That's right. Another article in the Forward about... metzitzah.
Here is the link. http://forward.com/articles/213364/is-controversial-circumcision-ritual-dangerous/?p=all
Unfortunately, this article is very long and says very little. It may have some or most of its facts straight, but there are too many questions left unanswered.
Of course, much of this is a response to this article I neglected to post last week.
http://hamodia.com/2015/01/13/dna-tests-clear-mohalim-rockland-calls-nyc-shift-course/
The bottom line is that - as I wrote in my article in the Jewish Week - nothing will change based on the outside. The change must come from within. Rabbis must teach their constituents that this practice is no longer acceptable, and they must insist and demand that the mohels stop performing it.
When the internal community pressure brings about a cessation of direct contact metzitzah, these stories will cease to occur.
We will also rid this horrible "chillul Hashem" from our midst (just see the way the obviously not-Jewish media paints the metzitzah ritual).
Showing posts with label MBP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MBP. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
You want to know what Metzitzah is?
Update: The link I had here was removed from youtube for "violating community guidelines."
The video briefly described then demonstrated the sterile tube method, and then the direct oral contact method (aka MBP or "metzitzah b'peh"), both of which accomplish the "b'peh" (with the mouth) traditions - though the first does not involve the mohel's mouth contacting the baby, and the second one does involve this kind of contact.
My main objection is to the use of the words "more traditional" for the second one. I would call it "more cultic" than "more traditional" because the only tradition it reflects is living in an ancient world.
Having said that, the track record is relatively good. But as I say each time, if ONE baby gets infected from the second method (and that seems to be the reality out there), then that method shouldn't be done, and mohels should opt for the first method, and parents should understand that it is more than adequate.
Metzitzah in the News Again
It's been about a year since I set up the Metzitzah Page, and things have been relatively quiet.
Until the last few weeks.
First Rav Herschel Schachter was chastized for claiming there are 15 cases a year, most of which go unreported.
And this week, another report has come forward, claiming that two children have been infected with Herpes in NY, post brisses which included Metzitzah (Fox News originally mistakenly said HIV, but they meant HSV - Herpes Simplex Virus)
Here are a few links:
The radio showman Michael Savage (nee Wiener) spent an hour talking about this subject - here is the youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPLh36XYolc
Suffice it to say, the man knows nothing about bris milah and is a bumbling buffoon on this subject. The only thing I'll agree with him on is that the Metzitzah with direct oral suction needs to be stopped. And that the people who say "If it were dangerous we would stop" are not telling the truth. Yes, the numbers don't reflect it being an overwhelming danger, but as I've written before - if ONE baby gets infected or dies from this practice, that is ONE WAY TOO MANY!
It is an irresponsible practice in 21st century. Chazal would not approve if they knew what we know.
It's not a mitzvah. And the argument that it's been practiced for 4000 years is a lie.
It's a chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name). Plain and simple.
Until the last few weeks.
First Rav Herschel Schachter was chastized for claiming there are 15 cases a year, most of which go unreported.
And this week, another report has come forward, claiming that two children have been infected with Herpes in NY, post brisses which included Metzitzah (Fox News originally mistakenly said HIV, but they meant HSV - Herpes Simplex Virus)
Here are a few links:
The radio showman Michael Savage (nee Wiener) spent an hour talking about this subject - here is the youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPLh36XYolc
Suffice it to say, the man knows nothing about bris milah and is a bumbling buffoon on this subject. The only thing I'll agree with him on is that the Metzitzah with direct oral suction needs to be stopped. And that the people who say "If it were dangerous we would stop" are not telling the truth. Yes, the numbers don't reflect it being an overwhelming danger, but as I've written before - if ONE baby gets infected or dies from this practice, that is ONE WAY TOO MANY!
It is an irresponsible practice in 21st century. Chazal would not approve if they knew what we know.
It's not a mitzvah. And the argument that it's been practiced for 4000 years is a lie.
