsuit against the city.

Agudah also relies almost exclusively on the medical opinion of a lone doctor, Daniel Berman, who has already been repeatedly caught misrepresenting the medical facts and attempting to mislead Jews who are trying to find out if MBP is dangerous or not.

These aren't the only inaccuracies is Agudah's filing, and relying on a person proven to have deceived and misled innocent Jews isn't the only gutter tactic Agudah engaged in. However,they are indicative both of the lack of character of the men who lead Agudath Israel of America, and of the organization's willingness to deceive to achieve its goals.

Agudah also makes a claim that contradicts Jewish law, and it does so in the context of claiming it cares about the lives of children:

In Jewish law, halakha, when a danger to life becomes known it must be immediately rectified. Every step possible must be taken to remove the danger. This is based on the halakhic principle, hamira sakanta m'isura, a danger to life is handled more stringently than a Biblical prohibition.

When credible medical experts say a procedure is dangerous, we have to react to that by immediately ceasing to perform that procedure – not by calling for studies.

If there is an argument between medical experts in that field over whether or not the procedure is dangerous, we have to follow the majority of these experts – unless there is a lone, preeminent expert, someone universally acknowledged to be head and shoulders above all the others, who has a differing opinion. Halakha then allows us to follow that lone voice. Otherwise, following a lone voice or minority voices is forbidden.

In Agudah's case, the lone voice they are relying on is not a pediatric infectious disease expert and he is not among the leading infectious disease experts in the country. And he has long since been proved to be dishonest.

In other words, Agudah's entire legal case is predicated on lies told about halakha and the history of halakha.

Writing in the Jewish Week in 2005, David Ellenson explains the real basis for what Agudah, Satmar, and the CRC are doing now:

…The late Professor Jacob Katz of the Hebrew University offered a suggestion as to why this is so in a monograph he published in his Hebrew-language “Divine Law in Human Hands.”

Professor Katz reported that the Reform Rabbinical Conference held in Brunswick, Germany, in 1844, discussed the issue of circumcision and that the question of whether metzitzah b’peh was potentially damaging to the infant was addressed. During the discussion, a Rabbi Levi Herzfeld emerged as the foremost critic of this practice, and he urged that the ritual be abolished because of the danger it posed to the health of the 8-day-old boy. While the conference took no formal vote on the matter due to lack of time, other rabbis at the conference concurred with the opinion of Rabbi Herzfeld.

As a result of the criticisms these Reform rabbis lodged against a number of traditional Jewish religious practices, as well as metzitzah b’peh, seven Orthodox defenders of the tradition immediately responded in an Orthodox collection of Jewish legal opinions titled “Torat ha-Kenaot” by claiming that this Reform opposition voiced against metzitzah b’peh was motivated solely by a desire to destroy the tradition. These Orthodox spokesmen asserted that the cautions of the medical profession on this topic should be disregarded and were unyielding in their resolve that the ritual be maintained. In so doing, the ruling of the Chatam Sofer on the subject was either ignored or rejected.

Through their insistence that contemporary Jews should honor and observe this practice as a sacred part of an inviolable Oral Tradition, they transformed the ritual of metzitzah b’peh into one of boundary maintenance that separated Orthodox from Reform Judaism. For these men, the performance of metzitzah b’peh was now an obligatory part of the brit milah ceremony.…

Agudah's secular legal argument will, I hope and I believe, be rejected by the courts regardless of Agudah's religious claims.

It is unlikely that any judge will ever have to rule on these religiously lies told by haredi rabbis.

