Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Battar Kurdi
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:39 am

Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Post by Battar Kurdi » Fri Sep 02, 2016 5:01 am

Metzitzah B'peh .. blood is sucked from the recently circumcised penis of a baby boy. :eek:
Image
Metzitzah B'Peh[edit]
The ancient method of performing metzitzah—metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction[37][38]—has become controversial. The process has the mohel place his mouth directly on the circumcision wound to draw blood away from the cut. The majority of Jewish circumcision ceremonies do not use metzitzah b'peh,[39] but some Haredi Jews use it.[40][41][42] It has been documented that the practice poses a serious risk of spreading herpes to the infant.[43][44][45][46] Proponents maintain that there is no conclusive evidence that links herpes to Metzitza,[47] and that attempts to limit this practice infringe on religious freedom.[48][49][50]

The practice has become a controversy in both secular and Jewish medical ethics. The ritual of metzitzah is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists it as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. Rabbi Moses Sofer (1762–1839) observed that the Talmud states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic — i.e., to protect the health of the child. The Chasam Sofer issued a leniency (Heter) that some consider to have been conditional to perform metzitzah with a sponge to be used instead of oral suction in a letter to his student, Rabbi Lazar Horowitz of Vienna. This letter was never published among Rabbi Sofer's responsa but rather in the secular journal Kochvei Yitzchok.[51] along with letters from Dr. Wertheimer, the chief doctor of the Viennese General Hospital. It relates the story that a mohel (who was suspected of transmitting herpes via metzizah to infants) was checked several times and never found to have signs of the disease and that a ban was requested because of the "possibility of future infections".[52] Moshe Schick (1807–1879), a student of Moses Sofer, states in his book of Responsa, She’eilos u’teshuvos Maharam Schick (Orach Chaim 152,) that Moses Sofer gave the ruling in that specific instance only because the mohel refused to step down and had secular Government connections that prevented his removal in favor of another mohel and the Heter may not be applied elsewhere. He also states (Yoreh Deah 244) that the practice is possibly a Sinaitic tradition, i.e., Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Other sources contradict this claim, with copies of Moses Sofer's responsa making no mention of the legal case or of his ruling applying in only one situation. Rather, that responsa makes quite clear that "metzizah" was a health measure and should never be employed where there is a health risk to the infant.[53]

Chaim Hezekiah Medini, after corresponding with the greatest Jewish sages of the generation, concluded the practice to be Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai and elaborates on what prompted Moses Sofer to give the above ruling.[54] He tells the story that a student of Moses Sofer, Lazar Horowitz, Chief Rabbi of Vienna at the time and author of the responsa Yad Elazer, needed the ruling because of a governmental attempt to ban circumcision completely if it included metztitzah b'peh. He therefore asked Sofer to give him permission to do brit milah without metzitzah b’peh. When he presented the defense in secular court, his testimony was erroneously recorded to mean that Sofer stated it as a general ruling.[55] The Rabbinical Council of America, (RCA) which claims to be the largest American organization of Orthodox rabbis, published an article by mohel Dr Yehudi Pesach Shields in its summer 1972 issue of Tradition magazine, calling for the abandonment of Metzitzah b'peh.[56] Since then the RCA has issued an opinion that advocates methods that do not involve contact between the mohel's mouth and the open wound, such as the use of a sterile syringe, thereby eliminating the risk of infection.[40] According to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel[57] and the Edah HaChareidis[58] metzitzah b'peh should still be performed.

The practice of metzitzah b'peh was alleged to pose a serious risk in the transfer of herpes from mohelim to eight Israeli infants, one of whom suffered brain damage.[43][59] When three New York City infants contracted herpes after metzizah b'peh by one mohel and one of them died, New York authorities took out a restraining order against the mohel requiring use of a sterile glass tube, or pipette.[42][60] The mohel's attorney argued that the New York Department of Health had not supplied conclusive medical evidence linking his client with the disease.[60][61] In September 2005, the city withdrew the restraining order and turned the matter over to a rabbinical court.[62] Dr. Thomas Frieden, the Health Commissioner of New York City, wrote, "There exists no reasonable doubt that ‘metzitzah b'peh’ can and has caused neonatal herpes infection....The Health Department recommends that infants being circumcised not undergo metzitzah b'peh."[63] In May 2006, the Department of Health for New York State issued a protocol for the performance of metzitzah b'peh.[64] Dr. Antonia C. Novello, Commissioner of Health for New York State, together with a board of rabbis and doctors, worked, she said, to "allow the practice of metzizah b'peh to continue while still meeting the Department of Health's responsibility to protect the public health."[65]

In three medical papers done in Israel, Canada, and the USA, oral suction following circumcision was suggested as a cause in 11 cases of neonatal herpes.[43][66][67] Researchers noted that prior to 1997, neonatal herpes reports in Israel were rare, and that the late incidences were correlated with the mothers carrying the virus themselves.[43] Rabbi Doctor Mordechai Halperin implicates the "better hygiene and living conditions that prevail among the younger generation", which lowered to 60% the rate of young Israeli Chareidi mothers who carry the virus. He explains that an "absence of antibodies in the mothers’ blood means that their newborn sons received no such antibodies through the placenta, and therefore are vulnerable to infection by HSV-1."[68]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

some videos:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEthMSR7mwU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmuPGZNoSSk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DdknKq915g

And I want to ask a question...Did Jesus also circumcised like that?
On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.
(Luk 2:21 NIV)
Battar.

semiopen
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Post by semiopen » Fri Sep 02, 2016 4:55 pm

That's an interesting question.