It's a chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name). Plain and simple.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
My Metzitzah Article in the Jewish Week
In the heat of the Metzitzah Debate raging in New York City in the Summer of 2012, I wrote this opinion piece which was published by the Jewish Week. Here is the link to my article (text follows below)
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/metzitzah-changes-require-rabbinic-leadership-0
The sources that needed to be left out of the article due to space limitations will follow the text of the article below.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/metzitzah-changes-require-rabbinic-leadership-0
The sources that needed to be left out of the article due to space limitations will follow the text of the article below.
Metzitzah Changes Require Rabbinic Leadership
Tue, 09/25/2012
Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein (1866-1934) was widely considered to be one of the more impressive Talmud scholars of his generation. In his “Levush Mordechai” (Ch. 30) he writes, “If anyone were to suggest doing metzitzah with the mouth, we would say the worst things about him because there is nothing more disgusting [than] placing a wounded [bleeding] organ into the mouth. Especially that organ.” His conclusion, however, is that “since it is a mitzvah, there is justification.”
He compares metzitzah b’peh to circumcision itself, arguing that we only do both — against, perhaps, what logic might dictate — because they are mitzvot.
That circumcision is a mitzvah is clear from Genesis 17 and Leviticus 12:3.
But Rabbi Epstein view represents only one side of the debate about metzitzah — it, unlike circumision, isn’t in the Bible. It first appears in the Talmud (Shabbat 133a), but the method and mitzvah-status is absent from the Talmud and most sources until the Middle Ages. Even Maimonides and the Shulchan Aruch mention metzitzah but leave out any mention of putting the mouth directly on the wound.
The question is, does the Talmud view metzitzah as a requirement or as a medical suggestion?
According to the Talmud (Shabbat 137b), removing the foreskin but leaving the membrane [“milah” without “priah”] is an incomplete circumcision: it will need to be redone.
Not so if metzitzah were skipped. Rav Pappa says, in Shabbat 133b, “One who skips metzitzah must be removed: he is putting the baby in danger.” Note how “no metzitzah” does not produce an invalid bris. It reflects badly on the operator, not the operation.
Conclusion: metzitzah was more a medical suggestion than a mitzvah requirement.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the leading 20th-century American Orthodox decisor, certainly supported the act of metzitzah. But he wrote that metzitzah is not part of the mitzvah, and a bris without it is kosher. There is, therefore, no conclusive obligation to do it in any specific way.
The polemics favoring direct-contact oral suction are relatively new (mid-1800s), typically attributed to a reaction to the Reform movement’s efforts to abolish Jewish practices that did not conform to modern sensibilities.
Early Reformers certainly saw metzitzah (and circumcision) as barbaric. The “Orthodox establishment” reacted quite strongly, upholding the practice of metzitzah specifically with the direct oral contact method (MbP), to take the strongest stand against the destruction of Judaism as they knew it.
I believe this mid-1800s attitude guides the defenders of MbP today. If they had the common sense of Rabbi Epstein, they would scream from every hilltop that MBP is a disgusting practice to be abolished. Combining this approach with Rabbi Feinstein’s “obvious” understanding, would demonstrate that metzitzah in any form is not even considered part of the mitzvah.
MbP made sense in a medicine world defined by the Hippocratic method. But in our world, with knowledge of germs and bacteria, the practice is unacceptable.
Those arguing against the proposed law in New York State claim that if MbP is outlawed, bris milah will be next. I strongly disagree because I don’t believe bris milah is in danger in the United States of America.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued a report [see policy statement and press release and some links on their website] stating that there are clear medical benefits to circumcision that outweigh the risks of the procedure. They don’t endorse the practice, but they don’t discourage it either. Most U.S. hospitals offer circumcision as an option, and parents make the choice for their sons.
Furthermore, there is no need to defend bris milah from the Reform movement — there is a Reform Berit Milah Board!