But the judge(s) and attorneys forced to deal with this frivolous and deceitful lawsuit – and the haredim who are being deceived by their own rabbis – deserve to know the truth.

~~~~~

Here are the relevant pages from Agudath Israel of America's Memorandum of Law followed by the entire Memorandum of Law as a PDF file:

Agudath Israel of America's entire Memorandum of Law:

Download Agudath Israel Memorandum of Law MBP Suit Against NYC, et al, 10-16-2012

[Hat Tip for the Agudah court filing: Metzitzah B'Peh.]

Comments

[Yerachmiel Lopin]

See psak of chasam sofer http://wp.me/pFbfD-M3
Chasam sofer is as clear as can be that metzizah is medical practice, not necessary for a kosher bris and can be done by use of gauze and should be done that way because of identified health risks.

[Ari]

With bloombergs twisted logic, he should force the church to have all parents sign 'parental consent' before every baptism.
As there are a few cases of kids drowning during the ritual.
And all he wants is to protect the kids... Even one death is too much...

[jancsibacsi]

What can we expect from people whose whole life is a lie,they live a lie breath it dont know truth if it hit them in the face, want to deny reality and rather live in a fantasy land.

[dh]

Bloomberg is not the mayor of Moldova.

[seymour]

With bloombergs twisted logic, he should force the church to have all parents sign 'parental consent' before every baptism.
As there are a few cases of kids drowning during the ritual.
And all he wants is to protect the kids... Even one death is too much...

Posted by: Ari | October 17, 2012 at 08:21 PM

I am sure you can back up you insane comment

[seymour]

I wonder who is in more denial

herideim and their leaders concerning the danger of MP

or Lance armsrong and the people who still believe he did not dope.

[dh]

Seymour, there's one in Moldova.

[ym]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-21/day-care-drowning/57192074/1
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/27/priest-accused-of-drowning-baby-during-baptism/
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120821/news/120821023/State-faces-claim-from-family-boy-who-drowned-baptismal-pool-church-daycare
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/child-drowns-baptismal-pool-indiana_n_1298002.html
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-28/news/27071102_1_priest-baptism-baby

more info: http://bit.ly/XqGydr

[MICHAEL ROLOFF]

Unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, It's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason
for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizesthe child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the UltraOrthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German
and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.

Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human bod is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by
the patriarchy. Ma

Die Tabuisierung jeglichen Vergleichs von männlicher mit weiblicher Genitalverstümmelung ist der große Skandal der Debatte. In beiden Fällen wird der empfindsamste und erogenste Teil des menschlichen Körpers amputiert oder schwer beschädigt. In beiden Fällen geht es in erster Linie um die Beschneidung menschlicher Sexualität.

http://evidentist.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/beschneidung-ignoranz-und-sexismus/

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html

Eine Diskussion ueber das Thema, mit drei Deutschen + einem Amerikanischen Psychologen.

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/psychotherapeutenyahoogroupsde.html

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.html

http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/debatte/article108847257/Die-Vorhaut-des-Herzens.html

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/andere-meinung/gastkommentar-zur-beschneidungsdebatte-danke-deutschland/7160872.html

AND DONT FORGET THE ARCHIVE!!! http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html
http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name

http://www.roloff.freehosting.net/index.html

Member Seattle Psychoanalytic Institute and Society

--

[Mike S.]

Ari,
By your 'logic' parents should be statutorily banned from giving their children a bath.
Try harder.

[Mike S.]

Michael Roloff,
OK, Timecube, whatever you say.

[Jeff]

The Agudah lied. Shocking.

In related news, water is wet.

[seymour]

the difference baptism can be done safely MP cannot

[Seraphya]

Just one technical point, that I am not 100% certain of:

metzitza means sucking, which would always be done with the mouth. I am not sure whether the term originated from Aramaic or Hebrew but the root Mem Vav/Yud Tzade // Mem Tzade Tzade
seems to be from a quick look at Koehler & Baumgartner to be referring to either sucking or slurping or other such actions involving liquid and the mouth. While there was mention of it being possibly more general in other ANE languages I think in the context of brit milah that the mitzitza is talking about using the mouth.

Not that this takes away at all in any way from your main and very valid points.

[Shmarya]

metzitza means sucking, which would always be done with the mouth. I am not sure whether the term originated from Aramaic or Hebrew but the root Mem Vav/Yud Tzade // Mem Tzade Tzade
seems to be from a quick look at Koehler & Baumgartner to be referring to either sucking or slurping or other such actions involving liquid and the mouth

Sigh.

As Rashi notes, metzitzah is from the same root as mitz, juice, and it means to SQUEEZE OUT OR DRAW OUT.

[Deremes]