Since the wiki says Metzitzah B'Peh it is found in the Talmud (Mishnah Shabbat 19:2) Semiopen's fifth rule states that it wasn't practiced in early first century CE Palestine.

Whether it was done to Yoshke or not also depends on whether such a person actually existed.

theophilus
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:18 am

Re: Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Post by theophilus » Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:23 pm

No where in the Hebrew Bible is blood sucking allowed. The Bible is very clear that the blood is not to be eaten. Although the rabbi does not intend to consume blood, in blood sucking there will be a swallowing of some blood. The scripture mandate is also clear: do not add or take away from holy writing. Blood sucking is one of those things added to a later talmud.. It is not scripture and it is not from God.

Joseph D. L.
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:13 pm

theophilus wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:23 pm
No where in the Hebrew Bible is blood sucking allowed. The Bible is very clear that the blood is not to be eaten. Although the rabbi does not intend to consume blood, in blood sucking there will be a swallowing of some blood. The scripture mandate is also clear: do not add or take away from holy writing. Blood sucking is one of those things added to a later talmud.. It is not scripture and it is not from God.
Jews nor Christians have really cared about such a thing. Ezra did it; Zephyrinus did it. If God really cared he would make it to where it can't be done.

iskander
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Post by iskander » Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:25 am

...
And I want to ask a question...Did Jesus also circumcised like that?
On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.
(Luk 2:21 NIV)



Yes , Jesus Christ would have been circumcised as it was done since the days of Moses
Metzitzah B'peh as it was customarily done since the days of Moshe Rabbeinu.
http://metzitzahbpehinfo.blogspot.com/2 ... ecent.html

iskander
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Post by iskander » Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:52 am

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/uk-r ... on-1.35796
Oral Suction in the UK
Accusing the health department of spreading “lies and exaggerations” of the instance of illness after metzitzah b’peh, they declared: “It is clear to us, that there is not even an iota of blame or danger in this ancient and holy custom.”
They said it was forbidden “according to the Torah to participate in the evil plans of the NYC Health Department in any form that it may be whether it be the mohelim, or the parents – with agreements or signatures”

iskander
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Post by iskander » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:38 am

In the ritual of metzitzah b’peh (“oral suction”), direct mouth contact to draw blood from a newly circumcised penis. The mohel sips wine, extracts a small amount of blood with his mouth, spits it out and continues with the ceremony.

semiopen
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Post by semiopen » Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:20 am

This reminded me of the demise of Failed Messiah, one of my favorite web sites - still accessible as http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/

Thios is discussed here https://forward.com/news/national/33914 ... krakerss/

Haven't found anything approaching it in quality. The current ones I've visited mostly deal with Haredi acceptance of deviant sexual behavior by community members.

Daat Emet - http://daatemet.org.il/en/ is an excellent site, but it is not updated regularly.

This is their 2006 article on Circumcision - http://daatemet.org.il/en/torah-science ... cumcision/

My father's father and mother lived in Bnei_Brak so they were quite religious but none of their many children were to my knowledge.

I think I was circumcised in the hospital by the doctor, not sure how kosher the ceremony was - doubt it was on my 8th day - but I assume the Dr was Jewish. That's all lost to history now that all the people that would know are gone. Not a story that I'd tell my Rabbi, he'd probably want to do it again.

iskander
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Metzitzah B'peh, Blood Sucking from the baby penis !!

Post by iskander » Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:40 pm

Battar Kurdi wrote:
Fri Sep 02, 2016 5:01 am
Metzitzah B'peh .. blood is sucked from the recently circumcised penis of a baby boy. :eek:
Image
Metzitzah B'Peh[edit]
The ancient method of performing metzitzah—metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction[37][38]—has become controversial. The process has the mohel place his mouth directly on the circumcision wound to draw blood away from the cut. The majority of Jewish circumcision ceremonies do not use metzitzah b'peh,[39] but some Haredi Jews use it.[40][41][42] It has been documented that the practice poses a serious risk of spreading herpes to the infant.[43][44][45][46] Proponents maintain that there is no conclusive evidence that links herpes to Metzitza,[47] and that attempts to limit this practice infringe on religious freedom.[48][49][50]

