Hassidic circumcision ritual

[Rubystars]

Anybody who immerses a baby in water is at the very least an idiot. Babies can't even hold their breath. The denominations that believe in immersion baptism generally also believe that someone needs to be old enough to understand what the ritual means and willingly take part in it too. The denominations that participate in infant baptism generally don't do it by immersion anyway but by pouring or sprinkling water.

[Rubystars]

And you're still not making sense.

I don't see what's confusing about it.

[cjd]

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

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

Each day a new level of stupidity... Unless I missed the boat Mikvah is for females who have gone through their time of the month not persons which would be male and female... Unless you yourself visit the Mikvah  ... Anyway stick to your Jewish inspirational postings and stop telling us gentiles where our rituals come from... You search the web for every crazy posting which you believe bolsters you position of hate regarding the Roman Catholic Church and Christians in general... The RCC does not and never has immersed babies in water... A small amount of water is splashed on the babies head... Amen. 

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Water baptism did not come from the mikvah.

 I am no expert, and I don't care much but I always thought the idea comes from mikvah. For example John the Baptist was immersing people in mikvaot the lake in his case. But whatever.

[muman613]

Each day a new level of stupidity... Unless I missed the boat Mikvah is for females who have gone through their time of the month not persons which would be male and female... Unless you yourself visit the Mikvah  ... Anyway stick to your Jewish inspirational postings and stop telling us gentiles where our rituals come from... You search the web for every crazy posting which you believe bolsters you position of hate regarding the Roman Catholic Church and Christians in general... The RCC does not and never has immersed babies in water... A small amount of water is splashed on the babies head... Amen.

This goes to show you how much you read your 'Tanach'... 

The Mikvah is not just for women, it is used to purify men and women who have become Tamei (impure)... And there is plenty of evidence that baptism came from the ritual of Mikvah. I even saw references to Mikvah on a Catholic website...

But here is a wiki, and I can provide more:

Background in Jewish ritual
Main article: Mikvah

Although the term "baptism" is not used to describe the Jewish rituals, the purification rites in Jewish laws and tradition, called "Tvilah", have some similarity to baptism, and the two have been linked. The "Tvilah" is the act of immersion in natural sourced water, called a "Mikvah"[70][71] In the Jewish Bible and other Jewish texts, immersion in water for ritual purification was established for restoration to a condition of "ritual purity" in specific circumstances. For example, Jews who (according to the Law of Moses) became ritually defiled by contact with a corpse had to use the mikvah before being allowed to participate in the Holy Temple. Immersion is required for converts to Judaism as part of their conversion. Immersion in the mikvah represents a change in status in regards to purification, restoration, and qualification for full religious participation in the life of the community, ensuring that the cleansed person will not impose uncleanness on property or its owners (Num. 19 and Babylonian Talmud, TractateChagigah, p. 12). It did not become customary, however, to immerse converts to Judaism until after the Babylonian Captivity.[72] This change of status by the mikvah could be obtained repeatedly, while Christian baptism, like circumcision, is, in the general view of Christians, unique and not repeatable.[73] Even the so-called rebaptism by some Christian denominations is not seen by them as a repetition of an earlier valid baptism and is viewed by them as not itself repeatable.

During the Second Temple period the Greek noun baptismos was used to refer to ritual washing in Hellenistic Judaism.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

Water baptism did not come from the mikvah.

Are you saying that people were not completely submerged in water during a baptism?

[muman613]

http://www.essene.com/B'nai-Amen/MysticalImmersion.htm

"Baptism as a rite of immersion was not begun by Christians but was taken by them from Jewish and pagan forms...." - Dr. Merrill Tenney, the editor of the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible
The term mikveh in Hebrew literally means any gathering of waters, but is specifically used in Jewish law for the waters or bath for the ritual immersion. Ancient sages teach that the word mikveh has the same letters as Ko(v)Meh, the Hebrew word for "rising" or "standing tall," therefore we see the idea of being baptized "straightway."

The building of the mikveh was so important in ancient times it was said to take precedence over the construction of a synagogue. On the third day of creation we see the source of the word mikveh for the first time in Genesis 1:10 when the Lord says,

"...to the gathering (mikveh) of waters, He called seas."
Because of this reference in Genesis the ocean is still a legitimate mikveh to orthodox Jews.


http://www.ahavta.org/mikvah.htm

http://www.examiningbeliefs.com/questions-11.htm

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

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.

. 

I don't know you need to ask the particular rav why he paskens as such. Perhaps they feel it is better, or perhaps and this is also very likely their are those who do not budge from the Shulhan Aruch and follow it to the letter.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

The only thing the two have in common is that they involve purification of sorts by water.

