Hassidic circumcision ritual

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't think that most or even any of the mohels who do this are pedophiles, but the act itself resembles something a pedophile would be doing to a child...

Pedophiles cut off foreskins and then suck blood away from the wound just before bandaging it?  Never heard of such a thing.

[ChabadKahanist]

3 out of my 5 grandsons had it done via a glass tube & the sandek by one was the Chabad shaliach in Bat Ayin,Israel who was okay with it.
I am no expert in this as my expertise is in kashrut but I assume that being that this shaliach did not have any objections to the usage of a glass tube tube then it must be acceptable.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It is funny that any thread which attacks Christian beliefs is locked immediately and the poster is insulted. But it seems insulting Jewish belief is A-OK here. Sometimes I really think JTF should be renamed Gentile Task Force and save the real Jews the grief of wasting time...

Also does anyone else notices the complete LACK of Jewish moderators here? I wonder why?

Personally I don't mind threads being left open.  Only people whose feelings get hurt need the threads closed or if it reflects badly on jtf(ie bickering, insults etc).  If its just reasonable discussion w disagreements I think it reflects positively on jtf and can continue.  But some in this thread were very fascistic and inappropriate unfortunately.  Personally my feelings aren't hurt but I hope it will not make jtf look bad - as if there are a bunch of idiots here calling bris molestation and saying to hang mohelim lol

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I think it is crazy to claim that this is the only way that circumcision must be done. It is not required that it be done this way and in the modern era, yes it is unsanitary and extremely gross.

[Draughts]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/circumcision-herpes-and-religious-freedom/2013/04/10/a0336d0e-a202-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html

Circumcision, herpes, and religious freedom

By Brad Hirschfield,
Published: April 10

"The idea that a grown man would put his mouth on an infant’s genital is rather disturbing under pretty much any circumstance. Yet according to an understanding of Jewish law that has more than a little support within parts of the Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox communities, that is a necessary part of the blood drawing required in Jewish ritual circumcision.

Tragically, two infants in New York were recently infected with herpes after undergoing a circumcision ceremony which included the oral blood drawing. Of course, post-surgical infections, many far worse than those suffered by the two babies in question, occur in hospitals every day across this country, so why is this story being covered in the national media?

I can think of at least three important reasons why this story is news -- each instructive, not only regarding the ongoing debate about circumcision, but about the dangers of religious fanaticism and the meaning of religious freedom in America.

First, the story catches our attention because it is a story of religion gone awry -- a topic of constant interest, especially with an American media that is both fascinated with faith, and yet seems to delight in mocking or unmasking those who practice it in ways deemed “unenlightened.” And of course, this story gets our attention because of it’s sexual, and potentially pedophilic, overtones.
 
Does anyone really think that if the blood was drawn from the infants’ fingers, even by mouth, the stories of subsequent infection would garner as much attention? Does anyone think that the debates over circumcision in general would be as fierce, and fiercely emotional, were some other part of the anatomy involved? The answer is obvious.

All that said, the second reason this story deserves our attention is because it is genuinely disturbing that this practice continues despite the clear evidence that the practice itself is dangerous. In fact, according to many religious authorities the practice is not only unnecessary, but actually prohibited precisely because of the evidence that it is harmful to the babies.

So however scintillating the story may be, it is also an important episode about a serious breakdown within religious community. The fierce attachment to oral bloodletting may well reflect a dangerous approach to faith which can be found, not only among some segments of the altra-Orthodox Jewish community, but among practitioners of every faith I know.
 
This is a story about the dangers of confusing belief in the perfection of a tradition and its institutions -- an entirely reasonable claim made by many traditional adherents in many different faiths -- with the arrogant presumption that the way any particular group practices their faith is, by definition, perfect and above critique.
 
One need not be ashamed or uncomfortable about a tradition that was practiced in good conscience for millennia in the absence of any evidence that it was actually harmful. I appreciate, and even respect, fierce attachment to a tradition.