Seraphya,exactly as you say that metzitza means sucking.
In Shulchan Aruch when it talks about Metzitza even though it does not say B'peh it is self understood it means B'peh.It says afterwards that the mohel should wipe his mouth from blood before making the bracha so obviously it means b'peh.
You can make an argument like the perverts that the practice is pedophilia.
You can make argument that it kills and maims babies.But don't argue fabricating anything about halacha or minhagim.

[Shmarya]

Seraphya,exactly as you say that metzitza means sucking.
In Shulchan Aruch when it talks about Metzitza even though it does not say B'peh it is self understood it means B'peh.It says afterwards that the mohel should wipe his mouth from blood before making the bracha so obviously it means b'peh.
You can make an argument like the perverts that the practice is pedophilia.
You can make argument that it kills and maims babies.But don't argue fabricating anything about halacha or minhagim.

Posted by: Deremes | October 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Notice the illiteracy and the stupidity of "Deremes" – the Satmar hasid "N" – who is a lying, deceitful and ignorant man.

Rashi holds against you.

The Chatam Sofer and hundreds of poskim over the past 200 years hold against you.

History is against you.

The facts are against you.

And all you have left, little man, is an expensive White Shoe law firm paid for with stolen money, and your lies.

[Deremes]

What does N stand for?

I also forgot to mention that in one of the commentary's in the Shulchan Aruch it states there is minhag on Rosh hashana that the person who blows the shofar should do Metzitza and then blow the shofar with blood on mouth so to mix two mitzvot.In other words it is understood that it was done b'peh.Unless someone who is an am hararetz can make a peshatel that it means to make Metzitza by hand and then put the blood from hand on mouth.
So here we have another example that it was done only b'peh which is also in the history of Metzitza.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Deremes | October 18, 2012 at 03:04 PM

That you're not very smart has been long established.

That your rebbe(s) are thugs has been long established.

The problem is, your rebbe(s) also aren't smart.

Do try to process, little man.

A minhag mentioned in the Shulkhan Arukh is simply a custom that was then in existence being cited in the Shulkhan Arukh.

It in no way establishes what the customs were elsewhere or at other periods in history.

Past that, the idea that doing metzitzah had special spiritual benefit originates in the middle ages among some kabbalists.

It was, however, not stressed until the circle of the Ari emphasized it.

The Shulkan Arukh was written, of course, in Sefat by a contemporary of the Ari.

[jancsibacsi]

Shmarya -Lets face it critical thinking is deremeses and his hassidims biggest enemy, they do everything but think,their emotion rules over them not their thinking thats why when they dont get their way they become almost inhuman thugs.

[ari]

"By your 'logic' parents should be statutorily banned from giving their children a bath.
Try harder."

sorry no parent dunks their infants head under water! not even during a bath!

"the difference baptism can be done safely MP cannot"
if the Mohel gets tested before he performs Metzitza it is 100% safe! thats why the city allows it.
their twisted logic is saying that we have to tell parents about the small risk of herpes!
so i ask again isn't shaky hands during baptism and dunking a baby's head under water also a risk?

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/badlybaptbaby.html

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/29-07-2010/114414-baby_baptism-0/

[Deremes]

woo im impressed but have no clue what you're saying.Its good when you stick to the medical issue perhpas you know a bit.But how Jews do certain things,why and who said what,oh please.
Anyways,for those who want to know when it states in Shulchan Aruch "Venohagin" or the "minhag" is to do something it is a halacha.
The Shulchan Aruch was written as to set down halachas for Jews how to go about on everything.The entire peshatel you write that it was written in this or that town or it doesn't mean the customs were so elsewhere therefore its irrelevant what it says, is pure non-sense.Its just time wasted arguing..

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Deremes | October 18, 2012 at 04:00 PM

Again, I realize you're not smart, but do try to process.

The S.A. never require metzitzah to be be done by mouth.

Because the common custom in Sefat – the home of kabbalists – was to do it that way, and because many of the earlier traditions from before the expulsion from Spain were lost, that what you have.

But if your reasoning was correct, the Chatam Sofer and dozens of other poskim could not have ruled like they did.

And that shows that you are, as always, a Satmar ignoramus.

Rot.

[Jeff]

The Shulchan Aruch was written as to set down halachas for Jews how to go about on everything.

Meanwhile, Joseph Caro also told you not to perform kapparot with chickens, but THAT you don't pay any attention to.

Because the truth is - you don't really care about the Shulchan Aruch, or the Rambam or any other authority. You really only care about what your rebbe said.

[Korben Dallas]

So can like... they actually get prosecuted for making false statements in an affidavit based upon lies told about the history of this abominable procedure?

[jancsibacsi]

Lets not forget the most important thing with theese satmerer goilems the truth is their number one enemy end of story.