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-baptism.html

. 

At his time their was only Judaism and he was a practicing Jew why would be be doing something not involved with Judaism if the new faith didn't even exist and he didn't even meet yeshu ?

[muman613]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_John_the_Baptist_baptize_Jews

John performed Mikvah to the Jewish, not Baptism
Baptism, from Greek βαπτίζω (baptízô), is a religious act of purification by water usually associated with admission to membership or fullness of membership of Christianity.
Because of the word's association with Christianity and its periodically repeated character, the Jewish purification rite of mikvah is not normally spoken of as baptism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
Mikvah (or mikveh) (Hebrew: מִקְוָה, Standard Miqva Tiberian Miqwāh; plural: mikva'ot or mikves) is a specific type of bath designed for the purpose of ritual washing in Judaism. The word "mikvah", as used in the Hebrew Bible, literally means a "collection" - generally, a collection of water.[1]
Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water. Some, such as a Zav, however require "living water,"[2] such as springs or groundwater wells. Living water has the further advantage of being able to purify even while flowing as opposed to rainwater which must be stationary in order to purify. The mikvah is designed to simplify this requirement, by providing a bathing facility that remains in ritual contact with a natural source of water.
Its main uses nowadays are:
by Jewish women to achieve ritual purity after menstruation or childbirth
by Jewish men to achieve ritual purity (see details below)
as part of a traditional procedure for conversion to Judaism
for utensils used for food

[muman613]

Oh, it is so very hateful to state the truth that about the origins of Christian rituals... Ho Ho Ho!


But of course it is NOT HATEFUL to call Mohels child molesters... Mmmm Hmmm...

[muman613]

Sometimes I really wonder why Christians carry around what they call the 'o l d    t e s t a m e n t' when they don't even open it up and read it...

Someone (cjd) erroneously believes that Mikvah is only for women...   

[nessuno]

Sometimes I really wonder why Christians carry around what they call the 'o l d    t e s t a m e n t' when they don't even open it up and read it...

Someone (cjd) erroneously believes that Mikvah is only for women...   

[/quote]

Oh, it is so very hateful to state the truth that about the origins of Christian rituals... Ho Ho Ho!


But of course it is NOT HATEFUL to call Mohels child molesters... Mmmm Hmmm...

Muman, you are a hateful person.
You are passive aggressive about it...but hateful nonetheless.

Putting your mouth to a child's genitalia is sick...especially in this day and age.
That isn't antisemitism talking.  That is the truth.
As it would be sick to submerge an infant underwater.

It is sad that you are insecure about your faith.  Everything wrong in life is a Christians fault.
Give me a break.  You are still moaning about what someone said to you thirty years ago.  Please.

Why do you care about the roots of Christianity? 
Why do you care what book people carry around, but never open.
That is just retarded of you to say.  Half the things you say about Christianity are retarded.
Half the things you say about members here are lies.

Have you ever seen a Roman Catholic Baptismal font?
Most of the time it looks like a bird bath.  You couldn't submerge an infant in it if you tried.
Clip and post that tidbit into your big encyclopedia brain of hatefulness.

 

[Secularbeliever]

It's not that the mohel is actually intending any harm to the child or that they are actually a pedophile that's the problem. The problem is twofold.

One, that it directly resembles an act of pedophilia. Even though the mohel is not getting any kind of sexual enjoyment from it, the resemblance is a problem enough in itself. Sometimes appearance really does matter regardless of intent. These rabbis are not pedophiles, and do not intend any harm to the babies. However the fact that such an act done by anybody else in a different context would be considered to be criminal pedophilia should give people pause at the very least. You want to avoid the appearance of unrighteousness even if nothing harmful is actually going on.

The second, and arguably more important reason, is that this act can cause permanent harm through infection. Herpes is not curable. It's a life-long, painful, and contagious disease.  Other viruses and bacteria can also be present in the human mouth, and contrary to what some people might think, mouthwash just reduces the number of bacteria in the mouth, it by no means makes the mouth sterile.

I think you can compare that to a gynecological exam or other procedures which would be inappropriate in another context.  In my opinion you don't do it unless it is necessary and there is no alternative.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Is this a serious discussion or a soap opera? Please. Who here is defending immersing infants in water? And yeah, I do have to agree that there is a lot of snarky aggressiveness in this thread. 

[nessuno]

That description of baptism is not one that I am familiar with. You? If so...You take credit for it. I don't think that disinformation should be left out there uncorrected.

[muman613]

bc3,

I am sorry you feel the way you do. The reason I bought this up was to make a comparison. There have been several infants harmed when doing the baptism ritual. I will remind you that a child can drown in a couple of inches of water, and thus baptism is risky. I also said that there are Christian sects which fully immerse the baby, and this is a truth as I can find several references to full body immersion. Maybe your church doesn't but there are those that do.