Actively refusing however, to take steps that mitigate a clear and present danger to members of one’s own community, especially when alternative means to honor the tradition can be found, is both dangerous, and not really even about defending the practice in question. In fact, the community which practices this form of oral blood letting is part of a rich and nuanced legal tradition which has long found creative solutions to living with new medical knowledge which impacts their observance. This is, I fear, about something else.

This has become, whether those involved in the fight realize it our not, less about cutting genitals, and more about thumbing noses. For me, that is the most disturbing part of this whole story. This has become a case of celebrating rejectionism as a means of defining community -- a dangerous approach when practiced in any community, faith-based or otherwise.

Those who defend the practice cite their “right” to define their own norms of religious practice regardless of what anyone else has to say. And though I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom, and a committed defender of religiously-mandated infant circumcision, I don’t hesitate to declare that those who defend oral blood letting are wrong about their rights, which is the third reason this story demands our attention.

The test of our commitment to religious freedom is at precisely those moments when the practice in question is unpopular. That right however, was never meant to include failing to mitigate known dangers to children who cannot otherwise defend themselves. And it certainly does not include a parent’s “right” to refuse to acknowledge, as required by New York State law, which allows the practice, that by practicing oral blood letting parents are putting their children at greatly-increased risk of contracting a serious and otherwise preventable infection.

As with the protection and expression of most freedoms, the protection of religious freedom is a delicate balancing act -- trying to honor the rights of practitioners, those impacted by their practices, and the greater good of the larger community in which they take part.

While I have no doubt that we will continue to have much debate about circumcision in general, this is one practice whose potential dangers must be admitted by those who practice it. Ritual circumcisors must be more carefully supervised, even if we can not agree that it is a practice that should be stopped altogether. That approach would return some balance to a situation that seems pretty clearly unbalanced to me."

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Were you at my bris?  Last I checked I was born before you.  My parents don't practice sefardic customs since moving to the US nor would they allow the mohel to use his mouth especially that my father is a pediatrician.

Tag, you need to aim before you pull the trigger.

 I can almost guarantee you that you had it done unless you had a "reform" mohel in which case the circumcision is/was probably invalid and not completed correctly.
 Look into it, just for the heck of it. Find out who your mohel was and ask him how he performs and performed Brit Milah's especially at your time.

[Rubystars]

Pedophiles cut off foreskins and then suck blood away from the wound just before bandaging it?  Never heard of such a thing.

KWRBT I'm not talking about the circumcision part. I'm talking about the mouth-to-genital contact.

[Dr. Dan]

I can almost guarantee you that you had it done unless you had a "reform" mohel in which case the circumcision is/was probably invalid and not completed correctly.
 Look into it, just for the heck of it. Find out who your mohel was and ask him how he performs and performed Brit Milah's especially at your time.

Reform Mohel?! far from it!  My parents don't go to reform temples or respect reform rabbis..so I really doubt that I had that done.  But I know it wasn't by a sephardic rabbi and I know that whomever did it didn't do metzitza beh peh but with the sterile glass suction.

Tag..be careful as you are questioning my Jewishness.  I can tell you my heart is at least far more human and "Jewish" than your's.  Just because I question and disagree with metziza beh peh doesn't make me less a Jew than Chaim who wouldn't have it done if he had a son.

The chutzpa!

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

This thread has gotten silly. Chaim and others have already addressed this many times. If everybody who is opposed to orally sucking the foreskin blood is a Nazi, then it looks like Chaim and Shlomo have a lot of banning to do.

[muman613]

Reform Mohel?! far from it!  My parents don't go to reform temples or respect reform rabbis..so I really doubt that I had that done.  But I know it wasn't by a sephardic rabbi and I know that whomever did it didn't do metzitza beh peh but with the sterile glass suction.

Tag..be careful as you are questioning my Jewishness.  I can tell you my heart is at least far more human and "Jewish" than your's.  Just because I question and disagree with metziza beh peh doesn't make me less a Jew than Chaim who wouldn't have it done if he had a son.

The chutzpa!