I agree, however, that government should keep out of regulating this religious practice. Government does a fine job of warning smokers not to smoke, without mandating waivers. Along with doctors, medical professionals and rabbinic leaders, government can issue similar warnings regarding the dangers and risks of MbP. This should not come at the cost of a fine or legal action by the state.
I am a mohel, and I practice metzitzah in a halachically approved manner, using a sterile tube powered by the mouth (which makes it “b’peh”). It fulfills the needs of those who require metzitzah and has the added benefit of providing zero risk to the baby. It also elevates the mitzvah of bris milah and makes it appealing even to Jews who are not observant.
Three final thoughts:
First: A father who insists on MbP should do it himself. Bris is his mitzvah, he shares his baby’s DNA, and he may run the risk of infecting his baby or himself if he and his wife agree to the procedure. What makes any mohel’s mouth, no matter how pure and holy the man is, a bastion of germ-free saliva?
Second: Government intervention will not stop people from doing what they think their religion tells them to do. A law against the practice will push people undercover where they will do it anyway. This too is unacceptable — the United States is not Czarist Russia.
Third: Change must come from within. Rabbis and yeshiva leaders in these communities must ignore the insistence of their followers that this practice be maintained. Rather, these leaders must teach that metzitzah with a sterile tube is not only an acceptable option (Rabbi Elyashiv, the Israeli sage, said it is acceptable in 1989), but should really be the only option.
Without the rabbis preaching a different tune, nothing will change. And while the babies who die from metzitzah are rare, fortunately, the only acceptable number of metzitzah-related infections or deaths is zero. As long as direct-oral-contact metzitzah continues, any rabbi who does not ban the practice is partly responsible for negative metzitzah outcomes.
Avi Billet is a traveling mohel who blogs about bris milah at www.mohelinsouthflorida.com
Special To The Jewish Week
Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein (1866-1934) was widely considered to be one of the more impressive Talmud scholars of his generation. In his “Levush Mordechai” (Ch. 30) he writes, “If anyone were to suggest doing metzitzah with the mouth, we would say the worst things about him because there is nothing more disgusting [than] placing a wounded [bleeding] organ into the mouth. Especially that organ.” His conclusion, however, is that “since it is a mitzvah, there is justification.”
He compares metzitzah b’peh to circumcision itself, arguing that we only do both — against, perhaps, what logic might dictate — because they are mitzvot.
That circumcision is a mitzvah is clear from Genesis 17 and Leviticus 12:3.
But Rabbi Epstein view represents only one side of the debate about metzitzah — it, unlike circumision, isn’t in the Bible. It first appears in the Talmud (Shabbat 133a), but the method and mitzvah-status is absent from the Talmud and most sources until the Middle Ages. Even Maimonides and the Shulchan Aruch mention metzitzah but leave out any mention of putting the mouth directly on the wound.
The question is, does the Talmud view metzitzah as a requirement or as a medical suggestion?
According to the Talmud (Shabbat 137b), removing the foreskin but leaving the membrane [“milah” without “priah”] is an incomplete circumcision: it will need to be redone.
Not so if metzitzah were skipped. Rav Pappa says, in Shabbat 133b, “One who skips metzitzah must be removed: he is putting the baby in danger.” Note how “no metzitzah” does not produce an invalid bris. It reflects badly on the operator, not the operation.
Conclusion: metzitzah was more a medical suggestion than a mitzvah requirement.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the leading 20th-century American Orthodox decisor, certainly supported the act of metzitzah. But he wrote that metzitzah is not part of the mitzvah, and a bris without it is kosher. There is, therefore, no conclusive obligation to do it in any specific way.
The polemics favoring direct-contact oral suction are relatively new (mid-1800s), typically attributed to a reaction to the Reform movement’s efforts to abolish Jewish practices that did not conform to modern sensibilities.