My comments are not hateful, but they are truthful. Every thing you accuse me of hate is a truth which you do not want to deal with. It is true that the Roman Church did a lot of damage to the Jewish people. This is history and you want to deny it. I have brought up Inquisitions and Crusades which the Christians perpetrated against the Jews, and then I am accused of being the hateful one... I bring up the antisemitic passages in the Christian bible and somehow I am the hater? These antisemitic stereotypes including the accusation of deicide and being of the devil are derived from the Christian writings, yet I am the hater.

I see a pattern in your responses. Anytime I bring up a historical fact concerning mistreatment of Jews by the church I am the hateful one... I already expected it from you...

But this doesn't change the argument. Judaism has kept the Halacha (Jewish Law) as interpreted by the sages and the poskim of the generations. My whole argument in this thread is that we (the Jewish people) must allow the halachic process to go forward without making accusations which are completely false (such as pedophilia, etc.).

[muman613]

Here is discussion of full immersion baptism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_baptism

Immersion baptism (also known as baptism by immersion or, if the immersion is total, baptism by submersion) is a method of baptism that is distinguished from baptism by affusion (pouring) and by aspersion (sprinkling), sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial,[1][2][3][4][5] but very commonly with the indication that the person baptized is immersed completely.[6][7][8][9] The term is also, though less commonly, applied exclusively to modes of baptism that involve only partial immersion (see Terminology, below)

.
.
.

Other views

Others interpret baptism by immersion as submersion,[9][30][31] a usage found also in the denominational literature of the Roman Catholic,[32] Jewish,[33] and evangelical[34] traditions. Other sources state explicitly that baptismal immersion can be either total or partial,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] and do not find it tautologous to describe a particular form of immersion baptism as "full" [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] or "total".[53][54][55][56][57][58][59]

The term "immersion baptism" is also used to refer exclusively to partial immersion[60] such as simply immersion of the head.[61][62][63][64] Three standard reference works, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,[65] the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible,[66] and Christianity in Roman Britain to A.D. 500 (a historical survey),[67] differentiate total submersion from the term "immersion baptism", using the term "submersion baptism". This usage can be found also in the denominational literature of the Anglican,[68] Catholic,[62] Presbyterian,[69][70] and Lutheran[63][71] churches.

[nessuno]

Wikipedia?  Really.
 

Here is discussion of full immersion baptism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_baptism

Immersion baptism (also known as baptism by immersion or, if the immersion is total, baptism by submersion) is a method of baptism that is distinguished from baptism by affusion (pouring) and by aspersion (sprinkling), sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial,[1][2][3][4][5] but very commonly with the indication that the person baptized is immersed completely.[6][7][8][9] The term is also, though less commonly, applied exclusively to modes of baptism that involve only partial immersion (see Terminology, below)

.
.
.

Other views

Others interpret baptism by immersion as submersion,[9][30][31] a usage found also in the denominational literature of the Roman Catholic,[32] Jewish,[33] and evangelical[34] traditions. Other sources state explicitly that baptismal immersion can be either total or partial,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] and do not find it tautologous to describe a particular form of immersion baptism as "full" [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] or "total".[53][54][55][56][57][58][59]

The term "immersion baptism" is also used to refer exclusively to partial immersion[60] such as simply immersion of the head.[61][62][63][64] Three standard reference works, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,[65] the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible,[66] and Christianity in Roman Britain to A.D. 500 (a historical survey),[67] differentiate total submersion from the term "immersion baptism", using the term "submersion baptism". This usage can be found also in the denominational literature of the Anglican,[68] Catholic,[62] Presbyterian,[69][70] and Lutheran[63][71] churches.

[muman613]

Wikipedia?  Really.

bc3,

Why are you so defensive? While you may not be fibbing about your church not submerging the person you should at least be honest and admit that it is done by several churches. I can bring a ton of proofs, and I'm sure you will refute them all in your classical style (of not refuting but accusing me of hate)..

Here is a Christian Biblical site which examines the question of submersion versus sprinking:

http://www.t411.com/articles/submerge-or-sprinkle

One of the main debates in regards to baptism is the how the baptism is carried out. Some churches fully submerge the candidate into water and raise them out again. Others sprinkle water over the head. Does the Bible give us a clear and definitive formula? I think so, and there are at least three reasons why.

The Meaning of the Word

The first reason stems from the meaning of the word baptize. It’s interesting that our English word is not translated, but transliterated from the Greek. That is to say that we don’t have another word that we use to mean the same thing, we actually have the same word and its meaning. The Greek word baptizo was transliterated into English as baptize. The meaning never changed.