Dan, you are engaging in the very thing you don't want to do. This week we should be especially careful about Lashon Hara about our fellow Jews. In the Torah portion of Tazria-Metzora we learn about the terrible condition Hashem imposed on Jews who spoke Lashon Hara (evil speech) about each other.

It strikes me Dan that you don't particularly care about halacha and yet I believe you stand up for some traditions and commandments such as being against the Women of the Wall, and being against banning kosher slaughter, and yet on this issue you don't care so much about what the Poskim say about the practice.

Maybe we all should take a break from this topic before we say more things which we may regret.

[muman613]

This thread has gotten silly. Chaim and others have already addressed this many times. If everybody who is opposed to orally sucking the foreskin blood is a Nazi, then it looks like Chaim and Shlomo have a lot of banning to do.

And your comments surely do not help the situation.

You are against any Halacha which Jews follow, unless it fits your own view of things then it is ok...

[muman613]

I suggest that the government ban Baptisms because there have been cases of babies drowning during their baptism... Actually that would be over-reaction, but it could be the same argument used against the Mohel...


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/priest-moldova-father-valentin-allegedly-drowns-baby-child-baptism-article-1.200641

Priest in Moldova, Father Valentin, allegedly drowns baby during the child's baptism


It all went so very wrong.

A priest in Moldova has been accused of accidentally drowning a 6-week-old baby during the boy's baptism, according to London's Daily Mail.

The baby's relatives said he died Friday after the priest, who is referred to only as Father Valentin, did not cover the tot's mouth and nose when he immersed the child in water three times.

The priest said he isn't to blame for the child's death in the Eastern European country. But the child's family thinks otherwise.

"We couldn't believe it but we thought the priest must know what he's doing, but he didn't. When we got him back there was nothing that could be done anymore," the baby's godmother, Aliona Vacarciuc, 32, told London's Sun.

"We all saw it. The priest didn't put his hand over the baby's mouth to stop water going in as he should have done and as they do at every other baptism," said the child's father, Dumitru Gaidau, 36.

The baby died on the way to the hospital, Gaidau told a local television station. Dr. Sergiu Raileanu said the cause of death was drowning.

Police have launched a manslaughter investigation. If the priest is found guilty, he could spend up to three years behind bars.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/priest-moldova-father-valentin-allegedly-drowns-baby-child-baptism-article-1.200641#ixzz2QBc2HyUw

http://randomrantsandravings.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/religion-kills-priest-almost-drowns-baby-during-baptism-blames-family/
.
.
.
These were, just a few days ago, the premises for a near tragedy, as a priest almost drowned a baby during baptism, because the “tradition” states the baby must be submerged in water completely. The parents are now pressing charges, and the priest is under investigation for charges of battery, assault, and reckless endagerment. Parents were aiming for attempted murder, but the police didn’t find evidence of such thing.

Nevertheless, the thing that shocked me the most, and that is the aim of today’s rant, is that the priest declared, publicly, that he is innocent, and that “THE SINS OF THE PARENTS REFLECTED ONTO THE CHILD AND THAT IS WHY HE ALMOST DIED”. It ENRAGES me to the point of seeing red to hear such arguments from a criminally negligent thief and liar and beggar and maggot! If I had my way all those gold-wearing lie-mongers that drive around in limos and preach their [censored] to the masses would be rounded up and sent to the desert to preach among themselves. HOW DARE HE say that him shoving a month-old baby in a tub of cold water was the parent’s fault? How DARE HE say that him even being allowed to preach his dangerous, unsanitary, medieval cult in modern times is the family’s fault?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Reform Mohel?! far from it!  My parents don't go to reform temples or respect reform rabbis..so I really doubt that I had that done.  But I know it wasn't by a sephardic rabbi and I know that whomever did it didn't do metzitza beh peh but with the sterile glass suction.

Tag..be careful as you are questioning my Jewishness.  I can tell you my heart is at least far more human and "Jewish" than your's.  Just because I question and disagree with metziza beh peh doesn't make me less a Jew than Chaim who wouldn't have it done if he had a son.