Early Reformers certainly saw metzitzah (and circumcision) as barbaric. The “Orthodox establishment” reacted quite strongly, upholding the practice of metzitzah specifically with the direct oral contact method (MbP), to take the strongest stand against the destruction of Judaism as they knew it.
I believe this mid-1800s attitude guides the defenders of MbP today. If they had the common sense of Rabbi Epstein, they would scream from every hilltop that MBP is a disgusting practice to be abolished. Combining this approach with Rabbi Feinstein’s “obvious” understanding, would demonstrate that metzitzah in any form is not even considered part of the mitzvah.
MbP made sense in a medicine world defined by the Hippocratic method. But in our world, with knowledge of germs and bacteria, the practice is unacceptable.
Those arguing against the proposed law in New York State claim that if MbP is outlawed, bris milah will be next. I strongly disagree because I don’t believe bris milah is in danger in the United States of America.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued a report [see policy statement and press release and some links on their website] stating that there are clear medical benefits to circumcision that outweigh the risks of the procedure. They don’t endorse the practice, but they don’t discourage it either. Most U.S. hospitals offer circumcision as an option, and parents make the choice for their sons.
Furthermore, there is no need to defend bris milah from the Reform movement — there is a Reform Berit Milah Board!
I agree, however, that government should keep out of regulating this religious practice. Government does a fine job of warning smokers not to smoke, without mandating waivers. Along with doctors, medical professionals and rabbinic leaders, government can issue similar warnings regarding the dangers and risks of MbP. This should not come at the cost of a fine or legal action by the state.
I am a mohel, and I practice metzitzah in a halachically approved manner, using a sterile tube powered by the mouth (which makes it “b’peh”). It fulfills the needs of those who require metzitzah and has the added benefit of providing zero risk to the baby. It also elevates the mitzvah of bris milah and makes it appealing even to Jews who are not observant.
Three final thoughts:
First: A father who insists on MbP should do it himself. Bris is his mitzvah, he shares his baby’s DNA, and he may run the risk of infecting his baby or himself if he and his wife agree to the procedure. What makes any mohel’s mouth, no matter how pure and holy the man is, a bastion of germ-free saliva?
Second: Government intervention will not stop people from doing what they think their religion tells them to do. A law against the practice will push people undercover where they will do it anyway. This too is unacceptable — the United States is not Czarist Russia.
Third: Change must come from within. Rabbis and yeshiva leaders in these communities must ignore the insistence of their followers that this practice be maintained. Rather, these leaders must teach that metzitzah with a sterile tube is not only an acceptable option (Rabbi Elyashiv, the Israeli sage, said it is acceptable in 1989), but should really be the only option.
Without the rabbis preaching a different tune, nothing will change. And while the babies who die from metzitzah are rare, fortunately, the only acceptable number of metzitzah-related infections or deaths is zero. As long as direct-oral-contact metzitzah continues, any rabbi who does not ban the practice is partly responsible for negative metzitzah outcomes.
Avi Billet is a traveling mohel who blogs about bris milah at www.mohelinsouthflorida.com
Levush Mordechai – can be found here
- http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=978&st=&pgnum=82&hilite=
Talmudic mention of Metzitzah
- Shabbat 133a
Maimonides - Laws of Milah 2:6
Rabbi Yosef Cairo - Shulchan Arukh O"C 331:1 and YD
264:3
Milah and Priah as requirements - Shabbat 137b; and Shulchan
Arukh Y"D 264:5
No Metzitzah = Bad operator - Shabbat 133b
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein that metzitzah is not part of the
mitzvah - YD I:223, last paragraph
Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv saying tube is acceptable
- Kuntres Shaarei Halachos 16, page 30, edited by Rabbi Menashe Klein, 1989 –
which can be found here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=4427&st=&pgnum=32
Thursday, June 7, 2012
News Monitor: Metzitzah Update
This report was just issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
The report includes text and charts and essentially concludes what has been said on this website all along.