So what does it mean? Simply said, it means, “to dip completely.” It is the word “to drown.” So linguistically, the term always refers to immersion or submerging in water. So every time you find the word or form of the word (like bapto, baptizo, baptismos) you should translate it as immerse or immersion.

To take it one step further, the word is never used in a passive sense. In other words, the water is never baptizing someone. Someone is always baptized into water. This is important because it strengthens the point of submerging and weakens the argument for sprinkling.

The meaning of the word is not really argued otherwise. Even those who practice sprinkling will agree with this meaning. In fact, John Calvin, considered to be at the heart of the Presbyterian church who sprinkles instead of submerging, said that “the word baptize means to immerse” and “it is certain that immersion was the practice of the early church.” i Even in the ancient Greek literature outside of the Bible this is true. And lastly, the Roman Catholic Church practice immersion until the 14th century (except in unusual cases).

.
.
.

Maybe you can continue to argue that it is not done, but I will not believe you...

[muman613]

http://www.elijahproject.net/baptism.html
.
.
.
There are probably as many views concerning baptism in the church of today as there are denominations. Some churches believe baptism is an option, and not really required, some believe it is a requirement. Still others believe baptism is both a requirement and necessary. There are those who say baptism is only by total immersion in water and others believe it is not necessary to be completely submerged. Some baptize infants and small children, others reject the very idea. Some believe in being baptized a second time, others call it damnable to believe that.

Just what is the truth about baptism? Where can we find the answers? How can we know it is the RIGHT answer. After all, IF baptism is a requirement, we would certainly want to be right in following it wouldn't we?
.
.
.
Look at the Strong's definition of (907) BAPTIZO:

907. baptizo
baptizw baptizo bap-tid'-zo

from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:--Baptist, baptize, wash.

See Greek 911

So we see that the word Baptize means TO MAKE FULLY WET, to SUBMERGE, to IMMERSE. Since the BIBLE is the final authority in all scriptural matters, we must conclude that baptism is by IMMERSION ONLY... by making FULLY WET ... or SUBMERGING the one being baptized. From this point forward, when the subject of baptism is being discussed, you should automatically think "SUBMERGED".

"Sprinkling" as used in some churches today is not a valid means of baptism according to the Word of God. Basically put ... If you were not 'baptized' by being fully submerged under the water, friend, you were NOT BAPTIZED at all according to the Bible.

As we continue in the study, we will quickly see that there are NO examples of "sprinkling" with water, but there are examples of immersion.

Now that we know what Baptism is let's discuss it's purpose.

[muman613]

Now for some images of submersion:











I guess I just must be making these pictures in photoshop or something, eh bc3?

[muman613]

It seems that both religions have questions about the correct way to carry out the tenets of our faiths. We have halacha to guide us, and all Orthodox Jews believe in the same body of halacha. It is this Halacha which I am protecting, that of the sages of the Talmud and the modern Rabbis who decide halachic questions.

[muman613]

Yes, I posted one example of a baby who recently drowned during its baptism...

But there are also other examples I found doing a search on google. Not that I want to belabor this point... But there is a risk in virtually everything we do...

[muman613]

Has a baby ever died in a baptism? I don't think the practice is that bad.

 If rabbis want to suck the blood orally, I don't approve, honestly at least they could put something over their mouths, but although it offends my sensibilities, stranger things are done in the name of religion. The halacha is suction, and so if you're out in a forest, that's the only way, so it can't be the worst thing, but it's like knitting, we have sewing machines now and stuff. One day, it will be considered backward to use the glass tube and robots will do it, but people will still maybe do it orally for tradition's sake.

This threat is turning out worse than the Obama is the son of the devil one.

I don't think it is that bad... I thought this was why everyone agreed not to lock the thread when I suggested it the other day. We want to discuss these issues... In the end we will not accomplish very much, because as I repeat over and over, and Tag (who I assume is just tired of this entire thread) said several times, that the issue has to do with whether it satisfies the Halacha according to the poskims (halachic decisors) we have today.

I am not fully against the glass tube method, but as I consulted my Rabbi on the topic, he holds by the Metizah B'Peh method and his entire family has observed this halacha for generations. I have seen several bris's where it is done and it is harmless and all sanitary precautions are used.

If what Tag suggested in a early post in this thread is true, then this entire story and thread is a manufactured one by the anti-circumcision crowd. I believe Tag said that according to a medical test done on the Rabbi it may be that he did not infect the children. I do not know the veracity of this claim, but neither do I accept the veracity of the original claims. We have seen these accusations rise and fall many times by gentiles (and self-hating Jews) who would like to do away entirely with circumcision.