The chutzpa!

 Relax. I wasn't questioning your Jewishness. Why you read into it? My point is that at that time especially almost everyone probably had it done this way especially the Sefardim (of which you are one). And your parents were probably not even asked about it and could have not even noticed it because they were worried about the Brit Milah itself and don't and didn't think about this. But if you asked and they know it was by glass, soo be it. Either way then your dad had it done this way. Happy?

[Dr. Dan]

What Lashon hara did I do now?  I speaking to Tag directly who is questioning my Jewishness all of a sudden!!!  Seriously!

And I never said Metzitza was wrong and should be stopped.  I take the same argument as KWRBT and Chaim on this issue.  The halacha specifically says suction is needed.  Back in the day before sterile glass tubes, there was the mouth.  It doesn't have to be done by mouth anymore.  Is that unJewish of me to say...making me anti-Halacha all of a sudden?!

And my point isn't being addressed.  I'm not questioning metziza. I'm questioning the old method when there is a perfectly kosher one out there that does not involve mouth to genitalia.  I understand that way back when, that was the best way.  Today, it isn't necessarily the best way.  So why can't you, Muman, accept that?  Why can't like minded religious Jews understand that?  Why is the mouth to genital more appropriate?  Why is it considered better than the sterile glass tube?

Dan, you are engaging in the very thing you don't want to do. This week we should be especially careful about Lashon Hara about our fellow Jews. In the Torah portion of Tazria-Metzora we learn about the terrible condition Hashem imposed on Jews who spoke Lashon Hara (evil speech) about each other.

It strikes me Dan that you don't particularly care about halacha and yet I believe you stand up for some traditions and commandments such as being against the Women of the Wall, and being against banning kosher slaughter, and yet on this issue you don't care so much about what the Poskim say about the practice.

Maybe we all should take a break from this topic before we say more things which we may regret.

[Dr. Dan]

Relax. I wasn't questioning your Jewishness. Why you read into it? My point is that at that time especially almost everyone probably had it done this way especially the Sefardim (of which you are one). And your parents were probably not even asked about it and could have not even noticed it because they were worried about the Brit Milah itself and don't and didn't think about this. But if you asked and they know it was by glass, soo be it. Either way then your dad had it done this way. Happy?

Listen...I'm not questioning metitza with the mouth if that was the only method done to my father, grandfathers, etc etc etc.  I understand that it is necessary to suction and that's one of the rules for a good reason.  But now there is another method using a sterile glass.  Why are you guys resisting this method which is probably better and healthier.  What advantages does a mohel have using his mouth on the recently cut foreskin over the more modern method that most religious Rabbis find acceptable?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Listen...I'm not questioning metitza with the mouth if that was the only method done to my father, grandfathers, etc etc etc.  I understand that it is necessary to suction and that's one of the rules for a good reason.  But now there is another method using a sterile glass.  Why are you guys resisting this method which is probably better and healthier.  What advantages does a mohel have using his mouth on the recently cut foreskin over the more modern method that most religious Rabbis find acceptable?

 I didnt say that the other method is no good or that I wouldn't use it. I am debating and talking about something else. I am talking about having the choice to decide AND the decision being left exclusively among the Torah Observant Jewish communities and not with outsiders like the gov. etc. Also against the open bashing going on, that is my take. And if some Jews are dumb enough to give in to this then wait and see what more will then come when you give the gov. some leeway.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Listen...I'm not questioning metitza with the mouth if that was the only method done to my father, grandfathers, etc etc etc.  I understand that it is necessary to suction and that's one of the rules for a good reason.  But now there is another method using a sterile glass.  Why are you guys resisting this method which is probably better and healthier.  What advantages does a mohel have using his mouth on the recently cut foreskin over the more modern method that most religious Rabbis find acceptable?

 I already addressed that.  And just because you accept that doesn't automatically mean that most religious Rabbis accept it. You need to look into it and who does and who does not accept it. For the most part this is a non-issue that has been blown wayy out of proportion.