Metzitzah with direct oral contact does not always cause an infection. It may even be considered fairly uncommon. But it CAN happen. Babies are at risk of infection with this "ritual."
On the other hand, and while the report does not say this, I will say that metzitzah with an alternative method in which the sterility factor can be controlled and measured will not cause an infection. Ever.
For an objective (albeit lengthy) explanation of why metzitzah is done and the methods some utilize, see here.
For more on Metzitzah, see the Metzitzah Page (linked above)
The report includes text and charts and essentially concludes what has been said on this website all along.
Metzitzah with direct oral contact does not always cause an infection. It may even be considered fairly uncommon. But it CAN happen. Babies are at risk of infection with this "ritual."
On the other hand, and while the report does not say this, I will say that metzitzah with an alternative method in which the sterility factor can be controlled and measured will not cause an infection. Ever.
For an objective (albeit lengthy) explanation of why metzitzah is done and the methods some utilize, see here.
For more on Metzitzah, see the Metzitzah Page (linked above)
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
News Monitor: Metzitzah and Herpes
This from the Jewish Week.
There are those who may call the Jewish Week all kinds of names, and may disagree with their at-times slanted approach. But I don't think they are off on this one. I think sensible people want to protect babies, and don't believe that any part of the bris should "possibly" put the baby in danger (with the exception of the Biblically mandated circumcision itself - which is only done on healthy babies, and, when done properly, is a safe procedure - with a very good track record).
There are those who may call the Jewish Week all kinds of names, and may disagree with their at-times slanted approach. But I don't think they are off on this one. I think sensible people want to protect babies, and don't believe that any part of the bris should "possibly" put the baby in danger (with the exception of the Biblically mandated circumcision itself - which is only done on healthy babies, and, when done properly, is a safe procedure - with a very good track record).
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Metzitzah - an explanation for non-Jews in light of recent news stories
When the story in the Daily News came out, I honestly thought it was shoddy reporting. The information provided would never stand in a court "A baby died 6 months ago, says the unnamed spokesperson, from complications from herpes allegedly transmitted by an unnamed mohel to an unnamed baby of an anonymous family."
I was interviewed for an article, from a mohel's perspective, and the article in question found its way to the Huffington Post, among a whole host of blogs. Many of those involved have made disgusting and unwarranted comments about me, mohels in general, and Judaism. I will not give those comments the dignity of a response.
I have seen the story be re-translated in a number of venues – as news and in opinionated-blogs (everyone is entitled to an opinion), so I am writing here to make a few clarifying remarks and to explain metzitzah to a non-Jewish audience in particular.
Those who view mohels as pedophiles are completely in the wrong. It's the same as saying a Gynecologist assaults women. No mohel touches a baby unless he has been hired by the baby's parents, and they have called him based on his experience and reputation.
I was interviewed for an article, from a mohel's perspective, and the article in question found its way to the Huffington Post, among a whole host of blogs. Many of those involved have made disgusting and unwarranted comments about me, mohels in general, and Judaism. I will not give those comments the dignity of a response.
I have seen the story be re-translated in a number of venues – as news and in opinionated-blogs (everyone is entitled to an opinion), so I am writing here to make a few clarifying remarks and to explain metzitzah to a non-Jewish audience in particular.
Those who view mohels as pedophiles are completely in the wrong. It's the same as saying a Gynecologist assaults women. No mohel touches a baby unless he has been hired by the baby's parents, and they have called him based on his experience and reputation.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Early Sources For Metzitzah
It's a little odd that this question takes up so much time and discussion in circles related to proper practices related to bris milah. I have mentioned elsewhere that metzitzah, the drawing of blood from the circumcision incision, is traditionally done with the power of the mouth. The debate as to how to do this best boils down to two practical possibilities:
a. Putting the mouth of the mohel, father, or erstwhile motzetz directly on the fresh wound
b. Putting a sterile tube (glass or disposable plastic) on the fresh wound
Both are followed by a quick "suction" action. In the former case, the mohel immediately spits out whatever blood enters his mouth.