The practice has become a controversy in both secular and Jewish medical ethics. The ritual of metzitzah is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists it as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. Rabbi Moses Sofer (1762–1839) observed that the Talmud states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic — i.e., to protect the health of the child. The Chasam Sofer issued a leniency (Heter) that some consider to have been conditional to perform metzitzah with a sponge to be used instead of oral suction in a letter to his student, Rabbi Lazar Horowitz of Vienna. This letter was never published among Rabbi Sofer's responsa but rather in the secular journal Kochvei Yitzchok.[51] along with letters from Dr. Wertheimer, the chief doctor of the Viennese General Hospital. It relates the story that a mohel (who was suspected of transmitting herpes via metzizah to infants) was checked several times and never found to have signs of the disease and that a ban was requested because of the "possibility of future infections".[52] Moshe Schick (1807–1879), a student of Moses Sofer, states in his book of Responsa, She’eilos u’teshuvos Maharam Schick (Orach Chaim 152,) that Moses Sofer gave the ruling in that specific instance only because the mohel refused to step down and had secular Government connections that prevented his removal in favor of another mohel and the Heter may not be applied elsewhere. He also states (Yoreh Deah 244) that the practice is possibly a Sinaitic tradition, i.e., Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Other sources contradict this claim, with copies of Moses Sofer's responsa making no mention of the legal case or of his ruling applying in only one situation. Rather, that responsa makes quite clear that "metzizah" was a health measure and should never be employed where there is a health risk to the infant.[53]

Chaim Hezekiah Medini, after corresponding with the greatest Jewish sages of the generation, concluded the practice to be Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai and elaborates on what prompted Moses Sofer to give the above ruling.[54] He tells the story that a student of Moses Sofer, Lazar Horowitz, Chief Rabbi of Vienna at the time and author of the responsa Yad Elazer, needed the ruling because of a governmental attempt to ban circumcision completely if it included metztitzah b'peh. He therefore asked Sofer to give him permission to do brit milah without metzitzah b’peh. When he presented the defense in secular court, his testimony was erroneously recorded to mean that Sofer stated it as a general ruling.[55] The Rabbinical Council of America, (RCA) which claims to be the largest American organization of Orthodox rabbis, published an article by mohel Dr Yehudi Pesach Shields in its summer 1972 issue of Tradition magazine, calling for the abandonment of Metzitzah b'peh.[56] Since then the RCA has issued an opinion that advocates methods that do not involve contact between the mohel's mouth and the open wound, such as the use of a sterile syringe, thereby eliminating the risk of infection.[40] According to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel[57] and the Edah HaChareidis[58] metzitzah b'peh should still be performed.

The practice of metzitzah b'peh was alleged to pose a serious risk in the transfer of herpes from mohelim to eight Israeli infants, one of whom suffered brain damage.[43][59] When three New York City infants contracted herpes after metzizah b'peh by one mohel and one of them died, New York authorities took out a restraining order against the mohel requiring use of a sterile glass tube, or pipette.[42][60] The mohel's attorney argued that the New York Department of Health had not supplied conclusive medical evidence linking his client with the disease.[60][61] In September 2005, the city withdrew the restraining order and turned the matter over to a rabbinical court.[62] Dr. Thomas Frieden, the Health Commissioner of New York City, wrote, "There exists no reasonable doubt that ‘metzitzah b'peh’ can and has caused neonatal herpes infection....The Health Department recommends that infants being circumcised not undergo metzitzah b'peh."[63] In May 2006, the Department of Health for New York State issued a protocol for the performance of metzitzah b'peh.[64] Dr. Antonia C. Novello, Commissioner of Health for New York State, together with a board of rabbis and doctors, worked, she said, to "allow the practice of metzizah b'peh to continue while still meeting the Department of Health's responsibility to protect the public health."[65]

In three medical papers done in Israel, Canada, and the USA, oral suction following circumcision was suggested as a cause in 11 cases of neonatal herpes.[43][66][67] Researchers noted that prior to 1997, neonatal herpes reports in Israel were rare, and that the late incidences were correlated with the mothers carrying the virus themselves.[43] Rabbi Doctor Mordechai Halperin implicates the "better hygiene and living conditions that prevail among the younger generation", which lowered to 60% the rate of young Israeli Chareidi mothers who carry the virus. He explains that an "absence of antibodies in the mothers’ blood means that their newborn sons received no such antibodies through the placenta, and therefore are vulnerable to infection by HSV-1."[68]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

some videos:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEthMSR7mwU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmuPGZNoSSk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DdknKq915g

And I want to ask a question...Did Jesus also circumcised like that?
On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.
(Luk 2:21 NIV)
Battar.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/isr ... ircumcised


$140-a-day fine for refusing ‘brit’
https://www.timesofisrael.com/woman-fin ... mcise-son/
Rabbinical court rejects appeal by Netanya resident who won't have her son undergo what she calls 'mutilation'
The woman’s lawyer claimed that the rabbinical court had no authority to order the woman to circumcise her son, who is now a year old.

Post Reply