[Dr. Dan]

I didnt say that the other method is no good or that I wouldn't use it. I am debating and talking about something else. I am talking about having the choice to decide AND the decision being left exclusively among the Torah Observant Jewish communities and not with outsiders like the gov. etc. Also against the open bashing going on, that is my take. And if some Jews are dumb enough to give in to this then wait and see what more will then come when you give the gov. some leeway.

i was addressing this to Muman actually. I did notice that in previous posts you were understanding of the glass tube method.

and I agree with you on the bashers and outside gov etc.. Sorry I haven't expressed that part yet.

[Dr. Dan]

I already addressed that.  And just because you accept that doesn't automatically mean that most religious Rabbis accept it. You need to look into it and who does and who does not accept it. For the most part this is a non-issue that has been blown wayy out of proportion.

What I want to know is why there are rabbis who accept the older mouth to genital method and not the other way.  That's all.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

KWRBT I'm not talking about the circumcision part. I'm talking about the mouth-to-genital contact.

And you're still not making sense.

[muman613]

I have repeated myself several times in this thread and it seems my message has been missed repeatedly.

I believe both Tag and I are basically arguing for the allowance of the Poskim to decide Halacha according to their understanding. If the glass tube method, which I believe should be ok, is determined to be the preferred method I have no problem with it. I am just supporting those Halachic authorities who have questions as to whether this glass tube meets all the requirements for Halachic brit milah.

I am against non-Jewish, and even Jewish 'am-haaretzim' from forcing the authorities to find one way or another, doing so usually leaves questions and possibly even leads us down the path of the reform movement (because of convenience or secular law we compromise our halachic system).

I hope that this is the last time I have to explain this...

[nessuno]

   He immersed the baby in water?  Maybe he intended to drown it.
 
Who in their right mind would allow their baby to be submerged in water.

I suggest that the government ban Baptisms because there have been cases of babies drowning during their baptism... Actually that would be over-reaction, but it could be the same argument used against the Mohel...


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/priest-moldova-father-valentin-allegedly-drowns-baby-child-baptism-article-1.200641

Priest in Moldova, Father Valentin, allegedly drowns baby during the child's baptism


It all went so very wrong.

A priest in Moldova has been accused of accidentally drowning a 6-week-old baby during the boy's baptism, according to London's Daily Mail.

The baby's relatives said he died Friday after the priest, who is referred to only as Father Valentin, did not cover the tot's mouth and nose when he immersed the child in water three times.

The priest said he isn't to blame for the child's death in the Eastern European country. But the child's family thinks otherwise.

"We couldn't believe it but we thought the priest must know what he's doing, but he didn't. When we got him back there was nothing that could be done anymore," the baby's godmother, Aliona Vacarciuc, 32, told London's Sun.

"We all saw it. The priest didn't put his hand over the baby's mouth to stop water going in as he should have done and as they do at every other baptism," said the child's father, Dumitru Gaidau, 36.

The baby died on the way to the hospital, Gaidau told a local television station. Dr. Sergiu Raileanu said the cause of death was drowning.

Police have launched a manslaughter investigation. If the priest is found guilty, he could spend up to three years behind bars.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/priest-moldova-father-valentin-allegedly-drowns-baby-child-baptism-article-1.200641#ixzz2QBc2HyUw

[muman613]

bc3,

I am no expert on baptism, but the simple search I did on it reveals that certain Christian sects including the Roman Catholic Church requires total submersion of the person being baptised...