If you have read any postings of my feelings regarding sterility, you know my feelings that the better method of achieving "metzitzah b'feh" is "method b," which certainly uses the mouth, but does not present any possibility of harm to the baby or the mohel.
Before the sterile glass possibility was introduced, there were those who advocated metzitzah be done with a sponge (what we would now call gauze) without the use of the mouth, due to the obvious problems that could come about from putting a "foreign" mouth directly on an open wound of a newborn.
There are still people who think there is no harm in a mohel putting his mouth on a fresh wound. And if you get lucky every time, I guess you can say there is no harm. But if something goes wrong once on account of this attitude, will you still say there is no harm?
Advocates for the mouth on baby method claim this is the way it's been done forever. Could be. It could also be they're wrong. It could also be that if it was done this way it was because people did not know any better. But we certainly know better now. I recently met an old acquaintance I hadn't seen in over ten years and he mentioned that his family's "practice" is to have metzitzah done with "method a." This young man is a cardiologist now. I asked him, "And how does this jive with your knowledge of medicine?" His answer was not very promising. "It doesn't," he said. "But it's our family's custom to do it this way."
Unbelievable.
So, in response to those who say the source is ancient, or that "God watches the simple - שומר פתאים ה ," or that "Those who are messengers to do a mitzvah are not harmed" or that "One who fulfills mitzvahs will not know of any bad results - שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע," there are two sources I'd like to share with you regarding lists of mitzvahs which are done with the mouth.
1. In Rabbi Yitzchak of Corbeil’s introduction to “Sefer Mitzvot Katan” he categorizes the commandments of the Torah based on the different parts of the body which will fulfill them. Commands 102-151 are to be fulfilled with the mouth. Metzitzah is not listed. (Due to the length of the list, I am not reproducing the text here)
2. In Yalkut Shimoni Tehillim 723 King David reportedly praises all the parts of his body and the mitzvot he fulfills through them. The mouth and lips are mentioned only with reference to saying prayers and singing praise of God. Any reference to the practices of Bris Milah in this section aways group milah and priah together – with no mention of metzitzah as being part of the mitzvah, let alone metzitzah b’peh!
The male organ is for milah and priah, the knees are for holding a baby as a sandak, so milah and priah can be done.
a. Putting the mouth of the mohel, father, or erstwhile motzetz directly on the fresh wound
b. Putting a sterile tube (glass or disposable plastic) on the fresh wound
Both are followed by a quick "suction" action. In the former case, the mohel immediately spits out whatever blood enters his mouth.
If you have read any postings of my feelings regarding sterility, you know my feelings that the better method of achieving "metzitzah b'feh" is "method b," which certainly uses the mouth, but does not present any possibility of harm to the baby or the mohel.
Before the sterile glass possibility was introduced, there were those who advocated metzitzah be done with a sponge (what we would now call gauze) without the use of the mouth, due to the obvious problems that could come about from putting a "foreign" mouth directly on an open wound of a newborn.
There are still people who think there is no harm in a mohel putting his mouth on a fresh wound. And if you get lucky every time, I guess you can say there is no harm. But if something goes wrong once on account of this attitude, will you still say there is no harm?
Advocates for the mouth on baby method claim this is the way it's been done forever. Could be. It could also be they're wrong. It could also be that if it was done this way it was because people did not know any better. But we certainly know better now. I recently met an old acquaintance I hadn't seen in over ten years and he mentioned that his family's "practice" is to have metzitzah done with "method a." This young man is a cardiologist now. I asked him, "And how does this jive with your knowledge of medicine?" His answer was not very promising. "It doesn't," he said. "But it's our family's custom to do it this way."
Unbelievable.
So, in response to those who say the source is ancient, or that "God watches the simple - שומר פתאים ה ," or that "Those who are messengers to do a mitzvah are not harmed" or that "One who fulfills mitzvahs will not know of any bad results - שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע," there are two sources I'd like to share with you regarding lists of mitzvahs which are done with the mouth.