The New Testament reports that Jesus was baptized.[8] The usual form of baptism among the earliest Christians was for the naked[9] candidate to be immersed totally (submersion) or partially (standing or kneeling in water while water was poured on him or her).[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] While John the Baptist's use of a deep river for his baptism suggests immersion,[17] pictorial and archaeological evidence of Christian baptism from the 3rd century onward indicates that a normal form was to have the candidate stand in water while water was poured over the upper body.[18][19][20][21] Other common forms of baptism now in use include pouring water three times on the forehead.
.
.
.
...Most Christians baptize infants;[24] many others hold that only believer’s baptism is true baptism. Some insist on submersion or at least partial immersion of the person who is baptized, others consider that any form of washing by water, as long as the water flows on the head, is sufficient. The term "baptism" has also been used to refer to any ceremony, trial, or experience by which a person is initiated, purified, or given a name[25]—see Other initiation ceremonies.

Submersion

The word Submersion comes from the late Latin (sub- "under, below" + mergere "plunge, dip")[116] and is also sometimes called "complete immersion". It is the form of baptism in which the water completely covers the candidate's body. Submersion is practiced in the Orthodox and several other Eastern Churches, as well as in the Ambrosian Rite. It is one of the methods provided in the Roman Rite of the baptism of infants.

[nessuno]

I have been to countless Roman Catholic Baptisms.  Not one infant, child or adult has ever been submerged under water.
Muman, nobody would be able to put their hand over my childs mouth to prevent a drowning.  What parents would allow that?.  That doesn't even sound normal to me.  So, just because something is done for religious reasons doesn't mean a sane person should partake in it.  Your simple searches are not always accurate.

bc3,

I am no expert on baptism, but the simple search I did on it reveals that certain Christian sects including the Roman Catholic Church requires total submersion of the person being baptised...

The New Testament reports that Jesus was baptized.[8] The usual form of baptism among the earliest Christians was for the naked[9] candidate to be immersed totally (submersion) or partially (standing or kneeling in water while water was poured on him or her).[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] While John the Baptist's use of a deep river for his baptism suggests immersion,[17] pictorial and archaeological evidence of Christian baptism from the 3rd century onward indicates that a normal form was to have the candidate stand in water while water was poured over the upper body.[18][19][20][21] Other common forms of baptism now in use include pouring water three times on the forehead.
.
.
.
...Most Christians baptize infants;[24] many others hold that only believer’s baptism is true baptism. Some insist on submersion or at least partial immersion of the person who is baptized, others consider that any form of washing by water, as long as the water flows on the head, is sufficient. The term "baptism" has also been used to refer to any ceremony, trial, or experience by which a person is initiated, purified, or given a name[25]—see Other initiation ceremonies.

Submersion

The word Submersion comes from the late Latin (sub- "under, below" + mergere "plunge, dip")[116] and is also sometimes called "complete immersion". It is the form of baptism in which the water completely covers the candidate's body. Submersion is practiced in the Orthodox and several other Eastern Churches, as well as in the Ambrosian Rite. It is one of the methods provided in the Roman Rite of the baptism of infants.

[muman613]

bc3,

I have searched more and while I don't claim to know as much about your religion as you do, it seems to me the entire ritual of baptism is copied from the Jewish commandment to immerse in a Mikvah (which we are reading about in the Torah portion of this week, btw). The Jewish custom of Mikvah requires the person to be totally submerged in the water in order for the mikvah to purify the person who entered it...

http://www.yoatzot.org/article.php?id=64

During immersion, a woman's entire body and all of her hair must be in simultaneous contact with the mikveh water. Therefore, the ideal position for immersion is "as if she is weaving or nursing her child" – slightly crouched, arms extended, hands open with the fingers slightly separated, eyes and mouth gently closed, but NOT clenched – so that the mikveh water reaches every part of her body. (The eyes and the inside of the mouth must be free of chatzitzot, but need not come into contact with the mikveh water.) A woman who has difficulty assuming the recommended position should wet all parts of her body with the mikveh water and then immerse in any position in which her body and hair are completely submerged. The custom in Chabad is to immerse while spread out "like a fish".

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/216,536/How-much-water-do-you-need-in-a-mikvah.html

Immersion in a Mikvah must be total and all-encompassing. The entire body must be submerged at one time in the water. The mikvah must therefore be at least one square cubit by three cubits high.1 This equals 40 “se’ah” (about 100 gallons) of water.2