1. In Rabbi Yitzchak of Corbeil’s introduction to “Sefer Mitzvot Katan” he categorizes the commandments of the Torah based on the different parts of the body which will fulfill them. Commands 102-151 are to be fulfilled with the mouth. Metzitzah is not listed. (Due to the length of the list, I am not reproducing the text here)
2. In Yalkut Shimoni Tehillim 723 King David reportedly praises all the parts of his body and the mitzvot he fulfills through them. The mouth and lips are mentioned only with reference to saying prayers and singing praise of God. Any reference to the practices of Bris Milah in this section aways group milah and priah together – with no mention of metzitzah as being part of the mitzvah, let alone metzitzah b’peh!
The male organ is for milah and priah, the knees are for holding a baby as a sandak, so milah and priah can be done.
ילקוט שמעוני תהלים רמז תשכג
כל עצמותי תאמרנה ה' מי כמוך, אמר דוד אע"פ שקלסתיך בכל אלו, עד עכשו איני יודע לקלס פי יספר צדקותיך כי לא ידעתי ספורות. כל עצמותי תאמרנה, אמר דוד אני משבחך בכל אברי ומקיים בהן המצות בראשי אני רופפו וקורא בתפלתי. בשערות ראשי, אני מקיים לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, ותפלין אני מניח בראשי. בצוארי, עטיפת ציצית. בעיני וראיתם אותו. בפי, תהלת ה' ידבר פי. בשפתי תבענה שפתי תהלה. בזקני ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך. בלשוני, ולשוני תהגה צדקך. בלבי בלבי צפנתי אמרתך. בחזה, הציצית אני משים כנגד הלב כל זמן כל זמן שאני קורא קריאת שמע, שנאמר והיו הדברים האלה על לבבך. מאחרי ומלפני השלכתי שני כנפים של טלית כשאני עומד בתפלה. יד ימנית אני כותב בה ומראה בה טעמי תורה. יד שמאלית, בה אני קושר תפלין של יד, ובה אני אוחז ציצית בזמן קריאת שמע. צפרנים, לעשות בהם פריעה או מליקת העוף או שניהם יחד. ובוהן, להסתכל אור להבדלה. כליותי אף לילות יסרוני כליותי. מעי, ותורתך בתוך מעי. קרבי וכל קרבי את שם קדשו. רגל ימין לחליצה. רגל שמאל קודם לשלש פסיעות אחר התפלה. כרעים, כריעת ברכים בתפלה. הגיד, מצות מילה ופריעה. ברכים, בהן אני עושה סנדיקוס לילדים בשעת מילה ופריעה. לכך נאמר כל עצמותי תאמרנה ה' מי כמוך
I hope these two sources will at least give some form of indication for those who claim that a. metzitzah is a mitzvah (which it clearly is not), and that b. it must be done with the mouth, that the actual mitzvos which utilize the mouth do not include metzitzah as one on their rank.
FINAL THOUGHT:
Somebody once tried to claim that this midrash clearly states that there were three stages of a bris, Milah, Priah and Metzitzah.
Somebody once tried to claim that this midrash clearly states that there were three stages of a bris, Milah, Priah and Metzitzah.
במדבר רבה פרשה יא
מי מלן רבי ברכיה תני לה בשם רשב"י משה מוהל ואהרן פורע ויהושע משקה וי"א יהושע מוהל ואהרן פורע ומשה משקה
However, it does not take much to see that Yehoshua (or Moshe in the second version given) would give a drink to those who were circumcised. (It says משקה - to give to drink, and not מוצץ - to draw their blood through suction). Using this as a source for metzitzah is clearly an incorrect reading.
On that note, of course, there is no custom (that I'm aware of) to do metzitzah for an adult circumcision. [I shudder at the thought of such a practice.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)